Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/295

Rh removed her from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days. And he brought into the house of God the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had

from being queen] Or, as mg., from being queen mother.

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] R. V. mg. (rightly, as representing the meaning of the Chronicler) for Asherah, since Asherah here and in a few other passages (1 Kin. xviii. 19; 2 Kin. 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; cp. 2 Kin. xxiii. 4, "in the fields of Kidron." Bädeker, Pal.$5$, p. 80.

17. the high places] Heb. 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 Kin. 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 Chron., 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 Chron. inserted by someone who thought the Chronicler had wrongfully neglected 1 Kin. xv. 13—15.

perfect] i.e. "whole, undivided in its allegiance."

18. the things that his father had dedicated] Probably spoils of war; cp. 1 Chr. xviii. 11. It is implied that Abijah had vowed a portion of