The Religion of the Prophets. — The reign of Jeroboam II. marked the highest point of material prosperity which Israel reached after the dis- ruption, and perhaps the lowest point of Israel's moral degradation. Amos and Hosea, who pro- phesied under Jeroboam and his immediate suc- cessors, met this degradation with a revelation of God which difl'ers in breadth and depth from the Mosaic revelation as sketclied above. God, they taught, was not only Israel's God, but also the God of all the world ; He would not favour Israel regardless of its moral condition, rather He would punish the sinful nation, whether that nation were Israel or another. If it be uncertain whether the Ten Commandments be Mosaic, it is at least certain that they were the code of the prophets of the 8th cent. Amos and Hosea taught Israel to worship One God, a God of Righteous- ness and Purity. But the manner as well as the matter of the teaching of these prophets challenges attention. Unlike Elijah and Elislia, they were 'writing prophets.' A prophet was no longer a voice only ; he left a body of teaching behind him, to serve in the religious education of his people.
8. The Tyranny of Asshur {Assyria). — The con- test between Israel and the Aramseans was ended by the interference of the Assyrians, who crushed both. We may pass over the victory of Shal- maneser II. over a confederate Aram^an-Israelite army in the days of Ihab (B.C. 854), and Jehu's payment of tribute to Shalmaneser (B.C. 842), as well as the boast of Ramman-nirari III. (B.C. 811- 783) that he exacted tribute from the 'land of
Omri.' Assyria declined while Israel flourished under Jeroboam II. (B.C. 782-741). Unfortunately Assyria revived under Tiglath-pileser III. (B.C. 745-727). We need not believe that he liad any- thing to do with Uzziah (Azariali) of Judah* (2 K 15'), but we have monumental references to his defeat of the allied kings I'ekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus (IG'""), and the monuments tell us what the Bible does not, viz. that Ausi'i' (Iloshea) was confirmed as king of Israel by Tiglath - pileser. But Iloshea succeeded to a diminished and depopulated kingdom (2 K 15^) ; the extreme north and the land east of Jordan, after being ravaged, passed perhaps into the hands of some faithful client of Asshur. It would have been well for the kingdom of Samaria, if it had had only the open foe (Assyria) to reckon with ; unfortunately, however, the false friend (Egypt) played a decisive part. From the days of T hut- mosis (Thotlimes) III. (B.C. 1500?) of the eighteenth dynasty and Ramses II. of the nineteenth, Egypt had looked on Canaan as within the sphere of her ' influence ' ; and, even when lower Egypt was divided among petty princes, one of these ' So ' t (2 K l"'') could not resist tlie temptation to claim a footing in Palestine by intriguing with Iloshea of Samaria against the Assyrians (see EOVPT, vol. i. p. 663»). Shalmaneser IV. (B.C. 727-722), the successor of Tiglath-iiileser, ' found conspiracy in Hoshea,' marched against Israel, and laid siege to Samaria (2 K 11*'-), which was taken by Sargon (Is 20'), a usurper (B.C. 722-705) who succeeded Shalmaneser (AV /J ii. 54, 55). Sargon tells us, 'I led forth (ailula) 27,290 of those who dwelt in the midst of it' ; according to 2 K 17* Israel was transported to Mesopotamia and Media. In any case the land was grievously depopulated ; for even after colonists had been brought in from Baby- lonia and northern Syria (2 K 17"), so much of the land still lay waste that lions increased and committed great ravages.
Israel having been crushed, Sargon marched against So (Sib'u) of Egypt and Hanun of Gaza, the confederates of Hoshea, and defeated them at Rapliia (Rajjihi) on the border of Egypt. The Pharaoh (Pir'u), plainly a ditferent person from So, thereupon prudently paid ' tribute, and Sargon retired.
Of the subsequent history of what had been the northern kingdom we know (until the time of the Return) only two facts. (1) Samaria was involved with Hamath, Arpad, and Damascus in a futile rising against Sargon (KIB ii. 56, 57). (2) In the decline of the Assyrian power Josiah was able to carry out his reforming measures in Bethel (2 K 23"), the ' chapel ' of the northern kin'js (Am 7"), and in the cities of Samaria generally (2 K 23").
The capture of Samaria and the march of Sargon to the Egyptian frontier revealed the danger in which Judah stood from the Assyrians.
Three policies now presented themselvea to Hezekiah. (1) He might ally himself (not as Hoshea with a kinglet of lower Egypt, but) ■vvith the growing power of Ethiopia (Is IS"- 20'), under Sabakon (B.C. 707-G95), who is perhaps meant, though his successor, 'Tirhakah (B.C. 690-664), is named in 2 K 19". Thus supported, Judah mig'ht perhaps defy Assyria. (2) He might (like liis father Ahaz) throw himself without any serious invitation into the arms of the king of Assyria, and accept his protection, his yoke, and his god, or at least his altar (2 K \&-'^^). (3) He might accept the assurance of J" given through Isaiah of the safety of Jerusalem and of those who took refuge in it (Is 28"' 29' 30" 31"-). According to this