Zeph. 2. 5. 11 Or, who carried them away from thence. Verse 3. "Shalmaneser."-This prince is called simply Shalman in Hos. x. 14. He was the successor of Tiglathpileser, and, according to Hales, his reign extended from 726 to 714 B.C. Besides the final subversion of the kingdom of Israel by this prince, as recorded in this chapter, Josephus preserves a passage from the archives of Tyre, from which it appears that the Assyrian king overran Phoenicia also, and received the submission of all the country except Tyre. The elder Tyre (Palæ-tyrus), Sidon, Acre, and other towns seem to have been glad of the opportunity of exchanging the yoke of their dominant neighbour for that of a foreign power; for they assisted the Assyrian with a fleet of sixty ships, which the Tyrians defeated with only twelve ships. Upon this, Shalmaneser advanced to Tyre and kept it in a state of blockade for five years, when his death occasioned the undertaking to be discontinued. This is very similar to what happened on other occasions, as Heeren remarks. While the Phoenician states under the control of Tyre, readily submitted to foreign invaders, the free and sovereign Tyre herself offered a vigorous and powerful opposition to the most famous conquerors-Alexander himself not excepted.

4. "So, king of Egypt."-It is agreed on all hands that this So was the Sabacon of Herodotus. He was an Ethiopian who invaded and conquered Egypt, and reigned there for fifty years, when being warned by an oracle, he resigned his dominion and withdrew to his own country. Hales conjectures that the true cause of his leaving Egypt may have been

the apprehension of ar. Assyrian war, which he had perhaps in the first instance sought to avert, by prompting the king of Israel to rebel against Shalmaneser.

6. “Carried Israel away into Assyria."-The names of all the places mentioned here, and in 1 Chron. v. 26, as the settlements of the Hebrew captives in Media, have been satisfactorily traced by Major Rennell in the remote northern district of Media, towards the Caspian Sea and the province of Ghilan; or, more definitely, in the neighbourhood of the river Kizil-Ozan (Gozan) which now forms the southern limit of the two most northern provinces of Persia, Azerhijan and Ghilan. Profane history concurs with the sacred in attesting that Media was at this time subject to the Assyrians, but revolted about nine years later, and, in process of time (174 years) acquired, in its turn, the sovereignty of Asia. In Media, on the perpendicular surface of a smooth mountain, on the road between Babylon and Hamadan, which is supposed to be the same as Ecbatana, the ancient capital of Media, there appears a remarkable sculpture, a copy of which, after Sir R. Ker Porter, is given in our woodcut in p. 255. Having visited the spot a few years since, we can vouch for the minute accuracy with which the sculpture is represented; and have introduced a copy of it here, on account of the reference which Sir Robert supposes it to bear to the circumstances recorded in this chapter. He conceives the principal figure, distinguished as a king by his regal dress and colossal stature, to be Shalmaneser, attended by the generals of his Assyrian and Median forces; and that the ten captives, including the one on whose body the king rests his foot, are the representatives of the ten tribes, which had been subdued and removed into this very country by himself and his father. The idea is ingenious, and its truth is sufficiently possible to warrant the introduction of a copy of the sculpture in this place. The captives have certainly that peculiar cast of physiognomy by which the Jews have ever been distinguished; and from the attitude of the king, he may be supposed in the act of administering reproof to them, on account of their rebellion, before pronouncing their final doom. So far there is nothing very improbable in this supposition, and probability is all that can be attained in these matters, until we are able to understand the inscriptions in which the explanatory particulars are doubtless contained. In the present instance these are probably to be sought in the characters inscribed on the skirt of the third standing captive. Above the head of each individual there is a compartment, with an inscription in the arrow-headed character, probably describing the name and situation of each of the persons. Sir R. Ker Porter imagines that the prostrate captive is the king of Israel, as the representative of his own tribe; that the inscribed skirt, just referred to, is probably intended to designate the striking custom among the Jews of writing sentences on different parts of their garments; and that the high cap may have been an exaggerated representation of the mitre worn by the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. The first conjecture is plausible; the second, rather fanciful; the third, entirely unfounded. Levi was not one of the ten captive tribes of Israel. It counted as a thirteenth tribe when Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh), as in the instance of the captivity, counts as two. The number ten is therefore made out without Levi. The Levites seem very generally to have attached themselves to the kingdom of Judah, after the separation of the two kingdoms, as is evident from the history of both monarchies, as well as from the ultimate return of the Levites only with the captives of Judah and Benjamin. Those who hesitate to accept this very beautiful sculpture as an illustration of the present history, will nevertheless value it as a most authentic representation of the mode, frequently alluded to in the Scriptures, in which captive enemies were wont to be presented to, and treated by, the ancient Oriental conquerors.

24. "Cuthah."-This seems to be only the Chaldee name for "Cush," which, in its original application, appears to have referred to the tract of country better known as Susiana, and now as Khusistan. This country, anciently famous for its fertility, but now, for the most part, a desert, extends inland from the eastern bank of the Tigris in the lower part of its course, and from the stream formed by the confluence of that river with the Euphrates. Geographically, it was part of Persia, though bordering on Assyria Proper; but it certainly formed a part of the Assyrian dominion. Josephus agrees that Cuthah was in Persia; and although nothing very positive can be stated, there does not seem any greater probability than that which Khusistan offers. This province is now shared between the Arabs and Persians, the former possessing that portion which is washed by the Tigris, and the latter having authority over the south-eastern portion, which is fronted by the united Tigris and Euphrates and by the upper end of the Persian Gulf. But even the Persian part of Khusistan is chiefly in the occupation of Arabian and Persian tribes, which acknowledge little, if any, submission to the Persian governors. The Jews applied the denomination "Cuthites," as a general term, to all the new settlers.

"Ava."-The general identity of name, as noticed in the preceding note, would seem to strengthen the statement of Josephus, that the five names merely describe different tribes of Cuthites, and in this view, the names may be conceived to be those of the principal towns denominating the particular districts from which they came. If so, we should be very much inclined to suspect that Ava is to be sought at Ahwaz, the only probable place of similar name in Khusistan. This town is situated upon the river Karoon, which discharges its waters into the head of the Persian Gulf; and agrees very well with the position which Sanson, without any apparent knowledge of Ahwaz, assigns to Ava. It was a famous city, described as one of the largest in the world, in the time of the caliphs of Bagdad, and appears to have occupied the site of a more ancient city. Its extensive ruins still attest its ancient importance. It is noticed in Kinneir's Geographical Memoir,' and, more completely, in a memoir printed in an appendix to Captain Mignan's Travels in Chaldæa,' and also in the second volume of the Royal Asiatic Society's Transactions.

“Hamath.”—This is thought to denote the Syrian territory on the Orontes, the capital of which, of the same name, has been noticed under Num. xiii. It is supposed that Shalmaneser, having conquered this country, removed some of its inhabitants to Palestine. There is nothing but the name to sanction this conclusion; and we should rather think that some place in Assyria or Khusistan may have been intended.

"Sepharvaim.”—Calmet thinks that these are the Saspires, mentioned by Herodotus as dwelling between Armenia and Colchis; and who, according to Major Rennell, would, in modern geography, occupy eastern Armenia. These are probably not different from the Sarapanes whom Strabo places in Armenia. We much rather incline to the opinion that the name is to be sought in that of Siphara, a city on the Euphrates, above Babylon, at that part where the river makes the nearest approach to the Tigris, and consequently to Assyria Proper. The probability for this seems to us incomparably the best, and chiefly on account of its proximity to Khusistan and Assyria. If the Samaritans were assembled from such different and remote countries as some expositors suppose, they must have spoken different languages; and as no notice is ever taken, either in the Scripture or elsewhere, of a diversity of tongues among them, this may be taken as strengthening the probability that the different sections of the Samaritan colony all proceeded from the same region.

26. "Therefore he hath sent lions among them."-That they for this reason felt it necessary to worship "the God of the land," led some of the Rabbins to characterize the Cuthites as "Proselytes of lions." The whole transaction strikingly illustrates the prevalent notions of ancient idolatry. They believed each land and people had its tutelary god, and conceiving Jehovah himself to be such a god, they had no hesitation in admitting that their punishment VOL. 11. 2 L 257

came from him, for neglecting his worship in the country over which he presided. We may here re-state a remark we made on a former occasion, that no ancient people denied the God whom the Jews worshipped to be a true God; but they disputed that he was the only God-and alone entitled to the worship of mankind. The Samaritans either were not acquainted with this claim, or did not submit to it; but they had no reluctance to admit the God of Israel to a wretched and unholy partnership with the gods they had been accustomed to honour. In the course of time, their worship of the only true God became more pure and simple: but they always remained distinguished from the Jews by some peculiarities of practice and belief, to which we shall have future occasion to advert.

30, 31. “Succoth-benoth.”—This is thought to be the name, or to refer to the worship of, a female deity, whose attributes were similar to those of the Babylonian Mylitta, to whom, according to Herodotus, the honour of women was considered an acceptable and necessary offering.

Nergal...Ashima...Nibhaz and Tartak."-Much ingenious and, as we think, useless speculation has been bestowed upon these names, which occur here only. We feel it best to acknowledge with Professor Jahn, that nothing whatever is known about them.

"Alrammelech and Anammelech."-These names seem to denote the same idol, which is so often mentioned in Scripture under the name of Moloch or Melech, "the king." The prefixed words to these names seem to be merely epithets of honour and distinction. The first from TN adar, "mighty," "illustrious;" and the other, more uncertain, but possibly from anah, "to answer," referring to some oracular property assigned to Moloch or to his image. Cudworth and others think that the two names refer to the same idol; and indeed the Hebrew has "god" (5x), not "gods (N) of Sepharvaim."

Heb. statues. Num. 21. 9.
Isa. 36. 1. Ecclus. 48. 18.

18 Or, talkest. 14 Heb. word of the lips. 15 Or, but counsel and strength are for the war.
18 Heb. the water of their feet? 19 Or, Seek my favour. 20 Heb. Make with me a blessing.

Heb. trastest thee. 17 Or, hostages. Chap. xviii.-The greater part of this history is found, with some variation and very large additions, in 2 Chron. 3. xxxii., and Isaiah xxxvi. In this and other instances, the parallel in Isaiah agrees more exactly with the history

as given in Kings, than as in Chronicles. In fact, the historical chapters in Isaiah, and we may add Jeremiah, are 2L 2 259

almost identical, in every respect, with the corresponding passages in 2 Kings; whereas, in 2 Chronicles, the same facts are related in a different form of words and with varied details, with also further particulars not contained either in 2 Kings or in the Prophets. These also contain some passages which are not to be found in Chronicles. Having thus apprized the reader that the parallelism between this book and Isaiah commences with this chapter, while that with 2 Chron. still continues, we shall, in what remains of 2 Kings, give our more particular, but not exclusive, attention to the facts which are nowhere else repeated.

Verse 4. "Brake in pieces the brasen serpent.”—This was a bold and healthy measure. Some kings, however bent on the extirpation of idolatry, would have hesitated at the destruction of that which was certainly in itself an interesting memorial of the remarkable transaction with which it had been associated. But when it had become a temptation and an instrument of evil, to a loose-minded people, the king saw that the well-being of the nation required its destruction. We may wonder how it happened that the Hebrews could fall into such absurdity as the worship of a brazen serpent. But our surprise will be diminished, on reflecting that serpent-worship, under some form or other, was one of the most diffused idolatries of the ancient world. We may refer to the general considerations on animal-worship which have been stated in the note (Deut. iv.) on the gods of Egypt; and the reference is particularly appropriate, as the ancient nations of eastern Europe and western Asia confessedly derived the practice of serpent-worship, and the ideas connected with it, from that country. The cuts given under that chapter also exhibit various instances of the use of the serpent's figure as a sacred idolatrous symbol. In fact the serpent makes a very conspicuous appearance in the animalworship of Egypt, where not only was its figure displayed in various idolatrous combinations, but the living animal itself was honoured, as it is at this day in the temples of India. In Egypt, the cerastes, or horned snake, was sacred to Ammon, and was interred after death in his temple. This serpent was harmless. Another, more commonly represented in Egyptian sculptures, and that which appears as a crowning figure in the images of kings and gods, was the venomous naia haj, which was regarded as an emblem of Cneph, the good deity; and it is remarkable, that under all the various modifications of serpent-worship, the serpent was made the deified symbol of something good and beneficent. It symbolized "the good genius" also among the Greeks and Romans, and their worship of the healing power (Esculapius) under the same figure, was but a part of the same general idea. It would be curious, but perhaps not in this place profitable, to inquire how arose this regard to an animal which the Scripture certainly does not mention worthily, but seems rather to associate with the Wicked One, and with the ruin which his machinations occasioned. Was it that the good of idolatry was the evil of Scripture? It may be, however, that the serpent was thus chosen as the most fitting emblem of that system which endowed the universe and all its parts-the greatest and the least-with an intelligent and living soul; and its emblematic fitness as a type of nature, thus imagined, may perhaps be found in the peculiarities of its organization. Its remarkable longevity-its peculiar movements-its rapid march, without those members of progression with which other animals are gifted-and the vibrations of life preserved in the separated parts for some time after the carcase has been cut in pieces-are all circumstances well calculated to impress the idea, that the serpent had a condition of life peculiar to itself, and that there was something supernatural in its being. "The way of

a serpent upon a rock" is one of the four things which even the wise Agur confessed to be too wonderful for him. (Prov. xxx. 19.)

This class of ideas, as well as the influence of example, may have induced the Israelites to worship the brazen serpent. They might do this the more readily, because whatever may be the general character of the serpent in the Bible, there was room for them to associate with the particular brazen serpent the ideas of beneficence which the heathen usually connected with that creature. In the wilderness they had been directed to look on it and live. They did s, and lived. And this direction and its consequence, misunderstood and perverted, may have formed the foundation of the idolatry into which they fell. How they worshipped, is not very clear. Perhaps, like the Egyptians, they regarded it as a symbol of "the Good God ;" and that Good God, to them, certainly could not have been other than their own JEHOVAH: and, in this case, the worship of the serpent may have been a sort of mitigated idolatry, not, in principle, unlike that of which the golden calf was the object. Or they may have worshipped it as the symbol of some strange god, perhaps of Egypt. Or, finally, and which we think most probable, they, with a recollection of its origin, regarded it as symbolizing the Divine healing power, and as such, resorted to it, and burned incense before it when afflicted with diseases, much in the same manner that the classical ancients resorted, on similar occasions, to the serpent-symbol of the healing god.

7. "Rebelled."-He neglected to send the customary tribute or presents; and in his expedition against the Philistines, acted as an independent sovereign.

13. "Sennacherib.”—This prince was the son of Shalmaneser; and his reign, according to Hales, extended from 714 to 710 B.C. It appears that Hezekiah's revolt began in the reign of Shalmaneser, who however was too much engaged in other affairs, perhaps the siege of Tyre, to take against him such strong measures as we see his son now undertaking. It would seem, from the insinuation in verse 24, that Hezekiah had been encouraged in his revolt by some vague promises of assistance from Egypt, which were never fulfilled. We have several intimations in this part of the history, of the great and just alarm with which the Egyptians regarded the westward march of the Assyrian power; and it appears to have been their policy to divert the attention of the Assyrians from themselves, by giving them sufficient employment in confirming their authority over the intervening states, already rendered tributary. We have already seen them giving similar encouragement to Hoshea, king of Israel, in his disastrous attempt to shake off the Assyrian yoke.

CHAPTER XIX.

1 Hezekiah mourning sendeth to Isaiah to pray for them. 6 Isaiah comforteth them. 8 Sennacherib, going to encounter Tirhakah, sendeth a blasphemous letter to Hezekiah. 14 Hezekiah's prayer. 20 Isaiah's prophecy of the pride and destruction of Sennacherib, and the good of Zion. 35 An

angel slayeth the Assyrians. 36 Sennacherib s slain at Nineveh by his own sons.

AND 'it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the LORD.

1 Isa. 37. 1.