wheat harvest lasted about seven weeks (Dt 169). The harvest was the occasion of festivities which in the later legislation were brought into close connexion with the religious history of the people. The crops were cut, as in Egypt, with the sickle. (See Wilkinson, op. cit. woodcuts 426 and 436.) Little value was put upon the Straw, which was cut about a foot below the ears (Job 2424). The reaper left the grain in handfuls behind him (Jer 922), and the binder tied it into sheaves (Gn 377), which, however, were not set up as shocks. The Egyptians usually cut the straw quite close under the ears, while some crops, such as dhurah, were simply plucked up by the roots. The method of

floor, and, according to one system, cattle-four or five harnessed together-were driven round and round, until a more or less complete detachment of the grain was effected (Hos 1011). To facilitate the process, the straw was repeatedly turned over by a fork with two or more prongs. A well-known picture gives a representation of this system as anciently practised in Egypt, noteworthy being the fact that the oxen are unmuzzled (cf. Dt 254).

The group further shows how the oxen were yoked together that they might walk round more regularly. (See Wilkinson, op. cit.) Of the threshing-machine two kinds were, and still are, employed in Palestine.

The reapers were the owners and their families, along with hired labourers (Mt 938), the latter of whom probably followed the harvest from the plains to the mountains. The workers quenched their thirst from vessels taken to the harvest-field (Ru 29), and ate bread steeped in vinegar (214), and parched corn (Lv 2314), the latter prepared by being roasted and then rubbed in the hand.

The Threshing usually took place in the fields, a custom made possible by the rainless weather of harvest. The Threshing-floor (17) consisted of a round open space, probably of a permanent character, and preferably on an eminence where it was exposed to the free sweep of air currents. For bringing in the sheaves, carts were employed in old times (Am 213). Threshing was performed in various ways. Small quantities of produce, also pulse-crops and cummin, were beaten out with a stick (Ru 217). In dealing with large quantities of grain, the sheaves were spread out over the

THRESHING-WAGGON.

The other kind of machine was the threshingwaggon, (Is 2827. 28), now seldom seen in Pal., but

still common in Egypt. It consisted of a low-built, four-cornered waggon frame, inside which were attached two or three parallel revolving cylinders or rollers. Each of the rollers was armed with three or four sharpened iron discs. There was a seat for the driver, and it was drawn by oxen yoked to a pole.

After the threshing came the work of Winnowing (Job 2118, Ps 355). The mixture left by the previous operation, consisting of corn, chaff, and broken straw, was turned about and shaken with a wooden fork (Is 30%), and advantage was taken of the winds to separate the grain from the lighter material. This often necessitated night work, as the winds usually blew from late in the afternoon till before sunrise.

FORK, FAN, AND YOKE

At the later stage of the winnowing process the fork was less needed than the fan (), a kind of shovel; or the grain might be scooped up, as shown in some Egyp. representations, by two pieces of wood. The chaff, after being separated, was burned (Mt 313), or left to be scattered by the winds (Ps 14). From the heavier impurities the corn was cleansed by sieves (1777)—an operation specially necessary in view of the mode of threshing, after which it was collected into large heaps. To prevent thieving, the owner might sleep by the threshing-floor (Ru 37) until the removal of the grain, on waggons or otherwise, to the barns or granaries (Lk 1218). It was often stored in pits (Jer 418), the openings of which were carefully covered up to protect them from robbers and vermin. The straw remaining from the threshing was used for cattle fodder (Is 6525).

LITERATURE.-On the general subject: Benzinger, Hebräische Archæologie; Stade, Gesch. d. Volks Isr. Bd. i. Buch vii.; Landwirthsch. Jahrbücher; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Archeologie; Thomson, Land and Book; Fellows, Asia Minor; Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. ix., Ackerbau und Thierzucht'; Indexed Quart. Statements and other pubb. of the Pal. Explor. Soc. On Egyp. Agriculture: Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians (2nd Series). On the Plough: Schumacher, 'Der arabische Pflug,' in Bd. xii. of above-named Zeitschrift. On the Threshing-machine: Wetzstein, Die syr. Dreschtafel, in Bastian's Zeitsch. f. Ethnologie (1873), J. W. PATERSON.

272 fl.

AGRIPPA.-See HEROD. AGUE.-See MEDICINE.

AGUR (; LXX paraphrases arbitrarily; Vulg. congregans). - Mentioned only in Pr 301. The name of an otherwise unknown Heb. sage, son of Jakeh. The word has been understood from very early times as a pseudonym, used symbolically. So Jerome, following the Rabbis of his time. In this case it might be interpreted as akin to the Syriac agúró-hireling' (of wisdom), or derived from Heb. x, and understood as 'col

6.

lector' (of proverbs). Cf. form p; in Ps 91, Pr The description of Agur in Pr 30 is not easy to understand. With the Massoretic pointing, the verse may be literally rendered, "The words of Agur, son of Jakeh, the prophecy: the oracle of the man to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ucal.' This sounds impossible. The conjunction of the words massa (=prophecy) and neûm (= oracle) is unprecedented; the use of the article with massa is inexplicable; and the words which follow have no prophetic character. Consequently Massa has been understood as the name of a country (so Del.; and see RVm Jakeh of Massa); cf. Gn 2514. Similarly, Lemuel would be understood to be king of Massa, Pr 311. Cheyne (Job and Solomon) and Strack (Kurzgef. Komm.) render massa as 'prophecy.' Both the country and the age of this unknown philosopher are purely conjectural. He may have been one of the men of Hezekiah,' Pr 251. His name is probably to be associated, as compiler rather than author, with the gnomic utterances in Pr 302-319; 3110-31 forming a separate section. The chief monograph on the subject is Mühlau, De Prov. Aguri et Lem. origine (1869), and a full discussion of the subject is to be found in Delitzsch's Comm. in loco. W. T. DAVISON.

AH, AHA.—1. 'Ah' is used to express grief (esp. in face of coming doom), except in Ps 3525Ah (RV 'Aha'), so would we have it,' where it expresses the exultation of an enemy, and Mk 1529Ah (RV Ha!'), thou that destroyest the temple,' where it expresses mocking. The RV has introduced Ah into Lk 44 for 'Let us alone' of AV (Gr. "Ea, which may be either the imperat. of the verb edw to let alone or an independent interjection, formed from the sound). Aha (a combination of a, the oldest form of 'ah,' and ha) expresses malicious satisfaction, except in Is 4416, where it denotes intense satisfaction, but without malice, 'Aha, I am warm; I feel the fire.' J. HASTINGS.

AHAB (N, Axadß, Assyr. A-ha-ab-bu) signifies father's brother." (Cf. analogous uses of the same element na brother' in Syr. proper names.) The meaning of the compound is probably 'one who closely resembles his father.' The father in this case was Omri, the founder of the dynasty, and from him the son inherited the military traditions and prowess which characterised his reign. A. married Jezebel (7), daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre (the Ithobalos, priest of Astarte mentioned by Menander, quoted by Jos. c. Apion, i. 18). This was part of the policy of close alliance with Phoenicia, begun by Solomon, and cemented by Omri. This bond of union was designated by Amos (19) a 'covenant of brethren.' It was undoubtedly founded on reciprocal commercial interest which subsisted for centuries, the corn, oil, and other agricultural products of Canaan being exchanged for other commercial products of the great mercantile ports of Phoenicia (cf. Ac 1220).

Whatever commercial advantages might accrue, Israel's national religion was destined to suffer.A temple and altar to Baal were erected in Samaria as well as an Asherah-pole. To supersede Israel's national deity, J", by the Tyrian Baal, seemed an easy task. To a superficial observer the difference between the worship of Ephraim and that of Samaria might appear trifling. Both Baal and J" were worshipped with similar sacrificial accompaniments. Moreover, northern Israel had for centuries been exposed to all the influences which their more highly civilised Can. neighbours had introduced (Jg 212. 13), and even the very name Baal, 'Lord,' was current in their speech as an appellation of J"

(Hos 216. 17). Yet there was one deep distinction which marked off the J" of Mosaism from the Baal of the Canaanites. The religion of Mosaism was pure of sensual taint. The conjunction of Asherah with J" in the days of Josiah (2 K 237) was a corrupt practice due to foreign innovation. So also were the debasing accompaniments of worship referred to in Am 27. And the licentious cult of Baal and Ashtoreth, established by the influence of A.'s Phon. wife, would certainly have its temple attendants, probably Tyrian Kedēshim and Ķedēshoth. These features of worship, however, had become perilously familiar to N. Israel, owing to their close contact with Can. neighbours. Accordingly, as we can readily infer from the language of Elijah in 1 K 19, national feeling was not deeply or permanently roused even by the influence of his stirring personality and by the occurrence of a prolonged drought of more than two years' duration (1 K 171 181), which, according to Menander of Ephesus, extended to Phoenicia. In all probability, the military despotism wielded by the house of Omri, in alliance with a powerful northern State, was able to subdue any smouldering embers of discontent. But an act of cruel injustice awakened the dormant spirit of the people. Like many Oriental monarchs, A. displayed a taste for architecture, which Tyrian influence stimulated and fostered. He built a palace for himself, adorned with woodwork (probably cedar) and inlaid ivory, in Jezreel (1 K 211 2230). To this he desired to attach a suitable domain, and for the purpose endeavoured to acquire, by purchase or exchange, the vineyard of one of the wealthier inhabitants, Naboth. But Naboth was unwilling to part with an ancestral inheritance. What A. could not accomplish by legal means, he was induced by the promptings of Jezebel to compass by fraud and judicial murder. This act aroused popular hatred, and the sense of outraged social order found expression in the denunciation of doom pronounced by Elijah (1 K 2112-24) against the king and his unscrupulous queen (see NABOTH and ELIJAH). The incident is instructive to the student of Heb. religion, as it illustrates the contrast in the attitude of Phoen. as compared with Heb. religion towards social morality. In the words of W. R. Smith, 'the religion of J" put morality on a far sounder basis than any other religion did, because the righteousness of J" as a God who enforced the known laws of morality was conceived as absolute' (Prophets of Isr. 73).

It is more than doubtful whether A. really comprehended the religious issues. He regarded Elijah as a mischievous fanatic, a troubler of Israel' bent on wrecking the imperial schemes of aggrandisement based on alliance with Phoenicia at the expense of Syria. Elijah, like many another since his day, earned the title of unpatriotic, because he placed righteousness and religion before the exigencies of political statecraft.

The military career of A. exhibits him as a warrior of considerable prowess. Respecting his wars with Syria we have only the brief record in 1 K 20-22. In 1 K 20 we are plunged in medias res. Samaria has been for some time closely invested by the Syrian army under Benhadad, or more probably Hadadezer (Dadidri), if we follow the Assyr. annals (Stade). Of the defeats sustained by Israel prior to this siege we have no information. Benhadad (Hadadezer) made an insolent demand of the Isr. king, in the desperate extremity of the latter, that Syrian envoys should search the royal palace and the houses of A.'s servants. This

Wellhausen's rejection of Hos 216 (18 Heb.) is characteristic of his high à priori method.

This took place during the reign of Ethbaal (Ithobalos), and lasted, according to Menander, one year. Of Phoenicia this may have been true.

was refused by A. with the unanimous approval of his people and their elders. To the arrogant menace of the Syrian, the king of Isr. replied in the proverbial phrase, 'Let not him who girds on the armour boast as he who puts it off. Benhadad at once ordered the engines of war (LXX 'lines of circumvallation') to be placed against the city. But beyond this he took no further precaution, and resigned himself with careless ease to voluptuous carousal with his nobility and feudatory kings. Meanwhile A. mustered his army of 7000 men, officered by 232 territorial commanders, and attacked the Syrians with crushing effect (1 K 2015-21), inflicting a total overthrow. In the following spring the Syrian monarch again took the field with a well-appointed army of overwhelming superiority. The Syrians attributed their previous defeat to the fact that the God of Isr. was a God of the hills (where cavalry and chariots could not so well operate *). If they could draw the forces of A. into the valley near Aphek, all would be well. But the battle that followed utterly falsified their expectations. The Syrians were put to utter rout, and saved themselves by precipitate flight to Aphek. Benhadad and his followers went as suppliants to A., who judged it politic to receive them with friendliness. A treaty was concluded, in which the Syrian king conceded to Isr. special quarters (streets)__ in Damascus,† a privilege which corresponded with a similar right which Omri was compelled to concede to Syria in his own capital, Samaria.

With the defective Biblical records before us, it is not easy to explain the complaisant attitude of A. in the hour of his victory. But the key to the solution of the mystery is given to us in the Assyr. annals. From these we learn that about this time a new disturbing factor was beginning to appear in W. Asian politics. Ever since the time of Saul the arena of Pal. foreign politics had been circumscribed within the region of the Hittite, Syrian, and Can. borders, and the interference of Egypt had only been occasional. Since the days of Tiglathpileser I. (c. B.C. 1100) the military power of Assyria had been dormant. But during the time of Omri there were vivid signs that Assyria was at length awakening from its century long slumber, under the energetic rule of Aššur-nazir-pal. During the reign of his successor Shalmaneser (Sulmânuašaridu) II., who reigned from 860-825, it began to press more heavily on the lands near the Mediter. border, and to extend its boundaries towards the Hittite States. About the year 857 the power of this monarch threatened seriously the Pal. region. The king of Syria would be among the first to feel apprehension. The immediate effect of Shalmaneser's advance was to put an end, at least for a time, to the wars between Syria and Ahab. And in the negotiations described in 1 K 2030. 33 it is pretty certain that the advance of the Assyr. power from the N.E. formed a subject of conversation between the two kings, and that Benhadad was glad, even upon disadvantageous terms, to get rid of a burdensome and exhausting war, in order that all his forces might be reserved to confront the formidable Assyr. foe. The attack was delivered in the year B.C. 854, when the battle of Karkar was fought. A considerable number of States, including Israel, but not including Judah, Edom, or Moab,‡ had united with Hadadezer

*We know that the Israelites also possessed chariots in considerable number, from the express statement of the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser I. lines 91, 92. Cf. 1 K 22.

↑ Ewald (Ges. d. V. Isr. iii. 488 n.) translates the Heb. by places of abode' (comparing the Arab. mahattah), i.e. permanent ambassadorial residence. But this explanation is very far fetched. LXX renders igédous, 'streets.' For other interpretations see Thenius, ad loc.

In the case of Moab, the reason adduced by Prof. Savce is probably the right one. Moab sent no contingent, because that State was then in revolt against Israel (HCM p. 393).

(=Dadidri=Benhadad) to resist the Assyrians. The account of the whole campaign may be read in the monolith inscription quoted in Schrader's COT i. 183 ff. In lines 91, 92 we read that A., king of Israel, sent a contingent of 2000 chariots and 10,000 men. The total defeat of the allied kings, though probably obtained with heavy loss to the Assyrians, sufficed to break up the alliance. A. now followed the short-sighted policy of isolation in presence of the formidable Assyr. power-a policy which in the following century Ephraim and Judah in turn pursued with baleful results. The consequence was a renewal of the wars between Syria and Israel, which had been for some years suspended. We may infer from the scriptural account that A. took the initiative by endeavouring to recover Ramoth-gilead from Syria. Probably the allied kings of Isr. and Jud. endeavoured to profit by the weakness of Syria after the overwhelming defeat sustained by the latter in the battle of Karkar. In 1 K 22 we have a vivid portrayal of the dramatic scene between Micaiah, son of Imlah, and the prophets who prophesied in favour of immediate war with Syria (see MICAIAH). For Micaiah the result was imprisonment as the penalty for his outspoken deliverance of the divine message. Undeterred by the gravity of his prophecy, A. and Jehoshaphat went forth at the head of their respective forces to battle. But A. resolved to secure his person against the Syrian archers by appearing in his chariot divested of the ordinary insignia of royalty. This precaution, however, did not availˇhim against the chance arrow of a bowman, which penetrated between the joints of his breastplate. The king of Isr. slowly bled to death, and died about sunset. His body was conveyed to Samaria, where he was buried.

In the foregoing account of the Syrian wars of A. we have adopted the sequence of events recommended by Schrader (COT3 1. 189 ff., who gives the Assyr. text and tr.), Ed. Meyer (Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 393), and recently by Sayce (HCM 320, 392), which places the battle of Karkar near the close of A.'s life. On the other hand, Wellhausen (art. Israel' in Encycl. Brit.) places the battle of Karkar and the alliance with (or, as he deems it, vassalage to) Syria in the times that precede the Syrian wars of A.'s reign. But this view imposes great diffi culties on the chronology of the period. From the Assyr. Canon of Rulers, compiled with great care and precision, and also from the Assyr. Annals, we obtain the following fixed dates:

Battle of Karkar (in which A.'s contingent takes part) Tribute of Jehu, 'son of Omri'

854 B.C. 842 ""

Now, if we place the battle of Karkar before the Syrian wars of A.'s reign, his death cannot be placed earlier than B.C. 847. Accordingly, in place of the 14 years assigned by Scripture to the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram we can only allow a maximum of five years! On the other hand, by adopting the sequence which we have advocated, the difficulties are considerably reduced. A.'s death may then be placed in the year B.C. 853. Kamphausen, in his valuable treatise on the Chronology of the Heb. Kings (p. 80), suggests that A.'s name has been confused with that of his successor Jehoram in the Assyr. Annals; and Kittel, in his Hist. of the Hebrews (Germ. ed. ii. 233), seems disposed to accept this view. But against this proceeding we must emphatically protest. Biblical science will never make sure progress if we reject or modify archæological evidence in the interests of a chronological theory. The theory must be conformed to the evidence, not vice versa. (On the subject of Heb. chronology see the writer's remarks in Schrader's COT2 ii. 320-324, and also in C. H. H. Wright's Bible Readers' Manual.)

That A.'s rule was firm though despotic, and maintained the military traditions inaugurated by Omri, is indicated by the Moabite Stone, which informs us (lines 7, 8) that Omri and his son ruled over the land of Mehdeba (conquered by the former) for 40 years. It was not till the concluding part of A.'s reign, when he was occupied with his Syrian wars, that Moab rose in insurrection. The historian must not fail to take due note of the

Judaic tendency of the narrative in 1 K 18-22, which paints the life of A. in sombre hues. When more than a century had passed after the destruction of his posterity, it is worthy of remark that the Ephraimite prophet Hosea (1) expresses a strong condemnation of Jehu's deeds of blood. In Mic 616, on the other hand, we see clearly reflected the Judaic estimate of Omri's dynasty, which dominates the account in 1 K 18-22. OWEN C. WHITEHOUSE. AHAB (, ).-Son of Kolaiah, a false prophet contemp. with Jer. He is said to have been roasted in the fire' by the king of Bab. (Jer 29211.).

AHARAH (8).-A son of Benj. (1 Ch 81); perhaps a corruption of 7 (Nu 268). See AHIRAM. AHARHEL (7).-A descendant of Judah (1 Ch LXX ddeλpoû 'Pnxáß implies a reading 3070 brother of Rechab.

48).

AHASBAI (Pg).-Father of Eliphelet (2 S 2384), and a member of the family of Maacah, settled at Beth-Maacah (2014), or a native of the Syrian kingdom of Maacah (106.8). In the parallel passage (1 Ch 1135.36) we find two names, 18, Ur, Hepher; both passages probably represent corruptions of the real name.

J. F. STENNING. AHASUERUS (inging).—A name which appears on Pers. inscriptions as Khsajârsâ, and in Aram. without prosthetic, as on (Schrader, COT2 ii. 63). The monarch who bears this name in Ezr 46 was formerly reckoned by Ewald and others to be the Cambyses of profane history who succeeded Cyrus. It is generally recognised, however, by modern critics that he must be identified with Xerxes (485-465), who is beyond all question the Ahasuerus of the Bk of Est. See XERXES. The A. of Dn 91, the father of Darius the Mede, is a personage whose identity is as difficult to establish as the existence of 'Darius the Mede' is problematical. (Cf. Driver LOT 515 n. ; Sayce HCM 543.) J. A. SELBIE.

AHAVA (IN).-The name of a town or district in Babylonia (Ezr 815. cf. 31), and of a stream in the neighbourhood (v.1. cf. 31). On the banks of this stream Ezra encamped for three days at the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem. He was thus able to review his large company, and to make good the absence of Levites by sending a deputation to the chief of the settlement at Casiphia. Before commencing the march, Ezra instituted a solemn fast, and then took measures for the safe custody of the treasures and rich gifts which were in his possession. Ewald conjectured that the river Ahava or Peleg-Ahava was the same as the Pallacopas, a stream to the S. of Babylon. Rawlinson identifies it with the Is (see Herod. i. 179), a river flowing by a town of the same name, now called Hit, which is about eight days' journey from Babylon. It seems, however, more prob. that Ezra made his rendezvous near to Babylon itself; in that case we may suppose that the Ahava was one of the numerous canals of the Euphrates in the neighbourhood of the city (cf. Ryle, and Berth.-Rys. ad loc.). In 1 Es 841. river is called Theras (Oepás).

H. A. WHITE.

the

AHAZ (he hath grasped,' LXX 'Axáš, Jos. 'Axárns, NT Axas [WH Axas]).-Son and successor of Jotham king of Judah. His name is probably an abbreviated form of Jeho-ahaz (pin), since it appears on the Assyr. inscriptions as Ia-u-ha-zi. The date of his accession has been fixed at 735 B.C. His age at this time is given as twenty (2 K 162); but this is barely reconcilable with the other chrono

reign, and state the age of his son Hezekiah at

his accession as twenty-five, since it would make Ahaz a father at the age of eleven. The difficulty is increased if we suppose that the son passed through the fire by Ahaz was his firstborn; and if, with several authorities, we allow only eight years to his reign, it is quite insuperable. There can be little doubt that the figures need correction. For twenty there is a slightly supported various reading, twenty-five, and this may be right. It is possible that the age of Hezekiah should be reduced, since Ahaz seems from Is 312 to have been still youthful at the beginning of his reign. The date of his death is probably 715 B.C., though many place it 728-727 B.C (see CHRONOLOGY OF OT).

Quite early in his reign, Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, formed a coalition with the object of forcing Judah into an alliance against Assyria. According to our oldest authorities they met with little success, though the Syrians wrested the port of Elath from Judah, and Isaiah bade the king have no fear of these two tails of smoking firebrands. To confirm the wisdom of his counsel, he invited him to ask any sign from God. Ahaz was too panic-stricken to listen to cool reason, and, under the pretext that he would not tempt God, refused the proffered sign, whereupon the prophet gave him the sign of Immanuel. The king called in the aid of the king of Assyria, Tiglathpileser, who gladly accepted such an opportunity, and relieved Ahaz of his foes. But the relief was purchased dearly. Judah could form no alliance with a great empire like Assyria; it could only become tributary to it, even if the tribute was disguised under the name of a present. And tribute meant oppression of the poorer classes, which was already one of the most glaring of Jadah's sins. Further, it was of vital importance that the nation should keep free from entanglement in the politics of large empires, since otherwise it lost its independence, and made even internal reform-which was the most pressing necessity -more difficult. The policy of A. illustrates the besetting weakness of the politicians of Judah, and was shortsighted and disastrous. If Isaiah's advice had been followed, A. would have secured the same result without its disadvantages, since in her own interests Assyria would have been compelled to vanquish the coalition, while Judah would have retained her independence.

We next find A. at Damascus, where he rendered homage to Tiglath-pileser. While there he saw an altar which pleased him, and sent the pattern of it to the priest Urijah, with instructions to build one like it. On his return he offered on his new altar, and ordered it to be used for the sacrifices, while the old brazen altar was used for the king to inquire by.' W. R. Smith has carefully discussed this innovation, and reached the result that it lay in the erection of a permanent altarhearth, and in the introduction of the rule that in ordinary cases this new altar should serve for the blood ritual as well as for the fire ritual' (RS2 485-9). The importance of this consists in the fact that the alteration seems to have been a permanent one. For the other changes introduced by A., see 2 K 1617. 18.

In character A. was weak yet obstinate, frivolous and something of a dilettante, as we gather from his interest in his new altar, and from the association of his name with a dial or step-clock (see DIAL). He was also superstitious, and probably a polytheist. While no blame need attach-in the pre-Deuteronomic period- to his worship at numerous local sanctuaries, and while he was evidently a very zealous worshipper of J", yet the fact that he passed his son through the fire reveals the dark superstition to which he was

a slave. And the terrible picture of the condition of Judah, painted in Is 2-5 and other prophecies of this time, is clear as to the idolatry, drunkenness, luxury, oppression, perversion of justice, grasping avarice, and shamelessness that poisoned the national life.

So far the account has been drawn entirely from 2 Kings and Isaiah, since they are our only trustworthy sources. In 2 Chron. the narrative has been thoroughly worked over. The history of the Syro-Ephraimitish invasion is told quite differently. There is indeed no hint of a coalition, the two armies act independently. The Syrians carry away a large number of captives, and Pekah slays 120,000 in one day and carries away 200,000 captives, who, however, are sent back at the advice of a prophet. The invasions have no political motive assigned, they are a punishment for the king's sin, while the figures are altogether incredible. Tiglath-pileser is called in, not to crush the coalition, but to help him against the Philistines and Edomites. He did not help him, however, but apparently came against him, and was bought off with tribute. The religious apostasy of A. comes out in much darker colours, and the account is really in conflict with the older. He burns his children, and not his son merely, in the fire; closes the temple and destroys its vessels, though we know that he took great interest in its services; and worships the gods of Damascus because of the success of the Syrians in war, though when A. visited Damascus their power had been utterly broken. Of all this the older history says nothing, and it is impossible to reconcile these later additions with the earlier narrative, and they are so characteristic of the chronicler's method of re-writing history, that any attempt to do so would be superfluous.

A. S. PEAKE.

AHAZIAH (Ing or yog 'J" hath grasped ').-1. King of Israel, son of Ahab. He is said to have reigned two years; but as he came to the throne in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (1 K 22°1), and his brother Jehoram succeeded him in Jehoshaphat's 18th year (2 K 31), the duration of his reign would not much exceed a year. The chronological statement in 2 K 11, which would imply a reign of nearly ten years, is probably an interpolation (Grätz, etc.); it is not found in B, and is misplaced in A. The Moabite Stone dates the revolt of Mesha as taking place after 'half the days of Omri's son'; but the Bible account (2 K 11 3") is more probable, which makes it a consequence of the death of Ahab, who was a comparatively powerful monarch. In any case we do not read of any effort to suppress this rising until the reign of Jehoram. It is possible that Ahaziah was engaged in preparations for war when the accident occurred which resulted in his death. He seems to have inherited from his mother her devotion to Baal, for in his extremity he sent to inquire at the oracle of Baalzebub, the special Baal worshipped at Ekron. The story of his fatal mission belongs rather to the history of Elijah. It is sufficient here to note that his thrice repeated summons of the prophet is characteristic of the son of Ahab and Jezebel; suggestive as it is of the callousness of his father, and the obstinacy of his mother. See JEHOSHAPHAT for the maritime alliance between Ahaziah and that monarch.

2. Ahaziah, king of Judah, youngest son of Jehoram. He was made king by the inhabitants of Jerusalem' (cf. 2 K 2330), because all his elder brothers had been carried off in an incursion of Philistines and Arabians (2 Ch 2117 221). His name is variously given as Jehoahaz (2 Ch 2117 2523) and Azariah (226). The latter is probably a blunder, Ahaziah being read by some Heb. MSS,