The record in the Book of Kings gives us no information respecting the events of this long reign, except that Uzziah fell a victim to leprosy towards its close (2 K 15'). But in 14^- we prob- ably have a fragment from the Annals which refers to his reign, though its somewhat strange position after the section by the redactor (vv."-^') renders
• This secmfl to U8 more probable than the view of Stable (tf VI L p. 609 footn.l) that the name 'Azariah was abbreviated to Mjy (2 K 2118 'garden of 'Uzza,' cf. 2 8 0>), and that the name' Utziali grew out of th« latter. For 'llzz.t is not iinprobabty tlie name of a deity, u 2 K 21ii> and 2 8 U» seem to indicate. On the Arabian AJ-'Uzza see Bai-lhgen, Bntrnije ziir Sem. Rfiigiatu- grtch. p. lU ; Konin, 6:1. 1:1 ; Wellhauseli, Jiitfe^, p. jl ff.
844
UZZIAH (AZARIAH)
UZZIAH (AZAEIAH)
Hs interpretation uncertain. Wo there read that Elath, llie chief port of Edora, whicli was of great commercial vahie to Judah as an outlet as well as inlet for commerce, was again recovered to Judah by the successful military enter])iise of Azariah after his. father's disastrous overthrow by Jehoash king of Israel had entailed its temporary loss. Owing to the leprosy wliich attacked Uzziah towards the end of his long reign, he was com- pelled to go into retirement,* while his son Jotham discharged the roj'al functions (sssr) in his place.
Such is all that can be learned about this monarch in 2 Kings. The Book of Chronicles (2 Ch 20'"-") adds to the above narrative a number of details. (1) We have an account of the military preparations and exploits of tlie king, and also of his agricultural pursuits. (2) We have a llaggadic narrative attached to the fact of the king's lepro.sy which ascribes the latter to Divine judgment on him for attempting to fullil tha priestly function of ottering incense on the altar of incense. Kittel in liis History of the Hebrews attempts to defend the historicity of this conflict between the royal and priestly authority ; t but it is quite clear that t'le form of the narrative is based on the tra- dition of the P passages in Ex 30'- ^^ Nu 17° 18'. Furthermore, the name of the chief priest Azariah probably originated from the older alternative name of Uzziah himself, who, like Solomon and all royal personages (cf. the Assyr. kings who assumed the oHice of patcsi), exercised priestly functions.
But the military exploits and preparations of Uzziah recorded in 2 Ch 26"'" cannot be dismissed as unhistorical, since they serve to explain facts in subsequent history which would otherwise remain obscure. We read that Uzziah eiiuip[)ed an armed host of 307,500 men, and fortihed Jeru- salem, and provided it with engines of war. He also conducted a successful campaign against the Piiilistines, and stormed the cities of Gaza, Jabneh, and Ashdod, and also conquered the Arabians and Ammonites. Subsequently recorded events render many if not all of these details exceedingly prob- able, though here, as so often in Chronicles, the numerical statements are exaggerated, (a) That Jerusalem was fortihed and provided with means of defence during the reign of Uzziah, is rendered exceedingly probable by the account of its defence in the days of tlezekiafi, which has come to us not only in the record of 2 K IS'^t-, but in the Taylor cylinder of Sennacherib {col.ii. 69-col. iii. 41), which, in describing the invasion of Palestine by Senna- clierib, expressly mentions (1) the forty-six fortihed towns (col. iii. 13) captured by the Assyrians ; (2) that the Philistine town Ekron [ir Amkarntna) was under the control of Pezel^iah, and that the king Padi, a puppet of Assyria, was delivered up to the king of Judah (col. ii. 70(1'.). Now, it is reasonable to conclude that the control of Philistia by yezclyiah was probably due to the strong military policy of Uzziah described by the Chron- icler, who must have derived his information from annals of his reign from which the redactor of the Books of Kings did not draw. Certainly, the reign of Ahaz, distracted by the troubles of the Syro-Epliraimite invasion and weakened by subservience to Assyria, was not the time when strong defensive measures would be adopted. In-
•The text here is uncertain. The Heh. text has n'iprnn n'35, LXXi,«rxw at:^e'jirtLO(ct. 2Ch 2621). Jud^'ingfrora the well. known meaning of Vi: n, this can mean only ' in a free house,' i,e. free from the intrusion of others. The expression, however, is very strange, and Kittel is warranted in accepting the ingenious emendation of Elostemiann, n'O'ir; .nn'3^ ' In his bouse unmolested,' n'^Sfl) being an adverb with the ending n*-i-, A0 In /l'3*]ht{ (Gn 933).
t Gacli. tUr Htb. IL p. 281.
deed we know that Philistia was instit'ated to revolt by the confederacy of the two Northern kings, (b) The mention of Arabians (col. iii. 31) among the troops which defended Jerusalem against Sennacherib sustains the statement of the Chron- icler that Uzziah subjugated the Arabs, and this is probably to be connected with the recovery of Edom and the port of Elath to which 2 K 14^ refers, (c) Kittel lays stress on the prosperity of Judah in the days of Ahaz, of which Is 2 and 3 furnish abundant evidence. This is best explained as due to the consolidation of the resources and power of the Southern Kingdom during the long and prosperous reign of Uzziah described in 2 Ch 26. This view is ably sustained by McCurdy in the Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 388 ff.