vi. 9, 12, and was a priestly city, and one of Solomon's store-cities

(1 Kings iv. 9). It ultimately fell into the hands of the Philistines (2 Chron. xxviii. 18). It is not the Beth-Shemesh of Josh. xix. 22.

[302] Josephus says that this was the fault of Amaziah, whom Joash of Israel threatened with death if Jerusalem resisted.

[303] This implies that at least half the northern wall was dismantled--the wall towards Ephraim.

[304] Some have conjectured that Amaziah of Judah became more or less the vassal of Joash of Israel, and that the vassalage continued till after the death of Jeroboam II. (1) For Jeroboam II. held Elath till his death, when Uzziah recovered it (2 Kings xiv. 22), and he certainly could not have held this southern Judæan port if Judah was entirely independent; and (2) we read that Uzziah did not become king at all till the _twenty-seventh_ year of Jeroboam II. But if Amaziah only survived Joash of Israel fifteen years (2 Kings xiv. 17), Uzziah must have succeeded in the _fifteenth_ year of Jeroboam. Is the explanation to be found in the fact that up to that time--for twelve years--Jeroboam did not allow the Judæans to elect a king? or are these among the hopeless confusion of synchronism which cannot be reconciled at all with our present data?