seizing
iiis
land
if
he
was
unable
to
repay.
Tliis
social
condition
appeared
to
tlie
conservative
worshippers
of
Jahweh
as
in
the
highest
degree
obnoxious.
Jahweh
had
never
been
the
God
of
a
commercial
people.
For
one
of
His
worshippers
to
exact
usury
from
another
was
regarded
as
an
offence
against
Him;
to
take
from
one
of
His
faithful
ones
land
given
him
by
Jahweh
in
payment
for
debt,
however
just
the
debt,
was
in
Jahweh's
eyes
unpardonable
oppression
of
the
poor.
These
social
conditions,
thus
viewed,
called
forth
a
new
set
of
prophets,
—
men
of
a
higher
moral
and
spiritual
order
than
any
known
before
in
Semitic
history.
Two
of
these,
Amos
and
Hosea,
belong
altogether
to
this
period,
while
Isaiah
began
his
prophetic
work
when
two-thirds
of
it
had
passed.
Amos
(wh.
see),
the
earliest
of
them,
came
forward
about
755
to
denounce
the
social
injustices
of
the
Northern
Kingdom
and
to
pronounce
Jahweh's
doom
on
the
whole
circle
(J{-
sinful
nations
which
surrounded
.Israel.
•
bne-sided
"as
his
economifc
poipt
of
view
was,
his
ethical
standard
was
the
loftiest
and
purest,
and
his
conception
of
Jahweh
as
the
God
who
ruled
all
natioils
carried
men's
thoughts
into
a
clearer
atmosphere.
Amos
simply
denounced,
but
Hosea
(wh
.
see)
,
who
came
a
little
later,
and
put
forward
a
view
of
Jahweh
no
less
ethical,
proclaimed
Jahweh
as
a
God
of
redeeming
love.
It
is
clear
from
the
work
of
these
prophets
that
the
cults
of
Jahweh
and
Baal
had
in
the
lapse
of
time
become
mingled.
Jahweh
had
long
been
conceived
as
a
Baal.
Hosea
proclaims
again
the
nomadic
Jahweh,
austere,
simple,
and
moral,
as
compared
with
the
deteriorated
cults
now
practised
by
His
followers.
It
is
clear,
therefore,
that
the
same
forces
were
at
work
that
appeared
in
the
time
of
Ahab
and
Elijah,
only
now
the
foreign
religious
element
was
not
so
clearly
foreign
in
the
eyes
of
the
people
at
large,
and
the
eco-nomic
conditions
were
more
aggravated.
Amos
and
Hosea
were
country
prophets,
whose
sympathies
were
naturally
with
the
poorer
classes
of
the
people,
but
Isaiah,
the
city
prophet,
is
no
less
strenuous
than
they
in
his
denunciations
of
man's
inhumanity
to
man.
Towards
the
end
of
this
long
period
of
outward
prosperity
and
social
and
religious
ferment,
a
change
occurred
in
Assyria.
Pul,
or
Tiglath-pileser
in.,
as
he
now
called
himself,
seized
the
throne
(B.C.
745),
subsequently
proving
himself,
both
as
a
general
and
as
a
statesman,
one
of
the
world's
great
men.
This
monarch
was,
however,
occupied
until
the
year
742
in
reducing
the
East
to
his
sceptre.
When
he
turned
Ills
attention
to
the
West,
the
siege
of
Arpad
occupied
him
for
two
years,
so
that
before
he
interfered
in
Pales-tinian
affairs
Jeroboam
ii.
had
passed
away.
The
chronolo^
of
the
Northern
Kingdom
after
the
death
of
Jeroboam
ii.
is
very
confused.
Many
of
the
statements
of
the
present
Biblical
text
are
manifestly
incorrect.
The
statement
of
it
given
above
is
a
conjectural
reconstruction
resting
partly
on
the
Assyrian
evidence.
After
Zechariah,
the
son
of
Jeroboam,
had
reigned
but
six
months,
a
conspiracy
removed
him
and
placed
Shallum
on
the
throne.
With
Zechariah
the
house
of
Jehu
disappeared.
Uzziah,
who
in
his
old
age
had
become
a
leper,
and
had
associated
his
son
Jotham
with
him
on
the
throne,
appears
to
have
taken
a
leading
part
in
the
organization
of
a
coalition
of
nineteen
States,
including
Carchemish,
Hamath,
and
Damascus,
to
oppose
the
westward
prog-ress
of
'Tiglath-pileser.
Before
the
Assyrian
monarch
made
his
appearance
again
in
the
West,
another
revolu-tion
in
Samaria
had
removed
Shallum
and
placed
Menahem
on
Israel's
throne.
The
Assyrian,
who
apparently
came
in
737
(Esarhaddon
mutilated
the
inscriptions
of
Tiglath-pileser
so
that
our
data
are
in-complete),
seems
to
have
marched
southward
along
the
Maritime
Plain
as
though
to
attack
Uzziah
himself.
Upon
his
approach
Menahem
deserted
the
confederacy
and
hastened
to
pay
his
tribute
to
Assyria.
Whether
it
was
this
defection
or
whether
it
was
a
battle
that
compelled
Uzziah
to
pay
tribute
we
do
not
know,
but
Tiglath-pileser
records
him
among
his
tribute
payers
iKIB
ii.
20).
Uzziah
died
in
that
year.
The
short,
independent
reign
of
Jotham
seems
to
have
been
un-eventful.
Menahem
died
about
735;
his
son
Pekahiah
was
soon
removed
by
a
revolution,
and
Pekah
became
king
in
Samaria
(2
K
IS^'-^').
In
Judah,
Jotham
was
succeeded
in
the
same
year
by
his
youthful
son
Ahaz.
Pekah
and
Rezin,
who
now
sat
on
the
throne
of
Damas-cus,
desired
to
form
a
new
confederacy
to
throw
off
Assyria's
yoke.
Into
this
they
attempted
to
draw
Ahaz,
and
when
he
declined
to
engage
in
the
hopeless
enterprise
they
threatened
to
make
war
jointly
on
Judah,
depose
Ahaz,
and
place
a
certain
Tabeel
on
the
throne
of
Judah.
Upon
the
receipt
of
this
news,
con-sternation
reigned
in
Jerusalem,
but
both
king
and
people
were
reassured
by
the
prophet
Isaiffi
(Is
7).
Isaiah's
[fcpes^were
weUfcranded,
for
in
tlte
next
year
'
(t34)
Tigiatlf-pilfeer
returned
to
the
West,
took
Damas-cus
after
a
considerable
siege
(a
town
which
his
prede-cessors
had
at
various
times
for
more
than
a
hundred
years
tried
in
vain
to
capture),
made
it
an
Assyrian
colony,
put
Pekah
the
king
of
Israel
to
death
(KIB
ii.
33),
carried
captive
to
Assyria
the
principal
inhabitants
of
the
territory
north
of
the
Plain
of
Jezreel
(2
K
152«),
made
Hoshea
king
of
a
reduced
territory,
and
imposed
upon
him
a
heavy
tribute.
Ahaz,
upon
the
approach
of
Tiglath-pileser,
had
renewed
his
allegiance;
and
after
the
capture
of
Damascus
he
went
thither
to
do
obeisance
in
person
to
the
Assyrian
monarch.
Thus
the
whole
of
Israel
passed
irrevocably
into
Assyria's
power.
At
Damascus,
Ahaz
saw
an
altar
the
form
of
which
pleased
him.
He
accordingly
had
a
pattern
of
it
brought
to
Jerusalem,
and
one
like
it
constructed
there.
The
brazen
altar
which
Solomon
had
erected
before
the
Temple
was
removed
to
one
side
and
reserved
for
the
king's
own
use.
The
new
altar,
established
in
its
place,
became
the
altar
of
ordinary
priestly
services.
One
would
suppose
that
the
Northern
Kingdom
had
now
received
such
a
chastisement
that
further
revolt
would
not
be
thought
of,
and
apparently
it
was
not,
so
long
as
Tiglath-pileser
lived.
That
monarch
passed
away,
however,
in
727;
and
soon
afterwards
Hoshea,
encouraged
by
the
king
of
a
country
to
the
south,
withheld
his
tribute.
The
Biblical
text
calls
this
king
'So,
king
of
Egypt'
(2
K
17<),andit
has
been
customary
to
identify
him
with
Shabaka,
the
first
king
of
the
25th
dynasty.
It
now
appears,
however,
that
either
he
was
a
king
of
the
Musri
to
the
south
of
Palestine,
or
was
some
petty
ruler
of
the
Egyptian
Delta,
otherwise
unknown,
for
Shabaka
did
not
gain
the
throne
of
Egypt
tiU
b.c.
712
(cf.
Breasted,
Hist,
of
Egypt,
549
and
601).
The
folly
of
Hoshea's
course
was
soon
apparent.
Shalmaneser
IV.,
who
had
succeeded
Tiglath-pileser,
sent
an
army
which
overran
all
the
territory
left
to
Hoshea,
cut
off
his
supplies,
and
then
shut
him
up
in
Samaria
in
a
memo-rable
siege.
The
military
genius
of
Omri
had
selected
the
site
wisely,
but
with
the
country
In
ruins
it
is
a
marvel
that
Samaria
resisted
for
three
years.
While
the
siege
dragged
on
its
weary
length,
Shalmaneser
died,
and
Sargon
ii.
gained
the
Assyrian
throne.
Perhaps
the
generals
who
were
prosecuting
the
siege
did
not
know
of
the
change
till
Samaria
had
fallen,
but
Sargon
counts
the
reduction
of
Samaria
as
one
of
the
achievements
of
his
first
year.
When
Samaria
fell,
Sargon
deported
27,290
(cf.
KIB
ii.
55)
of
the
inhabitants
of
the
region,
including
no
doubt
the
more
wealthy
and
influential
citizens,
princes,
priests,
etc.,
to
cities
which
he
had
recently
captured
in
the
far
East,
and
brought
to
Samaria
people
from
Cuthah
and
Sippar
in
Babylonia,
and
from
Hamath
in
Syria,
to
mingle
with
the
mass
of
Hebrew
population
which
he
had
left
behind
(2
K
17").
The
IsraeUtish
monarchy
he
abolished.
The
foreigners
who
were
introduced
into
Samaria
at
this
time
worshipped
at
first
their
own
gods,
but
when
lions
attacked
them,
they
petitioned
to
have
a
priest
