Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/422

40G ISRAEL need not be denied that mischievous consequences of various kinds slipped in al nig with the good. The king, moreover, can hardly be blamed for his conduct in erecting in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem altars to deities of Aminon and Egypt. For those altars remained undisturbed until the time of Josiah, although between Solomon and him there reigned more than one pious king who would certainly have destroyed them had he found them as offensive as did the author of Deuteronomy. Rehobo- 4. After the death of Solomon the discontent which had am. been aroused by his innovations, and especially by the rigour of his government, openly showed itself against his successor; and when Rehoboam curtly refused the demands which had been laid before him by an assembly of the elders at Shechem, they withdrew from their allegiance and summoned to b3 their king the Ephraimite Jeroboam ben Nebat, who already had made an abortive attempt at revolt from Solomon, and afterwards had taken refuge in Egypt. Only Judah and Jerusalem remained faithful to the house of Revolt of David. Among the causes of the revolt of the ten tribes, the ten jealousy of Judah must certainly be reckoned as one. The 3es power of Joseph had been weakened by the Philistines, and by the establishment of the monarchy the centre of gravity had been shifted from the north where it naturally lay. But now it was restored to its old seat; for once more it was situated, not in Judah, but in Joseph. Monarchy itself, however, was not abolished by the revolting tribes, conclusively showing how unavoidable and how advan tageous tint institution was now felt to be ; but at the same time they did not refrain from attempts to combine its advantages with those of anarchy, a folly which was ultimately the cause of their rain. As for their departure from the Mosaic cultus observed at Jerusalem on the other hand, it was first alleged against them as a sin only by the Liter Jews. At the time religion put no obstacle in the way of their separation ; on the contrary, it actually sug gested and promoted it (Ahijah of Shiloh). The Jerusalem cultus had not yet corne to ba regarded as the alone legiti mate ; that instituted by Jeroboam at Bethel and at Dan was recognized as equally right ; images of the Deity were exhibited in all three places, and indeed in every place where a house of God was found. So far as the religious and intellectual life of the nation was concerned, there was no .substantial difference between the two kingdoms, except indeed in so far as new displays of vigorous initiative generally proceeded from Israel. 1 Rehoboam did not readily accept the situation; he sought to reduce the revolt by force of arms, with what degree of success is shown by the fact that his rival found himself constrained to take up his residence at Peniel (near Mahanaim) on the other side of Jordan. The invasion of Shishak, however, who took Jerusalem and burnt it, gave Jeroboam at last a breathing space. The feud continued indeed, but Rehoboam could no longer dream of bringing back the ten tribes. The scale by and by turned in Israel s favour. King Baashi, who had seated himself on the throne in place of Nadab, Jeroboam s son, took the offensive, and Asa ben Rehoboam had no help for it but to call in Benhadad of Damascus against his adversary. In this way he gained his imme:liate purpose, it is true, but by the most dangerous of expedients. Baasha s son Elah was supplanted by his vizier Zimri, who, however, was in his turn unable to hold his own Omri. against Omri, who had supreme command of the army. 1 Even in the Deuterononiic redaction of the book of Kings indeed, and still more by the Chronicler, the political rebellion of Israel is regarded as having been ecclesiastical and religious in its character. The book of Chronicles regards Samaria as a heathen kingdom, and recognizes Judah alone as Israel. But, in point of fact, Jndah takes up the history of Israel only after the fall of Samaria ; see 6, 7. Against Omri there arose in another part of the country a rival, Tibrii ben Ginath, who succeeded in maintaining some footing until his death, when Omri became supreme. Omri must be regarded as the founder of the first dynasty, in the proper sense of that word, in Israelj and as the second founder of the kingdom itself, to which he gave a permanent capital in Samaria. The Bible has hardly any thing to tell us about him, but his importance is evident from the fact that among the Assyrians "the kingdom of Omri" 2 was the ordinary name of Israel. According to the inscription of Mesha, it w-as he who again subjugated Moab, which had become independent at the death of David or of Solomon. He was not so successful against the Damascenes, to whom he had to concede certain privileges in his own capital (1 Kings xx. 34). 3 Ahab, who succeeded Omri his father, seems during the Ahai greater part of his reign to have in seme sort acknowledged Syrian suzerainty. In no other way can we account for the fact that in the battle of Karkar against the Assyrians (854 B.C.) a contingent was contributed by him. But this very battle made the political situation so clear that he was l3d to break off his relations with Damascus. With this began a series of ferocious attacks on Israel by Benhadad and Hazael. They were met by Ahab with courage and success, but in the third year of that fifty years war he fell i i the battle at Ramoth Gilead (c. 851). After the events recorded in 1 Kings xx. , a forced alliance with Samn Damascus on the part of Samaria is incredible ; but the idea of and I spontaneous friendly relations is also inadmissible. Schrader indeed niasci finds support for the latter theory in 1 Kings xx. 34; but in that passage there is no word of any offensive or defensive alliance be tween the rival kings; all that is stated is that Ahab releases the captive Benhadad on condition (JT"122) that the latter undertakes certain obligations, particularly those of keeping the peace and re storing tho cities which had been taken. By this arrangement no change was made in the previously strained relations of the two kingdoms; and, moreover, the rp"Q was not kept (xxii. 1 sqq. }. Xot much nearer the truth than the preceding is the view that the dan ger threatened by Assyria drove the kings of Syria and Palestine into one another s arms, and so occasioned an alliance between Ahab and Benhadad also. For if feelings of hostility existed at all be tween the two last named, then Ahab could not do otherwise than congratulate himself that in the person of Shalmancser II. there had arisen against Benhadad an enemy who would be able to keep him effectually in check. That Shalmaneser might prove dangerous to himself probably did not at that time occur to him; but if it had he would still have chosen the remote in preference to the immedi ately threatening evil. For it was the political existence of Israel that was at stake in the struggle with Damascus ; in suck circum stances every ally would of course be welcome, every enemy of the enemy would be hailed as a friend, and the political wisdom which Max Duncker attributes to Ahab would have been nothing less than unpardonable folly. The state of matters was at the outset in this respect just what it continued to be throughout the subsequent course of events; the Assyrian danger grew in s-ubsequent years, and with it grew the hostility between Damascus and Samaria. This fact admits only of one explanation, that the Israelites utilized to the utmost of their power for their own protection against the Syrians the difficulties into which the latter were thrown by Shal maneser II., and that these in their turn, when the Assyrians gave them respite, were all the fiercer in their revenge. On the evidence of the monuments and the Bible we may even venture to assert that it was the Assyrian attacks upon Damascus which at that time pre served Israel from becoming Aramaic, of course only because Israel made the most of them for her political advantage. Assuming that Ahab the Israelite (Ahabu Sirlaai) fought in the battle of Karkar (854) on the side of the king of Damascus, it was only because he could not help himself; but, if it is actually the case that he did so, the battle of Karkar must have taken place be fore the events recorded in 1 Kings xx. The Moabites took advantage of an accession under such critical circumstances to shake off the yoke imposed by 2 Bit Humri, like OIKOS A.vffaviov, and similar territorial names in Syriac. 3 Omri s accession is to be placed somewhere about 900 B.C. It is a date, and the first, that can be determined with some precision, if we place the battle of Karkar (854) near the end of Ahab s reign, and take the servitude of Moab, which lasted forty years and ended with Ahab s death, to begin in Omri s first decade.