Mich. has raised the objection, quod tamen chronologiae rationes vix admittunt; and it is true that this encroachment of Uzziah's happened 200 years after Solomon's death, while the Azariah mentioned in our register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the name Jehoiada has been dropped out before Johanan, and the Jehoiada held the high priest's office for a considerable time under Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would coincide with Uzziah's reign, when of course the chronological objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the words וגו כּהן אשׁר הוּא is removed.[1]
But lastly, the difficulty connected with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, while in 2Ki 22:4. and 2Ch 31:10, 2Ch 31:13, Azariah occurs as high priest under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. For, apart altogether from the improbability of such a transposition having taken place in a register formed as this is, “Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah begat,” the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, 1Ch 6:13, who lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah four names are introduced; so that on this supposition, during the time which elapsed between Uzziah's forcing his way into the temple till the passover under Hezekiah, i.e., during a period of from 55 to 60 years,
- ↑ Bertheau's explanation is inadmissible. He says: “If we consider that in the long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same name, it would naturally suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first discharged the duties of his office in the temple, in order to bring a fixed chronology into the enumeration of the names; and if we recollect that a high priest Azariah, the son, or according to our passage more definitely the grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon; and finally, if we consider the passage 1Ch 6:32, we must hold that the words, 'He it is who discharged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in Jerusalem,' originally stood after the name Azariah in v. 9; cf. 1Ki 4:2.” All justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by the fact that the Azariah of 1Ki 4:2 was neither high priest nor the same person as the Azariah in v. 10 of our register; and it is impossible that a grandson of Zadok whom Solomon appointed to the high-priesthood, instead of Abiathar, can have been the first who discharged the duties of high priest in the temple. Oehler's opinion (in Herzog's Realencyklop. vi. 205), that the Amariah who follows Azariah (1Ch 6:11) is identical with the Amariah under Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable; for Jehoshaphat was king sixty-one years after Solomon's death, and during these sixty-one years the four high priests who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded each other.
