161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels

Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   46

the law of foods the speaker omits the reptiles, which are included in the earlier law among the forbidden articles of diet (cf. Lev. xi. 29, 30 with Deut. xiv.); passing them by without mention probably because the land of promise was before him, a land flowing with milk and honey, a land of corn and wine, of figs, pomegranates, and olives. Its fertility east of the river had already been seen by the people, and it was plain that there would be no temptation in the new home to eat the grosser forms of flesh. Again, the law which required ani­mals that were slain for food to be slaughtered at the door of the tabernacle would necessitate a long journey on the part of those who dwelt in remote districts. It was changed so as to permit the peo­ple to slay for food in the town where they resided (Deut. xii. 15, 21; Lev. xvii. 3, 4). To meet the same difficulty a change was made in the law re­garding the transport of certain tithes to the sanc­tuary (Deut. 22 25) and, apparently, in the age at which the firstling of the herd and flock should be offered (xv. 19, 20; cf. Ex. xxii. 30). The same intention probably led to the omission of a clause from the statute defining the procedure to be fol­lowed for legally confirming the Hebrew bond­servant's choice, who at the end of his period of service should elect to remain with his master. Henceforth he need not appear at the sanctuary before the Lord (Ex. xxi. 5, 6; cf. xxii. 8, 9) in order to declare his voluntary relinquishment of his right to go free; from this time on the ceremony of attachment was alone required, and that act was always performed at the master's own house, in whatever part of the country it might be (Deut. xv. 16, 17). (3) It leads to grave concern for the tribe of Levi, in view of the peculiar situation in which it would soon be placed: a tribe without an inheritance. The entire tribe of Levi had been set apart for service at the sanctuary. It was to re­ceive no land in Israel; and was without support except from the gifts of the people to the Lord for the maintenance of worship. In his parting words he dwells on their rights and privileges, refers re­peatedly to their dependent condition and exhorts the people to call them in as guests at their joyous feasts, and never to forsake them nor leave them in need (xii. 12, 18, 19 et passim). In alluding to their perquisites (x. 8, 9, xviii. 1,8) he takes for granted a thorough familiarity on the part of the people with the distribution of duties among the several families of the tribe, which had been adopted in the wilderness, and accordingly he uses the gen­eral designation Levi and Levites (xviii. 1, 6); just as the Hebrew historians often do who wrote after the legislation o' Leviticus and Numbers had been enacted, leaving it to be understood that each order of ministers had its own peculiar duties and privileges (ver. 7; cf. Num. xxxv. 1,8; Josh. xxi. 3 7, 8 11, 13 20; I Kings xii. 31; I Chron. xv. 2, 4, 11, 15; II Chron. v. 4, 5; Mal. ii. 1 10, iii. 3). He uses also the designation " the priests, the Levites " (xvii. 9, xviii. 1, xxiv. 8), as do subse­quent historians and prophets, even the latest (Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21; Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15; II Chron. xxiii. 18). It was eminently appropriate as a means of distinguishing the legitimate priests, who

had just been restricted to the family of Aaron,

tribe of Levi, from the former ministers among the

Israelites to whom it pertained to offer sacrifice

(Ex. xix. 22, xxiv. 5; cf. xviii. 1, 12), and perhaps

also from civil ministers to whom the  title kohen

applied (Paton, JBL, 1893, pp. 1 14). (4) It leads

to insistence upon resort to the one altar by the

whole nation, located at the place which Yahweh

should choose out of all the tribes to put his name

there (xii.), and the urgent exhortation to destroy

all heathen altars. The unity of the altar was in­

tended to counteract the tendency of the people to

lapse into idolatry by preventing them from wor­

shiping at the numerous local sanctuaries of the

Canaanites and by keeping the service of Yahweh

under proper control; to render the worship of

Yahweh a grander spectacle and of greater pomp

than the rites of the idols of the Canaanites by

uniting the numbers and wealth of the Hebrews at

one sanctuary; and to strengthen the national

feeling and deepen the sense of brotherhood by

giving to every member of the nation a common

home and bringing all the tribes together at stated

seasons as a great family. The spirit of jealousy

between individuals and between tribes, the popu­

lar proneness to idolatry, and the willingness of

large sections of the people to separate from their

brethren and settle in attractive pastoral regions

had already become manifest. And therefore the

old idea of the priestly legislation, " one God, one

sanctuary" (Wellhausen, Hist. of Israel, p. 34), the

idea of the book of the covenant also, is insisted

upon at this crisis. It was essential to the unity

of the nation and the continuance of the theocracy.

The exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt,

and the activity of Moses, are usually referred to

the time of the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty of

Egypt, thirteen or fourteen or fifteen centuries be­

fore Christ. The age was one of culture. Evolu­

tion in government and religion had been going on

for hundreds of years. Society had become highly

organized and regulated by law. Sacred architec­

ture had reached an excellence that

ig. Legis  for its purpose has never been sur­

lation passed. Religious symbolism and rit­

and the ual had advanced to a stage of develop­

Age. ment, probably the highest they have

ever attained. The primitive, crude,

and simple had long since become the complex and

refined. The imperfect had become the perfect.

Moses and his contemporaries were born to this

civilization, as children today are born into the

civilization of the twentieth century. Men do not

start de novo; they build on the achievements of

the past. So did Moses. When he began his work,

the organized state was already a definite concep­

tion before the minds of men, its conditions were

understood, and a standard of attainment had been

set. The institutions of which the origin is ascribed

to Moses represent this civilization. (1) The book

of the covenant contains a body of laws of which

the form of statement, the organization into a

code, the rights guarded, and the developed sense

of justice, are an inheritance from a Semitic an­

tiquity already hoary in the days of Moses. These

facts have been completely established by the dis•


covery of the code of Hammumbi. (2) The taber­nacle in its general plan conforms to a type of tem­ple much favored by the Egyptians in the time of Moses: an open space or court where the people assembled; a gate where the worshiper with an offering met the priest and which admitted to the priestly precincts; then directly beyond and in line with the gate, the house of the deity and abode of the ark. The view from the assembly place in Israel was likewise directly through the gate, across the priests' court, through the door of the great tent, when opened, into the holy place with its lamp and table and incense altar to the curtain that screened the shrine where the ark stood. In many instances there is also a correspondence in shape and proportions between the ground plan of the Egyptian temple and that of the tabernacle of Israel. (3) This tabernacle and the ordinances of worship and the laws of the priests, in their character, elaborateness, and complexity, reflect the Mosaic age. From Babylon on the east to Egypt in the west the temple was the chief building in the community in point of nobility and richness. By the dignity of its architecture it impressed the be­holder with religious awe. The encompassing court, the sacred house or pyramid, and the adytum of the deity were on a scale of beauty and grandeur commensurate with the opportunities of the wor­shiping people. Curtains within the chamber of the god, and sheathings of gold and silver and sym­bolical figures added to the splendor and impres­siveness and significance of the place. The priest­hood was a numerous body, and was accorded high social rank. At its head, to speak more particu­larly of the Egyptian priesthood, stood the high priest, the embodiment of the order, and officially distinguished by gorgeous attire. Under him were orders of priests and inferior temple servants. The respective duties and prerogatives of these various classes of sacred ministers were carefully defined. The prospective priests passed through an elaborate preliminary training in order to be fitted for the performance of pontificial functions, and when graduated and on duty purified themselves by ab­lutions and were arrayed in white raiment of linen or cotton. Besides the minute regulations to govern the conduct of the ministering priests, an elaborate ritual was drawn up. Among the Semites the offerings consisted of animals for sacrifice and vegetable products. Beasts were distinguished as clean and unclean. To be fit for use upon the altar the animal must be not only clean, but without blemish in the eyes of the priest. A ceremony was performed of such perfection that by action and dress it told its meaning to the worshiper. Fes­tivals were celebrated in honor of the deity, and annual pilgrimages were made to the shrine by the populace. Moses did not borrow bodily. He did not take over as a whole. But the expression of esthetic feeling and religious thought in the forms of architecture and ritual had become a fine art. The symbols used may be likened to words. Moses took these words and by means of them told to men  not to the Hebrews only, but to strangers who might visit Israel the character of Yahweh, the way to approach him, the obligations of his wor 

shipers. The tabernacle and the priestly ritual, elaborate and complex. though they were, were yet no novelty, no innovation. It is not surprising that at the. founding of the nation, politically and religiously, the book of the covenant; which in modern parlance would be called the constitution and statutes, should be immediately followed by the plan and specifications for a national sanctuary and by a manual for the priests containing minute instructions for their guidance in the performance of a symbolic service. The ideals of the age de­manded these things; and Moses under the direc­tion of God gave to Israel a code of laws, a sanc­tuary, and a service devised primarily to meet the needs of the nation, but intended to command the respect of cultured gentiles as well.

On the priority of the priestly legislation to Deu­teronomy consult the works of the school of Ewald, those, for example, by Dillmann ut sup., gloster­mane, Strack ut sup.; further, E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, New York, 1885. For evidence that the narrative portion of P is pre exilic, cf. Boyd, Eaekiel and so. Litera  the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,

tune on in Princeton Theological Review, 1908, §~ :a r9. 29 sqq. On the origin and sequence of the legislation, and on the congru­ity between the pentateuehal law and the history of the people, Green's works ut sup. and his article on Critical Views respecting the Mosaic Tabernacle, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1894, pp. 69 sqq. On the national sanctuary, and on the early distinction between priest and Levite, Green ut sup.; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du culte (Ghent, 1894); idem, Le Sacerdoce Uvitique, Louvain, 1899. On monotheism among the early Hebrews, J. Rob­ertson, Early Religion of Israel, Edinburgh, 1892; A. Dillmaan, Altteatamentliche Theologies Leipsie, 1895; B,. Baentach, Altorwentalischen u. isrnelitischen Monotheismus, Tiibingen, 1908. On the stage of religious development during the early monarchy, J. Robertson, Poetry and Religion of the Psalms, Edinburgh, 1898. On the incompatibility between the prophetic teaching and the newer theories con­cerning the origin and growth of the religion of Israel, G. Vos, Recent Criticism of the Early Proph­ets, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898 and 1899. A survey and estimate of the entire argu­ment is found in J. Orr, Problem of the Old Teata­ment, London, 1906; and a lawyer's study of the legislation and its criticism is contained in two articles by Wiener in the Princeton Tluologicad Reviews, 1907, pp. 188, 605.

JOHN D. DAvis.

B LIOGSAPH7: For a review of the criticism consult J. Kley. Die PeatateurAfraw, Are Gesdhiehte and Okra Sw tmne, MOneter, 1903: H. L. 8track, Einleitunp in daaAlte Testament 4 15, 8th ed., Munich, 1908, and for lit­~ature, §t 95 98. For English students if not for Ali, the best presentation of the evidence for the docu­mentary hypothesis is J. E. Carpenter and (3. Harford­Battereby, The Haxateurh according to as R. V., arranged in its Constituent Documents wroth Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptioal Tables, 2 vole., Lon­don. 1900. The literature is immense, and the following is a selection including the most notable and influential works: A. Kuenen, Hiatoriadaritiaa ondsraoek naar hat ontstaan en de veraamelinp roan de boeken dss ouden veH bonds, 3 vole., Leyden, 1881 85, Eng. trend.. Hiworioa.


criicad Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateush, London, 1886; J. W. Colenso, The Penta­tear& and . . . Joshua critically Examined. 7 parts, London, 1862 79; L. Horst, Leviticus ssii xai. . uwd Hemkiel, Colmar, 1881; E. C. Bissell, The Psntatsuch, its origin and Structure, New York, 1885 (conservative); W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1883; idem, The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hy­potheses, ib. 1885; idem, The Higher Criticism of the Pen­tateuch, ib. 1895; Unity of Genesis, 1895. (Professor Green was the representative exponent in America of the defense of Mosaic authorship); A. Weill, Le Pentatsuque salon Man et Is Pentateuque selon Berri, Paris, 1885; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction h la a itique pinhole de Z'A. T., 3 vole., Paris, 1887 89 (only the Pentateuch); A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateaque, nude de critique et d'hiatoire, 3 viola, Paris, 1888 92; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, Berlin, 1889; Prokpo­mena, Berlin, 1899, Eng. tranel. of early ed., Edin­burgh, 1885; E. Albers, Die Quellenberidts in Josua i. zii., Bonn, 1890; E. Kautssch and A. Socin. Die Genesis mit dussaw Unteracheidunp den Quellanschriften fihersetd, Freiburg, 1891; H. E. Ryle, Early Narratives of G, London, 1892 (illuminating); W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vole., London, 1892 98 (exhibits the documents reunited); B. Babatsob, Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892; idem, Das Heilipkeitepo­sets, Lev. xcii =vi., Erfurt, 1893; B. W. Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis, Hartford, 1892; idem, The Triple Tra­ditiowof Exodus, ib. 1894; Lox Mosaica: Moses and the Higher Criticism, London, 1895 (a composite volume of anticritical essays); F. Montet, La Composition do 1'Heza­teaque, Geneva, 1895; S. C. Bartlett, Veracity of the Hsxa­teuch: a Defence, New York, 1897; C. A. Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the HerateucA, New York, 1897; idem and F. von HOgel, The Papal Commission and the Penta­teuck, London, 1906 (Dr. Briggs summarises the evidence against Mosaic authorship; Von Htigel speaks for the Roman Catholic position); B. Stade, Akademische Re­den and Abhandlungen, Giessen, 1899; C. F. Kent, Stu­dent's O. T., viol. i., New York, 1904 (a useful volume); R. H. McKim, The Problem of the PentatswA* an Examina­tion of the Results of the Higher Criticism, ib. 1906; A. Gordon, Die Bezeichnunpen. den pentateuchischen Gesets­kdaesen des Mosaismus, Frankfort, 1906; O. Proekeh, Das nordhebraische Sagenbueh: die Elohimqualls. Leipsi0. 1906; A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch . . . Verstandnise and Entetehunpapeschichte, ib. 1907; J. Krautlein, Die spradlichen Verschiedenheiten in den Hexateuehquellen, Leipslc, 1908: B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposiaon den Genesis, Giesaen, 1908; DB, ii. 363 376, and EB, ii. 2046 b8 (neither is to be overlooked as convenient sum­maries of the critical position); JR, ix. fi89 592; Smith, OTJC; a series of articles constituting a defense of the conservative view of the Pentateuch, by H. M. Wiener, in Bibliothsoa sacra, 1908 1909; and the treatises on the In­troduction to the Old Testament, such as Driver, and W. H. Bennett, London, 1899.

Commentaries on the Pentateuch which are important for the history of the subject are J. S. Voter, 3 viols., Halle, 180.3 05; M. Baumgarten, viol. i., Kiel, 1843 44; C. F. Keil, 3 viols., Leipsic, 1870 78; A. Dillman, 3 vole., ib. 1880 97, Eng. tranel. of Genesis, 2 viola., Edinburgh, 1897; Kurzpefaester Kommewtar, Gen. Numbers, by H. L. Struck, Munich, 1894, Genesis, 2d ed., 1905, Deuteronomy­Jby S. Oettli, ib. 1893; Handkommentar, Genesis, by H. Gunkel, G&ttingen, 1902, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by B. Baentach, ib. 1903, Deuteronomy and Joshua by C. Steuernagel, ib. 1900; Kuraer Hand­Commentar_ Genes. Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua by H. Holsinger, 4 vols TObingen, 1898 1903, Leviticus and Deuteronomy by A. Bertholet, ib. 1899 1901 • Inter­national Critical Commentary, Numbers by G. B. Gray, New York, 1903, Deuteronomy by S. R. Driver, ib. 1895. on the Roman Catholic side: Curse acr%pturas sacra!, Genede Deuteronomy by F. de Hummelauer, 4 vole., Paris, 1895 1901. On the Jewish side: M. M. Kafisoh, Genesis Leviticus, 3 vole., London, 1855 M; S. R. Hirsoh, 5 vole., Frankfort, 1893 1895. Commentaries on individual books are: F. Tuch, on Genesis, ed. Arnold and Mom Halls, 1871 (on the supplementary hypothesis); F. Delitssch, on Genesis, Leipsi0. 1887; Genesis by S. R. Driver, London, 1904; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Levi( 

ieue, 2 parts, Berlin, 1905 08; Joshua by F. W. Spurling, London, 1901; A. R. Gordon, The Early Tra­ditions of Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907 (masterly., though covering only part of the book); . Exodus; by A. H. McNeile. London, 1908. SBOT should also be consulted, of which Genesis by C. J. Ball, Leviticus by S. R. Driver and H. A. . White, Numbers by J. A. Paterson, and Joshua by W. H. Bennett have been published.

HEYLYlf, PETER: English controversialist and church historian; b. at Burford (16 m. w.n.w. of Oxford), Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600; d. in London May 8, 1662. He studied at Magdalen College, Oxford (B.A.,1617; M.A.,1620; B.D.,1629; D.D., 1633), and held a fellowship there (1618 29). He was made chaplain to the king in 1630, prebendary of Westminster Cathedral 1631, treasurer of the chapter in 1637, and subsequently subdean. In 1633 he was presented by Charles I. to the benefice of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, which he exchanged for Alresford, Hampshire. In 1637 he was presented to the living of Islip, Oxfordshire. This he at once exchanged for the living of South Warren, Hampshire.

In the religious controversies preceding the civil

war Heylyn proved a stanch supporter of the

king and the High church party. On account of the

bitterness he had shown toward the Puritans he

was singled out for punishment by the committees

of the Long Parliament. He was deprived of pre­

ferments worth £800, and heavily fined; and his

parsonage at Alresford was stripped of its contents,

including his valuable library. To escape arrest he

was forced to wander in various disguises till 1648,

when he settled at Minster Lovel, Oxfordshire, the

home of an elder brother. In 1653 he removed to

Lacy's Court, near Abingdon. At the Restoration

he regained his former important position in the

councils of the Church, and would have been made

a bishop but for physical infirmity. As subdean

he attended the coronation of Charles II., Apr. 23,

1661, and on May 29 following hA preached at West­

minster Abbey a jubilant sermon on the return of

Charles. He was an inveterate polemist, and was

inclined to find Puritan tendencies even in the

works of his fellow churchmen. Of his numerous

writings, which are generally marred by prejudice

and controversial rancor, the more important are:

MicTocosnme (Oxford, 1625), his once famous lec­

tures at Oxford on geography, which he enlarged

into Cosmography (London, 1652); The History of

. . St. George. of Cappadocia (London, 1631);

ExtraneusVaPuleu (1656), directed against Hamon

1'Estrange and Nicholas Bernard, his cleverest piece

of controversial writing; Ecclesia restaurata, or the

His" of the Reformation o f the Church o f England

(1661; ed. J. C. Robertson for the Ecclesiastical

History Society, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1849), his best

book, but strongly biased; Cypriaxiua Anglicus, or

the History of the Life arid Death of . . William

Laud (London, 1668), the chief authority for Laud's

private life, from which has been extracted The

Doctrine and Discipline of the English Church (Ox­

ford, 1846); Aerius redivivus, or the History of the

Presbyterians (1670), a violent arraignment of the

Presbyterians; and Historical and Miscellaneous

Tracts (London, 1681), containing a life of Heylyn

by G. Vernon.



BIBLIoaHAPHY: The Life prefixed to the tracts (ut sup.) is a composite production, originally by George Vernon, re­vised without Vernon's knowledge by John Bernard (or Bernard), Heylyn's son in law, and re revised, again with­out the knowledge of either Vernon or Bernar, by Thomas Badow; Vernon then published his Life of Dr. Peter Heylyn, London, 1882, which evoked Barnard, e Theolopo­hiaforicus, or the True Life of . . Peter Hoyt^ ib. 1883 (of. on these 1. Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, iii. 238, ib. 1849). Consult further: David Lloyd, Memoirs o/ the Limes . . . of . . . Personages that suffered . . for the nt Rely, PP. 526 b28, ib. 1877; John Walker,

Sufferings of the Clergy, ii 190, ib 1714; A. A Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 662689, 4 vole., Lon­don, 1813 20; DNB, xzvi. 319 323.

HEYIILIN, hain'lin, VON STEAK (DE LAPIDE), JOHANN: German scholastic theologian; b. at Stein (10 m. e.a.e. of Carlsruhe) between 1425 and 1430; d. in a Carthusian monastery at Basel Mar. 12, 1496. He studied at Leipsic (1452); but removed to Paris (1454), where he became licentiate (1455), master (1456), fellow of the Sorbonne (1462), bachelor of theology (1463), and doctor of theology (1472). He then went to Basel, where by his energy and talent for organization he accomplished the victory of realism over nominalism (1464). Returning to Paris (1466), he became rector of the University of Paris (1469) and prior of the Sor­bonne (1470). Together with Guillaume Fichet he introduced the art of printing in Paris and took an active part in the suppression of nominalism by the edict of Louis XI. (1473). Later he was prominent as a preacher in Basel (1474 78); he then became professor of theology and rector in the University of Tdbingen (1478); but the opposition of the nominalists induced him to leave T(ibingen to become rector of the chapter in Baden Baden (1479). Afterward active as a teacher and reformer of morals in Bern (1480), but unable to attain success, he retired to Basel, first as canon and preacher of the cathedral (1484); but, wearied of the violent struggles with the nominslists, he en­tered the Carthusian monastery (1487). His com­mentary on Aristotle was written during his stay in Paris, but not published until many years later by his pupil Amerbach.


Brswoaasmr: F. Fischer, Johann" Heyntin, Basel, 1861;

W. Visoher, Oeschichte der Unieenitdt Basal, pp. 157 188, ib. 1880; C. von Prantl, Geacnichte der Lopik, iv. 188 eqq., 298, Leipm0. 1890; H. Denifie and E. Chatelain, Auo­twiwn charhaarii unioersitatis Parisiensis ii. 903, 907, 913, 918 917, 921, Paris, 1897; A. Claudin, The Pirst Paris Press; an Amount of As Books puNiahed for O. Bidet and J. Heyntin . . .. 1470 1472, pp. 35 37, London, 1898.


Name, Character, and Chronology (4 1).

Rejection and Reaaeumption of Vassalage to Assyria (¢ 2).

8ennaoherib's Third Campaign (f 3).

Hem's Later Life and Deeds (1 4).

Hezekiah (Hebr. ,H4iyyahu, Isa. xxxvi. 1 and

often; fli*yyah, II Kings xviii. 1, 14 16; YeAiz­

tiYydhu, II Kings xx. 10 and often;

:. Acme, Yelfizftyah, Hos. i. 1; Asayr. t1aza­

Character, kiya'u; Gk. Ezekias; Lat. Ezechias)

and was twelfth king of Israel, son and

Chronology. successor of AWLz. His dates accord­

ing to the old chronology are 727 696

B.C.; according to Krihler, 724 896; according to

Duncker, 728 697; and according to Wellhausen,

Kamphausen, Meyer, and Stade, 714 686. The difficulty of determining the exact dates arises from the fact that II Kings xviii. 10 states that Samaria fell in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, wherefrom it would result that he ascended the throne in the year 728 B.C.; verse 13 states, however, that Sen­nacherib's campaign against Judea took place in Hezekiah's fourteenth year. The cuneiform in­scriptions clearly establish that this campaign oc­curred in the year 701 B.c.; so, according to these data, Hezekiah began to reign in 715 B.c. Accord­ing to II Kings xviii. 2, he was twenty five years old when he ascended the throne, but the text appears to be corrupt and should probably read fifteen instead of twenty five. He was possessed of energy and courage, was prudent and active, religious in disposition. He is the only king, except Josiah, of whom the Book of Kings says that, like David, he did that which was pleasing to Yahweh (II Kings xviii. 3 4). He not only did away with the high places, but also endeavored to make it a rule that sacrifices should be offered only in the temple on Zion (II Kings xviii. 4; Mic. i. 5). In this way he strove to free the religious observances from those parts which he considered as either antagonizing (asherim and the brazen serpent) or as likely to endanger (high places and M"~ebhoth) the true knowledge and veneration of Yahweh as the holy and supernal God.

It was probably after the violent death of Sargon in 705 B.C., and while his successor, Sennacherib,

was occupied by a renewed attempt of

s. Rejec  Merodach baladan to make himself tion and master of Babylon (see AssymA, VI., Reassump  3, if 12 13), that Hezekiah severed

tion of his connection with Assyria. It seems

Vassalage that he took a prominent part in the

to Assyria. revolt against Babylon, since he took

charge of King Padi of Ekron when the

latter was dethroned and made prisoner on account

of his faithfulness to the Great King. He seems also

to have been engaged in active negotiations with

Egypt (cf. Isa. xxx. xxxi.). After Sennacherib had

subdued Merodach baladan, he sought, in 701 B.c.,

to reestablish his sovereignty in the Mediterranean

region. The Book of Kings affirms that Hezekiah

sent a request for pardon to Sennacherib at Lachish

and afterward paid him a heavy tribute. It is then

stated in detail in II Kings xviii.17 19, 35 37, that

Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

Hezekiah, however, refused, on Isaiah's assurance

that the city would not be captured, and Sen­

nacherib was forced to turn back because the

angel of Yahweh destroyed 185,000 of his men.

Sennaaherib's description of the results of his third campaign in the year 701 B.C. (Schrader,

KB, ii. 91 sqq.) narrates the capture

3. Sen  of the Phenician cities, the defeat of

nacherib's Zidka of Ascalon, the conquest of Third Ekron in spite of the approach of an

Campaign. Egyptian Ethiopian army of relief, which was repulsed near Eltekeh, and lastly his successes against Hezekiah. But these successes involve only that Hezekiah was imprisoned in Jerusalem, was forced to surrender Padi, to send a heavy tribute to the Great King in Nineveh, and

1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   46

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page