the main point, the relation of himself and of his people to Jehovah, nothing good could any longer be expected of him. His better feelings were transitory and, on a broad and general survey, ineffectual. He continued to be a reed, swayed hither and thither by the wind, easily moved, but undecided and unreliable, so that finally, when all the warnings and exhortations of the prophet had produced no effect, he fell under the just and inevitable judgment of God. 4. The second narrative (vers. 7–15) relates, it is true, the fulfilment of the oracle in 1 Kings xix. 15, but it shows, at the same time, that that oracle cannot be understood in its literal sense (see the Exeg. notes on that passage), for it is historically established here that Hazael, who now appears for the first time in the history, was not anointed king of Syria by either Elijah or Elisha, though he does appear as the divinely-appointed executor of the judgments which God had decreed against Israel. Jehovah "shows" him as such to the prophet, and the latter, far from seeking him in Damascus and anointing him, or even saluting him, as king, gives the usurper, who comes to meet him with presents and hypocritical humility, to understand, both by his manner and his words, that he sees his treacherous plans, and he tells him, with tears, what God had revealed, that he should be the great enemy and oppressor of Israel. Thereupon Hazael departs, startled and embarrassed, without a word. This is the clear story of the incident as this narration presents it to us. There is no room, therefore, for any supposition that Hazael was anointed by the prophet. On the other hand, it is an entire mistake, on the part of some of the modern historians, to see in the conduct of Elisha only the "enmity of the prophets of Jehovah" towards Jehoram and his dynasty, and to make Elisha a liar and a traitor, as Duncker (Geschichte des Alterthums, i. s. 413) does, when he says: "At a later time [after the siege of Samaria by Benhadad, chap. vi.] Elisha spent some time among the enemies of his country, in Damascus. Here Benhadad was slain by one of his servants, Hazael, at the instigation of Elisha. Hazael then mounted the throne of Damascus and renewed the war against Israel, not without encouragement from Elisha." In like manner Weber (Gesch. des Volkes Israel's, 236) remarks: "This opportunity [the illness of Benhadad] appears to have been taken advantage of by the prophet to bring about a palace revolution, as a result of which the king of Damascus was murdered on his sick-bed, by means of a fly-net (?)." Such misrepresentation of history can only be explained by the neglect or ignorance of the Hebrew text. When will people cease to make modern revolutionary agitators of the ancient prophets? According to Köster (Die Proph., s. 94) the sense of the entire story is this: "A prophet may not allow himself to be restrained from proclaiming the word of Jehovah, by the possibility of evil or crime which may result from it." This thought, which is. at best, a very common-place one, and which might have been presented more strikingly and precisely in a hundred other ways, is entirely foreign to the story before us. 5 The prophet Elisha appears, in this second narative, in a very brilliant light. As he had forced recognition of his own worth from the king of Israel, so he had attained to high esteem with the king of Syria. The rude, proud, and unsubmissive Benhadad, the arch-enemy of Israel, whose under. takings Elisha had often frustrated, who had once sent an armed detachment to capture him, shows him, as soon as he hears of his presence in his country, the highest honors. He sends out his highest officer with grand gifts to meet him, calls himself humbly his son, and sends a request to him that he will pray to God on his behalf. This in itself overthrows the notion that "Elisha's celebrated skill in medicine" (Weber) led the king to this step. We are not told what produced this entire change in Benhadad's disposition; but it is, at any rate, a strong proof of the mighty influence which Elisha must have exerted, both by word and deed, that he was held in so high esteem even in Syria, and that Benhadad himself bent before him. This reception, which he met with in a foreign land, was also a warning sign for Israel. He stands before us, high in worth and dignity in this occurrence also, both as man of God and prophet. He does not feel himself flattered by the high honors which are conferred upon him. They influence himn as little as the rich gifts, which he does not even accept. At the sight of the man who, according to the purpose of God, was to be the scourge of his people, he is carried away by such grief that he, as our Lord once did, at the sight of Jerusalem moving on to its destruction, burst into tears for the people who did not consider those things "which belonged to their peace." How any one can form the suspicion, under such circumstances, that Elisha stood in secret collusion with Hazael, to whose conscience he addresses such sharp reproofs, or can say: "Hazael at once commenced a war upon Israel, instigated by Elisha " (Weber), it is hard to understand. 6. This narrative leaves no room for doubt as to Hazael's character, and especially is that labor thrown away which is spent upon the attempt to acquit him of the murder of Benhadad, or to represent his guilt at least as uncertain, for, which follows the words: He (Hazael) "spread it on his face," means, so that he died, as in 1 Sam. xxv. 38; 1 Kings ii. 46; 2 Kings xii. 21. At heart proud, haughty, and imperious, he affects humility and submissiveness; towards his master, who had entrusted him with the most important commission, he is false and treacherous. He shrinks from no means to attain his object. He lies and deceives, but, at the same time, he is cunning and crafty, and knows how to conceal his traitorous purposes. When, alarmed and exposed by the words of the prophet, he can no longer keep them secret, he marches on to the crime, although he seeks to execute it in such a way that he may not appear to be guilty. With all this he combines energy, courage, cruelty, and a blind hatred against Israel, as the sequel shows. On account of these qualities, he was well fitted to be, in the hand of God, a rod of anger and a staff of indignation (Isai. x. 5). "The Lord makes the vessels of wrath serviceable for the purpose of His government" (Krummacher), and here we have again, as often in the history of redemption, an example of wickedness punished by wickedness, and of godless men made, without their will or knowledge, instruments of holiness and justice (see above, 1 Kings xxii. Hist. § 6). HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. the announcement of the judgments upon Israel.— Vers. 7 and 8. Benhadad upon the Sick-bed. (a) The rebellious, haughty, and mighty king, the Vers. 1-6. King Jehoram and the Shunammite. arch-enemy of Israel, who had never troubled (a) The marvellous meeting of the two (the inscru- himself about the living God, lies in wretched table and yet wise and gracious orderings of God, ness; he has lost courage, and now he seekɛ Isai. xxviii. 29; lv. 8, 9); (b) the restoration of the the prophet whom he once wished to capture, property believed to be lost (a proof of the truth just as a servant seeks his master. The Lord can, of Prov. xxi. 1; and Ps. cxlvi. 7, 9; therefore, Ps. with his hammer, which breaketh in pieces even xxxvii. 5).-Vers. 1-3. KRUMMACHER: Famine, pest, the flinty rock, also make tender the hearts of men war, and all other forms of calamity, form an army (Isai. xxvi. 16). Those who are the most selfwhich is subject to the command of God, which willed in prosperity are often the most despairing comes and goes at His command, which is ready to in misfortune. Not until the end approaches do attack or ready to retire as He may order, and they seek God; but He cannot help in death those which can assail no one without command. They who in life have never thought of Him. (b) He does are sometimes commissioned to punish, and to be not send to ask the prophet: What shall I, poor the agents of the divine justice, sometimes to arouse sinner, do that I may find grace and be saved? but and to bring back the intoxicated to sobriety, only whether he shall recover his health. (STARKE: sometimes to embitter the world to sinners, and The children of this world are only anxious for push them to the throne of grace, and sometimes to bodily welfare; about eternal welfare they are intry the saints, and light the purifying fires about different.) It should be our first care in severe illthem. So no man has to do simply withness to set our house in order, ard to surrender the sufferings which fall upon him, but, before all, ourselves to the will of God, so that we may truthwith Him who inflicted them.-SEILER: It is not a fully say with the apostle: "For whether we live," rare thing for God to lead even a large number of &c. (Rom. xiv. 8). The time and the hour of death persons at the same time away from a certain are concealed from men, and it is vain to inquire place, where some calamity would have befallen about them.-Ver. 7. The man of God is come! them with others. Do not abandon thy father- That was the cry in the heathen city of Damascus, land without being certain of the call of God: and the news penetrated even to the king, who re"Arise! Go," &c., as Abraham was (Gen. xii. 1).joiced to hear it. This did not occur to Elisha in Faith clings to the words in Ps. xxxvii. 18, 19. It is the holy duty and the noblest task of human government to help the oppressed, to secure justice for orphans, and to help the cause of the widow (Isai. i. 17; Ps. lxxxii. 3).-Vers. 4-6. The King's Consultation with Gehazi. (a) The motive of it; (b) the effect of it.—Ver. 4. ÖSIANDER: That is the way with many great men; they like to hear of the deeds and discourses of pious teachers, and even admire them, but will not be improved by them (Mark vi. 20; Acts xxiv. 24 sq.; xxv. 22; xxvi. 28).-KRUMMACHER: People are not wanting even now-a-days who, although they are strangers to the life which has its source in God, nevertheless have a feeling of interest and enthusiasm for the miraculous contents of the text. They read such portions of Scripture with delight. Even a certain warmth of feeling is not wanting. What, however, is totally wanting, is the broken and contrite spirit, the character of a poor and helpless sinner. Ver. 5. That the word which has been heard may not fall by the wayside, but take root in the heart, God, in His mercy, often causes special occurrences to take place immediately afterwards which bear testimony to the truth of the word.-Ver. 6. For the sake of the prophet the Shunammite was helped out of her misfortune, and reinstated in the possession of her property. The Lord never forgets the kindnesses which are shown to a prophet in the naine of a prophet (Matt. x. 41); He repays them not once but many times (chap. iv. 8-10). The word of God often extorts from an unconverted man a good and noble action, which, however, if it only proceeds from a sudden emotion, and stands alone, resembles a flower, which blooms in the morning, and in the evening fades and dies. True servants of God, like Elisha, are often fountains of great blessing, without their own immediate participation or knowledge. Vers. 7-15. Elisha in Syria. (a) Benhadad's mission to him; (b) the meeting with Hazael; (c) any city of Israel, Luke iv. 24 sq. (John i. 11; Acts xviii. 6). Blessed is the city and the country where there is rejoicing that a man of God is come!— Vers. 9-11. So much the times may change! He who once was despised, hated, and persecuted, is now met with royal honors and rich presents; but the one makes him uncertain and wavering just as little as the other. The testimonials of honor, and the praise of the great and mighty, the rich and those of high station, are often a much more severe temptation to waver for the messengers of the word of God, than persecution and shame. To be a true man of God is not consistent with vanity and self-satisfaction. The faithful messenger delivers his message without respect of persons, in season and out of season (2 Tim. iv. 2). He who seeks for the honor which cometh only from God (John v. 44), will not let himself be blinded by honor before men (Acts xiv. 14; Sirach xx. 31).—Ver. 10. However well a man may know how to conceal his secret thoughts and wicked plans, there is One who sees them, even long before they are put in operation; from whom the darkness hideth not, and for whom the night shineth as the day (Ps. cxxxix. 2-12). He will sooner or later bring to light what is hidden in darkness, and reveal the secret counsel of the heart (1 Cor. iv. 5).— Ver. 11. He who has a good conscience is never disturbed or embarrassed if any one looks him directly in the eye; but a bad conscience cannot endure an open, firm look, and trembles with terror at every rustling leaf.-Vers. 11, 12. Elisha weeps. These were not tears of sentiment, but of the deepest pain, worthy of a man of God, who knows of no greater evil than the apostasy of his people from the living God, the determined contempt for the divine word, and the rejection of the divine grace. Where are the men who now-a-days weep such tears? They were also tears of the most faith. ful love, which is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up. So our Lord wept once over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 41), | abasement, when it bears upon its face the stamp and St. Paul over Israel (Rom. ix. 1-3).-Ver. 13. of affectation and falsehood.-Vers. 14, 15. It is Subserviency before men is always joined with the curse which rests upon him who has sold him falseness and hypocrisy. Therefore trust no one self to sin, that all which ought to awaken his who is more than humble and modest. Hazael conscience, and terrify and shock him out of his called himself a dog, while he plotted in his heart security, only makes him more obstinate, and to become king of a great people.-CRAMER: It is pushes him on to carry out his evil designs (cf. the way with all hypocrites that they bend and John xiii. 21-30).-Ver. 15. The Lord abhorreth cringe, and humble themselves, and conceal their the bloody and deceitful mar. (Ps. v. 7). He who, tricks, until they perceive their opportunity, and by treason and murder, ascends a throne, is no have found the key of the situation (2 Sam. xv. 6). king by the grace of God, but only a rod of wrath -KRUMMACHER: There is scarcely anything more in the hands of God, which is broken in pieces discordant and disgusting than the dialect of self- when it has served its purpose. FIFTH SECTION. THE MONARCHY UNDER JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH IN JUDAH, AND THE ELEVATION OF JEHU TO THE THRONE IN ISRAEL. CHAP. VIII. 16-IX. 37, 16 A.-The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah. CHAP. VIII. 16-29 (2 CHRON. XXI. 2-20). AND in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel [(] 'Jehoshaphat being then [had been] king of Judah[)], [or expunge the sentence in parenthesis] 17 Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years' in 18 Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for the daughter of Ahab' was his wife: and he did evil in the sight 19 of the Lord. Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant's sake, as he [had] promised him to give him always [omit always] a light [forever], and to [referring to] his children. 20 4 In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king 21 over themselves. So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots with him : and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about,' and [smote] the captains of the chariots [ie, of the Edomites] and the people [of 22 Israel] fled into their tents. Yet [So] Edom revolted from under the hand of 23 Judah unto this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of 24 the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. 25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the 26 son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And 27 his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son-in-law of [connected by marriage with]' the house of Ahab. 28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab [And Joram himself" went] to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians 29 wounded Joram. And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him 10 at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick. TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. 1 Ver. 16.—[Keil and Bähr and the English translators take as a parenthesis. In this view it must be understood that Jehoram of Judah assumed the government during the lifetime of his father. (See the Excursus on the Chronology.) In the Sept. (Alex.) Syr., Arab., and many MSS., the words are wanting. They arise from an error of the copyist, who repeated them from the end of the verse (Thenius, Bunsen). Ewald supplies before as Thenius well objects, there is no instance of any such statement inserted in the midst of this current formula. ■ Ver. 17.—[The keri proposes the pl. ' according to the rule for numbers between two and ten. ; but, 3 Ver. 18.-[" Daughter of Ahab," viz., Athaliah, ver. 26. According to 2 Chron. xxi. 4, he put to death all his brothers, perhaps, as Keil suggests, in order to get the treasures which Jehoshaphat had given to them (2 Chron. xxi. 3). Ver. 19.- The Lord would not destroy Judah," &c., 2 Chron. xxi. 7. "The Lord would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had made with David," cf. 2 Sam. vii. 12. On, see on 1 Kings xi. 36. i. e.." referring to, or, according to the sense, through, or by means of, his children" (Thenius, Bahr, Keil, Bunsen, and others). A man's posterity is spoken of as his light. It burns until his descendants die out. God promised that David's light should last forever, "referring to" his posterity, through whom, or by preserving whom, God would keep the promise. Cf. 1 Kings xv. 4, for another example of the usage. The "and" in the E. V. is imported from 2 Chron. xxi. 7, where it is adopted, as in the Vulg. and Sept., as an “easier reading" (Thenius). • Ver. 21.—[7] is an anomalous form. It is punctuated with tsere, which is thus written full, although it is long only by accent. Ewald only says of it that it "is very remarkable" (8. 52, note 1). There are a few forms like 'Dİ` which have sometimes been explained as part, kal, and some desire to punctuate this, still regarding it as part. kal, but explaining it by the last-mentioned analogy. Böttcher, however (§ 994, 3), disposes otherwise of every one of those forms, and thus destroys that analogy. He punctuates this '. The sense would not be different, but a concise and literal translation is difficult. "He attacked Edom, the investment against him," i. e., he attacked the line which enclosed him. Ver. 21.-["Smote" must be repeated in the English in order to show that "captain" is in the same construction with Edomites." 7 Ver. 27.—¡ is used here generally for a relative by marriage. See the Chron. (II., xxii. 8 and 4) for a development of this statement. 8 Ver. 28.— is not the prep, but the case-sign. Böttcher has vindicated for this the signification “self,” § 515, cf. 2 Kings vi. 5. "The iron itself;" the part which was iron; not the handle. 9 Ver. 28.-[For the omission of the article in N, cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 52 and 58, and Ew. § 277, c. The article is necessary according to the general usage, but exceptions occur. 10 Ver. 29.-[" Which the Syrians had given." The imperf. here, and in ix. 15 in the Hebrew text, is very remarkable. Elsewhere we find the perf. in relative or other subordinate clauses, which interrupt the flow of discourse in order to specify attendant circumstances or details. It is like the aorist used for the pluperf. In 2 Chron. xxii. 6 we find the perf.— In 2 Chron. xxi. 17 it is stated that the Philistines and Arabians carried away all the sons of Jehoram but Jehoahaz, the youngest. In xxii. 1 it is stated that the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, the youngest and only remaining son of Jehoram, king. The two names are equivalent in meaning, the syllable from the name of Jehovah being in the one case prefixed, and in the other, affixed. Probably the latter form was the one adopted when he ascended the throne. In xxii. 6 we have the form Azariah, which is probably, as Ewald suggests, a slip of the pen.-W. G. S.] THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD FROM AHAB TO[This unanimity is not apparent. JEHU. Polus says of the chronological statement with which this passage commences: Occurrit hic nodus impeditus, because it does not accord with previous data, especially, with chap. i. 17, and has, therefore, caused the expositors great trouble. The question whether any reconciliation at all is possible, and, if so, how it is to be brought about, can only be answered after comparing all the data with reference to the reigns of the several kings of both realms between Ahab and Jehu. For, not only does a new period in the history of the monarchy begin with Jehu's reign, but also it gives a fixed point from which to calculate the chronology of the preceding period, seeing that Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah were both slain by him, perhaps upon the same day (chap. ix. 21-27), and so there was a change of occupant on both chrones at the same time. This year, which almost all modern expositors agree in fixing, with a unanimity which is not usual with them, is the year 884 B.C. Rösch (Art. Zeitrechnung," in Herz. Encyc.) gives a table of twelve authorities. They fix this date as follows: Petavius, 884; Ussher, 884: Des Vignoles, 876; Bengel, 886; Thiele, 888; Winer, 884; Ewald, 883; Thenius, 884; Keil, 883; Seyffarth, 855; Bunsen, 873. We may add, Rawlinson, 884; Lenormant, 886; Lepsius (on the ground of the Egyptian chronology) 861. No one of them makes this the starting point for introducing the dates of the Christian era into the Jewish chronology, and it is clear that there is no more certain means of establishing the date of Jehu's accession in terms of the Christian era, than that of any other event. This date being thus arbitrarily fixed by the consensus of chronologers who have reached it by starting from some other date which they were able to fix by some independent means, all the other dates in Bähr's chronology must suffer from the uncertainty which attaches to this. It is not an independent and sci entific method of procedure. For the true point of connection between the Jewish chronology and the Christian era, see the appendix to this volume. The dates adopted by Bähr are also there collected into a | Kings xxii. 51 and 2 Kings iii. 1), but, as is admit table for convenience of reference.-W. G. S.] From ted, not two full years. Hence he became king in this date backwards, the dates of the other reigns 897 or 898. Ahab, his father, reigned for twenty. must therefore be fixed according to the data given two years (1 Kings xvi. 29); came to the throne, in the text. As there are two kings who have the therefore, between 919 and 920, which agrees with the reckoning above. in 2 Kings i. 17 and) יְהוֹרָם or יוֹרָם ,same name 2 Chron. xxii. 6, both are called in; in 2 Kings ix. 15, 17, 21, □ is the name of the king of Israel; in 2 Kings viii. 16 and 29, the king of Israel is called Di“, and the king of Judah, while in chap. viii. 21, 23, 24, the king of Judah is called), we will call the king of Israel, in what follows, Joram, and the king of Judah, Jehoram, simply in order to avoid ambiguity. Again, if we reckon the corresponding years of the reigns in the two kingdoms, we arrive at became king in the twelfth year of Joram of Israel the following calculation: (a) Ahaziah of Judah (chap. viii. 26), and, as the latter was slain in the same year as the former (884), the one year of the former (viii. 26), cannot have been a full year. (b) Jehoram of Judah became king in the latter's accession falls in 895 or 896 (see above), fifth year of Joram of Israel (viii. 16), and, as the his fifth year coincides with 891 or 892, the date above established for the accession of Jehoram. (c) Ahaziah of Israel became king in the seventeenth (1 Kings xxii. 51), and his successor, Joram, in the eighteenth (2 Kings iii. 1) year of Jehoshaphat, whence it is clear that Ahaziah, Es was above remarked, did not reign for two whole We have to bear in mind, first of all, in counting the years of the reigns, the peculiar method of reckoning of the Hebrews. According to a rule which is given several times in the Talmud, and which was adopted also by Josephus in his writings, a year in the reign of a king is reckoned from Nisan to Nisan, in such a way that a single years (1 Kings xxii. 51). The seventeenth of Jeday before or after [the first of] this month is hoshaphat falls, reckoning from his accession in counted as a year (see Keil on 1 Kings xii. s. 139916, in 899, and his eighteenth in 898, whereas, according to the above calculation, Ahaziah came sq., where the passages from the Talmud are to the throne between 897 and 898, and Joram bequoted). [The note is as follows: "The only tween 897 and 896. method of reckoning the year of the kings is from is evidently due to the Hebrew method of reckon This insignificant discrepancy Nisan. Further on, after quoting certain passages in proof, it is added: 'Rabbi Chasda said: "Theying, for under that system it might will be that the two years of Ahaziah, although not complete, give this rule only in regard to the kings of Israel." Nisan was the beginning of the year for the kings, still Ahaziah might follow in the seventeenth and might embrace parts of 898, 897, and 896, and and a single day in the year (i. e., after the first Joram in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. At day of Nisan) is counted as a year. One day on the end of the year is counted as a year.'" The ci- any rate, the historical details, which are of far tations are from the tract on the "Beginning of the greater importance, are not touched by these slight chronological differences, far less are they in contraYear" (12 ) in the Guemara of Babylon, diction with them. Finally, if we add the reigns of c. 1. fol. iii., p. 1, ed. Amstel.] It cannot be doubted the three kings of Judah, viz., Jehoshaphat twentythat this method of reckoning is the one employed five, Jehoram eight, and Ahaziah one, the sum is in the books before us, for we saw above (1 Kings thirty-four years. As these years, however, were xv. 9 and 25) that the reign could not have com- not all full, there cannot be more than thirty-two in prised full years to the number stated. The same all. The reigns of the three kings of Israel, Ahab is also clear from a comparison of 1 Kings xxii. 51, twenty-two, Ahaziah two, Joram twelve, amount and 2 Kings iii. 1, and other examples will follow. to thirty-six years, which were not all complete, so Such a method of reckoning, which counted portions that they cannot give in all over thirty-five years. of a year as whole years in estimating the duration The entire period from Ahab to Jehu contains of a reign, necessarily produced inaccuracies and un-between thirty-five and thirty-six years, and, as certainties, so that the difference of a year in differ- Jehoshaphat came to the throne in the fourth year ent chronological data cannot present any difficulty, of Ahab, the sums agree. much less throw doubt upon the entire chronology of the period or overthrow it. If now we reckon back from the established date, 884 B.C., the reigns of the separate kings, the following results are obtained: (a) For the kings of Judah:-Ahaziah, who died in 884, reigned only one year (2 Kings viii. 26), and. in fact, as is generally admitted, not a full twelvemonth. He therefore came to the throne in 884 or 885. His predecessor, Jehoram, reigned eight years (chap. viii. 17), down to 885, so that his accession fell in 891 or 892. Jehoshaphat, his father, reigned twenty-five years (1 Kings xxii. 42), that is, from 916 or 917 on. As he came to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab, the accession of the latter falls in 919 or 920. (b) For the kings of Israel:-Joram, who died in 884, had reigned for twelve years (chap. iii. 1). He came to the throne, therefore, in 895 or 896. His predecessor, Ahaziah, reigned for two years (1 While the eleven data given in six passages thus agree essentially, one statement, 2 Kings i. 17, according to which Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, differs decidedly. If it is authentic, Jehoshaphat cannot have reigned twenty-five years, but only seventeen, and there was no eighteenth year of his, in which the accession of Joram of Israel is declared to have fallen (iii. 1). Moreover, Jehoshaphat's successor, Jehoram of Judah, did not then reign eight (chap. viii. 17), but fourteen years, and he came to the throne, not in the fifth (viii. 16) year of Joram of Israel, but a year before him. This brings great disturbance, not only into the chronology, but also into the history of the entire period. In order to do away with this glaring dis crepancy, the founder of biblical chronology, Ussher, following the rabbinical book called Seder Olam, adopted the explanation, in his Annal. Vet. et Nov. Testam., 1650, that Jehoram reigned for six |