- 57-
angle. Moreover, these forts were armed with new and powerful engines for projecting
arrows and great stones upon any besieging host (2 Chronicles 26:15). Lastly, in
accordance with all this, we read of a re-organization of the army, "according to the
number of their enrollment (mustering) by the hand of Jeiel, the scribe, and Maaseiah, the
officer (superintendent?), under the hand (direction) of Hananiah one of the king's
captains" (2 Chronicles 26:11). The levy was again made in accordance with earliest
national custom - although in even more systematic manner than before. Under two
thousand six hundred "heads" or "chiefs of houses," "mighty men of valor," an army of
not less than 307,500 men was gathered, and completely equipped by the king - the heavy
infantry being furnished with shields, cuirasses, and helmets, the light infantry with bows
and "stones for slings."*
- So, and not as in the A.V. "slings to cast stones." The armament was that common to
the nations of antiquity.
This specially indicates the completeness of the armament, which, this time, was not only
furnished by the central authority, but with such care that even the slings and the stones
generally picked up by the men were served out to the troops.*
- We purposely omit reference to the Assyrian inscription, which records an attempted
alliance between Hamath and nineteen cities of the district, and Azriyahu - Azariah or
Uzziah (Schrader, V. 5, pp. 217- 227). It is quite possible that in their revolt from Assyria
these cities may have sought an alliance with Uzziah, into which, however, that monarch
did not enter. But the reference to Uzziah in the boastful record by Tiglath-pileser of this
Syrian coalition is too shadowy to admit, in our view, any certain inference (comp.
Nowack, Assyr. Bab. Inschr. p. 27, Note 8). Are we to regard the introduction of the
name of Azriyahu as meaning literally that monarch, or only in a general sense as
referring to him in his successors - just as Omri is introduced in the inscriptions? Again,
are we to regard the reference as indicating a strictly historical event? This seems
scarcely possible. Or is it a general reference to, or inference from, a later policy - or does
it express a suspicion, or is it only a boast? On the Assyrian chronology, in its bearing on
that of Scripture, we purposely forbear entering for reasons previously indicated. An
attempt at conciliation of the two chronologies (by Oppert), see at the close of Hommel,
Abriss d. Bab. Ass. u. Isr. Gesch. Comp. also H. Brandes, Abh. zur Gesch. d. Orients im
Alterth.
In these circumstances we do not wonder that the warlike fame of the king "went forth
unto far," although we specially note how carefully the sacred text throughout
emphasizes the Divine help extended to Uzziah in each part of his undertakings. Nor was
the internal prosperity of the realm less marked. We have already seen how the
reoccupation of Elath led to a revival of shipping and commerce which must have
brought wealth to the country. Similarly, the king took a deep interest in agriculture. In
the mountains of Judah the ancient terraces were repaired for the culture of the vine; in
(^)