The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament - The Search For ...

XV
that Hoshea was placed on the throne by Assyrian influence, as may
be inferred from Vol. I p. 247 foil. 251, it does not follow that his
rule was recognized by Israel. If we assume an anarchic interregnum
and that the formal recognition of Hoshea's sovei-eignty did not take
place till 730, we might connect with this the social disorders described
by the prophet Hosea in chapters IV and V. These, however, might
with better reason be referred to Menahem's reign. But such an interregnum
is implied in Hos. X. 3. 4. — If we accept the view of Barth
which identifies the rod in Is. XIV. 29 with Tiglath Pileser II, we seem
to have in the brief section (verses 28— 32) an indication that the death
of Tiglath-Pileser and that of Ahaz took place at nearly the same
time. There are valid grounds, however, for doubting this. Verse 28
and the following superscriptions or prefaces came probably from a
later editorial hand. On verse 28 see Prof. Cheyne's introductory note
Vol. I p. 95, Srd ed. (1884). — The association of Hezekiah with Ahaz
may have been due to the effort of the latter to strengthen his dynastic
position in face of the Egyptian party who opposed the Assyrian alliance
We know that in the Northern kingdom this party gained the upper
hand and brought about a complete change in the policy of Hoshea
about this time. This could not fail to react on the politics of Jeru-
salem. Isaiah's prophecies of a divine ruler of Jesse's seed acquire
additional significance if we regard them as the ideal counterpart sug-
gested to the mind of the prophet by the youthful co-regent Hezekiah.
The idea is not yet exj^ressed in Is. VII. 14 foil, but is manifest in IX. 5.
— Moreover the two-fold system of reckoning, which arose in consequence
of the initial dates of Hezekiah's conjoint reign and of his
sole reign (2 Kings XVIII. 9 and 13), finds a parallel in the case of
Jotham in which the apparent discrepancy of 2 Kings XV. 30 and 33
may be explained from a similar cause. Lastly the dates assigned on
p. 821 for the accession of Ahaz and the accession (i. e. beginning of
the sole reign) of Hezekiah harmonize much better with the respective
ages of Ahaz and Hezekiah on their accession to the throne of Judah
(2 Ki. XVI. 2, XVIII. 2).
Bredenkamp in his recent commentary on Isaiah (pp. 2 and 98)
places the death of Ahaz and of Salmanassar in the year 723, the
latter being identified with the 'rod' (XIV. 29). But we have no evi-
dence that Salmanassar ever undertook a campaign against the Philis-
tines. Also the proposed date solves no chronological difficulty. There
is more historic probability in the view adopted by Cheyne and also
Driver (Isaiah, His Life and Times p. 87 foil.) which refers the 'snake'
to Sargon who died in 705, Sennacherib being the more terrible 'fly-
ing serpent'.