4

Gilgal,' or Jericho,2-were incorporated with some others in the northern kingdom. Only a few indications3 remain to enable us to trace the interdigitations of the frontier thus constituted between the two kingdoms; and we know that it was an occasional subject of dispute. If, however, the tribe of Benjamin was thus divided, it is clear that that portion which was not added to Judah would enter the northern kingdom as a separate tribe. While, however, the northern kingdom was composed of ten tribes, the tenth being at any rate only partially curtailed, and a certain diversity among the tribes could still make itself felt, the southern kingdom consisted of Judah alone, as an independent tribe, in which Simeon was already virtually absorbed, and to which were attached portions of Benjamin as well as some other small territories which possessed no individual importance. This, at any rate, was in accordance with the oldest and simplest view of the twelve sons of Jacob, and it became the popular and recognised expression. The loss of Simeon might be considered more than made up by the division of Joseph into two tribes. It is, however, obvious that there might be other modes of reckoning, according to which the northern kingdom would include only nine tribes and a half.6

5

The division of the Davidic monarchy further involved the division of empire over the foreign nations hitherto subject to

It appears as belonging to this kingdom in Amos iv. 4, v. 5; Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15; 2 Kings ii. 1, iv. 38; cf. also ii. p. 244 sqq.

2 According to 1 Kings xvi. 34, 2 Kings

ii. 4 sqq.

The only passage from which we may gather a little more definitely the extent of the kingdom of Judah north of Jerusalem is Is. x. 28-32; such at least was its extent at the time of Isaiah. According to this passage, Aiath, the most northern place mentioned, was not far from Bethel, since it is certainly to be identified with Ai; see ii. p. 247 sqq. Further, the city of Geba (Is. x. 28) which probably lay on the direct highway to the north, was often quoted to indicate the northern limit, just as Rimmon or Beersheba represented the extreme southern; Zech. xiv. 10, 2 Kings xxiii. 8; cf. 1 Kings xv. 22.

So, for instance, a tedious war was undertaken by the kingdom of the Ten Tribes for the city of Ramah in Benjamin, 1 Kings xv. 17-22; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 19. 5 The most complete designation of the

southern kingdom is found, therefore, in the words 1 Kings xii. 23, cf. v. 21, 'the whole house of Judah with Benjamin and the rest of the people.' 'The rest of the people' included, for instance, Simeon, as much of it at least as still possessed any name, as well as the territory of the city of Ziklag, iii. p. 99 sqq. This latter place certainly belonged, according to Josh. xix. 5, cf. xv. 31, in the earliest age to the tribe of Simeon; long before the time of David, however, it came into the possession of the Philistines, and was not reunited to Judah till his time. That Simeon was not included in the possessions of Judah might be deduced from the narrative in 2 Chron. xv. 9, cf. xxxiv. 6 alone; but the Chronicler is here giving a free representation in his own style, and besides only mentions Simeon in passing.

6 The northern kingdom is said to have been composed of nine tribes and a half by Baruch, Ep. Syr., as well as in 4 Ezr. xiii. 40, according to the true reading in the Arabic; the Ethiopic here has nine, the Latin ten.

Israel. Those on the north, together with those east of the Dead Sea, as far as Moab, naturally fell to the northern kingdom; while, in like manner, those on the south, including Edom, which derived special importance from its harbour, could not be easily severed from Judah. In fact, it was on the south that there was the least likelihood of disturbance of the rule of Judah. The conquests of David had secured to it a vast tract of country, extending to the western and eastern arms of the Red Sea. The development of commerce in Solomon's time had rendered the continued possession of Edom highly desirable; and the losses now sustained by Judah in other quarters evidently excited a proportionate effort for the preservation of these provinces. The Philistine territories ought, for the most part, to have fallen to Judah; but they extended on the north to the frontiers of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. In face of the jealousy between the two kingdoms any collision would be dangerous, as it might make it all the easier for the Philistines to accomplish their ever-active desire, and throw off the yoke of Israel.

2

But the kingdom of the Ten Tribes had a greater source of pride in its national importance than in its superiority of population. There might be a brighter glow on Judah and Jerusalem of modern glory and prosperity; but it was the kingdom of the Ten Tribes which preserved the proudest traditions and relics of a remote antiquity. There was the memory of Jacob, bound up so intimately with ancient sanctuaries in the very heart of the sacred land; there was the renown of Joseph's splendid rule in Egypt in days gone by; there was the dignity of the tribe of Joseph, which had risen under Joshua to be the leading tribe in Canaan also, and had never since entirely relinquished its privileges; there were all the holy places which, in the time of Joshua, had been made the joy and bond of the whole people, and which, in spite of Jerusalem, still possessed for many hearts an undiminished sanctity. Moreover, it evidently continued to be a general belief that the soil of central Canaan was the sacred land which gave birth to monarchs, and without possessing which no one could be a proper king in Israel.3 And so, though Judah might separate itself, this kingdom might well

1 Amos vi. 14 proves that the NahalArabim in the south-east, also called the Zered, which bounded Moab on the south, was also the boundary of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes (cf. ii. p. 200 sqq.); it might also be said in a general way that the boundary was formed by the end of

the Dead Sea, 2 Kings xiv. 25.
2 Vol. i. p. 306 sq.

This had been also proved by the time which elapsed before Ish-bosheth was anointed and recognised as king, iii, pp. 109, 112, sq.

seem capable of taking the place of the glorious Israel of old, and its monarchs of carrying on the reign of Saul with its storms of war. It thus assumed without opposition the name of Israel.' In more elevated language the prophets (Amos, for instance) also called it Jacob, or sometimes Isaac, or Joseph; but the contemptuous designation of it, simply as Ephraim, after the half tribe of Joseph, was a bold innovation of the prophet Hosea, first introduced towards the time of its dissolution, in which he was followed by other prophets of a similar spirit.'

The most important feature, however, and at the same time the source of the greatest temptations, in the separation of this kingdom from Judah, was the opportunity which it now had of avoiding all the errors into which the house of David had fallen. during the last years of Solomon. This was, in fact, the real object of its existence, in order that it might thus attain a more perfect form of monarchy. It was to this that all the best hopes of the nation were transferred, while even the most influential prophets had desired, or at any rate had not hindered, the change in the ruling family; and it was certainly expected that as the house of David had formerly surpassed that of Saul, so the new line of Jeroboam would far outshine that of David. This advance was to be secured by the severe discipline and chastisement freely practised by the prophets alike on king and people ;-a camp of prophets beside a camp of kings.

But this belief in the possibility of improving, and even perfecting the monarchy by merely changing the dynasty, and increasing the severity of the prophetic discipline, was the great mistake of the age. Shared in both by prophetism and by the deepest and most spiritual power of subsequent centuries, in the course of events it inevitably exerted the same force for the destruction of the new kingdom as it had previously done for its creation. It was very possible for a man just called to the

For instance, by the unknown prophet, Zech. ix.; and later by Isaiah. Hosea himself does not use the name Ephraim till after the mocking address iv. 17. On the other hand, after its fall, later prophets rightly return to the name Israel, as in Jer. iii. 6 sqq. Conversely, if the name Israel is at times confounded with Judah, it is only permitted in higher style, and in a connexion in which there is no possibility of any misunderstanding. The name of Jacob seems to be sometimes given to Judah in contrast to Israel as the higher name, Jer. ii. 4, cf. 3; Obad. VOL. IV.

*

B 3

18; Is. xlvi. 3. Besides, it may be remarked that the more general name Israel began to be more frequently used for Judah as the kingdom of the Ten Tribes declined, or after it had been long destroyed; thus in the Chronicles Israel is sometimes equivalent to Judah. Among the historical books, Chronicles alone often designate those who belonged to the northern kingdom as 'sons of Ephraim.' In Neh. ii. 3 [2] Jacob seems to stand for Judah in the same sentence in which Israel stands for the other kingdom.

throne out of the dust,' struck by the strength and truth of prophetic utterance, and touched by the prophetic consecration, to enter on his duties with the best intentions, as has been represented typically with wonderful truth in the elevation of Saul.2 But as soon as he had seized the reins of government, he could not help desiring, if he were a person of energy (and no one who was not would be selected), to exercise the whole power of the crown in the complete form in which he had already seen it at Jerusalem; for it is characteristic of it to comprise all departments of the State in its authority, and bring everything into a closer unity. He might be expected, therefore, to make many changes in the arrangements prevailing in Jerusalem, but he would fall back essentially into the same method of government; and in seeking to liberate himself from the great power of the prophets, he would the more readily slide, in the absence of any strong barriers of law to oppose him, into that system of arbitrary rule which he ought to avoid, and would thus alienate himself from the pure religion of Jahveh as much as he ought to have approximated to it. This, again, could not satisfy the prophets of Jahveh. They therefore soon raised whispers of misgiving or louder threats against the same king and his house whom their words had elevated. And so one dynasty was overthrown after another, in consequence, partly at any rate, of the restlessness excited by the opposition of the prophets. The whole of the history of this kingdom, for more than two centuries and a half, is resolved, in the last resort, into the contest, gigantic alike by the forces brought into play and the length of its duration, between the two independent powers of the ancient community, prophetism and the crown. The same prophetism which had formerly been instrumental under Samuel in establishing the monarchy in Israel in accordance with the national wish, had now founded the new kingdom, and might well consider itself, or rather Jahveh himself, by whose spirit it felt itself supported, as its true founder. And so it conceived an irresistible desire which was in fact really noble and unselfish, to watch over the young monarchy; nor must this burning longing, innocent enough in spite of the error it concealed, be confounded with the contrivances of the Papacy of the Middle Ages to secure worldly advantages. But still the perfect king whom they looked for

3

1 Comp. the expression of the older composer of the history of the kings, 1 Kings xiv. 7, or that of the poet of the same period, 1 Sam. ii. 8.

2 Vol. iii. p. 15 sqq.

Only compare the real purport of such grand descriptions as that of the unknown prophet of the eighth century, Zech. xi. 4-17, xiii. 7-9, as well as the whole of the book of Hosea.

i

1

1

would not come; and every new dynasty fell into the faults of its predecessor, or into others still worse. The opposition on either side became more and more intense and irreconcilable. The crown soon took to prosecuting prophetism with deadly hatred; but in the severest persecution it only rose with astounding power irresistibly triumphant, while its mere word acquired far more incisive and destructive force on the one hand, or was more salutary and strengthening on the other, than all the material weapons and expedients of the kings.' Yet when victorious, it neither would nor could retrieve the monarchy. The consequence was that the great complications and revolutions which were involved in the very origin of this kingdom speedily reappeared, until at length the monarchy succeeded in ridding itself of prophetism altogether: but with it the realm itself was torn from its base; rescue was impossible; and there was nothing left for it but headlong ruin.

2

After its attempt to surpass the glory of David, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, on relapsing, partly on purpose, partly under the compulsion of events, into the condition of the infant monarchy under Saul without finding any David to deliver it, sank altogether into the most perilous condition of that earlier period. The great progress in general refinement, art, and civilisation, which had been begun in Israel by the two last kings, was violently broken off and repressed in this Israel of the Ten Tribes, so old and yet so young,-indeed, to some extent, when the antagonism was more fully developed, intentionally so; and while the kingdom wished to advance in its own way, this internal reaction against the spiritual blessings acquired elsewhere and their tranquil development hurled it back into the instability, the anarchy, and the weakness of the period of the Judges, from which it never succeeded in effecting its escape. Of course all the evils concealed in this perverse retrogression gradually came to the surface; but the germ of dissolution lay in the origin of the kingdom itself, and its fall was the inevitable consequence of its fundamental principles. Yet in the ever-increasing confusion of the kingdom, the old religion still proved its wonderful power. To it belonged some of the greatest of the prophets; many of its kings, like the

1 The clearest evidence of this is found in proverbs and expressions such as Hos. vi. 5; Zech. xi. 9 sqq.; 1 Kings xix. 17; 2 Kings i. 10-14 on the one side, and such as 2 Kings ii. 12, xiii. 14, Zech. xi. 7 on the other. How the two independent powers could confront each other like two camps, may be seen from narratives like

2 Kings vi. 31-33.

2 There is much resemblance in this to the manner in which the Reformation of the sixteenth century was put down by violence in many German as well as other countries. The consequences on either side were in many respects similar.