(c) It may be surprising that so small a people as Israel was able to found an empire whicli stretched from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates. In the south Egypt claimed a hege- mony over Syria; in the north the Uittites (1 K 10-", 2 K 7*) and the Arama'ans (Syrians) were strong, and, lastly, in the east lay the great Assyrian power. But after the reign of Tiglath- pileser I. (c. 1120-1100 B.C.) Assyria was in a state of temporary decline until about the end of the lOth cent. B.C. (McCurdy, HI'M i. § 181) ; and Hu- ll ittites had ceased to exercise an imperial sway (ib. S 179); lastly, from c. 1240 to 930 B.C., under the 20th and 21st dynasties, Egypt was weak and divided (see art. EtiVl'T, vol. i. 602 i). Thus room is left for an Israelite empire, c. 1017-9.37 B.C., the period assigned to the reigns of David and Solomon (see C'HRONOLOCV OF OLD Ti;sT. vol. i. p. 401).
The empire of David and Solomon was greatci in appearance than in realitj", and it was, more over, unstable. Garrisons (or ' governors ' d';"Sy) were placed in Damascus and in Edom (2 S 8'- "), but other provinces simply paid a tribute (cf. ib. v.'"), the amount of which depended, no doubt, on the strength of their fears.
The reign of Solomon was magnificent and oppressive, the very opposite, in fact, of the ideal given in Dt IV^'". lie put 30,000 Israelites to task work (1 K 5'"- ; 1 K 9- is a later gloss), and alienated the northern tribes (12'), already dis- .satislicd with the House of Jesse (2 S 20''') ; he lilled his harem with foreign wives for the sake of prestige and policj', and patronized foreign worship (1 K 11'-') in order to conciliate allied or subject nations. Of twenty years given to building, he devoted seven to the erection of a temple, on wliieli he employed foreign builders (1 K 5'"), and in which he admitted foreign devices, such as the Second Commandment condemns (1 K 0^). Whether Solomon had any strong religious feeling (such as his father had) we cannot tell ; the Prayer of Dedication in 1 K S-^*' is the work of the com- piler of Kings (so Driver, LU'I'' p. 191). On the w hole, he reminds us of the typical Pharaoh, who built, ojvpressed, and boasted of Divine favour. The importance of the Temple must not be ex- aggerated ; David had already made Jerusalem a Iloly City by transferring thither the ark (2 S 6'=).
7. The Hundred i\ais' War with Aratiu — The disruption of Solomon's kingdom relegated the Mjutliern half ('Judah') to a coiiiparalively safe obscurity, and imposed upon the northern half (' Israel ) the task of preventing the Aranm-ans (Syrians) of Dama.scus from advancing to the shores of the Mediterranean. Prom a nation like the Aranueans, eager lor mercantile and material advantages, Israel invited attack in ^Ar« directions. (1) Tlie short route to Tyre by Dan and Abel- betliinaaeah wius worth seizing (I K l.'v"). (2) The fertile plain of Esdraelon wiis valuable in itself, and also because it led to the sea; hence the fortress of Aphek in the I'hilistine plain became a point for Araiiiuan armies to march on (1 K 20-*. 2K 13'-', L.X.X, l.ucian's text; \V. K. Smith, OTJC^ p. 43,'> ; Ksiitailar, Dec. 189.'>. See also .\riiKK). (3) liamothgilcad (precise site uncertain) whs surruundetl by goo<l pa.stiireland, and commanded one of the trade routes which ran east of .lordim lendini; to .Vrnbia (1 K 22").
The kinp of the hou.so of Omri (I K l(3"-2 K 9*) met the Arnmn'an danger with courn^o and skill. Alliances with Tyre (1 K 16") and with
Bli
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
Judah (1 K 22^-<, 2 K 3') secured the left flank and rear of Israel, a new cai)ital well situated for defence was built and fortilied on the hill of Saiuiiria (1 K 10-''), Ahab routed Ben-hadad at Aphek (1 K 20-"), and Joram, it seems, recovered .Runoth-gilead from Hazael (2 K 8-», cf. 9').
The fortune of war changed at lirst under the new dynasty, that of Jehu and his sons. The Aramieans under Ilazael and his successor Ben- hadad began to prevail perhaps in the days of Jeliu himself; they almost annihilated the armies of his successor Jehoahaz, and became masters of all the land east of Jordan (2 K W-'' 13'"'). On one occasion Hazael traversed the northern king- dom, reached Philistine territory, captured Gath, and threatened Jerusalem (12"). The alliiction of Israel in those days was ' very bitter, for there was not. . . any helper for Israel' (14-*). A change came again under Joash, the third king of Jehu's line. He thrice defeated Ben-hadad, and recovered the cities taken by Hazael, presumably the cities east of Jordan (13^, cf. vv."'"). He even found leisure for a civil war with Amaziah of Judah, which ended in the capture of Jerusalem (H'""). But if Joash was the deliverer, Jeroboam II., the son of Joash, was the avenger of Israel. Under him Israel recovered according to 2 K 14^ ' Damascus and Hamath,' according to v.^ ' from the entering in of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah.'
The religious policy of Ahab (the true repre- sentative of the house of Omri in this) was to patronize the Basil-worship of his Tyrian allies and of his half-Canaanite subjects without actually rejecting the r".ligion of J" (IK 18-'). If he allowed Jezebel to slay the prophets of the Lord (18'^), it was doubtless because these propliets were bold enough to protest against such toli;ra- tion, and not merely because they were prophets of J". The work of the great prophet Elijah and of the house of Jehu which embraced his cause (19"), was to inflict such blows on the worshippers of Baal that they never again hoped for any support for their religion from the heads of the Israelite state.