The Assyrian Monuments - The Prayer of Jehoahaz and its Answer - Re-arrangement of the Text -

Spiritual Lessons of this History - Accession of Jehoash - The Dynasty of Jehu and Reversal of the

Policy of Ahab - The new Relation to the Prophets - Explanation of it - The Three Fundamental

Principles in the bearing of the Prophets - Last Interview between Jehoash and Elisha - its Lessons

- The Miracle after Elisha's Death - Victories over Syria. (2 KINGS 13.)

THE reign of Joash, king of Judah, extended over the unusually long period of forty years.*

Acceding to the throne in the seventh year of Jehu, king of Israel, he survived not only that

monarch and his son and successor, Jehoahaz, but also witnessed the accession of Jehoash.

According to the Biblical text, Jehu was followed on the throne of Israel by Jehoahaz, his son, in

the twenty-third, or more strictly speaking, in the twenty-first year of Joash, king of Judah.**

* The average duration of the reigns in Judah is twenty-two, that in Israel only twelve years.

** A comparison of 2 Kings 13:1 ("the twenty-third year ") with ver. 10, ("the thirty-seventh of

Joash") shows that these two numbers are incompatible - since, if Jehoahaz acceded in the twenty-

third year of Joash, and "reigned s eventeen years," the accession of his son could not have taken

place in "the thirty-seventh," but in the fortieth or in the thirty-ninth year of the king of Judah,

Without here entering into the controversy which of these two dates should be "corrected," we

assume with Josephus (Ant. 9. 8, 5) that the accession of Jehoahaz of Israel really took place in

"the twenty -first year" of Joash, king of Judah. As, on any theory of the composition of the Books

of Kings, the manifest discrepancy between the numerals in vers. 1 and 10 could not have escaped

the writer there must be some explanation of it, although in the absence of definite materials, it is

impossible to propose any with absolute confidence. Possibly the conciliation may lie, not in an

error of transcription ( nk for ak ) but in the peculiar mode of calculating the years of a reign in

Judah (from the month Nisan)differing from that obtaining in Israel. In any case, the occurrence of

a discrepancy which cannot rationally be attributed to ignorance on the part of the writer, should

make us careful in our inferences about other chronological difficulties, for which as yet no

adequate solution has been found. It by no means follows that further researches will not bring

such to light. This remark applies especially to the relation between the chronology of the Biblical

documents and that on the Assyrian monuments, which admittedly is not always absolutely exact

(see Herzog's Real-Encykl, new edition, vol. 17., p. 475). Such prospect of future conciliation

seems to us the more likely from the circumstance (fully explained in the Chronological Note A,

Vol. 6. of this History) that the two chronologies agree as to the date of the fall of Samaria (722

B.C.). On the other hand, we have the curious phenomenon that the differences between them for

the period before that event are not uniform and permanent, but vary as to different reigns; while

we mark the still more curious fact that in the date of events after the fall of Samaria (as to which

both chronologies agree) there is a divergence of thirteen years(see Schrader, d. Keilinschr. u. d.

A. T., end edition, p. 466). For, assuredly, when the two agree as to the fall of Samaria, it seems

almost impossible that there should not be a reasonable explanation, or concilia tion, of dates

subsequent to it. The utter groundlessness of the bold, entire rejection by certain writers of the

chronological notices in the Biblical books has been abundantly proved by Kamphausen and

Riehm (see Herzog's Real-Enc., u.s.p. 469). We expres s the more confidently our views on this

point that personally we attach little intrinsic importance to such points, especially where, as in

numerals, errors so easily creep in. Although, as hinted, no solution hitherto proposed has satisfied

us, we may call attention to an attempt in that direction in the Church Quarterly Review for

January, 1886. For the literature of the subject and a full discussion of it, although from the

German point of view, we refer to the Art. Zeitrechnung (already mentioned) in Vol. 17. of the

new edition of Herzog's Real-Encykl.

His reign, which lasted seventeen years, was a period of incessant warfare with Syria, and of

constant and increasing humiliation to Israel. The history is very briefly indicated in the Book of

Kings, wh ich is chiefly concerned in marking the deeper spiritual reasons for the disasters of Israel

in the increasing apostasy of king and people.