The books of Chronicles : $b With maps, notes and introductionElmslie, W. A. L. (William Alexander Leslie)
History
The books of Chronicles : $b With maps, notes and introduction
Elmslie, W. A. L. (William Alexander Leslie)
Bible. Chronicles -- Commentaries
_an abominable image_] Exactly what is meant by this phrase is
uncertain. The image was one of peculiarly repulsive appearance, or
perhaps of specially degrading significance.
_for an Asherah_] Revised Version margin (rightly, as representing the
meaning of the Chronicler) for =Asherah=, since Asherah here and in
a few other passages (1 Kings xviii. 19; 2 Kings xxi. 7, xxiii. 4, 7)
is to be translated as the name of a goddess, about whom however very
little is known. Excavations at Ta‘anach have revealed that a goddess
named _Ashirat_ (= _Asherah_) was worshipped in Palestine from an
early period. The references here and in the passages cited above
would therefore seem to be to this goddess. That conclusion, if sound,
disposes of the opinion that the Chronicler was mistaken in imagining
that “Ashērah” was anything more than a common noun denoting the wooden
symbol of a deity. We must of course translate according to the meaning
of the Chronicler whether he has fallen into an error or not. See also
the note on xiv. 3, p. 224.
_the brook Kidron_] On the east of Jerusalem, an unclean place; compare
2 Kings xxiii. 4, “in the fields of Kidron.” Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵,
p. 80.
¹⁷But the high places were not taken away out of Israel:
nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
=17.= _the high places_] Hebrew _bāmōth_. These were not necessarily
places of idolatrous worship, but they were sanctuaries rigorously
forbidden by the Law from the Deuteronomic period onwards, which in
the opinion of the Chronicler of course meant from the time of Moses.
Failure to “remove” the high places was therefore reckoned by him as
a sin in any of the kings, no matter how early in the period of the
monarchy.
_were not taken away ... days_] So also 1 Kings xv. 14, but a direct
contradiction of the Chronicler’s statement in xiv. 3! Two explanations
seem possible; _either_, “Israel” (contrary to the frequent usage of
the word in Chronicles, see xi. 3) here denotes the Northern Kingdom as
distinct from Judah, in which case xiv. 3 is to be taken as referring
only to Judah, _or_ perhaps these verses 16‒19 are an addition to
Chronicles inserted by someone who thought the Chronicler had
wrongfully neglected 1 Kings xv. 13‒15.
_perfect_] i.e. “whole, undivided in its allegiance.”
¹⁸And he brought into the house of God the things that his
father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver,
and gold, and vessels.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account