Vers. 23-27. Prolongation of the festival for seven days more, and the conclusion of it. — Ver. 23 f. Since the king and the princes had given a very large number of beasts for sacrifice as thank-offerings, it was resolved to keep joy for other seven days, i.e. to keep them festally, with sacrificial meals. The expression tw rro? to hold or celebrate days, is similar to nDQ nb>y? to hold the passover. nriD^ is an adverbial accusative: in joy. For this resolution two reasons are given in ver. 24: 1. Hezekiah had given to the assembly 1000 bullocks and 7000 head of small cattle, and the princes had given 1000 bullocks and 10,000 head of small cattle besides; so that there was more than they could use during the seven days of the Mazzoth feast. Bertheau incorrectly supposes that these were " rich gifts for further sacrificial feasts." The gifts were bestowed for the Mazzoth festival, but were so plentiful that they sufficed for another festival of seven days. D*KJ, like rittnfy denotes to bestow, i.e. to present beasts, etc., with the design that they should be used as sacrifices; cf. xxxv. 7. 2. The second reason: " priests also had sanctified themselves in multitude," so as to be able to carry on the service at the altar, even with such numerous sacrifices, refers back to vers. 15 and 3. — Vers. 25-27. Concluding remarks on this festival. There took part in it (1) the whole congregation of Judah, and the priests and Levites; (2) the whole congregation of those who had come out of Israel (the ten tribes); (3) the strangers, both those who came out of the land of Israel and those dwelling in Judah. — Yer. 26. The joy was great, for there had not been the like in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon. " The meaning is, that this feast could be compared only with the feast at the dedication of the temple in the time of Solomon, chap. vii. 1-10, in respect to its length, the richness of the sacrificial gifts, the multitude of those who participated, and the joyous feeling it caused" (Berth.). The feast at the dedication of the temple had been a festival of fourteen days; for the feast of tabernacles, which lasted seven days, came immediately after the proper dedicatory feast, and since the time of Solomon all the tribes had never been united at a feast in Jerusalem. — Ver. 27. At the end the Levitic priests dismissed the people with the blessing (the) before D*vp in some MSS., and which the LXX., Vulg., and Syr. also have, is a copyist's gloss brought from ver. 25; cf. against it, chap, xxiii. 18), and the historian adds, u Their voice was heard, and their prayer came to His holy dwelling-place, to heaven." This conclusion he draws from the divine blessing having been upon the festival; traceable partly in the zeal which the people afterwards showed for the public worship in the temple (chap, xxx i.), partly in the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the attack of the Assyrian Sennacherib (chap, xxxii.).
Chap. xxxi. Destruction of the idols and the altars of the high places. Provisions for the ordering and maintenance of the temple worship, and the attendants upon it. — Ver. 1. At the conclusion of the festival, all the Israelites who had been present at the feast (ttftttDSfi b«^"P3 to be understood as in xxx. 21) went into the cities of Judah, and destroyed all the idols, high places, and altars not only in Judah and Benjamin (the southern kingdom), but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (the domain of the ten tribes), utterly (nw""W, cf. xxiv. 10), and only then returned each to his home; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4.
Vers. 2-21. Restoration of order in the public worship, and of the temple revenues and those of the priests. — Ver. 2. Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and Levites according to their courses, each according to the measure of his service (cf. Num. vii. 5, 7), viz. the priests and Levites (b?\ 'ro? are subordinated to B^K in apposition by?), for burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, to serve (to wait upon the worship), and to praise and thank (by song and instrumental music) in the gates of the camp of Jahve, i.e. in the temple and court of the priests; see on 1 Chron. ix. 18 f. — Ver. 3. And the portion of the king from his possession was for the burnt-offerings, etc.; that is, the material for the burnt-offerings which are commanded in Num. xxviii. and xxix. the king gave from his possessions, which are enumerated in chap, xxxii. 27-29. — Vers. 4-8. The priests and Levites received their maintenance from the first-fruits (Ex. xxiii. 19; Num. xviii. 12; Deut. xxvi. 2) and the tithes, which the people had to pay from the produce of their cattle-breeding and their agriculture (Lev. xxvii. 30-33, cf. with Num. xviii. 21-24). Hezekiah commanded the people, viz. the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give this portion to the Levites and priests, that they might hold themselves firmly to the law of Jahve, i.e. might devote themselves to the duties laid upon them by the law, the attendance upon the worship, without being compelled to labour for their subsistence; cf. Neh. xiii. 10 ff. — Ver. 5. When the word (the royal command) went forth (spread abroad), the Israelites brought- in abundance the first-fruits which had been assigned to the priests (xviii. 12 f.), and the tithes, which were paid to the whole tribe of Levi (Num. xviii. 21-24). ^*Ofe* *?.?, ver. 6, are not the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, but the Israelites who had emigrated from that kingdom into Judah (as xxx. 25, xi. 16, x. 17). tf?hj?T "lfcg», the tenth from the holy gifts which were consecrated to Jahve, is surprising, since in the law, Num. xviii. 8 ff., it is not the tenth of the consecrated gifts which is spoken of, but only CBnjpj] rriftnn (Num. xviii. 19). Proceeding upon the assumption that all DWp which were consecrated to Jahve were given over to the tribe of Levi, Bertheau finds no correspondence between the law and the statement of our verse, that the tenth of the holy things was given, and points out that the LXX. seem to have read DWpni?yi instead of
DWp li&yto, without, however, himself deciding in favour of that reading. But the LXX. have rendered the words tMhp "ib>JJEl D^&snpBil by iwcBeKaTa alyoWj /ecu rjyiacrav, and consequently cannot have read?#} for ")BTO, since in their translation eiriheKara corresponds to "ifetyD. But the deviation of the statement in our verse from the law, Num. xviii., arises partly from an incorrect or inexact interpretation of the provisions of the law, Num. xviii. 8 ff. In the law, D^KHp as such were not assigned to the tribe of Levi, or more correctly to the priests (Aaron and his sons), but only the DHBhjriOT niOTtfij the heave-offerings of all the holy gifts of the sons of Israel, i.e. the pieces or parts of the sacrificial gifts of the Israelites which were not burnt upon the altar, consequently the greater part of the meal, and oil, and flesh of the oblations, the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings, and of the peace-offerings, the wave-breast and wave-thigh, and whatever else was waved in wave-offerings; see on Num. xviii. 8 ff. These Therumoth of the consecrated gifts are in our verse designated CBHiJ. I'BflJD, because they were only a fragment of that which was consecrated to the Lord, just as the tenth was a fragment of the whole herd, and of the field produce. The statement of our verse, therefore, differs only in expression from the prescription of the law, but in substance it completely agrees with it. 'iy rriDJg Wljjj and they made many heaps, i.e. they brought the first-fruits and tithes in heaps. — Ver. 7. In the third month, consequently immediately at the end of the grain harvest, they commenced to found the heaps (to lay the foundation of the heaps); and in the seventh month, i.e. at the end of the fruit and wine harvest, they completed them (the heaps). In the third month fell pentecost, or the harvest feast; in the seventh, the feast of tabernacles, after the gathering in of all the fruits. liDv has Daghesh in D, because this verb in the imperf. assimilates its * like 3 to the second radical, and the infinitive is formed after the imperf.; cf. Ew. § 245, a. — Ver. 8. When Hezekiah and the priests saw these heaps, they praised the Lord and His people Israel.
The employment and storing of these gifts, vers. 9-19. — Ver. 9 f. Hezekiah questioned (^'~>T.) the priests and Levites concerning the heaps, i.e. not as to whether they were sufficient for the support of the priests and Levites, but as to how it happened that such masses had been heaped up. Thereupon Azariah the high priest (hardly the Azariah mentioned xxvi. 17, who forty years before tried to prevent Uzziah from pressing into the holy place), of the house of Zadok, answered him: Since they began to bring (N^? for N^np) the heave-offerings into the house of the Lord, we have eaten and satisfied ourselves, and have left in plenty. The infin. absoll. "THlni W^W)?totf stand in animated speech instead of the first pers. plur. perf. From the same animation arises the construction of pDnrplK with "inian; for " that which is left" signifies, and we have left this quantity here. — Ver.
11 f. Then the king commanded to prepare cells in the house of God for the storing of the provisions. Whether new cells were built, or cells already existing were prepared for this purpose, cannot be decided, since ron may signify either. Into these cells they brought the DDVWj which here denotes the first-fruits (cf. ver. 5), the tithes, and the dedicated things, ITODK3, with fidelity, cf. xix. 9. DJfvS, over them (the first-fruits, etc.) the Levite Cononiah was set as ruler (inspector), and his brother Shimei as second ruler (py&Q). — Ver. 13. To them at their hand, i.e. as subordinate overseers, were given ten Levites, who are enumerated by name. Of the names, Jehiel and Mahath occur in xxix.
12 and 14. IpB^s is translated by the Vulg. ex imperio, better ex mandato Hizkice. Azariah, the prince of the house of God, is the high priest mentioned in ver. 10. — To the fourteen Levites named in vers. 13 and 14 was committed the oversight and storing of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts. Besides these, there were special officers appointed for the distribution of them. — In vers. 14-19 these are treated of; ver. 14 dealing with the distribution of the voluntary gifts of God, i.e. all which was offered to God of spontaneous impulse (Lev. xxiii. 38; Deut. xii. 17), to which the first-fruits and tithes did not belong, they being assessments prescribed by the law. Over the freewill offerings the Levite Kore, the doorkeeper towards the east (see on 1 Chron. ix. 18), was set. His duty was to give (distribute) " the heave-offerings of Jahve," i.e. that portion of the thank-offerings which properly belonged to Jahve, and which was transferred by Him to the priests (Lev. vii. 14, xxxii. 10,
14 f.; Num. v. 9), and the u most holy," i.e. that part of the sin and trespass offerings (Lev. vi. 10, 22, vii. 6) and of the oblations (Lev. ii. 3, 10) which was to be eaten by the priests in the holy place. — Ver. 15. At his hand (VfJ?y = *i*ft, ver. 13), i.e. under his superintendence, there were six Levites, enumerated by name, in the priests' cities, with fidelity, " to give to their brethren in their courses, as well to the great as to the small" (i.e. to the older and to the younger), sc. the portion of the gifts received which fell to each. By the brethren in their courses we are to understand not merely the Levites dwelling in the priests' cities, who on account of their youth or old age could not come into the temple, but also those who. at the time were not on duty, since the Levites' courses performed it by turns, only some courses being on duty in the temple, while the others were at home in the priests' cities. The object to flrp, ver. 15, is not to be taken straightway from the objects mentioned with nn? in ver. 14. For the most holy gifts could not be sent to the priests' cities, but were consumed in the holy place, i.e. in the temple. Nor can we confine T\n? to the Swan nil"!:; for since the gifts of the people, laid up in the cells, consisted in first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts (ver. 11), and special officers were appointed for the storing and distribution of them, the business of distribution could not consist merely in the giving out of freewill offerings, but must have extended to all the offerings of the people. When, therefore, it is said of the Levite Kore, in ver. 14, that he was appointed over the freewill offerings, to distribute the heave-offerings and the most holy, only his chief function is there mentioned, and the functions of the officials associated with and subordinated to him in the priests' cities are not to be confined to that. The object to l"iri77 ver. 15, is consequently to be determined by the whole context, and the arrangements which are assumed as known from the law; i.e. we must embrace under that word the distribution of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts, of which the Levites in the priests' cities were to receive their portion according to the law. — In ver. 16, the rrippnon DrrriK of ver. 15 is more closely defined by an exception: " Besides their catalogue of the men (i.e. exclusive of those of the male sex catalogued by them) from three years old and upward, namely, of all those who came into the house of Jahve to the daily portion, for their service in their offices according to their courses." i0V3 Di^im signifies, in this connection, the portion of the holy gifts coming to them for every day; cf. Neb. xi. 23. The meaning of the verse is: From those dwelling in the priests' cities were excluded those who had come to perform service in the temple; and, indeed, not merely those performing the service, but also their male children, who were catalogued along with them if they were three years old and upward. Thence it is clear that those entering upon their service took their sons with them when they were three years old. These children ate in the place of the sanctuary of the portion coming to their parents. — Yer. 17 contains a parenthetic remark as to the catalogues. HiO, as nota accus., serves here to emphasize the statement which is added as an elucidation (cf. Ew. § 277, d): " But concerning the catalogue of the priests, it was (taken, prepared) according to the fathers'-houses; and the Levites, they were from twenty years old and upwards in their offices in their courses." All the duties were discharged by several courses. On the age fixed on, see 1 Chron. xxiii. 27. — Ver. 18. The connection and interpretation of this verse is doubtful. If we take E^n^nnpi as a continuation of feWirrflKI, Ver. 17, it gives us no suitable sense. The addition, u and also to every priest and Levite was a larger or smaller portion given according to the catalogue" (Ramb., etc.), is arbitrary, and does not fully express the 3 before 23SD"?D. Berth., on the other hand, correctly remarks, " After the parentheses in vers. 16 and 17, ^n.^r1 may be taken as a continuation of T\n? in ver. 16;" but the word itself he translates wrongly thus: The men were in the priests' cities, also to register their children, etc., disregarding the construction of '^n^? with 2. — From ver. 19, where the same construction recurs, we learn how to interpret 'ettdii ^Wl? '• the catalogue = those registered in (of) all their children. According to this view, ^irnrta corresponds to the D'T^*??, ver. 15: to give to their brethren,... and to the registered of all their children, their wives, and their sons and daughters, viz. to the whole multitude (sc. of the wives, sons, and daughters), i.e. as many of them as there were. This interpretation of the?njJ"OT seems simpler than with Schmidt and Ramb. to understand?H|J to denote the corporation of priests. There was therefore no one forgotten or overlooked; " f or according to their fidelity (ver. 15) did they show themselves holy in regard to the holy," i.e. they acted in a holy manner with the holy gifts, distributed them disinterestedly and impartially to all who had any claim to them. — Ver. 19. And for the sons of Aaron, the priests, in the field of the districts of their cities (cf. Lev. xxv. 34; Num. xxxv. 5), in each city were men (appointed) famous (HiDfiJfr *3jp3 TBfc, as in xxviii. 15; see on 1 Chron. xii. 31), to give portions to each male among the priests, and to all that were registered among the Levites. As for the inhabitants of the priests' cities (ver. 15), so also for the priests and Levites dwelling in the pasture grounds of the priests' cities, were special officers appointed to distribute the priestly revenues.
Vers. 20, 21. The conclusion of this account. Thus did Hezekiah in all Judah, and wrought in general that which was good and right and fi£>sn before the Lord his God; and in every work that he commenced for the service of the house of God, and for the law and the commandment (i.e. for the restoration of the law and its commands), to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.
Chap, xxxii. Sennacherib' 's campaign against Judah and Israel: Hezekialis sickness, the remainder of his reign, and his death. Cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13— xx. 21, and Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. — Vers. 1-13. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Jerusalem, and the annihilation of his whole army by the angel of the Lord. In 2 Kings xviii. and xix., and Isa. xxxvi. and xxxvii., we have two minute parallel accounts of this war, which threatened the existence of the kingdom of Judah, in both of which the course of this attack by the Assyrian world-power upon the kingdom of God is circumstantially narrated. The author of the Chronicle gives only a short narrative of the main events of the struggle; but, notwithstanding its brevity, supplies us with several not unessential additions to these detailed accounts. After stating that Sennacherib invaded Judah with the design of conquering the kingdom for himself (ver. 1), the author of the Chronicle describes the preparations which Hezekiah made for the defence of the capital in case it should be besieged (vers. 2-8). Then we have an account of Sennacherib's attempts to get Jerusalem into his power, by sending his generals, who sought to induce the people to submit by boastful speeches, and by writing threatening letters to Hezekiah (vers. 9-19); and, finally, of Hezekiah's prayer to God for help, and the answer to his prayer — the wonderful annihilation of the Assyrian army (vers. 20-23). The purpose of the chronicler in narrating these events was a didactic one: he wishes to show how God the Lord helped the pious King Hezekiah in this danger to his kingdom, and humbled the presumption of Sennacherib confiding in the might of his powerful army. For this purpose, a brief rhetorical summary of the main events of the struggle and its issues was sufficient. As to the facts, see the commentary on 2 Kings xviii. f. and Isa. xxxvi. f.
Ver. 1. The didactic and rhetorical character of the narrative is manifest in the very form of the introductory statement. Instead of the chronological statement of 2 Kings xviii. 13, we find the loose formula of connection: After these events and this fidelity (cf. xxxi. 20), Sennacherib came (N2) and entered into Judah ("WW? ^2)j and besieged the fenced cities, and thought (IDJft) to break (conquer) them for himself. He had already taken a number of them, and had advanced as far as Lachish in the south-west of Judah, when he made the attempt to get Jerusalem into his power; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13 f.
Vers. 2-8. Preparations of Hezekiah for the strengthening and defending of Jerusalem. — We find an account of this neither in 2 Kings xviii. nor in Isa. xxxvi.; but the fact is confirmed both by Isa. xxii. 8-11, and by the remark 2 Kings xx. 20 (cf. ver. 30 of our chapter). — Ver. 2 ff. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib advanced, and his face was to war against Jerusalem, i.e. that htf purposed to capture Jerusalem, he consulted with his princes and his valiant men to cover the waters of the springs which were outside the city; and they helped him, brought much people together, and covered all the springs, and the brook which ran through the midst of the land. criD does not denote to obstruct, but only to hide by covering and conducting the water into subterranean channels. The brook which flowed through the midst of the land is the Gihon, which was formed by the waters flowing from the springs, and was dried up by these springs being covered and the water diverted. For further information, see on ver. 30. The object of this measure is stated in the words which follow: Why should the kings of Assyria come and find much water? i.e., why should we provide them with much water, when they advance against the city and besiege it? The plural, kings of Assyria, is rhetorical, as in xxviii. 16. — Ver. 5. The fortification of Jerusalem. P.7™V, he showed himself strong, courageous, as in xv. 8, xxiii. 1. And he built the whole wall which was broken, i.e. he strengthened it by building up the breaches and defective places; cf. Isa. xxii. 9 f. The words ni^iiftrr^y bv^_ are obscure, since the translation
" he mounted on the towers" has no meaning. But if?|P be taken as a Hiph., u he caused to ascend upon the towers," the object is wanting; and if we supply walls, it is arbitrary, for we might just as well suppose it to be machines which he caused to be carried to the top of the towers for defence against the enemy (xxvi. 15). The LXX. have wholly omitted the words, and the translation of the Vulg., et exstruxit turres desuper, appears to be only a guess, but is yet perhaps correct, and presupposes the reading ni^UB HvJJ 7iM, " and brought up upon it towers," in favour of which Ewald also decides. This conjecture is in any case simpler than Bertheau's, that by?jn is a false transcription of 5 vS!: " he built the whole wall, and towers upon it, and outside was the other wall," and is therefore to be preferred to it. The "other wall " enclosed the lower city (Acra). This, too, was not first built by Hezekiah; he only fortified it anew, for Isa. xxii. 11 already speaks of two walls, between which a body of water had been introduced: see on ver. 30. He fortified also the Millo of the city of David (see on 1 Chron. xi. 8), and supplied the fortifications with weapons (np^, a weapon of defence; see on Joel ii. 8) in multitude, and with shields; cf. xxvi. 14. — Ver. 6. And, moreover, he set captains of war over the people, i.e. the populace of Jerusalem, assembled them in the open space at the city gate (which gate is not stated; cf. Neh. viii. 1, 16), and addressed them in encouraging words; cf. xxx. 22. On ver. 7a, cf. xx. 15, Deut. xxxi. 6, etc. " For with us is more than with him." 1*}, quite general, the closer definition following in ver. 8: " With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is Jahve, our God, to help us." An arm of flesh = frail human power; cf. Isa. xxi. 3: their (the Egyptians') horses are flesh, not spirit; Jer. xvii. 5, Ps. lvi. 5. " And the people leaned themselves on (i.e. trusted in) the words of Hezekiah." These statements are not inconsistent wTith the account in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, that Hezekiah began to negotiate with the Assyrian king Sennacherib when he had begun to take the fenced cities of the land unto Lachish, promised to pay him tribute, and actually paid the sum demanded, employing for that purpose even the sheet gold on the temple doors. These negotiations are passed over, not only in our narrative, but also in Isa. xxxvi., because they had no influence upon the after course and the issue of the war. Sennacherib was not induced to withdraw by the payment of the sum demanded, and soon after the receipt of it he sent a detachment from Lachish against Jerusalem, to summon the city to surrender. The fortification of Jerusalem which the Chronicle records began before these negotiations, and was continued while they were in progress.
Vers. 9-19. The advance of an Assyrian army against Jerusalem, and the attempts of Sennacherib's generals to induce the population of the capital to submit by persuasive and threatening speeches, are very briefly narrated, in comparison with 2 Kings xviii. 17-36. In ver. 9, neither the names of the Assyrian generals, nor the names of Hezekiah's ambassadors with whom they treated, are given; nor is the place where the negotiation was carried on mentioned. ^*J?*!j his servants, Sennacherib's generals. '37vJ? Wfl), while he himself lay near (or against) Lachish, and all the army of his kingdom with him. SFh&nK), his dominion, i.e. army of his kingdom; cf. Jer. xxxiv. 1. — Ver. 10 ff. Only the main ideas contained in the speech of these generals are reported; in vers. 10-12 we have the attempt to shake the trust of the people in Hezekiah and in God (Kings, vers. 19-22). MK*1 is a continuation of the question, In what do ye trust, and why sit ye in the distress, in Jerusalem? IVDD as in 2 Kings xviii. 32: Hezekiah seduces you, to give you over to death by hunger and thirst. This thought is much more coarsely expressed in 2 Kings xviii. 27. — On ver. 12, cf. 2 Kings xviii. 22: inN nnio is the one altar of burnt-offering in the temple. — Ver. 13 f. The description of Sennacherib's all-conquering power: cf. 2 Kings xviii. 35; Isa. xxxvi. 20, and xxxvii. 11-13. " Who is there among all the gods of these peoples, whom my fathers utterly destroyed, who could have delivered his people out of my hand, that your God should save you? " The idea is, that since the gods of the other peoples, which were mightier than your God, have not been able to save their peoples, how should your God be in a position to rescue you from my power? This idea is again repeated in ver. 15, as a foundation for the exhortation not to let themselves be deceived and misled by Hezekiah, and not to believe his words, and that in an assertative form: " for not one god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people,... much less then (*3 *|K) your gods: they will not save you;" and this is done in order to emphasize strongly the blasphemy of the Assyrian generals against the Almighty God of Israel. To communicate more of these blasphemous speeches would in the chronicler's view be useless, and he therefore only remarks, in ver. 16, aAnd yet more spake his (Sennacherib's) servants against God Jahve, and against His servant Hezekiah;" and then, in ver. 17, that Sennacherib also wrote a letter of similar purport, and (ver. 18) that his servants called with a loud voice in the Jews' speech to the people of Jerusalem upon the wall, to throw them into fear and terrify them, that they might take the city. What they called to the people is not stated, but by the infinit. Djrup} D?"!,v? it is hinted, and thence we may gather that it was to the same effect as the blasphemous speeches above quoted (BNV, inf. Pi., as in Neh. vi. 19). — On comparing 2 Kings xviii. and xix., it is clear that Sennacherib only sent the letter to Hezekiah after his general Rabshakeh had informed him of the fruitlessness of his efforts to induce the people of Jerusalem to submit by speeches, and the news of the advance of the Cushite king Tirhakah had arrived; while the calling aloud in the Jews' language to the people standing on the wall, on the part of his generals, took place in the first negotiation with the ambassadors of Hezekiah. The author of the Chronicle has arranged his narrative rhetorically, so as to make the various events form a climax: first, the speeches of the servants of Sennacherib; then the king's letter to Hezekiah to induce him and his counsellors to submit; and finally, the attempt to terrify the people in language intelligible to them. The conclusion is the statement, ver. 19: "They spake of the God of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work of the hands of man; " cf. 2 Kings xix. 18.
Vers. 20-23. Prayer of King Hezekiah and of the prophet Isaiah for the help of the Lord. — Ver. 20. The main contents of Hezekiah's prayer are communicated in 2 Kings xix. 14-19 and Isa. xxx vii. 15—19. There it is not expressly said that Isaiah also prayed, but it may be inferred from the statement in 2 Kings xix. 2 ff. and Isa. xxxvii. 2 ff. that Hezekiah sent a deputation to the prophet with the request that he would pray for the people. In answer Isaiah promised the ambassadors deliverance, as the word of the Lord, riw?yy on account of this, i.e. on account of the contempt shown for the God of Israel, which was emphatically dwelt upon both in the prayer of Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 16) and in the word of Isaiah, ver. 22 ff. — Ver. 21. The deliverance: cf. 2 Kings xix. 35 ff.; Isa. xxxvii. 36 ff. The number of Assyrians smitten by the angel of the Lord is not stated, as it was not of importance, the main fact being that the whole Assyrian host was annihilated, so that Sennacherib had to return with disgrace into his own land. This is what is signified by the rhetorical phrase: The angel of Jahve destroyed all the valiant warriors, and the leaders and princes of the king of Assyria, and he returned with shame of face (cf. Ezra ix. 7; Ps. xliv. 16) to nis land, where his sons slew him in the temple. In regard to the facts, see on 2 Kings xix. 37 and Isa. xxxvii. 38. The Keth. 1&WD is an orthographical error for ^TP, a contraction of IP and *KV from *W, a passive formation with intransitive signification: some of those who went forth from his own bowels, ue. some of his sons; cf. the similar formation ^T^P, 1 Chron. xx. 4. — Ver 22. Conclusion of this event. So the Lord helped, etc.,?2T1V2} and out of the hand of all, sc. his enemies; but we need not on that account, with some manuscripts, bring vn\s into the text. B^n^ and protected them round about. 7HJ, to lead, guide, with the additional idea of care and protection (Ps. xxxi. 4; Isa. xlix. 10, li. 18); and consequently here, protect, defend. There is therefore no need of the conjecture Dnj n:>i? which Berth, holds to be the original reading, without considering that, though MBJ? n^l is a current phrase with the chronicler (cf. xiv. 6, xv. 15, xx. 30; 1 Chron. xxii. 18), the supposition that these words became 'DD tbjW by an orthographical error is not at all probable. — Ver. 23. Many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to King Hezekiah. D^l is not to be restricted to Israelites, but probably denotes chiefly neighbouring peoples, who by the destruction of the Assyrian army were also freed from this dreaded enemy. They, too, might feel impelled to show their reverence for the God of Israel, who had so wonderfully delivered His people by their gifts.
Vers. 24-26. Hezcldalis sickness and recovery; Ms pride and his humiliation. — Ver. 24. As to the sickness of Hezekiah, and the miraculous sign by which the prophet Isaiah assured him of recovery, see the account in 2 Kings xx. 1-11 and Isa. xxxviii. The Chronicle has only given us hints on this matter. "1^^sl and |nj refer to the same subject — God. Hezekiah prayed, and in consequence of his prayer God spake to him, sc. by the mouth of the prophet, and gave him a miraculous sign. — Ver. 25. " But Hezekiah rendered not acrcrding to the benefit unto him, for his heart was proud.'* In his sickness he had promised to walk in humility all his days (Isa. xxxviii. 15): yet he became proud after his recovery; and his pride showed itself especially in his showing all his treasures to the Babylonian embassy, in idle trust in them and in the resources at his command (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12—15; Isa. xxxix. 1-4). "And there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem," which participated in the king's sentiments (cf. xix. 10; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). Isaiah proclaimed this wrath to him in the prophecy that all the treasures of the king would be carried away to Babylon, and that some of his sons should become courtiers of the king of Babylon (2 Kings xx. 16-18; Isa. xxxix. 5-7), to which we should perhaps also reckon the threatening prophecy in Mic. iii. 12. — Ver. 26. Then Hczekiah humbled himself in his pride, and the wrath came not upon them in the clays of Hezekiah (cf. Isa. xxxix. 8). The threatened judgment wras postponed because of this humiliation, and broke over the royal house and the whole kingdom only at a later time in the Chaldean invasion.
Vers. 27-33. TIczekialis riches; concluding estimate of Ms reign; 7iis death and burial. — Ver. 27. Like Jehoshaphat (xvii. 5, xviii. 1), Solomon (i. 12), and David (1 Chron. xxix. 28), Hezekiah attained to riches and glory, and made unto himself treasurechambers for silver, gold, precious stones, and spices, shields, and all manner of splendid furniture. The D*|JB are named instead of weapons in general. The collection of them brings to recollection the vfe rV3 (2 Kings xx. 13 and Isa. xxxix. 2).— -Ver. 28. Storehouses also (magazines) for the agricultural produce, and stalls for all manner of cattle, and stalls for the herds, like David (1 Chron. xxvii. 25 ff.) and Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 10). rtoDD is a transposition of niW3»? storehouses, from D33, to heap up. "Cattle and cattle" = all kinds of cattle.. ft^j synonymous with ninN (ix. 5), stables or stalls for cattle. The word finis*, which occurs only here, must have the same signification, and be held to be a transposed form of that word. — Ver. 29. And cities (?) made (procured) he for himself. Q^.V cannot in this connection denote the usual cities; it must mean either watch-towers (from "ny, to watch) or dwelling-places for herds and cattle, since TJjfj according to 2 Kings xvii. 9, is used of any enclosed place, from a watch-tower to a fenced city. Bto*!, as in xxxi. 3, of possessions in herds. — Ver. 30. The same Hezekiah covered the upper outlet of the water Gihon, and brought it down westwards to the city of David, i.e. by a subterranean channel into the city of David (see on ver. 3). The form D"IP"1 is Piel DTB^J; the Keri is the same con jug., only contracted into Erjftj as C'3'l for
B&H5, the 1 of the third person having amalgamated with the first radical, under the influence of the 1 consec. With the last clause in ver. 30 cf. xxxi. 21, 1 Chron. xxix. 23. — Ver. 31. " And so (i.e. accordingly) in the case of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon,... God left him." ]2] does not denote attamen; it never has an adversative meaning. Bertheau rightly translates, " and accordingly," with the further remark, that by JJ1 the account of Hezekiah's treatment of the Babylonian ambassadors, which could not be reckoned among his fortunate deeds, is brought into harmony with the remark that he prospered in all his undertakings. It was permitted by God that Hezekiah should on this occasion be lifted up, and should commit an iniquity which could not but brin" misfortune with it; not in order that He might plunge him into misfortune, but to try him, and to humble him (cf. ver. 26).— Ver. 32. DHDq, pious deeds, as in vi. 42. 'fe* |iTq is the book of Isaiah's prophecies; see the Introduction, p. 30. — Ver. 33. Hezekiah was buried a on the height of the graves of the sons of David," perhaps because there was no longer room in the hereditary burying-place of the kings; so that for Hezekiah and the succeeding kings special graves had to be prepared in a higher place of the graves of the kings. " They did him honour in his death," by the burning of many spices, as we may conjecture (cf. xvi. 14, xxi. 19).
Vers. 1-20. The reign of Manas sell; cf. 2 Kings xxi. 1-18. — The characteristics of this king's reign, and of the idolatry which he again introduced, and increased in a measure surpassing all his predecessors (vers. 1-9), agrees almost verbally with 2 Kings xxi. 1-9. Here and there an expression is rhetorically generalized and intensified, e.g. by the plurals DyJto? and nVlSW (ver. 3) instead of the sing. 3jJ3? and ^n^N (Kings), and W3 (ver. G) instead of fo3 (see on xxviii. 3); by the addition of *1#31 to cmi gty and of the name the Vale of Hinnom, ver. 6 (see on Josh. xv. 18, *]j for Ns3); by heaping up words for the law and its commandments (ver. 8); and other small deviations, of which ^?2?ODn (ver. 7) instead of niKfcri ^D2 (Kings) is the most important. The word?BD? sculpture or statue, is derived from Dent. iv. 16, but has perhaps been taken by the author of the
Chronicle from Ezek. viii. 3, where teD probably denotes the statue of Asherah. The form Di7»y for a?Sv (ver. 7) is not elsewhere met with. — At ver. 10, the account in the Chronicle diverges from that in 2 Kings. In 2 Kings xxi. 10-16 it is related how the Lord caused it to be proclaimed by the prophets, that in punishment of Manasseh's sins Jerusalem would be destroyed, and the people given into the power of their enemies, and how Manasseh filled Jerusalem with the shedding of innocent blood. Instead of this, in ver. 10 of the Chronicle it is only briefly said that the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hearken; and then in vers. 11-17 it is narrated that Manasseh was led away to Babylon by the king of Assyria's captains of the host; in his trouble turned to the Lord his God, and prayed; was thereupon brought by God back to Jerusalem; after his return, fortified Jerusalem with a new wall; set commanders over all the fenced cities of Judah: abolished the idolatry in the temple and the city, and restored the worship of Jahve. — Ver. 11. As Manasseh would not hear the words of the prophets, the Lord brought upon him the captains of the host of the king of Assyria. These " took him with hooks, and bound him with double chains of brass, and brought him to Babylon." D^rrinn V13^ signifies neither, they took him prisoner in thorns (hid in the thorns), nor in a place called Chochim (which is not elsewhere found), but they took him with hooks, nin denotes the hook or ring which was drawn through the gills of large fish when taken (Job xl. 26), and is synonymous with nn (2 Kings xix. 28; Ezek. xix. 4), a ring which was passed through the noses of wild beasts to subdue and lead them. The expression is figurative, as in the passages quoted from the prophets. Manasseh is represented as an unmanageable beast, which the Assyrian generals took and subdued by a ring in the nose. The figurative expression is explained by the succeeding clause: they bound him with double chains. DW^J? are double fetters of brass, with which the feet of prisoners were bound (2 Sam. iii. 34; Judg. xvi. 21; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, etc.).— Ver. 12. ii> WD* = £ TCJ njni, xxviii. 22. In this his affliction he bowed himself before the Lord God of his fathers, and besought Him; and the Lord was entreated of him, and brought him again to Jerusalem, into his kingdom. The prayer which Manasseh prayed in his need was contained, according to ver. 18 f., in the histories of the kings of Israel, and in the sayings of the prophet Hozai, but has not come down to our day. The u prayer of Manasseh" given by the LXX. is an apocryphal production, composed in Greek; cf. my Introduction to the Old Testament, § 247. — Ver. 14. After his return, Manasseh took measures to secure his kingdom, and especially the capital, against hostile attacks. " He built an outer wall of the city of David westward towards Gihon in the valley, and in the direction of the fish-gate; and he surrounded the Ophel, and made it very high." The words rufapn nttin (without the article) point to the building of a new wall. But since it has been already recorded of Hezekiah, in xxxii. 5, that he built "the other wall without," all modern expositors, even Arnold in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 634, assume the identity of the two walls, and understand |3*5 of the completion and heightening of that u other wall " of which it is said *1N£> «J5^~j and which shut in Zion from the lower city to the north. In that case, of course, we must make the correction HDinn. The words u westward towards Gihon in the valley, and '3 Kfo/, in the direction to (towards) the fish-gate," are then to be taken as describing the course of this wall from its centre, first towards the west, and then towards the east. For the valley of Gihon lay, in all probability, outside of the western city gate, which occupied the place of the present Jaffa gate. But the fish-gate was, according to Neh. iii. 3, at the east end of this wall, at no great distance from the tower on the north-east corner. The valley (?n3i\) is a hollow between the upper city (Zion) and the lower (Acfa), probably the beginning of the valley, which at its southeastern opening, between Zion and Moriah, is called Tyropoion in Josephus. The words, " he surrounded the Ophel," sc. with a wall, are not to be connected with the preceding clauses, as Berth, connects them, translating, u he carried the wall from the northeast corner farther to the south, and then round the Ophel;" for " between the north-east corner and the Ophel wall lay the whole east wall of the city, as far as to the south-east corner of the temple area, which yet cannot be regarded as a continuation of the wall to the Ophel wall" (Arnold, loc. cit.). Jotham had already built a great deal at the Ophel wall (xxvii. 3). Manasseh must therefore only have strengthened it, and increased its height. On the words 'V D^;i, cf. xxxii. 6 and xvii. 2. — Vers. 15-17. And he also removed the idols and the statues from the house of the Lord, i.e. out of the two courts of the temple (ver. 5), and caused the idolatrous altars which he had built upon the temple hill and in Jerusalem to be cast forth from the city. In ver. 16, instead of the Keth. \T), he built (restored) the altar of Jahve, many manuscripts and ancient editions read \y)} he prepared the altar of Jahve. This variation has perhaps originated in an orthographical error, and it is difficult to decide which reading is the original. The Yulg. translates p* restauravit. That Manasseh first removed the altar of Jahve from the court, and then restored it, as Ewald thinks, is not very probable; for in that case its removal would certainly have been mentioned in ver. 3 ff\ Upon the altar thus restored Manasseh then offered thank-offerings and peace-offerings, and also commanded his subjects to worship Jahve the God of Israel. But the people still sacrificed on the high piaces, yet unto Jahve their God.
" As to the carrying away of Manasseh," says Bertheau, a we have no further information in the Old Testament, which is not surprising, seeing that in the books of Kings there is only a very short notice as to the long period embraced by Manasseh's reign and that of Anion." He therefore, with Ew., Mov., Then., and others, does not scruple to recognise this fact as historical, and to place his captivity in the time of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. He however believes, with Ew. and Mov., that the statements as to the removal of idols and altars from the temple and Jerusalem (ver. 15) is inconsistent with the older account in 2 Kings xxiii. 6 and 12, the clear statements of which, moreover, our historian does not communicate in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3 f. For even if the Astarte removed by Josiah need not have been the?BB'l of our chapter, yet it is expressly said that only by Josiah were the altars built by Manasseh broken down; yet we would scarcely be justified in supposing that Manasseh removed them, perhaps only laid them aside, that Amon again set them up in the courts, and that Josiah at length destroyed them. It does not thence follow, of course, that the narrative of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh rests upon no historic foundation; rather it is just such a narrative as would be supplemented by accounts of the destruction of the idolatrous altars and the statue of Astarte: for that might be regarded as the necessary result of the conversion, without any definite statement being made.1 Against this we have the following objections to make: Can we well imagine repentance and conversion on Manasseh's part without the removal of the abominations of idolatry, at least from the temple of the Lord? And why should we not suppose that Manasseh removed the idol altars from the temple and Jerusalem, but that Anion, who did evil as did his father Manasseh, and sacrificed to all the images which he had made (2 Kings xxi. 21 f.; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 22), again set them up in the courts of the temple, and placed the statue again in the temple, and that only by Josiah were they destroyed? In 2 Kings xxiii. 6 it is indeed said, Josiah removed the Asherah from the house of Jahve, took it forth from Jerusalem, and burnt it, and ground it to dust in the valley of Kidron; and in ver. 12, that Josiah beat down and brake the altars which Manasseh had made in both courts of the house of Jahve, and threw the dust of them into Kidron. But where do we find it written in the Chronicle that Manasseh, after his return from Babylon, beat down, and brake, and ground to powder the fe? m tne house of Jahve, and the altars on the temple mount and in Jerusalem? In 2 Chron. xxxiii. 15 we only find it stated that he cast these things forth from the city (T'V? n^n uHfity- Is casting out of the city identical with breaking down and crushing, as Bertheau and others assume? The author of the Chronicle, at least, can distinguish between removing ("^PH) and breaking down and crushing. Cf. xv. 16, where "PDA is sharply distinguished from rna and P^n; further, chap. xxxi. 1 and xxxiv. 4, where the verbs "!3tP, JffiSj and P~[\} are used of the breaking in pieces and destroying of images and altars by Hezekiah and Josiah. He uses none of these verbs of the removal of the images and altars by Manasseh, but only W and T$ ran r}xfa (ver. 15). If we take the words exactly as they stand in the text of the Bible, every appearance of contradiction disappears.1 From what is said in the Chronicle die alttesll. Literatur in einer Reihe von Aufsdtzen dargestellt (1868), S. 59 f., has drawn the conclusion that the accounts given in the Chronicle, not only of Manasseh's conversion, but also of his being led captive to Babylon, are merely fictions, or inventions — poetical popular myths. On the other hand, E. Gerlach, in the Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1861, iii. S. 503 ff., has shown the superficiality of Graf's essay, and defended effectively the historical character of both narratives.
1 In this matter Movers too has gone very superficially to work, remarking in support of the contradiction {bill. Chron. S. 328): "If Manasseh was so zealous a penitent, it may be asked, Would he not have destroyed all of Manasseh's deeds, we cannot conclude that he was fully converted to the Lord. That Manasseh prayed to Jahve in his imprisonment, and by his deliverance from it and his restoration to Jerusalem came to see that Jahve was God (D\"6Nn), who must be worshipped in His temple at Jerusalem, and that he consequently removed the images and the idolatrous altars from the- temple and the city, and cast them forth, — these facts do not prove a thorough conversion, much less "that he made amends for his ski by repentance and improvement" (Mow), but merely attest the restoration of the Jahve-worship in the temple, which had previously been completely suspended. But the idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah was not thereby extirpated; it was only in so far repressed that it could not longer be publicly practised in the temple. Still less was idolatry rooted out of the hearts of the people by the command that the people were to worship Jahve, the God of Israel. There is not a single word of Manasseh's conversion to Jahve, the God of the fathers, with all his heart (p?w ^?). Can it then surprise us, that after Manasseh's death, under his son Amon7 walking as he did in the sins of his father, these external barriers fell straightway, and idolatry again publicly appeared in all its proportions and extent, and that the images and altars of the idols which had been cast out of Jerusalem were again set up in the temple and its courts? If even the pious Josiah, with all his efforts for the extirpation of idolatry and the revivification of the legal worship, could not accomplish more than the restoration, during his reign, of the temple service according to the law, while after his death idolatry again prevailed under Jehoiakim, what could Manasseh's halfmeasures effect? If this be the true state of the case in regard idolatrous images, according to the Mosaic law, as the Chronicle itself, xxxiii. 15 (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 17, xv. 16; 2 Kings xxiii. 12), sufficiently shows? Had idolatry ceased in all Judah in the last year of Manasseh's reign, as is stated in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17, could it, during the two years' reign of his son Anion, have spread abroad in a manner hitherto unheard of in Jewish history, as it is portrayed under Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 4 ff.?" But where is it stated in the Chronicle that Manasseh was so zealous a penitent as to have destroyed the images according to the Mosaic law? Not even the restoration of the Jahve-worship according to the provisions of the law is once spoken of, as it is in the case of Hezekiah and of Josiah (cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 5 and 16, xxxiv. 21, xxxv. 26); and docs it follow from the fact that Judah, in consequence of Manasseh's command to serve Jahve, still sacrificed in the high places, yet to Jahve, that under Manasseh idolatry ceased throughout Judah?
to Manasseh's conversion, the passages 2 Kings xxiv. 3, xxiii. 26, Jer. xv. 4, where it is said that the Lord had cast out Judah from His presence because of the sins of Manasseh, cease to give any support to the opposite view. Manasseh is here named as the person who by his godlessness made the punishment of Judah and Jerusalem unavoidable, because he so corrupted Judah by his sins, that it could not now thoroughly turn to the Lord, but always fell back into the sins of Manasseh. Similarly, in 2 Kings xvii. 21 and 22, it is said of the ten tribes that the Lord cast them out from His presence because they walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, and departed not from them.
With the removal of the supposed inconsistency between the statement in the Chronicle as to Manasseh's change of sentiment, and the account of his godlessness in 2 Kings xxi., every reason for suspecting the account of Manasseh's removal to Babylon as a prisoner disappears; for even Graf admits that the mere silence of the book of Kings can prove nothing, since the books of Kings do not record many other events which are recorded in the Chronicle and are proved to be historical. This statement, however, is thoroughly confirmed, both by its own contents and by its connection with other well-attested historical facts. According to ver. 14, Manasseh fortified Jerusalem still more strongly after his return to the throne by building a new wall. This statement, which has as yet been called in question by no judicious critic, is so intimately connected with the statements in the Chronicle as to his being taken prisoner, and the removal of the images from the temple, that by it these latter are attested as historical. From this we learn that the author of the Chronicle had at his command authorities which contained more information as to Manasseh's reign than is to be found in our books of Kings, and so the references to these special authorities which follow in vers. 18 and 19 are corroborated. Moreover, the fortifying of Jerusalem after his return from his imprisonment presupposes that he had had such an experience as impelled him to take measures to secure himself against a repetition of hostile surprises. To this we must add the statement that Manasseh was led away by the generals of the Assyrian king to Babylon. The Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser (or Sargon) did not carry away the Israelites to Babylon, but to Assyria; and the arrival of ambassadors from the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan in Jerusalem, in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 12; Isa. xxxix. 1), shows that at that time Babylon was independent of Assyria. The poetic popular legend would without doubt have made Manasseh also to be carried away to Assyria by the troops of the Assyrian king, not to Babylon. The statement that he was carried away to Babylon by Assyrian warriors rests upon the certainty that Babylon was then a province of the Assyrian empire; and this is corroborated by history. According to the accounts of Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor, borrowed from Berosus, which have been preserved in Euseb. Chron. arm. i. p. 42 f., Sennacherib brought Babylon, the government of which had been usurped by Belibus, again into subjection, and made his son Esarhaddon king over it, as his representative. The subjection of the Babylonians is confirmed by the Assyrian monuments, which state that Sennacherib had to march against the rebels in Babylon at the very beginning of his reign; and then again, in the fourth year of it, that he subdued them, and set over them a new viceroy (see M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. i. S. 697 f. and 707 f. and ii. S. 592 f., der 3 Aufl.). Afterwards, when Sennacherib met his death at the hand of his sons (2 Kings xix. 37; Isa. xxxvii. 38), his oldest son Esarhaddon, the viceroy of Babylon, advanced with his army, pursued the flying parricides, and after slaying them ascended the throne of Assyria, 680 B.C.1 Of Esarhaddon, who reigned thirteen years (from 680 to 667), we learn from Ezra iv. 2, col. with 2 Kings xxiv. 17, that he brought colonists to Samaria from Babylon, Cutha, and other districts of his kingdom; and Abydenus relates of him, according to Berosus (in Euseb. Chron. i. p. 54), that Axerdis (i.e. without doubt Esarhaddon) subdued Lower Syria, i.e. the districts of Syria bordering on the sea, to himself anew. From these we
1 So Jul. Oppert, "die biblische Chronologic f estgestellt nach den Assyrischen Keilschriften," in d. Ztschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. (xxiii. S. 134), 18C9, S. 144; while Duncker, loc. cit. i. S. 709, on the ground of the divergent statement of Berosus as to the reign of Esarhaddon, and according to other chronological combinations, gives the year C93 B.C., — a date which harmonizes neither with Sennacherib's inscriptions, so far as these have yet been deciphered, nor with the statements of the Kanon PtoL, nor with biblical chronology. It, moreover, makes it necessary to shorten the fifty-five years of Manasseh's reign to thirty-five, which is all the more arbitrary as the chronological data of the Kanon PtoL harmonize with the biblical chronology and establish their accuracy, as I have already pointed out in my apolog. Vers, ixber die Chron. S. 429 f.
may, I think, conclude that not only the transporting of the colonists into the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes is connected with this expedition against Syria, but that on this occasion also Assyrian generals took King Manasseh prisoner, and carried him away to Babylon, as Ewald (Gesch. iii. S. 678), and Duncker, S. 715, with older chronologists and expositors (Usher, des Vignoles, Calmet, Ramb., J. D. Mich., and others), suppose. The transport of Babylonian colonists to Samaria is said in Seder Olam rah. p. 67, ed. Meyer, and by D. Kimchi, according to Talmudic tradition, to have taken place in the twenty-second year of Manasseh's reign; and this statement gains confirmation from the fact — as was remarked by Jac, Cappell. and Usher — that the period of sixty-five years after which, according to the prophecy in Isa. vii. 8, Ephraim was to be destroyed so that it should no more be a people, came to an end with the twenty-second year of Manasseh, and Ephraim, i.e. Israel of the ten tribes, did indeed cease to be a people only with the immigration of heathen colonists into its land (cf. Del. on Isa. vii. 8). But the twenty-second year of Manasseh corresponds to the year 776 B.C. and the fourth year of Esarhaddon.
By this agreement with extra-biblical narratives in its statement of facts and in its chronology, the narrative in the Chronicle of Manasseh's captivity in Babylon is raised above every doubt, and is corroborated even by the Assyrian monuments. " We now know," remarks Duncker (ii. S. 92) in this connection, a that Esarhaddon says in his inscriptions that twenty-two kings of Syria hearkened to him: he numbers among them Minasi (Manasseh of Juclah) and the kings of Cyprus." As to the details both of his capture and his liberation, we cannot make even probable conjectures, since we have only a few bare notices of Esarhaddon's reign; and even his building works, which might have given us some further information, were under the influence of a peculiarly unlucky star, for the palace built by him at Kalah or Nimrod remained unfinished, and was then destroyed by a great fire (cf. Spiegel in Herz.'s Realencyld. xx. S. 225). Yet, from the fact that in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1, as in 2 Kings xxi. 1, the duration of Manasseh's reign is stated to have been fifty-five years, without any mention being made of an interruption, we may probably draw this conclusion at least, that the captivity did not last long, and that he received his liberty upon a promise to pay tribute, although he appears not to have kept this promise, or only for a short period. For that, in the period between Hezekiah and Josiah, Judah must have come into a certain position of dependence upon Assyria, cannot be concluded from 2 Kings xxiii. 19 (cf. ver. 15 with xvii. 28) and chap, xxiii. 29, as E. Gerlach thinks.
Vers. 18-20. Conclusion of Manasseh's history. His other acts, his prayer, and words of the prophets of the Lord against him, were recorded in the history of the kings of Israel; while special accounts of his prayer, and how it was heard (fr""WD, the letting Himself be entreated, i.e. how God heard him), of his sons, and the high places, altars, and images which he erected before his humiliation, were contained in the sayings of Hozai (see the Introduction, p. 30 f.). — Ver. 20. Manasseh was buried in his house, or, according to the more exact statement in 2 Kings xxi. 18, in the garden of his house — in the garden of Uzza; see on that passage.
Vers. 21-25. The reign of Amon. Cf. 2 Kings xxi. 19-26. — Both accounts agree; only in the Chronicle, as is also the case with Manasseh and Ahaz, the name of his mother is omitted, and the description of his godless deeds is somewhat more brief than in Kings, while the remark is added that he did not humble himself like Manasseh, but increased the guilt. In the account of his death there is nothing said of his funeral, nor is there any reference to the sources of his history. See the commentary on 2 Kings xxi. 19 ff.
The account of Josiah in the Chronicle agrees in all essential points with the representation in 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii., but is chronologically more exact, and in many parts more complete than that. In the second book of Kings, the whole reform of the cultus carried out by Josiah is viewed in its connection with the discovery of the book of the law, on the occasion of the temple being repaired; and the narrative comprehends not only the repair of the temple, the discovery, the reading of the book of the law before the assembled people, and the renewal of the covenant, but also the extirpation of idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah and in all the cities of Israel, and the celebration of the passover in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign; see the introductory remarks to 2 Kings xxii. In the Chronicle, on the contrary, these events are more kept apart, and described according to their order in time. As early as in the eighth year of his reign, Josiah, still a youth, began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in his twelfth year to purge Jerusalem and Judah of idolatry (xxxiv. 3). In the eighteenth year the book of the law was discovered in the temple, brought to the king, and read before him (vers. 8-18); whereupon he, deeply moved by the contents of the book which had been read, and by the answer of the prophetess Huldah when inquired of concerning it (vers. 19—28), went into the temple with the elders of the people, caused the law to be read to the whole people, and made a covenant before the Lord to obey the law (vers. 29-32). He then caused all the idolatrous abominations which were still to be found in the land of Israel to be removed (ver. 33), and prepared to hold the passover, as it had not been held since the days of Solomon (chap. xxxv. 1-19). In other respects the main difference between the two accounts is, that in 2 Kings the suppression of idolatry is narrated with greater minuteness; the passover, on the contrary, being only briefly noticed; — while in the Chronicle the purification of Jerusalem, Judah, and the kingdom of Israel is shortly summarized (xxxiv. 3—7), but the celebration of the passover is minutely described on its ceremonial side (xxxv. 1—19).
Chap, xxxiv. — Vers. 1 and 2. Duration and spirit of Josiah' s reign; agreeing with 2 Kings xxii. 1 and 2, only the note as to Josiah's mother being here omitted. — Vers. 3-7. Extirpation of idolatry. In the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet a youth, being then only sixteen years old, Josiah began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in the twelfth year of his reign he commenced to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, Asherim, etc. The cleansing of the land of Judah from the numerous objects of idolatry is summarily described in vers. 4 and 5; and thereupon there follows (vers. 6 and 7) the destruction of the idolatrous altars and images in the land of Israel, — all that it seemed necessary to say on that subject being thus mentioned at once. For that all this was not accomplished in the twelfth year is clear from the "irtDp?nn? " he commenced to cleanse," and is moreover attested by ver. 33. The description of this destruction of the various objects of idolatry is rhetorically expressed, only carved and cast images being mentioned, besides the altars of the high places and the Asherim, without the enumeration of the different kinds of idolatry which we find in 2 Kings xxiii. 4-20. — On ver. 4, cf. xxxi. 1. *fljjDJ, they pulled down before him, i.e. under his eye, or his oversight, the altars of the Baals (these are the fitoj? ver* 3); and the sun-pillars (cf. xiv. 4) which stood upwards, i.e. above, upon the altars, he caused to be hewn away from them (DJvSS) > the Asherim (pillars and trees of Asherah) and the carved and molten images to be broken and ground (PI1!?, cf. xv. 16), and (the dust of them) to be strewn upon the graves (of those) who had sacrificed to them. D^rn'tn Js connected directly with O'nspn so that the actions of those buried in them are poetically attributed to the graves. In 2 Kings xxiii. 6 this is said only of the ashes of the Asherah statue which was burnt, while here it is rhetorically generalized. — Ver. 5. And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars, i.e. he caused the bones of the idolatrous priests to be taken from their graves and burnt on the spot where the destroyed altars had stood, that he might defile the place with the ashes of the dead. In these words is summarized what is stated in 2 Kings xxiii. 13 and 14 as to the defilement of the places of sacrifice built upon the Mount of Olives by the bones of the dead, and in vers. 16-20 as to the burning of the bones of the high priests of Bethel, after they had been taken from their graves, upon their own altars. DMlirQTD is an orthographical error for DTlinajD. — Vers. 6 and 7 form a connected sentence: And in the cities of Manasseh...., in their ruins round about, there he pulled down the altars, etc. The tribe of Simeon is here, as in xv. 9, reckoned among the tribes of the kingdom of Israel, because the Simeonites, although they belonged geographically to the kingdom of Judah, yet in religion remained attached to the worship on the high places practised by the ten tribes; see on xv. 9. " And unto Naphtali" is added, to designate the kingdom of Israel in its whole extent to the northern frontier of Canaan. The form DWjSl 1H| (in the Keth. divided into two words) gives no suitable sense. R. Sal. explains, timentes in planitie habitave, seel fixerunt in monte domicilia, rendering it " in their mountain-dwellings." This the words cannot mean.1 The Keri DnTannii, « with their swords," is suggested by Ezek. xxvi. 9, and is accepted by D. Kimchi, Abu Melech, and
1 The LXX. translate \v rolg ro-otg ccvtuv, expressing merely the DJTrQ. The Targ. has jinnVHV JV22, in domo (s. loco) dcsolalionis eoruni.
others, and understood to denote instruments with which the altars, groves, and images were cut down. But this interpretation also is certainly incorrect. The word is rather to be pointed DiTnlnnsij in their wastes (ruins) (cf. Ps. cix. 10), and to be taken as an explanatory apposition to *]ljtf3: in the cities of Manasseh..., namely, in their ruins round about; for the land had been deserted since the times of Shalmaneser, and its cities were in great part in ruins. The statement as to the locality precedes in the form of an absolute sentence, and that which is predicated of it follows in the form of an apodosis with 1 consec. (F525)- P1\}? fl5?j he dashed to pieces to crush; the form pin is not a perfect after?, but an infinitive which has retained the vowel of the perfect; cf. Ew. § 238, d.
Vers. 8-18. The cleansing and repairing of the temple^ and the finding of the book of the law. Cf. 2 Kings xxii. 3-10. — In the eighteenth year of his reign, when he wras purging the land and the house (of God), he sent. "in&? does not indeed signify " after the purging" (De Wette, with the older expositors), but still less is it a statement of the object, " to purge" (Berth.); for that is decisively disposed of both by its position at the beginning of the sentence, where no statement of the object would stand, but still more by the fact that a statement of the object follows, 'til pinp. s used of time denotes " about," and so with the inf: e.g. Jer. xlvi. 13: at (his) coming = when he came. Shaphan was "^D, state secretary, according to 2 Kings xxii. 3. With him the king sent the governor of the city Maaseiah, and the chancellor Joah. These two are not mentioned in 2 Kings xxii. 3, but have not been arbitrarily added by the chronicler, or invented by him, as Then, groundlessly supposes. " To repair the house of Jahve." What these high royal officials had to do with it we learn from what follows. — Ver. 9 f. They, together with the high priest, gave the money which had been received for the repair of the temple to the overseers of the building, who then gave it to workmen to procure building materials and for wages, just as was done when the temple was repaired by Joash, chap, xxiv. 11-13. The Keri OB*l is a correction resulting from a misinterpretation of the Keth. *3?fy, u and of the dwellers in Jerusalem." The enumeration, u from the hand of Manasseh, Ephraim," etc., is rhetorical. In WMj ver. 10, the verb of ver. 9 is again taken up: they handed it to the overseers of the building, and they to the workmen, 'on ntry is a rare form of the plur. *bfp; see on 1 Chron. xxiii. 24. The overseers of the building (DHpB»n — ^V) are the subject of the second tffi?; and before the following "W, f, which stands in 2 Kings, is to be supplied. pill is a denom. from p^a, and signifies to repair what has been damaged. The statement of ver. 10 is made more definite by ver. 11: they gave it, namely, to the workers in stone and wood, and to the builders to buy hewn stones and timber for couplings, and for the beams of the houses (ni"ij£, to provide with beams; DVian are the various buildings of the temple and its courts), which the kings of Judah had allowed to decay (TVfiWfy not of designed destroying, but of ruining by neglect). — In ver. 12 Ave have still the remark that the people did the work with fidelity, and the money could consequently be given to them without reckoning, cf. 2 Kings xxii. 7; and then the names of the building inspectors follow. Two Levites of the family of Merari, and two of the family of Kohath, were overseers; TO?, i.e. to lead in the building, to preside over it as upper overseers; and besides them, the Levites, all who wrere skilled in instruments of song (cf. 1 Chron. xxv. 6 ff.). As men who by their office and their art occupied a conspicuous place among the Levites, the oversight of the workmen in the temple was committed to them, not " that they might incite and cheer the workmen by music and song" (Berth.). — Ver. 13a is probably to be taken, along with ver. 126, in the signification, " All the Levites who were skilled in music were over the bearers of burdens, and were overseers of all the workmen in reference to every work." The 1 before 'DH by appears certainly to go against this interpretation, and Berth, would consequently erase it to connect BviaDfl by with the preceding verse, and begin a new sentence with D'TOUM: « and they led all the workmen." But if we separate ^rilfJW from DyiiDn bvy this mention of the bearers of burdens (a^ao) comes awkwardly in between the subject and the predicate, or the statement as to the subject. We hold the text to be correct, and make the 1 before 'dpi by correspond to the 1 before DTOJD, in the signification, et — et. The Levites, all who were skilled in instruments of song, were both over the bearers of burdens, and overseeing the workmen, or leading the workmen. Besides, of the Levites were, i.e. still other Levites were, scribes and officers and porters, i.e. were busied about the temple in the discharge of these functions. — Ver. 14. In bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the Lord, the high priest found the book of Moses' law. It is not clearly implied in the words, that he found it in the place where the money was laid up. The book of the law which was found is merely characterized as the book of the Mosaic law by the words nB>»~T3, not necessarily as Moses' autograph. The communication of this discovery by the high priest to the state secretary Shaphan, and by him to the king, is narrated in vers. 15-18, just as in 2 Kings xxii. 8-10. The statement, ver. 16, " and Shaphan brought the book to the king," instead of the words, " and Shaphan the "i£D came (went) to the king," involves no difference as to the facts; it rather makes the matter clear. For since in 2 Kings xxii. 10, immediately after the statement that Hilkiah gave him the book, it is said that Shaphan read from it to the king, he must have brought it to the kinsr. With this elucidation, both the omission of ^HKip^ (2 Kings xxii. 8), and the insertion of Tiy after 3^1, ver. 16, is connected. The main thing, that which it concerned the author of the Chronicle to notice, was the fact that the book of the law which had been discovered was immediately brought and read to the king; while the circumstance that Shaphan, when the book was given him, also opened it and read in it, is omitted, as it had no further results. But since Shaphan did not go to the king merely to bring him the book, but rather, in the first place, to report upon the performance of the commission entrusted to him in respect of the money, this report required to be brought prominently forward by the liy: He brought the book to the king, and besides, made his report to the king. All that has been committed to thy servants (T3 jrij), that they do; they have poured out the money, etc. The WV}¥. are not Shaphan and the others mentioned in ver. 8, but in general those who were entrusted with the oversight of the repair of the temple, among whom, indeed, the chief royal officials were not included. After this report there follows in ver. 18 an account of the book which Shaphan had brought, and which, as we were informed in ver. 16, in anticipation of the event, he gave to the king.
Vers. 19-28. The dismay of the king at the contents of the booh which ivas read to him, and his inquiry of the prophetess Iluldah as to the judgments threatened in the law. — Compare with this the parallel account in 2 Kings xxii. 11-20, with the commentary there given, as both accounts agree with the exception of some unimportant variations in expression. Instead of Abdon ben Micah (ver. 20) we find in 2 Kings Aclibor ben Micayahu, perhaps the correct reading. In ver. 21, the expression, "and for those that are left in Israel and Judah," i.e. for the remainder of the people who were left in Israel after the destruction of the kingdom, and in Judah after the divine chastisements inflicted, mainly by the Assyrians under Hezekiah and Manasseh, is clearer and more significant than that in 2 Kings xxii. 13, "and for the people, and for all Judah." n?^? to pour itself forth (of anger), is quite as suitable as nnsf^ inflame, kindle itself, in Kings, ver. 13. In ver. 22, those sent with the high priest Hilkiah are briefly designated by the words Sjten 1$K1, and whom the king, scil. had sent; in 2 Kings xxii. 14, on the contrary, the individual names are recorded (Ewald, Gramm. § 292, b, would supply ifttf, after the LXX.). The names of the ancestors of the prophetess Huldah also are somewhat different. fi*ft3, as the king had said to him, is omitted in 2 Kings. — In ver. 24, ni?Krr?3, all the curses, is more significant than *J3T/9, 2 Kings xxii. 16. ^^} (ver. 25) is a statement of the result of the '&tfg: Because they have forsaken me, my anger pours itself forth. In ver. 27, the rhetorical expansion of the words which God had spoken of Jerusalem in the law, 'til naK? Afajcj inserted in 2 Kings xxii. 19 as an elucidation, are omitted. After the preceding designation of these words as "the curses written in the law," any further elucidation was superfluous. On the contents of the saying of the prophetess Huldah, see the commentary on 2 Kings xxii. 16 ff. Vers. 29-33. The reading of the book of the law in the temple, and the solemn renewal of the covenant, to which the king assembled the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, with all the people, after the saying of the prophetess, Huldah had been reported to him, are recorded in 2 Kings xxiii. 1-3 as they are in the Chronicle, and have been commented upon at the former passage. Only ver. 32, the contents of which correspond to the words, "And the whole people entered into the covenant" (2 Kings xxiii. 3), will need explanation. "IBJM is usually translated, " he caused the people to enter into the covenant" (after 2 Kings). This is in substance correct, but exegetically cannot be defended, since 11*1213 does not precede, so as to allow of its here being supplied from the context. IBJM only signifies, he caused all who were in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand, and they did according to the cover ant of God; whence we can easily supply in the first clause, "and to do according to the covenant." The collocation, " in Jerusalem and in Benjamin," is an abbreviation of the complete formula, " in Jerusalem and Judali and Benjamin;" then in the following clause only the inhabitants of Jerusalem are named as representatives of the inhabitants of the whole kingdom. — Ver. 33. But not only his own subjects did Josiah induce to act towards God in accordance with the covenant; in all the districts of the sons of Israel he removed the idolatrous abominations, and compelled every one in Israel to serve Jahve. The u sons of Israel," as distinguished from the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Benjamin (ver. 32), are the remnant of the ten tribes in their land, where Josiah, according to ver. 6 f., had also destroyed the idolatrous places of worship and the images. The statement in our verse, with which the account of Josiah's cultus reform is concluded, refers to that. 12JJ? *f?JM, he made to serve, compelled them to serve. By the abolition of idolatry he compelled them to worship Jahve. The last words of the verse are accordingly to be interpreted as signifying that Josiah, so long as he lived, allowed no open idolatry, but externally maintained the worship of Jahve. These measures could not effect a real, heartfelt conversion to God, and so the people fell again into open idolatry immediately after Josiah's death; and Jeremiah continually complains of the defection and corruption of Judah and Israel: cf. chap, xi., xiii., xxv., etc.
Chap. xxxv. — Vers. 1-19. The solemnization of the passover. — To ratify the renewal of the covenant, and to confirm the people in the communion with the Lord into which it had entered by the making of the covenant, Josiah, immediately after the finding of the book of the law and the renewal of the covenant, appointed a solemn passover to be held at the legal time, which is only briefly mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii. 21-23, but in the Chronicle is minutely described. — Ver. 1 contains the superscription-1 ike statement, that Josiah held a passover to the Lord; and they held the passover in the 14th day of the first month, consequently at the time fixed in the law. It happened otherwise under Ilezekiah (xxx. 2, 13, and 15). With ver. 2 commences the description of the festival: and first we have the preparations, the appointment of the priests and Levites to perform the various services connected with the festival (vers. 2-6), and the procuring of the necessary beasts for sacrifice (vers. 10-15); then the offering of the sacrifices and the preparation of the meals (vers. 10-15); and finally the characterization of the whole festival (vers. 16-19). — Ver. 2. He appointed the priests according to their guards or posts, i.e. according to the service incumbent upon each division, and " he strengthened them for the service of the house of Jahve," namely, by encouraging speech, and by teaching as to the duties devolving upon them, according to the provisions of the law. Cf. the summons of Hezekiah, xxix. 5 ff.; and as to the P$l\ Neh. ii. 18. — Ver. 3. The Levites are designated " those teaching all Israel, those holy to the Lord," in reference to what is commanded them in the succeeding verses. The Keth. B^iip does not elsewhere occur, and must be regarded as a substantive: the teachers; but it is probably only an orthographical error for E^p (Neh. viii. 7), as the Keri demands here also. As to the fact, cf. xvii. 8 f. The Levites had to teach the people in the law. Josiah said to them, " Set the ark in the house which Solomon did build; not is to you to bear upon the shoulder;" i.e., ye have not any longer to bear it on your shoulders, as formerly on the journey through the wilderness, and indeed till the building of the temple, when the ark and the tabernacle had not yet any fixed resting-place (1 Chron. xvii. 5). The summons Vft '131 iii^Tix is variously interpreted. Several Rabbins regard it as a command to remove the ark from its place in the most holy place into some subterranean chamber of the temple, so as to secure its safety in the event of the threatened destruction of the temple taking place. But this hypothesis needs no refutation, since it in no way corresponds to the words used. Most ancient and modern commentators, on the other hand, suppose that the holy ark had, during the reigns of the godless Manasseh and Amon, either been removed by them from its place, or taken away from the most holy place, from a desire to protect it from profanation, and hidden somewhere; and that Josiah calls upon the Levites to bring it back again to its place. Certainly this idea is favoured by the circumstance that, just as the book of the law, which should have been preserved in the ark of the covenant, had been lost, and was only recovered when the temple was being repaired, so the ark also may have been removed from its place. But even in that case the sacred ark would have been brought back to its place, according to the law, at the completion of the purification of the temple, before the king and people made the covenant with Jahve, after the law had been read to them in the temple, and could not have remained in its hiding-place until the passover. Still less probable is Bertheau's conjecture, " that the Levites bore the just reconsecrated ark upon their shoulders at the celebration of the passover, under the idea that they were bound by the law to do so; but Josiah taught them that the temple built by Solomon had caused an alteration in that respect. They were no longer bearers of the ark; they might set it in its place, and undertake other duties." For the idea that the Levites bore the ark at the celebration of the passover is utterly inconsistent with the context, since vers. 3-6 do not treat of what was done at the passover, but merely of that which was to be done. But even if we were to alter " they bare " into " they wished to bear," yet there is no historic ground for the idea attributed by Bertheau to the Levites, that at the celebration of the passover the ark was to be brought forth from the most holy place, and carried in procession in the temple courts or elsewhere. Finally, the reasons stated for the call, '131 Wfi, cannot be made to harmonize with the two views above mentioned. If it was only the bringing back of the ark to its ancient place in the most holy place which is here spoken of, why are the words "which Solomon built" added after 1V33; and why is the command based upon the statement, u Ye have not to carry it any more upon your shoulders, but are to serve the Lord your God and His people in another way'"? Both the additional clause and these reasons for the command show clearly that Josiah, in the words '131 Ofl, did not command something which they were to do at the approaching passover, but merely introduces therewith the summons: u Serve now the Lord," etc. R. Sal. saw this, and has given the sense of the verse thus: quam non occupemini amplius ullo labore vasa sacra portandi, Deo servite et populo ejus mactando et excoriando agnos paschales ver. 4 sqq. It therefore only remains to ascertain how this signification is consistent with the words 1V32 '\>n |i"iNTlK wn. The exhortation, " Set the ark in the house," must certainly not be understood to mean, " Leave it in the place where it has hitherto stood," nor, u Bring the sacred ark back into the house;" for |nj with 3 does not mean to bring back, but only to place anywhere, set; and is here used not of material placing, but of mental. a Set the ark in the house " is equivalent to, a Overlook, leave it in the temple; you have not any longer, since Solomon built a house for it, to bear it upon your shoulders;" i.e.. Think not on that which formerly, before the building of the temple, belonged to your service, but serve the Lord and His people now in the manner described in ver. 4 ff. The interpretation of the words as denoting a material setting or removing of the ark, is completely excluded by the facts, (1) that in the description of what the Levites did at the passover, " according to the command of the king," which follows (vers. 10-15), not a word is said of the ark; and (2) that the bearing of the ark into the most holy place was not the duty of the Levites, but of the priests. The duty of the Levites was merely to bear the ark when it had to be transported for great distances, after the priests had previously wrapped it up in the prescribed manner. In vers. 4-6 the matters in which they are to serve the Lord in the preparation of the passover are more fully stated. The Keth. wan is imper. Niphal, OteHj Make yourselves ready according to your fathers'- houses, in your divisions, according to the writing of David. 3 in 3rm, as in ™>'P?, xxix. 25; but am does not = TOD, but is to be understood of writings, in which the arrangements made by David and Solomon in reference to the service of the Levites were recorded. — Ver. 5. " Stand in the sanctuary for the divisions of the fathers'-houses of your brethren, the people of the nation, and indeed a part of a father' s-house of the Levites;" i.en Serve your brethren the laymen, according to their fathers'- houses, in the court of the temple, in such fashion that a division of the Levites shall fall to each father' s-house of the laymen; cf. 12. So Bertheau correctly; but he would erase the 1 before nippn without sufficient reason. Older commentators have supplied the preposition? before fig/H: Stand, according to the divisions of the fathers'-houses, and according to the division of a father' s-house of the Levites; which gives the same sense, but can hardly be justified grammatically. — Ver. 6. Kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare it (the passover) for your brethren (the laymen), doing according to the word of the Lord by Moses (i.e. according to the law of Moses). The sanctification mentioned between the killing and the preparation of the passover probably consisted only in this, that the Levites, after they had slain the lamb, had to wash themselves before they gave the blood to the priest to sprinkle upon the altar (cf. ver. 11 and xxx. 16). As to the slaying of the lamb by the Levites, cf. the remarks on xxx. 16.
Vers. 7-9. The bestowal of beasts for sacrifice on the part of the king and his princes. — Ver. 7. The king gave (CV as in xxx. 21) to the sons of the people small cattle, viz. lambs and young goats, all for the passover-offerings, for all that were present, to the number of 30,000 (head), and 3000 bullocks from the possession of the king (cf. xxxi. 3, xxxii. 29). fcttflMn~73 is all the people who were present, who had come to the feast from Jerusalem and the rest of Judah without having brought lambs for sacrifice. — Yer. 8. And his princes (the king's princes, i.e. the princes of the kingdom) presented for a free-will offering to the people, the priests, and the Levites. nJ^- *s no^ to be taken adverbially, as Berth, thinks: according to goodwill, but corresponds to the D^npapj i.e. for free-will offerings, Lev. vii. 16. The number of these gifts is not stated. From the princes of the king we must distinguish the prefects of the house of God and the princes of the Levites, who are mentioned by name in vers. 8b and 9. Of these the first presented sheep and cattle for passover-sacrifices to the priests, the latter to the Levites. Of the three CT^? of the house of God named in ver. 8b, Hilkiah is the high priest (xxxiv. 9), Zechariah perhaps the next to him (H??*? IDS, 2 Kings xxv. 18, Jer. lii. 24), and Jehiel is probably, as Berth, conjectures, the chief of the line of Ithamar, which continued to exist even after the exile (Ezra viii. 2). Of the Levite princes (ver. 9) six names are mentioned, three of which, Conaniah, Shemaiah, and Jozabad, are met with under Hezekiah in xxxi. 12-15, since in the priestly and Levitic families the same names recur in different generations. The Conaniah in Hezekiah's time was chief overseer of the temple revenues; the two others were under overseers. Besides the D^noa for which the king and the princes of the priests and of the Levites gave JNV, i.e. lambs and young goats, "ijjsi, oxen, in considerable numbers, are mentioned as presents; 3000 from the king, 300 from the princes of the priests, and 500 from the princes of the Levites. Nothing is said as to the purpose of these, but from ver. 13 we learn that the flesh of them was cooked in pots and caldrons, and consequently that they were intended for the sacrificial meals during the seven days of the Mazzoth-feast; see on vers. 12 and 13.
Vers. 10-15. The preparation of the paschal sacrifice and the paschal meals. — Ver. 10 leads on to the carrying out of the arrangements. "So the service was prepared;" the preparation for the festival mentioned in vers. 3-9 was carried out. The priests stood at their posts (cf. xxx. 16), and the Levites according to their courses, according to the command of the king (in vers. 4 and 5). — Ver. 11. And they (the Levites, cf. ver. 0)
slew the passover (the lambs and young goats presented for the passover meal), and the priests sprinkled (the blood of the paschal lambs) from their hand (i.e. which the Levites gave them), while the Levites flayed them; as also under Hezekiah, xxx. 17. — Ver. 12. " And they took away the burnt-offerings, to give them to the divisions of the fathers'-houses of the sons of the people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses; and so also in regard to the oxen." "Vpn signifies the taking off or separating of the pieces intended to be burnt upon the altar from the beasts slain for sacrifice, as in Lev. iii. 9 f., iv. 31. "?yny in this connection, can only signify the parts of the paschal lamb which were to be burnt upon the altar, viz. the same parts which were separated from sheep and goats when they were brought as thank-offerings and burnt upon the altar (Lev. iii. 6-16). These pieces are here called fij'yn, because they not only were wholly burnt like the burnt-offering, but also were burnt upon the flesh of the evening burnt-offering to God, for a savour of good pleasure; cf. Lev. iii. 11, 16, with Lev. i. 13. They cannot have been special burnt-offerings, which were burnt along with or at the same time with the fat of the paschal lambs; for there were no special festal burnt-offerings, besides the daily evening sacrifice, prescribed for the passover on the evening of the 14th Nisan; and the oxen given by the king and the princes for the passover are specially mentioned in the concluding clause of the verse, ip3? I?1j so that they cannot have been included in n?yn. The suffix in Dnn? might be referred to nDSn: to give the paschal lambs, after the rp'y had been separated from them, to the divisions of the people. But the following iW7 ^pTv does not harmonize with that interpretation; and the statement in ver. 13, that the Levites gave the roasted and boiled flesh to the sons of the people, is still more inconsistent with it. We must consequently refer Dfifl? to the immediately preceding noun, n?'yn: to give the parts separated from the paschal lambs to be burnt upon the altar to the divisions of the people, that they might offer them to the Lord. This can only mean that each division of the fathers'-houses of the people approached the altar in turn to give the portions set apart for the n?y to the priests, who then offered them on the fire of the altar to the Lord. On 'CO 3V133 Gusset, has already rightly remarked: Lex Mosis hie allegatur non quasi omnia ilia quae prcecedunt, exprimerentur in ipsa, sed respective seu respectu eorum quo? mandata erant; quibus salvis adjungi potuerunt quidam modi agendi innocui et commodi ad legis jussa exsequenda. "l|J?- 151, and so was it done also with the oxen, which consequently were not offered as burnt-offerings, but as thank-offerings, only the fat being burnt upon the altar, and the flesh being used for sacrificial meals. — Ver. 13. The passover, i.e. the flesh of the paschal lamb, they roasted ($K3?W2, to make ready upon the fire, i.e. roast; see on Ex. xii. 9), according to the ordinance (as the law appointed); and u the sanctified (as they called the slaughtered oxen, cf. xxix. 33) they sod (w3j sc. &^?j cf. Ex. xii. 9) in pots, caldrons, and pans, and brought it speedily to the sons of the people," i.e. the laymen. From this Bertheau draws the conclusion, a that with the paschal lambs the oxen were also offered as thank-offerings; and the sacrificial meal consisted not merely of the paschal lamb, but also of the flesh of the thank-offerings: for these must have been consumed on the same day as they were offered, though the eating of them on the following day was not strictly forbidden, Lev. vii. 15-18." But this conclusion is shown to be incorrect even by this fact, that there is no word to hint that the roasting of the paschal lambs and the cooking of the flesh of the oxen which were offered as thank-offerings took place simultaneously on the evening of the 14th Nisan. This is implied neither in the *iiJ3? \y\9 nor in the statement in ver. 14, that the priests were busied until night in offering the rp'y and the CSjn. According to ver. 17, the Israelites held on that day, not only the passover, but also the Mazzoth-feast, seven days. The description of the offering and preparation of the sacrifices, partly for the altar and partly for the meal, vers. 13-15, refers, therefore, not only to the passover in its more restricted sense, but also to the seven days' Mazzoth festival, without its being expressly stated; because both from the law and from the practice it was sufficiently well known that at the nDQ meal only |&& (lambs or goats) were roasted and eaten; while on the seven following days of the Mazzoth, besides the daily burnt-offering, thank-offerings were brought and sacrificial meals were held; see on Deut. xvi. 1-8. The connecting, or rather the mingling, of the sacrificial meal prepared from the roasted lambs with the eating of the sodden flesh of oxen, would have been too great an offence against the legal prescriptions for the paschal meal, to be attributed either to King Josiah, to the priesthood, or to the author of the Chronicle, since the latter expressly remarks that the celebration was carried out according to the prescription of the law of Moses, and according to the " right." — Ver. 14. And afterwards ("WW, posted, after the passover had been prepared for the laymen in the way described) the Levites prepared it for themselves and for the priests; for the latter, however, only because they were busied with the offering of the npy and the D^n till niVht. Most expositors understand by n?'y the fat of the paschal lambs, which was burnt upon the altar, as in ver. 12; and &2?n, the fat of oxen, which was likewise burnt upon the altar, "but was not, as it seems, designated by the expression rpjfn" (Berth.). This interpretation certainly at first sight seems likely; only one cannot see why only the fat of the oxen, and not that of the paschal lambs also, should be called &2?n, since in the law the parts of all thank-offerings (oxen, sheep, and goats) which were burnt upon the altar are called D'aS'n. We will therefore be more correct if we take D^nrrt to be a more exact definition of n?'yn: the burnt-offering, viz. the fat which was offered as a burntoffering; or we may take TV^n here to denote the evening burntoffering, and B^nn the fat of the paschal lambs. But even if the first-mentioned interpretation were the only correct one, yet it could not thence be concluded that on the passover evening (the 14th Nisan) the fat not only of the 37,600 lambs and goats, but also of the 3800 oxen, were offered upon the altar; the words, that the priests were busied until night with the offering of the rby and the D^n, are rather used of the sacrificing generally during the whole of the seven days' festival. For the compressed character of the description appears in ver. 15, where it is remarked that neither the singers nor the porters needed to leave their posts, because their brethren the Levites prepared (the meal) for them. With the words, u according to the command of David," etc., cf. 1 Chron. xxv. 1 and 6.
Vers. 16-19. The character of the passover and Mazzoth festivals. — Ver. 16. "So all the service of the Lord was prepared the same day, in regard to the preparing of the passover, and the offering of the burnt-offerings upon the altar, according to the command of the king." This statement, like that in ver. 10, summarizes all that precedes, and forms the transition to the concluding remarks on the whole festival. Wfin Dis2 is not to be limited to the one afternoon and evening of the fourteenth day of the month, but refers to the whole time of the festival, just as DV1 in Gen. ii. 4 embraces the seven days of creation. "n&j> are the tty) and the D^q (ver. 14)" (Berth.); but it by no means follows from that, that u at the passover, besides the regular burnt-offering (Num. xxviii. 4), no burnt-offering would seem to have been offered," but rather that the words have a more general signification, and denote the sacrifices at the passover and Mazzoth festivals. — Ver. 17. The duration of the festival. The Israelites who had come kept the passover " at that time (that is, according to ver. 1, on the fourteenth day of the first month), and the Mazzoth seven days," i.e. from the 15th to the 21st of the same month. — Ver. 18 contains the remark that the Israelites had not held such a passover since the days of the prophet Samuel and all the kings; cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 22, where, instead of the days of Samuel, the days of the judges are mentioned. On the points which distinguished this passover above others, see the remarks on 2 Kings xxiii. 22. In the concluding clause we have a rhetorical enumeration of those who participated in the festival, beginning with the king and ending with the inhabitants of Jerusalem. KVftSH?N"ijy» are the remnant of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had come to the festival; cf. xxxiv. 33. — In ver. 19 the year of this passover is mentioned in conclusion. The statement, " in the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah," refers back to the same date at the beginning of the account of the cultus reform (xxxiv. 8 and 2 Kings xxii. 3), and indicates that Josiah's cultus reform culminated in this passover. Now since the passover fell in the middle of the first month of the year, and, according to chap, xxxiv. and 2 Kings xxii., the book of the law was also found in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, many commentators have imagined that the eighteenth year of the king is dated from the autumn; so that all that is narrated in 2 Chronicles, from xxxiv. 8-xxxv. 19, happened within a period of six months and a half. This might possibly be the case; since the purification and repair of the temple may have been near their completion when the book of the law was found, so that they might hold the passover six months afterwards. But our passage does not require that the years of the king's reign should be dated from the autumn, and there are not sufficient grounds for believing that such was the case. Neither in our narrative, nor in 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii., is it said that the passover was resolved upon or arranged in consequence of the finding of the book of the law. Josiah may therefore have thought of closing and ratifying the restoration of the Jahve-worship by a solemn passover festival, even before the finding of the book; and the two events need not be widely separated from each other. But from the way in which the account in 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii. is arranged, it is not improbable that the finding of the book of the law may have occurred before the beginning of the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, and that date may have been placed at the beginning and end of the narrative, because the cultus reform was completed with the celebration of the passover in his eighteenth year.1
Vers. 20-27. The end of JosiaJis reign; his death in battle against Pharaoh Necho. Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 25-30. — The catastrophe in which the pious king found his death is in 2 Kings introduced by the remark, that although Josiah returned unto the Led with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength, and walked altogether according to the law, so that there was no king before him, and none arose after him, who was like him, yet the Lord did not turn away from the fierceness of His great wrath against Judah, and resolved to remove Judah also out of His sight, because of the sins of Manasseh. This didactic connecting of the tragical end of the pious king with the task of his reign, which he followed out so zealously, viz. to lead his people back to the Lord, and so turn away the threatened destruction, is not found in the Chronicle. Here the war with Necho, in which Josiah fell, is introduced by the simple formula: After all this, that Josiah had prepared the house, i.e. had restored and ordered the temple worship, Necho the king of Egypt came up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him. For further information as to Necho and his campaign, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 29. — Ver. 21. Then he (Pharaoh Necho) sent messengers to him, saying, u What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? Not against thee, thee, (do I come) to-day (now), but against my hereditary enemy; and God has said that I must make haste: cease from God, who is with me, that I destroy thee not." ^]J) 7" no, see Judg. xi. 12, 2 Sam. xvi. 10.