Chapter III: Part 3

6. _The Monarchy of Israel._--The book of Joshua continues the fortunes of the "children of Israel" and describes a successful occupation of Palestine by the united tribes. This stands in striking contrast to other records of the partial successes of individual groups (Judg. i.). The former, however, is based upon the account of victories by the Ephraimite Joshua over confederations of petty kings to the south and north of central Palestine, apparently the specific traditions of the people of Ephraim describing from their standpoint the entire conquest of Palestine.[10] The book of Judges represents a period of unrest after the settlement of the people. External oppression and internal rivalries rent the Israelites, and in the religious philosophy of a later (Deuteronomic) age the period is represented as one of alternate apostasy from and of penitent return to the Yahweh of the "exodus." Some vague recollection of known historical events (§ 3 end) might be claimed among the traditions ascribed to the closing centuries of the second millennium, but the view that the prelude to the monarchy was an era when individual leaders "judged" all Israel finds no support in the older narratives, where the heroes of the age (whose correct sequence is uncertain) enjoy only a local fame. The best historical narratives belong to Israel and Gilead; Judah scarcely appears, and in a relatively old poetical account of a great fight of the united tribes against a northern adversary lies outside the writer's horizon or interest (Judg. v., see DEBORAH). Stories of successful warfare and of temporary leaders (see ABIMELECH; EHUD; GIDEON; JEPHTHAH) form an introduction to the institution of the Israelite monarchy, an epoch of supreme importance in biblical history. The heroic figure who stands at the head is Saul ("asked"), and two accounts of his rise are recorded. (1) The Philistines, a foreign people whose presence in Palestine has already been noticed, had oppressed Israel (cf. SAMSON) until a brilliant victory was gained by the prophet Samuel, some account of whose early history is recorded. He himself held supreme sway over all Israel as the last of the "judges" until compelled to accede to the popular demand for a king. The young Saul was chosen by lot and gained unanimous recognition by delivering Jabesh in Gilead from the Ammonites. (2) But other traditions represent the people scattered and in hiding; Israel is groaning under the Philistine yoke, and the unknown Saul is raised up by Yahweh to save his people. This he accomplishes with the help of his son Jonathan. The first account, although now essential to the canonical history, clearly gives a less authentic account of the change from the "judges" to the monarchy, while the second is fragmentary and can hardly be fitted into the present historical thread (see SAUL). At all events the first of a series of annalistic notices of the kings of Israel ascribes to Saul conquests over the surrounding peoples to an extent which implies that the district of Judah formed part of his kingdom (1 Sam. xiv. 47 seq). His might is attested also by the fine elegy (2 Sam. i. 19 sqq.) over the death of two great Israelite heroes, Saul and Jonathan, knit together by mutual love, inseparable in life and death, whose unhappy end after a career of success was a national misfortune. Disaster had come upon the north, and the plain of Jezreel saw the total defeat of the king and the rout of his army. The court was hastily removed across the Jordan to Mahanaim, where Saul's son Ishbaal (Ish-bosheth), thanks to his general Abner, recovered some of the lost prestige. In circumstances which are not detailed, the kingdom seems to have regained its strength, and Ishbaal is credited with a reign of two years over Israel and Gilead (2 Sam. ii. 8-10; contrast v. 11). But at this point the scanty annals are suspended and the history of the age is given in more popular sources. Both Israel and Judah had their own annals, brief excerpts from which appear in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, and they are supplemented by fuller narratives of distinct and more popular origin. The writings are the result of a continued literary process, and the Israelite national history has come down to us through Judaean hands, with the result that much of it has been coloured by late Judaean feeling. It is precisely in Saul's time that the account of the Judaean monarchy, or perhaps of the monarchy from the Judaean standpoint, now begins.

7. _The Monarchy of Judah._--Certain traditions of Judah and Jerusalem appear to have looked back upon a movement from the south, traces of which underlie the present account of the "exodus." The land was full of "sons of Anak," giants who had terrified the scouts sent from Kadesh. Caleb (q.v.) alone had distinguished himself by his fearlessness, and the clan Caleb drove them out from Hebron in south Judah (Josh. xv. 14 sqq.; cf. also xi. 21 seq.). David and his followers are found in the south of Hebron, and as they advanced northwards they encountered wondrous heroes between Gath and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. 15 sqq.; xxiii. 8 sqq.). After strenuous fighting the district was cleared, and Jerusalem, taken by the sword, became the capital. History saw in David the head of a lengthy line of kings, the founder of the Judaean monarchy, the psalmist and the priest-king who inaugurated religious institutions now recognized to be of a distinctly later character. As a result of this backward projection of later conceptions, the recovery of the true historical nucleus is difficult. The prominence of Jerusalem, the centre of post-exilic Judaism, necessarily invited reflection. Israelite tradition had ascribed the conquest of Jerusalem, Hebron and other cities of Judah to the Ephraimite Joshua; Judaean tradition, on the other hand, relates the capture of the sacred city from a strange and hostile people (2 Sam. v.). The famous city, within easy reach of the southern desert and central Palestine (to Hebron and to Samaria the distances are about 18 and 35 miles respectively), had already entered into Palestinian history in the "Amarna" age (§ 3). Anathoth, a few miles to the north-east, points to the cult of the goddess Anath, the near-lying Nob has suggested the name of the Babylonian Nebo, and the neighbouring, though unidentified, Beth-Ninib of the Amarna tablets may indicate the worship of a Babylonian war and astral god (cf. the solar name Beth-Shemesh). Such was the religious environment of the ancient city which was destined to become the centre of Judaism. Judaean tradition dated the sanctity of Jerusalem from the installation of the ark, a sacred movable object which symbolized the presence of Yahweh. It is associated with the half-nomad clans in the south of Palestine, or with the wanderings of David and his own priest Abiathar; it is ultimately placed within the newly captured city. Quite another body of tradition associates it with the invasion of all the tribes of Israel from beyond the Jordan (see ARK). To combine the heterogeneous narratives and isolated statements into a consecutive account is impossible; to ignore those which conflict with the now predominating views would be unmethodical. When the narratives describe the life of the young David at the court of the first king of the northern kingdom, when the scenes cover the district which he took with the sword, and when the brave Saul is represented in an unfavourable light, one must allow for the popular tendency to idealize great figures, and for the Judaean origin of the compilation. To David is ascribed the sovereignty over a united people. But the stages in his progress are not clear. After being the popular favourite of Israel in the little district of Benjamin, he was driven away by the jealousy and animosity of Saul. Gradually strengthening his position by alliance with Judaean clans, he became king at Hebron at the time when Israel suffered defeat in the north. His subsequent advance to the kingship over Judah and Israel at Jerusalem is represented as due to the weak condition of Israel, facilitated by the compliance of Abner; partly, also, to the long-expressed wish of the Israelites that their old hero should reign over them. Yet again, Saul had been chosen by Yahweh to free his people from the Philistines; he had been rejected for his sins, and had suffered continuously from this enemy; Israel at his death was left in the unhappy state in which he had found it; it was the Judaean David, the faithful servant of Yahweh, who was now chosen to deliver Israel, and to the last the people gratefully remembered their debt. David accomplished the conquests of Saul but on a grander scale; "Saul hath slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands" is the popular couplet comparing the relative merits of the rival dynasts. A series of campaigns against Edom, Moab, Ammon and the Aramaean states, friendly relations with Hiram of Tyre, and the recognition of his sovereignty by the king of Hamath on the Orontes, combine to portray a monarchy which was the ideal.

But in passing from the books of Samuel, with their many rich and vivid narratives, to the books of Kings, we enter upon another phase of literature; it is a different atmosphere, due to the character of the material and the aims of other compilers (see § 9 beginning). David, the conqueror, was followed by his son Solomon, famous for his wealth, wisdom and piety, above all for the magnificent Temple which he built at Jerusalem. Phoenician artificers were enlisted for the purpose, and with Phoenician sailors successful trading-journeys were regularly undertaken. Commercial intercourse with Asia Minor, Arabia, Tarshish (probably in Spain) and Ophir (q.v.) filled his coffers, and his realm extended from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt. Tradition depicts him as a worthy successor to his father, and represents a state of luxury and riches impressive to all who were familiar with the great Oriental courts. The commercial activity of the king and the picture of intercourse and wealth are quite in accordance with what is known of the ancient monarchies, and could already be illustrated from the Amarna age. Judah and Israel dwelt at ease, or held the superior position of military officials, while the earlier inhabitants of the land were put to forced labour. But another side of the picture shows the domestic intrigues which darkened the last days of David. The accession of Solomon had not been without bloodshed, and Judah, together with David's old general Joab and his faithful priest Abiathar, were opposed to the son of a woman who had been the wife of a Hittite warrior. The era of the Temple of Jerusalem starts with a new régime, another captain of the army and another priest. Nevertheless, the enmity of Judah is passed over, and when the kingdom is divided for administrative purposes into twelve districts, which ignore the tribal divisions, the centre of David's early power is exempt from the duty of providing supplies (1 Kings iv.). Yet again, the approach of the divided monarchy is foreshadowed. The employment of Judaeans and Israelites for Solomon's palatial buildings, and the heavy taxation for the upkeep of a court which was the wonder of the world, caused grave internal discontent. External relations, too, were unsatisfactory. The Edomites, who had been almost extirpated by David in the valley of Salt, south of the Dead Sea, were now strong enough to seek revenge; and the powerful kingdom of Damascus, whose foundation is ascribed to this period, began to threaten Israel on the north and north-east. These troubles, we learn, had affected all Solomon's reign, and even Hiram appears to have acquired a portion of Galilee. In the approaching disruption writers saw the punishment for the king's apostasy, and they condemn the sanctuaries in Jerusalem which he erected to the gods of his heathen wives. Nevertheless, these places of cult remained some 300 years until almost the close of the monarchy, when their destruction is attributed to Josiah (§ 16). When at length Solomon died the opportunity was at once seized to request from his son Rehoboam a more generous treatment. The reply is memorable: "My little finger is thicker than my father's loins; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." These words were calculated to inflame a people whom history proves to have been haughty and high-spirited, and the great Israel renounced its union with the small district of Judah. Jeroboam (q.v.), once one of Solomon's officers, became king over the north, and thus the history of the divided monarchy begins (about 930 B.C.) with the Israelite power on both sides of the Jordan and with Judah extending southwards from a point a few miles north of Jerusalem.

8. _Problems of the Earliest History._--Biblical history previous to
the separation of Judah and Israel holds a prominent place in current
ideas, since over two-fifths of the entire Old Testament deals with
these early ages. The historical sources for the crucial period, from
the separation to the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), occupy only about
one-twelfth, and even of this about one-third is spread over some
fifteen years (see below, § 11). From the flourishing days of the
later monarchy and onwards, different writers handled the early
history of their land from different standpoints. The feeling of
national unity between north and south would require historical
treatment, the existence of rival monarchies would demand an
explanation. But the surviving material is extremely uneven; vital
events in these centuries are treated with a slightness in striking
contrast to the relatively detailed evidence for the preceding
period--evidence, however, which is far from being contemporary. Where
the material is fuller, serious discrepancies are found; and where
external evidence is fortunately available, the independent character
of the biblical history is vividly illustrated. The varied traditions
up to this stage cannot be regarded as objective history. It is
naturally impossible to treat them from any modern standpoint as
fiction; they are honest even where they are most untrustworthy. But
the recovery of successive historical nuclei does not furnish a
continuous thread, and if one is to be guided by the historical
context of events the true background to each nucleus must be sought.
The northern kingdom cherished the institution of a monarchy, and in
this, as in all great political events, the prophets took part. The
precise part these figures play is often idealized and expresses the
later views of their prominence. It was only after a bitter experience
that the kingship was no longer regarded as a divine gift, and
traditions have been revised in order to illustrate the opposition to
secular authority. In this and in many other respects the records of
the first monarchy have been elaborated and now reveal traces of
differing conceptions of the events (see DAN; DAVID; ELI; SAMUEL;
SAUL; SOLOMON). The oldest narratives are not in their original
contexts, and they contain features which render it questionable
whether a very trustworthy recollection of the period was retained.
Although the rise of the Hebrew state, at an age when the great powers
were quiescent and when such a people as the Philistines is known to
have appeared upon the scene, is entirely intelligible, it is not
improbable that legends of Saul and David, the heroic founders of the
two kingdoms, have been put in a historical setting with the help of
later historical tradition. It is at least necessary to distinguish
provisionally between a possibly historical framework and narratives
which may be of later growth--between the general outlines which only
external evidence can test and details which cannot be tested and
appear isolated without any cause or devoid of any effect.

Many attempts have been made to present a satisfactory sketch of the
early history and to do justice to (a) the patriarchal narratives,
(b) the exodus from Egypt and the Israelite invasion, and (c) the
rise of the monarchy. As regards (b), external evidence has already
suggested to scholars that there were Israelites in Palestine before
the invasion; internal historical criticism is against the view that
all the tribes entered under Joshua; and in (a) there are traces of an
actual settlement in the land, entirely distinct from the cycle of
narratives which prepare the way for (b). The various reconstructions
and compromises by modern apologetic and critical writers alike
involve without exception an extremely free treatment of the biblical
sources and the rejection of many important and circumstantial
data.[11] On the one hand, a sweeping invasion of all the tribes of
Israel moved by a common zeal may, like the conquests of Islam, have
produced permanent results. According to this view the enervating
luxury of Palestinian culture almost destroyed the lofty ideal
monotheism inculcated in the desert, and after the fall of the
northern tribes (latter part of the 8th cent.) Judah is naturally
regarded as the sole heir. But such a conquest, and all that it
signifies, conflict both with external evidence (e.g. the results of
excavation), and with any careful inspection of the narratives
themselves. On the other hand, the reconstructions which allow a
gradual settlement (perhaps of distinct groups), and an intermingling
with the earlier inhabitants, certainly find support in biblical
evidence, and they have been ingeniously built up with the help of
tribal and other data (e.g. Gen. xxxiv., xxxviii.; Judg. i. ix.). But
they imply political, sociological and religious developments which do
not do justice either to the biblical evidence as a whole or to a
comprehensive survey of contemporary conditions.[12] Thus, one of the
important questions is the relation between those who had taken part
in the exodus and the invasion and those who had not. This inquiry is
further complicated by (c), where the history of Israel and Judah, as
related in Judges and 1 Samuel, has caused endless perplexity. The
traditions of the Ephraimite Joshua and of Saul the first king of
(north) Israel virtually treat Judah as part of Israel and are related
to the underlying representations in (a). But the specific independent
Judaean standpoint treats the unification of the two divisions as the
work of David who leaves the heritage to Solomon. The varied
narratives, now due to Judaean editors, preserve distinct points of
view, and it is extremely difficult to unravel the threads and to
determine their relative position in the history. Finally, the
consciousness that the people as a religious body owed everything to
the desert clans (b) (see § 5) subsequently leaves its mark upon
(north) Israelite history (§ 14), but has not the profound
significance which it has in the records of Judah and Jerusalem.
Without sufficient external and independent evidence wherewith to
interpret in the light of history the internal features of the
intricate narratives, any reconstruction would naturally be hazardous,
and all attempts must invariably be considered in the light of the
biblical evidence itself, the date of the Israelite exodus, and the
external conditions. Biblical criticism is concerned with a composite
(Judaean) history based upon other histories (partly of non-Judaean
origin), and the relation between native written sources and external
contemporary evidence (monumental and archaeological) distinctly
forbids any haphazard selection from accessible sources. The true
nature of this relation can be readily observed in other fields
(ancient Britain, Greece, Egypt, &c.), where, however, the native
documents and sources have not that complexity which characterizes the
composite biblical history. (For the period under review, as it
appears in the light of existing external evidence, see PALESTINE:
_History_.)

9. _The Rival Kingdoms._--The Palestine of the Hebrews was but part of a great area breathing the same atmosphere, and there was little to distinguish Judah from Israel except when they were distinct political entities. The history of the two kingdoms is contained in Kings and the later and relatively less trustworthy Chronicles, which deals with Judah alone. In the former a separate history of the northern kingdom has been combined with Judaean history by means of synchronisms in accordance with a definite scheme. The 480 years from the foundation of the temple of Jerusalem back to the date of the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1) corresponds to the period forward to the return from the exile (§ 20). This falls into three equal divisions, of which the first ends with Jehoash's temple-reforms and the second with Hezekiah's death. The kingdom of Israel lasts exactly half the time. Of the 240 years from Jeroboam I., 80 elapse before the Syrian wars in Ahab's reign, these cover another 80; the famous king Jeroboam II. reigns 40 years, and 40 years of decline bring the kingdom to an end. These figures speak for themselves, and the present chronology can be accepted only where it is independently proved to be trustworthy (see further W. R. Smith, _Prophets of Israel_, pp. 144-149). Next, the Judaean compiler regularly finds in Israel's troubles the punishment for its schismatic idolatry; nor does he spare Judah, but judges its kings by a standard which agrees with the standpoint of Deuteronomy and is scarcely earlier than the end of the 7th century B.C. (§§ 16, 20). But the history of (north) Israel had naturally its own independent political backgrounds and the literary sources contain the same internal features as the annals and prophetic narratives which are already met with in 1 Samuel. Similarly the thread of the Judaean annals in Kings is also found in 2 Samuel, although the supplementary narratives in Kings are not so rich or varied as the more popular records in the preceding books. The striking differences between Samuel and Kings are due to differences in the writing of the history; independent Israelite records having been incorporated with those of Judah and supplemented (with revision) from the Judaean standpoint (see CHRONICLES; KINGS; SAMUEL).

The Judaean compiler, with his history of the two kingdoms, looks back upon the time when each laid the foundation of its subsequent fortunes. His small kingdom of Judah enjoyed an unbroken dynasty which survived the most serious crises, a temple which grew in splendour and wealth under royal patronage, and a legitimate priesthood which owed its origin to Zadok, the successful rival of David's priest Abiathar. Israel, on the other hand, had signed its death-warrant by the institution of calf-cult, a cult which, however, was scarcely recognized as contrary to the worship of Yahweh before the denunciations of Hosea. The scantiness of political information and the distinctive arrangement of material preclude the attempt to trace the relative position of the two rivals. Judah had natural connexions with Edom and southern Palestine; Israel was more closely associated with Gilead and the Aramaeans of the north. That Israel was the stronger may be suggested by the acquiescence of Judah in the new situation. A diversion was caused by Shishak's invasion, but of this reappearance of Egypt after nearly three centuries of inactivity little is preserved in biblical history. Only the Temple records recall the spoliation of the sanctuary of Jerusalem, and traditions of Jeroboam I. show that Shishak's prominence was well known.[13] Although both kingdoms suffered, common misfortune did not throw them together. On the contrary, the statement that there was continual warfare is supplemented in Chronicles by the story of a victory over Israel by Abijah the son of Rehoboam. Jeroboam's son Nadab perished in a conspiracy whilst besieging the Philistine city of Gibbethon, and Baasha of (north) Israel seized the throne. His reign is noteworthy for the entrance of Damascus into Palestinian politics. Its natural fertility and its commanding position at the meeting-place of trade-routes from every quarter made it a dominant factor until its overthrow. In the absence of its native records its relations with Palestine are not always clear, but it may be supposed that amid varying political changes it was able to play a double game. According to the annals, incessant war prevailed between Baasha and Abijah's successor, Asa. It is understood that the former was in league with Damascus, which had once been hostile to Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24 seq.)--it is not stated upon whom Asa could rely. However, Baasha at length seized Ramah about five miles north of Jerusalem, and the very existence of Judah was threatened. Asa utilized the treasure of the Temple and palace to induce the Syrians to break off their relations with Baasha. These sent troops to harry north Israel, and Baasha was compelled to retire. Asa, it is evident, was too weak to achieve the remarkable victory ascribed to him in 2 Chron. xiv. (see ASA). As for Baasha, his short-lived dynasty resembles that of his predecessors. His son Elah had reigned only two years (like Ishbaal and Nadab) when he was slain in the midst of a drunken carousal by his captain Zimri. Meanwhile the Israelite army was again besieging the Philistines at Gibbethon, and the recurrence of these conflicts points to a critical situation in a Danite locality in which Judah itself (although ignored by the writers), must have been vitally concerned. The army preferred their general Omri, and marching upon Zimri at Tirzah burnt the palace over his head. A fresh rival immediately appeared, the otherwise unknown Tibni, son of Ginath. Israel was divided into two camps, until, on the death of Tibni and his brother Joram, Omri became sole king (c. 887 B.C.). The scanty details of these important events must naturally be contrasted with the comparatively full accounts of earlier Philistine wars and internal conflicts in narratives which date from this or even a later age.

10. _The Dynasty of Omri._--Omri (q.v.), the founder of one of the greatest dynasties of Israel, was contemporary with the revival of Tyre under Ithobaal, and the relationship between the states is seen in the marriage of Omri's son Ahab to Jezebel, the priest-king's daughter. His most notable recorded achievement was the subjugation of Moab and the seizure of part of its territory. The discovery of the inscription of a later king of Moab (q.v.) has proved that the east-Jordanic tribes were no uncivilized or barbaric folk; material wealth, a considerable religious and political organization, and the cultivation of letters (as exemplified in the style of the inscription) portray conditions which allow us to form some conception of life in Israel itself. Moreover, Judah (now under Jehoshaphat) enjoyed intimate relations with Israel during Omri's dynasty, and the traditions of intermarriage, and of co-operation in commerce and war, imply what was practically a united Palestine. Alliance with Phoenicia gave the impulse to extended intercourse; trading expeditions were undertaken from the Gulf of Akaba, and Ahab built himself a palace decorated with ivory. The cult of the Baal of Tyre followed Jezebel to the royal city Samaria and even found its way into Jerusalem. This, the natural result of matrimonial and political alliance, already met with under Solomon, receives the usual denunciation. The conflict between Yahweh and Baal and the defeat of the latter are the characteristic notes of the religious history of the period, and they leave their impression upon the records, which are now more abundant. Although little is preserved of Omri's history, the fact that the northern kingdom long continued to be called by the Assyrians after his name is a significant indication of his great reputation. Assyria[14] was now making itself felt in the west for the first time since the days of Tiglath-Pileser I. (c. 1100 B.C.), and external sources come to our aid. Assur-nazir-pal III. had exacted tribute from north Syria (c. 870 B.C.), and his successor Shalmaneser II., in the course of a series of expeditions, succeeded in gaining the greater part of that land. A defensive coalition was formed in which the kings of Cilicia, Hamath, the Phoenician coast, Damascus and Ammon, the Arabs of the Syrian desert, and "Ahabbu Sirlai" were concerned. In the last, we must recognize the Israelite Ahab. His own contribution of 10,000 men and 12,000 chariots perhaps included levies from Judah and Moab (cf. for the number 1 Kings x. 26). In 854 the allies at least maintained themselves at the battle of Karkar (perhaps Apamea to the north of Hamath). In 849 and 846 other indecisive battles were fought, but the precise constitution of the coalition is not recorded. In 842 Shalmaneser records a campaign against Hazael of Damascus; no coalition is mentioned, although a battle was fought at Sanir (Hermon, Deut. iii. 9), and the cities of Hauran to the south of Damascus were spoiled. Tribute was received from Tyre and Sidon; and Jehu, who was now king of Israel, sent his gifts of gold, silver, &c., to the conqueror. The Assyrian inscription (the so-called "Black Obelisk" now in the British Museum), which records the submission of the petty kings, gives an interesting representation of the humble Israelite emissaries with their long fringed robes and strongly marked physiognomy (see COSTUME, fig. 9). Yet another expedition in 839 would seem to show that Damascus was neither crushed nor helpless, but thenceforth for a number of years Assyria was fully occupied elsewhere and the west was left to itself. The value of this external evidence for the history of Israel is enhanced by the fact that biblical tradition associates the changes in the thrones of Israel and Damascus with the work of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, but handles the period without a single reference to the Assyrian Empire. Ahab, it seems, had aroused popular resentment by encroaching upon the rights of the people to their landed possessions; had it not been for Jezebel (q.v.) the tragedy of Naboth would not have occurred. The worship of Baal of Tyre roused a small circle of zealots, and again the Phoenician marriage was the cause of the evil. We read the history from the point of view of prophets. Elijah of Gilead led the revolt. To one who favoured simplicity of cult the new worship was a desecration of Yahweh, and, braving the anger of the king and queen, he foreshadowed their fate. Hostility towards the dynasty culminated a few years later in a conspiracy which placed on the throne the general Jehu, the son of one Jehoshaphat (or, otherwise, of Nimshi). The work which Elijah began was completed by Elisha, who supported Jehu and the new dynasty. A massacre ensued in which the royal families of Israel and Judah perished. While the extirpation of the cult of Baal was furthered in Israel by Jonadab the Rechabite, it was the "people of the land" who undertook a similar reform in Judah. Jehu (q.v.) became king as the champion of the purer worship of Yahweh. The descendants of the detested Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and unless the close intercourse between Israel and Judah had been suddenly broken, it would be supposed that the new king at least laid claim to the south. The events form one of the fundamental problems of biblical history.

11. _Damascus, Israel and Judah._--The appearance of Assyria in the Mediterranean coast-lands had produced the results which inevitably follow when a great empire comes into contact with minor states. It awakened fresh possibilities--successful combination against a common foe, the sinking of petty rivalries, the chance of gaining favour by a neutrality which was scarcely benevolent. The alliances, counter-alliances and far-reaching political combinations which spring up at every advance of the greater powers are often perplexing in the absence of records of the states concerned. Even the biblical traditions alone do not always represent the same attitude, and our present sources preserve the work of several hands. Hazael of Damascus, Jehu of Israel and Elisha the prophet are the three men of the new age linked together in the words of one writer as though commissioned for like ends (1 Kings xix. 15-17). Hostility to Phoenicia (i.e. the Baal of Tyre) is as intelligible as a tendency to look to Aramaean neighbours. Though Elisha sent to anoint Jehu as king, he was none the less on most intimate terms with Bar-hadad (Old. Test. Ben-hadad) of Damascus and recognized Hazael as its future ruler. It is a natural assumption that Damascus could still count upon Israel as an ally in 842; not until the withdrawal of Assyria and the accession of Jehu did the situation change. "In those days Yahweh began to cut short" (or, altering the text, "to be angry with") "Israel." This brief notice heralds the commencement of Hazael's attack upon Israelite territory east of the Jordan (2 Kings x. 32). The origin of the outbreak is uncertain. It has been assumed that Israel had withdrawn from the great coalition, that Jehu sent tribute to Shalmaneser to obtain that monarch's recognition, and that Hazael consequently seized the first opportunity to retaliate. Certain traditions, it is true, indicate that Israel had been at war with the Aramaeans from before 854 to 842, and that Hazael was attacking Gilead at the time when Jehu revolted; but in the midst of these are other traditions of the close and friendly relations between Israel and Damascus! With these perplexing data the position of Judah is inextricably involved.

The special points which have to be noticed in the records for this
brief period (1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi.) concern both literary and
historical criticism.[15] A number of narratives illustrate the work
of the prophets, and sometimes purely political records appear to have
been used for the purpose (see ELIJAH; ELISHA). If Elijah is the
prophet of the fall of Omri's dynasty, Elisha is no less the prophet
of Jehu and his successors; and it is extremely probable that his
lifework was confined to the dynasty which he inaugurated.[16] In the
present narratives, however, the stories in which he possesses
influence with king and court are placed before the rise of Jehu, and
some of them point to a state of hostility with Damascus before he
foresees the atrocities which Hazael will perpetrate. But Ahab's wars
with Syria can with difficulty be reconciled with the Assyrian
evidence (see AHAB), and the narratives, largely anonymous, agree in a
singular manner with what is known of the serious conflicts which, it
is said, began in Jehu's time. Moreover, the account of the joint
undertaking by Judah (under Jehoshaphat) and Israel against Syria at
Ramoth-Gilead at the time of Ahab's death, and again (under Ahaziah)
when Jehoram was wounded, shortly before the accession of Jehu, are
historical doublets, and they can hardly be harmonized either with the
known events of 854 and 842 or with the course of the intervening
years. Further, all the traditions point clearly to the very close
union of Israel and Judah at this period, a union which is apt to be
obscured by the fact that the annalistic summaries of each kingdom are
mainly independent. Thus we may contrast the favourable Judaean view
of Jehoshaphat with the condemnation passed upon Ahab and Jezebel,
whose daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. It is
noteworthy, also, that an Ahaziah and a Jehoram appear as kings of
Israel, and (in the reverse order) of Judah, and somewhat similar
incidents recur in the now separate histories of the two kingdoms. The
most striking is a great revolt in south Palestine. The alliance
between Jehoshaphat and Ahab doubtless continued when the latter was
succeeded by his son Ahaziah, and some disaster befell their trading
fleet in the Gulf of Akaba (1 Kings xxii. 48 seq.; 2 Chron. xx.
35-37). Next came the revolt of Moab (2 Kings i. 1), and Ahaziah,
after the briefest of reigns, was followed by Jehoram, whose Judaean
contemporary was Jehoshaphat (ch. iii.), or perhaps rather his own
namesake (i. 17). The popular story of Jehoram's campaign against
Moab, with which Edom was probably allied (see MOAB), hints at a
disastrous ending, and the Judaean annals, in their turn, record the
revolt of Edom and the Philistine Libnah (see PHILISTINES), and allude
obscurely to a defeat of the Judaean Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20-22).
Further details in 2 Chron. xxi.-xxii. 1 even record an invasion of
Philistines and Arabians (? Edomites), an attack upon Jerusalem, the
removal of the palace treasures and of all the royal sons with the
sole exception of Jehoahaz, i.e. Ahaziah (see JEHORAM; JEHOSHAPHAT).
Had the two kingdoms been under a single head, these features might
find an explanation, but it must be allowed that it is extremely
difficult to fit the general situation into our present history, and
to determine where the line is to be drawn between trustworthy and
untrustworthy details. Moreover, of the various accounts of the
massacre of the princes of Judah, the Judaean ascribes it not to Jehu
and the reforming party (2 Kings x. 13 seq.) but to Athaliah (q.v.).
Only the babe Jehoash was saved, and he remained hidden in the Temple
adjoining the palace itself. The queen, Athaliah, despite the weak
state of Judah after the revolt in Philistia and Edom, actually
appears to have maintained herself for six years, until the priests
slew her in a conspiracy, overthrew the cult of Baal, and crowned the
young child. It is a new source which is here suddenly introduced,
belonging apparently to a history of the Temple; it throws no light
upon the relations between Judah with its priests and Israel with its
prophets, the circumstances of the regency under the priest Jehoiada
are ignored, and the Temple reforms occupy the first place in the
compiler's interest. The Judaean annals then relate Hazael's advance
to Gath; the city was captured and Jerusalem was saved only by using
the Temple and palace treasure as a bribe. On the other hand,
Chronicles has a different story with a novel prelude. Jehoash, it is
said, turned away from Yahweh after the death of Jehoiada and gave
heed to the Judaean nobles, "wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for
their guilt," prophets were sent to bring them back but they turned a
deaf ear. The climax of iniquity was the murder of Jehoiada's son
Zechariah. Soon after, a small band of Syrians entered Judah,
destroyed its princes, and sent the spoil to the king of Damascus; the
disaster is regarded as a prompt retribution (2 Chron. xxiv.). The
inferiority of Chronicles as a historical source and its varied
examples of "tendency-writing" must be set against its possible access
to traditions as trustworthy as those in Kings.[17] In the present
instance the novel details cannot be lightly brushed aside. The
position of Judah at this period must be estimated (a) from the
preceding years of intimate relationship with Israel to the accession
of Jehu, and (b) from the calamity about half a century later when
Jerusalem was sacked by Israel. The Judaean narratives do not allow us
to fill the gap or to determine whether Judaean policy under the
regent Jehoiada would be friendly or hostile to Israel, or whether
Judaean nobles may have severed the earlier bond of union. If the
latter actually occurred, the hostility of the Israelite prophets is
only to be expected. But it is to be presumed that the punishment came
from Israel--the use of Syrian mercenaries not excluded--and if,
instead of using his treasure to ward off the invasion of Syria,
Jehoash bribed Damascus to break off relations with Israel, an
alternative explanation of the origin of the Aramaean wars may be
found.[18]

12. _The Aramaean Wars._--If the records leave it uncertain (a) whether Jehu (like Tyre and Sidon) sent tribute to Shalmaneser as a sign of submission or, while severing relations with Hazael, sought the favour of Assyria, and (b) whether Judah only escaped Hazael's vengeance by a timely bribe or, in freeing itself from Israel, had bribed Hazael to create a diversion, it appears that the southern kingdom suffered little in the disastrous wars between Damascus and Israel. There were, indeed, internal troubles, and Jehoash perished in a conspiracy. His son Amaziah had some difficulty in gaining the kingdom and showed unwonted leniency in sparing the children of his father's murderers. This was a departure from the customs of the age, and was perhaps influenced less by generosity than by expediency. Israel, on the other hand, was almost annihilated. The Syrians seized Gilead, crossed over into Palestine, and occupied the land. Jehu's son Jehoahaz saw his army made "like the dust in threshing," and the desperate condition of the country recalls the straits in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7, 19-22), and the days before the great overthrow of the northern power as described in Judges v. 6-8. The impression left by the horrors of the age is clear from the allusions to the barbarities committed by Damascus and its Ammonite allies upon Gilead (Amos i. 3, 13), and in the account of the interview between Elisha and Hazael (2 Kings viii. 12). Several of the situations can be more vividly realized from the narratives of Syrian wars ascribed to the time of Omri's dynasty, even if these did not originally refer to the later period. Under Joash, son of Jehoahaz, the tide turned. Elisha was apparently the champion, and posterity told of his exploits when Samaria was visited with the sword. Thrice Joash smote the Syrians--in accordance with the last words of the dying prophet--and Aphek in the Sharon plain, famous in history for Israel's disasters, now witnessed three victories. The enemy under Hazael's son Ben-hadad (properly Bar-hadad) was driven out and Joash regained the territory which his father had lost (2 Kings xiii. 25); it may reasonably be supposed that a treaty was concluded (cf. 1 Kings xx. 34). But the peace does not seem to have been popular. The story of the last scene in Elisha's life implies in Joash an easily contented disposition which hindered him from completing his successes. Syria had not been crushed, and the failure to utilize the opportunity was an act of impolitic leniency for which Israel was bound to suffer (2 Kings xiii. 19). Elisha's indignation can be illustrated by the denunciation passed upon an anonymous king by the prophetic party on a similar occasion (1 Kings xx. 35-43).

At this stage it is necessary to notice the fresh invasion of Syria by Hadad (Adad)-nirari, who besieged Mari, king of Damascus, and exacted a heavy tribute (c. 800 B.C.). A diversion of this kind may explain the Israelite victories; the subsequent withdrawal of Assyria may have afforded the occasion for retaliation. Those in Israel who remembered the previous war between Assyria and Damascus would realize the recuperative power of the latter, and would perceive the danger of the short-sighted policy of Joash. It is interesting to find that Hadad-nirari claims tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Beth-Omri (Israel), also from Edom and Palastu (Philistia). There are no signs of an extensive coalition as in the days of Shalmaneser; Ammon is probably included under Damascus; the position of Moab--which had freed itself from Jehoram of Israel--can hardly be calculated. But the absence of Judah is surprising. Both Jehoash (of Judah) and his son Amaziah left behind them a great name; and the latter was comparable only to David (2 Kings xiv. 3). He defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt, and hence it is conceivable that Amaziah's kingdom extended over both Edom and Philistia. A vaunting challenge to Joash (of Israel) gave rise to one of the two fables that are preserved in the Old Testament (Judg. ix. 8 sqq.; see ABIMELECH). It was followed by a battle at Beth-shemesh; the scene would suggest that Philistia also was involved. The result was the route of Judah, the capture of Amaziah, the destruction of the northern wall of Jerusalem, the sacking of the temple and palace, and the removal of hostages to Samaria (2 Kings xiv. 12 sqq.). Only a few words are preserved, but the details, when carefully weighed, are extremely significant. This momentous event for the southern kingdom was scarcely the outcome of a challenge to a trial of strength; it was rather the sequel to a period of smouldering jealousy and hostility.

The Judaean records have obscured the history since the days of Omri's
dynasty, when Israel and Judah were as one, when they were moved by
common aims and by a single reforming zeal, and only Israel's
vengeance gives the measure of the injuries she had received. That the
Judaean compiler has not given fuller information is not surprising;
the wonder is that he should have given so much. It is one of those
epoch-making facts in the light of which the course of the history of
the preceding and following years must be estimated. It is taken,
strangely enough, from an Israelite source, but the tone of the whole
is quite dispassionate and objective. It needs little reflection to
perceive that the position of Jerusalem and Judah was now hardly one
of independence, and the conflicting chronological notices betray the
attempt to maintain intact the thread of Judaean history. So, on the
one hand, the year of the disaster sees the death of the Israelite
king, and Amaziah survives for fifteen years, while, on the other,
twenty-seven years elapse between the battle and the accession of
Uzziah, the next king of Judah.[19]

The importance of the historical questions regarding relations between
Damascus, Israel and Judah is clear. The defeat of Syria by Joash (of
Israel) was not final. The decisive victories were gained by Jeroboam
II. He saved Israel from being blotted out, and through his successes
"the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as of old" (2 Kings xiii.
5, xiv. 26 seq.). Syria must have resumed warfare with redoubled
energy, and a state of affairs is presupposed which can be pictured
with the help of narratives that deal with similar historical
situations. In particular, the overthrow of Israel as foreshadowed in
1 Kings xxii. implies an Aramaean invasion (cf. vv. 17, 25), after a
treaty (xx. 35 sqq.), although this can scarcely be justified by the
events which followed the death of Ahab, in whose time they are now
placed.

For the understanding of these great wars between Syria and Israel
(which the traditional chronology spreads over eighty years), for the
significance of the crushing defeats and inspiring victories, and for
the alternations of despair and hope, a careful study of all the
records of relations between Israel and the north is at least
instructive, and it is important to remember that, although the
present historical outlines are scanty and incomplete, some--if not
all--of the analogous descriptions in their present form are certainly
later than the second half of the 9th century B.C., the period in
which these great events fall.[20]

13. _Political Development._--Under Jeroboam II. the borders of Israel were restored, and in this political revival the prophets again took part.[21] The defeat of Ben-hadad by the king of Hamath and the quiescence of Assyria may have encouraged Israelite ambitions, but until more is known of the campaigns of Hadad-nirari and of Shalmaneser III. (against Damascus, 773 B.C.) the situation cannot be safely gauged. Moab was probably tributary; the position of Judah and Edom is involved with the chronological problems. According to the Judaean annals, the "people of Judah" set Azariah (Uzziah) upon his father's throne; and to his long reign of fifty-two years are ascribed conquests over Philistia and Edom, the fortification of Jerusalem and the reorganization of the army. As the relations with Israel are not specified, the sequel to Amaziah's defeat is a matter for conjecture; although, when at the death of Jeroboam Israel hastened to its end amid anarchy and dissension, it is hardly likely that the southern kingdom was unmoved. All that can be recognized from the biblical records, however, is the period of internal prosperity which Israel and Judah enjoyed under Jeroboam and Uzziah (qq.v.) respectively.

It is difficult to trace the biblical history century by century as it reaches these last years of bitter conflict and of renewed prosperity. The northern kingdom at the height of its power included Judah, it extended its territory east of the Jordan towards the north and the south, and maintained close relations with Phoenicia and the Aramaean states. It had a national history which left its impress upon the popular imagination, and sundry fragments of tradition reveal the pride which the patriot felt in the past. An original close connexion is felt with the east of the Jordan and with Gilead; stories of invasion and conquest express themselves in varied forms. In so far as internal wealth and luxury presuppose the control of the trade-routes, periodical alliances are implied in which Judah, willingly or unwillingly, was included. But the Judaean records do not allow us to trace its independent history with confidence, and our estimate can scarcely base itself solely upon the accidental fulness or scantiness of political details. In the subsequent disasters of Israel (§ 15) we may perceive the growing supremacy of Judah, and the Assyrian inscriptions clearly indicate the dependence of Judaean politics upon its relations with Edom and Arab tribes on the south-east and with Philistia on the west. Whatever had been the effect of the movement of the Purasati some centuries previously, the Philistines (i.e. the people of Philistia) are now found in possession of a mature organization, and the Assyrian evidence is of considerable value for an estimate of the stories of conflict and covenant, of hostility and friendship, which were current in south Palestine. The extension of the term "Judah" (cf. that of "Israel" and "Samaria") is involved with the incorporation of non-Judaean elements. The country for ten miles north of Jerusalem was the exposed and highly debatable district ascribed to the young tribe of Benjamin (the favourite "brother" of both Judah and Joseph; Gen. xxxvii., xxxix. sqq.); the border-line between the rival kingdoms oscillated, and consequently the political position of the smaller and half-desert Judaean state depended upon the attitude of its neighbours. It is possible that tradition is right in supposing that "Judah went down from his brethren" (Gen. xxxviii. 1; cf. Judg. i. 3). Its monarchy traced its origin to Hebron in the south, and its growth is contemporary with a decline in Israel (§ 7). It is at least probable that when Israel was supreme an independent Judah would centre around a more southerly site than Jerusalem. It is naturally uncertain how far the traditions of David can be utilized; but they illustrate Judaean situations when they depict intrigues with Israelite officials, vassalage under Philistia, and friendly relations with Moab, or when they suggest how enmity between Israel and Ammon could be turned to useful account. Tradition, in fact, is concentrated upon the rise of the Judaean dynasty under David, but there are significant periods before the rise of both Jehoash and Uzziah upon which the historical records maintain a perplexing silence.

The Hebrews of Israel and Judah were, political history apart, men of the same general stamp, with the same cult and custom; for the study of religion and social usages, therefore, they can be treated as a single people. The institution of the monarchy was opposed to the simpler local forms of government, and a military régime had distinct disadvantages (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 11-18). The king stood at the head, as the court of final appeal, and upon him and his officers depended the people's welfare. A more intricate social organization caused internal weakness, and Eastern history shows with what rapidity peoples who have become strong by discipline and moderation pass from the height of their glory into extreme corruption and disintegration.[22] This was Israel's fate. Opposition to social abuses and enmity towards religious innovations are regarded as the factors which led to the overthrow of Omri's dynasty by Jehu, and when Israel seemed to be at the height of its glory under Jeroboam II. warning voices again made themselves heard. The two factors are inseparable, for in ancient times no sharp dividing-line was drawn between religious and civic duties: righteousness and equity, religious duty and national custom were one.

Elaborate legal enactments codified in Babylonia by the 20th century
B.C. find striking parallels in Hebrew, late Jewish (Talmudic), Syrian
and Mahommedan law, or in the unwritten usages of all ages; for even
where there were neither written laws nor duly instituted lawgivers,
there was no lawlessness, since custom and belief were, and still are,
almost inflexible. Various collections are preserved in the Old
Testament; they are attributed to the time of Moses the lawgiver, who
stands at the beginning of Israelite national and religious history.
But many of the laws were quite unsuitable for the circumstances of
his age, and the belief that a body of intricate and even
contradictory legislation was imposed suddenly upon a people newly
emerged from bondage in Egypt raises insurmountable objections, and
underestimates the fact that legal usage existed in the earliest
stages of society, and therefore in pre-Mosaic times. The more
important question is the date of the laws in their present form and
content. Collections of laws are found in Deuteronomy and in exilic
and post-exilic writings; groups of a relatively earlier type are
preserved in Exod. xxxiv. 14-26, xx. 23-xxiii., and (of another stamp)
in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (now in post-exilic form). For a useful conspectus
of details, see J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby. _The
Hexateuch_ (vol. i., appendix); C. F. Kent, _Israel's Laws and Legal
Enactments_ (1907); and in general I. Benzinger, articles
"Government," "Family" and "Law and Justice," _Ency. Bib._, and G. B.
Gray, "Law Literature," ib. (the literary growth of legislation).
Reference may also be made, for illustrative material, to W. R. Smith,
_Kinship and Marriage_, _Religion of the Semites_; to E. Day, _Social
Life of the Hebrews_; and, for some comparison of customary usage in
the Semitic field, to S. A. Cook, _Laws of Moses and Code of
Hammurabi_.