advanced. And hence, in my opinion, the editor of The Historians' History of the World did well when he combined two representations of the history of Israel, one of which is less advanced than the other, but full of matter, and well fitted to interest and instruct the reader.

I have less hesitation in offering a development of some sentences in one of those representations in the History because of the recent surprising discovery that there was a true temple of the God of Israel in Egypt at a time when, as scholars supposed, the Deuteronomic law of the one sanctuary was in full force everywhere. For I am myself unable to interpret the story of King Josiah without the hypothesis that there was a temple of Israel's God in the N. Arabian borderland, for the benefit of Israelites residing in part of that region. To this I will return later. At present, it is most necessary to indicate the sentences referred to, which relate to the only two events in the life of Josiah reported in the scanty Hebrew tradition.

The reform of the cultus, and the prohibition of more than the one sanctuary, were far-reaching measures which affected the daily life of every Israelite. We are even told (2 Kings xxiii. 15-20) that the reformation extended to Beth-el and the cities of Shimron, i.e. to the Negeb. This view of the narrator's meaning is a solid result of criticism, and certainly the detail has no slight verisimilitude. The realm of Judah needed expansion, and what region could Josiah more reasonably covet than the Negeb, so dear to Israelite tradition? Events proved, however, that a greater potentate also had designs upon it, viz. the king of Mizrim. We do not know what race predominated at this time in the ancient Muzri, but we can hardly doubt the fact that the king of a territory adjoining the Negeb, who was at any rate more powerful than Josiah, went upon an expedition against Kidsham (i.e. Kadesh), or perhaps Cusham (i.e. CushamJerahmeel), and found his passage barred by Josiah. A battle took place in Maacath-Migdol (if we rightly read the name) and the king of Judah was mortally wounded. All Judah mourned. The people had lost a king, and were in danger of losing a faith. For the religious law-book promising prosperity to the obedient, which they accepted in deference to the king and the priests, seemed to have been proved a delusion and a snare.

Thus the power most dreaded by Judah is once more the N. Arabian Mizrim, though the race which now predominated in Mizrim had, perhaps, only lately arrived there. The late editor of Kings, however, confounded Mizrim with Mizraim (Egypt), and represented the king whom Josiah encountered as Neku of Egypt; he also confounded the place-name Migdol with Megiddo. It is not impossible that the enterprising Neku of Egypt really did interfere with the affairs of Syria, but if so it was hardly Josiah whom he had to deal with. It appears to be clear from the Hebrew narratives, critically interpreted, that it was first the Mizrites and then the Babelites or Jerahmeelites (i.e. the peoples to which the Hebrew writers, archaising, apply these names) who interfered with southern Palestine.1

To this one more passage ought to be added from an earlier section.

It is too true that the Hebrew texts are often sadly corrupt, but among other things we can still see, underneath the corruption, that the first migration of the Israelites was neither to the western nor to the eastern part of Canaan,

Historians' History, vol. ii. p. 23.

but to the country on the south of Palestine (the Negeb) where the inhabitants had passed (as probably those of Mizrim had also passed) into a settled mode of life and were flourishing agriculturists; their vineyards were especially renowned in ancient legend. This region, in consequence, became the scene of a large number of Hebrew legends, and the sacred spots in it continued to draw reverent pilgrims as late as the fall of the kingdom of Judah (p. 7).

The region referred to was indeed, to the Israelites, a Holy Land, and we cannot wonder that Josiah should covet and, as it appears, annex it. Before his time the kings of (northern) Israel, and those of (the southern) Aram had contended for its possession. It seems to have had a considerable Israelite as well as Yerahmeelite population, and the sanctuaries of the N. Arabian borderland (to which the Negeb, or 'southland,' belonged) had a great attraction even for the Israelites across the border. Unfortunately, though the Israelites had in remote times learned their religion from a kindred Yerahmeelite tribe, yet the progressiveness which characterised the best Israelite religion was deficient (though perhaps not entirely wanting) among the Yerahmeelites. This is why, in the sketch quoted from above, I ventured to call the N. Arabian region a land of opposites,' and why Israelites residing in N. Arabia, and those who crossed the border to frequent N. Arabian sanctuaries, became addicted to antiquated forms of worship, so that a reformation—if such a thing were possible -was urgently demanded.

6

It is usually held that the reformation of Josiah was based upon the theory that righteousness exalteth a nation,' and that the iconoclasm which marked it was an attempt to do away with hindrances to a righteous life; similarly the original book of laws, now expanded into Deuteronomy, is regarded as a popular handbook of righteousness. This is true as far as it goes, but is, in my opinion, insufficient. An examination of Deuteronomy is out of the question here, but it may be possible to re-investigate the story of the reformation. If we refer to 2 Kings xxiii. 4-7, we shall perceive the real nature of the new movement. It was an attack on the harmful cultus developed to its highest degree by Manasseh. What was the origin of this cultus ? Certainly it was not Israelitish; conceivably it was AssyrioBabylonian; more probably it was N. Arabian; Let us see what was done by the chief priests in the temple. At the king's command they brought out all the vessels of Baal and Asherah, and of all the host of heaven, and burned them outside Jerusalem by the Kidron, while the dust' was deliberately carried to Bethel. From the same source (probably) we learn that the venerated symbol of Asherah in the temple was carried to the Kidron burning-place, where it was actually stamped to powder, as if to minimise the risk of malign supernatural influence. Now Baal and Asherah or Ashtart combined were the great N. Arabian duad, and if it be urged that Yahweh (Israel's true God) may also have been worshipped by the N. Arabians,

yet the directive member of the triad thus produced was not Yahweh but Baal.2

The cult of Ashtart being N. Arabian (as well as Phoenician) we are prepared to find that the prostitution of men and women to the impure service of that goddess was also specially N. Arabian; a keen criticism of Deut. xxiii. 18 will, I think, show that it was. Josiah would not permit these any longer to pollute the temple precinct. The king also put down the priests called kemarim (v. 5; Auth. Vers. 'idolatrous priests'). Isaiah too was opposed to them. He says (Isa. ii.)—if I mistake not-that Yahweh has forsaken his people because they are full of kemarim.' The name (original vowels uncertain) is suggestive; it indicates to the scholar that the priests so called were from N. Arabia. The origin was very naturally forgotten; in the papyri relative to the Jews at Elephantiné in Egypt we even find the Aramaic form applied to the Egyptian priests of Khnum.

We are now confronted by a grave difficulty. It is said in 2 Kings xxiii. 8 that the high places on which the priests had offered illegitimate sacrifices were spread about from Geba to Beer-sheba.' Why Geba and Beer-sheba? Is it enough to answer that one was the northern and the other the southern boundary of Judah? But then, how is it that, according to 2 Kings xxiii. 15 (cf. verse 4, end), Josiah extended his iconoclastic campaign to Bethel, which, adopting the ordinary identifications, is certainly to the N. of Geba? To reject the Bethel episode as a fiction would be arbitrary. May we, then, suppose that in the enfeebled condition of Assyria, the king of Judah felt the stirrings of ambition, and aspired to re-unite north and south? The Chronicler (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6, 7, 33) has a similar notion respecting Josiah, but it is possible that he developed imaginatively statements in his authority which had a different reference. Indeed, unless all the evidence for a N. Arabian reference elsewhere is fallacious, one cannot think that the violent acts of Josiah were performed in a district of N. Israel. As things are, one cannot avoid holding that the names Geba, Beer-sheba, and Bethel-each of which may easily have been borne by more than one place-here indicate places in that part of the N. Arabian borderland which had been occupied by Josiah. This goes together with a conjecture that in the same verse a shortened form of 'Yehudah' (Judah) has been written by an error instead of a shortened form of Yerahmeel.'

I am aware that to place Bethel in the N. Arabian borderland has historical consequences. So has the conjecture, not unsupported by evidence, that there was a Shimron in that borderland as well as a Shōměrōn (Samaria) in N. Israel. The narrator in 2 Kings xxiii. 19 says that Josiah's dealings with the high places erected by the kings

2 In explanation see Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel (A. & C. Black, 1907) index, 'God.'

of Israel in the cities of Shōměrōn (or Shimron) were in accordance with all the acts that he had done at Bethel. What were those acts? Destructive, that goes without saying. Not only in Jeroboam's time, but afterwards, the cult at Bethel was diametrically opposed to strict Yahwistic religion. This appears from the vivid narrative in Amos vii. 10-13; indeed, the references to Bethel and Shomeron (or Shimron) throughout the Book of Amos all contribute something to the new point of view. Here, it is true, we have the later phrase 'the cities of Shomeron'; i.e. Shomeron (or Shimron) has become a regional name. We find the same phrase in 2 Kings xvii. 26, where we read of the colonists with whom the king of Asshur filled up the places of the 'displanted' Israelites; in verse 29 these colonists are called Shōměrōnim. The English Bible, following the exegetical tradition, interprets Shomeron Samaria' and Shomeronim 'Samaritans.' Whether this is right, however, may be questioned. Has there not been a confusion between the Assyrian conquest of Shomeron or Samaria and the Asshurite or N. Arabian conquest of Shimron, with the adjacent cities? So far as I can see, this is probably the case, and I am prepared to support this by explanations of the names of places and of gods in 2 Kings xvii. 30, 31, which are in harmony with this view. If therefore we accept 2 Kings xxiii. 19, 20 as correct, the sanctuaries connected with the altars in the Israelite part of the Negeb were desecrated and the priests slain on the altars.

But were all the sanctuaries in the Negeb really destroyed or at least desecrated? It must at any rate be admitted that we no longer possess a thoroughly authentic account of the reformation. Even those who cannot bring themselves to adopt altogether the present writer's criticisms will not deny that the original text has, in a number of passages, been corrupted or manipulated. In other words my view (based on textual criticism of Deuteronomy) is at least possible, that there was a place in the Negeb, the name of which underlies a cryptic phrase in the traditional text of Deuteronomy-a place where there was a sanctuary sanctioned by the compiler of the lawbook, and therefore of course by Josiah. The name of that place was apparently Asshur-Yarham, and, according to a plausible solution of a difficult textual problem, a city called 'Yehoasshur,' or perhaps 'Yarḥam-Asshur,' is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii. 8, where it underlies the absurd and inexplicable 'Joshua the governor,' and also in the same passage, awkwardly written, in the form Asshur-Ishmael,' where it underlies the trivial notice, ' which were on a man's left hand.' The bearings of this result, and of the corresponding result in Deuteronomy, if admitted, on the history of Jewish religion, will be obvious to the thoughtful reader.

Thus, both in Judah proper and in the Judaite territory over the border, the N. Arabian cults were put down, and the life of the people was, to outward appearance, re-organised on the basis of a sacred

law-book. There was, however, another potentate who had designs both on the Negeb and on Judah; it was the king of Mizraim (Egypt) or perhaps of Mizrim (a part of N. Arabia). At first sight indeed there can be no doubt but that the king of Egypt is the potentate referred to. In 2 Kings xxiii. 29, as it stands, we read, In his days Pharaoh-Neko king of Mizraim (Egypt) went up against the king of Asshur (Assyria?) to the river Perath (Euphrates ?); and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo when he saw him' (?) We have now to ask, Does this statement accord with Egyptian and Assyrian history, and with the most probable reading of Hebrew prophecies ?

It is indeed beyond all doubt that from B.C. 625 onwards the Assyrian Empire was in a state of rapid decline. A vivid sketch of this will be found in Rogers' History of Babylonia and Assyria, to which it is sufficient to refer. It is very conceivable that the enterprising Egyptian king, Neku II., may have determined to profit by the decay of Assyria, and have revived the dormant claims of Egypt to the suzerainty of Syria and Palestine. Herodotus (ii. 159) does in fact tell us that Nekōs made war by land on the Syrians, and defeated them in a pitched battle at Magdolon, after which he took Kadytis, a large city of Syria.' Moreover, a slab of basalt found at Sidon probably confirms the supposed ambitious project of Neku, at any rate so far as Phoenicia is concerned. We also find in the headings of certain Hebrew prophecies (due to the redactor) references to Pharaoh and Pharaoh-Neko, evidently referring to a march of Neku into Palestine and Syria.

The evidence, however, is at any rate indecisive. Herodotus sometimes made mistakes. It is possible that in this case he confounded a little-known N. Arabian king with a well-known king of Egypt, just as, in ii. 141, he seems to have confounded a littleknown king of the Arabian Asshurites with a well-known king of Assyria (Sennacherib). And may not a similar supposition be made for the final editors or redactors of Kings, Chronicles, and the headings of Jer. xlvi. and xlvii.? As for the basalt slab at Sidon, the royal cartouche will at any rate not prove that Neku fought with and defeated the king of Judah.

I have still to speak of the Hebrew prophecies. To do so briefly and at the same time cogently is impossible. In an article on Habakkuk in the Jewish Quarterly Review for July 1907 I have shown that the prevalent view that the writers of that book refer to the Babylonians is not by any means certain, and that the reference may very possibly be to the chief N. Arabian power. I am of opinion that the Book of Nahum would gain by being treated on a similar plan. Difficulties there are in this book which have not yet been really overcome, but which may be, if a natural prejudice against a hitherto unsuspected N. Arabian reference can be surmounted. I hold it to