¹ 888 (?)–841 B.C.

² I Kings 16: 16–19.

³ I Kings 22: 45. — Omri certainly must have had a large share in the establishment of peace between the two lands. War between the two Kingdoms ceased with his reign. Hitherto, according to the book of Kings, there was constant warfare. I am inclined to believe that Asa, the contemporary King of Judah, played an important part, if not the decisive rôle, in Omri's attainment of the throne of Israel.

⁴ I Kings 16: 31.

⁵ I Kings 20: 34.

⁶ 884–859 B.C. The Assyrian dates for the period 883–775 are given one year later than usual throughout this study. I follow in this matter Smith, Sidney in Cambridge Ancient History III, p. 3Google Scholar, as established by Forrer, E. in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1916Google Scholar. Also Rogers, Robert Wm., History of Babylonia and Assyria, II, pp. 46–71Google Scholar. Also Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible (4 ed.), p. 65 and p. 418Google Scholar.

⁷ The Mesha Stele or Moabite Stone (George A. Barton, idem, pp. 421–422).

⁸ Its (Samaria's) position “before the invention of gunpowder must have been almost impregnable” — Smith, George Adam, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 344Google Scholar.

⁹ Renan, Ernest, History of the People of Israel, 2nd division, p. 208 — Omri “was a real creator, a kind of David, to whom only religious prestige was wanting.… His dynasty left an imperishable mark.…” This lack of “religious prestige,” I hold, was due to his short reign and to Ahab's failure to make Samaria a center of YHWH worshipGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ I Kings 12: 29.

¹¹ They were not strategically located for defense nor for the new commercial expansion, contemplated by the royal policies which shifted the center of influence towards the coast. Smith, George Adam, op. cit., p. 344Google Scholar.

¹² The ivory objects recently found in the ruins of the Omri-Ahab palace show that the luxuries and fashions of the Court did not differ from those of Syria, and Assyria, — Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1933, p. 9Google Scholar.

¹³ I Kings 20: 34.

¹⁴ Obelisk inscription Rogers, Robert Wm., Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, p. 34Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Idem, pp. 319–320.

¹⁶ Rogers, Robert Wm., History of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 96 note 1Google Scholar. “The Land of Omri is the usual expression for the land of Israel, during a long period. Omri made so deep an impression upon his neighbors that his country was named after him.”

¹⁷ The narrative in the books of Samuel and Kings substantiates these statements. For a detailed discussion of these activities see my essay, A Chapter of Israelitish History, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1928, pp. 188–223Google Scholar.

¹⁸ The cleavage among the prophets of this age is fully comparable to the two groupings characteristic of the literary prophetic era prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The “false” prophets were court partisans; the “true ” prophets were the opponents of palace policies.

¹⁹ I Kings 19: 10.

²⁰ Ex. 20: 4; 21: 23; 22: 19. Irrespective of the date when we place these statements, the underlying idea is unquestionably Mosaic.

²¹ I Kings 18: 27.

²² I Kings 19: 10.

²³ I Kings 17: 1; 18: 41–45; 17: 14; 18: 1.

²⁴ Skinner, John, The New Century Bible, Kings, p. 239Google Scholar. Note on “The Theophany on Horeb.”

²⁵ I Kings 19: 15–17.

²⁶ I Kings 17: 9.

²⁷ I Kings 21.

²⁸ I Kings 19: 14.

²⁹ I Kings 19: 18. Idem — Note on V. 18. “It is an anticipation of the later prophetic doctrine of the Remnant, the pious kernel, the Israel within Israel, to whom belongs the promise of the future.”

³⁰ Idem, p. 222. Skinner thus appraises Elijah: “As the precursor of the prophetic movement of the following century, he is to be ranked as the greatest religious personality that has been raised up in Israel since Moses.” Wellhausen's view as cited by Skinner: “For him (Elijah) there existed no plurality of Divine Powers, operating with equal authority in different spheres, but everywhere One Holy and Mighty Being who revealed Himself, not in the life of nature but in those laws by which alone human society is held together in the ethical demands of the spirit.”

³¹ II Kings 6: 21; 6: 31–33 as interpreted by , Skinner, op. cit., p. 308Google Scholar, Note on vs. 31–33. Also II Kings 13: 14–20.

³² , Skinner, op. cit., p. 350Google Scholar (Note on Death and Burial of Elisha).

³³ The three whom the book of Kings mentions have YH-compounded names: Ahazyahu, Jehoram and Athaliah.

³⁴ Olmstead, A. T., History of Palestine and Syria, p. 380Google Scholar. Also Gray, G. B., Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 149–163; 243–270Google Scholar.

³⁵ The book of Kings calls him Abijam I Kings 15: 1–9; Chronicles has Abijah II Chron. 13.

³⁶ I Kings 15: 12–15. I believe that the influence of Asa upon the Omri family in political and religious policies was directive and determinative.

³⁷ , Reisner, , Fisher and , Lyon, Harvard Excavations in Palestine, Part I, pp. 230–247Google Scholar.

³⁸ Neutral names are those which have neither YH nor Baal as a component. I find 21 YH and 20 neutral names among the “recipients” of the tax.

³⁹ Among the “recipients” I find only one definite Baal compounded name, Baalzamar, who may well have been a Phoenician. Hanan Ba'ara is found on three ostraca. Assuming that this is an abbreviated form of a Baal compounded name, there is a total of four Baal names.

⁴⁰ See also his History of Syria and Palestine, p. 381 — “The ostraca show as many men who honored Baal as Yahweh.”

⁴¹ The relatively smaller number of names of tax payers contain a larger proportion of Baal names. This tends to prove, in my opinion, that Baal names were becoming less popular among the official classes than among the common folk. This conclusion is directly opposed to that of Professor Olmstead.

⁴² I Kings 18: 19–41.

⁴³ It is not necessary to accept the complete historicity of this event to assume that Ahab permitted a rebuff to the Baal priesthood. It is well to apply here the canon of historical criticism enunciated by Professor Klausner, Joseph in his Jesus of Nazareth, “From nothing comes forth only nothing.”Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Compare I Kings 21: 27–29 with II Samuel 11.

⁴⁵ Compare II Kings 3: 2–4 with I Kings 15: 11–14.

⁴⁶ II Kings 9: 22–26.

⁴⁷ I Kings 18: 3–6.

⁴⁸ The Elisha folk tales show him traversing the country freely with his companions. It must however be admitted that this may have occurred after the overthrow of the Omri dynasty. Elijah seems to be constantly in touch with his adherents, though he frequently had to flee the country for safety.

⁴⁹ Harold M. Wiener in his essay, The Religion of Moses, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1919, argues that these verses originally showed that the Zedekiah prophetic group were Baal adherents but later editors corrected the text to read as at present. I cannot accept this theory because the editors had no reason to desire to place this group in a favorable light.

⁵⁰ Micaiah's prophecy indicates that he did not regard Zedekiah and his followers as Baalists but rather as “lying prophets.” The literary prophets thus regarded their opponents. , Skinner, op. cit., p. 263Google Scholar. Note on the Prophets of Evil.

⁵¹ I Kings 22: 2–29.

⁵² II Kings 1: 2–3.

⁵³ II Kings 11: 4–18. The text clearly states that the Baal shrine was distinct and separate from the Temple, the official sanctuary. This Mattan may well have been a Tyrian priest, perhaps a member of the Phoenician Royal House — actually related to Athaliah.

⁵⁴ This was especially true of Samaria the capital city. The “culture of Samaria was different from other Israelitish towns” — Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1933, p. 23Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Compare I Kings 16: 32–33 with I Kings 11: 1–8.

⁵⁶ See my essay, A Chapter of Israelitish History, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1928, p. 221Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ I Kings 18: 4; 19: 2; 21: 26.

⁵⁸ My essay — pp. 220–221. It should be added that when King Josiah, after 621 B.C., destroyed the Bomot and the local shrines he did not abolish the local priesthoods. He brought them to Jerusalem and provided for them out of the Temple treasury. II Kings 23: 8–10. See , Skinner's comment on these verses, op. cit., pp. 419–420Google Scholar. Compare with Deut. 18: 6–8. See also Margolis, Max L., The Hebrew Scriptures in the Making, pp. 106–107Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ The recent finds at Samaria of ivory statuettes with a religious motif, depicting Egyptian deities and other religious symbols, undoubtedly imported through Phoenician trade channels, show the tolerance of the Ahab régime which the zealots could not endure. Even if these objects were used only for decorative purposes, which is not likely, they must have angered the prophets who were nurtured on the Mosaic tradition of antipathy to idolatry. See Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1933, pp. 20–22Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ II Kings 8: 18, 8: 27, II Chron. 18: 1.

⁶¹ Despite Gen. 49: 11–12, which idealizes Judah as a rich wine and dairy country, , Judah was “physically most barren and awkward”Google Scholar; its “prevailing aspect pastoral.” Smith, George Adam, op. cit., pp. 257, 310Google Scholar. For full details see his chapter on “The Character of Judah,” pp. 305–320. Compare Jer. 33: 12–13.

⁶² It is not necessary for my purpose to accept the thesis, which many since Renan support, that the prophets were altogether opposed to the growth of commerce and industry. They were opposed to the rapid industrialization of the country because of its effects upon the religious and social life of the nation.

⁶³ As has already been argued, Elijah without doubt was a monotheist; to what extent his followers, especially in the Elisha era, were likewise is difficult to establish.

⁶⁴ I Kings 18: 17–18.

⁶⁵ The prophets probably distrusted the sincerity of Jehoram. As long as Jezebel lived her influence was definitive and a thorn in the side of the prophets.

⁶⁶ Jer. 35 amply shows the principles of the Rechabites. They were extreme adherents of desert civilization and believed it to be in consonance with the Mosaic tradition. This does not prove, however, that the Elijah prophetic following and the later literary prophets agreed with them. Both prophetic groups were opposed to the luxuries and the greed of the higher social classes. The ivory finds, already alluded to, show, to some extent, the range of these luxuries in the Ahab age. That is why I regard the garb which Elijah, and probably his followers too, wore (II Kings 1: 8) as a symbolic protest against the prevailing fashions of the upper classes.

⁶⁷ II Kings 8: 18; 10: 13.

⁶⁸ II Chr. 16: 7; 20: 35–37. I Kings 20: 39–43. The legal dictum in Ex. 23: 32—“Thou shalt make no covenant with them (the Canaanites) nor with their gods,” was sufficient basis for objecting to treaties with states in Palestine. Alliance with a state was synonymous to alliance with its gods. — Bertholet, Alfred, History of Hebrew Civilization (translated by Rev. Dallis, A. K.), note 4, p. 370Google Scholar. Also Is. 10: 4; 17: 10; 28: 15, 18.

⁶⁹ See note 7.

⁷⁰ See the archaeological records of Egypt and Assyria. The records of Shalmaneser III, the contemporary of Ahab, is a good example. , Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, pp. 288–304Google Scholar. Tribute paid to the conqueror is called “dues of Asshur my Lord.” Also , Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, II, p. 56Google Scholar. This fact is so well known that it need not be argued further.

⁷¹ , Reisner, , Fisher and , Lyon, op. cit., I, p. 247Google Scholar.

⁷² I believe that this thesis explains the rebuke that Isaiah administered to Hezekiah on the occasion of Morodach Baladan's embassy. Is. 39 and II Kings, 20: 12–20. It is generally assumed that the purpose of this visit was to form an alliance against Assyria. The biblical texts corroborate this interpretation of the purposes of the mission. The texts clearly demonstrate that Isaiah's objections were due to religious and not political causes.

⁷³ I Kings 10: 47.

⁷⁴ The Monolith Inscriptions, , Rogers, Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 296Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Olmstead, A. T., History of Syria and Palestine, p. 385Google Scholar. Smith, J. M. P., Am. Journal of Theology, XXIII, p. 290Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See Assyrian Inscriptions, , Rogers, op. cit., pp. 288–304Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Obelisk Inscription, , Rogers, op. cit., p. 304Google Scholar. In his History of Babylonia and Assyria, Rogers calls Jehu a “natural coward.” This is unwarranted. He simply executed the policy of his party, the prophetic party, which put him in power to abandon the Western alliance against Assyria.

⁷⁸ In the reign of Ashurnazirpal as well as in that of Shalmaneser III. That Jehu's tribute was not regarded as a permanent arrangement may be seen from the fact that in 838, three years after Jehu's tribute payment, when Assyria attacked Damascus, Israel — and Jehu was then its king — did not pay tribute, nor did any other Palestine state. Rogers, in his History, II, p. 83Google Scholar, admits that “there was absolutely no recognition of the supremacy of Assyria.”

Adad Nirari IV (810–782) invaded the West several times. His records claim that he collected tribute from various states, including Israel. This again proves that tribute payment signified that the payer intended to remain neutral in the war — not aid the attacker nor help the invaded. In other words, in antiquity neutrality had to be bought from the stronger power. See the Calah Inscription in , Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 205–206Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Olmstead, A. T., Assyrian Historiography, pp. 15–28Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ II Kings 1: 1; 3: 4–27. In the case of Judah II Kings 9: 22.

⁸¹ P. 130.

⁸² Tyre began to pay tribute in 858 B.C. and continued to do so throughout Shalmaneser's campaigns in the West. Tyre even sent tribute to Ashurnazirpal, in 875. I hold that this does not signify that Tyre therewith impaired its sovereignty. All it meant was that Tyre thereby showed that it desired to be neutral, not to participate in the anti-Assyrian confederacy. And as stated, neutrality had to be purchased and paid for.

⁸³ Curiously, historians who condemn the Elijah-Elisha opposition to Ahab's foreign policy and the war against Assyria also attack the zealots of 70 A.D. for fighting against Rome. I submit that if the zealots are held to have been fanatical and foolhardy in measuring their strength with imperial Rome, the prophets should be applauded for their wise statesmanship in declining to sanction the war with imperial Assyria. In all fairness both cannot be damned by the same historians.

⁸⁴ I Kings 20: 34.

⁸⁵ For corroboration see Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1933, p. 24Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ I Kings 17: 1; 18: 1.

⁸⁷ II Kings 4: 8–14.

⁸⁸ II Kings 4: 1–8.

⁸⁹ See note 41.

⁹⁰ I Kings 17: 11.

⁹¹ I Kings 19: 19.

⁹² II Kings 4: 1.

⁹³ See the folk stories in II Kings.

⁹⁴ See note 41.

⁹⁵ The same struggle went on in Judaea. See Godis, Robert, Sectional Rivalry in the Kingdom of Judah, Jewish Quarterly Review, XXV, No. 3, Jan. 1935Google Scholar.