Commentaria in IV Regum
PHUL, who is called by another name “Belochus,” who with Arbaces the Mede besieged Sardanapalus in Ninive for two years, and forced him to cast himself, with his wives and sons and a thousand myriads of gold and ten thousand myriads of silver, upon a very high pyre built in the palace, and burn himself. The fire lasted fifteen days. In him ended the monarchy of the Assyrians, which from Belus to Sardanapalus had stood thirteen hundred years. Further, Phul with Arbaces divided the monarchy, and kept for himself Assyria and Babylonia; to Arbaces he granted Media and Persia. Further, Phul in Hebrew is the same as a bean, says Pagninus, just as at Rome the Fabii were surnamed from the bean, among whom Fabius Maximus stood out, the liberator of Rome and conqueror of Hannibal. Scaliger notes that the names of the kings of the Assyrians and Babylonians are some simple, as Phul, Asar, Theglath; others compound, as Theglathphalasar is composed of three, namely Theglath, Phul and Asar. Salmanasar is composed of Salman and Asar, and Asarhaddon is made of Asar and Haddon. Nabuchodonosor of Nabo, who was a god, Chad, and Netser. See what was said on Isaias 46:1.
AND MANAHEM GAVE PHUL A THOUSAND TALENTS OF SILVER, TO AID HIM,—against the rebels of Thersa, Thapsa, etc., as was said in v. 14. This was the occasion why Theglathphalasar, the successor of Phul, invaded Israel and carried it away into Assyria, as will be said in v. 29. Phul, therefore, was called to his aid by Manahem, not by the Thersites, as Josephus writes.
29. IN THE DAYS OF PHACEE CAME THEGLATHPHALASAR KING OF ASSUR.—He was the son of Phul, of whom v. 19, and therefore is called Phul-Assar, or Theglath Phul-Assar. Behold, he laid waste Israel, and carried away from it five tribes into Assyria, namely the inhabitants of “Galaad,” that is, the Rubenites, Gadites and half the tribe of Manasses; and of “Galilee,” namely the Zabulonites and Nephthalites, of whom Isaias, chapter 9, v. 1. For a little before, called to his aid by Achaz king of Juda against Rasin king of Syria and Phacee king of Israel, he had come to Damascus, and, those kings being slain, as is said in the following chapter, vv. 6 and 7, he oppressed Achaz himself also, by whom he had been called, and plundered his dominion, 2 Paralipomenon 27:8. Isaias had foretold this to Achaz himself a little before, 7:17. This, therefore, was the first captivity of Israel, that is, of the ten tribes. Hence fittingly Theglathphalasar in Hebrew (to which the Assyrian and Chaldee tongue is akin) is the same as the captivity of a wonderful binding, says Pagninus in his Hebrew Names.
30. AND HE REIGNED IN HIS STEAD (namely Osee in place of Phacee) IN THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF JOATHAM THE SON OF OZIAS.—You will say: Joatham reigned only sixteen years, as is said in v. 33; what then is this twentieth year of his? I answer: It was the twentieth from the time when Joatham began to reign with his father Azarias: for the latter, struck by God with leprosy and therefore separated from the company of men, left the government of the kingdom to his son Joatham, as was said at v. 5. So Cajetan and others. You will say: Osee could not have reigned with Joatham; for Phacee, whom Osee succeeded, survived Joatham by three years, as is plain here from v. 27 compared with v. 1 of the following chapter. I answer that Osee began to reign and to invade the kingdom of Phacee while Joatham lived, and at last, after Joatham’s death, after some years wholly overcame and killed him in the fourth year of Achaz king of Juda, and then reigned alone in full. So Cajetan. Secondly, the Hebrews in the Seder Olam, Abulensis, Genebrard, Tornielli and Salianus better explain thus: “in the twentieth year of Joatham,” that is, which would have been the twentieth of Joatham reigning alone after his father, if he had still lived, who had died four years before. This was therefore the twentieth year since Joatham began to reign; but because he reigned only sixteen years, this was in truth the fourth year of Achaz, who succeeded Joatham; but Scripture preferred to name Joatham rather than Achaz, because it had not yet made mention of Achaz. Further, Scripture counts the years of Osee in two ways; first, from this fourth year of Achaz, as is done here; second, from the twelfth year of Achaz, as is done in 4 Kings 17:1. The reason is that in the first eight years Osee was not a peaceful king, but still struggling with the family of Phacee, or rather a servant of the Assyrians than a king, or hindered from the kingdom for other reasons. Therefore from the fourth year of Achaz he reigned rather precariously than with full right. So Abulensis, Serarius, Salianus and the others already cited. Finally, this twentieth year was both the end of the reign of Phacee (for he reigned 20 years) and the beginning of that of Joatham. For Joatham, had he lived in that year, would have begun the twentieth year of his reign; for he began to reign in the second year of Phacee, as follows.
32. IN THE SECOND YEAR OF PHACEE, etc., JOATHAM THE SON OF OZIAS KING OF JUDA REIGNED;—for Phacee began to reign in the 52nd and last year of Ozias; wherefore this was the first year of the reign of Phacee; the second was that in which Ozias died and Joatham succeeded him, who reigned sixteen years; wherefore in the 17th year of Phacee, Joatham being dead, his son Achaz succeeded him, as is said in the following chapter, v. 1; because the last year of Joatham was not entire but half, so that the 17th of Phacee was at once the last of Joatham dying and of Achaz succeeding him. Wherefore one year added or taken away in the chronology makes no difference; because half years are now numbered and now not numbered.
Further, “Joatham,” says the author of the Imperfect Work, homily 4 on Matthew, “is interpreted perfect or lord, immaculate. And truly this Joatham was perfect, and, as regards the kings who preceded him, a lord immaculate; because he did what was pleasing to God, and no reproach of him is read in the Scripture of the kingdoms.”
33. HE REIGNED SIXTEEN YEARS—uprightly and piously; hence he is praised above others by Scripture and by Josephus. In the time of Joatham prophesied Isaias and Micheas, as is plain from his title. In the eleventh year of Joatham, Romulus, being in the 18th year of his age, laid the foundations of the city of Rome on 21 April (whence this day was afterwards celebrated every year as the birthday of Rome), namely on the very Palilia, that is, the feast of Pales, the goddess of shepherds, who was worshipped by them on that day for the happy birth of their flocks. Hence it was called Palilia or Parilia. This was done in the third year of the sixth Olympiad, as Varro wishes; or in the fourth, as Cato wishes, and Cicero, Pliny, Tacitus, Gellius, Censorinus, Eusebius, St. Augustine, Orosius and Cardinal Baronius following him. Wherefore the Olympiads precede Rome by 23 years, as I said: for the six Olympiads just mentioned make up so many years; for each contains four years. By this reckoning the beginning of the Olympiads is to be assigned to the 40th year of Azarias, as I said, and according to the same Rome was founded in the year 194 before the birth of Christ.
Others, because they assign this beginning of the Olympiads somewhat later or earlier, consequently assign the building of Rome later or earlier. Hence Tornielli and Salianus, because they combine the beginning of the Olympiads with the first year of Joatham, accordingly combine the beginning of Rome with the eighth or ninth year of Achaz. But in a matter so ancient, after so many centuries, this difference of time is slight.
Here is that line of Propertius:
It was a festival for the city; our fathers called it the Palilia. This was the first day that began to belong to the walls.
Hence also St. Jerome on chapter 1 of Isaias,