Uzziah

The Heb. names varj' in form. We have jnii' (2 K 15=, ^, Is 1' 6' 7', 2 Ch 26"'- 27^) and .T)i; (2'K 1513-*', Hos 1', Am 1', Zee 14'). The meaning is 'J" is my strength.' We have a Hob. parallel in SxM^and in tlie Plieen. Synty and itety. The alternative Heb. name i.tii;' occurs in 2 K 15«-«, while n.-)]y is found in 2 K 14-' 15'-' etc., and also 1 Ch 3'-. The meaning of the alterna- tive name is similar to that of 'n;)t|, viz. 'J" hath helped (me).' In As.syr.

the names Aiur-nirdri (Ashur is my help') and Rainitnin-nirtiri ( Ramnuan is my help ') are parallel in thought and e.viiression to both the alternative proper names of the lleb. monarch, while the Phoon. furnishes a close analogy to the latter in '^yDliy * Baal is (my) help,' represented in Latin by Uaadrubal ; or, with the elements of the name reversed, in I'vhn (cf. also ^lyamiy, prob. ' my help is liaal ' ; and see Bloch, Pkirn. (jlottsar. p. 49). The Gr. fonns are 'O^iiatf ('Ova.')

and 'A^ocpiat. In a miinber of instances, as in 'i K 15'3. 32 (and in V.34 in A), LXX substitutes 'ACays.af for Uz/.iah, whereas in 2 K 1530 'At«f is substituted for 'ACa^-'av, which is the reacting of A. In Is 0' 71 '0^'cti is the form preserved in Bl^AtJ. It is quit^ possible that the king had really only one name, nmy, and that the name n'ly (Uzziah) may have arisen through a corrup- tion of the text, the early form of * {y'd), viz.

^ , being con- founded with an imperfectly written T (resh), vix. ^ .• Uzziah was tlie son of Amaziah king of Judah, and, according to the redactor of the l!ooks of Kings (see Kittel's Cum,.), ascended the throne of Judah at the age of sixteen, and in the 27tli year of Jeroboam king of Israel (2 K 15"). It is well known, however, that such synchronisms are of no chronological value, and lead to emlless confusion. We can only a-ssert that both these kings were contemporaries.

Whether Uzziah's reign extended to 52 years is uncertain. The record of his reign in 2 K 14 and 15 is singularly brief. Though the worship of the high places — the normal cult of Israel and Judah — still continued, the verdict of the Deuteronomie redactor is favourable to him, as it wjis to the memory of his father, Amaziah; he 'did what was right in the eyes of the Lord ' (2 K 15^).

The record in the Book of Kings gives us no information respecting the events of this long reign, except that Uzziah fell a victim to leprosy towards its close (2 K 15'). But in 14^- we prob- ably have a fragment from the Annals which refers to his reign, though its somewhat strange position after the section by the redactor (vv."-^') renders • This secmfl to U8 more probable than the view of Stable (tf VI L p. 609 footn.

l) that the name 'Azariah was abbreviated to Mjy (2 K 2118 'garden of 'Uzza,' cf. 2 8 0>), and that the name' Utziali grew out of th« latter. For 'llzz.t is not iinprobabty tlie name of a deity, u 2 K 21ii> and 2 8 U» seem to indicate. On the Arabian AJ-'Uzza see Bai-lhgen, Bntrnije ziir Sem. Rfiigiatu- grtch. p. lU ; Konin, 6:1. 1:1 ; Wellhauseli, Jiitfe^, p. jl ff. 844 UZZIAH (AZARIAH) UZZIAH (AZAEIAH) Hs interpretation uncertain.

Wo there read that Elath, llie chief port of Edora, whicli was of great commercial vahie to Judah as an outlet as well as inlet for commerce, was again recovered to Judah by the successful military enter])iise of Azariah after his. father's disastrous overthrow by Jehoash king of Israel had entailed its temporary loss.

Owing to the leprosy wliich attacked Uzziah towards the end of his long reign, he was com- pelled to go into retirement,* while his son Jotham discharged the roj'al functions (sssr) in his place. Such is all that can be learned about this monarch in 2 Kings. The Book of Chronicles (2 Ch 20'"-") adds to the above narrative a number of details. (1) We have an account of the military preparations and exploits of tlie king, and also of his agricultural pursuits.

(2) We have a llaggadic narrative attached to the fact of the king's lepro.sy which ascribes the latter to Divine judgment on him for attempting to fullil tha priestly function of ottering incense on the altar of incense. Kittel in liis History of the Hebrews attempts to defend the historicity of this conflict between the royal and priestly authority ; t but it is quite clear that t'le form of the narrative is based on the tra- dition of the P passages in Ex 30'- ^^ Nu 17° 18'.

Furthermore, the name of the chief priest Azariah probably originated from the older alternative name of Uzziah himself, who, like Solomon and all royal personages (cf. the Assyr. kings who assumed the oHice of patcsi), exercised priestly functions. But the military exploits and preparations of Uzziah recorded in 2 Ch 26"'" cannot be dismissed as unhistorical, since they serve to explain facts in subsequent history which would otherwise remain obscure.

We read that Uzziah eiiuip[)ed an armed host of 307,500 men, and fortihed Jeru- salem, and provided it with engines of war. He also conducted a successful campaign against the Piiilistines, and stormed the cities of Gaza, Jabneh, and Ashdod, and also conquered the Arabians and Ammonites.

Subsequently recorded events render many if not all of these details exceedingly prob- able, though here, as so often in Chronicles, the numerical statements are exaggerated, (a) That Jerusalem was fortihed and provided with means of defence during the reign of Uzziah, is rendered exceedingly probable by the account of its defence in the days of tlezekiafi, which has come to us not only in the record of 2 K IS'^t-, but in the Taylor cylinder of Sennacherib {col.ii. 69-col. iii.

41), which, in describing the invasion of Palestine by Senna- clierib, expressly mentions (1) the forty-six fortihed towns (col. iii. 13) captured by the Assyrians ; (2) that the Philistine town Ekron [ir Amkarntna) was under the control of Pezel^iah, and that the king Padi, a puppet of Assyria, was delivered up to the king of Judah (col. ii. 70(1'.)

Now, it is reasonable to conclude that the control of Philistia by yezclyiah was probably due to the strong military policy of Uzziah described by the Chron- icler, who must have derived his information from annals of his reign from which the redactor of the Books of Kings did not draw. Certainly, the reign of Ahaz, distracted by the troubles of the Syro-Epliraimite invasion and weakened by subservience to Assyria, was not the time when strong defensive measures would be adopted.

In- •The text here is uncertain. The Heh. text has n'iprnn n'35, LXXi,«rxw at:^e'jirtLO(ct. 2Ch 2621). Jud^'ingfrora the well. known meaning of Vi: n, this can mean only ' in a free house,' i,e. free from the intrusion of others. The expression, however, is very strange, and Kittel is warranted in accepting the ingenious emendation of Elostemiann, n'O'ir; .nn'3^ ' In his bouse unmolested,' n'^Sfl) being an adverb with the ending n-i-, A0 In /l'3]ht{ (Gn 933). t Gacli. tUr Htb. IL p. 281.

deed we know that Philistia was instit'ated to revolt by the confederacy of the two Northern kings, (b) The mention of Arabians (col. iii.

31) among the troops which defended Jerusalem against Sennacherib sustains the statement of the Chron- icler that Uzziah subjugated the Arabs, and this is probably to be connected with the recovery of Edom and the port of Elath to which 2 K 14^ refers, (c) Kittel lays stress on the prosperity of Judah in the days of Ahaz, of which Is 2 and 3 furnish abundant evidence.

This is best explained as due to the consolidation of the resources and power of the Southern Kingdom during the long and prosperous reign of Uzziah described in 2 Ch 26. This view is ably sustained by McCurdy in the Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 388 ff. It was formerly held by Assyriologists, includ- ing especially Schrader, that the records of Tiglath- pileser prove that Uzziah (Azariah) was the head of a powerful confederacy of Northern Hamathite States against Assyria.

Unfortunately, the pas- sages in which reference is made to Azariah (Az(Iz)ri-ya-u), whom Schrader identified with Uzziah (KGF 399-421), are much mutilated. The following is a translation of the passages so far as they can be deciphered and interpreted on the basis of Rost's edition of Tiglath-pileser's Annals, lines 101-111— 101-2 . .

my otflcer as ruler of the province I placed over them [gifts and tribute like the Assyrian imposed on them] 103 in the further course of my campaign the tribute of th6 ki[ng3 104 I received Azar]iah king of Ja-u-di like , , , 105 . . zariah of Ja-u.di . . [106 and 107 seem to refer to the towns in which Azariah sought reJugeJ 108 by the attack of the light-armed (7) of the bodyguard . .

[of the approach of 109 the Assyrian troops] the numerous, they heard [their heart) feared 110 [the town) 1 destroyed, laid waste, burnt down 111 . . placed themselves on the side of [Azarjiah streng- thened (?) him . . Lines 125-132 refer to the 19 districts of Hamath which 'placed themselves on the side of Azariah,' the series bemg enumerated from South to North, the most southerly beuig Arkfi, Zim.arra, Usnu, Sianna, and Simirra, and the most northerly Eilitarbi and Bumami.

Now, even twenty years ago, the identification of the Azri-ia-u of Tiglath-pileser's Annals with Azariah of Judah was disputed, for example, by Gutschmid (Neite Bcitragc zur Kunde des altcn Orients, p. 55 tf.) and by Wellhausen (Jahrhiirher fiir deutsclw Theologie, xx. 632). But at that time there were certainly many reasons why the identi- fication made by Schrader should have been con- sidered sound. No other land Ja-u-di was then known except Judah.

Judah was called by that name in the Nabt-Junus inscription preserved in Constantinople, in which Sennacherib refers to his subjugation of tiezelfiah (of which the following is a transcription, line 15 : rap-iu na-gu-u (mdtu) Ja-u-di Haza-ki-a-u Sarri-iu i-mid ap-Sa-a-ni), while the references to the same king in connexion with (»u7tu) Ja-u-da-ai in the Prism inscription of Sennacherib (col. ii. 72, iii. 12, 13) need not be cited here. Indeed Tiglath-pileser himself (2 llawl.

67, line 61) refers to Ja-u-lui-zi (mAtu) Ja-u-da-ai in close juxtaposition to the rulers of Ashkelon and Edom, so that it is absolutely certain that Ja-u-lutzi ( = Joahaz) is the Assyrian name of king Ahaz. Moreover, the fact here mentioned, that Ahaz paid tribute to the Assyrian monarch, is certified by 2 K 16*. Certainly, the evidence for Schrader's identification seemed cogent. Nevertheless, there are serious diliiculties in tha way of its acceptance.

In the first place, the geographical conditions militate strongly against it. The nineteen districts of Hamath can hardly have depended for supjiort on the ruler of so distant a realm as Jmiah. Second///, the chioiio- logical argument tells decisively against it. For UZZIEL VALE, VALLEY 845 if Uzziali was the mainstay of a conspiracy of nineteen Uaiuatbit« States in 73S B.C.

, winch is the year wliich Assyrian data would lead us to assign to its overthrow, we can allow only three years lor the leprosy of L'zziah, the interregnum of Jotham, Jotham's sole reign, and the Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah. Thirdly, the discovery of the Zinjerli inscription (on the stele erected by 3-i i3 the son of raiuininiu, king of Sam'al, to his father) has thrown a fresh light on the problem.

There we lind mention of a land nic (and also on the stele of Hadad, erected by Panauimu its king). We might with Winckler regard the k here as hamza and pronounced as u, and thus read the word (as the Assyrians did) Ja'uUi. This country lay north of the Orontes and bordered on the land Unki, and it is possible that Sargon refers to it in his Niuir. insc. line 8: {nWUu) Ja-u-du Sa aSciriu riiku, 'J. whose situation is remote.' The men- tion of Uaniath in the same line lends colour to this view.

The objection tliat the name Azi-ijuhu, with its Heb. name of deity, clearly indicates a Hebrew personality, loses force when we re- member that llamath, as we learn from the same inscription of Sarijon, liad a prince called Jauhi'di, elsewhere called Ilu-bi'di. This shows that a deitj' Jafiu was also worshipped in those regions. Lastly, the close similarity which subsisted be- tween the language of the Zinjerli inscr.

and Hebrew renders it in no way improbable that the land Ja'di should have a ruler named Azariah. The capital of the land was KuUani, the Caluo of Is K/'. This is the evidence ba.sed on the arguments used by Winckler (Alttcst. Forsch. i. (18'J3) pp. 1-23 ; CI. KAT' i. 54 ff., 202) for disconnecting the inscr. of Tiglath-pileser from any reference to Uzziali (Azariah) of Judah.* McCurdy, however, upholds Schrader's position (IIPMi. 413ir.)

, but the argu- ments of Winckler have been adopted by Hommel (art. Assyria in this Diet. vol. i. p. 185, footn.t), Guthe(CF/ p. 18S), Maspero (Pasdng, etc., 150). The chronological difficulties which beset the biblical student of the latter half of the Sth cent, become in this way somewhat lessened. The death-j-ear of Uzziah may be placed, as Winckler suggests, in 739 B.C., but it may easily be earlier (KAT' i. 320) — in fact as early as 750 (Winckler, Ocsch. Israel's, Theil i. p. 179). Cf.

Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, pp. 4, 16 IT. OwEN C. WlllTEUOUSE. UZZIEL (Sx'iy ' my strength is El,' cf. the name .Tiy Uzziah ; LX'X '0^c)iri\).—i. A son of Kohath, Ex" 6'»', Lv 10^ Nu a'"-', 1 Ch (i- '» lo'" -'3', '^ 24'-^ ; with gentilic name the Uzzielites (""rN'!;';"), Nu 3=', 1 Cli, 0^. 2. A Simeonite ; one of those who took part in the expedition to Mt. Seir, 1 Ch 4^-. 3. Eponym of a Benjamite familj', 1 Ch 7'. 4. A musician, of the sons of Human, 1 Ch25Mcalled in v.'* AZAREI.) 5.

A Levite, of the sons of Jeduthun, 2 Ch 2'J'^. 6. One of the guild of the goldsmiths, who took part in the repairing of the wall, Neh 3'. 7. See Jaaziel. * It the view a<lvocated in this art. be correct, the statement in art. CuRU.NOLOur op 01 (vol. i. p. iOV ad An.) will have to be moditled ftccordiogly.