use of the improbability of the fall of
a particular wall killing so many; yet when I consider Josephus's next
words, how the rest which were slain in the battle were "ten other
myriads," that twenty-seven thousand are but a few in comparison of
a hundred thousand, and that it was not "a wall," as in our English
version, but "the walls" or "the entire walls" of the city that fell
down, as in all the originals, I lay aside that suspicion, and firmly
believe that Josephus himself hath, with the rest, given us the just
number, twenty-seven thousand.

[39] This manner of supplication for men's lives among the Syrians, with
ropes or halters about their heads or necks, is, I suppose, no strange
thing in later ages, even in our own country.

[40] It is here remarkable, that in Josephus's copy this prophet, whose
severe denunciation of a disobedient person's slaughter by a lion had
lately come to pass, was no other than Micaiah, the son of Imlah, who,
as he now denounced God's judgment on disobedient Ahab, seems directly
to have been that very prophet whom the same Ahab, in 1 Kings 22:8, 18,
complains of, "as one whom he hated, because he did not prophesy good
concerning him, but evil," and who in that chapter openly repeats his
denunciations against him; all which came to pass accordingly; nor is
there any reason to doubt but this and the former were the very same
prophet.

[41] What is most remarkable in this history, and in many histories on
other occasions in the Old Testament, is this, that during the Jewish
theocracy God acted entirely as the supreme King of Israel, and the
supreme General of their armies, and always expected that the Israelites
should be in such absolute subjection to him, their supreme and heavenly
King, and General of their armies, as subjects and soldiers are to
their earthly kings and generals, and that usually without knowing the
particular reasons of their injunctions.

[42] These reasonings of Zedekiah the false prophet, in order to
persuade Ahab not to believe Micaiah the true prophet, are plausible;
but being omitted in our other copies, we cannot now tell whence
Josephus had them, whether from his own temple copy, from some other
original author, or from certain ancient notes. That some such plausible
objection was now raised against Micaiah is very likely, otherwise
Jehoshaphat, who used to disbelieve all such false prophets, could never
have been induced to accompany Ahab in these despera