The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Kings — Section 292

oft.he prrsom abont the court. having hea.rd lin,rto him. And taught them-i.e. the new of the m11tter, reported it to him as one re- settlers -how they should fear the Lord, quiring consideration and remedy. Hence 'fhis worship could only be that of the oalf- the use of the third person instead of the pricsts instituted by Jeroboam, whioh woe, first.. The nations whioh thou he.st removed, however, most certainly a worship of Je- and plaoed in the oitiea of SILlllaria (see ver. hovah, and an imitation or travesty of the 24), !..-now not the manner of the God of temple• worship at Jerusalem. Whell1er the laud. It was the general belief of the the returned priest set up II new C11lf-idol, heathen nations of antiquity that each to replace the one whioh hod heen carried country and nation had its own god or off to Assyri11 (Hos. x. 5), is doubtful. gods, who presided over its destinies, pro- Ver. 29.-Howbeit every nation made t.ected it, went out at the head of its armies, gods of their own, e.nd put them in the and fought for it against its enemies. Eaoh houses of the high plaoea whioh the SILlllari- god had his own "manner," or ritual and tans had made, every nation in their oities method of worship, which was, in some wherein they dwelt. The several bands of respPcts at any rate, different from that settlers found in the cities assigned to them of nil other gods. Unless this ritual a.nd " houses of the high places," or high-place method were known, new-oomers into any temples (ver. 9), which had been left atand- land were almost sure to displease the local ing when the inhabitants were carried off. deity, who did not allow of any depa.rture 'l'hese "houses" they converted to their from traditional usage in his worship. There- own use, setting up in them their several fore he hath sent lions ILlllong them, and, idolatries. behold, they slay them, because they know Ver. 30.-And the men of Babylon me.de not the manner of the God of the land. Suocoth-benoth. There is no deity of this Ver. 27.-Then the Xing of Assyria com- name in the Assyrian or Babylonian lists. me.nded, saying, Carry thither one of the The explanation of the word as" tents" or priests whom ye brought from thenoe. n "huts of daughters,'' which satisfied Selden, does not appear that this was a snggestion Calmet, Gesenius, Winer, Keil, and others, of tile colonists. Either it was the king's is rendered absolutely impossible by the con- Jwn idea, or that of one of his advisers. text, which requires that the word, what- l'he priests, who ministered at the two ever its meaning, should be the no.me of a national sanctuaries-those of Dan and deity. The Septuagint interpreters, while as Bethel-had, as important personages, been much puzzled as others by the word itself, all carrie<l off. Though a " remnant" of at least saw this, and rendered the expres- Israel was left in the land (2 Chron. miv. sion by .,.,iv ::Eov,cxwO B,vl9, showing th0,t 9), they were probably of the baser sort they regarded it as the name of a goddess. (comp. eh. XXY. 12), or at nny rate could not The Babylonian goddess who co1Tesponds be trusted to know the details and intricacies most nearly to the word, and is most likely of the Samaritan ritual. Thus it was neces- to be intended, would seem to be Zirat- sary to send be.ck a priest. And let them go banit, the wife of Merodach (' Tl'D.nsactions and dwell the:-e. We should have expected, of the Society of Biblical Archmology,' vol. "Let him go; " bnt the writer assumes iv. pp. 136-147). Zirat-banit means "the that the priest would have an entourage, creating lady; " but tlie Hebrew interpre• aAsistant. ministers and servants, and so ter seems to have mistaken the first element, says, "Let '',•m go;" but immediately after- which he confounded with Zarat, the Baby- wards. A;iu. let him teach-i!ince he alone lonian for " tents,'' and so translated by would be competent-them the manner of '' Succoth." The goddess Ziro.t-banit was the God of the land. certainly one of the principal deities of Ver. 28.-Then one of the priests whom Babylon, and would be more likely to be they had carried away from Samaria-the selected than any other goddess. Probably country, not the city, as in vers. 24 and 25- she was worshipped in combination with came and dwelt in Bethel. Bethel from a her husband, Mero<lo.ch. And the men of very early time greatly eclipsed Dan. While Cuth-i.e. "Cuthah "-made Nergal. Ner- the allusions to Bethel, commonly called gal was the special <leity of Cutha. He was " Betruwcn " (" House of nothingness" for the Babylonian war-god, an<l ha<l a high "House of God"), a.re frequent in the Is- position in the Assyrian pantheon also. His ruelitish prophets (Hoe. iv. 15; v. 8 ; L 5, no.me appears as an element in the "Ner- 8, 15; Amoa iii. 14; iv. 4; v. 5, 6; vii. gal-sharezer" of Jeremiah (xxxi:x. 3, 13) 10-13), there is but a single distinct o.llu- and the Neriglissar of Ptolemy1md Berosus, siou to Dan (Amos viii. 14). Bethel was And the men of Ho.math me.de Ashima. The- "tl,e king's chapel" and "the king's court" nius conjectures that "Ashima" represent& ( Amos vii. 13). 'l'he priest selected by the Phcenician Eshmoun,one of the Co.biri, or 1-:iargon's o.<lvisers was a Bcthelite priest, and, eight " Great Ones.'' But the etymological returning thither, took up ·the wonhip fa.mi- resemblance of the two words is not close, and CIB, XVII, 1-41.) THE SECOND BOOK OF '!·HE KINGS. 83!)