With the fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 597, the Cap- tivitj' began. Captives had been taken from the country before this, Jer 13'", and possibly still earlier (Dn 1', Berosus in Jos. c. Apiun, i. 19), but this marks an epoch, and from it Kzekiel dates his prophecies ('our captivity,' Ezk 40'). The flower of the nation and the treasures of the temjile were carried oil" to Babylon. By a comparison of 2 K 24'«""' with Jer 52^ (LXX om. Jer ;-.22s-»>) we may infer that the captives included 7iXK) 'men of might,' 3023 of the u])per classes (Jos. Ant. X. vi. 3), an<l lOOO craftsmen. The king himself is stj-led emphatically 'the captive' (1 Ch 3" HV), and seems to have been kept in rirarous imprisonment for 37 years. Evil-Mcrotlach began his reign with an act of gracious clemency by relca.sing .1., now about 5.') years old. The historian (2 K •J.">^"*', .ler 52""**) dwells with evident pleasure on the niarka of respect thenceforth shown to the captive jirince, in whose person the Jewish exiles felt their nation honoured. The long imprisonment of J. proves, if that were necessary, the unhistorical chariu-ter of the notices of him in li.ir I'-"'- and in the History of Su.sanna, assuming that Ili|ipiilyliis and others are right in identifying him with. loakim, Susanna's husband.
Needless difliculty has been raised over the question of J.'s children (implied 1 Ch 3", liar I*, ilt 1"). Whatever lie the truth as to the pareiit- Bge of Shcaltiel, tiio very prophecy which is alleged
r58
JEHOIADA
JEHOIAKIM
to prove his childlessness {Jer 22''-*') mentions his seea twice. Like E/.k 21", it is a declaration of the abrogation of the temporal power of David's line. It explains in what sense he was to be 'childless' (LXX iKK-ripvin-ov, 'proscribed'), 'for no man of his seed shall prosper,' words surely un- meaning if he had no seed at all. According to the Mishna (MiddOth 2), one of the 13 gates of the court of the priests, on the north side, was called the gate of .leconiali, because he went out by it when going into captivity.
N. J. D. White. JEHOIADA (jn;'i.T; * J" knoweth').— i. Father of the famous lienaiah, captain of David's bodyguard, who is scarcely ever mentioned without the addi- tion of his father's name. J. was a native of Kabzeel (2 S 23=", 1 Ch 11"),' a town of Judah in the South ' (Jos 15-'). In 1 Ch 27" AV we read : ' Benaiah the son of J., a cliief priest.' Stanley {Jewiih Ch. Lect. 36) deduces from this that in David's time there were three rival high priests, namely, Zadok, Abiathar, and J. However, in liV ('the priest, chief) 'chief refers to Benaiah (so Targ.) as in V.', and ' the priest' may be referred directly to Benaiali (so LXA.,Vulg., Jos. Ant. vil. xii. 4, B. i leptit T<f -y^rei) or to J. (so Targ.). The latter is supported by 1 Ch 12-'', where, among those wlio came to David to Hebron, is ' J. the leader of the house of Aaron' (tribe of Levi, Jos. Ant. vil. ii. 2). It is not a serious objection that Kabzeel is not reckoned among the priestly cities in Jos 21. KVm of 1 Ch 27' 'chief minister' is certainly wrong, being based on the Chronicler's alterations of the text in 2 S 8"* 20-*, where the term [nb is applied to persons who, in his estimation, were not quali- fied to exercise priestly functions. In 1 Ch 27** among David's counsellors is reckoned 'J. son of Benaiah,' but we should probably read with Bertheau and Graf, ' Benaiah son of J.' 2. High priest (the first who is so styled 2 K 12'°) in the reigns of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Jehoash. His marriage with the princess Jehosheba — the only recorded instance of such a union — possibly con- ferred on J. a status which enabled him the better to carry out his designs. The careful way in which the deposition of Athaliah was planned, and the ipromptitude and thoroughness with which it was carried ont, coupled with the historical importance of the revolution tlius effected, mark J. as perhaps the most eminent of Aaron's successors, not e.xcept- ing Eli. Like Eli he was virtually king, for his influence, which was necessarily paramount during the minority of Jehoash, was naturally exercised (2 K 12^ 2 Ch 24^) untU his death, which must have been quite late in the reign (2 K 12*). In the time of the Captivity (Jer 29^) he is alluded to as the model of a zealous ecclesiastical ruler. One circumstance there is which may seem to modify this conception of him. He was not as eager about the restoration of the temple faljric as was the king ; in fact he received a rebuke for hia slackness (2 K 12', 2 Ch 24»). Josephus (Ant. IX. riii. 2) attributes the high priest's supineness to his consciousness of the unpopularity of the proposed tax, but more probably it was due to the impossibility of reforming a close corporation, such as that of the temple priests, even by such a chief as J. ; especially when the numerous local sanctu- aries, stilf thought legal, diminished their revenues. Ace. to 2 Ch 24'»- " J. lived to the age of 130, and received the unique distinction of burial in the royal sepulchres, ' because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house.' See Athaliah, Jehoash. N. J. D. White.