[209] As is done in chap. vi. 2, ix. 7.
[210] So against Israel in chap. iv.
[211] So Isa. v. 25: נטויה ידו ועוד אפו שב לא Cf. Ezek. xx. 22: ידי את והשיבותי
[212] פשעים
[213] Called _lûh_, _i.e._ slab.
[214] These Syrian campaigns in Gilead must have taken place between 839 and 806, the long interval during which Damascus enjoyed freedom from Assyrian invasion.
[215] 2 Kings viii. 12; xiii. 7: cf. above, p. 31.
[216] _He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram, and into the hand of Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael, continually_ (2 Kings xiii. 3).
[217] No need here to render _prince_, as some do.
[218] So the LXX.
[219] The present Baalbek (Baal of the Beḳ'a?). Wellhausen throws doubt on the idea that Heliopolis was at this time an Aramean town.
[220] ix. 7.
[221] Doughty: _Arabia Deserta_, I. 335.
[222] On the close connection of Edom and Gaza see _Hist. Geog._, pp. 182 ff.
[223] See _Hist. Geog._, pp. 194 ff. Wellhausen thinks Gath was not yet destroyed, and quotes vi. 2; Micah i. 10, 14. But we know that Hazael destroyed it, and that fact, taken in conjunction with its being the only omission here from the five Philistine towns, is evidence enough. In the passages quoted by Wellhausen there is nothing to the contrary: vi. 2 implies that Gath has fallen; Micah i. 10 is the repetition of an old proverb.
[224] Farrar, 53; Pusey on ver. 9; Pietschmann, _Geschichte der Phönizier_, 298.
[225] To which Wellhausen inclines.
[226] Gen. x.
[227] Under Asarhaddon, 678-676 B.C., and later under Assurbanipal (Pietschmann, _Gesch._, pp. 302 f.).
[228] And he omits it from his translation.
[229] So far from such an omission proving that the oracle is an insertion, is it not more probable that an insertor would have taken care to make his insertion formally correct?
[230] There seems no occasion to amend with Olshausen to the _kept_ of Psalm ciii. 9.
[231] Read with LXX. לנצח שׁמר, though throughout the verse the LXX. translation is very vile.
[232] In other two passages, Boṣrah, the city, is placed in parallel not to another city, but just as here to a whole region: Isa. xxxiv. 6, where the parallel is the _land of Edom_, and lxiii. 1, where it is _Edom_. There is therefore no need to take Teman in our passage as a city, as which it does not appear before Eusebius.
[233] Under Rimmân-nirari III. (812-783). See Buhl's _Gesch. der Edomiter_, 65: this against Wellhausen.
[234] Wellhausen, _in loco_.
[235] 2 Sam. viii. 13, with 1 Kings xi. 16.
[236] 1 Kings xi. 14-25.
[237] 2 Kings iii.
[238] 2 Kings viii. 20-22.
[239] 2 Kings xiv. 10.
[240] 2 Chron. xxvi. 2.
[241] See, however, Buhl, _op. cit._, 67.
[242] It is, however, no reason against the authenticity of the oracle to say that Edom lay outside the path of Assyria. In answer to that see the Assyrian inscriptions, _e.g._ Asarhaddon's: cf. above, p. 129, _n._ 4.
[243] Notably in the recent Armenian massacres.
[244] 2 Kings viii. 12.
[245] xxviii. 2, xxvii. 7, 8, where the Assyrian and another invasion are both described in terms of tempest.
[246] The LXX. reading, _their priests and their princes_, must be due to taking Malcam = _their king_ as Milcom = the Ammonite god. See Jer. xlix. 3.
[247]
"Great Cæsar dead and turned to clay Might stop a hole to turn the wind away."
[248] 2 Kings iii. 26. So rightly Pusey.
[249] Jer. xlviii. 24 without article, but in 41 with.
[250] Though this is claimed by most for Ḳiriathaim.
[251] Moabite Stone, l. 13.
[252] xlviii. 45.
[253] The land's.
[254] The king's.
[255] See above, p. 126.
[256] δυσσεβίας μὲν ὕβρις τέκος (Æschylus, _Eumen._, 534): cf. _Odyssey_, xiv. 262; xvii. 431.