Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the Hebrew monarchy, from the administration of Samuel to the Babylonish captivity"

See other formats 


(Chapman's 


No.  II. 


HISTORY 


THE   HEBREW  MONARCHY 


FEOM 


THE  .ADMINISTRATION   OF   SAMUEL   TO   THE 
BABYLONISH   CAPTIVITY. 


FRANCIS  WILLIAM   NEWMAN, 

FORMERLY   FELLOW  OF   BALLIOL   COLLEGE,   OXFORD. 


LONDON : 
JOHN    CHAPMAN,    142,    STRAND. 

MDCCCLIII. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION. 


FEW  words  of  introduction  are  needed  to  the  following  at- 
tempt to  depict  more  vividly  the  real  state  and  fortunes  of 
the  Hebrew  people  under  their  native  kings.  The  documents 
are  in  the  hands  of  us  all ;  but,  owing  to  their  scattered  na- 
ture, it  is  a  very  laborious  task  to  combine  them  into  a  single 
point  of.  view,  and  deduce  from  meagre  notices  anything  like 
an  historical  representation. 

A  political  history  of  the  Hebrews  is  no  doubt  primarily  to 
be  here  expected ;  but  to  omit  on  that  account  the  narrative 
of  their  religious  concerns,  would  be  as  absurd  as  to  take  no 
notice  of  Poetry,  Art,  and  Philosophy  in  a  history  of  Greece. 
The  whole  value  of  Hebrew  history  to  us  turns  upon  the  He- 
brew religion.  No  reader  must  therefore  be  surprized  to  find 
the  writer  dilate  on  solemn  and  profound  topics,  which  would 
generally  be  out  of  place  in  ordinary  history.  On  the  other 
hand,  as  we  have  to  deal  with  human  fortunes,  guaranteed  to 
us  by  the  evidence  of  documents  which  bear  plentiful  marks 
of  the  human  mind  and  hand,  we  cannot  dispense  with  a  free 
and  full  criticism  of  these.  And  in  criticizing,  we  have  no 
choice  but  to  proceed  by  those  laws  of  thought  and  of  reason- 
ing, which  in  all  the  sciences  have  now  received  currency. 
We  advance  from  the  known  towards  the  unknown.  We  as- 
sume that  human  nature  is  like  itself;  and  interpret  the  men 
of  early  ages  by  our  more  intimate  knowledge  of  contem- 
porary and  recent  times,  yet  making  allowance  for  the  differ- 
ence of  circumstances.  Much  more  do  we  believe  that  GOD 
is  always  like  himself,  and  that  whatever  are  his  moral  attri- 


IV  PREFACE    TO    FIRST    EDITION. 

butes  now  and  his  consequent  judgment  of  human  conduct, 
such  were  they  then  and  at  all  times.  Nor  ought  we  to  ques- 
tion that  the  relations  between  the  divine  and  the  human 
mind  are  still  substantially  the  same  as  ever,  until  we  find 
this  obvious  presumption  utterly  to  fail  in  accounting  for  the 
facts  presented  to  our  examination.  "We  explain  all  the  phae- 
nomena  by  known  causes,  in  preference1  to  inventing  unknown 
ones ;  and  when  one  anomaly  after  another  is  found  gradually 
to  be  cleared  up  by  patient  research  and  a  world  of  reality  to 
evolve  itself  before  the  mind,  fresh  confirmation  is  added  to 
the  grand  principles  of  modern  philosophy,  which  experience 
proves  alone  to  lead  to  self-consistent,  harmonious  results. 

Cautious  reasoners  may  need  to  be  reminded,  that  although 
the  mind  of  the  Jews,  as  that  of  all  nations,  was  liable  to  pro- 
duce legends  and  mythi,  under  circumstances  conducive  to 
these,  yet  the  portion  of  history  with  which  we  are  here  con- 
cerned has  little  properly  mythical  in  it.  We  are  engaged 
with  an  epoch,  all  the  great  outlines  of  which  were  preserved 
by  the  prose  chronicling  of  contemporaries.  From  king 
David  downwards,  court-annals  were  kept,  sometimes  perhaps 
very  dry  and  scanty,  yet  not  the  less  authentic.  With  these 
were  combined  occasionally  the  writings  of  prophets,  or  the 
traditions  of  prophetical  schools.  Where  the  originals  have 
perished,  we  have  nevertheless  relics  of  them  in  the  books 
which  are  now  called  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles.  The 
actual  compilation  of  the  books  of  Samuel  was  probably 
earlier  than  that  of  "  Kings,"  but  we  do  not  know  the  exact 
date.  The  "  Kings,"  to  judge  by  their  closing  words,  were 

1  The  above  has  been  falsely  interpreted,  as  though  I  started  from  the  as- 
sumption that  "no  evidence  can  prove  a  Miracle."  This  is  not  a  proposition 
of  any  practical  value  to  me.  I  regard  it  as  either  a  Truism  or  a  Falsehood 
according  to  the  definition  of  the  word  Miracle.  I  merely  hold,  that  the 
stranger  the  alleged  event,  the  more  cogent  is  the  evidence  to  be  demanded. 
The  Uniformity  of  Nature  is  not  with  me  a  primitive  axiom,  but  a  result  gra- 
dually won.  It  does  not  supersede,  for  it  is  built  wpon^  historical  criticism  and 
cumulative  experience. 


PREFACE    TO    FIRST    EDITION.  V 

compiled  in  the  Babylonian  exile.  The  Chronicles  are  much 
later,  and  in  an  imperfect  genealogy  bring  down  the  line  of 
Jeconiah  (who  was  carried  captive  by  Nebuchadnezzar)  to  a 
very  low  period  of  time1.  Account  must  be  taken  of  all  such 
facts  in  balancing  authorities ;  and  when  we  find  a  wide  dif- 
ference of  spirit  between  the  two  historians  in  treating  the 
same  subject, — a  difference  conformable  to  the  different  aeras 
in  which  they  write, — the  great  caution  with  which  the  later 
authority  must  be  used  will  become  evident.  But  on  all  such 
matters,  the  following  pages  will  speak  best  for  themselves  in 
detail. 

A  thoughtful  and  conscientious  reader  will  probably  meet 
here  many  things  which  have  before  passed  across  his  mind, 
but  have  been  rejected  under  the  idea,  that  if  they  were  true, 
they  would  surely  be  well  known  to  professed  divines.  But 
let  him  be  assured,  there  is  not  the  same  apathy  and  igno- 
rance concerning  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  German,  as  in 
the  English  Universities.  If  the  Hebrew  history  has  hitherto 
been  nearly  as  a  sealed  book  to  us,  it  is  because  all  the  acade- 
mical and  clerical  teachers  of  it  are  compelled  to  sign  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  of  Religion  before  assuming  their  office.  It  is 
not  easy  to  conceive  how  little  we  might  know  of  Greek  his- 
tory, if,  from  the  revival  of  Greek  studies,  test-articles  had 
been  imposed  with  a  view  to  perpetuate  the  ideas  of  it  current 
in  the  fifteenth  century;  but  it  is  very  easy  to  assure  our- 
selves that  neither  Thirlwall  nor  Grote  could  have  produced 
their  valuable  works  under  such  a  restriction.  Until  the  laity 
strike  off  these  fetters  from  the  clergy,  it  is  mere  hypocrisy  in 
them  to  defer  to  a  clergyman's  authority  in  any  theological 
question  of  first-rate  importance.  We  dictate  to  the  clergy 
from  their  early  youth  what  they  are  to  believe,  and  thereby 
deprive  them  of  the  power  of  bearing  independent  testimony 

1  1  Ckron.  iii.  17-24 ;  Jeconiah,  father  of  Pedaiah,  father  of  Zerubbabel, 
father  of  Hananiah,  father  of  Pelatiah  [a  chasm],  father  of  Shechaniah,  father 
of  Shemaiah,  father  of  Neariah,  father  of  Elioenai,  father  of  Hodaiah. 


VI  PREFACE    TO    FIRST    EDITION. 

to  it  in  their  mature  years.  Moreover,  so  has  the  study  of 
the  Bible  been  crippled  by  the  classical  and  mathematical  sy- 
stem, that  in  this  country  little  interest  has  been  felt  in  our 
subject ;  and  the  Biblical  critic  is  perpetually  driven  to  the 
learned  Germans  for  aid. 

One  sentiment  the  writer  desires  to  express  most  empha- 
tically. True  Religion  consists  in  elevated  notions  of  God, 
right  affections  and  a  pure  conscience  towards  Him,  but  cer- 
tainly not  in  prostrating  the  mind  to  a  system  of  dogmatic 
History.  Those  who  call  this  religion  are  (in  the  writer's 
belief)  as  much  in  the  dark  as  those  who  place  it  in  magical 
sacraments  and  outward  purifications.  But  while  utterly  re- 
nouncing both  these  false  and  injurious  representations,  he 
desires  his  book  to  carry  on  its  front  his  most  intense  convic- 
tion, that  pure  and  undefiled  religion  is  the  noblest,  the  most 
blessed,  the  most  valuable  of  all  God's  countless  gifts ;  that  a 
heart  to  fear  and  love  Him  is  a  possession  sweeter  than  dig- 
nities and  loftier  than  talents ;  and  that  although  the  outward 
Form  of  truths  held  sacred  by  good  men  is  destined  to  be  re- 
modelled by  the  progress  of  knowledge,  yet  in  their  deeper 
essence  there  is  a  Spirit  which  will  live  more  energetically 
with  the  growth  of  all  that  is  most  precious  and  glorious  in 
man. 

May,  1847. 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION. 


I  WISH  it  were  in  my  power  to  profess  much  improvement  in 
this  edition.  To  effect  anything  worth  naming  would  need 
extensive  research,  for  which  I  certainly  have  not  the  time, 
and  probably  have  not  the  faculties.  Reviewers  moreover 
have  given  me  scarcely  any  help.  With  one  exception,  all  the 
reviews-  which  I  have  seen  proceed  from  principles  of  criticism 
with  which  I  have  nothing  in  common ;  and  nearly  all  spend 
their  strength  in  misrepresenting  and  slandering  my  views, 
my  arguments  and  my  sentiments. 

Most  of  them  imagine  that  they  defend  their  own  theory 
by  imputing  "inconsistency"  to  mine,  nor  is  any  procedure 
easier.  A  reviewer  has  merely  to  mistake  one's  meaning,  put 
forward  his  own  bad  argument  in  place  of  the  author's,  or 
confound  the  author  with  another  man ; — and  the  thing  is 
done ;  often  without  conscious  dishonesty.  The  reader  will 
in  part  be  able  to  judge,  whether  my  censors  are  in  fact  honest. 
Where  it  is  a  great  convenience  not  to  understand  too  well, 
mistakes  are  much  commoner  than  with  men  of  average  in- 
telligence they  ought  to  be ;  and  they  are  also  made  far  oftener 
by  anonymous  writers  than  by  those  who  put  their  names  to 
their  books. 

For  the  sake  however  of  those  who  wish  to  understand  me, 
I  here  add  a  few  generalities,  which  could  not  well  find  a 
place  in  notes. 

I.  I  do  not  profess  this  book  to  be  a  history  of  Hebrew 
Criticism  in  modern  times.  I  get  what  help  I  can  from  all 
likely  quarters ;  but  I  often  do  not  know,  and  do  not  care  to 


Vlll  PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION. 

know,  who  first  originated  this  or  that  view.  Much  less  do  I 
pretend  to  an  exhaustive  German  erudition :  the  duty  of  a 
historian  seems  to  me  widely  different.  In  a  question  of  mere 
language,  we  of  course  consult  the  ablest  linguists.  The  best 
translation  of  the  whole  Bible  to  which  I  have  access,  is  that 
of  De  Wette ;  but  in  the  Psalms  and  Prophets  I  often  use 
Ewald,  who  has  had  the  advantage  of  De  Wette' s  labours,  and 
has  studied  the  forms  of  Hebrew  poetry  as  no  man  before 
him.  De  Wette  moreover,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Psalms, 
gives  little  help  to  the  chronology,  into  which  Ewald  has  en- 
tered with  much  scientific  zeal.  In  Isaiah  I  desired  to  study 
Gesenius ;  but  his  work  was  out  of  print,  and  I  could  not  get 
it.  I  believe  that  Hitzig  is  a  worthy  successor  to  Gesenius, 
and  I  often  consulted  him  both  in  Isaiah  and  in  the  minor 
prophets.  In  geography  I  have  used  Winer,  and  occasionally 
Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  besides  other  commoner  sources,  with 
Hughes' s  maps,  (published  by  the  D.  U.  K.  Society,)  and  the 
embossed  map  of  Palestine  published  by  Dobbs  and  Bailey. 

I  have  been  twitted  as  making  Ewald  my  "  magnus  Apollo" 
because  I  follow  the  opinion  of  all  Europe  that  he  is  a  very 
eminent  oriental  scholar:  but  it  is  quite  false,  that  in  any 
questions,  except  those  which  must  be  decided  by  linguistic 
accomplishment,  I  yield  to  him  any  peculiar  deference ;  nor 
even  in  such,  have  I  always  followed  him.  As  far  as  I  have 
any  right  to  an  opinion,  it  is,  that  De  Wette,  by  his  critical 
work  on  the  Chronicles,  has  contributed  far  more  to  a  true 
knowledge  of  the  history,  than  all  Ewald's  erudite  and  taste- 
ful discrimination  of  language  and  style. 

I  have  also  been  asked  triumphantly,  why  I  do  not  refute 
Hengstenberg, — as  if  to  imply  that  I  have  only  a  onesided 
knowledge  of  the  subject.  The  plain  truth  is,  that  I  tried 
to  read  Hengstenberg, — having  bought  his  volumes  for  the 
purpose, — and  found  him  utterly  unsatisfactory  on  every 
point  of  practical  interest.  If  I  fill  my  pages  with  refutations 
of  all  that  has  been  said  erroneously,  I  shall  have  to  write  six 


PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION.  IX 

volumes  for  one ;  my  book  will  be  very  tedious,  and  be  justly 
left  unread.  At  the  same  time  I  regard  my  exposure  of  the 
untruthfulness  of  the  Chronicles  to  be  a  sufficient  refutation 
of  Hengstenberg's  whole  theory,  which  is  fundamentally  that 
of  the  Beformers,  furbished  up  for  modern  Germany  :  and  I 
have  no  respect  for  any  man's  love  of  truth,  who,  being  duly 
cognizant  of  the  facts,  attempts  by  subtlety  to  evade  meeting 
this  controversy ;  which  is  neither  mystical  nor  philosophical, 
but  within  the  reach  of  ordinary  faculties.  I  will  not,  to 
please  hostile  critics,  muddle  the  argument  by  making  it  one 
of  recondite  learning,  in  which  neither  I  nor  my  readers  are 
strong.  I  try  to  lay  before  the  reader  reasons  from  which  he 
can  judge  for  himself.  The  only  authorities  lie  in  a  small 
compass,  and  are  in  his  hands,  except  in  so  far  as  translation 
may  be  imperfect.  I  have  endeavoured  to  adhere  to  the  rule 
of  quoting  no  critics,  except  for  linguistic  or  geographical 
information ;  which  we  must  necessarily  take  at  second  hand. 

II.  Several  of  my  reviewers  are  anxious  to  impose  on  me 
the  law  of  not  criticizing  and  discriminating  ancient  documents 
or  human  characters.  I  am  to  believe  either  all  or  nothing. 
I  am  to  reverence  all  that  is  written,  or  reprobate  all.  I  am 
not  to  mingle  praise  and  blame  \  to  recognize  that  which  was 
peculiarly  good  and  noble,  and  at  the  same  time  to  censure 
that  which  is  weak,  credulous,  base  or  unjust.  I  quite  under- 
stand that  my  opponents  wish  me  to  vent  promiscuous  blame; 
but  I  will  not  become  unjust  in  order  to  gratify  them.  I  in- 
sist on  my  right  to  commend  and  honour  whatever  I  sincerely 
admire, — and  to  bestow  praise  by  a  comparison  of  the  Jews 
with  other  nations  of  antiquity, — without  prejudice  to  my 
equal  right  to  weigh  and  examine  them  by  that  juster  standard 
which  the  modern  world,  not  without  the  instrumentality  of 
the  noblest  Hebrew  minds,  has  attained. 

A  censor  who  calls  me  inconsistent  for  esteeming  Joel  and 
Isaiah,  but  disesteeming  the  visions  of  Ezekiel  and  the  sacer- 
dotal fictions  of  the  Chronicles ;  or  for  rejoicing  in  Isaiah's 


X  PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION. 

blessing  on  Egypt  and  Assyria,  and  regretting  his  less  gene- 
rous tone  towards  Tyre ;  for  approving  Joel's  meekness,  and 
shuddering  at  Elisha's  ferocity; — simply  shows  his  own  want 
of  good  sense.  Hitherto,  no  known  nation  has  possessed 
pure  truth  or  pure  goodness.  ENGLAND  sends  out  to  the 
heathen  a  deeper  religion  than  that  of  Isaiah,  and  with  it, 
broader  conceptions  of  human  duty  and  right :  but  she  also 
sends  brandy,  and  opium,  and  cannon-shot,  and  "  infidelity," 
and  deadly  vices  and  diseases.  Shall  we  disbelieve  this,  be- 
cause ' '  out  of  the  same  fountain  there  cannot  flow  both  salt 
water  and  fresh"  ?  If  in  England  mixed  influences  act,  was 
the  same  thing  impossible  in  Judsea  ? 

III.  In  opposing  and  exposing  notions  which  other  people 
hold  sacred,  it  is  perfectly  impossible  to  please  them  as  to  the 
mode.  They  always  persuade  themselves  that  it  is  the  mode 
which  they  dislike,  but  it  is  really  the  substance  of  the  thing. 
Speak  in  plain  simple  true  words,  and  it  is  called  coarse,  rude, 
unfeeling,  irreverent ;  speak  by  gentle  allusion,  or  say  only 
half  of  what  you  might  say,  and  it  is  called  a  sarcasm  or  a 
sneer,  and  is  probably  derided  also  as  tame  and  weak.  Deal 
with  the  argument  gravely  and  strongly,  and  you  are  thought 
overbearing  and  hard;  treat  it  lightly,  (if  it  seem  to  be  light 
in  itself,)  and  you  are  called  flippant,  contemptuous,  superfi- 
cial. I  very  much  regret  this  universal  tendency  of  idolaters 
to  defend  themselves  by  arbitrary  querulousness ;  for  they 
hereby  tend  to  produce  total  want  of  sympathy  with  their 
weakness.  There  is  such  an  offence  as  unfeeling  flippancy, 
which  sees  only  evil  and  is  blind  to  good.  I  desire  to  avoid 
it.  I  would  not  wilfully  give  needless  pain  in  refuting  error, 
any  more  than  would  a  humane  surgeon  in  cutting  off  a  limb. 
But  the  work  of  refuting  error  is  strictly  necessary,  if  truth 
is  to  be  advanced.  The  negative  side  of  every  question  is  as 
essential  to  truth  as  the  shadows  in  a  picture :  and  whatever 
outcry  people  make  against  "  negative  teaching,"  it  is  certain 
that  the  apostles  and  prophets,  whom  they  admire,  were  em- 


PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION.  XI 

phatically  idol-breakers  in  their  own  day,  and  often  very  harsh 
ones.  I  cannot  submit  to  treat  as  sacred  that  which  I  discern 
to  be  a  hurtful  superstition ;  nor  do  I  choose  to  reason  elabo- 
rately against  it,  if  it  rests  on  no  reasons  at  all,  or  utterly 
absurd  ones.  If  anybody  is  wounded  by  plain  and  true  state- 
ments, I  am  sorry  for  his  pain,  but  I  cannot  help  it.  Let  him 
learn  to  love  Truth,  as  such,  better  than  his  own  opinions; 
and  his  soreness  will  rapidly  lessen.  My  opponents  may  fitly 
claim  of  me  to  take  a  generous  view  of  their  arguments  and 
sentiments;  to  esteem  and  praise  cordially  all  that  I  feel  to 
be  good  and  noble ;  to  make  allowances  for  human  weakness 
and  for  the  times :  but  they  have  no  right  to  claim  of  me  to 
withhold  any  argument  or  pointed  phrase  adapted  to  carry 
conviction  that  their  theory  is  unsound.  Yet  so  perverse  are 
some  of  them,  that  my  appreciation  of  that  which  is  good  in 
their  system  seems  to  exasperate  them  most  of  all.  The 
North  British  Review  calls  it  "  a  combination  of  kissing  and 
smiting  under  the  fifth  rib,"  with  other  inflammatory  phrase- 
ology. (No.  35,  pp.  150,  151.) — Such  language  might  be 
natural  if  he  thought  my  praise  to  be  hypocrisy,  but  not 
otherwise. 

IV.  The  same  reviewer,  a  few  lines  above,  has  dared  to  say, 
that  in  my  view  "  the  Priests  and  Levites,  like  every  other  cle- 
rical body,  have  power  and  pelf  for  their  aim,  to  attain  which 
they  do  not  scruple  to  hoodwink  tender  kings  by  inventing  ora- 
cles, etc."  But  what  is  the  fact  ?  Against  the  priests  of  Judah 
collectively  I  have  brought  no  bill  of  indictment,  much  less 
against  clerical  bodies  generally.  I  know  that  "  power  and 
pelf"  have  great  weight  with  every  corporation  of  men,  whe- 
ther called  religious  or  secular.  But  it  is  utterly  false  that  I 
have  represented  priesthoods  in  general  as  more  mercenary 
than  other  corporations,  or  the  Jewish  priesthood  as  absorbed 
in  power  and  pelf,  and  destitute  of  nobler  aims  and  influences. 
When  detailing  an  instance  of  peculation,  which  the  books 
themselves  furnish,  I  have  gladly  turned  to  expatiate  on  a  pious 


Xll  PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION. 

priest,  Joel ;  and  altogether  my  severest  blame  has  been  ex- 
tremely moderate,  compared  with  that  which  is  blurted  out 
by  those  whom  my  censors  esteem  infallible.  I  have  not 
called  the  priests  covetous  liars,  as  Jeremiah  did ;  nor  vomit- 
ing drunkards,  as  Isaiah  did;  nor  troops  of  murderers,  as 
Hosea  did;  nor  hypocrites,  vipers  and  whited  sepulchres,  as 
Jesus  did.  My  reviewer  does  not  appear  very  sincere  in  his 
professed  belief  of  the  verbal  plenary  inspiration,  when  he  im- 
putes it  as  offensive  in  me  to  believe  a  part  of  the  evil  which 
his  sacred  authorities  depose. 

The  same  reviewer  informs  his  readers,  that  according  to 
me  "  the  prophets  too  often  lied  and  forged  oracles  to  impose 
upon  their  own  people."  (No.  35,  p.  151.)  The  audacity  of 
this  Christian  advocate  is  surprizing.  Any  reader  of  the  fol- 
lowing pages  may  easily  satisfy  himself  that  the  statement  is 
simply  false.  Fanaticism  I  undoubtedly  impute1  to  many  of 
the  prophets.  This  I  hold  to  be  inevitable,  by  the  nature  of 
man,  in  his  instinctive  and  earlier  stage  of  religious  develop- 
ment :  indeed  to  attain  high  and  pure  religious  enthusiasm, 
while  avoiding  fanaticism,  is  to  this  day  arduous  and  rare. 
There  was  fanaticism  in  many  of  the  early  Christians,  and 
many  of  the  Reformers.  Calvin  was  fanatical  in  burning 
Servetus :  George  Fox  and  James  Naylor  were  fanatical :  so 
perhaps  was  Cato  in  some  respects ;  yet  he  was  the  noblest 
and  best  statesman  in  Home.  Just  in  proportion  as  the  pro- 
phets were  destitute  of  intellectual  cultivation  and  enlarged 
knowledge,  it  was  hard  for  them  to  win  ardent  religious  con- 
viction and  at  the  same  time  shun  fanaticism :  but  wilful  and 
conscious  forgery  I  have  not2  imputed  to  one  of  the  prophets, 
canonical  or  uncanonical. 

1  Here  again  the  Jewish  records  go  far  beyond  me  ;  for  they  impute  lying 
spirits  sent  by  Jehovah  himself  into  the  prophets  by  the  hundred.     And  my 
North  British  Reviewer  pretends  to  believe  the  infallibility  of  this  narrative. 

2  In  one  place,  where  I  feared  misinterpretation,  I  sedulously  guarded  against 
it  by  a  note,  (p.  300  of  first  edition,) :  in  spite  of  which,  this  writer  garbles  me. 
I  have  in  consequence  now  slightly  changed  a  phrase  of  the  text.     But  against 
such  wilfulness  one  has  no  defence. 


PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION.  Xlll 

V.  The  British  Quarterly  (vol.  viii.  p.  58)  announces  that 
I  represent  "  the  ceremonialism  and  sacerdotalism  of  the  books 
of  Moses  to  have  been  invented  at  a  stroke,  and  its  main  fea- 
tures suddenly  imposed."     On  the  contrary,  I  trace  the  cere- 
monial and  priesthood  from  Eli  and  Hophni  and  Phineas  and 
Ahimelech.     I  show  it  repressed  under  Saul,  magnified  under 
Solomon,  growing  socially  influential  under  Asa  and  Jehosha- 
phat,  rising  to  power  with  Jehoiada,  struggling  hard  against 
Jehoash  and  Amaziah,  until,  in  conjunction  with  great  prophets, 
it  triumphs  under  Hezekiah.     I  show  it  next  undergoing  mar- 
tyrdom from  Manasseh  and  Amon,  and  finally  by  organic  and 
vital  reaction  establishing  under  Josiah  a  violent  supremacy 
after  500  years  of  growth.     Yet  my  reviewer  asserts  that  I 
hold  the  ceremonialism  and  sacerdotalism  to  have  been  in- 
vented at  a  stroke !    Does  the  use  of  such  weapons  indicate, 
that  he  feels  his  cause  to  be  strong  ?    Not  the  system  only, 
but  the  books,  I  represent  to  have  been  a  gradual  product, 
and  have  recognized  their  partial  existence  at  least  as  early  as 
Jehoiada. — If  by  the  "  main  features"  of  the  law,  the  reviewer 
means  the  enforcement  of  it  by  the  sword,  this,  whenever  it 
came,  must  almost  of  necessity  be  sudden. 

The  same  reviewer  (pp.  45,  46,)  imputes  to  me,  that  I  am 
trying  to  shut  God  out  of  the  history.  His  dogma  virtually 
is :  "  Where  no  miracle  is,  there  God  does  not  govern : "  so 
that  by  his  own  profession  he  himself  shuts  God  out  of  nearly 
all  history  and  all  human  life,  except  that  of  Judsea.  But  I 
hold  God  to  be  verily  present,  now  and  ever ;  to  be  a  true 
Governor  of  all  the  world,  and  not  of  Judsea  only,  by  great 
moral  laws,  now  and  then  and  always ;  and  I  abhor  that  de- 
secration of  human  life,  which  my  reviewer  puts  forward  as  a 
test  of  religiousness. 

VI.  It  is  impossible  to  treat  of  every  topic  in  one  book ;  and 
there  are  topics  too  deep  and  sacred  to  mingle  with  the  tones 
of  controversy.     What  is  my  belief  concerning  INSPIRATION, 
(a  word  which  I  have  very  seldom  used  at  all,  and  as  far  as 

b 


XIV  PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION. 

I  know,  only  concessively,)  the  North  British  Reviewer  (No. 
35,  p.  140)  might  have  learned  from  a  book  of  mine,  entitled 
'  The  Soul/  He  has  chosen  to  ignore  that,  and  to  infer  my 
opinions  from  those  of  other  men,  to  whose  "  school"  it  is  his 
pleasure  to  refer  me.  I  shall  here  barely  say,  that  I  see  three 
main  interpretations  or  uses  of  the  word  inspiration.  Accord- 
ing to  the  first,  it  is  an  Extraordinary  influence  peculiar  to  a  few 
persons,  as  to  prophets  and  apostles.  According  to  the  second, 
it  is  an  Ordinary  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  on  the  hearts  of 
men,  which  quickens  and  strengthens  their  moral  and  spiri- 
tual powers,  and  is  accessible  to  all  (in  a  certain  stage  of  deve- 
lopement)  in  some  proportion  to  their  own  faithfulness.  The 
third  view  teaches  that  Genius  and  Inspiration  are  two  names 
for  one  thing,  and  perhaps  goes  so  far  as  to  make  Inspiration 
independent  of  moral  effort,  and  commensurate  with  the  pri- 
mitive organization  of  the  brain.  Christians  for  the  most  part 
hold  the  two  first  conceptions,  though  they  generally  call  the 
second  Spiritual  Influence,  not  Inspiration :  the  third  sense 
seems  to  be  common  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  so  happens 
that  the  second  is  the  only  inspiration  which  I  hold.  I  have 
never  used  the  word  Inspiration  concerning  Genius.  Yet  the 
North  British  Reviewer  perversely  imputes  to  me  a  simulta- 
neous asserting  of  the  two  extreme  views,  neither  of  which  I 
hold ;  and  insinuates1  against  me  a  dishonesty  which  he  has 
not  chosen  to  affirm. 

VII.  It  is  quite  untrue  that  I  represent  events  and  institu- 
tions to  be  rightfully  dated  from  the  time  of  their  first  his- 
torical mention.  We  need  to  distinguish  between  Testimony 
and  Inference.  Earlier  than  the  evidence  of  Testimony  can 
possibly  reach,  there  is  always  a  sphere  for  that  of  Inference ;  a 
circumstance  which  I  have  never  forgotten.  But  it  is  conve- 

1  No.  35,  p.  141.  "  We  will  not  be  uncandid  enough  to  charge  the  adherents 
of  this  theory  [Parker,  Newman  and  Greg]  with  intentional  abuse  of  language, 
etc.,  etc.  Mr.  GHreg  especially  is  absolved  from  any  such  charge,  as  lie  applies 
the  word  Inspiration  to  Grenius  somewhat  reluctantly." 


PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION.  XV 

nient  to  some  reasoners  to  obscure  the  fact,  that  the  direct 
evidence  of  Testimony  in  various  matters  carries  us  but  a 
little  way  back ;  and  I  regard  it  as  not  useless  to  mark  sharply 
in  all  cases  where  Testimony  begins.  Any  one  who  reads 
how  I  have  spoken  of  the  first  mention  of  the  public  Sabbath 
under  Jehoiada,  and  of  the  Passover  under  Hezekiah,  may  see 
that  I  do  not  regard  institutions  necessarily  to  have  had  their 
origin  at  their  first  mention;  though  they  generally  have 
then  received  some  new  developement,  or  some  new  formal 
sanction. 

Equally  untrue  is  it,  that  I  treat  as  "  insurmountable  diffi- 
culties" in  Hebrew  narrative,  what  I  should  readily  have 
believed  in  the  records  of  any  other  nation,  or  that  I  expect 
all  the  history  of  man  to  be  devoid  of  what  is  surprizing  and 
incalculable.  When  strange  facts  have  firstrate  attestation, 
very  many  wonderful  things  may  be  believed :  but  if  we  can- 
not ascertain  that  the  writers  had  full  means  of  knowing,  we 
of  necessity  reason  from  probabilities.  Concerning  early  his- 
tory, differences  of  opinion  among  good  and  able  men  exist 
and  will  exist.  We  are  not  agreed  about  king  Agamemnon :  is 
it  wonderful  that  we  differ  about  king  Saul  ?  But  for  this 
very  reason  it  is  an  abomination  to  convert  such  controversies 
into  matter  of  RELIGION. 

I  am  really  amazed  that  men  who  perfectly  well  know  that 
modern  historians  believe  none  of  the  miracles  told  by  He- 
rodotus, Livy,  Dion  Cassius, — have  the  face  to  pretend  that 
we  are  more  incredulous  as  to  Jewish  than  as  to  Greek  and 
Roman  history. 

VIII.  The  British  Quarterly  has  informed  the  public  that 
this  book  of  mine  is  part  of  a  great  conspiracy,  organized  by 
one  presiding  mind,  and  furnished  with  ample  funds.  Of  the 
union  of  funds  to  circulate  what  men  sincerely  believe,  the 
British  Quarterly  cannot  surely  disapprove :  perhaps  such 
was  its  own  origin ;  its  accomplished  Editor  is  certainly  a  pre- 
siding mind.  To  call  such  a  union  "  a  conspiracy,"  is  the  Ian- 


XVI  PREFACE    TO    SECOND    EDITION. 

guage  of  despots,  not  of  men  who  love  freedom  and  equality. 
However;  the  fact  is,  that  this  book  was  entirely  printed 
before  Mr.  Chapman  was  thought  of  as  a  Publisher ;  his  con- 
nection with  it  was  only  accidental,  and  the  reviewer's  state- 
ment is  a  fiction  of  his  own  imagination.  That  the  pouring 
forth  of  opinion  which  he  calls  conspiracy,  is  not  from  one 
presiding  mind,  its  internal  individuality  may  prove.  It  is  a 
far  more  formidable  thing  to  his  idols  :  for  it  proceeds  from 
minds  that  have  little  in  common,  except  cultivation,  freedom, 
and  an  insatiable  aspiration  for  Truth  and  Justice,  as  es- 
sential conditions  for  any  constant  Love,  or  any  unfanatical 
Religion. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  LAND  AND  TEIBES    OF   ISRAEL. — AGRICULTURAL  AND    OTHER  SOCIAL 
INSTITUTIONS. — THE   BORDER   COUNTRIES. 

Page 

Land  of  Israel. — The  Jordan  and  the  Eastern  Tribes. — The 
Northern  Tribes.— The  Central  Tribes.— The  Southern  Tribes. 
— Mosaic  Agriculturalism. — The  Levites. — Polygamy. — The 
Neighbouring  nations  1 


CHAPTER  II. 

ADMINISTRATION   OF   SAMUEL   AND   REIGN   OF   SAUL. 

The  Philistines. — Hebrew  monotheism. — Administration  of  Sa- 
muel.— Early  Hebrew  psalmody. — Exterior  marks  of  the  Pro- 
phet. —  Modes  of  divination.  —  Foreign  dangers  of  Israel. — 
Appointment  of  Saul. — Romantic  Philistine  campaign. — Am- 
monite inroad. — Enmity  with  Amalek. — Massacre  of  the  Ama- 
lekites. — David,  anointed  by  Samuel. — David,  Saul's  armour- 
bearer.— David,  Saul's  son-in-law.— David,  a  freebooter. — David 
with  Achish  of  Gath. — David  reinforced  from  Israel. — David's 
return  to  Ziklag.— Battle  of  Mount  Gilboa. ...  21 


XV111  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

REIGN   OF   DAVID. 

Page 

David,  king  in  Hebron. — Battle  near  Gibeon. — Murder  of  Abner. 
— Jerusalem. — Capture  of  Jerusalem. — The  ark  conveyed  to 
Jerusalem. — State  of  Hebrew  industry. — Conquest  of  Moab. — 
First  war  with  the  Zobahites. — Conquest  of  Edom. — Prosperity 
of  David. — Ammonite  war. — Destruction  of  the  Ammonites. — 
Career  of  Absalom. — Death  of  Absalom. — Disgrace  of  Mephi- 
bosheth. — Immolation  of  Saul's  descendants. — The  pestilence. 
— Conspiracy  of  Adonijah. — Death  of  David  63 

CHAPTER  IV. 

BEIGN   OF   SOLOMON. 

Foreign  commotions. — Political  executions. — Solomon's  Trade  by 
the  Red  Sea. — Trade  over  the  Syrian  Desart. — Visit  of  the 
Queen  of  Sheba. — Gold  vessels  of  the  Temple. — Building  of  the 
Temple. — Bondmen  in  Israel. — The  Temple  worship. — The  De- 
calogue.— Dowry  of  an  Egyptian  princess. — Solomon's  idolatry. 
— Hostilities  against  Solomon. — Death  of  Solomon. — Chronology 
of  the  Kings. — Chronological  table 104 


CHAPTER  V. 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  SOLOMON  TO  THE  ACCESSION  OF  OMEI, 
B.C.  955-904. 

Division  of  the  Monarchy. — Calves  of  Dan  and  Bethel. — Jero- 
boam's neglect  of  Levites. — Invasion  by  Shishak. — Later  years 
of  Rehoboam. — Massacre  of  the  house  of  Jeroboam. — Power  of 
Damascus. — War  of  Baasha  and  Asa. — Asa's  later  reign. — 
Massacre  of  the  house  of  Baasha  .  137 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   HOUSE  OF   OMEI,   B.C.   904-864. 

Page 

Building  of  Samaria. — Phoenician  worship  in  Israel. — Miracles  of 
Elijah.  —  Syrian  chariot  warfare.  —  Syrian  campaigns  west  of 
Jordan. — Benhadad  at  Eamoth  Gilead. — Greatness  of  Jehosha- 
phat. — Joint  war  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat. — Doctrine  of  lying 
spirits. — Combined  war  against  Moab. — Siege  of  Samaria. — 
Revolt  of  the  Edomites. — Second  battle  at  Ramoth. — Naboth's 
vineyard. — Massacres  of  Jehu. — Massacre  by  Athaliah 158 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   PEBIOD   OF   THE   HOUSE   OF   JEHU,   B.C.   864-762. 

Priests  and  Levites  in  Jerusalem. — Revolution  conducted  by  Je- 
hoiada. — Regency  of  Jehoiada. — Reigns  of  Jehu  and  his  son. 
— Dispersion  of  Judah  and  Israel. — Repairs  of  the  Temple. — 
Prophecy  of  Joel. — Peace  is  bought  of  Hazael. — Invasion  of 
Idumsea.  —  Decline  of  Damascus. — Victorious  career  of  Jero- 
boam II.  —  Internal  State  of  Israel.  —  Prophecy  of  Amos. — 
Uzziah's  long  prophecy. — Internal  state  of  Judaea. — Genealogies 
of  the  High  Priests  JSSb-  /  &0 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

FEOM   THE   CONQUESTS   OF   JEEOBOAM   II.   TO   THE   FALL   OF   SAMAEIA, 
B.C.   762-721. 

City  of  Nineveh. — New  parties  in  Israel. — Disorganization  of 
Israel. — Zechariah's  prophecy. — League  against  Judsea. — Suf- 
ferings of  Judah.  —  Isaiah  encourages  Ahaz.  —  Fall  of  Da- 
mascus.— Religious  character  of  Ahaz. — Sargon  and  the  Philis- 
tines.— First  invasion  of  Shalmaneser. — Revolt  of  Judah  and 
of  Ephraim. — Final  transplanting  of  Israel. — Anticipations  of 
Isaiah  and  Micah.  —  Decline  of  prophecy  in  Israel.  —  Rough 
dates  of  certain  prophecies 223 


XX  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


FROM   THE   FALL   OF   SAMAEIA  TO   THE   DEATH   OF    JOSIAH, 
B.C.    721-609. 

Page 

Assyrian  siege  of  Tyre. — Hezekiah's  passover. — Invasion  by  Sen- 
nacherib.—  Ethiopian  embassy.  —  Submission  of  Hezekiah. — 
New  complication  of  affairs. — Renewal  of  hostilities.— Disasters 
of  Sennacherib. — Hezekiah's  illness. — Isaiah's  prophecy  con- 
cerning Egypt. — Zenith  of  Hebrew  prophecy. — Character  of 
Manasseh. — Paganism  and  persecution. — State  of  the  Assyrian 
power. — Rise  of  scholastic  learning. — Scythian  irruption  into 
Media. — Rise  of  the  Chaldees. — Final  ruin  of  Nineveh. — Re- 
newal of  prophecy.  —  Josiah's  reform.  —  Recency  of  Deute- 
ronomy.—  Peculiarities  of  Deuteronomy. — The  Pentateuch  a 
gradual  growth.  —  Uncritical  proceedings. —  False  prophets  in 
Judsea. — Contemporary  Egyptian  affairs. — Battle  near  Megiddon  256 


CHAPTER  X. 

CLOSE   OF   THE   HEBREW   MONARCHY. 

Popular  election  from  the  Dynasty. — Jehoahaz  and  Jehoiakim. — 
Defeat  of  Necho  at  Carchemish. — Jeremiah's  Political  Prophecies. 
— Babylonian  invasions. — First  deportation  of  Jews  to  Babylon. 
— Rebellion  of  Zedekiah. — Destruction  of  Jerusalem. — Gedaliah 
the  Babylonian  Satrap. — Prophecies  against  Egypt. — Later 
School  of  Prophecy. — Function  of  the  Jewish  Nation  310 


HISTORY 

OF 

THE  HEBREW  MONARCHY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    LAND    AND   TEIBES    OP  ISRAEL.— AGRICULTURAL   AND 
OTHER  SOCIAL  INSTITUTIONS.— THE  BORDER  COUNTRIES. 

FEW  nations  which  have  put  forth  a  wide  and  enduring 
influence  upon  others,  proclaim  themselves  to  have  been  in- 
digenous1 on  the  land  of  their  celebrity.  Tradition  for  the 
most  part  points  back  to  a  time  at  which  they  dispossessed 
earlier  inhabitants,  who,  as  hereditary  enemies,  are  sure  to 
be  drawn  in  unfavourable  colours,  whether  as  unfaithful  allies, 
brutish  savages,  ferocious  giants,  or  again,  as  impure,  heretical, 
or  atheistical  unbelievers.  Where  the  country  consists  of  ex- 
tensive plains,  with  no  frontier  difficult  to  pass,  its  older  occu- 
pants more  readily  migrate  under  the  pressure  of  an  enemy, 
and  the  whole  nation  may  really  disappear.  But  in  this  case, 
the  resistance  is  generally  less  lingering  and  the  traditions  of 
wars  vaguer.  In  a  hilly  or  mountainous  country,  on  the 
contrary,  the  invaders  seldom  succeed  in  doing  more  than 
driving  the  former  possessors  of  the  soil  into  their  natural  fast- 
nesses ;  where,  after  long  maintaining  themselves  in  indepen- 
dence, nothing  is  commoner  than  that  they  should  finally  be 

1  The  great  civilized  nations,  which,  from  the  absence  of  all  earlier  traditions, 
we  vaguely  name  indigenous,  are  principally  the  Egyptians,  the  Indians,  and  the 
Chinese.  What  Strabo  says  of  India  might  as  truly  be  said  of  all, — that  they 
have  neither  received  nor  sent  out  colonies  ;  though  Indians  and  Chinese  emigrate 
largely  as  individuals.  Masses  so  great  have  inevitably  affected  the  barbarous 
tribes  around  them ;  yet  their  external  influence  has  been  small  in  proportion  to 
their  means.  China  has  subdued  Mongolia,  only  by  being  subdued. 

B 


2  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

blended  with  the  victorious  nation,  and  having  adopted  its  man- 
ners, its  religion,  its  tongue,  should  boast  of  its  triumphs  as 
their  own,  and  moralize  over  the  utter  extirpation  of  the  tribes 
whose  lineal  descendants  they  themselves  are. 

Many  of  these  phenomena  may  be  observed  in  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  nation,  whose  origin  was1  referred  to  their  great 
ancestor  Abraham,  a  Chaldee  by  birth  and  language,  and  pro- 
genitor not  only  of  Israel  but  of  the  Hagarenes  and  Edomites ; 
while  from  Lot,  his  nephew  and  associate,  were  derived  the 
contiguous  nations  of  Ammon  and  Moab.  But  the  history  of 
the  Israelites  is  distinguished  from  that  of  their  neighbours 
by  their  early  migration  to  Egypt  and  their  eventful  return ; 
in  the  course  of  which  an  entirely  new  impress  is  supposed  to 
have  been  left  upon  them  under  the  agency  of  Moses,  as  the 
peculiar  people  of  JEHOVAH.  The  tongue  of  Canaan  or  of 
Chaldsea  had  been  carried  with  them  to  Egypt ;  but  in  that 
country  they  were  reduced  to  miserable  bond-slaves,  so  mixed 
up  with  the  Egyptian  population,  that  even  in  birth  their 
infants  were  liable  to  be  murdered  by  their  oppressors.  If 
this  account  can  be  at  all  trusted,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the 
inference,  that,  like  other  slave  populations,  they  lost  their  own 
language,  and  therefore  brought  back  with  them  into  Canaan 
the  Egyptian  tongue2.  Be  this  as  it  may,  at  any  rate  the 
invaders  either  kept  or  in  course  of  time  gained  a  Canaan- 
itish  speech,  not  untinctured  by  Egyptian  words.  The  other 
Canaanites  named  them  Hebrews ;  a  word  which  the  Alex- 
andrine translators  of  Genesis  seem  rightly  to  connect  with 
the  idea  of  being  or  coming  across  a  river s ;  nor  is  it  un- 

1  I  decline  the  task  of  discussing  these  genealogies  minutely.      They  may  be 
true :  yet  no  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  them,  since  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
they  cannot  be  proved.     The  details  concerning  Lot's  incest  are  so  evidently  an 
invention  of  national  enmity,  as  to  throw  some  discredit  on  the  rest  of  the 
genealogy. 

2  This  opinion  is  maintained  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Giles  in  his  Hebrew  Records, 
p.  173.     The  conclusion  may  be  reasonably  doubted  by  any  who  regard  the 
tale  of  Hebrew  bondage  in  Egypt  to  be  much  exaggerated  in  the  details  of  the 
book  of  Exodus  ;  yet  to  balance  the  probabilities  is  to  me  exceedingly  hard. 

3  G«n.  xiv.   13,  the  Hebrew  is    rendered  rbv  trepdr^v.      The  Hebrew  and 
Arabic  root  "Eber,  whence  the  national  name  "Ebri  (Hebrew)  comes,  means, 
to  cross  or  to  be  across  a  river.     In  the  later  geography  of  Palestine  the  east 
bank  of  Jordan  was  called  ^  irepoto,  which  significantly  confirms  the  belief  that 
the  people  of  Moses,  when  settled  on  that  district,  were  called  for  the  same 
reason  Hebrews  by  their  western  neighbours.     Those  who  suppose  Abraham 
to  have  been  palled  a  Hebrew,  as  the  book  of  Q-enesis  represents,  must  interpret 
the  word  of  his  having  crossed  the  Euphrates  :  but  this  was  not  a  present  visible 


LAND    OF    ISRAEL.  6 

reasonable  to  believe  that  they  first  obtained  this  name,  when 
their  proper  seat  was  conceived  of  by  the  Canaanites  as  on 
the  east  of  Jordan.  As  their  numbers  were  by  no  means 
such  as  to  be  able  to  occupy  the  country  on  both  banks,  they 
had  no  sooner  obtained  an  adequate  settlement  in  its  various 
parts,  than  peaceful  tendencies  began  to  prevail  over  the  aver- 
sion which  religion  excited  in  at  least  the  principal  leaders 
of  Israel ;  and  coalitions,  which  were  generally  reprobated  by 
a  distant  posterity,  arose  between  the  armies  of  Jehovah  and 
the  families  of  Canaan. 

The  land  over  the  fairest  parts  of  which  they  had  spread 
themselves,  was  critically  situated  in  the  ancient  world,  and 
had  remarkable  peculiarities  of  its  own.  It  was  the  highway 
for  armies  between  Egypt  and  all  the  great  countries  of 
Western  Asia ;  a  fact,  the  importance  of  which  was  not  felt 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  Hebrew  history,  but  which,  from  the 
time  that  Assyria  rose  into  power,  mainly  influenced  the  whole 
external'destiny  of  the  nation.  The  land  itself  is  naturally 
very  deficient  in  facilities  for  general  communication,  and  in 
any  well-marked  frontier ;  and  except  when  grasped  in  some 
more  widely-spread  dominion,  it  appears  calculated  to  foster 
numerous  small  principalities  or  republics.  The  sea-coast  on 
its  western  side  runs  nearly  northward,  though  inclining  to 
the  east :  two  sets  of  highlands  range  north  and  south,  be- 
tween which  is  the  valley  of  the  river  Jordan,  a  very  remark- 
able depression.  The  streams  run  off  from  both  sides  of  the 
western  highlands,  into  the  sea  and  into  the  Jordan,  but  are 
nowhere  navigable  nor  of  any  magnitude.  Nor  did  the  coast 
afford  many  harbours  able  to  accommodate  even  the  little 
vessels  of  early  navigation,  until  it  reached  the  immediate 
neighbourhood  of  the  Phoenicians,  whose  experience  taught 
them  beyond  what  point  they  must  not  covet  its  possession. 
The  district  theoretically  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Asher1  runs 
north  as  far  as  Sidon,  including  Tyre  with  all  its  villages ; 
but  in  fact  neither  Zebulon  nor  Asher  seems  ever  to  have 
possessed  even  the  important  city  and  harbour  of  Accho 

fact,  to  impress  the  people's  imagination,  and  lead  to  a  name.  The  Jewish 
notion  that  Abraham  specifically  was  so  called  from  his  distant  ancestor  Heber, 
merely  shows  how  undiscriminating  in  these  matters  is  popular  opinion. 

1  The  words  in  Gen.  xlix.  13  greatly  need  elucidation :  "  Zebulon  shall  be  a 
haven  for  ships,  and  his  border  shall  be  unto  Zidon."  It  is  said  that  "  Zidon" 
means  Phoenicia ;  but  if  this  is  admissible,  the  words  still  are  far  more  appro- 
priate to  Asher. 

B    2 


4  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

(Ptolema'is  or  Acre),  south  of  which,  the  bay  of  Accho,  bounded 
by  Carmel,  belonged  to  Zebulon.  Yet  it  is  probable  that  the 
Tyrians  did  not  grudge  to  them  either  the  mainland  or  the 
havenless  shore,  but  were  satisfied  to  maintain  themselves 
in  fortified  sea-ports,  and  keep  up  peaceful  relations  with  the 
agricultural  Asherites.  The  sea-coast  allotted  to  Dan  and 
Simeon,  from  Joppa  southward,  was  yet  to  be  conquered, 
though  maritime  Danites  are  once  alluded  to  (Judges  v.  17) ; 
so  that  with  trifling  exception  the  Israelitish  nation  was  shut 
up  on  to  the  continent. 

The  Jordan,  which  gives  to  Canaan  so  peculiar  a  character, 
might  have  seemed  the  natural  centre  of  the  whole  country ; 
since  the  warmth  and  fertility  of  its  well-watered  basin,  and 
the  ease  of  keeping  up  communication  along  it,  appear  to  award 
its  possession  to  a  single  power,  and  to  give  to  that  power 
large  home-resources.  But  in  fact  it  rather  separated  than 
united  the  children  of  Israel.  The  tribes  to  whom  its  eastern 
side  was  conceded  found  the  open  highlands  very  favourable 
to  pasturage ;  and  having  brought  with  them  out  of  Egypt 
the  habits  of  shepherds,  would  not  renounce  that  independent, 
roving  and  marauding  life  to  become  laborious  tillers  of  fertile 
plains,  whose  crops  must  always  be  exposed  to  the  inroads  of 
their  pastoral  neighbours.  A  sharp  line  of  division,  which 
affected  the  whole  subsequent  history,  was  thus  drawn  between 
the  western  agriculturists  and  the  eastern  or  grazier  tribes  of 
Israel.  These  were,  the  Reubenites  011  the  south ;  the  Gad- 
ites  above  them ;  and,  still  more  to  the  north,  the  half- tribe 
of  Manasseh,  which,  though  warlike  and  adventurous,  seldom 
took  any  eager  interest  in  the  welfare  of  Israel  at  large.  Our 
narratives  ascribe  their  easy  and  complete  possession  of  their 
land  to  the  fact  that  Israel  entered  Canaan  from  that  side, 
and  by  united  force  conquered  Sihon  king  of  Heshbon  and 
Og  king  of  Bashan.  Indeed,  from  a  knowledge  of  the  later 
history  alone,  a  speculator  might  imagine  that  all  Israel  had 
resided  or  roved  for  some  generations  on  the  land  of  the 
eastern  tribes ;  and  that  when  their  numbers  increased,  had 
gradually  crossed  the  Jordan  in  parties,  with  far  inferior  force 
to  that  which  had  overrun  the  eastern  shore. 

Another  physical  circumstance  is  not  to  be  neglected,  as 
probably  affecting  the  dwellers  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan, 
little  as  we  could  expect  it  to  be  understood  or  distinctly 
noticed  in  early  times.  Although  the  Jordan  flows  from  the 


THE  JORDAN  AND  THE  EASTERN  TRIBES.          5 

low  grounds  of  Mount  Hermon, — the  lofty  peak  which  termi- 
nates Anti-Libanus  on  the  south, — it  descends  so  rapidly, 
that,  when  it  reaches  the  small  lake  called  by  the  Jews  "  the 
Waters  of  Merom"  (Samachonitis,  Bahr  el  Huleli),  it  is 
already  on  the  level  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea ;  and  the  lake 
of  Gennesareth,  which  next  receives  it,  is  now  known  to  be 
about  330  feet  below  that  level.  Out  of  the  latter  lake  it 
issues  with  a  most  violent  course,  precipitating  itself  along 
what  is  more  peculiarly  called  the  basin  of  the  Jordan  (Arab. 
El  Ghor,  the  hollow),  by  so  steep  a  slope,  that  the  surface  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  in  which  it  is  swallowed  up,  has  been  estimated 
by  the  latest  inquiries  as  nearly  1000  feet  lower  than  that  of 
the  lake  of  Gennesareth.  If  instead  of  1312  feet  below  the 
Mediterranean,  we  adopt  the  earlier  and  more  moderate  com- 
putation of  600,  we  can  still  have  no  doubt  that  the  Indian 
heat  of  the  valley  is  caused  by  this  singular  depression.  In 
the  flood  season  ("the  first  month,"  1  Chron.  xii.  15)  the 
Jordan  appears  ordinarily  to  have  overflowed  its  banks,  adding 
fertility  to  the  soil,  but  not  health  to  the  climate.  On  the 
plain  of  Jericho,  which  lies  west  of  the  Jordan,  at  the  head  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  the  palm-groves  grew  with  an  exuberance  ce- 
lebrated by  the  ancients ;  and  the  oppressive,  often-steaming 
atmosphere  of  the  entire  district,  whatever  vigour  it  may 
impart  to  certain  vegetation,  seems  to  be  exactly  that  in  which 
the  human  frame  becomes  unstrung.  The  natives  of  such  a 
dell  were  not  likely  to  keep  up  a  superiority  over  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  table-land,  wj^ich  on  the  western  side  ranges 
at  two  thousand  feet  and  upwards  above  the  Mediterranean, 
without  considering  its  hills;  and  the  actual  rulerS  of  the 
country  appear  at  every  time  to  have  dwelt  on  the  higher 
grounds. 

A  little  below  the  lake  of  Gennesareth,  the  Jordan  receives 
from  the  east  the  waters  of  the  Jarmuk1  (Hieromax,  Sheriat 
el  Mandhur] ,  which  runs  down  in  numerous  branches  from  the 
elevated  country  of  Hauran,  and  passes  near  the  very  ancient 
city  Ashtaroth  Karnaim.  There  was  on  this  side  no  frontier 
to  separate  the  Manassites  from  their  neighbours.  Close  at 

1  Yarmulc  appears  like  a  modern  corruption  of  Hieromax ;  yet  as  max  has 
no  Greek  meaning,  and  Tar  (river)  is  an  old  Hebrew  or  Egyptian  term  (as  in 
Jordan?),  it  is  at  least  as  possible  that  YarmuJc  is  the  old  name,  and  Hieromax 
an  attempt  to  reduce  it  to  Hellenism.  The  name,  it  is  believed,  is  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew  books. 


O  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

hand  lay  Bashan,  a  rich  grazing  country  north  of  the  Jarnmk 
and  east  of  the  Jordan,  which  was  free  from  the  stony  districts 
characterizing  the  upper  Hauran,  and  must  have  been  such  a 
prize  to  pastoral  tribes,  that  it  would  naturally  often  change 
its  masters.  The  Hebrews  held  it  to  be  a  land  of  giants. 
Although  the  northern  bank  of  the  Jarmuk  had  been  nominally 
Hebrew  ever  since  the  defeat  of  king  Og,  yet,  after  the  many 
disasters  of  Israel,  the  sixty  cities  of  Argob  in  Bashan  ("  fenced 
with  high  walls,  gates  and  bars,  besides  unwalled  towns  a 
great  many")  might  well  need  to  be  recaptured  by  Jair  the 
Manassite.  But  the  exploits  of  this  hero  are  obscurely  and 
enigmatically  reported.  According  to  the  most  probable  in- 
terpretation, he  won  only  twenty- three  "  small  towns"  in 
Bashan.  We  incidentally  learn  (1  Chron.  ii.  23)  that  the 
Geshurites  and  Syrians  afterwards  recovered  the  towns  of  Jair 
and  many  others  beside,  "  sixty  cities"  in  all ;  and  (Josh, 
xiii.  13)  that  the  people  of  Geshur  and  Maachath  lived  in 
friendly  commixture  with  the  Israelites,  no  doubt  after  alter- 
nate conquests  and  lingering  struggles.  The  achievements  of 
Jair,  echoed  down  from  distant  times,  took  also  another  form, 
according  to  which  he  was  a  "  Judge"  of  all  Israel  for  twenty- 
two  years,  and  gave  to  his  thirty  sons,  who  rode  on  thirty 
young  asses,  thirty  cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead1.  The  simplest 
general  result  of  the  various  accounts  would  seem  to  be  this : 
Gilead  and  southern  Bashan  were  held  firmly  by  Israel  before 
they  could  permanently  keep  northern  Bashan.  After  long 
contests  a  compromise  took  place  with  their  Geshurite  neigh- 
bours, which  on  the  whole  left  the  Maiiassites  with  a  decided 
advantage. 

The  land  of  the  Hebrews  west  of  the  Jordan  is  narrow  on 

1  The  most  recent,  and  perhaps  also  the  most  ancient,  application  of  the  name 
of  Gilead  (Djelaad),  is  to  a  mountain  or  table-land  south  of  the  river  Jabbok, 
which  falls  into  the  Jordan  many  miles  below  the  Jarmuk.  But  the  word  G-ilead 
in  the  Hebrew  geography  extended  much  further  to  the  north,  perhaps  as  far  as 
the  Jarmuk.  In  Joshua  xiii.  25,  31,  "  all  the  cities  of  Grilead"  are  given  to  Gad, 
and  "  half  G-ilead"  to  Manasseh.  It  is  probable  that  the  Manassite  district  was 
shared  between  two  names,  Bashan  and  (northern)  Gilead.  The  apparent  exten- 
sion of  the  name  Argob  in  Deut.  iii.  to  the  whole  country  northward  as  far  as 
the  borders  of  Geshur  and  Maachath,  is  another  perplexity.  We  may  imagine 
the  G-eshurites  and  Maachathites  to  have  been  a  united  people,  who  until  a  late 
time  held  nearly  all  Gaulonitis  ;  that  Argob,  or  the  kingdom  of  Og,  reached  not 
far  north  of  the  Jarmuk ;  and  that  Bashan,  in  a  large  sense,  comprised  Gaulo- 
nitis and  Argob  together.  But  the  village  Argob  was  about  fifteen  miles  west 
of  Gerasa  (on  the  northern  bank  of  the  Jabbok) :  Euseb.  apud  Winer. 


THE    NORTHERN    TRIBES.  7 

the  northern  end,  where  the  two  tribes  of  Naphthali  and 
Asher  are  depicted  on  a  small  territory,  with  Zebulon  and 
Issachar  to  the  south  of  them ;  all  in  the  later  GALILEE,  and 
therefore  to  the  north  of  Carmel.  This  ridge,  commencing 
from  the  sea  at  the  southern  point  of  the  bay  of  Accho,  runs 
at  first  south-east,  having  on  its  northern  declivity  the  fine 
plain  of  Jezreel  (Esdraelon),  along  whose  slope  the  brook  of 
Kishon  falls,  parallel  to  the  mountain,  and  enters  the  bay  of 
Accho.  The  line  of  Carmel  at  length  bends  due  east,  and 
terminates  above  Succoth,  where  it  sees  the  mountains  of 
Gilboa  fronting  it  on  the  north,  with  the  city  of  .Beth  Shean 
(Scythopolis)  at  their  feet,  on  the  basin  of  the  Jordan.  The 
district  of  these  four  tribes  was  not  called  by  the  collective 
name  of  Galilee  until  after  the  return  from  Babylon ;  and  the 
"  Gentile  Galilee"  of  Isaiah  was  a  smaller  territory  on  the 
Phoenician  frontier.  From  the  earliest  times  a  Gentile  influ- 
ence pervaded  this  whole  country.  Few,  if  any,  names  are 
found  in  it  of  ancient  holy  seats  connected  with  the  wander- 
ings of  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  or  otherwise  sacred;  and 
(whether  cause  or  effect)  no  strong  zeal  for  the  national  reli- 
gion, either  in  its  prophetical  or  its  priestly  development, 
came  forth  out  of  Galilee1.  But  it  was  in  every  external 
sense  a  most  favoured  country ;  physically,  if  also  mentally, 
the  Bceotia  of  Palestine.  "  The  Galilseans,"  says  Josephus, 
"  are  warlike  from  infancy,  and  always  numerous ;  the  land  is 
all  fat,  and  good  for  grazing,  and  planted  with  every  sort  of 
tree,  so  as  by  its  exuberance  to  invite  even  the  least  indus- 
trious husbandman.  At  least  it  is  all  fully  tilled,  and  no  part 
of  it  is  left  idle.  It  has  thick-set  cities,  and  multitudes  of 
flourishing  villages,  holding  from  500  to  1000  inhabitants 
each.  In  short,  though  in  size  it  is  inferior  to  the  Per  sea 
[or  the  land  beyond  Jordan],  yet  it  is  superior  in  power,  for 
it  is  entirely  turned  to  service,  and  everywhere  productive." 
Although  in  the  earlier  times  it  was  naturally  less  peopled  and 
less  fully  tilled,  and  a  great  change  of  population  afterwards 
took  place,  we  may  safely  abide  by  this  general  description  as 
a  clue  to  its  earlier  state.  The  rebellious  disposition  ascribed 
to  the  Galilseans  was  a  necessary  result  of  their  bravery  and 
love  of  independence.  Satisfied  with  their  own  soil,  they 
aspired  at  little  beyond  what  it  supplied,  and  made  domestic 

1  This  was  also  true  of  the  eastern  tribes,  but  when  their  country  had  been 
long  heathenized,  no  peculiar  reproach  fell  on  it. 


8  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

independence  their  chief  aim.  The  contiguity  of  Tyre  on  the 
north  must  undoubtedly  have  called  out  their  agricultural 
industry,  and  greatly  reconciled  them  to  the  foreigners  with 
whom  they  were  intermixed  at  home1. 

Yet  the  Galilsean  Hebrews  were  twice,  in  very  early  times, 
put  foremost  in  battle  for  the  independence  of  Israel.  The 
first  danger  was  from  a  petty  potentate,  called  by  the  high- 
sounding  title,  Jabin,  king  of  Canaan* ;, — more  properly  king 
of  Hazor  near  the  waters  of  Merom, — whose  military  successes 
threatened  with  subjugation  the  whole  country  to  the  west 
of  Jordan.  He  was  defeated  by  Barak  of  Kadesh  Naphthali, 
with  the  forces  of  Naphthali  and  Zebulon.  The  other  tribes 
either  held  aloof  in  suspense  and  anxiety3,  or  were  content 
with  sending  "  princes"  to  Deborah — as  ambassadors,  it  would 
seem — by  way  of  promising  succour.  On  the  second  occasion 
the  Midianites  were  the  foreign  enemy,  and  Gideon  the  Ma- 
nassite  was  the  Hebrew  champion.  It  is  remarkable  that 
both  contests  took  place  on  the  broad  slope  of  Jezreel,  ever  the 
great  battle-field  of  this  country;  and, — as  Gideon's  troops 
were  gathered  from  Manasseh,  Asher,  Zebulon  and  Naphthali, 
— we  may  infer  that  he  was  a  western  Manassite,  and  that  the 
danger  threatened  Galilee  peculiarly.  After  the  defeat  and 
flight  of  the  Midianites, — who  (if  we  can  trust  the  interpre- 
tation of  an  enigmatical  phrase,  Judges  vii.  3)  had  come  with 

1  In  Judges  i.  the  following  Canaanitish  nations  are  recorded  as  permanently 
dwelling  in  the  Galilsean  territory :    1.  in  the  tribe  of  Asher,  the  inhabitants  of 
AccTio,  of  Zidon,  of  Ahlab,  of  Achzib,  of  HelbaTt,  of  Aphik,  of  Rehob  ;    2.  in  the 
tribe  of  Naphthali,  the  inhabitants  of  Bethshemesh  and  Bethanath,  who  however 
at  length  became  tributary ;    3.  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulon,  the  inhabitants  of 
Kitron  and  Nahalol,  also  made  tributary ;    4.  in  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (theoreti- 
cally in  that  of  Manasseh,  Josh.  xvii.  11),  Bethshean  and  her  towns,  Taanach 
and  her  towns,  Dor  and  her  towns,  Ibleam  and  her  towns,  Megiddo  and  her 
towns.     These  tribes  were  made  tributary  only  at  a  late  aera.      Besides  the 
Canaanites  who  drew  notice  by  remaining  independent  so  long,  great  numbers 
more  must  have  been  silently  incorporated  with  Israel  from  early  times. 

2  Canaan  is  by  many  interpreted  "the  low  country,"  as  opposed  to  Aram 
(Syria),  "  the  high  country  :"    and  the  name  Canaan,  as  applicable  to  the 
dwellers  of  the  coast,  was  perhaps  primitively  given  to  the  Phoenicians  :  whence 
also  the  word  meant  "a  trader."     Possibly  therefore  "  Jabin  king  of  Canaan" 
stands  for  "Jabin,  a  Phoenician  potentate." 

3  Judges  v.  14-18.    "  Zebulon  and  Naphthali,  in  the  high  places  of  the  field, 
jeoparded  their  lives  unto  the  death." — "  On  the  brooks  of  Reuben  were  great 
resolutions"  (De  Wette). — "OHlead  [i.  e.  the  G-adites]  abode  beyond  Jordan: 
why  was  Dan  a  stranger  on  shipboard  ?  why  sate  Asher  on  the  sea  shore,  and 
abode  in  his  bays?" — The  song  is  almost  too  obscure  to  extract  trustworthy 
history  from  it. 


THE    CENTRAL    TRIBES.  9 

" Amalekites  and  children  of  the  east"  from  Mount  Gilead, — 
Naphthali,  Asher  and  Manasseh  distinguished  themselves  in 
the  pursuit.  It  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  inroads  of 
such  marauders,  whose  cattle  year  after  year  destroyed  the 
crops  (Judges  vi.  1-6),  must  have  helped  to  unite  the  Hebrews 
and  the  older  inhabitants.  The  latter  doubtless  suffered  from 
the  invasions  equally  with  the  former,  and  can  hardly  have 
refused  to  join  their  armies  in  driving  off  the  common  enemy. 
Israel  in  the  mass  was  in  those  days  wholly  destitute  of  re- 
pulsive religious  zeal,  and  would  warmly  have  welcomed  all  as- 
sistance. 

South  of  Mount  Carmel  begins  the  central  portion  of 
western  Palestine,  afterwards  named  SAMARIA.  Its  northern 
district  was  assigned  to  part  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  and  the 
southern  and  more  important  to  Ephraim.  A  large  propor- 
tion of  the  whole  is  table-land,  diversified  with  hills,  in  ridges 
and  numerous  knolls.  The  soil,  according  to  Josephus,  was 
soft  to  the  plough  and  fertile ;  less  watered  by  streams  than 
Galilee ;  but  all  the  water  was  peculiarly  sweet,  and  the  grass 
such  as  to  give  an  unusual  abundance  of  milk  to  the  cattle. 
In  early  times,  it  is  probable  that  Samaria,  as  compared  to 
Galilee,  had  a  greater  advantage  in  population  than  after- 
wards; or  the  energetic  ambition  of  the  Ephraimites  more 
rapidly  reduced  the  Caiiaanitish  natives,  and  forced  them  to 
coalesce  with  Israel.  The  only  city  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim 
which  was  not  subdued  was  Gezer,  on  the  western  border  be- 
tween them  and  the  tribe  of  Dan.  First  an  Amorite  town,  it 
afterwards  was  the  most  northern  fortress  of  the  Philistines, 
and  retained  its  independence  (subject,  at  most,  to  tribute) 
until  the  reign  of  Solomon,  when  it  was  captured,  not  by 
Hebrew,  but  by  Egyptian  force.  The  energy  which  the 
Ephraimites  showed  in  the  very  first  period  of  Israelitish  his- 
tory, may  be  referred  to  the  fact,  that  the  celebrated  leader 
Joshua  belonged  to  this  tribe.  Among  them  also,  at  Shiloh, 
for  many  generations,  the  tabernacle  of  Jehovah,  with  the 
sacred  ark,  was  fixed ;  and  at  once,  in  a  local,  a  political  and 
a  religious  sense,  became  the  centre  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
Their  extreme  pride  was  shown  in  their  insolent  conduct  to 
Gideon  and  to  Jephthah ;  of  whom  the  former  pacified  them 
by  gentleness,  and  the  latter  retaliated  by  a  cruel  massacre, 
which  appears  for  a  long  while  after  to  have  humbled  their 
pretensions.  Their  principal  town  was  Shechem  (Neapolis, 

B  3 


10  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Nablus),  where  Jacob  had  dwelt;  and  they  pointed  to  the 
well  of  Jacob  and  to  the  tomb  of  Joseph.  From  them  arose 
Deborah,  a  woman,  yet  the  earliest  prophet  of  Israel ;  whose 
word  called  forth  Barak  as  champion  against  Jabin.  Finally, 
it  was  in  Shechem  that  Abimelech,  a  son  of  Gideon  by  a 
woman  of  that  town,  set  up  a  monarchy,  which  lasted  three 
years,  "  over  Israel"  (Judges  ix.  22) ;  by  which  we  are  per- 
haps to  understand  Israel  west  of  the  Jordan. 

No  natural  division  exists  between  the  regions  called  in 
later  time  Samaria  and  JUDAEA.  The  latter,  which  is  imme- 
diately to  the  south  of  the  former,  contained  the  district  as- 
signed to  be  conquered  by  the  four  tribes  of  Dan,  Benjamin, 
Simeon  and  Judah.  But  Dan  and  Simeon  were  always  insig- 
nificant, and  could  not  overcome  the  Amorites.  A  portion  of 
the  Danites  migrated  to  the  extreme  north,  and  treacherously 
attacked  Laish  or  Leshem,  a  town  ' '  dwelling  carelessly,  after 
the  manner  of  the  Sidonians,  quiet  and  secure/'  Having  mas- 
sacred a  peaceful  and  industrious  population,  they  established 
themselves  in  their  place ;  and  as  if  to  warn  the  modern  reader 
that  no  zeal  for  the  Law  prompted  the  atrocity,  they  forthwith 
set  up  a  graven  image,  under  a  priest  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh, 
whose  children  continued  to  officiate  until  the  day  of  the  cap- 
tivity of  the  land  (Judges  xviii.  30) .  This  is  the  well-known 
town  of  Dan,  which,  in  contrast  to  Beersheba,  so  long  marked 
the  extreme  northern  point  of  Israel.  The  rest  of  the  Danites, 
in  common  with  the  Simeonites,  soon  had  to  struggle  with  a 
yet  more  dangerous  enemy — the  Philistines,  against  whom  the 
marvellous  hero  Samson,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  so  often  entered 
the  lists ;  but  at  length  Dan  seems  to  have  lost  its  existence 
as  a  tribe  in  these  parts.  Neither  could  the  Simeonites  win 
the  cities  assigned  to  them  by  lot,  some  of  which  at  a  much 
later  period  were  acquired  by  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Such  was 
Ziklag,  which  David  afterwards  received  from  Achish,  king  of 
Gath ;  such  too  was  Beersheba,  which  in  the  time  of  Ahab  (1 
Kings  xix.  3)  was  reckoned  as  Judah's.  Simeon  nevertheless 
continued  to  hold  various  less  important  places  until  the  time 
of  the  kings  (1  Chron.  iv.  31,  42),  and  so  late  as  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah  two  strange  migrations  of  this  tribe  are  named1. 

1  It  is  surprising  that  "sons  of  Ham"  are  described  as  dwelling  at  Gedor,  in 
the  centre  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  between  Hebron  and  Jerusalem,  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah ;  when  they  are  expelled  by  a  colony  of  Simeonites.  That  another 
colony  should  migrate  into  Idumeea  is  also  singular. 


THE    SOUTHERN    TRIBES.  11 

It  is  uncertain  how  the  rest  of  them  disappeared;  but  so 
thoroughly  does  the  tribe  seem  to  have  been  afterwards  for- 
gotten in  Israel,  that  at  the  time  when  the  song  of  Moses  was 
penned,  Simeon  was  entirely  dropped  out  of  the  list.  Dan, 
on  the  contrary,  is  named,  but  only  as  in  proximity  with 
"  Bashan,"  where  the  town  of  Dan  lay1. 

Benjamin  had  his  portion  on  the  north  of  Judsea  eastward, 
close  beneath  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  in  an  inland  district  small 
in  extent,  but  great  in  sacred  and  legendary  interest.  Jeru- 
salem on  the  table-land,  and  Jericho  deep  in  the  basin  of  the 
Jordan;  Bethel,  where  God  appeared  to  Jacob;  Gilgal,  per- 
haps,— where  twelve  stones  recorded  the  passage  of  Jordan  by 
the  twelve  tribes, — and  Mizpeh,  whither  from  the  earliest 
times  (Judges  xx.  1,  etc.)  the  tribes  were  accustomed  to  as- 
semble before  Jehovah ; — all  lay  in  the  lot  of  Benjamin.  The 
Benjamites  are  represented  as  originally  superior  in  numbers 
to  the  Manassites,  notwithstanding  the  vast  disproportion  of 
the  tract  allowed  to  them.  But  in  a  most  extraordinary  civil 
war2,  they  had  been  almost  extirpated  by  their  Hebrew  bre- 
thren, their  numbers  being  reduced  to  600  adult  males,  and 
every  woman  and  child  destroyed.  After  this,  it  seems  not 
wonderful  that  the  land  of  the  Benjamites  proved  large  enough 
for  them.  It  must  be  added,  that  it  was  judged  to  be  more 
fruitful  even  than  any  part  of  Galilee.  The  plain  of  Jericho, 
which  it  included,  was  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  earthly  pa- 
radise, and  the  hills  admitted  of  artificial  culture  up  to  their 
very  tops.  Jerusalem  however,  with  the  fertile  tract  around 
it,  never  fell  into  the  hands  of  Benjamin3 ;  for  by  reason  of 
the  extreme  strength  of  its  position,  they  could  not  drive  the 

1  Some  of  the  Christian  fathers  have  imagined  that  Antichrist  is  to  be  of  the 
tribe  of  Dan,  apparently  because  the  name  of  Dan  is  omitted  in  the  list,  Revel,  vii. 

2  The  other  tribes  had  sworn  to  Jehovah  to  give  no  wives  to  the  Benjamites ; 
but  the  oath  was  evaded  by  slaughtering  the  Jabeshgileadites  in  mass  for  not 
having  helped  to  exterminate  Benjamin,  and  by  then  giving  400  Jabeshite 
maidens  as  wives  to  the  survivors  of  that  tribe.     As  these  did  not  suffice,  the 
"rape  of  the  Sabines"  was  anticipated  at  a  feast  of  Jehovah  near  Shiloh,  and 
200  wives  more  were  captured  from  the  sacred  dances.     The  whole  narrative 
has  so  little  to  accredit  it  as  history,  and  the  statement  that  Phinehas  was  still 
the  high  priest  is  so  suspicious  (xx.  28),  as  to  abate  our  confidence  in  the  as- 
sertion that  Mizpeh  was  used  as  a  gathering-place  before  the  days  of  Samuel. 
Whatever  may  be  judged  of  the  general  tale,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  descrip- 
tion of  savage  manners  and  barbarous  religion  had  its  counterpart  in  reality. 

3  In  Judges  i.  8,  it  is  stated  that  the  men  of  Judah  took  Jerusalem,  slaugh- 
tered the  inhabitants,  and  burnt  the  city.     How  it  was  recovered  by  the  Jebu- 
sites  is  not  explained. 


12  THE    HEBREW   MONARCHY. 

Jebusites  out  of  the  city.  After  years  of  hostility,  peaceful 
relations  were  established,  if  at  least  we  may  so  interpret  the 
words :  "  The  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin 
in  Jerusalem  unto  this  day"  (Judges  i.  21) .  However,  until 
David  captured  the  fortress  of  Zion,  the  Jebusites  continued 
independent. 

South  of  all  Israel  lay  the  land  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  in- 
cluding Hebron,  or  Kirjath  Arba,  and  Beersheba ; — places 
consecrated  by  the  traditions  of  Abraham  and  Isaac.  The 
country  is  described  as  equally  fertile  with  Samaria,  and  very 
similar;  but  this  must  be  understood  of  its  favourable  por- 
tions. It  is  more  mountainous,  and  its  whole  eastern  side  is 
a  wilderness  of  limestone :  on  the  south-west  also  are  wide 
wastes.  Indeed  at  present  the  deficiency  of  water1  and  soil 
in  the  entire  district  is  so  great,  that  none  are  able  to  account 
for  the  fertility  ascribed  to  it  by  all  the  ancients,  except  by 
the  elaborate  system  of  cultivation  which  was  carried  on  while 
it  was  in  the  hands  of  small  native  proprietors.  The  tribe  of 
Judah  rivalled  that  of  Ephraim  in  spirit  and  in  ambition ;  and 
as  the  Ephraimites  boasted  of  their  Joshua,  so  did  the  men 
of  Judah  of  their  Caleb ;  who,  to  justify  his  defiance  of  the 
Canaanites,  demanded  of  Joshua  as  his  portion  the  uncon- 
quered  city  and  mountain  of  Hebron,  where  the  dreadful 
giants  the  Anakim  dwelt.  Under  the  inspiring  genius  of 
Caleb,  the  tribe  of  Judah  single-handed  conquered  not  He- 
bron only,  but  numerous  other  cities,  among  which  are  named 
Gaza,  Askelon  and  Ekron ;  all  of  them  afterwards  chief  seats 
of  the  Philistine  power,  and  none  of  them  within  the  lot  of 
Judah.  In  the  theory  of  the  conquest,  Ekron  was  to  belong 
to  Dan;  Askelon  and  Gaza  to  Simeon;  but  those  tribes,  as 
we  have  stated,  proved  unsuccessful  and  feeble.  From  Judah 
moreover  is  said  to  have  proceeded  the  first  "  Judge"  of 
Israel,  Othniel,  the  nephew  and  son-in-law  of  Caleb ;  which 
virtually  denotes  that  Othniel,  the  antagonist  of  Chushan 
Rishathaim,  was  the  first  successor  to  Joshua.  That  the  tribe 
of  Judah  should  have  been  eminent  in  the  war  against  Chu- 
shan Rishathaim  (who  is  rather  mysteriously  called  king  of 
the  distant  country  of  Mesopotamia),  is  the  more  remarkable, 

1  Some  countries  have  become  drier  by  the  destruction  of  forests  ;  but  we  do 
not  hear  of  forests  except  in  lofty  mountains  from  the  early  Hebrew  annals :  and 
no  cutting  down  of  timber  would  have  laid  the  rock  bare  of  soil  except  where 
the  showers  were  of  immense  violence. 


MOSAIC    AGRICULTURALISTS.  13 

since  of  all  the  tribes  Judah  was  the  most  distant,  and  the  last 
to  suffer  from  such  an  enemy ;  yet  a  long  time  passed  before 
circumstances  arose  which  could  give  to  this  farthest  tribe  any 
enduring  primacy  over  Israel  at  large. 

Such  was  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  such  the  distribution  of 
the  tribes  over  it :  beyond  Jordan,  a  pastoral  people,  of  which 
the  northern  part  had  been  engaged  in  lingering  warfare  with 
powerful  neighbours,  and  had  earned  an  energetic  character 
and  extensive  territory ;  west  of  Jordan,  in  Galilee  on  the 
north,  a  brave  but  unambitious  race,  easily  coalescing  with  the 
older  inhabitants :  in  Samaria  the  central  power  of  Israel  lay, 
and  the  most  decisive  triumphs,  west  of  Jordan,  were  first  won : 
in  Judaea,  a  large  part  of  Israel  was  driven  out,  first  by  the 
Amorites,  then  by  the  Philistines,  while  the  tribe  of  Judah 
itself  with  difficulty  stood  its  ground,  and  lost  many  of  its 
conquests.  It  is  possible  that  the  early  and  complete  suc- 
cesses of  the  Ephraimites,  leaving  them  little  to  contend 
against,  gave  them  more  pride  than  warlike  experience ;  while 
the  long  and  painful  struggles  of  Judah  were  preparing  that 
tribe  for  ultimate  pre-eminence. 

The  chief  political  idea  prominent  in  the  institutions  which 
we  ascribe  to  Moses,  was,  to  constitute  a  people  of  small  in- 
dependent landowners ;  a  state  of  things  highly  conducive  to 
national  virtue,  equably-spread  and  moderate  abundance,  per- 
sonal bravery,  and  sober  stable  republicanism ;  but  adverse  to 
great  wealth,  commerce,  intellectual  development,  standing 
armies,  and  royal  or  oligarchical  power.  In  regard  to  the  east- 
ern tribes,  the  Mosaic  system  gave  way  altogether ;  for  they 
chose  and  adhered  to  a  pastoral  life :  but  west  of  Jordan  the 
agricultural  constitution  was  fixedly  established.  The  most  re- 
markable law  was  that  which  forbade  the  sale  of  land  beyond 
the  year  of  Jubilee ;  a  regulation  intended  to  hinder  a  man,  to 
whom  a  life-interest  only  in  his  estate  was  given,  from  defraud- 
ing his  posterity.  It  was,  in  short,  the  Mosaic  law  of  entail1 ; 
which  aimed  however,  not  to  keep  landed  property  together  in 
large  masses,  but  to  prevent  accumulation ;  nor  was  there  any 
mode  of  cutting  off  the  entail  by  agreement  between  father 
and  son.  The  practical  result  was,  that  no  permanent  aris- 
tocracy could  arise  west  of  the  Jordan;  and  that  during  the 

1  A  peculiar  marriage  law,  which  had  its  counterpart  in  Athens,  was  directed 
to  uphold  the  law  of  entail : — the  man  nearest  of  kin  was  bound  to  endow  or  to 
wed  a  portionless  maiden :  Ruth  iv. 


14  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

earlier  period  of  the  national  existence,  each  tribe  acted  for 
itself  except  at  moments  of  great  exigence  from  powerful 
foreign  enemies. 

But  we  here  touch  on  a  delicate  subject,  which  may  need 
more  detailed  and  cautious  remark.  The  law  of  Jubilee  is  not 
to  be  conceived  of  in  a  literal  sense,  since  we  know  that  if  it 
was  ever  so  much  enacted  in  writing,  no  means  of  expounding 
or  enforcing  it  were  at  hand  in  the  early  times  of  violence. 
But  as  the  Dorians  who  conquered  Laconia,  so  the  Hebrews 
who  possessed  themselves  of  Canaan,  had  a  traditionary  feel- 
ing, that  the  land,  having  been  primitively  apportioned  to 
families,  ought  to  remain  as  a  fixed  property  of  the  same  fa- 
milies. It  must  have  been  forbidden  by  usage  to  sell  that 
patrimony  in  which  the  present  holder  had  only  a  life-interest ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  sales  were  never  made  except  for  a 
fixed  and  very  limited  number  of  years,  after  which  the  land 
reverted  to  the  children  of  him  who  had  sold  it.  Out  of  this 
the  idea  of  a  Jubilee  may  have  at  length  shaped  itself  in  later 
ages ;  but  it  appears  certain  that  no  law  of  jubilee  can  have 
had  its  first  origin  in  the  later  times,  without  such  usage  pre- 
ceding :  for  after  the  return  from  Babylon,  land  was  in  too 
great  abundance  for  the  people,  and  no  one  could  have  then 
first  conceived  such  a  law :  and  if,  during  the  time  of  the 
kings,  land  had  habitually  been  sold  for  ever,  the  idea  of  Ju- 
bilee could  not  have  established  itself  at  all.  We  infer  there- 
fore that  national  feeling  and  usage  really  kept  up  small  landed 
properties  west  of  Jordan  from  the  earliest  times1. 

Yet  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Israelites  on  that  side 
the  river  became  at  once  and  exclusively  agricultural.  The 
transition  from  a  state  of  pastoral  rovers  to  that  of  agricul- 
turists was  probably  gradual,  and  spread  over  many  genera- 
tions ;  and  in  fact  the  Simeonites  (1  Chron.  iv.  41)  may  seem 
to  have  remained  mere  wandering  shepherds  until  ^the  latest 
period,  until  (as  may  be  suspected)  they  were  swallowed  up  in 
the  Amalekites  of  those  parts.  Great  diversities  of  wealth  in 
cattle  will  soon  arise  among  men  who  at  first  are  equal,  and 
those  who  have  too  many  cattle  for  their  land  buy  leave  to 
pasture  them  on  the  fields  of  those  who  have  too  few.  The 
rich  man  virtually  in  such  case  becomes  the  tenant,  and  the 
poor  the  landlord,  who  receives  yearly  a  small  quit-rent  for 
the  use  of  his  land ;  and  though  it  may  be  called  his,  yet  after 

1  To  this  the  story  of  Naboth  and  Ahab  agrees. 


THE    LEVITES.  15 

a  time  lie  fears  to  expel  his  tenant  and  take  the  land  into  his 
own  hands,  if  this  would  inflict  a  severe  inconvenience  on  one 
powerful  to  resent  it.  Although  Englishmen  may  not  possess 
land  in  Turkey,  modes  of  evading  the  law  are  easily  found,  so 
as  to  prevent  the  legal  owner  from  ejecting  his  tenant  except 
by  extreme  effort;  and  it  is  quite  consistent  with  a  general 
system  of  small  landed  properties,  that  a  sprinkling  of  rich 
men  should  practically  spread  beyond  their  nominal  estates. 
The  example  of  Gideon,  who  could  afford  to  rear  seventy  sons 
in  princely  station,  and  whose  son  Abimelech  aspired  to  regal 
dignity,  shows  that  there  existed  means  of  retaining  great 
wealth  and  influence ;  and  as  the  wealth  cannot  have  accrued 
from  yearly  taxation,  it  must  have  been  in  cattle  or  in  land, 
or  in  both.  Nevertheless,  such  rich  men  were  probably  few, 
or  at  any  rate  did  not  constitute  a  permanent  aristocracy. 
They  were  not  a  recognized  order,  and  could  not  easily  act  in 
conjunction.  Birth  and  age  were  chiefly  regarded  in  selecting 
the  ordinary  elders  or  heads  of  families  and  tribes ;  and  it  is 
probable  that  riches,  where  the  limits  of  land  were  so  narrow, 
did  not  continue  long  in  the  same  family.  A  rallying  centre 
for  the  parts  of  the  nation  was  wanting ;  and  when  this  arose 
in  the  person  of  a  king,  the  royal  power  was  liable  to  become 
despotic  from  the  absence  of  an  interposing  aristocracy.  Not 
that  this  was  wholly  wanting ;  for  (besides  what  was  just  said), 
among  the  tribes  east  of  Jordan,  men  not  only  of  great  but  of 
hereditary  wealth  in  cattle  and  visible  substance  arose; — 
wealth  accruing  in  part  from  legitimate  increase  under  clever 
management,  in  part  probably  from  the  plunder  of  neighbours. 
The  wealthy  chieftain  in  these  parts  must  often  have  combined 
the  marauder  with  the  grazier,  and  have  been  able  to  gather  a 
considerable  force  of  men  around  him.  But  it  was  only  to  a 
weak  or  unpopular  king  that  these  chiefs  could  dare  to  offer 
resistance;  especially  as  they  had  no  constitutional  organs 
of  their  own,  and  no  support  from  this  side  Jordan.  A  check 
to  the  regal  power  however  grew  up  at  last  in  Judah,  as  we 
shall  see,  out  of  the  priestly  body,  which  had  no  organization 
or  public  efficiency  in  the  ante-Davidical  sera. 

It  might  have  been  imagined  that  the  Levites,  spread  over 
the  whole  country,  would  cement  the  tribes  together;    but 
the  causes  of  their  failing  so  to  do  are  easy  to  find.     Whether 
they  ever  actually  enjoyed  the  cities  in  theory  allotted  to       v 
them,  is  highly  doubtfiil.     If  it  be  even  allowed  that  Joshua 


16  THE    HEBREW   MONARCHY. 

put  them  in  possession,  it  is  evident  that  they  must  have  been 
expelled  ten  times  over  from  many  districts,  by  the  series  of 
invaders  who  domineered  over  part  or  the  whole  of  Israel. 
"When  lands  are  once  lost  by  religious  bodies,  it  is  exceedingly 
difficult  in  the  most  religious  countries  of  modern  Europe  to 
recover  them;  and  it  is  clear  that  no  Levitical  spirit  existed 
in  early  Israel  which  should  assist  restitution.  As  for  eccle- 
siastical tithes,  to  collect  them  when  crops  are  liable  to  be 
burnt  by  an  enemy,  is  a  hopeless  affair :  and  those  were  days 
(as  we  are  repeatedly  told),  when  "  every  man  did  what  was 
right  in  his  own  eyes."  In  short,  whatever  Joshua  did  for 
the  Levites,  might  as  well  not  have  been  done,  as  regards  any 
permanent  result.  We  start  with  the  history  of  the  Kings,  as 
if  no  Levitical  order  existed. 

Not  but  that  there  were  Levites  scattered  through  the 
land ;  and  there  were  certainly  some  priestly  towns :  but,  as 
in  early  Greece,  each  religious  establishment  rested  on  its 
own  basis,  and  was  wholly  isolated  from  the  rest.  A  bishop 
in  the  Middle  Ages  of  Europe  differed  from  a  temporal  prince 
in  bearing  a  sacred  character ;  but  he  equally  needed  the  aid 
of  men,  arms,  and  horses,  to  sustain  his  official  position :  and 
so  was  it  with  the  Aaronites1  who  came  to  Hebron  to  instal 
David  as  king.  We  may  safely  infer  that  their  exterior  was 
not  less  warlike  in  the  turbulent  period  which  had  preceded ; 
but  as  nothing  is  heard  of  priestly  authority,  except  in  con- 
nexion with  the  name  of  Eli,  they  cannot  have  exerted  any 
wide-spread  influence.  The  only  specimen  which  we  have  of 
the  primitive  life  of  a  Levite,  represents  a  young  man  who  bore 
that  name  to  have  been  consecrated  as  a  priest  of  Jehovah, 
by  Micah,  a  man  of  Mount  Ephraim ;  as  though  any  man 
had  power  to  make  a  priest  for  himself:  moreover  the  Levite 
is  said  to  have  been  of  Bethlehem  and  "  of  the  family  of 
Judah"  (Judg.  xvii.  7);  which  implies  that  "  Levite"  was 
not  then  understood  to  imply  descent  from  Levi,  but  simply 
occupation  in  a  certain  routine  of  religious  observance.  Pre- 
vious to  the  arrival  of  the  Levite,  Micah  had  consecrated  one 
of  his  own  sons;  and  the  Danites  at  Laish  in  like  manner 
made  a  descendant  of  Manasseh2  priest  in  their  city.  The 

1  Zadok,  the  most  eminent  of  them,  was  "  a  young  man  mighty  of  valour," 
1  Chr.  xii.  28. 

2  He  is  called,  "  Jonathan  son  of  Gtershom  son  of  Manasseh."     Son  is  ex- 
pounded to  mean  Descendant. 


POLYGAMY.  17 

Levite  was  to  Micah  (what  we  should  call)  a  family  chap- 
lain; and  agreed  to  receive  his  clothes  and  food  and  ten 
shekels  of  silver  every  year.  The  simplicity  of  Micah's  self- 
congratulation, — "  Now  know  I  t^at  Jehovah  will  do  me 
good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  for  my  priest," — so  comes  forth 
from  the  popular  heart,  as  to  convince  us  that  this  was  a 
widely-spread  feeling;  and  that  the  Levites  of  those  days 
were  a  family  appendage  coveted  by  the  more  wealthy,  but 
not  an  independent,  much  less  an  organized,  body.  No  defi- 
nite statements  inform  us,  whether  any  of  them  as  yet  per- 
formed the  functions  of  "  scribes ;"  either  as  clerks,  registrars, 
attorneys,  or  as  literary  teachers;  but  whatever  insight  we 
can  get  into  the  spirit  of  the  age,  tends  to  show  that  nothing 
of  the  sort  was  as  yet  needed  or  sought  after.  Bargains  were 
made  in  Israel, — whether  the  purchase  of  a  field  or  the  pur- 
chase of  a  wife  (Ruth  iv.  3-10), — by  a  man's  plucking  off  his 
shoe,  and  giving  it  to  his  neighbour  before  the  elders  of  the 
town,  in  the  gate. 

Although  the  laws  of  Moses,  as  we  read  them,  definitely 
permit  and  regulate  polygamy,  the  custom  nowhere  existed  in 
the  body  of  the  nation.  The  freedom  of  the  Hebrew  women, 
married  and  unmarried,  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  polygamic 
spirit ;  and  in  such  a  state  of  things  to  suppress  the  evil  prac- 
tice would  seem  so  easy,  that  one  might  wonder  why  it  should 
be  sanctioned ;  especially  when  it  is  at  once  child  and  parent 
of  despotism,  and  thereby  in  direct  contravention  to  the  whole 
genius  of  the  Hebrew  institutions.  It  must  nevertheless  be 
remembered,  that  when  the  safety  of  a  tribe  depended  on  its 
population,  the  law  of  marriage  could  hardly  be  the  same  as 
when  the  moral  influences  of  that  state  are  chiefly  looked  to : 
and  when  a  certain  public  disgrace  is  incurred  by  leaving  no 
representative  in  one's  social  position,  both  of  the  married  par- 
ties would  sometimes  become  desirous  of  a  deviation  from  strict 
monogamy.  Concubines  (or  wives  of  lower  rank)  seem  to 
have  been  reputable,  even  during  the  lifetime  of  a  wife,  when 
no  heirs  of  a  family  had  arisen.  Thus  was  it  that  Abraham 
took  Hagar,  and  Jacob  took  Bilhah  and  Zilpah,  at  the  request 
of  the  wives ;  but  it  was  only  by  fraud1  that  Jacob  had  two 

1  If  any  one  regard  the  fraud  practised  on  Jacob  as  a  popular  fiction  to  save 
the  patriarch's  credit,  it  will  not  the  less,  but  even  the  more,  prove  that  it  was 
popularly  discreditable  to  have  two  equal  wives.  In  fact  to  have  two  sisters  at 
once  is  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Pentateuch. 


18  THE  HEBREW  MONARCHY. 

sisters  as  wives  imposed  upon  him.  The  first  eminent  ex- 
ample of  oriental  polygamy  was  in  the  chieftain  Gideon,  who 
had  seventy  sons ;  whose  example  was  followed  by  the  Judges 
named  Ibzan,  Abdon  and  Jair,  as  we  may  infer  from  the 
number  of  their  children1.  More  singular,  as  in  a  private 
household,  would  be  the  case  of  Elkanah,  father  of  .Samuel, 
who  had  two  equal  wives,  Hannah  and  Peninnah ;  only  that 
the  long  barrenness  of  Hannah  is  probably  the  explanation. 
But  with  royalty,  wives  rapidly  multiplied.  The  first  king 
had  one  concubine;  the  next  had  at  least  eight  wives;  the 
third  700  wives  and  300  concubines  (as  the  numbers  in  the 
book  stand) ;  the  fourth  had  eighty  sons.  As  under  the  mon- 
archy the  practice  was  fixed  and  could  no  longer  be  got  rid 
of,  the  national  law  would  then  at  least  be  forced  to  sanction 
and  would  seek  to  regulate  it,  though  often  in  vain  as  regards 
the  sovereigns.  The  miserable  results  of  it  will  appear  in  the 
history. 

The  nations  bordering  on  Israel  must  now  be  concisely 
noticed.  Egypt  was  widely  separated  by  the  desart,  and  until 
the  time  of  Solomon  had  no  dealings  at  all  with  them.  On 
the  south-west  but  within  the  frontier  lay  the  Philistines,  con- 
cerning whose  power  and  hostility  more  particular  details 
will  be  presently  needed.  On  the  south  of  Judah  dwelt  or 
roamed  various  tribes  of  the  Amalekites.  Although  this  was 
their  more  peculiar  district,  it  may  be  suspected  that  the  name, 
like  that  of  Midianites  and  Ishmaelites,  was  often  used  im- 
properly of  any  people  of  the  desart  dwelling  in  tents.  Such 
neighbours  are  of  all  others  most  vexatious  to  agriculturists ; 
and  the  Amalekites  were  viewed  by  the  tribes  of  Israel  with 
an  abhorrence  felt  towards  none  of  the  "  seven  nations"  of 
Canaan.  Immediately  to  the  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  the 
territory  of  Edom  (Idumcea)  began,  and  ran  along  a  remark- 
able mountain  valley  called  Mount  Seir  (Sherd) ,  till  it  reached 
the  gulf  of  Akaba,  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Red  Sea.  The 
Edomites  appear  always  to  have  maintained  peaceful  relations 
with  the  Hebrews,  until  assailed  by  the  kings  of  Israel.  Their 
territory  is  admirably  defended  by  nature,  has  parts  of  mode- 
rate fertility,  and  is  not  without  commercial  advantages. 

1  Some  may  hesitate  to  build  upon  the  concise  notice  of  these  judges :  the 
thirty  sons  of  the  variously  celebrated  Jair  appear  such  a  natural  appendage 
to  the  cities  won  by  the  father,  as  to  make  historical  conclusions  exceedingly 
doubtful. 


THE    NEIGHBOURING    NATIONS.  19 

East  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  as  far  north  as  the  river  Arnon, 
the  Moabite  people  lived,  whose  wealth  was  in  flocks1.  For- 
merly their  limits  had  extended  much  farther  to  the  north ;  so 
that  the  "  Plains  of  Moab,"  so  called,  lie  opposite  to  the  plains 
of  Jericho,  on  the  lower  Jordan.  But  Sihon  king  of  Heshbon 
drove  them  back  to  the  Arnon ;  and  when  he  was  himself  de- 
feated by  Israel,  this  portion  of  Moabite  territory  passed  over 
to  the  Reubenites.  Once  only  were  the  Moabites  in  conflict 
with  Israel,  under  their  king  Eglon,  who  was  assassinated  by 
Ehud :  at  all  other  times  they  seem  to  have  been  friendly ; 
and  the  simple  tale  of  Ruth  the  Moabitess  exhibits  the  nation 
in  a  pleasing  light.  To  the  east  of  the  Gadites  lay  Rabbath 
Ammon,  the  chief  city  of  the  Ammonites ;  in  a  small  district, 
with  no  apparent  advantages  over  that  of  Moab :  but  as  the  Am- 
monites were  agricultural,  their  soil  was  probably  more  fertile. 
They  also  remembered  that  their  territory  had  once  extended 
to  the  Jordan2  (Josh.  xiii.  25) ,  and  though  Israel  had  taken  it 
from  Sihon,  not  from  them  (Judg.  xi.  13-26),  they  at  length 
recovered  it  by  war,  and  kept  it  eighteen  years ;  after  which, 
falling  then  into  conflict  with  Judah,  Benjamin  and  Ephraim 
(Judg.  x.  9),  they  brought  on  themselves  the  resentment  of  all 
Israel.  Jephthah  meanwhile  expelled  them  by  the  help  of  the 
eastern  tribes  alone,  and  incurred  the  anger  of  the  Ephraim- 
ites  for  acting  without  them.  This  is  the  only  recorded 
breach  of  peace  in  early  days  between  Ammon  and  Israel. 
North  of  the  Ammonites,  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  stretched 
its  pretensions  over  an  inordinately  large  district.  Its  neigh- 
bours east  of  Gilead  seemed  to  have  been  called  Hagarenes ; 
we  meet  also  the  names  of  Jetur,  Nephish,  Nodab.  But  the 
formidable  enemy  was  Damascus,  whose  pretensions  easily  in- 
terfered with  the  ambition  of  the  Manassites.  Maachath  also 
and  Geshur  appear  to  have  been  states  of  respectable  force, 
with  settled  institutions,  and  blocked  up  the  progress  of  Israel 
northward.  On  the  north-west  lay  Sidon  and  Tyre,  peaceful 
and  valuable  neighbours,  who  constantly  preserved  a  good 
understanding  with  Israel. 

Such  were,  on  the  whole,  the  character  and  the  relations  of 

1  2  Kings  iii.  4.     Contrast  2  Chron.  xxvii.  5. 

2  We  cannot  reconcile  the  claim  of  the  Ammonites  to  the  land  from  Arnon  to 
Jabbok  along  the  Jordan,  with  the  other  statement  about  the  Moabites,  except 
by  supposing  that  the  district  had  been  temporarily  possessed  by  both  Moabites 
and  Ammonites. 


20  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  land,  which  is  so  eloquently  described  as  a  land  of  brooks 
of  water,  of  fountains  and  depths  that  spring  out  of  valleys  and 
hills,  a  land  of  wheat  and  barley  and  vines  and  fig-trees  and 
pomegranates,  a  land  of  oil-olive  and  of  honey,  a  land  whose 
stones  are  iron,  and  out  of  whose  hills  one  may  dig  brass1.  Its 
wealth  however  was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  supersede 
human  industry,  as  the  vague  phrase  "  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey "  might  suggest :  it  needed,  as  much  as  any  other,  se- 
cure possession  and  firm  government,  to  prevent  a  large  part 
of  it  from  being  a  desart.  It  neither  possessed  great  naviga- 
ble rivers,  and  a  broad  extent  of  alluvial  soil  on  their  side,  as 
Egypt,  Mesopotamia,  India,  China,  and  all  the  countries  in 
which  civilization  gained  its  earliest  start ;  nor  had  it  a  well- 
indented  sea-coast,  numerous  ports  and  convenient  islands,  as 
Greece  and  the  Eastern  Archipelago, — countries  formed  to  ap- 
propriate and  transmit  whatever  of  material  or  mental  cul- 
tivation has  been  earned  in  wealthier  territories.  But  the 
land  of  Israel,  for  so  very  small  a  tract,  possessed  an  unusual 
self-sufficiency  for  all  physical  well-being.  On  the  eastern 
side,  its  natural  defences  were  very  imperfect  even  against 
rude  enemies ;  elsewhere  its  frontier  was  generally  good ;  and 
though  it  must  not  be  compared  to  mountain-fastnesses,  yet 
it  was  (better  than  most  equally  fertile  countries  of  like  ex- 
tent) suited  to  a  people  which  was  "  to  dwell  alone,  and  not 
be  reckoned  among  the  nations." 

1  Deut.  viii.  7,  etc. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ADMIKESTKATION  OF  SAMUEL  AND  EEIGN  OF  SAUL. 

IN  the  twelfth  century  before  Christ,  the  tribes  of  Israel  can 
be  dimly  discerned  as  occupying  the  districts  which  have  been 
above  described ;  and  although  by  no  means  animated  by  any 
deep  consciousness  of  unity,  yet  beginning  to  coalesce  into  a 
single  nation.  In  the  long  years  of  their  residence  in  Canaan, 
a  silent  revolution  had  taken  place  by  the  gradual  absorption 
of  the  Canaanite  population  into  the  name  and  sympathies 
of  Israel.  There  was  in  fact  so  little  to  separate  them,  that 
time  only  was  needed  to  ensure  the  result.  To  judge  by  the 
existing  records  and  laws,  the  concubinage  of  Israelitish 
warriors  with  conquered  Canaanite  maidens  must  have  been 
practised  on  an  enormous  scale.  The  mixed  race  inherited 
the  mothers'  tongue,  but  adopted  the  fathers'  ambition ;  and 
if  the  people  of  Moses  talked  Egyptian,  their  language  was 
obliterated  long  before  Canaan  was  all  conquered.  All  the 
races  alike  were  circumcised;  the  Hebrews  had  as  yet  no 
importunate  zeal  for  monotheism,  but  on  the  contrary  were 
perpetually  prone  to  adopt  the  superstitions  of  Canaanites, 
Moabites  or  Ammonites.  The  few  specimens  given  of  Hebrew 
proceedings  indicate  to  us  a  people  probably  more  ferocious 
and  energetic  than  the  townsmen  of  Canaan,  and,  we  may 
readily  believe,  free  from  those  vices  which  luxury  engenders ; 
but  not  superior  to  the  Canaanites  in  sensitiveness  of  con- 
science or  spirituality  of  heart.  It  has  been  already  suggested, 
that  the  inroads  of  roving  tribes  would  sensibly  tend  to  unite 
all  the  settled  inhabitants  of  the  country ;  and  it  may  be  ob- 
served, that  all  the  severer  struggles  between  Israel  and 
Canaan  seem  to  have  preceded  the  first  war  against  a  foreign 
enemy,  Chushan  Eishathaim ;  for  Jabin,  though  called  the 
King  of  "  Canaan,"  was  almost  beyond  the  northern  frontier. 
The  great  complaint  transmitted  to  us  by  the  more  zealous 
part  of  the  Hebrews  is,  that  their  people  were  too  friendly 
with  the  Canaanites,  after  the  first  excitement  of  the  invasion 


22  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

was  passed ;  and  since,  on  the  whole,  the  invaders  proved  the 
stronger,  their  name  and  institutions  at  length  swallowed  up 
all  others. 

One  small  nation  alone,  of  all  which  dwelt  on  the  land 
claimed  by  Israel,  permanently  refused  to  amalgamate  itself 
with  the  circumcised  peoples, — namely  the  uncircumcised 
Philistines.  They  occupied  the  lots  which  ought  to  have  been 
conquered  by  Dan  and  Simeon,  and  had  five  principal  cities, 
Gaza,  Askelon,  Ashdod,  Gath  and  Ekron,  of  which  the  three 
first  are  on  the  sea-coast.  Ashdod  and  Gaza  were  places  of 
great  strength,  capable  of  long  resisting  the  efforts  of  Egyp- 
tian and  Greek  warfare.  The  Philistines  cannot  have  been  a 
populous  nation,  but  they  were  far  more  advanced  in  the  arts 
of  peace  and  war  than  the  Hebrews.  Their  position  com- 
manded the  land-traffic  between  Egypt  and  Canaan,  and  gave 
them  access  to  the  sea ;  hence  perhaps  their  wealth  and  com- 
paratively advanced  civilization.  Some  learned  men  give 
credit  to  an  account  in  Sanchoniathon,  that  they  came  from 
Crete1,  whence  Tacitus  erroneously  stated  this  of  the  Jews ; 
and  that  the  name  Cherethites  retains  a  trace  of  this  origin. 
In  the  times  of  Nehemiah,  a  distinction  of  language  between 
Philistine  and  Jew  was  noted ;  but  this  may  have  been  no 
greater  than  between  Dorian  and  Ionian  Greek.  The  Philis- 
tines appear  to  have  been  intelligible  to  their  neighbours; 
and  as  the  Phoenicians,  like  them,  were  uncircumcised,  ob- 
vious probabilities  would  refer  them  to  the  same  stock  of 
population.  Some  of  their  towns  are  described  as  possessed 
by  the  Amorites  at  the  time  of  Joshua's  invasion ;  and  were 
not  the  Philistines2  alluded  to  as  an  impediment  to  the  Is- 
raelites marching  out  of  Egypt  by  the  coast  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, we  might  even  be  tempted  to  believe  that  they  were 
more  recent  occupants  of  the  country.  They  have  given  their 
name  to  the  whole  land  of  Canaan  under  the  form  of  Palaes- 
tina,  owing  to  the  accident  that  the  Greek  merchants  were 
familiar  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  sea-coast  long  before  they 
could  have  intercourse  with  the  interior ;  and  the  very  fact 
suggests  that  the  Philistines  would  in  early  times  be  familiar 
with  the  best  armour  and  weapons  of  war  which  the  coasts  of 
Asia  or  of  Greece  could  furnish.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the 

1  Winer,  PJiilister.     They  may  have  been  Cretan  Phoenician^. 

2  This  is  possibly  an  anachronism,  especially  since  when  Judah  conquered 
G-aza,  Askelon  and  Ekron  no  mention  was  made  of  Philistines. 


THE    PHILISTINES.  23 

Danites  and  Simeonites  who  came  to  subdue  them,  found  be- 
fore long  that  they  were  on  the  contrary  themselves  turned 
into  tributaries  and  vassals.  The  Philistines,  who  lived  in 
walled  towns,  permitted  the  vagrant  shepherds  to  pasture 
their  herds  and  flocks  in  the  open  country,  just  as  the  Egyp- 
tians had  done, — no  doubt  demanding  some  tithe  of  their 
cattle, — but  carefully  deprived  them  of  warlike  weapons  and 
of  all  use  of  iron.  In  the  Mosaic,  as  in  the  Homeric  times, 
(t  brass"  alone  was  used  in  the  manufacture  of  spears  and 
swords ;  the  metal  denoted  being  a  mixture  of  copper  and 
tin,  very  hard,  but  also  very  brittle.  When  working  in  iron 
and  steel  was  invented,  a  warlike  superiority  soon  rested  with 
the  people  which  exclusively  possessed  the  improved  weapons ; 
and  it  is  easy  to  believe  that  the  Philistines,  blocking  up 
access  to  the  sea  and  to  Egypt,  would  be  able  to  withhold 
iron  spears  and  swords  from  the  shepherd  tribes1.  A  similar 
prohibition  of  iron  was  laid  upon  the  Romans  by  Porsena, 
under  circumstances  in  which  enforcement  was  far  more  diffi- 
cult. From  this  thraldom  the  Israelites  were  delivered  by 
the  bravery  of  Shamgar,  son  of  Anath,  who,  at  the  head  of 
a  host  of  40,000  men,  without  shield  or  spear  (Judg.  v.  6-8), 
— if  we  rightly  interpret  an  ode  of  triumph, — contended 
successfully  against  the  armed  enemy.  A  national  tradition 
embalmed  his  exploit  under  the  mythical  form,  that  with  an 
ox-goad  he  had  alone  slain  600  Philistines  (Judg.  iii.  31) . 

Whatever  the  result  of  Shamgar' s  victories,  the  Philistines 
were  not  ejected  from  their  towns;  on  the  contrary,  they 
pressed  their  fortresses  forward, — probably  from  feeling  the 
ambition  and  strength  of  the  Hebrews, — and  possessed  them- 
selves of  Gezer,  a  strong  Amorite  town  on  the  frontier  of 
Ephraim  and  Dan.  How  soon  they  set  garrisons  in  Geba, 
on  the  northern  frontier  of  Benjamin,  and  in  Bethlehem  of 
Judah,  cannot  be  decided ;  but  all  such  garrisons  must  have 
been  strictly  defensive,  and  have  entailed  great  expense  on 
this  spirited  but  naturally  peaceful  people.  Their  uncircum- 
cision  was  intensely  resented  by  the  Hebrews,  whose  con- 
science in  these  days  is  not  ill  typified  by  that  of  their  tribual 
ancestors,  Simeon  and  Levi, — men  who  were  too  scrupulous 
to  form  affinity  with  an  uncircumcised  tribe,  though  they 

1  Reasons  will  afterwards  be  given  for  believing  that  the  statement  in  1  Sam. 
xiii.  19-22  really  belongs  to  the  days  of  Shamgar,  not  of  Saul.  Nor  is  it  to 
be  imagined  that  all  the  tribes  were  under  this  dominion. 


24  THE  HEBREW  MONARCHY. 

shrank  not  to  massacre  all  its  males  in  cold  blood,  because 
the  youthful  passion  of  its  chief  had  too  rapidly  precipitated 
the  course  of  honourable  love.  It  may  seem  remarkable,  that 
at  a  period  in  which  the  institutions  which  we  call  Mosaic  had 
so  little  force,  the  Israelites  should  have  been  bigoted  to  the 
single  ceremony  of  circumcision.  But  it  must  be  remembered, 
that  ' '  uncircumcision"  was  the  sarcasm  cast  by  the  Egyptians 
against  everything  unclean  (Josh.  v.  9), — a  reproach  which  the 
nation  from  its  very  birth  had  been  accustomed  to  dread. 
The  neglect  of  this  institution  needed  not  Levites  and  Priests 
to  punish  it,  for  the  very  Canaanites  of  the  interior  who  sur- 
rounded them  would  treat  the  uncircumcised  as  unclean.  In 
modern  Abyssinia,  equally  as  among  Mohammedans,  it  is  well 
known  that  intense  prejudice  exists  on  the  part  of  the  circum- 
cised against  marrying  with  uncircumcised  families ;  thus,  we 
may  believe,  small  as  the  matter  may  seem  in  itself,  an  effec- 
tual barrier  was  interposed  against  the  amalgamating  of  the 
Philistines  with  the  Hebrews. 

The  same  cause  kept  Israel  separate  from  the  Phoenicians 
on  the  north-west ;  but  this  people — whether  from  their  more 
exclusively  maritime  spirit,  or  because  their  continental  rights 
were  better  respected,  or  from  whatever  other  cause, — con- 
tinued on  excellent  terms  with  their  circumcised  neighbours. 
The  Philistines,  on  the  contrary,  with  the  growth  of  strength, 
spirit  and  unity  in  the  Hebrew  confederation,  appear  to  have 
become  more  inveterately  hostile.  Under  Eli  the  priest,  the 
twelve  tribes  began  to  coalesce  into  a  united  nation,  fearing  no 
Canaanite  enmity  from  within.  We  know  not  what  brought 
on  new  war  with  the  Philistines,  farther  than  the  constant 
claim  of  Israel  to  take  away  their  country  from  them :  a  severe 
defeat  however  was  suffered,  in  which  both  the  sons  of  Eli 
were  slain,  with  (it  is  said)  30,000  Israelites.  After  this,  the 
Philistines  may  have  increased  their  garrisons;  but  to  oc- 
cupy and  subdue  the  country  was  impossible  for  so  small  a 
people,  even  if  they  had  been  disposed ;  and  the  Hebrews  were 
only  panic-struck  and  crushed  for  the  time,  not  conquered. 
Meanwhile,  a  new  personage  had  come  forward  in  Israel,  des- 
tined to  impress  an  entirely  fresh  character  on  Hebrew  his- 
tory, and  practically  to  identify  the  earthly  greatness  of  the 
people  with  its  zeal  for  the  worship  of  a  single  unseen  and 
moral  God. 

SAMUEL  the  prophet  may  with  no  small  justice  be  called 


HEBREW    MONOTHEISM.  25 

a  second  Moses.  The  results  of  his  ministry  were  greater 
than  any  which  can  be  traced  to  Moses,  and  his  institutions 
far  more  permanent.  Reared  under  Eli  the  priest,  he  saw 
with  indignation  the  old  man's  sons  practise  Pagan  impuri- 
ties, and  display  insolent  greediness  towards  the  worshippers 
at  Shiloh ;  and  by  his  bold  remonstrances  and  denunciations 
first  became  known  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah.  His  fame  spread 
through  all  Israel ;  and  when  of  Eli's  family  none  remained 
but  infants  or  minors,  Samuel  naturally  stept  forward  into 
high  consideration.  A  singular  event  had  awakened  the 
Israelitish  people  to  unusual  sensitiveness.  In  the  great  de- 
feat recently  suffered,  the  ark  of  Jehovah  had  been  captured 
and  carried  away  by  the  Philistines ;  and  although  superstitious 
imaginations  soon  induced  them  to  restore  the  booty,  it  proved 
almost  as  unwelcome  to*  the  Hebrews  as  it  had  been  to  their 
enemies.  Fifty  thousand  and  seventy  men  of  Bethshemesh1, 
it  was  believed,  had  been  struck  with  death,  because  some  of 
them,  while  it  lodged  in  their  town,  had  looked  into  the  holy 
ark.  So  unlucky  a  deposit  was  gladly  left  with  the  first  city 
which  had  courage  to  accept  it,  and  for  many  years2  it  re- 
mained in  obscurity  at  Kirjathjearim,  instead  of  conferring 
sanctity  and  glory  on  Shiloh  or  Gibeon.  Perhaps  also  a  real 
pressure  of  the  Philistine  power  was  now  felt.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  the  Hebrews  were  heavily  taxed  to  keep  up  the 
garrisons,  and  that  symbols  of  their  vassalage  in  many  ways 
met  the  eyes.  The  more  pious  part  of  the  nation  were  struck 
with  humiliation  and  with  unusual  longings.  It  seemed  that 
for  their  sins  the  presence  of  Jehovah  was  withdrawn,  and  they 
eagerly  sought  counsel  of  Samuel  how  they  might  regain  the 
favour  of  their  offended  deity. 

With  the  spirit  which  ever  afterward  distinguished  tlie  He- 
brew prophets,  Samuel  broadly  announced  the  great  principle 
essential  to  all  acceptance  with  Jehovah  their  God ;  namely, 
to  put  away  the  worship  of  all  other  gods.  This  is  constantly 
denoted  by  the  phrase,  that  "  Jehovah  is  a  jealous  god  •/'  and 
out  of  it  arose  the  perpetual  metaphor  of  the  prophets,  in  which 
the  relation  of  God  to  his  people  is  compared  to  a  marriage, 
the  daughter  of  Israel  being  his  bride  or  wife,  and  he  a  jealous 

1  They  were  by  race  Canaanites.    Beth.  Shemesh  means,  "  house  of  the  Sun;" 
no  doubt  an  idolatrous  name. 

2  The  narrative  says  twenty ;  but  it  was  much  longer  before  its  final  removal 
by  David. 

C 


26  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

husband.  Thus  also  every  false  god  is  a  paramour,  and  the 
worship  of  them  is  adultery  or  fornication.  But  we  must  not 
confound  the  worshipping  before  symbols,  at  least  in  this  stage 
of  the  Hebrew  mind,  with  idolatry  in  the  offensive  sense.  Just 
as  it  has  been  for  ages  customary  in  Christendom  to  reverence 
a  crucifix  or  a  picture  with  adorations  alleged  not  to  be  ido- 
latrous, so  did  the  Hebrews  worship  Jehovah  himself  by  help 
of  images  in  human  form,  called  Teraphim ;  in  adoring  which 
they  believed  themselves  irreproachable.  The  seers  themselves 
appear  to  have  sanctioned  this ;  indeed,  even  at  a  later  time, 
a  startling  passage  in  the  only  extant  prophet  of  northern 
Israel  mentions  images  and  Teraphim  as  part  (it  would  seem) 
of  the  desirable  apparatus  of  a  religious  state  (Hosea  iii.  4,  5) . 
Fuller  experience  at  length,  or  clearer  insight,  showed  to  the 
leading  religious  authorities  in  Judaft,  that  idols  (that  is,  sen- 
sible images  or  symbols  of  the  Divinity)  must  be  totally  for- 
bidden, if  idolatry  is  to  be  extirpated.  But  the  zeal  of  the 
earlier  prophets  did  not  attack  statues  or  emblems,  as  such : 
they  were  satisfied  with  denouncing  all  honour  paid  to  a  fo- 
reign god,  and  with  securing,  that,  under  whatever  outward 
rites,  Jehovah  alone  should  be  the  professed  and  felt  object  of 
reverence. 

Ancient  Polytheism  was  always  tolerant  of  collateral  poly- 
theistic systems;  and  he  who  venerated  numerous  deities 
was  naturally  ready  to  believe  that  other  gods  existed,  un- 
known to  him,  yet  equally  deserving  of  worship.  The  pure 
monotheistic  faiths  on  the  contrary,  whether  of  Zoroaster, 
Moses  or  Mohammed,  have  been  all  marked  by  an  intolerance 
which  in  that  stage  of  the  world  could  not  be  separated  from 
the  interests  of  truth ;  and  on  this  cardinal  point  the  unity  of 
Israel  was  to  depend.  A  noble  and  pure  soul  looked  with 
disgust  on  the  foul  errors  entangled  with  Canaanitish  and 
Syrian  superstitions ;  and  in  maintaining  the  exclusive  honour 
of  the  national  God  of  Israel, — the  Lord  and  Creator  of  Hea- 
ven and  Earth, — was  guilty  of  no  such  mean-spirited  secta- 
rianism as  might  fairly  be  imputed  to  one  who  contended  for 
a  Neptune  against  an  Apollo,  an  Adonis  against  a  Neith. 
The  prophet  of  Jehovah  was  in  fact  striving  for  the  pure 
moral  attributes  of  God, — for  holiness  against  impurity, — 
majesty  and  goodness  against  caprice  or  cruelty, — for  a  God 
whose  powers  reached  to  the  utmost  limits  of  space  and  time, 
against  gods  whose  being  was  but  of  yesterday,  and  whose 


ADMINISTRATION    OP    SAMUEL.  27 

agencies  thwarted  one  another.  Nevertheless,  the  Hebrew 
creed  was  not  monotheistic,  in  the  sense  of  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  other  gods.  It  rather  degraded  them  into  devils,  and 
set  the  omnipotence  of  Jehovah  into  prond  contrast  with  their 
superhuman,  yet  limited  might,  than  exploded  them  as  utterly 
fabulous. 

How  Samuel  preached,  and  exhorted  and  warned  his  coun- 
trymen, no  writing  has  recorded;  but  those  who  have  read 
how  Scotland  and  Bohemia  were  worked  up  to  resist  Popish 
idolatry  and  foreign  tyranny,  may  well  imagine  the  union  of 
patriotic  and  monotheistic  zeal  with  which  the  Israelites 
burned  under  the  exhortations  of  Samuel.  Of  the  events 
which  followed  we  have  no  details;  but  we  learn  in  general, 
that  by  the  energetic  union  of  the  whole  people,  the  Philis- 
tines were  defeated  in  the  field,  and  national  freedom  pro- 
claimed. The  period  that  follows  is  called  the  administration 
of  Samuel,  who,  in  the  character  of  "  Judge,"  presided  over 
Israel,  principally  in  the  three  towns  of  Bethel,  Gilgal  and 
Mizpeh.  All  of  these  seem  to  have  been  in  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin, and  are  supposed  to  have  had  local  sanctuaries  in  early 
times.  Samuel  himself  was  of  B/amah  (B-amath  or  Arimathsea), 
where  he  continued  to  live,  not  far  from  Mizpeh.  His  father 
is  called  an  Ephrathite,  or  as  scholars  of  the  first  rank  have 
interpreted  the  word,  an  Ephraimite  (I  Sam.  i.  1) ;  but  as  he 
had  grown  up  from  childhood  under  the  care  and  patronage 
of  Eli,  his  parentage  can  have  had  little  to  do  with  his  autho- 
rity or  connexions.  It  may  be  conjectured,  that  his  original 
influence  had  been  most  deeply  rooted  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Bamah,  and  that  for  this  reason  it  was  expedient  to  hold 
his  courts  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Mizpeh,  as  nearest  to 
his  home,  and  as  the  place  to  which  all  Israel  had  assembled 
when  first  he  called  them  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  to 
liberty,  was  the  most  natural  centre  of  his  administration; 
but  for  the  sake  of  speedy  communication  with  the  tribes 
beyond  the  Jordan,  he  came  to  meet  them  so  far  as  Gilgal, 
on  the  low  plain  of  Jericho,  where  twelve  stones  typified  the 
union  of  the  twelve  tribes;  while,  to  please  perhaps  the 
powerful  and  jealous  Ephraimites,  he  visited  them  at  Bethel, 
which  was  on  their  very  border,  if  indeed  it  was  not  at  that 
time  considered  to  be  their  possession.  To  a  people  recently 
emerged  from  foreign  vassalage,  and  among  whom  great  un- 
certainty of  property  and  of  law  must  have  existed,  an  upright 

c  2 


28  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

and  patriotic  judge  was  of  high  political  importance :  but  in 
Samuel's  case  the  decisions  of  the  judge  derived  weight  from 
the  veneration  paid  to  the  prophet ;  and  in  turn  the  influence 
which  was  honourably  won  by  intelligent,  disinterested  and 
laborious  judicial  activity,  redounded  to  the  honour  of  the 
doctrine,  that  Jehovah  exclusively  must  be  worshipped  by 
Israel.  Unlike  most  of  those  called  "Judges"  before  him, 
the  influence  of  Samuel  was  founded  on  moral  superiority  to 
his  countrymen,  and  was  confirmed,  not  by  warlike  exploits 
(although  he  had  encouraged  them  to  a  successful  war  of 
liberty),  but  by  a  steady  administration  of  civil  justice.  By 
him  accordingly  was  laid  the  foundation  of  Hebrew  nationality, 
as  it  actually  unfolded  itself,  and  of  that  Hebrew  prophecy,  to 
which  all  Christendom  owes  an  endless  debt.  To  him  in  fact 
is  justly  ascribed  the  establishment  of  the  "  schools  of  the  pro- 
phets," which  at  least  cannot  be  traced  back  to  an  earlier  sera. 

The  prophets  must  on  no  account  be  confounded  with  the 
"priests."  How  little  Samuel  affected  the  latter  character, 
is  manifest  from  the  chief-priesthood  remaining  with  the  fa- 
mily of  Eli,  whose  son  Phinehas  left  a  son  Ahitub.  That  Ahi- 
tub  enjoyed  the  highest  sacerdotal  honour  is  scarcely  ques- 
tionable, since  we  find  his  two  sons  Ahiah  and  Ahimelech  re- 
ferred to  familiarly  as  discharging  that  revered  office  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  3,  18,  and  xxii.  9) .  Priests  must  no  doubt  have  been  all 
but  coeval  with  the  existence  of  the  nation ;  and  at  this  time 
they  probably  lived  in  knots  at  particular  towns,  where  certain 
sacerdotal  families  happened  to  have  multiplied,  since  the 
character  of  the  priest  was  generally  hereditary.  His  busi- 
ness was  one  of  routine, — to  sacrifice,  or  to  burn  incense ;  to 
light  lamps,  to  offer  show-bread,  or  perform  some  other  of  the 
ceremonies  with  which  ancient  religion  abounded.  It  is  a 
striking  fact,  that  during  all  Samuel's  administration  no  one 
ventured  to  remove  the  ark  from  Kirjathjearim;  nor  do  the 
priests  seem  to  have  been  concerned  to  take  charge  of  it. 
But  "  the  men  of  Kirjathjearim  sanctified  Eleazar  son  of  Abi- 
nadab  to  keep  the  ark  of  Jehovah;"  and  under  the  care  of  the 
same  house  it  is  found  in  the  beginning  of  David's  reign  at 
Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  vi.  3).  This  however  is  but  one  out  of 
numerous  proofs  that  the  ceremonial  system  only  gradually 
grew  up,  and  was  as  yet  exceedingly  immature. 

Except  where  lands  had  been  attached  to  some  sanctuary, 
the  priest  must  have  lived  by  the  sacrifices  and  other  offerings, 


EARLY    HEBREW    PSALMODY.  29 

and  only  in  very  rare  cases  exercised,  or  sought  to  exercise, 
any  influence  which  can  be  called  spiritual.  But  no  man  be- 
came a  prophet  by  birth :  he  needed  some  call  for  the  office, 
with  exercise  and  teaching ;  nor  did  the  prophets  often  concern 
themselves  with  mere  ceremonies,  although  they  occasionally 
introduced  symbolic  actions  of  their  own,  suited  to  impress 
the  public  senses.  Their  characteristic  emblem  was  some 
musical  instrument,  and  their  highest  function  to  compose 
and  sing  solemn  psalms  of  religious  worship  or  instruction. 
Unlike  to  the  minstrel  of  the  Greeks,  who  devoted  his  powers 
to  natter  chieftains  and  amuse  the  crowd;  or  to  the  later  ly- 
rist, who  composed  laudatory  odes  for  pecuniary  recompense ; 
—more  like  in  some  respects  to  a  patriotic  Tyrtaeus,  or  to  a 
Welsh  bard ; — the  Hebrew  prophet  differed  essentially  in  this, 
that  his  first  and  great  aim  was  to  please  and  honour  Goo1, 
believing  that  from  obedience  to  Him  the  highest  good  of  man 
would  assuredly  follow.  In  the  extremely  difficult  problems 
presente'd  by  Hebrew  criticism,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  great 
doubt  how  many  of  the  psalms  still  extant  may  be  confidently 
assigned  to  the  sera  now  under  consideration ;  but  perhaps  we 
cannot  be  wrong  in  accepting  the  ninetieth  psalm  in  the 
Psalter  (the  heading  of  which  arbitrarily  assigns  it  to  Moses) 
as  a  specimen  of  composition  full  as  old  as  Samuel.  It  gives 
us  a  good  sample  of  the  depth  and  purity  of  religious  feeling 
at  work  among  the  prophets,  which  imparts  to  their  psalms  a 
majesty  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  no  small  portion  of  poeti- 
cal beauty. 

1.  Lord,  thou  hast  been  our  refuge  in  every  generation. 
Ere  ever  the  mountains  were  born, 

Ere  thou  hadst  rounded  the  earth  and  world, 
From  ages  to  ages  thou  art  God. 

2.  Thou  turnest  mortals  to  the  dust ; 

Again,  thou  callest  back  the  children  of  Adam. 

For  a  thousand  years,  in  thy  sight, 

Are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  vanishes, 

And  as  a  watch  in  the  night. 

Thou  sweepest  them  away,  and  they  are  as  a  dream, 

Or  as  the  grass  in  the  morning,  which  grows  afresh2. 

1  The  '  British  Quarterly'  (vol.  viii.  p.  44)  quotes  this  sentence,  as  testimony 
that  exculpates  Jeremiah  from  censures  passed  below !     I  nevertheless  cannot 
persuade  myself  to  change  a  word  on  that  account. 

2  We  have  here  followed  Winer's  Simonis  and  our  current  English  Yersion,  in 
preference  to  De  Wette  and  Ewald. 


30  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

In  the  morning  it  flourishes  and  grows  afresh, 
In  the  evening  it  fades  and  withers. 

3.  For  we  are  consumed  by  thy  anger, 
And  by  thy  wrath  we  are  afflicted. 
Thou  hast  set  our  sins  before  thy  eyes, 

And  all  our  secrets  in  the  light  of  thy  countenance. 

In  thy  displeasure  all  our  days  vanish, 

And,  swift  as  thought,  we  bring  our  years  to  nothing. 

4.  Our  days  of  life  are  seventy  years, 

Or  by  reason  of  strength,  eighty  years : 
Yet  is  their  pride  but  labour  and  sorrow ; 
It  hastens  over,  and  we  fly  away. 
Who  knoweth  the  might  of  thy  anger  ? 
As  are  thy  terrors,  such  is  thy  displeasure. 
Our  days  therefore  teach  us  to  number, 
That  we  may  attain  a  wise  heart. 

5.  Return,  O  Jehovah !  how  long  first  ? 
And  take  pity  on  thy  servants. 
Early  with  thy  mercy  satisfy  us, 

That  all  our  life  we  may  joy  and  be  glad. 

Gladden  us  as  many  days  as  thou  hast  bowed  us  down, 

As  many  years  as  we  have  seen  adversity. 

Show  to  thy  servants  thy  deeds, 

And  to  their  children  thy  glory ! 

And  let  the  grace  of  Jehovah  our  Gk>d  be  upon  us, 

And  the  work  of  our  hands,  establish  thou  it, 

The  work  of  our  hands,  establish  thou  it. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  poetry  of  that  day 
was  confined  to  these  solemn  and  contemplative  subjects. 
Israel  lived  in  the  midst  of  poetical  nations,  and  from  the  ear- 
liest times  must  have  been  accustomed  to  hear  from  Canaan- 
ites  and  Amorites  songs  of  no  mean  beauty,  well-fitted  to 
cultivate  several  species  of  composition.  Israelitish  war-songs 
arose  at  a  very  early  period.  As  one  very  ancient  specimen, 
we  may  here  produce  the  song  of  triumph  which  celebrated 
the  conquest  of  the  plains  of  Moab  by  Israel  from  Sihon,  king 
of  Heshbon,  who  had  himself  taken  them  from  the  Moabites 
(Num.  xxi.  27). 

1.  Come  into  Heshbon ! 

Built  and  fortified  be  Sihon's  city ! 
For  out  of  Heshbon  a  fire  is  gone, 
A  flame  out  of  Sihon's  city, 


EXTERIOR    MARKS    OF    THE    PROPHET.  31 

Which  has  devoured  Ar  of  Moab, 

And  the  dwellers  of  the  heights  of  Arnon. 

2.  Woe  to  thee,  Moab ! 

Thou  art  undone,  people  of  Chemosh ! 
He1  has  made  his  sons  to  be  runaways, 
And  his  daughters  captives  to  the  Amorite  king,  Sihon. 

3.  We  have  shot  at  them ! 

Heshbon  is  perished,  even  unto  Dibon. 

We  have  laid  them  waste  even  unto  Nophah ; 

There  is  fire  as  far  as  Medeba. 

The  satirical  congratulation  of  Sihon  and  pity  over  Moab 
give  a  grand  irony  to  the  short  and  energetic  conclusion, 
which  in  its  very  abruptness  characterizes  the  unarf ificial  and 
primitive  style. 

Nevertheless,  the  Hebrew  prophets  were  not  free  from  va- 
rious tinges  of  fanaticism,  which  generated  also  affectation. 
That  they  often  worked  themselves  into  a  religious  frenzy  (as 
in  the  wild  Asiatic  ceremonies  which  the  Greeks  called  Orgies,) 
may  be  inferred  from  the  same  verb  in  Hebrew2  meaning  "  to 
prophesy"  and  "  to  be  mad."  The  extravagance  ascribed  to 
Saul,  that  in  prophesying  he  stripped  off  his  clothes  before 
Samuel,  and  lay  down  bare  of  raiment  all  day  and  all  night, 
—whatever  doubt  may  rest  on  the  narrative  from  its  being  a 
duplicate  of  a  similar  story, — must  have  been  borrowed  from 
the  manners  of  the  age,  and  is  mentioned  without  surprize  or 
censure.  Even  later  prophets  are  recorded  to  have  walked 
naked3  and  barefoot,  or  to  have  lain  upon  one  side  sometimes 
for  years,  like  the  religious  madmen  of  the  East ;  and  some 

1  He, — the  god  Chemosh. 

2  So  Plato  derives  [navris  fa  diviner)  from  /icuj/etrflai  (to  be  mad). 

3  I  have  been  censured  for  using  the  word  naked.      I  am  told  it  means, 
"  without  one's  jacket,"  as  John  xxi.  7.      I  have  but  innocently  followed  the 
received  English  version,  and  do  not  pretend  to  know  exactly  what  it  means, 
except  that  to  the  Hebrews  themselves  it  appeared  unseemly  and  more  than 
undignified.      My   immediate  allusion  was  to  Isaiah  xx.  2-4,  where  it  says  : 
"Loose  the  sackcloth  from  off  thy  loins,"  (which,  I  confess,  suggests  to  me 
nakedness  of  the  most  shameful  kind,)   and  adds  :   "  naked  and  barefoot,  with 
buttocks  uncovered,  to  the  shame  of  Egypt"     So  in  2  Sam.  vi.  20,  Michal  re- 
monstrating with  David  on  his  religious  dancing,  complains  that  he  "  uncovered 
himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  handmaids,  as  one  of  the  vain  fellows  shamelessly 
uncovereth  himself."     I  do  not  know  how  these  expressions  affect  other  minds. 
To  me  it  is  truly  hard  to  imagine,  that  they  imply  no  more  than  stripping  the 
upper  part  of  the  body  as  a  workman  to  relieve  heat. 


32  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

proceedings  yet  more  ambiguous  are  ascribed  to  them1.  The 
habit  of  wearing  a  single  coarse  garment  originally  perhaps 
arose  from  real  indigence ;  but  it  gradually  grew  into  an  affec- 
tation, like  the  austere  dress  of  monks  and  friars ;  and  in  the 
later  times  of  the  monarchy,  men  who  are  stigmatized  as  "false 
prophets"  are  accused  of  assuming,  for  unworthy  ends,  the 
sanctified  exterior  of  poverty.  In  fact,  even  concerning  those 
who  are  regarded  as  true  prophets,  we  hear  occasionally  of 
fanatical  acts,  which  are  not  without  analogy  to  the  practice 
of  the  priests  of  Baal,  who  cut  themselves  with  knives  to  assist 
in  prophesying.  For  instance  (1  Kings  xx.  35,  etc.),  a  pro- 
phet orders  a  man  to  wound  him,  and  pronounces  a  solemn 
curse  on  him  because  he  refuses ;  and  having  induced  another 
to  obey,  goes  thus  wounded  to  address  the  king  of  Israel.  It 
might  even  seem  (from  Zech.  xiii.  4-6)  that  wounds  inflicted 
on  the  hands  were,  equally  with  the  rough  garment,  an  ordi- 
nary emblem  of  the  prophet. 

So  strong  was  the  tendency  of  the  vulgar  to  seek  to  pro- 
phets rather  for  a  knowledge  of  the  future,  than  for  religious 
instruction,  that  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  get  rid  of  Divina- 
tion in  all  its  forms ;  which  nevertheless  the  prophets  endea- 
voured to  reduce  to  those  few  which  had  most  moral  dignity. 
Against  the  various  modes  of  enchantment  and  necromancy, 
to  which  the  neighbouring  religions  were  addicted,  they  pro- 
tested vehemently,  as  against  a  concealed  idolatry.  To  con- 
sult the  spirit  of  a  dead  man,  or  to  watch  the  flight  of  birds, 
was  at  best  to  seek  to  the  creature  instead  of  the  Creator ;  and 
led  to  an  indiscriminate  adoption  of  other  foreign  supersti- 
tions. But  they  did  not  treat  with  the  same  severity  all  desire 
to  penetrate  into  the  secrets  of  futurity,  provided  that  the 
Being  consulted  was  none  but  Jehovah  himself.  We  hear  of 
four  principal  modes  in  which  Jehovah  was  supposed  to  give 
responses  (1  Sam.  x.  20;  xxviii.  6) — by  dreams,  by  Urim,  by 
lot,  and  by  prophecy.  (1 .)  It  has  always  been  a  specious  and 
favourite  idea  that  the  human  soul,  during  sleep,  passes  into 
closer  contact  with  the  world  of  spirits,  and  is  better  fitted, 
than  in  waking  hours,  for  receiving  divine  communications. 

1  Many  commentators  have  wished  to  explain  such  deeds  as  done  only  in  vi- 
sion, but  their  sole  argument  seems  to  be,  that  we  ought  not  to  believe  anything 
so  outrageous  of  those  holy  men  as  the  literal  interpretation  states.  Yet  this 
appears  to  be  hardly  an  adequate  ground  for  rejecting  a  plain  assertion,  which 
does  not  in  itself  suggest  that  the  transactions  are  visionary. 


MODES    OF    DIVINATION.  33 

Nice,  distinctions  indeed  were  drawn  between  dreams  and 
visions  by  most  early  nations,  but  it  is  manifest  that  they  can 
have  had  no  very  trustworthy  criterion  for  judging  to  which 
of  the  two  classes  a  particular  appearance  belonged.  The 
learned  Jews  in  later  times  have  with  one  voice  declared,  that 
the  highest  species  of  prophecy  was  that,  in  which  the  divine 
spirit  influenced  the  soul  without  throwing  it  into  sleep  or 
impairing  its  natural  energies :  nevertheless,  visions  seen  in 
sleep  were  always  recognized  as  one  undoubted  mode  in  which 
Jehovah  made  known  his  will  and  laid  open  the  future ;  and 
though  it  is  probable  that  divine  dreams  were  not  regarded 
as  confined  to  prophets,  yet  none  were  so  eminent  in  this  sort 
of  revelation  as  they.  (2.)  Urim  and  Thummim  was  the  name 
of  a  peculiar  breastplate  of  precious  stones  worn  by  the  High 
Priest,  and  employed  by  him  to  ask  counsel  of  Jehovah.  The 
imperfect  explanation  given  of  this  apparatus  in  the  Hebrew 
books,  is  in  part  cleared  up  by  a  collateral  ornament  employed 
by  the  Egyptians.  We  know  from  Diodorus  (i.  48,  75)  that 
the  Chief  Judge  of  Egypt  carried  on  his  breast  an  image 
symbolic  of  TRUTH,  with  its  eyes  shut1,  formed  of  precious 
stones,  and  hung  from  his  neck  by  a  golden  chain.  The  stones 
are  said  by  ^Elian2  to  be  of  sapphire.  As  the  words  Urim 
and  Thummim  are  rendered  by  the  Alexandrian  translators 
Ar)\w(i^  KOI  *A\rj6eia,  Manifestation  and  Truth,  and  indeed 
the  Egyptian  word  is  Thmei  (Greek  ©e/u?,  the  Goddess  of 
Truth  and  Justice,),  we  cannot  overlook  the  similarity.  Ac- 
cording to  the  learned  Alexandrian  Jew  Philo,  the  sacred 
breastplate  of  the  Hebrews  contained  "  images  of  the  two 
virtues  (or  powers)";  which  he  is  likely  to  have  inferred  in 
part  from  Egptian  analogies :  but  how  it  was  used  to  obtain 
omens,  we  are  wholly  ignorant.  Two  things  may  be  alleged 
concerning  this  method.  First,  that  the  prophets  felt  no  jea- 
lousy whatever  against  it,  as  in  the  slightest  degree  compro- 
mising the  honour  of  Jehovah,  who  was  professionally  con- 
sulted by  it.  Secondly,  that  it  cannot  have  been  free  from  a 
large  admixture  of  that,  which  we  (surveying  it  from  a  higher 
point  of  view)  are  forced  to  regard  as  Superstition.  The  priest, 

1  See  Gen.  xli.  42.     This  appears  to  be  the  original  of  Justice  with  her  eyes 
bandaged ;  but  the  Hebrew  conception  may  rather  be,  that  the  priest  saw  more 
distinctly  with  the  inward  eye,  when  his  bodily  eye  was  closed.  (Compare  Num. 
xxiv.  4.) 

2  Schweighaeuser  in  loco  Diodori. 

c  3 


34  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

when  seeking  for  an  oracle,,  first  put  on  the  sacred  tippet,  called 
the  Ephod ;  then,  looked  to  the  twelve  precious  stones  which 
he  wore  on  his  breast ;  and  according  to  Josephus,  found  in 
the  brilliancy  of  some  of  them  an  intelligible  omen.  (3.)  The 
lot  is  recorded  to  have  been  used  on  many  solemn  occasions  ; 
and,  down  to  the  latest  times  of  the  existence  of  Israel,  it  was 
firmly  believed  that  God  made  replies  by  means  of  it.  (4.)  Fi- 
nally, the  people  resorted  to  the  prophet,  not  merely  as  a  moral 
teacher,  but  as  a  soothsayer,  who  would  tell  them  of  goods 
lost  or  stolen,  and  other  convenient  matters;  and  from  this 
lower  point  of  view  (as  it  would  seem)  they  called  him  a  seer 
rather  than  a  prophet1.  In  the  times  preceding  Samuel  the 
prophetical  spirit  had  put  forth  so  little  influence  on  the  nation, 
that  the  prevailing  tendency  with  the  ignorant  was  to  view 
Samuel  himself  as  only  a  seer ;  and  whatever  degree  of  his- 
torical weight  we  attach  to  the  events  connected  with  Sau?s 
looking  after  the  asses  of  Kish,  it  is  clear  that  the  story  could 
not  have  originated,  if  it  had  not  been  a  familiar  belief  that 
the  seers  were  useful  persons  to  consult  on  such  affairs.  From 
this  time  forth  however  they  were  gradually  to  assume  a  higher 
national  importance.  Their  advice  was  asked  on  topics  of 
great  public  moment,  nor  did  they  refuse  it ;  but  their  mode 
of  seeking  for  a  divine  reply  was  not  ceremonial  or  supersti- 
tious, however  tinged  with  a  high  enthusiasm.  The  prophet 
either  played  on  the  lyre  himself  or  (to  judge  by  one  distinct 
example)  called  for  a  minstrel  to  do  so,  and  wrapt  himself  in 
pious  meditation  on  the  subject  of  inquiry;  until,  gaining  an 
insight  into  its  moral  bearings  and  kindled  by  the  melody,  he 
delivered  a  response  in  high-wrought  and  generally  poetical 
strain. 

Such  is  the  best  general  idea  which  we  can  get  of  the  posi- 
tion and  agency  of  those  prophets,  who  from  Samuel  down- 
wards imparted  to  the  history  of  Israel  nearly  all  its  peculiarity 
and  all  its  value.  Samuel  himself  indeed  is  more  prominent 
in  the  history  as  Judge ;  but  in  this  character  his  influence, 
however  beneficial,  was  only  temporary :  he  could  not  imbue 
his  successors  with  his  own  spirit.  In  fact,  whether  through 
a  natural  but  unwise  fatherly  partiality,  or  from  a  real  diffi- 
culty in  continuing  the  government  by  any  other  than  the 

1  Yet  a  seer  is  a  man  who  has  visions,  like  Ezekiel :  thus  in  contrast  to  Nathan 
the  prophet  we  have  G-ad  the  seer  and  Iddo  the  seer  (who  saw  visions  against 
Jeroboam),  2  Chron.  ix.  29, 


FOREIGN    DANGERS    OF    ISRAEL.  35 

hereditary  principle,  Samuel  put  forward  his  own  sons  Joel 
and  Abijah  as  his  successors  in  the  judicial  office.  That  they 
were  in  name  his  assistants  only,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
seat  of  their  tribunal.  It  was  the  town  of  Beersheba,  on  the 
southern  frontier,  which  could  never  have  been  chosen  as  the 
chief  place  of  administration.  Nevertheless,  their  want  of 
principle  soon  produced  disastrous  effects  which  were  felt  to 
the  extreme  north.  Vexed  perhaps  to  observe  how  long  a 
life  of  service  their  father  had  given  to  his  nation,  without 
being  able  to  bequeath  to  his  family  any  monuments  of  mate- 
rial greatness,  they  rushed  into  a  headlong  career  of  bribery 
and  perverse  judgment.  Fresh  sufferings,  which  happened  to 
be  simultaneous,  if  indeed  not  a  result  of  their  misconduct, 
gave  edge  to  the  national  resentment.  Public  enemies  became 
once  more  formidable,  and  a  new  war  of  resistance  seemed  to 
be  necessary. 

It  is  difficult  from  our  existing  materials  to  extract  a  dis- 
tinct and  congruous  narrative  of  these  transactions.  If  it  be 
true  that  when  Saul  commenced  his  reign,  the  Israelites  had 
been  forbidden  by  the  Philistines  to  work  at  the  smith's  trade, 
it  is  manifest  that  they  were  under  a  severe  bondage  to  them ; 
and  the  statement  (1  Sam.  xiii.  20)  that  "  all  the  Israelites 
went  down  to  the  Philistines  to  sharpen  every  man  his  share, 
his  coulter,  his  axe  and  his  mattock,"  implies  that  the  slavery 
was  of  some  duration.  Nevertheless  our  account  (vii.  13,  14) 
here  says  broadly,  that  the  Philistines  were  driven  out  from 
the  Israelitish  towns  which  they  possessed  in  the  south,  and 
had  no  power  over  Israel  "  all  the  days  of  Samuel."  More- 
over, all  the  transactions  which  follow,  prove  that  Israel  was 
now  in  possession  of  complete  internal  independence ; — as  will 
presently  be  more  fully  urged. 

It  is  however  possible  that  the  Philistines  were  making  pre- 
parations which  excited  alarm;  and  still  more  likely  that 
attack  was  foreseen  from  the  side  of  the  Ammonites.  During 
the  long  peace  which  had  been  enjoyed  under  Samuel,  the 
nation  had  been  coalescing  into  unity  and  strength :  the  re- 
pose had  been  exceedingly  important  to  it,  but  the  disuse  of 
martial  exertions  had  also  its  present  inconvenience.  Samuel 
himself  was  in  declining  years,  and  had  never  borne  any  mili- 
tary character.  The  nation  could  not  trust  his  sons  to  head 
them  in  a  new  and  dangerous  enterprize ;  and  the  discontent 
felt  against  their  malversation  now  assumed  a  practical  form. 


36  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

The  elders  of  Israel  headed  a  deputation  to  Samuel,  represent- 
ing their  grievances  in  plain  terms,  and  making  the  entirely 
new  demand,  that  he  would  appoint  over  them  a  King,  as  a 
military  leader  against  their  hostile  neighbours. 

The  demand  appears  to  have  been  equally  unforeseen  and 
unacceptable  to  Samuel,  whose  favourite  idea  had  been,  that 
Israel,  resting  under  the  protection  of  Jehovah  and  guided  by 
his  prophets,  would  not  need  to  be  governed  like  the  heathen, 
and  would  be  able  to  escape  the  evils  of  military  rule.  If 
Samuel  in  his  own  administration  had  discovered  anything  of 
the  pride,  the  covetousness  and  the  domineering  spirit  of  a 
hierarch,  or  if  he  had  invested  an  organized  priesthood  with 
supreme  power,  there  might  be  room  for  the  imputations 
which  some  modern  writers  have  cast  upon  him.  But,  ac- 
cording to  the  statements  transmitted  to  us  (none  of  which 
appear  in  any  way  unlikely),  there  is  no  ground  for  impeach- 
ing the  simplicity  of  his  conduct.  Nor  need  we  suppose  that 
he  undervalued  national  independence :  for  if  the  independ- 
ence of  Israel  was  to  turn  on  their  unity,  and  their  unity  on 
the  exclusive  worship  of  Jehovah,  the  advantage  of  a  king, 
whose  more  imperious  sway  might  force  them  to  gather  for 
battle,  would  be  dearly  bought,  should  he  happen  to  be  lax  in 
religious  principle.  Moreover,  without  assuming  that  Samuel 
actually  spoke  in  detail  the  speech  assigned  to  him  (1  Sam. 
viii.  11-18), — which  may  seem  to  have  gained  edge  from  the 
experience  of  a  somewhat  later  age,  we  know  that  he  must 
have  heard  of  Jephthah  and  Samson,  to  say  nothing  of  Abime- 
lech,  the  son  of  Gideon1,  whose  characters  might  well  make 
him  adverse  to  elevate  mere  strength  and  military  prowess 
into  supreme  authority.  After  a  useless  resistance  to  the 
national  cry,  he  was  at  length  convinced  that  the  tide  ran  too 
strong  for  him  to  oppose ;  and  (according  to  the  later  narra- 
tive) he  then  at  last  received  a  positive  and  direct  instruction 
from  Jehovah,  not  only  to  comply  with  the  general  desire,  but 

1  Samson's  career  is  too  overclouded  with  mystery  to  comment  on ;  he  is 
represented  as  a  hero  of  invincible  strength,  but  without  the  slightest  claim  to 
any  moral  and  intellectual  superiority.  Jephthah  was  a  leader  of  freebooters, 
who  engaged  in  civil  war  with  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  and  perpetrated  on  them  a 
dreadful  massacre  in  cold  blood  ;  who  also,  in  pursuance  of  a  heathenish  vow, 
offered  up  his  own  daughter  as  a  sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  Under  Gideon,  the  Is- 
raelitish  nation  presented  something  of  the  appearance  of  Oriental  monarchy. 
Gideon  had  a  large  seraglio  of  wives  and  seventy-one  sons ;  of  whom  one, 
Abimelech,  slew  sixty-nine  of  his  brothers,  and  made  himself  king  for  three 
years,  when  he  was  slain  in  an  insurrection. 


APPOINTMENT    OF    SAUL.  37 

also  as  to  the  individual  whom  he  was  to  invest  with  the 
kingly  office, — SAUL,  the  son  of  Kish.  He  ordered  a  series 
of  lots  to  be  cast  among  the  people ;  whereupon  the  lot,  mira- 
culously guided,  picked  out  Saul  from  the  myriads  of  Israel 
to  be  their  King. 

That  there  is  some  great  error  in  the  still  current  belief  of 
this  transaction,  is  clear  from  its  being  impossible  to  harmo- 
nize the  beginning  and  end  of  the  narrative.     The  event  shows 
that  the  choice  had  fallen  on  a  wrong  person,  and  that  Saul 
was  anything  but  the  man  whom   God  approved.     Yet  his 
whole  character  must  have  been  seen  from  the  beginning  by 
the  Allwise  Ruler  of  Israel,  with  whom  it  is  not  conceivable 
that  the  election  of  so  unfit  a  king  can  have  originated.     It 
becomes  therefore  highly  doubtful  whether  Samuel,  any  more 
than  Jehovah,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  chargeable  with  this 
erroneous  choice.     The  general  course  of  the  history  leads 
strongly  to  an  opposite  view,  viz.  that  Saul  was  forced  upon 
Samuel' by  public  enthusiasm,  seconding  the  opinion  of  the 
elders  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.     That  tribe  had  probably  of 
late  been  gaining  an  unusual  influence  in  all  national  move- 
ments, owing  to  the  fact  that  the  three  towns  in  which  Samuel 
conducted  public  affairs  all   belonged  to  Benjamin;    which 
would  give  to  their  elders  a  superior  organization  and  great 
facilities  of  communication  with  all  Israel.     That  they  should 
be  disposed  to  bring  forward  as  king  a  man  of  their  own  tribe, 
was  natural ;  and  that  they  should  select  him  for  his  bodily 
size  and  beauty,  rose  almost  necessarily  out  of  the  circum- 
stances.    In  those  days  the  king  was  the  leader  in  war,  and, 
as  such,  was  expected  to  excel  in  personal  strength,  agility, 
and  boldness.    That  battles  were  decided  by  individual  prowess, 
is  evident  in  the  accounts  of  David's  heroes,  and  cannot  have 
been  less  true  a  generation  earlier.      A  king  was   wanted, 
whose  very  presence  would  kindle  the  warlike  enthusiasm  of 
the  nation :    yet  as  Israel  had  for  some  time  been  without 
armies  and  without  heroes,  there  was  no  old  and  celebrated 
warrior  on  whom  it  would  be  natural  to  fix.     They  selected 
therefore  a  young  man  of  remarkable  beauty  and  stature, — a 
whole  head  taller  than  the  common  size  of  men.     Saul,  the 
son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  had  hitherto  known  no 
loftier   occupation  that  that    of  superintending   his   father's 
estate.     This  however  was  an  office  in  high  esteem ;    and  no 
sooner  was  he  displayed  to  the  collected  multitudes,  than  his 


38  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

noble  personal  appearance  satisfied  all  of  his  fitness  for  the 
royal  duties.  However  little  convinced  by  this  argument 
Samuel  may  have  been,  and  however  painful  his  misgivings, 
it  would  have  been  the  height  of 'imprudence  to  bring  forward 
a  rival  candidate.  He  probably  tried  to  hope  for  the  best, 
smothered  his  own  doubts,  and  finally  presented  the  new  king 
for  the  people's  acceptance  in  the  most  honourable  manner, 
enforcing  his  claims  by  the  only1  argument  which  the  case 
allowed. 

The  first  meeting  on  this  subject  between  Samuel  and  the 
elders  of  Israel  was  at  Ramah  (or  Arimathsea),  where  was 
Samuel's  own  house :  the  second,  at  which  he  presented  Saul 
to  the  great  assembly  as  king,  was  gathered  at  Mizpeh.  Sa- 
muel however  was  careful  to  counteract  the  opinion,  that  the 
new  king  was  to  possess  unlimited  authority.  He  publicly 
expounded  to  the  people  the  royal  rights  and  privileges ;  and 
not  satisfied  with  this,  committed  the  same  to  writing,  and 
laid  up  the  manuscript  "  before  Jehovah :"  by  which  we  are 
probably  to  understand,  that  he  committed  it  as  a  sacred  de- 
posit to  the  custody  of  some  leading  priest.  It  is  not  probable 
that  writing  or  even  reading  was  at  this  time  a  common  ac- 
complishment ;  but  there  is  no  ground  for  questioning,  that 
there  was  already  sufficient  knowledge  among  the  more  edu- 
cated few  to  make  this  act  important  to  men's  feelings.  Thus 
Saul,  the  first  Hebrew  monarch,  commenced  his  reign  as  a 
constitutional  king,  freely  chosen  by  the  nation,  sanctioned 
by  the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  and  responsible  to  the  animad- 
versions of  both  prophet  and  priest,  if  he  transgressed  the 
limits  assigned  him. 

In  pursuing  his  reign  into  its  details,  although  our  mate- 
rials are  multiplied,  the  difficulty  of  using  them  is  great,  owing 
to  their  fragmentary  character.  Some  of  the  documents  appear 
to  be  duplicates  of  others,  representing  events  in  substance  the 
same,  but  with  variations  sufficiently  notable ;  others  involve 
incongruities  which  cannot  always  be  removed  by  help  of  trans- 
position. In  short,  we  are  by  no  means  as  yet  in  the  region 
of  contemporary  and  clear  history. 

1  That  is,  by  the  argument  of  Ms  nolle  personal  appearance  (1  Sam.  x.  24). 
The  'North  British  Review'  informs  its  readers  that  I  represent  Samuel  as 
having  pretended  a  divine  commission  for  the  anointing  of  Saul  (No.  35,  p.  151). 
This  is  simply  false ;  but  the  Editor  refused  to  publish  my  disavowal  of  this 
and  other  imputations. 


ROMANTIC    PHILISTINE    CAMPAIGN.  39 

On  the  very  face  of  the  narrative  as  above  given,  a  question 
obtrudes  itself: — Why  does  an  air  of  independence  pervade  the 
whole  transaction  of  choosing  a  king;  without  a  single  fear 
implied,  that  armed  Philistines  would  come  down  and  break 
up  the  unarmed  assembly  ?  If  their  dominion  was  at  this 
time  so  overwhelming,  as  to  be  able  to  enforce  the  rigorous 
prohibition  of  sharp  weapons,  the  assembly  cannot  have 
taken  place  in  spite  of  them,  or  without  their  knowledge. 
Many  reasons  combine  to  make  us  suppose  that  the  passage 
in  1  Sam.  xiii.  19,  out  of  which  the  inconsistency  arises, 
has  unwittingly  attributed  to  these  times,  what  can  only 
have  been  true  at  an  earlier  sera,  and  of  a  small  portion  of 
Israel.  A  later  generation,  grateful  for  the  military  services 
which  Saul  really  rendered,  or  seeking  to  justify  Samuel's 
supposed  choice  of  him,  may  have  unawares  exaggerated  the 
difficulties  with  which  in  the  opening  of  his  reign  he  had  to 
contend. 

The  very  first  event  recorded  is  an  expedition  against  the 
Ammonites  (ch.  xi.),  which  is  represented  as  pacifying  a  par- 
tial discontent  at  the  election  of  Saul,  and  ends  by  confirming 
him  in  the  kingdom.  The  narrative  is  so  compacted  as  quite 
to  resist  such  a  dislocation  as  would  be  needed,  if  we  wished 
to  delay  the  Ammonite  campaign  until  after  chapters  xiii. 
and  xiv.  Moreover,  the  date  assigned  to  the  defeat  of  the 
Philistines  (chap.  xiii.  1)  is  explicit.  It  was  in  Saul's  second 
year :  which  makes  it  clear  that  the  writer  who  finally  wove 
the  narrative  together,  intended  the  Ammonite  invasion  to  be 
in  the  first  year.  Nevertheless,  it  is  manifest  in  the  battle 
with  the  Ammonites  that  the  Israelites  were  well-armed, 
though  in  the  later  transaction  they  are  described  as  having 
been  for  some  time  disarmed  by  Philistine  policy. 

On  closer  examination  we  find  abundant  grounds  for  re- 
garding chapters  xiii.  and  xiv.  to  be  of  inferior  historical  value 
to  those  which  precede  them.  These  two  chapters  in  fact 
make  a  whole  in  themselves,  bearing  almost  an  epical  charac- 
ter, with  little  that  marks  sober  history.  The  narrative  has 
all  the  vividness  and  detail  which  characterizes  romance,  but 
cannot  be  reduced  with  the  limits  of  reality.  It  opens  with 
assigning  to  Saul  an  army  of  three  thousand  men,  without 
hinting  that  they  were  mere  bowmen  or  slingers ;  yet  after- 
wards it  states  that  no  one  of  them  all,  except  Saul  and  Jona- 
than, had  either  sword  or  spear.  The  host  of  the  Philistines 


40  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

which  opposes  such  a  motley  crowd  is  clearly  unhistorical, — 
"  thirty  thousand  chariots,  and  six  thousand  horsemen,  and 
people  as  the  sand  which  is  on  the  sea-shore  in  multitude." 
The  passage  (xiii.  8-14)  which  describes  the  quarrel  of  Saul 
with  Samuel  appears  to  be  a  duplicate  of  a  transaction  in 
ch.  xv.,  with  which  it  is  not  easily  compatible.  Moreover, 
the  offence  which  Samuel  is  represented  as  taking  at  SauPs 
offering  sacrifice  is  not  merely  unreasonable,  but  unintelli- 
gible ;  and  as  a  ground  for  so  serious  a  schism  at  such  a  time, 
frivolous,  if  not  factious  and  infatuated.  To  sacrifice  was  as 
much  the  right  or  duty  of  Saul  as  of  Samuel,  who  affected 
not  the  priestly  office ;  and  to  elevate  a  petty  ceremonial  affair 
of  this  sort  into  the  basis  of  Samuel's  feud  with  Saul,  indi- 
cates the  misconception  of  a  later  time,  when  the  priestly 
power  had  given  far  greater  weight  to  such  matters,  when 
kings  had  ceased  to  officiate  at  the  altar,  and  when  it  had 
become  a  cherished  notion  that  Samuel  was  a  Levite.  Nor 
could  Saul  have  been  "  a  choice  young  man  and  a  goodly1 " 
when  elected  to  the  throne,  if  his  son  Jonathan  had  been  a 
formidable  warrior  in  the  very  next  year.  That  Jonathan  and 
his  armour-bearer,  two  men,  should  storm  a  Philistine  garri- 
son with  much  slaughter, — that  a  great  earthquake  should 
follow, — and  that  hereupon  the  Philistines,  instead  of  resisting 
their  assailants  or  simply  taking  to  flight,  should  begin,  both 
in  the  garrison  and  in  their  vast  army,  to  slay  one  another, 
until  Saul  and  his  people,  coming  up,  continued  the  massacre 
with  whatever  weapons  they  had, — is  a  story  on  which  criti- 
cism would  be  wasted,  considering  that  it  is  of  unknown  au- 
thorship and  date.  The  romantic  curse  of  Saul  on  all  who 
should  taste  food  that  day,  and  the  involuntary  breach  of  it  by 
Jonathan,  who  dipped  his  cane  into  some  wild  honey,  is  evi- 
dent poetry.  That  Jehovah  should  sanction  Saul's  curse,  and 
in  displeasure  at  Jonathan  should  refuse  to  give  any  oracle, 
and,  when  Saul  discerned  that  some  one  had  "  sinned,"  should 
then  guide  the  lot  to  fall  on  Jonathan, — all  this  gives  a  view 
of  Jehovah' s  moral  attributes,  in  which  it  might  seem  impos- 
sible that  any  Christian  should  acquiesce.  The  closing  sum- 
mary of  SauVs  successes  "  against  Moab,  Ammon,  Edom,  the 
kings  of  Zobah  and  the  Philistines,"  are  apparently  borrowed 

1  This  description  evidently  implies  youthful  beauty.  Soldiers  are  no  doubt 
called  "  young  men  "  in  many  tongues,  as  long  as  they  retain  full  activity  for 
running  :  but  such  an  interpretation  is  here  out  of  place. 


AMMONITE    INROAD.  41 

from  David's  reign,  and  at  least  cannot  have  been  true  of  Saul, 
who  was  feeble  against  the  Philistines,  and  utterly  unable  to 
compete  with  the  distant  and  formidable  Zobahites1.  In 
short,  the  more  these  two  chapters  are  studied,  the  less  his- 
torical value  do  they  seem  to  have.  We  cannot  then,  in 
deference  to  their  authority,  believe  what  draws  after  it  so 
many  difficulties,  as  that  Israel  was  under  any  such  subjection 
to  the  Philistines  at  the  commencement  of  Saul's  reign  as 
these  chapters  state. 

We  have  seen  that  the  first  great  danger  broke  out  against 
Israel,  not  from  the  Philistines,  but  from  the  Ammonites, 
whose  king  Nahash  marched  up  against  Jabesh  in  Gilead 
with  a  very  superior  force.  The  tribes  east  of  the  Jordan 
were  probably  always  safe  from  the  attacks  of  the  Philistines  ; 
but  they  were  proportionably  exposed  to  the  Moabites  and 
Ammonites,  and  could  seldom  hope  for  zealous  succour  from 
the  western  tribes,  whom  they  often  deserted  in  the  hour  of 
danger.  Now,  however,  finding  that  Nahash  demanded  con- 
ditions outrageous  and  unbearable,  they  sent  to  ask  speedy 
help  of  Saul ;  and  it  appears  more  than  probable,  that  this 
was  the  very  danger  to  avert  which  the  election  of  a  king  had 
been  determined  on.  Saul  received  the  messengers  of  Jabesh 
in  his  own  house  at  Gibeah,  and  learning  the  urgency  of  the 
case,  performed  a  barbarous  but  expressive  ceremony.  Having 
with  his  own  hand  hewed  two  oxen  in  pieces,  he  sent  morsels 
of  their  limbs  into  every  part  of  Israel,  with  the  threat, 
"  Whosoever  cometh  not  forth  after  Saul  and  after  Samuel, 
so  shall  it  be  done  unto  his  oxen2/'  From  the  urgency  with 
which  Saul  thus  commanded  every  man  who  could  bear  arms 
to  assemble  against  the  Ammonites,  we  may  safely  deduce 
that  there  was  no  pressing  and  immediate  danger  from  the 

1  Another  statement,  which  is  very  positively  made,  is  of  suspicious  accuracy. 
It  is  said  that  "  the  ark  of  God  "  was  at  this  time  with  Saul  in  the  camp,  under 
the  care  of  Ahiah,  son  of  Ahitub ;  which  does  not  naturally  harmonize  with 
other  accounts. 

2  The  narrative  proceeds  to  state,  that  the  whole  host  of  Israel  which  actu- 
ally assembled  was  300,000,  "  and  the  men  of  Judah  30,000."    This  distinction 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  here  and  elsewhere,  denotes  that  the  account  was  penned 
at  a  later  time,  when  the  tribe  of  Judah  was  elevated  to  the  place  of  royalty. 
The  Vatican  LXX.  has  600,000  and  70,000.  Josephus  says  there  were  700,000 
without  the  men  of  Judah,  who  alone  were  70,000.     The  round  numbers  of 
themselves  betray  that  it  is  all  theory ;  and  in  fact,  credulity  on  this  matter 
was  perpetually  on  the  growth,  in  proportion  to  the  distance  of  the  writer  from 
the  facts. 


42  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Philistines.  The  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead  are  represented  as 
having  deluded  the  Ammonites  by  a  stratagem  of  war.  Saul 
had  assured  them  of  succour  ' '  tomorrow,  by  the  time  that 
the  sun  is  hot."  Accordingly,  they  promised  the  Ammonites 
at  that  very  time  to  come  out  and  surrender  at  discretion ;  it 
being  understood  that  a  truce  of  seven  days  which  had  been 
made  was  to  continue  until  then.  While  however  the  Am- 
monites were  intent  upon  the  townsmen,  expecting  their  sur- 
render, they  were  attacked  from  behind  by  three  companies, 
and  were  utterly  routed,  so  that  no  army  at  all  could  be  kept 
together1. 

After  this  easy  and  sudden  success  there  could  be  no  ques- 
tion of  SauFs  being  received  as  king.  The  eastern  tribes  had 
effectually  been  won  over.  A  cry  next  arose  to  punish  all 
who  had  opposed  his  election,  but  he  had  the  prudence  or 
magnanimity  to  crush  this  spirit  at  once ;  and  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  Samuel  his  kingly  rights  were  now  confirmed  at  Gilgal. 
The  prophet  however  took  care  to  add  a  new  protest  against 
tyranny  and  irreligion,  under  the  form  of  a  solemn  appeal  to 
the  people  as  to  the  example  which  he  had  set  during  his  own 
administration.  The  energetic  exhortation  with  which  he  closed, 
is  not  likely  to  have  pleased  the  haughty  Saul,  already,  it  is 
probable,  puffed  up  with  his  successes ;  more  especially  if  we 
can  rest  on  the  letter  of  the  statement,  that  Samuel  plainly 
declared  the  people  "  to  have  committed  a  great  sin  against 
Jehovah"  in  desiring  to  have  a  king.  The  extreme  impru- 
dence and  utter  uselessness  of  such  a  statement  at  such  a 
time,  may  make  us  pause  before  we  attribute  it  to  the  aged 
and  experienced  prophet :  and  it  is,  in  fact,  a  speech  more 
likely  to  have  been  written  after  the  event,  when  Saul  had 
become  an  avowed  enemy  of  the  priesthood.  It  is  neverthe- 
less in  every  way  probable,  that  as  Samuel  saw  through  the 
vainglorious  and  empty  king,  so  the  latter  already  felt  that  he 
was  anything  but  a  favourite  with  Samuel.  While  outwardly 
concordant,  the  sparks  of  a  fierce  feud  were  already  burning 
between  the  two. 

The  annalists  of  these  events  were  persuaded;  that  at  first 
Samuel  selected  Saul  by  free  preference  or  divine  order; 

1  If  Nahash  was  king  of  the  Ammonites  in  the  first  year  of  Saul,  and  his  son 
Hanun  succeeded  him  in  the  middle  of  David's  reign,  we  can  scarcely  allow 
more  than  twenty  years  for  the  reign  of  Saul.  Yet  we  cannot  perfectly  trust 
the  name  of  Nahash. 


ENMITY    WITH    AMALEK.  43 

hence  they  seem  to  have  been  driven  to  speculate  on  some 
definite  act  committed  by  Saul,  which  changed  the  prophet's 
mind.  One  tradition  said,  that  it  was  because  Saul  sacrificed 
on  a  certain  occasion  at  Gilgal,  when  Samuel  failed  of  being 
punctual  to  the  day  he  had  appointed.  Another  ascribed  it 
to  Saul's  disobedience  in  an  affair  concerning  the  Amalekites. 
It  is  requisite  to  narrate  the  latter  distinctly,  difficult  as  it  is 
to  ascertain  how  much  of  it  has  been  correctly  represented. 

The  Amalekites,  as  was  said,  dwelt  and  roved  along  the 
southern  border  of  Israel.  According  to  the  description  of 
the  text,  their  abodes  were  "  from  Havilah  to  Shur  "  (1  Sam. 
xv.  7) ,  which  agrees  with  a  part  of  the  region  over  which  the 
Ishmaeiites  encamped  (Gen.  xxv.  18) .  They  are  generally 
regarded  as  a  branch  of  the  Edomites,  but  their  name  is  as 
old  as  Abraham :  their  chief  locality  must  at  any  rate  have 
been  between  Idumsea  and  Egypt.  Though  they  reached  to 
the  south  of  the  Philistines,  they  penetrated  into  immediate 
contact  with  the  tribe  of  Judah ;  and  in  fact,  the  town  of 
Arad  and  the  whole  southern  portion  of  that  tribe,  seems 
originally  to  have  belonged  to  the  Amalekites  (Num.  xiv.  45, 
xxi.  1-3).  It  was  remembered,  that  great  opposition  had 
been  offered  by  Amalek,  when  the  Israelites,  coming  out  of 
Egypt,  endeavoured  to  enter  Canaan.  A  simple  and  probable1 
account  (/.  c.)  represents  them  as  repulsed  by  the  Amalekites 
on  their  first  attempt  to  enter;  an  indirect  consequence  of 
which  repulse  was,  a  tedious  and  disastrous  delay  in  the  wil- 
derness. A  burning  hatred  is  alleged  to  have  been  left  be- 
hind, a  first  result  of  which  was  a  voluntary  and  savage  vow 
of  exterminating  the  population  of  that  district  (Num.  xxi. 
2,  3),  which  was  hence  named  Hormah,  or  Desolation.  A 
second  result  was,  the  genesis2  of  new  tales  of  Amalekite 
wickedness,  such  as  should  justify  this  cruel  retribution.  One 
of  these  is  found  in  Exod.  xvii.  where  the  Israelites  are  at- 


1  Since  scattered  portions  of  the  Amalekite  nation,  or  tribes  called  Amalekites 
from  having  similar  habits,  moved  about  the  desart  between  Palestine  or  Idu- 
msea  and  Egypt,  it  is  likely  enough  that  collisions  took  place  between  them  and 
the  Israelites  during  the  wanderings  of  the  latter.     If  the  host  of  men,  women, 
children,  and  beasts  was  a  tithe  of  the  received  account,  its  approach  to  the 
springs  and  pastures  of  the  Amalekites  would  be  resented  as  an  injurious  rob- 
bery.    Affrays  rising  out  of  such  matters  may  have  furnished  a  hint  for  the 
accounts  in  Exod.  xvii.  and  Deut.  xxv. 

2  Some  of  my  critics  need  to  be  told  that  genesis  does  not  mean  wilful  and 
conscious  forgery,  but  a  growth  out  of  the  national  heart. 


44  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

tacked  at  Rephidim,  in  the  heart  of  Mount  Sinai,  by  an  army  of 
Amalekites.  The  latter  are  nevertheless  discomfited  by  Joshua, 
and  a  solemn  curse  of  JEHOVAH  against  Amalek  is  then  re- 
corded, with  his  equally  solemn  vow  that  HE  (and  therefore 
his  people)  will  have  war  with  Amalek  from  generation  to 
generation,  and  will  blot  out  the  remembrance  of  him  from 
under  heaven.  The  fictitiousness  of  the  details  is  transparent. 
At  Rephidim,  we  are  told,  the  Israelites  would  have  perished 
from  thirst,  but  for  a  miraculous  supply  of  water  from  the 
stony  rock :  yet  the  Amalekites  voluntarily  march  through 
this  desart  to  assail  them,  at  a  great  distance  from  their 
frontier.  The  host  of  Israel  came  out  of  Egypt  unarmed, 
yet  now  they  destroy  Amalek  "  with  the  edge  of  the  sword/' 
Joshua  also  is  named  as  their  leader ;  yet  according  to  the 
tenor  of  the  rest  of  the  narrative,  Joshua  was  undistinguished 
and  unheard  of  until  a  later  time.  The  miraculous  tale  loses 
all  moral  greatness,  through  the  clumsy  machinery  of  prayer, 
not  more  spiritual  than  that  of  a  Tartar  prayer-mill.  Moses, 
it  is  said,  was  so  tired  of  holding  up  his  hands,  that  Aaron 
and  Hur  were  forced  to  help  in  supporting  them,  with  a  view 
to  ensure  the  victory  to  Israel.  Finally,  the  curse  pronounced 
on  generations  of  Amalekites  yet  unborn,  on  account  of  a  sin 
committed  by  relatives  of  their  ancestors,  is  quite  out  of  cha- 
racter with  the  true  Jehovah,  ' '  the  Father  of  mercies  and  God 
of  all  comfort."  Another  tale  against  Amalek  is  found  in 
Deut.  xxv.  17,  which  recounts  his  unavenged  cruelty, — "  How 
he  met  thee  by  the  way  (out  of  Egypt),  and  smote  the  hind- 
most of  thee,  even  all  that  were  feeble  behind  thee,  when  thou 
wast  faint  and  weary ;  and  he  feared  not  God."  The  moral 
however  is  the  same ; — a  positive  command  ee  not  to  forget " 
or  forgive,  but  to  "blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek 
under  heaven,"  whenever  Israel  should  have  the  power. 

That  time  was  now  arrived.  As  our  accounts  state,  Samuel 
stirred  up  Saul  to  attack  the  Amalekites,  adding  the  strict 
charge  that  he  should  destroy  all  their  cattle,  as  well  as  all  the 
human  population.  Saul  partially  obeyed.  Having  advised 
the  Kenites1  to  withdraw  from  among  the  Amalekites  and 
not  to  share  their  evil  lot,  he  fulfilled  to  the  letter  the  mur- 
derous command  against  the  people  of  Amalek,  but  saved 
their  king  Agag,  and  the  best  of  their  cattle.  Upon  this 

1  The  tribe  of  Jethro,  father-in-law  of  Moses. 


MASSACRE    OF    THE    AMALEKITES.  45 

Samuel  uttered  against  him  the  bitterest  rebuke ;  scornfully 
rejected  his  excuse  that  he  had  saved  the  cattle  for  sacrifice 
to  Jehovah;  and  when  Saul  humbly  confessed  his  sin  and 
begged  for  pardon,  gave  him  no  milder  reply  than,  that,  as 
he  had  rejected  the  word  of  Jehovah,  Jehovah  had  rejected 
him  from  being  king  over  Israel.  All  this  is  described  as  pass- 
ing in  private :  afterwards,  to  keep  up  appearances  with  the 
people,  Samuel  joined  Saul  in  a  public  sacrifice.  This  finished, 
the  prophet  sent  for  the  Amalekite  king,  and  with  his  own 
hand  et  hewed  him  in  pieces  before  Jehovah  in  Gilgal." 

This  account  has  nothing  in  it  very  difficult  to  believe,  ex- 
cept that  it  gives  a  much  harsher  and  darker  view  of  Samuel's 
character  than  the  general  narrative  justifies.  It  may  be 
urged  : — If  the  unknown  writer  of  this  account  could  admire 
the  conduct  here  attributed  to  Samuel,  why  may  not  Samuel 
himself  also  have  thought  it  wise,  noble  and  merciful  so  to 
behave  ?  The  possibility  of  it  cannot  be  denied ;  yet  there 
are  circumstances  which  may  modify  this  view.  First,  it  is 
manifest 'from  later  events  that  the  Amalekites  were  not  all 
destroyed  by  Saul.  Indeed  this  nation,  destined  so  solemnly 
to  extirpation,  shows  great  tenacity  of  life :  for  in  ch.  xxvii., 
some  twenty  years  later,  David,  when  living  with  Achish  at 
Gath,  has  again  utterly  to  destroy  the  neighbouring  Amalek- 
ites ;  in  spite  of  which  they  are  presently  strong  enough  to  re- 
taliate on  Ziklag  (ch.  xxx.) ;  and  when  a  second  time  defeated 
by  David,  "there  escaped  not  a  man  of  them,  except  four  hun- 
dred young  men  which  rode  upon  camels"  (v.  17) .  If  400  was 
a  small  fraction,  it  is  evident  that  the  army  was  a  powerful 
one ;  and  that  Saul's  invasion,  however  murderous  in  intent, 
effected  its  object  very  partially.  Again,  unless  we  knew  that 
Samuel  himself  had  penned  the  narrative,  we  could  have  no 
strong  ground  for  receiving  as  certain  the  conversation  which 
went  on  in  private  between  him  and  Saul :  while,  that  the  ac- 
count comes  from  a  later  hand,  may  appear  from  the  enumera- 
tion of  the  host  of  Israel  (v.  4) — "in  all  200,000  men,  of  whom 
10,000  belonged  to  Judah1."  This  careful  attention  to  Judah 
denotes  that  the  tribe  and  house  of  David  was  already  in  the 
ascendant ;  and  if  so,  it  is  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
address  put  iiito  the  mouth  of  Samuel  has  been  highly  co- 

1  We  do  not  insist  that  such  a  host  must  have  starved,  if  absent  from  home 
more  days  than  they  could  carry  provisions  for.  The  numbers  in  the  Vatican 
LXX.  are  400,000  and  30,000 ;  but  Josephus  makes  the  latter  40,000. 


46  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

loured  by  the  writer's  knowledge  of  the  after-events.  Such 
language  indeed  might  have  stirred  up  Saul  to  an  awful  crime 
against  the  prophet' s  life,  but  could  have  no  tendency  to  be- 
nefit him.  Splendid1  though  it  be  as  a  piece  of  rhetoric,  it  is 
eminently  unlikely  to  have  proceeded  from  a  wise  and  aged 
man,  experienced  in  public  concerns ;  while  it  is  exactly  such 
a  speech  as  a  zealous  lover  of  the  Levitical  law  might  compose 
for  Samuel  in  the  leisure  of  the  closet  at  a  later  time.  This 
may  lead  us  farther  to  doubt,  whether  the  expedition  against 
the  Amalekites  was  at  all  originated  by  Samuers  urgency; 
since  even  if  he  was  merely  passive  in  it,  the  writer's  zeal 
would  probably  attribute  to  Samuel  as  an  honour,  that  he  was 
Jehovah's  instrument  in  exciting  Saul. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  credible  that  the  following  more  tame 
account  comes  nearer  to  the  truth.  The  Israelites  had  often 
been  engaged  in  petty  hostilities  with  their  roving  Amalekite 
neighbours,  and  Saul  now  undertook  "  a  religious  war"  against 
them,  intending  their  thorough  extirpation.  Samuel's  sanc- 
tion to  the  expedition  was  given,  with  the  proviso  that  the 
cattle  should  be  slain  as  well  as  the  human  beings;  since  this 
was  the  best  guarantee  that  mere  cupidity  should  not  assume 
religious  or  patriotic  zeal  as  its  cloak.  Saul  however  would 
not  or  could  not  prevail  on  his  people  to  execute  this  condi- 
tion ;  and  the  Amalekite  cattle  were  preserved  as  a  valuable 
spoil,  to  the  very  manifest  and  stern  displeasure  of  Samuel. 
Nor  only  so ;  but  when  Saul  had  spared  Agag  the  king,  and 
none  beside,  the  prophet  looked  on  this  as  a  germ  of  union 
between  the  king  of  Israel,  as  a  king,  and  foreign  monarchs ; 
and  was  intensely  jealous  lest  Saul  should  think  more  of  his 
order  than  of  his  nation.  In  the  same  spirit  do  we  afterwards 
find  a  prophet  threaten  Ahab  for  his  tenderness  towards  the 
king  of  Syria  (1  Kings  xx.  42),  whom  he  had  styled  "bro- 
ther." That  under  such  a  feeling  Samuel  should  "  hew  Agag 

1  The  c  North  British  Review'  was  shameless  enough  to  convert  this  sentence 
into  the  following,  "  It  is  too  forcible  and  eloquent  for  an  old  man"  and  pro- 
ceeded calmly  to  comment  on  my  singular  ignorance  that  old  men  are  sometimes 
eloquent,  as  old  Sophocles,  etc.  When  I  protested  against  the  false  sentiment, 
as  well  as  false  quotation,  (for  he  ought  to  have  said  "  too  rash  and  hot-headsd" 
not,  too  eloquent,}  the  Eeviewer  stiffly  denied  that  he  had  misinterpreted  me ; 
and  the  Editor,  while  apologizing  for  the  false  quotation-marks,  refused  to  avow 
that  my  sense  had  not  been  conveyed.  The  reviewer  had  learned  logic  from  the 
Archbishop  of  Dublin,  who,  it  seems,  advised  him  that  "  though"  means  "  inas- 
much as" 


DAVID,    ANOINTED    BY    SAMUEL?  47 

in  pieces  before  Jehovah,,"  however  opposed  to  the  merciful 
spirit  of  Christ's  religion,  had  nothing  in  it  to  shock  the  sen- 
sitiveness of  the  Jew,  more  than  of  the  Greek  or  Roman. 
The  deed  nevertheless  was  a  distinct  public  proof  that  the  king 
had  forfeited  the  confidence  of  the  prophet.  Thenceforth 
Samuel  kept  apart  from  the  royal  counsels-;  while  Saul  became 
low-spirited  and  suspicious,  fearing  that  the  influence  of  the 
prophet  would  now  be  turned  against  him. 

This  was  in  fact  the  case,  if  we  accept  our  narrative  in  its 
obvious  sense ;  nor  was  there  any  flinching  from  the  last  step 
of  that,  which  is  politically  called  Treason1.  Samuel  is  re- 
presented as  proceeding  straightway  to  elect  and  anoint  as 
king,  though  in  domestic  privacy,  a  youth  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah, — David,  son  of  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite.  Neverthe- 
less, no  practical  result  followed,  and  the  act,  if  performed, 
was  a  barren  type.  The  brothers  of  David  did  not  guess  at 
any  superiority  conferred  by  it  on  him.  The  youth  himself, 
although  devoted  to  the  prophetical  influence,  appears  long 
after  wholly  unconscious  that  this  high  authority  has  invested 
him  with  regal  power ;  on  the  contrary,  he  both  expresses  and 
shows  a  devoted  loyalty  to  Saul.  If  therefore  Samuel  ever 
anointed  David,  it  must  have  been  in  such  a  way  that  no  one 
imagined  the  act  to  have  the  meaning  which  was  afterwards 
assigned  to  it.  Nay,  in  the  earlier  days  of  David's  intercourse 
with  his  royal  patron,  no  one  appears  to  have  whispered 
against  the  young  man,  that  Samuel  had  anointed  him  as 
Saul's  rival.  We  must  therefore  in  reason  exculpate  Samuel 
of  having  intended  to  excite  regal  hopes  in  David  or  loyal 
feelings  in  others  towards  him ;  and  if  so,  it  becomes  more 
than  doubtful  whether  he  at  all  performed  so  useless  a  cere- 
mony. Afterwards  indeed,  when  David  had  set  aside  the 
pretensions  of  Saul's  sons,  nothing  would  be  easier  than  the 
propagation  of  a  belief  that  the  authority  of  the  holy  Samuel 
had  been  given  to  the  youthful  David ; — an  authority  so  much 
the  more  revered,  when  the  distant  report  of  his  tranquil  and 
successful  administration  was  contrasted  with  the  recent  sad 

1  It  may  seem  too  obvious  to  remark,  that  if  the  deed  was  not  in  itself  justi- 
fiable, it  cannot  be  justified  by  pleading  the  command  of  Jehovah.  The  whole 
theory  is  self-contradictory.  Jehovah  had  made  Saul  king,  and  not  a  mere  un- 
derling to  Samuel ;  and  "  the  Strength  of  Israel  is  not  a  man  that  he  should 
repent."  Samuel  would  never  have  felt  the  repugnance  which  he  testified  to 
the  electing  of  Saul,  if  he  had  been  only  choosing  one  who  was  to  be  to  him 
what  Joshua  was  to  Moses. 


48  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

experience  of  Saul's  declining  years.  In  short,  therefore, 
whether  there  was  any  connexion  (at  least  at  this  time)  be- 
tween Samuel  and  David,  is  extremely  problematical. 

When  the  breach  between  the  prophet  and  the  king  had 
become  public,  a  change  in  the  royal  policy  might  have  been 
easily  anticipated.  -In  the  beginning  of  his  reign  Saul  had 
acted  the  part  of  a  zealous  Jehovist,  in  so  far  as  to  put  to 
death  the  wizards  and  witches,  and  all  pretenders  to  divina- 
tion by  foreign  gods.  Upon  his  eldest  son  he  bestowed  the 
name  Jonathan  (or,  Jehovah  hath  given) .  His  second  son  is 
variously  called  Ishui  and  Abinadab,  and  his  third  Malchishua ; 
names  which  suggest  no  particular  remark.  But  his  youngest 
legitimate  son  received  the  name  of  Eshbaal  (or,  the  man  of 
Baal?),  while  the  only  son  of  Jonathan  was  called  Meribbaal 
(or,  the  contest  of  Baal  ?) .  That  these  appellations  were  looked 
on  with  disgust  by  the  Jehovist  party,  may  be  inferred  from 
their  ordinarily  changing  them  into  Ish-bosheth  (the  man  of 
shame)  and  Mephibosheth  (perhaps,  the  mouth  or  opening  of 
shame) ;  it  being  the  habit  of  later  times  to  change  the  name 
Baal  (master)  into  Bosheth  (shame)1.  We  may  with  high 
probability  infer  that  SauTs  later  policy  was  to  foster  the 
worshippers  of  foreign  deities,  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  prophets,  which  was  now  turned  against  him. 
With  the  progress  of  events,  he  fell  into  a  still  more  deadly 
feud,  as  we  shall  see,  with  the  priestly  body. 

The  first  introduction  of  David  to  Saul  was  brought  about 
by  the  young  man's  skill  as  a  minstrel;  and  since  this  was 
after  Jonathan  was  grown  up,  it  is  clear  that  we  have  no  re- 
cord whatever  of  about  the  first  fifteen  years  of  Saul's  reign, 
except  his  battle  with  the  Ammonites  and  his  war  against  the 
Amalekites.  Beyond  a  doubt  there  had  also  been  obstinate 
warfare  with  the  Philistines,  although  we  have  nothing  extant 
concerning  it  except  the  echo  contained  in  the  13th  and  14th 
chapters  of  the  1st  book  of  Samuel.  Another  eminently  epical 
chapter  (ch.  xvii.)  has  described  their  formidable  array;  and 
especially  how  their  champion,  Goliath  of  Gath,  a  giant  six 
cubits  and  a  half  high, — whose  spear's  head2  weighed  600 
shekels  of  iron  and  his  coat  of  mail  5000  shekels  of  brass, — 

1  Thus  in  2  Sam.  xi.  21,  Jerublaal  is  turned  into   Jerublesheih ;    and  in 
Hosea  ix.  10,  Sosheth  (shame)  is  used,  where  Baal  seems  to  be  intended. 

2  The  sword  of  Groliath  is  afterwards  spoken  of  (in  sober  prose)  as  not  too 
heavy  for  David's  use.     This,  no  doubt,  is  the  truer  acccount. 


DAVID,    SAUI/S    ARMOUR-BEARER.  49 

defied  the  host  of  Israel  day  by  day.  It  is  in  many  ways 
manifest  that  the  Israelites  and  Philistines, — as  the  Homeric 
Greeks,  and  as  the  Persians  in  purely  historical  times,  or 
the  Europeans  during  the  Crusades, — fought  as  individual 
warriors,  the  art  of  tactics  being  unknown.  A  general  was 
little  more  than  a  very  brave  and  sturdy  soldier,  whose  single 
prowess  was  feared  by  every  one  of  the  adversaries ;  and  if 
he  slew  an  opposite  champion,  it  often  produced  consterna- 
tion in  the  whole  hostile  army.  By  inroads  at  various  times, 
the  Philistines  had  exceedingly  alarmed  Israel,  and  had  dis- 
quieted the  mind  of  Saul ;  who  saw  that  the  high  object  for 
which  he  had  been  elected,  remained  unfulfilled.  Israel  was 
not  delivered  by  his  hand ;  and  the  chief  of  the  prophets  had 
withdrawn  from  him.  His  vainglorious  mind  sank  into  de- 
spondency through  ill-success,  as  easily  as  it  had  been  puffed 
up  by  victory;  and  superstition  or  remorse  began  to  prey 
upon  him.  To  relieve  his  fits  of  melancholy,  a  minstrel  was 
sought  out ;  and  this  was  no  other  than  the  son  of  Jesse  :  a 
youth  whose  susceptibility  to  music  was  doubtless  closely  con- 
nected with  his  devotion  to  the  religion  of  Samuel,  and  with 
his  own  generous  kindling  nature.  He  soon  attracted  the 
personal  affection  of  Saul,  and  as  he  added  martial  accomplish- 
ments to  his  harper's  skill,  it  was  clear  that  he  was  destined 
for  high  promotion.  Saul,  in  fact,  requested  to  have  him  as 
his  constant  attendant,  and  made  him  his  armour-bearer. 

In  following  the  steps  of  David's  elevation,  we  enter  upon 
the  legend  just  alluded  to ;  his  slaughter  of  Goliath  in  single 
combat.  The  chapter  which  describes  this,  bears  in  many 
respects  the  marks  of  romance,  and  is  quite  irreconcileable 
with  the  rest  of  the  history.  It  gives  a  totally  new  and  in- 
compatible account  of  his  first  introduction  to  Saul.  It  makes 
him  to  be  a  stripling  unpractised  in  arms  and  unused  to  the 
weight  of  armour ;  whereas  he  was  before1  described  as  "  a 
mighty  valiant  man  and  a  man  of  war."  It  further  states  that 
David  carried  the  head  of  Goliath  to  Jerusalem ;  a  city  which 

1  This  sentence  remains  as  in  my  first  edition.  The  'North  British  Keview,' 
No.  31,  p.  125,  pretending  to  quote  me,  changes  "  before"  into  afterwards  (in 
Italics,)  and  adds  :  "  As  reasonably  might  it  be  urged  that  the  accounts  of  our 
ancestors'  skill  as  archers  must  be  false,  because  their  descendants  are  now  re- 
nowned for  the  use  of  fire-arms."  The  Editor  here  also  (as  in  everything  else) 
refused  to  inform  the  readers  that  my  disavowal  was  just.  It  is  a  dreadful 
symptom,  when  such  falsehood  is  thought  to  be  the  legitimate  way  of  doing  God 
service. 


50  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

for  many  years  after  was  in  the  hands  of  a  hostile  people,  a 
branch  of  the  Jebusites1 :  showing  that  the  account  was  first 
penned  long  after  David  had  made  Jerusalem  the  sacred  city  of 
Israel,  and  that  there  was  abundant  time  for  oral  tradition  to 
generate  a  mere  romance.  Nevertheless,  although  the  details 
appear  to  be  fabulous,  it  is  credible  enough  that  David  may 
have  slain  with  his  own  hand  the  Philistine  champion  Goliath, 
the  belief  of  which  runs  through  the  record.  That  he  slew 
him  with  sling  and  stone  may  seem  to  have  been  a  deduc- 
tion from  the  rumour  that  David  was  at  the  time  a  simple 
shepherd.  Be  this  as  it  may,  from  this  moment  the  whole 
narrative  of  Saul's  reign  is  merged  in  the  fortunes  of  David; 
than  which  there  cannot  be  a  more  decided  proof  how  frag- 
mentary and  doubtful  are  our  materials  for  a  history  of  this 
king.  No  reverential  tenderness  was  felt  towards  the  fallen 
dynasty  by  the  historians  who  lived  under  the  house  of  David ; 
and  if  documents  were  extant  which  might  have  illustrated 
the  reign  of  Saul,  they  were  neglected,  except  so  far  as  they 
tended  to  honour  David  or  to  justify  the  exclusion  of  Saul 
from  the  throne.  The  solitary  exception  is  found  in  the  vic- 
tory over  the  Ammonites,  by  which  Saul  was  confirmed  in  the 
kingdom ;  which  seems  to  be  regarded  as  exculpating  Samuel's 
choice  of  him.  Under  such  circumstances,  we  are  forced  to 
follow  our  meagre  materials,  and  briefly  to  sketch  the  early 
career  of  David  during  the  reign  of  Saul. 

When  David  had  engaged  and  slain  the  formidable  Philis- 
tine champion,  the  hostile  army  was  as  usual  panic-struck 
and  fled.  Much  slaughter  ensued ;  David  distinguished  him- 
self in  the  pursuit ;  and  on  his  return,  as  if  to  ascribe  to  Je- 
hovah the  honour  of  his  victory,  he  laid  up  the  sword  of 
Goliath  with  Ahimelech,  then  the  head  of  the  priestly  family 
descended  from  Eli.  He  was  welcomed  with  the  warmest 
admiration  by  Saul,  and  with  affectionate  friendship  by  Jona- 
than, Saul's  eldest  son;  and  from  this  time  forth  he  became 
more  and  more  prominent  among  the  champions  of  Israel. 
But  the  brilliancy  of  David's  achievements  soon  kindled  jea- 
lousy in  the  king,  who  foresaw  too  distinctly  that  if  David 
won  for  Israel  the  liberation  from  Philistine  attack,  for  which 

1  The  Vatican  LXX.  has  recourse  to  the  desperate  method  of  cutting  out 
large  parts  from  the  text  in  order  to  reduce  the  narrative  to  coherence ;  but 
even  this  has  by  no  means  been  successful.  English  critics  once  tried  large 
transposition ;  but  that  method  is  as  hopeless,  and  seems  now  to  be  abandoned. 


DAVID,    SAUI/S    SON-IN-LAW.  51 

Saul  had  striven  in  vain,  the  reigning  house  must  be  very 
unsafe,  especially  when  the  prophets  were  disinclined  to  it. 
The  affection  of  Jonathan  for  David  only  exasperated  the 
monarch's  fears,  who  looked  on  his  son  as  one  who  was  madly 
throwing  away  his  own  prospects  of  the  crown.  Neverthe- 
less, the  popular  favour  towards  David  could  not  be  rudely 
stemmed.  Saul  therefore  debated,  whether  he  might  not  gain 
David  as  a  prop  to  his  family  by  uniting  him  to  his  eldest 
daughter  Merab.  Through  irresolution  he  broke  off  this  plan, 
when  it  had  already  transpired;  and  again  perhaps  medi- 
tated craftily  to  degrade  David.  But  as  the  youth  continued 
to  win  all  hearts,  the  king  adopted  a  still  more  insidious 
course,  of  offering  him  (it  is  said)  his  younger  daughter  in 
marriage,  on  the  chivalric  condition  of  his  slaying  100  Phi- 
listines in  battle.  David  promptly  overdid  the  proposal,  and 
having  slain  200,  laid  his  proofs1  of  the  fact  before  the  king. 
Hereby  he  earned  Michal  as  his  bride,  but  with  her,  the 
implacable  and  deadly  enmity  of  her  father. 

After  this,  we  enter  on  a  new  period  of  uncertainty ;  that 
of  David's  persecution  by  Saul.  The  only  account  which  we 
have  is  in  many  respects  questionable2;  if  however  we  try 

1  The  barbarity,  to  us  so  disgusting,  of  exhibiting  the  foreskins  of  Philistines 
in  proof  of  the  reality  of  slaughter,  has  its  parallel  in  the  scalps  of  the  North 
American  Indians  and  skulls  of  many  savage  tribes.     It  seems  to  indicate  the 
intensity  of  national  feeling,  with  which  this  war  of  independence  was  prose- 
cuted by  the  Israelites.     At  the  same  time,  it  is  a  pretty  good  proof  that  the 
Philistines  were  the  only  uncircumcised  nation  in  those  parts ;  else  the  test 
would  have  been  delusive. 

2  Three  separate   attempts  to  assassinate  David  while  sitting  at  table  are 
ascribed  to  Saul,  in  nearly  the  same  words  (ch.  xviii.  11,  and  xix.  10),  as  if  a 
man  whose  life  had  been  thus  sought,  would  so  expose  himself  again.     The 
attempt  in  ch.  xviii.  is  so  manifestly  premature  and  a  duplicate  account,  that  it 
has  been  freely  expunged  by  the  Vatican  LXX.     Notwithstanding  this,  and 
other  more  inveterate  efforts  to  arrest  David's  person  (xix.  11,  20, 21,)  Jonathan 
is  immediately  after  wholly  incredulous  that  his  father  has  any  evil   designs 
against  David  (xx.  3) ;  and  Saul  is  surprized  to  find  that  David  does  not  occupy  his 
usual  place  at  the  new  moon  (v.  26,  27).     Finally,  Jonathan  first  discovers  his 
father's  deadly  intentions,  by  the  latter  hurling  his  javelin  at  David's  empty 
seat  (v.  33).  Not  only  does  this  imply  no  overt  attack  on  David's  life  to  have  been 
previously  made ;  but  we  have  here  a  probable  indication,  that  the  story  of  the 
thrice-attempted  assassination  is  a  mere  exaggeration  of  the  last-named  display 

— f   , i: ~\r • j ?• j  _  -  _i_-  ji   •  _    i* _j*  ii-  _ 


trast  1  Sam.  x.  12.  with  xix.  24.)  Since  both  of  these  accounts  cannot 
assign  the  correct  origin  of  the  proverb,  it  is  possible  that  neither  may.  An- 
other credible  source  of  it  is  exhibited  inadvertently  in  1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  where 

D    2 


52  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

to  gather  up  the  trustworthy  points,  we  may  perhaps  find  the 
following  to  be  historical.  Michal  suspected  that  Saul  har- 
boured evil  designs,  and  warned  her  husband  (xix.  11)  not  to 
trust  himself  to  Saul's  messengers,  when  they  came  with 
peaceful  pretensions;  upon  which  David  withdrew  into  re- 
tirement, and  possibly  sought  the  counsel  of  Samuel  and  other 
prophets.  Jonathan  however  could  not  be  persuaded  that 
there  was  any  danger,  and  besought  David  to  return  to  court ; 
which  the  latter  refused.  When  Samuel  inquired  why  David 
was  not  in  his  seat  at  table  on  the  first  and  second  day  of  the 
new  moon,  Jonathan  pretended  that  he  was  accidentally  absent 
in  consequence  of  a  feast  at  Bethlehem ;  at  which  Saul,  whose 
conscience  told  him  that  this  was  not  the  true  reason,  was  so 
enraged  as  to  dart  his  javelin  at  the  empty  seat.  The  truth 
was  now  manifested  to  Jonathan,  who  sent  word  to  David  to 
beware.  The  latter  had  already  for  some  time  had  a  peculiar 
body-guard, — those  perhaps  who  were  chiefly  round  his  person 
in  battle,  as  he  was  both  a  general  and  the  king' s  son-in-law : 
with  these  he  proceeded  hastily  to  Ahimelech1,  the  chief  priest, 

Saul,  when  enraged  against  David,  is  said  (in  the  English  version)  to  have 
"prophesied  in  the  midst  of  the  house."  Beyond  a  doubt  the  Hebrew  word  here 
means  he  raved ;  but  as  in  later  times  this  sense  was  almost  unknown,  the  idea 
of  Saul's  "  prophesying"  may  have  risen  out  of  some  misunderstanding  on  the 
subject.  A  double  and  inconsistent  account  is  found  of  David's  abode  at  the  court 
of  Achish  king  of  Grath  (xxi.  10-15,  and  xxvii.),  of  which  the  former  seems  to 
be  wrong  in  chronology.  Twice  also  it  is  told  how  David  spared  Saul's  life 
under  circumstances  peculiarly  romantic  and  unlikely  to  recur  (xxiv.  andxxvi.). 
Each  event  is  preceded  by  an  attempt  of  the  men  of  Ziph  to  betray  David ; 
each  is  followed  by  a  solemn  reconciliation ;  and  in  the  former,  David  makes 
oath  by  Jehovah  that  when  he  shall  become  king  he  will  not  cut  off  the  seed  of 
Saul  (xxiv.  21,  22) ;  an  oath  wholly  unknown  to  a  writer  of  a  later  part  of  the 
history  (2  Sam.  xxi.  7-9).  Strange  to  say,  the  latter  reconciliation  and  the  solemn 
blessing  of  Saul  on  David  (xxvi.  25)  does  but  make  David  despair  of  safety  and 
determine  to  leave  the  land  of  Israel  entirely  (xxvii.  1) ;  so  disjointed  is  the 
whole  account.  Immediately  after  his  first  flight  from  Saul,  David  is  described 
as  betaking  himself  to  Samuel  at  Raman ;  whereupon  Samuel  and  he  leave 
Ramah  and  take  up  their  dwelling  at  Naioth.  The  narrative  then  states  (xix. 
18-24),  that  Saul's  messengers  and  Saul  himself  were  thrice  miraculously  foiled 
in  an  attempt  to  seize  David  there.  Nevertheless,  the  miracles  appear  to  have 
been  very  partially  effectual ;  for  David  instantly  leaves  Naioth  as  if  insecure. 

1  Our  account  states  that  none  of  his  men  were  armed ;  which  excited  the 
surprize  of  Ahimelech ;  and  that  David  was  glad  to  borrow  for  himself  the 
sword  of  Goliath.  Why  or  how  this  should  be,  is  not  explained.  We  may  at 
any  rate  infer  that  Ahimelech  had  been  previously  used  to  see  him  attended  by 
an  armed  guard. 

About  this  time  it  is  credible  that  David  composed  the  llth  psalm,  as  appli- 
cable to  his  forlorn  state.  It  seems  to  be  his  earliest  extant  composition,  and 
gives  a  beautiful  view  of  his  resigned  self-possession. 


DAVID    A    FREEBOOTER.  53 

at  Nob,  on  his  way  to  the  strongholds  of  the  hill-country  of 
Judah,  where  the  authority  of  Saul  was  weak,  and  the  border 
tribes  within  easy  reach.  His  first  care  was  to  carry  his 
parents  over  into  the  Moabite  country,  and  commit  them  to 
the  good  faith  of  the  Moabite  king,  whose  people  seems  for  a 
long  time  to  have  kept  up  a  friendly  connexion  with  Israel. 
That  he  did  not  stay  in  Moab  himself,  may  show  that  from 
this  moment  he  had  determined,  if  not  to  contest  the  king- 
dom with  Saul  (which  his  friendship  for  Jonathan  forbad), 
yet  to  measure  force  against  him  and  reduce  him  to  some 
secure  conditions  of  peace.  Yet  it  is  also  credible  that  the 
king  of  Moab  may  have  feared  to  involve  his  people  in  war 
by  protecting  David  himself.  Be  this  as  it  may,  David  now 
undisguisedly  assumed  the  character  of  a  freebooter,  and  in- 
vited all  to  join  him  who  could  strengthen  his  little  army. 
According  to  the  narrative  in  1  Sam.  xxvi.,  Abishai,  son  of 
David's  sister,  and  probably  Joab  his  brother,  came  at  this 
time  of  distress  to  David's  side,  if  indeed  they  were  not  pre- 
viously in  his  body-guard.  Moreover,  "  every  one  who  was 
in  distress,  or  in  debt,  or  discontented/'  nocked  around  him ; 
and  he  had  soon  a  band  of  400  men,  which  gradually  swelled 
into  600.  He  employed  them  in  protecting  the  cattle  on  the 
wild  and  open  country  from  the  hostilities  of  marauding  neigh- 
bours— Amalekites,  Hittites,  Jebusites,  and  others ;  and  as  his 
reward,  received  tributes  of  food  and  other  necessaries  from 
the  sheep-masters,  which  were  generally  paid  with  good  will, 
but  when  otherwise,  were  summarily  enforced  (xxv.  34). 

Meanwhile,  Saul  regarded  him  as  no  longer  a  domestic 
rival,  but  as  a  robber  and  public  enemy;  and  proceeded  to 
treat  all  who  harboured  him  as  traitors.  His  first  dreadful 
wrath  fell  upon  Nob,  where  Ahimelech  had  given  provisions 
to  David's  retinue,  using  the  sacred  show-bread  for  this  pur- 
pose. Nob,  at  a  very  short  distance  to  the  north  of  Jerusa- 
lem, was  at  this  time  the  chief  town  of  the  priests,  where  the 
customary  ceremonies  to  Jehovah  went  on  day  by  day,  in 
spite  of  the  absence  of  both  ark  and  tabernacle1.  In  Nob  the 
head  of  the  house  of  Eli  enjoyed  the  priestly  veneration  which 
Samuel  had  not  sought  to  appropriate ;  and  by  the  public  li- 
berality directed  to  this  centre  of  worship,  a  large  number  of 

1  The  ark  seems  to  have  remained  at  Kirjathjearim,  with  the  family  of  Abi- 
nadab,  "  who  dwelt  on  the  hill."  The  ridge  ended  in  the  greater  elevation  of 
Gibeon,  where  also  was  the  tabernacle  and  the  high  altar  of  burnt  offering. 


54  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

priestly  families  were  enabled  to  live  together.  Saul  now  re- 
solved to  terrify  all  from  the  cause  of  David  by  a  tremendous 
example,  and  ordered  a  general  massacre,  not  of  the  priests 
only,  but  of  every  living  thing  within  the  town.  No  true- 
born  Israelite  could  be  found  to  obey ;  one  man  only  (as  our 
account  declares),  Doeg  the  Edomite,  executed  the  atrocious 
command;  and  slew  in  that  day  eighty-five  " persons  who 
wore  a  linen  ephod,"  besides  ' '  all  the  men  and  women,  chil- 
dren and  sucklings,  oxen,  asses  and  sheep,"  in  the  town  of 
Nob. 

This  statement  seems  to  need  comment.  Taken  to  the 
letter,  it  is  physically  impossible  that  one  man  can  have  per- 
petrated such  carnage;  although  he  might  certainly  have 
slain  eighty-five  priests  in  chains,  if  the  Israelites  had  so  far 
obeyed  the  king  as  to  chain  them.  We  have  already  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  Amalekites  a  credulous  exaggeration  of  mas- 
sacre ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole  book  which  justifies 
us  in  supposing  that  Doeg  was  leader  of  a  band  of  Edomites 
serving  under  the  king,  whose  united  force  might  have  been 
used.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  a  monarch  who  was  cut  off  in  un- 
successful battle,  and  whose  dynasty  fell  with  him, — mainly 
through  his  own  follies  and  crime, — has  probably  had  still 
more  imputed  to  him  than  the  reality.  Yet  we  cannot  doubt 
that  at  this  time  he  slew  Ahimelech  and  many  other  leading 
men  among  the  priests ;  under  the  idea  that  by  this  vigorous 
policy — (for  so  worldly-minded  and  short-sighted  statesmen 
often  denominate  cruelty) — he  would  cut  off  all  support  from 
David.  Nor  did  SauPs  anger  stay  here.  By  a  later  allusion 
we  find  that  "he  slew  the  Gibeonites";  which  must  have 
been  a  continuation  of  his  feud  against  the  priests.  The  Gi- 
beonites  intended  are  not  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon  in  general, 
but  a  class  of  inferior  ministers  of  the  high  altar  at  Gibeon, 
whose  duty  was  to  supply  water  and  firewood  for  religious  ser- 
vices. At  present  the  tabernacle  also  was  at  Gibeon ;  and  we 
may  conjecture  that  the  priestly  families  there  showed  some 
sympathy  with  their  brethren  of  Nob,  sufficient  to  offend  the 
king,  who  could  no  longer  stop  at  half-measures.  Whether 
he  slew  any  priests  at  Gibeon,  as  well  as  the  "  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water,"  is  uncertain.  But  the  murder  of  the 
latter  is  specially  commemorated,  because  they  were  a  kind 
of  sacred  slaves,  whose  lives  were  guaranteed,  as  tradition 
told,  by  the  oath  of  Joshua;  when,  being  Hivites,  they  had 


DAVID    WITH    ACHISH    OF    GATH.  55 

surrendered  themselves,  though  with  fraudulent  concealment 
that  they  belonged  to  that  nation.  This  remarkable  story 
may  seem  to  show  that  the  high  altar  had  been  at  Gibeon 
from  the  time  of  Joshua,  though  the  tabernacle  was  then 
placed  at  Shiloh. 

But  SauTs  cruelty  produced  the  very  reverse  of  what  he 
intended.  The  priestly  body  over  the  whole  land  was  made 
inveterately  hostile,  and  began  to  look  out  for  security  and  re- 
venge; moreover,  Abiathar  son  of  Ahimelech  fled  to  David, 
and  instantly  gave  a  new  colour  to  his  position.  With  the 
representative  of  Eli  in  his  camp,  who  wore  a  high  priest's 
ephod  and  consulted  Jehovah  by  Urim,  David  now  appeared 
as  the  champion  of  the  priests  in  a  sacred  war  of  vengeance. 

Upon  this  the  king  looked  on  the  rebellion  as  sufficiently 
important  to  need  his  personal  presence  with  an  armed  force ; 
and  having  marched  out  with  as  little  delay  as  possible,  he 
hunted  his  active  adversary  from  stronghold  to  stronghold, 
though  never  able  to  intercept  him.  Saul's  own  company 
was  no'  doubt  composed  of  heavy-armed  warriors,  while 
David's  were  half-armed,  and  in  large  number  slingers  and 
bowmen.  No  force  of  cavalry  existed  in  Israel,  and  perhaps 
it  could  not  have  been  efficient  in  the  precipitous  and  rocky 
wildernesses  of  Judah,  where  David  and  his  men  took  refuge. 
The  king  nevertheless  so  often  found  active  aid  from  the  zeal 
of  those  who  sent  him  word  concerning  David's  places  of  re- 
treat, that  concealment  was  not  long  together  possible;  and 
the  outlaw  was  sometimes  betrayed  even  by  those  in  whom 
he  had  put  confidence.  A  psalm  has  come  down  to  us  (the 
7th  psalm),  composed  on  such  an  occasion.  A  Benjamite 
named  Cush,  if  we  may  trust  the  superscription,  was  the  im- 
mediate subject  of  it.  Having  won  the  confidence  and  friend- 
ship of  the  generous  warrior,  he  used  it  only  to  entrap  him ; 
and  this  perhaps  was  the  turning-point  of  David's  career; 
for  so  inveterate  was  the  perseverance  of  the  jealous  and 
enraged  king,  that  David  at  last  found  it  impossible  to  pre- 
serve his  footing  on  Israelitish  soil;  and  betook  himself  to 
the  desperate  and  unpatriotic  resource  of  offering  his  services 
to  the  Philistines,  who  were  at  this  very  time  engaged  in 
lingering  and  inactive  war  with  Israel.  The  chieftain  on 
whose  hospitality  he  determined  to  throw  himself,  was  Achish, 
king  of  Gath. 

What  length  of  time  elapsed  between  the  first  march  of 


56  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

David  to  Ahimelech,  and  his  escape  out  of  the  land,  we  do 
not  know;  yet  some  domestic  circumstances  imply  that  it 
was  more  than  a  few  months.  Having  heard  that  Saul  had 
given  away  Michal  in  marriage  to  another  man,  David  found 
no  difficulty  in  replacing  her  by  two  wives,  who  can  hardly 
have  been  taken  in  very  close  succession.  Ahinoam  of  Jez- 
reel  (perhaps  in  the  mountains  of  Judah,  Joshua  xv.  56)  was 
the  one,  but  of  her  nothing  is  known :  the  other  was  Abigail 
of  Carmel,  near  Maon  in  Judah,  widow  of  the  wealthy  Nabal, 
who  appears  to  have  brought  to  her  new  husband  all  the 
possessions  of  the  deceased,  and  thus  enabled  him  to  appear 
in  greater  splendour  and  importance  before  king  Achish1. 

How  savage  had  been  SauTs  pursuit  of  David,  can  have 
been  no  secret  to  the  Gittites;  and  they  may  well  have  thought 
that  David's  resentment  would  now  make  him  as  useful  an 
ally  as  he  had  before  been  a  dangerous  enemy.  Achish  was 
well-disposed  to  receive  him ;  and  David  took  the  favourable 
opportunity  of  making  his  terms,  which  were  nothing  less 
than  to  demand,  under  a  civil  and  humble  pretext,  the  pos- 
session of  a  castle  for  himself,  where  he  and  his  men  might 
be  safe  from  the  Philistine  population.  To  this  Achish  con- 
sented, and  bestowed  on  him  the  fortress  of  Ziklag;  another 
step  of  elevation,  which  almost  converted  him  into  an  inde- 
pendent prince.  Our  narrative  proceeds  to  make  statements 
which  surpass  all  belief:  how  Achish  used  to  send  him  out 
on  marauding  excursions  against  the  Israelites;  and  how 
David  used  craftily  to  attack  some  other  tribe  instead,  and 
feign  that  he  had  executed  the  orders ;  and  how  he  extirpated 
all  the  population, — Philistines  and  wicked  Amalekites, — so 
that  not  a  soul  remained  to  bring  the  tidings  to  the  ears  of 
Achish.  The  simple  king  was  so  lulled  into  infatuation,  as 
to  congratulate  himself  on  his  success  in  committing  David 
to  implacable  feud  with  his  fellow-Israelites. 

Such  a  tale  may  perhaps  be  translated,  as  follows.     The 

1  An  earlier  flight  to  Achish.  is  narrated  (xxi.  10-15),  with  circumstances 
scarcely  compatible.  Achish  then  distrusted  David — naturally,  it  may  be  said, 
because  his  feud  with  Saul  was  not  as  yet  publicly  developed ;  but  if  on  that 
occasion  David  was  so  afraid  of  Achish  as  to  feign  madness,  it  is  not  likely  that 
he  would  now  have  selected  him  as  his  patron.  Moreover,  whether  Achish  still 
believed  the  madness  to  be  real,  or  had  since  discovered  it  to  be  feigned,  in 
neither  case  was  it  probable  that  he  would  put  much  trust  in  David;  and  a  con- 
sciousness of  this  would  have  kept  the  latter  aloof.  The  writer  seems  unaware 
that  Achish  has  been  before  named,  and  the  obvious  probability  is  that  the  two 
stories  have  grown  out  of  one. 


DAVID    REIN  FORCED    FROM    ISRAEL.  57 

Philistines  were  not  yet  assembling  for  active  conflict  with 
Israel  (this  appears  by  xxviii.  1)  ;  yet  war  was  impending. 
Meanwhile,  various  neighbouring  tribes,  whose  incursions 
vexed  the  Gittites,  were  chastised  by  David's  arms ;  and  on 
some  of  them  a  very  promiscuous  slaughter  was  perpetrated. 
In  the  districts  where  Israelites  were  mingled  with  foreigners, 
David  may  have  carefully  avoided  conflict  with  his  own  peo- 
ple, and  this  may  have  been  the  nucleus  of  the  preposterous 
representation  above  delivered.  Yet  we  cannot  pretend  to 
divine,  and  merely  suggest  the  above  as  probable. 

Certainly  this  was  no  time  for  David  to  risk  the  loss  of  his 
country  men's  hearts:  for  at  this  very  crisis,  while  he  was 
occupying  the  stronghold  of  Ziklag,  he  received  most  impor- 
tant reinforcements  of  Israelites.  A  long  list  has  come  down 
to  us  (1  Chron.  xii.  1-22)  of  more  or  less  eminent  persons, 
who  through  dissatisfaction  with  Saul  became  voluntary  ex- 
iles and  staked  all  their  prospects  on  David's  cause.  The 
list  opens  with  members  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  "  Saul's 
own  brethren" ;  at  which  we  may  the  less  wonder,  since 
Samuel's  authority  must  have  been  deeply  felt  in  that  tribe. 
The  venerable  prophet  would  seem  to  have  just  died,  having 
been  spared  the  misery  of  seeing  the  confusions  of  his  people; 
and  we  are  left  to  conjecture  whether  he  had  given  any  opinion 
as  to  the  duty  of  true  Israelites.  The  Benjamites  at  this  time 
were  celebrated  for  the  use  of  the  sling  and  bow1,  and  all  who 
now  joined  David  had  these  weapons.  Besides  these  came 
Gadite  captains,  full-armed  warriors  formidable  in  close  fight, 
eleven  in  number,  with  a  considerable  army  of  banditti.  Of 
these  men  we  are  abruptly  informed  that  they  had  crossed  the 
Jordan  in  its  flood  season,  and  had  chased  away  all  the  inha- 
bitants of  the  river  valley  on  both  banks.  This  indicates  that 
Israel  was  already  suffering  the  miseries  of  a  civil  war,  the 
pastoral  tribes  spurning  restraint  and  plundering  their  agri- 
cultural brethren  at  pleasure.  We  accidentally  learn  an 
important  circumstance  which  throws  fresh  light  on  their 
behaviour.  During  the  reign  of  Saul,  the  Eeubenites,  Gad- 
ites,  and  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  made  war  on  their  own  ac- 
count against  their  neighbours  the  Hagarenes,  with  whom 

1  They  appear  especially  to  have  aimed  at  slinging  with  the  left  hand,  since 
this  struck  a  shielded  warrior  more  easily  on  his  undefended  side.  Ehud,  a  Ben- 
jamite,  is  particularly  stated  to  have  been  left-handed,  in  the  earliest  times  : 
Judg.  iii.  15. 

D   3 


58  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

are  joined  the  obscure  people  of  Jetur,  Nephish  and  Nodab 
(1  Chron.  v.  10,  18-22).  Meeting  with  entire  success,  they 
seized  all  the  cattle  of  these  people  and  appropriated  their 
pasture  grounds,  which  they  retained  as  a  permanent  pos- 
session. After  this,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  felt  constrained 
to  respect  SauPs  authority,  who  in  his  later  contests  with  the 
Philistines  seems  to  have  had  no  assistance  from  beyond 
Jordan1.  Nor  only  so,  but  the  spirit  of  enterprize  and  free- 
booting  had  so  spread  among  them,  that  Gadite  captains  of 
great  power  lived  by  pillage ;  of  whom  it  is  rather  obscurely 
said,  "  the  least  of  them  was  over  a  hundred,  and  the  greatest 
of  them  over  a  thousand."  Now,  however,  the  fame  of  David 
drew  them  to  swell  his  retinue  at  Ziklag,  and  he  profited  by 
SauTs  misfortunes  as  well  as  by  his  crimes. 

As  power  generally  tends  to  its  own  increase,  new  acces- 
sions soon  followed  on  the  last.  A  trained  force  of  Benjamin 
and  Judah  marched  out  to  Ziklag,  of  whom  the  chief  captain 
was  Amasai, — perhaps  the  same  man  as  Amasa,  son  of  Abi- 
gail, a  sister  of  David.  Their  arrival  at  first  created  appre- 
hension, wnich  however  was  instantly  dissipated  by  Amasai, 
and  David  added  them  to  his  army. 

To  this  succeeded  the  gathering  of  Philistine  forces  for  the 
war  against  Saul,  and  Achish  required  the  co-operation  of  his 
new  ally.  Whether  David  would  have  had  any  compunction 
to  engage  in  the  war  cannot  now  be  decided.  At  a  later  pe- 
riod ee  there  was  long  war  between  the  house  of  Saul  and  the 
house  of  David"  (2  Sam.  iii.  1),  which  may  imply  that  the 
latter  would  not  have  shrunk  from  personal  collision  with 
SauFs  armies  at  present.  He  was  however  saved  from  the 
trial  by  the  jealousy  of  the  other  Philistine  princes,  who 
were  startled  to  observe  how  large  a  body  of  Hebrews  under 
David  had  posted  itself  in  their  rear  (1  Sam.  xxix.  2) ,  when 
the  army  was  drawn  up  near  Jezreel.  Accident  may  have 
suggested  to  them  that  treachery  was  intended ;  at  any  rate, 
so  powerful  a  Hebrew  force,  it  might  be  argued,  was  dan- 
gerous. At  the  same  crisis  a  troop  of  Manassites  deserted 
from  Saul  and  joined  David  (1  Chron.  xii.  19),  and  this  may 

1  Although  the  rescue  of  the  body  of  Saul  and  his  sons  by  the  men  of  Jabesh 
G-ilead  proves  that  a  sentiment  of  loyalty  was  far  from  extinct  in  Gilead,  still 
the  circumstances  rather  suggest  that  these  Gileadites  were  not  in  the  fatal 
battle.  Their  spirit  is  that  of  unconquered  men,  who  are  stirred  to  anger  by  the 
indignity  put  on  their  fallen  king. 


DAVID'S    RETURN    TO    ZIKLAG.  59 

have  increased  the  suspicion  that  there  was  a  secret  under- 
standing between  the  king  of  Israel  and  his  late  son-in-law, 
and  that  David  was  intending  to  purchase  forgiveness  by  be- 
traying his  Philistine  allies.  In  vain  did  Achish  try  to  reas- 
sure the  other  princes,  who  insisted  that  David  should  with- 
draw. On  his  journey  home  to  Ziklag  the  fortunate  Hebrew 
was  joined  by  seven  more  Manassites  (who  are  entitled  "  cap- 
tains of  thousands"),  with  their  bands  (1  Chron.  xii.  20)  : 
and  he  was  soon  to  need  their  aid.  The  Amalekites,  whose 
country  he  had  devastated,  had  taken  advantage  of  his  absence 
to  attack  Ziklag.  Far  more  merciful  than  Saul  or  David,  (if 
the  massacres  ascribed  to  these  chieftains  are  not  undeserved 
but  well-intended  eulogies,)  the  Amalekites  had  only  burned 
the  town  of  Ziklag  and  carried  captive  all  the  women  and 
children  (among  whom  were  David's  two  wives),  but  they  put 
none  of  them  to  death.  The  narrator  from  whom  we  quote 
(1  Sam.  xxx.)  appears  to  regard  David's  army  as  consisting 
solely  of  the  six  hundred  men  with  whom  he  originally  came 
to  Achish ;  which  is  certainly  in  direct  opposition  to  the  record 
in  a  later  book  (1  Chron.  xii.  21) .  Hence  some  doubt  might 
seem  to  be  cast  on  all  that  has  been  said  concerning  the 
accession  of  force  received  by  him  in  Ziklag,  were  not  this1 
confirmed  by  internal  evidence.  That  David  was  still  looked 
on  as  but  the  creature  and  organ  of  the  wild  men  who  served 
him,  appears  from  the  cry  which  now  arose  to  stone  him,  as  a 
punishment  for  having  left  their  wives  and  daughters  unde- 
fended. But  at  this  crisis  the  self-possession  of  David  was 
eminent,  as  also  (we  cannot  doubt)  his  sincere  faith  in  a 
higher  power.  "  He  encouraged  himself  in  Jehovah  his  God," 
and  sending  for  Abiathar  the  priest,  ordered  him  solemnly  to 
consult  the  sacred  Urim  whether  he  should  pursue  the  enemy. 
Obtaining  permission,  he  set  out  with  extreme  rapidity,  and 
came  upon  them  while  they  were  at  ease  and  encumbered  with 
spoil,  supposing  that  David  was  folly  occupied  in  the  Philis- 
tine host.  Thus  surprized,  they  could  offer  no  resistance. 
Not  only  was  everything  recovered,  but  all  the  booty  which 
they  had  collected  from  a  wide  marauding  excursion,  fell  to 
David's  troops.  The  behaviour  of  the  conqueror  was  at  once 
generous  and  politic.  To  the  precedent  now  set  by  him  was 

1  I  do  not  mean  that  I  regard  the  numbers  as  trustworthy,  here  or  any- 
where else  ;  but  that  the  accession  of  force  in  Ziklag  is  not  an  arbitrary  fiction. 
See  the  Note  in  the  next  chapter  on  the  forces  which  came  to  David  in  Hebron. 


60  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

traced  the  principle  thenceforward  established  in  the  Hebrew 
army,  to  divide  the  spoil  fairly  among  the  whole  host,  whether 
employed  in  defence  or  offence,  instead  of  the  barbarian  prac- 
tice that  each  soldier  should  keep  what  he  could  snatch.  By 
the  customs  of  border  warfare,  a  large  fraction  of  the  spoil 
fell  to  David  personally,  which  he  immediately  sent  in  presents 
to  the  "elders"  of  numerous  towns  and  villages  of  Judah, 
and  to  all  the  places  where  in  former  days  he  had  received 
kindness  and  support.  As  a  result  of  his  policy, — to  use  the 
emphatic  language  of  the  chronicler,  which,  accepted  as  poetry, 
may  be  substantially  true, — ' '  from  that  time,  day  by  day,  men 
came  to  David  to  help  him,  until  it  was  a  great  host,  like  the 
host  of  God." 

In  part,  these  accessions  may  have  come  from  the  Gittites 
themselves;  for  David  must  here  first  have  formed  the  band 
of  Gittites,  which,  long  afterwards,  under  his  friend  Ittai, 
continued  to  do  him  so  faithful  service.  But  the  greater  part 
probably  fell  to  him  from  the  unhappy  Saul,  whose  forces 
had  wasted  away,  so  that  he  had  lost  half  of  his  kingdom 
west  of  Jordan  before  a  blow  was  struck.  Having  no  support, 
it  would  seem,  in  the  southern  tribes,  he  had  been  forced  to 
cross  the  frontier  of  Galilee,  in  the  region  of  Mount  Gilboa, 
whither  the  Philistines  had  followed  and  encamped  on  the 
slope  of  Jezreel.  In  vain  did  he  call  on  priest  and  prophet1 
to  give  him  an  oracle  from  Jehovah  :  their  reply  was  uniform, 
that  Jehovah  answered  not.  His  superstition  demanding 
some  relief,  he  proceeded  to  consult  one  of  the  enchantresses, 
or  female  necromancers2.  Such  a  woman  was  found  at  Endor, 
and  Saul  went  by  night  to  ask  her  to  bring  up  Samuel  from  the 
dead.  It  seldom  happens  that  we  can  obtain  the  details  of  such 
adventures  at  first  hand,  or  penetrate  the  cloud  which  shrouds 
them.  The  current  belief  of  Israel, — which  has  been  preserved 
for  the  reverence  or  perplexity  of  Europe, — was,  that  the  wo- 
man' s  art  really  succeeded  beyond  her  own  expectation,  in 
bringing  up  Samuel  himself  out  of  the  ground,  in  the  form  of  an 

1  He  sought  a  reply  by  dreams,  by  Urim,  and  by  prophets.     If  Urim  was  at 
this  time  confined  to  the  chief  priest,  Saul  had  made  a  new  chief  priest  in  place 
of  Ahimelech  or  Abiathar.     But  the  words  are  possibly  a  mere  formula. 

2  It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  intensely  Jehovistic  but  wwmoral  spirit 
of  the  book  of  Chronicles,  that  it  records  Saul  to  have  been  slain  and  his 
dynasty  to  have  fallen,  not  because  he  massacred  the  priests,  (which  morally, 
politically  and  religiously  was  the  true  reason,)  but,  "  because  he  inquired  of  a 
necromancer  and  not  of  Jehovah."  (1  Chron.  x.  13.) 


BATTLE  OF  MOUNT  GILBOA.  61 

old  man  wrapt  in  a  mantle,  who  proceeded  to  utter  an  awful 
prophecy  against  Saul,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  predicting  with 
unsparing  truth  the  judgements  impending  on  him.  In  fact, 
it  needed  no  magician  to  see  that  Saul  was  in  evil  case,  nor 
could  the  decisive  battle  be  long  averted.  It  took  place  by 
Mount  Gilboa,  and  the  Hebrews  were  soon  put  to  flight. 
Saul  and  his  three  eldest  sons  disdained  to  accompany  them, 
and  were  all  slain :  but,  as  happens  in  such  cases,  there  was 
some  uncertainty  as  to  the  mode  of  Saul's  death.  One  account 
told  that  he  fell  upon  his  own  sword.  Another  was  reported 
by  a  young  Amalekite,  who  professed  that  he  had,  at  SauPs 
urgent  request,  performed  the  service  of  slaying  him.  The 
only  interest  attaching  to  this  variation  is,  that  the  young 
man  was  himself  slaughtered,  by  the  order  and  under  the  eyes 
of  David,  for  having  claimed  the  merit  of  the  deed ;  a  high- 
handed manifesto  of  loyalty,  with  which  it  is  hard  for  Chris- 
tian or  modern  feelings  to  sympathize,  but  which  was  probably 
much  admired  by  his  countrymen,  when  executed  on  the 
cheap  bo3y  of  an  Amalekite.  The  action  was  politic,  as  pro- 
claiming the  sanctity  of  kings ;  and  by  the  death  of  Jonathan, 
David  saw  the  way  to  kingly  station  open  to  him.  Yet  we 
may  believe  that  impulse  had  a  larger  share  in  the  act  than 
calculation.  Although  David  had  not  attained  the  Christian 
virtue  of  loving  enemies,  he  burned  with  indignation  that  an 
Israelitish  king  should  be  killed  by  a  dog  of  an  Amalekite ; 
and  any  personal  resentment  he  may  have  felt  against  Saul 
vanished  at  once  when  his  death  was  ascertained.  The  gene- 
rous feelings  had  full  sway,  and  real  tenderness  burst  out  in 
David's  soul  at  the  untimely  fate  of  his  friend  Jonathan.  The 
simple  and  touching  ditty  in  which  he  lamented  their  loss  still 
survives  to  testify  not  only  his  grief,  but  how  Hebrew  a  heart 
he  had  maintained  while  dwelling  among  the  Philistines. 

1.  O  Israel,  on  thy  heights  the  gazelle  is  slain  ! 
Fallen,  alas !  are  the  heroes. 

Tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon ; 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice, 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  triumph. 

2.  O  mountains  of  Gilboa,  let  there  be  upon  you  neither  dew, 
Nor  rain,  nor  crops  of  first  fruits  ; 

For  on  you  was  the  shield  of  heroes  cast  away, 
The  shield  of  Saul,  as  though  not  an  anointed  king. 


62  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

3.  From  the  blood  of  the  slain,  from  the  prime  of  the  heroes, 
The  bow  of  Jonathan  turned  not  aside, 

And  the  sword  of  Saul  came  not  back  empty. 
Saul  and  Jonathan  were  lovely  and  pleasant  in  life 
And  in  death  they  were  not  parted : 
They  were  swifter  than  eagles,  stronger  than  lions. 

4.  Daughters  of  Israel,  weep  over  Saul, 
Who  clothed  you  in  scarlet  delightfully, 
Who  put  ornaments  of  gold  on  your  apparel. 

5.  Fallen,  alas !  are  the  heroes  in  the  battle. 
On  thy  heights  is  Jonathan  slain. 

Ah,  Jonathan  my  brother,  I  am  grieved  for  thee. 

Very  sweet  unto  me  wast  thou ; 

Marvellous  thy  love  to  me,  beyond  woman's  love. 

Fallen,  alas !  are  the  heroes, 

And  perished  the  weapons  of  war. 

As  for  the  victorious  army,  it  temporarily  occupied  the 
neighbouring  towns,  which  were  deserted  by  the  Israelites. 
On  finding  the  royal  corpses  next  day,  the  Philistines  retali- 
ated on  Saul  what  David  had  inflicted  on  Goliath,  carrying 
away  his  head  as  a  barbarous  trophy.  His  trunk  and  the 
bodies  of  his  sons  they  fastened  to  the  wall  of  Bethshean,  and 
bore  off  his  armour  to  hang  up  in  the  temple  of  Astarte.  The 
men  of  Jabesh  Gilead  however,  grateful  for  the  deliverance 
from  the  Ammonites  which  Saul  had  won  for  them  in  his  first 
year,  carried  away  the  bodies  by  night  and  buried  them  at 
Jabesh.  So  ended  the  career  of  Saul,  first  king  of  Israel. 


63 


CHAPTER  III. 

KEIGKtf  OF  DAVID. 

THE  prince  on  whom  the  hopes  of  the  Hebrew  priesthood 
were  fixed,  was  at  the  death  of  Saul  only  thirty  years  old. 
He  possessed  exactly  those  qualities  which  rallied  round  him 
every  influential  element  of  the  nation,  and  he  had  most  care- 
fully conciliated  the  good  will  of  the  elders  of  his  own  tribe. 
With  coarse  and  wild  men  attending  upon  him,  he  maintained 
not  only  warm-hearted  gratitude  and  spontaneous  generosity, 
but  a  delicate  susceptibility  which  made  tears  over  a  fallen 
rival  natural  to  him.  Whatever  hardship  was  endured  by  his 
faithful  band  was  shared  by  David,  of  which  a  pleasing  anec- 
dote has  been  preserved,  in  a  passage  evidently  of  great  anti- 
quity (2  Sam.  xxiii.  8-23) .  David  was  in  the  cave  of  Adullam, 
and  the  Philistines  had  set  a  garrison  in  Bethlehem.  When 
suffering  from  thirst,  remembering  the  sweetness  of  the  water 
from  the  well  of  his  native  town,  he  inadvertently  expressed 
his  longing  for  a  draught.  Three  of  his  bravos  who  caught 
the  words,  went  boldly  through  the  Philistine  host,  and  having 
drawn  water  from  the  well,  brought  it  to  David ;  but  when  it 
arrived, — forestalling  the  deed  of  Alexander  the  Great  in  the 
desart  of  Gedrosia, — "  he  poured  it  out  before  Jehovah," 
declaring  that  he  would  not  drink  the  blood  of  his  men.  This 
can  only  be  a  specimen  of  the  generous  arts  by  which  he  won 
their  attachment.  During  his  sojourn  at  Ziklag,  he  appears 
to  have  established  a  certain  gradation  of  ranks  in  his  motley 
army,  depending  entirely  on  that  personal  prowess,  which 
soldiers  honour  in  their  comrades  without  envying.  The  three 
chief  warriors  of  his  band  were  named  Josebbassebeth1  (or, 
Jashobeam)  the  Hachmonite,  Eleazar  son  of  Dodo,  and  Sham- 
mah  son  of  Agee.  The  first  of  them  was  said  to  have  slain 
800  men  in  one  battle ;  and  the  other  two  to  have  done  ex- 

1  The  LXX.  renders  it  'Iej8o<r0e  or  Ishbosheth.  The  words  "Adino  the 
Eznite"  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8,  are  corrupt  for,  "  lifted  up  his  spear ;"  as  appears  by 
comparing  1  Chron.  xi.  11 ;  and  so  De  Wette  has  translated. 


64  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ploits  almost  as  marvellous  against  the  Philistines.  A  second 
valiant  trio  is  imperfectly  named.  Abishai,  son  of  Zeruiah, 
David's  sister,  was  its  chief;  he  is  stated  to  have  slain  300  men, 
yet  not  to  have  attained  to  the  first  three.  Benaiah,  the  son 
of  Jehoiada,  was  the  second  who  had  slain  a  lion.  The  third 
was,  perhaps,  Joab,  son  of  Zeruiah.  Besides  these1,  thirty-one 
eminent  captains  are  named,  among  whom  was  Asahel,  brother 
of  Joab,  and  Uriah  the  Hittite.  As  Joab's  armour-bearer, 
Nahari,  was  also  one  of  them,  Joab  can  scarcely  have  been 
excluded  from  them  himself. 

It  is  needless  to  insist  that  the  exploits  of  slaying  800  and 
300  men  are  clearly  fabulous.  This  does  not  affect  the  re- 
gister of  the  ranks  assigned  to  them ;  and  it  must  be  observed 
that  as  no  superiority  is  here  given  to  Joab,  and  as  Asahel 
was  yet  alive,  the  date  belongs  to  the  very  beginning  of  Da- 
vid's reign2.  Even  so  a  difficulty  is  met ;  for  Benaiah  appears 
as  if  in  the  vigour  of  life  when  Solomon  ascends  the  throne, 
just  forty  years  later.  If  Benaiah' s  name  in  this  rank,  belongs 
to  a  later  date,  it  will  follow  that  David  continued  afterwards 
the  same  arrangement  in  his  army;  three  chiefest  heroes, 
three  heroes  of  second  rank,  and  thirty  of  honourable  prowess. 
Nor  is  it  improbable  that  the  gradations  of  honour  established 
by  him  at  Ziklag  should  have  been  adopted  as  a  perpetual 
rule. 

On  learning  of  Saul's  death,  after  solemn  mourning  for  the 
event,  David's  first  care  was  to  consult  Jehovah, — by  Urim, 
we  must  suppose, — whether  he  should  go  up  to  any  of  the 
cities  of  Judah.  Having  obtained  leave,  he  asked  again,  To 
which  of  them?  and  the  reply  was  to  Hebron: — the  city  of 
Abraham.  This  was  the  strongest  place  in  Judah,  and  cen- 
tral to  the  tribe ;  and  to  march  up  to  it  and  quarter  his  army 

1  The  enumeration  which  we  are  told  to  expect  is, — three  chief  heroes,  three 
second  in  prowess,  and  thirty  inferior  to  these.    On  the  contrary  we  have,  three, 
two,  and  then  thirty-one  ;  who  are  finally  said  to  be  thirty-seven  in  all.    There  is 
evidently  something  incomplete.     Shammah  the  Hararite,  one  of  the  first  three, 
appears  to  be  repeated  in  the  list  of  31  (which  ought  to  be  30  ?    see  w.  13,  23) 
under  the  name  of  Shammah  the  Harodite :  for  the  difference  of  r  and  d  (n  and 
T)  is  a  very  common  error  of  transcription. 

2  This  might  make  it  seem  necessary  to  refer  the  battles  against  the  Philis- 
tines and  their  garrisoning  of  Bethlehem,  to  the  reign  of  Saul ;  for  David  had 
no  war  with  them  between  his  first  escape  from  Saul  and  the  death  of  Asahel. 
But  in  truth  it  is  vain  to  criticize  this  document  as  if  we  had  in  it  the  authentic 
and  uninterpolated  words  of  a  contemporary.     It  probably  received  its  present 
form  from  one  who  did  not  trouble  himself  about  smaller  points  in  chronology. 


65 

on  the  surrounding  towns  was  virtually  to  take  military  pos- 
session of  the  district.  The  elders  understood  the  hint,  if 
their  minds  had  not  previously  been  decided ;  and  assembling 
at  Hebron,  they  there  anointed  David  "  king  over  the  house 
of  Judah1."  It  was  natural  for  him  to  hope  that  the  rest  of 
Israel  would  follow  the  example ;  especially,  if  the  powerful 
and  spirited  Manassites  beyond  Jordan  could  be  won,  there 
would  be  little  doubt  of  the  result.  He  accordingly  sent  a 
kind  message  to  the  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead,  which  ran  thus  : — 
"  Blessed  be  ye  of  Jehovah,  that  ye  have  showed  this  kindness 
to  Saul  your  lord,  and  have  buried  him.  Now  may  Jehovah 
show  unto  you  kindness  and  truth,  and  I  also  will  requite  you 
this  kindness.  Therefore  let  your  hands  be  strong,  and  be  ye 
valiant ;  for  though  your  master  Saul  is  dead,  yet  the  house 
of  Judah  have  anointed  me  king  over  them."  Since  many 
Manassites  (perhaps  from  Bashan  and  Gilead)  were  in  his 
army,  this  communication  might  have  had  the  desired  effect, 
had  not  a  great  man,  whom  we  have  not  yet  mentioned,  anti- 
cipated David's  projects.  Abner,  the  son  of  Ner,  was  first 
cousin  of  Saul2,  and  had  long  been  chief  captain  of  Saul's 
host.  He  enjoyed  high  respect  in  all  Israel,  and  now  took  a 
decisive  step  for  securing  the  kingdom  to  the  family  of  Saul. 
Judging,  perhaps,  that  the  eastern  tribes  would  turn  the  scale, 
he  crossed  into  Gilead  with  Ishbosheth,  the  surviving  son  of 
Saul;  and  there,  at  Mahhanaim,  not  far  south  of  Jabesh  Gilead, 
proclaimed  Ishbosheth  as  king.  His  title  was  quickly  recog- 
nized by  all  Gilead,  and  by  western  Israel,  beginning  with 
Benjamin,  northward.  Thus  the  tribe  of  Judah  only  was  left 
to  David.  But  Ishbosheth  was  king  in  little  more  than  name  : 
the  mainstay  of  the  government  was  in  Abner.  The  tenor 
indeed  of  the  narrative  would  persuade  us  that  the  new  king 

1  The  chronicler  is  here  guilty  of  a  gross  misrepresentation,  which  from  the 
recurrence  of  so.  many  similar  cases,  we  cannot  hesitate  to  ascribe  to  a  dishonest 
love  of  exalting  an  orthodox  king.     He  represents  the  elders  of  all  Israel  as 
assembling  at  Hebron,  and  anointing  David  king  over  all  Israel,  immediately 
upon  the  death  of  Saul  (1  Chr.  xi.  1-3).     We  afterwards  learn  (xxix.  27)  that 
David  reigned  seven  years  in  Hebron ;    but  no  one  could  discover  from  this 
book,  that  it  was  a  reign  over  one  tribe  only  ;  much  less  that  David  carried  on 
a  civil  war  against  the  other  tribes. 

2  In  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  Kish,  the  father  of  Saul,  is  son  of  Abiel ;  and  in  xiv.  51, 
Ner,  father  of  Abner,  is  also  son  of  Abiel.     Thus  the  fathers  of  Saul  and  Abner 
were  brothers.     In  the  Chronicles,  Ner  is  twice  called  father  of  Kish  (1  Chron. 
viii.  33,  ix.  39)  ;  but  this  is  directly  contradicted  by  ix.  36,  where  Ner  and  Kish 
are  made  sons  of  Jehiel. 


66  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

was  quite  a  youth,  and  had  on  this  ground  been  absent  from 
the  fatal  battle  at  Mount  Gilboa.  Yet  the  text  distinctly  calls 
him  forty  years  old1.  As  he  was  a  younger  brother  to  Jona- 
than, and  probably  youngest  of  all  SauPs  sons,  such  an  age 
puts  far  too  great  a  discrepancy  between  Jonathan  and  David 
for  the  romantic  friendship  which  subsisted  between  them.  If 
for  forty  we  substitute  fourteen,  it  may  seem  nearer  to  the 
truth. 

Abner's  first  care  must  have  been  to  rally  the  undefeated 
forces  of  eastern  Israel,  and  present  such  a  front  of  war  to  the 
Philistines  as  they  would  not  desire  to  oppose.  Of  this  no 
record  remains;  but  in  fact  the  Philistines  retired,  without 
an  effort  to  increase  their  territory  after  their  great  success. 
This  is  very  similar  to  the  course  of  events  after  their  capture 
of  the  ark,  and  certainly  suggests  that  they  were,  like  the 
Tyrians,  unambitious  of  continental  empire  and  probably  too 
few  in  number  to  think  of  upholding  government  over  Israel. 
They  pertinaciously  held  by  their  own  cities  and  territory,  not 
understanding  by  what  right  the  Israelites  could  claim  to  expel 
them ;  but  their  martial  efforts  seem  to  have  been  limited  to 
mere  self-defence.  They  kept  their  own  town  of  Gezer,  on 
the  border  of  Ephraim,  and  probably  strengthened  it ;  but  as 
far  as  can  be  learned,  this  continued  to  be  their  northern 
limit.  Towards  David,  as  long  as  he  should  be  in  opposition 
to  the  house  of  Saul,  they  had  a  friendly  feeling.  Not  dis- 
pleased to  see  the  tribes  of  Israel  divided  against  themselves, 
and  satisfied  that  David  would  not  molest  their  territory  while 
he  had  to  contend  against  Abner  on  the  north,  they  withdrew 
to  peaceful  occupations,  and  remained  quiet  during  the  seven 
years  that  David  was  king  at  Hebron. 

After  this  Abner  concentrated  a  force  near  the  sacred  hill 
of  Gibeon,  threatening  the  territory  of  Judah.  Whether  de- 
fence or  offence  was  his  object,  is  not  clear;  but  an  army 

1  Forty  is  known  to  be  a  fatal  number  in  these  records.  A  ludicrous  example 
is,  where  Absalom  tarries  forty  years  in  his  house  at  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  xv.  7). 
[Forty  (say  some  who  do  not  know  when  a  cause  is  lost)  is  a  round  number  in 
Hebrew.  But  a  specific  and  a  small  number  is  here  needed.  A  hundred  is  a 
round  number  in  English  ;  but  no  critic  would  justify  writing  "  Absalom  tarried 
a  hundred  years  etc."  Bound  numbers  are  a  confession  of  ignorance,  not  a 
vehicle  of  infallible  and  perfect  knowledge.]  A  second  error  of  a  number  is 
found  in  this  very  verse,  2  Sam.  ii.  10,  in  which  it  is  said  that  Ishbosheth  reigned 
two  years.  This  disagrees  with  the  "  long  war"  between  him  and  David,  and 
with  the  reign  of  David  "  over  Judah  in  Hebron"  seven  years  and  a  half  (iii.  1, 
and  ii.  11). 


BATTLE    NEAR    GIBEON.  67 

came  forthwith  from  David  to  meet  him,  and  stationed  itself 
at  the  other  side  of  the  pool  of  Gibeon.  Its  general  was  Joab, 
son  of  Zeruiah,  David's  sister,  whose  rude  energy  was  already 
beginning  to  exert  a  predominance  among  David's  warriors, 
although  hitherto  he  had  been  surpassed  in  feats  of  battle 
not  only  by  the  three  great  heroes,  but  by  his  own  brother 
Abishai.  Abner  hereupon  made  a  proposal,  the  intent  of 
which  is  obscurely  indicated ;  but  if  we  interpret  it  by  other 
times  of  chivalry,  it  was, — that  in  order  to  save  bloodshed, 
the  quarrel  should  be  decided  by  twelve  Benjamites  fighting 
against  twelve  of  David's  men.  According  to  our  account, 
the  whole  twenty-four  were  slain  by  contrary  wounds.  More 
agreeably  with  the  common  course  of  real  events,  the  two 
armies,  instead  of  abiding  by  the  decision,  whatever  it  was, 
rushed  into  the  combat.  After  a  severe  struggle,  the  troops 
of  Abner  gave  way,  and  he  himself  was  so  keenly  chased  by 
the  swift  Asahel,  youngest  brother  of  Joab,  as  to  be  forced  in 
self-defence  to  turn  round  and  slay  him.  Three  hundred 
and  sixty  of  the  Israelites  are  stated  to  have  been  cut  down 
in  the  fierceness  of  pursuit;  while  only  nineteen  men,  with 
Asahel,  had  fallen  on  the  opposite  side.  By  an  appeal  to 
Joal/s  better  feelings,  Abner  induced  him  towards  evening  to 
recall  his  men  by  the  trumpet ;  and  marching  all  night  long 
with  the  survivors  whom  he  had  gathered,  stopped  not  until 
he  had  crossed  Jordan  and  regained  Mahhanaim.  The  details 
of  this  battle  have  been  carefully  recorded,  only,  it  may  seem, 
because  the  death  of  Asahel  gave  Joab  an  excuse  for  remorse- 
less treachery  towards  the  honoured  Abner. 

David  meanwhile  had  taken  another  step  which  shows  him 
not  to  have  disdained  the  resources  of  common  politicians. 
We  have  already  mentioned  the  Geshurites,  whose  territory 
bordered  on  the  Manassites  in  Bashan,  and  who,  in  spite  of  a 
contest  for  the  towns  of  Jair,  lived  on  good  terms  with  them. 
Geshur  was  at  present  subject  to  a  king,  whose  name  was 
Talmai,  son  of  Ammihud;  and  David,  although  he  had  two 
wives  already,  made  successful  suit  to  Talmai  for  the  hand  of 
his  daughter  Maacah.  The  friendship  of  this  monarch  at 
such  a  time  must  have  been  much  to  be  coveted  as  influ- 
encing the  men  of  Asher  and  of  Bashan,  by  fear  or  by  good 
will,  towards  David ;  and  after  the  event  of  the  battle  near 
Gibeon,  less  zeal  in  behalf  of  Ishbosheth  was  likely  to  be 
shown  by  any  of  the  tribes.  A  lingering  jivil  war  did  indeed 


68  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

continue,  but  the  cause  of  the  house  of  Saul  was  evidently 
declining,  and  the  experienced  Abner  was  forced  to  feel  that 
he  was  labouring  in  vain. 

When  Saul  had  been  dead  about  seven  years1,  Ishbosheth 
imprudently  cast  on  Abner  a  reproachful  accusation,  which  de- 
termined the  latter  no  longer  to  uphold  his  throne.  Whether 
passion  or  calculation  moved  Abner,  or  possibly  both,  is  left 
uncertain :  but  it  would  seem,  that  he  now  saw  Ishbosheth 
to  be  likely  to  expel  him  from  his  hard-earned  honours  as 
chief  captain,  and  he  accordingly  resolved  to  make  the  best 
terms  he  could  with  David.  But  David  at  once  saw  the  ad- 
vantage which  he  had,  and  made  a  very  unexpected  'demand 
as  prerequisite  to  all  negotiation; — that  Abner  would  deliver 
up  to  him  as  a  wife  Michal,  the  daughter  of  Saul,  who  had 
been  living  fall  ten  years  in  contented  union  with  Phaltiel 
son  of  Laish.  After  becoming  son-in-law  of  Talmai,  David 
had  taken  to  himself  three  other  wives, — Haggith,  Abital  and 
Eglah.  He  had  now  a  seraglio  of  six  around  him,  and  each 
of  them  had  given  him  a  son  in  Hebron.  It  was  evidently 
therefore  no  love  for  Michal  which  led  him  now  to  rend  open 
new  wounds  under  pretence  of  healing  old  ones :  his  design 
was  to  add  to  his  person  one  more  claim  to  the  kingdom  over 
Israel,  by  appearing  in  the  character  of  Saul's  son-in-law,  and 
renewing  the  memory  of  the  days  when  he  had  led  Saul's 
armies  to  victory.  Abner  executed  the  unkind  commission 
with  as  much  civility  as  the  case  allowed ;  and  Phaltiel  went 
weeping  behind  the  wife  who  was  being  torn  from  him,  till 
they  reached  Bahurini  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  near  the 
frontier  of  Judah.  When  she  had  been  given  into  David's 
hands,  Abner  proceeded  to  conciliate  the  elders  of  all  Israel, 
and  especially  of  Benjamin,  to  the  cause  of  David;  after  which 
he  was  entertained  with  a  guard  of  twenty  men  by  David  in 
Hebron,  and  definitely  engaged  himself  to  gather  deputies 
from  all  Israel  who  should  publicly  recognize  David  as  king 
of  the  twelve  tribes. 

But  when  Joab,  on  returning  to  Hebron,  learned  what  was 
going  on,  he  perceived  that  Abner,  so  aged  and  esteemed  a 
leader,  must  necessarily  supersede  him  as  captain  of  the  host 
of  Israel.  With  all  the  freedom  of  one  who  remembered  the 

1  If  Ishbosheth.  reigned  only  two  years,  this  date  must  be  incorrect ;  but  see 
the  note  on  the  age  of  Ishbosheth. 


MURDER    OF    ABNER.  69 

time  when  David  had  been  an  outlaw,  his  rude  nephew  coarsely 
rebuked  him  and  imputed  treachery  to  Abner.  Then  having 
enticed  the  unsuspecting  warrior  back  on  pretence  of  further 
conference,  he  assassinated  him  on  the  spot  with  his  own 
hand. 

At  this  bloody  deed  the  heart  of  David  fainted.  It  was  his 
first  taste  perhaps  of  the  misery  of  possessing  royal  power, 
purchased  by  the  aid  of  such  comrades  as  Joab.  Besides  the 
natural  horror  which  he  must  have  felt  at  the  violent  death  of 
one  whom  he  had  so  much  reason  to  respect,  he  seemed  to 
have  lost  the  hopes  which  Abner7  s  mission  was  to  have  con- 
firmed, and  to  be  in  danger  of  incurring  hatred  with  all  Israel 
as  implicated  in  the  treacherous  murder.  Although  Joab 
was  his  sister's  son,  it  is  probable  that  David  would  have  ex- 
ecuted summary  justice  on  him,  if  he  had  dared ;  but  Joab's 
cause  was  now  upheld  by  Abishai  his  brother,  and  both  gave 
out  that  it  had  been  a  just  retaliation  for  the  death  of  Asahel. 
Their  influence  in  the  army  at  Hebron  was  too  formidable  to 
oppose ;  and  David  could  not  sacrifice  Joab,  without  making 
Abishai  also  his  mortal  enemy.  His  indignation  and  disgust 
vented  itself  in  grievous  curses  against  Joab;  and  to  avert 
the  public  odium  of  the  deed,  he  made  an  ostentatious  display 
of  grief.  Not  satisfied  with  public  fasting  and  solemn  pro- 
cession to  the  grave  of  Abner,  he  wept  publicly  with  loud 
crying,  and  recited  a  simple  ditty, — perhaps  extemporaneously 
poured  forth : — 

Why  needed  Abner  to  die  the  death  of  the  impious  ? 

Thy  hands  were  not  bound  : 

Thy  feet  were  not  put  into  fetters  : 

As  a  man  falls  by  the  sons  of  malice,  so  didst  thou  fall. 

But  this  calamitous  event  did  not  practically  delay  the 
.accession  of  David  to  the  throne  of  Israel.  Abner  had  lived 
to  do  the  work  he  had  undertaken,  and  it  had  become  noto- 
rious that  all  was  ripe  for  a  revolution  in  favour  of  David. 
Two  brothers,  captains  of  bands  under  Ishbosheth, — by  name 
Baanah  and  Rechab,  sons  of  Rimmon, — aiming  to  forestal 
favour  with  the  expected  sovereign,  murdered  Ishbosheth  on 
his  couch  at  noon,  and  carried  his  head  to  David.  It  was  the 
fortune  of  this  prince  to  be  relieved  by  others  from  the  per- 
petration of  crime ;  and  although  he  at  length  became  cor- 


70  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

mpted  by  power,  he  was  always  spared  its  worst  temptations. 
Ishbosheth  had  died  without  issue :  Jonathan  had  left  a  son 
Mephibosheth,  but  he  was  lame,  and  was  now  about  thirteen 
years  old.  Saul's  surviving  sons  were  born  of  a  concubine, — 
Bizpah  daughter  of  Aiah, — and  were  not  regarded  as  politi- 
cally legitimate.  Thus,  as  husband  to  Michal,  David  would 
in  any  case  have  had  a  near  claim  on  the  succession;  nor 
ought  the  murderers  to  have  calculated  on  a  gracious  recep- 
tion from  the  brother-in-law  of  their  victim,. even  if  they  did 
not  know  how  the  Amalekite  was  treated  who  professed  to 
have  slain  Saul,  David's  personal  and  inveterate  foe.  With- 
out hesitation  David  ordered  them  both  to  be  killed  on  the 
spot,  their  hands  and  feet  to  be  cut  off,  and  hanged  over  the 
pool  in  Hebron.  The  head  of  Ishbosheth  was  buried  with  all 
respect  in  the  sepulchre  of  Abner  at  the  same  place. 

David  had  reigned  seven  years  and  a  half  in  Hebron  over 
the  tribe  of  Judah  alone.  He  was  now  solemnly  installed  as 
king  by  the  elders  of  all  Israel,  and  "  made  a  league  with  them 
before  Jehovah  in  Hebron1."  This  was  equivalent  to  what 
we  now  call  a  "  coronation  oath/'  and  denoted  that  he  was  a 

1  According  to  1  Chron.  xii.  23-40,  an  army  of  more  than  340,000  men 
marched  from  all  Israel  to  Hebron  to  welcome  David  to  the  throne.  The  num- 
bers are  an  evident  exaggeration  characteristic  of  the  whole  book,  yet  their  pro- 
portions are  not  without  interest,  as  indicating  the  ideas  once  current  concerning 
the  relative  strength  of  the  tribes  in  David's  reign.  The  men  of  Judah  are  few, 
perhaps  because  David  was  at  home  with  them.  The  numbers  assigned  to  the 
Danites  are  surprizing,  also  the  small  ratio  which  Ephraim  bears  to  Zebulon, 
Naphthali  and  Asher.  The  separation  of  Aaronites  from  Levites,  who  are  all 
treated  as  fighting  men,  the  prowess  ascribed  to  Zadok  the  Aaronite,  and  the  re- 
markable detail  that  200  chiefs  of  Issachar  came  without  troops,  while  the  Ma- 
nassites  came  "  expressed  by  name,"  appear  like  real  history,  at  which  this  is  an 
elaborate  effort,  and  no  arbitrary  invention. 

Judah 6,800 

Simeon 7,100 

Levi 4,600 

Aaronites 3,700 

Benjamin 3,000 

Ephraim 20,800 

Western  Manasseh    .     .     18,000 

Zebulon 50,000 

Naphthali 37,000 

And  Captains    .     .     .       1,000 

Danites 28,600 

Asher 40,000 

Issachar  chiefs      .     .     .          200 

Eastern  tribes       .     .     .  120,000 


Total  .     .     .  340,800 


JERUSALEM.  71 

constitutional,  not  an  arbitrary  monarch.  The  Israelites  had 
no  intention  to  resign  their  liberties,  but  in  the  sequel  it  will 
appear,  that,  with  paid  foreign  troops  at  his  side,  even  a  most 
religious  king  could  be  nothing  but  a  despot. 

Concerning  David's  military  proceedings  during  his  reign 
at  Hebron,  we  know  nothing  in  detail,  though  we  read  of 
Joab  bringing-in  a  large  spoil,  probably  from  his  old  enemies 
the  Amalekites.  David  had  an  army  to  feed,  to  exercise,  and 
to  keep  out  of  mischief;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  war  against 
Abner  generally  occupied  it  sufficiently.  Now  however  he 
determined  to  signalize  his  new  power  by  a  great  exploit. 
The  strength  of  JERUSALEM  had  been  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  long  secure  dwelling  of  Jebusites  in  it,  surrounded  by  a 
Hebraized  population.  Hebron  was  no  longer  a  suitable  place 
for  the  centre  of  David's  administration;  but  Jerusalem,  on 
the  frontier  of  Benjamin  and  Judah,  without  separating  him 
from  his  own  tribe,  gave  him  a  ready  access  to  the  plains  of 
Jericho  below,  and  thereby  to  the  eastern  districts ;  and  al- 
though by  no  means  a  central  position,  it  was  less  remote  from 
Ephraim  than  Hebron.  Of  this  Jebusite  town  he  therefore 
determined  to  possess  himself. 

Jerusalem  is  situated  on,  and  in  the  midst  of,  round  or 
square  hills ;  the  ravines  on  three  sides  of  it  make  a  natural 
defence.  The  brook  Kidron  winds  round  it  on  the  north  and 
east  along  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  is  flanked  by  cliffs 
taller  and  steeper  towards  its  southern  end,  near  which  is  the 
flat-topped  hill  of  Moriah.  To  the  south-west  of  this  is  the 
larger  and  higher  hill  of  Zion,  divided  from  it  by  a  ravine, 
which  forms  a  steep  descent  to  the  pool  of  Siloam  and  valley 
of  Jehoshaphat.  The  western  and  southern  sides  of  Mount 
Zion  are  lofty  and  abrupt,  and  at  their  bottom  lies  the  narrow 
Valley  of  Hinnom1,  called  in  Hebrew  Gehinnom :  a  word 
which  has  strangely  changed  its  meaning,  both  in  Hebrew  and 
in  Arabic.  Towards  the  north-west  the  descent  from  both 
hills  is  more  gradual,  yet  each  of  them  is  defended  by  a  de- 
pression of  moderate  depth,  which  art  would  easily  convert 
into  a  fortification  available  against  the  modes  of  attack  known 
the  Hebrews.  The  entire  breadth  of  the  table-land  across 


1  The  northern  end  of  this  valley  is  also  named  the  Valley  of  Gihon,  and  con- 
tains the  pool  of  Gihon.     Gihinnom  or  Q-eJiennem  has  taken  the  sense  of  Hell ; 
r.se  in  later  times  this  valley  was  the  scene  of  the  cruel  superstition  which 
children  to  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech. 


72  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  top  of  Zion  and  the  skirt  of  Moriah,  to  the  edge  of  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  little  exceeds  half  a  mile ;  and  was  not 
too  great  for  a  moderate  force  to  defend.  The  hills  which 
look  down  on  Jerusalem  from  the  north-east,  south-east,  and 
south,  probably  explain  the  abundance  of  spring-water  for 
which  Jerusalem  has  been  celebrated :  for  in  the  numerous 
blockades  which  it  has  endured,  the  besiegers  are  said  to  have 
been  often  distressed  for  want  of  water,  the  besieged  never. 

The  Jebusites  were  so  confident  of  their  safety,  as  to  send 
to  David  an  enigmatical  message  of  defiance;  which  may  be 
explained, — that  a  lame  and  blind  garrison  was  sufficient  to 
defend  the  place.  David  saw  in  this  an  opportunity  of  dis- 
placing Joab  from  his  office  of  chief  captain, — if  indeed  Joab 
formally  held  that  office  as  yet,  and  had  not  merely  assumed 
authority  as  David's  eldest  nephew  and  old  comrade  in  arms. 
The  king  however  now  declared,  that  whoever  should  first 
scale  the  wall  and  drive  off  its  defenders,  should  be  made  chief 
captain;  but  his  hopes  were  signally  disappointed.  His  im- 
petuous nephew  resolved  not  to  be  outdone,,  and  triumphantly 
mounting  the  wall,  was  the  immediate  means  of  the  capture 
of  the  town.  After  this,  Joab's  supremacy  in  the  king's  army 
could  not  be  shaken  off :  for  thirty-two  years  more  this  bold 
and  bad  man  continued  to  hold  high  authority  in  the  court  of 
the  pious  king.  Painfully  different  often  are  the  aspirations 
of  devotional  hours  from  the  necessities  imposed  by  political 
life :  for,  probably,  very  soon  after,  David  composed  the  101st 
Psalm,  declaring  his  resolution  not  to  promote  or  endure  the 
presence  of  wicked  men.  The  Psalm1  is  thus  translated  :— 

1.  Of  G-oodness  and  Righteousness  will  I  sing  : 
Unto  thee,  O  JEHOVAH,  will  I  play  (on  the  harp). 

2.  I  will  attend  unto  guiltless  ways. — 
O,  when  wilt  thou  come  unto  me, 

That  I  may  walk  in  my  house  with  guiltless  heart  ? 

3.  No  wicked  thing  will  I  set  before  my  eyes  : 
I  hate  to  use  evil  agency  : 

It  shall  not  cleave  unto  me. 

4.  The  falsehearted  shall  be  far  from  me ; 
I  will  not  know  a  bad  man. 

1  The  15th  Psalm  and  the  first  part  of  the  24th,  which  have  no  internal 
marks  of  being  composed  by  a  king,  have  many  similarities  of  expression  to  the 
101st.  Ewald  regards  the  15th  as  not  quite  so  old.  It  is  credible  that  the 
psalmists  and  prophets  of  those  days  had  certain  current  sentiments  and  phrases, 
which  make  it  impossible  to  say  what  has  been  imitated  from  what. 


CAPTURE    OF    JERUSALEM.  73 

5.  I  will  uproot  him  who  secretly  slandereth  his  neighbour  ; 
The  man  of  haughty  eye  and  proud  heart  I  will  not  endure. 

6.  My  eyes  shall  be  on  the  faithful  in  the  land,  that  they  may  dwell  with 

me  : 
•   He  that  walketh  in  a  guiltless  way  snail  serve  me. 

7.  He  that  worketh  deceit  shall  not  stay  in  my  house ; 
He  that  telleth  lies  shall  not  stand  in  my  sight. 

8.  I  will  watch  to  pluck  up  the  wicked  of  the  land, 
That  I  may  uproot  all  evildoers  from  JEHOVAH'S  CITY. 

Although  David's  resolutions  rose  high  above  his  practice  or 
his  power  to  perform,  his  practice  would  have  fallen  far  lower, 
had  not  his  aspirations  been  so  high ;  nor  were  the  sincerely 
good  intentions,  with  which  he  entered  the  captured  place, 
wholly  in  vain.  Jerusalem  is  henceforth  its  name  in  the  his- 
tory ;  in  poetry  only,  and  not  before  the  times  of  king  Heze- 
kiah,  is  it  entitled  Salem,  or  peace ;  identifying  it  with  the 
city  of  the  legendary  Melchisedek.  David's  first  care  was  to 
provide  for  the  security  of  his  intended  capital,  by  suitable 
fortifications.  Immediately  to  the  north  of  Mount  Zion  and 
separated  from  it  by  a  slighter  depression  which  we  have 
named,  was  another  hill,  called  Millo  in  the  Hebrew,  dfcpa  (or 
citadel  ?)  in  the  Greek.  In  ancient  times  this  seems  to  have 
been  much  loftier  than  now ;  for  it  has  been  artificially  low- 
ered. David  made  no  attempt  to  include  Millo  (or  Acra)  in 
his  city,  but  fortified  Mount  Zion  separately ;  whence  it  was 
afterwards  called,  The  city  of  David.  Mount  Moriah  also  was 
left  outside  to  the  north-east,  since  great  works  were  needed 
in  preparing  a  royal  palace  and  treasure-house,  besides  the 
outer  wall ;  and  he  was  anxious  to  strengthen  as  speedily  as 
possible  that  which  he  destined  as  JEHOVAH'S  CITY,  before  fo- 
reign war  should  distract  him. 

In  fact,  this  was  impending.  The  Philistines,  who  had 
maintained  an  honourable  peace  as  long  as  David  had  been 
engaged  by  civil  broils,  were  alarmed  as  soon  as  he  became 
king  of  all  Israel;  and  his  sudden  attack  on  Jebus  showed 
them  what  they  had  to  expect  for  Gezer  and  their  other  towns, 
even  if  they  were  not  moved  by  any  alliance  with  the  Jebu- 
sites.  They  marched  out  in  force  and  encamped  on  the  high 
plain  of  Rephaim,  on  the  south  or  south-west  of  Mount  Zion, 
from  which  it  is  separated  only  by  the  valley  of  Hinnom. 
David  now  anxiously  consulted  Jehovah  by  Urim,  whether 
to  attack  the  Philistines ;  and  having  obtained  leave,  he  suc- 

E 


74  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ceeded  so  far  as  to  repulse  them  and  capture  the  images  of 
their  gods,  which  the  Hebrews  burned.  It  does  not  appear 
whether  these  were  attached  to  military  standards,  like  the 
Roman  eagles ;  but  the  fact  deserves  remark,  as  the  first  inti- 
mation that  David  was  making  war  against  idolatry.  The 
Philistines  however, — it  would  appear  with  increased  forces, 
— resumed  their  position  on  the  same  lofty  plain ;  and  the 
priest,  after  consulting  the  Urim,  forbade  David  to  assail  them 
in  front.  We  may  probably  infer  that  they  were  emboldened 
to  detach  a  body  of  men  for  the  support  of  Geba ;  for,  as  we 
learn,  when  the  signal  was  heard  for  which  the  Urim  had  bade 
David  to  wait,  the  Hebrews  who  had  fetched  a  compass  round 
them  attacked  their  flank,  and  they  fled  "  from  Geba  toGezer." 
In  Geba,  northward  of  Jerusalem,  they  had  had  a  garrison  in 
SauPs  days,  which  probably  still  remained,  and  Gezer,  which 
contained  a  Canaanite  population,  seems  to  have  been  their 
own  town,  to  which  they  would  flee  for  refuge. 

These  events  appear  to  have  been  of  no  farther  importance 
than  to  show  the  Philistines  that  they  could  not  contend 
single-handed  against  David ;  and,  whatever  the  danger  of  al- 
lowing him  to  grow  strong,  peace  was  at  present  their  wisest 
or  their  only  policy.  But  a  remark  is  needed  on  David's 
consulting  of  the  Urim.  He  did  not  seek  divine  counsel 
whether  to  attack  Jebus;  apparently  because  his  mind  was 
clear  that  the  enterprize  was  advantageous.  But  when  Ziklag 
had  been  burned  by  the  Amalekites,  and  now,  when  a  danger- 
ous army  is  at  hand,  he  is  glad  of  such  advice.  It  would 
appear  that  he  regarded  it  as  a  divine  aid  in  times  of  per- 
plexity1, but  only  to  be  sought  for  in  such  times.  He  had  no 
idea  of  abdicating  his  duties  as  military  leader,  and  putting 
the  movements  of  his  army  into  the  control  of  the  priest. 
Hence  perhaps  it  is,  that  as  his  confidence  in  his  troops  and 
in  his  own  warlike  experience  increased,  he  ceased  altogether 
to  consult  the  sacred  Urim ;  for  we  hear  no  more  of  it  in  his 
later  wars. 

He  was  now  at  liberty  to  carry  out  his  intention  of  making 
Jerusalem  a  sacred  city  for  all  Israel,  and  binding  the  tribes 
together  by  a  new  centre  of  interest.  With  this  was  coupled 
his  wish  to  exalt  the  honour  of  Jehovah,  and  destroy  in  Israel 
all  foreign  superstition.  The  tabernacle,  it  will  be  remem- 

1  Socrates,  in  Xenoph.  Memor.  I.I.  6-9,  takes  this  view  of  divination. 


THE  ARK  CONVEYED  TO  JERUSALEM.  75 

bered,  was  at  aGibeon,  and  the  ark  at  Kirjathjearim.  Later 
times  treated  these  as  natural  and  proper  companions ;  and  if 
David  had  shared  the  feelings  of  Nehemiah,  it  is  probable  that 
he  would  have  brought  both  of  them  to  Jerusalem.  No  one 
can  certainly  say  why  he  resolved  on  what  may  seem  a  very 
capricious  course, — to  bring  the  ark  to  Jerusalem,  but  instead 
of  putting  it  into  the  ancient  tabernacle,  to  erect  a  new  taber- 
nacle for  it  himself3.  It  is  possible  that  his  new  pavilion  was 
superior  in  size  and  beauty;  and  in  any  case  we  may  conjec- 
ture that  he  wished  to  provide  a  double  priestly  establishment 
for  the  rival  pretensions  of  Zadok  and  Abiathar.  Zadok  was 
left  to  minister  at  Gibeon3,  and  was  perhaps  already  David's 
favourite;  but  Abiathar  was  the  representative  of  Eli  and  of 
the  priests  whom  Saul  had  massacred.  Yet  the  theory  of  a 
single  High  Priest  was  alien  to  David's  policy.  His  own  rise 
by  priestly  aid  had  shown  sufficiently  what  a  united  priesthood 
could  do  against  the  crown;  and  while  warmly  patronizing 
religion,  he  would  not  make  its  officers  too  powerful.  All 
through  his  reign  Zadok  and  Abiathar4  continued  as  joint  and 
coordinate  authorities,  although  Abiathar,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  Eli,  took  precedence  of  the  other.  Numerous  circum-  i  / 
stances  will  open  upon  us  in  the  course  of  the  history,  which 
will  warn  us  not  to  assume  that  David's  ecclesiastical  proceed- 
ings were  modeled  according  to  the  Pentateuch. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  the  tarrying  of  the  ark  at  Kir- 
jathjearim was  ascribed  to  the  extreme  danger  of  mortal  plagues 
proceeding  from  it  while  it  was  exposed  to  vulgar  curiosity. 
A  new  calamity  was  now  reported,  which  impeded  its  travel- 
ling. When  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem,  escorted  by  David  with 
30,000  men  and  numerous  musicians,  it  was  jolted  on  its  cart 
by  the  oxen  which  drew  it ;  and  when  Uzzah,  the  son  of  Abi- 
nadab,  who  was  in  charge  of  it,  put  forth  his  hand  to  save  it 
from  falling,  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  kindled  against  Uzzah, 
and  smote  him  so  that  he  died  on  the  spot.  Such  was  the 
belief  of  the  later  Jews,  and  such  has  been  the  belief  of  Chris- 

1  Tliis  is  mentioned  by  the  Chronicler  only ;  on  which  account  some  critics 
doubt  whether  there  was  any  old  tabernacle  at  all.     To  me  it  seems,  that  if  it 
were  a  fiction  of  sacerdotal  vanity,  that  vanity  would  have  displayed  itself  in 
something  more  than  the  dry  statements  of  2  Chron.  i.  3,  13. 

2  2  Sam.  vi.  17  ;  2  Chron.  i.  4.  3  1  Chron.  xvi.  39. 

4  In  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  1  Chron.  xviii.  16,  Ahimelech  son  of  Abiathar  is  errone- 
ously put  for  Abiathar  son  of  Ahimelech.  See  1  Kings,  ii.  26,  in  proof  that  the 
Abiathar  disgraced  by  Solomon  is  he  whose  father  Ahimelech  was  slain  by  Saul. 

E   2 


76  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

tians  :  we  therefore  are  not  justified  in  doubting  whether  David 
too  could  lie  under  so  palsying  a  superstition.  He  dared  not 
to  bring  the  ark  any  farther  at  the  moment,  and  it  halted 
three  months  at  the  house  of  Obed  Edom  the  Gittite.  The 
chief  interest  of  this  to  us  is,  that  it  shows  us  a  man  of  Gath, 
not  only  established  in  Israel,  but  invested  with  a  religious 
charge.  However,  the  three  months'  tarrying  was  believed  to 
have  brought  a  blessing  to  Obed  Edom,  and  David  took  fresh 
courage.  He  came  down  again  in  person  with  a  great  multi- 
tude, and  offered  sacrifices  as  soon  as  the  ark  was  in  motion : 
finally,  it  was  brought  into  the  city  of  David  with  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet :  musicians  and  singers  accompanied  it,  singing 
(according  to  the  most  probable  criticism)  the  whole,  or  the 
close  only,  of  the  24th  Psalm1: — 

Lift  up,  O  ye  doors,  your  heads  : 
Lift  them  up,  ye  ancient  gates  : 
Let  the  glorious  King  come  in ! 

Who  then  is  the  glorious  King  ? 
'T  is  Jehovah,  strong  and  mighty, 
T  is  Jehovah,  lord  of  battles,  etc.  etc. 

While  the  ark  was  proceeding  towards  its  new  tabernacle,  the 
king  himself  danced  before  it  in  a  priest's  linen  tippet.  He 
had  evidently  no  idea  that  priests  were  to  monopolize  religious 
ministrations,  or  that  the  joy  of  a  worshipper  might  not  mani- 
fest itself  in  the  modes  familiar  to  his  country.  Perhaps  this 
little  incident  might  have  been  suppressed,  as  an  invasion  of 
sacerdotal  functions,  by  the  narrow  formality  of  a  later  age, 
had  it  not  been  preserved  to  us  by  a  result  in  which  the  priestly 
enemies  of  Saul  rejoiced.  Michal  was  displeased  at  David's 
public  dancing,  inasmuch  as  the  sort  of  nakedness  which  it  in- 
volved (the  lower  gown  or  robe  being  laid  aside, — to  gain  ac- 
tivity, we  presume,)  seemed  to  her  degrading  to  a  king;  and 
she  did  not  spare  to  reproach  her  husband  for  it.  He  on  his 
part,  not  wanting  in  spirit,  took  care  to  let  her  understand 
that  it  was  to  Jehovah  and  His  cause,  not  to  her  name,  that 
he  was  indebted  for  his  kingdom,  and  that  he  would  not  be 
controlled  by  her  influence.  To  this  altercation  the  old  histo- 
rian imputes  it, — whether  by  a  divine  judgment  or  by  the  dis- 

1  The  song  ascribed  to  David  on  this  occasion  by  the  Chronicler  bears  internal 
evidence  of  much  later  origin. 


STATE    OF    HEBREW    INDUSTRY.  77 

gust  with  which  it  inspired  David, — that  the  daughter  of  Saul 
had  no  children  to  the  day  of  her  death. 

Soon  after  his  peaceable  establishment  in  Jerusalem,  David 
took  measures  for  building  himself  a  palace.  The  arts  of  the 
mason  and  the  carpenter  were  exceedingly  rude  among  the 
Hebrews;  but  the  Tyrians1  were  excellent  neighbours  and 
skilful  workmen,  and  an  alliance  of  commerce  now  commenced 
between  the  nations,  which  was  of  extreme  importance  for 
developing  the  industry  of  the  ruder  and  poorer  people.  Al- 
though little  or  nothing  is  recorded  concerning  the  tillage  of 
the  land  under  Saul,  we  may  judge  that  there  must  have  been 
frequent  insecurity,  little  stimulus  from  foreign  trade,  and  no 
good  supply  of  agricultural  implements.  With  cultivation, 
wheat  and  wine  in  abundance, — and,  almost  self-produced,  oil 
and  honey, — could  be  exported  from  the  land  of  Israel  to  Tyre; 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  more  diligent  production  of 
these  staple  articles  began  from  the  period  of  David's  first 
commerce  with  his  Tyrian  neighbours.  As  little  question  can 
there  be 'that  every  species  of  manufactured  implement,  espe- 
cially weapons  of  war  and  superior  armour,  would  be  obtained 
abundantly  from  Tyre,  as  soon  as  tranquil  and  steady  industry 
became  possible.  And  as  far  as  our  sources  of  information 
are  available,  it  would  seem  that  at  this  crisis  there  was  a 
considerable  interval  of  peace.  For  a  long  time  previous,  the 
Philistines  alone  had  been  dangerous  or  troublesome  enemies; 
and  respite  being  now  gained,  both  from  their  attacks  and  from 
civil  war,  the  industrious  arts  began  to  receive  a  development 
before  unknown ;  and  by  interchange  of  raw  produce  with  the 
Tyrians,  the  wealth  of  Israel  at  large  and  of  the  king's  trea- 
sury must  have  obtained  a  great  accession.  How  long  this 
repose  lasted,  we  cannot  tell ;  but  as  no  enemy  set  foot  on  the 
land  during  David's  reign,  and  no  complaint  is  recorded 
against  the  king's  taxes,  it  must  be  believed  that  a  steady  in- 
crease of  wealth  and  population  went  on  during  the  whole 
period.  It  is  not  likely  that  he  meanwhile  relaxed  any  of  his 
old  martial  exercises.  We  learn  incidentally  that  600  men 
"  had  followed  him  from  Gath2,"  whom  we  find  at  a  much 

1  The  Chronicler  says,  "  Hiram  king  of  Tyre."     But  Hiram  is  still  on  the 
throne  in  the  middle  of  Solomon's  reign,  forty  or  fifty  years  later.   This  seems 
merely  a  mark  that  no  earlier  king's  name  at  Tyre  was  known  to  the  writer ; 
just  as  the  Ammonite  king  at  Saul's  accession  is  called  Nahash. 

2  2  Sam.  xv.  18. 


78  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

later  time  as  part  of  his  body-guard.  Since  they  must  have 
been  with  him  from  the  beginning,  we  cannot  but  see  in  the 
fact  a  nucleus  of  military  despotism,  and  that,  as  all  other 
despots,  he  preferred  to  trust  to  foreigners  the  care  of  his 
person.  These  troops  were,  no  doubt,  kept  in  constant  train- 
ing; and  as  his  treasury  filled,  he  was  able  to  increase  his 
standing  army. 

The  first  consequence  of  his  increase  of  strength  was  a 
voice  from  the  holy  Urim,  suggesting  to  him  to  undertake 
the  conquest  of  Moab,  Philistia  and  Edom.  At  least,  a  frag- 
ment of  his  poetry  which  has  come  down  to  us  imbedded  in 
two  different  Psalms1,  represents  him  as  contemplating  this 
threefold  enterprise,  while  elated  by  a  voice  from  the  sanc- 
tuary. He  names  Judah  his  lawgiver,  perhaps  to  denote  the 
more  strictly  constitutional  rights  under  which  he  was  bound 
to  his  own  tribe ;  against  which  he  had  never  contended  in 
war,  and  from  which  he  had  first  received  the  kingly  power. 

G-od  hath  spoken  in  his  holy  place ;  and  I  rejoice. 
I  divide  Shechem,  and  mete  out  the  valley  of  Succoth : 
Gilead  is  mine,  Manasseh  is  mine : 
Ephraim  also  is  the  strength  of  my  head : 
Judah  is  my  lawgiver. 

Moab  is  my  washpot :  over  Edom  will  I  cast  out  my  shoe : 
Over  Philistia  will  I  triumph. 

Who  will  bring  me  into  the  strong  city  ?  who  will  lead  me  into  Edom  ? 
Wilt  not  thou,  O  God,  etc.  .  .  .  ? 

From  this  it  might  appear  that  Edom  was  the  country 
which  he  destined  first  to  attack.  Yet  according  to  the  order 
stated  in  the  concise  summary  preserved  to  us,  David  com- 
menced his  career  of  encroachment  by  an  invasion  of  Philistia, 
which  might  seem  to  be  justified  by  their  aggressive  move- 
ment when  he  ascended  the  throne  of  Israel.  His  success  is 
vaguely  spoken  of  as  complete,  but  the  only  definite  result 
named  is  his  taking  from  them  the  fortress  Metheg-Ammah 
(or,  the  Bridle  of  Ammah),  which,  we  may  infer,  was  import- 
ant for  keeping  them  in  check.  But  it  is  not  stated  that  the 
Philistines  became  tributary. 

This  however  was  followed  by  a  far  more  deadly  war  against 
the  Moabites,  who  were  previously  known  as  a  very  friendly 
people.  To  the  king  of  Moab,  it  will  be  remembered,  David 

1  Psalms  cviii.  and  Lx. 


CONQUEST    OF    MOAB.  79 

had  committed  his  parents  at  the  time  of  his  great  danger 
from  Saul ;  thus  he  had  personal,  as  well  as  national,  grounds 
for  maintaining  with  them  peaceful  relations.  No  causes  are 
assigned  for  the  attack  which  he  now  made  on  them,  which 
ended  in  his  putting  to  the  sword1  two-thirds  of  the  unfortu- 
nate population,  and  subjecting  the  rest  to  tribute.  Treat- 
ment so  ferocious  could  hardly  have  proceeded  from  mutual 
exasperation,  else  some  other  striking  facts  would  have  been 
recorded,  such  as  perfidy  and  cruelty  on  the  part  of  the 
Moabites.  It  is  therefore  rather  to  be  ascribed  to  policy,  and 
perhaps  to  the  greediness  of  the  neighbour- tribe  of  Reuben  to 
appropriate  their  pasture-grounds;  but  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten, that  in  this  fierce  massacre,  even  if  dictated  by  pure 
avarice  and  ambition,  David  would  not  want  the  express  per- 
mission of  the  great  Jewish  lawgiver2,  if  we  could  persuade 
ourselves  that  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  At 
any  rate  the  Hebrew  king  did  nothing  which  the  later  bards 
and  priests  of  his  own  nation,  or  the  statesmen  of  Rome, 
would  have  censured  as  cruel  or  unjust. 

Thus  far  we  have  contemplated  David  as  warring  against 
his  immediate  neighbours ;  petty  nations,  inferior  each  of 
them  in  numbers  and  resources  to  united  Israel,  though  occa- 
sionally superior  by  arts  or  by  accident.  But  about  this  time, 
new  events  threw  the  Hebrew  prince  into  conflict  with  a  far 
greater  potentate,  whose  person,  people  and  dominion  are 
alike  dimly  descried  by  us;  nevertheless,  what  we  do  know 
about  him,  is  both  negatively  and  positively  of  great  import- 
ance. If  we  could  believe  the  vulgar  tradition  of  an  old  Assy- 
rian monarchy,  beginning  with  Ninus  and  Semiramis  in  an 
extreme  antiquity,  Nineveh  was  in  the  time  of  David  the  seat 
of  a  wide-reaching  empire,  the  power  of  which  was  felt  in 
Egypt  and  Phoenicia,  in  Lydia  and  in  Media.  But  the  He- 
brew annals  would  in  themselves  suffice  to  show  that  this  is 
an  exaggeration.  All  that  we  can  distinctly  assert  is,  that 
about  this  time  a  branch  of  the  Syrian  nation  called  Zobah- 
ites  (or,  the  house  of  Zobah)  had  risen  to  great  eminence  in 
Northern  Mesopotamia  and  Syria.  The  later  Syrian  tradi- 
tion represents  Nisibis  in  Mesopotamia  as  their  head-quarters ; 
while  the  Jews  place  them  at  Aleppo.  Probably  Zobah  itself, 

1  Such  seems  the  meaning  of  the  words,  2  Sam.  viii.  2  :  "  with  two  lines  mea- 
sured he  to  put  to  death,  and  with  one  full  line  to  keep  alive." 

2  Deut.  xx.  10-15. 


80  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

like  Israel,  Seljuk,  Othman,  was  the  name  of  a  patriarch 
rather  than  of  a  place.  Whether  the  Zobahites  at  this  period 
were  all  under  one  king,  we  do  not  know ;  but  a  great  leader 
of  them,  called  Hadadezer  son  of  Rehob,  had  made  himself 
celebrated  by  his  wars  in  Syria,  and  appears  to  have  been 
keeping  the  city  of  Damascus  in  dependent  alliance.  Toi, 
king  of  Hamath,  is  specified  as  one  who  had  had  painful  proofs 
of  Hadadezer's  prowess.  The  city  of  Hamath  was  called 
Epiphaneia  by  the  Greeks.  Since  however  Hamath  is  often 
treated  as  touching  Israel  on  the  northern  frontier1,  we  are 
forced  to  infer  that  its  territory  included  the  remarkable  plain 
to  the  south  of  the  city,  which  was  called  the  Hollow  Syria, 
from  its  position  between  the  vast  mountain  walls  of  Libanus 
and  Anti-Libanus.  Moreover,  if  at  the  sera  of  which  we  are 
treating  some  other  power  than  Hamath  had  possessed  this 
district,  we  must  of  necessity  have  heard  of  it  in  the  war  with 
Hadadezer.  He  had  great  strength  in  cavalry  and  in  chariots 
of  war,  a  species  of  force  in  which  the  early  Assyrians  ex- 
celled :  as  cavalry  indeed  has  at  every  time  distinguished  all 
the  great  empires  of  Asia.  By  occupying  Damascus  and  its 
territory,  the  king  of  Zobah  in  a  manner  flanked  all  the 
dominions  of  Hamath ;  and  as  either  his  direct  sway  or  his 
national  connexions  reached  over  into  Mesopotamia,  his  re- 
sources made  him  a  most  formidable  neighbour  to  every  state 
in  Syria. 

The  circumstances  which  threw  him  into  collision  with 
David  are  very  obscurely  explained2 :  nor  can  it  even  be  made 
out  from  the  statements  whether  the  war  was  offensive  or  de- 
fensive on  David's  part,  nor  whether  the  first  meeting  took 
place  on  Israelitish  ground  or  so  far  off  as  the  bank  of  the 
Euphrates.  As  however  king  Toi  immediately  afterwards  ap- 
pears in  friendship  with  David,  the  nature  of  the  case  itself 
seems  almost  to  force  us  on  some  such  interpretation  as  the 
following. 

The  king  of  Hamath,  impelled  by  the  danger  which  threat- 
ened him  from  the  growth  of  the  Zobahite  power,  and  learn- 
ing of  the  spirit  and  high  success  of  David  in  various  wars, 

1  Num.  xxxiv.  8,  etc. 

2  2  Sam.  viii.  3.     "  David  smote  him,  as  Tie  (Hadadezer  ?)  went  to  recover  his 
border  at  the  river  Euphrates."     Who  had  taken  it  away  ?     David  ?     That  ap- 
pears inconceivable.    Was  it  not  Toi,  king  of  Hamath  ?  and  was  not  David  only 
his  ally,  and  secondary  in  the  war  ? 


FIRST    WAR    WITH    THE    ZOBAH1TES.  81 

solicited  him  to  attack  Hadadezer,  thus  placing  the  Zobahites 
in  Damascus  between  opposite  enemies.  It  was  agreed  that 
Toi  should  intercept  all  communications  with  Mesopotamia  by 
occupying  or  overrunning  the  Syrian  bank  of  the  Euphrates : 
and  while  Hadadezer  was  engaged  in  recovering  his  posts  and 
connexions  in  this  quarter,,  David  fell  upon  him  in  the  more 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  Israel.  The  part  of  the  Zobahite 
army  most  feared  consisted  of  cavalry  and  chariots;  but  we 
may  infer  that  it  had  injudiciously  ventured  into  rugged  and 
enclosed  country,  where  it  could  not  act  to  advantage.  Meet- 
ing with  brave  resistance,  not  from  infantry  only,  but  we  need 
not  doubt,  from  David's  archers  and  slingers,  it  was  miserably 
discomfited  and  a  great  number  of  the  horses  were  captured1. 

Hadadezer  was  too  much  accustomed  to  conquest  tamely  to 
submit  to  this  repulse,  and  called  out  to  his  aid  an  army  of 
Damascenes.  But  this  only  increased  his  disasters.  The 
troops  of  Damascus  fought  with  little  spirit  in  behalf  of  their 
foreign  master,  and  were  totally  routed  by  the  well-trained 
bands  of  David,  now  flushed  with  conscious  prowess  and  mu- 
tual confidence.  The  Hebrew  king  followed  up  his  advantage 
sharply,  and  entered  Damascus  as  a  conqueror.  No  native 
government  was  organized  to  withstand  him,  and  as  the  Zo- 
bahites were  forced  to  withdraw,  he  easily  stept  into  their 
place  as  suzerain  of  the  district.  The  Damascenes  without  a 
struggle  consented  to  change  their  master ;  paid  homage  and 
tribute  to  David,  and  received  garrisons  from  him  into  their 
critical  fortresses.  It  would  have  been  morally  impossible  for 
all  this  to  have  been  brought  about  so  easily  if  the  Zobahites 
had  themselves  held  the  castles  with  a  powerful  infantry,  or  if 
the  Damascenes  had  been  independent  and  struggling  in  a  na- 
tional cause. 

Nor  was  this  the  end  of  Hadadezer's  reverses.  The  king 
of  Hamath  undoubtedly  took  full  advantage  of  his  weakness, 
and  helped  himself  freely  out  of  Hadadezer' s  resources.  The 
advantages  he  gained  may  in  part  be  inferred  from  his  gra- 
titude to  David,  to  whom  he  sent,  by  the  hand  of  his  son  Ha- 
doram,  vessels  of  silver,  gold  and  brass,  as  gifts  of  honour. 
Never  before  had  such  splendour  been  seen  in  Israel.  Re- 
garding his  success  in  the  war  to  have  been  of  Jehovah,  the 

1  David  is  said  to  capture  1000  chariots,  700  horsemen,  and  20,000  footmen. 
The  Chronicler  says  7000  horsemen.  No  credit  whatever  is  due  to  his  estimates 
of  numbers. 

E3 


82  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

pious  king  dedicated  all  these  vessels  to  religious  uses,  instead 
of  displaying  them  in  personal  pride.  Yet  at  the  same  time, 
and  from  the  same  victories,  valuable  metals,  as  spoils  of  war, 
now  began  to  pour  themselves  into  David's  coffers.  One  of 
Hadadezer's  bands  is  said  to  have  had  shields  of  gold,  which 
the  Hebrews  captured :  even  if  we  adopt  the  reasonable  in- 
terpretation of  shields  adorned  with  gold}  it  is  sufficiently  in- 
dicative of  the  pomp  and  wealth  of  the  enemy.  But  a  far 
greater  booty  must  have  been  the  abundance  of  brass  which 
David  got  from  the  plunder  of  Betah  and  Berothai,  cities  of 
Hadadezer ;  of  unknown  site,  but  not  likely  to  have  been  far 
from  Damascus. 

These  and  other  accessions  of  valuable  metal  gave  rise  to  a 
new  scheme  in  David's  contemplations.  It  was  at  least  propa- 
gated and  believed  afterwards  that  he  had  designed  to  build  a 
splendid  temple  for  the  ark  of  God,  instead  of  the  pavilion  of 
curtains  in  which  it  had  hitherto  lodged;  but  that  the  pro- 
phet Nathan,  who  had  at  first  encouraged  the  scheme,  re- 
ceived a  nightly  revelation  from  Jehovah  that  it  was  not  his 
will  at  present1;  but  that  a  son  of  David  should  build  the 
house  of  Jehovah,  and  that  his  seed  should  reign  for  ever  on 
his  throne.  This  very  remarkable  message  undoubtedly  in 
its  first  intent  pointed  at  Solomon,  son  of  David ;  and  it  de- 
serves attention,  as  the  commencement  of  new  political  and 
prophetical  thoughts  of  immense  moment.  For  the  oath 
which  on  this  occasion  Jehovah  made  to  David  through  the 
prophet  was  perpetually  celebrated  by  the  psalmists  of  Israel, 
as  indeed  by  David  himself  in  his  last  words  of  poetry.  By 
the  deep  hold  which  the  idea  took  on  the  national  mind,  it 
saved  the  royalty  to  the  house  of  David  for  several  centuries ; 
and  when  it  failed  at  last,  bequeathed  to  posterity  a  new  and 
mystical  interpretation  of  still  grander  import. 

But  the  Hebrew  monarch  was  now,  himself  in  turn,  started 
on  a  career  of  conquest,  which  must  naturally  have  alarmed 
his  immediate  neighbours.  To  hold  Damascus  and  its  terri- 
tory with  garrisons,  needed  a  constant  increase  of  his  army  in 

1  In  2  Sam.  vii.,  as  1  Chron.  xvii.,  no  reason  against  it  is  assigned  but  old 
precedent.  In  1  Kings,  v.  3,  it  is  said  that  David  could  not  find  time  by  reason 
of  his  wars ;  but  as  this  seemed  insufficient  to  sacerdotal  zeal,  the  Chronicles  (1 
Chron.  xxii.  8)  discovered  a  new  reason— that  David  had  shed  much  Hood. 
The  date  of  Nathan's  message  is  imperfectly  given.  It  was  after  Jehovah  had 
given  David  rest  from  all  his  enemies,  2  Sam.  vii.  1 ;  which  may  point  to  his 
latest  years. 


CONQUEST    OF    EDOM.  83 

the  north ;  and  the  necessity  of  drawing  away  his  forces  from 
the  south  may  possibly  have  laid  him  open  to  attack  from  the 
Edomites  in  that  quarter.  Indeed,  if  we  may  abide  by  an 
old  tradition1,  David's  main  army  was  still  occupied  by  the 
Syrian  war,  when  he  was  forced  to  detach  Joab  to  repel  the 
Edomites,  who  undoubtedly  had  been  made  hostile  ever  since 
the  exterminating  conquest  of  Moab.  David's  general  and 
troops  had  learned  to  trust  one  another;  extreme  promptitude 
was  his  only  rule  of  action;  (for  tactics,  in  a  modern  sense, 
cannot  be  thought  of;)  and  long  habits  of  warfare  had  given 
them  great  superiority  over  brave  neighbours.  It  is  not  stated 
whether  the  Edomites  needed  to  be  driven  off  from  Hebrew 
ground,  or  whether  Joab's  rapidity  anticipated  them ;  a  severe 
battle  however  was  fought  in  the  Valley  of  Salt,  a  remarkable 
place  in  Idumsea,  just  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  afterwards  the 
scene  of  a  still  greater  battle  under  king  Amaziah2.  The 
enemy  was  defeated  with  great  slaughter3,  and  had  to  receive 
Hebrew  garrisons  into  their  cities. 

But  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  atrocious  vengeance. 
Joab4,  when  the  troops  returned  from  the  Syrian  war,  stayed 
in  the  country  for  six  whole  months  with  an  overpowering 
force,  and  deliberately  attempted  to  kill  every  male  Edomite. 
His  battalions  roved  far  and  wide,  and  drove  out  those  whom 
they  could  not  catch.  Hitherto  Selah  or  Petra  in  Mount 
Seir  had  been  the  great  centre  of  the  Edomites ;  but  perhaps 
from  this  massacre  the  city  of  Teman  to  the  east,  and  the 
much  more5  distant  Bozra  to  the  north-east,  began  to  increase 
in  Edomite  population.  The  burying  of  the  slain  was  itself 
a  great  labour:  after  which  it  devolved  on  David  in  person 
to  regulate  the  future  government  of  the  empty  land  and 
miserable  fraction  of  the  nation  whom  policy  at  length  spared. 
From  this  blow  it  was  long  before  Idumaea  could  lift  up  its 
head.  For  thirty  or  forty  years  after,  the  Hebrew  ascendency 

1  Superscription  of  Ps.  Ix.  2  2  Kings,  xiv.  7. 

3  In  2  Sam.  viii.  it  is  18,000  men  slain ;  only  12,000  in  the  Superscription  of 
Ps.  Ix.     Knowing  what  we  do  of  the  land  of  Edom,  we  cannot  unhesitatingly 
receive  even  the  smaller  number.     If  a  hostile  army  was  popularly  estimated  at 
12,000,  and  if  it  was  totally  dispersed,  an  ode  of  triumph  would  easily  represent 
12,000  as  actually  slain.     Let  this  be  understood  in  future,  in  regard  to  the 
more  moderate  numbers  in  the  books  of  Kings. 

4  1  Kings,  xi.  15,  16. 

5  There  is  great  uncertainty  as  to  the  site  of  this  city ;  and  the  objections  of 
many  learned  commentators  to  the  Bozra  of  our  maps  appear  to  be  well  founded. 


84  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

was  in  Ml  vigour  there ;  and  for  a  century  and  a  half  no  na- 
tional movement  to  throw  it  off  could  arise.  The  district,  al- 
though generally  rocky  and  barren,  is  not  destitute  of  valleys, 
which  (in  comparison  to  the  rest)  have  been  called  fruitful. 
We  may  presume  that  it  was  rich  enough  in  sheep  and  goats 
to  repay  the  trouble  of  rudely  governing  it.  Yet  it  was  am- 
bition and  uncontrolled  ferocity,  not  greedy  calculation,  which 
dictated  a  violence  for  which  Judah  in  future  generations  was 
dearly  to  pay.  But  of  that,  nothing  was  then  dreamed.  The 
conquest  raised  Joab  to  high  distinction,  which  only  his  bro- 
ther Abishai1  shared  with  him.  Praises,  no  doubt,  in  abun- 
dance were  offered  up  to  Jehovah,  God  of  battles;  and  the 
people  in  general  joyfully  deduced  from  the  whole  the  same 
moral  as  the  historian : — (f  Jehovah  preserveth  David  whither- 
soever he  goeth." 

About  this  time,  it  may  be  believed,  some  prophet  attached 
to  the  court,  (if  not  Nathan  himself,)  addressed  to  David  a 
solemn  hymn,  congratulating  him  alike  on  his  victories  and 
on  his  sacred  character  as  a  psalmist  of  Jehovah  and  a  devout 
upholder  of  religion3. 

1.  Jehovah  said  unto  my  lord  [David], 

Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand,  till  I  make  thy  foes  thy  footstool. 
Jehovah  sendeth  out  from  Zion  thy  mighty  sceptre ; 
Rule  thou  in  the  midst  of  thy  foes. 

2.  Jehovah  sware,  and  will  not  repent : 

Thou  art  a  Priest  for  ever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek. 

Jehovah,  at  thy  right  hand,  strikes  through  kings  in  his  day  of  wrath. 

3.  [David]  executes  judgment  on  the  nations,  and  fills  them  with  carcases ; 
He  wounds  the  heads  over  many  countries. 

He  drinks  of  the  brook  in  the  way; 
Therefore  does  he  lift  up  the  head. 

The  star  of  David,  in  fact,  was  now  culminating.  Nothing 
had  occurred  to  bedim  its  brightness,  and  according  to  the  re- 
ligious theory  of  those  days,  he  was  eminently  the  beloved  of 
Jehovah.  Another  pause  of  war  took  place,  during  which  it 
is  briefly  recorded  that  he  ' '  reigned  over  all  Israel  and  ex- 
ecuted judgment  and  justice."  When  the  same  individual 
was  chief  administrator  of  war  and  peace,  such  a  rest  was 

1  1  Chron.  xviii.  12  attributes  the  battle  in  the  Yalley  of  Salt  to  Abishai. 

2  Psalm  ex. 


PROSPERITY    OF    DAVID.  85 

signally  needed,  to  provide  for  the  government  of  his  extended 
dominion.  Now  perhaps  it  was  that  more  systematic  ar- 
rangements were  made  concerning  the  crown-lands  and  the 
royal  bailiffs,  who  were  twelve  in  number,  according  to  the 
later  narrative1 :  over  the  treasury ;  over  the  country  stores ; 
over  the  tillage ;  over  the  vineyards ;  over  the  wine-cellars ; 
over  the  olive  and  sycamore  trees ;  over  the  oil-cellars ;  over 
the  herds  in  Sharon ;  over  the  herds  in  the  valleys ;  over  the 
camels  ;  over  the  asses  ;  over  the  flocks.  At  this  same  time 
we  have  the  following  list  given  us  of  David's  cabinet  by  the 
older  historian2 :  Joab,  son  of  Zeruiah,  was  captain  of  the 
host ;  Jehoshaphat,  son  of  Ahilud,  was  recorder ;  Zadok,  son 
of  Ahitub,  and  Abiathar,  son  of  Ahimelech,  were  the  two  chief 
priests ;  Seraiah  was  the  scribe ;  Benaiah,  son  of  Jehoiada,  was 
captain  of  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites :  of  whom  also  Da- 
vid's sons  were  chief  officers.  This  Benaiah  has  already  been 
named  as  a  man  of  great  valour,  who  had  slain  a  lion.  His 
father  may  have  been  that  Jehoiada,  chief  of  the  Aaronites, 
who  came  to  David  at  Hebron ;  and  a  little  later  he  is  recorded 
as  one  of  David's  chief  counsellors3.  The  son,  like  the  prsefect 
of  the  praetorians  under  the  Roman  emperors,  would  natu- 
rally become  the  second  person  in  the  kingdom,  and,  as  we 
shall  see,  ultimately  supplanted  Joab. 

His  troops,  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites,  are  now  men- 
tioned for  the  first  time,  and  it  is  contested  whether  their 
names  indicate  their  foreign  extraction  or  their  office.  Yet 
as  the  Cherethites  are  certainly  a  nation  neighbouring  to  the 
Philistines4,  the  former  opinion  seems  more  probable.  They 
do  not  include  the  600  Gittites,  of  whom  Ittai  was  the  captain. 
It  is  reasonable  to  conjecture  that  David  had  employed  He- 
brew troops  to  garrison  the  foreign  territories, — Damascus, 
Moab  and  Edom, — and  then,  to  augment  his  available  army, 
had  taken  into'  his  pay  formidable  numbers  of  the  southern 
barbarians,  here  called  Cherethites  and  Pelethites, — whom  he 
would  support  by  the  tribute  derived  from  foreign  sources, 
without  pressing  on  his  own  people.  Thus  he  became  more 
and  more  beyond  the  reach  of  constitutional  control5.  A 
slight  circumstance  gives  us  a  rough  date  for  these  events. 

1  1  Chron.  xxvii.  25-31.  2  2  Sam.  viii.  16. 

3  1  Chron.  xxvii.  34.  4  1  Sam.  xxx.  14  ;  Ezek.  xxv.  16  ;  Zeph.  ii.  5, 

5  The  details  given  us  in  1  Chron.  xxvii.  concerning  David's  standing  army 
cannot  be  received  with  any  confidence,  considering  the  prodigious  credulity  of 


86  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

The  sons  of  David  (it  has  been  mentioned)  were  "  chief  offi- 
cers/'— apparently  of  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites1,  which 
implies  that  he  had  sons  of  manly  age,  and  was  far  advanced 
in  his  reign. 

David  now  felt  himself  too  strong  on  the  throne  to  be  jea- 
lous of  the  house  of  Saul,  and  for  the  first  time  remembered 
his  friend  Jonathan  enough  to  bestow  kindness  on  his  repre- 
sentatives. One  son  only  lived,  by  name  Meribbaal ;  whom 
later  times  contemptuously  called  Mephibosheth.  This  young 
man,  being  lame,  could  not  be  suspected  of  aspiring  to  the 
kingdom  in  a  warlike  age  and  against  such  a  warrior  as  Da- 
vid. The  king  now  restored  to  him  all  the  private  estate  of 
Saul,  and  admitted  him  to  a  permanent  place  at  his  own  table. 
Mephibosheth2  was  only  five  years  old  when  his  father  Jona- 
than was  slain ;  but  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  treating,  he 
had  already,  it  is  intimated,  a  young  son  named  Micha,  of 
whom  at  present  no  jealousy  was  felt  by  David. 

It  may  be  here  well  to  remark  on  the  change  which  had 
been  for  some  time  going  on  as  to  the  names3  which  the 
Hebrews  gave  to  their  children.  In  the  earlier  times  the 
word  God  (El  and  Eli)  had  been  a  very  usual  component4. 
In  the  name  Israel,  as  in  Jezreel,  Ammiel,  Penuel,  and  a  hun- 
dred others,  we  see  an  ending  which  is  common  to  the  He- 
brews with  the  tribes  around  them.  From  the  time  of  Samuel 
onwards,  the  name  Jehovah  or  Jah  appears  to  become  a  more 
favourite  element  of  names.  We  have  already  named  Jeho- 
shaphat  and  JeAoiada  as  counsellors  of  David ;  Zeraiah  was 
David's  sister ;  Bena^aA  and  ^Uriah  among  his  captains.  Saul, 
as  we  have  seen,  had  introduced  the  names  Eshbaal  and  Me- 
ribbaal; but  this  was  exceedingly  resented;  and  from  the 
time  of  David,  the  Jehovistic  names  gain  so  marked  a  pre- 
dominance, as  to  testify  to  the  supremacy  of  the  monotheistic 
doctrine.  It  is  remarkable  that  Athaliah,  daughter  of  Jezebel, 
received  a  Jehovistic  name. 

The  peace  which  followed  the  extirpation  of  the  Edomites  was 
first  disturbed  by  a  strange  event  out  of  which  many  disastrous 

that  book  in  regard  to  figures.  It  however  is  there  estimated  that  288,000  men 
were  kept  constantly  under  training,  of  whom  24,000  were  every  month  taken 
into  more  direct  service  by  rotation. 

1  2  Sam.  viii.  18.  2  2  Sam.  iv.  5. 

3  Ewald,  in  Kitto's  Biblical  Cycl.,  Ai-t.  NAMES. 

4  In  fact,  most  ancient  nations  show  this  tendency,  as  in  the  Chaldee  Ndbo- 
polassar,  -flfeZwchadnezzar,  and  the  Greek  Dion,  Poseidonius,  Apollonius,  etc. 


AMMONITE    WAR.  87 

consequences  arose.  Nahash,  king  of  the  Ammonites,  a  former 
friend  of  David,  died ;  upon  which  the  Hebrew  monarch  sent 
an  embassy  to  condole  with  Hanun,  the  new  king ;  but  the 
ambassadors  were  suspected  to  be  spies, — not  unnaturally, 
when  the  Ammonites  looked  to  their  conquered  neighbours, 
Moab  and  Edom;  and  Hanun  sent  them  away  with  gross 
and  characteristic  insult1.  Fearing  then  retaliation  from 
David,  Hanun  plunged  at  once  into  hostilities  and  hired  aid 
from  two  branches  of  the  Syrians, — the  Rehobites2  and  Zo- 
bahites, — also  from  the  king  of  Maacah  in  the  immediate  north 
of  the  Hebrew  territory,  and  from  Ishtob  or  the  Hauran.  A 
coalition  against  David  might  in  any  case  have  been  expected ; 
but  this  had  broken  out  prematurely  through  the  precipita- 
tion of  the  Ammonites,  who  ought  scarcely  to  have  volun- 
teered being  principals  in  the  war,  while  Hadadezer  of  Zobah 
was  still  powerful.  The  defence  of  Israel  was  again  entrusted 
to  Joab,  for  David  appears  now  to  have  given  up  military  for 
civil  duties.  The  Hebrew  army  was  enclosed  between  the 
Syrian  confederates  from  the  north,  and  the  Ammonites  from 
the  east ;  Joab  therefore  took  a  picked  body  with  him  against 
the  Syrians,  and  sent  his  brother  Abishai  with  the  rest  against 
the  Ammonites.  The  hired  army  soon  gave  way  before  Joab 
and  fled ;  upon  which  the  Ammonites  were  discouraged  and 
retreated,  seeing  that  Joab  was  coming  up  to  join  his  brother 
against  them.  The  Ammonites  did  not  wish  to  risk  farther 
loss,  but  shutting  themselves  up  in  a  fortified  place,  endea- 
voured to  re-assure  and  excite  afresh  their  northern  confede- 
rates ;  and  it  is  probable  that  this  time  they  were  successful 
in  stirring  up  Hadadezer  to  a  serious  effort  on  his  own  account ; 
for  we  read  of  no  farther  payment  for  the  Syrian  troops,  and 
Hadadezer  gathered  a  new  and  very  formidable  army  of  cha- 
riots and  horsemen  from  Mesopotamia  as  well  as  Syria.  Joab 
on  his  part  thought  the  danger  so  threatening,  that  he  re- 
paired to  Jerusalem  to  concert  measures  and  increase  his 
forces  :  and  David  himself  now  marched  out  in  person,  taking 
with  him  a  general  levy  of  all  Israel.  He  crossed  over  Jordan, 
and  made  a  long  march  beyond  the  Hebrew  limits ;  whether 
in  order  to  save  his  own  land  from  the  ravages  of  the  Syrian 
cavalry,  or  to  engage  it  before  it  could  form  a  junction  with 

1  He  shaved  half  their  beards  and  cut  off  the  lower  part  of  their  garments, 
so  as  to  leave  them  half  naked. 

2  The  Rehobites  are  immediately  on  the  northern  frontier  of  Israel. 


88  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY, 

the  Ammonites.  In  a  battle  which  took  place  at  Helam  (an 
unknown  spot) ,  he  was  once  more  successful,  and  as  usual,  an 
exaggerated  account  is  given  of  the  number  of  slain1.  This 
was  the  last  blow  needed  by  Hadadezer.  He  vanishes  from 
the  narrative,  and  his  tributary  chiefs  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  Hebrews  made  submission  to  David. 

Internal  evidence  may  incline  us  to  believe,  that  about  this 
time  the  twentieth  Psalm  was  composed,  as  an  address  and 
encouragement  to  David  in  warring  on  the  side  of  Jehovah. 

1.  Jehovah,  hear  thee  in  the  day  of  trouble ; 
The  name  of  Jacob's  God  defend  thee  : 
Send  thee  help  from  the  sanctuary, 
And  strengthen  thee  out  of  Zion : 
Remember  all  thy  offerings, 

Accept  thy  burnt  sacrifice, 

Grant  thee  according  to  thine  own.  heart, 

And  fulfil  all  thy  counsel ! 

2.  We  will  rejoice  in  thy  preservation 
And  in  God's  name  set  up  our  banners. 
Jehovah  fulfil  all  thy  petitions ! 

3.  Now  know  I  that  Jehovah  saveth  his  anointed. 
He  heareth  him  from  his  holy  heaven, 

With  the  strong  aid  of  his  right  hand. 

Some  trust  in  chariots,  some  in  horses, 

But  we  will  trust  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  our  God. 

They2  are  brought  down  and  fallen ; 

But  we  are  risen  and  stand  upright. 

4.  Oh  Jehovah,  help  thou  the  king ! 
Let  him  hear  us  when  we  cry  to  him. 

For  the  next  campaign  Joab  was  despatched  against  the 
Ammonites,  and  after  desolating  the  country,  laid  siege  to 
their  chief  city.  Meanwhile  David,  now  revelling  in  success, 
was  smitten  at  Jerusalem  by  the  beauty  of  Bathsheba,  wife  of 
Uriah  the  Hittite,  one  of  his  leading  warriors.  After  grati- 
fying his  guilty  passion,  and  finding  that  he  would  not  be  able 
to  conceal  it  from  the  injured  husband,  he  was  base  enough  to 

1  2  Sam.  x.  18.  Forty  thousand  horsemen,  and  the  men  of  seven  hundred  cha- 
riots.    The  Chronicler  increases  the  chariots  to  seven  thousand :  1  Chr.  xix.  18. 

2  Namely  the  Zobahites  ? — Ewald  regarded  this  Psalm  by  its  Hebrew  style 
to  be  of  the  Davidical  age. 


DESTRUCTION    OP    THE    AMMONITES.  89 

order  Joab  so  to  expose  the  brave  Uriah  in  battle,  as  to  assure 
that  he  would  be  slain  by  the  Ammonites.  Joab  obeyed  with- 
out scruple,  and  by  succeeding  added  one  link  more  to  the 
chain  by  which  he  held  the  infatuated  king. 

The  war  lingered  on ;  but  the  enemy  was  still  shut  up  in 
his  walls,  and,  receiving  no  aid  from  Syria,  was  at  length 
reduced  to  helplessness.  The  chief  town  appears  to  have 
consisted  of  two  separate  fortifications,  of  which  one  was  the 
royal  palace,  called  also  the  Water-City,  probably  from  its 
commanding  access  to  the  supply  of  water.  This  was  actually 
captured  by  the  Israelites,  who  thus  had  the  enemy  at  their 
mercy.  But  the  conqueror  of  Edom  was  prudent  enough  not 
to  encounter  the  royal  jealousy,  by  winning  for  himself  the 
new  name  of  conqueror  of  the  Ammonites.  He  therefore 
sent  and  urged  David  to  come  down  in  person  and  take  pos- 
session of  the  city,  which  was  no  longer  able  to  resist.  The 
Hebrew  Monarch  felt  the  importance  of  the  occasion;  and 
revenge,  as  well  as  pride,  was  now  to  be  gratified.  The  Am- 
monite king  had  rejected  his  friendly  offices  with  insult,  had 
plunged  into  hostilities,  and  kindled  a  flame  against  him  which 
reached  beyond  the  Euphrates.  True,  this  had  only  displayed 
and  increased  the  might  of  Israel;  yet  it  was  not  the  less 
needful,  signally  to  manifest  to  subject  nations  that  that  might 
was  not  to  be  assailed  without  the  most  terrible  retribution. 
David  accordingly  gathered  an  imposing  host,  and  having 
marched  without  delay,  captured  the  city  immediately  on  his 
arrival.  The  crown  of  the  Ammonite  king,  (which  is  stated 
to  have  weighed  a  talent  of  gold,  and  to  have  been  set  with 
precious  stones,)  was  with  all  form  placed  upon  David's  head, 
and  all  the  valuables  of  the  city  were  seized  as  public  spoil. 
After  the  cold-blooded  execution  inflicted  on  the  Moabites, 
and  the  deliberate  effort  to  extirpate  the  whole  nation  of 
Edom,  it  was  only  to  be  expected  that  a  still  more  horrible 
doom  would  fall  upon  the  Ammonite  people.  Not  those  only 
who  were  found  in  the  Rabba,  (or  chief  city,)  but  the  inhabi- 
tants of  all  the  towns  of  Ammon  were  brought  out  and  executed 
by  various  modes  of  torture1,  which  are  specified  as  "  putting 
them  under  saws,  and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and  passing  them 

1  My  ignorance  has  been  very  severely  handled  by  reviewers,  for  imagining 
that  tortures  are  intended  by  the  narrator.  I  have  certainly  been  aware,  since 
I  was  a  child,  that  many  respectable  critics  think  hard  labour  is  intended :  but 
they  do  not  convince  me. 


90  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

through  the  brick-kiln."  No  enumeration  is  attempted  of 
those  who  thus  suffered,  but  the  vagueness  of  the  language 
implies  that  such  tortures  were  inflicted  on  all  who  could  be 
caught. 

By  this  dreadful  triumph  the  military  supremacy  of  David 
seemed  to  be  finally  confirmed,  and  with  it  his  despotic  autho- 
rity over  his  own  people.  If  about  this  time  the  twenty-first 
Psalm  was  composed  in  his  honour,  (as  the  English  reader 
easily  persuades  himself1),  the  praise  was  destined  shortly  to 
become  as  a  cup  of  gall  to  the  miserable  man.  He  returned 
home  from  his  public  display  to  suffer  the  pangs  of  a  guilty 
conscience  on  the  matter  of  Uriah  and  his  wife.  With  a  haste 
that  barely  observed  the  most  necessary  rules  of  decorum,  he 
had  publicly  espoused  Bathsheha,  as  soon  as  the  days  of 
mourning  for  Uriah  were  completed.  This  probably  indi- 
cates only  one  full  month2.  Even  if  David  could  have  better 
dissembled  his  passion,  his  guilt  could  not  have  been  kept 
secret,  and  the  prophet  Nathan  was  bold  enough  to  rebuke 
and  denounce  his  deed.  The  self-condemned  monarch  had 
too  much  susceptibility  left  to  resent  the  interference.  He 
had  not  been  hardened  in  iniquity  by  a  series  of  petty  unre- 
pented  sins,  but  had  plunged  headlong  into  one  complicated 
and  enormous  crime.  Happily  for  himself,  he  now  confessed 
his  guilt ;  but  the  past  could  not  be  recalled,  and  the  rest  of 
his  reign  was  sullied  by  domestic  shame,  misery  and  confusion. 

The  first  outbreak  of  retribution  came  upon  him  from  the 
unbridled  passion  of  his  eldest  son  Amiion.  This  young  man, 
having  conceived  a  love  for  his  half-sister  Tamar,  by  the 
advice  of  his  cousin  Jonadab3  entrapped  her  into  his  chamber 
and  brutally  ravished  her.  Great  as  was  the  rage  of  the  king, 
remembrance  of  his  own  crime  withheld  him  from  punishing 
his  son,  and  Absalom,  whose  full  sister  Tamar  was,  undertook 

1  The  substance  of  the  meaning  agrees  better  with  this  period  in  the  time  of 
David,  than  with  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  is  the  next  best  place  for  it. 
V.  4  is  the  usual  oriental  hyperbole ;  compare  Ps.  ex.  4,  and  Dan.  ii.  4,  iii.  9. 
If  v.  3  ought  not  to  be  referred  to  the  Ammonite  crown,  yet  vv.  8-11  excellently 
agree  with  punishment   of  that  people.     Ewald  however  thinks  the  style  of 
Ps.  xxi.  too  polished  and  soft  to  be  Davidical. 

2  Such  was  the  time  allowed  to  a  beautiful  captive,  in  Deut.  xxi.  11 ;  and  was 
also  the  time  of  mourning  for  Moses,  Deut.  xxxiv.  8. 

3  Jonadab  was  son  of  Shimeah,  David's  brother.    The  extreme  improbability 
of  his  giving  such  advice  may  lead  to  many  surmises  :  but  no    sharpness  of 
thought  will  enable  even  contemporaries  to  pierce  through  the  dark  deeds  which 
oriental  harems  hide. 


CAREER    OF    ABSALOM.  91 

to  avenge  her  himself.  At  his  next  sheep-shearing  he  invited 
all  his  brothers  to  a  banquet,  in  the  course  of  which  his  ser- 
vants assailed  and  slew  Amnon.  As  for  Absalom,  he  in- 
stantly fled  to  his  grandfather  Talmai,  king  of  Geshur,  who 
was  likely  to  applaud  his  deed ;  while  David,  torn  in  pieces 
between  sorrow  for  Tamar  and  Amnon,  and  love  for  Absalom, 
for  three  whole  years  took  no  farther  step  in  the  matter. 

The  subtle  Joab,  who  narrowly  watched  the  king's  mind, 
perceived  that  he  was  desirous  of  Absalom' s  return ;  and  the 
cautious  steps  by  which  he  proceeded  to  move  for  it,  indicate 
the  oriental  despotism  now  reigning  in  David's  court.  He 
suborned  a  woman  of  Tekoah  to  act  the  part  of  a  mourner, 
and  tell  a  fictitious  tale  calculated  to  arouse  the  paternal 
affection  of  the  king ;  after  winning  his  ear  and  his  favour, 
she  ended  by  entreating  him  to  "  fetch  home  his  banished." 
David  perceived  that  it  was  Joab's  contrivance,  but  assented 
to  the  suggestion.  Absalom  was  accordingly  brought  back 
to  Jerusalem,  but  the  king  refused  to  set  eyes  upon  him  for 
two  full  years  more.  This  was  a  sore  trial  to  the  young  man, 
who  was  already  looking  forward  with  impatience  to  the  day 
when  he  should  succeed  his  father  on  the  throne.  He  per- 
haps had  still  an  elder  brother,  Chileab1,  born  of  Abigail  the 
Carmelitess ;  but  his  own  birth  of  a  king's  daughter  seemed 
to  give  him  the  preference.  Nevertheless,  this  must  depend 
upon  David's  favour ;  and  he  was  uneasy  to  see  his  brothers 
occupied  in  public  offices,  and  moving  freely  in  the  king's 
court,  while  he  was  himself  shut  up  in  a  private  station.  By 
a  strange  and  violent  stratagem2,  he  forced  Joab  to  introduce 
him  to  David's  presence,  and  an  apparent  reconciliation  took 
place.  The  king  (it  is  said)  "kissed  Absalom;"  but  the  re- 
sult shows  that  Absalom's  ambition  was  only  stimulated,  not 
gratified.  He  discerned  perhaps  that  David's  heart  only,  and 
not  his  judgment,  was  moved  in  his  favour,  and  that  while  he 
loved  Absalom  best,  he  might  still  choose  another  son  for  his 
successor.  No  time  was  to  be  lost,  it  seemed,  and  Absalom 
plunged  into  a  headlong  career. 

Of  his  own  personal  accomplishments  he  was  doubtless  fully 
conscious.  The  same  remarkable  beauty  and  winning  man- 
ners which  excited  his  father's  fondness,  drew  also  the  ad- 
miration of  the  people,  who  are  likely  to  have  forgiven  his 

1  It  is  not  certain  that  Chileab  was  still  alive. 

2  By  burning  Joab's  barley-field. 


92  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

brother's  murder,  considering  the  enormity  of  the  provoca- 
tion ;  and  he  flattered  himself  perhaps,  that  the  odium  under 
which  the  old  king  lay  on  account  of  Uriah  the  Hittite,  would 
aid  his  attempts.  Having  gained  at  length  the  right  of  pre- 
senting himself  freely  at  court,  he  now  used  his  position  there 
to  seduce,  hy  blandishments,  promises  and  seditious  insinua- 
tions, the  suitors  who  came  from  various  parts ;  and  in  order 
to  make  a  semiregal  display,  he  equipped  for  himself  chariots 
and  horses  (a  new  luxury  in  Israel)  with  fifty  outrunners. 
Under  pretence  of  paying  a  vow  in  Hebron,  he  repaired 
thither  with  200  men ;  and  after  seizing  that  strong  town, — 
David's  original  seat  of  government, — he  had  himself  pro- 
claimed king  by  sound  of  trumpet,  in  many  parts  of  Israel 
simultaneously.  David  was  confounded  both  by  the  unex- 
pectedness of  the  event,  and  by  the  fear  that  it  implied  general 
disaffection.  In  this  exigence,  when  news  came  of  fresh  and 
fresh  revolt,  he  could  trust  none  but  his  foreign  troops,  the 
Cherethites,  Pelethites  and  Gittites,  with  all  of  whom  he 
marched  out  of  Jerusalem,  utterly  uncertain  whither  to  betake 
himself1.  Zadok  however  and  Abiathar,  and  the  whole 
priestly  body,  held  firm  to  him,  and  were  willing  to  have  car- 
ried out  the  ark  of  God  to  accompany  his  flight ;  but  he  re- 
manded them  to  Jerusalem,  and  recommended  his  faithful 
counsellor  Hushai  to  join  the  party  of  Absalom  and  undermine 
by  craft  the  crafty  advice  of  Ahithophel, — an  unprincipled  but 
very  able  man  who  had  espoused  Absalom's  cause.  Ahitho- 
phel well  understood  that  for  a  son  who  conspires  against  his 
father  there  can  be  no  half-measures ;  and  he  urged  Absalom 
to  take  public  possession  of  his  father's  concubines2, — as  an 
indisputable  demonstration  of  deadly  feud;  advice  upon  which 
Absalom  forthwith  acted.  Ahithophel  moreover  pressed  him 
instantly  to  chase  David  with  an  overwhelming  force,  and 
slay  him  before  he  could  recover  himself.  But  Hushai  now 
interfered  with  specious  reasons,  and  spoiled  the  counsel  of 
Ahithophel,  who  forthwith  went  home  and  hanged  himself. 
At  the  same  time  David  received  tidings  of  his  danger  through 
Hushai  and  Zadok,  and  with  no  farther  delay  crossed  the  Jor- 
dan to  the  city  of  Mahhanaim,  where  Ishbosheth  had  reigned. 

1  It  is  judged  by  Ewald  to  be  a  true  tradition,  which  states  that  David  in  his 
present  distress  composed  the  third  Psalm.     That  he  does  not  name  Absalom 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 

2  David  had  probably  taken  his  wives  with  him. 


DEATH    OF    ABSALOM.  93 

Here  lie  received  abundant  supplies  from  three  men,  whose 
names  have  deserved  record.  The  first  was  no  other  than 
Shobi,  son  of  the  Ammonite  Nahash,  perhaps  become  David's 
viceroy  on  the  deposition  of  his  brother  Hanun;  the  second 
was  Machir  of  Lodebar,  who  had  acted  as  host  and  father  to 
Mephibosheth,  until  David  took  notice  of  him :  this  man  was 
in  all  probability  a  warm  friend  of  the  house  of  Saul.  The  third 
was  the  aged  and  blind  chieftain  Barzillai  the  Gileadite.  In 
this  pastoral  district  wealth  consisted  chiefly  in  cattle  and  food : 
brave  men  abounded,  who  at  the  call  of  their  leaders  flocked 
round  their  legitimate  king,  and  a  powerful  army  was  soon 
assembled. 

Absalom  had  pursued  his  father  over  Jordan  into  Gilead, 
taking  as  the  captain  of  his  host  Amasa,  son  of  Ithra  or  Jether 
the  Ishmaelite,  and  of  Abigail1,  David's  sister.  A  decisive 
battle  was  fought  in  a  place  called  the  Forest  of  Ephraim  (a 
name  which  might  mislead  us  into  the  belief  that  it  was  west 
of  Jordan),  and  David's  people  were  victorious.  Absalom  is 
said  to  have  met  with  a  most  singular  fate.  In  riding  through 
the  forest  in  violent  haste,  his  head  was  caught  by  the  boughs 
of  an  oak,  and  he  was  left  dangling  in  the  air  by  the  escape  of 
his  mule.  On  receiving  news  of  this,  Joab  made  haste  to  slay 
him  before  the  king  should  be  able  to  interfere ;  for  David  had 
solemnly  commanded  all  to  spare  his  son's  life.  In  any  other 
man  than  Joab,  this  might  be  called  patriotism  and  loyalty ; 
nor  in  fact  can  we  doubt  that  it  was  substantially  sound 
judgment.  A  son  who  had  waged  war  so  implacable  on  his 
father  could  never  again  be  wisely  trusted.  In  open  battle 
Joab  had  earned  a  just  right  to  slay  this  youth,  whose  life  was 
so  dangerous  to  his  father,  his  father's  friends,  and  the  peace 
of  the  nation ;  and  David  himself,  when  his  first  grief  was 
past,  would  praise  his  zeal  and  his  prudence.  The  immediate 
effect  however  was  the  very  opposite.  David  displayed  a 
public  and  tumultuous  grief  for  his  son's  death,  which  was  un- 
doubtedly most  unseemly,  after  so  many  brave  men  had  fallen 
in  defending  the  king  from  his  attack ;  and  when  Joab  boldly 
remonstrated  against  his  proceedings,  he  with  difficulty  sup- 
pressed his  disgust. 

A  new  doubt  embarrassed  him.  So  easy  had  been  Absalom's 
success  at  Hebron,  as  to  make  the  attachment  of  David's  own 

1  Whether  Abigail  was  mother  or  step-mother  to  Amasa,  is  left  doubtful  in 
2  Sam.  xvii.  25;  but  1  Chron.  ii.  17  is  distinct. 


94  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

tribe  of  Judah  highly  questionable ;  and  he  feared  to  return, 
unless  brought  back  by  their  voluntary  zeal.  In  hope  of  ex- 
citing it,  he  sent  to  Zadok  and  Abiathar,  distinctly  calling  on 
them  to  escort  him  home ;  and  by  another  highly  imprudent 
message  to  his  nephew  Amasa,  Absalom's  captain,  promised 
to  make  him  chief-captain  in  place  of  Joab.  A  senile  imbe- 
cility, it  may  be  suspected,  had  already  stolen  over  the  king, 
whose  conduct,  ever  since  the  announcement  of  Absalom's  re- 
volt, had  been  unaccountably  weak.  He  could  hardly  expect 
that  Abishai, — who  with  Joab  and  Ittai  the  Gittite  had  com- 
manded the  forces  against  Absalom, — would  endure  to  have 
disgrace  put  on  his  brother  at  such  a  time  and  from  such  a 
cause ;  and  if  he  thus  trifled  away  the  affections  of  the  men 
who  had  just  risked  their  all  for  him,  it  would  be  a  poor  con- 
solation that  he  had  bought  by  bribes  the  momentary  allegi- 
ance of  those,  who,  but  now,  had  armed  against  his  life.  In 
fact,  he  was  still  in  the  hands  of  Joab  and  his  brother,  and 
needed  their  aid  to  escape  a  new  and  immediate  danger. 

In  the  late  revolt,  the  unshrinking  impiety  of  Absalom  had 
led  many  of  his  party  into  courses  for  which  they  despaired 
of  forgiveness:  disaffection  was  of  necessity  widely  spread, 
and  a  quarrel  which  arose  between  the  men  of  Judah  and  the 
rest  of  the  Israelites,  on  the  occasion  of  David's  return,  in- 
spired new  hopes  in  the  seditious.  Sheba,  the  son  of  Bichri, 
observing  the  disgust  felt  by  the  rest  at  the  fierce  assumption 
of  the  men  of  Judah,  set  up  a  new  standard  of  revolt,  and  was 
presently  followed  by  formidable  numbers.  The  king  gave 
orders  to  Amasa  to  assemble  the  forces  of  Judah  in  three  days, 
and  pursue  Sheba  before  the  movement  should  grow  into  actual 
revolution;  but,  from  whatever  causes,  Amasa  was  longer 
than  the  time  appointed,  and  David  was  forced  to  commission 
his  other  nephew  Abishai  to  put  down  the  alarming  conspi- 
racy. This  was  enough  for  the  two  sons  of  Zeruiah,  who  went 
both  together,  though  one  only  had  been  sent.  They  fell  in 
with  their  cousin  Amasa  at  Gibeon,  and  Joab  without  hesita- 
tion murdered  him  in  the  highway,  just  as,  many  years  before, 
he  had  murdered  Abner.  Then  resuming  the  pursuit  of  Sheba, 
he  shut  him  up  in  Abel  Bethmaachah ;  where  the  people  of 
the  town,  to  escape  a  siege,  cut  off"  Sheba' s  head  and  threw  it 
over  the  wall1.  Such  was  the  end  of  this  tragical  commotion, 

1  This  is  the  most  probable  crisis  of  David's  life  for  his  composing  the  18th 
Psalm. 


DISGRACE    OF    MEPHIBOSHETH.  95 

which  left  behind  it  many  serious  feuds,  and  damaged  all  par- 
ties concerned.  We  must  here  name  some  particulars  which 
affected  the  family  of  Saul. 

Ziba,  the  servant  of  Mephibosheth,  immediately  upon  Absa- 
lom' s  rebellion,  slandered  his  master  to  David,  as  now  filled 
with  hopes  of  getting  the  throne  for  himself;  and  David,  in 
such  a  time  of  trial,  credulously  receiving  the  statement,  be- 
stowed upon  Ziba  (so  far  as  Jris  royal  word  still  had  powrer) 
all  the  estates  of  the  son  of  Jonathan.  On  David's  return, 
Mephibosheth  presented  himself  in  person,  and  complained 
of  his  servant's  calumny;  alleging  (it  would  seem)  that  Ziba 
had  taken  to  himself  the  credit  of  the  presents  which  Mephi- 
bosheth had  sent  by  his  hand  to  David,  and  that  nothing  but 
lameness  had  prevented  Mephibosheth  from  following  the  king 
in  his  flight.  That  David  felt  he  had  been  precipitate  and 
unjust,  is  clear  by  his  conduct : — he  ordered  Ziba  to  restore 
half  of  the  estate  to  Mephibosheth.  It  cannot  be  doubted, 
that  since  it  had  become  manifest  how  little  the  king  retained 
the  hearts  of  his  people,  a  new  jealousy  of  the  house  of  Saul 
had  come  over  him.  The  son  of  Jonathan  was  indeed  lame ; 
but  he  had  a  son,  Micha,  who  might  in  a  few  years  prove  a 
troublesome  aspirant,  as  the  legitimate  representative  of  Saul's 
eldest-born.  Besides,  Sheba,  the  late  rebel,  was  a  Benjamite  : 
and  Shimei  of  Gerar,  a  near  relative  of  Saul,  had  cast  stones, 
and  still  more  cruel  curses,  at  David ;  and  though,  on  his  way 
towards  Jerusalem,  the  king  would  not  permit  Abishai  to 
punish  Shimei,  and  pronounced  over  him  a  public  solemn 
pardon,  a  later  event  would  prove,  (if  we  could  trust  the 
statements,)  that  this  was  merely  ostentatious  policy,  and  not 
Christian  forgiveness.  A  jealous  policy  now  dictated  to 
cripple  all  the  family  of  Saul,  as  far  as  it  could  be  done 
under  forms  of  justice,  and  Mephibosheth  accordingly  was 
doomed  to  forfeit  half  his  estate.  This  was  the  more  un- 
gracious, inasmuch  as  Mephibosheth' s  old  friend  and  host, 
Machir  of  Lodebar,  had  been  so  eminent  in  generosity  to- 
wards David  and  his  destitute  army  in  the  late  deplorable 
rebellion. 

It  would  have  been  well  if  this  had  been  all ;  but  a  darker 
and  bloodier  plot  was  to  follow,  suggested  by  the  occurrence 
of  a  three  years'  famine.  It  is  now  well  understood,  that,  as 
in  the  frequent  tossing  up  of  a  crown-piece  there  will  occur 
periodically  (what  are  called)  "runs  of  luck"  on  the  side  of 


96  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  heads1,  so  the  seasons,  which  commonly  vary  within  nar- 
row limits,  at  distant  times  exhibit  more  prolonged  series  of 
very  good  or  very  bad  weather.  When  poverty,  improvi- 
dence, or  the  ravages  of  civil  war  aggravate  the  calamity  of 
several  bad  seasons,  real  famine  arises,  which  an  ignorant  age 
imputes  to  a  divine  judgment.  In  the  case  before  us,  there 
possibly  was  a  divine  retribution  of  a  certain  kind ;  for  the 
recent  convulsions  may  truly  have  had  much  to  do  with  the 
famine.  But  it  was  very  undesirable  that  the  nation  should 
think  thus,  and  some  other  reason  was  needed.  David  in- 
quired solemnly  of  Jehovah,  (we  may  suppose,  by  Urim  and 
Thummim,)  what  was  the  cause  of  the  calamity.  Common 
conscience  might  perhaps  have  replied : — it  is  on  account  of 
our  impious  civil  war ;  or  for  Absalom' s  fratricide  and  incest ; 
or  for  Amnon's  brutal  lust;  or  for  David's  murder  of  Uriah 
and  adultery  with  Bathsheba ;  or  (if  national  deeds  could  have 
been  thought  of)  for  the  tortured  Ammonites,  for  the  slaugh- 
tered Edomites  and  Moabites.  Far  otherwise  ran  the  priestly 
response,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah :  It  is  for  Saul,  and  for  his 
bloody  house,  because  he  slew  the  Gibeonites. 

How  Saul  massacred  the  priests  at  Nob,  is  distinctly  re- 
corded ;  concerning  his  slaughter  of  the  Gibeonites,  who  waited 
on  the  tabernacle,  we  know  nothing ;  but  as  it  cannot  have 
been  more  atrocious  than  the  former,  it .  is  impossible  to  help 
feeling  that  the  vengeance  here  in  name  exacted  for  the  one 
crime,  was  in  fact  demanded  for  the  other.  But  whatever  the 
guilt  of  Saul,  his  grandchildren  were  innocent.  Most  rude 
nations  have  approved  of  cutting  off  the  children  of  a  traitor 
simultaneously  with  the  father2 ;  and  if  the  priestly  party  had 
murdered  Saul  and  all  his  family  in  the  crudeness  of  passion, 
no  one  could  criticize  it.  But  when  he  had  been  some  thirty 
years  in  his  grave,  when  his  legitimate  sons  also  had  perished, 
and  all  their  children  except  Mephibosheth, — then  to  lay  on 
his  daughter's  sons  the  sin  of  a  grandfather,  was  an  iniquity 

1  This  whole  argument,  and  the  phraseology,  was  taken  by  me  from  an  article 
in  the  Penny  Cyclopaedia,  which  seeks  to  illustrate  the  subject  without  the  re- 
motest idea  of  theological  controversy.     Yet  it  has  drawn  upon  me  the  grave 
rebuke  of  the  British  Quarterly,  which  feels  "  lively  regret "  that  my  religion 
"has  not  taught  me  tolerance  of  speech  for  the  views  taken  by  others."     For- 
sooth, I  am  to  expound  the  doctrine  of  chances,  without  alluding  to  anything 
so  vulgar  or  trivial  as  the  tossing  of  a  penny  or  casting  of  a  die ! 

2  The  law  of  Moses,  as  we  now  read  it  (Deut.  xxiv.  16),  especially  forbids  it : 
but  we  shall  do  very  ill  to  assume,  that  David  had  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  at 
his  side. 


IMMOLATION    OF    SAUL'S    DESCENDANTS.  97 

so  shocking  to  common  feeling  as  to  need  no  Ezekiel  to  re- 
buke it1.  Such  however  was  the  course  of  events : — David 
asked  the  Gibeonites  what  atonement  would  satisfy  them, 
and  they  demanded  seven  male  descendants  of  Saul  "  to  hang 
up  before  Jehovah"  on  Saul's  own  estate  of  Gibeah.  The 
king  remembered  his  romantic  attachment  to  Jonathan 2,  and 
spared  that  branch  of  the  family ;  but  he  devoted  the  five  sons 
of  Merab3,  daughter  of  Saul,  and  the  two  sons  of  Saul's  con- 
cubine Rizpah.  These  seven  men  the  Gibeonites  took,  and 
hanged  them,  as  they  had  proposed.  The  bereaved  Eizpah, 
says  our  narrator,  "  spread  sackcloth  for  her  on  the  rock,  from 
the  beginning  of  harvest  until  water  dropped  upon  them  out 
of  heaven,  and  suffered  neither  the  birds  of  the  air  to  rest 
upon  them  by  day,  nor  the  beasts  of  the  field  by  night." 
This  indicates  that  even  their  burial  had  been  forbidden ;  as 
if  a  mother's  heart  were  not  sufficiently  wrung  by  the  slaughter 
of  her  innocent  sons,  unless  their  corpses  also  be  treated  with 
contumely.  It  is  a  melancholy  thing,  that  Christians  can  so 
ill  read  the  lessons  of  both  their  Testaments,  as  to  believe  that 
God  could  approve  of  this  human  sacrifice4. 

But  this  did  not  suffice.  It  was  requisite  to  obliterate 
every  monument  of  Saul's  reign,  and  to  impress  as  deeply  as 
possible  on  the  public  mind  that  this  guilty  family  was  for 
ever  to  be  degraded  into  a  private  station.  Accordingly,  the 
bones  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  were  disinterred  from  Jabesh 
Gilead,  and  conveyed  to  the  sepulchre  of  Kish,  Saul's  father. 
After  this,  it  was  believed,  the  pollution  of  the  land  having 
been  removed,  God  was  appeased  and  fruitful  seasons  re- 
turned. 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  such  internal  convulsions  would 

Ezek.  xviii.,  whole  chapter.     In  short,  v.  20,  "  the  sou  shall  not  bear  the 
uity  of  the  father." 

2  The  narrator  (2  Sam.  xxi.  7)  attributes  David's  exemption  of  Mephibosheth 
to  the  oath  of  Jehovah  between  .David  and  Jonathan.     But  there  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  account,  a  similar  oath  between  David  and  Saul,  1  Sam.  xxiv.  20,  21. 

3  Michal  in  the  common  version,  for  Merab,  is  undoubtedly  an  error.     See 
1  Sam.  xviii.  19,  where  it  appears  that  Merab  was  given  in  marriage  to  Adriel 
the  Meholathite,  the  father  of  these  five  innocent  victims.     One  of  the  two  sons 
of  Saul  by  Kizpah,  daughter  of  Aiah,  was  called  Mephibosheth,  as  well  as  the 
son  of  Jonathan. 

The  '  North  British  Review'  defends  this  barbarous  murder  under  the  forms 
of  religion,  and  calls  me  a  caviller.  No.  31,  p.  125.  I  am  sorry  to  hear  the  re- 
port, that  that  article,  with  its  false  quotations,  false  representations  and  unmo- 
ral reasonings,  was  pressed  upon  the  Editor  by  an  AECHBISHOP.  The  Editor 
can  contradict  this,  if  he  pleases,  but  I  feel  assured  that  he  will  not. 

F 


iniqui 


98  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

excite  the  oppressed  foreign  nations  to  revolt.  Of  these,  none 
bore  the  yoke  so  ill  as  the  Philistines,  who  not  only  remem- 
bered how  recently  they  had  been  superior  to  the  Hebrews  in 
arms  as  well  as  in  arts,  but  who,  by  living  in  towns  under 
civic  constitutions,  had  become  accustomed  to  municipal  in- 
dependence. The  Edomites  and  the  adjoining  nations  had 
been  too  much  weakened  by  enormous  destruction  to  make 
head  against  Israel  as  yet ;  and  besides,  it  mattered  less  to 
them  to  be  subject  to  a  Hebrew  instead  of  a  native  king,  if 
the  former  were  moderate  in  his  demands :  but  the  more  re- 
publican Philistines,  like  the  Phoenicians  and  the  Greeks,  ill 
endured  any  foreign  dominion,  and  panted  for  freedom. 
About  this  period  four  severe  battles  are  recorded,  which  re- 
sulted from  the  attempts  of  the  Philistines  to  shake  off  the 
Hebrew  yoke.  In  the  first,  David  was  nearly  slain  by  a  Phi- 
listine champion,  but  was  saved  by  his  heroic  nephew  Abishai. 
In  each  of  the  four  battles  one  gigantic  Philistine  is  said  to 
have  been  killed,  which  throws  an  unhistorical  air  over  the 
details.  In  fact,  it  is  manifest  that  these  are  erroneous ;  for 
a  brother  of  Goliath,  who  was  a  man  in  full  strength  when 
David  was  a  youth,  is  represented  as  the  Philistine  hero,  in 
a  battle  fought  when  David  was  enfeebled  with  age,  and  no 
longer  allowed  to  expose  himself  to  the  enemy  (2  Sam.  xxi. 
17,  19).  Abishai  also  must  have  been  growing  old. 

One  notable  event  is  recorded,  apparently  in  the  later  years 
of  this  prince,  but  without  a  date : — the  occurrence  of  a  pes- 
tilence. A  superstition  inevitable  in  that  age  ascribed  it  to 
some  definite  sin  nationally  incurred ;  and  instead  of  imputing 
it  as  a  judgment  on  Israel  for  their  massacres  of  the  adjoining 
nations,  a  fantastical  trespass  was  imagined.  David  had  done 
what  every  prudent  king  will  do,  and  (we  may  add)  what 
every  ruler  who  wishes  to  do  his  duty  must  do; — he  had 
taken  a  census  of  his  people.  Of  course,  in  his  long  reign  of 
internal  prosperity,  the  numbers  of  the  Hebrew  nation  had 
greatly  increased1 ;  which  would  be  to  all  a  subject  of  con- 

1  The  numbers  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9  are,  800,000  fighting  men  of  Israel,  and 
500,000  of  Judah ;  while  in  1  Chron.  xxi.  5,  they  are  1,100,000  of  Israel,  and 
470,000  of  Judah.  Strange  to  add,  1  Chron.  xxvii.  24  says  that  the  enumera- 
tion was  never  completed.  The  very  distinction  of  Israel  and  Judah  may  warn 
us  that  the  estimates  belong  to  a  later  period ;  for  in  David's  reign,  Judah  was 
a  word  which  excluded  Benjamin,  and  was  opposed  to  the  eleven  tribes  (or  to 
the  twelve,  including  Levi),  not  to  the  ten.  It  is  absurd  to  imagine  that  Judah 
was,  to  all  Israel  beside,  in  the  ratio  of  500  to  800,  or  even  as  470  to  1100, 


THE    PESTILENCE.  99 

gratulation  and  pride.  When  therefore  a  pestilence  occurred, 
by  which  (it  was  estimated)  70,000  persons  died,  this  was 
looked  on  as  a  punishment  for  his  having  numbered  the  peo- 
ple. Such  is  the  only  historical  view  which  we  can  take  of 
the  transaction.  The  Jewish  records  however  represent  Jeho- 
vah as  sending  Gad  the  seer  to  David,  and  allowing  him  to 
choose  one  of  three  miseries ;  seven  years  of  famine,  three 
months  of  defeat  by  enemies,  or  three  days'  pestilence.  Of 
these,  David  chose  the  last ;  and  when  the  plague  was  ended, 
propitiated  Jehovah  by  burnt  offerings  and  peace-offerings  at 
the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite1,  where  David 
had  seen  the  destroying  angel  standing,  when  Jehovah  bade 
him  to  withhold  his  hand. 

Yet  the  whole  idea  that  the  pestilence  was  a  judgment 
on  David,  was  perhaps  of  later  origin.  If,  as  there  is  some 
ground  to  think,  Psalm  xci.  was  composed  by  David  on  oc- 
casion of  a  pestilence,  this  must  apparently  have  been  the 
sera :  the  Psalmist  there  appears  wholly  unconscious  of  guilt, 
and  full  of  a  noble  faith.  Time  had  doubtless  assuaged  the 
deep  wounds  of  David's  spirit,  and  his  calamities  had  not 
been  without  their  profit.  To  a  late  period  of  his  life  we  may 
probably  refer  the  fine  32nd  Psalm,  which  breathes  high 
confidence  and  confirmed  wisdom  in  the  midst  of  its  penitence ; 
and  reminds  us  how  imperfectly  we  can  judge  of  the  secret 
workings  of  men's  hearts,  whose  political  actions  alone  we 
know.  The  last  piece  written  by  David  is  also  preserved 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.),  but  its  beauty  is  dimmed  to  us  by  its  great 
difficulty  and  consequent  imperfect  translation.  The  centre 
stanza  contains  its  main  object,  which  is,  to  hold  up  a  high 
ideal  of  a  good  ruler,  which  ne  confesses  he  has  not  in  his 
own  administration  realized. 

A  righteous  ruler  over  men,  ruling  in  the  fear  of  God, 

Is  as  morning  light  when  the  sun  arises, 

As  a  morning  without  clouds, 

As  the  green  blade  from  the  earth  by  sunshine  and  by  rain. 

It  ends  by  lamenting  that  worthless  men  cannot  be  ruled  by 
gentleness,  but  must  be  constrained  by  weapons  of  war, 

which  seems  to  be  a  corrected  estimate.  In  2  Sam.  xix.  43  is  a  similar  ana- 
clironism ;  where  the  men  of  Israel  say  they  have  ten  parts  in  the  king  as  com- 
pared to  the  men  of  Judah. 

1  David  buys  the  floor  of  Araunah  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver  in  2  Sam.  xxiv. 
24,  but  for  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  in  1  Chron.  xxi.  25,  Such  exaggerations 
are  throughout  characteristic  of  the  Chronicles. 

F  2 


100 


THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 


After  the  Philistine  outbreak  was  ended,  the  increased 
weakness  of  the  aged  king  had  become  evident,  and  new  un- 
easiness concerning  the  succession  to  the  throne  broke  out 
among  his  sons.  Of  his  second  son  Chileab,  we  know  no- 
thing :  Amnon  and  Absalom,  the  first  and  third,  were  slain, 
the  fourth  was  Adonijah,  son  of  Haggith,  who,  like  Absalom, 
had  many  personal  attractions,  and  had  been  a  favourite  of 
his  father.  He  was  now  perhaps  the  eldest  son,  and  hardly 
believed  that  his  father  could  mean  to  give  the  kingdom  to 
any  of  the  younger  ones.  Bathsheba  however,  the  widow  of 
Uriah,  continued  to  hold  a  great  ascendency  over  David. 
She  must  have  been  much  younger  than  the  mothers  of  his 
elder  children ;  and  her  son  Solomon,  as  a  son  of  old  age, 
was  likely  to  win  the  susceptible  mind  of  a  prince,  whose 
power  of  decisive  action  was  exceedingly  weakened  by  his 
time  of  life.  Adonijah  thought  it  the  safest  plan  to  seize  the 
kingdom,  and  so  forestal  Bathsheba's  intrigues ;  and  he  found 
a  certain  part  of  David's  own  cabinet  ready  to  aid  him.  Joab 
had  probably  been  disaffected  ever  since  David  endeavoured 
to  supersede  him  as  captain  of  the  host ;  and  his  influence 
with  the  army  might  seem  to  promise  all  that  Adonijah  could 
wish  from  that  quarter,  when  Joab  joined  his  cause.  Of 
Abishai  we  hear  no  more,  and  perhaps  he  had  recently  died. 
But  the  priest  Abiathar  was  another  important  ally.  He  was 
grandson  of  the  grandson  of  Eli,  tracing  his  genealogy  by 
Phinehas,  Ahitub  and  Ahimelech;  and  as  his  father  and 
family  were  all  murdered  by  Saul  for  David's  sake,  it  may 
be  suspected  that  he  made  larger  claims  on  David's  gratitude 
than  were  permanently  admitted.  With  the  details  we  are 
not  acquainted;  but  we  find  indications  that  Zadok,  who  at 
first  was  appointed  over  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon,  was  also 
admitted  to  minister  before  the  ark  in  Jerusalem,  jointly  with 
Abiathar,  though  still  the  chief  rank  rested  with  the  latter. 
It  is  possible  that  Abiathar  thought,  by  joining  Adonijah,  to 
secure  for  himself  and  his  male  posterity  the  pre-eminent 
position  which  he  was  in  danger  of  losing  through  Zadok. 
With  the  head  of  the  army  and  the  head  of  the  priesthood  to 
aid  him,  Adonijah  now,  like  his  brother  Absalom,  went  out 
in  royal  style,  ' '  with  chariots  and  horsemen  and  fifty  outrun- 
ners," and  having  made  a  great  sacrifice  at  the  stone  of  Zohe- 
leth  near  Enrogel,  invited  all  the  king's  sons  except  Solomon, 
with  the  chief  men  of  Judah,  to  a  public  banquet,  at  which  he 


CONSPIRACY  OF  ADONIJAH.  101 

intended  formally  to  assume  the  honours  of  royalty.  He  had 
kept  clear  of  inviting  those  who  were  known  to  be  of  Solo- 
mon's party;  these  are  specified  as  Nathan  the  prophet, 
Zadok  the  priest,  Benaiah  commander  of  the  foreign  body- 
guard, and  "  the  mighty  men ;"  by  which  we  are  to  understand 
the  celebrated  warriors  who  fought  round  the  king's  person 
in  battle. 

Judging  by  the  analogy  of  other  despotisms,  we  may  believe 
that  the  king  had  come  to  lean  more  and  more  on  his  foreign 
body-guard.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  revolt  of  Absalom  he 
was  able  at  once  to  count  on  the  fidelity  of  the  Cherethites, 
Pelethites  and  Gittites,  when  the  allegiance  of  the  general 
army  was  doubtful  and  divided.  This  must  have  taught  a 
lesson  not  to  be  neglected ;  and  considering  the  very  flourish- 
ing state  of  the  finances,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  Benaiah' s 
troops  were  at  present  the  most  effective  and  perhaps  the 
most  numerous  part  of  David's  standing  army.  Benaiah 
had  thus  become  a  more  important  person  than  Joab ;  and 
his  force -now  obtained  the  empire  for  Solomon.  Bathsheba 
first  broke  to  David  the  unpleasant  secret,  and  with  the  help 
of  Nathan  induced  him  to  take  immediate  measures  for  se- 
curing the  succession  of  the  throne.  Benaiah  marched  has- 
tily with  his  guards  and  surprised  Adonijah  while  yet  at  the 
banquet.  The  guests  were  dispersed  and  Solomon  was  pro- 
claimed king.  No  immediate  notice  was  taken  of  the  chief 
actors  in  this  conspiracy.  Solomon  indeed  publicly  pardoned 
his  brother  Adonijah  for  the  past ;  nevertheless  it  is  certain 
that,  together  with  Joab  and  Abiathar,  he  was  from  that  day 
devoted  to  ruin. 

Soon  after  these  events  the  strength  of  David  sank  rapidly. 
With  his  last  breath  he  charged  Solomon  to  remember  grate- 
fully the  services  of  old  Barzillai  the  Gileadite,  and  admit  his 
sons  to  the  royal  table ;  but  to  find  some  pretext  for  putting 
to  death  Joab  son  of  Zeruiah,  and  Shimei  the  Benjamite, 
whom,  some  ten  years  before,  he  had  ostentatiously  pardoned 
for  cursing  him.  So  at  least  our  record  states ;  but  it  is  very 
credible  that  David  was  more  sincere  in  his  forgiveness,  and 
that  his  charge  to  Solomon  against  these  two  persons  is  no 
more  true  than  the  charge  of  Augustus  to  Tiberius  Caesar  to 
put  to  death  his  daughter  and  her  son.  The  tyrant  who 
slays  for  his  own  policy  shifts  the  crime  on  to  the  memory  of 
his  predecessor. 

- 


102  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

David  the  son  of  Jesse,  after  a  reign  of  forty  years,  closed  his 
eyes  to  all  mortal  ambition,  and  slept  with  his  fathers.  Of 
him  we  may  say,  as  of  some  other  very  eminent  persons,  it 
would  have  been  well  had  he  died  before  absolute  power  had 
corrupted  him.  The  complicated  baseness  involved  in  his 
murder  of  Uriah  so  casts  his  honour  in  the  dust,  that  thence- 
forth we  rather  pity  and  excuse  than  admire  him.  All  the 
brilliancy,  alike  of  his  chivalry  and  of  his  piety,  is  sullied,  and 
cold  minds  suspect  his  religious  raptures  of  hypocrisy1.  If 
Nathan  had  been  able  to  slash  open  the  monarch's  conscience, 
before  the  wen  of  wickedness  had  swelled  into  a  carbuncle, 
most  happy  might  it  have  been ;  but  we  cannot  wonder  that 
it  was  so  very  hard  to  curb  a  despotic  and  victorious  prince. 
David  was  not  indeed  an  Antoninus,  an  Alfred,  or  a  Saint 
Louis ;  yet  neither  was  he  one  of  the  vulgar  herd  of  kings. 
The  polygamy  in  which  he  indulged  so  injuriously  must  in 
part  be  laid  to  his  personal  weakness,  when  we  observe  how 
restrained  (in  comparison)  was  his  predecessor  Saul2.  Never- 
theless, as  a  man,  he  was  affectionate  and  generous,  sympa- 

1  The  second  of  my  North  British  reviewers  (No.  35,  p.  151)  cannot  bear 
that  I  should  discriminate  men's  good  and  evil.   "  The  ribaldry  of  Paine,"  says 
this  writer,  "  itself  is  a  relief,  logically  speaking,  compared  with  this  combina- 
tion of  kissing  and  smiting  under  the  fifth  rib"     And  p.  150,  "Every  eulogy 
[in  Mr.  Newman]  has  some  reservation  ;  every  compliment  some  sting  in  its 
tail.     Of  David  we  are  told  that  all  the  brilliancy  alike  of  his  chivalry  and 
of  his  piety  is  sullied,  and  cold  minds  suspect  his  religious  raptures  of  hypo- 
crisy.    The  prophets,  from  Joel  to  Isaiah,  are  only  lauded  at  the  expense  of 
their  successors."     I  previously  knew  much  of  the  bigotry  of  the  (so-called) 
Evangelical  School,  but  I  also  knew  much  of  their  virtues  ;  and  I  did  not  ex- 
pect that  any  one  would  malign  me  for  dropping  a  word  of  reprobation  on  the 
great  crime  of  David.     I  fully  believe  that  most  readers  of  that  review  will 
think  the  writer  regards  my  praise  as  hypocritical :    for  how  can  he  call  it 
"  kissing  and  smiting  under  the  fifth  rib,"  to  praise  sincerely,  and  dispraise  con- 
scientiously ?     But  this  writer  has  privately  assured  me  (what  he  declines  to 
inform  his  readers,  otherwise  than  by  the  phrase  logically  speaking,}  that  it  is 
not  his  moral  but  his  logical  sense  which  is  offended,  that  I  can  so  absurdly 
mingle  praise  and  blame !    If  he  had  said  this  intelligibly  to  the  public,  I  should 
not  fear  that  any  readers  would  think  the  worse  of  my  consistency  or  shi 
with  him  at  my  preposterous  logic.     But  he  has  chosen  so  to  write,  in  lang 

of  moral  inflammation,  that  ninety -nine  readers  out  of  a  hundred  will  believe 
that  he  is  charging  me  with  patronizing  lies,  sympathizing  with  imposture,  and 
acting  the  impostor  myself. 

2  Saul,  as  far  as  we  know,  had  only  one  wife  and  one  concubine,  Kizpah  ;  and 
it  is  quite  possible  that  the  wife  was  removed  by  death  before  the  concubine 
was  espoused,  since  Kizpah' s  children  are  named  in  company  with  their  nephews, 
as  if  much  younger   than  Saul's  legitimate  sons.      A  concubine,  in  ancient 
times,  was  only  a  wife  of  inferior  rank,  and  the  union  was  just  as  permanent  as 
with  a  wife. 


DEATH    OF    DAVID.  103 

thetic  and  constitutionally  pious  :  as  a  king,  his  patronage  of 
religious  persons  was  highly  judicious,  and  his  whole  devo- 
tional character  of  permanent  importance  to  the  best  interests 
of  his  people  and  of  mankind ;  as  a  warrior,  he  taught  Israel 
a  mutual  confidence  and  common  pride  in  Jehovah  their  God ; 
and  first  elevated  his  countrymen  into  a  ruling  and  leading 
race,  whose  high  place  it  was  to  legislate  for  and  teach  the 
heathen  around.  His  career  may  serve  to  warn  all  who  are 
wanting  in  depth  of  passion  or  enlarged  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  that  those  on  whose  conduct  society  has  relaxed  its 
wholesome  grasp  are  not  to  be  judged  of  by  their  partial  out- 
breaks of  evil,  but  by  the  amount  of  positive  good  which  they 
habitually  exhibit.  Compared  with  the  great  statesmen  of 
the  educated  nations  of  Europe,  David's  virtues  and  vices 
appear  alike  puerile ;  but  among  Asiatics  he  was  a  great  man ; 
and  of  his  own  posterity,  though  several,  who  were  happily 
subjected  to  greater  restraints,  were  far  more  consistent  in 
goodness,  there  is  none  who  more  attracts  our  interest  and  our 
love  than  the  heroic  and  royal  Psalmist. 


104 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EEIGN  OF  SOLOMON. 

SAUL  and  David  had  each  of  them  been  installed  in  the 
throne  of  Israel  by  the  solemn  act  of  the  elders,  as  kings 
accepted  by  the  free  voice  of  the  nation,  and  bound  to  respect 
its  liberties.  But  Solomon  was  elevated  to  the  supreme  au- 
thority by  his  father's  will  and  by  the  aid  of  the  irresistible 
body-guard1 ;  not  indeed  without  the  sanction  of  Zadok  the 
priest  and  Nathan  the  prophet ;  yet  the  helplessness  of  Abia- 
thar, the  elder  priest  and  the  representative  of  Eli,  showed 
clearly  enough  that  the  swords  of  Benaiah  were  now  the  de- 
cisive influence.  Israel  in  fact  had  for  years  been  accustomed 
to  address  David  with  unmanly  servility;  and  although  the 
old  king's  popularity  had  been  thoroughly  worn  out,  the  na- 

1  The  Chronicler  not  merely  passes  over  the  conspiracy  of  Adonijah,  and  the 
prompt  military  proceedings  of  David  by  which  Solomon  was  made  king,  but 
introduces  an  account  intended  to  glorify  the  constitutional  decorum  and  reli- 
gious spirit  of  the  whole  proceeding  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  xxix.).  David  (says  he)  as- 
sembled all  the  princes  of  the  nation,  civil  and  military,  and  told  them  of  the 
earnest  desire  which  he  had  felt  to  build  a  temple  to  Jehovah ;  but  Jehovah  had 
forbidden  him,  as  having  been  a  warrior,  but  had  now  chosen  his  son  Solomon  to 
succeed  him  and  build  the  temple.  David  then  delivers  to  Solomon  an  exact 
"  pattern"  of  the  temple  and  all  its  furniture,  with  all  the  materials  of  precious 
or  common  metals,  precious  stones  and  marble,  and  requests  the  princes  to  con- 
tribute to  the  same  sacred  object.  Of  course  they  contribute  with  a  zeal  very 
edifying  to  the  people  of  Nehemiah.  Then  follows  a  thanksgiving  by  David,  of 
such  eminent  beauty,  that  for  the  sake  of  it  we  can  almost  pardon  the  fabulous 
history  in  which  it  has  been  imbedded.  Afterwards  is  a  sacrifice  of  1000  bullocks, 
1000  rams  and  1000  lambs,  preparatory  to  the  final  object  of  the  whole  meeting, 
the  free  election  of  Solomon  by  the  assembly  to  be  Icing,  in  confirmation  of  his  elec- 
tion by  Jehovah.  The  untrustworthiness  of  the  whole  is  strongly  marked  in  its 
last  words — that  the  congregation  simultaneously  elected  Zadok  to  be  priest. 
This  is  directly  opposed  to  the  book  of  Kings.  Abiathar  continued  to  be  the 
priest  until  after  the  death  of  Adonijah.  The  Chronicler  did  not  like  to  confess 
that  Zadok  was  indebted  for  his  sacred  pre-eminence  to  the  mere  will  of  a  des- 
potic prince,  who  broke  the  hierarchical  succession.  In  the  Chronicles,  not  only 
is  the  disgrace  of  Abiathar  omitted,  but  no  notice  of  him  occurs  in  the  history 
except  the  formal  statement  that  "  Abimelech  son  of  Abiathar"  was  colleague  of 
Zadok,  1  Chr.  xviii.  16,  which  is  in  error  reproduced  from  2  Sam.  viii.  17. 


FOREIGN    COMMOTIONS.  105 

tion  was  ready  to  welcome  his  youthful  son  with  a  credulous 
loyalty.  In  young  princes,  as  yet  uncorrupted  by  power,  and 
guiltless  of  the  evil  deeds  by  which  it  was  won,  the  common 
people  enthusiastically  believe  a  superhuman  virtue  to  exist;  and 
as  the  administration  passed  into  Solomon's  hands,  before 
death  surprized  his  aged  father,  the  new  reign  commenced 
without  any  shock  or  felt  internal  jar. 

There  appears  nevertheless  to  have  been  some  commotion 
among  the  foreign  nations  now  subject  to  the  Hebrew  sway. 
They  might  naturally  expect  feebleness  in  a  young  king,  who 
had  never  headed  an  army,  and  they  may  have  reckoned  on 
some  internal  disorders  to  aid  them.  Our  accounts  of  this 
reign  are  too  defective  as  to  all  foreign  affairs,  to  allow  of 
appeal  to  historical  details ;  but  an  echo  has  been  preserved 
to  us  of  certain  attempts  to  throw  off  the  yoke,  in  a  celebrated 
psalm  (Ps.-ii.)  composed  in  honour  of  Solomon's  empire  by 
a  prophet  of  the  day,  who  seems  to  put  the  words  into  the 
mouth  of  Solomon  himself. 

1.  Why  rage  the  peoples  ?  and  why  do  the  nations  plan  things  vain  ? 
Why  assemble  the  kings  of  earth,  why  plot  together  the  rulers, 
Against  Jehovah  and  his  anointed  one  ? 

Saying,  "  Let  us  break  their  bands  asunder, 
Let  us  cast  then*  cords  away  from  us." 

2.  He  that  sitteth  hi  the  heavens  shall  laugh, 
Jehovah  shall  mock  at  them. 

Then  he  shall  say  unto  them  hi  his  wrath, 
(And  vex  them  in  his  sore  displeasure), 
"  Behold !  I  have  set  up  my  king, 
On  Zion,  my  hill  of  holiness," 

3.  I1  will  rehearse  the  decree  which  Jehovah  has  uttered  to  me  : 
Jehovah  hath  said  unto  me :  "  Thou  art  my  Son ; 

This  day  have  I  begotten  thee, 

Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  nations  for  thy  inheritance, 

The  uttermost  parts  of  earth  for  thy  possession. 

Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of  iron ; 

Thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces  like  a  potsherd." 

4.  Be  wise  now  therefore,  O  ye  kings ; 
Be  instructed,  ye  judges  of  earth. 
Serve  Jehovah  with  fear  j 

1 1,  Solomon. 


106  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Rejoice  with  trembling. 

Worship  in  purity  \  lest  he  be  angry, 

And  ye  perish  straightway,  should  his  wrath  be  a  little  kindled. 

5.  Blessed  are  all  they  that  put  their  trust  in  him. 

Whatever  disturbances  were  threatened  among  Philistines, 
Moabites  or  Damascenes,  were  presently  quelled  with  no  se- 
rious effort  by  the  unimpaired  vigour  of  David's  armies;  and 
as  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  no  farther  attempt  was  made  to 
shake  off  the  yoke  until  the  later  days  of  Solomon.  The 
young  prince  was  therefore  fully  at  leisure  to  devote  himself 
to  his  internal  affairs,  and  first  of  all  to  that  first  object  of  in- 
terest, the  secure  establishment  of  his  own  title  to  the  crown 
against  all  competitors. 

Four  great  political  offenders  had  been  ostensibly,  but  not 
sincerely  pardoned  : — Adonijah  brother  of  Solomon,  Joab  the 
king's  first  cousin,  Abiathar  the  priest,  and  Shimei  the  kins- 
man of  Saul  who  cursed  David.  The  ruin  of  all  four  was 
resolved  upon,  and  Solomon  was  only  waiting  for  a  specious 
pretence.  Nor  was  one  long  wanting.  David  in  extreme  old 
age  had  received  into  his  harem,  by  the  superfluous  zeal  of 
his  courtiers,  a  young  damsel  of  remarkable  beauty,  Abishag 
the  Shunamite.  If  it  be  true  that  they  sought  far  and  wide, 
and  picked  her  out  of  all  Israel,  it  cannot  be  wonderful  that 
her  brilliancy  attracted  the  love  of  Adonijah;  who  engaged 
the  interest  of  Bathsheba,  mother  of  Solomon,  to  make  his 
suit  to  the  king  for  the  hand  of  Abishag.  But  no  sooner  had 
the  unsuspicious  Bathsheba  preferred  her  request,  than  the 
king  felt  or  affected  great  rage,  alleging  that  this  was  a  plot 
for  dethroning  him;  and  forthwith  sent  Benaiah  with  his 
myrmidons,  who  murdered  the  king's  brother  on  the  spot 
where  they  found  him. 

So  flagrant  an  act  of  despotism  had  not  been  seen  in  Israel 
since  Doeg  the  Edomite  massacred  the  priests  at  Saul's  com- 
mand. It  was  at  least  politic  of  Solomon  to  follow  up  the 
deed  by  commanding  the  death  of  Joab,  as  a  partner  in  the 
imagined  new  conspiracy.  Joab  fled  to  "  the  tabernacle  of 
Jehovah,"  (which  here  perhaps  means  the  tent  in  Jerusalem, 

1  This  word  in  good  Hebrew  cannot  mean  a  Son.  The  LXX.  renders  the 
clause  Apa|o(r0e  TrotSetos,  "  lay  hold  of  instruction."  We  have  nearly  followed 
Ewald. 


POLITICAL    EXECUTIONS.  107 

in  which  the  ark  was  kept,)  and  caught  hold  of  the  horns  of 
the  altar.  When  he  would  not  come  forth,  Benaiah  hesitated 
to  attack  him  in  the  holy  place,  until  he  had  been  re- assured 
by  Solomon,  who  reminded  him  of  the  double  assassination 
which  Joab  had  perpetrated.  Then  at  last  Benaiah  broke 
through  all  scruples,  and  with  his  own  hand  laid  the  hoary 
criminal  dead  at  the  foot  of  the  altar. 

Neither  was  the  old  Abiathar  altogether  to  escape,  although 
his  life  was  spared,  in  remembrance  of  his  long  sufferings  as 
David's  early  comrade.  He  was  ordered  to  confine  himself 
to  his  own  private  estate  at  Anathoth,  and  was  deposed  from 
all  his  dignities  and  emoluments  as  priest  to  Jehovah.  This 
was  clearly  done  by  the  simple  will  of  the  king.  A  later 
generation  softened  to  its  own  feelings  the  harshness  of  an 
act  so  unconstitutional,  by  the  belief  that  this  ejection  of 
Abiathar  and  his  descendants  from  the  priestly  office  was  a 
fulfilment  of  the  denunciation  of  Jehovah,  uttered  against  the 
house  of  Eli  by  the  mouth  of  the  boy  Samuel.  Be  this  as 
it  may,  -such  was  the  political  coincidence  which  deprived 
Israel  of  one  of  its  two  great  priestly  families,  and  left  Zadok 
and  his  posterity  as  the  most  distinguished  representatives  of 
the  house  of  Aaron. 

As  Zadok  was  promoted  to  the  place  of  Abiathar,  so  was 
Benaiah  to  the  captaincy  of  the  host,  vacated  by  Joab.  But 
more  work  of  the  same  odious  kind  still  remained  for  Benaiah. 
Shimei  had  given  no  excuse  for  pretending  that  he  was  an  ac- 
complice of  the  three  great  victims ;  and  an  arbitrary  device 
was  needed  for  entangling  him.  The  king  ordered  him  to 
build  a  house  at  Jerusalem,  and  not  to  set  foot  out  of  the  city 
on  pain  of  death.  Three  years  later,  two  of  Shimei' s  servants 
ran  away  from  him  into  Gath ;  upon  which  Shimei  pursued, 
overtook  them,  and  brought  them  back.  On  his  return, 
Solomon  upbraided  him  with  his  disobedience ;  and  having 
bitterly  reminded  him  of  his  curses  on  David,  commanded 
Benaiah  to  hew  him  down.  The  order  was  obeyed,  in  the 
style  of  military  despots,  who  disdain  the  sanctities,  the  de- 
cencies, or  the  hypocrisy  of  a  civil  tribunal.  So  at  length, 
it  may  seem,  king  Solomon  was  able  to  breathe  freely,  and  to 
forget  all  domestic  jealousies. 

From  the  reign  of  David  onward,  historical  documents 
were  carefully  kept  and  select  accounts  compiled  by  contem- 
poraries. Nathan  the  prophet  and  Gad  the  seer  were  the 


108  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

chief  authorities  known  to  a  later  age  concerning  the  life  of 
David  himself :  for  the  Acts  of  Solomon,  reference  is  made 
to  the  same  Nathan,  to  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  in  part  also 
to  Iddo  the  seer1.  Nevertheless  it  must  be  confessed  that 
we  know  very  indistinctly  the  chronology  of  Solomon's  life ; 
and  we  are  driven  to  write  concerning  it  rather  as  in  a  book 
of  antiquities,  than  in  the  consecutive  manner  of  a  history. 
There  are  few  marked  events  to  break  up  this  reign  into  por- 
tions. It  glides  by  like  a  dream  of  prosperity,  so  dazzling 
the  mind  that  we  take  no  note  of  time,  until  the  calm  breaks 
up  with  a  storm,  and  the  unhealthiness  of  the  brilliant  pa- 
geantry manifests  itself. 

Young  Solomon  ascended  to  his  enviable  position  with  the 
usual  aspirations  of  young  princes,  and  something  more. 
Undoubtedly  he  desired  to  reign  in  glory  and  magnificence ; 
but  he  also  wished  his  magnificence  to  be  displayed  signally 
in  the  honour  of  his  father's  God ;  and  he  had  already  a  clear 
conception  that  though  arms  might  win  empire,  policy  and 
wisdom  must  preserve  it.  As  a  basis  for  all  his  other  great- 
ness, he  endeavoured  to  order  his  finances  well,  and  to  open 
to  himself  by  commerce  various  new  sources  of  gain.  We 
shall  therefore  first  give  such  account  as  we  are  able  of  his 
traffic  and  his  wealth. 

I.  The  delusiveness  of  the  numbers  transmitted  to  us  has 
often  been  remarked  upon,  and  it  is  utterly  vain  to  endeavour 
to  found  upon  them  any  estimate  of  the  wealth  of  Solomon. 
It  is  enough  that  we  know  the  land  of  Israel  itself  to  have 
been  highly  productive  in  wheat,  barley,  honey,  oil  and  wine, 
in  wool,  hides,  and  certain  kinds  of  timber ;  for  all  of  which 
the  Phoenicians  afforded  markets  close  at  hand,  arid  gladly 
repaid  the  Israelites  in  every  sort  of  manufactured  and  or- 
namental work,  or,  in  part,  by  the  precious  and  the  usefu] 
metals.  In  hewing  timber  for  elegant  uses,  the  Israelites  were 
indeed  unskilled,  and  want  of  roads  was  an  impediment,  except 
where  the  choiceness  of  the  wood  permitted  its  carriage  by 
human  strength.  In  such  cases  the  Tyrians  themselves  aided 
in  the  hewing.  But  Solomon  had  two  other  projects,  neither 

1  1  Chron.  xxix.  29;  2  Chron.  ix.  29 ;  1  Kings,  xi.  41.  As  the  Phoenicians 
possessed  an  alphabet  and  spoke  a  Hebrew  dialect,  while  the  Egyptians  afforded 
papyrus,  the  seers  and  prophets  of  Solomon's  day  were  at  no  loss  for  the 
means  of  writing.  Yet  prose  composition  was  quite  in  its  infancy ;  and  the 
Chronicles  of  the  Kings  are  likely  to  have  been  concise  and  dry  facts,  like  those 
of  the  Middle  Age  chroniclers. 


SOLOMON'S  TRADE  BY  THE  RED  SEA.  109 

of  which  he  could  execute  without  Tyrian  aid, — maritime 
traffic  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  land  traffic  across  the 
Syrian  desart  to  Babylon  and  Media,  of  which  the  latter  was 
not  carried  out  till  the  middle  of  his  reign.  The  ports  of  Edom 
on  the  Hed  Sea  had  long  been  barren  possessions  in  his 
father's  hand.  To  build  in  them  a  fleet  of  ships  suited  for 
the  navigation  of  that  difficult  coast  was  certainly  an  arduous 
and  spirited  enterprize;  which  indeed,  if  we  were  to  judge 
solely  by  the  accounts  of  modern  travellers,  might  seem 
simply  impossible.  Nevertheless,  by  his  excellent  understand- 
ing with  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  the  fleet1  was  not  only  built, 
but  duly  manned  with  a  mixed  crew  of  Hebrews  and  Tyrians. 
On  the  details  of  its  voyages  whole  treatises  have  been  written. 
That  it  sailed  to  Sheba,  the  southernmost  angle  of  Arabia, 
no  one  can  doubt.  The  celebrated  Ophir,  the  most  distant 
point  of  the  course,  was  possibly  in  the  province  of  Oman  in 
Arabia,  where  Seetzen  has  pointed  out  the  name  as  still  exist- 
ing. Although  it  was  outside  of  the  straits  of  Bab  Elmandeb, 
the  three  years  allowed  for  the  voyage  was  long  enough  to 
enable  the  navigators  to  wait  quietly  for  the  month  in  which 
they  could  safely  commit  their  frail  vessels  to  the  Indian 
Ocean.  The  return-merchandize  which  the  Hebrews  regarded 
as  characteristic  of  Ophir, — gold  and  silver,  ivory,  monkeys 
and  peacocks, — do  not  all  agree  equally  well  with  Arabia ;  and 
were  not  Ophir  generally  named  by  the  Hebrews  in  connexion 
with  places  in  that  great  peninsula,  this  might  make  us  incline 
to  the  opinion  that  it  was  on  the  east  coast  of  Africa.  But 
we  have  no  proof  that  the  ivory  was  produced  round  Ophir : 
it  may  have  come  thither  from  India.  The  chief  wealth  how- 
ever which  this  traffic  conferred  depended  on  a  power  of  sell- 
ing again,  such  as  the  Phoenicians  possessed.  Spices  in 
great  abundance,  whether  from  India,  Arabia  or  Africa,  were 
to  be  had  in  the  marts  of  Sheba ;  and  in  the  whole  basin  of 
the  Mediterranean  the  consumption  of  incense  for  religious 

1  It  is  called  a  fleet  of  Tarshish,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  means  a 
fleet  of  ships  similar  to  those  in  which  the  Tyrians  sailed  to  Tarshish,  or  Tartessus, 
in  Spain.  This  has  been  often  illustrated  by  supposing  an  Englishman  to  say, 
that  "a  fleet  of  Indiamen  was  built  to  sail  to  the  coast  of  New  York."  The 
words  in  1  Kings,  x.  22,  "  a  navy  of  Tarshish  ivitJi  the  navy  of  Hiram,"  are  ob- 
scure, and  2  Chron.  viii.  18,  makes  the  matter  worse, — "  Hiram  sent  ships  by 
the  hand  of  his  servants,  and  they  went  with  the  servants  of  Solomon  to 
Ophir."  But  the  chronicler  is  in  hopeless  confusion  about  Tarshish,  Ophir  and 
the  Eed  Sea,  2  Chron.  xx.  36. 


110  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

worship  was  enormous.  To  the  carriers  of  this  commodity 
a  good  profit  always  accrued ;  and  although  the  Egyptians1 
perhaps  made  their  full  share  of  it,  as  certainly  did  the  land 
caravans  of  Syria,  Solomon  and  Hiram  also  found  their  ac- 
count in  the  trade.  Ivory,  almug2  and  other  scented  woods, 
precious  stones, — besides  gold,  in  which  Sheba  was  very 
abundant  in  those  times, — received  a  new  value  by  being 
transported  into  the  Grecian  seas. 

We  have  less  distinct  information  as  to  the  results  of 
the  trade  across  the  Syrian  desart.  One  thing  is  not  to  be 
omitted, — that  it  could  not  be  established  without  fresh  con- 
quests, which  are  so  named  in  our  later  record,  as  to  imply 
that  they  were  made  in  the  middle  of  Solomon' s  reign,  after 
he  had  finished  the  temple  and  his  own  palace.  He  then 
marched,  perhaps  in  person,  and  conquered  the  district  called 
Hamath-Zobah,  a  name  not  found  elsewhere,  but  which  we 
may  gather  to  be  the  outlying  country  to  the  north-east, 
bounded  by  the  Euphrates,  for  which  the  kings  of  Hamath 
and  Zobah  contended.  It  would  appear3  that  Solomon  now 
possessed  himself  of  the  city  of  Tiphsah  (or  Thapsacus)  on  the 
Euphrates,  and  fortified  Tadmor  (or  Palmyra)  in  the  desart. 
We  also  hear  of  store-cities  which  he  built  in  Hamath,  un- 
doubtedly to  hold  his  north-eastern  merchandize,  which  must 
have  been  carried  upon  the  backs  of  camels.  As  the  heavy 
produce  of  Palestine  cannot  have  been  sent  out  by  such  a 
conveyance,  we  are  left  to  conjecture  that  Solomon' s  caravans 
carried  those  Phoenician  or  Egyptian  light  and  elegant  ma- 
nufactures, which  were  unrivalled  by  the  home-productions  of 
the  countries  visited.  To  direct  such  operations,  the  know- 
ledge and  experience  of  the  Tyrians  was  essential ;  and  as  we 
hear  little  further  of  it,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  they  here 
zealously  assisted,  or  whether  the  results  were  alike  satisfac- 
tory to  Solomon's  revenue  as  to  his  pride.  It  may  even  have 
been  a  losing  trade,  and  have  contributed  to  his  later  hu- 
miliation. 

In  estimating  its  returns,  it  must  be  remembered  that 

1  We  do  not  know  how  far  the  Egyptian  prejudice  against  sea- voyages 
have  crippled  them. 

2  The   almug  wood   came  from   Ophir ;    1  Kings,  x.  11.     The  Chroi 
speaks  of  algwm  trees  in  Lebanon,  2  Chron.  ii.  8 :    but  this  is  probably 
error.     The  wood  intended  is  supposed  to  be  the  red  sandal- wood. 

3  1  Kings,  iv.  24,  is.  18,  19  j  2  Chron.  viii.  1-6. 


TRADE  OVER  THE  SYRIAN  DESART.  Ill 

vast  expense  of  garrisoning  and  provisioning  these  distant 
cities  in  the  midst  of  hostile  nations  ought  all  to  be  deducted 
from  the  profits.  Besides  Thapsacus  and  Palmyra,  Baalbek 
(or  Heliopolis)  was  very  probably  among  the  cities  which  he 
held,  and  may  be  included  among  the  "  store-cities  of  Ha- 
math1,"  even  if  it  be  not  denoted  by  the  name  Baalatti?,  about 
which  there  is  controversy. 

The  late  date  which  the  Chronicler  appears  to  assign  to 
Solomon's  conquest  of  Hamath-Zobah,  and  consequent  esta- 
blishment of  the  north-eastern  trade,  decidedly  favours  the 
suspicion  that  in  this  whole  scheme  his  ambition  overreached 
his  judgment.  For  it  is  clear  in  the  history,  that  in  his  later 
years  this  king  oppressed  his  subjects  grievously  by  taxation ; 
which  strongly  implies  that  his  mercantile  profits  were  no 
longer  what  they  had  been. 

A  matter  of  no  small  importance  is  stated  to  us  very  drily — 
the  dissatisfaction  of  Hiram  king  of  Tyre  with  the  recompense 
which  Solomon  made  to  him  after  receiving  twenty-four  years' 
aid.  The  recompense  consisted  of  twenty  towns  in  the  land 
of  Galilee ;  which  so  little  pleased  Hiram,  that  he  named  the 
district  Cabul  (or  disgust] ,  and  refused  to  occupy  it.  We 
may  conjecture  that  the  towns  were  too  far  inland,  and  with 
too  insecure  a  frontier,  for  him  to  protect  and  hold.  Strange 
to  add,  Solomon  re-occupies  and  fortifies  them3,  and  is  so  far 
from  giving  any  compensation  to  Hiram,  that  he  receives  from 
him  120  talents  of  gold.  There  is  evidently  something  sup- 
pressed here.  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  suspecting  that  a  breach 
took  place  between  the  two  powers  at  this  time,  and  that 
Hiram  prudently  yielded,  though  with  much  disgust,  to  So- 
lomon's superior  might  by  land;  and  that  when  the  Hebrew 
king  proceeded  to  conquer  Hamath-Zobah,  and  endeavoured 
to  monopolize  the  north-eastern  trade,  he  had  no  aid  from 
Tyre,  and  in  the  result  met  with  damaging  losses.  But  all 
such  topics  are  glibly  passed  over  in  the  narrative,  although 
the  hiatus  cannot  be  concealed. 

With  Egypt  also  the  king  opened  a  commerce  previously 
unknown.  Particular  mention  is  made  of  the  linen  yarn 
thence  imported  (perhaps  chiefly  for  re-exportation),  and  of 
the  horses  and  chariots.  In  passing,  we  learn  an  interesting 
fact, — that  princes  of  the  Hittites  still  existed  in  social  inde- 

1  2  Chron.  viii.  4.  2  1  Kings,  ix.  18. 

3  1  Kings,  ix.  10-14 ;  2  Chron.  viii.  2. 


112 


THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 


pendence  in  the  midst  of  the  Israelites,  who  bought  the  Egyp- 
tian horses  and  chariots,  as  also  did  many  of  the  princes  of 
Syria.  The  Egyptian  breed,  it  may  even  be  judged  by  paint- 
ings, was  particularly  fine,  being,  in  appearance,  only  a  more 
powerful  Arab.  Africa  however  was  probably  the  native  land 
of  this  horse.  The  same  paintings  show  us  the  compact, 
light,  yet  solid  fabric  of  the  Egyptian  chariot ;  the  building  of 
which,  when  springs  were  not  yet  thought  of,  was  a  pecu- 
liarly difficult  art.  Solomon  had  the  means  of  paying  for  his 
Egyptian  merchandize  by  the  native  wine  and  oil  of  Palestine. 
The  old  Greeks  in  general  believed  that  the  Egyptians  had 
none  but  £0rZq/-wine,  and  toddy  made  from  the  palm-tree.  He- 
rodotus positively  says  that  they  had  no  vines  in  their  country: 
and  this  may  have  been  true  of  Lower  Egypt.  The  error  is 
accounted  for  by  the  very  active  importations  of  Greek  and 
Phoenician  wine  into  that  country,  which  proves  that  the  na- 
tive Egyptian  wine  was  either  very  inferior  or  very  deficient 
in  quantity :  probably  both.  The  hills  of  Palestine  are  suited 
to  rear  vines  of  a  superior  quality,  though  little  wine  is  now 
made  of  them,  in  deference  to  the  scruples  of  the  Turks.  As 
for  oil,  a  later  prophet1  alludes  to  the  carriage  of  it  into  Egypt. 
The  olive  to  this  day  grows  and  flourishes  almost  without 
care  in  any  corner  of  rock2  round  Jerusalem,  where  it  might 
seem  to  have  no  soil ;  and  yields  oil  abundantly.  Considering 
the  enormous  use  of  it  under  an  African  sun  for  the  purposes 
of  soap,  butter  and  tallow,  the  olive-grounds  of  Judah,  with 
Egypt  for  the  market,  must  have  been  a  more  valuable  pos- 
session than  the  mines  of  Peru.  Honey  was  probably  another 
article  of  export  of  first  importance,  since  sugar  was  unknown ; 
but  corn  was  not  wanted  in  Egypt. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  foreign  trade 
of  Solomon  was  carried  on  by  himself  as  an  individual  mer- 
chant,— in  fact,  as  the  only  merchant  of  the  community. 
Private  Hebrews  could  not  build  themselves  ships  at  Elath  or 
Eziongeber;  and  probably  they  either  were  not  allowed  to 
send  their  own  camels  and  goods  with  the  king's  caravans, 
or  had  to  purchase  the  permission  by  a  heavy  payment.  The 
celebrated  commerce  of  Ophir  is  likely  to  have  been  far  less 

1  Hosea,  xii.  1. 

2  The  beautiful  poetry  of  Deut.  xxxii.  13  is  at  the  same  time  sober  prose : 
"  Jehovah  has  made  Jacob  to  suck  honey  out  of  the  rock,  and  oil  out  of  the  hard 

flint" 


VISIT    OF    THE    QUEEN    OF   SHEBA.  113 

profitable  than  that  with  the  nearest  countries  of  Egypt  and 
Tyre ;  but  the  distant  traffic  struck  men's  imaginations  more. 
The  royal  demesnes  in  Israel  possessed  by  David  were  con- 
siderable, and  the  accumulated  treasure  bequeathed  by  him 
very  large ;  and  since  foreign  tribute,  paid  in  kind,— added  to 
the  ordinary  tribute  of  Israel, — was  probably  enough  to  defray 
the  general  expenses  of  government,  the  king  found  a  large 
balance  in  his  own  hands  which  he  could  apply  as  mercantile 
capital.  Indeed,  the  nature  of  the  result  shows  that  this  was 
certainly  the  case.  By  the  potent  aid  of  monopoly  he  became, 
at  least  in  the  first  half  of  his  reign,  a  most  successful  mer- 
chant, and  soon  attracted  the  wonder  and  envy  of  foreigners. 
The  most  renowned  stranger  who  visited  the  court  of  Solo- 
mon was  the  queen  of  Sheba.  Her  proper  territory  was  in 
the  extreme  south  of  Arabia,  having  a  coast  on  the  Indian 
Ocean  as  well  as  on  the  Red  Sea ;  yet  in  the  time  of  Strabo, 
this  government  or  people  was  regarded  as  reaching  along 
nearly  the  whole  Arabian  coast  of  the  Red  Sea,  till  it  met  the 
Nabathseans.  It  is  evident  that  the  people  of  Sheba  inherited 
a  very  ancient  civilization,  with  many  advantages  and  some 
peculiar  enormities.  Among  the  last  must  be  reckoned  the 
revolting  institution  of  polyandry1,  or  (in  practice)  the  mar- 
riage of  several  brothers  at  once  to  a  single  wife,  which  is 
known  still  to  prevail  in  certain  districts  of  India  and  Thibet. 
This  may  seem  to  ally  the  people  of  Sheba  to  an  Indian  stock. 
Their  language  however,  though  widely  different  from  the 
Arabic  of  literature,  is  supposed  to  class  them  with  Arabs  and 
Hebrews.  Since  at  a  later  period  the  Jewish  faith  became 
very  powerful  in  Sheba,  insomuch  that  some  of  its  kings  are 
called  Jewish,  it  is  interesting  to  find  at  this  early  date  the 
impression  made  by  Solomon  and  his  monotheistic  religion 
on  his  royal  visitant.  Her  valuable  presents  show  the  close 
intimacy  which  was  arising  between  the  two  states  by  reason 
of  the  commerce;  and  had  it  been  continued,  it  may  seem 
possible  that  a  greater  extension  of  the  Jewish  faith  would 
have  taken  place  than  was  ever  afterwards  possible.  For  as 
yet,  only  the  pure  doctrine  of  Jehovah  was  declared;  narrow 
Levitism  had  not  grown  into  a  dominant  power;  vexatious 
ceremonies  had  no  prominence ;  there  was  no  repugnance  felt 
towards  foreigners ;  intermarriage  with  them  was  easy.  Cir- 

1  Strabo,  xvi.  cli.  4.     He  imputes  the  practice,  apparently,   to  the  Naba- 
thffians  also. 


114  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

cumcision  indeed  was  insisted  on ;  but  this,  however  offensive 
to  Europe,  was  a  natural  and  comely  practice  in  the  judgment 
of  Egypt,  Arabia,  Africa,  and  perhaps  of  the  distant  Indian 
islands.  The  simple-minded  queen  found  nothing  in  Solo- 
mon's court  to  repel  or  annoy  her,  and  she  returned  (as  at 
least  our  annalist  believed)  blessing  Jehovah  on  Solomon's  ac- 
count, and  congratulating  the  people  who  had  such  a  king. 

In  consequence  of  his  traffic  with  Egypt,  Solomon  was  na- 
turally induced, — partly  for  pomp,  partly  for  service, — to  set 
up  a  new  species  of  military  force,  that  of  horses  and  chariots. 
He  is  stated  to  have  had  1400  chariots  and  12,000  horsemen. 
But  this  gave  decided  offence  to  the  more  religious  portion  of 
his  people.  It  was  remembered  how  gloriously  his  father, 
without  horses,  had  vanquished  the  pride  of  Hadadezer's  chi- 
valry ;  and  how  all  the  honour  had  been  ascribed  to  Jehovah, 
with  whom  a  horse  is  but  a  vain  thing,  and  who  loves  by  weak 
instruments  to  confound  the  mighty.  The  feelings  of  the  pious 
boded  no  good  to  Israel  from  the  innovation ;  and  when,  in 
the  next  reign,  Egypt  proved  a  victorious  enemy  and  the 
cavalry  a  useless  arm  of  defence,  it  probably  became  a  fixed 
traditional  principle  with  the  prophetical  body,  that  this  proud 
force  was  outlandish,  heathenish  and  unbelieving. 

II.  From  the  sources  of  Solomon's  wealth  we  proceed  to  his 
principal  use  of  wealth, — in  building.  The  edifices  which  de- 
serve to  be  here  noticed  are  the  following :  the  Temple,  his 
own  Palace,  his  Queen's  Palace,  his  Piazza  (for  walking  and 
recreation?),  his  Porch  of  Judgment,  or  law-court,  and  his 
house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon1.  The  last,  it  has  been  con- 
jectured, was  so  called  from  the  great  quantity  of  cedar  used 
in  its  construction.  Besides  these  peaceful  buildings,  Solo- 
mon fortified  the  Millo,  or  citadel  of  Jerusalem,  and  added 
largely  to  the  walls.  Various  other  towns3  are  likewise  named, 
which  he  had  occasion  to  fortify. 

With  regard  to  the  splendour  of  the  Temple,  a  certain  mo- 
derate caution  of  belief, — not  to  say  scepticism, — appears  to 
be  called  for  by  the  circumstances  of  its  history.  In  the  very 
next  reign  it  was  despoiled  of  all  the  wealth  which  could  be 
carried  away,  by  its  Egyptian  conqueror :  this  opened  to  the 

1  In  Isaiah  (xxii.  8)  we  find  "the  house  of  the  forest"  alluded  to,  as  an  ar- 
senal for  arms  within  the  city  of  David. 

2  Hazor,  Megiddo,  Oezer  of  the  Philistines,  one  or  both  Beth-horons,  Baa- 
lath,  and  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness. 


GOLD    VESSELS    OF    THE    TEMPLE.  115 

national  regret  a  wide  door  for  supposing  that  still  more  had 
heen  lost  than  really  was.  That  much  credulity  was  here  at 
work  appears  from  collateral  facts.  The  temple  was  stripped 
of  its  principal  treasures  six  times  over, — by  Shishak  king  of 
Egypt,  by  king  Asa,  by  Jehoash  king  of  Judah,  by  another 
Jehoash  of  Israel,  by  Ahaz,  and  by  Hezekiah.  After  the  death 
of  Josiah,  the  king  of  Egypt  could  only  get  one  talent  of  gold 
out  of  all  Judah.  Yet  when  Nebuchadnezzar  soon  after  cap- 
tures Jerusalem,  it  is  imagined  that  he  carried  off  "  all  the 
vessels  of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made  in  the  temple  of  Je- 
hova'h1;  and  although  it  is  added  that  Nebuchadnezzar  "  cut 
them  all  in  pieces,"  Ezra  believed  that  Cyrus  restored  these 
identical  articles,  5400  in  number2.  Since,  at  the  later  period, 
the  golden  vessels  of  Solomon  certainly  existed  only  in  the 
imagination  of  the  narrator,  we  cannot  feel  any  great  confi- 
dence as  to  the  details  asserted  concerning  such  points  of  mag- 
nificence 400  years  earlier. 

We  have  seen  that  David,  after  his  first  war  with  Hadad- 
ezer,  dedicated  gold  and  silver  vessels  and  large  quantities  of 
brass  to  the  service  of  Jehovah,  all  of  which  were  undoubtedly 
used  for  the  temple  of  Solomon.  Out  of  this  fact  has  arisen 
a  long  account  in  detail,  how  David  left  to  Solomon  a  pattern 
of  every  part  of  the  house,  and  an  account  by  weight  of  every 
vessel  that  was  to  be  made,  with  a  splendid  estimate  of  the 
total  weight  of  metal  (which  however  is  not  consistent  with 
itself3),  and  of  the  additional  contributions  made  by  the  princes 
of  Israel.  David  is  even  alleged  in  one  fragmentary  passage  to 
have  prepared  the  hewn  stones,  the  cedar  wood,  and  other  mat- 
ters, by  help  of  the  Tyrians  and  other  foreign  artificers ;  but 
this  is  clearly  an  anticipation  of  the  proceedings  of  Solomon4. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  by  the  displacement  of  Abiathar, 
Zadok  his  successor  naturally  gave  up  all  connexion  with  the 
tabernacle  and  high  altar  at  Gibeon;  and  it  now  became  a 
question,  whether  to  retain  the  separate  establishment  at  Gi- 

1  2  Kings,  xxiv.  13  :  contrast  1  Kings,  xiv.  26.  2Ezra,  i.  11. 

3  All  this  is  from  the  Chronicler,  not  from  the  book  of  Kings.     In  1  Chron. 
xxii.  14,  David  bequeaths  to  Solomon  for  the  temple  100,000  talents  of  gold, 
and  1,000,000  talents  of  silver.     In  ch.  xxix.  4,  it  is  only  3000  talents  of  gold 
and  7000  of  silver,  to  which  the  princes  add  5000  talents  and  10,000  darics  of 
gold,  10,000  talents  of  silver,  18,000  of  brass,  and  100,000  of  iron.     Darics 
were  a  Persian,  and  quite  a  later  coin.     Even  the  8000  talents  of  gold  is  an  in- 
credibly large  sum. 

4  2  Chron.  ii.  3  makes  Hiram  to  have  built  a  cedar-palace  for  David  also. 


116  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

beon  or  not.  And  this  was  easily  decided.  It  was  impolitic 
and  a  needless  expense  (unless  two  rival  priests  were  to  be 
purposely  upheld)  at  so  short  a  distance  to  maintain  a  second 
altar.  The  analogy  of  monarchy  dictated  centralization,  and 
it  was  determined  to  remove  the  old  tabernacle  and  the  sacred 
Gibeonites1  with  it.  An  honourable  pretext  for  this  was  found 
in  the  erection  of  a  temple  at  Jerusalem,  which  was  to  super- 
sede both  tabernacles ;  and  thus  was  laid  the  foundation  of  a 
more  vigorous  sacerdotal  order,  which  should  in  time  become 
independent  of  the  now  dominating  imperial  power. 

For  constructing  this  sacred  edifice,  Solomon  still  needed 
the  help  of  the  Tyrians,  both  to  hew  timber  from  Lebanon, 
to  square  the  blocks  of  stone,  and  (what  was  still  more  essen- 
tial) for  all  the  curious  works  in  brass.  The  work  was  begun 
early  in  Solomon's  fourth  year,  and  took  seven  years  to  com- 
plete. That  no  very  satisfactory  description  of  the  building, 
as  a  whole,  can  be  attained,  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the 
great  discordances  between  learned  commentators.  Never- 
theless, a  part  of  their  diversities  is  ascribable  to  the  undue 
weight  which  some  have  given  to  the  arbitrary  assertions  of 
the  Jewish  historian  Josephus ;  and  another  part,  to  the  en- 
deavour to  harmonize  the  fictitious  additions  of  the  "  Chro- 
nicler" with  the  simpler  account  given  in  the  book  of  ' {  Kings." 
It  is  perhaps  impossible  to  attain  any  more  exact  ideas  than 
the  following  outline  will  give.  The  general  ground  plan  of 
the  three  principal  compartments  was  oblong,  and  ran  70 
cubits  in  the  clear  from  east  to  west,  but  only  20  cubits  in 
breadth,  from  north  to  south.  From  the  eastern  end  was 
cut  off  a  porch,  or  ante-chapel,  which  occupied  only  10  cubits 
of  the  entire  length.  Of  the  rest,  the  first  40  cubits  made 
the  principal  sanctuary,  and  the  remaining  20  was  the  secret 
"  oracle"  or  most  holy  place ;  which  was  thus  an  apartment  20 
cubits  square.  The  height  of  the  whole  is  called  30  cubits ; 
yet  the  oracle  is  elsewhere  distinctly  said  to  be  but  20  cubits 
high2;  so  that  it  appears  to  have  been  lower  than  the  central 
hall.  Many  of  the  pillars  were  made  of  the  precious  almug 
wood.  Within  the  ante-chapel  also  stood  two  highly  orna- 
mented pillars  of  brass,  called  Jachin  and  Boaz,  the  work  of 
a  man  of  Naphthali,  whose  father  was  a  Tyrian.  This  clever 

1  The  word  Gibeonites  at  length  gave  place  to  that  of  Nethinim,  which  is  in 
terpreted  iep65ov\oi,  sacred  slaves. 

2  Kings,  vi.  2,  20. 


BUILDING    OF    THE    TEMPLE.  117 

artificer  bore  the  same  name  as  the  king  of  Tyre, — Hiram, 
who  sent  him  to  the  service  of  Solomon.  He  wrought  like- 
wise a  large  tank  of  brass,  ten  cubits  in  diameter,  supported 
by  twelve  oxen;  and  ten  large  baths  of  brass  richly  orna- 
mented, and  very  many  other  curious  works.  Among  the  or- 
naments are  specified  lions,  oxen  and  cherubim.  What  the 
last  were  is  now  pretty  well  ascertained,  by  comparing  the  de- 
scriptions in  Ezekiel  with  Persian  or  Assyrian  sculptures  and 
Egyptian  paintings,  where  we  find  figures  which  may  be  de- 
noted as  winged  oxen  with  human  faces,  and  as  angels  with 
eagles'  heads.  Within  the  "oracle"  or  crypt  were  also  two  che- 
rubim of  olive  wood,  each  ten  cubits  high,  and  having  ten 
cubits  for  the  span  of  the  wings ;  and  the  walls  and  doors  of 
the  house  were  carved  everywhere  with  cherubim,  palm-trees 
and  open  flowers.  It  is  incredible  that  when  such  animals 
and  such  symbols  were  freely  made  in  brass,  as  suitable  deco- 
rations to  the  interior  of  the  temple,  there  can  have  been  any 
such  aversion  to  images  of  hewn  stone  and  sculptured  or- 
naments of  the  altar,  as  the  modern  Pentateuch  inculcates. 
Against  each  side  of  the  house  there  rested  a  lower  structure, 
affording  chambers  for  the  priests.  The  windows  also  were 
lofty  and  narrow ;  and  if  Josephus  had  any  valid  tradition  for 
his  belief  of  the  very  disproportionate  height  of  the  porch,  the 
whole  building  had  a  strong  general  resemblance  in  form  to 
a  very  small  European  cathedral,  having  a  lofty  tower  at  its 
east  end,  and  a  chancel,  lower  than  the  central  building, -at 
the  west.  Moreover,  the  preparation  of  the  foundation  of  the 
temple  on  the  top  of  Mount  Moriah,  on  the  threshing-floor  of 
Araunah  the  Jebusite,  was  in  itself  an  elaborate  work,  as  the 
substructions  of  the  Roman  temple  to  Jupiter  Capitolinus. 
But  on  this  we  have  no  details  from  our  most  trustworthy 
authority. 

The  size  of  the  building  thus  described  is  extremely  mode- 
rate, even  if  we  assign  to  the  cubit  its  greatest  length,  of  one 
foot,  nine  inches,  English.  But  when  we  are  told  that  the 
wonder  of  the  building  consisted  in  the  prodigious  quantity  of 
gold  which  was  lavished  on  it ;  that  it  was  an  edifice  such  as  a 
traveller  might  expect  in  El  Dorado ;  that  the  whole  house,  in 
short,  was  overlaid  with  gold ; — we  may  believe  the  last  asser- 
tion in  the  letter,  but  must  deny  it  in  the  spirit.  Such  is  the 
ductility  of  gold,  that  even  in  the  earliest  developments  of  art, 
gilding  was  a  comparatively  unexpensive  process ;  nor  is  there 


118  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

any  reason  to  question,  that  not  only  the  olive-wood  cheru- 
bim, but  the  general  carved  work  within  the  temple  was  su- 
perbly gilt.  This  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  antiquity1,  and  did 
not  exceed  the  means  of  a  wealthy,  though  third-rate,  power. 
But  if  the  gold  on  the  wood- work  had  been  thick  enough  to 
yield  anything  worth  carrying  off  by  cutting  or  scraping,  we 
can  scarcely  think  that  even  king  Shishak  in  the  next  reign 
would  have  left  any  of  it  standing ;  or  at  least  when  later  plun- 
derers broke  in,  much  would  be  heard  of  the  valuable  gold 
wainscoting  and  tables  which  they  carried  off.  In  short,  the 
real  magnificence  of  the  Temple  consisted  in  its  hewn  stones, 
its  noble  cedar-beams,  its  curious  carvings  and  its  skilful  works 
in  brass ;  not  in  the  profusion  of  gold  and  silver,  however  spe- 
ciously it  may  have  been  gilt :  and  even  so,  considering  its 
very  small  dimensions,  its  grandeur  must  be  understood  by 
comparison  with  all  that  had  preceded  it.  Side  by  side  with 
an  Egyptian  temple,  or  even  with  the  cathedrals  of  Christen- 
dom and  mosques  of  Islam,  it  shrinks  into  insignificance.  In 
every  way  there  was  much  room  left  for  improvement  by  his 
successors.  Hezekiah,  for  instance,  overlaid  the  doors  and 
pillars  with  gold;  a  fact  which  we  should  not  have  learned, 
had  he  not  accidentally  been  forced  to  cut  it  off  again,  as  a 
propitiation  to  the  king  of  Assyria. 

The  hewing  of  the  cedar  from  Mount  Lebanon  discloses  to 
us  an  important  fact,  that  in  the  heart  of  Israel  there  existed 
a  nation  of  bondsmen  or  vassals,  liable  to  perform  public  works 
for  king  Solomon,  just  as  of  old  the  Israelites  for  Pharaoh. 
The  words  of  the  older  compiler  are  extremely  distinct.  "  All 
the  people  which  were  left  of  the  Amorites,  Hittites,  Periz- 
zites,  Hivites  and  Jebusites ;  which  were  not  of  the  children  of 
Israel ;  their  children  that  were  left  after  them  in  the  land ; — 
upon  those  did  Solomon  levy  a  tribute  of  bondservice  unto  this 
day.  But  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  Solomon  make  no 
bondmen ;  but  they  were  men  of  war,  and  his  servants,  and 
his  princes,  and  his  captains,  and  rulers  of  his  chariots  and  his. 
horsemen."  The  number  of  these  strangers  liable  to  bond- 
service is  estimated  at  153,600,  (in  a  book2  indeed  prone  to 
exaggeration,)  and  30,000  is  given  as  the  number  actually 

1  The  learned  reader  may  be  reminded  of  the  palace  of  De'ioces  in  Ecbatana, 
which  had  seven  circular  walls  of  different  colours,  the  two  innermost  having 
their  battlements  covered  respectively  with  silvering  and  with  gilding. 

1  2  Chron.  ii.  17. 


BONDMEN    IN    ISRAEL.  119 

kept  at  work  at  once.  Our  earlier  and  better  authority1  may 
seem  on  the  whole  to  confirm  this,  in  reckoning  the  Hebrew 
overseers  of  the  labourers  as  550.  While  the  same  word  is 
used  concerning  the  taskwork  of  these  slaves  as  concerning 
the  Israelitish  service  in  Egypt2,  and  they  were  manifestly  at 
the  mercy  of  their  conquerors,  it  is  still  uncertain  what  was 
the  actual  pressure  of  suffering  upon  them.  But  unless  we 
could  imagine  Jewish  rule  to  be  far  milder  than  that  of  Chris- 
tendom, a  conquered  class, — strange  in  religion, — subjected  to 
public  taskwork, — without  political  rights, — below  the  sympa- 
thies of  the  dominant  race, — without  moral  relations  to  defi- 
nite families  and  patrons, — forced  to  work  under  public  over- 
seers, who  must  of  necessity  have  been  armed  with  the  whip, — 
such  a  class  can  have  had  little  in  their  lot  to  prefer  to  the  ex- 
ceeding bitter  bondage  of  Israel  in  Egypt.  As  we  read  of  cer- 
tain Hittite  princes,  (apparently  in  Israel,)  it  is  possible  that 
some  chieftains  of  these  races  made  favourable  terms  with 
David  and  Solomon,  and  retained  their  domains  and  rank. 
The  conquest  and  subjugation  of  the  rest  seems  to  account  for 
the  ample  territorial  domains  of  David  and  his  son ;  for  the 
land  of  the  conquered  was  doubtless  confiscated  to  the  crown. 
No  Moses  arose  to  rescue  them;  and  no  modern  writer  can 
express  sympathy  for  them3  without  exciting  indignation.  So 
capricious  and  sectarian  are  religious  partialities ;  so  slow  are 
Christians  to  enlarge  their  hearts  in  pity  to  Pagans,  or  deplore 
the  permanent  degradation  of  a  whole  caste  of  men.  Yet  the 
well  known  phrase  "  unto  this  day"  indicates  that  the  bondage 
(under  whatever  modifications)  lasted  down  to  the  time  when 
the  book  of  Kings  was  compiled. 

It  would  be  needless  to  employ  moral  criticism  on  Solomon's 
much-celebrated  undertaking,  were  not  the  whole  affair  habi- 
tually represented  in  a  false  light.  The  kings  of  Egypt  and 

1  1  Kings,  ix.  23. 

2  The  word  is  Mas;  1  Kings,  ix.  21,  and  Exod.  i.  11.     It  is  explained  in  Wi- 
ner's Simonis,  "  tribute  paid  by  the  body,  that  is,  servitude,  Frohndienst ;"  or 
soccage  paid  by  a  serf  to  his  landlord.     It  occurs  also  in  2  Sam.  xx.  24,  in  enu- 
merating David's  revenues  and  administration. 

8  In  my  first  edition  I  gave  great  offence  by  the  following  words :  "Their 
persons,  being  reduced  to  slavery,  formed  the  hapless  multitude,  whose  unno- 
ticed groans  supplied  the  raw  material  of  Solomon's  glory."  Perhaps  I  should 
have  said  serfdom,  riot  slavery.  I  now  withdraw  the  words  from  the  text, 
chiefly  because  I  find  I  am  supposed  to  intend  a  personal  and  peculiar  blame 
against  Solomon  more  than  other  ancient  kings.  My  '  North  British'  critic 
(No.  31)  with  his  usual  audacity,  treats  me  as  absurd  for  regarding  them  as 
strangers  at  all,  and  says  they  were  free  Hebrews,  who  worked  in  their  turn! 


120  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  republics  of  Greece,  equally  with  the  great  sovereigns*  ba- 
rons, or  archbishops  of  Europe,  were  urged  by  a  comfortable 
combination  of  pride,  piety  and  architectural  taste,  to  erect 
magnificent  sacred  edifices.  Where  so  many  motives  conspire, 
it  is  absurd  to  dwell  on  the  religious  zeal  of  the  projectors : 
the  temples  indeed  of  Selinus  or  Ephesus  would  probably  have 
eclipsed  that  of  Jerusalem.  Instinct  generally  guides  the 
founders  to  a  work,  the  end  of  which  they  most  imperfectly 
know ;  and  so,  we  believe,  it  was  with  this  of  Solomon. 

His  father  David  had  bequeathed  to  him  a  great  institution, 
of  signal  value,  in  the  singers  and  musicians  annexed  to  the 
worship  of  the  tabernacle.  In  rank  and  in  remuneration  in- 
ferior to  the  priests,  in  spiritual  position  they  were  as  much 
higher  as  the  preaching  curate  than  the  ordaining  bishop.  No 
preaching  indeed  or  teaching  or  reading  of  the  Law  existed  as 
yet ;  but  the  very  fact  made  the  singing  of  psalms  and  hymns 
so  much  the  more  important.  They  were  the  only  spiritual, 
intellectual  and  elevating  part  of  the  service.  To  the  priest, 
on  the  contrary,  belonged  mere  punctilious  ceremony  and  gor- 
geous parade,  defining  and  atoning-for  external  pollutions,  con- 
sulting of  Jehovah  by  Urim,  burning  of  incense,  and  vain 
slaughter  of  beasts,  alike  foreign  to  the  genius  of  the  prophets, 
as  to  the  real  demands  of  the  only  true  God.  The  first  com- 
posers of  hymns  were  undoubtedly  regarded  as  prophets; 
and  when  it  became  the  duty  of  a  particular  corporation  or 
hereditary  class  to  collect,  keep  and  sing  them,  a  traditionary 
taste  was  cultivated ;  commoner  productions  dropped  into  neg- 
lect, and  the  most  purifying  or  elevating  odes  claimed  their 
rightful  superiority.  Hence,  the  attendance  at  divine  service 
in  Jerusalem,  which,  from  David's  day  onward,  beyond  a  doubt 
was  celebrated  at  least  every  Sabbath,  became  a  spiritual  ser- 
vice, dear  to  the  heart  of  every  true  worshipper  of  Jehovah. 
With  this,  the  priest  himself  was  imbued,  and  his  dreariest 
routine  gained  some  relief  by  an  allegorical  spiritualism  in- 
fused into  it.  With  the  progress  of  time,  none  are  so  likely 
to  have  become  composers  of  new  hymns  as  the  Levites,  whose 
chief  business  was  in  singing  and  keeping  copies  of  them.  At 
last  the  principal  literary  culture  lay  with  them,  and  they 
were  prepared  to  become  religious  instructors  of  the  nation. 
By  their  care  the  Proverbs  written  by  Solomon  were  also 
likely  to  be  preserved  and  copied,  and  the  archives  of  the 
temple  to  be  kept. 

But  Solomon's  splendour  brought  in,  over  and  above,  a  ma- 


THE    TEMPLE    WORSHIP.  121 

terial  attraction  to  those  who  had  no  affinity  for  things  spiri- 
tual. Every  Hebrew  desired  at  some  time  in  his  life  to  go  up 
to  the  famous  temple,  if  only  for  mere  curiosity;  and  the  same 
principle  which  in  modern  days  has  enforced  pilgrimages  to 
Jerusalem  and  Mecca,,  must  have  begun  to  work  on  Israel 
very  early.  The  shortness  of  the  distance  made  many  visits 
in  one  life  an  easy  undertaking ;  and  there  were  Three  great 
Feasts  from  this  time  celebrated  with  peculiar  solemnity1, 
when  king  Solomon  officiated  in  person  at  the  high  altar,  by 
burning  incense,  and  offering  victims  to  Jehovah.  These  feasts 
are  nearly  identical  with  those  celebrated  among  all  ancient 
nations,  at  the  First  Fruits,  after  the  general  Harvest,  and 
after  the  Vintage  or  Ingathering ;  but,  at  least  in  course  of 
time,  they  were  blended  with  associations  drawn  from  the 
early  history  of  the  Hebrew  race.  At  such  celebrations  in 
particular  it  was  natural  for  crowds  of  country  people  to  flock 
into  Jerusalem;  and,  certainly  at  a  later  period,  the  priests 
diligently  inculcated  the  duty  of  this,  in  order  to  bring  the 
whole  land  within  the  influence  of  the  central  sanctuary. 
There  is  no  question  that  the  magnificence  of  the  temple  and 
the  institutions  connected  with  it,  imparted  to  the  priesthood 
an  ever-growing  authority,  the  deeper  because  it  was  unseen 
and  gradual  in  its  encroachments.  Little  by  little  it  worked 
itself  into  the  political  constitution,  and  ultimately  became  a 
check  upon  the  power  of  the  king,  whose  authority  indeed  it 
outlasted  by  centuries.  Without  this,  Judah  would  have  been 
as  Israel ;  great  prophets  might  have  arisen,  but  their  words 
would  probably  have  perished  with  them ;  or  perhaps,  if  pre- 
served, would  be  judged  by  us  the  racy  but  harsh  fruit  of 
uneducated  zeal,  neither  refined  by  traditionary  culture  nor 
sweetened  by  the  influences  of  tranquil  domestic  life.  In  the 
sacerdotal  and  Levitical  system  of  Jerusalem  we  see  the  nidus, 
in  which  the  germs  of  prophetical  genius  were  fostered,  ex- 
panded and  preserved : — yet  the  time  at  last  came  when  ce- 
remonialism froze  into  lifelessness,  and  presented  that  formal, 
narrow  and  repulsive  front  which  we  name  Pharisaism. 

1  1  Kings,  ix.  25.  As  the  following  kings  disused  the  practice,  it  came  at  last 
to  be  looked  upon  as  impious  :  hence  the  Chronicler's  story  against  Uzziah. 
[All  this  remains  as  in  my  first  edition,  and  it  gave  a  handle  to  my  first  North 
British  Reviewer,  (No.  31,)  for  the  following  announcement.  P.  128.  "Mr. 
Newman  objects  to  Solomon's  offering  sacrifice,  as  an  innovation'''  Let  the 
reader  turn  back  to  what  I  say  on  the  first  quarrel  of  Saul  and  Samuel,  p.  40, 
and  he  will  see  the  double  untruth  of  the  reviewer.] 

G 


12,2  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Not  that  the  idea  was  admitted  either  by  the  nation  or  by 
\J  any  king  of  Judah  earlier  than  Hezekiah,  that  "  in  Jerusalem 
alone  men  ought  to  worship."  The  most  pious  kings,,  be- 
fore Hezekiah,  in  common  with  the  mass  of  Israel,  continued 
to  uphold  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (but  of  Jehovah  alone)  on 
the  High  Places,  without  any  suspicion  that  they  could  be 
offending ;  nor  did  Jehoiada,  the  regent-priest,  forbid  it.  In 
fact,  it  was  no  priest  nor  prophet,  but  Solomon  himself,  who 
consecrated  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  removed  the  taber- 
nacle from  Gibeon  ;  and  although  a  new  doctrine  grew  up  in 
the  sacerdotal  circles,  an  Asa  or  a  Jehoshaphat  felt  within 
himself  full  authority  (had  occasion  required)  to  build  and 
dedicate  new  temples  in  new  places.  The  Ark  itself  was 
v  opened,  and  in  it  was  found  neither  the  rod  of  Aaron  which 
budded  nor  the  golden  pot  of  manna,  but  only  two  tables  oi: 
stone.  This  we  know  on  the  authority  indeed  of  a  compiler1 
who  wrote  four  centuries  later ;  but  as  he  had  access  to  con- 
temporary documents,  and  can  have  had  no  bias  in  such  a 
statement,  there  is  no  ground  for  doubting  its  truth. 

It  is  difficult  to  avoid  speculating  concerning  the  two  tables 
of  stone,  whether  they  were  ever  turned,  or  meant  to  be 
turned,  to  practical  use ;  whether  successive  high-priests  ever 
dared  to  examine  them,  and  to  compare  the  inscription  with 
the  professed  copy  in  their  books.  In  the  absence  of  the 
tables,  we  are  driven  to  the  books  alone,  and  there  encounter 
two  very  different  versions  of  the  inscription.  The  Decalogue 
(as  it  is  called),  which  is  contained  in  the  20th  chapter  of 
Exodus,  is  too  well  known  to  cite ;  and  the  copy  of  it  in 
Deuteronomy  deviates  from  it  only  in  regard  to  the  Fourth 
Commandment.  But  in  the  34th  chapter  of  Exodus  a  very 
remarkable  diversity  meets  us,  which  is  uniformly  overlooked 
by  divines.  Moses  had  broken  the  first  pair  of  tables  in  in- 
dignation at  the  idolatry  of  the  people ;  and  ascends  Mount 
Sinai  a  second  time  with  a  second  pair  of  blank  tables,  on 
which  Jehovah  inscribes  Ten2  Commandments,  nearly  as  fol- 
lows. (The  first,  third  and  sixth  Commandments  are  here 
shortened.) 

1  1  Kings,  viii.  9.     Contrast  Heb.  ix.  4,  Num.  xvii.  10,  Exod.  xvi.  34. 

2  Exod.  xxxiv.  10 :  "  Behold  I  make  a  covenant ;     11.  Observe  what  I  com- 
mand thee  ; "     27.  Write  thou  these  ivords,  for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words 
have  I  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel.      28.  He  wrote  upon  the 
tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  Ten  Commandments. 


THE     DECALOGUE.  123 

The  Words  of  the  Covenant — the  Ten  Commandments. 

[FIRST  TABLE  ?] 

I.  Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  God  than  Jehovah ;  for  Jehovah  whose 

name  is  Jealous,  is  a  jealous  God. 
II.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods. 

III.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep,  and  dedicate  all  firstlings 

unto  me :  but  the  first-born  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt  redeem.     None 
shall  appear  before  me  empty. 

IV.  Six  days  shalt  thou  work,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest :    in 

ploughing  time  and  in  harvest  thou  shalt  rest. 
[SECOND  TABLE?] 

V.  Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  Weeks,  the  Firstfruits  of  Wheat -harvest, 

and  the  feast  of  Ingathering  at  the  year's  end. 
VI.  Thrice  in  the  year  shall  all  your  males  appear  before  the  Lord  Jehovah, 

the  God  of  Israel. 

VII.  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leaven. 
VIII.  The  sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover  shall  not  be  left  to  the  morning. 
IX.  The  first  of  the  firstfruits  of  the  land  shalt  thou  bring  into  the  house  of 

Jehovah  thy  God. 
X.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's  milk. 

If  we  abide  by  our  present  book  of  Exodus,  these  are 
clearly  the  commandments  which  were  written  on  the  tables 
of  stone ;  for  those  which  are  found  in  the  20th  chapter  were 
spoken  indeed  by  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  but  are  not  said  to 
have  been  written  on  the  tables.  It  is  only  Deuteronomy 
which  contradicts  Exodus l,  but  Exodus  is  herein  consistent 
with  itself.  This  circumstance  might  lead  some  to  imagine 
that  we  have  here  the  genuine  Mosaic  decalogue,  and  that 
the  other  is  a  modernized  improvement.  While  we  regard 
this  as  a  plausible  opinion,  nothing  ought  confidently  to  be 
held  until  the  matter  has  been  more  fully  discussed ;  for  a 
little  consideration  will  suggest  other  possible  theories,  as 
well  as  objections  to  this  view2.  In  fact  there  are  so  many 
other  phenomena  to  be  reviewed,  that  a  summary  conclusion 
is  impossible.  Of  these  one  only  can  here  be  noticed, — the 
apparent  occurrence  of  a  mutilated  third  copy  of  the  Decalogue 
in  Exod.  xxiii.  10-19 ;  where  however  it  is  not  marked  out 
as  such,  but  concludes  a  small  book  of  law.  The  Second 

1  Deut.  v.  22,  x.  4,  sanctions  the  popular  opinion,  which  is  opposed  to  Exod. 
xxxiv. 

2  The  absence  of  a  precept  of  circumcision,  in  the  midst  of  these  ceremonial 
precepts,  suggests  that  (as  with  the  Arabs)  this  practice  was  originally  only  a 
national  custom,  common  to  them  with  the  neighbouring  nations,  though  it 
gradually  became  a  precept  of  religion. 

G    2 


124  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Table  is  there  only  verbally  different  from  what  has  been 
already  quoted ;  but  the  First  Table  seems  to  have  only  three 
Commandments : 

I.  Six  years  shalt  thou  sow  thy  land,  and  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof,  but 

the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  still. 
In  like  manner  shalt  thou  deal  with  thy  vineyard  and  thy  olive-yard. 
II.  Six  days  thou  shalt  do  thy  work,  and  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  rest. 
III.  To  all  things  that  I  have  said  unto  you  be  ye  attentive,  and  make  no  men- 
tion of  the  name  of  other  gods,  neither  let  it  be  heard  out   of  thy 
mouth. 

If  this  first  table  were  perfect^1,  it  might  have  a  claim  to 
still  greater  antiquity,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  less  spiritual 
than  the  other.  Yet  it  is  by  no  means  always  true  that  the 
earliest  views  are  the  least  spiritual,  or  the  latest  the  least 
ceremonial;  and  if  we  could  ascertain  ever  so  accurately 
which  was  the  most  primitive  Decalogue,  we  might  be  no 
nearer  to  ascertaining  which  was  inscribed  on  Solomon's  tables. 

The  Ark  having  been  solemnly  brought  into  the  temple 
by  the  priests,  Solomon  made  a  public  speech  to  the  congre- 
gation and  a  very  long  prayer  in  front  of  the  altar;  after 
which  he  performed  sacrifices2  on  the  greatest  scale  of  mag- 
nificence, and  joined  with  all  the  people  to  dedicate  the  house 
of  Jehovah.  A  great  festival  was  held  for  a  full  fortnight, 
at  which  (as  it  is  hyperbolically  stated)  all  Israel,  "  from  the 
defile  of  Hamath  unto  the  brook  of  Egypt,"  were  assembled. 
Nor  is  it  likely  that  at  any  other  time  during  the  whole 
monarchy  there  was  ever  a  greater  concourse  of  visitors  in 
Jerusalem. 

1  The  imperfection  is  caused  by  merging  in  one  what  are  the  3rd  and  6th  of 
the  other  system.     The  6th  orders  the  observance  of  three  feasts,  and  the  3rd 
gives  special  details  concerning  the  first  of  the  feasts,  at  which  all  firstlings  of 
beasts  are  to  be  dedicated,  and  firstlings  of  men  to  be  redeemed.     This  law  of 
firstlings  is  omitted  in  the  imperfect  table. 

2  1  Kings,  ix.  63  :  it  says,  22,000  oxen  and  120,000  sheep.     This  was  probably 
a  theoretical  estimate  of  what  must  have  been  eaten  by  all  the  assembled  males 
of  Israel,  who,  according  to  the  legal  presumption,  were  regarded  by  the  author 
of  this  estimate  as  present.     Even  so,  the  number  of  cattle  here  given  is  extra- 
vagant, unless  we  suppose  it  to  take  in  the  fortnight's  festivity. 

[On  the  above,  the 'North  British'  (No.xxxi.  p.  128)  remarks  :  "  22,000  oxen 
and  120,000  sheep  is  the  number  of  the  victims  which  Mr.  Newman  supposes 
Solomon  to  have  slain  with  Ms  own  hands  /"  Since  the  editor  refused  to  inform 
his  readers  that  this  review  misrepresented  me,  will  he  candidly  tell  the  public 
whether  this  is  Irish  or  Archiepiscopal  logic?] 

The  Chronicler  says  that  they  dispersed  on  the  23rd  day  of  the  seventh  month. 
This  is  intended  to  identify  it  with  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 


DOWRY  OF  AN  EGYPTIAN  PRINCESS.  125 

His  own  palace  and  that  of  his  queen,  though  less  cele- 
brated than  the  temple,  were  more  extensive  structures,  and 
occupied  more  years  in  finishing1.  In  fact,  with  the  growth 
of  his  seraglio  Solomon  must  have  needed  increased  domestic 
accommodation,  so  that  it  was  difficult  to  find  an  end  of  build- 
ing: thirteen  years  however  is  given  as  the  estimate.  The 
queen,  for  whom  a  peculiarly  splendid  abode  was  erected,  was 
a  daughter  of  the  king  of  Egypt ;  and  with  her  Solomon  re- 
ceived a  very  singular  dowry.  The  Egyptians,  we  may  infer 
from  their  paintings,  from  the  earliest  times  had  had  great 
experience  in  sieges,  in  which  it  is  certain  that  the  Israelites 
were  very  unskilful,  from  the  low  state  of  the  mechanical  arts 
among  them.  Gezer,  inhabited  by  Canaanites,  had  continued  to 
defy  the  forces  of  David  and  Solomon ;  but  Pharaoh  marched 
against  it  through  the  territory  of  his  son-in-law,  and  having 
captured  it,  presented  it  to  his  daughter,  Solomon's  wife. 
This  transaction  strikingly  indicates  the  good  understanding 
which  at  that  time  subsisted  between  the  two  powers. 

III.  We  are  now  naturally  led  on  to  another  phenomenon, 
which,  from  the  magnitude  of  its  scale  and  its  peculiar  re- 
sults, draws  attention  in  this  reign, — the  harem  of  the  prince. 
It  would  be  a  matter  of  interest  to  learn  in  what  order  of 
time  his  numerous  wives  and  concubines  were  taken.  The 
remark  that  "when  he  was  old  his  wives  turned  away  his 
heart,"  might  suggest  that  only  in  his  later  years,  when  he 
had  exhausted  the  enjoyments  of  pomp  and  pride,  voluptuous 
weakness  stole  over  him.  The  seven  hundred  wives  and  three 
hundred  concubines  ascribed  to  him,  amounting  together  to 
an  exact  thousand,  indicate  something  unhistorical ;  yet  the 
cumbrousness  of  his  matrimonial  establishment  remains  un- 
questionable. One  marriage-song  survives  to  us,  which,  from 
its  peculiar  applicability  to  Solomon's  nuptials  with  some  emi- 
nent princess,  we  can  better  believe  to  have  been  written  for 
him  than  for  any  other  Hebrew  monarch.  It  appears  to  have 
been  sung  during  the  marriage  procession  which  conducted  the 
royal  pair  to  their  palace.  In  one  or  two  passages  there  is  an 
abruptness,  which  either  indicates  corruption  of  the  text,  or 
savours  of  antique  rudeness,  which  had  not  yet  been  rubbed  off. 

1  It  scarcely  belongs  to  history  to  register  the  details  of  a  king's  luxury  and 
pomp.  His  ivory  throne,  overlaid  with  gold,  having  six  steps  and  fourteen  lions 
upon  it ;  his  200  targets  and  300  shields  of  beaten  gold ;  his  harps  and  psalteries 
made  of  almug  wood ;  have  been  carefully  recorded. 


126  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 


PSALM    XLV. 

1.  My  heart  boils  up  with  goodly  matter. 

I  ponder;  and  my  verse  concerns  the  King. 
Let  my  tongue  be  a  ready  writer's  pen ! 

2.  Fairer  art  thou  than  all  the  sons  of  men. 
Over  thy  lips  delightsomeness  is  pour'd : 
Therefore  hath  God  for  ever  blessed  thee. 

3.  Gird  at  thy  hip  thy  hero-sword, 
Thy  glory  and  thy  majesty  : 

And  forth  victorious  ride  majestic, 

For  truth  and  meekness,  righteously ; 

And  let  thy  right  hand  teach  thee  wondrous  deeds. 

Beneath  thy  feet  the  peoples  fall ; 

For  in  the  heart  of  the  king's  enemies 

Sharp  are  thy  arrows. 

4.  Thy  throne  divine  ever  and  always  stands  : 
A  righteous  sceptre  is  thy  royal  sceptre. 
Thou  lovest  right  and  hatest  evil ; 
Therefore  hath  God,  thy  God,  anointed  thee 
With  oil  of  joy  above  thy  fellow-kings. 
Myrrh,  aloes,  cassia,  all  thy  raiment  is. 
From  ivory  palaces  the  viols  gladden  thee. 
Kings'  daughters  count  among  thy  favourites  ; 
And  at  thy  right  hand  stands  the  Queen 

In  gold  of  Ophir. 

5.  O  daughter,  hark !  behold !  and  bend  thy  ear  : 
Forget  thy  people  and  thy  father's  house. 
Win  thou  the  King  thy  beauty  to  desire ; 

He  is  thy  lord :  do  homage  unto  him. 
So  Tyrus'  daughter1  and  the  sons  of  wealth 
With  gifts  shall  court  thee. 

6.  Bight  glorious  is  the  royal  damsel : 
Wrought  of  gold  is  her  apparel. 

In  broider'd  tissues  to  the  King  she  is  led : 
Her  maiden-friends,  behind,  are  brought  to  thee. 
They  come  with  joy  and  gladness, 
They  enter  the  royal  palace. 

1  In  the  Heb.  idiom,  Daughter  of  Tyre  means  only  the  Nation.     In  the  pas- 
sage before  us  it  appears  to  be  a  mere  type  of  a  wealthy  people. 


127 

7.  Thy  fathers  by  thy  sons  shall  be  replaced ; 
As  princes  o'er  the  land  shalt  thou  exalt  them. 
So  will  I  publish  to  all  times  thy  name ; 
So  shall  the  nations  praise  thee,  now  and  always l. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  the  practice  of  a  favourite  wife  re- 
ceiving rich  presents  to  engage  her  influence  with  the  king,  is 
here  alluded  to,  without  any  disapproval,  as  a  natural  privi- 
lege of  her  station.  Under  despotism  and  polygamy  it  could 
not  be  otherwise ;  and  in  spite  of  Solomon's  wisdom  and  dili- 
gence in  his  porch  of  judgment,  no  small  item  of  public  dis- 
content is  likely  to  have  arisen  from  this  cause.  In  regard 
to  the  number  of  his  wives,  our  knowledge  of  the  modern2  court 
of  Persia  has  furnished  an  ingenious  suggestion,  that  Solomon 
took  them  as  virtual  hostages  for  the  good  behaviour  of  their 
fathers ; — chieftains  of  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Edomites, 
Sidonians  and  Hittites.  This  idea  is  not  entirely  to  be  re- 
jected, as  applicable  to  a  fraction  of  the  whole ;  but  it  will  not 
account  for  their  great  multitude,  and  much  less  for  the  con- 
cubines. *  Two  far  more  powerful  passions  must  have  been  at 
work, — an  ever-increasing  love  of  the  pomp  and  pageantry 
which  a  royal  wedding  involved,  and  a  depraved  taste  for  per- 
petual novelty  in  the  partners  of  his  bed.  Both  of  these  are 
so  degrading  to  the  soul,  that  we  cannot  wonder  to  find  Solo- 
mon's reign  to  become  more  inglorious,  more  pernicious,  and 
more  overclouded  with  danger,  the  longer  he  lived. 

IV.  The  particular  manifestation  of  evil,  which  most  struck 
the  imagination  and  heart  of  the  religious  persons  who  re- 
corded his  reign,  was  the  public  idolatry  which  he  sanctioned 
and  supported  in  his  wives.  Whatever  may  be  urged  on  the 
side  of  mere  toleration,  this  active  patronage  was  both  a  grave 
and  a  gratuitous  mischief.  He  had  been  under  no  necessity 
to  multiply  idolatrous  wives,  and  therefore  could  not  plead  ne- 
cessity for  introducing  their  superstitions.  It  must  be  re- 
membered also  that  these  pagan  religions  were  not  a  simple 
conviction  cherished  in  the  heart  and  conscience,  which  ought 
to  be  sacred,  but  were  a  public  and  obtrusive  display  of  much 

1  There  is  a  difficulty  in  supposing,  as  Ewald  suggests,  that  the  king  here  cele- 
brated was  a  successor  of  Jeroboam.     None  of  them  had  a  sufficient  pretence  of 
religion,  to  make  it  decorous  for  a  Jehovistic  prophet  to  write  this  ode  :  nor  is  it 
easy  to  think  it  could  then  have  been  incorporated  with  the  sacred  Psalms. 

2  Indeed  Cambyses   in   Herodotus  demands  the  daughter  of  the  king  of 
Egypt,  nominally  as  a  wife,  and  makes  war  when  deceived. 


128  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

that  was  corrupting,  even  where  they  did  not  involve  practices 
of  cruelty.  It  was  therefore  no  narrow  bigotry  or  gloomy  fa- 
naticism which  filled  the  prophets  and  priests  of  Jehovah  with 
dismay,  when  king  Solomon  built  on  a  high  hill  before  Jeru- 
salem altars,  images,  and  the  whole  apparatus  of  heathen  wor- 
ship for  Cheinosh  and  Molech,  the  idol- divinities  of  Moab  and 
of  Ammon ;  and  celebrated  the  rites  of  the  Sidonian  goddess 
Astarte,  and  of  the  other  gods  of  his  wives. 

If  a  mere  politic  and  worldly-minded  despot  chose  to  pa- 
tronize such  paganism,  no  one  would  feel  surprize.  It  is  only 
when  we  contemplate  Solomon  as  the  author  of  the  early  por- 
tions of  the  book  of  Proverbs,  that  we  are  indignant  at  his 
maintaining  these  indefensible  abominations.  Of  what  avail 
was  it  that  he  warned  young  men  against  foreign  harlotry, — 
a  vice  which  was  stealing  into  Jerusalem  with  the  influx  of 
strangers  and  of  luxury, — when  the  royal  preacher  himself 
established  the  far  more  hateful  and  disgusting  impurities  con- 
nected with  the  rites  of  Astarte1  ?  Or  of  what  avail  that  he 
enjoined  precepts  of  parental  and  filial  duty,  when  he  encou- 
raged the  bloody  religion  of  Molech,  in  which  children  were 
immolated  by  their  natural  protectors  ?  We  could  almost  dis- 
believe the  plain  statements  of  our  historian,  as  mere  pre- 
judice and  mistake,  did  not  Solomon's  extravagant  polygamy 
warn  us  that  he  had  become  a  besotted  voluptuary,  in  whose 
favour  we  must  not  do  violence  to  the  clear  depositions  of  one 
who  loves  to  extol  him. 

V.  The  old  prophet  Nathan  and  Gad  the  seer  must  have 
died  ere  this.  Whether  any  of  their  successors  had  the  bold- 
ness to  confront  and  oppose  the  king,  or  whether  his  selfwill 
and  habitual  despotism  made  them  all  shrink  from  it  as  from 
a  hopeless  enterprize,  has  not  been  recorded.  But  the  horror 
and  disgust  of  the  prophetical  body  vented  itself  in  another 
way,  most  pernicious  in  the  result  to  the  monotheistic  cause 
which  they  were  aiming  to  advance.  One  man  alone  inde 
was  the  agent  or  organ ;  and  as  he  undoubtedly  believed  him- 
self to  be  only  the  minister  of  the  Most  High  Jehovah,  il 
would  be  an  error  to  suppose  that  there  was  any  definite  anc 
conscious  conspiracy  among  the  monotheists.  It  is  rather 
be  believed,  that  the  sentiment  which  actuated  them  all  burst 
out  from  the  lips  of  one.  All  felt  that  the  son  of  David 

1  1  Kings,  xv.  12  ;  2  Kings,  xxiii.  7  ;  and  elsewhere. 


HOSTILITIES    AGAINST    SOLOMON.  129 

following  the  downward  path  of  Saul,  and  was  no  longer  the 
king  whom  Jehovah  could  approve  and  love.  It  was  high 
time  therefore,  that,  as  David  superseded  Saul,  so  for  Solomon 
a  worthier  substitute  should  be  found. 

At  this  period  the  prophet  Ahijah,  who  was  in  some  sense 
a  successor  of  Nathan1,  commanded  great  popular  reverence. 
Burning  with  indignation  against  the  king,  he  set  his  eyes  on 
a  young  man  named  Jeroboam,  who  had,  under  Solomon,  the 
important  charge  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim2,  and  was  eminent 
both  for  valour  and  for  energy  in  the  discharge  of  duty.  In 
him  perhaps  Ahijah  saw  a  second  David.  Having  met  him 
in  a  solitary  place,  he  made  an  energetic  address  to  him,  the 
scope  of  which  was  to  declare  that  God  should  rend  away 
the  kingdom  from  Solomon  and  give  it  to  him;  in  token  of 
which  he  tore  off  the  garment  from  Jeroboam's  back3.  This 
deed  became  noised  abroad,  and  soon  brought  forth  bitter 
fruit.  The  jealousy  of  Solomon  was  too  surely  stirred  up, 
and  Jeroboam's  life  was  no  longer  safe.  On  this  he  escaped 
into  Egypt,  having  been  gratuitously  turned  from  a  loyal  and 
valuable  subject  into  an  outlaw,  a  rebel,  and  a  dangerous  foe. 
What  change  of  policy,  or  even  of  dynasty,  had  come  over 
the  court  of  Egypt,  we  do  not  know ;  but  the  new  king,  who 
is  called  Shishak  in  the  Hebrew  annals,  was  no  longer  Solo- 
mon's friend.  He  received  Jeroboam  with  open  arms,  and 
probably  gained  from  him  much  valuable  nformation ;  whe- 
ther this  king  was  already  planning  the  invasion  of  Judah, 
which  he  soon  after  executed,  or  whether  it  was  wholly  of 
Jeroboam's  suggestion. 

At  the  same  court  in  the  former  reign,  there  had  been 
living  another  dangerous  and  inveterate  enemy  of  the  Hebrew 
monarch,  by  name  Hadad,  of  the  royal  family  of  Edom.  He 
was  an  infant  at  the  time  when  Joab  with  his  relentless  bands 
had  made  promiscuous  slaughter  of  all  the  males  in  Idu- 
nitea ;  but  having  been  saved  into  Midian  and  Paran,  he  was 
at  length  received  at  the  Egyptian  court;  and  when  he  was 
grown  to  manhood,  won  great  favour  with  the  king,  who  gave 
to  him  in  marriage  his  own  queen's  sister.  As  this  Pharaoh 

1  The  acts  of  Solomon  are  described  (2  Chron.  ix.  29)  as  written  by  Nathan 
the  prophet,  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  Iddo  the  Seer. 

2  The  text  says,  the  house  of  Joseph ;  but  this  probably  means  Ephraim  only. 
Our  reporter  gives  details  which  have  the  appearance  of  being  added  after 

the  event, — that  Jeroboam  was  to  have  only  ten  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  this, 
not  until  after  the  death  of  Solomon. 

G  3 


130  THE  HEBREW  MONARCHY. 

was  in  close  alliance  with  Solomon,  whose  father-in-law  he 
had  become,  Hadad  carefully  concealed  from  him  his  inten- 
tions, while  begging  leave  to  return  to  his  own  country1.  On 
reaching  it,  he  soon  commenced  a  harassing  petty  warfare 
against  the  Israelites,  which  Solomon  was  unable  to  repress. 
This  must  have  been  a  sore  vexation  to  the  traffic  of  the  Red 
Sea,  since  all  the  merchandize  had  to  pass  through  Idumsea 
on  the  backs  of  camels.  Thus,  while  the  court  and  govern- 
ment had  become  habitually  expensive  beyond  all  proportion 
to  the  magnitude  of  the  territory,  the  sources  of  revenue  began 
to  be  cut  off. 

On  the  northern  side  also  a  troublesome  enemy  appeared. 
How  long  the  garrisons  of  David  were  kept  up  in  the  fortresses 
of  Damascus,  we  do  not  know ;  nor  whether  they  were  volun- 
tarily withdrawn,  or  were  forcibly  expelled.  It  cannot  be 
imagined  that  without  them  the  Hebrew  dominion  over  Thap- 
sacus,  Tadmor  and  the  cities  of  Hamath  could  be  upheld,  or 
the  north-eastern  traffic  be  secure  :  yet  the  difficulty  of  main- 
taining them  must  have  been  very  great.  At  any  rate  in 
Solomon^  s  later  years,  E/ezon,  who  is  described  as  a  revolted 
servant  of  Hadadezer,  made  himself  master  of  Damascus  and 
its  district,  and  founded  a  kingdom  which  was  soon  to  become 
exceedingly  formidable.  His  power  entirely  shut  Solomon 
out  from  the  trade  across  the  desart,  at  least  by  its  natural 
channel;  and  the  activity  of  two  such  adversaries  as  Rezon 
and  Hadad  must  have  awakened  the  slumbering  enmities  of 
Ammon  and  Moab,  which,  as  well  as  Edom,  had  fearful  wrongs 
to  avenge. 

Thus  clouds  were  gathering  over  the  late  splendid  Hebrew 
empire.  The  secret  began  to  transpire  among  the  enemies  of 
the  house  of  David,  that  the  lofty  statue  of  Hebrew  ascendency 
before  which  they  had  crouched  in  homage,  was  nothing  but 
a  gaudy  gigantic  doll.  The  veterans  of  David  had  passed 
away,  and  as  no  new  wars  of  importance  or  continuity  had 
arisen  to  train  up  successors  to  them,  the  very  instrument  of 
dominion  had  been  seriously  impaired ;  nor  was  military  ex- 
ertion in  accordance  with  Solomon' s  tastes  and  habits.  The 

1  There  is  a  chronological  difficulty.  It  seems  to  be  implied  (1  Kings,  xi.  21) 
that  Hadad  returned  to  Edom  as  soon  as  David  and  Joab  were  dead ;  yet  as 
bis  hostilities  are  regarded  as  a  punishment  on  the  idolatry  of  Solomon's  old 
age,  they  need  to  be  deferred  some  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Joab.  And 
until  this  later  period,  Hadad  can  hardly  have  become  dangerous. 


DEATH    OF    SOLOMON.  131 

embarrassments  in  which  he  was  involved  were  in  part  be- 
queathed to  him  by  his  father ;  for  empire  begun  by  prowess 
and  established  by  massacre  is  certain  to  breed  smothered  en- 
mities, which  at  last  blaze  out  in  retaliation.  But  another 
still  more  formidable  danger  rose  out  of  his  own  pomp  and 
voluptuousness.  These  could  not  be  supported  simultaneously 
with  the  heavy  expenses  of  his  over- grasping  empire,  from  the 
ample  revenues  of  his  own  domains,  of  his  exclusive  trade,  and 
of  his  foreign  tribute;  and  it  had  become  requisite  to  lay 
heavy  taxes  on  his  own  people.  They  had  discovered  that  his 
wealth  was  their  poverty ;  and,  having  no  constitutional  mode 
of  remonstrance,  waited  with  impatience  for  the  commence- 
ment of  a  new  reign,  hoping  then  to  exact  some  conditions 
from  the  prince,  and  not  allow  him  to  ascend  the  throne  in  as 
arbitrary  and  unformal  a  manner  as  Solomon  had  done.  To 
men  in  such  a  temper,  the  declaration  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite 
in  favour  of  Jeroboam  fell  as  spark  upon  tinder.  The  house 
of  Ephraim,  over  whom  Jeroboam  was  placed,  accepted  Ahi- 
jah's  address  as  a  protest  against  the  king  personally,  and  as 
a  sanction  given  to  Jeroboam,  to  whom  they  were  favourably 
disposed;  while  Solomon's  immediate  persecution  of  him  must 
assuredly  have  increased  his  popularity.  —  Once  more;  the 
lavish  display  of  wealth  in  which  the  Hebrew  monarch  in- 
dulged, excited  the  cupidity  of  neighbouring  powers.  While 
his  army  was  in  its  prime  of  strength,  such  conduct  may  have 
been  not  impolitic ;  but  when  he  had  been  seen  unable  to  re- 
press the  attacks  of  petty  potentates,  like  Rezon  and  Hadad, 
his  temple  and  his  treasures  were  but  a  mark  to  the  spoiler, 
and  presently  lured  the  powerful  king  of  Egypt  against  the 
land. 

It  was  well  for  Solomon  that  death  overtook  him  before 
this  calamity  and  disgrace  overwhelmed  Jerusalem.  His  ca- 
reer had  come  to  its  natural  termination,  when  the  primitive 
impulse  of  prosperity  had  been  spent.  In  spite  of  his  much- 
vaunted  wisdom,  there  had  been  no  vitality  or  reproductive 
power  infused  into  the  national  finances.  All  were  sensible 
that  the  public  weal  was  decaying ;  and  when  he  died,  very 
few  regretted  him1. 

The  sagacity  attributed  to  him  seems  to  have  been  three- 
fold :  wisdom  in  the  administration  of  justice, — which  con- 
sisted chiefly  in  cleverness  to  discover  truth,  when  the  evidence 
1  B.C.  955.  See  Appendix. 


132  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

was  insufficient,  doubtful  or  contradictory ;  wisdom  in  general 
government, —  as  to  which  the  actual  results  prove  him 
to  have  been  most  lamentably  deficient :  and  wisdom  of  a 
more  scholastic  kind,  such  as  was  evidenced  in  the  writing  of 
proverbs  and  books  of  natural  history.  Of  his  merit  in  the 
last,  no  means  of  judging  exist ;  but  those  chapters  of  the 
Proverbs,  which  are  regarded  as  his  genuine  writing,  are  the 
production  of  no  common  mind,  and  explain  how,  in  that 
age,  he  was  regarded  as  intellectually  towering  above  other 
kings. 

There  is  a  marked  contrast  between  the  tone  of  the  au- 
thorities on  which  we  are  dependent  for  the  lives  of  David 
and  Solomon.  The  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  show  a 
general  impartiality  in  which  the  Chronicles  are  wholly 
wanting.  All  the  dark  events  which  sully  these  two  reigns 
are  carefully  hushed  up  by  the  last  work.  In  it  we  read  no- 
thing of  David's  civil  war  during  his  reign  in  Hebron  over 
Judah;  nothing  of  his  cruelty  towards  Moab  and  Edom; 
nothing  of  his  deeds  of  adultery  and  murder;  nothing  of 
Amnon's  brutality,  of  the  fierce  revenge  and  wicked  rebellion 
of  Absalom;  nothing  of  the  immolation  of  Saul's  sons,  or 
of  the  revolt  of  Adonijah  and  his  slaughter  by  Solomon ;  no- 
thing of  the  crimes  and  the  punishments  of  Joab,  of  Abiathar 
or  of  Shimei.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  a  great  deal  in  the 
Chronicles  calculated  to  magnify  the  religious  zeal,  and 
especially  the  devotion  to  the  Levitical  system,  displayed  by 
David,  of  which  the  earlier  history  takes  no  notice.  So  too, 
the  Chronicler  suppresses  all  mention  of  the  disgust  of  Hiram, 
of  the  idolatries  of  Solomon,  and  the  reverses  of  his  later 
years  ;  of  the  insurrectionary  movement  of  the  prophet  Ahijah, 
and  the  cause  of  Jeroboam's  flight  into  Egypt.  In  short,  it 
will  record  nothing  but  what  tends  to  glorify  this  prince,  the 
great  establisher  of  the  priestly  dignity.  Accordingly,  it  im- 
putes his  building  of  his  queen's  palace  to  a  scruple  of  con- 
science as  to  this  child  of  idolaters  dwelling  in  the  house  of 
the  pious  David  :  t(  because  (said  he)  the  places  are  holy, 
whereunto  the  ark  of  Jehovah  hath  come."  A  few  differences 
of  this  kind  might  be  honourably  accounted  for ;  but  a  general 
review  puts  it  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  book  of 
Chronicles  is  not  an  honest  and  trustworthy  narrative,  and 
must  be  used  with  great  caution  as  an  authority,  where  any- 
thing is  involved  which  affects  Levitical  influence. 


133 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  IV. 
On  the  Chronology. 

THERE  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  chronologers,  that 
the  date  of  the  capture  of  Samaria  by  Shalmaneser  is  B.C.  721 ; 
but  when  we  reckon  the  times  backward  from  this,  various 
inconsistencies  are  discovered.  It  is  not  requisite  here  to 
reiterate  what  has  been  so  often  treated.  What  we  have 
particularly  to  remark,  is,  that  after  making  the  corrections 
which  are  usually  approved,  two  great  gaps  still  remain  in  the 
Israelitish  history,  which  have  been  called  Interregnums ;  the 
one,  of  ten  years,  between  the  death  of  Jeroboam  the  2nd 
and  the  accession  of  his  son  Zachariah  :  the  other,  of  nine 
years,  between  the  death  of  Pekah  and  the  accession  of  his 
murderer  Hoshea.  In  the  text  we  read  simply,  "  Jeroboam 
slept  with  his  fathers,  and  Zachariah  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead1 :"  and  "  Hoshea  slew  Pekah  and  reigned  in  his  stead,  in 
the,twentieth  year  of  Jotham  son  of  Uzziah2."  It  is  manifest 
that  the  compiler  had  in  neither  case  the  remotest  idea  of  an 
interregnum,  and  we  therefore  ought  not  to  interpolate  so 
serious  an  event  merely  in  deference  to  figures,  which  are 
easily  corrupted,  and  often  in  these  books  undeniably  faulty. 

Hitzig  has  rightly  remarked,  that  the  second  interregnum 
vanishes,  if  we  properly  interpret  the  reign  of  Jotham,  who 
began  to  exercise  royal  power  before  his  father  died.  Yet, 
when  we  have  no  new  facts  for  Pekah's  reign,  it  is  hard  to 
approve  of  lengthening  it  by  eight  years,  which  indeed  involves 
more  alterations  than  are  enough.  It  suffices  instead  to  correct 
the  age  of  Hezekiah3  by  deducting  ten  years;  by  which  indeed 
we  make  Ahaz  twenty  or  twenty-one  years  older  than  his  son, 
while  Hitzig  computes  nineteen  only.  In  the  common  chro- 
nology there  is  but  ten  or  eleven  years  between  them,  which 
is  obviously  absurd.  Accordingly  in  the  following  pages,  we 
follow  a  reckoning  which  reduces  the  dates  of  Uzziah,  Pekah, 
and  his  near  predecessors,  by  nine  or  ten  years,  which  is  the 
imaginary  interregnum  between  Pekah  and  Hoshea. 

As  for  the  other  gap,  we  have  to  choose  between  lengthen- 

1  Kings,  xiv.  29.  2  Kings,  xv.  30.  3  Chap,  xviii.  2. 


134  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ing  by  ten  years  the  reign  of  some  Israelitish  king,  or  short- 
ening by  a  like  sum  that  of  a  king  of  Judah.  If  the  former 
plan  be  approved,  we  find  one  reason  for  lengthening  that 
of  Jeroboam  ;  namely,  that  one  correction  then  suffices  :  for 
the  number  27  in  2  Kings,  xv.  1,  must  on  other  grounds 
necessarily  be  altered,  and  is  not  here  to  be  reckoned.  Yet 
as  Jeroboam  has  already  a  reign  of  forty-one  years,  we  shrink 
from  increasing  it  to  fifty-one ;  a  length  of  time  which,  though 
p'ossible,  ought  hardly  to  be  obtruded  by  conjectural  emenda- 
tion. Instead  of  this,  to  lengthen  the  reign  of  Menahem  from 
above,  though  we  have  then  three  alterations  to  make  in  xv. 
13,  17, — might  still  be  better  than  the  former  change. 

If  we  follow  the  general  belief,  that  the  same  Hosea  who 
composed  the  last  eleven  chapters  of  the  book  which  bears 
his  name,  wrote  his  first  chapter  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II., 
we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  received  chronology  is  in  this 
part  much  too  long ;  for  as  his  last  chapters  date  from  the 
siege  of  Samaria,  it  assigns  to  him  full  sixty  years  of  prophe- 
sying. Isaiah  and  Micah  also  were  believed  by  the  ancient 
compilers  of  their  works  to  have  written  under  four  successive 
kings  of  Judah ;  which  is  another  hint  to  us  that  they  held  a 
shorter  chronology.  On  the  whole,  then,  we  see  reasons  for 
preferring  the  alternative  of  deducting  ten  years  from  some 
Jewish  reign. 

When  we  endeavour  to  pick  out  the  particular  reign,  we 
find  that  there  is  danger  of  lowering  too  much  the  excess  of 
age  of  father  over  son.  On  this  ground,  Amaziah  and  Uzziah 
are  the  only  two  reigns  to  be  thought  of,  unless  we  choose  to 
encounter  the  need  of  several  other  changes.  Their  ages  ex- 
ceed those  of  their  sons  by  thirty-eight  and  forty-three  years 
respectively.  Yet  we  cannot  thus  deal  with  Uzziah,  (whose 
accession  we  have  already  lowered  by  nine  or  ten  years,) 
without  making  Jotham  die  before  his  father.  It  remains 
therefore  to  deduct  ten  years  from  Amaziah' s  reign1,  and  to 
suppose  that  he  was  only  twenty-eight  years  older  than  his 
son  Uzziah.  From  these  changes  we  finally  bring  out,  that 
the  death  of  Solomon  was  in  the  year  B.C.  955. 

The  reigns  of  Solomon,  of  David,  and  (according  to  St.  Paul 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles)  of  Saul  likewise,  are  forty  years 

1  For  this  we  must  change  twenty-nine  into  nineteen  in  2  Kings,  xiv.  2,  and 
fifteen  into  twenty-five  in  v.  23.  This  imputes  an  error  which  is  no  mere  acci- 
dent of  transcription,  but  that  is  perhaps  in  any  way  inevitable. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    TABLE. 


135 


each.  This  does  not  appear  too  long  a  period  in  itself,  either 
for  Solomon  or  for  David ;  yet .  the  number  has  so  many 
mythical  associations  as  to  lessen  our  confidence  in  its  having 
historical  foundation. 

A  chronological  table  may  here  be  suitably  added. 

Chronological  Table  from  the  Death  of  Solomon  to  the  Fall 
of  Samaria. 


Queen  Mother. 

Accession  of  king  in  Jerusalem. 

B.C. 

Accession  of  Israelitish 
king. 

Naamah. 
Maachah. 

Rehoboam  
Abijam  his  son 

955 

937 

—  Jeroboam. 

(Maachah.) 

Asa  liis  son  

935 
934 

—  Nadab  his  son. 

932 
909 

—  Baasha. 
—  Elah  his  son. 

908 

Zimri,  Tibni,  Omri. 

Azubah. 
Athaliah 

Jehoshaphat  his  son  

Jehoram  with  his  father... 
(Jehoshaphat  dies) 
Ahaziah  his  son 

904 

897 
894 
877 
876 
872 
869 
865 

Omri  (alone). 
Ahab  his  son. 

Ahaziah  his  son. 
Jehoram  his  brother. 

(Queen)  Athaliah 

864 

Jehu. 

Zibiah. 
Jehoaddan. 

Jehoash  (under  Jehoiada) 
.     alleged  son  of  Ahaziah 

Amaziah  his  son  

858 
835 
820 
818 

—  Jehoahaz  his  son. 
—  Jehoash  his  son. 

Jecholiah. 

Uzziah  his  son  

804 
799 

—  Jeroboam  II.  his  son. 

762 

—  Zachariah  his  son. 

Jerusha. 

Jotham  with  his  father.... 

761 
757 
750 

Shallum,  Menahem. 
—  Pekahiah  son  of  M. 

("Unknown! 

(Uzziah  dies)  
A-haz  liis  son 

748i 
748 
741 

Pekah. 

Abi. 

Hezekiah  his  son     

729 
726 
721 

Hoshea. 
Samaria  captured. 

136 


THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 


From  the  Fall  of  Samaria  to  the  Razing  of  the  Walls 
of  Jerusalem. 


Queen  Mother. 

King  in  Jerusalem. 

B.C. 

Abi. 

Hezekiah  

726 

Hephzibah. 
Meshulleineth. 

Manasseh  his  son  
Aroon  bis  son 

697 
64.2 

Jedidah. 

Josiah  his  son 

640 

Hamutal. 

Jehoahaz  his  son  

609 

Zebudah. 

Jehoiakim  his  brother  

609 

Nehushta 

Jehoiachin  his  son  

598 

Hamutal. 

Zedekiah  son  of  Josiah.... 
Destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

598 

588 

Nearly  to  recover  the  common  system  of  chronology,  we 
must  add  10  to  the  numbers  from  Uzziah  to  Pekah  inclusive 
(except  Jot  ham,  to  whom  1  only  is  to  be  added) ,  and  then  add 
^0  to  all  higher  dates. 


137 


CHAPTER  V. 

FKOM  THE  DEATH  OF  SOLOMON  TO  THE  ACCESSION  OF 
OMRI,  B.C.  955-904. 

WE  have  seen  how  the  headless  body  of  Saul  was  buried  at 
Jabesh  Gilead,  and  was  afterwards  removed  to  his  own  private 
estate  in  Gibeah  of  Benjamin.  David,  on  the  contrary,  had 
been  interred  in  that  part  of  Jerusalem  which  was  emphati- 
cally called  the  City  of  David,  the  fortifications  of  which  his 
son  enlarged  and  completed.  In  the  same  spot  was  a  royal 
burying-place  now  solemnly  established,  into  which  the  suc- 
cessive kings  of  this  line,  when  they  slept  with  their  fathers, 
were  for  the  most  part  carried.  Solomon  accordingly  was 
here  entombed  with  royal  ceremonies,  and  his  son  REHOBOAM 
prepared  to  step  into  his  place1. 

We  have  no  ground  for  believing  that  the  foreign  body- 
guard, which  was  so  prominent  in  the  reign  of  David,  was 
kept  up  through  that  of  Solomon.  Of  Cherethites,  Pelethites 
and  Gittites  we  hear  no  more,  nor  are  they  replaced  by  any 
other  foreign  names.  The  throne  of  the  Hebrew  king  was 
now  to  be  supported  by  its  own  popularity  and  by  its  native 
army;  and  (following  perhaps  the  advice  of  his  father's  coun- 
sellors) Rehoboam  thought  proper  to  hold  a  constitutional 
assembly  of  the  tribes,  and  formally  to  accept  of  the  royal 
dignity  in  their  presence.  For  this  purpose  he  convened  a 
meeting  of  all  Israel  at  Shechem,  a  very  ancient  and  venerated 
town  of  Ephraim.  But  so  decisive  was  the  general  disaffec- 
tion and  the  determination  to  enforce  new  principles  on  the 
administration,  that  the  tribes  immediately  sent  for  Jeroboam 
from  Egypt,  who  had  the  boldness  to  appear  publicly  at 
Shechem,  there  to  confront  the  new  monarch.  Becoming  (as 
may  appear)  the  spokesman  of  the  national  will,  he  positively 
demanded  a  remission  of  the  oppressive  taxes,  and  on  this 
condition  proffered  loyal  service  to  the  son  of  Solomon.  Three 
days  were  taken  for  deliberation ;  after  which  Rehoboam,  foU 

1  B.C.  955. 


138  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

lowing  the  advice  of  his  young  companions  against  that  of 
his  father's  counsellors,  gave  a  haughty  and  contemptuous 
refusal,  which  was  intended  to  terrify  all  into  submission. 
Instead  of  this,  all  the  northern  and  eastern  tribes  unani- 
mously revolted  from  him,  and  took  Jeroboam  for  their  king : 
none  adhered  to  Rehoboam  but  his  own  tribe  of  Judah  and 
the  contiguous  one  of  Benjamin1,  which  in  any  case  could 
scarcely  refuse  to  follow  the  fortunes  of  Jerusalem.  Rehoboam 
did  not  believe  the  full  extent  of  his  own  misfortune,  and  sent 
one  of  his  officers  to  superintend  the  usual  collection  of  the 
tribute ;  but  the  people  stoned  him  to  death,  upon  which  the 
king  was  glad  to  escape  in  haste  to  Jerusalem.  His  first 
thoughts  were  to  recover  his  dominion  by  war2,  but  Shemaiah 
the  prophet,  by  his  vehement  and  positive  prohibition,  deterred 
him  from  so  hopeless  an  enterprize. 

Thus  far  Rehoboam  acted  as  a  prince  who  had  but  just 
emerged  from  the  harem ;  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  this 
was  his  actual  position.  David  had  suffered  by  conspiracy 
from  two  of  his  own  sons.  This  fact  Solomon  was  not  likely 
to  forget ;  and  we  may  well  believe  that  he  guarded  against  a 
similar  occurrence  by  shutting  up  his  only  son  (at  least  from 
his  thousand  wives  only  one  son  is  named)  within  the  walls 
of  his  seraglio.  But  the  sharp  lesson  which  Rehoboam  had 
received  in  this  first  experiment  of  ruling,  appears  to  have 
been  very  wholesome  in  its  effects;  for  all  the  rest  of  his 
reign  was  prudent,  though  not  religiously  laudable.  His 
mother's  name  was  Naamah  (or,  lovely  one),  an  Ammonitess, 
and  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  he  would  deviate  from  his 
father's  example  of  honouring  his  mother's  god.  The  tribe 
of  Judah  everywhere  consecrated  high  places  and  images  to 
Jehovah,  without  a  suspicion  that  this  could  deserve  censure ; 
nor  only  so,  but  deadly  Canaanitish  immoralities  are  specified 
with  the  rites  of  Astarte,  as  established  in  the  land  under  pre- 
tence of  religion3.  Thus  the  worldly  prosperity  of  David  and 
Solomon  appeared  to  have  had  no  other  result  than  to  give  to 

1  The  old  narrator  seems  even  to  comprise  Benjamin  in  Judah  :  "  I  will  give 
ten  tribes  to  thee,  but  he  shall  have  one  tribe  for  my  servant  David's  sake ; " 
1  Kings,  xi.  32. 

2  The  record  says,  "  He  assembled  180,000  chosen  warriors"  which  perhaps 
indicates  no  more  than  that  the  writer  estimated  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Ben- 
jamin to  contain  this  number  of  males  within  the  military  age. 

3  1  Kings,  xiv.  23,  24.     The  Chronicles  omit  everything  so  shocking  against 
a  son  of  Solomon  ;   and  only  indicate  that  in  his  fifth  year  he  forsook  Jehovah, 


DIVISION    OF    THE    MONARCHY.  139 

the  Hebrew  metropolis,  both  outwardly  and  in  reality,  a  large 
share  of  pagan  superstition. 

Meanwhile  JEROBOAM  was  far  from  fulfilling  the  hopes  of 
the  prophet  who  had  so  unadvisedly  fired  the  train  of  insur- 
rection ;  but  before  we  name  any  details,  it  will  be  appropriate 
to  review  the  foreign  results  of  this  schism.  The  nations 
which  owned  subjection  to  Solomon  were  no  longer  likely  to 
obey  either  of  his  successors.  In  the  north,  all  foreign  domi- 
nion had  already  been  lost  (we  can  scarcely  doubt)  by  the  rise 
of  Rezon  in  Damascus.  The  Ammonites  appear  to  have  ef- 
fected their  liberation  from  Israelite  power,  but  the  Moabites 
to  have  remained  tributary.  The  Edomites,  in  the  early 
reigns  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  may  have  still  paid  a  nominal 
homage,  but  we  find  no  marks  that  it  was  more  than  nominal. 
Cut  off  from  the  Tyrians  and  from  the  maritime  Israelites, 
and  deprived  of  the  greater  part  of  his  exportable  surplus,  Re- 
hoboam  must  perhaps  in  any  case  have  found  the  ports  of  the 
Red  Sea  quite  unserviceable.  Nothing  but  the  apparent  ease 
with  which  one  of  his  successors1  resumes  the  power  of  the 
throne  of  Jerusalem  over  Idumsea,  leads  us  to  believe  that  his 
sovereignty  was  not  in  these  times  formally  disavowed.  As 
to  the  Philistine  conduct,  it  is  peculiarly  difficult  to  draw  in- 
ferences from  our  scanty  materials;  since  we  do  not  even 
know  to  how  many  of  their  towns  the  jealousy  of  Solomon 
may  have  permitted  walls,  nor  what  facility  existed  of  holding 
their  citadels  by  Hebrew  garrisons.  In  the  reign  of  Reho- 
boam's  grandson,  we  find  the  Philistine  town  of  Gibbethon 
twice  endure  a  siege  from  kings  of  Israel,  while  the  king  of 
Judah  remains  apparently  unconcerned.  Since  the  tribe  of 
Dan  clearly  must  be  reckoned  among  the  ten2  which  are  said 

and  was  immediately  chastised  by  Shishak's  invasion,  which  brought  about  his 
repentance.     The  sin  is  probably  a  mere  inference  from  the  visitation. 

Among  the  images  erected  and  consecrated  by  some  kings  of  Judah,  which  re- 
mained until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  are  particularly  named  certain  horses  dedicated 
to  the  Sun,  at  the  very  entrance  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  as  likewise  chariots 
of  the  Sun.  We  are  not  distinctly  informed  of  their  date,  but  as  they  are  not 
named  as  of  Manasseh's  introduction,  they  were  probably  of  extreme  antiquity. 

1  Jehoshaphat. 

2  Although  his  kingdom  (which  is  called  Israel  in  contrast  to  that  of  Eeho- 
boam,  which  is  called  Judah,)  is  always  said  to  contain  ten  tribes,  it  may  seem 
to  be  difficult  to  find  so  many,  for  the  tribe  of  Simeon  was  swallowed  up  in  Ju- 
dah, and  had  no  territorial  existence,  or  at  any  rate  can  in  no  way  be  made  out 
to  belong  to  Israel.     The  song  of  Moses  omits  Simeon,  and  makes  only  eleven 
tribes  besides  Levi.     If  however  we  regard  Manasseh  east  of  Jordan  and  Ma- 
nasseh  west  of  Jordan  as  separate  tribes  (as  in  fact  they  were),  the  full  number 
may  in  this  way  be  counted. 


140  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

to  adhere  to  Jeroboam,  it  may  appear  that  circumstances  un- 
explained (such  as  the  disaffection  of  Hebrew  garrisons  to  Re- 
hoboam)  gave  to  the  kings  of  Israel  the  sovereignty  (whether 
more  or  less  severely  enforced)  over  the  Philistine  towns  which 
were  nominally  the  portion  of  Dan.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
way  in  which  Jericho  is  afterwards  named  implies  that  that 
fertile  lowland,  which  is  counted  as  a  part  of  Benjamin,  fell 
to  Jeroboam,  to  whose  region  its  physical  position  naturally 
united  it.  Thus  the  Israelite  territory  closed  round  that  of 
Judah  on  the  north-east  and  north-west,  and  cut  it  off  almost 
entirely  from  the  sea. 

But  Jeroboam  had  far  too  much  on  his  hands  to  make  him 
willing  to  attack  his  rival.  A  more  urgent  care  was  to  fortify 
the  city  of  Shechem  as  his  capital,  and  next,  the  town  of 
Penuel,  near  the  brook  Jabbok,  beyond  the  Jordan,  in  order 
to  confirm  his  authority  over  the  eastern  tribes.  Having  pro- 
vided for  military  defence,  he  made  regulations  concerning 
religion.  His  sacerdotal  censors  suppose  him  to  have  been 
chiefly  moved  by  the  fear  that  all  Israel  would  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem to  sacrifice  to  Jehovah;  and  this  may  certainly  have 
entered  his  calculations.  Yet  it  is  clear  that  not  even  Judah 
and  Benjamin  were  disposed  to  do  without  local  sanctuaries, 
to  which,  as  every  other  nation  in  the  world,  they  were  all  too 
much  attached ;  nor  had  any  parties  such  an  idea  of  centra- 
lized religion  as  after-times  conceived.  It  is  enough  therefore 
to  believe  the  Israelitish  king  actuated  by  the  same  motives 
as  Rehoboam.  During  his  residence  at  the  court  of  Shishak 
he  had  become  familiarized  with  the  outward  forms  of  Egyp- 
tian idolatry,  and  it  is  even  possible  had  been  struck  by  the 
resemblance  of  some  of  their  sacred  symbols  to  the  mystic 
cherubim.  In  the  Assyrian  visions  of  Ezekiel  and  in  the  Apo- 
calypse, the  forms  of  a  man,  a  lion,  an  eagle  and  an  ox  are 
found  in  strange  combination  as  religious  emblems ;  and  the 
images  erected  by  Jeroboam  for  worship,  if  not  identical  with 
any  of  these,  were,  according  to  the  severity  of  our  Decalogue, 
neither  more  nor  less  idolatrous  than  they ;  though  his  images 
were  displayed  to  the  public  eye,  while  the  cherubim  in  So- 
lomon's temple  could  be  seen  only  by  the  priests.  Those  of 
Jeroboam,  however,  are  derided  by  the  name  of  golden  calves, 
and  it  is  sufficiently  remarkable  that  (as  if  to  identify  his  of- 
fence with  a  legendary  sin  of  Aaron's)  he  is  represented  to  use 
Aaron's  words  of  exhortation1 :  "  Behold  thy  God,  O  Israel, 

1  1  Kings,  xii.  28,  De  Wette's  Translation. 


CALVES    OF    DAN    AND    BETHEL.  141 

who  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  The  images 
were  set  up  peculiarly1,,  not  in  Shechem  (which  would  have 
been  done  if  the  object  had  been  to  rally  Israel  round  Jero- 
boam's new  capital),  but  at  the  two  ends  of  the  land, — at  Dan, 
the  northernmost  town,  and  in  the  sacred  city  of  Bethel,  where 
Samuel  had  held  his  sessions,  on  the  very  frontier  of  Ephraim 
and  Benjamin.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  foreign  god  was 
here  adored,  or  any  moral  impurities  introduced :  on  the  other 
hand,  we  have  convincing  casual  evidence  that  the  Hebrew 
people  were  habitual  image-worshippers,  before  and  after  Jero- 
boam. An  isolated  fact  which  comes  out  is  here  pregnant  with 
meaning.  Down  to  the  time  of  king  Hezekiah,  or  more  than 
two  centuries  and  a  half  later  than  Jeroboam,  the  people  sub- 
ject to  the  house  of  David  continued  to  burn  incense  to  a  cer- 
tain brass  serpent  as  to  a  god2.  Towards  the  close  of  the 
monarchy  this  was  believed  to  have  been  an  image  made  by 
Moses  in  the  wilderness  to  work  a  miracle  by ;  but  we  have 
no  means  of  learning  whether  that  belief  was  shared  by  the 
worshippers,  or  whether,  in  adoring  it,  they  fancied  they  were 
pleasing  'Jehovah.  The  serpent  is  a  well-known  emblem  in 
various  pagan  superstitions. 

That  the  idolatry  introduced  by  Jeroboam  was  meant  to  be 
a  monotheistic  ceremony  is  clear,  not  only  from  the  language 
put  into  his  mouth,  so  like  to  that  of  Aaron,  but  still  more 
from  the  very  different  behaviour  of  the  prophets,  when  Ahab 
really  imported  foreign  religion.  Nevertheless,  in  much  later 
times  the  worship  at  Bethel  and  other  high  places  became  at 
length  full  of  demoralizing  practices,  and  called  out  against  it 
the  keenest  attacks  of  the  extant  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea  and 
Micah ;  and  this  led  the  later  compilers  of  the  history  to  take 
the  blackest  view  of  Jeroboam/ s  character,  who  has  earned 
with  them  the  unenviable  epithet,  "the  son  of  Nebat,  who 
made  Israel  to  sin" 

Yet  they  do  not  conceal  that  their  grand  quarrel  against 
Jeroboam  is  a  ceremonial  one.  No  moral  evil,  in  fact,  is  im- 
puted by  them ;  his  offence  was,  that  he  ordained  priests,  not 
from  the  Levites,  but  from  the  tribes  promiscuously ;  and  this 
"  became  sin  to  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  to  cut  it  off  and  de- 

1  Though  the  golden  calves  were  at  these  two  towns,  temples  were  consecrated 
on  high  places  in  all  the  chief  cities  ;  1  Kings,  xiii.  32,  33.     In  Amos  we  find 
Gilgal  named  as  an  idolatrous  sanctuary. 

2  2  Kings,  xviii.  4. 


142  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

stroy  it  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth1."  He  likewise  neg- 
lected their  sacred  days,  making  a  solemn  feast  on  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  the  eighth  month,  while  in  Jerusalem  they  held 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  just  one  month  earlier.  As  Chris- 
tians have  raved  concerning  the  time  of  Easter,  so  did  the 
later  Levites  against  "  the  day  which  Jeroboam  had  devised 
of  his  own  heart2." 

Where  our  earlier  and  better  record  is  satisfied  with  noticing 
the  fact,  that  Jeroboam  did  not  employ  Levites  as  his  priests, 
the  Chronicler  superadds  a  great  migration  of  Levites  from 
Israel  into  Judah,  abandoning  all  their  worldly  prospects. 
With  them,  he  says,  came  many  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  for 
the  satisfaction  of  living  in  communion  with  Jerusalem. — Yet 
the  prophets  came  not ;  and  with  good  reason,  when  the 
idolatry  established  there  by  Solomon  and  Eehoboam  was  so 
much  fouler  than  that  of  the  calves  at  Dan  and  Bethel.  It 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  Chronicler  assumed  there  had 
previously  been  Levites  dispersed  in  Levitical  towns  over  all 
the  land  during  David  and  Solomon's  reign,  and  then  inferred 
that  they  must  have  been  expelled  by  Jeroboam.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  not  credible  that  this  prince  found  any  large 
body  of  Levites  in  his  dominions ;  and  that  is  probably  the 
sufficient  reason  why  he  did  not  make  priests  of  them.  It 
has  been  already  remarked,  that  the  Levites  cannot  have  lived 
by  tithes  in  cities  of  their  own  during  the  tumultuous  period 
of  the  Judges.  To  put  them  into  possession  would  have  been 
for  David  or  Solomon  a  most  arduous  operation,  either  very 
violent  and  oppressive  to  individuals,  or  effected  by  an  enor- 
mous sacrifice  of  public  revenue.  In  either  case  some  histo- 
rical notice  of  such  a  proceeding  would  be  left  to  us.  If  there- 
fore the  Levites  were  already  become  in  Jerusalem  a  strictly 
hereditary  caste,  (which  is  highly  uncertain,)  even  so  it  would 
seem  that  Jeroboam  could  not  have  selected  them  for  the 
public  ministrations  without  making  petition  to  his  enemy, 

1  1  Kings,  xiii.  33. 

2  If  we  could  believe  a  legend  which  manifestly  gained  its  final  shape  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  a  man  of  God  went  to  Bethel  to  withstand  Jeroboam,  and  pre- 
dicted that  a  child  named  JOSIAH  should  be  born  in  the  house  of  David,  who 
should  burn  on  that  altar  the  bones  of  dead  priests.     To  accredit  his  word,  the 
altar  was  rent  and  its  ashes  poured  out ;  and  when  Jeroboam  put  out  his  hand 
against  the  man  of  God,  it  was  miraculously  shrivelled  up.     Again,  it  was  re- 
stored at  the  prayer  of  the  man  of  God.     Yet  the  miracles  produced  no  result 
whatever. 


143 

and  introducing  among  his  people  those  who  might  have  been 
dangerous  to  his  power.  If  his  spirit  was  in  reality  that  of 
"  the  man  Micah"  in  earlier  times,  who  preferred  a  Levite  for 
a  priest  when  he  could  get  one,  but  ordained  his  own  son  as 
priest  when  no  Levite  could  be  had, — still,  when  the  result 
was,  that  a  non-Levitical  priesthood  arose,  this  incurred  deep 
condemnation  in  the  days  of  sacerdotal  rigour ;  much  as  a  Pres- 
byterian church  is  censured  by  high  Episcopalians.  And 
especially  when  the  worship  at  Bethel  more  and  more  assi- 
milated itself  to  the  impurities  of  Paganism,  the  accumulated 
fuilt  of  the  whole  system  was  made  to  rest  on  the  head  of 
eroboam. 

In  any  case,  through  the  absence  of  the  Aaronite  order, 
important  results  ensued.  Nearly  as  in  modern  continental 
Protestantism,  so  in  Israel  the  priests  fell  under  the  control 
of  the  kingly  power,  and  never  grew  into  any  such  strength 
as  to  be  able  to  resist  and  modify  its  despotism.  But  for  that 
very  reason,  neither  were  they  able  to  strengthen  the  crown 
when  it  was  weak,  and  to  support  a  fixed  dynasty  in  the  suc- 
cession of  the  throne.  They  had  little  hold  over  the  mind 
of  the  people,  and  could  neither  inculcate  sacerdotalism  with 
effect,  nor  resist  foreign  superstitions ;  nor  in  fact,  as  yet,  even 
in  Judah  had  the  whole  ecclesiastical  body  at  all  attained 
strength  for  either  enterprize.  On  the  other  hand,  from  the 
absence  of  Aaronite  priests,  the  prophets  had  so  much  the 
clearer  field  for  their  action  in  Israel.  By  the  great  numbers 
of  them  found  there  some  fifty  or  more  years  later,  it  appears 
certain  that  they  must  have  multiplied  under  Jeroboam  and 
his  immediate  successors.  From  the  hints  given  us  it  may 
be  inferred  that  they  now  dwelt  in  communities,  under  the 
superintendence  of  some  older  prophet,  and  laboured  together 
for  their  scanty  sustenance,  like  the  monks  of  certain  Orders 
in  the  middle  ages.  Bethel  itself  was  one  of  their  seats. 
While  the  prophet  stayed  in  Israel,  there  can  hardly  have 
been  any  adequate  moral  reasons  to  induce  Levites  and  the 
pious  part  of  Israel  voluntarily  to  emigrate  into  Judah. 

Of  these  prophets  the  most  celebrated  was  that  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite,  by  whose  agency  the  division  of  Israel  and  Judah 
was  brought  about.  His  residence  was  at  the  sacred  town 
of  Shiloh  in  Ephraim,  where  the  ark  and  Eli  so  long  tarried ; 
and  he  appears  to  have  retained  the  veneration  of  the  king  to 
years  of  his  long  life.  It  was  not  to  be  credited  that 


144  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

such,  a  prophet  had  not  vehemently  denounced  the  wickedness 
of  Jeroboam,  as  well  as  deplored  his  golden  calves.  Accord- 
ingly, those  who  compiled  the  records  of  these  times  with  a 
knowledge  of  the  after-events,  represent  Ahijah,  when  the  wife 
of  Jeroboam  came  to  consult  him  on  her  son's  health,  as 
uttering  a  stern  and  exact  prediction  of  the  ruin  which  should 
overwhelm  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  and  the  captivity  of  Israel 
into  countries  beyond  the  Euphrates ;  as  the  only  comfort  to 
the  anxious  mother,  informing  her  that  her  son  should  imme- 
diately be  removed  from  so  evil  a  world,  because  there  was 
some  good  thing  in  him  towards  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel. 
Whatever  Ahijah  said,  Jeroboam  and  his  queen  did  not  re- 
sent it :  the  aged  and  now  blind  prophet  went  to  his  grave  in 
peace. 

Long  before  this  event  Hehoboam  had  had  to  struggle  with 
difficult  circumstances,  but  not  from  his  rival's  hostility.  The 
territory  to  which  he  succeeded  was  not  one-fourth  of  the 
Israelitish  land,  yet  in  actual  power  he  very  nearly  competed 
with  Jeroboam.  He  enjoyed  the  great  advantage  of  com- 
pactness in  his  dominions,  and  as  the  grandson  of  David  he 
was  secure  in  the  loyalty  of  the  tribes  which  held  to  him.  At 
the  old  centre  of  government  he  found  a  completeness  of 
organization  which  must  long  have  been  wanting  to  Jeroboam ; 
and,  what  was  not  less  important,  he  was  master  of  Solomon's 
chief  treasures.  If  we  can  believe  the  account  in  Chronicles, 
the  exertions  now  made  by  Rehoboam  in  fortifying  his  king- 
dom and  garrisoning  his  castles  were  prodigious.  Undoubt- 
edly he  had  cause  to  fear,  especially  from  Egypt,  for  of  the 
hostile  temper  now  active  there  he  can  hardly  have  been  igno- 
rant; and  many  of  the  towns  said  to  be  fortified  by  him 
might  seem  to  be  intended  as  defence  from  that  quarter.  But 
putting  Egypt  out  of  the  question,  it  was  requisite  to  prepare 
for  attack  from  the  Philistines  and  the  Edomites.  Among 
the  latter  the  spirit  of  Hadad  can  hardly  have  been  dead; 
and  the  former,  who  persevered  in  uncircumcision  and  hete- 
rogeneous habits,  were  an  intestine  foe,  hardly  less  dangerous 
when  free  than  if  under  Jeroboam.  But  as  Jeroboam  re- 
mained on  the  defensive,  and  Shishak  delayed  his  meditated 
inroad  till  Rehoboam's  fifth  year,  the  Hebrew  king  success- 
fully repressed  all  farther  hostile  tendencies,  and  appeared  to  be 
securely  seated,  though  with  diminished  lustre,  on  his  father's 
throne. 


INVASION    BY    SHISHAK.  145 

But  in  his  fifth  year  he  was  overwhelmed  by  a  flood  of  in- 
vasion, which  is  so  concisely  described  in  one  record  and  so 
hyperbolically  in  the  other,  that  it  is  hard  to  conjecture  the 
exact  truth1.  The  king  of  Egypt  rushed  in  upon  him,  to 
seize  his  destined  booty ; — the  plunder  of  the  temple  and  of 
the  king's  treasure-house.  The  spoiler  came  and  went,  like 
a  dream,  leaving  no  other  trace  of  his  irresistible  march  than 
this  one  particular  result.  He  was  but  a  meteor  shooting 
over  the  sky  of  Judaea,  baleful  to  the  imagination,  but  harm- 
less in  fact.  He  did  not  dismantle  the  castles,  carry  off  the 
arms  and  munitions  of  war,  plunder  the  towns  of  their  valua- 
bles and  the  country  of  its  cattle,  so  far  as  is  stated  or  can  be 
traced.  Had  he  acted  as  those  who  make  invasions  for  the 
sake  of  spoil  generally  act,  the  throne  of  David  must  have 
fallen  for  ever,  or  have  been  preserved  only  by  an  intense  and 
lingering  struggle.  On  the  contrary,  for  anything  that  ap- 
pears, Behoboam's  power  remains  unimpaired  ;  and  he  leaves 
his  kingdom  to  his  son  in  a  high  state  of  organization  and 
efficiency,  if  at  least  the  Chronicler  has  not  grossly  misrepre- 
sented the  truth  in  spirit  as  well  as  in  details.  The  loss  of 
the  battle  before  Bamoth  in  Gilead  by  Jehoshaphat  cost  Judah 
severe  and  long-continued  suffering  from  the  assaults  of  the 
Edomites,  Arabs  and  Philistines ;  yet  the  occupation  of  Jeru- 
salem itself  by  Shishak  leads  to  no  result  that  has  deserved  to 
be  recorded.  This  is  a  problem  involving  to  us  some  measure 
of  perplexity. 

The  most  direct  hypothesis  is  that  of  bold  incredulity.  Is 
it  not  apparent  (it  might  be  said)  that  the  invasion  of  Shishak 
is  a  Deus  ex  machind  to  account  for  one  solitary  fact,  the  dis- 
appearance of  certain  treasures  from  the  temple  and  palace  ? 
And  if  these  treasures  ever  existed,  who  is  so  likely  to  have 
used  them  as  Behoboam,  while  struggling  to  preserve  the 
remnants  of  his  father's  power  ?  And  if  our  historians  could 
imagine  or  invent  an  inroad  of  a  million  Ethiopians2  half  a 
century  later,  in  order  to  aggrandize  king  Asa,  why  may  they 
not  have  equally  invented  in  this  reign  the  countless  host  ol 

1  2  Chron.  xii.  3.  Shishak  brings  in  "  1200  chariots,  60,000  horsemen,  and 
infantry  without  mwnber."  To  gather  such  a  host,  pass  and  repass  the  desart 
with  it,  and  maintain  it  till  disbanded,  would  be  so  enormously  expensive,  that 
to  save  himself  from  great  loss,  Shishak  would  have  needed  to  plunder  the  whole 
of  Eehoboam's  little  kingdom.  His  infantry  are  described  as  "  Lubim,  Sukkiim 
and  Ethiopians." 

"  2  Chron.  xiv.  9. 


146  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Egyptians,  to  screen  the  sacrilege  of  Rehoboam  ?  And  in 
truth,  if  this  invasion,  like  that  of  Zerah  the  Ethiopian,  were 
named  solely  in  the  Chronicles,  such  incredulity  would  not  be 
excessive.  But  when  it  is  remembered  that  our  historians  in 
no  other  instance  shrink  from  avowing  how  the  best  monarchs 
made  free  with  the  treasures  of  the  temple  for  political  ends, 
we  find  in  this  no  adequate  motive  to  them  for  so  strange  an  in- 
vention. Moreover,  the  hostile  movement  of  Shishak  is  in 
perfect  keeping  with  the  position  which  he  had  previously 
held  towards  Solomon,  whose  enemy  Jeroboam  he  then  shel- 
tered and  now  leaves  unassailed. 

A  second  inquiry  might  be  started,  whether  in  fact  the  forces 
of  Shishak  were  not  called  in  by  Rehoboam  himself  and  volun- 
tarily paid  by  him  out  of  his  father's  treasures.  But  we  may 
still  ask — why  then  should  not  this  have  been  stated,  as  frankly 
as  in  the  case  of  Asa  and  Hezekiah?  On  the  whole  there- 
fore no  better  explanation  suggests  itself  than  the  following,  — 
which  however  cannot  be  more  than  conjectural.  The  king  of 
Egypt,  full  of  the  hostile  feelings  which  Jeroboam  had  infused 
or  cherished,  marched  against  the  son  of  Solomon  with  the 
intention  of  pillaging  Jerusalem.  The  Jewish  prince,  know- 
ing his  own  inferiority,  was  prudent  enough  not  to  resist;  and 
received  Shishak  into  his  capital.  By  the  personal  interview 
thus  obtained,  he  convinced  the  invader  that  it  was  not  his  in- 
terest to  make  Jeroboam  too  powerful :  that  unless  he  chose 
to  advance  the  Egyptian  frontier  beyond  the  desart,  and  hereby 
expose  himself  to  a  thousand  contingencies,  true  policy  dic- 
tated that  he  should  keep  the  balance  between  the  two  He- 
brew princes,  and  carefully  avoid  to  weaken  Rehoboam  too 
much.  Shishak  was  made  to  see  that  since  the  days  of  Solo- 
mon the  wings  of  the  Jewish  eagle  had  been  effectually  clipped ; 
and  changing  his  own  views,  was  contented  to  take  all  the 
gold  treasure  of  Jerusalem  as  the  indemnification  of  his  march. 
He  then  retired  home  in  an  orderly  manner1,  throwing  the 

1  Some  have  imagined  that  the  pillars  set  up  by  Sesostris  in  Palestine,  which 
Herodotus  says  he  saw,  must  have  been  really  the  work  of  Shishak.  But  of 
these  nothing  is  known  beyond  what  Herodotus  tells  us. — Near  Beirut  sculp- 
tures are  found,  not  on  pillars,  but  on  the  natural  rock,  which  are  judged  to  be 
partly  Persian  and  partly  Egyptian ;  and,  in  the  hieroglyphics  of  the  latter, 
Dr.  Lepsius  says  that  the  name  of  Sesostris  is  found  twice.  But  these  can 
in  no  way  be  identified  with  Shishak's  invasion  of  Judah. — Expounders  of  the 
hieroglyphics  tell  us  that  pictures  represent  the  king  of  Judah  (with  his 
title  added)  brought  bound  to  Sheshonk.  This  can  only  be 'pictorial.  [Colonel 


LATER    YEARS    OF    REHOBOAM.  147 

weight  of  his  influence  with  all  the  neighbouring  peoples  into 
the  scale  of  Rehoboam1. 

Tn  this  or  in  some  such  way,  the  dynasty  of  David  was 
saved  through  the  dangerous  transition,,  which,  from  lords  of 
a  united  and  conquering  nation,  reduced  his  descendants  to 
petty  princes  dependent  on  the  forbearance  of  a  powerful 
neighbour.  But  the  desart  ordinarily  removed  all  fear  from 
the  side  of  Egypt,  and  against  nearer  nations  the  king  of 
Jerusalem  and  Judea  was  well  able  to  defend  himself.  Be- 
tween him  and  Jeroboam  there  was  no  amity2,  yet  neither 
was  there  active  or  dangerous  war ;  nothing  at  least  of  their 
warlike  exploits  has  been  deemed  worthy  of  remembrance. 

Although  unable  to  vie  with  his  father  in  the  splendour  of 
his  seraglio,  he  inherited  the  belief  that  to  indulge  in  many 
wives  was^a  peculiar  privilege  of  royaylt.  Our  later  autho- 
rity alone  states  this,  and  assigns  to  him  18  wives,  60  concu- 
bines, 28  sons  and  60  daughters.  The  names  also  of  three 
wives,  descendants  of  Jesse,  are  given;  but  they  are  none 
quite  free  from  difficulty3.  His  favourite  wife  was  Maachah, 
who  seems  to  have  been  granddaughter  to  David's  son  Absa- 
lom, by  his  beautiful  daughter  Tamar;  and  her  son  Abijam 
was  selected  by  Rehoboam  as  his  successor.  His  other  sons 
he  dispersed  as  governors  through  the  fortified  towns,  intend- 
ing hereby  to  strengthen  his  dynasty.  He  died  after  a  reign 

Rawlinson  thinks  the  letters  on  the  Beirut  sculptures  to  be  "  Medo-Assyrian  :" 
Journal  of  Asiat.  S.  vol.  x.  p.  27.] 

1  It  perhaps  may  be  added,  that  the  Edomites  had  as  yet  imperfectly  recovered 
from  Joab's  wholesale  massacre.     By  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat  and  his  son  their 
numbers  had  again  increased. 

2  1  Kings,  xiv.  30. 

3  2  Chr.  xi.  18-22,  xiii.  2  ;  1  Kings,  xv.  2.    The  mother  of  Abijam  is  variously 
called  Maachah  daughter  of  Abishalom,  Maachah  daughter  of  Absalom,  and  Mi- 
chaiah  daughter  of  Uriel  of  Gibeah.     Abishalom  is  probably  Absalom,  and 
Michaiah  a  corruption  of  Maachah  :  if  so,  it  is  likely  that  daughter  of  Absalom 
is  a  loose  expression  for  granddaughter.     For  as  Absalom  was  slain  when 
Solomon  was  a  mere  boy,  Absalom's  own  daughter  can  scarcely  have  been 
Rehoboam's   wife.      But  Absalom's  daughter  Tamar  (2  Sam.  xiv.  27)   may 
have  been   married  to  Uriel,  a  kinsman  of  Saul,  and  have  become  mother 
of  Maachah.     Even  so,  there  is  a  new  difficulty,  in  Maachah  being  also  called 
mother  to  king  Asa;   but    this  will  be  presently  observed  upon.     Another 
wife  of  Rehoboam  is  Abihail  daughter  of  Eliab,  David's  eldest  brother;  where 
daughter  may  seem  less  proper  than  great-granddaughter.     For  Rehoboam 
came  to  the  throne  110  years  after  the  birth  of  David ;  and  perhaps  130  years 
after  the  birth  of  Eliab.     A  third  wife  is  Mahalath,  daughter  of  Jerimoth 
son  of  David ;  which  is  possibly  correct,  if  Jerimoth  was  a  son  of  old  age  to 
David. 

H    2 


148  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  eighteen  years1,  and  having  been  buried  in  the  royal 
sepulchres,  was  succeeded  without  commotion  by  his  son 
ABIJAM. 

Abijam's  reign  was  short,  and  in  no  respect  memorable. 
His  mother  Maacah  was  given  to  superstition  as  much  as 
his  Ammonitish  grandmother ;  and  he  is  commemorated  by 
our  elder  historian  for  nothing  else,  but  for  his  disgraceful 
support  of  foreign  and  impure  ceremonies.  It  is  added,  that 
like  his  father,  he  persevered  in  hostility  to  Jeroboam2;  but 
we  have  not  a  single  trustworthy  detail  surviving.  He  was 
taken  off  by  a  premature  death3,  and  was  honoured  with  the 
usual  royal  burial.  His  youthful  son  ASA  succeeded  him. 

As  for  Jeroboam,  though  he  outlived  both  Rehoboam  and 
his  son,  our  meagre  historians  furnish  us  not  with  a  single 
additional  fact,  or  any  true  insight  into  his  character.  It  is 
unreasonable  to  doubt,  that  his  anti-Levitical  arrangements 
(which  alone  the  historians  care  to  record)  formed  the  least 
part  of  the  cares  and  concerns  of  his  government.  It  is  not 
likely  that  so  vigorous  and  able  a  man  lost  the  Israelitish 
sovereignty  over  the  Ammonites  without  a  struggle,  or  that 
the  Moabites  continued  in  payment  of  tribute  to  him  without 
a  difficult  war ;  and  if  we  could  recover  the  true  chronicles  of 
his  reign,  we  might  find,  that  these  foreigners,  with  the  Phi- 
listines of  the  Danite  territory,  next  to  the  general  organiza- 
tion of  his  kingdom,  required  all  the  activity  of  his  mind  and 
body.  Concerning  his  relations  with  the  king  of  Damascus, 
not  a  hint  remains  even  to  guide  conjecture.  Our  materials 
only  enable  us  to  assert,  that  Jeroboam  built  himself  a  palace 
at  Tirzah,  a  lovely  spot,  where  his  successors  also  held  their 


1  B.C.  937.     Shemaiah  the  prophet  and  Iddo  the  seer  are  referred  to  as  writers 
of  the  acts  of  Rehoboam.    Iddo  wrote  visions  which  he  had  seen  against  Jero- 
boam, and  is  an  authority  also  for  the  close  of  Solomon's  life,  and  for  the  whole 
of  Abijam's. 

2  The  Chronicler  (2  Chr.  xiii.)  has  thought  it  necessary  to  give  some  particulars 
of  this  war.     Abijah  (as  he  calls  him)  leads  out  400,000  chosen  men ;  Jeroboam 
sets  in  array  against  him  800,000  chosen  men  and  mighty  men  of  valour.    Abi- 
jah makes  a  pious  and  highly  sacerdotal  harangue  to  his  troops,  and  after  it 
slays  500,000  of  the  enemy.     Upon  this  he  recovers  from  Jeroboam  the  towns 
and  districts  of  Bethel,  Jeshanah  and  Ephrain.     Yet  it  is  evident  that  Bethel 
remained  with  the  kings  of  Israel.     Some  have  wished  to  divide  the  large  num- 
bers by  10 ;  but  this  is  to  overlook  the  whole  spirit  of  the  book.     In  fact  the 
Chronicler  has  converted  the  son  of  Rehoboam  into  a  pious  man,  instead  of  the 
impure  pagan  which  he  appears  in  the  other  record. 

3  B.C.  935. 


MASSACRE    OF    THE    HOUSE    OF    JEROBOAM.  149 

court.     He  died  the  year  after  Abijam1,  and  left  his  throne 
to  his  son  NADAB. 

Geographical  knowledge  fails  us  as  to  the  accurate  site  of 
the  Philistine  town  of  Gibbethon,  to  reduce  which  was  the 
sole  object  of  NadaVs  reign.  The  book  of  Joshua  assigns 
this  town  to  the  tribe  of  Dan,  and  it  is  generally  supposed  to 
be  south  of  Ashdod  or  Azotus.  If  so,,  this  will  confirm  our 
belief  that  the  northern  towns  of  Philistia  had  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  Jeroboam,  and  that  the  Israelite  dominion  was  be- 
ginning to  hem  in  Judsea  from  the  west,  and  almost  entirely 
cut  it  off  from  the  sea.  Neither  on  this  occasion,  nor  twenty- 
five  years  later,  when  the  attempt  was  renewed,  does  the  pru- 
dent and  energetic  king  of  Judah  attempt  to  succour  the  town 
of  Gibbethon ;  which  certainly  appears  to  show  that  he  did 
not  regard  it  as  belonging  to  his  crown.  The  siege  under 
Nadab  was  cut  short  by  a  lamentable  deed,  which  began  end- 
less confusion  to  the  throne  of  Israel, — the  assassination  of 
Nadab  himself  by  BAASHA  son  of  Ahijah2,  of  the  house  of 
Issachar,.  who  proceeded  to  usurp  the  royal  dignity3.  We  are 
not  informed  whether  Baasha  was  actuated  by  revenge,  or  by 
simple  ambition :  if  by  the  latter,  it  cannot  be  alleged  that 
Nadab  or  his  father  had  earned  such  a  retaliation.  Jeroboam 
did  not  rise  against  the  life  of  Solomon  or  of  his  son  :  he  had 
been  the  free  choice  of  a  willing  and  attached  people,  who 
summoned  him  out  of  Egypt  to  espouse  their  cause ;  and  in 
his  conduct  he  left  no  precedent  which  should  lessen  our  in- 
dignation and  hatred  at  this  violent  deed.  The  murderer 
knew  that  half-measures  would  only  rob  him  of  his  hire,  and 
cruelly  extirpated  every  living  soul  of  the  house  of  Jeroboam ; 
by  which  he  certainly  earned  for  himself  an  undisturbed  reign, 
but  set  an  example  which  was  repeated  against  his  son's  life 
and  throne.  The  ferocious  manners  still  prevalent,  notwith- 
standing all  that  the  reign  of  Solomon  might  be  imagined 
likely  to  effect,  are  indicated  in  the  prophetical  formula  of 
denunciation,  which  must  have  been  copied  too  faithfully  from 
real  life4:  "  Him  that  dieth  of  Jeroboam  in  the  city  shall  the 
dogs  eat,  and  him  that  dieth  in  the  field  shall  the  fowls  of  the 

1  B.C.  934. 

2  Of  course  not  the  prophet  Ahiiah  the  Shilonite. 

3  B.C.  932. 

4  1  Kings,  xiv.  11.     The  formula  is  repeated  for  Baasha,  1  Things,  xvi.  4  ;  for 

1  Kings,  xxi.  24. 


150  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

air  eat."  Such,  we  must  conclude,  was  the  brutal  treatment 
of  the  innocent  members  of  the  royal  house. 

As  the  succession  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  is  often  broken, 
it  will  be  well  for  the  reader  to  examine  the  chronological 
conspectus  (at  p.  135  above)  of  the  dynasties  from  Jeroboam 
to  the  accession  of  Jehu. 

It  appears  on  a  glance  at  the  table,  that  there  are  three 
dynasties  in  Israel  in  this  period,  while  the  realm  of  Judah 
enjoyed  the  great  advantage  of  an  undisputed  throne.  In- 
deed, besides  the  commotion  attending  the  murder  of  Nadab, 
a  civil  war  lasting  four  years  followed  the  destruction  of  the 
next  dynasty,  and  must  of  itself  have  so  weakened  this  king- 
dom as  to  free  the  house  of  David  from  fear  of  its  power. 
Both  these  convulsions  took  place  during  the  long  reign  of 
ASA,  a  monarch  whose  wise  administration  first  infused  real 
energy  into  the  kingdom  of  Jerusalem,  after  the  disasters 
with  which  for  many  years  it  had  had  to  struggle. 

Asa,  having  entered  upon  royal  cares  at  an  early  age1,  in 
the  very  opening  of  his  reign  showed  a  totally  different  spirit 
from  either  of  his  three  predecessors.  With  the  discrimina- 
tion of  the  best  kings  of  this  race,  he  allowed  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  at  the  high  places2,  and  on  no  account  confined  all 
public  sacrifice  and  burning  of  incense  to  the  temple  at  Je- 
rusalem ;  but  he  put  down  with  a  high  hand  the  impurities 
which  Solomon,  Eehoboam  and  Abijam  had  established  or 
permitted,  and  removed  all  the  idols3  which  they  had  set  up. 
We  now  learn  by  a  casual  expression,  what  might  have  been 
conjectured  from  the  position  of  Bathsheba  towards  Solomon, 
that  in  the  little  kingdom  of  Judaea,  as  afterwards  in  the 
mighty  court  of  Persia,  the  king's  mother  enjoyed  a  peculiar 
title  and  rank, — which  we  ill  translate  by  queen, — with 
higher  privileges  than  his  wife.  In  ancient  Persia  it  is  known 
that  the  king  might  sometimes  adopt  a  mother  for  political 
reasons4;  and  if  ever  the  mother  of  the  king's  father  con- 

1  B.C.  935. 

2  1  Kings,  xv.  14,  is  most  express  on  this  point,  and  the  words  are  repeated  in 
2  Chr.  xv.  17.     The  statement  seems  to  be  contradicted  in  2  Chr.  xiv.  3,  which 
is  either  an  exaggeration,  or  to  be  explained  to  mean  "  the  high  places  of  strange 
gods"     In  2  Chr.  xv.  17,  Israel  is  carelessly  used  for  Judah. 

3  The  horses  consecrated  to  the  Sun  (if  already  in  existence)  were  perhaps 
not  worshipped,  and  therefore  not  regarded  by  him  as  idols,  though  a  later  age 
stigmatized  them  as  such. 

4  In  the  abridgement  of  Ctesias  we  read  that  Cyrus,  upon  conquering  Asty- 


POWER    OF    DAMASCUS.  151 

tinned  to  receive  the  title  and  honours  of  the  Chief  Lady,  it 
is  probable  that  she  was  named  "  the  King's  Mother."  This 
perhaps  may  account  for  our  finding  Maachah,  mother  of  the 
deceased  king,  now  spoken  of  as  queen  and  mother  of  Asa. 
In  the  two  preceding  reigns,  she  had  gone  along  with  the 
degrading  superstitions  of  the  court,  and  had  herself  set  up 
an  idolatrous  image  of  Astarte.  Young  Asa  accordingly  took 
the  bold  and  painful  resolution  of  deposing  his  grandmother 
from  her  queenly  rank ;  destroyed  her  idol  and  burnt  it  by 
the  brook  Kedron  :  hereby  proclaiming  most  distinctly  that 
neither  relationship  to  himself  nor  any  station  should  be 
allowed  to  shelter  these  detestable  immoralities.  The  act  was 
not  less  faithful  than  politic.  He  at  once  rallied  round  him- 
self the  enthusiasm  of  the  sound-hearted  worshippers  of  Je- 
hovah, in  whom  the  peculiar  national  patriotism  was  concen- 
trated ;  and  with  no  small  reason  was  he  regarded  as  the  first 
worthy  descendant  of  David.  And  he  had  need  of  all  their 
support ;  for  Baasha,  the  new  king  of  Israel,  however  unprin- 
cipled, was  not  wanting  in  energy  or  in  policy. 

Baasha' s  first  measure  appears  to  have  been  to  establish 
himself  in  Tirzah  as  the  centre  of  his  government.  Jeroboam 
had  been  popular  in  Shechem,  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
usurper  did  not  dare  to  trust  himself  to  its  inhabitants.  Thus 
Tirzah,  which  had  been  a  palace  under  the  old  dynasty — per- 
haps already  a  fortified  one — under  the  new  gathered  around 
it  an  imperial  city.  Next  to  organizing  the  government  in 
his  new  capital,  his  most  weighty  care  was  to  secure  the 
alliance  of  the  newly  risen  and  formidable  power  of  BEN- 
HADAD,  king  of  DAMASCUS.  As,  from  this  time  forth,  this 
king  and  his  successors  exceedingly  influence  the  fortunes  of 
Israel,  it  seems  proper  to  add  a  few  words  concerning  the 
site  of  Damascus  and  its  facilities  for  empire. 

Damascus  lies  on  a  highly  fertile  and  moderately  elevated 
plain,  celebrated  for  its  gardens  and  orchards,  immediately  to 
the  east  of  the  lofty  ridge  called  Anti-Libanus,  the  southern 
point  of  which  is  Mount  Hermon.  From  these  heights  run 
down  many  streams,  the  greatest  of  which  were  named  Phar- 
phar  and  Abana.  Pharphar  appears  to  be  the  river  now 
called  the  Barrada,  which  runs  through  Damascus  itself. 
Numerous  canals  distribute  the  water  of  the  streams  over  the 

ages,  adopted  Amytis  (or  Mandane)  as  his  mother,  in  order  to  win  the  easier 
aion  of  some  parts  of  the  empire  not  yet  subdued. 


152  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

whole  country,  and  maintain  the  luxuriance  of  vegetation  in 
the  hottest  season.  Even  so,  much  water  runs  to  waste  into 
an  internal  lake  which  spreads  out  towards  the  eastern  desart. 
Syria  itself  enjoyed  a  high  measure  of  civilization  and  phy- 
sical culture  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  at  that  sera  was  already 
an  old  country,  teeming  with  cities  and  population.  Its  cli- 
mate is  moderated  by  the  height  of  the  plains,  and  by  the 
breezes  from  the  mountains ;  and  taken  as  a  whole,  its  advan- 
tages were  such,  that  whoever  became  master  of  it,  reckoned 
amongst  the  foremost  powers  of  the  early  world.  From  the 
city  of  Damascus  access  is  afforded  to  Emesa  on  the  north 
and  to  Bashan  on  the  south,  without  ascending  any  formidable 
elevation :  so  that  while  the  fertile  soil  is  able  to  support  both 
men  and  horses  in  great  numbers,  a  force  of  cavalry  or  even 
of  chariots  finds  there  great  facility  of  action  over  a  broad 
expanse  of  country.  From  Emesa,  returning  southward,  we 
ascend  gradually  into  the  loftier  plain  of  the  Hollow  Syria, 
between  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus,  of  which  Baalbek  was 
the  chief  city;  thus  although  these  ridges  cannot  be  crossed 
by  armies  of  horses,  the  entire  plain  of  Syria,  by  a  circuitous 
route,  is  accessible  to  them  from  Damascus.  In  the  times  of 
which  we  treat,  chariots  appear  to  have  been  the  principal  or 
the  most  dreaded  force  of  the  Damascenes;  and  in  fact  we  may 
trace  a  greatly  increased  use  of  them  among  the  Hebrews. 
This  circumstance  is  important,  as  it  explains  how  much  more 
formidable  an  enemy  Benhadad  was  beyond  Jordan  than  in 
western  Israel ;  for  his  chariots  could  come  into  Ephraim  only 
by  crossing  the  Jordan,  or  by  a  long  journey  through  danger- 
ous country ;  and  while  there,  were  always  liable  to  get  en- 
tangled in  unfavourable  ground. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  that  Kezon,  who  in  the 
later  part  of  Solomon's  reign  established  himself  in  Damascus. 
Of  his  after-fortunes  and  those  of  his  successors  we  know 
only  thus  much, — that  he  was  followed  on  the  throne  by 
Hezion1,  he  by  his  son  Tabrimon,  and  grandson  Benhadad, 
with  whom  Baasha  now  made  a  league ;  and  that  before  the 
arms  of  these  princes  the  kingdom  of  Hamath  and  all  Hollow 
Syria  gave  way,  and  became  absorbed  in  the  power  of  Da- 
mascus, whose  king  is  now  called  king  of  Syria.  It  is  pro- 

1  Many  regard  Hezion  and  Rezon  as  the  same  name  corruptly  written.  This 
is  possible,  but  cannot  be  proved.  The  chronology  does  not  refute  the  opinion, 
but  is  not  very  favourable  to  it. 


WAR    OF    BAASHA   AND    ASA.  153 

bable  that  a  good  part  of  Bashan  was  already  Benhadad's, 
and  that  he  pressed  close  upon  the  land  of  Israel.  With 
such  a  potentate  either  alliance  or  war  appeared  inevitable, 
and  it  was  a  piece  of  good  fortune  that  Baasha  was  able  to 
obtain  the  former. 

When  the  king  of  Israel  had  thus,  as  he  hoped,  secured 
himself  from  the  attack  of  an  encroaching  neighbour,  he  com- 
menced more  active  operations  against  the  house  of  Judah 
than  either  of  his  predecessors.  It  is  possible  that  Israel  now 
recovered  whatever  small  losses  had  been  incurred  by  the  at- 
tacks of  Abijam,  and  by  confirming  its  predominance  over  the 
northern  cities  of  Philistia,  justified  the  general  feeling  that 
(what  was  called)  the  tribe  of  Dan  formed  part  of  the  Israel- 
itish  territory.  But  no  other  details  of  this  war  have  been 
deemed  worthy  of  preservation,  than  one  of  such  critical  im- 
portance, that  all  the  rest  vanished  in  comparison  with  it. 
Baasha  indeed  must  already  have  had  encouraging  success,  or 
must  have  possessed  unusual  military  enterprise,  to  adopt  so 
bold  a  policy1.  The  town  of  Raman  lay  about  six  miles  to 
the  north  of  Jerusalem,  on  the  way  to  Bethel,  and  in  the 
heart  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  It  is  situated  on  a  hill,  and 
looks  down  upon  Gibeah  of  Saul  on  its  east.  This  spot 
Baasha  occupied  and  began  to  fortify2 ;  by  means  of  which  he 
would  have  been  able  to  intercept  communications  from  all 
the  richest  part  of  Benjamin  to  Jerusalem,  and  at  every  mo- 
ment threaten  the  capital  of  his  enemy  with  surprize.  Asa 
could  not  fail  to  be  at  once  sensible  of  the  danger  constantly 
impending  from  such  a  fortress3,  and  resolved  at  any  price  to 

1  Asa,  according  to  the  credulous  Chronicler,  had  an  army  of  300,000  heavy 
armed  troops,  and  280,000  light-armed  (2  Chr.  xiv.  8),  "  all  mighty  men  of 
valour." 

2  The  Chronicler  (2  Chr.  xv.  19,  xvi.  1)  commits  the  extraordinary  error  of 
stating  that  Asa  had  no  more  war  down  to  the  35th  year  of  his  reign,  but  that 
in  the  36th  year  Baasha  fortified  Ramah  against  him.    But  Baasha  was  already 
dead  in  Asa's  26th  year.     Some  therefore  wish  to  alter  the  text;  but  an  arbi- 
trary and  double  change  is  then  needed.     It  is  clear  from  the  book  of  Kings, 
that  Baasha  was  in  continual  war  against  Asa,  until  all  was  wound  up  by  the 
affair  of  Eamah ;  but  the  Chronicler,  who  disapproves  of  Asa's  alliance  with 
Benhadad,  tries  to  thrust  it  off  to  the  end  of  his  life,  in  order  to  give  him  a  long 
period  of  purity  and  glory ;  and  into  this  early  part  he  then  interpolates  a  ficti- 
tious invasion  by  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  with  a  million  men. 

3  Such  a  castle  was  what  the  Greeks  called  an  ^7riTei'xt<r/za,  or  offensive  for- 
tress, like  that  of  Deceleia  in  Attica,  or  Pylos  in  Messenia  during  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  war.    Arnold  often  comments  on  this  mode  of  warfare  in  his  Thucydides 
and  elsewhere.     See  also  Thirlwall's  Greece,  passim. 

H3 


154  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

free  himself  from  it.  Perhaps  he  had  already  had  experience 
of  his  adversary's  superior  military  talents  or  greater  force 
(although  our  partial  historians  are  here  silent)  ;  for  he  did 
not  venture  on  a  direct  attack  until  he  had  betaken  himself 
to  a  measure  which  must  have  been  adopted  very  unwillingly. 
He  sent  an  embassy  to  Benhadad  king  of  Syria,  entreating 
him  to  break  his  league  with  Baasha  and  attack  the  kingdom 
of  Israel :  and  as  an  inducement  to  so  discreditable  a  deed, 
presented  him  with  all  the  silver  and  gold,  whether  in  the 
form  of  treasure  or  of  vessels,  which  he  could  command ; 
sparing  neither  the  precious  articles  of  his  own  palace,  nor 
the  offerings  dedicated  by  himself  and  by  his  father  to  the 
house  of  Jehovah.  Undoubtedly  Asa,  like  all  ancient  kings 
and  states  so  situated,  argued  with  himself,  that  if  he  spared 
the  treasure,  his  victorious  enemy  would  not ;  while  if  he  sur- 
vived the  war,  he  would  be  able  to  replace  it  with  interest1. 
His  message  to  Benhadad  softens  the  violence  of  his  proposal, 
by  asserting  or  implying  that  there  had  been  a  league  be- 
tween their  two  fathers ;  a  fact  of  which  nothing  appears.  It 
is  however  credible,  that  Abijam  had  sought  the  alliance  of 
Tabrimon,  though  no  result,  beyond  compliment,  came  of  it. 
The  ambassadors  of  Asa  would  probably  magnify  to  Benhadad 
the  wickedness,  ambition  and  power  of  Baasha,  so  as  to  fur- 
nish the  Syrian  prince  with  some  pretext  of  conscience  for 
now  adopting  the  course  which  interest  and  ambition  sug- 
gested. Nor  were  they  unsuccessful.  Benhadad  accepted 
the  bribe  from  one  king,  and  sent  his  generals  to  despoil  the 
other.  Ijon,  Dan,  and  Abel-beth-maachah  are  named  among 
the  Israelitish  cities  which  they  captured  or  plundered,  besides 
"all  Cinneroth  (or  the  country  of  the  sea  of  Galilee),  and  all 
the  land  of  Naphthali."  Assailed  by  so  powerful  an  enemy 
on  the  north,  Baasha  was  forced  to  draw  off  his  attention 
from  the  south.  Asa  then,  profiting  by  the  important  mo- 
ment, made  a  general  proclamation  through  his  dominions, 
to  assemble  the  able-bodied  population  in  mass ;  who  made  a 

1  We  not  only  have  no  ground  to  suppose  that  his  contemporaries  or  succes- 
sors disapproved  of  Asa's  conduct,  but  it  is  not  censured  in  the  book  of  Kings. 
Only  the  Levitical  Chronicler  thinks  it  necessary  to  make  a  prophet  rebuke  him, 
and  Asa  then  so  angry  as  to  imprison  him.  The  prophet  is  made  to  declare, 
from  henceforth  thou  shalt  have  wars,  which  appears  the  reverse  of  truth  ;  for 
hitherto  he  had  had  war,  but  henceforth  he  enjoys  quiet,  and  suffers  nothing 
but  the  gout  in  his  old  age ;  finally  the  Chronicler  reproves  him  because  he 
consulted  physicians  and  not  Jehovah :  that  is,  "  and  not  the  priests." 


155 

universal  rush  against  the  fortress  of  Raman.  Its  fortifica- 
tions seem  to  have  been  not  quite  complete,  or  its  garrison 
retired  through  fear;  and  the  men  of  Judah  without  delay 
demolished  every  part,  and  carried  off  the  very  materials  of 
stone  and  timber.  With  these,  Asa  now  fortified  the  little 
towns  of  Mizpah  and  Geba  on  his  frontier.  The  site  of  the 
latter  is  uncertain,  but  we  know  that  it  is  a  theoretic  northern 
extremity  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  as  Beersheba  is  the 
southern  point :  there  is  however  reason  to  think  it  north  of 
Bethel,  and  in  the  actual  dominions  of  Baasha. 

No  further  account  is  given  of  the  reign  of  Asa.  We  are 
only  told  vaguely  ' '  of  his  acts,  and  his  might,  and  the  cities 
which  he  fortified."  But  as  he  survived  Baasha  fifteen  years, 
and  no  more  war  with  Israel  is  mentioned1,  we  may  assume 
that  it  was  a  time  of  peace.  Indeed  the  internal  convulsions 
which  the  northern  kingdom  speedily  underwent,  changed 
the  whole  policy  of  the  house  of  Judah.  It  became  manifest, 
that  no  longer  Israel,  but  Syria,  was  the  enemy  to  be  dreaded, 
and  that  it  was  requisite  for  Judah  to  strengthen  Israel,  lest 
Syria  should  swallow  up  both.  That  the  latter  part  of  A.sa's 
reign  was  one  of  repose  and  security,  may  be  probably  in- 
ferred from  the  great  increase  of  strength  which  we  discern 
in  Judaea  in  the  early  years  of  his  son's  reign.  His  destruc- 
tion of  heathenish  and  impure  rites  may  for  the  time  have 
caused  disaffection  in  one  party  as  well  as  have  excited  enthu- 
siasm in  the  other;  but  after  the  generation  had  passed  by 
which  remembered  and  regretted  these  evil  orgies,  a  more 
entire  unanimity  probably  existed,  and  the  throne  of  David 
had  a  stronger  support  in  the  heart  of  a  united  and  flourish- 
ing people,  than  it  had  known  since  the  early  days  of  Solo- 
mon. The  house  and  family  of  Asa  was  in  favourable  con- 
trast to  that  of  his  predecessors.  The  numerous  wives  of 
Abijam,  as  well  as  of  Kehoboam  and  Solomon,  are  markedly 
commented  on;  as  therefore  nothing  of  the  kind  is  dropt 
concerning  Asa,  who  in  fact  (as  far  as  we  know)  had  but  one 
son,  we  could  almost  believe  that  he  respected  the  sanctity  of 
woman,  and  contented  himself  with  his  wife  Azubah.  At  any 

1  The  Chronicler  alludes  to  "  cities  of  Ephraim  which  Asa  had  taken,"  2  Chr. 
xvii.  2  ;  but  that  is  likely  to  have  been,  if  correct,  in  the  time  of  Baasha.  The 
book  of  Kings  also  says  that  "  Jehoshaphat  made  peace  with  Israel"  (1  "Kings 
xxii.  44) ;  but  this,  in  the  connexion  of  that  fragmentary  summary,  seems  to 
mean  made  alliance ;  and  does  not  imply  that  Asa  had  active  war  with  Omri 
and  Ahab, 


156  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

rate,  a  decided  check  seems  to  have  been  given  to  the  extra- 
vagant abuse  of  polygamy.  Asa  died1  after  a  reign  of  forty- 
one  years,  leaving  his  kingdom  to  his  son  JEHOSHAPHAT,  then 
thirty-five  years  old. 

We  return  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  energetic  and 
warlike  Baasha  could  not  make  the  prophets  forget  the  crime 
by  which  he  had  attained  his  kingdom ;  but  the  dread  of  his 
power  and  vehemence  perhaps  suppressed,  during  his  life,  any 
direct  remonstrance.  After  he  had  been  forced  to  abandon 
Raman  by  the  attack  of  Benhadad,  no  details  of  his  war  are 
given  us ;  but  it  is  clear  that  he  was  enabled  to  patch  up  a 
peace,  though  perhaps  at  the  cost  of  the  towns  already  cap- 
tured :  for  we  presently  find  his  son  so  far  freed  from  fear 
of  Syria,  as  to  resume  offensive  operations  in  Philistia.  Of 
Baasha  no  more  is  recorded,  than  that  he  died  in  the  twenty- 
fourth  year  of  his  reign,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son 

ELAH2. 

This  Elah,  to  judge  by  the  slight  but  emphatic  notice  of 
him,  was  addicted  to  voluptuous  excesses.  Instead  of  heading 
his  armies  in  person,  as  his  father  and  all  the  kings  of  this 
age,  he  sent  Omri,  captain  of  his  host,  to  conduct  the  siege  of 
Gibbethon,  from  which  the  Israelites  had  retired  some  twenty- 
five  years  before,  in  consequence  of  the  murder  of  their  king. 
Elah  himself  remained  at  Tirzah,  indulging  his  luxurious  in- 
clinations. His  despicable  character  seems  to  have  stimu- 
lated the  prophet  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani3,  to  a  vehement 
and  public  denunciation  of  Baasha  and  his  guilty  house,  which 
he  declared  by  the  word  of  Jehovah  should  be  utterly  cut  off 
and  destroyed.  Nor  was  it  long  before  his  words  were  ve- 
rified. ZIMRI,  captain  of  half  the  chariots, — whether  aware 
of  the  prophecy  or  not, — while  Elah  was  at  a  drunken  ban- 
quet in  the  house  of  his  high  steward  at  Tirzah,  slew  him  and 
assumed  the  royal  station.  Without  a  moment's  delay,  he 
took  advantage  of  his  position  at  the  royal  palace  to  seize  and 

1  B.C.  894.  2  B.C.  909. 

8  1  Kings,  xvi.  1-5,  7,  12. — The  position  of  v.  7  implies  a  denunciation  ut- 
tered after  Baasha' s  death  :  the  incoherence  however  of  the  narrative  makes 
the  time  doubtful.  Altogether,  since  the  compiler  wrote  in  much  later  tune, 
with  full  knowledge  of  the  results,  these  prophecies  become  very  doubtful, 
even  when  recorded  in  the  book  of  Kings.  Jehu,  full  forty  years  later  than 
this,  compiled  the  life  of  Jehoshaphat.  He  may  seem  to  have  been  too  young 
to  act  in  the  lifetime  of  Baasha  and  Elah. 


MASSACRE    OF    THE    HOUSE    OF    BAASHA.  157 

murder  every  living  relative  of  his  late  lord,  and  left  the  house 
of  Baasha  utterly  desolate1. 

But  the  army  at  Gibbethon,  on  hearing  the  tidings,  was 
indignant  that  the  kingdom  should  be  thus  seized  behind 
their  back  by  a  traitorous  and  inferior  officer ;  and  forthwith, 
in  the  midst  of  the  camp,  they  by  acclamation  raised  to  the 
throne  their  own  general  OMRI  ;  on  whom  the  acceptable  duty 
immediately  devolved  of  revenging  his  slaughtered  master. 
Once  more  was  Gibbethon  saved  from  Israelitish  attack  by  the 
murder  of  a  king ;  for  Omri,  without  delay,  broke  up  his  camp 
and  marched  straight  back  to  Tirzah,  where  he  besieged  Zimri 
with  very  superior  force.  Into  the  city  of  Tirzah  he  soon 
forced  his  way;  whereupon  Zimri  retired  into  the  palace, 
which  is  likely  to  have  been  a  citadel  to  the  town ;  but  finding 
escape  impossible  and  his  case  desperate,  he  burned  the  palace 
over  his  head,  and  perished  in  the  conflagration,  only  seven 
days  after  his  ruthless  murders. 

Great  as  are  the  evils  which  the  perversion  of  the  idea  of 
Legitimacy  has  brought  on  modern  Europe,  they  are  deci- 
dedly less  than  result  from  the  extirpation  of  royal  houses 
in  a  country  destitute  of  constitutional  organization,  These 
promiscuous  massacres  left  to  Israel  nothing  around  which 
they  might  rally.  A  section  of  the  nation  was  averse  to 
Omri,  or  disliked  the  precedent  of  the  army  electing  a  sove- 
reign. In  consequence,  a  strong  party  favoured  the  preten- 
sions of  TIBNI,  son  of  Ginath,  to  the  crown.  Of  this  person 
nothing  is  known,  save  that  for  four  years  he  continued  the 
contest  with  Omri.  In  some  civil  wars  a  principle  is  in- 
volved, and  a  result  of  permanent  importance  is  at  last  pur- 
chased, if  dearly.  But  unhappy  Israel  suffered  to  no  purpose, 
except  to  the  aggrandizement  of  Damascus,  until  at  length 
Tibni  was  overpowered  and  slain,  and  Omri  left  sole  claimant 
of  the  throne2. 

1  B.C.  908.  3  B.  c.  904. 


158 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  HOUSE  OF  OMBJ,  B.C.  904-864. 

OMRI,  though  founder  of  a  new  dynasty,  ascended  the  throne, 
like  Jeroboam,  without  crime.  If  Zimri  had  been  less  bloody, 
and  had  left  alive  any  of  the  sons  or  grandsons  of  Baasha,  the 
character  of  Omri  might  have  come  down  to  us  less  unstained; 
but  by  his  war  against  Zimri  he  gained  only  credit,  and  for 
his  civil  conflict  with  Tibni,  however  disastrous  to  the  nation, 
it  was  difficult  to  blame  him.  The  centre  of  his  power  was 
at  first  at  Tirzah1,  but  when  his  competitor  had  been  re- 
moved, he  determined  to  found  a  new  capital.  Tirzah  had 
originally  been  selected  only  as  a  pleasant  abode.  The  ease 
with  which  Omri  had  himself  stormed  the  city  may  have  dis- 
inclined him  to  trust  it  for  the  future ;  and  as  the  palace  had 
been  burnt,  there  was  perhaps  less  to  lose  by  removal.  He 
accordingly  selected  a  hill  suitable  for  a  new  city,  and  pur- 
chased it  of  its  owner,  a  man  named  Shemer;  from  whom 
the  place  was  called  Shimron,  or  in  its  Greek  modification, 
Samaria.  The  judicious  choice  of  Omri  is  attested  by  the 
lasting  importance  of  this  celebrated  city,  which  is  regarded 
as  having  great  advantage,  even  over  Jerusalem,  in  strength, 
as  well  as  in  fertility  and  beauty.  From  the  accounts  of  mo- 
dern travellers,  the  following  careful  picture  of  the  site  has 
been  compiled,  by  one  who  has  laboured  meritoriously  on  the 
geography  of  Palestine2: — "  The  hill  of  Samaria  is  an  oblong 
mountain  of  considerable  elevation  and  very  regular  in  form, 
situated  in  the  midst  of  a  broad  deep  valley,  the  continuation 
of  that  of  Shechem,  which  here  expands  into  five  or  six  miles. 
Beyond  this  valley,  which  completely  isolates  the  hill,  the 
mountains  rise  again  on  every  side,  forming  a  complete  wall 
around  the  city.  They  are  terraced  to  the  tops,  sown  in  grain, 
and  planted  with  olives  and  figs The  hill  of  Samaria 

1  We  have  not  a  hint  where  the  chief  strength  of  Tibni  lay.     It  may  have 
been  in  the  tribes  beyond  Jordan. 

2  From  the  pen  of  Dr.  Kitto,  art.  Samaria,  in  his  Biblical  Cyclopaedia. 


BUILDING    OF    SAMARIA.  159 

itself  is  cultivated  from  its  base,  the  terraced  sides  and  sum- 
mits being  covered  with  corn  and  with  olive-trees.  About 
midway  up  the  ascent,  the  hill  is  surrounded  by  a  narrow  ter- 
race of  level  land,  like  a  belt ;  below  which,  the  roots  of  the 
hill  spread  off  more  gradually  into^the  valleys.  Higher  up 
too  are  the  marks  of  slight  terraces,  once  occupied  perhaps  by 
the  streets  of  the  ancient  city.  The  ascent  of  the  hill  is  very 
steep."  We  may  add  that  it  is  a  little  to  the  north  of  She- 
chem  and  of  Mount  Ebal.  Samaria  was  the  principal  or  sole 
work  of  Omri's  reign ;  a  durable  and  splendid  monument  which 
he  bequeathed  to  a  distant  posterity. 

He  may  have  been  moved  to  this  great  undertaking  by  mi- 
litary motives  not  indicated  to  us.  The  king  of  Syria  appears 
not  to  have  been  slow  to  discover  the  weakness  which  civil 
contention  entailed  on  Israel,  and  pressed  severely  upon  the  new 
ruler.  Considering  that  the  Benhadad  who  attacked  Baasha 
took  from  him  the  towns  of  Dan,  Ijon  and  Abel-beth-maachah, 
we  may  probably  infer  that  the  military  object  of  the  Syrians 
in  this  stage  of  their  progress  had  been  to  possess  themselves 
of  all  the  towns  which  commanded  the  passes  from  Hollow 
Syria  and  the  proper  land  of  Damascus  into  the  Israelitish 
territory.  Omri  had  not  the  advantage  of  such  a  frontier  on 
the  north  as  Judsea  had  on  the  south :  and  it  would  appear 
that  he  was  forced  to  submit  to  high  claims  on  the  part  of 
Benhadad.  We  learn  incidentally  that  the  latter  took  va- 
rious cities  from  Omri,  and  forced  him  to  assign  streets  in  Sa- 
maria for  his  use1.  In  fact,  the  king  of  Israel  was  now  open 
to  invasion  at  any  time  convenient  to  his  powerful  rival,  and 
appeared  likely  before  long  to  become  a  mere  vassal  of  Da- 
mascus. Omri  accordingly,  to  save  himself  and  his  people, 
sought  alliance  with  the  Phoenicians. 

Immediately  on  becoming  sole  king  of  Israel,  he  obtained 

1  (1  Kings  xx.  34  :)  Either  for  trade  or  for  the  residence  of  the  Syrian  repre- 
sentative, who  would  more  or  less  control  Ahab's  conduct.  So  the  English 
make  native  princes  in  India  accept  a  British  resident,  and  have  demanded 
"  English  streets"  in  Canton. 

The  king  of  Syria  who  attacked  Omri  is  father  of  the  Benhadad  who  assaults 
Ahab,  and  is  generally  regarded  as  identical  with  the  Benhadad  who  took  the 
frontier  towns  from  Baasha.  The  chronology  however  rather  countenances  the 
idea  that  the  first  Benhadad  is  grandfather  to  the  second,  and  that  the  antagonist 
of  Omri  is  an  intermediate  prince,  possibly  not  named  Benhadad,  but  Tabrimon, 
Rezon,  or  some  other  name  of  that  dynasty.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been 

sual  for  a  king  to  bear  the  name  of  his  immediate  father. 


160  THE  HEBREW  MONARCHY. 

the  hand  of  JEZEBEL^  daughter  of  Ethbaal  king  of  Sidon  and 
of  Tyre,  for  his  young  son  Ahab.  Let  not  those  who  know 
the  after-career  of  this  notorious  woman,  be  too  quick  to  cen- 
sure Omri  for  what  he  could  not  foresee.  Indeed  the  position 
of  the  princes  of  this  northern  kingdom,  in  contact  with  an 
ambitious,  advancing  and  overpowering  neighbour,  was  pecu- 
liarly difficult.  There  were  two  things  which  wisdom  would 
exhort  them  to  maintain ;  the  pure  faith  of  the  nation,  and 
its  independent  existence.  The  latter  appeared  a  condition 
indispensable  to  the  former ;  and  if  intrinsically  of  less  value, 
yet  was  certainly  that  which  was  felt  more  peculiarly  to  be 
under  the  care  of  the  kings.  One  object  however  was  perpe- 
tually interfering  with  the  other.  When  in  danger  of  losing 
their  national  monotheism  with  their  nationality  itself,  to 
remain  isolated  was  to  court  destruction ;  yet  to  form  allian- 
ces with  heathen  powers,  was  to  risk  alloying  their  religious 
superiority ; — a  superiority  which  we  believe  to  have  been  real, 
however  much  it  may  have  been  exaggerated  by  unwise  par- 
tizanship.  It  is  much  easier  for  a  prophet  or  a  divine  to  say, 
that  by  disowning  human  alliances  and  trusting  in  Jehovah, 
the  nation  would  have  been  saved ;  than  for  a  king  or  states- 
man, on  whom  the  responsibility  rests,  to  act  on  such  a 
theory :  and  to  inveigh  against  Omri  and  Ahab,  is  too  much 
in  writers2  who  cannot  spare  a  word  of  censure  for  Solomon' s 
gratuitous  heathen  marriages  and  heathen  abominations.  Of 
Omri  there  is  no  more  known  than  that  he  died  B.C.  897,  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  son. 

AHAB  appears  to  have  been  rather  a  weak  than  a  wicked 
man.  His  evil  name  has  been  chiefly  earned  for  him  by  his 
wife  Jezebel ;  and  he  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  responsible 
for  the  marriage  which  his  father  contracted  for  him.  It  was 
impossible  to  cement  his  alliance  with  Tyre  and  Sidon  without 
tolerating  the  superstitions  in  which  the  daughter  of  Ethbaal 
had  been  reared ;  and  the  immediate  result  of  tolerating  them, 
was  to  arouse  against  himself  the  whole  influence  of  the  pro- 
phets of  Israel.  Solomon's  son  and  grandson  had  indeed 
done  as  much  as  Ahab,  and  still  more,  without  encountering 

1  Ahaziah,  king  of  Judah,  grandson  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  was  twenty- two 
years  old  in  the  year  865.    He  was  therefore  born  in  887.    Allowing  his  mother 
Athaliah  to  have  been  only  sixteen  at  his  birth,  Jezebel's  marriage  cannot  well 
have  been  later  than  B.C.  904,  which  is  the  year  of  Omri  becoming  sole  king. 

2  The  compilers  of  the  Chronicles. 


PHOENICIAN    WORSHIP    IN    ISRAEL.  161 

the  same  opposition;  but  under  Solomon  the  prophetical 
schools  had  not  at  all  attained  the  same  growth,  nor  the  same 
exclusive  power  over  the  people,  as  now  in  Israel :  after  Solo- 
mon,, in  Judaea,  it  is  probable  that  they  had  been  greatly  dis- 
couraged by  the  results  of  Ahijah's  interference,  which  can 
have  been  in  no  respect  advantageous,  in  the  estimate  of  either 
prophet  or  priest.  As  we  now  read  the  tale  in  the  books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  the  monotonous  condemnation  passed 
on  Jeroboam  and  all  his  successors  is  apt  to  blind  us  to  the  fact, 
that  in  spite  of  the  predictions  ascribed  to  Ahijah  and  Jehu  son 
of  Hanani,  no  real  and  vehement  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
prophets  against  the  throne  began  in  Israel  before  the  reign 
of  Ahab.  And  with  good  reason.  For  previous  kings  of  this 
branch  had  avowed  support  to  no  religious  rites  but  those  of 
Jehovah.  They  had  sanctioned  worshipping  him  by  emblems, 
but  so  did  orthodox1  prophets  and  priests  of  those  days :  they 
neglected  the  Levites  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  at  that  time  the  Le- 
vites  seem  not  yet  to  have  been  a  race  or  caste  of  men,  but  only 
a  very  humble  profession.  These  kings  had  not  denied  the  cha- 
racter of  Jehovah  by  ascribing  to  him,  and  annexing  to  his  wor- 
ship, immorality  and  cruelty ;  nor  had  they  given  honour  even 
to  the  name  of  a  strange  god.  A  totally  new  thrill  of  horror 
passed  through  the  bosoms  of  true  Israelites  when  Jezebel 
brought  in  the  obscene  rites  of  Baal  and  Astarte2,  with  the 
tumultuous  fanaticism  of  her  priests ;  and  the  universal  oppo- 
sition which  thereupon  arose  from  the  prophets  of  Jehovah 
presently  made  her  their  inveterate  and  dangerous  enemy. 

If  we  give  the  least  credit  to  the  hostile  historian,  we  can- 
not refuse  to  admit  that  Jezebel,  in  the  course  of  her  feud 
with  the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  became  a  fierce  and  cruel 
woman;  yet,  rightly  to  appreciate  her  character,  we  must 
remember  that  they,  on  their  part,  did  undoubtedly  consider 
it  a  meritorious  act,  to  kill  the  priests  of  Baal :  and  a  remark- 
able legend  extols  the  piety  of  the  great  Elijah,  who  on  an 
eminent  occasion  instigated  the  people  to  seize  and  massacre 

1 1  have  already  referred  to  the  Teraphim  and  Cherubim  in  proof. 

2  It  is  believed  that  Baal  and  Astarte  were  originally  personifications  of  the 
sun  and  moon.  Baal  (lord)  is  also  probably  identified  with  Molech  (king).  The 
Hebrew  writers  use  the  latter  term  chiefly  of  the  god  of  the  Ammonites,  the 
former  of  the  Phrenician  god  ;  but  other  authorities  call  the  Tynan  and  Cartha- 
ginian god  Melcarth,  whose  name  and  bloody  worship  are  identified  with  those 
of  Molech. 


162  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

450  prophets  of  Baal  and  400  of  Astarte,  who  ate  at  JezebeFs 
table.  We  may  hesitate  to  believe  the  story  to  the  full,  since 
a  credulous  admiration  of  Elijah  would  lead  to  great  exagge- 
ration of  his  exploit :  yet  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  doubt 
that  these  prophets  deliberately  approved  of  slaying  the  priestly 
votaries  of  superstition,  or  that  Jezebel  had  a  clear  insight1 
into  this  side  of  their  principles.  With  her  therefore  it  was 
a  struggle  of  life  and  death.  To  judge  of  her  by  other  Pagans, 
she  would  have  tolerated  Jehovism,  if  it  would  have  tole- 
rated her ;  but  as  she  quite  understood  that  they  would  kill 
her  priests,  and  probably  herself  too,  whenever  they  had  the 
power,  she  pursued  them  with  implacable  enmity.  Being  a 
person  of  stronger  will  and  passions  than  her  husband,  she 
was  able  to  work  him  into  compliance  with  her  claims.  Hav- 
ing built  a  temple  to  Baal  in  Samaria,  with  a  high  altar,  and 
public  images  of  Baal  and  Astarte2,  he  in  his  own  person  per- 
formed worship  to  his  wife's  deities.  Nor  was  this  all ;  but 
yielding  into  her  own  hands  the  power  of  the  sword,  he  allowed 
her  to  chase  them  down  and  put  them  to  death. 

Now  commenced  the  Martyr  Age  of  the  prophets  in  Israel. 
As  they  had  multiplied  all  over  the  land,  there  were  many  to 
be  persecuted,  and  their  extermination  was  not  the  work  of  a 
day.  And  besides  the  natural  instinct  of  mercy,  they  were 
greatly  reverenced  by  numbers  of  the  people.  One  man  alone, 
by  name  Obadiah,  in  the  high  station  of  governor  of  the  house 
to  Ahab, —  (Mayor  of  the  Palace  might  have  been  his  title  in 
Europe), — is  stated  to  have  hidden  100  prophets  of  Jehovah 
from  the  rage  of  Jezebel,  and  to  have  maintained  them  secretly. 
This  cannot  have  been  an  exceptive  case ;  and  though  many 
were  slain,  it  is  probable  that  a  majority  were  concealed  and 
protected.  The  crisis  called  forth  two  great  prophets  in  suc- 
cession, Elijah  and  Elisha;  whose  adventures  and  exploits 
have  come  down  to  us  in  such  a  halo  of  romance,  not  unmin- 
gled  with  poetry  of  a  high  genius,  that  it  is  impossible  to  dis- 
entangle the  truth.  The  account  of  these  occupies  twice  as 
much  space  as  the  history  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel 
together,  from  the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  accession  of  Ahab ; 

1  A  critic  who  pretends  to  believe  that  the  Pentateuch  is  Mosaic,  replies,  that 
Jezebel  could  not  have  learned  that  Jehovism  was  intolerant,  until  after  Elijah's 
massacre  of  the  priests ! 

2  In  1  Kings,  xvi.  33,  as  in  many  other  places,  the  received  English  version 
following  the  LXX.  darkens  the  sense  by  rendering  Astarte  by  the  word  grove. 
See  2  Kings,  -gxiii.  6,  7,  for  a  strange  instance  of  the  absurdity  of  this. 


MIRACLES    OF    ELIJAH.  163 

but  as  their  deeds  are  nearly  all  prodigies,,  attested  to  us  only 
by  a  writing  compiled  three  centuries  after  these  events,  and 
having  no  bearing  that  can  be  traced  on  the  real  course  of 
the  history,  we  are  forced  to  pass  them  over  very  slightly. 
The  ascription  however  of  miraculous  powers  to  these  pro- 
phets is  a  notable  circumstance,  as  being  altogether  new  in 
Jewish  history.  To  find  anything  analogous,  we  must  run  back 
to  the  legendary  days  of  Moses.  One  general  inference  may 
be  drawn, — that  the  danger  and  importance  of  the  struggle 
worked  up  the  minds  of  Jehovah's  worshippers  into  a  high 
enthusiasm  and  intense  belief  of  his  present  energy  to  aid  his 
prophets.  The  after- tale  also  shows,  that,  here  as  elsewhere, 
persecution  made  its  victims  bigoted,  undiscriminating  and 
ruthless  in  their  turn. 

A  great  drought  endured  by  the  laud  at  this  period  for 
three  years  together  distressed  Ahab,  and  made  it  difficult  to 
find  fodder  for  the  beasts.  Elijah  was  believed  to  have  pre- 
dicted its  occurrence,  and  likewise  to  have  announced  its  ter- 
mination, having  on  each  occasion  met  Ahab  face  to  face. 
The  prophet  himself  was  miraculously  fed ;  first  by  ravens, 
who  bring  him  bread  and  flesh  morning  and  evening ;  after- 
wards, when  the  brook  at  which  he  drank  is  dried,  an  inex- 
haustible barrel  of  meal  and  cruise  of  oil1  are  shared  with  him 
by  a  widow  of  Zarephath,  a  Sidonian  town.  In  gratitude  for 
her  hospitality,  he  raises  her  child  from  the  dead  by  prayer 
to  Jehovah.  When  after  this  he  presents  himself  to  Ahab, 
the  king  (though  counting  him  an  enemy)  displays  no  personal 
rancour  against  him,  and  at  his  request  even  gathers  the  pro- 
phets of  Baal  and  Astarte  for  a  trial  of  miraculous  power 
against  Elijah.  The  issue  is  so  triumphant  to  him,  that  as  we 
have  stated,  he  is  enabled  to  massacre  the  950  misbelievers ; 
but  hereby  he  awakens  such  fierce  zeal  against  him  in  Jezebel 
that  he  is  forced  to  escape  for  his  life  into  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  whence  he  first  proceeds  to  Beersheba,  and,  then  sup- 
ported by  a  miraculous  cake  to  which  an  angel  points  him, 
travels  forty  days  and  forty  nights  till  he  reaches  the  awful 
solitude  of  Mount  Sinai.  From  hence  he  is  sent  back  with  a 
reproof,  and  with  a  secret  commission  to  choose  Elisha  as  his 
successor.  No  more  is  heard  of  him  during  the  reign  of 

1  This  miracle  is  reproduced  with  variation  in  the  story  of  Elisha,  who  also 
raises  from  the  dead  the  son  of  the  Shunamite  woman  who  had  fed  him : 
2  Kings,  iv. 


164  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Ahab.  But  AhaVs  successor,  enraged  at  a  hostile  message 
from  him,  sends  soldiers  to  arrest  him.  Two  companies  of 
fifty  men  with  their  officers  are  consumed  by  fire  from  heaven 
at  Elijah's  calling :  a  third  company  is  saved  only  by^  pious 
submission.  After  this,  Elijah  is  carried  up  to  heaven  by  a 
whirlwind  in  a  chariot  of  fire  with  horses  of  fire,  while  Elisha 
stands  wondering  and  sorrowing.  Yet,  later  still,  according 
to  the  Chronicler1,  Elijah  writes  a  threatening  letter  to  Je- 
horam,  second  son  of  Ahab. 

Our  narrative  passes  abruptly  from  the  religious  to  the 
temporal  affairs  of  Israel,  but  without  any  distinct  note  of 
time,  and  with  the  same  unhistorical  and  excited  spirit.  The 
great  topic  is  the  Syrian  war.  In  attempting  to  narrate  this, 
we  have  a  very  difficult  task;  because,  while  our  existing 
materials  cannot  be  thought  mere  romance  or  epical  inven- 
tion, they  are  yet  too  much  disfigured  by  obvious  exaggeration 
to  allow  of  our  accepting  the  details.  It  remains  for  us  to 
follow  the  invidious  and  rather  arbitrary  plan,  of  selecting 
those  prominent  facts  which  combine  well  with  the  entire 
course  of  the  history,  and  interpreting  what  is  left  doubtful 
by  the  geographical  and  military  necessities  of  the  case.  The 
Syrian  hero  is  BEN  HAD  AD,  apparently  grandson  of  the  Ben- 
hadad  who  assaulted  Baasha.  In  the  reign  of  Ahab  we  pre- 
sume he  must  have  been  young,  since  he  carries  on  an  in- 
veterate war  against  the  son  of  Ahab  also.  The  great  idea 
with  which  he  seems  to  have  been  long  possessed,  was,  to 
advance  directly  against  the  city  of  Samaria,  as  a  certain 
means  of  reducing  all  Israel :  perhaps  also  regarding  it  as 
having  been  specially  designed  by  its  founder  to  defy  the 
Syrian  power.  Nor  did  the  plan  of  warfare  appear  unwise, 
since  he  evidently  had  the  frontier  fortresses  in  his  hand,  which 
enabled  him  to  march  in  at  pleasure  with  very  superior  forces. 

The  campaigns  of  this  Benhadad  against  Israel  alone  are 
all  contained  in  a  narrative  evidently  of  the  same  tone  and 
genius,  which  we  can  scarcely  be  wrong  in  describing  as  a 
part  of  some  prophetical  story  of  the  Acts  of  Elisha,  trans- 
mitted for  a  while  orally  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets.  But 
there  is  one  campaign  in  which  the  king  of  Judah  is  joined, 

1  2  Chron.  xxi.  12.  This  was  after  the  revolt  of  the  Edomites,  v.  8 ;  which 
is  placed  after  the  ascent  of  Elijah  and  the  coming  of  his  spirit  on  Elisha : 
2  Kings,  iii.  10,  viii.  22.  For  this  inconsistency  however,  the  book  of  Kings  is 
not  chargeable ;  nor  indeed  is  the  Chronicler  inconsistent  with  himself;  for  he 
does  not  allude  to  the  ascension  of  Elijah. 


SYRIAN    CHARIOT    WARFARE.  165 

and  this  has  all  the  marks  of  more  sober  chronicling,  although 
not  without  slighter  improbabilities1 :  the  latter  document  may 
be  safely  referred  to  the  court  records  of  Jerusalem.  The 
difference  of  spirit  is  very  striking.  While  Israel  and  the 
prophets  have  the  war  to  themselves,  all  is  marvellous : — 
extreme  danger,  divine  interposition,  and  stupendous  victory, 
from  which  no  ultimate  results  are  derived :  but  when  the 
king  of  Judah  aids,  we  read  of  historical  battle  and  victory 
resting  with  Syria.  Having  warned  the  reader  of  the  nature 
of  our  materials,  we  resume  the  narrative. 

The  force  in  which  the  Syrians  at  present  most  trusted,  was 
that  of  war-chariots ;  and  in  plain  open  country  these  were 
highly  efficient,  ridiculous  as  they  are  apt  to  seem  to  us,  who 
are  accustomed  to  enclosed  fields  and  paved  high  roads.  Even 
over  the  rough  ground  of  ancient  Britain,  the  native  chariots 
offered  a  highly  respectable  opposition  to  the  veteran  infantry 
of  the  first  Roman  invader ;  and  it  is  evident  in  ancient  his- 
tory2, that  chariots  of  war  were  exceedingly  feared  until  dis- 
cipline and  tactics  among  foot-soldiery  reached  their  highest 
point.  The  Syrian  chariot  did  not,  like  that  of  the  Homeric 
Greek,  carry  a  single  hero  armed  with  sword  and  spear,  but, 
like  that  of  the  Egyptians,  one  or  more  archers,  perhaps  armed 
likewise  with  swords.  But  besides  the  efficacy  of  the  chariot 
in  actual  battle,  it  may  be  conjectured  to  have  served  for  the 
more  rapid  transport  of  infantry  on  march.  Uniting  solidity 
with  lightness,  lowness  and  breadth,  it  could  traverse  any 
country  which  was  not  enclosed, —  (and  in  Palestine  the  hedge 
and  ditch  were  undoubtedly  unknown3,) — and  might  possibly 
carry  several  infantry  soldiers  with  their  scanty  equipage,  as 
well  as  the  warriors  who  were  to  fight  from  it  in  the  battle. 
We  may  probably  conclude,  that  wherever  100  chariots  went, 
not  less  than  400  or  500  infantry  were  carried  likewise ;  who 
thus  might  traverse  in  one  day  a  two-days'  march,  and  at  the 
end  be  nearly  fresh  for  immediate  service.  By  help  of  the  chariot 

1  1  Kings,   xxii.     The  more  legendary  accounts   are  in  1  Kings,  xx.,  and 
2  Kings,  vi.  vii. 

2  According  to  Herodotus,  the  Garamantes  of  Africa  used  to  hunt  down  with 
four-horse  chariots  the  Troglodyte  Ethiopians,  the  most  swift-footed  of  men ; 
apparently  to  make  slaves  of  them. — Because  of  the  iron  chariots  of  the  Philis- 
tine district  (Judges,  i.  19),  the  men  of  Judah  could  not  succeed  on  the  plain, 
though  they  conquered  the  hill-country. 

3  The  sacredness  of  the  landmark  implies  this ;  besides,  the  ground  was  too 
precious,  and  estates  too  small . 


166  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

200  horses  might  thus  transport  600  men,  while  in  cavalry 
service  each  horse  carries  but  one  man.  If  there  be  any 
weight  in  these  considerations,  it  follows  that  against  a  large 
force  of  chariots  it  was  difficult  to  move  infantry  with  such  ra- 
pidity as  to  concentrate  them  against  the  attack  of  an  invader. 

Two  separate  campaigns  of  Benhadad  against  Ahab  in 
Samaria  are  reported  to  us.  In  the  former,  the  Syrians  drove 
in  with  overflowing  might,  as  it  were  sweeping  the  country 
before  them,  while  no  one  dared  to  oner  resistance.  But  they 
paused  at  no  inferior  town,  and  made  straight  on  for  Samaria. 
Ahab,  finding  himself  shut  up  by  very  superior  forces,  and  the 
resources  of  his  kingdom  cut  off,  was  terrified  into  the  offer 
of  absolute  surrender  and  vassalage;  but  (according  to  our 
only  authority)  Benhadad  sent  so  outrageous  a  message  as 
to  the  full  use  which  he  intended  to  make  of  this  surrender, 
that  Ahab  was  steeled  into  despair.  The  elders  of  Israel  to 
whom  he  appealed,  exhorted  him  to  firmness  and  vigour,  and 
the  prophets  came  forward  to  animate  Israel  and  the  king  to 
brave  and  faithful  resistance.  Ahab  indeed  personally  did 
not  deserve  favour  from  the  prophets;  but  they  could  not 
look  on  tamely,  and  see  Jehovah's  Israel  become  the  spoil  of 
the  stranger.  While  Benhadad  was  full  of  triumph  and  in- 
solence, banqueting  in  his  splendid  pavilion  with  the  thirty- 
two  vassal  kings  whom  he  had  brought  with  him1,  the  Israel- 
ites made  a  sudden  attack  on  a  part  of  his  chariot  force  which 
had  ventured  upon  rough  ground,  and  so  discomfited  it,  with 
danger  so  imminent  to  the  whole  host,  that  Benhadad,  rising 
from  his  banquet,  thought  nothing  better  than  to  mount  a 
fleet  horse  and  escape.  The  whole  army  poured  after  him 
and  got  away  with  as  much  haste  as  they  could,  and  no  doubt 
with  much  disorder  and  slaughter  of  the  hindmost. 

While  this  success  gave  great  additional  courage  to  th< 
Israelites, — who  might  now  remember  the  decisive  victorie 
of  David  over  the  chariots  and  horse  of  Hadadezer, — on  th( 
other  hand,  the  Syrians  did  not  find  reason  for  efecourage- 
ment.  They  imputed  their  loss  entirely  to  an  error  of  judg- 
ment, in  having  ventured  their  chariots  on  to  hilly  ground2  • 

1  This  may  seem  only  to  be  a  romantic  version  of  the  thirty-two  capto 
named  in  the  more  historical  account  of  1  Kings,  xxii.  31.     Not  but  that  Ben- 
hadad was  likely  to  have  vassal  kings  with  him. 

2  In  the  religious  phraseology  of  antiquity,  this  is  expressed  by  saying  that 
"  the  gods  of  Israel  are  gods  of  the  hills,  and  not  of  the  plains." 


SYRIAN    CAMPAIGNS    WEST    OF    JORDAN.  167 

and  the  captains  assured  the  king  that  by  avoiding  this  mis- 
management, they  should  conquer  Israel  in  another  campaign. 
Accordingly,  next  year  they  repeated  their  invasion,  and  en- 
tered the  country  as  far  as  the  town  of  Aphek,  which  seems 
to  have  been  on  the  broad  slope  of  Esdraelon.  If  this  is  the 
Aphek  intended,  the  Syrians,  to  avoid  hilly  districts,  must 
have  come  along  the  coast  near  the  Phoenicians,  and  would 
seem  to  have  entered  the  land  by  the  remarkable  defile 
through  which  the  river  Leontes  flows  down  from  the  lofty 
plain  of  Hollow  Syria.  This  time  however  the  spirit  of  the 
Israelites  was  very  different  from  what  it  had  been  in  the 
former  campaign.  The  national  pride  was  roused  by  self-con- 
fidence; and  while  the  Syrian  host  poured  over  the  plain, 
the  bands  of  Israel  kept  collecting  on  the  hills,  watching  and 
following  its  motions  for  six  days  together.  The  Syrians  were 
probably  so  resolved  not  again  to  venture  off  the  good  ground, 
that  they  could  not  take  full  advantage  of  their  own  numbers, 
and  prevent  their  army  from  getting  separated  into  portions, 
each  weaker  than  the  enemy.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Israel- 
ites made  a  brave  and  successful  attack,  by  which  (either  in 
the  battle,  or  in  the  town  of  Aphek  after  the  battle,)  the  person 
of  king  Benhadad  himself  fell  into  the  hands  of  Ahab. 

If  we  could  believe  our  authority,  we  should  now  state, 
that,  besides  the  great  slaughter  of  the  last  year's  army,  Ben- 
hadad this  year  lost  100,000  men  slain  in  one  day  on  the  open 
field  of  Esdraelon,  and  27,000  more,  crushed  to  death  by  the 
fall  of  a  wall  in  Aphek.  If  this  were  real  history,  disasters  so 
enormous,  besides  the  repeated  loss  of  a  most  luxurious  camp, 
would  have  shattered  the  entire  empire  of  Damascus.  Revolt 
in  all  parts  would  have  followed,  and  Israel  would  have  had 
no  more  danger  to  fear ;  just  as  it  afterwards  was,  when  the 
loss  of  a  single  great  army  broke  up  the  colossal  empire  of 
Assyria.  On  the  contrary,  the  very  next  notice  which  we 
have  of  this  kingdom  represents  it  in  a  formidable  and  vic- 
torious attitude  towards  Israel.  We  are  therefore  forced  to 
make  immense  deductions  from  the  account  transmitted  to  us. 
It  is  more  probable,  that  though  by  bravery  and  good  for- 
tune the  Israelites  had  captured  the  person  of  the  Syrian 
king,  the  greater  part  of  his  host  was  untouched  and  still 
dangerous.  If  Ahab  had  gratified  the  suggestions  of  anger 
and  revenge  by  slaying  his  foe,  a  new  king  might  have  been 
chosen  in  the  camp,  and  the  war  would  have  been  renewed. 


168  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

To  kill  the  king  was  as  it  were  to  set  the  king  free,  and  lose 
the  advantage  which  had  been  gained.  Besides,  the  temper 
of  Ahab  appears  to  have  been  yielding  and  amiable ;  as  want 
of  firmness  has  been  judged  his  chief  defect.  Accordingly, 
he  treated  the  captive  monarch  with  mnch  respect ;  entitling 
him  his  "  brother  Benhadad,"  and  inviting  him  to  sit  by  his 
side  in  his  own  chariot.  After  this,  he  made  a  treaty,  by 
which  Benhadad  bound  himself  to  restore  all  the  cities  of 
Israel,  which  he  held;  (hereby  disabling  himself  from  future 
invasion  by  the  same  route ;)  and  to  make  "  streets"  for  Ahab 
in  Damascus,  whether  for  the  purposes  of  commerce,  or  to 
natter  his  pride.  So  moderate  an  arrangement  kindled  the 
indignation  of  a  fanatical  Israelitish  prophet1,  who  severely 
rebuked  Ahab  for  having  "  let  go  a  man  whom  Jehovah  had 
appointed  for  utter  destruction."  Yet  the  king,  though  vexed, 
was  afraid  or  unwilling  to  show  resentment  against  the  un- 
deserved and  unseemly  invective. 

Benhadad  thus  withdrew  himself  and  (we  need  not  doubt) 
the  best  part  of  his  army,  unhurt,  and  faithfully  restored  the 
northern  towns ;  but  his  pride  was  deeply  engaged  to  recover 
his  lost  honour ;  for  which  he  next  chose  a  different  mode  of 
attack.  From  Damascus  southward  towards  the  Ammonites 
are  wide  and  open  plains,  on  which  the  eastern  tribes  of  Israel 
could  offer  no  effectual  resistance  to  a  Syrian  army.  The 
outlying  towns,  such  as  Astarosh  Karnaim,  were  perhaps 
already  in  Benhadad's  power,  if  indeed  he  had  not  subdued 
the  Ammonites,  who  in  these  times  are  not  heard  of  as  au 
independent  nation2.  Some  years  after  his  ill-success  west 
of  Jordan,  he  came  up  against  southern  Gilead,  and  possessed 
himself  of  the  important  town  of  Ramoth,  south  of  the  brook 
Jabbok.  From  this  post  he  could  at  any  time  cross  into  the 

1  The  prophet  bids  a  man  to  wound  him  ;  and  when  the  man  refuses,  declares 
that  a  lion  shall  kill  him  for  disobeying  the  voice  of  Jehovah  :  of  course  a  lion 
does  kill  him.     The  prophet  then  succeeds  in  getting  another  man  to  wound 
him ;  after  which  he  spreads  ashes  on  his  face,  and  goes  thus  wounded  and  dis- 
figured to  deliver  his  message  of  woe  to  the  king. 

If  Jehoram,  the  young  son  of  Ahab,  was  present  during  this  denunciation, 
he  must  afterwards  have  been  much  puzzled  when  Elisha  laid  down  to  him  the 
direct  contrary  principle,  and  a  much  more  humane  one — "  Wouldst  thou  smite 
those  whom  thou  hast  taken  captive  ?  Set  bread  and  water  before  them,  etc., 
etc. :"  2  Kings,  vi.  22. 

2  They  are  noticed  in  the  Chronicles  during  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (in  a 
passage  which  will  need  remark),  and  again  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  after  the 
power  of  Damascus  is  broken. 


BENHADAD    AT    RAMOTH    GILEAD.  169 

plain  of  the  Jordan,  and  even  make  a  sudden  attack  on 
Samaria,  as  well  as  on  the  eastern  tribes,  northward  or 
southward. 

The  western  bank  of  the  Jordan  was  in  itself  too  valuable 
to  leave  undefended,  and  had  by  this  posture  of  Benhadad 
become  a  sort  of  frontier  to  the  capital.  In  it  there  were  two 
considerable  cities,  Bethshean  and  Jericho;  the  former  un- 
doubtedly fortified :  but  the  latter  had  remained  without 
walls  from  an  early  sera  until  the  days  of  Ahab.  For  defence 
against  the  Syrians  its  fortification  was  clearly  desirable  ;  and 
the  work  was  (probably  in  this  stage  of  the  war)  undertaken 
by  a  man  of  Bethel,  named  Hiel.  That  the  territory  was  re- 
garded as  Ahab's,  we  infer  from  the  mode  in  which  the  fact 
is  named1,  as  likewise  since  Bethel  was  in  AhaVs  kingdom2 ; 
while,  in  the  want  of  a  northern  frontier  to  the  plain  of 
Jericho,  we  cannot  wonder  if  Rehoboam  was  forced  to  sur- 
render this  highly  fertile  district  to  his  rival,  though  it  formed 
a  part  of  the  possessions  of  Benjamin.  Indeed  Bethel  and 
Jericho  are  on  another  occasion  coupled  together3  as  chief 
seats  of  'Israelitish  prophets  under  the  son  of  Ahab.  We  may 
gather  that  Hiel  undertook  the  fortification  from  his  own  re- 
sources, under  the  condition  that  he  was  to  be  hereditary 
governor  and  prince  of  Jericho.  He  fulfilled  his  task  suc- 
cessfully ;  but  a  great  domestic  calamity  befell  him.  The 
Indian  climate  of  Jericho  (it  seems)  was  fatal  to  all  his  chil- 
dren; of  whom  it  is  said,  that  the  eldest  died  when  the 
foundation  of  the  walls  was  laid,  and  the  youngest  when  the 
gates  were  set  up.  In  vain  had  he  spent  his  private  fortune 
in  the  work;  in  vain  might  Ahab  grant  him  an  hereditary 
princedom ;  when,  alas  !  there  were  no  heirs  to  enjoy  it.  Men 
then  called  to  mind  an  ancient  spell  ascribed  to  Joshua,  who, 
"  when  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  flat  before  the  blast  of  his 
trumpets,"  (as  some  old  poem  declared,)  pronounced  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah  this  very  curse  on  the  man  who  should  re- 
build the  walls  : — 

With  his  firstborn  shall  he  lay  the  foundation ; 
With  his  youngest  shall  he  set  up  the  gates. 

1  Hiel  is  said  to  fortify  Jericho  in  AJiaVs  days,  1  Kings,  xri.  34  j  not  in  Je- 
hoshcvphat 's  days. 

2  Gilgal  also,  in  the  time  of  the  prophet  Amos,  belonged  to  Israel ;  which 
seems  to  be  decisive. 

3  2  Kings,  ii.  3,  5. 

J 


170  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

However,  the  city  was  the  stronger  for  its  fortifications,  and 
Israel  now  needed  the  benefit;  for  king  Benhadad  beneath 
the  walls  of  Ramoth  could  look  down  on  the  whole  plain  of 
Jordan.  At  the  same  time,  Ahab  was  called  to  be  always  on 
the  alert,  to  defend  the  eastern  tribes  from  a  twofold  attack. 

But  a  great  change  of  feeling  and  of  policy  had  for  some 
time  passed  over  the  cabinet  of  JERUSALEM  ;  where  JEHO- 
SHAPHAT,  as  we  have  stated,  ascended  the  throne  in  the  vigour 
of  mature  manhood1.  Like  his  father  Asa,  he  was  a  strict 
worshipper  of  Jehovah,  and  exerted  himself  to  repress  every 
demoralizing  practice  which  sheltered  itself  under  the  forms 
of  heathen  religion :  yet  the  burning  of  incense  to  Jehovah 
at  the  high  places  he  steadily  upheld,  if  indeed  there  was 
as  yet  any  one  to  oppose  it.  Such  a  king  must  have  felt 
very  painfully  the  relentless  conflict  between  the  prophets 
of  Baal  and  Jehovah  which  was  for  awhile  going  on  in  the 
neighbouring  kingdom,  and  nothing  but  an  urgent  sense  of 
duty  and  necessity  would  be  likely  to  lead  him  into  close 
alliance  with  Ahab.  But  before  he  had  been  six  years  on  the 
throne,  he  became  thoroughly  convinced  that  to  support 
Israel  against  the  attacks  of  Syria  was  a  paramount  object, 
and  took  a  decisive  step2,  from  the  consequences  of  which  he 
never  flinched  through  all  the  rest  of  his  life.  He  united  his 
young  son  Jehoram3  in  marriage  to  the  equally  youthful 
Athaliah,  daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel4.  Perhaps  he  ima- 
gined that  a  maiden  of  the  tender  age  of  fifteen  could  import 
no  moral  evil  into  his  palace,  and  he  believed  it  a  duty  to 
cement  the  two  branches  of  the  house  of  Israel,  which  had 
been  made  unnaturally  hostile  with  results  so  calamitous  to 
both.  Jehoshaphat  was  still  more  respected  by  the  priests 
and  prophets  than  his  father  Asa,  and  the  determination  of 

1  B.C.  894. 

2  The  chronology  would  allow  us  to  believe,  that  one  object  which  Jehosha- 
phat bought  by  the  marriage  was  a  toleration  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  in 
Israel ;  for  we  have  no  proof  that  the  persecution  continued  after  that  time. 

3  As  Jehoram  is  thirty-two  years  old  when  he  is  said  to  come  to  the  throne 
and  reign  eight  years  (2  "Kings,  viii.  17),  he  dies  at  the  age  of  forty;  but  he  dies 
in  865  ;  therefore  he  is  only  seventeen  in  B.C.  888.     Now  his  son  Ahaziah  is 
twenty-two  at  his  accession  B.C.  865,  and  was  therefore  born  B.C.  887.     This 
gives  seventeen  as  the  age  of  Jehoram  at  his  marriage,  when  Athaliah  may  have 
been  fifteen. 

4  She  is  called  daughter  of  Omri,  2  Kings,  viii.  26.  2  Chron.  xxii.  2.     If  this 
were  accurate,  it  would  disturb  our  chronology.     But  2  Kings,  viii.  18,  induces 
everybody  to  explain  daughter  as  granddaughter. 


GREATNESS    OF    JEHOSHAPHAT.  171 

the  later  sacerdotal  party  to  make  him  one  of  their  great 
heroes,  has  thrown  a  false  light  over  his  whole  reign.  The 
account  of  him  given  in  the  Chronicles  is  evidently  to  so  great 
a  degree  an  ideal  picture,  that  it  is  unsafe  to  believe  anything 
on  that  testimony  alone.  Yet  the  scanty  facts  deposed  in  the 
other  record  justify  important  inferences.  His  predecessors, 
it  is  supposed,  had  succeeded  in  keeping  the  nominal  homage 
of  the  Edomites,  and  had  perhaps  been  able  to  enforce  the 
claim  to  give  them  kings  or  regulate  the  succession  to  the 
throne1.  Under  Jehoshaphat  however  this  remained  no  bar- 
ren ceremony  of  state :  before  half  his  reign  was  ended,  he 
even  fitted  out  a  fleet  on  the  Red  Sea,  and  prepared  for  a 
voyage  to  Ophir.  In  building  ships  at  so  distant  a  port,  and 
in  planning  such  a  voyage,  very  much  indeed  is  implied.  He 
must  have  held  so  complete  a  command  over  Idumsea,  as  to 
be  able  to  superintend  the  cutting  of  timber  in  Edomite 
forests  (which  do  not  seem  now  to  exist),  and  sending  all 
needful  supplies  to  the  harbours  of  Elath  and  Ezion  Geber. 
He  must  also  have  had  a  sufficient  command  of  the  Philistine 
sea-coast^  to  furnish  him  with  a  maritime  population  and 
experienced  shipbuilders ;  for  he  built  and  manned  his  fleet 
without  aid  from  the  king  of  Israel,  or  (as  far  as  we  can  learn) 
from  any  foreign  quarter.  Finally,  he  must  have  been  able  to 
provide  for  the  security  of  his  caravans  in  going  and  return- 
ing ;  and  must  have  had  a  large  disposable  surplus  of  light 
merchandize,  which  would  bear  the  expense  of  carriage  on 
camels'  backs  to  the  Red  Sea.  Even  in  our  older  compilation, 
the  tone  in  which  he  is  spoken  of  implies  a  military  greatness 
beyond  his  predecessors.  Out  of  such  substantial  realities, 
the  Chronicler  has  built  up  a  fabric  of  romance.  He  fur- 
nishes Jehoshaphat  with  an  army  of  1,160,000  disposable 
troops  under  four  great  generals,  "  to  wait  upon  the  king/' 
besides  the  garrisons  in  the  fenced  cities.  The  Philistines 
pay  him  tribute  of  silver,  and  the  Arabians  present  him  with 
7700  rams  and  7700  he-goats.  So  great  prosperity  must  have 
been  a  direct  reward  from  Jehovah  on  his  piety ;  hence  his 
piety  must  be  described  as  even  exceeding  that  of  David.  He 
gives  order  to  his  princes  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and 
sends  out  Levites  and  priests  with  the  BOOK  of  the  LAW,  who 
taught  the  people  everywhere.  But  as  half  of  this  tale  is  an 

1  It  is  not  certain  whether  the  statement  in  1  Kings,  xxii.  47,  as  to  the  vice- 
roy in  Edom,  applies  to  Jehoshaphat' s  reign  alone,  or  to  former  reigns  also. 


172  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

obvious  invention,  we  cannot  put  any  trust  in  the  rest,  which 
is  unknown  to  our  better  authority,  and  wholly  unparalleled 
and  uncountenanced  by  all  the  rest  of  the  history. 

In  the  present  day,  a  ravine  close  beneath  Jerusalem  itself 
is  called  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  but  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  name  was  so  applied  in  ancient  times.  Yet  it  is  generally 
supposed  that  there  was  a  valley  so  called1,  identical  with  that 
which  had  received  the  name  Berachah  or  Blessing,  because 
in  it  Jehoshaphat,  after  a  great  victory  over  the  Edomites  and 
other  allies,  there  offered  solemn  thanksgivings  to  Jehovah. 
The  name  (as  so  often  happens)  appears  to  have  generated  a 
legend  concerning  the  nature  of  the  victory,  which  however 
does  not  contain  a  single  circumstance  that  can  commend 
itself  as  historical2. 

While  the  chronicler's  accounts  of  Jehoshaphat  are  not 
admissible,  we  yet  cannot  doubt  that,  except  towards  the  end 
of  his  reign,  he  was  a  prosperous  prince,  and  that  the  wisdom 
with  which  he  followed  up  the  measures  of  his  father  was 
crowned  with  high  success.  One  or  other  of  the  two  had 
reduced  the  southern  cities  of  Philistia,  and  gained  access  to 
the  sea,  with  facilities  for  Mediterranean  navigation  and  com- 
merce, which  afterwards  suggested  to  renew  the  southern  voy- 
ages of  Solomon.  The  neighbouring  Arabians  felt  the  bene- 
fits of  traffic  with  him,  and  willingly  paid  him  homage,  and 
his  sway,  as  we  have  said,  became  real  and  vigorous  over  the 
Edomites.  In  about  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  year  of  his 
reign,  a  definite  proposal  was  made  to  him  by  Ahab  to  unite 
in  rescuing  Ramoth  in  Gilead  from  the  grasp  of  king  Ben- 
hadad.  Jehoshaphat  acceded  to  AhaVs  request  with  a  cordi- 
ality which  shows  that  he  looked  on  all  Israel  as  one  people, 
and  sincerely  desired  its  entire  union  and  joint  prosperity. 
Nevertheless,  it  might  be  wrong  to  think  his  conduct  disin- 
terested, which  might  indeed  lessen  our  idea  of  his  prudence ; 
rather,  for  the  sake  of  his  own  kingdom,  it  was  inevitable  for 
him  to  feel  the  greatest  anxiety  from  the  position  of  the  Syrian 
monarch  in  Gilead.  From  Ramoth  as  his  sallying-post,  Ben- 
hadad  was  almost  certain,  sooner  or  later,  to  subdue  the  east- 
ern tribes ;  and  by  crossing  the  Jordan  he  might  invade  Judah 
almost  as  easily  as  Israel.  Against  a  force  so  superior  and  so 

1  According  to  a  received  interpretation  of  Joel  iii. — But  it  seems  more  pro- 
bable that  the  name  in  Joel  is  mystical  and  not  geographical. 

2  See  Note  3,  p.  177. 


JOINT    WAR    OF    AHAB    AND    JEHOSHAPHAT.  173 

near,  if  once  allowed  to  root  itself  there,  neither  kingdom 
could  hope  permanently  to  stand ;  and  it  might  seem  the  part 
of  wisdom  to  act  with  an  enterprize  bordering  on  rashness, 
before  the  eastern  tribes  of  Israel  had  learned  submission  to 
a  Damascene  master. 

The  two  kings  accordingly  marched  in  company  against 
Ramoth,  and  found  the  Syrians  assembled  around  it  in  force 
so  great,  as  may  even  imply  that  they  were  on  the  point  of 
invading  Israel,  and  that  the  sole  question  had  been,  whether 
to  meet  them  across  the  Jordan,  or  to  receive  their  attack  in 
the  heart  of  Ephraim.  The  force  more  particularly  specified 
now,  as  on  other  occasions,  is  that  of  chariots,  over  which  the 
king  of  Syria  had  set  thirty-two  captains.  An  obstinate  battle 
was  fought,  and  lasted  till  the  sun  went  down ;  in  the  course 
of  which  Ahab  received  a  mortal  wound  with  an  arrow.  He 
died  in  the  evening ;  and  so  confessed  was  the  defeat  of  the 
Hebrews,  that  a  general  order  was  sent  through  their  bands 
for  each  man  to  save  himself  by  night,  as  he  best  could1. 
After  so  entire  a  failure,  we  might  have  imagined  that  the 
whole  territory  of  the  eastern  tribes  would  at  once  have  been 
lost  to  the  dominion  of  Samaria.  The  Syrians  however  must 
themselves  have  suffered  severely  in  so  hardly-contested  a 
field;  and  they  may  have  found  that  they  had  no  longer 
strength  to  spare  for  encountering  any  new  enterprize. 

Such  an  overthrow,  in  the  first  battle  fought  by  the  united 
kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  was  in  itself  memorable  and  disas- 
trous. The  moral  effect  on  the  surrounding  nations, — Edom, 
Moab,  Philistia, — was  a  severe  wound  to  the  Hebrew  supre- 
macy, which  now  appeared  finally  to  be  sinking  before  the 
star  of  Damascus.  It  was  made  still  more  impressive  on  the 
imagination  by  the  death  of  Ahab,  the  first  Hebrew  monarch 
since  Saul  who  had  been  slain  in  war.  In  consequence,  the 
event  has  been  transmitted  to  us  with  details  which  must  be 
received  with  caution  and  a  measure  of  distrust.  Benhadad 
is  said  to  have  ordered  his  men  to  neglect  all  other  objects  in 
comparison  with  that  of  killing  Ahab ;  which,  since  Ahab  is 
not  reported  to  us  to  be  anything  as  a  general,  savours  of  per- 
sonal enmity,  not  military  policy.  But  by  a  strange  coinci- 
dence, Ahab,  without  knowing  of  this  order,  disguises  himself 
in  a  common  garb,  but  persuades  Jehoshaphat  to  appear  in  his 

1  The  Chronicler  dissembles  the  disgraceful  rout  of  the  army,  as  indecorous 
to  Jehoshaphat ;  2  Chron.  xix.  1. 


174  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

usual  royal  robes ;  for  which  no  reason  whatever  is  assigned. 
Hence  Jehoshaphat  narrowly  escapes  being  slain,  as  the  Syri- 
ans mistake  him  for  Ahab.  The  death  of  Ahab  is  imputed  to 
a  chance-shot,  which  perhaps  only  means1  that  the  archer  was 
supposed  not  to  know  that  it  was  Ahab  at  whom  he  was  aim- 
ing. While  this  account  contains  nothing  impossible,  the 
coincidences  are  odd,  and  certainly  not  easy  to  receive  from 
an  unknown  compiler  distant  in  time  from  the  events. 

But  this  is  not  all.  That  so  pious  a  king  as  Jehoshaphat, 
and  one  previously  so  successful,  should  fall  into  such  a  cala- 
mity, needed  to  be  accounted  for.  Had  he  gone  forth  with- 
out consulting  Jehovah  by  Urim  ?  or  without  encouragement 
from  Jehovah's  prophets  ?  or  had  he  even  disobeyed  them  ? 
Our  narrative  undertakes  to  reply  to  these  questions,  and  yet 
in  fact  leaves  them  unsolved.  Jehoshaphat,  after  promising 
to  join  Ahab,  is  seized  with  scruples,  and  suggests  to  inquire 
of  Jehovah.  Ahab  produces  400  prophets,  who  reply  that 
Jehovah  shall  deliver  Ramoth  into  the  hand  of  the  two  kings. 
But  the  king  of  Judah  is  still  uneasy,  and  inquires  whether 
there  is  not  yet,  besides  these,  some  prophet  of  Jehovah.  Ahab 
confesses  that  there  is  one  more, — whom  he  does  not  like, — 
Micaiah,  son  of  Imlah ;  and  at  Jehoshaphat' s  request,  sends 
for  him.  Micaiah  strongly  forbids  the  expedition,  and  predicts 
the  worst  results  :  Ahab  is  incensed,  and  throws  him  into  pri- 
son. Yet  Jehoshaphat  goes  up  with  Ahab  against  Ramoth,  as 
if  uncertain  whether  the  single  prophet  or  the  four  hundred 
spoke  the  true  word  of  Jehovah2. 

There  are  nevertheless  in  this  account  some  points  of  theo- 
logical interest,  which  must  not  be  passed  over.  Micaiah  is 
the  only  prophet  of  Israel  (except  Hosea,  who  wrote  much 
later,  when  that  branch  of  the  nation  was  near  to  its  final 
ruin,)  of  whose  doctrine  we  have  any  characteristic  specimen. 
When  asked  whether  the  two  kings  shall  go  up  against  Ra- 
moth, he  first  replies,  "  I  saw  all  Israel  scattered  upon  the 
hills  as  sheep  that  have  not  a  shepherd  :  and  Jehovah  said, 
These  have  no  master :  let  them  return  every  man  to  his  house 

1  If  we  interpret  it,  that  the  archer  shot  at  random,  how  was  the  writer  to 
know  that  ? 

2  Among  the  earlier  Romans  we  see  distinctly  how  any  great  defeat  is  apt  to 
be  imputed  to  a  neglect  of  the  auspices.    Even  so  late  as  in  the  invasion  by  the 
Cimbri  and  Teutones,  they  ascribe  some  of  their  severest  losses  to  the  inconti- 
nence of  the  Vestal  Virgins,  who  are  tried  and  cruelly  killed  as  guilty  of  the 
public  disasters. 


DOCTRINE    OF    LYING    SPIRITS.  175 

When  Ahab  expressed  displeasure  at  this  rebuke 
of  his  indecisive  character,  Micaiah  resumed  his  address  :  "  I 
saw  Jehovah  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven 
standing  by  him  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his  left.  And  Je- 
hovah said,  Who  shall  persuade  Ahab,  that  he  may  go  up  and 
fall  at  Ramoth  of  Gilead.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and 
stood  before  Jehovah,  and  said,  I  will  persuade  him.  And 
Jehovah  said.  Wherewith  ?  And  he  said,  I  will  go  forth,  and 
be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  Je- 
hovah said,  Thou  shalt  persuade  him,  and  prevail  also :  go 
forth  and  so  do." 

It  is  quite  a  secondary  question  with  us  whether  these  words 
were  so  spoken,  then  and  there,  and  whether  such  a  prediction 
damped  the  hearts  of  the  Hebrew  soldiers  and  contributed 
to  their  defeat :  all  historical  reality  in  the  address  may  be 
doubted,  and  it  will  remain  not  the  less  certain  that  we  have 
here  a  faithful  view  of  the  belief  and  forms  of  imagination 
then  current  concerning  Jehovah's  throne  and  court.  These 
are  quite  in  harmony  with  the  representations  of  Isaiah  and 
of  the  later  prophets,  in  the  general  analogy  presumed  between 
the  externals  of  divine  and  human  sovereignty.  That  which 
is  here  peculiar  and  instructive  is  the  agency  of  lying  spirits 
under  Jehovah's  immediate  mission.  The  false  prophets  who 
mislead  Ahab  are  conceived  of,  probably,  as  in  some  sense 
guilty ;  yet  they  are  not  the  less  Jehovah's  prophets,  speaking 
by  the  direct  dictation  of  the  spirit  which  he  has  sent.  The 
Persian  doctrine  of  an  Evil  Spirit  in  avowed  conflict  with  the 
Good  God,  does  not  seem  yet  to  have  found  its  way  into  Is- 
rael. The  times  were  rude  enough  to  feel  no  impropriety  in 
the  God  of  Truth  working  out  his  own  ends  by  lying  minis- 
ters ;  and  the  ingenious  methods  by  which  a  later  philosophy 
sought  to  disentangle  its  own  web  were  unknown  and  unwished 
for.  At  the  same  time,  it  becomes  apparent  that  in  Israel  (as 
at  a  later  time  in  Judah),  when  the  prophets  were  admitted 
to  give  political  counsel,  their  influence  was  apt  to  be  neutra- 
lized by  one  another,  and  by  this  doctrine  of  "  lying  spirits." 

But  to  return  to  the  history.  The  position  of  the  Syrians 
in  Gilead  gave  them  the  undisputed  command  of  the  plains  of 
Moab  along  the  east  bank  of  the  Jordan,  down  to  its  junction 
with  the  Dead  Sea ;  and  by  thus  intercepting  all  communica- 
tion between  Israel  and  the  Moabites,  led  the  latter  to  disown 
their  homage  to  the  former.  The  annual  tribute  which  they 


176  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

had  paid  is  estimated  as  100,000  lambs  and  100,000  rams, 
with  the  wool,  which  was  of  course  withheld,  now  that  the  king 
of  Israel  could  not  fulfil  a  single  duty  of  a  sovereign.  AHAZIAH, 
eldest  son  of  Ahab,  succeeded  to  his  father1  on  a  weakened 
and  unenviable  throne. 

One  circumstance  alone,  of  political  interest,  is  casually 
named  as  happening  in  his  reign.  Jehoshaphat  had  recently 
been  making  his  great  experiment  of  renewing  the  navigation 
to  Ophir ;  but,  perhaps  through  want  of  skill  in  his  shipwrights 
or  sailors  (for  he  was  shut  up  to  the  narrow  coast  of  Philistia 
for  his  supply),  the  enterprize  failed,  the  fleet  being  shattered 
by  a  tempest  almost  before  quitting  its  harbour.  Ahaziah  ap- 
pears to  have  imputed  the  misfortune  to  want  of  seamanship ; 
for  he  immediately  proposed  to  send  on  the  next  voyage  sub- 
jects of  his  own,  who  occupied  a  sea-coast  of  five  times  the 
length,  and  had  a  far  greater  maritime  experience  than  any 
Hebrews  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  But  Jehoshaphat  was  too 
much  discouraged  to  repeat  the  experiment.  It  must  have 
been  exceedingly  costly,  and  he  was  no  doubt  already  con- 
vinced that  he  was  grasping  at  what  was  beyond  his  powers ; 
he  therefore  positively  declined  the  friendly  offer2. 

In  a  few  short  months  Ahaziah  met  with  an  accident  fatal 
in  its  result :  he  fell  out  of  an  upper  window  in  his  room  at 
Samaria.  Sympathizing  with  his  mother's  religion,  he  sent  to 
the  Philistine  town  of  Ekron  to  inquire  of  their  god3  whether 
he  should  recover.  For  this  impiety  he  was  believed  by  the 
prophets  of  Jehovah  to  have  died  shortly  after.  As  he  had  no 
son,  his  brother  JEHORAM  succeeded  him  in  the  next  year4. 

The  calamities  which  seemed  still  to  beset  Israel  were  not 
without  their  effect  on  the  new  king.  Jehoram  could  hardly 
avoid  imputing  them  to  the  evil  influence  of  Baal,  whose  wor- 
ship Ahab  had  introduced ;  and  (possibly  not  without  the  in- 
stigation of  the  monotheistic  Jehoshaphat)  he  took  the  decisive 
measure  of  removing  the  image  of  Baal  which  his  father  had 

1  B.C.  877. 

2  1  Kings,  xxii.  49.     It  is  extraordinary  to  see  how  broadly  the  Chronicler 
contradicts  this  account.    He  represents  that  Ahaziah's  men  had  been  on  board 
the  ships,  and  that  to  punish  this  alliance  with  so  wicked  a  man  as  Ahaziah, 
Jehovah  destroyed  the  fleet  by  a  tempest  (2  Chron.  xx.  35-37). 

The  writer  likewise  commits  the  blunder  of  supposing  that  ships  could  sail 
down  the  Red  Sea  to  Tarshish,  or  Tartessus,  in  Spain.  Tarshish  was  a  port 
much  frequented  by  the  Tyrians  ;  Jonah,  i.  3  ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  12. 

3  Whom  the  Hebrews  name  Baalzebub  (lord  of  flies). 
«  B.C.  876. 


COMBINED    WAR    AGAINST    MOAB.  177 

made.  We  may  probably  infer  that  in  other  matters  also  he 
refrained  from  encouraging  heathen  ceremonies,  although  re- 
spect for  his  mother  Jezebel  forbade  his  taking  active  measures 
against  them.  After  this  he  engaged  Jehoshaphat  to  aid  him 
in  enforcing  of  the  Moabites  the  tribute  which  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  pay  to  Ahab ;  and  as  it  was  no  longer  possible 
to  conduct  their  armies  across  the  Jordan  because  of  the 
Syrians,  it  was  determined  to  lead  them  through  the  land  of 
Edom,  which  was  now  entirely  subject  to  Jehoshaphat.  The 
particulars  of  the  campaign  form  a  part  of  the  wonderful  deeds 
of  Elisha,  and  it  is  difficult  to  elicit  substantial  facts.  The 
viceroy  (here  called  king1  of  Edom)  accompanies  them ;  their 
army  suffers  from  want  of  water ;  Elisha  calls  for  a  minstrel, 
— begins  to  prophesy, — orders  them  to  dig  ditches.  They 
obey,  and  find  water  in  abundance :  the  Moabites,  when  the 
sun  shines  on  the  water,  mistake  it  for  blood,  and  fancying 
that  the  two  armies  have  massacred  each  other,  make  a  rush 
for  the  Hebrew  camp  to  despoil  it.  The  Israelites  meet  and 
slaughter  them  with  ease ;  then  (as  eager  not  for  future  tri- 
bute, but  for  present  vengeance)  they  beat  down  the  cities,  cut 
down  all  the  good  trees,  stop  up  all  the  wells,  and  cast  each 
man  his  stone  on  every  good  piece  of  land.  The  king  of  Moab 
is  filled  with  chief  rage  against  the  king  of  Edom,  and  with 
700  chosen  swordsmen  makes  a  fierce,  but  vain  attack  on  him. 
He  then  sacrifices  his  eldest  son  on  the  wall  of  some  city; 
but  with  no  result,  except  that  the  Moabites2  "  feel  great  in- 
dignation against  Israel/'  The  armies  return  home,  and  Moab 
is  left  neither  subject  nor  tributary3.  As  no  effect  whatever  of 

1  As  we  are  distinctly  informed  that  at  this  time  there  was  no  Jcing  in  Edom 
(1  Kings,  xxii.  47),  the  title  is  here  indicative  of  vague  knowledge  in  the  original 
writer  of  this  account. 

2  Mr.  Eobert  Mackay,  in  his  able  and  remarkable  work,  "  Progress  of  the 
Intellect,"  which  seldom  agrees  with  the  views  of  this  volume,  says  (vol.  ii.  pp. 
407)  that  it  was  not  the  Moabites  who  felt  indignation,  but  Jehovah,  who  was 
fancied  to  be  affected  by  the  charm  of  the  sacrifice. 

3  The  Chronicler  appears  to  have  thought  this  campaign  not  honourable 
enough  to  Jehoshaphat,  for  he  has  dropt  it  out  and  put  into  its  place,  in  nearly 
the  same  point  of  time,  a  different  war,  which  he  teUs  as  follows  (2  Chron.  xx.). 
The  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and  Edomites,  a  great  multitude,  invade  the  land  of 
Judah,  entering  along  the  west  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea.     Jehoshaphat  prays  a 
public  prayer  :  a  Levite  becomes  inspired  and  encourages  the  nation  :  Jehosha- 
phat marches  out  with  religious  singers  in  front  of  his  army  to  praise  Jehovah. 
As  soon  as  they  begin  to  sing,  Jehovah  sends  mutual  fury  into  the  adverse  host, 
who,  before  the  Hebrews  can  come  up  to  them,  kill  one  another,  "  so  that  not 
one  escaped."     Abundance  of  spoil, — riches  and  precious  jewels, — are  found 

i3 


178  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

this  campaign  is  pretended,  and  we  cannot  imagine  a  miracle 
wrought  solely  to  enable  the  Hebrews  to  inflict  misery  on  an 
innocent  population,  it  is  most  probable  that  the  want  of  water, 
which  is  mentioned  as  a  difficulty  encountered  by  them,  really 
caused  the  failure  of  the  whole  expedition. 

We  now  enter  on  a  yet  more  perplexing  narrative,  in  which 
the  unhistorical  tone  is  far  too  manifest1  to  allow  of  our  easy 
belief  in  it;  although  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  there  was 
a  real  event  at  bottom  which  deeply  affected  the  national 
feelings.  This  event  is  the  siege  of  Samaria  by  the  king  of 
Syria.  The  invasion  had  only  been  delayed  for  some  years  by 
the  spirited  attack  made  on  his  forces  at  Ramoth  by  the  allied 
kings ;  and  now,  under  Jehoram  son  of  Ahab,  the  Israelitish 
army  with  their  king  was  hemmed  in  at  Samaria.  So  success- 
fully did  the  Syrian  forces  cut  off  their  communications,  that 
a  dreadful  famine  arose  in  the  town;  and  not  only  were  the 
vilest  substances  sold  at  a  great  price  for  human  food,  but  a 
woman  was  believed  to  have  boiled  and  eaten  her  son2.  Yet 
when  the  suffering  was  becoming  unendurable,  and  a  little 
more  would  have  led  to  unconditional  surrender,  the  Syrian 
army  withdrew,  and  vanished  of  itself  in  the  night. 

Such  a  catastrophe  is  a  priori  very  improbable,  but  is  by 
no  means  impossible.  Many  conjectural  causes  might  be  as- 
signed, far  from  absurd.  The  besieger  may  himself  have  suf- 
fered want  of  supplies,  or  he  may  have  been  drawn  off  by  the 
attack  of  some  enemy  at  home  when  the  siege  lingered  be- 
yond expectation, — as  the  Gauls,  while  blockading  the  Roman 
Capitol.  Large  and  luxurious  armies  are  likewise  liable  to 
unaccountable  panics;  and  there  were  in  this  case  circum- 
stances which  may  have  conduced  to  such  a  thing.  It  has 

with  the  dead  bodies  ;  so  much,  that  the  favoured  army  is  employed  three  days 
in  gathering  it.  On  the  fourth  day  they  publicly  bless  Jehovah  in  the  valley 
of  Berachah,  and  return  to  Jerusalem  with  psalteries,  harps  and  trumpets  to  the 
house  of  Jehovah. 

As  to  the  date  intended  for  this  fable,  it  is  distinctly  declared  to  be  after  the 
death  of  Ahab  (xix.  1,  xx.  1) ;  and  it  might  seem  by  xx.  35  to  be  during  the 
life  of  Ahab's  successor.  But  at  v.  31  of  this  chapter  the  connexion  is  brol 
and  the  writer  loses  all  chronological  clue. 

1  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  is  described  by  Josephus  in  perhaps  a  stil 
more  overwrought  and  romantic  style ;  yet  Josephus  was  a  contemporary,  wit1 
excellent  means  of  information. 

2  Dramatic  pungency  is  added  to  this  by  representing  two  women  contracting 
that  each  in  turn  shall  contribute  a  boiled  child  to  their  common  meal :  one  of 
them  eats  the  other's  child,  and  evades  to  give  her  own ;  and  she  who  has  ful- 
filled her  part  of  the  contract  appeals  to  the  king  against  the  other's  injustice. 


SIEGE    OF    SAMARIA.  179 

oeen  observed  by  a  Greek  writer1,  that  the  Persians  so  dreaded 
a  night -attack  on  their  cavalry,  that  that  species  of  force 
never  passed  the  night  at  a  shorter  distance  than  six  or  seven 
miles  from  the  enemy.  Every  horse  needed  to  be  pegged  to 
the  ground  by  each  of  his  four  feet.  If  the  army  was  sur- 
prized by  night,  the  time  required  to  get  the  horses  free  and 
accoutre  them  for  action  was  so  great,  that  a  total  defeat 
might  be  first  sustained.  A  force  of  chariots  must  have  been 
still  more  liable  to  this  disaster.  Moreover,  as  king  Benhadad 
had  once  before  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites,  he  may 
the  more  easily  have  taken  alarm  on  the  occurrence  of  a  tu- 
mult which  was  supposed  to  be  a  hostile  attack.  Noises  in 
the  night  are  heard  to  a  great  distance,  and  are  easily  misin^ 
terpreted ;  and  the  host  was  probably  dispersed,  so  as  to  block 
up  all  the  critical  approaches  to  Samaria,  without  venturing  on 
the  rough  ground. 

The  authority  from  which  we  draw  our  whole  information 
says,  therefore,  nothing  incredible  in  assigning  a  night-panic 
as  the  reason  for  the  sudden  disappearance  of  the  Syrians; 
but  the  particular  ground  of  alarm2  attributed  to  them  does 
not  exhibit  the  writer's  acquaintance  with  the  times  in  a  very 
favourable  light.  It  goes  on  to  represent  the  Syrians  as  leav- 
ing their  entire  camp,  with  abundance  of  food  and  every  sort 
of  wealth,  to  be  plundered  by  the  Israelites ;  and  such,  it  de- 
clares, was  the  profusion  of  the  supply  of  fine  flour  and  of 
barley  (the  horse-food  of  those  parts),  that  the  dearth  in  Sa- 
maria was  suddenly  converted  into  cheapness3.  A  lord  who 

1  Xenophon  in  his  Anabasis  iii.     He  elsewhere,  in  the  same  work,  mentions 
that  even  the  Greek  army,  under  the  veteran  officer  Clearchus,  suffered  a  rather 
dangerous  night-panic,  which  was  stilled  by  Clearchus  bidding  his  loud-voiced 
crier  proclaim  a  reward  of  a  silver  talent  to  whoever  would  tell  who  it  was  that 
let  the  ass  loose  into  the  camp ;  Anab.  ii.  2,  20.     They  had  themselves,  just 
before,  unawares  inflicted  a  panic  on  the  king  of  Persia,  which  made  him  decamp 
in  the  night. 

2  The  Syrians  are  stated  to  dread  an  attack  from  the  kings  of  the  Hittites  and 
of  the  Egyptians.    No  Hittite  kings  can  have  compared  in  power  with  the  king 
of  Judah,  the  real  and  nearer  ally,  who  is  not  named  at  all ;  and  the  kings  of 
Egypt  (if  there  were  really  more  than  one)  were  at  a  weary  distance,  with  a 
desart  between. 

In  the  whole  narrative,  from  2  Kings,  vi.  8  to  vii.  6,  the  title  "  king  of  Israel " 
occurs  twenty-two  times,  yet  his  name  never  slips  out,  nor  that  of  the  lord  who 
is  trampled  to  death ;  nor  is  there  a  single  mark  of  acquaintance  with  the  con- 
temporaneous history. 

3  The  liveliness  of  the  narrative  is  here  quite  equal  to  poetry.     Four  leprous 
tnen  venture  out  into  the  Syrian  camp,  and  enjoy  all  its  good  things  before  any 
of  the  rest  have  discovered  the  flight  of  the  huge  host.    Considering  the  height 


180  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

had  disbelieved  the  possibility  of  this,  when  predicted  by  Elisha, 
was  trodden  to  death  in  the  crowd,  in  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phet's denunciation  upon  him. 

The  general  result  remains  clear:  Samaria,  after  great 
suffering,  escaped  for  the  present;  but  the  power  of  Syria 
continued  to  threaten  it  with  force  most  disproportionate. 
Jehoshaphat  (if  still  alive a)  was  getting  old,  and  possibly  was 
daunted  By  the  ill-success  of  his  two  expeditions  in  company 
with  kings  of  Israel ;  but  age  had  stolen  over  Benhadad  also. 
He  was  shortly  laid  up  with  a  painful  sickness,  and  (after  an 
interval  perhaps  of  a  few  years)  died.  It  is  not  stated  whether 
he  left  any  natural  representatives,  and  we  only  know  that  he 
was  succeeded  on  the  throne  of  Damascus  by  Hazael2,  one  of 
his  great  officers. 

Jehoshaphat,  under  growing  infirmity,  had  recourse  to  the 
method,  hitherto  unpractised  except  by  king  David,  of  raising 
his  son  to  the  throne  during  his  own  lifetime.  Some  doubt 
rests  on  the  date  of  this ;  we  have  followed  the  opinion  that  it 
was  B.C.  872,  about  three  years  before  the  old  king's  death. 
It  was  not  to  be  questioned  that  he  felt  the  calamities  which 
were  befalling  the  northern  kingdom  to  be  severe  shocks  given 
to  the  whole  Hebrew  sovereignty.  Now  that  the  tribe  of 
Reuben,  with  Ammon  and  Moab,  were  lost  to  the  throne  of 
Israel,  it  was  impossible  that  the  Edomites  should  very  peace- 
ably submit  to  the  yoke  of  Judah.  A  strong  and  vigorous 

of  the  hill  of  Samaria,  it  might  have  seemed  that  the  state  of  the  enemy's  camp 
would  be  seen  (at  least  in  most  parts)  from  the  town  itself. 

1  We  cannot  tell  whether  Jehoshaphat  or  Jehoram  sate  on  the  throne  of 
Judah  during  the  siege  of  Samaria,  so  little  has  it  of  real  connexion  with  the 
history ;  yet  judging  from  the  affairs  of  Syria,  we  should  suppose  it  to  be  while 
the  two  Jehorams  were  reigning. 

2  Hazael  is  stated  to  have  murdered  the  poor  old  man  in  his  sick  bed,  by 
spreading  a  wet  cloth  on  his  face.     But  when  a  man  is  so  near  to  death  that 
this  will  kill  him,  he  may  so  easily  have  died  of  himself,  that  we  need  good 
evidence  to  show  that  such  a  story  is  not  vulgar  scandal.     How  the  Israelitish 
writer  got  so  accurate  information  of  what  went  on  in  the  king  of  Syria's  bed- 
chamber, is  not  apparent. 

In  order,  it  seems,  to  give  honour  to  Elisha,  this  prophet  is  made  to  utter  a 
prediction  which  in  a  just  view  was  highly  disgraceful.  Hazael  brings  him  a 
present  of  forty  camels' -load  of  all  the  precious  things  of  Damascus,  to  inquire, 
in  Benhadad' s  name,  whether  he  is  to  recover  of  his  malady.  Elisha  replies  that 
he  will  not  recover,  although  he  might  recover ;  but  Hazael  will  become  king 
of  Syria,  and  will  perpetrate  every  kind  of  cruelty  on  the  Israelites.  Hazael  is 
shocked  at  the  prophecy,  yet  on  reaching  home  murders  his  master.  If  Elisha 
had  wished  to  incite  him  to  the  murder,  he  could  not  have  tempted  him  more 
diabolically.  But  the  whole  tale  is  apocryphal. 


REVOLT    OF    THE    EDOMITES.  •          181 

hand  was  wanted,  and  age  must  have  now  disabled  Jehosha- 
phat  for  the  active  exertion  of  warfare.  These  reasons  will 
account  for  his  taking  so  unusual  a  step. 

That  the  name  of  his  son,  JEHORAM,  was  the  very  same  as 
that  of  the  king  of  Israel,  is  generally  ascribed  to  the  matri- 
monial alliance  between  the  two  families ;  an  opinion  which  is 
confirmed  by  the  circumstance  that  this  Jehoram's  son  and  the 
other  Jehoram' s  brother  were  both  named  Ahaziah.  Yet  as 
both  Jehorams  appear  to  have  been  born  in  Omrr's  reign,  it  is 
remarkable  to  find  such  intimacy  between  the  fathers  already 
commenced,  as  to  lead  to  their  giving  the  same  names  to  their 
sons1.  No  event  at  all  is  recorded  as  occurring  during  the 
joint  reign  of  Jehoram  and  his  father.  Jehoshaphat  died2  at 
the  age  of  sixty,  leaving  his  kingdom  in  an  anxious  position, 
through  no  fault  of  his  own,  but  through  the  irresistible 
growth  of  Damascus,  which  he  had  so  long  foreboded,  and  in 
vain  struggled  to  check. 

The  great  event  of  his  son's  reign  was  the  revolt  of  the 
Edomites,  who  now  set  over  themselves  an  independent  king. 
The  king  of  Judah  did  not  yield  up  his  sovereignty  without 
a  conflict ;  and  going  out  with  a  force  of  chariots,  he  made 
a  night -attack  on  the  Edomite  army  with  much  slaughter. 
Nevertheless,  though  he  might  win  a  battle,  he  could  not  re- 
cover his  dominion ;  and  Edom  was  lost  to  the  house  of  Judah 
about  a  century  and  a  half  after  its  conquest  by  David.  A 
revolt  of  the  strongly  fortified  town  of  Libnah  in  Judaea  is 
mentioned  as  happening  about  the  same  time ;  and  it  is  pos- 
sible that  the  necessity  imposed  on  Jehoram  of  returning 
from  Edom  to  put  down  rebellion  in  his  own  dominions, 
helped  to  shorten  the  Edomite  war.  We  should  seem  to 
know  the  reasons  of  this  internal  rebellion,  if  we  could  give 
unhesitating  credit  to  the  details  which  our  second  authority 
has  added  to  the  reign  of  this  king.  His  father  Jehoshaphat, 
we  are  told,  had  seven  sons,  whom  he  established  as  princes 
in  various  fenced  cities  of  Judah ;  but  no  sooner  did  Jehoram 
find  himself  sole  master  of  the  kingdom,  than,  in  the  jealousy 
of  power,  he  slew  all  his  brothers,  and  with  them  many  other 
noble  persons.  Such  a  massacre  would  necessarily  produce 
discontents,  which  might  well  break  out  into  rebellion  at 
Libnah. 

1  Some  may  conjecture  that  the  system  of  taking  royal  names  was  already 
acted  on.  2  B.c>  §69. 


182          '  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

The  Edomites  had  now  learned  their  strength ;  and  the 
hope  of  revenge  kindled  a  clear  memory  of  the  bloody  deeds 
wrought  upon  their  nation  hy  Joab  and  Abishai.  Although 
they  could  have  no  thought  of  conquering  Judah,  they  from 
this  time  forth,  with  little  intermission,  harassed  it  by  inroads, 
in  which  they  carried  off  the  population  to  sell  into  slavery. 
Allusions  to  the  suffering  thus  caused  are  frequent  in  the 
earliest  extant  prophets;  yet  no  incursions  were  on  a  suffi- 
ciently large  scale  to  be  entitled  a  war,  or  to  find  a  place  in 
the  general  history. 

A  notice  however  has  been  preserved  to  us  of  a  very  daring 
inroad  of  Philistines,  aided  by  tribes  from  the  Arabian  pen- 
insula ;  who  surprized  Jerusalem  itself,  and  carried  off  (it  is 
even  said)  the  wives  of  the  king.  The  general  fact  is  in  per- 
fect agreement  with  the  course  of  the  history  and  the  refer- 
ences made  by  the  prophets1 ;  but  we  find  mingled  up  with 
the  narrative  much  that  is  erroneous  or  justly  suspected2,  so 
as  to  inspire  the  belief,  that  an  undue  prejudice  against  the 
son  of  Jehoshaphat  has  biassed  the  Chronicler,  by  whom  this 
king  is  depicted  in  far  blacker  colours  than  by  the  earlier 
compiler.  Jehoram  died  in  the  prime  of  life,  of  an  acute  at- 
tack in  the  bowels,  which,  coupled  with  the  depressing  events 

1  See  especially  Joel  iii.  4,  5,  which  at  first  sight  seems  to  say  that  the  Phili- 
stines (with  the  help  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  ?)  pillaged  the  temple. 

2  It  states  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20)  that  as  a  stigma  on  his  wickedness  he  was  buried 
in  the  city  of  David,  but  not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  Icings  ;  while  hi  our  better 
authority  we  read,  that  "he  was  buried  with  his  fathers  in  the  city  of  David." 
The  Chronicler  brings  up  against  him  Philistines,  and  Arabians  that  were  near 
the  Ethiopians,  who  plunder  his  palace,  carry  off  his  wives  (although  Athaliah, 
his  chief  or  only  wife,  was  not  carried  off)  and  slay  all  his  sons,  except  his 
youngest  son  Jehoahaz — for  so  Ahaziah  is  called  in  ch.  xxi.  17.     (The  name 
Ahaziah  reappears  in  xxii.  2,  and,  in  another  form,  Azariah  in  v.  6.)      The 
Chronicler  makes  Ahaziah  42  years  old  when  his  father  dies  at  the  age  of  40 : 
this  forty-two  might  indeed  be  a  corrupt  reading  for  twenty-two,  as  we  read  in 
2  Kings,  xviii.  26 ;  but  even  so,  it  is  absurd  to  imagine  Ahaziah  to  be  only  18 
years  younger  than  his  father,  and  yet  to  be  the  youngest  son  born  from  many 
wives.     Again,  as  the  Chronicler  represents  all  the  brethren  of  Ahaziah-  to  have 
been  killed  by  the  freebooters,  he  turns  those  who  are  called  "  forty-two  men, 
brethren  of  Ahaziah"  (in  2  Kings,  x.  13,  14),  into  sons  of  the  brethren  of  Aha- 
ziah ;  so  that  Jehoram,  dying  at  the  age  of  40,  left  42  grandsons  who  are  called 
men.     That  Elijah  the  prophet  wrote  a  letter  to  Jehoram,  as  stated  in  2  Chr. 
xxi.  12,  is  irreconcilable  with  the  chronology  of  the  book  of  Kings.     Both  these 
records  are  prejudiced  against  the  son  and  grandson  of  Jehoshaphat,  because  of 
their  relation  to  the  house  of  Ahab,  in  whose  sins  (they  vaguely  say)  both 
walked.     But  when  they  go  into  details  of  irreligion,  we  find  no  imputation 
worse  than  "  the  high  places,"  2  Chr.  xxi.  11.     The  son  of  Ahab  had  in  fact  re- 
nounced the  worship  of  Baal. 


SECOND    BATTLE    AT    RAMOTH.  183 

of  his  reign,  in  contrast  to  his  father's  greatness,  led  to  the 
idea  that  a  judgment  from  God  had  overtaken  him,  and  that 
he  was  a  sinner  above  other  men. 

His  son  AnAZiAH1  had  already  reached  the  age  of  twenty- 
two,  and  lost  no  time  in  following  up  his  grandfather's  policy 
of  withstanding  the  power  of  Damascus.  No  circumstances 
survive  to  us  that  might  explain  the  only  fact  of  which  we 
are  informed.  Hazael  had  succeeded  Benhadad  on  the  throne 
of  Syria.  Had  his  accession  been  accompanied  with  any  in- 
ternal disorders?  Had  Benhadad  left  sons,  against  whom 
Hazael  had  had  to  contend  ?  or  had  Jehoram  of  Israel,  after 
the  retreat  of  Benhadad  from  Samaria,  obtained  any  fresh  suc- 
cesses during  the  last  illness  of  the  old  king?  We  cannot 
tell  what  emboldened  the  two  Hebrew  princes  anew ;  we  only 
know  that  Ahaziah,  in  the  first  and  last  year  of  his  reign, 
joined  Jehoram  in  another  attempt  to  recover  Ramoth  in 
Gilead  from  the  Syrians.  King  Hazael  fought  a  battle  against 
them,  in  which  Jehoram  was  severely  wounded ;  but  the  He- 
brew armies  kept  the  field,  and  continued  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Ramoth.  The  Israelitish  king  had  returned  to  his 
palace  at  Jezreel  to  tend  his  wounds,  when  a  dreadful  cala- 
mity exploded  on  the  heads  of  both  the  royal  houses.  But 
before  detailing  this  miserable  event,  we  must  cast  a  retrospect 
on  the  life  of  queen  JEZEBEL. 

We  have  seen  that  the  palace  of  Tirzah  found  no  favour 
with  king  Omri,  the  founder  of  Samaria.  As  the  arduous 
work  of  erecting  a  new  capital  is  likely  to  have  fully  occupied 
him,  we  may  probably  ascribe  to  his  son  Ahab2  the  building 
of  the  new  palace  at  Jezreel  for  his  wife  Jezebel.  Jezreel  is 
identified  with  the  modern  village  of  Zerin,  on  an  elevated 
part  of  the  table-land  called  Esdraelon3  by  the  Greeks.  To 
the  north-west  the  brook  Kishon  runs  down  into  the  bay  of 
Caraiel,  parallel  to  high  hills  which  form  an  amphitheatre 
behind  Jezreel  on  the  west  and  south.  To  the  east,  but  in- 
clining to  south,  another  brook  runs  sharply  down  to  the  town 

1  B.C.  865. 

2  We  hear  also  of  an  ivory  house  which  Ahab  made  (1  Kings,  xxii.  39), 
which  may  be  compared  to  the  ivory  palaces  of  Ps.  xlv.     It  is  credible  that  all 
its  ornamental  part  was  executed  in  ivory.     The  "houses  of  ivory"  in  Hosea 
iii.  15  are  named  in  company  with  real  dwelling-houses. 

3  Esdrael  is  a  mere  corruption  of  Jezreel,  a  word  which  in  Hebrew  means 
seed  of  God  (or,  sowing-place  of  God  ?),  as  indicating  the  great  fruitfulness  of 
the  plain. 


184  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  Bethshean,  with  the  mountains  of  Gilboa  rising  steep  along 
its  southern  side.  But  to  the  east  and  north-east  the  eye  is 
carried  right  across  the  valley  of  Jordan ;  to  the  north  the 
land  of  Issachar  rises,  and  the  view  is  broken  by  the  lofty  hill 
of  Shunem ;  while  between  the  north-west  and  west  the  moun- 
tains of  Carmel  bound  the  prospect  over  the  broad  and  fertile 
slope  of  Esdraelon.  Such  was  the  magnificent  site  of  Jeze- 
bel's palace1.  It  has  been  carefully  recorded  that  David, 
when  he  needed  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite, 
paid  fifty  shekels  of  silver2  as  the  price  of  it  with  the  oxen. 
Omri  bought  the  hill  of  Samaria  of  its  owner  Shemer  with 
two  talents  of  silver ;  Ahab  likewise  was  under  a  necessity  of 
purchasing  such  land  as  he  needed  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jezreel.  It  so  happened  that  a  man  named  Naboth  had  a 
vineyard  which  was  wanted  as  a  kitchen-garden  to  the  palace ; 
but  although  the  king  offered  him  whatever  equivalent  in 
money  he  thought  reasonable,  Naboth  positively  refused  to 
sell  it  on  any  terms.  The  narrative  is  of  interest,  as  showing 
us,  that  the  despotism  apparently  vested  in  these  kings  was 
never  understood  to  supersede  private  and  social  rights.  In 
time  of  war  they  exercised  so  arbitrary  an  authority,  that 
Saul  could  threaten  his  son  Jonathan  with  death  for  disobey- 
ing a  capricious  order ;  and  over  their  own  officials,  especially 
those  under  military  rule,  the  public  feeling  seems  to  have 
permitted  them  a  very  unlimited  sway.  But  their  power  over 
private  men,  although  the  constitution  had  not  invented  any 
mode  of  controlling  it,  was  not  to  be  exerted  with  wild  or 
selfish  wilfulness :  usage,  and  respect  for  public  opinion,  de- 
manded the  observance  of  certain  forms  of  justice,  in  a  case 
which  involved  private  interests.  On  the  present  occasion 
the  refusal  of  Naboth  greatly  annoyed  Ahab,  who  neither 
dared  to  use  violence,  nor  conceived  the  idea  of  it.  But  his 
wife  Jezebel,  enraged  that  any  one  should  thwart  and  mortify 
her  royal  consort,  immediately  took  on  herself  to  arrange  the 
matter  of  Naboth.  Having  written  letters  in  AhaVs  name 
and  sealed  them  with  his  seal,  she  accused  Naboth  of  the 
undefinable  offence  of  "blasphemy"  against  God  and  the 

1  The  accuracy  of  this  description  has  been  questioned  by  a  traveller,  who 
saw  no  extensive  prospect  from  Zerin.     I  did  not  compile  it  from  Kitto's  Bibli- 
cal Cyclopaedia,  but  I  find  his  article  (Jezreel)  in  general  to  confirm  what  I  have 
written.     A  dim  day,  or  an  ill  choice  of  the  road,  often  defrauds  travellers  of 
fine  prospects. 

2  2  Sam.  xxiv.  24. 


185 

king1,  and  by  suborning  false  witness,  effected  his  condemna- 
tion ;  upon  which  he  was  put  to  death  by  the  cruel  method 
of  public  stoning.  At  her  instance,  Ahab  then  took  posses- 
sion of  Naboth's  vineyard,  although  with  a  bad  conscience 
and  without  enjoyment  of  it ;  for  when  severely  reproved  by 
Elijah  the  prophet,  he  humbled  himself, — rent  his  clothes 
and  wore  sackcloth, — and  showed  no  resentment  against  his 
faithful  rebuker.  Such  is  the  account,  as  we  have  it;  and 
even  if  it  be  not  wholly  correct,  it  is  of  value,  as  showing  a 
very  early  belief  current  in  Israel.  If  we  reject  it,  we  can  put 
nothing  into  its  place,  as  we  cannot  hope  to  amend  it  in  de- 
tail. It  certainly  gives  us  a  blacker  view  of  Jezebel's  cha- 
racter than  any  other  facts  which  are  stated ;  and  the  thought 
may  occur,  whether  this  is  anything  but  a  story  to  which  her 
murderer,  in  self-justification,  gave  currency.  That  is  possi- 
ble ;  and  yet  the  crime  imputed  to  her  is  only  too  consistent 
with  the  mother  of  Athaliah. 

In  her  palace  of  Jezreel  the  queen  of  Ahab  was  still  resid- 
ing, and  here  too  lay  her  royal  son,  now  almost  convalescent 
from  the  wounds  he  received  at  Ramoth.  It  does  not  appear 
that  any  violence  on  Jezebel's  part  had  been  renewed  against 
the  Hebrew  national  religion  since  the  great  drought  which 
had  afflicted  Israel.  We  read  that  prophets  of  Jehovah 
moved  freely  in  the  camp  and  in  the  court  during  the  Syrian 
invasions,  and  used  great  liberty  with  Ahab  and  his  son,  with- 
out encountering  danger ;  and  when  Ahab  joined  with  Jeho- 
shaphat  to  go  against  Ramoth,  we  have  seen  that  about  400 
men  are  spoken  of  as  prophesying  in  the  name  of  Jehovah 
before  both  the  kings.  Jehoram,  son  of  Ahab,  had  renounced 
the  worship  of  Baal,  and  might  personally  have  seemed  to  de- 
serve some  consideration  and  some  mercy  from  those  who 
dreaded  or  hated  his  mother.  He  was  barely  recovered  from 
wounds  received  against  the  public  enemy.  But  Jehoram's 
zeal,  or  perceptions  of  public  duty,  did  not,  like  Asa's,  mount 

1  The  Hebrew  phrase  is,  "  Naboth  did  Uess  God  and  the  king."  The  word 
bless  is  expounded  to  mean  say  adieu,  and  hence,  cwrse.  It  may  seem  strange 
to  find  God,  and  not  Jehovah,  in  this  formula ;  and  since  in  days  when  various 
idolatries  were  established  in  Israel,  a  purely  theological  punishment  seerfls  im- 
possible, the  suspicion  might  intrude,  that  this  stoning  for  blasphemy  is  a  sa- 
cerdotal notion  of  later  days  here  imputed  to  the  times  of  Ahab.  Yet  it  may  be 
that  the  phrase  only  imports  treason,  and  that  the  word  God  inserted  before 
Icing  is  mere  verbiage,  like  the  malice  and  wickedness  which  our  legal  formulas 
so  liberally  ascribe  to  defendants.  That  stoning  was  practised  in  Israel,  we 
saw  in  the  case  of  Eehoboam's  luckless  tax-collector. 


186  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

so  high  as  to  steel  him  to  forbid  his  mother's  religion :  the 
priests  of  Baal  were  still  supported  by  her,  and  the  temple  of 
Baal  remained  in  Samaria.  Elisha  (if  we  can  trust  our  nar- 
rative) waited  his  time  to  strike  a  blow  against  Jezebel,  far 
more  ferocious  in  conception,  and  proportionably  more  deadly 
in  its  result,  than  the  address  of  Ahijah  to  Jeroboam  had 
been.  He  sent  a  young  prophet  with  secret  orders  to  Ramoth, 
where  JEHU,  son  of  Jehoshaphat  son  of  Nimshi,  one  of  the 
chief  captains  of  the  host  of  Israel,  was  abiding  with  the 
army  to  watch  the  Syrians.  Having  asked  a  private  inter- 
view with  Jehu,  the  youth  took  out  a  box  of  oil  and  poured  it 
over  his  head,  declaring  that  Jehovah  anointed  Jehu  king  over 
Israel,  that  he  might  cut  off  every  male  of  the  house  of  Ahab 
and  avenge  the  blood  of  the  prophets  at  the  hand  of  Jezebel. 
After  thus  delivering  his  message,  he  fled  and  disappeared. 
Jehu  was  not  slow  to  announce  what  had  been  done ;  and  the 
other  captains  accepted  it  as  a  voice  from  heaven.  He  was  at 
once  proclaimed  king  by  the  army,  and  before  the  tidings 
should  reach  Jezreel  by  any  other  messenger,  he  hastened  to 
carry  it  himself.  It  so  happened  that  Ahaziah  king  of  Judah 
was  come  to  visit  his  wounded  uncle ;  and  when  the  watch- 
man announced  from  his  height  that  a  man  was  seen  rapidly 
driving  towards  the  palace,  who  apparently  must  be  Jehu,  cap- 
tain of  the  host,  the  two  princes,  moved  by  an  inexplicable 
impulse,  at  once  drove  forth  in  their  chariots  to  meet  him. 
But  on  their  coming  near,  Jehu  shot  Jehoram  with  an  arrow 
through  the  heart ;  aud  overdoing  the  prophet's  commission, 
sent  his  servants  to  slay  Ahaziah  also,  who  fled  on  discovering 
the  treason.  He  was  chased  so  closely  as  to  receive  a  mortal 
wound1,  though  his  chariot  carried  him  off  to  Megiddo,  west 
of  Jezreel,  beneath  the  mountains  of  Carmel.  Here  he  died2, 
in  the  second  year  of  his  reign  and  twenty-third  of  his  age. 
He  was  carried  by  his  servants  in  his  own  chariot  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  buried  in  the  royal  sepulchres. 

But  this  was  the  mere  beginning  of  a  great  and  historical 

tragedy.    Jehu  continued  his  course  to  Jezreel ;  but  the  news 

'"of  his  murderous  enterprize  arrived  there  before  him,   and 

1  The  wound  is  specified  as  received  "  at  the  going  up  to  Grur,  which  is  by 
Ibleam  "  (2  Kings,  ix.  27).     But  the  chronicler  gives  a  different  and  irreconcil- 
able tale  (2  Chr.  xxii.  8,  9).   After  slaying  the  princes  of  Judah,  Jehu  seeks  for 
Ahaziah,  and  catches  him  hid  in  Samaria.     He  is  slain  and  carefully  buried  by 
Jehu's  people,  "  because,  said  they,  he  is  the  son  [grandson]  of  Jehoshaphat,  who 
sought  Jehovah  with  all  his  heart." 

2  B.C.  864. 


MASSACRES    OF    JEHU.  187 

Jezebel  had  full  notice  of  her  danger.  With  masculine  spirit, 
she  prepared  to  meet  him  boldly,  showing  herself  out  of  a 
window  which  overlooked  the  gate  of  the  palace.  As  he  drove 
in  through  the  gate,  she  called  aloud  to  him  with  the  signifi- 
cant question,  "Had  Zimri  peace,  who  slew  his  master?"  but 
Jehu,  without  deigning  to  reply,  commanded  the  eunuchs  who 
stood  at  her  side  to  throw  her  out  of  window.  They  did 
not  dare  to  disobey  so  fierce  and  relentless  a  man,  and  hurled 
her  down  in  front  of  him.  All  mangled  as  she  lay  and  be- 
spattered with  her  gore,  Jehu,  as  if  glorying  in  cruelty,  drove 
his  horses  and  chariot  over  her  body,  and  left  her  to  live  or 
die,  as  chance  might  determine.  Those  who  handed  down  the 
account  were  careful  to  remark,  that  the  corpse  of  Jehoram 
had  been  cast  out  by  Jehu  on  the  vineyard  of  Naboth,  and 
that  while  Jehu  was  dining  in  the  palace  of  Jezreel,  the  dogs 
devoured  the  flesh  off  the  body  of  Jezebel. 

From  Jezreel,  Jehu  wrote  letters  to  Samaria  (where  Ahab 
had  seventy  male  descendants,  many  of  them  children  under 
tutors),  and  commanded  the  elders  and  authorities1  of  the 
city  to  behead  them  all,  and  send  the  heads  to  him  forthwith 
at  Jezreel.  The  knowledge  that  the  army  was  with  him  and 
that  both  kings  were  dead,  terrified  them  into  submission; 
and  the  seventy  heads  of  the  innocent  men  and  children  were 
sent  him  in  baskets,  and  placed  in  two  heaps  by  the  palace- 
gate.  After  this  he  massacred  all  persons  of  distinction  whom 
he  regarded  as  the  partizans  of  Ahab, — "  all  his  great  men, 
and  his  kinsfolk,  and  his  priests,  until  he  left  none  remain- 
ing." These  things  must  have  been  done  with  a  rapidity  al- 
most miraculous,  if  the  next  tale  orhorror  has  been  accurately 
reported.  Journeying,  it,  is  said,  to  Samaria,  he  fell  in  with 
forty-two  princes  of  Judah,  brothers2  of  the  late  king  Ahaziah, 
who,  having  heard  nothing  of  these  events,  were  on  their  way 
to  visit  the  young  princes  of  the  house  of  Ahab.  The  taste 

1  There  is  an  obscurity  in  the  phrase :  "  he  wrote  to  Samaria  unto  the  rulers 
of  Jezreel.'1  In  fact,  vv.  11  and  17  of  2  Kings,  x.  do  not  well  harmonize  with 
1-10  :  for  in  1-10  Jehu  slays  Ahab's  sons  in  Samaria,  in  v.  11  they  are  called 
"  those  of  the  house  of  Ahab  in  Jezreel,"  and  afterwards,  in  v.  17,  he  still  has 
to  slay  "  all  who  remained  to  Ahab  in  Samaria."  The  original  narrative  appears 
to  have  been  interpolated ;  but  it  is  perhaps  impossible  to  separate  the  newer 
parts  from  the  older. 

J  It  has  been  already  noted  that  these  are  called  by  the  Chronicler  "  sons  of 
the  brethren  of  Ahaziah;"  because  he  has  said  that  the  brothers  of  Ahaziah 
were  aU  slain  by  the  Philistines.  But  as  the  father  of  Ahaziah,  if  still  alive, 
would  only  have  been  forty-one  years  old,  there  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  the 
other  record  is  right ;  except  that  the  word  brothers  may  include  first-cousins, 


188  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  blood  had  only  whetted  the  appetite  of  this  tiger  of  a  man, 
who  at  once  gave  orders,  which  were  too  faithfully  executed, 
to  slay  them  all  on  the  spot.  Truly  he  understood,  that  hav- 
ing treacherously  murdered  two  unoffending  kings,  it  was  not 
wise  to  leave  any  one  alive  who  had  a  family  interest  in  be- 
coming their  avenger :  nor  have  we  reason  to  doubt  of  the 
main  fact  of  his  massacre,  however  questionable  the  circum- 
stantials may  seem. 

Continuing  his  progress,  he  took  into  his  chariot  a  man 
whose  name  had  become  proverbial  in  the  day  of  Jeremiah 
the  prophet,  for  the  singular  law1  which  he  imposed  on  his 
descendants — Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab.  Entering  Samaria 
with  him,  he  assumed  the  character  of  a  devout  votary  of 
Baal;  proclaimed  a  great  sacrifice  on  a  certain  day,  and  or- 
dered, under  pain  of  death,  that  every  priest  and  every  wor- 
shipper of  Baal  should  assemble  to  celebrate  it.  Having  thus 
filled  the  temple,  and  made  all  requisite  arrangements  by  the 
help  of  Jonadab,  at  an  appointed  moment  he  gave  the  signal 
for  killing  all  that  were  within.  When  this  order  had  been 
executed,  he  joined  his  guards  in  the  temple  of  Baal,  had  all 
the  images2  broken  and  burned,  the  temple  itself  pulled  down, 
and  its  site  converted  to  the  vilest  purposes.  Thus  were  the 
prophets  of  Jehovah  at  last  avenged  and  gratified. 

But  the  Fury  of  murder,  who  rioted  thus  perfidiously  in 
profane  Samaria,  spread  her  contagion  to  holy  Jerusalem. 
Jehu's  example  stimulated  the  daughter  of  Jezebel  to  deeds 
still  more  unnatural,  if  not  more  ferocious.  In  the  court  of 
Jehoshaphat,  ATHALIAH  from  her  earliest  youth  had  seen  no 
images  to  Baal  or  Astarte.  For  twenty-four  years  she  had 
lived  in  a  monotheistic  atmosphere ;  and,  but  for  Jehu,  she 
might  perhaps  have  passed  without  crime  and  without  re- 
proach to  her  life's  end.  But  her  mother's  blood  was  in 

and  even  uncles,  if  we  reject  the  account  that  Jehoram  slew  his  own  brothers, 
sons  of  Jehoshaphat.  Ahaziah  was  probably  the  eldest  son  of  Jehoram.  But 
2  Chr.  xxii.  1-7  appears  to  be  a  fragment  of  diiferent  origin  from  xxi.,  and  fol- 
lows a  different  chronology.  It  is  no  accident  that  at  once  makes  Ahaziah 
forty-two  years  old,  and  gives  him  so  many  nephews. 

1  The  Rechabites  were  a  tribe  or  family  who  lived  in  Arab  fashion,  beii 
under  oath  not  to  build  houses  nor  plant  the  ground.     This  is  identical  with  a 
Nabathsean  principle,  and  is  evidently  a  barbarous  endeavour  to  uphold  liberty 
by  avoiding  to  root  oneself  in  the  soil.     The  Rechabites  were  supposed  to  be 
descended  from  this  Jonadab,  and  to  have  adopted  their  institutions  at  his 
command. 

2  It  was  before  stated  that  Jehoram  "  put  away  the  image  of  Baal  which  his 
father  had  made ;"  but  not  that  he  actually  destroyed  it. 


MASSACRE    BY    ATHALIAH.  189 

her  veins,  and  now  that  her  son  and  all  his  brothers  were 
slain,  she  saw  the  throne  of  Judah  within  her  grasp,  if  only 
she  removed  the  young  children, — the  sons  of  her  son, — 
who  stood  in  her  way.  As  mother  of  the  king,  she  enjoyed 
high  privileges,  and  had  many  servants  at  her  bidding:  at 
this  moment  there  was  none  but  she  to  administer  the  supreme 
government  in  Judah.  Seizing  the  opportunity,  she  put  all 
her  grandchildren  to  death,  and  occupied  the  throne  as  QUEEN 
in  her  own  title  and  without  a  rival. 

Such  is  the  train  of  atrocities  which  Elisha's  message 
entailed  on  both  the  Hebrew  kingdoms.  A  third  time  was 
the  royal  house  of  Israel  extirpated,  and  now  likewise  that 
of  Judah.  That  the  Jewish  writers  can  gloat  over  such 
funereal  events,  so  deadly  to  their  own  people,  is  suffici- 
ently wonderful.  That  men  called  Christians  can  read  them 
with  calm  approbation,  is  still  more  melancholy;  for  this 
is  the  training  of  mind  which  steeled  all  Europe  to  cruelty 
under  the  name  of  religion.  This  has  lit  up  hell-fires  in 
Christendom ;  this  has  perpetrated  treacherous  massacres  un- 
known1 to  Paganism ;  this  has  bequeathed,  even  to  the  pre- 
sent age,  a  confusion  of  mind  which  too  often  leads  those 
who  are  naturally  mild  and  equitable,  to  inflict  hardship,  vex- 
ation, degradation  and  loss  on  the  professors  of  a  rival  creed. 
Until  men  learn  that  Jehovah  neither  does,  nor  ever  did, 
sanction  such  enormities  as  Elisha  commanded  and  Jehu  exe- 
cuted, they  will  never  have  a  true  insight  into  the  heart  of 
Him,  who  is  the  God  of  the  Pagan  as  well  as  of  the  Jew. 

1  The  slaughter  of  the  Magians  at  the  accession  of  Darius  son  of  Hystaspes,  is 
the  only  event  of  antiquity  which  might  seem  analogous  to  St.  Bartholomew's  eve. 
The  more  spiritual  the  forces  of  a  religion,  the  more  deadly  is  their  perversion  ; 
and  precisely  because  the  old  Persian  belief  is  too  pure  to  be  called  Paganism,  it 
is  credible  that  its  persecutions  may  have  shared  in  Christian  atrocity.  But  in 
truth  we  do  not  know  the  details  of  the  Magophonia  sufficiently  to  reason 
minutely  about  it.  Certainly  it  was  not  a  contest  of  pure  opinion,  but  also  a 
contest  which  of  two  races  should  possess  imperial  power. 

In  reply  to  the  gross  attacks  on  my  good  faith  by  a  reviewer,  I  affirm  that 
nothing  in  antiquity,  known  to  me,  approaches  the  Inquisition  in  conception  or 
in  consequences,  as  an  organized,  treacherous,  cruel  system  of  punishing  secret 
conscientious  opinion.  Paganism  has  abounded  with  atrocities  ;  and  certainly 
I  have  nowhere  disguised  them  :  but  no  Pagan  teachers  could  have  infused  into 
Christianity  the  horrible  mischiefs  which  the  consecrating  of  Jewish  history  has 
superinduced.  As  for  the  persecutions  by  Pagan  Home,  they  were  totally 
different  in  character ; — the  earlier  ones  being  the  arrogant  cruelties  of  mere 
despotism,  while  those  from  Trajan  downwards  were  open  attempts,  increasing 
in  violence,  to  dissolve  an  organized  society,  which  was  sincerely  believed  (and 
as  the  result  showed,  most  justly  believed)  to  be  dangerous  to  the  state. 


190 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  PEEIOD  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU,  B.C.  864-762. 

THE  improvised  epilogue  by  which  Queen  ATHALIAH  crowned 
the  murders  of  Jehu,  transferred  to  Jerusalem  the  worship 
of  Baal,  as  soon  as  it  was  suppressed  in  Samaria.     However 
hearty  the  zeal  of  Jehu  to  slay  every  priest  and  votary  of 
Jezebel's   god,  yet   without  the   organized   experience  of   a 
Spanish  Inquisition,  a  radical  destruction  was  physically  im- 
possible :  and  to  whom  else  would  the  survivors  flee  but  to 
the  daughter  of  the  murdered  queen  ?     Nor,  if  her  furious 
passions  had   allowed  her  to  debate  what  part  she    should 
choose,  was  it  now  well  possible  for  her  to  avoid  professing 
to  be  her  mother's  avenger.     As  a  princess  of  Israel  and  of 
Tyre,  she  had  no  claims  on  the  allegiance  of  the  house  of 
David;    she   could  hardly  hope   to   conciliate  the  Aaronite 
priesthood,  all  whose  greatness  had  sprung  from  the  supre- 
macy of  that  house ;  nor  could  she  affect  to  avenge  the  princes 
of  Judah,  when  she  had  herself  slain  the  heirs  to  the  throne. 
She  could  therefore  only  appear  as  the  champion  of  Jezebel, 
of  Baal,  and  of  the  slaughtered  house  of  Ahab.      Ill-omened 
and  frightful  as  such  a  vixen  must  have  seemed  on  the  throne 
of  David  and  Solomon,  the  people  were  too  panic-struck,  too 
much  afflicted  with  calamity,  to  move  against  her.     The  royal 
race  having  been  cut  off,  whom  could  they  set  up  as  king  ? 
and  what  new  murders  might  not  arise  from  displacing  her  ? 
While  therefore  they  submitted  in  silence,  she  put  forward 
the  priests  of  Baal  into  high  station,  and  perhaps  before  long 
flattered  herself,  from  the  public  inaction  and  tranquillity,  that 
all  were  contented  with  her  sway. 

But  the  lapse  of  a  century  and  a  half  had  been  preparing 
the  PRIESTHOOD  of  Jerusalem  to  act  an  independent  part. 
Its  pusillanimous  behaviour  under  the  early  kings,  like  that 
of  the  English  House  of  Commons  under  the  Tudors,  had 
saved  it  while  its  strength  was  immature ;  and  the  honours  it 
received  under  Asa  and  Jehoshaphat  confirmed  its  veneration 


PRIESTS    AND    LEVITES    IN    JERUSALEM.  191 

among  the  people,  without  awakening  the  jealousy  of  their 
two  departed  successors.  The  Priests  and  the  Levites  were 
now  knit  together  in  Jerusalem  by  very  close  bonds,  and  their 
influence  was  beginning  to  pervade  social  life.  The  Priestly 
system  indeed  may  be  described  as  already  adult ;  but  that 
of  the  Levites  was  quite  in  its  infancy.  Their  chief  business 
was  still  to  attend  on  the  temple  service ;  and  our  older  com- 
piler seldom  names  them,  in  the  places  where  the  more  credu- 
lous  and  less  candid  Chronicler  gives  them  great  prominence. 
This  may  nevertheless  be  the  place  to  explain  the  position 
towards  which  the  Levites  were  tending,  and  which  they  at 
length  attained. 

Like  the  Brahmins  of  India  and  the  Sacerdotal  Caste  of 
Egypt,  they  included  many  whom  we  should  call  Profes- 
sional or  Learned  men ;  as  also  many  whom  we  name  Civi- 
lians in  the  State,  by  way  of  contrast  to  the  Military.  The 
ascendency  of  sacerdotalism  in  Judaea  was  therefore  in  part 
similar  to  the  ascendency  of  civil  over  military  power  in 
European  government.  The  difference  is  this,  that  in  Israel 
the  scribes  and  notaries,  judges,  lawyers,  attorneys,  and  all 
literary  men,  gradually  came  to  be  united  by  the  bonds  of 
religion ;  after  which  they  may  be  said  to  have  had  two  watch- 
words : — worship  Jehovah  only ;  and  worship  him  by  the  in-  ] 
tervention  of  Priests  and  Levites.  By  intermarrying  princi-  i 
pally  with  themselves,  they  became  at  last  almost  a  heredi- 
tary caste :  what  they  were  originally,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
The  only  Levite  of  whom  a  particular  account  is  given  in  the 
times  of  the  Judges,  is  described  as  of  Bethlehem,  and  of  the 
family  of  Judah1.  In  Greek  and  Roman  history,  nothing  is 
commoner  than  to  find  organizations  of  men,  united  by  reli- 
gious rites,  which  imply  their  descent  from  a  common  ances- 
tor, the  hero  or  demigod  of  the  clan,  when  there  is  neverthe- 
less every  ground  for  believing  that  adoption  has  furnished 
more  members  than  natural  increase.  Nor  is  it  possible  to 
trust  the  alleged  genealogies  from  ancient  patriarchs,  when 
it  is  most  manifest  that  they  are  incomplete  and  erroneous 
even  in  those  times,  the  chronology  of  which  we  know.  Al- 
though a  High  Priest  existed  at  Jerusalem  without  breach  of 
continuity  from  Solomon  to  Josiah,  there  is  not  a  single  priest 
named  in  the  course  of  the  history  whose  pedigree  is  satisfac- 

1  Judges  xvii.  7. 


192  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

torily  made  out1 ;  yet  undoubtedly  those  of  a  later  period  were 
very  anxious  to  establish  their  descent  from  Zadok.  The  head 
of  the  order,  at  the  time  of  Athaliah's  usurpation,  was  named 
Jehoiada;  of  whose  ancestry  nothing  whatever  is  known2. 
The  kings  of  Judah  dealt  with  the  temple-patronage  much  as 
the  kings  of  Europe  have  done  with  bishoprics.  They  be- 
stowed it  according  to  their  inclination  or  judgment, — public 
opinion  confining  their  choice  within  certain  limits, — but  on 
no  account  did  they  follow  the  hereditary  principle.  With 
the  gradual  development  of  sacerdotalism,  the  families  perhaps 
became  fewer  and  fewer  out  of  which  a  choice  could  decor- 
ously be  made ;  and  at  last  the  line  of  Zadok  obtained  a  cele- 
brity with  which  no  common  Aaronite  could  compete. 

At  the  time  of  which  we  are  treating,  the  course  of  events 
itself  assures  us  of  the  high  political  consideration  which  the 
priests  (though  not  as  yet  the  Levites)  enjoyed.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  representative  of  David,  there  was  nothing  else 
round  which  the  nation  could  rally ;  so  that  Jehoiada  at  this 
moment  was  little  less  than  an  Eli  to  it.  Fortunately  Atha- 
liah,  as  a  woman  escaped  out  of  the  harem,  had  no  suspicion 
how  the  ecclesiastics  or  the  people  were  minded ;  and  she  left 
Jehoiada  and  his  associates  in  the  entire  enjoyment  of  their 
dignities.  The  votaries  of  Baal  did  not  revenge  on  the  priests 
of  Jehovah  the  violence  which  they  had  suffered  from  Jehovah's 
prophets ;  which,  at  this  crisis,  they  perhaps  could  have  done. 
But  Jehoiada  and  his  friends  were  saved  by  that  in  their  pre- 
decessors, which  we  hardly  know  whether  to  censure  as  luke- 
warmness,  or  (in  comparison  with  the  prophets)  to  approve  as 
humanity.  Hitherto  at  least  it  would  seem,  that  the  priest- 
hoods of  Jehovah  and  of  Baal,  when  alike  enjoying  state- 
establishment,  had  lived  in  decorous  mutual  toleration,  in 
contrast  to  the  fierce  enthusiasm  displayed  by  the  prophets, 
the  Puritans  of  that  age.  If  however  this  was  a  stain  on  Je- 
hovah's priests,  the  time  was  now  come  for  their  representa- 
tive to  wipe  it  off,  though  without  such  frenzy  as  Elisha  had 
displayed. 

Athaliah  had  reigned  six  years,  when  Jehoiada' s  plans  of 
revolution  were  complete.  He  had  gained  the  queen's  guard 
and  the  captains  of  some  other  military  bodies ;  and  having 

1  See  Appendix  to  this  chapter. 

2  The  same  name  is  given  (by  the  Chronicler)  to  the  head  of  the  "  Aaronites," 
who  came  to  join  David  at  Ziklag. 


REVOLUTION    CONDUCTED    BY    JEHOIADA.  193 

brought  them  into  the  temple,  took  an  oath  of  them  and 
opened  his  plot.  He  informed  them  that  the  late  king 
Ahaziah  had  a  young  son  yet  alive,,  saved  by  the  princess 
Jehosheba,  sister  of  Ahaziah.  At  the  time  of  the  massacre, 
the  child  had  been  but  a  year  old,  and  had  ever  since  been 
hidden  in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  He  then  produced  the  boy, 
whose  name  was  JEHOASH.  In  the  temple  (as  we  now  inci- 
dentally learn)  a  number  of  shields  and  spears,  called  king 
David's,  were  kept  hung  up,  as  in  many  temples  of  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  A  sufficient  number  of  the  guards  were  brought 
into  the  temple  unarmed,  and  were  at  the  critical  moment 
furnished  with  these ;  then,  having  sounded  the  trumpet  and 
proclaimed  Jehoash  king,  they  slew  Athaliah  as  soon  as  she 
came  out  to  see  the  cause  of  the  rejoicing.  Jehoiada  next 
held  an  assembly,  at  which  he  induced  the  people  to  bind 
themselves  by  a  public  covenant  to  Jehovah,  to  be  His  pecu- 
liar nation.  From  this  the  transition  was  not  great  to  an 
attack  on  Baal  and  his  priests ;  which,  however,  our  record 
ascribes  to  "  all  the  people,"  without  stating  that  Jehoiada 
distinctly  urged  it.  The  temple  of  Baal  which  Athaliah  had 
built  was  pulled  down ;  the  images  and  altars  were  thoroughly 
broken ;  and  the  chief  priest  Mattan  was  slain  in  front  of  the 
altars.  If  these  two  lives  were  alone  taken,  it  was  a  singu- 
larly bloodless  revolution. 

There  are  several  points  of  detail  in  the  narrative,  which 
would  bear  more  comment  than  can  here  be  afforded.  The 
day  on  which  the  slaughter  of  Athaliah  is  said  to  have  been 
perpetrated,  was  the  sabbath;  a  word  which  we  now  meet 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  monarchy.  That  on 
every  seventh  day  there  was  at  the  temple  special  service  to 
which  the  people  nocked,  and  sacrifices  of  greater  splendour, 
cannot  be  reasonably  questioned.  The  sacrifices  and  other 
offerings  formed  a  large  part  of  the  food  of  the  priestly  and 
Levitical  families  in  attendance  on  the  temple;  for  which 
purpose  they  were  cheerfully  contributed  by  the  pious,  as  well 
as  provided  by  public  money.  By  the  great  concourse  of 
people  to  the  temple  on  this  day,  Jehoiada's  plot  was  facili- 
tated ;  which  in  itself  implies  that  there  were  as  yet  no  such 
scruples  about  sabbatical  observances,  as  grew  up  after  the 
times  of  Nehemiah. 

We  are  farther  told,  that  upon  proclaiming  Jehoash  king, 
they  set  a  crown  upon  his  head,  and  presented  him  with  the 


194  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

testimony,  or  as  others  render  it,  with  the  law.  This  appears 
to  be  a  continuation  of  the  primitive  constitutional  practice, 
recorded  of  Samuel,  who  when  he  installed  Saul  into  the 
royalty,  "  told  the  people  the  manner  of  the  kingdom,  and 
wrote  it  in  a  book,  and  laid  it  up  before  Jehovah."  Some 
written  document  was  certainly  presented  now  to  Jehoash, 
describing  the  duties,  rights  and  powers  of  the  king ;  which, 
we  can  scarcely  doubt,  tended  to  define  and  limit  the  pre- 
rogative, to  mark  out  the  claims  and  privileges  of  the  priestly 
order,  and  secure  a  more  constitutional  government  than  had 
hitherto  prevailed.  At  the  same  time,  the  earnest  genius  of 
the  Hebrew  religion  assures  us,  that  the  book  contained  moral 
rules  and  laws  for  the  real  executing  of  right  between  man 
and  man.  In  the  Pentateuch  itself  we  have  several  fragmen- 
tary systems  of  law1,  which  clearly  formed  parts  of  earlier 
books ;  and  it  is  quite  a  possibility  that  the  very  code  which 
Jehoiada  delivered  to  his  young  charge,  has  been  incorporated 
with  our  modern  Bible. 

That  when  the  ancient  Hebrews  spoke  of  the  "  Book  of  the 
Law,"  or  even  the  "  Law  of  Moses,"  they  did  not  intend  any- 
thing so  voluminous  as  the  four  books  which  we  name  Exo- 
dus, Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy,  or  even  the  same 
with  the  omission  of  the  historical  parts,  is  very  clear  from  a 
narrative  in  the  compilation  which  we  call  the  book  of  Joshua, 
We  there  read2,  that  Joshua  built  an  altar  of  unhewn  stones, 
and  wrote  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses ;  and 
afterwards  read  aloud  all  the  words  of  the  law,  "  even  every 
word  which  Moses  commanded,"  to  the  whole  congregation, 
with  their  women  and  little  ones.  To  write  upon  unhewn 
stones  may  appear  an  arduous  task,  but  it  admits  of  explanation 
from  Deut.  xxvii.,  which  makes  virtual  reference  to  the  pas- 
sage already  quoted.  The  stones  were  to  be  first  plastered 
over  with  cement,  by  which  a  smooth  surface  might  be  ob- 
tained. Still,  with  the  rude  alphabet  of  antiquity,  the  largest 
altar  that  we  can  conceive  to  have  been  intended  would  take 
in  but  a  few  chapters  of  a  modern  Pentateuch ;  which  by  the 
compactness  of  our  stereotype  editions  beguiles  men  into  for- 
getting how  cumbrous  and  unreadable  a  book  it  (as  a  whole) 
practically  is  to  the  mass  even  of  an  educated  nation. 

1  Such  a  system  is  Exod.  xxi.,  xxii.,  xxiii.  1-19  ;    which  ends  with  a  frag- 
mentary decalogue.     Such  again  is  Levit.  xix. ;  also  Levit.  xxvi. 

2  Josh.  viii.  30-35. 


REGENCY    OF    JEHOIADA.  195 

Nevertheless,  there  are  circumstances  which  make  it  not 
improbable,  that  the  earlier  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
composed,  or  their  most  important  materials  compiled,  not 
later  than  the  regency  of  Jehoiada ;  although  (as  will  after- 
wards appear)  extreme  difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  supposing 
that  the  commands  and  threats  against  having  graven  images, 
high  places  and  some  other  things,  were  as  yet  read  in  any 
avowed  and  authoritative  form.  But  about  three  generations 
later  unequivocal  proofs  appear  that  the  outline  of  history,  as  i 
presented  in  the  modern  Pentateuch,  was  generally  received. 

It  is  impossible  to  attain  grounds  for  any  confident  opinion 
whether  the  young  Jehoash  was  or  was  not  a  real  son  of  Aha- 
ziah ;  though  there  are  general  topics  which  may  incline  us  to 
disbelief.    Cruelty  and  jealousy  are  very  keen  to  discover  their 
victims.     Athaliah  knew  perfectly  the  number  of  her  son's 
sons ;  and  must  have  been  aware,  if  the  last-born  infant  had 
escaped   her   sword.      The  age  being   accurately  known,  to 
bring  the  young  child  up  "  in  the  temple"  under  her  very  eye, 
would  be  peculiarly  difficult.     On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
guaranteed  the  truth  of  the  story,  of  whom  the  king's  mother 
Zibiah  must  have  been  not  the  least,  had  everything  person- 
ally to  gain  by  deception,  and  every  possible  facility  of  de- 
ceiving.    The  nation  itself  would  rejoice  to  believe ;  and  all 
prudent  men  who  suspected  something  wrong,  would  in  very 
patriotism  hold  their  peace.     Even  had  rumours  of  distrust 
been  noised  abroad,  no  whisper  of  them  was  likely  to  find  its 
way  into  the  pages  of  our  historians.     If  we  could  believe, 
with  the  Chronicler,  that  the  princess  Jehosheba  was  the  wife 
of  Jehoiada1,  the  probability  on  this  side  would  be  still  farther 
enhanced ;  and  it  might  even  be  surmised  that  the  boy  was 
their  son.     But  in  any  case  they  would  probably  select  for 
the  throne  a  child  of  the  line  of  David. 

The  king  being  only  seven  years  old,  Jehoiada  became  sole 
regent  during  the  long  minority.  In  these  years  of  unchecked 
sacerdotal  power,  it  might  have  been  imagined  that  the  Law 

1  We  have  no  right  to  dislocate  this  statement  from  another,  that  Jehoiada 
was  130  years  old  when  he  died,  2  Chron.  xxii.  11,  xxiv.  15.  This  makes  him 
full  ninety  when  Ahaziah  was  slain,  aged  twenty-three.  Ahaziah,  being  only 
eighteen  years  younger  than  his  father,  could  not  well  be  younger  than  his  sister. 
Thus  the  priest  would  be  about  seventy  years  older  than  his  princess  ;  which 
makes  the  marriage  itself,  as  well  as  any  issue  from  it,  incredible.  Both  the 
",  affinity  and  the  wonderful  age  of  the  priest  seem  to  be  fictions  of  the 
'  3ler  to  glorify  his  greatness. 

K2 


196  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  Moses  would  be  closely  enforced  as  regards  the  "high 
places."  But  we  have  here  the  vindication  of  all  the  kings  of 
Judah  against  the  incessant  complaints  of  a  later  age  : — even 
the  zealous  and  applauded  Priest  Regent  acted  in  this  matter 
exactly  as  the  Kings.  During  the  time  of  the  young  king's 
dutiful  submission,  it  is  still  recorded1,  "  The  high  places  were 
not  taken  away ;  the  people  still  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense 
in  the  high  places."  As  no  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Priest 
is  alluded  to,  nor  any  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  people,  it 
may  seem  doubtful  whether  the  Levitical  body  themselves 
had  yet  conceived  the  ambition  of  forbidding  all  local  sanc- 
tuaries and  all  worship  over  which  they  did  not  preside2.  The 
High  Places  were  clearly  beyond  their  jurisdiction :  in  fact 
we  have  not  a  particle  of  contemporaneous  or  otherwise  trust- 
worthy evidence,  that  even  in  Judah  the  Levites  were  at  this 
time  settled  in  cities  through  the  land.  We  have  the  fullest 
proof  which  is  possible  for  a  negation,  that  neither  Priests  nor 
Levites  were  as  yet  a  body  of  local  religious  teachers.  The 
worship  of  Jehovah  still  consisted  in  singing  of  hymns  and  in 
external  pageantry, — such  as  burning  of  incense  and  offering 
sacrifice  ;  and  centuries  had  to  pass  before  Public  Prayer,  with 
Reading  and  Teaching  of  the  Law,  was  systematized. 

One  consequence  of  the  revolution  which  expelled  the  wor- 
ship of  Baal, — not  noted  in  the  history,  but  discoverable  in 
the  extant  prophets, — was,  the  alienation  of  Sidon,  Tyre,  and 
all  the  Phoenician  confederacy,  from  the  two  Hebrew  king- 
doms. Their  rapid  growth  in  wealth  and  civilized  art  during 
the  whole  reign  of  David,  and  the  former  half  of  Solomon's 
reign,  had  mainly  depended  on  the  good  understanding  kept 
up  with  Tyre.  Under  the  immediate  successors  of  Solomon, 

1  2  Kings,  xii.  1-3. — The  Chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  1,  2)  copies  word  for 
word  the  two  first  verses,  and  wilfully  omits  the  third,  as  less  honourable  to  the 
priest !     This  is  literary  dishonesty  quite  disgraceful.    It  is  more  like  to  con- 
scious falsehood  than  to  mere  party  prejudice. 

From  2  Kings  xxiii.  13,  which  shows  the  buildings  of  Solomon  to  Astarte, 
Chemosh  and  Milcom  still  standing,  we  infer  that  Jehoiada's  zeal  was  limited  to 
practical  exigencies,  and  did  not  spend  itself  on  buildings  as  such. 

2  The  worship  at  the  high  places  implies  that  the  people  did  not  assemble  at 
Jerusalem  for  the  passoverj  for  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  it  was  celebrated  at 
the  high  places  by  the  separate  priests,  2  Kings  xxiii.  9. 

It  will  be  seen  that  afterwards  the  worship  at  the  high  places  became  more 
corrupt,  and  it  was  suppressed  for  other  than  ceremonial  reasons.  "  Hold  to 
the  Levites,"  then  became  the  cry  of  good  men,  as  "Hold  to  your  Bishops,"  in 
the  ancient  Christian  church.  In  avoiding  the  immediate  evil,  the  far  greater 
evil  of  destroying  freedom  and  individual  energies  was  overlooked. 


REIGNS    OF    JEHU    AND    HIS    SON.  197 

no  breach  of  amity  with  Judah  can  be  traced,  although  inter- 
course was  more  difficult  while  Philistia  was  a  precarious  pos- 
session. But  now  that  a  Tyrian  princess  and  her  daughter 
had  been  slaughtered,  and  the  worshippers  of  Tyrian  deities 
exterminated,  no  Phoenician  merchants  would  be  likely  to 
venture  their  persons  into  the  Hebrew  territories,  and  the 
uniting  influences  of  commerce  ceased.  In  fact,  commerce 
itself  became  a  source  of  enmity ;  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  were 
among  the  greatest  slave-marts  of  the  world ;  and  when  Phi- 
listine marauders  succeeded  in  carrying  oft"  (as  became  very 
common)  whole  troops  of  miserable  Jews,  the  Tyrian  mer- 
chant was  at  hand  in  the  Philistine  ports,  to  ship  off  the  cap- 
tives to  the  coasts  of  Greece,  Italy  or  Carthage1.  Another 
course  which  the  slave-trade  took,  is  imperfectly  explained 
to  us; — the  captive  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  Philistines 
or  Tyrians  through  those  of  the  Edomites2,  probably  to  the 
East. 

But  we  must  revert  to  the  affairs  of  Samaria,  where  JEHU 
reigned  ingloriously.  It  had  been  easier  to  turn  the  national 
force  against  unarmed  and  unsuspecting  princes  and  priests, 
than  to  repel  the  foreign  foe  against  whom  his  murdered 
master  had  stationed  him.  In  fact,  the  same  voice  of  the 
prophet  which  called  away  Jehu  from  before  B/amoth  of  Gilead, 
laid  open  the  whole  land  beyond  Jordan  to  be  overrun  by 
Hazael's  chariots.  A  usurper,  intent  on  exterminating  royal 
houses  and  entire  religious  sects,  needs  to  gird  his  own  throne 
with  his  most  trusted  guards,  and  has  little  strength  to  spare 
against  the  foreigner.  No  one  can  wonder  to  hear  that  the 
king  of  Syria,  whose  position  at  Bamoth  had  already  inter- 
cepted the  tribe  of  Beuben,  now  not  merely  established  his 
dominion  over  that  tribe,  but  conquered  all  Gilead  and  Bashan, 
and  shut  Israel  up  to  the  west  of  Jordan.  Two-fifths  of  his 
territory,  and  of  his  available  fighting-men,  were  lost  to  the 
king  of  Samaria  by  this  severe  and  irretrievable  blow.  No 
help  could  be  expected  from  Judah.  In  the  first  six  years, 
while  Athaliah  was  there  in  power,  the  queen  probably  rejoiced 
at  the  calamities  falling  on  her  mother's  murderer  and  the 
persecutor  of  her  religion :  and  after  her  fall,  the  prudent 
priest  who  swayed  public  affairs  remembered  too  well  the  un- 
happy result  of  Jehoshaphat's  campaign  with  Ahab.  A  feel- 
ing had  probably  diffused  itself  in  Judah,  that  an  alliance 
1  Joel  iii.  4-6.  2  Amos  i.  6,  9. 


198  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

with  Israel  was  unlucky;  for  nothing  of  the  kind  is  again 
attempted  down  to  the  capture  and  ruin  of  Samaria. 

King  Hazael  found  eager  and  fierce  auxiliaries  against  the 
unfortunate  Israelites  in  their  eastern  neighbours  the  people 
of  Ammon1.  The  old  controversy  about  the  limits  of  their 
land,  which  they  had  mooted  against  Jephthah,  was  not  yet 
forgotten;  and  the  horrible  destruction  of  their  nation  by 
David  seemed  to  make  revenge,  when  within  their  reach,  a 
pious  duty  towards  their  murdered  ancestors.  A  peculiar 
cruelty,  shocking  to  name,  is  more  than  once  alluded  to  in 
this  implacable  war,  as  suffered  by  the  towns  of  Israel ; — their 
pregnant  women  were  sought  out,  and  slashed  open  by  the 
malignant  victors.  The  people  of  David  were  thus  to  learn, 
that  crime  begets  crime,  and  that  its  punishment  too  often 
falls  on  a  comparatively  innocent  generation :  yet  their  pro- 
phets always  allude  to  the  atrocities  of  Edom  and  Ammon 
against  Israel,  as  if  utterly  unaware  that  it  had  been  provoked 
by  David,  their  pattern -prince. 

No  more  is  told  us  of  Jehu,  than  that  he  reigned  twenty- 
eight  years.  On  referring  to  the  chronological  table  in  p.  135, 
it  will  appear  that  143  years  elapse  from  the  accession  of  Jehu 
to  the  destruction  of  the  Samaritan  monarchy;  of  which 
period  the  house  of  Jehu  held  the  kingdom  103  years.  So 
long  a  tenure  of  power, — long,  in  contrast  to  the  other  dynas- 
ties of  Samaria, — is  stated  by  our  better  historian2  to  be  a 
reward  from  Jehovah  to  Jehu  for  his  massacring  the  descen- 
dants of  Ahab.  And  it  may  be  thought,  that  the  house  of 
Jehu  continued  for  three  generations  on  an  excellent  footing 
with  the  whole  body  of  the  prophets,  when  we  find  Jehoash, 
grandson  of  Jehu,  address  the  aged  Elisha  in  terms  of  more 
than  devoted  filial  respect. 

The  son  of  Jehu,  by  name  JEHOAHAZS,  was  naturally  still 
more  helpless  than  he  against  the  Syrian  monarch ;  inasmuch 
as  Hazael's  power  on  the  east  bank  of  Jordan  enabled  him 
to  invade  the  western  country  by  crossing  where  he  pleased. 
Although  no  particulars  are  given  of  his  inroads,  the  general 
summary  is  perhaps  only  the  more  trustworthy.  We  learn 
that  he  left  to  Jehoahaz  only  fifty  horsemen,  ten  chariots,  and 
10,000  footmen4 ;  words  which  seem  to  mean,  that  he  kept 

1  Amos  i.  13.  2  2  Kings,  x.  30.  3  Accession  in  B.C.  835. 

4  A  real  army  of  10,000  infantry  is  far  more  than  we  can  believe  Jehoahaz  to 
have  kept  on  foot.    But  the  historians  are  so  accustomed  to  large  enumerations, 


DISPERSION    OF    JUDAH    AND    ISRAEL.  199 

the  king  of  Samaria  in  a  certain  dependence,  dictating  to  him 
what  military  force  he  should  be  allowed  to  keep  up.  It  will 
presently  appear  that  Hazael  also  exercised  the  right  to  march 
through  the  country  when  he  pleased ;  so  that,  on  the  whole, 
the  first  steps  to  entire  dominion  were  taken.  Israel  was,  in 
some  sense,  become  a  province  of  the  Syrian  empire,  governed 
however  by  its  native  king,  who  paid  homage  and  undoubtedly 
tribute  to  the  great  monarch.  This  result  was  not  brought 
about  without  severe  struggles  and  immense  loss  on  the  part 
of  the  Israelites,  of  whom  it  is  said,  that  "  Hazael  had  de- 
stroyed them,  and  had  made  them  like  the  dust  by  threshing." 
The  calamity  of  war,  in  the  reigns  of  Jehu  and  his  sons,  was 
aggravated  by  other  causes1.  A  great  drought  and  a  dreadful 
plague  of  locusts  fell  within  this  period.  Famine  also  and 
pestilence  are  named,  which  indeed  may  well  have  been  a  re- 
sult of  the  war  itself. 

As  the  "  dispersion  of  Judah"  began  with  the  revolt  of 
Edom  and  the  marauding  incursions  of  Edomites  and  Philis- 
tines which  followed  it,  so  the  "  dispersion  of  Israel"  began, 
but  on  £  greater  scale,  with  the  wars  of  Hazael.  When  that 
prince  found  that  the  Israelites  were  too  high-spirited  and  too 
uncongenial  to  be  turned  into  obedient  subjects,  our  know- 
ledge of  all  antiquity,  and  of  the  conduct  of  the  other  Asiatic 
monarchs,  justifies  the  inference,  that  upon  storming  various 
towns  of  Israel,  great  numbers  of  the  inhabitants  were  sold  by 
him  into  slavery.  Whole  families  of  the  more  educated  Is- 
raelites, who  thus  found  their  way  to  the  rich  and  cultivated 
nations  beyond  the  desart,  would  be  likely  to  communicate 
from  time  to  time  with  their  lost  country  :  and  this  accounts 
to  us  for  the  comparatively  familiar  acquaintance,  which,  two 
generations  later,  we  find  to  have  been  current  in  Israel,  with 
the  great  cities  of  the  Tigris.  And  so  sweeping  had  been 
HazaeFs  conquests,  that  the  fear  of  a  general  transplantation 
of  the  whole  nation  was  already  rising  before  the  minds  of 
thoughtful  men.  The  depression  of  Israel  continued  through 
the  whole  reign  of  Jehoahaz,  concerning  which  nothing  else 
has  come  down  to  us2.  But  before  passing  to  his  son's  reign, 
we  must  resume  the  history  of  Jerusalem. 

that,  in  comparison,  this  appeared  little.  On  the  other  hand,  he  must  have 
had  very  much  more  than  10,000  men  of  military  age,  if  that  interpretation  be 
attempted. 

1  Amos  iv.  6-10. 

2  In  2  Kings,  xiii.  4-6,  three  mysterious  verses  occur,  which  may  be  a  later 


200  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

About  130  years  had  passed  since  Solomon  first  built  his 
celebrated  temple ;  in  which  time,  even  under  the  dry  climate 
of  Judaea,  some  external  dilapidation  of  a  building  may  have 
occurred,  enough  to  make  repairs  requisite.  Moreover,  the 
feet  of  multitudes  may  have  greatly  worn  away  the  cedar 
floors.  Jehoiada  at  least  thought  the  state  of  the  sacred  edi- 
fice reasonably  to  demand  his  care;  for  it  cannot  have  been 
without  his  instance,  that  the  minor  king  ordered  collections 
to  be  made  from  the  pious,  with  the  express  object  of  repair- 
ing it.  The  funds  to  be  appropriated  to  this  object  seem  to  be 
described  as  threefold: — 1.  Dedicated  gold,  whether  stamped 
or  unstamped,  which  existed  in  the  temple.  2.  The  money 
levied  on  the  people,  like  our  church  rates.  3.  Additional 
sums,  which  might  voluntarily  be  paid  into  the  temple  trea- 
sury. But  when  it  is  added  that  the  priests  are  "  to  take  the 
money,  every  man  of  his  acquaintance,"  it  is  left  doubtful 
whether  this  is  identical  with  the  third  source  of  supply,  or 
whether  (as  the  Chronicler  has  enlarged  and  expounded  the 
words)  the  priests  were  to  perambulate  the  land  and  make 
special  collections  everywhere1.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  account 
is  clear,  that  years  and  years  passed,  during  which  the  priests 
continued  to  receive  money  from  the  people2,  but  totally  neg- 
lected to  apply  it  to  the  repairs  of  the  house.  Such  unfaith- 

interpolation.  1.  They  so  break  the  connexion,  that  they  can  hardly  have 
formed  part  of  the  original  writing.  2.  They  represent  Israel  to  have  been 
delivered  from  Syria  at  Jehoahaz's  repentance  and  prayer ;  without  hinting  that 
the  deliverance  did  not  take  place  in  his  lifetime.  This  is  opposed  to  v.  22  of 
the  same  chapter.  The  vague  mention  of  a  saviour  who  delivered  them  from 
Syria,  cannot  reasonably  be  referred  to  the  king  Jehoash ;  and,  on  the  whole, 
looks  like  the  writing  of  a  man  who  had  no  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  his- 
tory. The  unknown  antagonist,  who  crippled  the  power  of  Benhadad,  is  pos- 
sibly intended. 

1  2  Chron.  xxiv.  5,  6.     Indeed  the  Chronicler,  as  usual,  thrusts  Levites  for- 
ward, when  the  book  of  Kings  knows  only  about  priests.     He  also  represents 
the  law  of  Moses  to  have  supplied  the  pattern  :  but  not  lung  like  it  appears  in 
the  other  record. 

2  The  Chronicler  dishonestly  omits  the  fact,  that  the  priests  actually  received 
the  money,  and  lays  upon  them  no  other  guilt  than  that  of  neglecting  to  make 
the  collections.     He  also  imputes  the  "breaches  of  the  house"  to  the  wilful  act 
of  "  tfhe  sons  of  Athaliah,  that  wicked  woman,"  who  had  also  "  bestowed  all  the 
dedicated  things  upon  Baalim."     But  Athaliah's  sons  would  have  been  sons 
also  of  her  husband  Jehoram,  unless  we  impute  a  most  bold  adultery  to  her  as 
queen,  (and  indeed  in  her  early  days,)  and  suppose  that  she  could  dare  now 
publicly  to  bring  forward  her  spurious  offspring.      To  interpret  her  sons  as 
meaning  any  mere  votaries  of  Baal,  appears  like  an  evasion.     In  any  case,  they 
were  not  likely  to  make  halfwork  with  the  temple.    If  they  had  wished  to  dila- 


REPAIRS    OF    THE    TEMPLE.  201 

fulness  need  surprize  no  one.  The  priestly  body  had  risen  in 
political  position,  but  without  an  increase  of  pecuniary  re- 
sources proportioned  to  their  advanced  rank ;  and  every  cor- 
poration of  men  thus  vested  with  power  finds  the  temptations 
to  peculation  irresistible.  Nevertheless,  as  time  went  on  and 
the  neglect  continued,  the  king  could  at  last  endure  it  no 
longer.  It  was  not  until  he  had  attained  the  age  of  thirty 
years, — having  nominally  reigned  twenty-three, — that  he 
gained  strength  of  mind  for  personal  conflict  with  his  bene- 
factor, tutor,  and  regent ;  and  having  called  for  Jehoiada  and 
the  other  priests,  he  pointedly  asked  what  had  been  done  with 
the  money.  Finally,  a  compromise  was  made ;  the  past  was 
not  inquired  into ;  in  future  the  priests  were  to  receive  no 
moneys  for  the  purpose  of  repairs;  but  by  the  side  of  the 
altar  was  set  a  box  with  a  hole  in  its  lid1,  into  which  the  peo- 
ple cast  their  offerings.  From  time  to  time,  the  king's  own 
scribe,  conjointly  with  the  high  priest,  took  out  and  counted 
the  money,  arid  with  it  employed  carpenters  and  masons  to 
execute  the  necessary  repairs.  The  funds  thus  obtained  were 
barely  sufficient  for  the  work  in  timber  and  in  stone  :  nothing 
remained  to  spend  on  gold  and  silver  vessels2 ;  a  fact,  which, 
as  we  shall  see,  may  have  soon  become  even  matter  of  congra- 
tulation. 

The  affair  just  narrated  exhibits  the  priests  in  no  favour- 
able light,  and  might  furnish  matter  of  triumph,  alike  to  those 
who  suspect  or  hate  all  religious  profession,  and  to  those  who 
believe  all  priesthood  to  be  priestcraft.  But  happily  we  now 
come  upon  the  domain  of  contemporary  literature,  which  gives 
a  new  aspect  of  the  ecclesiastical  body  then  ruling  at  Jeru- 
salem. Although  Israel  abounded  in  prophets  more  than 
Judah,  yet  those  of  Israel  appear  to  have  been  men  of  action 
rather  than  of  books.  Jerusalem  furnished  an  endowed  priest- 
hood, and  therewith  the  opportunities  of  literary  leisure ; 
consequently,  from  it  has  come  down  to  us  the  first  extant 

pidate  it,  they  would  have  chosen  to  ruin  it,  and  would  not  have  left  Jehoiada 
in  his  place. 

As  the  book  of  Kings  is  silent,  the  whole  statement  must  be  looked  on  as  a 
fiction  of  prejudice. 

1  This  substitute  for  the  method  before  used,  seems  to  prove  that  the  order 
to  perambulate  the  country  is  the  Chronicler's  invention. 

2  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  2  Kings,  xii.  13,  but  it  is  directly  contradicted 
by  the  Chronicler,  in  xxiv.  14,  who  thought  it  a  bad  example  to  later  times,  to 
confess  that  the  collections  had  not  been  very  liberal. 

K3 


202  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

prophetical  writing1,  the  production  of  JOEL,  son  of  Pethuel. 
It  has  been  conjectured  that  he  was  himself  a  priest  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  at  least  his  whole  tone  is  thoroughly  sacerdotal2,  and 
implies  that  he  stood  in  the  most  intimate  relations  with  the 
priests,  between  whom  and  his  school  no  one  can  imagine 
any  diversity  of  feeling  to  have  existed.  His  prophecy  is  re- 
markably fluent  and  finished  in  style,  so  as  to  indicate  that 
such  writing  had  already  received  great  cultivation ;  and  al- 
though the  paucity  of  political  allusions  makes  it  impossible 
to  fix  its  date  with  nicety,  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  that 
it  was  penned  during  the  ascendency  of  Jehoiada.  This  beau- 
tiful and  striking  composition  tends  to  give  us  a  very  high 
opinion  of  the  best  men  among  the  contemporary  Jerusalem 
priesthood.  So  far  is  it  from  the  narrow  Levitical  bigotry, 
which  would  appropriate  all  religious  eminence  to  a  certain 
race,  that  it  boldly  and  rejoicingly  anticipates  a  time  when  the 
spirit  of  Jehovah  shall  be  poured  forth  over  all  flesh  :  when 
young  and  old,  male  and  female,  shall  enjoy  the  same  direct 
communion  with  God,  which  he  was  believed  to  impart  by 
dreams  and  visions  to  his  most  favoured  servants.  That  time 
(it  declares)  will  indeed  only  be  ushered  in  by  awful  physical 
convulsions,  such  as  earthquakes  and  volcanos  are  known  to 
produce,  yet  in  the  midst  of  these  the  "  remnant "  shall  be 
saved,  who  seek  to  Jehovah  in  Mount  Zion  and  in  Jerusalem3. 
Although  we  know  distinctly,  that  the  worship  of  Jehovah  at 
the  high  places,  without  Levites,  was  at  this  time  practised  in 
Judaea,  Joel  drops  no  word  of  disapproval  concerning  it,  nor 
can  we  find  out  from  his  writing  that  anything  approaching  to 
idolatry  was  apprehended  by  him  in  the  land.  This  decidedly 
confirms  us  in  the  belief,  that  Levitical  ambition  had  not  yet 
developed  itself.  The  sacred  duty  of  supporting  the  altar  is 
indeed  strongly  inculcated  by  this  prophet;  yet  not  more 
strongly  than  the  utter  vanity  of  all  lip-service  and  outward 

1  The  English  reader  is  exposed  to  the  greatest  disadvantage  by  the  extreme 
defects  of  the  English  translation  of  the  prophets,  besides  the  confused  order 
and  erroneous  divisions.     The  references  made  in  this  work  will  not  always  ap- 
pear quite  to  the  purpose  in  the  common  Bible. 

2  Thus  ii.  14,  the  very  first  use  to  which  a  starving  people  is  to  apply  the 
renewed  fertility  of  the  soil  is,  to  make  a  meat-offering  and  drink-offering  to 
Jehovah  their  God.     We  do  not  find  in  him  any  of  the  indignant  disclaimers 
of  sacrifice,  which  are  met  in  other  prophets.     See  Amos  (v.  21,  22),  his  next 
extant  successor. 

3  It  is  remarkable  to  find,  in  this  first  extant  outburst  of  prophecy,  the  idea 
of  an  elect  people  in  the  midst  of  Israel  itself,  thus  distinctly  formed  already. 


PROPHECY    OF    JOEL.  203 

show  of  religion.  "  Turn  to  me,  saith  Jehovah,  with  all  your 
heart,  with  fasting,  weeping,  and  mourning ;  and  rend  your 
heart,  and  not  your  garments,  and  turn  unto  Jehovah  your 
God :  for  he  is  gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of 
great  kindness,  and  repenteth  him  of  the  evil." 

The  particular  cause  which  called  forth  this  eloquent 
prophet  was  a  prodigious  descent  of  locusts,  which  so  de- 
voured the  crops  as  to  cause  wide-spread  famine.  According 
to  his  statement,  every  species  of  plant  suffered.  At  least  he 
enumerates  the  wheat  and  the  barley,  the  vine  and  the  fig,  the 
pomegranate,  the  palm-tree1,  the  apple.  Meat-offerings  and 
drink-offerings  could  not  be  furnished  for  the  altar.  The 
barley-grass  and  the  barley  having  been  destroyed,  the  cattle 
had  no  fodder ;  and  as  a  general  dry  season  conspired  with 
the  other  calamity,  the  flocks  of  sheep  found  no  pasturage, 
and  the  very  beasts  of  the  wilderness  pined  for  their  accus- 
tomed streams  of  water.  The  locusts  are  described  in  a  highly 
poetical,  yet  an  impressively  correct  similitude,  as  an  army  of 
horsemen  from  the  north,  ravaging  the  land,  hiding  the  face  of 
the  sun,  clambering  over  the  walls,  leaping  in  at  the  windows ; 
and  the  people  are  called  upon  to  see  and  acknowledge  Jeho- 
vah's own  mighty  hand  in  this  unavoidable  calamity.  Where 
human  exertion  has  no  place  left  for  it,  he  suitably  calls  on 
them  to  make  it  a  time  of  peculiar  supplication  to  their  God  : 
not  indeed  with  the  stupid  conceits  which  under  such  an  in- 
fliction a  Greek  imagination  might  have  devised,  nor  with  the 
ferocious  sacrifices  for  which  Italians  and  Gauls  would  have 
called  ;  but  with  the  outpourings  of  pure  hearts  and  the  lamen- 
tation of  simple  souls.  The  priests,  as  ministers  of  Jehovah, 
are  called  upon  to  take  the  lead  in  the  public  sorrow,  and  the 
nation  is  comforted  by  the  assurance  that  their  God  will  not 
thus  afflict  them  for  ever.  The  result  of  restored  prosperity 
is  to  be,  that  wide  diffusion  of  Jehovah's  spirit  among  the  whole 
nation,  before  alluded  to,  and  a  concussion  of  all  nature, 
through  which  the  pious  and  chosen  ones  shall  nevertheless 

1  It  grew  principally  in  the  plain  of  Jericho,  but  there  may  have  been  a  few 
other  favoured  spots. 

The  fourth  verse  of  the  prophecy  has  been  understood  to  mean  that  the 
palmer- worm,  canker-worm,  locust  and  caterpillar  were  the  plagues  of  four  suc- 
cessive seasons  ;  but  the  best  interpreters  regard  these  words  as  descriptive  of 
the  locusts  at  different  ages  ;  so  that  the  whole  is  only  declarative  of  the  long 
duration  of  their  ravages,  beginning  from  the  month  in  which  they  are  as  cater- 
pillars, and  lasting  until  they  are  full-grown. 


204  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

be  preserved.  From  this  topic,  the  prophet  passes  off  to  the 
judgment  on  foreign  nations,  especially  Tyre,  Sidon  and  Phi- 
listia,  for  driving  off  into  slavery  the  defenceless  Hebrew 
population,  who  are  sold  to  the  Greeks  for  a  trifling  price. 
The  violence  of  the  Edomites  also  is  denounced1,  who  have 
shed  innocent  blood  in  the  land.  For  these  sins  a  day  of 
vengeance  is  predicted,  when  Jehovah  shall  gather  all  the 
nations  to  the  place  where  he  will  judge  them — (by  name,  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  perhaps  an  imaginary  place ;  for  the 
word"  means  "  Jehovah  is  Judge"), — while  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem shall  dwell  for  ever  in  holiness,  separation  and  pro- 
sperity. 

In  this  prophet  we  see  strikingly  the  tender  influences  of 
adversity.  He  has  neither  the  selfglorifying  tone  which  a  too 
successful  career  often  gives,  nor  the  fierce  desire  of  revenge 
which  personal  sufferings  from  enemies  excite ;  but  as  one  who 
endures  more  from  God  than  from  man,  and  knows  that  love 
is  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  chastisement,  he  is  melted,  and  not 
hardened  by  it.  While  he  contemplates  with  desire  and  hope 
the  coming  destruction  of  all  the  men  of  violence,  there  is 
nothing  in  his  writing  to  nourish  malignant  passion,  or  give 
just  offence  to  Charity. 

We  return  however  ;to  king  Jehoash.  In  spite  of  his  ge- 
neral respect  for  his  instructor,  his  discovery  how  the  moneys 
collected  from  the  people  had  been  appropriated,  appears  to 
have  commenced  feelings  of  distrust  towards  the  advisers  of 
his  boyhood ;  and  at  length  a  positive  feud  arose  between  the 
royal  and  the  priestly  party.  It  did  not  break  out  in  its  full 
violence  until  after  the  death  of  Jehoiada ;  but  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  king  had  conceived  a  bad  opinion  of  the  priests 
and  had  become  uneasy  in  his  trammels.  When  it  was  clear 
that  they  had  been  abusing  their  power,  it  was  inevitable  for 
him  to  consider  farther  that  this  power  was  a  recent  and  acci- 
dental result  of  his  unhappy  orphanhood ;  and  he  would  look 
upon  it  as  a  usurpation,  which  it  was  his  duty  to  put  down. 
Thus  instead  of  a  joint  constitutional  action  between  King 
and  Priesthood,  a  violent  struggle  for  supreme  power  com- 
menced. 

1  Egypt  likewise  is  threatened,  but  the  words  leave  it  doubtful  whether  they 
are  regarded  to  have  helped  the  inroads  of  the  Edomites. 

From  this  time  forth,  the  "  bringing  back  the  captivity  of  the  people,"  or  re- 
covering them  from  slavery,  is  a  constant  burden  of  the  prophets. 


PEACE    IS    BOUGHT    OF    HAZAEL.  205 

Before  this  could  work  out  its  results,  Hazael,  king  of  Syria, 
marching  at  will  across  the  territories  of  the  prostrate  king 
of  Samaria1,  made  his  appearance  entirely  on  the  other  side 
of  Jerusalem, — in  the  country  of  the  Philistines.  Here  he 
besieged  and  captured  the  important  city  of  Gath;  after 
which  he  prepared  to  march  upon  Jerusalem.  The  physical 
strength  and  riches  of  Judaea  were  undoubtedly  impaired  since 
the  time  of  Jehoshaphat.  As  for  the  ravages  of  locusts,  they, 
though  very  severe,  are  indeed  temporary.  But  the  battle  at 
K/amoth  had  been  to  Judah  what  that  of  Leuctra  was  to  the 
Spartans.  Though  the  loss  was  trifling,  its  moral  effect  on 
the  subject  states  had  been  great.  The  Edomites  and  Phi- 
listines, with  other  marauders,  had  ever  since  looked  on 
Judaea  as  their  spoil,  and  far  beyond  the  direct  wounds  they 
inflicted,  must  have  been  the  damage  done  by  hindering  cul- 
tivation. Neither  Jehoiada  nor  Jehoash  were  warriors ;  and 
the  blood-feud  against  Edom,  which  David  had  provoked, 
forbade  the  reign  of  piety  and  mildness  to  be  one  of  peace 
and  happiness.  Nevertheless,  there  had  been  a  great  multi- 
plication of  forts2,  which,  like  the  walls  of  Aurelian,  though 
denoting  conscious  weakness,  served  as  protection  from  the 
barbarian.  Under  Jehoiada  and  Jehoash  the  land  had  enjoyed 
(it  would  seem)  prudent  government ;  and  if  the  people  had 
been  united,  they  might  perhaps  have  offered  a  successful  resist- 
ance to  such  an  army  as  Hazael  had  with  him  before  Gath3. 
But  Jehoash  felt  the  priestly  schism  to  palsy  the  hearts  and 
hands  of  his  people ;  and  as  one  reared  in  the  temple,  and 
living  always  in  his  own  court,  he  had  no  enterprize  for  war. 
He  adopted  therefore  the  more  prudent  plan  of  pacifying  the 
Syrian  king  by  gifts  of  homage.  The  treasures  of  the  temple 
had  not  been  used  for  the  repairs  of  the  building,  nor  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  priests.  Since  the  day  when  Asa  emptied 
the  sacred  store-room  to  gratify  the  first  Benhadad,  new  ac- 
cumulations had  taken  place,  both  during  the  brilliant  reign 
of  Jehoshaphat,  and  during  half  a  century  since.  Sparing 
therefore  neither  royal  nor  sacred  treasures4,  the  king  sent 

1  Jehoash,  son  of  Jehoahaz,  appears  just  to  have  come  to  the  throne. 

2  See  2  Chron.  xi.  5-12 ;  Hosea  viii.  14. 

3  Yet  on  the  contrary,  the  better  success  of  this  prince  in  war  may  have  been 
owing  to  liis  not  using  so  large  and  pompous  armies  as  his  predecessors.     The 
Cluxmicler  speaks  contemptuously  of  the  smallness  of  his  force,  2  Chr.  xxiv.  24. 

4  According  to  £  Chr.  xxi.  17,  the  Philistines  in  Jehoram's  reign  rifled  the 


206  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

them  off  to  make  his  peace  with  Hazael ;  and  the  Syrian 
monarch,  whether  really  satisfied  and  soothed,  or  conscious 
that  his  army  was  unequal  to  the  task  of  reducing  Jerusalem, 
marched  away  without  farther  hostility. 

But  the  conduct  of  Jehoash,  if  we  can  trust  our  informer, 
must  have  kindled  into  fury  the  priestly  dissatisfaction.  The 
pride  and  the  dignity  of  the  body  were  alike  concerned  in  the 
splendour  and  wealth  of  the  temple,  which  it  is  every  way 
probable  that  the  late  priest  Jehoiada  had  sedulously  fostered 
and  augmented,  but  which  their  own  king  had  now  lavished 
away  on  the  public  foe.  Although  not  yet  old  (for  his  age 
was  forty-seven),  he  was  in  a  bad  state  of  health.  A  conspi- 
racy was  formed  against  his  life,  and  he  was  slain  on  his  bed 
by  two  assassins1,  whom  our  more  sacerdotal  authority  de- 
scribes as  avengers  of  the  priestly  cause2. 

The  general  account  which  we  have  here  given  of  the  pro- 
gress of  the  feud,  depends  principally  on  the  facts  furnished 
by  the  book  of  Kings.  But  these  appeared  insufficient  to  the 
later  historian,  who  states  that  immediately  on  Jehoiada's 
death,  the  princes  of  Judah  came  and  ingratiated  themselves 
with  the  king,  and  obtained  his  leave  to  worship  images  of 
Astarte  and  other  idols ;  that  when  prophets  from  Jehovah  in 
vain  protested,  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  (a  priest  full 
eighty  years  of  age)  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of  God,  and 
publicly  rebuked  the  people ;  that  thereupon  a  conspiracy  was 
made,  and  the  people,  by  the  king's  command,  stoned  Zecha- 
riah to  death  in  the  very  court  of  Jehovah's  house.  In  pu- 
nishment for  this  murder,  Hazael  was  sent  up  by  God  against 
Jehoash,  and  his  own  servants  presently  slew  him.  Such  is 
the  addition  made  by  the  Chronicler ;  but  it  is  far  more  likely 

royal,  but  not  the  sacred  treasures.  But  this  account  must  be  received  with 
some  uncertainty. 

From  Joel  iii.  5,  it  appears  that  the  Philistines  and  Phoenicians  had  plun- 
dered "  silver  and  gold"  from  Judsea,  and  dedicated  it  in  their  own  temples.  The 
words  might  naturally  mean  that  they  had  plundered  the  temple  at  Jerusalem ; 
but  perhaps  this  is  not  necessarily  implied. 

1  As  if,  after  all,  ashamed  to  put  upon  any  true  Jew  the  unpleasant  work  of 
king-killing,  the  Chronicler  curiously  informs  us,  that  the  mothers  of  the  assa* 
sins  were,  one  an  Ammonitess  and  one  a  Moabitess. 

2  B.C.  818.     One  of  my  critics  who  professes  a  belief  in  the  verbal  inspira- 
tion of  the  Chronicles,  is  angry  that  I  here  believe  the  Chronicler.     I  confess 
it  is  from  the  wicked  Gibbon  that  I  have  learned  a  mode  of  investigating  truth 
which  my  critic  seems  to  think  malevolent,  viz.  to  lean  towards  believing  all 
the  evil  which  men  tell  of  their  own  party,  and  to  believe  all  the  good  which 
they  tell  of  their  adversaries. 


INVASION    OF    IDUM^EA.  207 

that  this  is  an  invention  to  exculpate  the  priestly  party  from 
having  commenced  murder,  than  that  the  older  compiler  should 
have  omitted  facts  so  important  to  a  Jehovist,  so  heinous,  and 
so  characteristic.  Indeed,  the  general  applause1  bestowed  by 
him  on  Jehoash  appears  fully  to  justify  our  refusing  belief  to 
any  part  of  the  story. 

The  murder  of  their  king  betrayed,  in  the  priestly  faction, 
not  only  moral  turpitude,  but  a  conscious  weakness.  Unsup- 
ported by  territorial  Levitism,  they  were  not  an  order,  or  even 
a  party  in  the  state,  but  (from  their  fewness)  merely  a  respect- 
able or  formidable  coterie.  They  were  certainly  not  yet  equal 
to  a  direct  contest  with  the  royal  power,  which  was  strength- 
ened by  the  atrocious  deed  which  their  best  members  must 
have  deeply  regretted.  AMAZIAH,  the  son  of  Jehoash,  found 
no  difficulty  in  ascending  the  throne  without  the  aid  of  the 
priests2,  and  having  buried  the  murdered  prince  in  the  royal 
sepulchres3,  took  vengeance  on  the  murderers4. 

Both  in  Samaria  and  in  Jerusalem  a  young  king  now 
reigned,  each  of  higher  spirit  than  his  predecessors,  and  in 
more  fortunate  circumstances.  Amaziah,  in  his  early  prime 
(for  his  age  was  twenty-five),  finding  himself  master  of  the 
kingdom  of  Jehoshaphat,  proposed  to  chastise  the  marauding 
Edomites,  and  recover  them  to  the  yoke  of  Judah.  In  some 
respects  reminding  us  of  Jehoshaphat  (to  whom  however  he 
was  inferior  in  prudence),  he  strictly  confined  himself  to  mo- 
notheistic worship,  tolerating  no  pagan  impurities.  The  priests 
either  feared  his  energy,  or  applauded  his  heroism  and  up- 
rightness ;  and  the  people  must  have  rejoiced  in  the  hope  of 
checking  the  cruel  Edomites.  The  peaceful  and  priestly  exte- 
rior of  the  last  reign  was  superseded  once  more  by  martial 
tumult.  That  a  powerful  host  was  really  assembled  we  cannot 


1  2  Kings,  xiv.  3.  "  Amaziah  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  Jeho- 
vah, according  to  all  things  as  Jehoash  his  father  did"  The  qualification,  "yet 
not  like  David  his  father,"  is  a  stereotype  reservation  of  primacy  to  David,  but 
nqt  implying  such  guilt  as  the  Chronicler  imputes  to  Jehoash. 

"*  B.C.  818. 

3  2  Kings,  xii.  21.   This  is  distinctly  denied  by  the  Chronicler,  2  Chron.  safe          \/ 
25,  as  in  the  similar  case  of  Jehoram. 

'  It  is  added,  that  in  obedience  to  the  law  ofMoses^  Amaziah  did  not  put  to 
death  the  children  of  the  murderers ;  for  which  the  compilers  quote  Deuter. 
xxiv.  16..  It  is  a  pity  that  Elisha  had  not  the  same  advantage  of  reading  Deu- 
teronomy as  these  writers  had,  for  perhaps  he  might  have  then  spared  the  in- 
nocent descendants  of  Ahab. 


208  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

doubt ;  but  it  is  tedious  to  quote  the  monstrous  exaggerations 
of  the  Chronicler1.  Idumsea  however  was  invaded.  In  the 
Valley  of  Salt, — the  old  battle-ground  of  Joab  and  Abishai, 
— an  obstinate  conflict  took  place,  with  total  defeat  of  the 
Edomites,  whose  loss  was  estimated  at  10,000  men2.  It  is 
difficult  to  deal  with  such  numbers.  Whether  it  is  worth 
while  to  compromise,  and  say  that  dispersion  was  mistaken  for 
slaughter, — is  very  uncertain.  Since  however  the  Jewish 
king  got  possession  of  his  enemy's  metropolis,  the  strong  and 
rocky  town  called  Selah3,  it  is  clear  that  the  victory,  whether 
more  or  less  bloody,  was  really  decisive.  The  Edomites  still 
maintained  themselves  in  Elath,  on  the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea ; 
but  as  in  the  prophet  Amos  their  chief  seats  are  alluded  to  as 
in  the  distant  cities  of  Bozra  and  Teman,  we  must  suppose 
that  these  events  helped  once  more  to  unpeople  Mount  Seir. 
Thus  Idumsea  itself  was  for  the  time  under  the  power  of  the 
victor,  and  the  immediate  fear  of  Edomite  incursion  was 
removed. 

Meanwhile  JEHOASH  the  king  of  Israel,  who  ascended  the 
throne  two  years  before  Amaziah,  had  met  with  still  more 
unlooked-for  successes.  From  causes  wholly  unexplained,  the 
power  of  Benhadad,  who  had  succeeded  to  the  throne  of  his 
father  Hazael,  shrank  into  sudden  insignificance.  In  fact,  for 
more  than  half  a  century  the  power  of  Damascus  vanishes 
with  Hazael  from  the  Hebrew  horizon,  as  if  annihilated  by 
some  great  revolution.  We  must  not  too  hastily  attribute 
this  to  the  prowess  of  king  Jehoash  and  of  Israel.  If  they  had 
struggled  successfully,  crippled  as  they  already  were,  against 
the  undivided  power  of  Syria,  it  would  be  strange  indeed 
that  no  other  memorials  of  such  a  war  of  freedom  should  sur- 
vive than  our  extant  dry  notices.  Some  personal  weakness  in 
Benhadad  may  have  assisted  the  result,  but  the  action  of  fo- 

1  He  gives  Amaziah  "  300,000  choice  men,  handling  spear  and  shield,"  and 
makes  him  hire  "100,000  mighty  men  of  valour  out  of  Israel  for  100  talents  of 
silver."  In  David's  wars  he  made  the  Ammonites  hire  32,000  chariots  with 
1000  talents  of  silver  ;  1  Chron.  xix.  6,  7.  Some  unhappy  students  take  these 
numbers  as  valuable  statistical  information. 

?.  A  single  10,000  does  not  satisfy  the  Chronicler's  largeness  of  heart:  he  likes 
to  improve  a  story.  He  therefore  makes  Amaziah  fling  a  second  10,000  from 
top  to  bottom  of  the  rock,  "  so  that  they  were  all  broken  in  pieces." 

3  Selah  (the  rock)  is  believed  to  be  the  remarkable  city  called  by  the  Greeks 
Petra,  under  Mount  Hor.  It  is  about  half-way  between  the  Dead  Sea  and  the 
Gulf  of  Akaba.  Bozra  is  commonly  placed  in  the  Hauran,  but  perhaps  wrongly ; 
Teman  is  supposed  to  be  on  the  east  of  Idumsea. 


DECLINE    OF    DAMASCUS.  209 

reign  powers  upon  Damascus  must  surely  Lave  been  the  mov- 
ing spring  of  the  whole.  Had  Hamath  rebelled,  and  with- 
drawn from  Benhadad  the  power  of  Hollow  Syria  ?  or  did  war 
with  Northern  Syria  or  Mesopotamia  hamper  him  ?  Or  was 
the  might  of  Nineveh  thrusting  in  this  direction,  and  its  arm 
already  long  enough  to  clutch  at  the  provinces  of  Benhadad1  ? 
Whatever  the  cause,  it  was  shortly  discovered  by  the  Israelites 
that  the  new  king  of  Damascus  was  a  very  different  antago- 
nist from  his  father. 

A  single  phrase2  hints  to  us  the  condition  of  the  eastern 
tribes  of  Israel  under  the  power  of  Hazael.  They  were  not 
properly  conquered,  but  were  kept  down,  and  cut  off  from  the 
rest  of  the  nation.  The  Syrians  had  overrun  the  country  and 
possessed  themselves  of  all  the  unwalled  villages,  nor  could 
the  Israelites  freely  rove  about  in  tents,  as  was  natural  to  gra- 
zier tribes ;  but  the  principal  cities  had  held  out,  like  so  many 
garrisons,  and  preserved  the  name  and  hope  of  Hebrew  inde- 
pendence. The  land  of  Bashan,  though  open  and  exposed  to 
an  inroad  of  cavalry  or  chariots,  had  only  so  much  the  more 
carefully  'been  furnished  with  strongly-walled  towns.  Sixty 
cities,  with  high  walls,  gates  and  bars,  were  celebrated  as  in 
the  land  of  Og,  the  giant-king ;  and  even  the  exaggerations  of 
legend  are  likely  to  have  had  a  basis  in  the  existing  features 
of  the  country.  Such  fortresses  remaining  unsubdued,  a  rapid 
revolution  might  at  any  favourable  moment  overthrow  the 
Damascene  power.  Where  the  first  shock  was  received  is  un- 
certain, as  is  the  whole  course  of  events,  both  as  to  space  and 
time.  As  far  as  can  be  made  out,  the  first  struggle  took  place 
on  the  west  of  Jordan,  for  cities  which  Hazael  had  taken  from 
Jehoahaz.  When  Benhadad  came,  as  usual,  with  chariots, 
and  selected  a  favourable  position,  previously  well-known,  near 
Aphek,  on  the  slope  of  Esdraelon,  Jehoash  encountered  and 
defeated  him.  In  two  other  unfavourable  engagements  Ben- 

1  Since  the  above  was  written,  Colonel  Rawlinson's  partial  decipherment  of 
the  Nimrood  Obelisk  adds  to  the  probability  that  the  last  is  the  true  hypothe- 
sis.    Zoba  and  Hamath  are  both  named,  as  attacked  by  the  Assyrian  king,  in 
Rawlinson's  translation ;  but  the  chronology  is  still  highly  uncertain. 

2  2  Kings,  xiii.  5.    "  The  children  of  Israel,"  when  delivered  from  Syria, 
"  dwelt  in  their  tents,  as  beforetime."      That  is  to  say,  while  under  Syrian 
oppression  they  did  not  dare  to  move  about  in  tents,  but  remained  shut  up  in 
their  cities. 

This  is  in  a  passage  which  has  been  already  noted  as  a  probable  interpola- 
tion ;  yet  it  must  be  very  ancient,  and  shows  the  view  taken  of  their  position  by 
an  early  writer. 


210  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

hadad  lost  all  the  cities  west  of  Jordan,  which  had  been  gained 
in  the  preceding  reign,  but  (as  appears)  still  held  his  ground 
on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river. 

Meanwhile,  the  king  of  Jerusalem,  exulting  in  his  triumph 
over  Idumaea  and  confident  in  the  bravery  of  his  troops,  in- 
dulged the  fancy  that  he  was  to  recover  the  empire  of  Solomon 
over  all  Israel ;  and  in  a  chivalrous  spirit  sent  a  message  of 
defiance  to  Jehoash,  inviting  him  to  battle.  The  disdainful 
retort  of  the  Israelitish  monarch  has  deserved  preservation,  as 
illustrating  the  still  homely  and  quaint  spirit  of  the  nation. 
He  replied  to  the  king  of  Judah, — "  The  thistle  that  was  in 
Lebanon  sent  to  the  cedar,  saying,  Give  thy  daughter  to  my 
son  for  a  wife.  Then  a  wild  beast  of  Lebanon  passed  by,  and 
trode  down  the  thistle/'  But  accepting  the  challenge,  Jehoash 
marched  down  upon  his  rival,  and  encountered  him  near  Beth- 
shemesh  of  Judah.  A  battle  took  place,  in  which  the  Jewish 
army  was  entirely  worsted;  and  Jehoash,  following  up  his 
success,  captured  the  unfortunately  boastful  king,  and  entered 
Jerusalem  itself  without  farther  opposition.  He  then  pulled 
down  the  fortifications  of  the  city  for  a  length  of  400  cubits ; 
plundered  whatever  gold  and  silver  was  to  be  found,  not  spar- 
ing consecrated  vessels;  and  having  taken  as  many  hostages 
as  he  pleased,  returned  to  Samaria1. 

Jehoash,  dying  in  the  meridian  of  life2,  left  to  his  youthful 
son  JEROBOAM  II.  a  kingdom  animated  to  a  new  conscious- 
ness of  vigour.  The  victories  achieved  over  the  Syrians  and 
over  the  conqueror  of  the  Edomites  stimulated  the  Samaritan 
power  to  a  belief  in  its  high  destiny ;  and  the  first  object  pro- 
posed was  to  recover  the  trans- Jordanic  possessions  of  Israel. 
Who  then  wielded  the  sceptre  of  Damascus  is  wholly  unknown. 
The  son  of  Hazael,  if  alive,  must  have  been  aged,  and  no  suc- 
cessor is  named3.  One  thing  only  is  certain,  that  when  Jero- 

1  The  Chronicler  does  not  know  how  to  imagine  such  misfortunes  occurring 
to  Amaziah,  except  as  a  punishment  for  pagan  idolatry ;  hence  he  interpolates 
a  tale,  that  after  the  conquest  of  Edom  the  king  had  brought  back  the  Edomite 
gods  and  worshipped  them.      A  prophet,  of  course,  rebukes  him,  at  which 
Amaziah  is  angry :  the  prophet  predicts  woe  coming  on  him,  etc.    • 

But  all  this  is  set  aside  by  the  emphatic  statement  in  the  Kings,  "  He  did 
that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,"  etc. ;  2  Kings,  xiv.  3,  and  espe- 
cially 2  Kings,  XT.  3,  written  on  a  retrospect  of  his  reign. 

2  B.C.  804. 

3  Amos  (i.  4.)  speaks  only  of  Hazael  and  Benhadad,  although  he  wrote  full 
seventy  years  after  the  accession  of  Jehu,  when  Hazael  must  have  been  in  the 
prime  of  manhood. 


VICTORIOUS    CAREER    OF    JEROBOAM    II.  211 

boam  crossed  the  Jordan,  the  eastern  tribes,  which  had  not  in 
the  course  of  two  generations  forgotten  their  Hebrew  feelings 
and  connexions/ gladly  shook  off  the  Syrian  yoke.  The  short 
notices  left  us  concerning  the  "  very  bitter  affliction"  of  these 
tribes,  while  beneath  the  Syrians,  may  suggest  that  (as  so  often 
in  ancient  warfare)  the  masters  of  the  open  country  perpetu- 
ally distressed  the  dwellers  in  the  cities  by  carrying  oft"  their 
cattle,  cutting  down  their  fruit-trees,  and  burning  whatever 
crops  (although  generally  pastoral  people)  they  might  happen 
to  raise.  But  by  such  methods  the  Syrians,  if  in  many  cases 
they  forced  surrender,  yet  left  behind  a  spirit  of  enmity,  eager 
for  retaliation.  Accordingly,  the  work  of  Jeroboam  seems  to 
have  been  very  easy.  The  whole  land  was  recovered,  from  the 
defile  of  the  Leontes  to  the  Dead  Sea,  and  not  a  single  city  of 
Israel  was  left  under  Syrian  rule. 

Nor  was  this  all.  So  prostrate  was  the  Damascene  power, 
that  Jeroboam  conceived  the  idea  of  attacking  it  at  home,  and 
taking  vengeance  for  its  long  oppression  of  Israel.  He  met 
with  entire  success.  Entering  Damascus  as  a  conqueror,  he 
marched  through  the  land  of  Hamath  (or  Hollow  Syria?), 
and  was  fondly  believed  by  his  people  to  have  re-established 
the  glories  of  David.  The  men  of  Jerusalem  desired  to  appro- 
priate a  part  of  his  renown ;  and  the  historian,  who  has  con- 
cisely handed  do\vn  the  facts,  ingeniously  observes,  that  "  Da- 
mascus and  Hamath  were  won  back  for  Judah1  by  means  of 
Israel." 

A  fragmentary  notice,  by  a  contemporary  prophet,  of  Jero- 
boam' s  war  against  the  Moabites  has  perhaps  been  recovered 
by  the  acuteness  of  a  modern  expositor2.  Isaiah  has  sub- 
joined to  it  an  epilogue  of  two  verses,  and  by  this  accident  it 
has  been  preserved  with  his  compositions  (xv.  xvi.).  From 
this  dirge  of  battle  it  is  dimly  made  out,  that  during  HazaePs 
occupation  of  Ramoth-Gilead  the  Moabites  moved  northward 
over  the  Arnon,  and  became  masters  of  a  large  part  of  the 
tribe  of  Reuben ;  but  that  Jeroboam  (though  this  is  the  un- 
certain point, — WHO  is  the  conqueror)  not  only  expelled  them 
from  Israelitish  ground,  but  assailed  them  at  home,  stormed 
their  two  chief  cities,  Ar  and  Kir,  in  the  night,  and  (it  would 
seem)  pushed  his  frontier  to  the  southern  limit  of  the  land, 

1  2  Kings,  xiv.  28,  De  Wette's  Translation. 

2  Hitzig.    He  believes  the  prophet  to  be  Jonah,  son  of  Amittai. 


212  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

where  Idumsea  was  supposed  to  begin.  The  prophet  recom- 
mends the  miserable  Moabites  to  put  themselves  under  the 
protection  of  Jerusalem,  where  a  merciful  and  righteous  king 
reigns  in  the  tabernacle  of  David,  and  to  send  tribute  of  lambs 
from  Selah  in  Edom;  implying  perhaps  that  the  Moabites 
were  to  occupy  the  land  which  the  Edomites  had  evacuated. 
It  is  however  intimated  that  Moab  is  too  proud  to  accept  such 
terms,  and  that  more  slaughter  still  will  come  on  those  who 
have  escaped.  The  time  of  this  is  not  certain ;  but  in  the 
chronology  which  we  have  preferred,  the  righteous  king  of 
Judah  must  probably  mean  TJzziah.  This  prophecy  is  vigor- 
ous and  massive,  but  wanting  in  all  religious  interest.  The 
name  of  Jehovah  is  not  found  in  it,  and  but  for  the  ethical 
description  of  the  king  of  Jerusalem,  it  might  have  been  writ- 
ten by  a  mere  heathen. 

The  very  meagre  notice  which  we  have  of  this  long  and  im- 
portant reign  is  happily  filled  out  by  the  far  more  valuable 
writing  of  the  contemporary  prophet  Amos.  The  contrast  is 
most  striking  between  Amos  and  his  only  extant  predecessor, 
Joel.  The  latter  exhibits  the  more  finished  cultivation  of  Je- 
rusalem, and  writes  in  his  own  free  and  fluent  diction,  as  is 
habitual  to  an  educated  man.  But  Amos,  even  when  his 
thoughts  are  his  own,  is  fain  to  borrow  words  from  another. 
As  if  from  some  inaptitude  in  beginning  and  ending  his  para- 
graphs, he  is  too  apt,  like  a  Homeric  rhapsodist,  to  chant  out 
the  burden  of  his  heart  in  stereotype  monotony.  Neverthe- 
less, he  is  to  the  historian  a  more  serviceable  informant  than 
his  predecessor.  Joel  indeed  writes  as  a  pious  priest  of  Jeru- 
salem, acquainted  only  with  the  domestic  affairs  of  his  peo- 
ple ;  but  Amos  is  a  man  of  the  world,  whose  eye  travels  over 
distant  countries ;  who  meditates  on  the  cities  of  the  Tigris 
and  "  Hamath  the  great/'  even  in  the  midst  of  his  religious 
anxieties.  The  personal  history  of  Amos.,  as  picked  up  from 
himself,  is  of  interest.  He  had  been  a  keeper  of  cattle  in  the 
wilderness  of  Tekoa,  a  southern  district  of  Judsea,  and  a  dresser 
of  sycamore-trees.  He  was  neither  a  prophet  nor  reared 
among  prophets ;  but  while  following  the  herd  in  this  southern 
district,  he  felt  himself  called  by  the  Most  High  to  migrate 
into  the  kingdom  of  Jeroboam  in  order  to  prophesy  against  its 
sins.  In  reproving  these,  he  gives  us  a  great  insight  into  the 
actual  condition  of  the  people. 

It  may  be  suspected  that  the  violent  suppression  of  Baal- 


INTERNAL    STATE    OF    ISRAEL.  213 

worship  by  Jehu  turned  the  current  of  impure  superstition 
into  the  channel  of  the  still  supported  state-religion.  Those 
who  would  have  been  BaaFs  avowed  votaries  if  they  had 
dared,  now  insinuated  their  favourite  practices  into  the  sanc- 
tuaries of  Bethel  and  Gilgal1 ;  so  that,  by  the  time  of  Amos, 
the  calf  of  Bethel  was  an  idol  almost  equally  demoralizing 
with  the  images  of  Baal  and  Astarte.  If  this  had  been  the 
case  at  Jehu's  accession,  the  vehemence  of  the  prophets  could 
not  have  flamed  out  so  exclusively  against  Baal;  we  must 
therefore  believe  the  result  to  have  come  about  during  the 
century  of  Jehu's  dynasty2.  As  soon  as  a  national  religion 
has  become  a  source  of  corruption,  the  worst  prognosis  of  the 
public  disease  may  be  justly  formed :  the  Greek  proverb  here 
applies — When  water  chokes,  what  must  one  drink  after  it  ? 
Nevertheless,  other  causes  had  conspired  to  bring  mischief 
upon  Israel.  The  "  war  to  the  knife"  which  they  had  car- 
ried on  against  Ammonites  and  Syrians  must  in  itself  have 
been  very  brutalizing,  particularly  to  the  eastern  tribes,  who 
had  suffered  longest  and  worst  from  it.  In  the  general  dis- 
tress, the  poor  had  been  driven  to  the  necessity  of  borrowing 
from  the  rich  :  the  rich,  hardened  by  their  own  losses,  exacted 
their  debts  mercilessly,  and  often  used  their  legal  power  to 
sell  the  debtor  into  slavery3.  "  Ye  have  sold  the  righteous 
for  silver,  and  the  poor  for  a  pair  of  shoes/'  is  the  prophet's 
reiterated  complaint.  We  might  almost  believe  that  the 
wealthy  creditors,  whom  he  stigmatizes  as  kine  of  Bashan 
(i.  e.  pampered  cattle),  had  become  rich  by  usury ;  for  in  such 

1  Dan  is  not  named,  but  Gilgal  takes  its  place.     Bethel  (house  of  God)  is 
often  called,  in  this  prophet  and  in  Hosea,  by  way  of  contempt,  Beth-aven 
(house  of  vanity'). 

2  In  2  Kings,  xiii.  6,  is  a  remarkable  statement,  that  in  the  time  of  the  son  of 
Jehu  "there  remained  Astarte  in  Samaria."     Is  it  possible  that  Jehu  can  have 
rooted  out  Baal  and  left  Astarte  ?     Had  not  this  stolen  back  in  the  second 
generation  ? 

3  Arnold  (Hist.  Kome,  vol.  i.  p.  135)  draws  a  pleasing  contrast  between  the 
cruelty  of  Roman  law  and  custom  against  innocent  debtors,    and  the  mild 
wisdom  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Unfortunately  we  are  without  the  means  of  ascer- 
taining how  far  the  Mosaic  law  (as  we  read  it)  was  either  observed  or  known  by 
the  Israelites  of  this    date.     Of  the  liberation  of  Hebrew  slaves  after  seven 
years,  and  restoration  of  land  at  the  jubilee,  we  hear  nothing  in  the  prophets. 

The  prohibition  of  all  interest,  which  Arnold  admires,  is  not  so  wise  as  it  was 
well-intended.  Men  who  are  hard-hearted  enough  to  extort  from  another's 
necessities  a  really  unfair  rate  of  interest,  will  not  be  so  liberal  as  to  lend  for 
nothing  but  the  chance  of  loss.  Such  a  law  prohibits  any  from  lending  who  are 
not  generous  and  rich  enough  to  give. 


214  THE    HEBREW   MONARCHY. 

times  of  trial  neither  law  nor  custom  will  make  men  lend  on 
any  but  usurious  terms.     The  prophet  however  accuses  them 
of  fraudulent  dealings  in  general.     On  the  whole  it  is  clear, 
that  the  attacks  of  the   Syrians  had  broke  down  the  middle 
class  of  the  nation,  and  left  a  wide  gap  between  the  wretchedly 
indigent  and  the  rich,  whom  he  describes  as  building  mansions 
of  hewn  stone,  planting  for  themselves  pleasant  vineyards, 
treading  down  the  poor,   and  taking  from  him  burdens  of 
wheat ;  lying  on  beds  of  ivory,  chanting  to  the  sound  of  the 
viol,  drinking  wine  in  bowls,  and  anointing  themselves  with 
precious  perfumes.      Nor  is  it  probable  that  the  victorious 
wars  of  Jeroboam  did  anything  to  relieve  the  pressure  on  the 
poor.     We  have  no  ground  to  imagine  that  any  system  existed 
for  paying  soldiers  an  adequate  hire,  and  it  may  be  presumed 
that  the  poor  man,  as  in  ancient  Rome,  left  his  field  untilled 
while  forced  to  march  into  a  foreign  land.    The  valuable  booty 
of  war  is  likely  to  have  been  seized  by  the  king  and  his  chief 
officers,  while  the  common  man  was  consoled  by  the  free  leave 
given  him  to  rob  and  kill  the  enemy  from  whom  he  had  suf- 
fered.    At  the  end  of  a  successful  campaign  the  poor  would 
come  home  poorer,  and  the  rich  richer,  than  he  had  gone  forth. 
The  prophet  gives  a  retrospect  of  the  calamities  by  which  God 
has  chastised  Israel :  famine, — drought, — blight  and  locusts, 
— pestilence, — slaughter  by  the  sword   (of  the  Syrians  and 
Ammonites  ?), — and  finally,  earthquake,  which  is  probably  the 
same  as  that  of  king  Uzziah ;  but  as  these  have  been  unavail- 
ing to  correct, — (having,  no  doubt,  been  on  the  contrary  great 
causes  of  moral  evil,) — he  threatens  them  with  a  yet  severer 
attack  from  a  great  nation  in  the  distance.     There  is  no  ques- 
tion that  he  meant  the  growing  power  of  Nineveh. 

And  this  leads  us  to  notice  the  light  thrown  upon  foreign 
nations  by  the  prophecy  of  Amos.  He  opens,  as  might  be 
expected,  against  Damascus,  but  adds  nothing  to  our  know- 
ledge. He  speaks  of  it  as  independent  of  Jeroboam,  and 
threatens  it  (as  indeed  every  other  nation  mentioned1)  with 
captivity  and  utter  destruction.  Gaza  and  the  other  towns 
of  Philistia  are  next  rebuked,  and  after  them  Tyre3,  for 

1  The  moral  weight  of  these  prophets  is  often  hurt,  by  the  unvarying  de- 
struction which  they  pronounce. 

2  Tyre  is  chided  for  not  remembering  Tier  brotherly  covenant  with  the  He- 
brews.    Can  this  mean  that  there  had  been  any  recent  covenant  ?     Since  the 
time  of  Jehu,  such  a  thing  seems  out  of  the  question  ;  and  Israel  appears  first  to 


PROPHECY    OF    AMOS.  215 

carrying  Jews  into  captivity  and  selling  them  to  the  Edom- 
ites.  On  Edom,  Ammon  and  Moab,  a  like  denunciation 
falls;  and  here  we  learn,  that  a  fierce  war  had  taken  place 
between  Moab  and  Edom.  The  Moabites  had  captured  the 
king  of  Edom,  and  "  burned  his  bones  into  lime;"  in  recom- 
pense of  which  the  prophet  threatens  fire  in  their  palaces 
and  slaughter  to  their  people. 

Against  Judah  he  has  somewhat  to  say.  The  town  of 
Beersheba  was  held  a  sacred  spot  from  the  earliest  times ; 
and  undoubtedly  there  was  always  a  sanctuary  there,  at  which 
Jehovah  was  worshipped  as  at  the  "high  places."  Amos, 
perhaps  because  of  the  sight  which  he  had  had  of  the  corrupt 
worship  in  the  Israelite  sanctuaries,  speaks  more  severely 
against  Beersheba  (which  he  couples  with  Bethel  and  Gilgal) 
than  the  historians  do.  He  taxes  Judah  with  despising 
the  law  of  Jehovah,  and  threatens  the  same  fire  on  its  palaces 
as  on  all  the  rest.  Yet  it  is  hard  to  think,  against  the  testi- 
mony of  the  historians,  that  under  Uzziah  any  strange  god 
was  worshipped  in  Judah,  or  any  neglect  of  Jehovah  avowed. 

It  appears  from  Amos,  that  king  Jeroboam  held  his  court 
at  Bethel,  where  he  had  a  royal  chapel  and  a  high-priest 
named  Amaziah.  He  also  offered  sumptuous  sacrifices  to 
Jehovah,  and  musical  chantings ;  of  both  which  the  prophet 
expresses  entire  contempt.  The  king  had  a  winter  and  a 
summer  palace,  one  of  which  perhaps  was  at  Bethel.  Ivory 
houses  also  are  named,  such  as  Ahab  had  introduced;  but 
whether  belonging  to  the  king  or  to  the  wealthy,  is  not  clear. 
This  prophet  alludes  to  the  forty  years'  wandering  in  the 
desart,  after  coming  out  of  Egypt,  and  perhaps  also  to  the 
flood  which  drowned  the  Egyptians  on  trying  to  pass  the 
Red  Sea ;  which  makes  it  probable  that  the  account  of  the 
Exodus,  just  as  we  now  read  it,  was  already  familiar  to  the 
nation.  He  concludes  his  prophecy  by  predicting  a  time 
when  the  house  of  David  shall  recover  its  sway  over  all  Israel, 
and  over  that  "  remnant"  of  the  Edomites  which  had  escaped 
the  arms  of  AMAZIAH. 

To  the  reign  of  this  king  we  must  now  go  back.  During 
the  events  which  have  been  narrated,  we  have  no  exact  syn- 

have  cut  the  bond.  So  too,  when  the  prophet  complains  that  Edom  "  did  pur- 
sue his  brother  with  the  sword,  and  cast  off  all  pity,"  we  cannot  but  regret  that 
such  merciful  topics  are  urged  only  by  the  weaker  party.  Obadiah  follows  on 
the  same  track,  equally  ignoring  the  history  of  the  feud,  10-14. 


216  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

chronisms  concerning  the  Judsean  royalty.  Although  Ama- 
ziah  had  been  set  free  by  Jehoash,  when  hostages  had  been 
given,  yet  the  shock  to  his  reputation  by  the  capture  of  his 
city,  razing  of  the  wall,  and  plunder  of  his  treasure,  was  such, 
that  he  must  have  had  much  to  do  to  hold  his  ground  against 
the  Edomites.  He  reigned  (according  to  our  reckoning)  five 
years  after  the  death  of  Jehoash.  Perhaps  that  time  barely 
sufficed  him  to  rebuild  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  and  re-establish 
his  authority  over  Idumsea,  which  he  bequeathed  to  his  son 
unimpaired.  Like  his  father,  in  his  later  years  he  fell  into 
an  unhappy  feud  with  some  of  his  own  subjects,  the  cause  of 
which  is  imperfectly  indicated1.  A  conspiracy  was  made 
against  him  in  Jerusalem,  and  when  he  fled  to  the  fortified 
town  of  Lachish,  he  was  pursued  thither  and  slain,  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  his  reign,  and  forty -fifth  of  his  age2. 

His  son  Azariah,  commonly  called  UZZIAH,  aged  only  six- 
teen, now  followed  him  in  the  kingdom.  We  now  meet  with 
the  formula,  twice  afterwards  repeated  when  a  king  has  been 
slain, — that  the  people  of  the  land  took  Uzziah,  and  made  him 
King.  It  seems  to  denote  a  breach  of  continuity  in  the  govern- 
ment, which  is  supplied  by  direct  popular  action  as  in  a  Ro- 
man interregnum  :  but  no  details  are  known.  In  Uzziah' s 
reign  of  nearly  fifty-two  years,  the  meagreness  of  our  better 
compiler  is  wonderful.  One  foreign  and  one  domestic  event 
comprize  nearly  all  that  he  gives ;  and  upon  these  the  Chro- 
nicler has  built  up  more  than  we  can  unshrinkingly  receive3. 
1.  The  foreign  event  is  undoubtedly  a  significant  one,  and  is 
set  forth  as  a  compendium  of  the  whole  reign  : — Uzziah  forti- 
fied the  port  of  Elath  on  the  Red  Sea,  and  occupied  it  as  a 
Hebrew  possession.  This  denotes  to  us  how  complete  was 
now  his  mastery  over  Idumsea  proper ;  but  we  are  unfortu- 
nately left  to  conjecture  to  what  purposes  he  turned  the  port. 

1  If,  against  the  testimony  of  the  book  of  Kings,  we  could  believe  in  Ama- 
ziah's  heathenism,  we   might  infer  that  he  was  slain  for  refusing  to  obey  the 
priests'  orders, — from  the  Chronicler's  words,  "  After  the  time  that  Amaziah 

tivrned  away  from  following  Jehovah,  they  made  a  conspiracy "     But  it  is 

difficult  to  judge  whether  the  compiler  wrote  here  from  evidence,  or  by  his  own 
inference. 

2  B.C.  799. 

3  Uzziah  had,  forsooth,  a  trained  army  of  307,500  men,  under  2600  chief  offi- 
cers.    Side  by  side  with  such  exaggerations,  we  cannot  help  being  somewhat 
doubtful  as  to  his  conquest  of  Philistia  and  of  the  Arabians,  and  as  to  the 
homage  of  the  Ammonites.     Concerning  the  Ammonites,  see  the  remarks  in 
Jotham's  reign. 


UZZIAH'S  LONG  PROSPERITY.  217 

2.  The  domestic  event  is,  that  he  was  afflicted  with  leprosy1 ; 
on  which  account  he  abstained  from  appearing  in  public  ;  and, 
following  the  example  of  Jehoshaphat,  associated  his  son  Jo- 
tham  with  himself  in  joint  and  coordinate  authority.  His 
religious  character,  as  a  true  Jehovist,  is  praised,  with  the  sole 
qualification  that  "  the  high  places  were  not  removed."  Yet  we 
have  seen  that  the  prophet  Amos  looked  with  severer  eyes  on 
the  worship  at  Beersheba,  the  southernmost  town  of  Judah, 
and  compared  it  to  the  idolatry  of  Bethel. 

Uzziah  succeeded  in  repressing  the  attacks  of  the  Philistines 
and  Arabians,  if  he  did  not  actually  subdue  the  towns  of  Phi- 
listia,  as  the  Chronicler  states.  His  general  policy  was  that 
of  vigorous  defence.  He  built  towers  in  the  desart  and  castles 
on  his  frontier,  strengthened  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  pro- 
vided himself  against  a  siege3,  a  necessity  which  may  have 
been  suggested  by  the  capture  of  the  city  in  his  father's  reign. 
Both  by  example  and  by  encouragement  he  fostered  hus- 
bandry, planting,  and  keeping  cattle ;  and  as  soon  as  security 
was  better  established,  a  rapid  return  of  prosperity  undoubtedly 
took  place,  which  the  ravages  of  one  tremendous  earthquake3 
in  this  reign  did  not  destroy.  In  contrasting  Uzziah  and  Jo- 
tham  with  Asa  and  his  son  Jehoshaphat,  it  will  be  observed  that 
those  earlier  kings  held  a  more  powerful  despotism,  unchecked 
by  priesthood ;  that  their  internal  wisdom  and  vigour  were  the 
same ;  and  that  their  foreign  policy  was  different,  chiefly  be- 
cause of  the  different  attitude  and  power  of  Damascus.  The 
two  later  kings  must  have  known  how,  like  constitutional 
monarchs,  to  yield  with  dignity,  and  to  rule  within  fixed  limits; 
and  by  a  peaceful,  yet  energetic  administration,  they  healed 
the  wounds  of  war. 

According  to  the  Chronicler,  the  Ammonites  "  gave  gifts  " 
to  Uzziah,  and,  it  is  implied,  without  warlike  compulsion. 

1  It  was  requisite  to  the  Chronicler  to  invent  a  sin,  which  should  account  for 
Uzziah  being  struck  with  leprosy ;  and  he  finds  it  in  the  king  having  dared  to 
enter  the  temple  and  burn  incense,  which  none  but  a  son  of  Aaron  might  do. 
Of  this,  the  book  of  Kings  knows  nothing. 

Moreover,  when  he  dies,  the  book  of  Kings  says  that  he  was  buried  "  with  his 
fathers,  etc.,"  according  to  the  usual  phrase;  but  the  Chronicler  tries  to  part 
him  into  a  separate  place,  by  the  words — "  in  the  field  of  the  burial  which  be- 
longed to  the  kings  ;  for  they  said,  He  is  a  leper ! " 

2  The  particular  description  of  the  engines,  2  Chr.  xxvi.  15,  may  seem  to 
savour  of  a  later  time. 

3  Alluded  to  hi  Amos  i.  1,  Zech.  xiv.  5.     Perhaps  it  is  the  same  earthquake 
which  threw  clown  or  swallowed  up  some  cities  of  Israel  (Amos  iv.  11). 

L 


218  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Jotham  however  engages  in  direct  conflict  with  them,  and 
forces  them  to  pay  him  annually  100  talents  of  silver ,  10,000 
measures  of  wheat,  and  10,000  more  of  barley.  How  they  had 
provoked  his  attack,  or  how  it  was  possible  for  the  two  nations 
to  come  into  contact,  is  not  hinted.  The  Israelite  territory, 
and  that  of  Moab,  intervened ;  and  if  Moab  also  had  become 
subject  to  Judah,  the  fact  could  hardly  be  omitted.  As  the 
Edomites  had  removed  from  their  own  country  so  far  as  to 
Bozra  (a  place  of  very  doubtful  site),  we  might  think  of  an 
Ammonite  migration  also  ;  a  migration  perhaps  into  Idumsea, 
which  was  under  the  power  of  Uzziah.  If  this  idea  is  admis- 
sible, it  may  explain  why  Uzziah  "received  gifts"  as  their 
natural  suzerain,  and  that  a  discontinuance  of  the  tribute  pro- 
voked Jotham' s  attack.  It  is  true  that,  as  the  Ammonites 
are  here  shown  to  be  an  agricultural  people,  we  cannot  imagine 
them  to  abandon  their  own  land  as  easily  as  roving  herdsmen 
might.  Yet  our  information  is  too  incomplete  to  allow  of 
asserting  a  large  emigration  to  be  incredible ;  and  if  the  Am- 
monites were  still  in  their  own  land,  we  know  not  how  to 
receive  the  statement  of  the  Chronicler,  without  believing 
more  still; — that  Moab1  likewise  had  put  itself  under  the 
protection  of  Judah. 

The  reigns  of  Uzziah  and  his  son  are  practically  but  one, 
and  comprize  no  less  a  period  than  fifty-eight  years.  Few  as 
are  the  events  recorded,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  many  silent 
changes  went  on  in  society  which  we  can  but  imperfectly 
trace.  The  prophets  who  follow, — especially  Isaiah  and  Mi- 
cah, — afford  us  some  important  data,  by  which  the  course  of 
events  is  in  part  indicated.  The  increase  of  mercantile  wealth 
in  an  unintellectual  people  inevitably  generates  an  ostentatious 
and  rather  coarse  style  of  living,  and  in  the  wealthy  females  a 
fastidious  attention  to  dress.  The  positive  vice  of  drunkenness 
is  alluded  to,  yet  is  not  lashed  so  severely  in  Judah  as  in  Is- 
rael :  nevertheless  we  may  believe,  that  the  contagious  example 
of  Israel  had  its  effect  in  raising  the  standard  of  private  luxury 
in  Judah.  As  expensive  habits  became  prevalent,  and  the 

1  This  may  seem  to  re-open  the  question  concerning  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah 
xv.  xvi.  Is  it  certain  that  Jeroboam  was  the  assailant  ?  or  clear  that  Moab 
spurned  the  prophet's  advice  ?  Remembering  the  fierce  revenge  of  Moab  on  the 
king  of  Edom,  which  Amos  rebukes,  we  might  believe  the  Edomites  of  Bozra  j 
to  be  the  assailants.  This  will  force  us  to  delay  the  event  till  the  reign  of  Me-  j 
nahem,  when  it  was  possible  for  the  Moabites  to  wander  out  with  their  flocks ! 
over  the  land  of  Reuben,  through  the  new  weakness  of  the  Samaritan  power. 


INTERNAL    STATE    OF    JUD^A.  219 

priesthood  at  the  same  time  advanced  in  political  importance, 
even  the  priests  were  unable  to  resist  the  powerful  tendencies 
towards  mercenary  aims.  In  the  time  of  Joel,  we  saw  that 
the  prophet  and  the  priest  were  in  perfect  harmony ;  but  all 
the  later  prophets  abound  in  invective  against  the  priests,  who 
are  described  as  bartering  truth  for  money,  teaching  for  hire, 
flattering  the  rich  man,  and  partaking  of  his  vices.  The 
blacker  parts  of  the  picture  belong  to  the  next  reign,  or  to 
still  later  times ;  yet  on  the  whole  we  cannot  doubt  that  under 
Uzziah  and  Jotham  the  priesthood  became  more  worldly- 
minded,  while  they  also  consolidated  their  position  in  the 
state.  We  find  also  in  the  same  prophets  bitter  complaints 
against  the  venality  of  judges ;  and  though  it  may  be  doubt- 
ful whether  this  was  a  new  evil,  it  is  an  evil  which  must  have 
become  more  unmanageable,  when  a  judge  could  not  sustain 
the  expenses  incident  to  his  rank  without  it,  and  when  priests 
set  him  the  example.  It  would  also  appear  that  the  commerce 
with  Egypt  received  a  great  development  under  these  two 
kings;  and,  as  the  trade  was  open  and  no  longer  a  royal 
monopoly  as  under  Solomon,  the  two  nations  came  more 
closely  into  intercourse.  At  least  we  can  discern  in  the  pro- 
phets marks  of  increased  familiarity  with  Egypt,  into  which 
whole  families  of  Jews  migrated,  no  doubt  for  the  purposes  of 
trade.  Desirable  as  this  was  for  worldly  wealth,  the  spiritual 
influence  of  that  beast-adoring,  mystery-loving,  magic-ridden, 
and  priest-led  country  must  have  been  decidedly  degrading  to 
the  people  of  Jerusalem.  The  course  of  the  trade  with  Egypt 
can  only  be  conjectured.  If  the  conquests  of  Uzziah  in  Phi- 
listia  are  correctly  reported,  the  direct  way  of  the  sea-coast 
would  obviously  be  used;  indeed  peace  with  Philistia  might 
have  been  at  least  as  serviceable  as  conquest.  But  the  port  of 
Elath,  which  was  retained  till  the  third  generation,  afforded 
another,  though  circuitous,  transport1,  whenever  the  prevail- 
ing winds  or  Philistine  enmity  made  the  Mediterranean  dan- 
gerous to  the  merchant.  Although  to  build  "  ships  of  Tar- 
shish "  and  sail  for  Ophir  was  too  ambitious  an  attempt,  (for 
in  the  silence  of  the  historians,  we  may  confidently  infer  that 
no  such  essay  was  made ;)  yet  small  native  craft2  would  no 

1  It  would  be  to  the  purpose  to  learn,  whether  wine  and  oil  in  goat-skins 
might  be  drawn  u/pon  sledges  over  the  rocky  soil  from  Judaea  to  the  port  of 
Elath. 

2  I  cannot  doubt  the  possible  existence  of  such  vessels,  without  totally  disbe- 
lieving the  ships  of  Jehoshaphat  and  of  Solomon :  and  I  have  not  yet  sounded 

L2 


220  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

doubt,  in  the  fair  season,  easily  run  round  to  Suez,  or  coast 
along  the  Red  Sea  to  some  other  port,  by  which  the  exchange 
of  merchandize  in  fixed  months  would  be  steadily  carried  on. 
Altogether,  we  may  conclude,  that  the  old  agricultural  and 
more  confined  system  was  breaking  up  in  Judah,  as  in  Israel ; 
that  the  nation  in  general  was  passing  through  the  necessary, 
yet  dangerous,  transition  into  the  freer  mercantile  and  polished 
state ;  unlearning  perhaps  many  crimes  and  prejudices,  yet 
acquiring  also  many  vices :  a  process  which  may  be  passed 
through  with  success,  if  foreign  influences  are  friendly ;  but 
which  is  in  general  fatal  to  a  small  community  that  is  at  the 
same  time  agitated  by  powerful  external  hostility. 

Another  silent  change  in  Judaea  must  be  suggested,  as  having 
probably  been  brought  about  in  this  period ; — an  increased 
familiarity  of  the  people  with  the  art  of  reading  and  writing. 
The  diffusion  of  commerce  through  the  nation  would  assuredly 
effect  this.  Merchants  who  keep  up  correspondence  with 
foreign  countries  must  learn  this  art  as  a  part  of  their  trade. 
And  this  may  be  the  true  reason  why  written  prophecy  now 
becomes  commoner.  In  Jerusalem  itself,  among  the  priests, 
writing  had  long  been  familiar ;  hence  for  Joel  to  compose  his 
short  prophecy  was  as  natural  as  for  others  to  write  sacred 
psalms.  Amos  also,  though  he  had  uttered  his  oracles  in  Is- 
rael, committed  them  to  writing  a  little  later,  and  probably 
after  his  return  into  Judaea.  Towards  the  end  of  Jotham's 
reign,  however,  the  number  of  readers  may  have  so  much  in- 
creased in  all  the  chief  towns,  that  a  prophet  had  a  new  sti- 
mulus to  written  composition.  The  earliest  essays  are  highly 
poetical.  Then  prosaic  portions  are  interposed,  with  short 
narrative.  In  the  progress  of  time  prophecy  becomes  more 
prosaic,  indicating  that  prose  composition  was  now  more  fa- 
miliar. At  last,  actual  attempts  at  continuous  history  appear. 
This  is  an  order  of  development  quite  parallel  to  that  of  the 
Greeks,  the  Arabs,  and  the  Persians. 

There  is  a  small  point  observable  in  our  historians,  common 
to  Jehoshaphat  and  to  Jotham,  which  may  deserve  to  be  noted, 
although  it  is  uncertain  what  it  indicates.  Every  king  of  Ju- 
dah except  Jehoram  and  Ahaz  have  the  names  of  the  queen- 
mothers  annexed  :  the  exception  may  almost  make  it  appear 
that  their  fathers  had  but  one  wife.  It  has  already  been  ob- 

the  full  depth  into  which  that  disbelief  would  drop  me.  It  would  exhibit  the 
entire  reign  of  Solomon  as  a  mist  of  delusion,  if  I  rightly  judge. 


GENEALOGIES    OF    THE    HIGH    PRIESTS. 


221 


served,  that  a  check  to  the  abuse  of  polygamy  was  first  given 
by  Asa :  we  would  fain  believe  that  the  son  of  Asa  improved 
on  his  father's  example  :  but  the  account  given  in  the  Chro- 
nicles, of  Jehoram  murdering  his  six  brothers,  if  true,  suggests, 
that  they  were  born  of  polygamy.  It  is  at  any  rate  singular, 
that  in  the  two  pair  of  kings  who  are  in  other  respects  exem- 
plary, there  should  be  room  for  the  belief  that  the  latter  of 
each  pair  was  a  monogamist.  Jotham  died1  sixteen  years  after 
his  accession2,  but  only  seven  after  his  father,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded on  the  throne  by  his  son  AHAZ. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VII., 
Referred  to  in  p.  192. 

JEHOIADA  in  the  reign  of  Jehoash,  Azariah  (according  to  the 
Chronicler)  under  Uzziah,  Urijah  under  Ahaz,  Azariah  "of 
the  house  of  Zadok"  (in  2  Chr.  xxxi.)  under  Hezekiah,  Hil- 
kiah  under  Josiah, — also  Elishama  and  Jehorarn  under  Jeho- 
shaphat  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8) — are  the  chief  priests  named.  We 
have  in  1  Chr.  vi.  4-15  a  professed  genealogy  connecting  Za- 
dok  with  Hilkiah  through  two  Azariahs,  and  a  fragment  of  it 
with  a  slight  variation  and  inversion  in  1  Chr.  ix.  11 ;  but  the 
impossibility  which  it  involves  can  only  be  seen  by  parallelling 
it  with  the  genealogy  of  the  Kings. 


David. 

(  Zadok. 
(.  Ahimaaz. 

Jehoash. 
Amaziah. 

Solomon. 

Azariah. 

Uzziah. 

Azariah. 

Rehoboam. 

Johanan. 

Jotham. 

Amariah. 

Abijah. 

Ahaz. 

Ahitub. 

Asa" 

Hezekiah. 

Zadok. 

Jehoshaphat. 

Manasseh. 

Shallum. 

Jehoram. 

Arnon. 

Hilkiah. 

Ahaziah. 

Josiah. 

Hilkiah  was  about  coeval  with  Josiah's  father.     Place  Aza- 

1  B.C.  741. 

2  It  is  the  misunderstanding  of  this  peculiarity,  as  Hitzig  well  observes, 
which  has  interposed  a  fictitious  interregnum  of  nine  years  between  Pekah  and 
Hoshea.    Yet  Hitzig  does  not  on  this  account  shorten  the  chronology,  but  adds 
nine  years  to  the  reigns  of  Ahaz  and  of  Pekah;  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  follow 
him. 


222  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

riah  parallel  to  Uzziah,  to  satisfy  2  Chr.  xxvi.  20 ;  then,  since 
Ahimaaz  son  of  Zadok  was  a  strong  youth  during  Absalom's 
rebellion,  2  Sam.  viii.  19,  and  Azariah  his  son  was  a  prince 
under  Solomon,  1  Kings  iv.  2,  we  have  only  two  generations 
in  the  priests,  where  the  kings  show  nine1.  Thus  the  pedigree  of 
Hilkiah  is  fictitious,  and  that  of  the  Azariah  so  pointedly  called 
"  of  the  house  of  Zadok  "  is  not  made  out.  But  this  is  not  all. 
The  breach  between  Uzziah' s  Azariah  and  Johanan,  which 
here  suggests  itself,  is  clear  from  Ezra  vii.,  where  Ezra's  gene- 
alogy is  traced  up  to  Aaron  through  Hilkiah.  From  Hilkiah 
upwards  to  the  Azariah  whom  we  place  contemporary  with 
Uzziah,  the  pedigree  agrees  with  1  Chr.  vi.,  but  Azariah  is 
made  to  be  son  of  Meraioth,  not  of  Johanan ;  and  the  series 
upwards  runs  thus :  —  Azariah,  Meraioth,  Zerahiah,  Uzzi, 
Bukki,  Abishua,  Phinehas,  Eleazar,  Aaron,  which  is  copied 
from  1  Chr.  vi.  3-6 ;  only  that  there,  Meraioth  is  great-grand- 
father of  David's  friend  Zadok,  instead  of  being  contemporary 
of  Uzziah.  It  is  then  manifest  that  the  priests  in  Ezra's  days 
knew  nothing  of  the  early  pedigree.  Tradition  or  family 
registers  traced  back  Hilkiah' s  descent  as  far  as  Zadok  his 
grandfather  only,  without  deviation ;  then  some  made  Zadok 
to  be  son  of  Meraioth  son  of  Ahitub2,  others  made  Zadok  im- 
mediate son  of  Ahitub,  and  continued  the  pedigree  up  to  Aza- 
riah ;  and  higher  than  this  nothing  was  even  reported.  When 
one  catalogue  announces  this  Azariah  as  son1  of  Johanan,  a 
contemporary  of  Rehoboam,  and  another  makes  him  son  of 
Meraioth,  a  contemporary  to  Phinehas  son  of  Eli,  they  do  but 
arbitrarily  attach  the  top  of  a  recent  pedigree  to  the  bottom  of 
an  antique  or  legendary  one. 

In  fact,  when  we  find  it  to  be  uncertain  whether  Hilkiah' s 
immediate  father  was  named  Shallum  or  Meshullam,  we  might 
feel  justified  in  doubting  even  the  lower  part  of  the  genealogy. 

1  1  Chron.  vi.  10 :  "  Johanan  begat  Azariah."  The  words  which  follow  :  " 
it  is  that  executed  the   priest's  office  in  the  temple  which  Solomon  built,'" 
obscure.  If  '•he'  means  Azariah,  it  implies  that  he  was  the  first  high  priest 
this  race  since  Zadok. — I  am  really  perplexed  what  to  name  the  boldness  witl 
which  one  of  my  critics  avows  that  there  is  in  this  genealogy  nothing  wliich  Al- 
chronology  refutes.     At  any  rate  one  or  other  genealogy  is  false. 

3  1  Chr.  ix.  11. 


223 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

FBOM  THE  CONQUESTS  OF  JEROBOAM  II.  TO  THE  FALI, 
OF  SAMAEIA,  B.C.  762-721. 

IN  the  interval  which  had  elapsed  since  Jeroboam's  career  of 
conquest,  dark  clouds  had  passed  over  the  ever-varying  sky  of 
Samaria.  Although  the  house  of  Jehu  reigned  for  a  full  cen-r 
tray,  and  the  third  and  fourth  princes  of  the  line  had  been 
eminently  prosperous  in  war,  no  national  feeling  had  rallied 
round  the  dynasty,  no  powerful  sentiment  of  loyalty  had  taken 
root.  Men  could  not  forget  that  Jehu  had  won  his  royal  seat, 
and  initiated  himself  in  power,  by  a  tissue  of  perfidious  crime, 
which  no  prophet's  voice1  could  hallow  to  the  popular  feel- 
ing. Nor  was  it  easy  for  patriotism  to  cement  Israel  into  a 
single  whole.  Ephraim,  Manasseh,  and  Gilead  sympathized 
but  imperfectly  with  one  another,  and  felt  more  as  tribes  than 
as  a  nation.  No  historical  remembrance  of  David  had  a  thrill 
to  their  hearts,  rebels  as  they  were  against  the  heavy  yoke  of 
the  son  of  David.  Nothing  perhaps  but  hatred  of  the  Syrians 
and  Ammonites  united  them ;  and  this  tie  failed  when  Syria 
ceased  to  be  formidable.  Nor  do  the  prophets  of  Israel  seem 
to  have  retained  with  the  nation  any  moral  weight  to  throw 
(had  they  been  ever  so  much  disposed)  into  the  scale  of  Jehu's 
dynasty.  The  regal  authority  continued  to  be  the  mere  rule 
of  force,  unsanctified  by  higher  principle ;  and  the  princes  and 
chiefs,  who  encircled  the  throne  of  Jeroboam,  were  too  pro- 
bably aware  that  any  of  them  who  could  displace  him  by  crime 
would  meet  little  resistance  from  the  people.  When  at  length 
the  veteran  warrior  was  removed  by  death2,  his  son  and  suc- 
cessor Zachariah  was  in  the  very  next  year  murdered  before 
the  eyes  of  the  public3. 

The  murderer  was  named  SHALLUM,  son  of  Jabesh;  who, 
like  Zimri,  had  but  a  brief  tenure  of  power.     One  month  he 

1  Hosea  (i.  4)  represents  Jehovah  as  avenging  on  the  house  of  Jehu  the 
bloodshed  which  the  historians  would  have  us  believe  that  Jehovah  commanded. 

2  B.C.  762.  *  B.C.  761. 


224  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

reigned  in  Samaria,  and  was  then  slain  in  turn  by  MEN  AH  EM, 
son  of  Gadi.  The  son  of  Jeroboam  was  thus  avenged,  yet  no 
one  thought  any  more  of  the  house  of  Jehu ;  although  we 
have  not  a  hint,  either  in  the  meagre  narrative  itself  or  in 
any  reference  of  the  prophets,  that  Jehu's  descendants  were 
extirpated  by  either  of  the  usurpers.  Menahem  indeed  seems 
to  have  been  a  ferocious  man,  ready  for  any  crime.  The  rather 
obscure  expressions  used  may  imply  that  the  city  of  Tirzah, 
— where  the  first  Jeroboam  had  his  palace  and  Baasha  his 
capital, — was  the  centre  of  his  power.  Either  he  was  prince 
of  Tirzah,  or  he  commanded  a  body  of  troops  stationed  there  : 
even  after  becoming  king  in  Samaria,  he  retained  Tirzah  as  a 
citadel  or  military  post  for  himself.  His  right  to  the  crown  was 
disputed,  especially  by  a  town  of  unknown  site  called  Tiphsah, 
— certainly  not  the  Thapsacus  on  the  Euphrates.  The  ground 
of  their  resistance  to  him  is  not  named ;  however,  by  unre- 
lenting energy  and  savage  revenge  on  these  first  rebels,  he 
established  his  pretensions  over  the  whole  land. 

But  he  was  not  to  remain  long  at  ease  in  his  new  elevation. 
The  great  event  of  his  reign  is  the  inroad  of  a  distant  enemy, 
the  rumour  of  whose  terrors  had  already  reached  the  ears  of 
the  prophet  Amos  under  the  reign  of  Jeroboam ;  — the  first 
of  a  series  of  widely  conquering  powers,  which  are  vaguely 
named  the  Universal  Empires  of  history.  It  is,  the  rapidly 
rising  monarchy  of  ASSYRIA,  which  had  NINEVEH  for  its  ca- 
pital. Of  this  some  account  will  here  be  suitable. 

Nineveh  was  situated  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Tigris, 
near  600  miles  in  a  straight  line  from  the  Persian  Gulf,  and 
therefore  on  a  plain  of  some  elevation  \  yet  it  is  very  low  in 
comparison  to  the  lofty  country  of  the  Kurds,  whose  snowy 
ridges  and  vast  peaks  rise  at  no  great  distance  to  the  north  of 
it.  The  modern  town  of  Moosul  marks  its  site  approximately 
on  the  map1.  The  ruins  called  Nebi  Yunus  (Prophet  Jonas) 
and  Kuyunjik  appear  to  be  the  best  ascertained  nucleus  of 
ancient  Nineveh,  still  called  Ninus  in  Roman  times.  We 
have  in  Diodorus  an  elaborate  account  of  its  vast  and 

1  Dr.  Layard,  whose  energetic  excavations  promise  such  an  ultimate  harvest 
of  knowledge,  thinks  Nineveh  to  have  been  a  fortified  province, — of  lozenge 
shape, — some  35  miles  across  in  the  longer  diameter.  I  am  not  yet  able  to  be- 
lieve that  Nimrood  was  part  of  Nineveh.  It  is  remarkable  that  Xenophon 
gives  us  the  name  Mespila,  where  we  expect  Ninus.  Possibly  Mespila  and 
Ninus  were  Kuyunjik  and  Nebi  Yunus ; — as  Westminster  and  London  in  old 
days.  Nimrood  is  conceded  to  be  the  Larissa  of  Xenophon. 


CITY    OF    NINEVEH.  225 

extensive  walls ;  but  since  he  makes  the  capital  blunder  of 
saying  that  it  was  on  the  river  Euphrates,  it  is  manifest  that 
he  had  no  trustworthy  information,  and  it  is  hard  to  believe 
anything  at  all  concerning  Nineveh  on  the  bare  testimony  of 
this  writer. 

Nineveh  was  separated  from  Palestine  by  the  whole  breadth 
of  Mesopotamia,  of  the  Syrian  desart,  and  the  Damascene 
territory.  The  original  city  was  a  town  of  extreme  antiquity, 
whose  name,  like  that  of  Babylon,  peers  through  the  clouds 
of  legend.  The  native  population  is  supposed  to  have  talked 
a  language  deviating  but  moderately  from  that  of  Syria ;  yet 
this  still  remains  to  be  decided,  if  possible,  from  a  deciphering 
of  the  primitive  monuments.  Hitherto,  what  has  been  in- 
terpreted of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  is  judged  by  Kaw- 
linson  to  indicate  a  language  previously  unknown  in  litera- 
ture, yet  of  Hebraic  affinity  both  in  grammatical  structure 
and  in  elemental  words :  but  this  conclusion  is  apparently 
based  on  the  presumption  that  the  Assyrian  language  was  the 
same  as  4;he  Babylonian,  and  it  cannot  yet  be  received  as  a  cer- 
tainty. According  to  others,  the  wild  and  hardy  mountain- 
eers to  the  north  are  the  nearest  relatives  of  the  Assyrians, 
and  the  language  was  related  to  the  old  Persian,  not  to  the 
Hebrew  stock.  The  position  of  Nineveh  was  favourable  to 
greatness ;  alike  from  the  goodness  of  the  soil,  from  the  sup- 
ply of  water  by  the  rivers  which  descend  from  the  Kurdish 
mountains,  and  from  the  facility  of  water-carriage  down  the 
Tigris.  Hence  from  the  earliest  times,  like  other  great  cities 
on  the  plain  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  it  rose  to  high  pro- 
sperity ;  but  (as  far  as  can  be  conjectured)  it  was  then  a  native 
kingdom  only,  not  an  empire.  It  may  indeed  have  stretched 
its  dominion  northward  over  Armenia,  or  southward  over 
Babylon :  this  may  possibly  be  before  long  better  known.  |But 
the  tales  reported  to  us  by  the  Greeks  of  its  early  and  con- 
tinuous wide-spread  sway  are  evidently  mere  legends1.  We 

1  Neither  Herodotus  nor  Diodorus  nor  Justin  knew  anything  of  two  Assyrian 
empires,  each  destroyed  by  a  Median  empire  which  succeeded  it.  This  has  been 
invented  by  Bibh'cal  students  to  avoid  ascribing  error  of  chronology  to  the 
Greek  reporters  of  Asiatic  tradition.  Herodotus  indeed  expressly  says  that 
Semiramis  was  only  five  generations  before  the  Babylonian  Nitocris,  mother  of 
Belshazzar. 

For  Colonel  Rawlinson's  genius  as  a  decipherer  and  interpreter,  every  one 
must  feel  profound  respect ;  but  supposing  direct  translation  were  completed,  a 
vast  work  would  remain,  in  settling  the  chronological  relations,  and  in  deter- 
mining how  much  of  these  inscriDtious  is  to  be  believed.  Colonel  Kawlinson 

13 


226  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

can  only  assert  as  beyond  dispute,  that  this  city  commenced 
a  new  career  of  conquest  from  nine  to  eight  centuries  before 
the  Christian  sera.  The  first  king  who  showed  himself  as  a 
conqueror  to  the  eyes  of  Israel  was  contemporaneous  with  the 
vulgar  date  of  Romulus  and  Remus,  and  was  named  PUL  by 
the  Hebrews. 

The  earliest  conquests  of  the  rising  empire  were  undoubt- 
edly made  to  the  north  and  east.  Kurdistan,  Armenia,  and 
ancient  Media, — which  included  the  modern  cities  of  Ha- 
madan,  Isfahan  and  Teheran, — formed  the  basis  of  Assyrian 
power :  giving  to  it  a  breadth  and  massiveness  to  which  no 
empire  previously  known  to  us  in  Western  Asia  or  Europe 
could  pretend.  Although  these  countries  afford  as  fine  foot- 
soldiers  as  any  in  Asia,  cavalry  was  the  arm  most  important 
for  foreign  conquest :  Media  contained  the  celebrated  Nissean 
plains,  on  which  were  reared  the  most  splendid  horses  known 
to  the  Persian  kings,  who  used  them  in  state  ceremonies ; 
while  Mesopotamia  itself  furnished  the  same  Arabian  breed, 
whose  swiftness  we  still  admire.  The  Assyrians  used  chariots 
on  the  plains  of  Mesopotamia,  and  partly  in  more  distant  ex- 
peditions1 ;  but  they  made  a  larger  use  of  cavalry  than  the 
Benhadads  had  done.  Their  present  king  Pul  (says  Eusebius, 
apparently  following  the  Babylonian  priest  Berosus)  was  a 
king  of  the  Chald&ans ;  which  appears  to  mean,  that  it  was  he 
who  conquered  the  great  city  of  Babylon2,  with  which  the 
whole  of  Susiana  probably  fell  into  the  empire  of  Nineveh. 
This  ambitious  prince  must  previously  have  turned  his  path 
to  the  west  and  south-west,  when  he  made  his  appearance 
before  the  usurper  Menahem. 

The  Israelite  well  understood  his  own  helplessness,  and 
lost  no  time  in  propitiating  the  invader  by  the  present  of 
1000  talents  of  silver,  which  was  no  doubt  interpreted  as 
tribute,  and  as  a  profession  of  homage.  With  this  the  Assy- 
rian king  thought  fit  to  be  satisfied,  and  withdrew  without 
farther  hostilities,  being  perhaps  drawn  off"  by  more  important 

seems  to  have  an  unsuspecting  faith,  that  an  Oriental  Emperor's  boastful  in- 
scriptions are  true.  If  distant  posterity  ever  decipher  the  court  records  of  the 
late  king  of  Persia,  they  will  there  read  the  name  of  the  king  of  England 
among  his  humble  tributaries. 

1  Isaiah,  xxii.  6. 

2  In  the  year  B.C.  747  begins  the  celebrated  sera  of  Nabonassar  at  Babylon. 
It  may  be  conjectured  that  Nabonassar  and  his  successors  in  Ptolemy's  Canon 
are  viceroys  of  the  Assyrians,  and  that  747  is  the  date  of  Pul's  conquest  of 
Babylon. 


NEW    PARTIES    IN    ISRAEL.  227 

conquests.  But  he  did  not  leave  the  land,  morally,  in  the  state 
in  which  he  had  found  it.  Menahem  had  obtained  the  money 
so  suddenly,  only  by  direct  exaction  from  all  the  rich  men  of 
Israel;  and  it  was  inevitable  for  them  to  reflect,  that  the 
tempest  which  had  so  lately  loured  would  soon  return  and 
burst  over  their  heads.  Fresh  and  fresh  extortion  was  fore- 
seen in  the  future ;  nor  was  there  the  least  hope  that  the 
enemy  could  be  propitiated  by  anthing  short  of  total  sur- 
render. The  rich  men  of  Israel  cast  about  to  find  a  defender, 
and  nowhere  was  he  to  be  found  but  in  the  king  of  Egypt. 
That  country  could  furnish  them  with  that  in-  which  they 
were  particularly  deficient, — abundance  of  horses,  and  with 
every  kind  of  military  material.  From  the  sea- coast  of  Israel, 
communication  by  ship  to  Memphis  or  Sais  was  easy ;  and  a 
party  arose,  which  was  eager  for  alliance  with  Egypt,  and 
active  to  promote  it  by  argument  and  by  intrigue.  An  op- 
posite party,  knowing  that  it  was  the  Egyptian  policy  to  stay 
at  home  and  hold  its  own  frontier,  or  having  some  nearer  in- 
sight into  the  distracted  state  of  that  country,  was  confident 
that  the  Egyptians  would  never  give  them  succour  large  and 
hearty  enough  to  enable  them  to  withstand  the  formidable 
power  of  Assyria.  Hence  they  regarded  this  as  a  mode  of 
exasperating  their  foe,  and  advocated  the  policy  of  cultivating 
his  favour  before  it  was  too  late.  Such  is  the  outline  of  the 
two  factions  which  arose  to  distract  the  kingdom  probably 
even  under  the  reign  of  Menahem.  With  the  progress  of 
years  their  views  became  more  sharply  defined,  and  their  col- 
lision more  dangerous  to  the  state. 

The  fierce  energy  of  Menahem  repressed  all  insurrection 
during  his  life.  But  when,  after  a  reign  of  about  eleven  years, 
he  left  his  throne  to  his  son  PEKAHiAH1,  it  soon  appeared  that 
no  one  but  a  military  monarch  could  control  the  too  great  in- 
fluence of  the  army.  This  predominance  must  have  been 
confirmed  from  the  time  of  Jeroboam  II.,  himself  a  warrior, 
like  his  father.  Menahem,  we  have  observed,  was  probably  a 
chieftain  of  Tirzah ;  and  PEKAH,  son  of  Remaliah,  who  assas- 
sinated Pekahiah  in  the  citadel  of  Samaria,  was  a  chief  cap- 
tain of  the  chariots2. 

It  might  seem  as  if  it  had  been  given  to  the  kings  of  As- 
syria to  avenge  the  murdered  monarchs  of  Israel ;  for  as  Pul 
had  appeared  for  the  punishment  of  Menahem,  so  now  TIG- 

1  B.C.  750.  2  B.C.  748*. 


228  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

LATHPILESER,  with  still  more  hostile  intentions,  came  down 
upon  the  assassin  of  Pekahiah.  This  time  the  Assyrian  was 
bent  on  a  double  spoil, — plunder  of  the  land  and  captivity  of 
its  inhabitants.  Collateral  circumstances  suggest,  that  he 
coveted  the  persons  of  the  Israelites,  not  so  much  to  make 
slaves  of  them  as  to  people  his  great  capital  of  Nineveh.  The 
flood  swept  over  so  large  a  part  of  the  ten  tribes,  that  when 
its  violence  had  subsided,  the  land  of  Ephraim  seemed  to  re- 
main as  an  island  in  the  midst  of  the  stagnant  waters ;  and 
from  this  time  forth,  the  name  of  EPHRAIM  is  used  to  express 
the  entire  northern  monarchy.  Not  only  Bashan  and  Gilead, 
east  of  the  Jordan,  but  the  whole  basin  of  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
was  rent  away  from  the  sceptre  of  Pekah.  All  the  booty  of 
the  land  was  no  doubt  carried  off  by  the  victor,  with  as  many 
Israelites  as  he  could  seize;  and  it  is  improbable  that  after 
his  departure  Pekah  had  the  means  of  re-establishing  his  au- 
thority in  the  half-empty  and  disorganized  districts.  Never- 
theless we  find  no  statement  that  at  this  time  the  Assyrian 
fixed  any  viceroy  on  Israelitish  ground,  and  the  events  which 
follow  decidedly  prove  that  he  made  no  attempt  to  occupy  the 
territory  even  of  the  eastern  tribes,  which,  as  most  open  to 
his  attack,  it  would  have  been  easiest  for  him  to  retain.  Such 
is  the  first  great  transference  of  the  Hebrew  population  since 
the  time  of  Moses.  Its  date  is  not  accurately  known,  but  we 
may  assign  it  pretty  nearly  to  B.C.  745. 

This  was  an  earthquake,  which,  while  ingulfing  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  Israelite  people,  heaved  up  the  remnant  of 
society  in  lacerated  and  frightful  masses,  sometimes  dangerous 
from  their  towering  height.  So  great  a  convulsion  had 
scarcely  before  been  conceived  of.  Joel  and  Amos  had  la- 
mented over  families  of  Israelites  captured  by  roving  bands 
of  Edom  or  Philistia,  and  sold  as  slaves  on  the  coasts  of  the 
Mediterranean  :  Hazael  had  swept  off  whole  villages  or  towns : 
this  was  sufficient  misery:  indeed  the  individuals  generally 
suffered  a  worse  fate  than  those  whom  the  Assyrians  carried 
away.  But  the  transplanting  of  entire  tribes  was  a  process  of 
violence  immeasurably  greater  in  its  effects.  The  suffering 
and  disorder  caused  is  not  to  be  judged  of  by  those  actualb 
captured;  inasmuch  as  for  every  one  that  was  caught,  five 
would  be  made  homeless,  helpless,  and  desperate.  The  allu- 
sions of  the  prophets  show  us,  that  the  unfortunate  people 
who  escaped  the  enemy  were  driven  to  violent  courses,  be- 


DISORGANIZATION    OF    ISRAEL.  229 

coming  a  banditti  that  preyed  upon  their  own  land,  upon  one 
another,  and  upon  the  kingdom  of  Judah  : 

No  man  spareth  his  brother. 

He  snatches  on  the  right  hand,  and  is  hungry ; 

He  eats  on  the  left  hand,  and  is  not  satisfied ; 

They  eat  every  man  the  flesh  of  his  own  arm : 

Manasseh  devours  Ephraim,  and  Ephraim  Manasseh, 

And  they  together  are  against  Judah. — Isaiah  ix.  20,  21. 

This  dreadful  calamity,  and  the  contingent  evils  to  them- 
selves, thrilled  through  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  Judah,  and 
drew  forth  in  Judaea  two  prophets  whose  writings  survive  to 
us.  Of  these,  by  far  the  greater  is  Isaiah ;  the  other  is  of  un- 
known name,  but  we  may  call  him  the  elder  Zechariah1,  be- 
cause his  short  prophecy  has  been  accidentally  mingled  with 
those  of  Zechariah  son  of  Berechiah.  Without  their  writings 
we  should  indeed  be  able  to  conjecture  in  general  much  con- 
cerning the  internal  state  of  both  kingdoms,  but  our  conjec- 
tures would  want  confirmation.  Isaiah  (as  he  informs  us  in  a 
writing  of  about  this  date,  ch.  vi.)  had  had  a  call  from  Jehovah 
in  sacred  vision  a  few  years  earlier,  in  the  year  of  UzziaVs 
death2,  and  at  that  time  had  received  an  announcement  of  a 
great  captivity  of  the  land.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  had  as 
yet  actually  committed  anything  to  writing ;  but  soon  after 
these  events  he  put  forth  four  (or  five)  impassioned  yet  arti- 
ficially composed  strophes,  lamenting  over  Ephraim3.  Each 
strophe  concludes  with  a  sort  of  chorus4 : 

For  all  this,  his  anger  is  not  turned  away ; 
But  his  hand  is  stretched  out  still. 

To  understand,  and  therefore  truly  to  sympathize  with  them, 
we  should  read  with  a  distinct  realization  of  the  crisis  for 
which  they  were  written.  Mention  however  is  made  in  them 
of  an  important  personage,  who  must  now  be  introduced  to 
the  reader,  REZIN,  king  of  Damascus. 

1  Matthew  names  him  Jeremiah  in  a  well-known  quotation.     To  call  him  the 
pseudo- Zechariah  is  offensive,  as  seeming  to  imply  that  he  has  pretended  to  be 
another  than  himself.    Bertholdt  supposes  the  author  to  have  been  that  Zecha- 
riah, son  of  Jeberechiah,  who  is  named  in  Isaiah  viii.  2.     The  similarity  of  the 
father's  name  is  certainly  striking.     See  also  2  Chron.  xxvi.  5. 

2  B.C.  748.  3  Isaiah  ix.  8  to  x.  4. 

4  This  is  found  also  in  ch.  v.  25 ;  which  has  suggested  that  vv.  25-30  ; 
ch.  v.  really  form  a  part  of  this  prophecy :  and  this  is  Ewald's  judgment. 


230  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Damascus  seemed  to  have  vanished  from  the  history  for  a 
full  half-century,  since  its  downfall  under  the  son  of  Hazael. 
We  do  not  know  whether  in  the  interval  it  had  become  an 
Assyrian  province;  but  it  must  at  least  have  been  overrun 
sooner  than  Israel.  Immediately  after  Tiglathpileser  had  with- 
drawn from  that  inroad,  it  is  possible  that  a  general  insur- 
rection of  the  nation,  headed  by  Rezin,  took  place.  Certainly, 
at  this  crisis  Damascus  bursts  out  into  short  and  energetic 
life,  the  reasons  of  which,  by  combining  the  historical  facts 
with  the  allusions  of  the  prophets,  we  can  conjecture  with 
some  probability.  The  personal  character  of  the  king,  Rezin, 
may  have  had  much  to  do  with  it,  but  the  position  of  affairs 
still  more. 

Damascus  now  stood  in  the  foreground,  to  bear  the  brunt 
of  Assyrian  attack ;  and  after  the  recent  manifestation  of  the 
power  and  unsparing  violence  of  Tiglathpileser,  all  the  states 
which  were  behind  desired  to  uphold  Damascus  as  their  shield. 
If  Hamath  had  previously  been  disaffected  or  hostile,  concord 
now  was  re-established.  Tyre  and  the  whole  Phoenician  con- 
federacy are  likely  to  have  tendered  to  Rezin  pecuniary  sup- 
port, armour,  arms  and  other  material  of  war.  Besides  this, 
in  all  the  neighbouring  districts  crowds  of  ruined  men  were 
set  loose  from  restraint  just  as  in  Bashan  and  Gilead.  If  sup- 
plied with  money  and  arms,  it  was  easy  for  Rezin  to  raise  out 
of  these  a  formidable  force ;  at  any  rate,  it  is  certain  that  he 
does  suddenly  appear  at  the  head  of  powerful  armies;  and 
Isaiah,  while  writing  the  elegy  to  which  we  have  referred, 
imagined  Israel  to  be  the  game  at  which  the  Syrian  would 
spring : — 

Jehovah  shall  set  up  Rezin' s  cruel  ones  against  him  (Ephraim), 

And  shall  cover  his  enemies  with  mail, 

The  Syrians  before  and  the  Philistines  behind ; 

And  they  shall  devour  Israel  with  open  mouth. — Isaiah  ix.  11,  12. 

But  events  took  quite  a  different  course.     From  the  cloud 
indeed  which  had  gathered  along  the  Syrian  frontier,  a  fearful 
squall  came  down,  as  Isaiah  had  foreseen ;  but  its  rage  fell  on 
the  fair  ship  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  gliding  on  in  summer 
trim,  after  two  generations  of  peaceful  repose.     The  wolf- 
hearted  Rezin  was  not  disposed  to  eat  up  the  lean  sheep  of  j 
Israel,  when  the  fat  kine  of  Judah  were  so  near ;  and  he  chose  j 
to  have  Pekah  as  an  ally,  rather  than  as  an  enemy.     Their  j 
position  was  very  similar.  Pekah  was  doubtless  embarrassed  by  j 


231 

multitudes  of  houseless  Israelites,  who,  to  avoid  the  Assyrian 
chain,  had  thrown  themselves  on  the  charity  of  the  Ephraim- 
ites  and  their  king.  There  was  no  more  obvious  resource 
than  to  form  them  into  an  army  and  prey  upon  the  sister 
kingdom,  which  had  been  in  thriving  progress,  but  never  in 
amity  with  Israel,  since  the  war  between  Jehoash  and  Ama- 
ziah. 

Before  public  hostilities  had  visibly  become  inevitable,  the 
prophet  whom  we  have  named  the  elder  Zechariah  composed 
the  earlier  of  his  pieces,  which  is  found  in  our  Bibles  as  Zech. 
ix.  x.  Although  confessedly  obscure,  especially  in  the  English 
translation,  yet  if  viewed  as  written  at  this  epoch,  many  points 
become  clearer,  and  it  gains  a  real  historical  interest.  It 
opens  as  a  declaration  against  several  countries  which  may 
seem  to  have  been  in  league : — 

"  The  utterance  of  Jehovah's  word  against  the  land  of 
Hadrach1 ;  and  upon  Damascus  it  alights  (for  Jehovah  has 
an  eye  upon  men,  and  upon  all  the  tribes  of  Israel)  ;  and  also 
against  Hamath,  which  borders  thereupon;  (against)  Tyrus 
and  Sidon,  because  it  is  exceeding  wise2."  Yet  the  most 
severe  declarations  are  against  Tyre  and  the  Philistines ;  and 
we  gather,  that  the  slave-trade  by  which  these  two  states  car- 
ried away  the  Jews  and  sold  them  into  the  Ionian  cities  of 
Asia  Minor,  was  still  (as  in  the  days  of  Joel)  the  point  which 
Judah  felt  most  sensibly.  The  prophet  proceeds  to  declare 
that  Jehovah  will  defend  his  house  (the  house  of  Judah  ? ) 
against  hostile  attacks :  that  a  mighty  King  shall  appear  in 
Zion,  meek  and  having  salvation,  riding  on  an  ass,  like  the 
ancient  judges;  who  will  make  away  with  all  the  apparatus 
of  war,  and  speak  peace  to  the  nations ;  will  reign  from  the 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Dead  Sea,  and  from  the 
brook  of  Egypt  to  the  farthest  end  of  the  land.  But  before 
that  happy  time,  Jehovah  shall  appear  fighting  for  his  people. 
Their  prisoners  shall  be  delivered  from  the  odious  dungeon. 
Judah  and  Ephraim  shall  be  united  in  battle,  and  shall  vic- 
toriously recover  all  the  captives  from  the  sons  of  Ion.  Israel 
had  indeed  suffered  chastisement  for  listening  to  idols,  and 

1  This  poetical  title  is  not  understood.   Whether  Hadrach  is  a  mythical  patri- 
arch, a  real  king  or  a  god,  is  uncertain ;    as  well  as  what  land  is  intended.     If 
it  be  not  a  synonym  for  Damascus,  we  may  think  of  the  Hauran,  as  geographi- 
cally probable. 

2  De  Wette's  Transl. 


232  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  goats  had  been  punished  for  the  shepherds'  fault1;  but 
Judah  had  been  greatly  exalted  by  Jehovah2,  and  made  as  the 
goodly  horse  in  the  battle.  In  the  farther  progress  of  events, 
Judah  shall  be  strengthened  and  Joseph  shall  be  saved.  Their 
God  will  gather  back  from  far  countries — especially  from 
Egypt  and  Assyria — those  who  have  been  dispersed,  and  will 
plant  them  again  in  Gilead  and  Lebanon3.  The  pride  of  both 
these  heathen  powers  shall  be  brought  low,  and  Israel  shall 
be  strong  in  the  name  of  Jehovah. 

The  distinct  notice  here  given  of  the  large  number  of  Israel- 
ites already  resident  in  Egypt  is  important;  so  also  is  the 
clue  to  an  alliance  between  Damascus  and  Tyre,  though  it  is 
remarkable  how  Damascus  vanishes  from  the  prophecy.  Of 
still  greater  moment  is  the  proof  that  the  idea  of  a  Messiah 
had  already  received  such  sharpness.  It  will  be  observed 
however,  that  He  is  distinctly  regarded  as  having  the  land  of 
the  twelve  tribes  as  the  limits  of  his  proper  sway.  He  is  to 
be  at  peace  with  the  heathen,  bnt  is  not  to  rule  over  them  ; 
and  their  power  is  to  be  so  beaten  down  that  they  dare  not 
attack  him.  The  severe  tone  against  Egypt — a  highly  friendly 
land — is  to  be  imputed  to  its  grovelling  idolatry,  as  well  as 
to  the  remembrance  that  it  was  the  ancient  house  of  bondage 
to  Israel. 

It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  the  growth  of  Rezin  reached 
its  full  height  in  a  single  year.  It  is  more  credible  that  sup- 
port came  from  his  allies  just  in  proportion  as  he  became 
stronger,  and  apparently  more  able  to  screen  them  from  As- 
syria ;  so  that  his  resources  increased  after  his  first  successes 
against  Judah.  Jotham  still  sate  on  the  throne  of  Jerusalem 
when  the  two  confederates  commenced  this  eventful  war4. 
The  course  of  it,  and  the  nature  of  the  case,  may  persuade 
us,  that  their  first  measures  were  to  possess  themselves  of  the 
frontier  fortresses,  and  of  such  other  castles  as  were  important 
for  securing  their  safe  passage  across  the  country.  Judaea, 
especially  at  this  time5,  abounded  with  strongholds  carefully 
fortified ;  and  during  the  life  of  Jotham  the  allied  kings  may 

1  The  people  for  the  fault  of  the  princes  or  nobles.     This  appears  always  to 
be  the  sense  of  shepherds  in  this  prophet. 

2  Namely,  during  the  prosperous  reigns  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham. 

3  Whence  Tiglathpileser  had  driven  the  population.    Lebanon  clearly  is  a  poe- 
tical phrase  for  Galilee,  as  in  xi.  1. 

4  2  Kings,  xv.  37.  5  Hosea  viii.  14. 


LEAGUE    AGAINST    JUDAEA.  233 

have  found  enough  to  do  in  these  preliminary  occupations.  A 
second  and  angry  piece  from  the  elder  Zechariah  appears  now 
to  have  been  put  forth1,  which  bitterly  condemns  the  nobles 
of  Ephraim,  while  boding  fresh  misery  to  the  people.  Under 
the  symbol  of  breaking  two  staves,  he  represents  Jehovah  as 
breaking,  first,  his  own  covenant  with  Israel,  and  next,  the 
brotherhood  between  Israel  and  Judah.  The  prophet,  per- 
sonating Jehovah,  forswears  his  office  as  Shepherd  of  Israel; 
and  after  breaking  the  shepherd's  staff,  receives  from  Israel 
the  pay  of  thirty  shekels  for  his  past  services,  and  casts  the 
money  into  the  treasure2  of  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  open- 
ing lines  are  highly  poetical,  and  betoken  something  like 
exultation  in  the  devastations  inflicted  on  Israel  by  Tiglath- 
pileser : — 

Open  thy  doors,  O  Lebanon, 

That  the  fire  may  devour  thy  cedars. 

Howl,  O  fir  tree ; 

For  the  cedar  is  fallen,  the  mighty  is  spoiled. 

Howl,  O  ye  oaks  of  Bashan ; 

For  the  steep  forest  is  come  down. 

There  is  a  voice  of  the  shepherds'  howling ; 

For  their  glory  is  spoiled  : 

A  voice  of  the  roaring  of  young  lions  ; 

For  the  pride  of  Jordan  is  desolate. 

%Jotham  perhaps,  as  a  prudent  and  experienced  man,  re- 
mained carefully  on  the  defensive  against  the  superior  power 
of  the  invaders,  or  death  happily  removed  him  at  the  prema- 
ture age  of  forty-one,  before  calamity  came  on  his  people. 
He  left  his  kingdom  at  a  most  critical  moment  to  his  son 
AHAZ,  who  was  only  twenty  years  old3.  We  do  not  know 

1  Zech.  xi.     To  the  same  period  we  may  refer  Isaiah's  prophecy,  contained 
in  Isaiah  xvii.  1-11,  which  threatens  Damascus  and  Israel  as  combined  powers  ; 
yet  without  indicating  that  they  have  as  yet  effected  any  mischief  against 
Judah.     (At  least,  if  we  rightly  follow  Ewald  in  adding  w.  12-14  to  the  fol- 
lowing chapter.) 

The  prophet  declares  that  "  Damascus  is  taken  away  from  being  a  city,  and 
shall  be  a  ruinous  heap."  If  Damascus,  instead  of  being  among  the  most  flou- 
rishing towns  of  Turkey,  were  at  present  suffering  the  same  desolation  as 
Babylon,  a  succession  of  treatise's  would  dilate  upon  the  fact. 

2  The  passage  is  unintelligible  in  the  common  versions,  which  ridiculously 
render  this  word  the  potter.     The  LXX.  translate  it  by  xwt/€vr^Plov)  the  melt- 
ing-furnace or  foundry  ;    which  was  far  better.     The  two  Hebrew  roots  ny»  to 
mould,  and  -ivN  to  treasure  up,  have  been  confounded. 

3  B.C.  741. 


234  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

how  soon  the  resolution  was  taken  of  encountering  the  allied 
kings  in  the  open  field ;  but  when  the  country  began  to  be 
ravaged,  the  cry  to  oppose  them  would  swell  from  all  sides, 
and  an  inexperienced  youth1  was  likely  to  rush  into  the  une- 
qual conflict  in  such  a  cause,  even  if  not  impelled  by  the 
popular  voice.  Two  battles,  each  unfortunate,  were  fought 
by  the  armies  of  Ahaz  against  the  two  kings  separately2. 
B/ezin  took  a  great  number  of  prisoners,  and  sent  them  off  as 
slaves  to  Damascus,  but  Pekah  inflicted  more  slaughter  than 
Rezin.  The  account  is,  as  usual,  exaggerated  beyond  credi- 
bility by  our  informant,  nor  is  it  possible  to  divine  the  truth. 
According  to  him,  Pekah  slays  120,000  men  in  that  one  day3, 
and  carries  off  from  the  country  200,000  persons,  with  much 
spoil,  to  Samaria.  The  prophet  Oded  forbids  their  enslave- 
ment, and  the  chief  men  of  the  Ephraimites  second  him 
warmly.  Hereupon  the  captives  are  fed  and  clothed,  the 
feeble  among  them  are  set  upon  asses,  and  all  are  conveyed 
safe  to  Jericho,  and  there  delivered  up  safe  to  their  brethren 
from  Jerusalem.  We  may  gather  that  Jericho  was  now  looked 
upon  as  the  frontier  city  of  the  Jews  on  that  side.  They  may 
have  perhaps  regained  it  since  the  fall  of  the  house  of  Jehu. 

Nevertheless,  the  war  continued  in  all  its  rigour.  The 
allies  now  hoped  for  a  real  conquest  of  the  country,  and  (pro- 
bably to  avoid  the  danger  of  quarrelling  over  their  booty)  re- 
solved to  set  up  a  new  king,  their  own  puppet,  in  Jerusalem ; 
a  man  of  unknown  name,  the  son  of  Tabeal.  When  their 
united  armies  marched  against  Jerusalem  and  presented  them- 
selves under  its  walls,  the  dismay  occasioned  was  extreme; 
yet  the  Jews  defended  their  city  pertinaciously,  and  no  pro- 
gress was  made  in  the  siege. 

Meanwhile  Rezin  undertook  a  remarkable  exploit,  which 
gives  us  an  instructive  view  of  the  reach  of  his  power.  He 

1  Perhaps  to  this  period  we  may  refer  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  which  is  con- 
tained in  ii.  iii.  iv. 

2  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5,  6. 

3  It  is  added,  that  a  mighty  man  of  Ephraim  in  this  great  battle  slew  Maaseiah, 
son  of  king  Ahaz.     But  Ahaz  being  barely  twenty-one  years  old,  cannot  have 
had  a  son  in  the  battle.     Hitzig  indeed,  by  elongating  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  adds 
eight  or  nine  years  to  his  age,  but  this  is  insufficient.    We  are  forced  to  proceed 
with  him  to  condemn  2  Kings,  xv.  37,  as  erroneous ;  we  must  next  postpone 
the  battle  till  Ahaz  shall  be  at  least  forty  years  old,  that  is,  to  B.C.  730,  and 
then  no  room  is  left  for  half  the  events.     (Hitzig  has  not,  that  I  know,  tried 
to  uphold  this  statement  of  the  Chronicler.) 


SUFFERINGS    OF    JUDAH.  235 

attacked  the  distant  town  of  Elath  on  the  Red  Sea,  which  was 
still  held  by  Jews  of  Jerusalem.  The  earlier  Benhadads  in 
the  prime  of  their  might  could  hardly  have  ventured  on  such 
an  enterprize ;  and  we  may  safely  assume  that  Rezin  had  the 
goodwill  and  active  assistance,  not  only  of  the  Edomites  of 
Bozra  (who  are  likely  to  have  suggested  the  attack),  but  of 
the  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  who  lay  on  his  route.  At 
Elath  the  Jews  were  wholly  unprepared,  and  finding  resist- 
ance impossible,  probably  took  to  their  ships1,  and  escaped 
into  Egypt.  The  Syrians  kept  possession  of  the  empty  town. 
After  this  success  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Edomites 
were  encouraged  to  claim  the  whole  country  of  Idumsea  as 
their  own  once  more;  though  no  particulars  are  preserved 
to  us,  nor  do  we  even  know  whether  the  important  city  of 
Selah  (or  Petra)  remained  in  the  power  of  the  Jews.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Chronicler2,  an  irruption  of  Edomites  against 
Judah  now  took  place,  by  which  severe  distress  was  inflicted, 
and  masses  of  people  carried  into  captivity.  Indeed  if  we 
receive  the  prophecy  against  Idumsea,  contained  in  chapters 
xxxiv.  xxxv.  of  Isaiah,  as  the  genuine  writing  of  that  prophet, 
we  can  scarcely  question  that  the  Edomites  at  this  time 
proved,  as  of  old,  most  deadly  enemies  to  Judah.  Bozra 
however  and  Teman  (not  Selah)  continued  to  be  at  this  period 
their  chief  cities. 

In  the  course  of  these  disastrous  times,  the  Philistines, 
taking  advantage  of  the  weakness  of  Judah,  invaded  the  low 
country,  and  took  possession  of  six  towns  with  their  villages. 
These  are  enumerated  as  Bethshemesh,  Ajalon,  Gederoth, 
Shocho,  Timnah  and  Gimzo ;  all  of  which  they  retained,  as 
Ahaz  had  no  force  to  spare  against  them. 

The  threat  of  setting  up  a  new  king  in  Jerusalem,  not  of 
the  line  of  David,  if  it  terrified  the  royal  circle  by  its  very 
novelty,  still  more  shocked  the  ecclesiastical  body  by  its  pro- 
faneness ;  and  the  prophet  Isaiah  came  forward  to  re-assure  the 
desponding  Ahaz.  In  the  vision  which  first  called  him  to  be 
a  prophet,  Isaiah  had  been  informed  that  a  remnant  should 
return  of  those  who  were  carried  away  into  captivity  :  and  to 
indicate  his  firm  faith  in  this,  he  had  bestowed  on  his  son  the 
name  Shear-jashub,  which  expresses  that  statement.  Taking 

1  It  is  said  that  Rezin  "  drove  out"  the  Jews,  not  that  he  captured  or  slew 
them.     Unless  they  escaped  by  sea,  they  could  hardly  avoid  being  captured. 

2  2  Chron.  xxviii.  17. 


236  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

this  son  with  him  as  an  emblem  of  his  own  conviction,  he 
came  before  Ahaz,  affirmed  on  the  word  of  Jehovah  that  the 
confederates  would  fail  of  their  object,  and  that  "within  sixty- 
five  years  Ephraim  should  be  no  more  a  people."  As  a  sign 
to  Ahaz,  he  added,  that  a  certain  young  woman  should  bear  a 
son,  who  would  be  called  Immanuel  (or  God  is  with  us) ,  and 
that  before  this  son  should  be  old  enough  to  know  evil  from 
good,  the  land  should  be  desolated,  by  whose  two  kings  Ahaz 
was  affrighted.  It  is  not  essential  for  the  historian  to  discuss 
this  prophecy  from  a  theological  point  of  view.  It  at  present 
suffices  to  observe,  that  in  the  sense  in  which  alone  it  was  any 
sign  to  Ahaz,  some  young  woman1  then  alive  must  have  been 
intended,  and  the  child  Immanuel  must  have  been  looked  for 
within  a  year  from  that  date.  The  period  of  sixty-five  years 
first  assigned  was  thus  shortened  into  ten  or  twenty,  accord- 
ing as  we  may  be  disposed  to » fix  the  age  at  which  young 
persons  know  good  from  evil.  In  point  of  fact,  Samaria  was 
captured  and  Ephraim  was  no  more  a  people,  in  less  than 
twenty  years  from  this  time. 

Whether  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  continued  or  not,  it  is 
evident  that  Pekah  and  Rezin  commanded  the  open  country, 
and  no  farther  attempt  was  made  to  oppose  them  in  the  field. 
There  is  no  question  that  they  made  war  support  itself,  and 
that  the  whole  land  was  put  under  severe  demands  to  main- 
tain and  to  gratify  the  hostile  army.  It  is  remarkable  that 
Isaiah,  both  now  and  at  other  times,  remembers  brotherly 
feeling  towards  Israel.  He  scarcely  prophesies  more  severely 
against  it  than  against  Judah,  even  in  the  midst  of  public 
hostilities ;  and  in  his  very  next  piece  which  survives  to  us, 

1  Although,  it  is  not  stated  that  Isaiah  was  accompanied  by  his  wife  as  well 
as  by  his  son  Shear-jashub,  yet  when  we  read  viii.  1-4,  it  is  difficult  to  resist 
the  persuasion  that  she  was  pointed  at  in  the  phrase  "  the  young  woman."  She 
is  the  prophetess  who  bears  to  Isaiah  a  child,  of  whom  nearly  the  same  is  pre- 
dicted as  of  Immanuel.  He  is  indeed  called  Mahershalalhashbaz ;  but  so 
Solomon  was  called  Jedediah  at  his  birth  by  the  prophet  Nathan,  2  Sam.  xii. 
24.  Such  names  might  be  multiplied  ad  libitum.  Isaiah  speaks  of  Ms  children 
as  signs,  viii.  18. 

With  regard  to  the  Messianic  aspect  of  Immanuel,  it  deserves  remark,  that 
no  other  blessing  is  promised  to  Judaea  from  his  birth  than  deliverance  from 
the  hostile  league ;  and  the  land  is,  even  so,  to  be  desolated  by  Assyria  and 
Egypt  making  it  their  battle-field,  vii.  17-25.  How  sagacious  an  anticipation 
that  was,  we  see  by  the  sufferings  of  Palestine  in  the  warfare  of  the  Ptolemies 
against  the  kings  of  Syria ;  yet,  in  fact,  no  contest  between  Assyria  and  Egypt 
ever  took  place  on  Jewish  ground,  nor  did  the  Egyptians  tread  upon  it  till  the 
last  days  of  Josiah,  when  the  Assyrian  monarchy  had  vanished. 


TSATAH    ENCOURAGES    AHAZ.  237 

he  is  as  full  of  the  sorrows  of  Jacob — Naphthali,  Zebulon, 
Galilee — as  of  Judah  and  of  Zion.  This  may  arise  from  his 
viewing  the  whole  land  as  Messiah's  kingdom,  and  believing 
that  all  the  tribes  will  (as  Hosea  (i.  11)  had  predicted)  be 
hereafter  Avon  back  to  Judah.  Yet  if  we  are  disposed  to 
believe  that  many  Jewish  captives  had  really  been  sent  home 
by  the  Ephraimites  safe  and  unransomed,  another  influence 
aided  this  mild  and  wholesome  feeling. 

Upon  the  birth  of  Isaiah's  second  son,  who,  like  the  first, 
had  been  made  a  sign  and  had  received  a  remarkable  name, 
the  prophet  uttered  a  new  declaration,  that  the  Assyrians 
should  despoil  Damascus  and  Samaria,  and  overflow  into 
Judah.  But  from  this  afflicting  topic  he  passes  over  into 
comforting  ones.  The  districts  of  Israel  which  Tiglathpileser 
has  ravaged  (the  circle  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  the  farther  side 
of  Jordan,  and  Gentile  Galilee)  shall  hereafter  be  made 
honourable.  Light  and  joy  shall  dawn  on  the  nation.  The 
yoke  of  slavery  shall  be  broken ;  the  hosts  of  enemies  shall 
be  slaughtered  and  burned  up :  "  for  unto  us/'  says  he,  "  a 
child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  government  is 
on  his  shoulder :  and  his  name  is  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
Mighty  God,  Everlasting  Father,  Prince  of  Peace."  He  will 
rule  happily  and  righteously  on  the  throne  of  David,  to  esta- 
blish it  for  ever. — Such  is  Isaiah's  first,  and  perhaps  his  most 
splendid  prophecy  concerning  a  future  Messiah.  It  is  very 
strange  that  the  Alexandrine  translators1  so  mistook  the  sense 
as  to  make  the  most  important  passage  useless  to  the  Christian 
Church.  Concerning  the  right  translation,  indeed,  there  is 
not  yet  perfect  agreement ;  and  there  are  some  who  maintain 
that  Hezekiah  (who  may  have  been  just  born)  is  intended. 

1  They  have  "  Messenger  of  great  counsel ;  for  I  will  bring  peace  upon  rulers, 

and  health  to  him:"  in  place  of,  "Wonderful,  Counsellor,  etc Peace." 

Beading  from  a  text  of  unpointed  Hebrew,  they  seem  to  have  been  unable  to 
add  the  vowels  aright.  The  text  Isaiah  ix.  2  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  Jesus  preaching  in  Galilee,  etc. ;  therefore  the  rest  was  likely  to  be  used  by 
the  Fathers,  if  they  had  understood  it  as  we  do. 

For  "  Mighty  God,"  almost  the  first  German  scholars  prefer  "  Strong  Hero  ;" 
but  Hitzig  will  not  concede  this,  and  says  that  the  word  God  is  used  with  ori- 
ental laxity.  De  Wette  also  maintains  our  common  version. — "  Everlasting 
Father"  has  alarmed  some,  as  supporting  the  heresy  of  the  Patripassians  ;  but  it 
is  interpreted  "long-lived  father  of  Ms  people"  according  to  the  formula,  "Oh 
king,  live  for  ever !"  On  the  contrary,  Hitzig  renders  the  phrase  "  Father  of 
booty,"  and  explains  it  of  a  warlike  king  who  distributes  booty  to  his  victorious 
army.  This  certainly  agrees  with  vv.  3-5  which  precede,  however  opposed  to 
our  old  feelings. 


238  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Yet  the  words  are  too  like  those  of  the  elder  Zechariah  to  be 
understood  of  any  lesser  personage  than  the  great  son  of 
David,  and  Isaiah  elsewhere  does  not  anticipate  the  day  of 
Messiah  as  about  to  dawn  immediately. 

But  the  most  ardent  hopes  of  futurity  could  not  do  away 
with  the  present  reality  of  suffering.  The  pressure  of  the 
allied  armies1  at  length  drove  the  unfortunate  Ahaz  to  a  step 
which  appears  to  have  marked  him  with  posterity  as  a  profane 
and  wicked  king.  He  sent  ambassadors  to  Tiglathpileser, 
whose  power  had  already  been  so  cruelly  experienced  by  the 
two  confederates ;  and  with  the  profession  of  homage,  pre- 
sented the  silver  and  gold  from  the  house  of  Jehovah  and  his 
own  royal  treasures,  entreating  the  great  king  to  deliver  him 
from  the  arms  of  Pekah  and  Rezin.  So  the  account  is  handed 
down  to  us.  It  may  seem  extraordinary  that  the  treasure 
reached  its  destination  safely,  when  the  Philistines  were  hostile 
and  cut  off  access  to  the  sea,  and  the  allies  had  full  command 
of  the  surrounding  land :  this  may  indeed  suggest  that  that 
part  of  the  tale  is  an  involuntary  fiction.  If  Ahaz  sent  an 
ambassador  to  tender  homage,  the  historian  would  infer  that 
he  sent  the  sacred  and  royal  treasures  also2.  Not  that  this 
concerns  the  question.  Ahaz,  if  his  conduct  was  precisely 
what  has  been  stated,  did  no  more  than  the  pious  Asa  had 
done  before  him  ;  and  in  any  case  the  Assyrian  knew  how  to 
remunerate  his  own  services.  He  was  ready  at  the  call,  and 
perhaps  would  have  paid  this  second  visit  without  invitation. 
The  hour  of  Damascus  was  arrived,  which  Amos  had  antici- 
pated and  Isaiah  recently  announced.  Tiglathpileser  came 
down  upon  it  with  overwhelming  force,  slew  king  Rezin  in 
battle,  and  captured  the  city.  Its  delightful  country  was  too 
valuable  to  neglect ;  it  probably  became  an  Assyrian  province. 
The  people  (it  is  said)  were  carried  away  and  planted  in  Ar- 
menia, and  nothing  remained  of  the  great  empire  of  old  so 

1  At  this  time  Isaiah.' a  first  chapter  may  have  been  written.     The  moral  de- 
scription suits  this  reign  better  than  that  of  Hezekiah,  nor  can  it  be  inferred 
from  the  project  of  setting  up  "  the  son  of  Tabeal"  that  the  allies  were  not  at 
last  provoked  to  commit  fierce  ravages.     The  "  strangers  "  of  v.  7  may  be  very 
well  understood  of  the  Damascenes,  whose  speech  the  Jews  did  not  understand ; 
2  Kings,  xviii.  26. 

2  The  words  of  the  narrative  appear  quite  like  a,  formula :  "he  took  the  sil- 
ver and  gold  which  was  found  in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  in  the  treasures  of 
the  king's  house,"  etc. 

Josephus,  to  evade  the  difficulty  of  conveying  the  treasure  to  Tiglathpileser, 
postpones  the  gift ;  and  perhaps  he  is  right. 


FALL    OF    DAMASCUS.  239 

brilliant  and  just  now  so  formidable1.  We  may  approximately 
fix  this  catastrophe  to  B.C.  738  or  737. 

The  king  of  Israel,  bereft  of  his  ally  and  threatened  once 
more  by  the  dreadful  Assyrian  close  at  hand,  gave  Ahaz  no 
farther  trouble.  The  remainder  of  his  life  is  a  blank  in  the 
history ;  but  we  may  conjecture  that  internal  broils,,  almost 
amounting  to  civil  war,  ensued.  Murder  is  a  crime  peculiarly 
denounced  by  the  prophets  of  the  day.  He  was  slain  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  his  reign2,  and  the  twelfth  of  Ahaz3,  by 
Hoshea,  his  successor ;  and  as  no  particular  blame  is  fastened 
upon  Hoshea,  but  even  a  measure  of  praise  beyond  what  might 
have  been  expected,  it  was  perhaps  no  assassination,  but  death 
in  open  battle,  and  not  necessarily  by  Hoshea' s  own  hand. 

Ahaz,  being  thus  rid  of  his  most  formidable  enemies,  might 
seem  free  to  repel  and  punish  the  Edomites  and  Philistines, 
to  whom  the  Jews  were  ordinarily  more  than  equal.  But 
there  was  here  some  secret  difficulty.  It  may  be  that  he  was 
thoroughly  cured  of  military  enterprize  by  his  first  disastrous 
essays ;  but  it  is  at  least  as  possible  that  the  tribute  demanded 
by  the  Assyrian  kept  his  treasury  empty,  and  that  he  could 
prosecute  none  but  a  strictly  defensive  and  cautious  war 
without  stopping  the  payments  to  his  dreadful  patron.  In 

1  We  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  history  has  here  been  made  out  of 
prophecy,  as  so  often  in  later  times.     It  is  with  some  doubt  that  we  receive 
the  statement  that  the  Damascenes  were  carried  to  Armenia;  since  the  his- 
torian may  have  inferred  it  merely  from  the  prophecy  of  Amos.     Historically, 
it  appears  improbable  that  the  country  of  Damascus  was  emptied  of  population. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  crisis  of  the  history  to  which  we  may  so  plausibly  refer 
the  production  of  the  remarkable  prophecy,  Isaiah  xxiv.-xxvii.,  if  genuine^  as 
to  that  before  us.  The  "  lofty  city,"  over  the  destruction  of  which  the  prophet 
moralizes,  is  in  that  case  Damascus. 

Certain  peculiarities  of  doctrine,  as  in  xxv.  21,  xxvi.  19,  are  alleged  to  prove 
that  it  was  after  the  captivity.  But  Assyria,  and  not  Babylon,  is  described 
as  the  power  which  has  inflicted  exile  on  the  people  (xxvii.  13),  and  the  men- 
tion of  Moab  in  xxv.  10  implies  that  petty  struggles  were  still  going  on  against 
neighbour  states.  What  can  be  more  likely,  than  that  after  the  successes 
of  Pekah  and  Rezin,  the  Moabites  may  have  in  turn  taken  their  fling  at  the 
helpless  Ahaz?  It  may  be  suspected  that  the  Moabites  grew  stronger  by 
the  captivity  of  Gilead,  as  that  invasion  does  not  seem  to  have  reached  them, 
and  afterwards  by  the  capture  of  Damascus.  At  any  rate,  Isaiah  xvi.  14 
proves  that  from  some  cause  they  had  again  become  powerful  after  their  great 
calamity. 

2  Pekah  came  to  the  throne  in  the  year  of  Uzziah's  death,  and  reigned  twenty 
years    (both  facts   are  stated)  :  he  therefore  died  in  the  twentieth  year  after 
Jotham  became  sole  Icing.     By  haste  of  expression,  in  2  Kings,  xv.  30,  this  is 
converted  into  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham. 

3  B.C.  729. 


240  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

hope  either  to  gain  some  remission  or  to  procure  some  direct 
military  help,  and  otherwise  to  show  respect,  Ahaz  paid  a 
visit  in  person  to  Tiglathpileser  when  he  was  at  Damascus. 
If  the  great  king's  troops  escorted  him  from  the  lower  Jordan, 
after  he  had  crossed  it  opposite  Jericho,  the  journey  was  now 
quite  safe.  Nevertheless,  his  pains  were  to  no  purpose.  He 
gained  nothing  from  Tiglathpileser1,  and  incurred  new  con- 
tempt with  the  more  zealous  of  his  own  subjects. 

All  consideration  of  the  religious  character  of  Ahaz  has 
been  purposely  deferred,  in  order  that  the  whole  may  be 
viewed  together.  Both  the  historians  are  severe  upon  him  • 
but  the  Chronicler,  as  usual,  exaggerates  the  accusations  of 
his  predecessor.  By  far  the  worst  charge  against  him  is  that 
he  devoted  one  or  more  of  his  children  to  Molech.  This  is 
expressed  in  the  older  narrative  by  saying,  that  he  "  made  his 
son  to  pass  through  the  fire2/'  confining  it  to  one  son,  and 
leaving  it  doubtful  whether  life  was  actually  sacrificed.  The 
later  statement  is  that  he  "  burnt  his  children  in  the  fire," 
multiplying  the  number,  and  making  their  destruction  a  cer- 
tainty :  it  adds  also,  that  he  ' '  made  molten  images  for  Baalim." 
The  one  states  that  he  admired  the  form  of  a  Damascene  altar 
so  much,  as  to  set  up  one  in  Jerusalem  after  the  same  pattern : 
the  other  converts  the  tale  into  sacrificing  to  the  gods  of 
Damascus.  The  one  drily  notices  that  he  altered  the  great 
basin  of  brass  by  cutting  away  the  pedestal  with  the  brazen 
oxen ;  the  other  (who  would  have  represented  this  in  a  Jeho- 
shaphat  as  zeal  for  the  law  of  Moses,  which  forbade  such 
sculptures)  modifies  the  story  as  follows : — "  He  gathered 
together  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  God  and  cut  them  in 
pieces"  The  one  says  that  he  made  an  alteration  in  the 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  ground  of  the  Chronicler's   broad  statement,  that 
"  Tiglathpileser  distressed  him  and  helped  him  not"     The  uncandid  writer  con- 
ceals the  fact  that  Tiglath  had  done  Ahaz  the  essential  service  of  drawing  off 
his  enemies,  and  had  perhaps  saved  the  line  of  David  from  total  extinction. 
This  was  a  tale  with  a  bad  moral ;  so  forsooth  it  was  to  be  suppressed. 

2  It  is  believed  that  one  or  more  bonfires  were  lit,  through  which  the  un-    I 
fortunate  child  had  to  run,  and  that  the  ordeal  was  so  severe  as  to  be  almost 
necessarily  fatal.     But  in  this  form  of  the  rite,  time  would  assuredly  mollify  it. 
Except  in  a  crisis  of  great  public  danger,  when  men's   superstition  becomes 
gloomy  and  cruel,  the  fires  would  be  made  smaller  and  smaller,  and  parents 
would  hope  for  the  merit  of  the  sacrifice  without  incurring  the  loss.     But  in 
the  other  form  of  it,  when  the   child  was  sewn  up  inside  a  wicker  idol  and 
burned   alive,  or  first  slaughtered  and  then   burned,  there  was  no  power  of 
softening  it  at   all.     Josephus  represents   Ahaz  as  making  a  "  whole  burnt   j 
offering"  of  his  son. 


RELIGIOUS    CHARACTER    OF    AHAZ.  241 

two  entrances  into  the  house1 ;  the  other  that  he  shut  up  the 
doors  of  the  house,  and  made  him  altars  in  every  corner  of 
Jerusalem.  There  is  a  greediness  of  scandal  here,  which 
suggests,  that,  if  the  story  against  Ahaz  grew  so  much  between 
the  seras  of  our  two  narrators,  it  may  also  have  grown  not  a 
little  between  the  time  of  the  events  and  the  earlier  compiler. 
And  other  circumstances  persuade  us  that  this  was  the  case. 

It  is  a  presumption  in  favour  of  Ahaz  that  the  chief  priest 
Urijah  (who  is  selected  on  one  occasion  by  Isaiah  as  a  "faith- 
ful witness  to  record,"  viii.  2)  promptly  agreed  to  his  archi- 
tectural innovations2, — a  fact  which  the  Chronicler  dishonestly 
conceals.  Nor  did  any  feud  arise  between  Ahaz  and  the  pro- 
phets of  his  day,  as  soon  after  with  Manasseh :  Isaiah  and 
Micah,  his  contemporaries,  both  of  whom  outlived  him,  are 
totally  silent  as  to  any  of  these  charges.  Isaiah's  genuine 
writings  abound  with  elaborate  analysis  of  the  sins  of  Israel 
and  of  Judah.  He  speaks  of  men  having  idols  of  silver  and 
gold,  of  being  soothsayers  like  the  Philistines,  of  seeking  to 
wizards  who  chirp  and  mutter,  as  well  as  of  immoralities  and 
crimes  of- various  dye;  but  he  does  not  accuse  Judah  of  wor- 
shipping foreign  gods,  of  making  molten  images  to  Baalim,  and 
much  less  of  sacrificing  their  children  to  Molech3.  The  deed 
of  Ahaz  cannot  have  been  a  solitary  one ;  and  if  Isaiah  feared 
to  rebuke  him  personally  for  it  during  his  life,  he  might  have 
rebuked  others,  at  least  after  Ahaz's  death.  Micah  has  a 
passage  (vi.  7)  in  which  a  man  is  supposed  to  ask  the  prophet 
.  whether  Jehovah  requires  such  a  sacrifice  :  the  prophet  simply 
denies  it,  without  a  word  to  imply  that  such  things  actually 
went  on  at  Jerusalem.  When  it  is  considered,  that  if  Ahaz 
was  a  man  who  deserved  no  positive  commendation  from  Isaiah, 
the  prophet  could  not  anticipate  these  scandalous  imputations 
and  directly  deny  them,  his  marked  silence  appears  enough  to 
acquit  Ahaz.  In  fact,  in  no  place  does  he  charge  this  king  with 
anything  worse  than  want  of  "  faith  •"  which  meant,  want  of 
confidence  that  Jehovah  would  support  him  against  enemies 
without  human  help.  The  vindication  of  Ahaz  will  seem  to 
be  complete,  if  we  can  account  for  our  historians  being  so  pre- 
judiced against  him ;  and  that  we  are  able  to  do.  According 

1  The  obscurity  is  in  the  words,  "for  the  king  of  Assyria  ;"  2  Kings,  xvi.  18. 
It  seems  to  have  been  done  to  please  him,  yet  no  one  would  suspect  him  of 
caring  about  it. 

2  2  Kings,  xvi.  16.  3  In  contrast,  see  Jerem.  vii.  31. 


242  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

to  the  principles  of  both  (and  eminently  of  the  later  one), 
misfortunes  imply  wickedness :  the  people  of  Jehovah  could 
not  be  conquered  in  war,  except  because  of  their  sin ; 
hence  when  their  defeat  is  notorious,  the  historians  must  find 
or  feign  proportionate  iniquity.  Thus  the  Chronicler  repre- 
sents the  defeat  of  Ahaz  by  Rezin  to  be  a  punishment  for 
burning  his  children  to  Molech ;  which  is  evidently  fanciful,  as 
the  things  have  no  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  by  which  the 
Divine  Government  is  carried  on.  The  power  of  Rezin  rose 
out  of  widely  different  causes,  and  must  have  been  felt  by 
Jotham  had  he  lived,  except  so  far  as  prudence  might  have 
shielded  him.  At  the  same  time  it  is  highly  doubtful  whether 
at  that  period  Ahaz  can  have  had  any  children  to  burn.  In 
short,  his  great  crime  was,  that  at  the  age  of  twenty  he  could 
could  not  withstand  the  simultaneous  attacks  of  Damascus, 
Israel,  Philistia,  Edom,  and  perhaps  Moab;  and  that  he 
sought  for  aid  to  the  great  Assyrian  power,  which  shortly 
carried  Israel  into  captivity.  But  neither  Isaiah  nor  these 
historians  themselves  tax  him  with  violence,  tyranny,  or  un- 
constitutional conduct,  nor  with  any  of  the  crimes  which 
stain  David  and  Solomon.  His  sculptural  innovations,  how- 
ever tasteful,  may  have  been  unwise ;  yet  he  had  the  sanction 
of  the  high  priest.  His  later  career  was  not  unprosperous. 
At  least  he  left  his  kingdom  to  his  son  HEZEKIAH  neither  de- 
caying nor  disorganized1,  but  re-invigorated  by  repose  for  a 
fresh  struggle.  Nevertheless,  the  Chronicler  pursues  him 
even  in  death2,  asserting  (against  the  better  authority)  that 
he  was  not  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings. 

As,  unfortunately,  the  history  of  the  Assyrians  by  Hero- 
dotus has  not  come  down  to  us,  we  cannot  trace  with  certainty 
the  order  of  their  successive  conquests,  nor  even  of  their  mon- 
archs.  Yet,  looking  to  the  intervals  of  time,  it  appears  most 
credible  that  S ARGON,  king  of  Assyria3,  who  is  alluded  to  only 


1  B.C.  726. 

2  We  have  seen  the  same  thing  in  the  matter  of  Jehoram,  Jehoash,  and  (with 
modification)  of  Uzziah.     The  Chronicler  wishes  to  accustom  his  readers  to 
the  belief,  that  over  the  race  of  David  in  Jerusalem,  nearly  as  over  the  kings  in 
Egypt  (Diodor.  i.  72),  the  priests,  supported  by  the  popular  voice,  had  power 
to  decide  concerning  the  deceased  monarch's  burial-place.     He  says  "  kings  of 
Israel"  by  carelessness,  for  kings  of  Judah  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  27),  nearly  as  hi 
xv.  17. 

3  Between  Tiglathpileser  and  Shalmaneser  we  reckon  ten  clear  years  unoccu- 
pied (B.C.  738-728),  and  the  interval  may  have  been  greater.     Between  Shal- 


SARGON    AND    THE    PHILISTINES.  243 

once1,  followed  Tiglathpileser  on  the  throne.  The  order  of 
time  and  place  alike  suggest,  that  after  the  conquest  of  Da- 
mascus, the  next  movement  of  the  Assyrians  would  be  against 
Tyre  and  the  Phoenician  confederacy ;  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  possibly,  by  assisting  Rezin,  given  some  plausible  ground 
of  war  to  the  victor.  The  Phoenicians  were  wholly  unable  to 
resist  so  formidable  a  foe,  and  in  spite  of  the  determinate  re- 
solution of  the  city  of  Tyre  itself  (which,  being  on  an  island, 
was  inaccessible  to  the  land  forces),  the  chief  cities  of  Phoe- 
nicia professed  allegiance  to  the  Assyrians,  including  the  old 
city  of  Tyre  on  the  continent.  The  Assyrian  general,  whose 
name,  or  rather  name  of  office,  was  Tartan,  then  proceeded 
into  Philistia,  and  demanded  homage.  The  only  city  whose 
resistance  is  recorded  is  Ashdod,  or  Azotus,  which  in  the  next 
century  endured  a  siege  of  wonderful  length  from  a  king  of 
Egypt.  How  long  it  now  resisted  is  not  distinctly  asserted, 
but  Isaiah  is  understood  to  imply  that  it  was  for  three  years 
or  more.  Yet  neither  Philistia  in  general2,  nor  Tyre,  was  yet 
reduced.  King  Sargon  so  quickly  vanishes  from  our  sight, 
that  we  may  conjecture  his  premature  death  to  have  occasioned 
a  sudden  return  of  the  Assyrian  forces.  Besides,  the  attack 
on  those  fortresses  of  Philistia  which  commanded  the  passes 
into  Egypt  began  to  alarm  that  power  in  earnest3 :  the  Phi- 
listines had  the  highest  expectations  of  support  from  thence, 
and  Gaza4  was  looked  upon  as  almost  impregnable. 

Nevertheless,  the  Philistines  after  a  time  began  to  suffer 
severely  from  the  Assyrians;  possibly  from  the  garrison  of 
Ashdod,  but  no  particulars  are  given  us.  In  their  distress  the 
Jews  rejoiced,  and  no  doubt  began  to  meditate  expelling  the 
Philistines  from  the  six  cities  of  Judah.  In  the  year  of  the 
death  of  king  Ahaz5,  Isaiah  composed  a  short  ode  of  triumph 
(xiv.  29-32),  telling  Philistia  that  she  had  no  cause  to  rejoice 

I   maneser  and  Sennacherib  we  can  barely  command  three  (B.C.  716-713),  and 
I  those  appear  to  be  all  needed  for  the  siege  of  Ashdod. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  Rosenmuller,  Gesenius,  Winer,  and  all  leading 

:  authorities,  interpose  Sargon  in  the  latter  interval.     Perhaps  they  would  not 

l  do  this,  did  they  not  assume  that  the  two  expeditions  of  the  Assyrians  into 

Phoenicia,  quoted  by  Joseph  us  from  Tyrian  history  (Ant.  ix,  14,  2),  are  both 

by  Shalmaneser,  and  both  after  the  capture  of  Samaria.     But  why  may  not  the 

former  be  according  to  the  narration  here  ventured  upon  ? 

1  Isaiah,  xxi.  1.  2  Isaiah,  xx.  6.  3  Isaiah,  xx.  5. 

4  See  the  siege  of  Gaza  by  Alexander  the  Great,  in  ThirlwalTs  Greece,  vol.  vi. 
[1  p.  204. 

5  B.C.  726. 


I 


M    2 


244  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

in  the  breaking  of  Judah's  sceptre,  for  her  Assyrian  master 
was,  after  him  whom  she  had  shaken  off,  as  a  flying  dragon 
compared  to  a  serpent.  Meanwhile  the  poor  of  Judah  fed 
their  flocks  in  safety,  and  lodged  by  night  in  the  open  field ; 
while  the  Philistines  suffered  famine  and  desolation  from  the 
constant  alarms  in  their  country.  He  then  calls  on  every  gate 
and  every  walled  town  in  all  Philistia  to  howl  for  fear  of  the 
Assyrian  host,  which  was  soon  about  to  march  down  upon 
them.  What  reply  then  shall  Zion  give  to  the  Assyrian  am- 
bassadors1, who  come  to  remind  her  of  allegiance  and  tribute? 
She  will  tell  them  (what  Philistia  cannot  reply)  that  Jehovah 
hath  founded  her,  and  that  her  poor  put  their  trust  in  this. — 
The  ode,  of  which  the  above  is  the  substance,  seems  to  indicate 
that  revolt  from  Assyria  was  already  decided  on  in  Jerusalem. 
But  Isaiah  did  not  anticipate  that  Assyrian  ambition  could 
pause  at  Philistia.  The  struggle  for  those  towns  which  were 
to  a  northern  invader  the  key  of  Egypt,  made  it  manifest  to 
him  that  the  tide  of  war  would  shortly  overflow  into  that 
country.  Its  great  wealth,  its  antique  wonders,  and  its  uni- 
versal celebrity,  were  certain  to  invite  attack  :  and  if  the 
stronger  power  cared  for  a  specious  cause  against  the  weaker, 
that  would  be  found  in  the  aid  which  the  Philistines  had  asked, 
and  perhaps  obtained,  from  Egypt  against  Assyria.  Since  the 
sera  of  Shishak,  Egypt  had  been  often  contested  by  kings 
from  Ethiopia.  The  Israelite  emigrants  had  already  made 
their  countrymen  well- acquainted  with  Pathros,  or  Upper 
Egypt,  and  it  was  familiar  to  a  Jew  of  that  day  to  think  of 
Ethiopians  and  Egyptians  together2,  whether  as  constituting 
the  same  or  allied  powers,  or  as  fighting  in  the  same  ranks. 
Accordingly,  in  the  very  year  when  Ashdod  was  attacked  by 
Sargon's  general3,  Isaiah  received  a  vision  against  Egypt  and 
Ethiopia  which  took  a  singular  form.  He  believed  Jehovah 
to  command  him  to  unloose  the  covering  from  his  loins  and 
the  sandals  from  his  feet,  and  walk  about  publicly  barefoot 
and  "  with  his  buttocks  exposed," — whatever  the  full  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  This  the  prophet  obeyed  without  scruple, 
and  continued  it  for  three  years ;  apparently  until  Ashdod 
was  captured.  The  symbol  was  then  expounded  to  mean, 

1  The  words  of  the  original  are  obscure :  "  What  shall  one  then  answer  the 
messengers  of  the  nation  ?  " 

2  Besides  Isaiah  xx.,  see  Nahum  iii.  9  ;  also  Isaiah  xliii.  3. 

3  About  B.C.  733  ? 


FIRST    INVASION    OF    SHALMANESER.  245 

that  in  this  shameful  plight  the  king  of  Assyria  should  lead 
away  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians  prisoners.  We  learn  his- 
torical facts  from  the  prophecy,  although  we  know  nothing 
concerning  its  fulfilment.  The  Assyrians  were  not  yet  at  lei- 
sure for  attempting  the  conquest  of  Egypt,  and  when  they  took 
it  in  hand,  they  failed. 

In  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz  (as  was  stated),  HOSHEA  having 
slain  Pekah,  established  himself  in  Samaria1.  Although  he 
is  included  by  our  historian  in  the  general  censure  of  all  the 
kings  of  Israel,  it  is  with  the  remarkable  qualification,  that  he 
did  not  do  evil  as  the  kings  who  had  preceded  him.  This 
comparative  praise  suffices  perhaps  to  show  that  no  peculiar 
weakness  or  baseness  in  Hoshea  precipitated  the  ruin  of  his 
people ;  but  the  day  was  at  hand  which  neither  wisdom  nor 
energy  could  avert.  The  first  incident  preserved  to  us  after 
his  accession  is,  the  invasion  of  Israel  a  second  time  by  the 
new  king  of  Assyria,  whose  name  was  Shalmaneser.  To  this 
period  we  may  probably  refer  the  storming  of  the  stronghold 
of  Beth  Arbel,  which  the  prophet  Hosea  feelingly  mentions. 
Beth  Arbel  was  a  small  village  of  Galilee,  which  gave  its  name 
to  certain  fortified  caverns  in  the  side  of  a  rock.  By  reason 
of  their  great  strength,  they  are  not  likely  to  have  been  left 
empty  during  the  desolation  of  Galilee,  whether  their  tenants 
were  now  a  mere  banditti,  or  acknowledged  the  authority  of 
the  king  of  Ephraim.  To  drive  men  out  from  such  a  place 
was  a  great  exploit  even  in  the  days  of  Herod,  and  with  the 
advice  of  Roman  soldiers ;  but  Shalmaneser  succeeded,  and 
massacred  all  the  inmates,  without  distinction  of  sex  or  age, 
by  hurling  them  down  the  face  of  the  rock.  Perhaps  it  needed 
not  this  demonstration  of  power  to  lead  the  helpless  Hoshea 
to  promise  allegiance  and  yearly  tribute  to  the  great  king ; 
who,  accepting  the  presents  tendered  to  him,  withdrew  his 
forces,  and  vanishes  for  a  little  while  from  the  eye  of  the  his- 
torian. 

Now  was  a  very  perplexing  time  for  Ephraim.  We  have 
an  echo  of  the  distractions  of  the  land  in  the  last  eleven  chap- 
ters of  the  prophet  Hosea2,  which  appear  to  have  been  com- 

1  B.C.  729. 

2  The  first  three  chapters  of  Hosea  are  of  a  totally  different  genius,  and  (whe- 
ther or  not  from  the  same  author)  belong  to  a  very  different  time,  about  forty 
years  earlier.     The  unfortunate  augury  of  a  great  battle  to  be  fought  on  the 
plain  of  Jezreel, — by  which  the  house  of  Jehu  is  to  be  destroyed,  Judah  to  be 
made  glorious,  and  to  be  elevated  once  more  as  head  of  the  twelve  tribes, — 


246  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

posed  now  or  a  little  later.  The  Assyrian  party  in  Samaria 
was  very  powerful,,  and  kept  up  a  constant  communication 
with  Nineveh ;  but  the  commercial  relations  with  Egypt  gave 
advantages  to  the  Egyptian  party.  The  calamities  manifestly 
impending  added  perhaps  a  stimulus  to  superstition,  and  the 
impure  ceremonies  of  the  heathen  were  practised  shamelessly. 
Gilead,  half-desolate  and  disorganized,  was  infested  with  ban- 
ditti ;  gross  drunkenness  and  sensuality  prevailed  over  Israel ; 
people,,  priest  and  prophet  were  involved  in  common  iniquities. 
Emigration  to  Egypt  kept  increasing.  The  national  bond  was 
so  broken  up,  that  no  wise  prince  could  hope  to  rally  round 
himself  the  hearts  of  the  nation  for  a  struggle  against  the 
overpowering  stranger. 

Very  soon  after,  a  change  took  place  in  Jerusalem,  which 
may  have  acted  unfortunately  on  the  mind  of  Hoshea,  and 
incited  him  to  defy  the  power  of  Assyria.  Ahaz,  as  was 
above  stated,  was  succeeded  on  the  throne  of  Jerusalem  by 
his  youthful  son  HEZEKiAH1.  As  the  father  terminated  his 
career  at  the  premature  age  of  thirty-six,  we  cannot  well 
regard  the  son  as  older  than  fifteen2.  The  counsellors  of 
Ahaz  struggled  of  course  to  retain  power,  and  appear  to  have 
been  at  variance  with  the  prophetical  party3.  We  know  the 
name  of  but  one  only,  Shebna,  who  was  "  over  the  house- 
hold/'— a  very  high  office.  But  either  by  the  temperament 
of  the  young  king,  or  by  the  genius  of  Isaiah,  the  decisive 
influence  lay  with  those,  who,  in  the  faith  that  Jehovah  would 
protect  his  people,  refused  submission  to  the  foreigner.  The 
prophets  became  for  the  time  as  predominant  as  the  priests 
had  been  during  the  minority  of  Jehoash ;  and  they  signalized 
their  power  at  once  by  the  decisive  measure  of  removing  the 
high  places4,  which  (by  the  contagion  perhaps  of  the  increased 
corruption  in  Israel)  had  now  become  seats  of  foreign  idolatry. 

seems  to  assure  us  that  this  portion  is  really  as  ancient  as  Jeroboam  II.  The 
writer  follows  in  the  steps  of  Amos,  but  by  venturing  on  specifications  has  gone 
astray. 

1  B.C.  726. 

2  He  is  called  twenty-five  by  the  historians,  which  is  probably  an  old  corrup- 
tion for  fifteen.     This  places  his  birth  somewhere  in  the  second  year  of  Ahaz, 
the  year  in  which  we  apprehend  the  prophecy  (Isaiah  viii.  ix.  1-7)  to  have  been 
delivered.     Hitzig  sees  in  Isaiah  xxxviii.   12,  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  this 
reduction  of  the  age  of  Hezekiah ;  but  that  verse  does  not  seem  to  mean  that 
Hezekiah  was  then  an  old  man,  only  that  he  was  on  the  point  of  death. 

3  Isaiah  calls  them,  "  Ye  scornful  men,  that  rule  this  people  in  Jerusalem ;" 
xxviii.  14.  4  2  Kings,  xviii.  4,  22. 


REVOLT    OF    JUDAH    AND    OF    EPHRAIM.  247 

At  least  we  find  not  images  only,  but  Astartes1  named  as  ob- 
jects of  worship  there ;  which  may  imply  that  the  line  sepa- 
rating the  worship  of  Jehovah  from  that  of  inferior  and  base 
beings  had  (as  is  usual  in  the  progress  from  image-reverence 
to  image-worship)  been  overstepped.  The  brazen  serpent  to 
which  "  down  to  those  days"  incense  was  burned2,  was  now 
destroyed;  and  in  all  other  matters  the  law  of  Jehovah,  as 
understood  and  expounded  by  the  prophets  and  by  the  most 
eminent  of  the  priests,  was  observed  and  enforced  more  dili- 
gently. A  people  thus  devoted  to  their  God,  it  was  believed, 
might  defy  the  foreigner ;  and  the  tribute  was  forthwith  with- 
held from  Shalmaneser.  Nor  only  so,  but  active  measures  of 
war  were  commenced  against  Philistia ;  perhaps  with  the  very 
money  which  had  been  destined  as  tribute  to  Nineteh.  The 
Jewish  towns  appear  to  have  been  without  difficulty  recovered, 
and  the  land  of  their  weak  but  high-spirited  neighbours  was 
ravaged  from  end  to  end. 

Hoshea  no  doubt  envied  the  freedom  and  success  of  his 
youthful  brother-king,  and  in  an  evil  hour  resolved  to  imitate 
it3.  He  did  not  however  design  to  be  so  imprudent  as  to  ex- 
pose himself  without  allies  to  the  brunt  of  an  Assyrian  inva- 
sion ;  but  the  time  was  now  come  when  he  might  hope  for  aid 
in  earnest  from  Egypt.  That  power,  we  may  infer,  had  at  last 
been  roused  by  the  capture  of  Ashdod,  and  felt  that  she  had 
no  longer  any  breakwater  against  Assyrian  force.  The  king 
therefore  gladly  listened  to  Hoshea,  and  concerted  projects  of 
revolt.  But  the  party  within  Ephraim  itself,  which  from  pru- 
dential reasons  favoured  the  Assyrians,  could  not  be  kept  in 

1  2  Kings,  xviii.  4.     The  silence  of  Isaiah  leads  to  a  suspicion  that  this  is 
exaggerated.     Or  had  "  an  Astarte"  become  a  term  for  a  graven  image  of  a  cer- 
tain kind,  without  reference  to  the  form  of  worship  ?    The  Astartes  in  Micah 
v.  14,  seem  to  have  been  in  Israel :  so  do  the  Astartes  and  images  to  the  Sun, 
in  Isaiah  xvii.  8,  xxvii.  9.     Private  idols  (see  Isaiah  ii.  8,  20,  and  more  particu- 
larly x.  10,  which  is  of  later  date)  could  not  be  suppressed ;  but  they  did  not 
imply  a  renunciation  of  Jehovah. 

2  "  Unto  those  days,  the  children  of  Israel,  did  burn  incense  to  it ;"  2  Kings, 
xviii.  4.     Is  this  a  lax  phrase  for  the  people  of  JudcBa  ?     Or  does  it  imply  that 
Israelites  also  came  into  Jerusalem  or  Judsea  to  worship  it  ?  [One  of  my  critics 
reproaches  me  with  concealing  the  fact,  that  the  worship  of  the  serpent  was  not 
tolerated,  though  it  existed.     What  does  he  mean  ?] 

3  We  do  not  certainly  know  the  year  of  Hezekiah's  revolt ;  but  the  order  of 
the  narrative  in  2  Kings,  xviii.  7—9,  implies  that  it  was  before  Hoshea' s  seventh 
year  and  Hezekiah's  fourth,  and  therefore  the  probability  is,  that  it  took  place 
as  soon  as  the  internal  parties  of  Jerusalem  had  re-adjusted  themselves  after  the 
death  of  Ahaz. 


248  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

the  dark  as  to  what  was  going  on;  arid  Shalmaneser  received 
notice  of  it.  If  we  rightly  interpret  the  very  concise  account 
given  of  these  events,  he  ordered  Hoshea  to  come  in  person 
and  explain  his  conduct ;  especially  as  the  yearly  tribute  was 
no  longer  punctually  paid.  Hoshea,  it  appears,  not  being 
ready  to  declare  his  revolt,  hoped  to  dissemble,  and  obeyed 
the  summons ;  but  the  Assyrian  monarch,  dissatisfied  with  his 
explanation,  shut  him  up  in  prison1,  as  a  contumacious  vassal. 
Here  the  captive  king  was  exposed  to  slavish  indignities,  if  to 
him  the  words  of  Micah  are  meant  to  apply,  "  They  strike 
the  judge  of  Israel  with  a  rod  upon  the  cheek."  When  Shal- 
maneser soon  after  marched  into  the  land  and  besieged  Sa- 
maria, no  help  arrived  from  Egypt,  the  untrusty  ally.  This 
need  not  *  be  imputed  to  treachery  or  fickleness.  The  scorn 
and  vehemence,  with  which  not  Isaiah  only,  but  the  Assyrian 
ambassadors  to  Hezekiah,  predict  that  Egypt  will  betray  those 
who  have  expectations  from  her,  indicate  their  belief  in  some 
internal  embarrassments  of  that  country.  And  here  the 
Greek  historian  Herodotus  may  assist  us.  If  So,  king  of 
Egypt,  is  the  same  whom  he  calls  Sethos,  he  was  priest  of 
Vulcan  (or  Ptha  of  the  Egyptian  mythology)  and  came  to  the 
throne2  against  the  will  of  the  military  caste,  with  whom  he 
was  in  political  feud,  and  whose  lands  he  endeavoured  to 
diminish.  This  was  so  violently  resented  by  them,  that  a  little 
later  he  could  not  command  their  services,  even  to  repel  inva- 
sion. Much  more  must  he  have  been  hampered  in  his  wish 
to  send  forces  out  into  Palestine.  With  money  indeed  he 
may  possibly  have  assisted  the  Samaritans;  unless  the  ar- 
rest of  Hoshea  disconcerted  all  his  plans.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
Samaria  by  her  natural  strength,  or  because  the  enemy  was 
simultaneously  engaged  with  other  places,  held  out  to  the 
third  year.  In  fact,  this  city  though  of  all  the  most  impor- 
tant, had  no  exclusive  interest  for  Shalmaneser,  who  was  in- 
tending and  executing  the  extensive  project  of  removing  the 

1  This  sudden  disappearance  of  Hoshea  may  be  alluded  to  by  the  words,  "  I 
will  be  thy  king.     I  gave  thee  a  king  in  my  anger,  and  took  him  away  in  my 
wrath,"  Hos.  xiii.  11 ;  and  in  x.  7,  "  As  for  Samaria,  her  king  is  cut  off  as  the 
foam  upon  the  water."     If  so,  the  later  chapters  of  Hosea  were  written  after 
the  war  had  broken  out.     Indeed  xiii.  16  anticipates  for  worse  than  the  Assy- 
rians inflicted. 

2  Mr.  Kenrick,  in  his  erudite  and  comprehensive  volumes  on  Ancient  Egypt, 
regards  it  as  proved  that  the  king  of  Egypt  might  be  elected  from  either  order, 
priests  or  military ;  and  that  the  sons  of  priests  were  not  necessarily  priests. 


FINAL    TRANSPLANTATION    OF    ISRAEL.  249 

mass  of  the  unfortunate  population  from  all  the  towns  of 
western  Israel  into  the  far  east.  At  last  however  the  blow 
fell  upon  Samaria  herself;  though  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
many  of  the  inhabitants,  as  indeed  from  all  Israel,  had  previ- 
ously escaped  into  Egypt.  The  Assyrian  policy  seems  to  have 
been  similar  to  that  which  induced  Darius,  son  of  Hystaspes, 
to  carry  off  the  whole  nation  of  the  Pseonians,  and  Alexander 
the  Great  to  plant  great  military  colonies.  He  desired  to 
break  up  national  associations  and  prevent  dangerous  revolts ; 
to  secure  his  distant  provinces,  and  to  bring  a  greater  popula- 
tion into  the  less-frequented  districts  near  home.  While  he 
sent  the  Ephraimites  to  dwell  "  in  Halah  and  at  Habor1,  the 
river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes,"  he  brought 
men  from  other  parts — from  Babylon,  Cuthath,  Ava,  Hamath 
and  Sepharvaim — to  supply  the  gap.  The  order  was  executed 
by  an  officer  who  is  called  in  the  book  of  Ezra  "  the  great  and 
noble  Asnapper,"  (iv.  10,)  in  a  passage  where  the  new  inha- 
bitants of  Israel  are  specified  as  from  Dina,  Apharsathcha, 
Tarpela,  Persia,  Arach,  Babylon,  Shushan,  Deha  and  Elam2. 
Many  of  these  names  are  obscure;  but  those  which  cannot 
be  mistaken  are  useful  in  showing  us  the  wide  grasp  of  Assy- 
rian domination  at  this  time ;  being  such  as  the  world  had  not 
yet  seen,  unless  we  believe  in  the  half-legendary  empire  of 
Rameses  or  Sesostris.  The  whole  of  modern  Persia,  from  the 
Caspian  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  Susiana  and  Babylonia,  Kurdi- 
stan and  Armenia,  Mesopotamia  and  Syria,  were  all  prostrate 
under  the  sceptre  of  Nineveh,  before  which  the  little  kingdom 
of  Judsea  now  stood  helpless3. 

The  Jews  had  no  doubt  watched  with  intense  anxiety  the 
progress  of  the  war  and  siege  in  the  sister  country.  We  have 
two  extant  records  of  the  workings  of  thought  at  that  time  in 
the  foremost  minds  of  Judaea ;  if  we  rightly  believe  that  the 
prophecy  of  Isaiah,  which  we  register  as  chapters  xxviii.  xxix., 
and  part  at  least  of  the  Book  of  Micah,  were  composed  in  this 
interval.  Isaiah  opens  more  grandiloquently  than  usual,  de- 
nouncing ruin  on  "the  crown  of  pride,  the  drunkards  of 

1  There  is  no  unanimity  as  to  these  places.     Gozan  is  speciously  held  by 
Major  Bennell  to  be  the  district  of  the  river  Kizil   Ozien,  which  runs  from 
Kurdistan  through  Azerbaidjan  into  the  Caspian. 

2  Many  are  led  by  Ezra  iv.  2  to  suppose  that  Esarhaddon  planted  this  colonv. 
He  no  doubt  planted  a  later  one  ;    but  he  never  held  sway  over  the  nations  here 
named,  and  cannot  have  brought  them  into  the  land  of  Samaria. 

"  B.C.  721. 

M    3 


250 


THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 


Ephraim."  The  sin  of  drunkenness  which  is  again  and  again 
charged  on  them  (even  on  the  priest  and  prophet)  is  declared 
in  words  so  plain  and  coarse,  as  cannot  be  explained  metapho- 
rically :  and  we  are  led  to  believe,  that  the  Ephraimites,  when 
thus  oppressed  by  an  irresistible  foe,  like  the  Boeotians  sinking 
beneath  the  ^Etolians,  tried  to  drown  shame  and  sorrow  in 
feasting  and  excess  of  wine1.  But  the  firm  belief  that  Je- 
hovah has  everywhere  an  elect  people,  and  that  "  a  remnant 
shall  be  saved,"  cleaves  here,  as  everywhere,  to  this  great  pro- 
phet, and  streaks  his  darkest  pictures  with  gleams  of  light 
and  beauty.  He  turns  away  rapidly  from  his  moralizing  over 
Israel,  to  warn2  the  proud  nobles  of  Jerusalem  of  impending 
danger :  a  siege  of  Jerusalem  itself3,  he  declares4,  is  coming, 
by  the  multitudinous  nations  which  fight  in  the  Assyrian 
host ;  but  they  shall  miss  their  prey  when  they  think  to  de- 
vour it.  He  describes  the  leaders  and  wise  men  of  his  own 
people  as  strangely  unable  to  read  the  signs  of  the  times  and 
understand  Jehovah's  call  to  devotion  of  the  heart,  not  of  the 
lip.  But  a  total  upturning  of  everything  is  to  come;  new 
times,  in  which  the  deaf  shall  hear  the  prophet's  words,  the 
blind  shall  see,  the  meek  and  poor  shall  rejoice  in  Jehovah. 
Then  old  Jacob  shall  no  longer  be  ashamed,  nor  shall  his  face 
turn  pale ;  but  he  shall  see  his  children,  and  they  shall  glorify 
his  God,  and  all  who  have  erred  shall  be  brought  back  into 
truth.  The  words  in  which  the  prophet  describes  the  confi- 
dence of  the  Jewish  nobles,  sound  like  an  oblique  imputation 
on  them  of  keeping  up  a  secret  correspondence  with  Assyria. 
"  They  fancied,"  he  says,  "  that  when  the  scourge  passed  over 
the  land,  it  would  spare  them ;  for  they  had  hid  themselves  in 
lies  and  falsehood."  And  we  have  reason  to  suspect  that 
Shebna,  who  was  in  a  manner  prime  minister  to  Hezekiah, 
was  of  the  Assyrian  party. 

The  prophecy  of  Micah,  though  simple  and  grand,  does  not 
add  enough  to  the  historical  picture  to  justify  our  analyzing 
the  whole.  His  rebukes  upon  Israel  are  in  substance  identical 
with  those  of  Hosea  and  Isaiah ;  but  two  points  may  be  no- 
ticed as  peculiar  to  him.  The  other  prophets  do  not  on  this 
occasion  venture  to  predict  a  return  of  Israel  from  her  As- 
syrian captivity  and  a  rebuilding  of  Samaria;  but  it  appears 

1  In  fact,  this  seems  to  have  been  the  case  at  Jerusalem  when  attacked  bj 
Sennacherib  :  Is.  xxii.  13.  2  Is.  xxviii.  14,  etc. 

3  Which  he  entitles  Ariel,  Hearth  of  God.  4  Is.  xxix.  1-8. 


ANTICIPATIONS    OF    ISAIAH    AND    M1CAH. 


251 


pretty  distinctly  in  Micah,  vii.  11,  12,  etc.1  In  regard  to  his 
Messianic  expectations  again,  he  is  more  impatient  than  Isaiah. 
While  taking  for  granted  that  the  Assyrian  inroad  must  over- 
flow into  Judah,  he  announces  that  from  the  birthplace  of 
David  shall  come  forth  Israel's  rightful  ruler,  whose  origin 
lies  in  the  dim  foretime.  Until  His  mother  shall  have  borne 
Him,  Jehovah  will  yield  up  his  people  to  suffering ;  but  when 
He,  the  great  Deliverer,  arises,  he  shall  rule  them  in  the  ma- 
jesty of  Jehovah  his  God.  He  shall  be  mighty  to  the  ends  of 
the  land,  and  shall  give  it  peace  and  security  when  the  As- 
syrian makes  his  invasion,  and  treads  in  the  Jewish  palaces. 
Against  the  intruder  seven  "  shepherds "  and  eight  anointed 
persons  shall  then  be  raised  up,  who  shall  waste  with  the 
sword  the  land  of  Assyria  and  the  frontier  of  Nimrod.  So 
shall  Messiah  deliver  Judah  from  the  Assyrian,  when  he  comes 
upon  their  land  and  treads  on  their  borders.  Then  the  rem- 
nant of  Jacob  shall  be  among  many  people  as  a  dew  from  Je- 
hovah, as  showers  on  the  grass,  as  a  young  lion  among  the 
flocks,-  who  rendeth  and  none  can  deliver.  Such  were  the 
glowing  anticipations  of  Micah. 

During  the  last  period  of  Samaritan  nationality,  whatever 
the  prophets  may  justly  say  concerning  the  demoralization  of 
the  people,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  the  worst  of  it 
was  caused  by  overwhelming  calamity,  and  by  the  fierce  par- 
ties which  so  agonizing  a  position  engenders.  Nor  can  the 
prophets  of  Israel,  as  a  body,  escape  their  own  measure  of  cen- 
sure. After  their  voice  had  armed  Jehu  against  his  unfortunate 
king  and  AhaVs  innocent  house,  we  have  no  trustworthy  evi- 
dence that  the  school  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  did  anything  good  or 
great  for  their  nation,  spiritually  or  politically.  According  to 
our  extant  prophetical  writers,  these  monitors  of  Israel  sinned 
equally  with  the  people  and  with  the  royal  priests.  Amos 

1  Hitzig  regards  this  chapter  as  written  after  the  capture  of  Samaria ;  and 
there  is  much  appearance  of  it ;  yet  when  Micah  augurs  that  the  Israeh'tish 
flock,  which  now  dwells  solitarily  in  Carmel,  shall  hereafter  feed  in  Hashan  and 
Cttlead,  as  in  the  days  of  old; — does  it  not  suggest  that  Israel  has  not  yet 
been  rooted  up  from  both  sides  of  Jordan,  but  from  the  east  only  ? 

The  passage  of  Micah,  which  (with  deference  to  expositors)  we  cannot  but 
suspect  to  betray  a  later  hand,  is  from  iii.  8  to  the  end  of  iv.  This  seems  like 
a  mere  cento  from  other  prophets,  compiled  during  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
The  chiming  of  Jacob  and  Israel,  and  confounding  both  with  Zion,  is  like  the 
later  Isaiah,  ch.  xl.-lxii. ;  and  iii.  12,  which  at  first  seems  to  assure  us  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  (cf.  Jer.  xxvi,  18),  may,  on  the  contrary,  have  been 
suggested  by  Jeremiah. 


252  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

was  urged  in  spirit  to  leave  his  rustic  occupations  in  Judsea, 
and  migrate  into  the  country  of  Jeroboam,  there  to  protest 
against  iniquities  which  the  seers  of  Jericho  and  Bethel  ought 
to  have  sufficed  to  denounce.  How  are  we  to  account  for 
this  ?  Had  the  Honey  Bee  of  prophecy,  by  playing  the  part 
of  the  Wasp,  madly  stung  forth  its  own  life  ?  Had  the  sacred 
fire  died  out  for  want  of  fuel,  when  every  antagonist  element 
hid  itself  away  from  Jehu's  violence  ?  Or  had  the  mist  which 
loured  over  the  whole  land,  clouded  the  eye  of  the  Seer,  as 
well  as  of  the  vulgar  ?  All  these  causes  may  be  presumed  to 
have  conspired.  It  is  undeniable,  that  in  the  Israelitish  pro- 
phets, as  in  the  Scotch  Reformers,  the  pugnacious  principle 
was  too  much  in  the  ascendant.  There  was  earnestness  and 
deep  conviction,  noble  ends  proposed,  and  unshrinking  self- 
devotion  to  them ;  but  nothing  of  the  meekness  of  wisdom ; 
no  gentleness  and  sensitiveness  as  to  other  men's  equal  rights, 
and  far  too  little  scruple  to  combine  with  bad  men  and  com- 
mit their  good  cause  to  wicked  means.  The  prophet  needed 
a  public  Sin  to  fight  against :  an  Ahab  called  out  his  energy, 
a  Jehu  damped  it;  and  when  Elisha' s  contemporaries  had 
been  cruel  in  their  fanaticism,  it  was  but  natural  for  succeed- 
ing generations  to  be  lukewarm,  and  even  favourable  to  the 
unhappy  victims.  From  these  extravagancies  Jerusalem  was 
saved  by  the  mild  influences  of  cultivation  and  by  the  pru- 
dence or  worldliness  of  an  established  priesthood.  There,  the 
prophet  and  the  priest  had  lived  in  harmony,  and  had  tempered 
each  other's  besetting  faults.  But  besides  this,  it  does  appear 
that  the  wars  against  Syria  and  Assyria,  which  demoralized 
the  nation,  degraded  the  prophetical  schools  also;  much  as 
the  Christian  church  sank  into  dotage,  when  the  surrounding 
world  became  whelmed  in  barbarism.  Even  in  contrasting 
the  representations  given  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  we  perceive  a 
gravitation  towards  meaner  notions  and  low  superstition.  The 
forty-days'  fast  of  Elijah,  his  journey  to  the  solitary  Horeb, 
the  stormy  wind,  the  earthquake,  and  the  fire,  in  which  Je- 
hovah was  not;  with  the  still  small  voice  in  which  Jehovah 
was  found;  are  a  noble  poem.  But  Elisha,  sitting  in  Sama- 
ria, and  miraculously  revealing  the  plans  of  Benhadad's  cam- 
paign and  the  words  which  he  speaks  in  his  bedchamber,  is 
far  less  dignified,  and  reminds  us  of  tales  of  magic.  When 
Elijah  twice  calls  down  fire  from  heaven,  and  slays  two  bands 
of  fifty  soldiers  sent  to  arrest  him,  he  is  severe  and  terrible ; 


DECLINE    OF    PROPHECY    IN    ISRAEL.  253 

but  when  Elisha  curses  a  troop  of  young  children  in  the  name 
of  Jehovah,  and  brings  two  bears  out  of  the  wood  who  devour 
forty-two  of  them,  because  they  mocked  at  his  bald  head,  he 
is  ludicrous  as  well  as  savage.  Elijah,  who  assembles  the 
prophets  of  Baal,  and  after  vanquishing  them  in  a  public 
trial  of  miracles,  incites  the  spectators  to  slay  them  all,  com- 
mits a  semi-heroic  crime ;  but  Elisha,  who  by  proxy  incites  a 
captain  with  an  army  at  his  back  to  kill  his  wounded  and 
confiding  master,  and  make  away  with  Ahab's  children  and 
little  grandchildren,  besides  being  barbarous,  is  cowardly  and 
deceitful.  Elijah  appears  before  Ahab  face  to  face,  to  threaten 
him  bitterly  for  the  murder  of  Naboth  ;  but  Elisha,  when  the 
king  is  angry  with  him,  and  seeks  his  life,  has  supernatural 
intimation  of  it,  and  gives  orders  to  shut  the  door  in  the 
messenger's  face,  while  others  arrest  him  outside.  Elijah 
predicts  a  drought  to  Ahab,  and  again  predicts  rain,  in  simple 
words ;  but  Elisha,  when  about  to  spell  warlike  successes  to 
king  Jehoash,  makes  them  depend  on  a  piece  of  luck.  He 
bids  him  to  take  his  arrows  and  shoot  upon  the  ground.  The 
youth  (who  lavishes  appellations  of  honour  on  the  aged  pro- 
phet1) intends  to  obey,  and  shoots  three  times.  But  Elisha 
is  enraged  that  he  has  not  shot  five  or  six  times,  because  (as 
he  now  reveals)  Jehovah  had  decreed  to  give  him  as  many 
victories  over  the  Syrians  as  the  times  he  should  shoot.  Fi- 
nally, when  Elijah's  hour  of  removal  is  come,  he  is  carried 
up  to  heaven  in  a  chariot  of  fire ;  but  when  Elisha  dies  and 
is  buried  as  other  men,  his  bones  have  a  like  virtue  to  those 
of  a  dark-age  Saint  : — they  raise  to  life  a  strange  corpse, 
which  by  accident  touches  them.  These  may  be  sufficient 
indications  that  young  enthusiasm  was  spent,  and  legend 
was  beginning  to  drivel,  when  the  second  set  of  tales  first 
gained  currency.  It  may  deserve  remark,  that  Bethel,  the 
head-quarters  of  superstition  in  the  day  of  Amos,  was,  with 
Jericho,  a  great  centre  of  the  prophetical  alumni  under 
Elisha. 

Of  the  extant  books  of  prophecy,  one  only  has  come  from 
an  Israelite2, — that  of  Hosea;  and  his  fire  seems  to  have 

1  "My  father,  my  father,  the  chariot  of  Israel,  and  the  horsemen  thereof!" 
Elisha  was  better  to  Jehoash  than  chariots  or  horsemen. 

2  Concerning  Jonah  nothing  distinct  can  be  asserted.     The  book  called  by 
bis  name  is  evidently  not  written  by  him,  though  the  prayer  in  it  may  be  his 
composition.     The  story  of  the  whale  in  which  it  is  imbedded,  appears  to  have 


254  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

been  kindled  at  the  hearth  of  the  Jewish  Amos.  Nothing 
properly  Messianic  appears  in  him.  It  is  peculiarly  honour- 
able to  Hosea,  that  he  possesses  in  a  high  degree  the  tender- 
ness of  spirit  in  which  Elijah  and  Elisha  were  so  deficient. 
It  was  not  his  fault  that  invective  and  lamentation  were  alike 
too  late,  and  that  neither  patriotism  nor  religion  had  materials 
left  for  saving  Israel.  Clinging  still  to  hope  against  hope,  he 
ended  his  solemn  appeals  by  auguring  a  time  when  Ephraim 
should  abandon  his  idols,  cease  to  supplicate  Assyria  or  trust 
in  horses,  and  should  nourish  high  and  deep  under  the  favour 
of  Jehovah. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  VIII. 

IN  filling  up  the  history,  much  depends  on  the  chronolo- 
gical order  assigned  to  the  pieces  of  extant  prophecy ;  and 
even  where  this  cannot  be  decided  so  as  to  exclude  all  contro- 
versy, it  becomes  necessary  for  the  historian  to  form  a  pro- 
bable theory.  A  list  is  added  of  the  approximate  dates  here 
imagined  for  the  earlier  prophets ;  partly  in  order  to  stimulate 
to  their  intelligent  perusal  (although  the  defects  of  the  Eng- 
lish version  are  a  great  drawback),  and  more  especially  that 
the  reader  may  be  able  to  check  the  narrative. 

Approximate  dates  of  the  Earlier  Prophecies. 

B.C. 


858 
840 

818 
804 


Accession  of  Jehoash  under  the  priest  JehoiacU 
Plague  of  locusts  and  drought. 
Prophecy  of  Joel. 
Death  of  Jehoash. 
Accession  of  Jeroboam  II. 


grown  out  of  a  frigid  misinterpretation  of  his  prayer ;  and  the  whole  account 
is  to  us  nothing  but  an  echo  of  the  low  esteem  in  which  the  Jewish  writers  held 
the  prophets  of  Israel. 

If  Jonah  is,  as  Hitzig  ingeniously  opines,  the  author  of  the  ode  upon  Moab, 
in  Isaiah  xv.  xvi.,  it  does  but  make  us  regret  his  dearth  of  spiritual  sentiment. 
Yet  the  invitation  to  become  subject  to  Judah,  and  the  high  praise  of  the  king 
of  Judah,  is  against  the  belief  that  the  writer  was  an  Israelite. 


ROUGH    DATES    OF    CERTAIN    PROPHECIES.  255 

B.C.    I 


780 
770 
763 
762 
748 
745 
744 
743 
742 
741 

739 
738 
733 
729 

726 
723 


721 

720 
717 
714 
713 

712 

708 


Ode  against  Moab,  Is.  xv.  xvi. 

Prophecy  of  Amos. 

Hosea's  first  three  chapters. 

Death  of  Jeroboam  II. 

Uzziah  dies.     Isaiah  has  his  first  vision,  ch.  vi. 

Captivity  of  Gilead  and  Naphthali  by  Tiglathpileser. 

Isaiah  ix.  8  down  to  x.  4. 

Zech.  ix.  x. 

Zech.  xi. ;  Is.  xvii.  1-11. — Pekah  and  Rezin  invade  Jotham. 

Accession  of  Ahaz.     He  loses  two  great  battles. 

Isaiah  ii.-iv.     Isaiah  vii.-viii.  1,  2. 

Isaiah  viii.  4 — ix.  7.     Isaiah  i. 

Damascus  falls  by  Tiglathpileser.     Isaiah  xxiv.— xxvii.  ? l 

Sargon  (or  his  general  Tartan)  attacks  Phoenicia  and  Philistia. — Is.xx. 

Hoshea  slays  Pekah. 

Sufferings  of  Philistia. 

Death  of  Ahaz.     Isaiah  xiv.  28-32. 

Shalmanezer  invades  Israel  the  second  time. 

Hosea's  last  eleven  chapters.     Isaiah  xxviii.,  xxix.      Micah  i.-iii.  7, 

v.-vii. 
Samaria  taken. 

Tyre  besieged  by  Shalmaneser  for  five  years. 
Isaiah  xxiii. 
Isaiah  v.  ? 

Sennacherib  invades  Judah.     Is.  xxx.-xxxii.     Is.  x.  4-xi.     Is.  xvii. 
12-xviii.  (and  xiv.  24-27  ?)  Is.  xxii.    Is.  xxxiii.  Is.  xxxviii.  21-35. 
Hezekiah  is  sick. 
Isaiah  xix. 


1  But  for  the  phrase  "  a  palace  of  strangers"  inxxv.  2,  one  might  be  tempted 
to  explain  these  four  chapters  as  Isaiah's  dirge  over  captured  Samaria.  The 
fall  of  Damascus  appears  less  likely  to  have  called  out  so  much  feeling,  than  this 
nearer  event :  and  so  also  we  should  see  more  force  in  the  whole  conclusion  con- 
cerning Israel,  xxvii.  6-13.  But  the  real  difficulty  is  to  account  for  the  pro- 
minence of  Moab  in  ch.  xxv. 


256 


CHAPTER  IX. 

FROM  THE  FALL  OF  SAMAEIA  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  JOSIAH, 
B.C.  721-609. 

As  soon  as  the  armies  of  Shalmaneser  had  effected  their 
whole  work  on  the  hapless  people  of  Israel,  it  was  only  to  be 
expected  that  Judah  would  be  the  next  victim.  They  had 
committed  the  same  offence,  and  might  be  taxed  with  peculiar 
ingratitude;  but  Israel  had  never  received  any  favour  from 
the  Assyrians.  During  the  three  years'  war  it  is  likely  that 
considerable  plunderings  of  Jewish  territory  took  place1 ;  but 
no  formal  attempt  was  made  to  reduce  the  strongholds ;  and 
even  when  Samaria  had  fallen,  a  new  object  intervened  to 
give  farther  respite  to  Judaea. 

Shalmaneser  was  looking  beyond  Jerusalem  to  the  rich 
land  of  Egypt,  and  felt  the  importance  of  having  all  Phoenicia 
at  his  command,  for  the  sake  of  its  maritime  aids.  But  of 
this  he  could  not  be  sure,  while  the  insular  Tyre  continued 
to  defy  him :  its  freedom  was  a  perpetual  stimulus  to  all  Phoe- 
nicia to  revolt.  Expecting  perhaps  to  capture  it  by  a  mo- 
mentary exertion  of  force,  he  deferred  his  attack  on  Judah 
till  he  had  accomplished  it2 ;  and  ordered  the  subject  Phoeni- 
cians to  prepare  60  galleys  and  furnish  them  with  rowers, 
intending  to  land  his  troops  on  the  island3.  Against  these, 
the  Tyrians,  abandoned  by  all  their  confederates,  had  only  12 
to  oppose ;  but  these  12  were  animated  by  an  eager  spirit  of 
liberty,  while  the  60  were  filled  with  Assyrian  landsmen,  and 
with  Phoenicians  engaged  in  a  cause  which  they  detested. 
The  little  Tyrian  squadron  gained  a  brilliant  victory  and  cap- 
tured 500  Assyrian  warriors ;  whereupon  Shalmaneser  endea- 
voured to  reduce  the  town  by  guarding  the  whole  coast  so  as 
to  cut  off  the  supplies  of  water.  The  Tyrians,  notwithstand- 

1  If  this  was  the  epoch  of  the  composition  of  Isaiah  i.,  more  than  mere 
plundering  of  the  country  was  endured  ;  for  many  cities  were  then  consumed 
by  fire.     But  see  note a,  page  238. 

2  Josephus,  Antiq.  ix.  14.  §  2.  3  B.C.  720  ? 


ASSYRIAN    SIEGE    OF    TYRE.  257 

ing,  persevered,  and  dug  wells  for  themselves  in  their  narrow 
island.  How  much  water  they  thence  obtained,  and  how 
much  they  imported  in  spite  of  all  precautions,  rests  entirely 
on  conjecture ;  but  they  lasted  out  until  the  fifth  year ;  after 
which  we  are  left  in  uncertainty  by  the  historian  whether  the 
blockade  was  given  up,  or  the  deceased  were  forced  to  yield1. 
The  king  cannot  have  superintended  it  in  person  for  so  long  a 
time ;  his  presence  must  have  been  needed  elsewhere ;  and 
probably  in  the  year  B.C.  716  he  was  cut  off  by  death.  Such 
was  the  first  great  siege  endured  by  this  heroic  yet  peace- 
loving  people,  against  the  foremost  power  of  the  world.  A 
second  was  sustained  successfully  against  Nebuchadnezzar3. 
Sidon  made  a  like  brave  resistance  to  Darius  Ochus,  and 
when  betrayed  by  her  own  king,  fell  with  horrible  self-sacri- 
fice. Finally,  Tyre  stood  at  bay  for  seven  months  against  the 
great  Macedonian  hero3,  and  then  at  last  the  mole  which  he 
constructed  against  the  island,  by  turning  it  into  a  peninsula, 
spoiled  for  ever  the  advantages  of  the  site. 

It  is  unpleasing  to  find  the  prophet  Isaiah  (ch.  xxiii.)  exult 
in  the  dangers  which  came  upon  this  noble  city,  while  stand- 
ing in  the  foreground  for  freedom,  and  really  shielding  Jeru- 
salem from  the  common  oppressor.  We  here  see  the  evil  ele- 
ment of  exclusive  patriotism,  which,  when  imbibed  by  those 
who  had  not  Isaiah's  other  great  qualities,  made  the  Jew  to 
appear  as  a  hater  of  mankind.  In  the  ode  itself  there  is  no 
intimation  that  Tyre  was  hostile  to  Jerusalem :  the  slave-trade 
is  not  named,  nor  the  alliance  with  Philistia  or  Syria.  But 
here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Hebrew  prophets  show  a  narrow- 
minded  abhorrence  of  worldly  art,  skill  and  science,  as  pro- 
ducing merely  wealth,  pomp,  luxury  and  pride.  This  illusion 
is  perhaps  a  necessary  result  of  limited  experience,  in  those 
whose  moral  principle  has  full  ascendency  over  the  rest  of 
their  nature.  Dread  and  grudge  were  felt  against  Tyre,  "  be- 
cause she  was  exceeding  wise4."  Jehovah  was  believed  to 
share  the  same  sentiment5,  and  to  be  jealous  of  everything 

1  Since  the  above  has  been  out  of  hand,  Grote's  third  volume  of  Greece  has 
appeared,  in  which  he  treats  it  as  certain  that  the  insular  Tyre  was  not  reduced 
by  Shahnaneser :  p.  428.  •  2  Ezekiel  xxix.  18. 

3  See  Thirlwall's  Greece,  vol.  vi.  pp.  195-202,  on  this  deeply  interesting  siege. 
The  fate  of  Sidon  is  in  p.  138  of  the  same  volume. 

4  Zech.  ix.  2. 

5  The  only  sin  charged  against  Tyre  is  the  extensiveness  of  her  honourable 
and  gainful  traffic. 

"  Who  hath  taken  this  counsel  against  Tyre,  the  crowning  city,  whose  mer- 


258  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

grand  and  high.  To  the  end  of  his  dirge  the  prophet  sub- 
joins rather  dark  words  of  comfort.  Tyre  is  to  be  forgotten 
seventy  years ;  after  which  she  is  to  take  a  harp  and  sing  as  a 
harlot ;  she  shall  turn  to  her  harlotry  with  all  kingdoms,  and 
her  merchandize  and  her  hire  shall  be  holiness  to  Jeho- 
vah. While  stigmatizing  mercantile  traffic  by  the  contemp- 
tuous name  of  harlotry,  Isaiah  could  not  help  admitting  that 
even  merchandize  might  be  holy1,  when  it  was  spent  upon  the 
food  and  clothing  of  the  priests  or  prophets  of  Jehovah.  As 
regards  the  result  here  predicted,  as  well  as  the  period  of 
seventy  years,  it  does  not  appear  that  they  answer  to  any  his- 
torical reality.  Indeed,  as  this  is  the  period  assigned  by  Je- 
remiah for  Babylonian  domination,  some  critics  find  in  it  a 
confirmation  of  their  suspicion  that  the  whole  chapter  belongs 
to  an  author  of  a  century  later. 

Out  of  the  ruins  of  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  many  families 
must  have  taken  refuge  in  Judaea,  and,  under  the  circum- 
stances, were  open  to  strong  impressions  of  Jewish  religion. 
Such  as  had  never  been  present  in  Jerusalem  at  any  of  the 
great  feasts,  would  attend  the  Passover  there  now  with  a  pe- 
culiar feeling ;  and  their  presence  could  not  fail  to  produce 
some  excitement  in  Judah.  Perhaps  it  was  a  simple  event  of 
this  nature  which  the  Chronicler  has  exaggerated  into  the  ac- 
count of  a  remarkable  Passover  celebrated  by  Hezekiah3,  to 

chants  are  princes,  whose  traffickers  are  the  honourable  of  the  earth  ?  Jehovah 
of  hosts  hath  purposed  it,  to  stain  the  pride  of  all  glory  ^  and  to  bring  into  con- 
tempt the  honourable  of  the  earth  "  (xxiii.  8,  9).  So  ii.  12-16.  Compare  He- 
rodotus vii.  10.  §  5.  "  Seest  thou  how  God  striketh  with  his  thunderbolt  all 
tall  creatures,  but  the  little  ones  fret  him  not  at  all  ?  Seest  thou  how  he  hurleth 
his  darts  alway  at  the  loftiest  buildings  and  trees ;  for  God  loveth  to  lop  shorter 
whatever  is  towering." 

1  "  (Her  wealth)  shall  not  be  treasured  nor  laid  up  ;  it  shall  be  for  them 
that  dwell  before  Jehovah,  to  eat  sufficiently,  and  for  durable  clothing."     This 
is  very  mean  and  tame  ;  and  more  than  any  other  sentiment  in  the  ode,  would 
help  our  acquiescing  in  the  belief  that  the  whole  is  of  later  origin. 

It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  v.  5  of  this  chapter  in  the  English  version 
gives  the  impression  that  the  prophecy  was  written  after  great  calamities  on 
Egypt,  such  as  the  Persian  conquest ;  but  De  Wette,  Hitzig  and  Ewald  agree 
in  rendering  it,  "When  the  news  reaches  Egypt,  it  shall  be  terrified  by  the 
report  concerning  Tyre."  The  notice  of  the  Chaldceans  in  v.  13  is  very  puz- 
zling. Ewald  cuts  the  knot  by  altering  the  word  into  Canaanites.  "  Behold  the 
land  of  the  Canaanites !  This  people  is  no  more ;  the  Assyrian  has  made  it  a 
wilderness."  This  is  a  very  bold,  but  perhaps  happy  conjecture. 

2  He  seems  to  represent  it  as  before  the  fall  of  Samaria  (xxxi.  1).     But  it  is 
so  little  credible  that  Hezekiah  could  "throw  down  the  high  places  and  altars  in 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh"  while  Hoshea's  kingdom  stood,  that  this  might  alone 
warn  us  not  to  trust  the  details  of  the  narrative. 


PASSOVER.  259 

which,  he  specially  invited  all  the  members  of  the  northern 
kingdom.  That  the  event  can  have  been  so  important  and 
striking  as  he  represents,  the  total  silence  of  the  older  his- 
torian (who  is  not  at  all  wanting  in  sympathy  for  religious 
interests)  makes  it  extremely  difficult  to  believe.  Yet  there 
are  a  few  points  deserving  remark,  as  implying  that  the  reli- 
gious zeal,  which  was  kindled  in  this  reign,  introduced  cere- 
monies before  unpractised.  The  Levites  were  the  movers  in 
them,  and  the  priests  were  reluctant1.  The  latter  wished  to 
adhere  to  the  established  practices ;  the  former  to  introduce 
what  they  found  written  in  the  compilations  which  professed 
to  give  the  most  precise  directions.  This  is  the  first  trace 
which  we  find  of  Levitical  zeal  for  ceremonies  outgoing  that  of 
the  priests ;  and  this  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  the  word 
Passover  is  used  in  the  historical  books.  We  find  also  in  a 
phrase  of  Isaiah2,  reason  to  believe  that  the  fundamental 
points  in  that  feast  were  already  observed.  According  to  the 
Chronicler,  this  was  a  peculiar  Passover,  as  celebrated  by 
Hezekiah  once  only  in  his  reign.  Had  it  even  been  otherwise, 
we  might  easily  understand  that  by  reason  of  the  destruction 
of  the  High  Places,  the  country  people  had  in  considerable 
numbers  attended  the  Passover  at  the  central  city  :  on  which 
ground  it  is  every  way  probable  that  under  Hezekiah  the  Jeru- 
salem Passover  became  a  more  imposing  ceremony. 

During  the  gallant  struggle  of  the  Tyrians,  the  counsellors 
and  people  of  king  Hezekiah  had  abundant  cause  to  rejoice 
with  trembling.  An  interval  was  gained,  if  they  had  been 
disposed  to  use  it,  for  storing  and  strengthening  their  for- 
tresses ;  yet  even  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  itself  were  left  in 
imperfect  repair.  This  can  be  well  explained.  The  revolt 
had  been  decided  by  the  ascendency  of  the  prophetical  influ- 
ence, not  by  worldly  wisdom.  The  prophets  looked  for  success 
to  superhuman  power,  and  thought  more  of  moral  defence  by 
piety  than  of  the  physical  bulwark  of  walls3.  Reasoners  of 
a  commoner  sort  judged  by  the  examples  of  Damascus  and 
Samaria,  not  to  speak  of  Ashdod,  that  to  resist  the  Assyrians 
without  the  help  of  Egypt  was  utterly  an  infatuation ;  hence 
all  are  likely  to  have  been  languid  in  preparation  for  war, 

1  "  The  Levites  were  more  upright  in  heart  to  sanctify  themselves  than  the 
priests"  (2  Chr.  xxix.  34).     This  refers  to  empty  outward  purifications,  which 
it  cost  the  apostle  Paul  much  labour  and  suffering  to  reduce  to  their  real  insig- 
nificance. 

2  Is.  xxx.  29,  xxxi.  5.  3  Is.  xxii.  11,  xxxiii.  15,  16. 


260  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

unless  that  help  could  be  secured.  If  any  bold  patriot  were 
found  to  hold  that  the  fortresses  of  Judah  would  suffice  to 
repel  the  enemy,  he  would  soon  be  convinced  by  the  despon- 
dency of  others,  that  there  was  no  heart  in  the  nation  for  so 
intense  a  struggle. 

A  new  monarch  ascended  the  throne  of  Nineveh,  about 
715  years  before  the  Christian  sera,  by  name  Sennacherib1 ; 
and  his  accession  perhaps  deferred  yet  a  little  the  fearful  mo- 
ment, in  expectation  of  which  the  hearts  of  Judah  quivered. 
At  length  his  expedition  was  determined  upon,  and  his  great 
army  began  to  assemble.  As  this  could  not  be  done  in  a  day, 
and  the  chief  part  of  the  host  was  infantry,  rumour  would 
precede  it  by  several  weeks,  and  a  short  tumultuous  time  still 
remained  to  the  Jews.  Embassies  to  Egypt  now  began  in 
earnest.  Drowning  men  will  cling  to  a  straw,  and  the  fate  of 
Samaria  did  not  deter  them  from  trusting  in  this  empty  power. 
It  does  not  indeed  appear  that  the  king  himself  despatched 
any  such  embassy ;  but  the  nobles  sent  off  camels  and  asses 
laden  with  treasure2,  humbly  to  ask  aid  from  the  venerable 
name  of  Pharaoh.  Cavalry  and  chariots  were  the  great  want 
of  the  Jews  for  defence  against  the  Assyrian  foragers,  and  for 
this  species  of  force  peculiar  entreaty  was  made3.  Now  at 
length  also  some  decided  measures  of  defence  were  adopted. 
The  weak  parts  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  were  mended:  a 
second  wall  was  added,  where  chiefly  necessary,  and  by  turn- 
ing off  the  waters,  the  moat  between  the  two  walls  was  filled. 
At  this  crisis  one  heart  at  least  in  Judah  remained  unshaken, 
although  expecting  severe  trial.  Isaiah  did  not  repent  of  the 
revolt,  and  did  not  approve  of  asking  help  from  Egypt.  Not 
that  he  would  have  spurned  real  aid  sincerely  proffered,  (for 
we  shall  see  that  he  thought  well  of  the  Ethiopian  ambassa- 

1  According  to  the  account  of  the  Babylonian  priest  Berosus,  extracted  by 
Alexander  Polyhistor,  and  preserved  for  us  by  Eusebius  (see  Fynes  Clinton, 
Fast.  Hell.  vol.  i.  p.  270,  on  the  Assyrian  empire),  Sennacherib  was  preceded 
on  the  throne  of  Nineveh  by  his  brother.     This  may  perhaps  be  claimed  as 
favourable  to  the  belief  that  a  short  reign  of  Sargon  is  to  be  interpolated  be- 
tween Shalmaneser  and  Sennacherib.     But  if  Sargon' s  armies  had  been  engaged 
in  Philistia  after  Hezekiah's  revolt,  we  should  surely  have  some  notice  of  their 
attacks  on  Judah,  which  indeed  would  be  an  earlier  object ;  and  that  Hezekiah 
had  revolted  before  the  siege  of  Samaria,  appears  beyond  reasonable  doubt. 
The  book  of  Tobit  (i.  15)  makes  Sennacherib  son  of  JZnemessar,  the  king  who 
carried  Naphthali  captive  (2).     This  identifies  Enemessar  with  Tiglathpileser, 
and  appears  to  make  Shalmaneser,  Sargon  and  Sennacherib  his  three  sons.    But 
in  truth  the  worth  of  the  book  of  Tobit  is  not  much  above  that  of  Judith. 

2  Is.  xxx.  6.  3  Is.  xxxi.  1-3. 


INVASION    BY    SENNACHERIB.  261 

dors),  but  he  had  an  intense  conviction  that  no  succour  would 
come  from  Egypt.  At  this  time,  while  the  Assyrian  was 
marching  upon  the  land,  hut  had  not  yet  entered  it,  Isaiah 
appears  to  have  composed  chapters  xxx.  xxxi.  xxxii.  of  his 
prophecy.  The  great  subject  of  them  is  scorn  of  Egyptian 
expectations.  He  announces  that  the  strength  of  the  people 
must  be  in  quietness  and  confidence ;  that  if  they  trust  in 
Jehovah,  he  will  fight  for  them ;  will  smite  down  the  Assyrian 
without  human  sword,  and  prepare  a  huge  funeral  pile  in  the 
valley  of  Hinnom  to  burn  up  his  carcasses.  The  prophet's 
mind  glances  far  forward  more  than  once,  to  a  mysterious 
blessed  future,  when  the  righteous  shall  have  an  inward  teach- 
ing such  as  Joel  spoke  of,  besides  outward  instructors.  In 
that  day  the  earth  shall  be  more  fruitful,  the  cattle  shall 
flourish,  the  moonlight  shall  be  as  sunlight,  and  the  sunlight 
sevenfold  j  the  idols  shall  be  cast  away ;  a  righteous  king  shall 
reign,  princes  shall  give  just  judgment,  and  bad  men  shall  be 
degraded.  We  cannot  fail  to  recognize  in  this  the  golden  age 
of  Messiah.  Yet  the  prophet  cannot  stay  on  this  joyful  topic  : 
he  sees  misery  impending ;  he  predicts  even  to  the  pious  that 
they  shall  have  ' '  water  and  bread  of  affliction," — scant  sup- 
plies in  the  time  of  siege, — that  women  shall  mourn  over  the 
ravaged  fields  and  uninilked  cattle;  that  thorns  and  briers 
shall  come  up  over  the  pleasant  palaces,  that  the  forts  and 
towers  shall  be  dens  for  ever1,  and  a  place  of  wild  asses'  pas- 
time, until  the  Spirit  is  poured  from  on  high,  and  the  blessed 
age  arrives.  He  seems  to  strive  in  vain  to  lift  himself  into 
the  happier  anticipations ;  scenes  of  desolation  recur  to  his 
mind,  and  he  ends  abruptly,  in  rather  incoherent  strain. 

By  what  route  the  Assyrians  marched  we  are  not  positively 
informed ;  but  as  they  brought  chariots  with  them,  it  may  be 
conjectured,  that,  like  the  second  Benhadad,  they  came  from 
Damascus  along  the  breadth  of  Israel,  and  so  entered  the 
plain  country  of  Judsea.  It  is  indeed  quite  credible,  that  a 
prophetical  piece  of  Isaiah2  represents  to  us  exactly  their 
track, — crossing  the  border  of  the  Jewish  territory  at  Aiath 

1  The  English  reader  must  beware  of  obtruding  on  the  prophets  our  ideas  of 
eternity,  when  this  phrase  is  used. 

2  Isaiah  x.  5-xi.     The  llth  chapter  is  wholly  Messianic,  and  in  magnificence 
second  to  none  concerning  the  glorious  age.     It  closes  with  predicting  conquest 
over  the  Philistines,  Edomites,  Moabites  and  Ammonites  ;  a  bringing  home  of 
the  Israelites  from  Assyria,  as  also  from  Egypt  (by  a  renewed  miraculous  pas- 
sage of  the  Red  Sea),  and  a  permanent  union  of  Ephraini  and  Judah. 


262  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

or  Ai,  passing  on  to  Migron  and  Michmash,  lodging  at  Geba, 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Raman  and  Gibeah  of  Saul,  and 
ravaging  the  country  from  Gallim  to  Anathoth.  At  Nob  he 
remains  one  day,  and  "  shakes  his  hand  against  the  hill  of 
Jerusalem."  But  the  invader  did  not  intend  to  attack  the 
strongest  town  first,  but  passed  on  to  lick  up  all  that  was  good 
in  the  land  and  whatever  could  be  secured  with  least  effort. 
His  chariots  were  outnumbered  by  the  clouds  of  horsemen, 
and  his  horsemen  by  the  multitudinous  infantry ;  among 
whom  the  most  interesting  to  us  are  the  Armenians,  Medes 
and  Persians,  who  for  several  ages  proved  themselves  truly 
formidable  soldiers.  Besides  these,  were  masses  of  mere 
rabble,  who,  though  useless  in  fight,  were  valuable  in  sieges, 
where  every  hand  could  help  to  raise  a  mound.  When  the 
vast  host  came  before  the  frontier  fortresses,  their  mounds 
rose  so  quickly,  that  they  could  soon  walk  up  to  the  top  of 
the  walls.  In  other  places  they  erected  waterwheels  worked 
by  the  foot,  and  pumped  off  the  streams  which  supplied  the 
besieged.  Such  appear  to  have  been  the  only  modes  of  attack 
used1 ;  and  their  efficacy  depended  on  the  number  of  hands 
and  feet  which  the  besieger  could  set  to  work.  In  their  own 
methods  the  Assyrians  had  had  great  experience,  and  were 
now,  as  heretofore,  successful.  Castle  after  castle  was  rapidly 
taken,  or  surrendered  to  save  its  crops. 

Meanwhile  ambassadors  came  to  Hezekiah  from  the  distant 
power  of  Ethiopia,  which  had  been  stirred  up  by  alarm  at  the 
great  king's  approach;  and  to  clear,  as  far  as  possible,  this 
rather  dark  subject,  a  digression  is  here  needed  concerning 
the  relations  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia.  It  has  been  already 
stated  that  the  Ethiopians  had  for  more  than  two  centuries 
contested  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  The  country 
immediately  intended  by  Ethiopia  appears  to  be  that  which 
the  moderns  call  Sennaar.  This  is  a  large  triangle  formed  by 
the  Nile  on  the  east,  the  Tacazze  (a  tributary  of  the  Nile)  on 
the  west,  and  the  islands  of  Abyssinia  in  the  south.  The 
junction  of  the  two  rivers  is  the  vertex  of  the  triangle,  and  is 
the  most  northern  point  of  the  country.  The  Greeks  con- 
ceived of  the  region  as  an  island,  and  called  it  Meroe  :  between 
it  and  Egypt  the  Nubian  desart  intervenes,  and  the  rapids  of 
the  river  make  navigation  extremely  difficult.  Sennaar,  or 

1  The  Assyrian  sculptures,  like  the  Egyptian  paintings,  denote  a  knowledge 
of  the  arts  of  siege  nearly  equal  to  anything  that  the  Romans  ever  attained. 


ETHIOPIAN    EMBASSY.  263 

Meroe,  is  thus  naturally  a  distinct  country  from  Egypt.  Its 
monarchs  however  had  often  held  possession  of  all  Upper 
Egypt ;  indeed  of  all  except  that  which  was  called  the  marshes, 
the  capital  city  of  which  was  Sais.  According  to  Herodotus, 
the  Ethiopian  king  Sabaco  was  induced  to  abandon  Egypt 
by  terrible  dreams  which  ordered  him  to  slay  all  the  priests. 
It  is  impossible  to  divine  the  historical  truth  here  veiled,  if  we 
scruple  to  accept  the  statement  literally ;  but  as  in  Meroe  it 
is  well  known  that  the  priestly  power  was  at  its  height,  we  get 
some  clue  as  to  the  internal  conflict  of  society  by  combining 
all  the  accounts.  For  we  find  that  when  the  Ethiopians  retire, 
the  military  caste  of  Egypt  is  unable  to  retain  the  throne  for 
one  of  its  own  body ;  but  an  Egyptian  priest,  named  Sethos, 
becomes  king,  and  endeavours  to  despoil  the  military  of  their 
landed  possessions.  For  all  warlike  purposes  he  is  exceedingly 
weak,  because  of  the  disaffection  in  the  soldier-caste ;  and  this 
(we  apprehend)  disables  him  from  succouring  Samaria  or  Je- 
rusalem. It  is  farther  believed  that  Tirhakah1,  an  Ethiopian 
successor  of  Sabaco,  reigned  in  the  Thebais,  or  Upper  country ; 
and  that 'the  Ethiopians  did  not  retire  from  all  Egypt,  but 
only  from  the  central  or  Memphitic  region.  In  the  Hebrew 
history  this  Tirhakah  is  found  ready  to  meet  Sennacherib  in 
Palestine,  so  that  he  evidently  had  power  of  passage  through 
Egypt,  and  far  greater  ability  to  make  war  than  Sethos.  This 
may  suggest  that  there  was  not  merely  a  close  alliance  between 
the  two  powers  at  this  time  (which  seems  undeniable),  but 
that  the  priest  was  kept  on  his  throne  by  Ethiopian  influence ; 
which,  though  now  in  the  background  and  avowedly  with- 
drawn, pursued  its  own  policy  of  aggrandizing  the  sacerdotal 
caste  in  Egypt  at  the  expense  of  the  military.  We  thus  get  a 
new  insight  into  the  union  of  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians  by 
Isaiah,  in  his  prophecy  after  the  siege  of  Ashdod  (ch.  xx.) . 

Tirhakah  manifestly  was  more  on  the  alert  than  the  armies 
of  Sethos  to  guard  the  approaches  into  Egypt  against  Senna- 
cherib, and  sent  ambassadors  to  Hezekiah  to  advertise  him  of 
his  approach,  as  also  to  concert  measures.  Of  this  embassy 
we  learn  only  through  a  prophetical  piece  in  Isaiah,  the  ex- 
treme difficulty  of  translating  which  has  given  rise  to  the 
greatest  diversities  of  opinion.  The  rendering  however  of  the 
most  recent  expositor  of  high  reputation2  (who  perhaps  has 

1  Tirhakah  is  in  Manetho's  list  of  Ethiopian  kings  of  Egypt. 

2  Evrald :  Die  Propheten  des  alten  Bundes. 


264  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

scarcely  his  equal  in  knowledge  of  the  Syro- Arabian  languages) 
is  eminently  consistent  with  the  general  probabilities  of  the 
war.  According  to  him,  the  piece  begins  with  ch.  xvii.  12, 
continues  through  ch.  xviii.,  and  should  probably  have  annexed 
to  it  the  fragmentary  passage,  xiv.  24-27,  which  is  at  present 
clearly  out  of  place.  The  prophet  opens  with  calling  out  to 
the  "  multitudes  of  rushing  nations," — the  host  of  Sennache- 
rib,— whom  God  shall  rebuke  and  chase  as  the  chaff  of  the 
mountains  : — "  Behold  !  at  eventime  trouble ;  and  before  the 
morning,  the  enemy  is  no  more  !  Such  is  the  portion  of  them 
that  spoil  us,  and  the  lot  of  them  that  rob  us."  This  indicates 
that  the  ravaging  of  the  land  was  already  begun.  But  in  the 
second  stanza  he  proceeds  to  address  the  Ethiopian  ambassa- 
dors in  words  of  honour : — "  Oh  land  of  winged  boats,  beyond 
the  rivers  of  Ethiopia1,  which  sendest  ambassadors  by  the  sea, 
and  in  bulrush-vessels  over  the  water :  return,  swift  messen- 
gers, to  a  people  tall2  and  slim,  to  a  people  terrible  ever  since 
it  first  was;  a  nation  of  vast  strength  and  treading  down; 
whose  land  rivers  intersect."  The  prophet  ends  his  third 
stanza  by  declaring  that  hereafter  "  a  present  shall  be  brought 

to  Jehovah  from  the  people  tall  and  slim "  which  implies 

no  such  repugnance  towards  their  aid  as  he  may  seem  to  ex- 
press concerning  the  Egyptians. 

While  the  Assyrians  pressed  their  sieges  and  overran  the 
country,  great  activity  prevailed  in  Jerusalem  to  get  the  walls 
into  the  best  condition  for  defence,  and  bring  out  the  arms 
from  the  arsenal ;  for  it  became  very  clear  that  the  capital 
itself  would  soon  be  invested.  Meanwhile  a  large  part  of  the 
people,  seized  with  despair,  resolved  to  enjoy  their  wealth  and 
freedom  while  it  lasted.  In  the  midst  of  the  tumult  of  arm- 
ing, digging  and  building,  while  the  prophets'  voices  were 
calling  to  mourn  and  to  fast,  the  shout  of  festivity  rang  through 
the  city:  "Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die3." 
Like  the  "  drunkards  of  Ephraim,"  Judah  was  disposed  to 
drown  his  sorrows  in  the  wine  cup ;  and  Hezekiah  saw  too 
plainly  how  little  he  could  depend  on  such  subjects  to  bear 
the  miseries  of  a  siege.  Hence,  when  a  portion  of  the  Assy- 
rian army  presented  itself,  the  heart  either  of  the  king  or  of 

1  Sennaar  was  to  a  Hebrew  leyond  the  Nile  and  the  Tacazze. 

2  The  tallness  of  the  Ethiopians,  as  well  as  their  longevity,  was  proverbial  in 
ancient  times. 

3  Isaiah  xxii.  8-13. 


SUBMISSION    OF    HEZEKIAH.  265 

his  counsellors  fainted.  It  was  resolved  to  surrender  before 
the  invader  should  be  made  implacable  :  Hezekiah  confessed 
his  offence,  and  humbly  declared  that  he  would  bear  whatever 
punishment  should  be  imposed1.  The  terms  exacted  of  him 
appear  to  be  lenient,  especially  in  being  wholly  pecuniary  :  he 
was  required  to  pay  300  talents  of  silver  and  30  talents  of 
gold.  In  seeking  to  raise  this  moderate  sum,  he  had  not 
merely  to  sacrifice  all  the  available  treasure,  sacred  or  royal, 
but  to  cut  off"  the  gold  with  which  he  had  himself  overlaid  the 
doors  and  pillars  of  the  temple ;  nor  is  it  stated  that  even  so 
he  was  able  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  Assyrian. 

The  Jews  in  general,  with  the  fate  of  Samaria  before  them, 
must  have  anticipated  nothing  less  than  expatriation  or  per- 
sonal slavery ;  and  if  the  war  had  continued,  they  would  have 
been  exposed  to  famine,  pestilence,  and  casualties  innume- 
rable. That  the  insulted  majesty  of  Nineveh  should  be  sa- 
tisfied with  a  pecuniary  fine,  which  touched  principally  the 
honour  of  the  king  and  scruples  of  the  priests,  appeared  good 
news  beyond  hope.  Universal  gladness  broke  forth  everywhere 
into  mutual  congratulations.  The  terror  of  battle  had  turned 
into  pomp  and  parade,  and  all  Jerusalem  peered  from  the 
housetops  to  see  the  splendid  array  of  the  Assyrian  army2. 
The  quivered  Elymseans3  mounted  in  chariots  or  on  horses, 
the  shield-bearing  Armenians,  and  other  previously  unknown 
people,  might  now  be  gazed  at  as  curiosities.  While  the 
thoughtless  were  thus  indulging  in  natural  joy,  Isaiah  was 
filled  with  shame  for  the  disgrace  of  Zion,  and  every  cry  of 
exultation  caused  -him  a  pang.  "  Her  slain,"  says  he,  "  are 
not  slain  with  the  sword ;  her  rulers  have  been  captured  with- 
out drawing  the  bow ;  look  away  from  me,  labour  not  to  com- 
fort me."  Nor  was  this  all.  He  now  took  a  most  unusual 
step,  in  fact  without  parallel,  either  before  or  after,  among  the 
prophets  of  Judah :  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  he  uttered  an 
oracle  concerning  the  displacement  of  the  king's  prime  minis- 

1  This  important  event  is  omitted  by  the  Chronicler  as  dishonourable  to  He- 
zeJciaJi :  such  is  his  way.     It  is  similarly  omitted  by  the  compiler  of  Isaiah 
xxxvi.,  and  is  the  more  marked  because  he  otherwise  adheres  closely  to  the  very 
words  of  the  book  of  Kings. 

2  Isaiah  xxii.  1,  etc. 

3  We  hear  of  Elymseans  of  the  mountains  and  Elymseans  of  the  plains  in 
classical  authors.     (See  Long's  Map  of  Persia,  published  by  the  Society  for  the 
Diffusion  of  Useful  Knowledge.)     It  is  here  natural  to  understand  the  latter, 
who  are  hi  Lower  Susiana. 

N 


266  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ter  by  a  worthier  rival,  which  took  the  form  of  a  vehement 
attack  by  name  on  Shebna,  who  was  at  present  Treasurer  and 
governor  of  the  House.  We  can  scarcely  doubt  that  this  per- 
son had  been  a  principal  adviser  of  the  recent  treaty,  and 
probably  his  whole  policy  leant  towards  the  Assyrians.  In 
punishment  for  his  maladministration,  Jehovah  was  about  to 
drive  him  from  his  high  station,  and  carry  him  away  into  a 
distant  captivity.  He  had  proudly  hewn  out  for  himself  a 
family-sepulchre  in  the  rock,  imagining  that  his  name  and 
posterity  would  abide  in  Jerusalem ;  but  on  the  contrary,  he 
himself  "should  die  in  a  far  land.  In  his  place  should  be  raised 
up  a  faithful  servant  of  Jehovah,  Eliakim  the  son  of  Hilkiah, 
to  enjoy  the  full  and  unrestricted  powers  of  government,  and 
become  a  true  father  to  the  people  and  founder  of  a  noble  fa- 
mily1. Such  a  panegyric  clearly  indicates  that  Eliakim  held 
Isaiah's  policy,  and  was  bent  upon  inveterate  opposition  to 
the  Assyrians. 

The  publishing  of  this  invective  must  have  made  a  deep  im- 
pression on  the  king,  who  sincerely  venerated  the  prophet.  But 
what  was  to  be  done  ?  To  disgrace  Shebna  for  no  ostensible 
crime,  merely  because  he  had  been  thus  denounced,  appeared 
to  be  unjust :  to  retain  a  man  as  prime  minister  against 
whom  the  voice  of  Jehovah  had  been  uttered,  was  ill-omened 
and  fearful.  Hezekiah  pursued  an  intermediate  course.  With- 
out dismissing  Shebna  from  his  service,  or  putting  needless  ig- 
nominy upon  him,  he  lowered  him  to  the  position  of  scribe 
or  secretary,  and  promoted  Eliakim  to  the  high  posts  of  Trea- 
surer and  governor  of  the  House.  How  soon  this  took  place 
will  perhaps  be  questioned ;  but  unless  we  abandon  our  best 
guide, — the  compiler  of  the  book  of  Kings, — all  was  begun 
and  ended  while  Sennacherib  was  still  at  Lachish2.  This  im- 

1  The  meaning  of  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter  is  contested.     Although  Hit- 
zig  says  the  sense  generally  assigned  is  impossible, — viz.  that  it  goes  back  to 
Shebna,  who  is  "  the  nail  which  is  to  be  pulled  down" — Ewald,  who  has  written 
since  Hitzig,  adheres  to  that  view.     It  is  certainly  difficult  to  believe  that 
Eliakim  can  be  meant.     Of  Shebna' s  captivity  we  know  nothing. 

2  The  popular  chronology  puts  three  years  between  v.  13  and  v.  17  of  2  Kings, 
xviii. ;  which  proceeds  upon  an  assumption  that  xx.  6  must  have  been  uttered 
before  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army.     This  is  by  no  means  certain ; 
but  if  it  were,  we  still  ought  not  to  do  violence  to  the  narrative  in  order  to 
force  the  scattered  chronological  notices  into  harmony.     Such  an  army  as  Sen- 
nacherib's could  not  have  been  in  the  land  a  second  year  without  absolutely 
starving  the  population.   The  probability  is  that  it  entered  in  the  early  summer, 
and  perished  in  the  autumn.  We  here  agree  with  Clinton,  that  Hezekiah  reigns 


NEW    COMPLICATION    OF    AFFAIRS.      *  267. 

plies  the  change  of  ministry  to  have  followed  so  speedily  on 
Hezekiah' s  surrender,  that  it  would  appear  to  the  enemy  as 
in  immediate  consequence. 

Since  no  Assyrian  historian  has  expounded  to  us  his  master's 
policy,  it  can  but  be  conjectured  from  the  feeble  outline  of 
facts  preserved.  A  great  and  sudden  change  in  Sennacherib's 
conduct  followed  :  there  is  an  evident  chasm,  which  we  cannot 
confidently  fill  up.  So  much  may  perhaps  give  a  clue.  A 
century  later  Pharaoh  Necho  obtains  as  tribute  from  Jeru- 
salem the  sum  of  100  silver  talents  and  one  only  of  gold.  The 
demand  of  Sennacherib  is  so  very  large  in  comparison,  that  we 
may  doubt  whether  the  whole  sum  had  been  raised  when  new 
events  kindled  fresh  thoughts  in  the  invader.  He  had  not 
actually  received  the  submission  of  all  the  towns  of  Judah. 
Lachish  appears  still  to  have  been  resisting,  and  it  is  certain 
that  Libnah  was  not  in  his  hands1.  As  he  was  preparing  to 
invade  Egypt,  he  chose  to  hold  these  strong  forts  himself,  and 
not  to  leave  them  in  his  rear ;  and  when  he  met  with  refusal, 
doubts  of  Hezekiah' s  sincerity  would  of  course  suggest  them- 
selves. As  he  had  demanded  no  hostages,  what  security  had 
he  against  revolt  as  soon  as  he  was  departed?  He  had  left 
the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem  untouched ;  and  the  resistance 
of  Lachish  and  Libnah  showed  that  the  capital  city  might  defy 
his  arms  disastrously,  if  aided  by  Egypt  and  Ethiopia.  If  in 
the  midst  of  such  thoughts  the  news  arrived  that  Hezekiah  had 
displaced  Shebna,  who  negotiated  the  treaty,  and  had  put  for- 
ward into  chief  power  Eliakim, — a  partizan  of  a  certain  Isaiah,  a 
fanatical  opponent  of  the  Assyrians, — what  else  could  he  infer 
but  that  revolt  was  intended  at  the  first  convenient  moment  ? 
If  the  stipend  required  had  not  been  all  paid,  he  would  seem 
not  to  be  bound,  even  by  the  letter  of  a  compact,  against  fresh 
hostilities :  or  supposing  the  whole  payment  to  have  been 
made,  still  under  the  new  circumstances  he  could  hardly  do 
otherwise  than  insist  on  hostages  as  a  guarantee  of  future  good 
conduct ;  yet  if  this  came  to  Hezekiah  as  a  new  demand,  it 
would  appear  to  him  perfidious,  as  though  the  Assyrian  were 
stripping  him  under  pretexts  of  peace  before  destroying  him  by 
war.  From  some  such  causes,  hostilities  flamed  out  afresh. 

from  B.C.  726  to  B.C.  697  ;  Sennacherib  invades  him  in  his  fourteenth  year  (B.C. 
713) ;  and  his  sickness  is  either  in  the  same  or  in  the  following  season,  when  he 
has  fifteen  full  years  (or  less  than  sixteen)  more  to  live. 
1  2  Kings,  xviii.  14,  17,  xix.  8. 

N2 


268  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

To  impute  simple  treachery  to  Sennacherib  as  an  adequate 
account  of  his  conduct,,  is  wholly  unfair  while  we  have  the 
narrative  of  one  side  only,  and  that  so  imperfect.  It  is  evident 
that  a  violent  fit  of  passion  against  Hezekiah  personally  had 
at  this  moment  seized  him,  for  he  now  sent  his  messengers  to 
Jerusalem  with  words  of  exasperation  and  insult,  of  which 
there  is  no  trace  in  the  former  mission.  Hezekiah's  trust  in 
the  king  of  Egypt  and  in  Jehovah  are  alike  topics  of  his  scorn. 
Nevertheless,  towards  the  Jews  themselves  he  is  not  harsh,  but 
frank.  He  demands  that  they  will  pay  homage  to  him  by  a 
present,  in  which  case  he  will  leave  them  to  enjoy  their  own 
comforts  "until  he  comes  (after  his  conquest,  no  doubt,  of 
Egypt)  to  take  them  away  to  a  land  like  their  own  land ;  a 
land  of  corn  and  wine,  a  land  of  bread  and  vineyards,  a  land 
of  oil-olive  and  honey,  that  they  may  live,  and  not  die."  Such 
was  exactly  the  spirit  of  Darius,  son  of  Hystaspes,  in  carrying 
away  the  Pseonian  people.  However  violent  and  cruel  in  de- 
tail and  in  its  secondary  results  was  the  proceeding  of  each 
invader,  yet  the  end  at  which  they  aimed  was  (in  their  own 
conception)  humane  and  good;  and  we  have  no  reason  ta 
doubt  that  they  meant  to  treat  the  population  well,  which 
they  chose  to  transplant  nearer  to  the  centre  of  their  power. 

This  message  came  with  three  great  officers,  of  whom  Rab- 
shakeh  was  the  chief  spokesman,  from  Sennacherib  at  Lachish. 
A  large  army  accompanied  them,  and  when  they  could  get  no 
reply  from  the  Jewish  ministers  (for  such  had  been  Hezekiah's 
order),  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  it  began  an  unsparing 
ravage  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  capital.  At 
this  crisis  it  is  probable  that  Isaiah  composed  his  thirty-third 
chapter,  which  opens, — 

,    O  thou  that  spoilest,  though  thou  wast  not  spoiled ; 

O  thou  that  dealest  treacherously,  when  none  dealt  treacherously  with  thee. 

He  describes  the  "  sinners"  and  "  dissemblers"  in  Jerusalem 
as  in  great  alarm  of  the  devouring  fire  and  unquenchable  burn- 
ings (which  the  Assyrian  host  was  inflicting?),  yet  declares 
that  the  righteous 

shall  dwell  in  a  lofty  place: 

His  stronghold  shall  be  a  fortification  of  rock  : 
Bread  shall  be  given  him,  his  waters  shall  be  sure  : 

that  is  to  say,  the  Assyrian  siege  shall  not  prevail  against  him. 
In  short,  Isaiah  was  still  steadfast  in  the  belief  that  Zion  was 


RENEWAL    OF    HOSTILITIES.  269 

"a  tabernacle  which  should  not  be  taken  down,"  and  the 
temple  (as  he  before  said)  "  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner- 
stone, a  sure  foundation  •"  and  accordingly  he  exerted  himself 
to  the  utmost  to  support  the  drooping  spirits  of  the  pious 
but  less  ardent  king.  Meanwhile  Rabshakeh  returned  to  his 
master,  whom  he  found  besieging  Libnah.  Just  then  the  news 
arrived  that  Tirhakah  king  of  Ethiopia  was  on  his  march  to 
repel  Sennacherib ;  news  which  stirred  him  up  to  fresh  rage 
against  the  Jewish  king,  as  having  merely  sought  to  gain  time 
by  pretended  submission  while  secretly  negotiating  with  the 
Ethiopians.  Yet  he  made  no  new  attempts  against  Jerusalem 
farther  than  a  war  of  words,  in  which  he  was  decidedly  infe- 
rior ;  for  his  repeated  message  of  defiance  was  met  by  a  splendid 
piece  of  eloquence  from  Isaiah,  which  we  still  read  with  inte- 
rest and  admiration1.  The  more  formidable  attack  to  be  ex- 
pected from  the  Ethiopians,  and  Sennacherib's  desire  to  pos- 
sess himself  of  all  the  fortresses  on  the  frontier,  forbade  his 
concentrating  his  force  on  Jerusalem.  And  his  career  in 
Judaea  was  almost  closed.  The  very  next  fact  preserved  to  us 
is  the  dissolution  of  his  formidable  host  without  the  hand  of 
man.  In  the  emphatic  description  prompted  by  devout  gra- 
titude, "the  ANGEL  OF  JEHOVAH  went  out,  and  smote  in  the 
camp  of  the  Assyrians  185,000  men."  So  marvellous  a  drying- 
up  of  the  flood,  which  had  almost  swept  the  land  bare,  even 
had  it  not  been  predicted,  must  have  seemed  a  supernatural 
mercy,  brought  about  by  miraculous  agency ;  and  if  the  re- 
ceived explanation  is  correct,  that  Pestilence  was  the  secon- 
dary cause,  this  could  scarcely  be  held  to  make  the  event  less 
mysterious,  if  the  words  of  Isaiah  had  been  stereotyped  on  the 
day  of  delivery2.  According  to  the  traditions  reported  by  He- 

1  2  Kings,  xix,  21-34. 

2  This  may  lead  on  to  a  simple  remark  of  perhaps  no  little  importance.      We 
are  apt  most  unduly  to  assume  that  a  prophet  wrote  his  speech  the  same  day  that 
he  delivered  it.    That  may  sometimes  have  happened,  but  it  often  was  otherwise. 
We  know  by  Jeremiah's  own  statement  (xxxvi.  1,  2)  that  he  did  not  commit  his 
prophecies  to  writing  till  twenty-two  years  after  he  began  to  deliver  them.    It  is 
equally  possible,  and  indeed  probable,  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  down  his  utter- 
ances against  Sennacherib  during  the  turmoil  of  the  war ;  and  if  they  received 
their  final  shape  from  his  pe"n  after  the  event,  he  would  almost  inevitably  (with- 
out consciousness  of  it)  give  point  to  all  the  predictions.     It  is  well  known  that 
preachers  never  write  a  sermon  exactly  as  they  recited  it  from  notes.     Peculiar 
difficulties  in  orations  of  Cicero,  and  perhaps  of  Demosthenes,  are  solved  by 
simply  remembering  that  the  date  of  speaking  and  the  date  of  writing  are  not 
the  same. 


270  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

rodotus,  the  town-population  of  Egypt  had  become  so  alarmed 
by  the  obviously  impending  invasion,  that  the  priest-king  was 
at  length  enabled  to  make  up  an  army  of  artizans,  who  marched 
out  against  Sennacherib.  But  before  they  could  reach  the  foe, 
an  unseen  hand  had  done  the  work  of  destruction ;  whether 
panic  smiting  his  people's  hearts  by  night,  or  pestilence  while 
he  was  sitting  before  Libnah,  or  the  hot  wind  of  the  desart,  or 
the  quicksands  of  the  Serbonian  bog,  while  he  was  essaying  to 
march  into  Egypt.  Whatever  was  the  cause,  the  army  was  no 
more :  the  Egyptians  ascribed  glory  to  the  god  of  Memphis, 
and  Hezekiah  to  the  God  of  Zion.  On  the  arrival  of  the 
news,  all  the  dispersed  detachments  of  the  ruined  invader  of 
course  consulted  for  themselves,  so  that  Hezekiah's  territory 
was  instantly  freed  from  the  presence  of  an  enemy. 

The  gratitude  of  Judah  burst  forth  into  various  hymns  of 
praise,  several  of  which  are  extant.  There  seems  at  least  to 
be  little  doubt  that  the  76th1,  46th  and  48th2  are  comme- 
morative of  this  great  event,  and  there  can  have  been  few  in 
the  land  who  refused,  for  once,  to  become  religious.  But 
while  glory  was  given  for  a  little  while  to  God,  a  more  per- 
manent glory  accrued  to  men, — to  Hezekiah  among  foreign 
powers,  and  to  Isaiah  among  his  own  countrymen.  The  latter 
may  seem  now  to  have  been  at  the  height  of  his  greatness. 
For  ten  years  together  he  had  held  the  same  invariable  lan- 
guage ;  indeed  from  the  commencement  of  his  public  career 
as  a  prophet  he  had  proclaimed  a  doctrine  similar  in  tone,  and 
now  crowned  by  success.  The  seal  of  the  Most  High  appeared 
to  have  been  put  upon  his  testimony;  and  during  the  re- 
mainder of  his  tranquil  old  age  he  must  have  enjoyed  universal 
veneration  from  his  own  people.  Yet  when  from  this  distance 
of  time  we  endeavour  to  gather  up  the  general  lesson  which 
was  to  be  learned, — when  we  ask,  not,  what  did  Isaiah  allege 
concerning  Jerusalem  and  the  Assyrians  ?  but,  what  does  he 
teach  for  generations  to  come  and  for  future  conjunctures  ? 

1  The  poetical  name  Salem,  for  Jerusalem,  is  alleged  by  Ewald  now  to  appear 
for  the  first  time,  Psalm  Ixxvi.  2.     It  appears  to  glance  back  towards  Mel- 
chisedek. 

2  Verse  7  in  Psalm  xlviii.  is  rendered  by  De  Wette  and  Ewald,  "  by  means 
of  the  East  Wind,  which  shatters  ships  of  Tarshish."     If  this  were  a  pro- 
fessed account  of  the  destruction  of  the  army,  it  would  seem  to  mean  a  hot 
east  wind,  blowing  when  it  began  to  march  through  the  desart.  We  can  hardly 
think  that  it  means  shipwreck,  for  there  is  no  hint  that  Sennacherib  took  skip 
against  Egypt. 


DISASTERS    OP    SENNACHERIB.  271 

we  find  it  hard  to  extract  a  moral  worthy  of  the  God  who 
alone  can  suspend  the  course  of  nature, — a  moral  justified  by 
experience  or  by  Christianity.  Did  the  prophet  teach  that 
no  righteous  city  can  be  captured  by  an  unrighteous  power  ? 
Nay,  but  that  is  untrue ;  nor  in  fact  did  he  himself  hold  Jeru- 
salem to  be  righteous,  for  he  stigmatized  it  as  a  Sodom  and  a 
Gomorrah1,  whose  time  of  holiness  was  all  in  futurity2.  But 
did  he  then  teach  that  Jerusalem,  irrespectively  of  the  holiness 
of  its  people,  was  secure  against  hostile  attack,  on  account 
either  of  Jehovah' s  oath  to  David  or  Abraham,  or  of  the  sacred 
temple  on  Mount  Zion  ?  This  is  indeed  the  doctrine  imbibed 
out  of  the  psalms  which  celebrate  this  wonderful  overthrow. 
The  stream  of  Siloah,  which  makes  glad  the  city  of  God,  is 
henceforth  a  sufficient  defence  for  Judah.  Mount  Zion,  beau- 
tiful in  situation,  the  holy  seat  of  Jehovah,  dwells  under  His 
protection ;  her  towers  are  unassailable,  her  palaces  perpetual 
abodes.  And  out  of  this  root  sprang  the  fanatical  confidence 
of  Jeremiah's  prophetical  opponents,  who  believed  that  the 
holy  Jerusalem  was  able  to  defy  Babylonians  as  easily  as 
Assyrians.  Nor  is  it  clear  how  to  resist  the  force  of  their 
argument,  except  by  questioning  whether  the  God  of  the  hur- 
ricane and  the  simoom  more  peculiarly  revealed  his  thoughts 
of  human  deeds  when  he  destroyed  Sennacherib's  host,  than 
when  he  breathed  a  deadly  blast  on  the  army  of  Cambyses. 
Such  events  should  warn  proud  monarchs  and  armed  states 
of  mortal  weakness  and  the  treacherousness  of  mere  force ; 
but  they  do  not  in  themselves  express  a  divine  purpose 
against  him  who  falls,  or  in  favour  of  those  who  reap  the 
advantage. 

Sennacherib  himself  returned  safe  to  Nineveh;  and  since 
he,  of  all  others,  on  every  moral3  estimate,  should  have  fallen 
by  the  destroying  angel,  our  confidence  is  somewhat  shaken 
as  to  the  universality  of  the  destruction.  If  so  much  of  the 
army  was  lost  that  all  disappeared,  all  would  be  supposed  to 
have  perished  :  the  obvious  probability  is  that  the  king  did 
not  go  home  unaccompanied,  but  like  Xerxes  from  Greece, 
carried  back  a  fragment  of -his  force,  not  intrinsically  despi- 
cable, though  small  in  comparison  to  that  which  had  marched 

1  Isaiah  i.  10.     Also  xxx.  9,  xxxi.  6,  etc.  2  Isaiah  i.  26. 

3  That  is,  if  the  destruction  of  the  army  was  by  a  special  interference,  and 
not  by  general  law.  This  I  add,  because  one  of  my  Reviewers  has,  willingly  or 
unwillingly,  missed  the  sense. 


272  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

out  from  Assyria.  Nevertheless  his  ignominious  return  roused 
the  high-spirited  nation  of  the  MEDES,  who  had  hitherto  been 
the  main  strength  of  the  Assyrian  armies.  Disdaining  to 
serve  any  longer  under  one  whom  they  began  to  despise,  they 
unanimously  revolted1,  and  inflicted  a  far  severer  blow  on  the 
power  of  Nineveh  than  that  received  on  the  plains  of  Philistia. 
The  Median  territory  consisted  entirely  of  highlands.  It 
stretched  from  the  great  ridge  of  Zagros  on  the  south-west, 
or  the  mountains  of  modern  Louristan,  to  the  chain  named 
by  us  Elborz,  which  fences  off  the  Caspian  Sea.  From  north- 
west to  south-east  its  limits  are  less  defined ;  yet  it  seems  to 
have  pressed  upon  lake  Van  in  Armenia  in  the  one  direction, 
and  on  the  Hollow  Persia  in  the  other.  So  great  a  tract  of 
country,  with  so  advantageous  a  frontier,  could  never  have 
been  subdued  by  Nineveh  if  it  had  been  well-peopled  and 
united.  We  may  judge,  from  the  anxiety  of  the  Assyrian 
monarchs  to  plant  new  colonies  in  Media,  that  a  large  part  of 
it  was  vacant;  and  when  conquered  by  the  Assyrians,  the 
Medes  were  probably  a  much  ruder  race,  and  not  subjected 
to  any  single  sceptre.  But  in  the  Assyrian  armies  they  had 
learned  their  own  unity,  as  well  as  the  arts  of  war,  and  their 
revolt  cut  away  at  once  half  of  the  military  resources  of 
Nineveh.  Nor  was  this  all :  the  ancient  town  of  Babylon 
next  gained  courage  to  defy  its  northern  master,  and  its  ruler 
assumed  the  place  of  an  independent  king.  This  farther  en- 
tailed the  loss,  not  only  of  the  Lower  Euphrates  and  Tigris, 
with  the  rich  province  of  Susiana,  but  also  of  the  whole 
Persian  nation,  who  were  hereby  entirely  shut  off  from  As- 
syrian contact.  No  greater  proof  is  needed  of  the  too  rapid 
rise  of  this  powerful  and  wide- spread  empire  than  the  ease 
with  which  it  thus  fell  to  pieces, — without  any  previous  pro- 
cess of  decay,  but  in  the  very  acme  of  its  brilliancy  and 
strength.  It  had  not  entwined  itself  with  the  habits  and 
associations,  more  than  in  the  affections,  of  the  subject  na- 
tions :  and  at  the  moment  of  revolt  it  had  no  other  advantage 
than  that  which  organization  and  internal  concord  generally 
give  to  a  central  power  so  assaulted.  The  nearer  and  more 
dangerous  enemy  was  in  Babylon,  where  Merodach  Baladan2 

1  About  B.C.  712.    Herodotus' s  chronology  is  very  nearly  correct,  if  we  count 
Deioces's  reign  from  the  revolt.     Indeed  it  is  quite  improbable  that  a  man  who 
wins  a  throne  by  peaceful  methods  can  sit  on  it  fifty-three  years. 

2  These  events  we  hesitatingly  receive  from  the  extracts  of  Polyhistor  from 


273 

made  himself  king,  having  slain  his  predecessor  Hagis,  who 
had  kept  the  throne  but  a  month.  Merodach  Baladan  was 
slain  in  turn,  after  a  reign  of  only  six  months,  by  a  new 
usurper  named  Elib,  or  Belib ;  against  whom  at  length,  in 
his  third  year,  king  Sennacherib  made  an  invasion.  It  proved 
successful :  the  Babylonians  were  defeated  in  battle ;  Esar- 
haddon,  son  of  Sennacherib,  was  made  their  viceroy,  and 
the  Assyrian  empire  was  saved,  though  not  in  entireness. 
Sennacherib's  whole  reign  was  eighteen  years,  so  that  he 
may  have  lived  nearly  as  late  as  Hezekiah1 ;  but  his  end 
was  a  miserable  one.  While  worshipping  in  the  temple  of 
Nisroch2,  he  was  slain  by  two  of  his  sons.  They  escaped  into 
Armenia  from  the  vengeance  of  their  brother  ESARHADDON, 
who  was  already  king  of  Babylon,  and  now  stept  into  the 
vacant  throne. 

The  remainder  of  Hezekiah' s  life  was  spent  in  a  safety  and 
tranquillity  so  contrasted  with  the  former  portion,  that  very 
few  events  have  been  recorded.  Soon  after  Sennacherib's 
overthrow,  or  possibly  even  before  it  had  happened3,  the 
Jewish  king  fell  into  dangerous  sickness,  which  some  have 
alleged  to  be  the  same  oriental  plague  as  destroyed  the  As- 
syrian host ;  apparently  because  a  boil  is  named  as  coming 
out  in  him.  The  boil  was  poulticed  with  figs  at  the  order  of 
Isaiah,  and  the  king  was  convalescent  on  the  third  day  after. 
At  this  time  the  prophet,  according  to  our  compiler,  not  only 
predicted  speedy  recovery,  but  promised  the  king  fifteen  more 
years  of  life;  and  when  asked  for  a  sign  of  his  veracity, 
wrought  the  miracle  of  making  the  shadow  go  back  ten  de- 
grees on  the  sundial  of  king  Ahaz.  An  interesting  poem  or 
.psalm,  composed  by  Hezekiah  after  his  recovery,  has  been 
preserved,  and  shows  the  little  progress  which  the  best- 
instructed  Jews  had  as  yet  made  towards  a  doctrine  of  future 
personal  re-existence.  According  to  this  devout  king,  earth 
is  emphatically  the  land  of  life,  and  after  death  there  is  no 
feeling,  no  knowledge,  and  no  piety. 

Berosus,  preserved  in  the  Armenian  Chronicle  of  Eusebius.  It  proceeds  to 
attribute  to  Sennacherib  the  foundation  of  Tarsus,  which  perhaps  is  an  error. 
Abydenus  absurdly  adds,  that  he  built  a  temple  for  the  Athenians. 

1  The  book  of  Tobit  says  that  Sennacherib  was  slain  fifty-five  days  after 
his  return.     But  that  book  deserves  no  historical  respect. 

2  I  understand  that  Colonel  Rawlinson  regards  Nisroch  as  the  genitive  case 
of  Assarac,  the  great  god  of  Assyria. 

3  B.C.  713  or  712. 

IN3 
• 


274  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

I  said1, — No  more  shall  I  see  Jehovah, 
Jehovah  in  the  land  of  the  living  ; 

No  more  behold  man  among  the  dwellers  of  the  still  land. 
****** 

Behold  my  sorrow  has  been  healthful  to  me, 

And  thou  lovingly  rescuest  my  soul  from  the  annihilation  of  the  grave  ; 

For  thou  castest  all  my  sins  behind  thy  back. 

For  the  underworld  praiseth  thee  not, 

Death  celebrateth  thee  not, 

Those  who  sink  in  the  grave  cannot  stay  upon  thy  truth. 

The  living,  the  living,  he  praiseth  thee,  as  I  this  day  ; 

The  father  makes  known  thy  truth  to  the  children. 

And  for  other  than  personal  reasons,  it  was  excusable  in  He- 
zekiah  to  be  grieved  at  the  prospect  of  death ;  for  it  is  proba- 
ble that  he  had  as  yet  no  heir :  certainly  his  son  and  successor 
Manasseh  was  not  born  till  about  three  years  later.  The  land 
had  not  yet  begun  to  recover  from  the  late  ravages ;  a  great 
distraction  of  the  kingdom  had  taken  place ;  fear  of  the  As- 
syrians had  as  yet  by  no  means  blown  over,  as  may  appear 
even  from  Isaiah' s  words  of  comfort  now  addressed  to  Heze- 
kiah :  "  I  will  deliver  thee  and  this  city  out  of  the  hand  of 
the  king  of  Assyria."  The  death  of  the  king  might  have 
involved  many  new  calamities  to  the  people  ;  but  happily,  the 
event  was  delayed.  The  name  of  Hezekiah  became  renowned 
even  in  distant  parts,  where  men  measured  him  by  the  great- 
ness of  the  Assyrian  whom  he  had  resisted;  and  Merodach 
Baladan,  the  now  independent  king  of  Babylon,  even  sent 
ambassadors  with  a  present,  to  congratulate  him  on  recovery 
from  sickness.  We  may  also  suspect  that  their  duty  was  to 
report  to  their  master,  whether  an  alliance  with  Hezekiah 
against  the  Assyrians  would  add  strength  to  him2.  In  the 

1  De  Wette's  Translation,  Isaiah  xxxviii. 

2  To  this  incident  the  spirit  of  moralizing  (after  seeing  the  events  of  a  cen- 
tury later)  appears  to  have  attached  some  unhistorical  particulars.     Hezekiah 
showed  "  all  his  treasures"  to  the  ambassadors;   (but  Merodach  had  vanished 
from  the  scene  before  Hezekiah  had  much  to  show :)  for  this  act  of  pride  Isaiah 
pronounces  that  the  treasures  shall  hereafter  be  carried  to  Babylon,  and  all 
which  his  fathers  had  amassed  (which  must  have  been  gone  already,  when  he 
cut  off  the  gold  from  Jehovah's  doors  to  pay  Sennacherib's  demand)  his  sons 
also  shall  be  carried  away  and  made  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  Babylon. — Con- 
trasting Hezekiah  with  David  or  Solomon,  the  punishment  might  seem  dispro- 
portionately severe ;  yet  the  king  receives  the  announcement  with  a  false  resig- 
nation, which  combines  selfishness  with  silliness.     "  Good  is  the  word  of  Jeho- 
vah which  thou  hast  spoken !     And  he  said :  Well  on !      Only  let  there  be 
peace  and  truth  in  my  days ! " 


275 

fifteen  years  of  tranquillity  which  followed,  we  are  acquainted 
with  no  reasons  which  make  it  doubtful  that  the  prosperity  of 
Uzziah  and  Jotham  returned.  Countries  like  Judaea,  whose 
culture  depends  on  annual  industry,  not  on  fixed  capital  ela- 
borately invested  in  the  soil,  recover  rapidly  from  hostile  ra- 
vages, if  an  unimpaired  population  and  vigorous  government 
remain.  These  conditions  were  here  fulfilled ;  so  that  Heze- 
kiah  in  his  later  years  may  have  been  master  of  such  trea- 
sures as  were  afterwards  believed  to  have  excited  in  him  too 
weak  a  vanity. 

When  it  became  fully  understood  that  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians were  in  permanent  revolt  against  the  sceptre  of  Nine- 
veh, the  Assyrians  ceased  to  be  feared  in  Jerusalem.  Mean- 
while the  neighbour  country  of  Egypt  was  in  its  turn  of  more 
peculiar  interest  to  the  Jews,  who  had  so  many  families  fixedly 
established  there.  Its  position  became  increasingly  critical 
through  internal  struggles.  The  priests  and  military  fell  into 
inveterate  dissension;  the  Ethiopians,  who  sided  (it  is  be- 
lieved) with  the  priests,  were  unable  to  maintain  their  influ- 
ence on  the  lower  Nile ;  and  before  long,  a  most  lamentable 
civil  war  arose,  which  temporarily  rent  Egypt  into  numerous 
independent  kingdoms.  This  state  is  named  the  Dodecarchia 
or  government  of  twelve  powers ;  but  it  cannot  be  ascertained 
whether  twelve  is  here  an  accurate  or  a  round  number.  Nor 
is  the  duration  of  this  period  of  confusion  and  divided  rule 
known  ;  there  is  reason  however  to  believe  that  it  reached 
through  half  a  century.  Already  was  it  impending  in  the 
close  of  Isaiah's  life,  who  appears  to  have  bestowed  his  last 
words  on  the  prospects  of  Egypt1.  The  sera  is  pretty  well 
fixed  by  the  altered  tone  towards  Assyria,  which  was  no  longer 
an  object  of  terror.  The  prophecy  consists  of  two  parts,  the 
former  containing  nothing  but  gloomy  anticipations,  the  latter 
wholly  cheerful.  The  Egyptians,  it  is  declared,  shall  fight 
against  one  another,  and  a  cruel  lord  shall  reign  over  them. 
The  river  shall  be  dried  up,  the  reeds  shall  wither,  the  fishers 
shall  mourn,  the  workers  in  fine  flax  shall  be  perplexed.  The 
princes  of  Pharaoh  in  Zoan  and  in  Noph  (in  Tanis  and  in 
Memphis)  shall  become  fools ;  all  Egypt  will  stagger ;  there 
will  be  no  work  for  high  or  low  to  do.  In  that  day  Egypt 
shall  be  weak  as  women ;  the  little  land  of  Judah  will  suffice 
to  frighten  it ;  all  will  shudder  on  naming  it,  because  of  the 

1  Isaiah  xix. 


276  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

punishment  which  Jehovah  is  sending  upon  it.  But,  after 
such  humiliation,  he  who  has  smitten  shall  again  heal  them. 
In  that  day  five  cities1  in  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  speak  the 
tongue  of  Canaan ;  there  shall  be  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the 
midst  of  Egypt  and  a  pillar  to  Jehovah  on  the  border ;  they 
shall  cry  to  him  for  rescue,  and  he  will  send  them  a  mighty 
deliverer.  Then  shall  Jehovah  become  known  to  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  'they  shall  make  offerings  to  him  and  perform  vows. 

Perhaps  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  previous  Hebrew  prophecy 
such  words  of  comfort  concerning  any  special  Gentile  king- 
dom. Egypt  might  seem  to  have  deserved  it,  by  her  uniform 
hospitality  towards  the  outcasts  of  Israel  and  Judah  who 
flocked  into  her  cities.  To  extend  the  same  mercy  towards 
Assyria,  late  the  grim  foe  and  blaspheming  scorner,  was  a 
harder  effort  of  charity ;  but  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  was 
not  allowed  to  depart  with  the  contracted  heart  of  a  mere 
Jew.  His  bosom  expanded  to  embrace  Gentile  enemies,  until 
his  "  swan-song  "  forgot  its  natural  harsh  note,  and  died  away 
into  the  accents  of  the  Gospel.  In  that  day  (continues  he) 
there  shall  be  a  highway  to  join  Egypt  and  Assyria,  and  the 
Egyptians  shall  serve  (Jehovah)  with  the  Assyrians.  In  that 
day  shall  Israel  be  the  third  with  Egypt  and  with  Assyria,  as 
a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  land :  whom  Jehovah  of  hosts 
shall  bless,  saying,  Blessed  be  Egypt  my  people,  and  Assyria 
the  work  of  my  hands,  and  Israel  mine  inheritance. 

No  grander  and  more  lovely  sentiment  ever  came  from  a 
prophet  of  Jerusalem,  and  it  is  delightful  to  receive  it  as 
Isaiah's  last  bequest.  Since  nothing  more  is  recorded  either 
of  him  or  of  Hezekiah,  and  we  now  close  the  first  great  sera 
of  Hebrew  prophecy,  it  may  be  suitable  to  cast  a  general 
glance  over  its  extant  productions.  The  most  important  and 
most  honourable  peculiarity  is  their  purely  moral  character. 
The  sins  rebuked  by  the  prophets  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah, 
Isaiah,  are  such  as  we  still  hold  to  be  sins ;  such  as  man- 
stealing  and  robbery,  incest  and  whoredom,  cruelty  and  op- 
pression, griping  treatment  of  the  poor,  impure  idolatries, 

1  Jews  were  already  numerous  in  several  cities  ;  but  the  number  Jive  is  not 
historically  made  out. 

The  prophecy  about  the  "  altar  to  Jehovah  "  led  (according  to  Josephus)  to 
its  own  fulfilment ;  for  Onias  was  moved  by  it  to  entreat  Ptolemy  to  allow  him 
to  erect  an  altar  and  temple  such  as  Isaiah  predicted  in  Heliopolis,  and  obtained 
ready  acquiescence.  Nothing  is  known  about  the  pillcvr  on  the  border. 


ZENITH    OF    HEBREW    PROPHECY.  277 

unnatural  sacrifices,  excess  of  wine,  adultery,  murder,  trea- 
chery and  deceit,  vain  and  superstitious  divinations,  pride  and 
confidence  in  human  prosperity.  But  in  these  writers  we  read 
nothing  about  periodical  fastings,  ceremonial  cleanliness,  in- 
cense-burning, sacrifice  of  beasts,  sabbaths,  sabbatical  years, 
jubilees,  new  moons,  and  other  festivals ;  little  about  tithes 
and  first-fruits ;  nothing  about  the  genealogy  of  priests  and 
Levites,  threefold  presentation  of  the  person  every  year  at 
Jerusalem1,  sacrificing  at  Jerusalem  only,  unclean  meats,  or 
any  other  part  of  the  yoke  which  neither  Peter2  nor  his  fathers 
were  able  to  bear.  We  are  not  to  infer  that  none  of  these 
things  existed,  as  law  or  as  custom ;  most  of  them  probably 
did  exist ;  but  it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  prominent  in 
the  prophetical  view,  since  no  one  is  rebuked  about  such  mat- 
ters. And  when  in  the  prophets  of  the  second  sera  we  find 
an  increasing  estimate  of  such  ceremonies ;  when  after  the  re- 
turn from  Babylon  the  Levitical  ascendency  developes  itself; 
when  finally  Rabbinism  and  Pharisaism  flourish  on  the  de- 
struction of  simple  spirituality ;  we  cannot  mistake  the  career 
of  degeneracy  down  which  Hebrew  doctrine  was  carried. 
From  Joel  to  Isaiah  it  had  stood  on  so  noble  an  eminence, 
that  we  may  wonder  how  anything  inferior  could  find  accept- 
ance. .This  however  is  explained  by  the  progress  of  events. 

Two  causes  may  be  observed  to  have  given  a  new  scope 
to  the  priestly  ambition  of  Jerusalem.  The  former  was,  the 
removal  of  the  High  Places  in  Judah  by  the  zeal  of  young 

1  If  those  are  right  who  hold  the  unity  of  the  second  part  of  Zechariah 
(ix.-xiv.  inclusive),  a  beginning  of  this  zeal  appears  in  a  prophet  contemporary 
with  Isaiah  (xiv.  16-19)  ;  yet  only  for  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.     In  that  case 
however  it  seems  almost  certain  that  the  threatened  siege  of  Jerusalem  in  xii.— 
xiv.  was  from  Pekah  and  Rezin  ;  and  several  considerations  occur : — 1)  Israel 
in  xii.  1  could  not  at  that  sera,  or  at  least  in  such  a  conjuncture,  mean  Judah. 
2)  When  Israel  was  leagued  against  Jerusalem,  that  could  hardly  be  unnoticed 
in  the  prophecy  ?     3)  The  mourning  in  the  valley  of  Megiddon,  which  is  al- 
luded to  as  past  in  xii.  11,  seems  to  be  rightly  understood  by  Wichmannshausen 
of  the  mourning  for  Josiah's  death  there  (2  Chr.  xxii.  25).     4)  Moreover  the 
recent  martyrdom  of  Urijah  by  king  Jehoiakim  (Jerem.  xxvi.  20-23)  gives  a 
good  explanation  of  Zech.  xii.  10-14  ;   while  in  Isaiah's  day  it  is  hard  to  con- 
jecture what  martyr  was  intended.     ["  Me  whom  they  pierced"  seems  to  be  an 
old  corruption  for  HiinJ]  These  are  reasons  for  espousing  the  opinion  that  xii.— 
xiv.  are  from  a  later  prophet,  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah.     As  for  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  similarity  of  the  opening  xii.  1  to  ix.  1,  and  other  simi- 
larities of  style,  may  not  that  in  part  account  for  these  three  chapters  having 
been  subjoined  to  Zechariah  ? 

2  Acts  xv.  10. 


278  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Hezekiah  and  his  advisers ;  an  act  in  which  we  believe  the 
prophets  to  have  concurred,  as  necessary  in  order  to  stop 
corrupt  worship.  In  the  retrospect,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
it  would  have  been  better  to  modify  than  to  destroy  the  inde- 
pendence and  the  existence  of  the  local  sanctuaries ;  better, 
so  to  uphold  the  apostolic  application  of  the  words,  "  The 
earth  is  the  Lord's;"  and  not  the  hill  of  Zion  only.  Few  of 
us  probably  realize  the  violence  and  greatness  of  the  revolu- 
tion expressed  in  the  words,  "  He  removed  the  high  places1 ;" 
a  measure  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  priest  Jehoiada  did 
not  venture  to  enforce.  It  was  just  as  though  all  Congre- 
gational or  Presbyterian  ministers  in  Wales  or  Scotland 
were  suddenly  expelled  from  their  posts.  As  such  expul- 
sion could  hardly  be  effectual  and  permanent,  unless  Epi- 
scopalian ministers,  under  the  regimen  of  a  central  power, 
replaced  them,  so  in  Judaea  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  Le- 
vites  took  the  place  of  the  priests  expelled  from  the  high 
places.  There  is  no  crisis  in  the  whole  history,  from  which 
the  residence  of  Levites  in  fixed  country-towns,  as  local 
teachers  in  connexion  with  Jerusalem,  can  be  so  plausibly 
dated;  and  until  better  advised,  we  may  assume  this  to  be 
the  real  beginning  of  territorial  Levitism  under  organic  cen- 
tralization. It  is  of  course  possible,  perhaps  probable,  that 
all  who  followed  civil  professions,  as  lawyers,  scribes  and 
learned  "kadis"  or  local  judges  were  already  incorporated 
into  the  sacerdotal  idea;  and  Levites,  in  this  sense,  may 
have  been  residing  in  all  the  considerable  towns  :  but  to  re- 
cover the  history  of  this  Order  is  beyond  our  reach.  As  the 
ejected  priests  must  before  have  lived  on  voluntary  contri- 
butions, efforts  would  now  be  made  to  influence  the  conscience 
of  the  people  to  direct  the  same  liberality  towards  the  Le- 
vites ;  and  the  duty  or  merit  of  Levitical  tithe  must  hence- 
forth have  become  prominent  in  the  sacerdotal  mind.  So 
also  was  it  with  the  superiority  of  Aaronic  or  Levitical 
priests,  without  reference  to  their  spiritual  qualifications ;  con- 
cerning which  the  vulgar  were  no  longer  trusted  to  judge. 
Moreover  as  the  Passover  and  other  feasts  had  been  held  at  the 
high  places2,  the  cessation  of  this  worship  forced  the  rustic 
population  either  to  neglect  the  great  festivals,  or  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  celebrate  them. 

A  second  impulse  to  the   Levitical   principle  came  forth 

1  2  Kings,  xviii.  4.  2  2  Kings,  xxiii.  9. 


CHARACTER    OP    MANASSEH.  279 

from  the  ruins  of  Samaria ;  for,,  in  order  to  bring  the  scat- 
tered population  of  the  northern  kingdom  within  the  sphere 
of  Jerusalem  teaching,  the  duty  of  periodical  journeys  to  the 
holy  city  and  showing  honour  to  the  high-priest  there  be- 
came topics  of  great  moment.  Thus  in  general,  what  had 
been  custom,  more  or  less  prevailing,  whether  concerning  pil- 
grimages or  tithe,  was  now  hardened  into  law ;  and  to  give 
new  force  to  it  as  law,  it  would  need  more  peculiar  incul- 
cation. Hence  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  which  exhibits  the 
prophetical  spirit  in  its  highest  and  purest  energy,  likewise 
commenced  a  ceremonial  action  which  was  to  undermine  and 
supersede  that  spirit.  The  events  of  the  following  reign  per- 
suade us,  that  the  religious  party  in  Judah,  having  full  sway 
over  Hezekiah' s  affections,  in  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his 
reign  strained  the  bow  till  it  broke.  The  expelled  priests 
and  their  friends  had  perhaps  spent  their  resistance  pre- 
viously. But  when  an  exterior  of  religion  was  imposed  on 
the  nation,  beyond  what  was  generally  felt,  those  whose  fears 
or  hopes  made  them  hypocrites,  secretly  longed  to  overthrow 
the  growing  sacerdotalism.  Such  appears  to  have  been  the 
internal  state  of  Judah,  when  Hezekiah  prematurely  expired1, 
leaving  his  son  MANASSEH,  at  the  tender  age  of  twelve,  as 
heir  to  his  throne. 

The  mystery  of  Manasseh's  character,  in  contrast  to  that 
of  his  father  and  his  grandson,  cannot  be  wholly  accounted  for 
by  his  circumstances ;  much  must  have  depended  on  inward 
actings  of  the  spirit,  of  which  the  historian  can  take  no  cog- 
nizance. Superficial  observers  might  have  expected  that  the 
son  of  a  pious  father,  surrounded  by  religious  persons  from 
his  early  youth,  would  go  the  right  way  and  second  all  their 
devout  desires.  Nor  is  it  recorded  that  this  did  not  happen 
for  a  time,  until  in  advancing  manhood  new  thoughts  and 
feelings  arose.  When  Manasseh  was  twenty-five  years  old, 
the  same  outside  of  religion  may  have  shown  itself  in  Jerusa- 
lem as  in  the  year  of  his  birth ;  or  rather,  a  still  greater  pre- 
tence to  sanctity,  in  consequence  of  the  accumulating  impetus 
of  sacerdotalism.  But  the  voice  of  prophecy  was  nearly  mute : 
nothing  at  least  was  uttered,  so  living  in  spirit  as  to  outlast 
those  times ;  and  if  ceremonialism  was  rife,  while  hypocrisy 
supplanted  sincere  devotion,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  a  youth- 
ful monarch,  disgusted  with  the  religion  which  fenced  him 

1  B.C.  697. 


280  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

round,  resolved  to  break  it  down.  The  time  when  this  deter- 
mination burst  forth  is  not  stated;  and  the  broad  fact  consti- 
tutes the  sum  of  all  that  is  preserved  to  us  concerning  the 
longest  reign  of  all  the  Jewish  kings.  Fifty-five  years  was  its 
duration;  and  through  the  greater  part  of  it  an  unceasing 
war  was  waged  against  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  against 
the  influence  of  his  priests. 

Nor  did  the  king  want  pleas,  drawn  from  just  and  humane 
topics,  or  perhaps  even  sound  arguments,  for  altering  Heze- 
kiah's  system.  No  cruelties  indeed  against  corrupt  priests, 
like  those  of  Jehu,  have  been  recorded  in  the  preceding  reign ; 
but  the  violence  of  the  revolution  which  expelled  them  gave 
a  precedent  for  a  similar  ejection.  The  hardships  inflicted  by 
their  expulsion  must  have  left  rankling  remembrances  in 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  bosoms.  Antiquity,  and  the  ex- 
ample of  every  king  from  the  commencement  of  the  existing 
rule,  had  pleaded  in  vain  against  the  innovating  spirit  of 
Hezekiah's  ministers.  Those  who  bore  with  impatience  the 
new  Levitism  would  be  able  to  ply  Manasseh' s  ear  with  the 
pretences  of  grave  conservatism,  such  as  Roman  aristocrats 
and  emperors  used  to  pour  forth  upon  the  Senate  in  defence 
of  antiquated  mummery ;  and  the  young  king,  who  was  so 
soon  hurried  down  the  precipice  of  intolerance,  fanaticism, 
bigotry,  cruel  and  besotted  superstition,  may  really  have  be- 
gun in  the  belief,  that  he  was  only  re-establishing  ancient 
rights  and  redressing  the  deranged  balance  of  toleration. 
Such  being  the  outline  of  things,  we  might  seem  able  to  fill 
it  up  without  consulting  the  book.  The  high  places  were 
rebuilt  and  their  priests  restored  (perhaps  from  the  sons  of 
the  expelled) ;  altars  were  set  up  to  Baal  and  Astarte ;  the 
"  host  of  heaven"  were  worshipped,  as  by  the  Sabseans.  The 
king  used  enchantments,  dealt  with  wizards  and  necroman- 
cers, and  observed  times  by  astrology  or  other  methods  of 
superstition.  When  he  had  a  son  old  enough,  he  made  him 
pass  through  the  fire  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  So  much  is 
nearly  the  same  as  is  ascribed  to  Ahaz  and  to  Ahab.  But  in 
Manasseh  the  following  points  are  peculiar.  He  set  up  altars 
to  the  Host  of  Heaven  in  the  two  courts  of  the  temple,  and 
introduced  into  the  sanctuary  itself  a  graven  image  of  Astarte. 
Houses  for  impure  men,  connected  with  her  odious  worship, 
were  built  close  to  the  temple  itself,  and  in  them  the  Jewish 
women  wove  hangings  for  the  goddess.  When  Manasseh 


PAGANISM  AND  PERSECUTION.  281 

encountered  opposition — undoubtedly  from  the  priests  and 
the  whole  religious  party, — he  resorted  to  the  approved  old 
plan  of  persecution,  and  shed  innocent  blood  very  much,  till  he 
had  filled  Jerusalem  with  it ;  deeming,  no  doubt,  that  he  could 
do  as  much  by  the  sword  for  Baal  as  Jehu  had  done  for  Je- 
hovah. That  prophets  were  slain  with  the  sword  in  Judaea 
in  these  times,  is  distinctly  stated  by  Jeremiah1.  The  object 
of  his  proceedings  manifestly  was  to  cripple  or  destroy  the 
Jehovistic  sacerdotalism;  which  trammelled  him  as  a  king, 
vexed  him  as  an  unspiritual  man,  or  excited  his  scorn  by  its 
frequent  hypocrisy.  But  he  did  more  than  he  can  have 
wished  :  he  disorganized  the  whole  nation,  which  could  not 
retain  its  vital  union  without  its  peculiar  monotheism.  Great 
moral  corruption  spread  through  Judah ;  his  cruel  measures 
accustomed  the  people  to  blood,  and  gave  intensity  to  faction. 
At  the  same  time  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  pretensions  of 
sacerdotalism  rose  higher  and  higher  by  reason  of  the  perse- 
cution, and  (as  among  the  Scotch  Covenanters)  divine  right 
was  claimed  for  every  common  ordinance  or  petty  ceremony. 
Priests  must  have  been  angels  wholly  to  escape  fanaticism ; 
and  we  may  well  suspect  that  (like  Christians  under  the  per- 
secutions of  Decius  and  Galerius)  they  imbibed  some  measure 
of  guile.  It  appears  indeed  to  have  been  a  long  and  dreary 
time  to  the  worshippers  of  the  one  God ;  for,  in  spite  of  the 
false  assertions  of  the  Chronicler2,  we  have  the  authority  of 
the  book  of  Kings  for  saying,  that  no  reaction  in  their  favour 
took  place,  either  during  his  reign  or  that  of  his  son.  It 
is  also  a  fact  which  ought  not  to  be  passed  without  com- 
ment, that  in  the  Martyr  Age  of  the  prophets  of  Judah  we 
read  of  no  miracle-working  Elijahs  and  Elishas,  as  in  the  times 
of  Jezebel.  The  distinction  of  the  periods  is  this,  that  Ma- 
nasseh  and  Amon  lived  in  a  country  and  age  which  was  no 

1  Jer.  ii.  30.     There  are  positive  notices  in  the  same  prophet  of  the  existence 
in  these  times  of  Baal- worship  and  sacrifices  of  children  to  Molech  in  the  valley 
of  the  son  of  Hinnom  (vii.  9,  30-32,  xix.  4-6).     We  might  have  equally  expected 
Isaiah  to  allude  to  it  in  theVeign  of  Ahaz,  if  it  had  then  existed. 

2  He  cannot  bear  so  bad  a  moral,  as  that  this  guilty  king  should  live  unpu- 
nished and  impenitent,  and  go  down  to  his  grave  in  peace ;  so  he  brings  up 
against  him  the  host  of  Assyria,  which  carries  him  off  to  Babylon.     There  he 
repents  and  prays.     In  consequence  Jehovah  restores   him  to  his  kingdom. 
Manasseh  takes  away  the  strange  gods,  and  the  idol  out  of  the  house  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  the  altars  that  he  had  built  in  the  court  of  the  temple,  etc.  etc. 

This  we  know  by  the  book  of  Kings  to  be  untrue ;  for  Josiah  found  them  still 
there,  and  had  to  destroy  them  (2  Kings,  xxxiii.  5,  6,  7,  12). 


282  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY.' 

longer  illiterate,  and  much  nearer  to  the  times  of  the  com- 
piler. Indeed,  from  this  time  onward,  all  pretence  to  mira- 
culous interpositions,  great  or  small,  vanishes  wholly  from  the 
narrative ;  a  phenomenon  too  similar  to  that  of  other  histories 
to  be  neglected  by  well-informed  and  candid  minds. 

It  is  to  be  wished  that  we  could  accurately  present  an  out- 
line of  the  contemporaneous  Assyrian  history ;  but  our  infor- 
mation concerning  it  is  so  ambiguous,  that  it  is  hard  to  nar- 
rate anything  with  confidence.  Provisionally  however,  and 
until  the  decipherment  and  accurate  translation  of  inscriptions 
shall  guide  us  better,  the  following  may  be  received  as  some 
approximation  to  truth.  Esarhaddon,  the  son  of  Sennacherib, 
having  proceeded  from  his  viceroy alty  of  Babylon  to  possess 
himself  of  his  father's  throne  in  Nineveh,  next  undertook  to 
reduce  the  revolted  Medes.  After  a  severe  contest  he  was  foiled, 
and  was  forced  to  submit  to  see  a  new  empire  rise  by  his  side ; 
for  one  effect  of  the  war  was  to  compress  the  Medes  into  union, 
and  probably  sufficed  to  make1  any  other  form  of  government 
than  monarchy  impossible.  This  successful  issue  of  the  Me- 
dian struggle  appears  to  have  generated  the  confused  tale,  that 
the  Assyrian  empire  was  destroyed  by  the  Medes  while  Sarda- 
napallus  was  king;  for  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  Sarda- 
napallus  is  a  compound  word,  and  that  its  element  Sardan  is 
identical  with  Esarhaddon2.  This  prince  is  proverbial  with 
Grecian  writers  as  the  type  of  all  luxury  and  epicureanism 
while  in  his  palace,  though  possessed  of  much  martial  ability 
in  the  field.  To  him  is  ascribed  the  founding  of  the  two  cities 
of  Tarsus  and  Anchiale  in  one  day ;  of  which  the  former  com- 
manded the  pass  of  Issus,  and  guarded  northern  Syria  from  a 
western  invader3.  It  seems  likewise  to  be  he,  who,  with  very 
severe  loss  on  his  own  side,  discomfited  a  Grecian  army  col- 
lected in  Cilicia.  He  now  cast  an  eye  on  the  still  vacant  ter- 
ritory of  Israel,  and  sent  a  new  colony  into  it4.  The  mixed 

1  Herodotus  ascribes  the  elevation  of  Deioces  to  the  monarchy,  after  the  re- 
pulse of  the  Assyrians,  to  his  valuable  qualities  as  a  judge  and  magistrate. 
This  is  as  an  echo  of  the  fact,  that  after  the  revolutionary  war  crime  was  com- 
mon, and  the  whole  energy  of  the  first  king  was  directed  to  repress  it.     Hence 
his  character  was  with  posterity  that  of  an  energetic  magistrate. 

2  He  is  called  Asordan  in  the  Armenian  Chronicle  of  Eusebius. 

3  Tarsus  (in  the  Armenian  Chronicle)  is  ascribed  to  Sennacherib.     It  is  also 
said  to  have  been  built  after  the  plan  of  Nineveh. — On  Tarsus  and  Anchiale  see 
the  extracts  collected  by  Clinton,  Fast.  Hell.  vol.  i.  p.  275.     Abydenus,  quoted 
by  him  in  p.  271,  makes  the  victory  of  Cilicia  to  have  been  over  a  Grecian  fleet. 
But  what  he  adds  about  "  an  Athenian  temple  "  overthrows  his  credit. 

4  Ezra  iv.  2. 


STATE    OF    THE    ASSYRIAN    POWER.  283 

population  had  suffered  from  the  ravages  of  wild  beasts,  which 
had  quickly  multiplied  over  a  large  and  empty  land ;  and,  im- 
puting the  calamity  to  their  want  of  skill  in  propitiating  the 
gods  of  the  soil,  they  begged  of  the  king  of  Assyria  to  send 
them  some  priest  of  Bethel  as  their  instructor.  Esarhaddon 
was  able  to  gratify  them,  and  a  mongrel  worship  of  heathenism 
and  Jehovism  arose,  which  excited  the  peculiar  disgust  of  the 
monotheists  in  Jerusalem.  Such  is  the  beginning  of  the 
schism  between  the  Jews  and  the  new  Samaritans. 

A  reign  of  only  eight  years  is  attributed  to  Esarhaddon  in 
Nineveh.  Of  his  successors  nothing  is  certainly  known ;  yet 
as  the  book  of  Chronicles  represents  one  of  them  to  have  in- 
vaded Judah  and  carried  Manasseh  captive, — impossible  as  it 
is  to  believe  the  last  fact  against  the  silence  of  the  book  of 
Kings, — it  may  seem  unlikely  that  the  war  itself  was  an  in- 
vention. As  Esarhaddon  had  taken  pains  to  settle  Samaria, 
one  of  his  successors  may  well  have  invaded  Judah,  and  have 
either  ravaged  it  or  exacted  ransom ;  to  which  a  dark  allusion 
seems  to  be  made  in  the  prophecy  of  Nahum1 .  It  is  however 
here  only  needful  to  say,  that  the  Assyrian  empire,  though  de- 
prived of  its  most  martial,  retained  its  wealthiest  provinces, 
and  was  still  a  proud  and  imposing  fabric.  Its  conquering 
aera  was  past,  and  the  spell  of  its  resistlessness  broken;  yet 
as  long  as  Nineveh  and  Babylon  were  united,  Susiana,  Meso- 
potamia and  all  Syria  were  likely  to  be  obedient ;  and  such  a 
power  seemed  to  have  nothing  to  fear  from  Medes,  Lydians 
or  Egyptians. 

When  king  Manasseh  died,  he  was  buried,  not  in  the  se- 
pulchres of  the  kings,  but  in  the  garden  of  his  own  house. 
No  reason  is  assigned  for  this;  but  we  may  conjecture  that 
the  royal  sepulchres  were  consecrated  by  Jehovistic  ceremo- 
nies, and  that  either  the  priests  succeeded  in  refusing  him  the 
honour,  or  his  son  AMON,  continuing  his  father's  feud,  spurned 
the  royal  tombs  because  of  their  associations.  For  Amon, 
following  his  father  at  the  age  of  twenty -two2,  served  the 
same  idols,  and  wrought  the  same  evil.  But  he  either  did  not 

1  Nahum  i.  11,  13,  ii.  1. 

2  B.C.  642.    Twenty-two  is  the  least  age  which  we  can  attribute  to  Amon  ;  for 
it  makes  him  only  sixteen  years  older  than  his  son.     We  have  no  check  what- 
ever on  these  numbers.     Since  Amon  is  now  made  forty-seven  years  younger 
than  his  father,  it  is  possible  that  twenty-two  should  have  been  thirty-two ;  but 
conjecture  is  here  uncontrolled.     Eeasons  will  hereafter  be  given  for  thinking 
Josiah  three  or  four  years  older  than  our  text  states. 


284  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

inspire  so  much  terror  as  Manasseh,  or  was  less  cautious  in 
his  despotism;  for  after  a  reign  of  two  short  years,  he  met 
his  death  by  a  conspiracy  in  his  own  house.  He  left  a  young 
son  named  JOSIAH,  only  eight  years  old,  to  succeed  him1. 

If,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  murderers  of  Amon,  we  were 
to  apply  the  question  of  the  celebrated  judge  Cassius, — "  Who 
gained  by  the  crime2?" — we  might  fix  the  criminality  on  the 
priests.  But  this  would  probably  be  wrong.  Had  it  been  so, 
the  royalists,  who  had  for  near  half  a  century  been  in  posses- 
sion of  the  government,  would  have  been  able  to  make  some 
struggle  against  their  opponents,  and  the  sacerdotal  cause 
might  rather  have  been  injured  by  its  deed.  It  is  more  likely 
that  Amon  by  insolence  or  tyranny  alienated  his  own  adhe- 
rents :  he  was  murdered  by  his  servants  and  in  his  own  house, 
where  the  priests  are  not  likely  to  have  had  influence  so  ex- 
tended as  to  conceal  a  conspiracy.  But  a  faction  among  the 
royalists  themselves  so  fierce  as  to  end  in  the  murder  of  the 
king,  would  break  up  the  party,  and  help  to  throw  public  affairs 
once  more  into  the  hands  of  the  priests.  As  at  the  murder  of 
Amaziah,  a  popular  movement  and  new  election  was  called  out 
by  the  event.  "  The  people  of  the  land,"  we  are  informed, 
"  slew  all  them  that  had  conspired  against  king  Amon ;  and 
the  people  of  the  land  made  Josiah  his  son  king  in  his  stead." 

His  early  years  glided  away  without  any  event  to  have  de- 
served record ;  yet  the  time  was  one  of  important  preparation 
through  the  land.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  priestly 
party  were  at  first  in  full  power ;  if  some  of  them  were  near 
the  king's  person,  they  were  still  too  weak  to  attempt  great 
changes,  and  many  important  offices  must  have  been  held  by 
nobles  reared  in  Manasselr's  regimen,  whom  it  would  have 
been  dangerous  to  eject.  The  rites  of  Baal  and  of  Molech, 
with  all  their  impurity  and  cruelty,  continued  in  the  land 
unmolested  by  authority.  But  in  the  course  of  eighteen 
years3  many  silent  changes  took  place.  The  posts  vacated  by 

1  B.C.  640. 

2  "  Cui  bono  ?"  (a  phrase  commonly  mistranslated).     See  Cicero  Pro  Milone, 
12,  §  32. 

3  The  narrative  of  the  book  of  Kings  is  here  followed.     The  Chronicler,  to 
increase  the  glory  of  Josiah,  has  made  him  a  religious  reformer  in  his  eighth  year 
of  reign,  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  and  before  he  had  seen  the  book  of  the  Law. 
This  is  refuted  by  Jeremiah,  who  did  not  begin  to  prophesy  till  Josiah' s  thir- 
teenth year  of  reign ;  and  found  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Molech  standing,  at  a 
time  when  the  Chronicler  pretends  it  had  been  for  five  years  put  down. 


RISE    OF    SCHOLASTIC    LEARNING.  285 

death  were  doubtless  filled  by  men  of  a  new  stamp ;  the  purely 
Levitical  notions  were  imbibed  with  ardour  by  the  best  edu- 
cated youths  and  pious  persons,  who  looked  back  with  hatred 
on  Manasseh's  cruelties,  and  saw  with  disgust  the  emblems  of 
his  idolatry.  So  far  then,  outward  circumstances  were  ripen- 
ing for  a  religious  revolution. 

At  the  same  time,  literature  was  advancing :  the  period  of 
prose-writing  was  setting  in :  the  times  were  beginning  to  de- 
mand a  written  and  complete  code  of  laws.     In  most  nations 
the  process  of  code-making  comes  rather  late  :  Custom  gene- 
rally precedes  Law  by  a  long  interval ;  it  is  only  in  the  case  of 
colonies  from  civilized  countries  that  the  written  code  can 
well  be  coeval  with  national  existence.     As  for  the  Jews,  the 
century  which  preceded  Josiah  had  been  a  time  of  preparation 
for  a  system  of  Statute  Law,  which  should  be  accessible  to 
the  mass  of  the  people.      From  the  very  beginning  of  the 
monarchy,  Samuel  the  seer,  and  at  a  later  time  Jehoiada  the 
priest,  had  laid  up  written  memorials  adapted  to  secure  cer- 
tain rights  against  the  crown ;  but  this  was  no  code  accessible 
to  the  people,  nor  was  there  as  yet  any  order  of  learned  men 
to  interpret  it.     But  ever  since  the  reign  of  Uzziah  the  in- 
tercourse with  Egypt  had  been  steadily  on  the  increase ;  and 
the  colonies  of  Jews  and  Israelites  there  were  so  considerable, 
that  the  absentees  in  Egypt  and  the  exiles  in  Assyria  are  often 
spoken  of  in  one  breath  (which  indeed  we  have  seen  in  Isaiah) , 
as  though  coordinate  and  almost  commensurate.     Although 
Egyptian  art  perhaps  was  sinking,  Egyptian  learning  must 
have  been  at  its  height  in  Isaiah' s  day;    and  wealthy  Jews 
established  in  that  country,  where  all  the  trials  before  a  judge 
are  said  to  have  gone  on  in  writing1,  would  necessarily  gain 
more  definite  ideas  of  the  value  of  a  complete  written  body  of 
statutes.     Communication  with  the  exiles  in  the  cultivated 
cities  of  Assyria  must  have  had  the  same  tendency ;  and  it  is 
more  than  possible  that  the  severities  of  Manasseh  against  the 
public  exercise  of  Jehovistic  religion  turned  into  retired  stu- 
dents many  who  would  else  have  been  its  ministers.     The 
fact  at  any  rate  is  clear,  that  a  new  school  of  learning  arose, 
which  was  in  due  time  to  expand  into  Rabbinism,  after  com- 
bining influences  from  Babylon  and  Egypt  with  the  peculia- 
rities of  the  Jew.     The  leaders  of  this  school  were  perhaps 
rather  Levites  than  Priests;    for,  with  the  development  of 
1  Diodorus,  i.  75. 


286  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

learning,  the  Levite  had  become  independent  of  the  Aaronic 
order,  nearly  as  in  the  middle  age  of  Europe  the  lawyers  or 
legists  grew  out  of  the  clergy  and  became  an  order  of  them- 
selves. But  in  the  new  school  there  must  have  been  very 
various  minds ;  some  disposed  to  heathenism  and  Egyptian 
mystery,  others  simple  as  Moses ;  yet  all  eager  for  Levitical 
aggrandizement.  Before  their  movement  was  fully  ripe,  poli- 
tical events  of  firstrate  moment  had  burst  forth  from  the  dim 
distance  of  the  unknown  north  in  the  earlier  portion  of  Jo- 
siah's  reign,  which,  after  afflicting  and  still  more  terrifying  the 
Hebrew  nation,  waked  up  anew  the  strain  of  prophecy.  It  is 
requisite  here  to  trace  back  these  striking  phenomena,  although 
they  carry  us  far  from  the  scene  of  Judaea. 

DEIOCES,  the  first  Median  monarch  after  the  war  of  inde- 
pendence, had  been  an  active  magistrate ;  by  him  internal 
order  was  established,  and  all  the  tribes  of  Media  itself  united 
under  one  sceptre.  His  son  and  successor  PHRAORTES  in 
consequence  felt  himself  strong  enough  to  attack  the  Persians, 
and  by  subduing  them  commenced  an  empire  over  foreign 
nations; — which  now  reached  southward  over  the  modern 
provinces  of  Ears  and  Kerman.  After  this  he  ventured  to 
make  war  upon  Assyria,  but  was  severely  defeated  and  slain : 
such  was  the  energy  still  retained  by  the  empire  of  Nineveh. 
The  new  king  of  the  Medes  was  named  CYAXARES,  son  of  the 
preceding;  who  having  introduced  great  improvements  into 
the  discipline  of  his  armies,  overran  Armenia,  and  extended 
the  Median  sway  to  the  banks  of  Halys,  now  the  Kizil  Irmak 
in  Anatolia.  This  district  appears  to  have  been  previously  in 
nominal  homage  to  Nineveh :  it  now  became  a  real  and  effi- 
cient part  of  the  Median  power.  After  this  success,  as  is  most 
probable, — for  we  cannot  expect  from  our  excellent  historian 
any  exactness  in  the  chronology  of  these  events1, — Cyaxares 
resumed  the  aggressive  against  his  father's  foes,  and  drove  the 
Assyrians  off  the  field,  with  a  superiority  so  decisive  as  to  con- 

1  Herod,  i.  103.  The  lengths  of  the  reigns  of  the  Median  kings,  as  of  their 
contemporaries  in  Egypt,  with  the  twenty-eight  years'  sway  of  the  Scythians, 
may  possibly  be  squared  with  the  Hebrew  dates  by  such  methods  as  Mr.  Clinton 
(an  author  more  successful  in  classical  than  in  oriental  chronology)  employs ; 
but  when  this  is  with  a  sacrifice  of  historical  probabilities,  it  seems  unreason- 
able to  yield  such  deference  to  figures,  which  are  exposed  to  so  many  causes  of 
error.  Of  the  twenty-eight  years,  nothing  historical  can  be  made  :  the  Scythian 
invasion  may  have  been  about  B.C.  630.  Phraortes  is  supposed  to  have  been 
slain  in  B.C.  635.  The  Chaldsean  occupation  of  Babylon  seems  to  be  earlier 
than  the  fall  of  Nineveh. 


SCYTHIAN    IRRUPTION    INTO    MEDIA.  287 

fine  them  to  their  fortifications.  But  before  the  strife  could  be 
terminated,  a  "  lion  from  the  thickets"  of  the  north  (to  adopt 
Jeremiah' s  metaphor)  sprang  out  to  devour  both  the  comba- 
tants. The  lion  was  a  great  nation  of  Tartary,  who  obtained 
the  name  of  SCYTHIANS  with  the  early  Greeks.  Themselves 
driven  westward  by  the  Massagetans,  they  were  pressing  hard 
upon  the  nation  of  the  Cimmerians,  who  then  occupied  the 
country  north  of  the  Black  Sea ;  and  the  struggle  proved  of 
fearful  interest  to  the  more  cultivated  people  of  the  south. 

Nature  herself  has  erected  a  wonderful  wall  of  defence  for 
Armenia,  Persia  and  India  against  the  wild  rovers  of  Russia 
and  Tartary.  The  great  chain  of  Caucasus,  beginning  from 
the  N.E.  side  of  the  Black  Sea,  throws  straggling  masses 
across  to  the  south  of  the  Caspian,  whence  it  stretches  with 
nearly  unbroken  line  to  join  the  Hindu  Kush,  and  so  onward 
to  the  mighty  Himalayas.  The  passes  are  very  few,  and  can 
with  great  ease  be  secured  by  a  civilized  and  vigilant  power 
against  barbarian  inroad.  Yet  (so  many  have  been  the  times 
of  disorganization  or  negligence)  the  barrier  has  been  again 
and  again  broken,  and  Persia  has  become  the  spoil  of  the 
Tartars.  The  Scythians  of  whom  we  speak,  were  named  by 
themselves  Scolotians1  •  they  talked  a  kindred  dialect  to  the 
Sarmatians,  whose  later  history  is  well  known,  and  whose 
descendants  appear  in  the  middle  age  of  Europe  as  the  great 
Sclavonic  nations3.  At  that  time  the  Scythians  had  in  com- 
mon with  the  Medes  the  warlike  exercise  of  horse-archery, 
and  when  equal  in  numbers  were  so  nearly  equal  in  prowess 
that  no  one  could  predict  which  would  prove  superior.  But 
they  were  essentially  a  roving  people ;  when  they  set  forth,  it 
was  a  nation  and  not  an  army  in  motion.  Their  women  and 
their  cattle  came  with  them :  hence  their  numbers  and  speed 
were  overwhelming,  when  every  man  was  a  warrior  and  every 
warrior  a  horseman3.  In  beauty  and  swiftness  the  finest 
steeds  of  Media  are  likely  to  have  excelled  those  of  Scythia ; 
but  in  endurance  the  Scythians  had  the  advantage,  as  at  pre- 

1  After  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  word  Scythia  was  extended 
to  include  Independent  Tartary  and  even  Thibet ;  and  under  the  Romans  the 
Scythia  of  Herodotus  (or  Southern  Russia)  was  named  Sarmatia,  the  Scythians 
having  evacuated  it  under  pressure  of  the  Sarmatians. 

2  Prichard  believes  the  Scythians  of  Herodotus  to  have  been  a  Sclavonic 
people. 

3  Gibbon's  twenty-sixth  chapter  on  the  Huns  and  Tartars  is  an  able  and 
eloquent  description,  which  will  apply  to  any  ancient  nation  whose  habits  were 
generated  on  the  same  soil. 


288  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

sent  the  Turkoman  cavalry.  As  far  as  may  be  judged  con- 
cerning events  so  distant  from  our  vision,  in  the  crush  which 
took  place  between  Cimmerians  and  Scythians  north  of  the 
Caucasus,  a  vast  body  of  each  nation,  seeking  pasture  and 
pleasant  abodes,  migrated  southward ;  and  while  the  Cimme- 
rians passed  round  Caucasus  on  the  west  and  entered  Anatolia, 
the  Scythians  found  out  an  eastern  circuit  and  came  down 
upon  Media. 

Cyaxares  was  called  off  from  his  Assyrian  war  by  the  star- 
tling tidings,  and  hurried  to  engage  the  barbarous  invader. 
A  total  defeat  of  the  Medes  ensued.  The  conquerors  spread 
over  the  whole  country,  and  by  their  numbers  and  violence 
dissolved  the  Median  empire  for  the  time ;  although  their 
ignorance  was  too  great  to  allow  of  their  organizing  a  new 
government  or  taking  any  measures  for  permanent  occupation. 
The  fortified  cities  would  generally  be  unassailable  by  them, 
but  the  open  field  was  at  their  mercy.  Enterprize,  curiosity, 
or  restlessness  carried  a  large  army  of  them  far  southward 
into  the  land  of  Israel,  and  even  into  Philistia;  where  the 
novelty  of  their  aspect,  their  brutality  and  utter  barbarism, 
made  Jews,  Philistines  and  Egyptians  shudder.  The  town 
of  Bethshean,  on  the  plain  of  Jordan,  is  supposed  to  have 
been  occupied  by  them ;  we  do  not  even  know  whether  they 
found  it  empty  or  inhabited ;  but  from  some  occurrence  of 
this  date  it  gained  the  name  of  the  City  of  the  Scythians. 
Their  mark  however  was  Egypt.  Before  they  could  cross  the 
frontier,  they  were  met  by  ambassadors  from  Psammetichus, 
then  king  of  that  country,  who  by  rich  presents  and  clever 
persuasion  induced  them  to  turn  back  :  yet  on  their  way 
northward  having  entered  the  town  of  Ascalon,  which  seems 
to  have  been  then  under  Egyptian  rule,  some  of  them  stayed 
behind  the  rest  and  plundered  the  rich  temple  of  Astarte1. 
None  of  these  events  could  be  unknown  to  the  Jews,  who 
looked  with  tremour  and  uncertainty  towards  the  main  body 
of  Scythians,  still  rioting  over  the  wide  plains  of  Mesopotamia 
and  Media. 

But  the  most  permanent  results  of  this  great  irruption  were 

1  The  Greeks  call  the  goddess  Heavenly  Venus.  The  Scythians  were  subject 
to  a  singular  disease,  in  which  their  men  lost  masculine  spirit,  supposed  them- 
selves to  be  incapable  of  manly  exercises,  and  would  do  nothing  but  women's 
work.  Herodotus  believed  that  Venus  inflicted  this  on  the  individuals  who 
had  despoiled  her  temple,  and  on  their  descendants  for  ever. 


RISE    OF    THE    CHALDEES.  289 

secondary  ones.  It  broke  the  fetters  of  another  rude  northern 
people,  whose  name  was  known  to  the  Hebrews  from  Abra- 
ham their  great  ancestor,  a  native  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees, 
though  they  had  as  yet  no  practical  acquaintance  with  them. 
Their  proper  appellation  seems  to  have  been  Kardim  or  Kards, 
an  element  which  re-appears  in  the  Carduchians  of  Greek 
writers.  The  Hebrews  named  them  Kasdim,  by  a  well-known 
change  of  sound ;  while  another  dialect  transformed  the  word 
into  Chaldim,  whence  we  have  their  European  appellation  of 
Chaldees.  This  people  occupied  the  mountains  which  fringe 
Mesopotamia  on  the  north,  and,  as  the  modern  Kurds,  in  part 
wandered  over,  in  part  occupied  the  underlying  plains.  It 
has  been  much  controverted,  whether  they  were  a  nation  of 
Shemitic  language  (who  then  proceeded  northward  and  con- 
quered a  part  of  the  mountain  region)  or  a  nation  of  Median 
relationship  which  spread  itself  southward;  but  the  question 
is  nearly  unimportant  to  history,  and  will  perhaps  never  be 
decided1.  Enough  for  us,  that  the  bands  of  the  Chaldees  vied 
in  enterprize  with  those  of  the  Scythians :  profiting  by  the 
general  disorganization,  they  set  Nineveh  at  defiance,  in  whose 
armies  they  had  in  all  probability  been  used  to  appear ;  and 
at  its  expense  clutched  for  themselves  many  a  goodly  town. 
The  first  name  on  which  we  can  reckon  with  any  confidence 
as  a  king  of  the  Chaldseans,  is  Nabopolassar,  whose  reign  is 
computed  from  625  B.C.,  according  to  the  astronomical  canon2 

1  High  authorities  for  the  Shemitism  of  the  Chaldees  are  Mannert,  Olshausen, 
Prichard,  and  Grote  :  but  the  weight  of  opinion  is  on  the  other  side.     The  best 
argument  for  it  seems  to  turn  on  Gen.  xxxi.  47,  as  proving  that  the  Hebrew 
writer  believed  Laban  (who  had  come  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees)  to  talk  the 
language  now  called  Chaldee.     The  importance  of  the  question  is  exceedingly 
overrated,  nor  can  we  confidently  hope  that  even  the  deciphering  of  the  Baby- 
lonian bricks  will  solve  it ;  for  what  one  interpreter  might  call  Chaldee,  another 
may  claim  as  Assyrian  or  Babylonian. 

Grote  (Greece,  iii.  p.  388),  resting  on  Herodotus  and  Strabo,  can  see  nothing 
in  the  Chaldees  but  Babylonian  priests.  That  was  certainly  their  later  posi- 
tion, (or  the  later  use  of  the  name,)  but  nothing  is  clearer  in  the  Hebrew 
writers  than  that  it  was  not  so  originally.  Magians  and  Chaldees  seem  both 
to  have  fallen  from  dominant  tribes  into  priesthoods.  The  prophets  so  fami- 
liarly speak  of  the  Chaldees  as  coming  from  the  north,  that  until  it  is  proved 
that  Babylon  was  their  proper  home,  our  position  is,  to  disbelieve  it.  Ur  was 
in  northern  Mesopotamia. 

2  The  Canon  is  to  be  seen  in  Clinton,  Fast.  Hell.  vol.  i.  p.  278,  and  contains 
the  names  of  kings  of  Babylon  from  Nabonassar  (B.C.  747)  to  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Its   earlier   portion  does  not  at  all  agree  with  the  Armenian  Chronicle  of 
Eusebius. 

Nabopolassar  is  also  named  in  extracts  from  Berosus  preserved  by  Josephus. 

O 


290  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  Ptolemy.  It  is  highly  probable  that  this  is  merely  the 
date  of  his  becoming  master  of  Babylon.  His  position  made 
him  appear  as  a  natural  ally  to  Cyaxares,  who  had  already 
unlearnt  fear  of  the  Scythians,  and  was  once  more  bent  upon 
hostilities  with  Nineveh.  In  fact,  the  Scythian  forces  had 
wasted  away  of  themselves ; — from  their  numerous  and  dis- 
tant excursions,  heat  of  the  climate  and  disease,  treachery  of 
the  people  of  the  south,  who  intoxicated  and  then  slaughtered 
them,  and  other  causes  that  may  be  conjectured.  Cyaxares 
is  said  indeed  by  Herodotus  to  have  taken  some  bands  of  them 
into  his  own  sendee1.  The  war  against  Assyria  was  at  length 
resumed  by  him ;  and  as  the  Chaldees  not  only  occupied  the 
Lower  Tigris,  but  by  their  primitive  position  in  northern  Me- 
sopotamia cut  off  the  communication  with  Syria,  Nineveh  was 
left  to  a  most  unequal  contest  against  the  Medes.  Of  the 
details  of  the  war  nothing  is  known,  nor  the  date  of  its  termi- 
nation. So  celebrated  a  city  had  not  even  the  sad  consola- 
tion of  leaving  to  posterity  a  remembrance  of  her  last  struggle. 
Her  sufferings  are  "  blotted  out  by  the  sponge  of  Lethe ;"  a 
harder  fate,  says  a  Greek  poet3,  than  suffering  itself.  We 
can  only  infer  that  about  the  year  615  B.C.  her  waning  star 
dipped  beneath  the  ocean,  where  it  disappeared  for  ever.  The 
Medes  at  once  took  Assyria  Proper  to  themselves,  but  re- 
spected the  right  of  the  Chaldees  to  Babylonia  and  its  depen- 
dent provinces.  Events  moreover  drew  their  efforts  to  the  far 
west,  where  they  fell  into  conflict  with  the  wealthy  and  civi- 
lized monarchy  of  Lydia,  small  but  energetic  :  for  the  present 

One  extract  is  repeated,  Antt.  x.  11,  1,  and  c.  Apion,  i.  19 ;  with  the  variation 
that  he  is  called  Nabuchodonosor,  as  also  his  son,  in  the  Antiquities,  Nabopo- 
lassar  in  the  reply  to  Apion.  Berosus,  as  a  Babylonian  priest,  is  likely  to  have 
known  the  Babylonian  affairs  of  such  a  king  :  but  the  statements  made  to 
glorify  him  in  this  very  extract  are  so  grossly  false,  as  to  warn  us  against  trust- 
ing the  author.  He  represents  Nabopolassar  as  lord  of  Egypt,  Hollow  Syria 
and  Pho3nicia,  over  which  whole  country  he  has  set  a  satrap.  When  the  satrap 
revolts  from  him  (Necho  is  evidently  intended),  he  sends  Nebuchadnezzar  to 
make  war  against  him,  who  captures  his  person,  and  recovers  the  provinces, 
etc.  etc  — It  is  quite  as  false  that  Nabopolassar  ever  possessed  a  foot  of  ground 
in  Egypt,  as  that  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  Africa  and  Spain,  which  Josephus 
gravely  tells  from  Megasthenes. 

1  Herod,  i.  73.     The  expressions  of  the  historian  here  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  twenty-eight  years'  empire  which  he  assigns  to  the  Scythians  over 
Upper  Asia.     In  fact,  all  that  we  can  believe  is,  that  some  detachments  of  them 
continued  formidable  at  so  late  a  time  after  the  irruption. 

2  -&schyl.  Agam.  1300  :— 

<nr6yyos 

Kal  ravr'  €Ktiv(av 


FINAL    RUIN    OF    NINEVEH.  291 

therefore  they  seemed  to  have  abandoned  to  Nabopolassar  all 
the  lower  country  of  Mesopotamia,  and  whatever  he  could 
conquer  of  Syria. 

When  the  Assyrians  were  no  longer  able  either  to  threaten 
or  to  aid  the  mixed  people  of  the  Samaritan  cities,  it  was 
natural  that  the  king  of  Jerusalem  should  cast  upon  these  an 
eye  of  pity  and  of  ambition.  The  events  which  follow  show 
that  Josiah  now  looked  on  Israel  west  of  the  Jordan  as  his 
own  realm ;  yet  there  is  no  trace  of  its  being  gained  by  war. 
We  can  therefore  scarcely  doubt  that  his  claim  of  homage 
was  readily  admitted  by  the  scattered  population  which  had 
recently  felt  themselves  so  helpless  against  the  Scythians,  and 
probably  also  against  Chaldee  marauders;  and  the  greatness 
of  Josiah' s  power  was  exaggerated  to  men's  apprehensions  by 
the  severe  sufferings  of  the  neighbour  states.  Ammon  in- 
deed l,  and  perhaps  Moab,  profited  by  the  emptiness  of  the 
Transjordanic  plains,  and  extended  their  border  considerably ; 
but  they  had  no  hereditary  pretensions  to  sovereignty  west  of 
the  river.  On  the  other  hand,  the  nature  of  the  case  per- 
suades us  that  a  large  residue  of  genuine  Israelites  must 
have  remained  on  the  Samaritan  territory,  in  spite  of  Shal- 
maneser.  The  ease  with  which  Josiah' s  pretensions  establish 
themselves  confirm  the  belief;  and  it  is  apparently  assumed 
in  some  passages  of  the  contemporaneous  prophets,  where 
Israel  and  Judah  are  combined  or  confounded. 

The  reverses  of  empire  which  have  been  described  stimu- 
lated the  Jewish  mind,  and  called  forth  several  energetic  pro- 
phets :  Nahum,  Zephaniah,  Habakkuk,  Jeremiah.  Nahum, 
in  Assyrian  captivity2,  was  chiefly  affected  by  the  approaching 

1  Jerem.  xlix.  1 ;  Zeph.  ii.  8. 

2  He  is  called  an  ElJcoshite.     Elkush  is  still  a  little  town  on  the  Tigris,  near 
to  ancient  Nineveh.     Ewald,  moved  (it  seems)  by  Nahum  i.  9,  "  affliction  shall 
not  rise  up  the  second  time"  is  disposed  to  place  Nahum' s  prophecy  in  the  war 
of  Phraortes  against  Assyria.     But  we  do  not  know  whether  Nineveh  at  that 
time  came  into  any  great  danger.     If  it  did,  Ewald  would  seem  to  be  right :  if 
it  did  not,  Nahum  may  have  prophesied  a  little  later,  during  the  war  of  Cyaxares  ; 
and  this  is  the  more  obvious  supposition,  though  nothing  can  be  determined. 
In  fact,  we  seem  to  be  disputing  about  an  interval  of  ten  years,  when  it  is  quite 
uncertain  whether  Nahum  may  not  have  polished  up  his  poem  ten  years  after 
he  commenced  it.     Some  make  Nahum  earlier  and  Habakkuk  later  than  we 
here  represent.     If  those  are  right  who  refer  the  book  of  Zechariah  to  three 
ceras,  Zechariah  the  second  (or  the  author  of  chapters  xii.-xiv.)  is  another  con- 
temporary of  Jeremiah.     Ezekiel  also  will  be  afterwards  mentioned. 

We  may  remark,  that  while  in  the  northern  kingdom  the  prophets  are  made 
most  prominent  by  internal  Baal-worship,  in  Jerusalem  they  are  called  out  by 

o  2 


292  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

downfall  of  Nineveh ;  but  on  those  in  Palestine  the  Scythians 
and  the  Chaldees  made  the  strongest  impression ;  and  since 
both  came  from  the  north,  alike  great  equestrian  nations, 
alike  rude  and  fierce,  allusions  are  found  in  these  prophets 
capable  of  applying  to  either  people,  and  possibly  blending 
both  in  dimness  of  conception.  Of  the  four  prophets  who  have 
been  just  named,  three  belong  to  the  old  school.  In  Nahum, 
Zephaniah  and  Habakkuk,  we  have  all  the  raciness  of  anti- 
quity, and  high  poetical  vehemence.  Jeremiah  was  younger 
than  they,  but  was  their  contemporary  by  beginning  his  mi- 
nistry at  a  very  early  age ;  he  was  the  son  of  a  priest  and  has 
a  smack  of  the  new  cultivation,  of  which  we  have  already 
spoken.  Nahum  and  Zephaniah,  the  one  in  Assyria,  the  other 
in  Judaea,  prophesied  at  a  very  short  distance  of  time,  when 
the  fall  of  Nineveh  was  impending.  This  is  the  sole  topic  of 
Nahum,  and  is  glanced  at  by  Zephaniah.  The  latter  dwells 
on  the  corruptions  of  Judah  in  the  early  part  of  Josiah's  reign, 
and  threatens  it  with  dreadful  desolation,  apparently  from  the 
Scythians.  Philistia  is  implicated  in  the  threat,  as  also  Moab, 
Ammon,  and  even  Ethiopia;  but  there  is  generally  much 
vagueness  spread  over  the  gloomy  predictions  of  this  prophet. 
Habakkuk  wrote1,  when  the  Chaldees  had  suddenly  made 
themselves  known  as  swift  and  formidable  marauders;  and 
they  are  his  main  subject.  He  denounces  them  as  given  to 
excess  in  wine,  rapacity  and  cruel  violence, — vices  which  may 
be  expected  from  a  rude  people  who  suddenly  become  conque- 
rors of  more  wealthy  lands ;  he  indicates  that  their  ravages 
had  been  felt  in  "  Lebanon,"  or  the  newly  colonized  northern 
Palestine,  where  they  had  laid  some  city  waste ;  for  which  he 
declares  the  judgments  of  Jehovah  upon  them.  This  prophet 
is  rather  Israelitish  or  even  Gentile  than  Jewish.  He  neith( 
laments  as  past,  nor  predicts  as  future,  an  invasion  of  Juc 
by  the  Chaldees ;  but  calls  aloud  to  all  the  heathen,  that  this 
nation  shall  "  march  over  the  breadth  of  the  earth2,  to  posses 

times  of  suffering  or  by  danger  from  foreigners,  but  are  silent  during  the  tyranny 
of  Manasseh.  Shall  we  ascribe  it  to  the  greater  weight  which  legitimacy  adde 
to  the  crown  in  Judah  ?  or  to  the  influences  of  literature,  which  trusts  mor 
in  time  and  milder  methods,  and  is  apt  to  "  temporize,"  because  here  is  il 
strength  ?  Habakkuk  may  have  dwelt  in  Israel,  but  his  cultivation  is  fror 
Judah. 

1  About  B.C.  620  ?     The  text  refers  especially  to  ii.  5-17,  i.  6. 

2  The  same  Hebrew  word  means  land  and  earth ;    but  the  whole  context 
guides  us  here  to  understand  it  as  earth.     See  also  i.  17. 


RENEWAL    OF    PROPHECY.  293 

the  dwelling-places  that  are  not  theirs."  Habakkuk  knows 
nothing  of  the  foreign  idolatry  in  Judah,  nor  yet  of  its  refor- 
mation :  his  mind  stands  in  no  contact  with  the  affairs  of 
Manasseh,  Josiah,  or  Jehoiakim,  but  is  that  of  a  cosmopolite 
Hebrew,  like  Paul.  One  might  believe  that  he  lived  among 
the  northern  colonies  and  had  suffered  famine  from  the  Chal- 
dee  inroad1. 

Jeremiah's  prophecies  began  to  be  delivered  a  few  years 
after  the  Scythians  first  appeared  in  Media;  but  they  were 
not  committed  to  writing,  in  their  final  form,  until  Jerusalem 
had  been  carried  captive  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah,  as 
the  book  states  on  its  front3.  It  is  too  monotonous  in  its 
colouring  to  be  of  service  for  distinguishing  the  moral  aspects 
of  different  periods  in  his  long  career ;  yet  it  is  of  value  for 
the  general  picture  of  the  times. 

Small  as  was  the  influence  of  Jeremiah  in  his  own  town  of 
Anathoth,  where  his  extreme  youth  would  make  him  unper- 
suasive  to  his  neighbours,  it  was  nevertheless  probably  a  valu- 
able aid  to  the  rising  school  of  reformers,  that  two  such  pro- 
phets as  Zephaniah  and  Jeremiah  denounced  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah  the  prevailing  idolatries.  Many  persons  still  retained 
a  high  veneration  for  the  prophetical  character,  and  the  tra- 
ditions of  Isaiah  and  Sennacherib  must  have  been  alive  in 
every  memory.  There  was  also  a  prophetess  named  Hildah, 
who  gave  her  whole  influence  to  the  cause  of  Jehovah ;  and 
thus  strengthened,  Hilkiah  at  last  moved  in  the  cause  of  reli- 
gious reform  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  when  the  king 
was  about  twenty-six  years  old.  Either  at  his  own  thought, 
or  at  the  suggestion  of  Shaphan  the  scribe,  Josiah  sent  orders 
to  Hilkiah  to  count  out  the  moneys  contributed  to  the  temple, 
and  apply  the  sum  to  execute  necessary  repairs.  Shaphan 
returned,  announcing  that  Hilkiah  had  obeyed  the  king's 
word,  and  had  also  delivered  to  him  a  book, — the  book  of  the 
Law,  which  he  had  found  in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  scribe 
read  the  book  to  the  king,  who,  on  hearing  it,  rent  his  clothes 

1  Hab.  iii.  17,  18. 

2  Jer.  i.  3.    See  also  xxxvi.    Jeremiah  was  son  of  Hilkiah,  a  priest  of  Anathoth, 
whom  some  take  to  be  Hilkiah  the  high  priest.     This  is  denied  by  others,  on 
the  ground  that  the  latter,  being  of  the  line  of  Zadok,  cannot  have  had  lands 
at  Anathoth,  which  was  the  patrimony  of  the  sons  of  Abiathar  alone.     Nei- 
ther fact  alleged  is  clear  :  yet  on  the  whole  it  seems  probable  that  Jeremiah 
would  have  entitled  himself  "  son  of  Hilkiah  the  high  priest,"  if  that  had  been 
true. 


294  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

with  grief  and  terror.  Hereupon  he  commissioned  Hilkiah, 
with  four  others,  "  to  inquire  of  Jehovah  concerning  the 
book/'  which  was  evidently  quite  unknown  to  him.  What 
was  the  mode  of  inquiry  which  the  king  wished,  or  what  ques- 
tions were  to  be  asked,  is  not  indicated :  the  commissioners 
however  proceeded  to  the  prophetess  Hildah  and  "  communed 
with  her."  They  do  not  appear  to  have  asked  her  the  first 
grand  point,  and  the  only  one  of  importance  to  us :  "  what 
was  the  age  of  the  book,  and  who  wrote  or  compiled  it  ? "  nor 
need  we  charge  her  with  evasion,  that  she  does  not  touch 
on  such  matters.  Her  reply  in  fact  is  a  mere  echo  of  the 
threats  of  the  law :  "  Jehovah  will  bring  evil  on  this  place 
and  upon  its  inhabitants,  according  to  the  words  of  this 
book,"  etc. 

The  king  was  exceedingly  affected,  at  learning  for  the  first 
time   that   idolatry  was  a  sin  which  Jehovah  threatened  to 
punish  by  his  severest  anger.     He  forthwith  summoned  the 
elders  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and   having  made  a  great 
assembly  in  the  temple1,  read  aloud  to  them  "  the  words  of 
the  book  of  the  covenant  which  was  found  in  the  house  of 
Jehovah."     After  this,  he  himself  took  a  public  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  Jehovah,  to  abide  by  the  covenant  of  the  book ;  and 
was  followed  herein  by  all  who  were  present.    Then  the  vessels 
made  to  Baal,  Astarte,  and  the  host  of  heaven,  and  the  image 
of  Astarte  herself,  were  brought  forth  out  of  the  temple  and 
destroyed.     The  houses  of  the  impure  votaries  of  Astarte  at 
the  side  of  the  temple  were  pulled  down.     The  horses  dedi- 
cated to  the  Sun,  which  were  set  up  at  the  entrance  of  the 
temple,  with  the  chariots  of  the  sun,  met  a  like  fate ;  so  too 
did  the  idolatrous  altars,  especially  those  erected  by  Manasseh 
in  the  two  courts  of  the    temple.     The  high  places  before 
Jerusalem,  which   Solomon  had  built  for  Astarte,  Chemosh 
arid  Molech,  (mere  ruins  probably,)  were  defiled  by  approved 
ceremonies;  as  also  was  Tophet,  in  the  valley  of  Beni-Hin- 
nom,  so  as  to  spoil  the  virtue  of  sacrificing  a  child  to  Molech. 
Everywhere  he  sent  round  to  overthrow  altars,  images  and  sanc- 
tuaries of  every  kind,  whether  nominally  dedicated  to  Jehovah's 
worship,  or  avowedly  to  a  foreign  god.     The  groves  were  cut 
down,  and  men's  bones  strewed  upon  their  site.     After  this, 
of  course  the  priests  were  removed  who  worshipped  Jehovah 

1  The  temple  itself  would  not  hold  a  very  large  congregation :  but  the  court 
of  the  temple  may  be  intended. 


295 

idolatrously  at  the  high  places ;  for  idolatry  was  now  under- 
stood to  attach  to  the  use  of  images,,  even  though  Jehovah 
was  the  object :  much  more  were  the  votaries  of  foreign  reli- 
gion put  down.  But  the  zeal  of  Josiah  or  his  ministers 
reached  beyond  the  limits  of  Judaea ;  he  overthrew  the  altar 
and  high  place  at  Bethel  and  polluted  them,  as  also  the  build- 
ings attached  to  the  high  places  in  the  cities  of  Samaria.  Here 
also  was  his  only  recorded  cruelty  committed:  he  slew  the 
Samaritan  priests  upon  their  own  altars,  and  burned  men's 
bones  upon  them :  which  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  nothing 
of  the  kind  is  implied  against  the  perpetrators  of  at  least 
equal  superstitions  in  Judaea.  Of  course  every  kind  of  en- 
chantment and  necromancy,  together  with  idolatry  in  every 
shape,  was  forbidden;  and  after  such  cleansing  of  the  land, 
preparation  was  made  for  a  general  keeping  of  the  Passover. 
The  statement  concerning  this  which  we  read  in  the  book  of 
Kings  by  implication  admits  that  this  festival  had  never  before 
been  rightly1  performed,  as  far  back  as  history  or  tradition 
could  reach  : — "  Surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  Passover 
from  the  days  of  the  judges  that  judged  Israel,  nor  in  all  the 
days  of  the  kings  of  Israel  nor  of  the  kings  of  Judah**" 

The  very  remarkable  narrative,  of  which  an  abstract  has 
been  just  presented,  affords  material  for  much  rumination,  and 
is  indeed  of  extreme  importance.  A  majority  of  modern  rea- 
soners  are  accustomed  to  ignore  it,  and  speak  as  if  our  Penta- 
teuch had  been  in  the  hands  of  a  reading  public  from  time 
immemorial,  without  any  chasm  between  Samuel  and  Ezra. 
Others  choose  to  assume  that  Manasseh  had  persecuted  this 
sacred  book,  and  that  through  his  violence  it  had  disappeared ; 
but  that  under  Hezekiah  it  had  been  as  familiarly  known  as 
in  later  times.  But  this  assumption  is  untenable  in  fact,  and 
wants  internal  coherence.  We  cannot  imagine  that  Manasseh 
had  been  guilty  of  so  grave  an  offence,  when  it  has  not  been 
charged  upon  him ;  an  offence,  which  is  of  so  new  and  pecu- 
liar a  kind,  that  it  must  have  drawn  emphatic  notice.  But 

1  By  rightly,  I  of  course  mean  "  according  to  that  which  the  later  Levites 
regarded  as  right."     One  of  my  critics  has  taken  strange  offence  at  the  word, 
though  his  Chronicler  speaks  far  more  decidedly  concerning  old  neglects,  2 
Chron.  xxix.  6,  7,  34 ;  xxx.  3,  17,  18.     The  zeal  with  which  the  Chronicler  re- 
counts the  killing,  flaying,  dabbling  in  blood  and  fat,  roasting,  seething  in  pans, 
caldrons,  pots,  etc.,  under  Josiah,  is  quite  worthy  of  old  Homer: — 2  Chron, 
xxxv.  9-14. 

2  2  Kings,  xxiii.  22. 


296  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

again,  granting  that  he  did  so  act,  it  is  certain  that  he  must 
have  failed,  if  the  book  had  been  for  so  many  centuries  the  law 
of  the  nation.  Numerous  copies  of  it  must  have  been  in  the 
priests'  hands.  It  must  have  been  well  known  to  the  Egyp- 
tian colonies  of  Jews,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Israelites  in  As- 
syria, whom  Manasseh's  power  could  not  reach ;  and  immedi- 
ately on  Josiah's  accession,  the  book  would  have  re-appeared 
in  Judaea.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for  it  is  evident  in  the  narrative, 
not  only  that  it  was  lost,  but  that  no  one  had  missed  it.  No 
nation,  while  unconquered,  ever  yet  lost  the  sacred  books  of 
its  religion1,  and  forgot  their  existence  :  much  less  is  that  pos- 
sible, if  the  same  books  contain  the  practical  code  of  civil  and 
criminal  law :  to  allege  a  discovery  is  to  confess  an  invention. 
Moreover,  the  persevering  and  gross  neglect  of  the  plainest 
precepts  of  our  modern  Pentateuch,  not  merely  by  the  less 
religious,  but  by  the  most  applauded  kings,  is  another  mark 
that  they  knew  no  more  of  it,  than  young  Josiah  till  the 
eighteenth  year  of  his  reign.  The  continuance  of  the  high 
places,  which  drew  after  it  the  breach  of  so  many  other  pre- 
cepts of  the  law,  is  an  eminent  instance ;  but  we  may  add,  so 
is  the  neglect  of  the  sabbatical  year.  According  to  Jeremiah's 
computation2,  for  four  hundred  and  ninety  years  this  institu- 
tion had  been  violated ;  which  is  a  confession  that  it  had  never 
been  observed  during  the  whole  period  of  the  monarchy.  It 
is  true  that  this  may  have  been  a  mere  theory,  directed  to  ve- 
rify a  text  of  Leviticus3 ;  but  the  theory  could  not  have  been 
held  at  all,  unless  the  neglect  had  been  notoriously  inveterate. 
There  is  a  passage  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  here  very 
applicable.  Every  king  is  commanded,  upon  his  first  acces- 
sion to  the  throne,  to  write  out  for  himself  a  copy  of  the  law 
from  that  which  is  kept  by  "  the  priests  the  Levites."  Now 
it  is  evident,  that  if  this  had  been  done  by  those  who  are 
called  the  pious  kings, — by  Hezekiah,  Jotham,  Uzziah,  Ama- 
ziah ;  by  the  priest  Jehoiada,  by  Jehoshaphat,  Asa,  Solomon, 
David; — by  so  moderate  intervals  do  they  follow,  that  the 
book  could  never  have  been  lost,  much  less  forgotten  :  and  if  a 
king  neglected  this  duty,  were  there  not  prophets  bold  enough 

1  One  of  my  reviewers  refers  me  to  the  Lutheran  resurrection  of  the  Bible 
as  a  parallel  case ;  as  if  the  Bible  had  been  lost  before  Luther ;  or  as  if  the 
Bible  contained  the  civil  law !     To  have  recourse  to  such  an  argument  simply 
indicates  a  desperate  cause. 

2  2  Chron,  xxxvi.  21.  3  Chap.  xxvi.  34. 


RECENCY    OF    DEUTERONOMY,  29? 

to  remonstrate  ?  The  solution  is  simple  and  clear ;  the  com- 
mand was  unknown  alike  to  prophet,  priest  and  king. 

But  this  leads  us  to  mention  some  special  grounds  against 
the  antiquity  of  this  last  book  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  it,  Moses 
foresees  the  contingency  of  his  people's  desiring  a  king,  and 
does  not  condemn  or  reprove  it,  but  seeks  to  regulate  it : — 
"When  thou  art  come  into  the  land  which  Jehovah  giveth 
thee,  and  shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  king  over  me,  like  as  all  the 
nations  that  are  about  me," — (the  very  words  imputed  to  them 
in  the  history1,) — "thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over 
thee,  whom  Jehovah  shall  choose2 :"  that  is,  they  were  to  allow 
the  priests  or  prophets  to  elect  the  king,  and  all  would  be 
right.  Now  it  is  morally  certain,  that  the  prophet  Samuel 
had  never  seen  this  law ;  and  that,  if  our  narrative  is  correct, 
Jehovah  never  dictated  it :  for  when  the  case  occurred,  Jeho- 
vah said  to  Samuel,  "  the  people  have  rejected  me,  that  I  should 
not  reign  over  them3."  In  the  same  words  this  prophet  ad- 
dressed the  people,  "  Ye  have  this  day  rejected  your  God4." 
But  how  so  ?  in  doing  that  which  he  distinctly  permits  them 
to  do?  which  he  foresees  without  expressing  displeasure? 
which  in  fine  he  orders  to  be  done  under  the  superintendence 
of  his  ministers? 

The  -remark  has  already  been  made,  that  the  prophets  of 
Israel,  who  stimulated  to  the  massacre  of  innocent  royal  chil- 
dren for  the  fault  of  their  parents,  were  ignorant  of  that  hu- 
mane precept  in  Deuteronomy,  "  The  children  shall  not  die 
for  the  fathers,  but  every  man  shall  die  for  his  own  sin5." 

One  out  of  many  indications  that  Deuteronomy  is  more 
recent  than  the  other  books  is  seen  in  contrasting  the  men- 
tion of  LEVI  in  what  is  called  Jacob's  blessing  and  in  that  of 
Moses6.  Jacob  in  fact  does  not  bless  but  curse,  and  involves 
Levi  in  a  common  lot  with  Simeon. 

Simeon  and  Levi  are  brethren  : 

Instruments  of  cruelty  are  in  their  habitations. 

O  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  secret : 

Unto  their  assembly,  my  heart,  be  not  thou  united : 

For  in  their  anger  they  slew  a  man, 

And  in  then*  self-will  they  digged  down  a  wall. 

1  1  Sam.  viii.  5.  4  1  Sam.  x.  19. 

2  Deut.  xvii.  14,  15.  5  Deut.  xxiv.  16. 

3  1  Sam.  viii.  7.  6  Gren.  xlix.  5-7 ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  8. 

o3 


298  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Cursed  be  their  anger,  for  it  was  fierce  ; 
And  their  wrath,  for  it  was  cruel ; 
I  will  divide  them  in  Jacob, 
And  I  will  scatter  them  in  Israel. 

But  what  says  Deuteronomy  ?     Simeon  is  not  mentioned  at 
all;  but, 

Of  LEVI  he  said  : 

Thy  Thummin  and  thy  Urim  are  with  thy  Holy  one, 
Whom  thou  didst  prove  at  Massah, 
With  whom  thou  didst  strive  at  Meribah : 
Who  says  of  his  father  and  mother,  I  saw  him  not ; 
Nor  acknowledges  his  brethren,  nor  knows  his  children. 
For  they  observed  thy  word,  and  kept  thy  covenant. 
They  shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments •, 
And  Israel  thy  Law. 
They  shall  put  incense  before  thee, 
And  whole  burnt  sacrifice  upon  thy  altar1. 
Bless,  O  Jehovah,  his  might ; 
Accept  the  work  of  his  hands ; 
Smite  through  the  loins  of  his  adversaries, 
And  of  his  haters,  that  they  rise  not  again. 

This  diversity  cannot  have  proceeded  from  the  Divine 
Spirit.  Both  prophecies  treat  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  not  of 
Levi  personally,  and  declare  the  fortunes  of  that  tribe  in  the 
land  of  Israel.  The  purpose  of  God  was  the  same,  and  his 
foresight  as  clear,  when  Jacob  was  on  his  death-bed,  as  when 
Moses  was  about  to  ascend  Pisgah.  It  remains,  that  the 
former  song  was  composed  when  Levi  was  merely  scattered 
in  Israel,  without  any  of  the  dignity  derived  from  organized 
priesthood ;  and  the  latter  after  the  last  remains  of  the  tribe 
of  Simeon  had  vanished  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah. 

Deuteronomy,  though  more  Levitical  than  the  preceding 
books,  has  also  a  higher  spirituality,  and  implies  a  more  ad- 
vanced stage  of  religious  thought.  Its  very  excellencies  are 
cumulative  evidence,  that  it  is  not  from  the  same  pen  as  Exo- 
dus and  Numbers.  Numerous  other  discrepancies  and  con- 

1  In  the  whole  book  of  Deuteronomy  there  is  not  a  line  whereby  it  could  be 
learnt  that  a  Levite  was  not  equal  to  an  Aaronite,  for  all  purposes  of  sacrifice, 
etc.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Korah  the  Levite 
(whose  sin  consisted  in  pretending  equality  to  the  race  of  Aaron),  Deut.  xi.  6. 
Many  phenomena  suggest  the  hypothesis,  that  the  religious  revolution  of  which 
the  external  mark  was  the  suppression  of  the  local  sanctuaries,  was  really  the 
triumph  of  the  Levitical  over  the  older  Aaronite  party. 


PECULIARITIES    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  299 

trasts  in  detail  might  be  pointed  out,  but  that  belongs  to  a 
special  treatise.  Many  of  them  are  explained  away  by  those 
who  have  a  hypothesis  to  maintain ;  but  if  Moses  had  been 
no  more  to  us  than  Mohammed,  no  well-informed  mind  would 
now  doubt  the  diverse  origin  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 
Even  the  English  reader  will  notice  the  long  roll  of  its  sen- 
tences, and  the  same  rhetorical  fulness  as  characterizes  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  having  something  of  the  fluency  of  the 
former  and  of  the  formality  of  the  latter.  It  has  peculiar  col- 
lections of  words,  noticeable  even  in  a  translation,  such  as 
"  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee;"  "the  priests 
the  Levites;" — and  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  best 
Hebraists1,  its  whole  colour  and  composition  fixes  its  origin 
to  the  reign  of  Josiah. 

No  Hebrew  lore  is  needed  to  show  us  the  absurdity  of  sup- 
posing that  Moses  wrote  the  account  of  his  own  death  and 
burial,  and  the  closing  summary,  that  "  there  arose  not  a  pro- 
phet since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses."  It  is  impossible  to  say, 
that  a  book  which  contains  such  a  passage,  professes  to  be 
from  the  pen  of  Moses,  or  that  the  man  who  wrote  the  book 
"  is  an  impostor,  unless  he  was  Moses  himself."  To  cut  off  this 
chapter  arbitrarily,  and  then  pretend  certainly  that  the  rest 
is  from. Moses,  is  simple  wilfulness.  There  is  no  appreciable 
diversity  in  style,  and  no  difference  in  the  channels  of  transmis- 
sion, between  the  first  chapter  of  the  book,  and  the  last :  and 
if  the  last  cannot  be  admitted  as  Mosaic,  we  must  assume  the 
whole  to  be  of  later  origin,  until  the  contrary  is  strictly  proved. 
Nevertheless,  it  concerns  us  little  to  be  able  to  ascertain 
minutely  the  time  and  mode  of  composition,  or  to  answer  all 
possible  objections;  plainly,  because  a  thousand  things  in  the 
history  of  the  past  can  never  be  explained,  when  no  historical 
account  has  come  down  to  us.  That  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy was  composed  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  can  perhaps  be  no 

1  There  are  respectableHebrew  scholars  (not  first-rate)  who  entirely  deny  the 
fact.  We  need  not  impute  it  to  any  deficient  sensibility  in  their  acquaintance 
with  the  language  ;  for  there  are  perverse  modes  of  putting  the  argument,  by 
which  an  Englishman  may  maintain  that  Hume's  History  might  have  been 
written  by  Lord  Clarendon,  or  Macaulay's  Essays  by  Addison.  The  question 
however  is  not  whether  such  things  are  possible,  but  whether  the  evidence  of 
the  style  does  not  make  it  improbable. 

In  fact,  the  discrepancy  is  so  great  even  in  the  English,  that  on  hearing  a 
passage  of  the  Pentateuch  read  aloud,  one  can  almost  always  discern,  by  the 
form  of  the  sentences  and  marked  phraseology,  whether  it  comes  from  Deutero- 
nomy or  not ;  while  there  is  no  such  diversity  between  the  other  books. 


300  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

more  proved  positively,  that  in  what  century  the  Iliad  was 
written.  We  must  be  contented  with  probabilities,  or,  if  they 
fail,  with  total  ignorance. 

Nevertheless,  it  seems  impossible  to  adopt  the  theory  that 
Deuteronomy,  as  opposed  to  the  other  books,  alone  came  to 
light  by  Hilkiah's  finding.  There  is  nothing  so  peculiar  in  it 
to  harrow  up  the  king's  mind,  which  can  account  for  the  facts 
recorded.  Its  twenty-eighth  chapter  indeed  is  by  some  re- 
ferred to ;  but  this  says  little  which  is  not  already  contained 
in  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Leviticus:  and  although  the 
whole  tone  of  Deuteronomy,  as  regards  the  Levites,  distin- 
guishes it  from  the  former  books,  yet  there  are  no  duties  to- 
wards the  Levites  in  it  so  new,  that  Josiah  can  have  thought 
he  was  fulfilling  the  law,  as  read  in  Exodus,  Leviticus  and 
Numbers,  and  then  have  found  himself  condemned  by  Deute- 
ronomy. In  fact,  the  course  of  conduct  to  which  he  is  pri- 
marily impelled  is  the  extirpation  of  foreign  idolatry ;  against 
which  the  earlier  books  are  equally  decided  and  severe  as  the 
last.  It  seems  indisputable,  that  if  Josiah  upheld  the  rites  of 
Baal  and  Molech,  and  left  a  graven  image  of  Astarte  in  Jeho- 
vah's house,  and  while  acquainted  with  Exodus,  repented  not ; 
neither  would  he  have  repented,  when  Deuteronomy  rose  from 
the  dead. 

The  four  first  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  to  be  regarded 
as  a  growth,  not  as  a  composition.  Exodus,  Leviticus  and 
Numbers  did  not  now  begin  to  exist,  but  now  received  their 
final  shape,  and  their  public  recognition  in  that  shape.  That 
general  agreement  as  to  their  history  is  not  yet  attained,  is 
no  ground  for  doubting  the  broad  fact,  visible  on  very  cur- 
sory examination,  that  they,  with  Genesis,  are  piecemeal  works, 
made  up  out  of  pre-existing  fragments,  many  of  which  are 
duplicate1  accounts  of  similar  events  or  laws,  and  often  mu- 

1  The  duplicates  are  sometimes  so  clear  that  no  unbiassed  mind  can  help 
seeing  them,  as  in  the  story  of  a  wife  passed  off  as  a  sister,  twice  by  Abraham 
and  once  by  Isaac.  So  of  the  duplicate  account  of  the  Creation  and  of  the  origin 
of  circumcision ;  of  the  name  Isaac ;  of  the  names  Israel,  Bethel  and  Beer- 
sheba ;  and  of  the  revelation  of  Jehovah's  name.  Less  observed  are,  the  two- 
fold miracle  of  the  quails  (the  latter  implying  ignorance  of  the  former) ;  the 
double  description  of  the  manna ;  the  double  appointment  or  appearance  of 
elders  of  the  congregation  ;  water  twice  brought  out  of  the  rock,  with  a  twofold 
bestowal  of  the  name  Meribah ;  the  duplicate  narrative  of  Aaron's  death  (Deu- 
teronomy making  him  die  before  he  reaches  Meribah  Kadesh) ;  the  twofold  ac- 
count of  the  hostilities  of  Amalek  and  the  curse  upon  him  ;  the  double  promise 
of  a  Guardian  Angel ;  double  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  j  double  (or 


THE    PENTATEUCH    A    GRADUAL    GROWTH.  301 

tually  inconsistent.  Indeed,  commentators  most  zealous  for 
the  Mosaic  origin  and  divine  authority  of  the  Pentateuch,, 
freely  confess  that  it  has  received  many  smaller  alterations 
and  additions  in  later  times,  which  they  generally  assume 
Ezra  to  have  made  by  divine  injunction. 

Finally,  the  high  pretensions  made  for  the  Pentateuch  are 
disproved  by  a  topic  which  cannot  be  plainly  stated  without 
extreme  offence,  yet  which  it  would  be  cowardice  on  that  ac- 
count to  suppress.  Its  prophecies  indicate  a  marked  acquain- 
tance with  events  which  preceded  Josiah,  but  nothing  at  all 
clear  which  needs  to  be  referred  to  later  times.  The  book  is 
familiar  with  the  tribes  of  Israel  and  their  distribution ;  with 
the  qualities  which  characterized  Judah  and  Ephraim,  Reuben 
or  Zebulon.  It  knows  well  the  extent  of  David  and  Solo- 
mon's empire ;  the  conquest  of  Edom  and  its  final  liberation  ; 
the  fortunes  of  the  Ishmaelites,  and  the  desart  over  which 
they  roved.  It  knows  even  the  numerous  wives  of  Solomon, 
his  wealth,  and  his  importing  of  horses  from  Egypt.  It  fore- 
sees the  horrible  fact  of  a  woman  devouring  her  child  in  a 
siege1,  as  in  that  of  Samaria  by  Benhadad ;  also  the  scatter- 
ing of  Israel .  by  piracy  and  by  invasion  into  many  distant 
lands.  It  predicts  not  only  the  vanishing  of  Amalek  from 
among:  the  names  of  nations,  but  the  wide-spread  power 
of  Assyria,  which  shall  carry  the  Kenites  into  captivity. 
Nay,  it  is  acquainted  with  the  Cyprian  force  which  attacked 
Esarhaddon  from  the  Cilician  coast,  and  perhaps  also  de- 
clares the  final  ruin  of  Assyria2.  But  the  Chaldees  are  not 
named  as  a  conquering  nation;  nor  had  they  yet  become 
formidable  to  Judaea  when  the  book  at  length  came  out. 
Knowledge  thus  limited  to  the  sera  which  preceded  its  publi- 
cation3, cannot  be  imputed  to  a  divine  prescience,  nor  yet  to 
accident. 

threefold  ?)  copy  of  the  Decalogue ;  and  others  that  need  not  here  be  stated.  If 
some  of  these  may  have  been  real  repetitions,  no  one  will  ever  make  it  probable 
that  that  can  have  been  the  case  with  more  than  a  few.  Several  of  the  dupli- 
cates are  contrasted  by  the  names  Jehovah  and  Elohim. 

1  Whether  this,  reported  as  fact  in  2  Kings,  vi.  26-29,  be  history  or  legend, 
is  in  this  connexion  unimportant.     It  suffices  that  it  was  believed  in  Josiah's 
day. 

2  Numb.  xxiv.  20,  22,  24. 

3  The  return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  is  not  announced  in  any  terms  which 
imply  prescience  of  that  event.     There  is  nothing  but  a  conditional  promise  of 
restoration,  if  they  repent,  in  words  applicable  to  Jews  in  Assyria  or  Egypt  as 
much  as  in  Babylon,  and  as  valid  in  the  present  day  as  at  any  earlier  time. 


302  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Whether  there  was,  or  was  not,  imposture  in  these  transac- 
tions, is  a  question,  on  which  there  are,  and  will  be,  differences 
of  opinion,  even  among  those  who  are  alike  convinced  that  the 
Pentateuch  in  its  modern  form  is  later  than  Hezekiah.  It  is 
far  from  my  intention  to  impute  deliberate  and  conscious  fraud 
to  the  composers  of  any  of  these  books.  Such  an  imputation 
appears  to  me  every  way  gratuitous,  and  involving  new  and 
needless  difficulties.  Enthusiasm,  inaccuracy,  and  a  belief  in 
dreams,  appear  amply  to  account  for  the  growth  of  the  nar- 
ratives, which  incorporated  with  themselves  the  conceptions 
and  belief  of  the  day,  or  of  the  school.  At  the  same  time,  I 
confess,  I  cannot  myself  shake  off  the  belief  that  here,  as  in  so 
many1  other  instances,  the  enthusiasm  of  many  was  assisted 
and  heightened  by  the  fraud  of  a  few ;  and  though  no  one  can 
say  who  were  the  fraudulent,  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  seem  the 
names  most  open  to  the  charge. 

In  regard  to  this  topic,  a  majority  of  reasoners  start  with 
the  very  unfounded  assumption,  that  Hilkiah  and  others  must 
necessarily  have  been  truthful  in  the  highest  and  noblest 
sense ;  in  a  sense  so  lofty,  that  of  those  Christian  bishops  and 
statesmen,  whose  names  are  prominent  in  history,  but  a  small 
fraction  has  attained  the  standard.  To  choose  and  devotedly 
pursue  a  purely  good  end,  is  a  high  and  rare  thing  in  those 
who  stand  at  the  head  of  nations :  to  pursue  that  end  by  none 
but  purely  good  means,  is  a  still  rarer  virtue,  even  in  Chris- 
tendom, in  free  England,  under  the  light  of  publicity,  and  with 
the  fear  of  exposure.  Of  the  priests  in  Josiah's  day,  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah  declares :  if  The  prophets  prophesy  falsely,  and 
the  priests  bear  rule  by  their  means ;"  in  fact,  his  whole  pro- 
phecy is  one  long  invective  against  them :  yet  modern  com- 
mentators who  profess  to  believe  that  writer,  treat  it  as  absurd, 
profane,  and  malevolent,  to  abide  by  his  word,  except  as  a  dead 
letter.  Of  Hilkiah' s  moral  worth  we  know  absolutely  nothing, 
much  less  have  we  any  proof  that  his  veracity  was  more  sen- 

The  allusions  to  the  captivity  or  dispersion  apply  better  to  the  earlier  one  of 
Assyria  and  Egypt  than  to  that  of  Babylon  or  Rome ;  for  it  says,  "  there  shall 
ye  serve  other  gods,  wood  and  stone."  This  we  know  by  Jer.  xliv.  8  to  have 
been  true  of  them  in  Egypt,  and  it  was  probably  true  of  them  in  Assyria,  but 
certainly  not  in  later  times,  to  which  most  persons  refer  Deut.  xxviii, 

1  The  British  Quarterly  reviewer  triumphantly  asks  me,  to  tell  him  of  "  any 
nation  that  was  ever  revolutionized  by  the  fabrication  of  a  ritual."  I  suppose 
he  regards  the  Book  of  MORMON  as  a  fabrication.  It  has  produced  a  vastly 
greater  revolution  than  Josiah's  Pentateuch,  which  introduced  no  new  religion, 
but  only  gave  new  sanctions  to  an  old  one. 


UNCRITICAL    PROCEEDINGS.  303 

sitive  than  that  of  a  Chrysostom  or  a  Justin  Martyr,  with 
whom  Sybilline  or  other  "pious  frauds,"  which  helped  a 
Christian  advocate,  certainly  met  with  no  reproof. — What  is 
more ;  neither  do  we  know,  what  was  the  total  amount  of  re- 
sponsibility definitely  assumed  by  Hilkiah,  or  by  any  one  else ; 
nor,  in  our  total  ignorance  of  the  men,  is  it  rational  to  found 
any  conclusions  on  personal  character.  Our  sole  considera- 
tion is  with  the  book  and  the  history.  If  the  evidence  turns 
against  it,  then,  even  did  it  assume  such  a  shape  as  to  indicate 
the  grossest  conscious  fraud  in  Hilkiah,  we  should  merely 
have  to  adapt  our  view  of  his  morality  to  such  a  state  of  the 
argument.  In  no  case  can  any  support  whatever  to  the  ge- 
nuineness and  antiquity  of  the  book  be  found  by  declamation 
about  the  impossibility  of  Jewish  priests  and  Levites  perpe- 
trating a  fraud. 

To  recapitulate  this  whole  event :  the  four  books  could  not 
have  been  lost  during  Manasseh's  reign,  if  they  had  in  the  pre- 
ceding centuries  been  the  public  and  avowed  national  law ; — 
the  narrative  is  not  satisfied  by  supposing  Deuteronomy  alone 
to  have  been  then  first  made  authoritative ;  and  the  mortifi- 
cation to  our  prepossessions  which  that  hypothesis  brings  on 
is  as  great  as  that  of  the  more  obvious  interpretation.  We 
farther  jind  that  Josiah  entered  into  no  investigation  whether 
the  documents  presented  to  him  by  Hilkiah  were  genuine  and 
authentic,  but  adopted  them  under  a  crisis  of  religious  fervour, 
through  the  impression  which  the  threats  of  the  book  made 
upon  his  feelings ;  that  the  prophetess  Hildah,  who  was  con- 
sulted, forbore  to  moot  any  question  about  human  authenticity, 
yet  was  supposed  by  her  reply  to  decide  all  that  was  requisite 
to  be  known.  And  here  is  the  kernel  of  the  matter.  Early 
Christian  Fathers  believed  the  law  of  Moses  to  have  been 
destroyed  and  lost  in  the  Babylonian  captivity,  yet  to  have 
been  re-written  by  Ezra  under  divine  inspiration.  This  did  not 
startle  their  imagination  or  embarrass  their  faith.  Just  so, 
with  the  religious  men  of  Josiah's  day  the  question  was,  not1 
whether  the  pen  of  Moses  wrote,  but  whether  the  voice  of 
Jehovah  guaranteed  the  book;  and  the  latter  point  they 
settled  by  methods  unknown  to  us,  but  satisfactory  to  them- 
selves. Such  topics  as  "  genuineness  and  authenticity  "  never 
dawn  on  the  minds  of  spiritual  persons,  except  where  a  litera- 

1  My  North  British  critic  (No.  35)  tells  his  readers  that  I  say,  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  "was  palmed  on  the  young  king  a*  the  autograph  of  Moses"  p.  145. 


304  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ture  exists  which  is  beyond  the  cognizance  of  the  national 
religion.  Had  not  a  Vico  and  a  Bentley  gone  first,  a  Geddes, 
an  Eichhorn  and  a  Gesenius  would  not  have  appeared  in 
modern  times. 

If  it  be  thought  that  many  a  shrewd  worldly  man,  when 
the  excitement  of  the  time  was  past,  would  have  discerned  the 
whole  proceeding  to  be  an  imposture ;  it  must  be  remembered 
that  public  opposition  was  unsafe ;  it  would  have  been  ascribed 
to  sympathy  with  idolaters ;  and  the  slaughter  of  the  Sama- 
ritan priests  was  a  broad  and  unmistakeable  warning  to  adver- 
saries1. It  does  not  appear  that  the  law  was  even  now  pub- 
lished :  certainly  it  was  not  statedly  read  aloud  to  the  people 
until  the  institution  of  synagogues  under  Ezra.  That  the  pro- 
phets had  access  to  it,  is  soon  manifest  in  the  numerous  imi- 
tations of  its  phraseology,  as  in  Jeremiah ;  but  if  it  had  been 
widely  diffused, — if,  for  instance,  it  had  found  its  way  to 
Egypt, — it  is  difficult  to  think  that  the  story  of  its  being  lost 
under  Nebuchadnezzar  could  have  arisen.  Even  if  it  had  been 
publicly  exposed  to  the  cavils  of  objectors,  we  could  not  now 
expect  any  record  of  their  criticism,  which  is  likely  to  have 
dealt  in  sarcasm  and  vituperation,  but  to  have  been  destitute 
of  argument,  against  that  which  did  not  pretend  to  rest  on  ar- 
gument. That  bold  unbelief  did  exist,  and  perhaps  abound, 
the  prophets  assure  us. 

When  this  great  external  reform  had  taken  place,  Josiah 
appeared  to  be  at  the  height  of  Jewish  glory.  His  nominal 
sway  extended  over  Israel  and  Judah  from  Dan  to  Beersheba. 
It  was  easy  and  even  natural  to  ascribe  this  to  his  piety,  and 
fondly  to  imagine  that  the  reign  of  Solomon  was  about  to  re- 
turn in  greater  purity.  At  this  time  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  beautiful  seventy-second  Psalm  was  composed  in  his 
honour,  which  even  in  ancient  times  was  mistaken  for  a  last 
prayer  of  David  over  Solomon.  The  Psalmist  anticipates  that 
the  reign  of  the  king  (or  of  the  king's  son3)  shall  be  extended 

1  The  c  British  Quarterly'  is  greatly  shocked,  and  says,  that  I  hold  this  to 
have  been  a  massacre  and  a  sanguinary  juggle.     If  he  denied  the  fact  of  the 
slaughter,  he  might  have  a  right  so  to  speak,  though  he  would  not  use  such  lan- 
guage about  Cranmer's  burning  Anne  Boucher.    But  I  feel  it  rather  odd,  to  be 
made  guilty  by  a  Protestant  writer,  because  I  cannot  approve  of  slaying  men 
for  an  idolatry  with  which  I  have  no  sympathy. 

2  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  king's  son  may  not  be  a  synonym  of  the  king,  as 
legitimate  heir  to  the  immediate  predecessor.     Yet  it  is  quite  in  human  nature 
to  anticipate  such  things  of  a  child ;  as  Virgil  in  his  fourth  Eclogue  concerning 
the  yet  unborn  child  of  Augustus. 


FALSE    PROPHETS    IN    JUDEA.  305 

to  Tarshish  and  to  the  isles;  that  homage  shall  be  paid  by 
the  dwellers  in  the  wilderness,  and  by  the  kings  of  Seba  and 
Sheba;  that  the  righteous  shall  nourish  and  peace  be  per- 
petual. At  last  he  warms  into  words  so  high,  as  appear  to 
transcend  all  other  greatness  than  that  of  the  Anointed  King, 
of  whom  so  many  prophets  had  spoken.  Whether  the  Psalm- 
ist hoped  that  Josiah,  or  the  son  of  Josiah,  was  to  be  he,  can- 
not distinctly  be  asserted :  meanwhile,  to  turn  from  the  ideal 
to  the  actual,  the  state  of  Judaea  was  by  no  means  so  satisfac- 
tory; there  was  in  it,  to  a  discerning  eye,  very  much  to  alarm 
and  little  to  give  solid  assurance. 

Three  successive  violent  revolutions,  under  Hezekiah,  Ma- 
nasseh  and  Josiah,  displacing  the  local  clergy  from  the  whole 
of  Judaea,  or  constraining  them  violently  into  a  new  religious 
course,  must  have  produced  general  effects  much  the  same  as 
the  changes  of  public  religion  enforced  on  England  by  our 
Tudors  and  our  Stuarts.  A  fair  exterior  was  kept  up  by 
Josiah' s  measures;  but  Jeremiah's  writings  prove  that  un- 
belief, indifference  and  profligacy  were  widely  spread.  Al- 
though the  later  king  kept  sedulously  clear  of  Jehu's  ferocity, 
the  prevalent  course  of  Jewish  feeling  from  this  time  is  not 
very  different  from  that  which  we  may  gather  concerning 
Israel.  .Internal  parties  arose,  and  became  peculiarly  danger- 
ous when  theoretical  scepticism  concerning  the  national  faith 
was  superadded  to  the  inclination  for  a  luxurious  or  lascivious 
heathen  ceremonial ;  and  this  was  aggravated  by  the  "  false 
prophets"  who  now  appear,  as  direct  opponents  of  the  true,  in 
Jerusalem  as  under  Ahab  in  Samaria.  We  are  left  greatly  in 
the  dark  as  to  the  very  critical  question, — how  people  knew, 
or  thought  they  knew,  the  true  prophets  from  the  false.  We 
may  however  reasonably  believe  that  men  were  stigmatized 
as  false  prophets  only  by  the  test  which  the  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy1 furnishes ;  namely,  by  comparing  the  prediction  with  the 
event,  when  it  arrived.  It  is  clear  that  the  author  of  that  law 

1  Ch.  xviii.  20-22.  That  no  external  signs  of  a  "  true  prophet  "  were  attain- 
able or  looked  for  is  manifest  through  the  whole  book,  and  is  sarcastically  al- 
luded to  by  Shemaiah,  when  he  glances  at  Jeremiah  by  the  phrase,  "every  man 
that  is  mad  and  makeih  himself  a  prophet,"  Jer.  xxix.  26.  According  to  his 
doctrine,  it  was  for  the  high  priest  to  judge  concerning  true  and  false  prophets. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  even  the  verification  afforded  by  the  event  is  in  another 
place  of  Deuteronomy  not  allowed  to  be  in  itself  an  adequate  test  of  an  in- 
spired prophet.  Even  "  if  the  sign  or  wonder  come  to  pass,"  the  prophet  is  to 
be  stoned  who  persuades  to  idolatry,  Deut.  xiii.  1-5 ;  a  generous  argument,  ill 
applied  to  the  cause  of  persecution. 


306  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

never  contemplated  such  a  thing  as  prophecy  concerning  far- 
distant  ages ;  for  it  is  an  appendix  to  and  illustration  of  the 
command  to  slay  every  false  prophet.  No  reason  appears 
for  doubting  that  the  prophets  Hananiah,  Ahab,  Zedekiah, 
and  Shemaiah  were  as  sincere  as  Jeremiah;  but  their  predic- 
tions about  deliverance  from  Babylon  (aping  those  of  Isaiah 
concerning  Assyria)  turned  out  false.  They  were  possibly 
fanatical  persons,  yet  were  not  the  less  able  to  attract  devout 
belief  from  well-intentioned  Jews.  Thus  did  the  very  religion 
of  Jerusalem  fail  at  length  to  unite  the  people,  partly  because 
it  was  widely  disbelieved,  and  partly  because  the  religious 
body  was  divided  against  itself.  The  national  bonds  having 
become  loosened,  the  progress  of  events  was  precipitated  by 
foreign  politics. 

Once  more  it  is  requisite  for  a  Jewish  historian  to  touch 
on  the  dark  and  disputed  history  of  the  contemporaneous 
neighbour-kings.  The  last  time  we  had  occasion  to  mention 
Egypt,  it  had  fallen  into  civil  commotion,  and  broke  up  at 
length  into  numerous  kingdoms,  or  the  system  called  the 
Dodecarchy  by  the  Greeks.  One  of  the  chief  cities  during 
this  period  was  SAIS,  in  the  marshes ;  and  about  the  middle 
of  the  century  a  king  named  Psammetichus  reigned  there. 
His  position  on  the  coast  threw  him  into  acquaintance  with 
the  Greeks,  and  overcame  his  Egyptian  prejudices.  Perceiv- 
ing the  great  superiority  of  the  Greek  tactics  and  defensive 
armour,  he  took  into  his  service  a  large  mercenary  body  of 
Carians  and  lonians,  and  by  their  aid  subdued  all  his  fellow- 
kings,  so  uniting  all  Egypt  once  more  under  a  single  sceptre. 
Herodotus,  our  best  informant  on  these  events,  is  nevertheless 
not  trustworthy  as  to  the  dates.  Yet  we  may  roughly  com- 
pute the  beginning  of  Psammetichus' s  reign  over  all  Egypt 
from  B.C.  650,  and  regard  the  civil  commotions  and  Dodec- 
archy to  have  lasted  at  least  half  a  century.  This  Psamme- 
tichus is  he,  who  by  presents  and  flattery  averted  the  Scythian 
inroad.  With  him  begins  a  line  of  policy  entirely  new  to 
Egyptian  monarchs,  which  we  can  scarcely  be  wrong  in  ascrib- 
ing to  Greek  influence1.  Hitherto,  Egypt  had  kept  at  home 
as  much  as  possible,  avoiding  maritime  commerce  and  inter- 

1  Finding  themselves  neglected  by  Psammetichus,  a  large  army  of  the  native 
Egyptian  warrior-caste  (240,000  men,  according  to  Herodotus)  migrated  up  the 
Nile  into  Nubia.  This  is  likely  to  have  been  connected  with  the  king's  use  of 
Greek  mercenaries. 


CONTEMPORARY    EGYPTIAN    AFFAIRS.  307 

ference  with  her  neighbours.  Henceforth,  Greeks  are  per- 
manently established  in  Egypt,  as  merchants,  and  as  the  king's 
body-guard.  Tyrians,  Greeks,  and  perhaps  other  strangers, 
are  allowed  to  fortify  factories  on  the  Nile.  The  Egyptians 
become  mingled  in  foreign  affairs,  and  covet  the  harbours  of 
Philistia  and  Phoenicia.  Psammetichus  besieged  Ashdod  (it 
is  said)  for  twenty-eight  years,  and  at  last  captured  it :  we  may 
probably  infer  that  the  nearer  cities  of  Gaza  and  Ascalon  were 
in  his  hands.  His  influence  must  also  have  been  widely  spread 
over  the  nations  south  and  east  of  Judea,  to  judge  by  the  pro- 
jects of  his  son  and  successor  Necho. 

Necho  is  supposed  to  have  ascended  the  throne  B.C.  616, 
and  must  then  have  already  been  past  middle  age.  He  en- 
deavoured to  cut  a  canal  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean; a  measure  which  could  not  have  occurred  to  him, 
unless  the  nautical  commerce  of  Egypt  had  now  become  very 
great.  He  built  triremes,  in  Greek  fashion,  on  both  seas; 
and  sent  down  the  Red  Sea,  to  sail  round  Africa,  a  squadron 
of  Phoenician  vessels,  which  completed  their  circumnavigation 
in  the  third  year.  It  is  conformable  with  the  enterprizing 
spirit  and  power  of  such  a  monarch,  that  he  undertook  to 
avenge  the  cause  of  Egypt  against  Assyria1,  for  the  injuries 
of  a  past  century.  Nineveh  was  already  fallen  as  a  governing 
power ;  and  its  possessions,  whether  in  Syria  or  on  the  Upper 
Euphrates,  seemed  to  lie  open  to  the  first  claimant.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Chronicler,  Necho' s  march  was  directed  definitely 
against  the  town  of  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates ;  but  as  it 
seems  incredible  that  this  can  have  been  his  final  object2, 
and  impossible  for  a  mere  king  of  Egypt  to  keep  such  a  con- 
quest, we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  fertile  and  beautiful 
land  of  Hollow  Syria  was  his  first  and  great  aim3.  The  men- 
tion of  Carchemish  may  have  arisen  from  a  confused  memory 
of  the  renowned  battle  which  took  place  there  a  few  years 

1  The  old  historian  says  that  Necho  was  going  to  attack  the  king  of  Assyria 
at  the  river  Euphrates.    Unless  he  uses  the  phrase  Assyria  vaguely  for  the  Me- 
sopotamian  power,  as  the  Greeks  say  Medes  improperly  for  Persians,  we  might 
infer  that  a  king  still  reigned  in  Nineveh.     Nor  indeed  do  we  distinctly  know 
when  Nineveh  was  taken ;  but  it  was  probably  some  years  before  this.     The 
Chronicler,  prudently  perhaps,  avoids  the  word  Assyria,  and  says,  the  house  with 
which  Necho  was  at  war. 

2  The  town  in  itself  could  not  be  worth  maintaining  even  to  a  king  of  Syria, 
with  the  desart  intervening. 

3  The  same  strife  was  reproduced  between  the  Ptolemies  and  the  Seleucidse. 
Hollow  Syria  was  the  debated  ground. 


308  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

later.  That  Necho  should  seek  to  possess  himself  of  Syria 
was  natural  in  itself,  and  was  connected  with  another  scheme 
of  conquest :  he  coveted  Tyre  and  the  Pho3nician  cities,  which 
his  grandson  soon  after  attacked.  But  by  sea  it  was  hard  to 
become  superior  to  them ;  whereas,  if  once  mistress  of  Syria, 
Egypt  would  soon  establish  her  ascendency  over  Phoenicia 
and  its  harbours.  Such  at  least  is  the  only  plausible  interpre- 
tation which  we  can  give  of  Necho' s  unexpected  enterprize. 

A  king  of  Egypt,  designing  such  a  campaign  and  possessed 
of  a  powerful  marine,  would  hardly  subject  his  troops  to  the 
wearisome  and  expensive  march  through  the  desert  towards 
Philistia;  but  would  transport  them  by  ship  to  the  most 
northern  port  of  Syria,  at  which  he  could  land  without  asking 
leave  of  the  Phoenicians.  The  map  at  once  suggests  that  he 
would  select  the  bay  of  Accho1 ;  and  this  conjecture  on  the 
whole  agrees  best  with  the  account  before  us.  Josiah,  we 
may  presume,  received  the  news  that  an  Egyptian  army  was 
landing  on  the  coast  of  Israel,  the  destination  of  which  was 
doubtful :  nor  is  it  wonderful  that  it  should  have  greatly  dis- 
quieted him.  If  upon  sending  to  Necho,  he  even  received  a 
true  and  distinct  explanation  of  his  designs  (as  appears  to  be 
implied  in  our  account),  this  would  not  reconcile  him  to  the 
expedition;  for  what  would  become  of  the  Jewish  power,  if 
Syria  and  Egypt  both  fell  under  the  same  potentate  who  was 
already  master  of  Philistia?  what  chance  too  had  Josiah  of 
confirming  his  present  uncertain  sway  over  Samaria  and  Ga- 
lilee ?  So  much  for  the  undesirableness  of  Necho' s  success. 
As  to  the  Jewish  king's  ability  to  stop  him,  we  can  ill  judge. 
It  is  possible  that  the  Egyptian  army,  destined  for  a  long 
march,  was  of  picked  troops,  but  not  very  numerous;  and 
Josiah  may  have  appeared  well  able  to  contend  with  it.  The 
future  war  which  he  would  thus  incur,  he  might  feel  was  fitly 
to  be  trusted  to  the  overruling  care  of  Jehovah,  who  would 
surely  support  a  pious  king  of  the  line  of  David  in  warring 
for  the  integrity  of  David's  land.  In  any  case,  if  the  Egyp- 
tians established  themselves  in  the  north,  to  have  war  against 
them  or  become  subject  to  them  would  be  the  only  alterna- 
tives proposed ;  and  if  war  was  inevitable,  it  was  better  to  face 
the  necessity  at  once,  before  the  Egyptians  could  use  Syria  as 
a  sallying-post  and  centre  of  supply. 

Such,  it  is  believed,  must  have  been  the  motives  which  drove 

1  The  modern  Acca,  oftener  written  Acre. 


BATTLE  NEAR  MEGIDDON.  309 

Josiah  to  a  measure,  which  by  reason  of  the  unfortunate  re- 
sult has  been  looked  on  as  an  infatuation1.  He  marched  out 
with  his  army,  resolved  to  attack  Necho' s  rear,  and  hinder  his 
passing  through  the  land  of  Zebulon,  Asher  or  Naphthali. 
The  Egyptian  warned  him  off,,  with  the  assurance  that  he  had 
no  hostile  designs  against  Jewish  interests;  but  finding  this 
to  be  in  vain,  he  turned  to  meet  him  on  the  celebrated  battle- 
field of  Esdraelon,  where  Egyptian  horse  or  chariots  could  act 
to  advantage.  Almost  before  the  contest  could  begin,  Josiah 
received  a  mortal  shot  with  an  arrow,  and  was  carried  off  the 
field  to  Megiddon.  His  army  dispersed,  and  Necho  did  not 
pursue  them,  but  resumed  his  march  northward. 

The  body  of  the  prince,  cut  off  in  the  meridian  of  life  at  so 
unfortunate  a  crisis,  when  the  greatest  affairs  were  impending, 
was  conveyed  to  Jerusalem,  and  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of  his 
fathers.  Universal  mourning  seized  the  state,  which  was  now 
in  just  consternation  at  the  power  of  Pharaoh,  with  the  pro- 
spect of  a  young  and  inexperienced  king  to  oppose  him.  Jere- 
miah composed  a  funeral  dirge  over  Josiah,  and  a  solemn 
unusual  wailing  was  made,  perhaps  at  Hadad-Rimmon2  near 
Megiddon,  where  he  received  the  fatal  shot.  Nearly  the  last 
of  the  kings  of  David's  line,  he  is  the  first  who  fell  in  battle. 
This  was  in  the  year  609  B.C.,  and  in  the  thirty-ninth  year  of 
his  age,  according  to  our  authorities. 

1  The  Chronicler  seems  to  attribute  a  divine  inspiration  to  Necho :   "  the 
words  of  Necho  from  the  mouth  of  God,"  etc.  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  21,  22).     See  also 
Esdras  i.  29,  where  Josiah  is  pretended  to  have  acted  against  the  express  warn- 
ings of  the  prophet  Jeremiah. 

2  Zech.  xii.  11. 


310 


CHAPTER  X. 

CLOSE  OF  THE  HEBEEW  MONAKCHY. 

IT  is  somewhat  discouraging,  as  we  step  into  the  period  of 
which  our  earlier  annalist  had  almost  contemporary  know- 
ledge, not  only  to  find  the  narrative  become  more  meagre 
than  ever,  but  to  encounter  difficulties  of  chronology ;  a  fact 
which  tends  to  shake  confidence  in  all  criticism  of  earlier 
dates.  According  to  the  text  of  the  writers,  Josiah  was  but 
14  years  older  than  his  son  Eliakim,  and  16  years  younger 
than  his  father  Amon ;  while  Eliakim  at  the  age  of  18  is  father 
to  Coniah.  Thus  Amon  would  be  a  father  at  16,  a  grand- 
father at  30,  and  a  great-grandfather  at  48 ;  a  result  obviously 
incredible. 

The  lengths  of  the  reigns  at  this  late  epoch  are  not  likely 
to  have  been  at  all  doubtful  to  our  compiler,  though  his  text 
may  have  been  corrupted.  We  ought  not  then  (without  ab- 
solute necessity)  to  seek  a  remedy  by  tampering  with  these. 
But  the  ages  of  princes  are  easily  mistaken.  That  Josiah 
was  a  boy  at  his  accession,  and  Amon  a  very  young  man,  need 
not  be  questioned;  but  if  Josiah  was  11,  not  8  years  old,  and 
Amon  was  26,  not  22,  such  errors  need  not  surprize  us.  Per- 
haps then  we  must  here  resort  to  the  arbitrary  method  of 
so  correcting  their  ages1,  which  does  not  disturb  the  received 
chronology. 

Josiah  had  three  sons  known  to  us  in  the  history ;  Eliakim, 


1  We  thus  obtain  the  following  scheme  :  — 

Birth  in  Accession  in 


Manasseh. 

Amon. 

Josiah. 

Eliakim. 

Coniah. 


709 
668 
651 
634 
616 


697 
642 
640 
609 

598 


Aged 

12 

f26 

til 

25 

18 


The  numbers  marked  f  are  in  the  Bible  text  22  and  8.     If  in  preference  to 
this  change  we  seek  to  lower  the  ages  of  Eliakim  and  Coniah,  we  are  stopped 


POPULAR    ELECTION    FROM    THE    DYNASTY.  311 

Shallum  and  Mattaniah,  who  were  respectively  aged  25,  23 
and  10  years  at  his  death.  To  these  in  the  genealogy  of  the 
Chronicles  we  find  a  son  Johanan  superadded,  as  eldest  of 
all1;  if  so,,  we  may  suppose  him  but  months  or  days  older 
than  Eliakim,  and  born  by  a  different  mother.  Still,  the  evi- 
dence of  that  text  is  the  less  valuable,  as  it  makes  Shallum 
younger  than  Mattaniah,  which  is  undoubtedly  erroneous. 

We  now  return  to  the  history.  Upon  the  violent  death  of 
the  king,  the  same  formula  is  used  as  upon  the  murder  of 
Amaziah  and  again  of  Amon2 : — The  people  of  the  land  took 
Shallum  the  son  of  Josiah,  and  anointed  him  and  made  him 
king  in  his  father's  stead.  It  is  hence  probable,  that  it  had 
become  a  constitutional  custom  in  Judah  for  the  sovereign 
himself,  after  the  manner  of  David,  Rehoboam,  and  Jehosha- 
phat,  to  appoint  a  successor  out  of  the  number  of  his  sons ; 
although  this  by  no  means  superseded  the  formality  of  a 
constitutional  coronation,  at  least  since  the  revolution  under 
Jehoiada.  But  when  a  king  had  been  suddenly  cut  off  with- 
out nominating  his  heir,  a  popular  election  was  requisite; 
and  on  this  occasion,  unfortunately  perhaps,  the  people  did 
not  choose  Eliakim  or  Johanan,  the  elder  sons,  but  Shallum. 
This  prince  on  his  elevation  took  Jehoahaz3  as  a  new  or  royal 
name ;  a  practice  which  is  repeated  in  the  case  of  every  king 
who  follows  him,  but  is  mentioned  in  regard  to  none  of  his 
predecessors4.  It  is  known  to  have  been  a  practice  of  Persia ; 

by  finding  Coniah  to  have  a  seraglio  of  wives  in  his  short  reign  of  three 
months.  See  Jerem.  xxii.  24,  28,  xxix.  2 ;  2  Kings,  xxiv.  15.  This  shows 
that  the  statement  in  Chronicles  that  he  was  only  eight  years  old  is  erroneous 
or  corrupt. 

The  scheme  here  given  makes  Amon  a  father  at  17,  a  grandfather  at  34, 
and  a  great-grandfather  at  52.  Even  this  may  strain  our  credulity.  The 
Oriental  Jews  at  present  give  wives  to  then*  sons  at  a  very  early  age ;  so  do 
Brahmins  in  many  cases  ;  and  the  line  of  David  may  have  done  the  same. 
Some  might  think  this  not  unconnected  with  the  fact  of  their  being  so  short- 
lived. 

1  1  Chron.  iii.  15. 

2  2  Kings,  xiv.  21,  xxi.  24,  xxiii.  30. 

3  This  appears  from  comparing  Jer.  xxii.  11  with  2  Kings,  xxiii,  31.     "  Je- 
hoahaz" means,  Jehovah  holdeth  or  sustaineth. 

4  In  2  Chron.  xxi.  17,  Ahaziah  is  named  Jehoahaz ;  but  we  find  no  reason 
to  think  Jehoahaz  to  have  been  the  royal  and  current  name.     It  is  rather  a 
transposition  of  the  parts  of  Ahaz-Jah. 

It  may  indeed  be  thought  that  Solomon's  original  name  was  Jedediah  (2  Sam. 
xii.  25),  and  Solomon  (peaceful)  the  name  given  him  by  David  on  appointing 
him  king ;  but  the  plausibility  of  this  is  weakened  by  David's  having  given  the 
name  of  Absalom  (father  of  peace)  to  another  son. 


312  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

and,  as  used  in  this  stage  of  history  by  the  Jews,  may  per- 
haps be  imputed  to  a  growing  familiarity  with  the  East. 

This  election  of  the  younger  brother  appears  to  have  ex- 
cited a  court-cabal  among  the  partizans  of  Eliakim,  who  may 
be  suspected  of  having  opened  a  communication  with  Necho, 
and  entreated  his  interference.  It  is  evident  that  a  powerful 
party  in  Jerusalem  took  that  side;  for  without  any  farther 
war  which  is  mentioned,  and  much  more  without  the  labour 
of  besieging  and  storming  Jerusalem,  Necho,  three  months 
after  the  death  of  Josiah,  arranged  the  affairs  of  Judaea  accord- 
ing to  his  own  will.  His  expedition  had  manifestly  so  far  at 
least  succeeded,  as  to  put  him  in  possession  of  the  entire 
country  of  Hollow  Syria.  We  hear  of  him  as  tarrying  at 
Riblah,  a  town  on  the  northern  frontier  of  that  district,  which 
commanded  the  entrance  from  Hamath  proper,  and  in  fact 
from  Damascus  or  Mesopotamia.  This  place  lies  on  the 
Upper  Orontes,  and  has  never  before  been  named  in  the  his- 
tory. It  is  credible  that  Necho  was  occupied  in  fortifying 
it,  with  a  view  to  secure  his  valuable  and  easily-won  conquest; 
for  hence  he  sent  to  Jerusalem  for  the  young  king  Jehoahaz. 
He  was  brought,  apparently  without  resistance,  and  there 
thrown  into  chains.  Necho  at  once  put  the  elder  brother 
Eliakim  on  the  throne,  exacting  of  him  in  token  of  homage 
the  sum  of  100  talents  of  silver  and  one  talent  of  gold.  This 
may  appear  a  small  infliction,  the  least  quit-rent  or  titular 
acknowledgment  that  could  be  expected,  when  we  remember 
that  Sennacherib  demanded  of  Hezekiah  300  talents  of  silver 
and  30  of  gold,  and  that  Menahem  gave  1000  talents  of  silver 
to  king  Pul ;  yet  it  was  seemingly  felt  as  a  heavy  burden  by 
the  people  of  Jehoahaz ;  for  the  elder  annalist  notes,  that  the 
new  king  ' '  taxed  the  land  to  give  the  money  to  Pharaoh ;  he 
exacted  the  silver  and  the  gold  of  every  one  according  to  his 
taxation ;"  and  the  other  expresses  it,  that  "  the  king  of 
Egypt  condemned  the  land  in  a  hundred  talents  of  silver  and 
one  talent  of  gold."  But  we  are  now  in  the  region  of  sober 
history ;  and  the  enormous  figures  with  which  the  Chronicler 
entertained  us  in  the  more  distant  times  can  have  no  place 
here1. 

Necho,  returning  to  Egypt,   carried  away  Jehoahaz  with 
him  as  a  valuable  hostage  for  the  good  behaviour  of  the  new 

1  In  1  Chron.  xxii.  14,  David  laid  up  for  Jehovah  1,000,000  talents  of  silver, 
and  100,000  talents  of  gold. 


313 

king,  against  whom  he  could  now  at  any  time  let  Jehoahaz 
loose.  This  was  a  policy  which  the  Romans  afterwards  learned 
to  practise;  and  the  book  of  Jeremiah1  shows  that  persons 
in  Jerusalem  speculated  on  the  possible  return  of  Jehoahaz 
through  a  change  of  policy  in  the  Egyptian  court.  Eliakim, 
having  assumed  the  name  of  Jehoiakim  (or  Jehovah  esta- 
blishes), commenced  his  reign  inauspiciously  enough,  as  ob- 
taining his  place  by  a  sort  of  treason  against  the  independence 
of  his  country.  Patriots  who  remembered  Josiah  and  had  read 
of  Hezekiah  may  well  have  been  disgusted  by  this ;  and  the 
Levitical  party  would  regard  his  submission  to  a  foreigner  as 
a  direct  violation  of  a  command  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy2. 
The  only  events  which  can  be  recovered  concerning  the  open- 
ing years  of  this  king,  concern  his  conduct  towards  the  pro- 
phets. One  who  was  named  Urijah  first  prophesied  against 
the  city  and  the  land.  What  he  said  is  not  distinctly  stated ; 
but  as  it  gave  offence  not  only  to  the  king  and  princes,  but 
to  "  all  the  mighty  men"  or  chief  warriors,  we  cannot  doubt 
that  they  regarded  his  words  as  calculated  to  infuse  cowar- 
dice into  the  Hebrew  army.  Urijah  escaped  into  Egypt  from 
the  king's  anger,  but  Necho  was  readily  convinced  that  an 
example  was  wholesome,  to  deter  other  prophets  from  weak- 
ening his  tributary  king ;  so  Urijah  was  given  up  to  Jehoiakim 
and  put  to  death.  Jeremiah  at  this  could  not  be  silent,  yet 
he  did  not  directly  attack  the  king.  He  however  called  on  all 
the  cities  of  Judah  "  to  hearken  to  the  words  of  the  prophets," 
otherwise  the  house  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem  should  be  made 
as  desolate  as  his  tabernacle  at  Shiloh.  The  priests  and  many 
of  the  j/rophets  now  turned  upon  Jeremiah,  and  recommended 
putting  him  to  death  also;  but  his  spirited  replies,  and  the 
reverence  felt  for  his  character  both  by  the  elders  and  princes, 
preserved  him.  Especially  Ahikam,  son  of  that  Shaphan  who 
introduced  the  book  of  the  law  to  Josiah,  pleaded  in  his  cause; 
so  that  he  was  only  kept  in  prison3. 

Nothing  besides  is  known  of  the  three  first  years  of  Jehoi- 
akim's  reign,  during  which  Necho  had  been  pushing  eastward, 
undoubtedly  conquering  Damascus,  perhaps  also  northern 

1  Ch.  xxii.  11,  12. 

2  Deut.  xvii.  15.  "  Thou  mayest  not  set  a  stranger  over  thee,  who  is  not  thy 
brother."     This  text  seems  to  have  suggested  to  the  Pharisees  the  celebrated 
question,  "  Is  it  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar,  or  no  ?" 

3  Jer.  xxvi. 


314  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

Syria, — and  pressing  to  the  border  of  Euphrates,  until  his  pro- 
gress was  stopped  by  the  Chaldee  power.  The  formidable  cha- 
racter of  this  newly-risen  and  little-known  people  was  perhaps 
imperfectly  apprehended  by  him  until,  in  the  fourth  year1  of 
Jehoiakhn2,  he  suffered  a  decisive  defeat  at  Carchemish  on 
the  Euphrates  from  Nebuchadnezzar3,  a  young  Chaldee  prince, 
who  commanded  the  army  of  his  father  Nabopolassar,  then 
fast  declining  in  health4.  Whatever  the  amount  of  Necho's 
loss  in  men5,  the  defeat  was  fatal  to  his  schemes  of  foreign  con- 
quest, for  he  had  no  resources  to  fall  back  upon :  an  Egyptian 
could  not  recruit  his  army  with  Damascenes  or  other  Syrians. 
His  ambition  had  overreached  itself  by  its  too  rapid  advance ; 
and  perhaps  even  his  person  might  have  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  the  victor,  had  not  the  death  of  Nabopolassar  suddenly  re- 
called the  prince  to  Babylon.  Yet  as  soon  as  he  had  secured 
himself  in  his  father's  throne,  he  resumed  the  aggressive ;  with 
such  a  rush  of  unchecked  success,  that,  within  a  year  of  the 
battle  at  Carchemish,  he  had  swept  off  every  vestige  of  Egyp- 
tian power  in  Damascus  and  Hollow  Syria,  and  showed  his 
armies  as  irresistible  on  the  eastern  side  of  Palestine. 

These  events,  as  we  have  said,  took  place  in  Jehoiakim' s 
fourth  year6,  and  immediately  called  forth  the  prescience  of 
Jeremiah,  who  was  still  shut  up  in  prison.  In  a  spirited  ode, 
having  much  of  antique  raciness7,  he  triumphs  over  the  fall 
of  Pharaoh,  and  predicts  that  Nebuchadnezzar  shall  overrun 
and  conquer  Egypt  itself;  after  which  the  Israelites  who  are 
scattered  are  to  return  to  their  own  land.  Nor  was  this  all ; 
the  prophet  further  understood  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
to  become  a  universal  scourge  both  to  Judaea  and  to  all  the 
nations  round  about,  who  were  to  serve  him  for  seventy  years ; 
and  when  seventy  years  were  completed,  then  Jehovah  should 
punish  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  the  land  of  the  Chaldseaiis, 

1  The  book  of  Daniel  (so-called)  makes  out,  in  its  first  verse,  that  Jehoiakim, 
in  his  third  year,  suffered  a  siege  from  Nebuchadnezzar ;  whereas  Necho 
master  in  those  parts  until  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish  in  Jehoiakim'  sfo't 
year. 

2  B.C.  605.  3  Jer.  xlvi.  2.  4  Joseph,  c.  Apion,  i.  19. 

5  Josephus  (Antiqq.  x.  6,  1)  says  that  Necho  "  lost  many  tens  of  thousands  i 
men  in  the  battle ;"  but  it  is  evident  that  he  had  no  other  means  of  informat' 
than  we,  and  he  inferred  the  greatness  of  the  slaughter  from  the  great  resi 
of  the  victory. 

That  Necho  fell  into  the  hands  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (avrov  rov  airoffrc 
eKvpievo-e)  is  asserted  by  Berosus  in  Josephus,  but  is  undoubtedly  false. 

6  B.C.  605.  7  Ch.  xlvi. 


315 

and  make  it  perpetual  desolations1.  This  is  memorable,  as  the 
beginning  of  a  remarkable  series  of  prophecies  against  Ba- 
bylon, which  have  received  either  a  most  accurate  or  a  very 
plausible  fulfilment2.  It  will  be  observed  also,  that  the  pro- 
phecy of  Jewish  captivity  in  Babylon  for  seventy  years  is 
but  a  modification  and  offshoot  of  this.  Jeremiah  moreover 
began  at  length  to  write  into  a  book  the  prophecies  which 
hitherto  had  been  only  uttered  by  word  of  mouth,  and  re- 
tained in  his  memory,  for  twenty-three  years  together.  Ba- 
ruch,  son  of  Neriah,  officiated  as  his  secretary3.  When  at 
length  the  writing  was  finished,  in  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim4, 
as  he  was  himself  still  in  prison,  he  sent  Baruch  to  read  it 
publicly  in  the  temple  courts  on  a  certain  fast-day.  News  of 
this  was  brought  to  the  king's  council,  who  sent  for  Baruch 
with  his  roll,  and  made  him  read  it  to  them.  Upon  hearing 
it  read,  they  protested  that  they  must  lay  it  before  the  king ; 
but  bade  Baruch  hide  himself  and  Jeremiah  too,  and  let  no 
man  know  where  they  were.  It  may  hence  appear  that  se- 
cret orders  were  given  to  let  Jeremiah  escape  from  custody. 
When  the  king  had  heard  a  few  divisions  of  the  roll,  in  spite 
of  the  remonstrances  of  several  of  his  princes,  he  cut  it  with 
his  penknife  and  cast  it  into  the  fire.  The  offence  which  it 
gave  him-  is  clearly  explained.  It  was  not  that  Jeremiah 
taxed  the  people  or  princes  for  vices,  crimes,  or  idolatries ; 
nor  that  he  threatened  them  with  defeat,  if  they  were  thus 
guilty  :  but  that  he  said,  "  The  king  of  Babylon  shall  certainly 
come  and  destroy  this  land,  and  shall  cause  to  cease  from 
thence  man  and  beast 5."  Such  prophecies  have  a  tendency 
to  produce  their  own  accomplishment,  by  the  panic  or  lan- 
guor of  heart  which  they  induce  in  all  who  believe  them :  nor 
did  Nebuchadnezzar  need  any  better  aid  for  his  schemes  of 

1  Jer.  xxv. 

2  From  this  date  (B.C.  605  or  604)  to  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  (B.C. 
538)  is  sixty-six  or  sixty-seven  years ;  yet  Chaldsea  did  not  thereupon  become 
"  perpetual  desolations."     Babylon  was  still  a  flourishing  city  under  Alexander 
the  Great :  and  Chaldcea  collectively  can  hardly  be  said  ever  to  have  become 
desolate,  except  by  comparison.     Its  worst  desolation  has  been  in  the  last  three 
centuries,  during  the  decline  of  the  Turkish  empire.     It  is  evident  that  the 
connexion  in  Jeremiah's  mind  was  a  moral  one :  but  the  delay  of  the  desolation 
is  fatal  to  this  ;  for  it  is  absurd  to  represent  the  emptiness  of  modern  Babylon 
as  a  punishment  for  the  pride  of  Nebuchadnezzar.     The  true  prophetical  idea 
is  much  simpler:  pride  and  violence  dig  their  own  grave ;  and  that  is  eternally 
true. 

3  Ch.  xxxvi.  4  B.C.  604.  5  Jer.  xxxvi.  29. 

p  2 


316  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

ambition,  than  that  every  nation  which  he  attacked  should 
have  a  hundred  Jeremiahs.  Undoubtedly  no  English  general, 
however  pious/  would,  on  the  eve  of  an  engagement,  allow  a 
prophet  to  announce  to  his  troops,  that  the  enemy  would  de- 
feat them  disgracefully  next  morning :  a  general  who  should 
permit  it,  and  afterwards  suffer  defeat,  would  without  fail  he 
himself  shot  by  verdict  of  a  court-martial.  It  is  there- 
fore dealing  very  hardly  with  Jehoiakim,  to  condemn  him, 
because  he  would  not  allow  his  people's  hearts  to  be  dis- 
couraged by  Jeremiah,  when  attack  from  Babylon  was  im- 
pending :  nor  had  this  prophet  any  right  to  expect  permission 
so  to  speak,  unless  he  could  give  the  king  some  other  index 
to  the  truth  of  his  prediction  than  the  only  one  which  the 
Pentateuch  furnishes,  viz.  by  waiting  for  the  event.  The 
case  is  the  more  marked,  as  no  practical  end  is  made  pro- 
minent, except  it  be  that  of  inculcating  submission  to  the 
king  of  Babylon1 ;  which  it  is  absurd  to  treat  as  a  precept  of 
religion.  Modern  reasoners  generally  assume,  that  Jehoiakim 
was  to  be  judged  by  some  technical  law,  differing  from  the 
broad  universal  rules  of  morality :  hence  they  join  in  chorus 
again  Jehoiakim,  for  doing  that  which  almost  all  modern 
magistrates  would  regard  as  their  clear  duty. 

According  to  the  text  of  Jeremiah — (we  know  not  accurately 
when  this  chapter  was  committed  to  writing2), — the  prophet 
received  secret  orders  from  Jehovah  to  write  a  new  roll  like 
the  former,  and  to  add  a  solemn  declaration  against  Jehoiakim, 
that,  "  because  he  had  asked,  Why  hast  thou  written,  saying, 
The  king  of  Babylon  shall  certainly  come/'  etc.,  therefore, 
Jehoiakim  should  have  none  to  sit  on  the  throne  of  David, 
and  his  dead  body  should  be  cast  out  unburied.  As  the  first 
j^  part  of  this  prophecy  is  not  true,  unless  accepted  with  modifica- 
tion, (for  his  son  Coniah  succeeded  him  for  three  months,  and 

1  This  is  the  view  given  by  an  able  writer  who  certainly  aims  to  be  impartial. 


"  In  opposition  to  a  strong  Egyptian  faction,  Jeremiah  urged  the  imp 
bility  of  resistance  to  the  Assyrian  [Chaldee  ?]  forces  already  on  their  march. 
But  he  spoke  to  deaf  and  heedless  ears." — Milman,  Hist,  of  Jews,  vol.  i.  p.  320. 
2  The  total  want  of  chronological  arrangement  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah  may 
warn  interpreters  of  the  vanity  of  assuming  chronological  order  in  the  earlier 
prophets.  It  likewise  shows  that  he  must  have  revised  all  his  writings,  and  may 
have  introduced  changes,  in  his  latest  years.  Indeed  there  is  one  striking  fact; 
he  not  only  makes  no  allusion  to  Josiah's  reforms,  but  there  is  no  change  of 
tone  in  any  part  of  this  volume.  The  colouring  of  it  is  all  suitable  to  the 
later  period  at  which  it  was  actually  penned.  We  cannot  therefore  doubt  that 
his  memory  failed  of  reproducing  accurately  the  utterances  of  years  long  past. 


BABYLONIAN    HOSTILITIES.  317 

his  brother Mattaniah  for  eleven  years,)  we  should  exercise  some 
reserve  in  receiving  the  latter  part  as  certain.  Undoubtedly, 
unless  we  suppose  the  facts  to  be  erroneously  represented  by 
Jeremiah  against  himself,  or  God  to  judge  by  other  laws  then 
and  now,  we  cannot  admit  the  idea,  that  it  was  he  who  sent 
this  message  to  Jehoiakim.  While  religious  teachers  confine 
themselves  to  religious  topics,  the  case  is  wholly  different ; 
but  when  they  invade  the  political  arena,  and  (under  what- 
ever inward  convictions)  so  conduct  themselves  as  to  play 
into  the  hands  of  the  public  enemy,  it  is  too  much  to  claim 
for  them  the  inviolable  character  of  sacred  persons  :  nor  can 
we  any  longer  suppose  that  they  act  under  divine  warrant, 
without  lowering  the  Most  High  into  a  partizan  of  human 
strife1. 

No  long  time  passed  before  the  armies  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
appeared  in  Judaea;  nor  was  any  help  from  Egypt  at  hand. 
Necho  was  a  very  old  man,  now  declining  rapidly ;  and  he  had 
had  a  severe  taste  of  the  Chaldaean  arms.  Accordingly  Jehoia- 
kim had  nothing  to  do  but  renounce  his  Egyptian  connexion, 
and  accept  the  terms  of  homage  proffered  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
whose  tributary  he  now  became;  perhaps  in  B.C.  603.  For 
three  years  he  remained  faithful  to  his  allegiance^  but  when 
Necho  died2,  and  his  son  Psammis  succeeded  him,  new  plans 
and  hopes  arose  in  the  mind  of  the  Jewish  king.  Whether  he 
had  positive  promises  of  succour  from  Egypt  (a  power  born  to 
disappoint  and  betray  the  unfortunate  Hebrews)  cannot  be  as- 
certained :  Jehoiakim  however  revolted  from  his  Chaldee  mas- 
ter. It  would  appear  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  unable  at  once 
to  come  in  person  and  chastise  him;  but  he  sent  up  some 
bands  of  Chaldees,  with  orders  to  collect  a  mixed  army  from 
the  neighbouring  nations  and  prey  upon  the  land  of  Judaea. 
These  are  recounted  as  Syrians,  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  A 
harassing  warfare  resulted,  and  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
Jehoiakim  was  slain  in  some  petty  action,  and  that  his  body 

1  This  is  a  totally  different  question  from  the  general  one,  whether  Jehoi- 
akim was  a  wicked  man  or  not.       He  may  have  been  as  bad  as  Jerem.  xxii.  17 
represents  him.     As  he  came  to  the  throne  by  displacing  his  brother  Jehoahaz, 
it  is  probable  enough  that  he  exercised  many  severities  against  his  brother's  par- 
tizans.     These  (as  well  as  his  execution  of  Urijah)  may  be  the  "  innocent  blood" 
alluded  to.     Confiscation  of  their  estates  would  follow  of  course :  this  may  be 
the  "  covetousness"  denounced.     Yet  it  must  be  remembered,  that  we  have  no 
evidence  against  this  king,  better  than  the  vague  words  of  the  man  whom  he 
pursued  as  a  political  offender. 

2  B.C.  600. 


318  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

could  not  be  found.     A  mystery  however  hangs  over  his  dis- 
appearance.    Both  our  authorities  are  clear  enough  as  to  the 
throne  becoming  vacant1  in  the  eleventh  year  of  his  reign;  but 
they  abstain  from  alluding  to  his  death.   The  Chronicler  states 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  "  bound  him  with  fetters  to  cany  him  to 
Babylon/'  but  does  not  say  that  he  executed  this  design :  in- 
deed he  makes  him  plunder  the  temple  during  Jehoiakim's 
reign,  which  is  undoubtedly  erroneous.     The  chasm  in  both 
the  writers  is  so  marked,  as  to  excite  speculation  as  to  the 
cause.     If  the  king  died  in  his  chamber,  disappeared  after 
some  battle,  or  was  carried  off  by  the  enemy,  why  did  they 
not  state  one  thing  or  other  ?     Was  it  because  they  were  un- 
willing to  contradict  the  clear  predictions  of  Jeremiah,  that 
Jehoiakim  should  be  cast  unburied  outside  the  gates  of  Jeru- 
salem like  a  dead  ass3  ?     They  well  knew  of  the  prophecy :  if 
it  was  fulfilled,  why  did  they  not  name  it  in  the  history  ? — We 
cannot  pretend  to  decide  in  this  matter.     Some  may  even  re- 
verse the  view  of  things ;  and  without  conceding  foresight  to 
the  prophet,  whose  works  were  perhaps  in  his  own  hands  to 
revise  after  the  king's  death,  will  think  it  unlikely  that  he  ex- 
ercised such  self-denial3,  as  to  leave  in  his  book  a  prophecy 
already  falsified  by  fact.    Such  reasoners  therefore  will  take  the 
prophecy  as  an  index  to  the  history.     But  whatever  theory  is 
adopted,  difficulties  remain. 

On  the  death  or  removal  of  Jehoiakim4,  his  son  Coniah  be- 
came king,  and  took  the  appellation  of  Jeconiah,  which  is 
also  written  Jehoiachin  (Jehovah  foundeth]  and  Joiachin.  His 
reign  lasted  but  three  months ;  yet  of  this  it  is  recorded  that 
"  he  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  according  to  all  that  his 
father  had  done ;"  words,  from  which  in  this  connexion  we  can 
hardly  infer  more,  than  that,  like  his  father,  he  persevered  in 
resisting  the  king  of  Babylon,  against  the  dictation  of  Jere- 

1  B.C.  598.  2  Jer.  xxii.  19,  xxxvi.  30. 

3  This  difficulty  is  not  peculiar  to  the  present  passage,  and  may  possibly  be 
relieved  by  the  following  considerations.    There  is  no  doubt  that  these  prophets 
were  devoutly  persuaded  that  the  words  which  they  uttered  were  Jehovah's  and 
not  their  own :  hence  when  they  had  once  committed  them  to  writing,  they  would 
reverence  them  as  profoundly  as  their  successors  did ;  and  if  ever  the  words 
appeared  to  be  falsified  by  fact,  instead  of  renouncing  them  as  Deuteronomy 
orders,  they  would  probably  seek  for  mystical  interpretations  and  other  such  nu- 
merous evasions  as  are  familiar  to  the  ingenious  theologian.     Thus  we  have  in 
Ezekiel,  side  by  side,  a  prediction  that  Nebuchadnezzar  shall  make  a  spoil  of 
Tyrus  (xxvi.  12,  etc.),  and  a  confession  that  he  got  no  spoil  (xxix.  18). 

4  B.C.  598. 


FIRST  DEPORTATION  TO  BABYLON.  319 

miah1.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  now  arrived  in  person,  and  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  was  pressed  vigorously.  Jeconiah,  after  he 
had  reigned  three  months,,  finding  that  no  help  came  from 
Egypt,  and  that  he  could  not  hold  out,  proposed  surrender 
while  he  might  hope  for  better  terms,  and  came  out  volunta- 
rily with  his  mother  and  all  his  chief  officers.  Nebuchadnez- 
zar desired  to  spare  so  wealthy  a  city,  so  favourably  situated 
for  maintaining  the  prosperity  of  the  province,  and  thought  to 
keep  it  in  due  homage  by  retorting  the  policy  of  Necho.  Je- 
coniah,  after  his  father,  owed  his  throne  to  the  Egyptians ; 
and  Jehoahaz  seems  yet  to  have  been  alive  in  Egypt,  as  a  se- 
curity for  Jeconiah's  allegiance.  The  new  invader  therefore 
set  up,  as  king,  Josiah's  youngest  son  Mattaniah :  and  Jeco- 
iiiah, — who,  though  only  aged  eighteen,  had  a  circle  of  wives, 
— was  transferred  with  them  to  Babylon,  as  also  his  mother 
and  chief  princes ;  partizans,  it  may  be  supposed,  of  the  Egyp- 
tian alliance.  Of  course  whatever  treasure  was  to  be  found, 
in  the  palace  or  in  the  temple,  became  the  spoil  of  the  con- 
queror :  to  leave  it  was  to  leave  a  weapon  of  revolt  with  the  new 
king.  But  when  it  is  stated  that  Nebuchadnezzar  "cut  in 
pieces  all  the  vessels  of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made,"  we  are 
merely  warned  of  the  narrator's  credulity2.  In  the  last  chap- 
ter of  history  appended  to  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  3023  is  as- 
signed as  the  number  of  persons  carried  away  on  this  first 
occasion3.  In  ch.  xxix.  1,  2,  this  prophet  himself  enumerates 
among  the  captives,  besides  the  court  and  other  more  eminent 
persons,  the  carpenters  and  the  smiths,  who  are  also  named  by 
the  annalist.  The  latter  writer  roughly  estimates  the  entire 

1  Only  one  half-chapter  of  Jeremiah  is  inscribed  with  the  date  of  Jeconiah' s 
short  reign :  xxii.  20-30.     No  sin  is  there  named  against  him,  yet  severe  for- 
tunes are  pronounced  in  a  tone  of  exasperation.     The  closing  prediction,  that 
he  should  be  childless,  did  not  prove  true ;  but  perhaps  the  meaning,  in  that 
context,  is  only  that  his  children  shall  not  succeed  him  on  the  throne. 

2  He  even  makes  it  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy:  "as  Jehovah  had  said"! 
Compare  2  Kings,  xiv.  14. 

3  The  writer  carefully  enumerates  the  total  number  carried  away  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar :  in  his  seventh  year  3023 ;   in  his  eighteenth  year  832  ;  in  his 
twenty-third  year  745  ;  hi  all  (he  adds)  4600.     This  distinctly  shows  that  there 
were  but  three  captivities  ;  and  that  that  pretended  by  the  book  of  Daniel  (i.  1) 
in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  a  fiction.     Yet  the  exactness  of  figures  does 
not  add  credibility  to  the  writer.     Such  accuracy  is  unattainable ;  and  in  fact, 
the  largest  number  18,000  seems  more  probable  than  3023. 

It  will  be  observed  also  that  he  places  the  first  captivity  in  Nebuchadnezzar's 
seventh  year.  This  appears  more  accurate  than  2  Kings,  xxiv.  12,  which  names 
it  his  eighth  year. 


320  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

number  now  carried  away  at  10,000,  or  18,000  according  to 
one  interpretation,  and  says  that  the  choicest  part  of  the  army 
was  contained  among  them.  It  may  at  first  sight  appear  that 
the  carpenters  and  smiths  could  not  have  been  wanted,  and 
that  the  sole  motive  of  the  removal  was,  to  weaken  the  new 
king  or  viceroy  in  Jerusalem.  But  Nebuchadnezzar  was  now 
employed  in  immensely  enlarging  the  seat  of  empire.  The 
new  Babylon  was  a  vast  oblong  area  enclosing  the  old  town  as 
its  citadel,  and  was  divided  by  uniform  streets  parallel  to  the 
gigantic  walls.  The  general  scheme  of  the  city  is  that  of  a 
camp.  A  regular  plan  is  formed  by  a  single  mind,  and  its 
outline  is  executed  at  once,  but  on  a  scale  so  enormous,  that 
the  parts  are  perhaps  never  filled  up.  This  is  what  happens, 
when  a  conquering  monarch  determines  to  have  a  large  capital. 
His  first  work  is  to  make  the  walls  and  main  streets ;  to  peo- 
ple it,  is  a  more  gradual  affair.  Meanwhile,  it  encloses  large 
tracts  of  field  and  orchard,  assimilating  it  to  a  fortified  parish, 
and  giving  to  it  great  resources  of  food,  beyond  what  mere 
cities  can  have.  Such  considerations  alone  can  explain  to  us 
the  prodigious  extent  ascribed  to  the  walls  of  Babylon :  in 
any  case,  the  magnitude  of  the  works  was  such,  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar might  well  have  peculiar  need  of  "  craftsmen  and 
smiths,"  as  well  as  of  soldiers.  The  princes,  chief  priests  and 
elders,  who  are  said  to  be  carried  away,  were  of  course  re- 
garded as  dangerous  persons  if  left  in  Judsea.  Among  the 
\  more  eminent  captives  was  perhaps  an  elder  named  Daniel, 
concerning  whom  a  celebrated  but  unhistorical  book  has  been 
written ;  and  a  young  priest,  Ezekiel,  son  of  Buzi,  whose  au- 
thentic and  ample  prophecy  is  extant.  That  Daniel  was  pro- 
verbial among  his  own  people  for  goodness  and  wisdom,  is 
manifest  in  the  writings  of  Ezekiel;  if  indeed  some  earlier 
Daniel  is  not  intended.  No  farther  devastations  were  com- 
mitted, and  Mattaniah  was  left  on  the  throne  as  a  weakened 
and  tributary  prince1.  He  was  only  twenty-one  years  old, 
and  took  as  his  royal  name  Zedekiah. 

For  eleven  years  longer  the  national  existence  of  Judah  was 
preserved  ;  but  scarcely  a  single  fact  remains  to  the  historian. 
According  to  a  rather  dark  allusion2,  it  appears  that  in  the 
fourth  year  of  his  reign,  Zedekiah  paid  a  visit  in  person  to 
Babylon,  in  company  with  one  of  his  princes  named  Seraiah ; 
but  neither  the  object  nor  the  result  of  the  visit  is  stated.  In 
1  B.C.  598.  2  Jer.  li.  59. 


REBELLION  OF  ZEDEKIAH.  321 

the  whole  course  of  this  time,  Zedekiah  was  distracted  by  the 
equally  confident  assertions  of  different  prophets,  predicting 
contrary  things.  In  his  fourth  year,  for  instance1,  the  pro- 
phet Hananiah  uttered  an  oracle :  "  Thus  speaketh  Jehovah  : 
I  have  broken  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon.  Within  two 
full  years  I  will  bring  again  to  this  place  all  the  vessels  of 
Jehovah's  house,  and  Jeconiah  king  of  Judah  and  all  the  cap- 
tives of  Judah."  Jeremiah  however  contradicted  him,  and  de- 
nounced him  publicly.  Such  altercations  must  have  been  com- 
mon, to  judge  by  the  frequent  complaint  of  "false  prophets2." 
From  the  nature  of  the  case  we  can  hardly  doubt  the  state- 
ment of  the  Chronicler,  that  Zedekiah  had  made  solemn  oath 
to  Nebuchadnezzar  to  remain  in  honourable  allegiance  to  him; 
which  would  have  been  the  right  moral  ground  for  urging 
Zedekiah  to  submit.  But  the  topic  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in 
the  ample  writings  of  Jeremiah ;  nor  is  breach  of  faith  ever 
charged  by  him  on  Zedekiah  in  his  most  pointed  addresses. 
This  prophet  seems  to  be  rather  soft-hearted  than  tender ;  he 
melts  at  the  prospect  of  suffering,  and  desires  his  people  to 
avoid  it  by  the  shortest  and  safest  method, — that  of  submit- 
ting as  quickly  as  possible :  nor  does  any  other  argument  for 
such  a  proceeding  ever  appear  in  him,  except  the  danger  of  an 
opposite*  course.  It  is  hard  to  call  this  patriotic,  any  more 
than  highminded. 

The  unlucky  Zedekiah  thought  his  favourable  moment  to 
be  arrived,  under  the  new  king  of  Egypt.  Psammis,  son  of 
Necho,  had  died  after  a  short  reign  of  six  years,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Hophra,  called  by  the  Greeks  Apries3 ;  an 
enterprizing  prince,  and  until  his  last  years  successful.  He 
marched  an  army  into  Phoenicia,  and  fought  a  naval  battle 
against  the  Tyrians,  facts  which  sufficiently  indicate  his  strug- 
gle for  the  whole  sea-coast  of  Syria ;  and  from  him  the  king 
of  Jerusalem  might  hope  for  aid.  Zedekiah,  after  a  secret 
compact  with  him,  did  at  last  revolt,  perhaps  in  his  ninth 
year4;  and  the  contest  that  followed  was  slightly  diversified 
by  the  Egyptians  proving  faithful  for  once.  Towards  the  end 

1  Jer.  xxviii.  1. 

2  It  must  not  be  assumed  that  these  "false  prophets"  were  not  fully  equal 
in  moral  worth  to  Jeremiah,  and  as  sincerely  convinced  that  Jehovah  spoke 
by  them,  as  he  was  in  his  own  case.     When  of  two  contending  parties  one, 
and  only  one,  must  prove  correct  in  the  result,  to  brand  as  wicked  impostors 
those  who  turn  out  false  is  highly  unjust. 

3  B.C.  594.  4  B.C.  590. 

p3 


322  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

of  his  ninth  year1,  Nebuchadnezzar  with  a  formidable  army 
appeared  before  Jerusalem,  and  built  forts  outside  it  to  harass 
the  country  and  repel  sallies  ;  but  before  he  could  reduce  the 
city,  an  Egyptian  army  marched  out  against  him,  and  he  was 
forced  to  abandon  the  siege2.  In  the  interval,  fresh  supplies 
were  no  doubt  introduced;  for  although  in  the  year  after3, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  having  repulsed  Hophra,  was  enabled  to  re- 
sume the  attack,  a  tedious  resistance  was  still  made. 

Within  the  city  during  this  whole  war,  Nebuchadnezzar 
received  faithful  aid  from  at  least  one  man,  who  believed  him- 
self the  heaven-appointed  instrument  of  weakening  his  own 
people's  hearts  and  hands.  In  part,  undoubtedly,  the  king 
himself  was  to  blame  for  this,  who  displayed  an  irresolution 
common  under  circumstances  so  difficult.  Having  a  secret 
belief  that  Jeremiah  could  foretel  the  future,  he  acted  to- 
wards him  as  the  heathens  towards  their  oracles  or  diviners. 
He  sent  an  officer  to  inquire  of  the  prophet  what  would  be 
the  event  of  the  war4,  and  got  from  him  a  reply  which  might 
have  been  foreknown.  The  princes  were  angry  with  Jeremiah, 
when  they  should  rather  have  blamed  the  king's  indiscretion  ; 
and  as  Jeremiah5  had  vehemently  commanded  all  who  desired 
safety  to  go  over  to  the  Chaldseans,  they  accused  him  of  being 
about  to  desert,  when  he  left  the  city  daring  an  interval  of  the 
siege.  On  this  charge  he  was  thrown  into  prison,  but  was 
liberated  by  the  king's  interference.  Yet  after  this  again,  the 
princes,  complaining  that  he  damped  the  courage  of  the  sol- 
diers, induced  the  king  to  consent  to  his  imprisonment6.  His 
dungeon  was  this  time  as  barbarous  as  in  ancient  times  such 
places  were  wont  to  be  :  but  Zedekiah  once  more  relented,  and 
even  sought  a  private  conference  with  him  ;  after  which  he  had 
him  removed  to  a  milder  custody.  A  king  who  showed  such 
weakness  was  not  likely  to  be  able  to  inspire  active  courage 
into  his  people,  whose  hopes  had  wasted  away  under  the  con- 
stant trickling  of  these  chilly  predictions.  Yet  the  city  walls 
defied  the  besieger.  He  could  not  succeed,  by  any  methods  of 
attack  available  to  him,  in  making  a  breach  ;  but  by  the  close- 
ness of  his  blockade,  he  at  last  brought  on  the  extreme  suffer- 
ings of  famine. 

At  the  moment  when  the  distress  became  unbearable  (it  is 


1  Jer.  Tnmic,  1  ;  Ezek.  xxiv.  1.  4  Jer.  xxi. 

2  Jer.  xxxvii.  5-11.  5  Jer.  xxxvii. 

3  Jer.  xxxii.  1.  6  Jer.  xxxvii.  4. 


DESTRUCTION    OF   JERUSALEM.  323 

recorded  as  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month  of  Zedekiah' s 
eleventh  year1),  the  Chaldee  king  was  at  Riblah  in  the  land  of 
Hamath,  whither  Jehoahaz  had  been  brought  to  Necho.  By 
a  singular  coincidence,  Zedekiah  also,  having  been  caught  in 
the  attempt  to  escape  out  of  Jerusalem,  was  led  to  the  same 
place  before  Nebuchadnezzar.  No  mercy  was  now  to  be  ex- 
pected. His  two  sons  were  first  slain  in  his  sight ;  after  which 
his  eyes  were  put  out,  he  was  loaded  with  fetters,  and  sent  to 
Babylon.  The  chief  nobles  of  Judah  were  also  slain.  The 
king's  palace  in  Jerusalem,  the  temple,  and  all  the  well-built 
houses  were  burned  down  in  the  following  month;  and  the 
walls  were  laboriously  demolished.  Whatever  of  brass  and 
copper  or  silver  vessels  remained  in  the  temple  were  seized  as 
spoil,  but  destruction  was  more  thought  of  than  booty.  The 
common  people  were  planted  over  the  country,  having  land 
assigned  them  for  vineyards  or  tillage.  Nebuzaradan,  the  cap- 
tain of  the  guard,  to  whom  the  execution  of  all  this  work  had 
been  entrusted,  seems  to  have  aimed  to  turn  Jerusalem  into  a 
desart;  for  many  chief  men  and  sixty  common  people  were 
sent  by  him  to  Riblah,  for  no  other  offence  that  is  named  but 
that  of  being  "  found  in  the  city ;"  all  of  whom  were  slaughtered 
by  the  enraged  conqueror.  The  numbers  carried  to  Babylon 
on  this  occasion  are  reckoned  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah2  as  only 
832  persons ;  which  must  be  immensely  under  the  truth.  No 
other  estimate  however  is  at  hand3. 

In  the  retrospect  of  these  affairs,  it  is  impossible  to  over- 
look the  tendency  of  men  to  judge  of  actions  by  their  event, 
without  asking  whether  the  event  could  have  been  foreseen. 
The  resistance  of  Hezekiah  to  the  Assyrians  is  admired ;  that 
of  Jehoiakim  to  the  Chaldees  is  condemned ;  although  it  was 
called  for  not  only  by  general  principles  of  patriotism,  but 
by  his  special  obligations  to  the  Egyptians,  at  least  in  the 
opening  of  his  reign.  An  unsuccessful  king,  whether  an  Ahaz 
or  a  Zedekiah,  meets  with  little  sympathy.  Over  the  fall  even 
of  a  Josiah  men  moralize  and  wonder ;  as  if  to  suffer  and  to 
perish  were  not  often  the  peculiar  part  of  goodness  and  of 
heroism.  Yet  perhaps  there  were  few  materials  for  heroism 
now  left  in  Jerusalem.  It  was  a  people  divided  against  itself, 
and  threatened  by  a  superior  adversary ;  in  which  case  nothing 
is  harder  than  to  know  whether  to  advise  submission  or  resist- 
ance. The  brave  and  the  hopeful  will  maintain  that  by  spirited 

1  Jer.  xxxix.  2  Ch.  Hi.  29.  3  B.C.  588. 


324  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

counsels  the  nation  may  be  roused  and  united :  the  cautious, 
the  feeble  and  the  desponding  will  treat  such  a  course  as  mad- 
ness. How  far  the  weakness  of  Judah  was  now  caused  by  this 
division  of  opinion,  is  not  distinctly  recorded;  and  perhaps 
even  the  contemporaries  did  not  know.  But  the  general  facts 
justify  the  assertion,  that  if  Jeremiah  had  felt  the  national  in- 
dependence of  Jerusalem  to  be  as  dear  as  Isaiah  felt  it ;  if  he 
had  taught  that  life  was  not  worth  preserving,  at  the  expense 
of  enslaving  the  people  of  Jehovah  to  the  heathen ;  if,  in  short, 
those  who  with  him  abetted  Babylon  had  bravely  opposed  it, 
— the  fate  of  Jerusalem  would  have  been  at  worst  not  more 
painful,  and  certainly  more  glorious. 

If  we  judge  of  Jeremiah' s  position  by  the  common  laws  of 
prudence  and  morality,  we  shall  find  that  there  were  two  ways 
of  promoting  his  country's  welfare :  one,  by  trying  to  per- 
suade the  princes  and  the  king  to  yield  at  once  to  Babylon  ; 
the  other,  by  inciting  the  people  to  resist  manfully,  when  the 
rulers  obstinately  chose  that  course.  The  third  method, 
which  Jeremiah  followed,  of  urging  individuals  to  flee  for  their 
lives,  because  defeat  was  certain,  was  not  the  part  of  prudence 
and  patriotism,  but  was  the  highest  imprudence.  It  was  the 
most  obvious  way  of  distracting  the  nation,  paralyzing  its  ru- 
lers, and  ensuring  the  public  ruin.  It  is  requisite  to  insist  on 
this,  because  writers  who  do  not  venture  to  say  that  Jeremiah 
was  freed  from  the  observance  of  common  obligations,  are  fond 
of  extolling  him  as  a  model  of  patriotism  and  of  practical 
wisdom. 

Nebuzaradan  appears  rightly  to  have  understood  the  ser- 
vice which  Jeremiah  had  rendered  to  his  master's  cause.  Find- 
ing him  at  Ramah  among  the  prisoners  who  were  chained  for 
transportation  to  Babylon,  he  set  him  free,  and  offered  to  look 
after  his  interests  if  he  chose  voluntarily  to  accompany  the 
rest.  Understanding  that  he  preferred  to  stay  behind,  he  re- 
quested him  to  go  and  dwell  under  the  protection  of  Gedaliah, 
whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had  made  governor  of  Judaea ;  and  so 
sent  him  away  "  with  victuals  and  a  reward1."  It  deserves 
attention  that  Gedaliah  was  son  of  that  Ahikam  who  was  Je- 
remiah's especial  patron  among  the  princes.  Observing  that 
so  many  of  the  princes  were  slain  in  cold  blood  at  Eiblah,  it 
is  impossible  to  doubt  that  Gedaliah,  who  was  thus  favoured, 
was  regarded  by  the  conquerors  as  their  own  friend,  and  must 

1  Jer.  xl.  1-6. 


GEDALIAH,    THE    BABYLONIAN    SATRAP.  325 

have  been,  with  his  father,  the  nucleus  of  the  Babylonian  fac- 
tion in  Jerusalem,  with  whom  Jeremiah  had  so  zealously  been 
cooperating.  Gedaliah  now  had  his  reward,  in  becoming  the 
Babylonian  satrap  of  Judsea ;  and  exerted  himself  successfully 
to  gather  back  the  Jews  from  Edom,  Ammon  and  Moab,  into 
which  countries  great  numbers  had  fled.  Nebuzaradan  had 
also  been  so  complaisant  as  to  give  up  to  him  Zedekiah's 
daughters,  whom  Gedaliah  now  kept  in  his  fortress  at  Mizpah. 
As  their  father  was  only  thirty-two  years  old,  they  were  no 
doubt  very  young ;  it  is  probable  that  Gedaliah  intended  ere 
long  to  make  one  of  them  his  wife,  and  thus  establish  for  his 
descendants  a  hereditary  claim  on  Jewish  allegiance1.  He 
had  also  a  Chaldee  guard,  besides  the  other  army  allowed  him. 
But  his  course  was  cut  short  by  violence.  The  princes  of  Ju- 
dah  who  had  escaped  the  sword  of  the  Chaldees  regarded  him 
as  a  perfidious  traitor,  and  grudged  him  life  and  prosperity 
earned  by  courting  the  Babylonians.  Among  these  was  one  of 
the  line  of  David,  by  name  Ishmael ;  perhaps  a  descendant  of 
Amon ;  but  his  precise  relationship  is  unknown.  He,  with  ten 
others,  had  taken  refuge  among  the  Ammonites,  and  now  came 
to  Mizpah  in  the  guise  of  friendship.  Hardened  to  deeds  of 
blood,  and  regarding  Gedaliah  to  have  set  the  example  of 
treachery,  they  mercilessly  murdered,  not  him  only  and  the 
Chaldees  whom  they  found  about  him,  but  all  his  Jewish 
associates,  and  (it  is  added)  seventy  out  of  eighty  men  who 
came  up  from  Shechem,  Shiloh  and  Samaria  with  offerings 
and  incense  to  the  house  of  Jehovah2.  But  one  of  Gedaliah' s 
chief  officers,  Johanan  son  of  Kareah,  easily  resisted  these 
princes,  who  had  no  disciplined  forces  or  attached  dependants, 
and  forced  them  to  escape  again  to  the  Ammonites.  After 
this,  in  spite  of  Jeremiah's  remonstrances,  Johanan  and  his 
captains,  dreading  the  vengeance  of  the  Chaldseans  for  the 
death  of  Gedaliah,  took  Zedekiah's  daughters,  and  all  persons 
whom  Nebuzaradan  had  left  under  Gedaliah7 s  care,  including 
Jeremiah  himself  with  the  Jewish  population  who  had  been 
re-assembled,  and  removed  them  to  Egypt  as  the  only  place 
of  safety. 


326  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

This  proceeding  exceedingly  kindled  the  prophet,  who  had 
already  predicted  that  Nebuchadnezzar  should  ravage  that 
country.  Besides  his  hatred  of  its  idolatries,  he  regarded  the 
step  as  a  fleeing  into  fresh  dangers.  Accordingly,  while  at 
Tahpanhes  in  Egypt,  he  uttered  a  new  oracle,  distinctly  an- 
nouncing1 that  Nebuchadnezzar  should  set  up  his  throne 
there,  should  smite  the  land,  burn  the  temples,  and  carry  gods 
and  people  into  captivity.  It  is  clear  that  this  expectation 
was  taking  a  fixed  hold  of  the  prophetical  school  of  that  day. 
In  the  preceding  year,  just  after  Nebuchadnezzar  had  repulsed 
the  army  of  Hophra  which  came  to  relieve  Zedekiah,  Ezekiel 
on  the  river  Chebar  was  stimulated  to  predict  that  Egypt  should 
be  made  desolate  "  from  Migdol  to  Syene  and  to  the  border 
of  Ethiopia2,"  and  that  her  people  should  be  scattered  for 
forty  years;  after  which  period  the  Egyptians  were  to  be 
gathered  again  and  brought  back  into  their  own  land3.  In 
this  year  also,  Ezekiel  resumed  the  strain4,  and  plainly  de- 
clared that  Babylon  should  conquer  Egypt.  The  dirge  was 
repeated  the  year  after5.  When  sixteen  years  more  had 
passed6,  the  same  prophet  enlarged  still  further  on  this  destruc- 
tive invasion,  from  which  no  part  of  Egypt  or  Ethiopia  was  to 
be  exempted.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  to  take  the  spoil  of  the 
land  as  a  recompense  for  his  fruitless  campaign  against  Tyre, 
and  there  was  to  be  no  more  a  prince  of  the  land  of  Egypt7. 
But  happily,  the  grasp  of  the  Chaldsean  was  more  limited  than 
human  imagination.  We  have  the  contemporary  history  of 

*  Jer.  xliii.  10-13. 

2  Syene  is  the  southern  limit  of  Egypt ;  Migdol  must  be  in  the  north  (Jer. 
xlvi.  14).     Hence  this  describes  all  Egypt,  and  Nubia  beyond  Egypt. 

A  most  treacherous  mode  of  corrupting  truth  is  unsuspiciously  used  by  many 
honest  men, — that  of  making  history  out  of  prophecy.  This  is  quietly  done, 
for  example,  by  a  recent  very  learned  writer  (article  Nebuchadnezzar,  Kitto's 
Biblical  Cyclopaedia,  p.  406) ;  where  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest  of  Tyre  and 
Egypt  is  told  in  a  historical  tone,  with  reference  to  Ezekiel  as  sufficient  proof. 
In  proportion  as  we  may  have  reason  to  suspect  that  historians  have  so  acted, 
it  becomes  impossible  to  verify  predictions.  This  is  what  Josephus  seems  to 
have  done,  Antt.  x.  9,  6. 

Grote,  vol.  iii,  p.  439,  regards  it  as  certain  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  con- 
quer Egypt,  nor  lay  Tyre  desolate ;  but  he  infers  that  Tyre  must  have  capitulated 
to  him,  because  we  hear  of  Tyrian  princes  captive  in  Babylonia.  But  this 
proves  nothing.  The  Caesars  also  kept  Armenian  and  Parthian  princes  at  Home, 
and  by  them  operated  upon  the  politics  of  those  nations :  but  that  did  not  im- 
ply any  capitulation  or  loss  of  independence,  even  though  they  sometimes 
descended  to  ask  for  a  king. 

3  Jer.  xxix.  1-16.  4  Ezek.  xxx.  30-26 ;  xxxi.  5  Ezek.  xxxii. 
6  B.C.  572.                           ?  Ezek.  xxix.  17-21 ;  xxx.  1-19. . 


THIRD  DEPORTATION  TO  BABYLON.          327 

Egypt  from  the  pen  of  Herodotus,  containing  not  the  most 
distant  allusion  to  a  conquest  of  the  country  by  the  Babylo- 
nians. At  that  time  a  numerous  Greek  colony  had  been 
established  there  for  the  best  part  of  a  century,  and  commerce 
with  the  Greeks  was  very  active.  Merchants  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  foreign  politics  of  the  Egyptians  would  have 
known  too  well,  if  Egypt  had  been  desolated  from  end  to  end 
by  a  Chaldsean  host,  and  if  the  king  of  Babylon  had  dealt  as 
rudely  with  the  temples  and  the  gods,  as  Cambyses  did  fifty 
years  later.  Had  therefore  the  announcements  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  proved  true,  we  should  inevitably  have  learned  of 
it  from  Herodotus1. 

Five  years  after  the  destruction  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem, 
when  the  Chaldee  forces  were  again  in  that  neighbourhood, — 
whether  in  connexion  with  the  war  against  Tyre,  which  was 
besieged  to  no  purpose  for  thirteen  years2,  or  in  the  course  of 
hostilities  with  Egypt, — Nebuzaradan  made  a  third  and  final 
deportation  of  Jewish  people  to  Babylon3.  The  land  had  been 
left  without  any  fixed  government,  and  was  probably  too  deso- 
late to  repay  the  expense  of  a  resident  satrap ;  but  no  particu- 
lars are  preserved  concerning  the  objects  of  this  last  removal. 
By  these  events  the  cities  of  Samaria  were  left  in  a  compara- 
tive prosperity,  overlooking  ruined  Jerusalem ;  a  large  part  of 
their  population  was  Israelitish :  they  had  received  the  Penta- 
teuch from  Josiah;  and  in  spite  of  the  mixture  of  idolaters 
and  of  pagan  folly,  a  germ  seemed  to  be  there  still  preserved 
out  of  which  something  good  might  grow  up. 

But  it  was  not  in  Samaria  that  the  Jewish  faith  was  destined 
to  exert  its  chief  energy.  The  tribes  of  Israel  planted  in  As- 
syria and  Babylon  spread  eastward  and  westward,  from  city 
to  city,  like  the  Armenians  in  Modern  Persia,  when  similarly 
torn  up  from  their  own  land.  Now  it  was  that  they  learned 
those  arts  of  life  which  they  have  ever  since  retained.  As  the 
pedlar,  the  money-changer,  the  merchant,  the  money-lender, 
an  Israelite  was  everywhere  known  by  a  peculiar  character. 
To  find  scope  for  their  employments,  they  of  necessity  colo- 
nized rapidly,  and  wherever  they  settled,  a  nucleus  was  formed, 

1  Ezekiel  in  fact  was  equally  unsuccessful  in  his  prediction  concerning  Tyre, 
which  he  declared  that  Nebuchadnezzar  should  take,  plunder  and  destroy  (Ezek. 
xxvi.  xxvii.).     Herodotus  is  very  full  and  particular  concerning  the  closing 
years  of  Hophra,  who  fell  by  domestic  revolution ;  his  successor  Amasis  was  a 
man  eminently  Egyptian  and  very  prosperous. 

2  Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  21 ;  Ezek.  xxix.  18.  3  Jer.  lii.  30. 


328  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

upon  which  the  action  of  the  sacerdotal  spirit  of  restored 
Jerusalem  should  in  after  time  be  exerted. 

The  Jews  in  captivity  saw  with  pleasure  before  long  that 
the  Median  empire  became  stronger  and  stronger,  and  that 
upon  the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar1  no  successor  of  like 
spirit  or  experience  arose.  In  the  last  decade  of  his  forty- 
three  years'  reign,  decay  had  perhaps  already  commenced. 
His  empire  was  as  large  and  as  powerful  in  his  tenth  as  in  his 
last  year  :  in  fact,  after  Syria  and  Phoenicia  had  acknowledged 
his  sway,  he  won  nothing  more ;  and  his  laborious  campaigns 
against  the  insular  Tyre,  with  his  vast  works  at  Babylon,  must 
have  greatly  drained  his  resources.  As  with  Solomon  and 
Louis  le  Grand,  his  early  successes  shed  splendour  on  his 
whole  reign,  and  his  domestic  magnificence  dazzled  men's 
minds ;  but  the  Chaldsean  armies,  at  his  death,  had  been  long 
taught  that  they  were  not  invincible.  Immediately  after,  the 
intestine  quarrels  which  followed  in  his  family  presaged  final 
ruin.  Evilmerodach,  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  killed  by 
his  sister's  husband  Neriglissar,  after  a  two  years'  reign.  Ne- 
riglissar  dying  four  years  later,  left  the  throne  to  his  boyish 
son  Laborsoarchod,  who  was  allowed  to  live  but  nine  months 
longer.  He  was  assassinated2  by  a  domestic  conspiracy,  and 
one  Nabonnedech,  whose  relationship  is  contested3,  obtained 
the  kingdom.  According  to  Herodotus,  his  mother  Nitocris 
had  been  queen  of  Babylon, — wife  perhaps  of  Neriglissar,  and 
daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  this  will  make  him  grandson 
of  that  great  king,  and  nearly  agree  with  the  tradition  of  the 
book  of  Daniel.  In  fear  of  the  Median  power,  Nabonnedech 
executed  the  great  labour  of  building  walls  along  each  bank 
of  the  Euphrates,  which  flowed  through  the  middle  of  the 
city.  Great  brazen  gates  closed  the  streets  which  ended  on 
the  river.  A  valuable  interval  for  all  such  works  of  defence 
was  left  to  the  Babylonian  king,  while  civil  strife  rent  the 
rival  empire  apart ;  until  the  supreme  power  was  won  by 
Cyrus  the  Persian.  Reaching  out  eastward  over  Bactria,  to 
the  south-east  over  Carmania,  in  the  west  this  prince  added 

1  B.C.  562.  2  B.C.  556. 

3  Berosus  (in  Joseph,  c.  Ap.  i.  20)  and  Abydenus  (in  Euseb.  Armen.  Chron. 
p.  60)  represent  him  as  no  way  related  to  Laborsoarchod  ;  and  that  is  possible, 
even  on  our  view,  if  he  was  son  of  Nitocris,  but  not  of  Neriglissar. 

Nabonnedech  (NafiovviSoxos)  is  Nabonnedus  in  Josephus,  and  Labynetus  in 
Herodotus.  The  word  is  not  likely  to  prove  transformable  into  Belshazzar, 
who  is  undoubtedly  meant  for  the  same  individual. 


PROPHECIES    OF    THE    LATER    ISAIAH.  329 

the  wealthy  kingdom  of  Lydia  to  his  sceptre,  and  overran  all 
the  lesser  Asia  down  to  the  seas  of  Greece.  No  resistance  is 
recorded  on  the  part  of  Babylon  to  his  conquest  of  Syria  on 
her  left,  and  little  to  that  of  Susiana,  on  her  right.  In  the 
seventeenth  year  of  Nabonnedech1,  the  arms  of  Cyrus  folded 
that  great  city  around,  which  lay  now  exposed  to  his  attack, 
a  victim  almost  as  clearly  destined  for  capture  as  Nineveh 
when  environed  by  the  Medes. 

The  Jews  in  Chaldsea  were  not  inattentive  to  these  events  ; 
and  a  variety  of  prophecies  boded  desolation  to  the  lordly  city, 
their  fatal  foe,  from  the  arms  of  the  Medes  and  Persians.  Of 
the  prophets  of  this  sera  by  far  the  noblest  and  most  interest- 
ing is  he,  whom  (in  ignorance  of  his  true  name)  we  may  call 
the  younger  Isaiah,  the  author  of  the  beautiful  writings  which 
extend  from  the  40th  to  the  end  of  the  62nd  chapter  of  our 
modern  book  of  Isaiah.  The  writing  is  obviously  that  of  a 
Jew  in  Babylonia  during  the  exile ;  and  his  great  subject  is, 
the  approaching  restoration  to  their  own  land.  He  addresses 
Cyrus  by  name,  as  the  heaven- appointed  instrument  of  this 
event,  and  announces  his  conquest  over  Babylon.  If  we  do 
not  find  that  the  results  of  this  return  equalled  his  magnifi- 
cent predictions,  it  is  easy  to  forgive  the  pious  patriotism 
which  dictated  them :  they  are  in  fact  only  too  splendid 
poetry  to  be  fulfilled  in  this  prosaic  world.  More  important 
is  it  to  observe  the  softened  tone  towards  the  Gentiles  here 
pervading.  Indeed  the  tenderness  and  sweetness  of  this  pro- 
phet is  far  more  uniformly  evangelical  than  that  of  any  other. 
His  very  rhythm  and  parallelisms  generally  tell  of  the  more 
recent  polish  and  smoothness.  He  retains  moreover  all  the 
spirituality  of  the  older  school;  ceremonial  observances  are 
in  no  respect  elevated  by  him.  The  Sabbath  alone  is  named, 
and  that  in  a  tone  the  very  reverse  of  formalism,  although 
indicating  the  sam'e  high  reverence  for  that  institution  which 
Christians  in  general  have  retained.  With  the  exception  of 
the  fall  of  Babylon3,  which  was  the  immediate  means  of  re- 


1  B.C.  540. 

2  Even  in  this,  there  is  no  gloating  over  images  of  blood,  nor  anything  to 
indicate  and  excite  fierce  rejoicings  in  misery,  such  as  pain  us  in  so  many  of  the 
prophets.     [Isaiah  Ixiii.  1-6  is  an  exception,  if  that  passage,  as  Ewald  thinks, 
comes  from  the  same  writer.     But  this  invective  against  Edom  is  quite  isolated  ; 
and  makes  a  very  abrupt  close  to  his  prophecies,  which  terminate  naturally  with 
chap.  Ixii.] 


330  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

lease  to  his  people,  he  does  not  concern  himself  with  Gentile 
politics ;  but  dilates  on  the  trials,  sorrows  and  hopes  of  Zion, 
and  the  promises  of  divine  aid  to  her,  in  general  terms,  to 
which  the  heart  of  spiritualized  man  in  all  ages  and  countries 
has  responded. 

Some  psalms  also  of  this  date  are  fully  worthy  of  the  older 
times;  and  the  last  of  the  prophets,  in  the  next  century,  shows 
much  of  the  same  terseness,  gravity  and  pure  moral  spirit. 
But  all  the  religious  productions  of  this  sera  were  not  so  ele- 
vated. The  writings  of  Ezekiel  painfully  show  the  growth  of 
what  is  merely  visionary,  and  an  increasing  value  of  hard 
sacerdotalism1.  The  younger  Zechariah  is  overrun  with  the 
same.  Obadiah  has  some  verses  of  much  energy,  (which  ha^e 
been  suspected  to  be  older  than  the  rest,)  imbedded  in  a  rather 
flat  complaint  against  the  Edomites.  The  story  of  Jonah 
indicates  a  lower  taste  than  the  general  literature  of  that  day, 
and  is  perhaps  of  still  later  date.  Yet  on  the  whole,  even  the 
splendour  of  the  second  Isaiah  can  hardly  conceal  from  us 
that  the  prophetical  energy  was  declining,  and  giving  way 
before  the  newer  tendencies. 

At  last  the  shock  of  war  from  Persia  reached  the  city  of 
Babylon  itself2.  The  Assyrians  had  been  distinguished  by 
chariots  and  horsemen,  the  Chaldees  by  cavalry  alone;  in 
horse-archery  the  Medes  also  excelled ;  but  the  pride  of  the 
Persian  nation  was  in  its  infantry,  which  besides  the  bow  and 
arrows,  carried  a  battle-axe,  two  javelins  and  a  light  wicker 
shield.  One  battle  on  the  plains  of  Babylonia  laid  prostrate 
the  late  overwhelming  Chaldee  forces.  Nabonnedech  fled 
with  a  small  retinue  into  the  fortress  of  Borsippus,  (Birs 
Nimrood)  and  was  there  blockaded  by  the  victorious  army. 
Deprived  of  its  king,  Babylon  appears  to  have  made  no  farther 
active  efforts,  and,  perhaps  when  at  length  threatened  with 

1  Contrast  the  heavy  materialism  of  the  new  temple  expected  by  Ezekiel,  with 
its  priests,  sacrifices  and  prince,  and  its  rigid  observances  according  to  the 
Pentateuch  (Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.),  as  tedious  and  unedifying  as  Leviticus  itself, — 
with  the  splendid  poetry  of  Isaiah  Ix.  Ixii. ;  where  the  heart  is  lifted  into  a 
spiritual  region,  even  when  the  words  of  the  prophet  speak  of  outward  and 
material  prosperity. 

Although  the  historical  temple  of  Nehemiah  and  the  new  distribution  of 
the  land  were  in  many  respects  widely  different  from  Ezekiel's  predictions,  it 
cannot  be  doubted,  that  they  so  kept  alive  on  the  minds  of  the  next  generation 
a  belief  in  certain  return  from  captivity,  as  to  have  exceedingly  conduced 
towards  the  result. 

2  B.C.  540. 


CYRUS  CONQUERS  BABYLON.  331 

famine,  easily  accepted  the  terms  offered  by  Cyrus.  After 
becoming  master  of  the  capital,,  he  pressed  the  siege  of  Bor- 
sippus  more  closely,  until  Nabonnedech,  despairing  of  escape, 
threw  himself  on  the  conqueror's  generosity.  Nor  was  he 
disappointed;  for  Cyrus,  with  the  liberal  policy  which  dis- 
tinguished the  best  of  his  race,  treated  him  kindly  and  esta- 
blished him  on  an  estate  in  Carmania.  Such  is  the  account 
given  by  Berosus1,  a  priest  of  Babylon,  who  is  likely  to  have 
had  access  to  good  sources  of  information2. 

When  Cyrus  the  Great,  thus  becoming  master  of  Babylon, 
resolved  to  re-establish  Jerusalem,  only  a  fraction3  of  the  exiles 
were  willing  to  return.  The  dangers  of  the  enterprize  were 
great ;  and  none  but  the  most  zealous,  and  especially  those 
who  were  most  attached  to  local  religion  and  external  worship, 
were  likely  to  encounter  them.  Undoubtedly  few  Jews  of 
that  age  (if  of  any  age)  could  make  light  of  externals  without 
losing  religion  altogether;  yet  a  superstitious  over-estimate 
of  these  things  animates  men  to  pilgrimage  more  suc- 
cessfully than  a  purely  spiritual  impulse ;  and  on  the  whole 
we  cannot  doubt  that  those  who  returned  to  Jerusalem  were 
chiefly  persons  over  whose  minds  sacerdotal  principles  had  a 
commanding  influence.  Accordingly,  from  this  time  forth, 
the  nation  wore  a  new  character.  They  reverenced  ordinances 
more  than  they  had  before  despised  them.  Idolatry,  and 
even  the  making  or  possessing  of  graven  images  at  all,  be- 
came their  peculiar  horror.  For  the  Levitical  priesthood  they 

1  Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  20. 

2  The  tale  as  generally  given  from  Herodotus  (whom  Xenophon  follows)  is 
far  less  likely ;  for  to  drain  off  the  whole  water  of  the  Euphrates  on  so  level  a 
soil  is  a  most  arduous  and  perhaps  impossible  operation  for  an  army :  but,  as 
the  more  romantic  story,  it  would  be  preferred  by  that  graphic  writer. 

G-rote  observes,  vol.  iv.  p.  287 :  "  the  way  hi  which  the  city  was  treated, 
would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  its  acquisition  cannot  have  cost  the  conqueror 
either  much  time  or  much  loss It  formed  the  richest  satrapy  of  the  (Per- 
sian) empire : the  vast  walls  and  gates  were  left  untouched.  This  was 

very  different  from  the  way  hi  which  the  Medes  had  treated  Nineveh, and 

in  which  Babylon  itself  was  treated  twenty  years  afterwards  by  Darius,  when 
reconquered  after  a  revolt." 

3  In  Ezra  ii.  64,  they  are  called  42,360  persons,  which  is  probably  an  enor- 
mous exaggeration :  for  those  carried  away  by  Nebuchadnezzar  were  in  all  only 
4600  according  to  Jeremiah.     The  immense  disproportion  indicates  that  neither 
enumeration  is  trustworthy.     But  whatever  the  actual  number  which  returned,        \  / 
it  did  not  alter  the  fact,  that  the  Jewish  race  continued  to  be  most  widely  dif- 
fused :  which  justifies  the  statement  in  the  text. 


332  THE    HEBREW    MONARCHY. 

felt  a  profound  reverence.  Though  previously  they  neglected 
the  sabbath  and  sabbatical  year,  now  they  observed  both, 
although  no  miraculous  abundance  was  granted  on  the  sixth 
year,  such  as  the  Pentateuch  promised,  to  supply  the  lost 
harvest  of  the  seventh.  The  Lawyers,  or  expositors  of  the 
law,  became  the  most  important  profession ;  and  Rabbinism 
took  firm  root,  even  before  prophecy  was  extinct. 

It  is  not  intended  here  to  pursue  the  later  fortunes  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  We  have  seen  its  monarchy  rise  and  fall.  In 
its  progress,  the  prophetical  and  the  sacerdotal  elements  were 
developed  side  by  side ;  the  former  flourished  in  its  native  soil 
for  a  brief  period,  but  was  transplanted  over  all  the  world, 
to  impart  a  lasting  glory  to  Jewish  monotheism.  The  latter, 
while  in  union  with  and  subservient  to  the  free  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy, had  struck  its  roots  into  the  national  heart,  and  grown 
up  as  a  constitutional  pillar  to  the  monarchy :  but  when  un- 
checked by  prophet  or  by  king,  and  invested  with  the  supreme 
temporal  and  spiritual  control  of  the  restored  nation,  it  dwin- 
dled to  a  mere  scrubby  plant,  whose  fruit  was  dry  and  thorny 
learning,  or  apples  of  Sodom  which  are  as  ashes  in  the  mouth. 
Such  was  the  unexpansive  and  literal  materialism  of  the  later 
Rabbi,  out  of  which  has  proceeded  nearly  all  that  is  unamiable 
in  the  Jewish  character  :  but  the  Roman  writers  who  saw  that 
side  only  of  the  nation,  little  knew  how  high  a  value  the  re- 
trospect of  the  world's  history  would  set  on  the  agency  of  this 
scattered  and  despised  people.  For  if  Greece  was  born  to 
teach  art  and  philosophy,  and  Rome  to  diffuse  the  processes 
of  law  and  government,  surely  Judaea  has  been  the  wellspring 
of  religious  wisdom  to  a  world  besotted  by  frivolous  or  impure 
fancies.  To  these  three  nations  it  has  been  given  to  cultivate 
and  develope  principles  characteristic  of  themselves  :  to  the 
Greeks,  Beauty  and  Science;  to  the  Romans,  Jurisprudence 
and  Municipal  Rule ;  but  to  the  Jews,  the  Holiness  of  God 
and  his  Sympathy  with  his  chosen  servants.  That  this  was 
the  true  calling  of  the  nation,  the  prophets  were  inwardly 
conscious  at  an  early  period.  They  discerned  that  Jerusalem 
was  as  a  centre  of  bright  light  to  a  dark  world ;  and  while 
groaning  over  the  monstrous  fictions  which  imposed  on  the 
nations  under  the  name  of  religion,  they  announced  that  out 
of  Zion  should  go  forth  the  Law  and  the  word  of  Jehovah. 
When  they  did  not  see,  yet  they  believed,  that  the  proud  and 


FUNCTION    OF    THE    JEWISH    NATION.  333 

despiteful  heathen  should  at  length  gladly  learn  of  their  wis- 
dom, and  rejoice  to  honour  them.  In  this  faith  the  younger 
Isaiah  closed  his  magnificent  strains,  addressing  Jerusalem  :— 

Behold,  darkness  covereth  the  earth, 
And  thick  mist  the  peoples  ; 
But  Jehovah  riseth  upon  thee, 
And  his  glory  shall  be  seen  on  thee  : 
And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light, 
And  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising. 

•          •          *          *          *          *          * 
The  Gentiles  shall  see  thy  righteousness, 
And  all  kings  thy  glory ; 
And  thou  shalt  be  called  by  a  new  name, 
Which  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  shall  name. 
Thou  shalt  be  a  garland  of  glory  in  the  hand  of  Jehovah, 
And  a  royal  diadem  in  the  hand  of  thy  God. 
Thou  shalt  no  more  be  termed  Forsaken, 
Nor  shall  thy  land  any  more  be  termed  Desolate  ; 
For  Jehovah  delighteth  in  thee, 
And  thy  land  shall  be  married  to  him. 


THE    END. 


PRINTED    BY 

JOHN  EDWARD  TAYLOR,  LITTLE  QUEEN  STREET, 
LINCOLN'S  INN  FIELDS. 


PUBLISHED  BY  SUBSCRIPTION. 

FOUE  VOLUMES  IN  LAEGE  POST  8vo,  FOE  £1  PEE  ANNUM. 


Chapman  s   Quarterly  Series  is  intended  to   consist   of 

works  by  learned  and  profound  thinkers,  embracing  the 

subjects  of 

THEOLOGY,  PHILOSOPHY,  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM, 
AND  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION. 

An  endeavour  will  be  made  to  issue  the  volumes  regularly 
at  quarterly  intervals,  viz., 

IN  MARCH,  JUNE,  SEPTEMBER,  AND  DECEMBER, 
but  as  so  much  of  1853  has  already  elapsed,  there  will  be  an 
unavoidable  irregularity  in  the  period  of  publishing  the  first 
four  volumes.  Volumes  I.  and  II.  will  be  ready  before  the 
end  of  August  next,  and  III.  and  IV.  before  the  end  of  Feb- 
ruary 1854. 

Subscriptions  for  1853,  entitling  Subscribers  of  £1  to 
Volumes  I.  to  IV.,  must  be  remitted  before  the  1st  Septem- 
ber next.  Subscriptions  for  1854  and  subsequent  years  will 
be  received  until  the  1st  March  of  each  year. 

Subscriptions  paid  in  arrear  of  these  dates  will  be  raised  to 
£\.  Is. 

The  price  of  each  work  to  non- Subscribers  will  be  an- 
nounced at  the  time  of  publication.  It  will  vary  according  to 
the  size  of  the  respective  volumes,  but  will  be  on  the  average 
9s.  per  volume,  so  that  a  large  saving  will  be  effected  by  an- 
nual Subscribers. 


The  Series  will  commence  with  the  publication  of 

I.    THEISM,   ATHEISM,   AND    THE   POPULAE   THEO- 
LOGY.   Sermons  by  THEODORE  PARKER,  Author  of  'A  Dis- 
course of  Matters  pertaining  to  Eeligion,'  etc.     An  accurate 
Portrait  of  the  Author  engraved  on  steel  will  be  prefixed. 
The  aim  of  this  work  is  defined  by  its  author  at  the  beginning  of  the 


first  Discourse  as  follows : — "  I  propose  to  speak  of  Atheism,  of  the 
Popular  Theology,  and  of  pure  Theism.  Of  each  first  as  a  Theory  of 
the  Universe,  and  then  as  a  Principle  of  Practical  Life ;  first  as  Specu- 
lative Philosophy,  then  as  Practical  Ethics." 

A  just  conception  of  Mr.  Parker's  character  and  merits  as  an  author 
may  be  formed  by  readers  as  yet  unacquainted  with  his  writings,  from 
a  perusal  of  the  following  extracts  from  reviews  of  his  *  Discourse  of 
Matters  pertaining  to  Religion:' — "Parker  writes  like  a  Hebrew  pro- 

S\et,  enriched  by  the  ripest  culture  of  the  modern  world 
e  .understands  by  sympathy  more  than  by  criticism ;  and  convinces 
by  force  of  exposition,  not  by  closeness  of  argument.  His  loftiest 
theories  come  thundering  down  into  life  with  a  rapidity  and  directness 
of  aim  which,  while  they  alarm  the  timid  and  amaze  the  insincere,  af- 
ford proof  that  he  is  less  eager  to  be  a  reformer  of  men's  thinking,  than 
a  thinker  for  their  reformation.  Listening  to  the  American  reformer, 
you  stand  before  a  man  of  high  and  devout  genius,  who  disposes  of  the 
wealth  of  erudition  in  the  service  of  religion.  Whatever  judgment  the 
reader  may  pronounce  on  the  philosophy  of  the  volume,  he  will  close  it, 
we  venture  to  affirm,  with  the  consciousness  that  he  leaves  the  presence 
of  a  truly  great  mind ;  of  one  who  is  not  only  unoppressed  by  his  large 
store  of  learning,  but  seems  absolutely  to  require  a  massive  weight 
of  knowledge  to  resist  and  regulate  the  native  force  of  his  thought, 
and  occupy  the  grasp  of  his  imagination." — Westminster  and  Foreign 
Quarterly  Review,  1847. 

"A  mind  singularly  exuberant  by  nature  and  laboriously  enriched 
by  culture." — Prospective  Review. 

II.  A  HISTOEY  OP  THE  HEBEEW  MONAECHY  FROM 
THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  SAMUEL  TO  THE  BABYLONISH 
CAPTIVITY.  By  FRANCIS  WILLIAM  NEWMAN,  formerly  Eel- 
low  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford,  and  Author  of  <  The  Soul ;  its 
Sorrows  and  Aspirations,'  etc.  Second  Edition*. 


The  following  Works  are  leing  prepared : — 

THE  ESSENCE  OF  CHEISTIANITY.  By  LUDWIG  FEUER- 
BACH.  Translated  from  the  Second  German  Edition  by  the 
Translator  of  STRAUSS' s  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 

AN  INTEODUCTION  TO  THE  HISTOEY  OE  THE  PEO- 
PLE OE  ISEAEL.  By  HEINRICH  EWALD.  Translated 
from  the  Second  German  Edition. 

A  SKETCH  OE  THE  EISE  AND  PEOGEESS  OE  CHEIS- 
TIANITY.  By  E.  W.  MACKAY,  A.M.,  Author  of  the  '  Pro- 
gress of  the  Intellect,'  etc. 

THE  IDEA  OE  A  EUTUEE  LIEE.  By  the  Translator  of 
STRAUSS'S  LIFE  OF  JESUS. 


*  Persons  who  already  possess  the  First  Edition  of  this  work,  may  obtain 
the  other  three  volumes  for  1853,  by  subscribing  15*. 


WORKS  ALREADY  PUBLISHED, 

BY 

P.  W.  NEWMAN, 

PROFESSOR  OF  LATIN  AT  UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE,  LONDON^  AND  FORMERLY  FELLOW  OF 
BALLIOL  COLLEGE,  OXFORD. 

THE  CRIMES   OF  THE   HOUSE    OF   HAPSBURG 

AGAINST    ITS    OWN    LIEGE    SUBJECTS. 

Post  8vo,  paper  cover,  Is. 

"Professor  Newman  has  compiled  a  serious  and  telling  little  work." — 
LEADEE. 

"  A  brief  but  terse  and  energetic  treatise." — LITEEAEY  GAZETTE. 

"We  earnestly  commend  the  perusal  of  every  line  .  .  .  from  Professor 
Newman's  able  review  of  the  Crimes  of  the  House  of  Hapsburg." — WEEKLY 
NEWS. 


THE    ODES    OF    HORACE 

TBANSLATED   INTO   TJNBHYMED   ENGLISH   METEES,   WITH   ILLUSTEATIVE 
INTEODTJCTIONS   AND   NOTES, 

Post  8vo,  cloth,  7s.  Qd. 

%*  The  ODES  are  so  arranged,  that  the  introductions  to  them  form  a  small, 

continuous  history  of  the  period  ;  and  the  Notes  are  especially 

addressed  to  unclassical  readers. 

"  The  metres  which  he  has  chosen  are  new  to  English  ears,  and  are  intended 
to  give,  as  nearly  as  is  possible,  English  representatives  for  the  several  forms  of 
Latin  lyric  verse.  There  may  be  different  opinions  as  to  the  success  of  this 
somewhat  bold  experiment ;  but  there  can  be  none  as  to  the  fidelity  and  ele- 
gance of  the  translations,  which  are  beyond  all  praise.  The  notes  and  intro- 
ductions appended  to  each  ode  form  one  of  the  most  thoughtful  and  scholarly 
commentaries  with  which  a  classic  could  be  enriched.  To  those  who  have  been 
accustomed  to  read  and  enjoy  Horace,  this  book  will  be  most  acceptable  ;  while 
to  the  English  reader,  who  would  like  to  obtain  a  glimpse  of  the  social  and 
moral  life  of  Rome  in  the  Augustan  age,  there  is  no  volume  we  could  more 
strongly  recommend." — EDUCATIONAL  EECOED. 

"  Mr.  Newman  has  given  an  elegant,  and  whenever  the  necessities  of  metre 
do  not  forbid,  a  scholar-like  translation  of  Horace.  .  .  .  The  notes  are  admi- 
rable and  likely  to  be  of  extensive  use  to  the  student.  .  .  .  Mr.  Newman  has 
written  a  singularly  attractive  book,  which  will  be  of  infinite  use  to  the  student, 
and  of  some  service  to  the  ripe  scholar  in  helping  him  to  the  best  possible  prose 
English  of  difficult  passages." — DAILY  NEWS. 

"  Prof.  Newman's  command  of  pure  and  choice  English  is  everywhere  shown 
to  be  singularly  masterly.  It  presents  a  model  of  good  construing,  i.  e.,  the  ren- 


dering  of  the  Latin  original  into  the  best  and  closest  English  equivalents." — 
WEEKLY  NEWS. 

"  We  most  cordially  recommend  Mr.  Newman's  volume  to  all  who  are  inter- 
ested in  the  subject  for  the  notes." — LITEEAET  GAZETTE. 

"  Many  of  his  (Mr.  Newman's)  metres  are  exceedingly  pleasing  in  our  ears — 
sweet,  various,  and  sonorous." — PEOSPECTIVE  EEVIEW. 


PHASES     OF     FAITH: 

OR,    PASSAGES    FROM    THE    HISTORY    OF    MY    CREED. 

Second  Edition,  Post  8vo,  2s. 

"  I  have  expanded  a  few  passages  in  the  later  portions  of  this  work,  where 
by  reason  (I  suppose)  of  my  too  great  brevity,  I  have  been  greatly  misappre- 
hended. For  the  same  reason  I  have  enlarged  a  short  discussion  into  an  entire 
new  chapter,  on  the  moral  perfection  of  Jesus.  ...  I  have  also  added  a  chap- 
ter at  the  end,  chiefly  in  reply  to  the  '  Eclipse  of  Faith,'  a  book  which  has  been 
highly  extolled  as  a  refutation  of  my  writings." — EXTEACT  FROM  PBEFACE  TO 
SECOND  EDITION. 


THE    SOUL: 

HER    SORROWS    AND    HER   ASPIRATIONS. 

An  Essay  towards  the  Natural  History  of  the  Soul,  as  the  Basis  of  Theology. 
Post  8vo,  paper  cover,  2*. 

"  The  spirit  throughout  has  our  warmest  sympathy.  It  contains  more  of  the 
genuine  life  of  Christianity  than  half  the  books  that  are  coldly  elaborated  in  its 
defence.  The  charm  of  the  volume  is  the  tone  of  faithfulness  and  sincerity 
which  it  breathes — the  evidences  which  it  affords  in  every  page,  of  being  drawn 
direct  from  the  fountains  of  conviction." — PEOSPECTIYE  EEVIEW. 

"  On  the  great  ability  of  the  author  we  need  not  comment.  The  force  with 
which  he  puts  his  arguments,  whether  for  good  or  for  evil,  is  obvious  on  every 

page." — LlTEEAEY   GrAZETTE. 

"  We  have  seldom  met  with  so  much  pregnant  and  suggestive  matter  in  a 
small  compass,  as  in  this  remarkable  volume.     It  is  distinguished  by  a  force  of 
thought  and  freshness  of  feeling,  rare  in  the  treatment  of  religious  subjects."— 
INQTTIEEE. 

LECTURES    ON    POLITICAL    ECONOMY. 

Post  8vo,  cloth.     Original  price,  7s.  6d. ;  reduced  to  5*. 

"  The  most  able  and  instructive  book,  which  exhibits,  we  think,  no  less  moral 
than  economical  wisdom." — PEOSPECTIYE  REVIEW. 

"  For  a  lucid  statement  of  principles  in  a  singularly  compact  and  readable 
volume,  we  know  of  nothing  comparable  to  this.  Any  person  familiar  with  the 
subject,  and  the  writings  upon  it,  will  appreciate  the  union  of  fulness  with  brevity 
which  distinguishes  it ;  but  only  those  who  have  some  experience  in  lecturing 
can  understand  the  amount  of  thought  and  dexterity  required  to  keep  such  a 
subject  within  such  narrow  limits,  and  yet  not  have  a  tedious  page.  .  .  .  The 
best  manual  or  introduction  to  the  science  of  Political  Economy  with  which  we 
are  acquainted.  .  .  .  We  send  our  readers  to  the  volume  itself,  with  our  em- 
phatic commendation." — LEADEE. 


LONDON:  JOHN  CHAPMAN,  142,  STEAND.