A Short DISSERTATION Concerning the four last Kings of Judah Occasioned by a small Tract Intituled Iosephi Scaligeri judicium de Thesi quadam Chronologica And more especially By some passages in Lud. Cappellus's Notes upon the Twelfth Table of his Chronologia Sacra Licens'd Aug. 12. 1689. I. F. LONDON Printed for Charles Brome at the Gun at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1689. A Short DISSERTATION Concerning the four last Kings of Judah JOseph Scaliger amongst others hath observed some difficulties in the History of the four last Kings of Iudah viz. Iehoahaz Iehoiakim Iehoiakin and Zedekiah Particularly he doth this in a short Tract Intituled Iosephi Scaligeri judicium de thesi quadam Chronologica which we have after his Prolagomena to his Canones Isagogici in which he desires that some studious person would undertake the solution of those difficulties Many have since endeavour'd it particularly Lud. Cappellus in his Notes upon the twelfth Table of his Chronologia Sacra There are sundry passages in those Notes relating to the Kings before-mention'd which I could not but take more especial notice of but I shall examine only two of them 1. He asserts that Iehoahaz was the younger Brother of Iehoiakim though he reign'd before him See Note 7th 2. He suspects that when they began to Reign Iehoahaz was but thirteen years old and Iehoiakim only fifteen So in Note 8th The Learned Cappellus was it seems so secure of the truth of that assertion that Iehoahaz was the younger Brother that he offers nothing at all in way of confirmation of it But others have attempted to prove it by the arguments following the validity of which we shall briefly examine Arg. 1. If Iehoahaz was not the younger Brother why did they Anoint him 2 Kings 23.30 for the eldest Sons of their Kings were not Anointed Answ. 1. It is not true that none but the younger Sons were Anointed Iehoash was not a younger Brother when he was Proclaimed King for all his brethren were slain at least six years before 2 Kings 11.1 2 3. and yet he was Anointed v. 12. 2. Suppose that they did not ordinarily Anoint the eldest yet they did it in the case of Iehoahaz that by this Solemnity they might confirm him in the Kingdom in opposition to Pharaoh-nechoh or any that he might obtrude upon them Or by Anointing him they declar'd That the Kingdom being disturb'd by the Arms of the Egyptian they deliver'd it to Iehoahaz tanquam de integro as it was a new Arg. 2. Iehoahaz was the same with Shallum mention'd 1 Chron. 3. Now Shallum is there said to be the fourth Son of Iosiah and so he was of necessity younger Brother to Iehoiakim who was Iosiahs second Son for 1 Chron. 3.15 the Sons of Iosiah are reckon'd thus The first born Iohanan the second Iehoiakim the third Zedekiah the fourth Shallum that Iehoahaz was Shallum there mention'd they think to be manifest from Ier. 22.11 Answ. That which they say is not manifest from Ier. 22. 1. It is not manifest that the Shallum Jer. 22. was Iehoahaz 2. If it was yet it is not manifest that the Shallum Jer. 22. was the same with the Shallum mention'd 1 Chron. 3. Some think that by Shallum Jer. 22. was meant Iehoiakim Flamin Nobilius tells us that the 72 according to one Edition have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being found in the Margin some having set it there as an interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crept from thence into the Text. Others have interpreted the Shallum Jer. 22. to be Zedekiah for the Kingdom of Iudah had an end or was overthrown when he was King. And so say they he was rightly nam'd Shallum which signifies a consummation or finishing Of this opinion was R. Solomon yea it seems by R. Kimchi that this was the generally receiv'd opinion among the Iewish Doctors see them both in Ier. 22. Finally Kimchi himself was of opinion that Shallum Jer. 22. was Iehoiakim And I have not met with any Iewish Writer that interprets Shallum to be Iehoahaz but Ab. Ezra So that from all this we may conclude that it is not so manifest that Shallum Jer. 22. was Iehoahaz as some bear us in hand But 2dly Suppose it was manifest that Shallum in Ier. 22. was Iehoahaz yet it is not manifest that that Shallum in Ier. 22. was the same with the Shallum mention'd Chron. 3. and so it appears not that Iehoahaz was that Shallum especially if the Hebrew Writers ap S. Hieron say truly that Shallum was a common name to all the Sons of Iosiah Yea it seems impossible that Iehoahaz should be that Shallum That Shallum was the fourth and youngest Son of Iosiah and consequently Iehoahaz if he was that Shallum was the younger Brother of Zedekiah Iosiahs third as well as of Iehoiakim the second Son. Now it seems impossible that Iehoahaz should be the younger Brother of Zedekiah and must seem so to every one that compares their ages when they began to reign Iehoahaz was twenty three years old when he began his reign 2 Kings 23.31 when Zedekiah was only twenty one years of age when he entred upon his 2 Kings 24.18 and that was above eleven years after the beginning of Iehoahaz's reign for Iehoiakims eleven years reign was between theirs See 2 Kings 23.36 Now is it possible that he who was twenty three years old should be the younger Brother of one that was but twenty one years old above eleven years after Could Hamutal bring forth the elder Brother thirteen years after that she was deliver'd of the younger Scaliger acknowledges this to be a difficulty which he could not assoil but wishes others to do it for him Quaerent studiosi so he Let us see then how others have endeavour'd to solve it 1. Some say that the Shallum 1 Chron. 3. was indeed Iosiahs third Son and elder than Zedekiah It is true he is call'd the fourth but say they that is not in respect of age but because of the shortness of his reign his unworthy demeanour in it But this needs no confutation Scaliger himself calls it futilis solutio 2. Others say that Zedekiah was made King while his Father liv'd and reigned together with him three years And that when 't is said that he was twenty one years old when he began to reign the meaning is When he began to reign with his Father three years before his death at which time Iehoahaz was only twenty years of age and consequently younger than Zedekiah by one year But 1. The sense of the Text 2 Kings 24.1 is plainly that Zedekiah was but the age of twenty one years when he was made King by Nabuchadnezzar Iehoiakim being carry'd Captive to Babylon 2. How appears it that Zedekiah ever reign'd with his Father It is a thing so improbable in it self that Iosiah should pass by the other and take his third
Son to reign with him that it requires very good proof And yet all the proof that is offer'd is from Ier. 27.1 2 3. where we read that in the beginning of the reign of Iehoiakim the Prophet was commanded to prepare Bonds and Yokes and to send them to certain Kings by the hands of the Ambassadors that came to Ierusalem to Zedekiah King of Iudah The neighbouring Kings who had understood that Zedekiah was made King three years before his Fathers Death did think that he reign'd still after his Fathers decease and so sent their Ambassadors to him Thus Ab. Ezra in Dan. 1. But this Interpretation is manifestly very far fetch'd and therefore much time needs not be spent in the examination of it All the stress lyes upon this That Ambassadors were sent unto Zedekiah as King of Iudah in the beginning of the reign of Iehoiakim whâ—ch cannot be proved from that Text. Some have thought that when 't is said In the beginning of the reign of Iehoiakim V. â— Iehoiakim by the Scribes negligence hath crept into the Text instead of Zedekiah Or however that by Iehoiakim we are to understand Zedekiah for they say that Iehoiakim was a common name to all the Sons of Iosiah S. Hieron was of opinion That that v. 1. belongs to the foregoing Chapter viz. The twenty sixth and in no wise to that which follows in chap. 27. As he also observes that it was not found in the Copies of the 72 which they had then as it is wanting in some Editions of that Translation now But I shall wave all this and suppose that the contents of the former part of chap. 27 were deliver'd to the Prophet in the beginning of Ieboiakim's reign yet it will not follow that Ambassadors were sent to Zedekiah as King of Iudah at that time For 1. That might be given in charge to the Prophet in the time of Iehoiakim which he was not to execute till the reign of Zedekiah He might receive a command in the time of the one what he should do and say in the reign of the other see v. 12. of that chap. 27. 2. Some have thought that the Prophet did then presently execute some part of that which was given him in charge i. e. He did put the Bonds and Yokes upon his Neck and did carry them tho' not constantly yet at certain times during the reigns of Iehoiakim and Iehoiakin and to the fourth year of Zedekiah even fifteen years says R. Solom in Loc. till Hananiah broke them from his Neck Ier. 28.10 I cannot dismiss this Interpretation without remarking that Kimchi takes notice of it and expresly alledges Ab. Ezra for it and yet doth not assent to it but gives a quite other exposition of Ier. 27.1 2 3. as well as R. Solom doth 3. Some think to Solve the aforesaid difficulty by saying that the Zedekiah who succeeded Iehoiakin and was then only of the age of twenty one years was the Zedekiah mention'd in 1 Chron. 3.16 where we read the Sons of Iehoiakim Ieconiah his Son Zedekiah his Son and not Zedekiah the Son of Iosiah spoken of v. 15. That he were Zedekiah mention'd v. 16. they prove from 2 Chron. 36.10 where he is call'd the Brother of Iehoiakin But to this the answer is easie it being known and acknowledg'd that the word Brother in Holy Writ is taken very frequently in a larger sense viz. for any Kinsman Thus the Zedekiah who succeeded Iehoiakin was his Brother i. e. his near Kinsman for he was indeed his Unkle or Fathers Brother We have sufficient warrant for this Interpretation from 2 Kings 24.17 where this Zedekiah is expresly call'd his Fathers Brother yea the seventy two and Syr. not to mention the Vulg. read not his Brother but his Unkle or Fathers Brother even in 2 Chron. 36.10 Besides if this Zedekiah was the Zedekiah mention'd 1 Chron. 3.16 and the Brother of Iehoiakin as these men pretend they will acknowledge that he was his younger Brother and then unless they will admit a vacancy or interregnum of three or four years betwixt Iehoiakin and Zedekiah he could not be twenty one years old when he began his reign for Iehoiakin was but eighteen years old when he began to reign 2 Kings 24.8 and reign'd only three months and ten days Add hereto that the Zedekiah which succeeded Iehoiakin was the Son of Hamutal 2 Kings 24.17 that Hamutal undoubtedly which was the Mother of Iehoahaz 2 Kings 23.31 Finally can words express more clearly what Zedekiah it was that reign'd after Iehoiakin or Coniah than those do Ier. 37.1 And King Zedekiah the Son of Iosiah reign'd instead of Coniah the Son of Iehoiakim Arg. 3. Iehoahaz was only twenty three years old when he began his reign 2 Kings 23.31 and but three months after we find Iehoiakim to have been twenty five years old 2 Kings 23.31 36. therefore Iehoiakim was elder than Iehoahaz Answ. It doth not appear that Iehoiakim was so old three months after that Iehoahaz began his reign Iehoiakim was twenty five years old when he began to reign i. e. say some when he began to reign in his own right which he could not do until his Brother Iehoahaz was dead But suppose we grant that those words When we began to reign do refer to the time when he was first made King by Pharaoh nechoh there might be an interval of time between Nechohs removing Iehoahaz and substituting Iehoiakim in his place When he had remov'd Iehoahaz from the Kingdom he either took him along with him from Ierusalem to Riblah or sent for him thither Riblah according to St. Hieron in Ezek. 47. was Antioch in Syria and accordingly the Targ. Ionath and Ierus in Num. 34.11 interpret Riblah to be Dophne as also others tell us that Antioch was built out of the ruins of an ancient City call'd Riblah Now Antioch was at a considerable distance from Ierusalem and a proportionable time must be allow'd for Iehoahaz's journey from Ierusalem thither and the same time if not more for Nechoch's march from thence to Iudea to order the affairs of the Country also some time for the settling those affairs and how long he might stay at Riblah after Iehoahaz's coming thither we know not All this may make it reasonable to believe that a considerable space of time did intervene between Iehoahaz's removal from and Iehoiakims entrance upon the Kingdom which is mentioned only after Iehoahaz's being bound in Riblah and the settling the Tribute in Iudea See 2 Kings 23.33 34. The Thesis of which Scaliger gives his judgment in the small Tract before-mention'd is this That between the end of Iehoahaz's reign and the beginning of Iehoiakims there interven'd the space of two years more or less This position he endeavours to overthrow by sundry arguments but the answering them will not require much time or pains In the first he only begs the thing in question viz. That after that Iehoahaz had continu'd three months in the
Kingdom Nechoh presently appointed Iehoiakim to succeed The third and fourth Arguments depends upon this That there must be a Septenary number of years between Hezekiahs fourteenth year and the destruction of the Temple as also between Moses's death and the destruction of it To us therefore who acknowledge no necessity of a Septenary number of years these arguments signifie as little as the first His second Argument only remains which is this The fourth year of Iehoiakim was the twenty third from the thirteenth of Iosiah Jer. 25.1 3. from which to the beginning of the reign of Iehoahaz were nineteen compleat years from thence to the beginning of the fourth year of Iehoiakim compleat three years and so from the thirteenth of Iosiah to the beginning of Iehoiakims fourth year were twenty two compleat therefore the twenty third year Ier. 25. was only current But if an interregnum of two years had interven'd it had not been the twenty third year but the twenty fifth thus he For answer Scaliger tells us not what ground he had to reckon compleat nineteen years from the thirteenth of Iosiah to the beginning of the reign of Iehoahaz Iosiah reign'd 31 years substract 13 out of 31 and there remains 18. Reckon then 18 years to the beginning of Iehoahaz's reign two from the beginning of his to the beginning of Iehoiakims and then as Scaliger himself computes three years to the beginning of Iehoiakims fourth year and you have exactly the number of twenty three years according to Ier. 25. I only add that though Scaliger would by no means allow of any Interregnum between Iehoahaz and Iehoiakim yet the learned Cappellus was not so averse from admitting one For he allots a whole year to Iehoahaz although the Scripture says that he reign'd only three months viz. He conceiv'd that there was a vacancy or interregnum of nine months Having thus examined the Arguments that are brought to support Cappellus's assertion I shall now propose one or two on the other side to prove that Iehoahaz was the elder Brother Arg. 1. If Iehoahaz was the same with Iohanan then he was certainly the elder Brother for of Iohanan it is said expresly 1 Chron. 3.15 that he was the first born Some say that he is call'd the first born not in respect of birth but of dignity because he was thought most worthy to succeed his Father in the Kingdom But this needs no confutation or if it did Tostatus in 1 Chron. 3. hath refuted it sufficiently As to Iehoahaz's being the same with Iohanan a late writer says that all Commentators are agreed in it But I must not say that partly because I have not consulted all Commentators as it seems that Author hath partly because I have met with sundry Commentators that are of a different opinion Yet I could easily produce several very judicious Expositors both Christian and Jewish that have thought Iehoahaz to be Iohanan But I shall rather chuse to prove it by this plain argument Iehoahaz being the son of Iosiah must of necessity be either Iohanan or Shallum this Scaliger urgeth but it hath been prov'd above that he could not be Shallum and so he must be Iohanan Arg. 2. He that succeeds his Father in the Kingdom should by the Law of Nations be the eldest son this Scaliger grants but Iehoahaz succeeded his Father in the Kingdom Having thus considered the arguments on both sides as diligently and impartially as I can I judge it most agreeable to the Scripture-history to say that Iehoahaz was the eldest son of Iosiah as being the same with Iohanan All the difficulty that this puts us upon is The admitting an Interregnum of a year and nine months between the end of Iehoahaz's three months and the beginning of the reign of Iehoiakim or of not so much if Iehoahaz's twenty three years 2 Kings 23.31 were compleat and Iehoiakims twenty fifth year v. 36. was only current This seems to me not comparable to the insupportable difficulties that attend the other opinion The second passage in the Learned Cappellus which we shall examine but more briefly is this When Iehoahaz is said to to be twenty three years old and Iehoiakim twenty five he suspects that thirteen should be read instead of twenty three and fifteen instead of twenty five His reason is because if Iehoiakim had been twenty five years old when he began to reign he must have been born when his Father was but fifteen years of age and conceiv'd when he was but fourteen accordingly if Iehoahaz had been twenty three years of age his Father must have been only of the age of sixteen when he was born Now it seemed to him very inconsistent with Iosiahs piety to begin to beget Children so soon Answ. 1. I cannot but judge it very agreeable to that good Kings Piety to make use of the proper remedy against means to subdue youthful Lusts. Some have believ'd that Solomon was neither fifteen nor fourteen years of age when he begat Rehoboam whether they had firm grounds for their belief I shall not dispute see St. Hieron epist. ad Vitale 2. Cappellus in saying that Iosiah was but fourteen years old when he begat Iehoiakim proceeds upon his former mistake that Iehoiakim was elder than Iehoahaz but according to our Hypothesis Iehoiakim was not conceived till Iosiahs fifteenth year or the beginning of his sixteenth FINIS