Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments Part 4

These are the Hitt.i.tes of whom we hear in Genesis in connection with the patriarchs. Hebron was one of their cities, and Hebron, we are told (Numb.

xiii. 22), "was built seven years before Zoan," or Tanis, the capital of the Hyksos conquerors of Egypt. This suggests that the Hitt.i.tes formed part of the Hyksos forces, and that some of them, instead of entering Egypt, remained behind in Southern Canaan. The suggestion is confirmed by a statement of the Egyptian historian Manetho, who a.s.serts that Jerusalem was founded by the Hyksos after their expulsion from Egypt; and Jerusalem, it will be remembered, had, according to Ezekiel (xvi. 3), a Hitt.i.te mother.

Another Hitt.i.te city in the south of Judah was Kirjath-sepher, or "Booktown," also known as Debir, "the sanctuary," a t.i.tle which reminds us of that of Kadesh, "the holy city." We may infer from its name that Kirjath-sepher contained a library stocked with Hitt.i.te books. That the Hitt.i.tes were a literary people, and possessed a system of writing of their own, we learn from the Egyptian monuments. What this writing was has been revealed by recent discoveries. Inscriptions in a peculiar kind of hieroglyphics or picture-writing have been found at Hamath, Aleppo, and Carchemish, in Kappadokia, Lykaonia, and Lydia. They are always found a.s.sociated with sculptures in a curious style of art, some of which from Carchemish, the modern Jerablus, are now in the British Museum. The style of art is the same as that of the monuments of Asia Minor mentioned above.

It was the discovery of this fact by Professor Sayce, in 1879, which first revealed the existence of the Hitt.i.te empire and its importance in the history of civilisation. Certain hieroglyphic inscriptions, originally noticed by the traveller Burckhardt at Hamah, the ancient Hamath, had been made accessible to the scientific world by the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the conjecture had been put forward that they represented the long-lost writing of the Hitt.i.tes. The conjecture was shortly afterwards confirmed by the discovery of similar inscriptions at Jerablus, which Mr.

Skene and Mr. George Smith had already identified with the site of Carchemish. If, therefore, the early monuments of Asia Minor were really of Hitt.i.te origin, as Professor Sayce supposed, it was clear that they ought to be accompanied by Hitt.i.te hieroglyphics. And such turned out to be the case. On visiting the sculptured figure in the Pa.s.s of Karabel, in which Herodotus had seen an image of the great opponent of the Hitt.i.tes, he found that the characters engraved by the side of it were all of them Hitt.i.te forms.

Hitt.i.te inscriptions have since been discovered attached to another archaic monument of Lydia, the sitting figure of the great G.o.ddess of Carchemish, carved out of the rocks of Mount Sipylos, which the Greeks fancied was the Niobe of their mythology as far back as the age of Homer; and similar inscriptions also exist at Boghaz Keui and Eyuk, in Kappadokia, as well as near Ivris, in Lykaonia. Others have been discovered in various parts of Kappadokia and in the Taurus range of mountains, while a silver boss, which bears a precious inscription both in Hitt.i.te hieroglyphics and in cuneiform characters, seems to belong to Cilicia. In fact, there is now abundant evidence that the Hitt.i.tes once held dominion throughout the greater portion of Asia Minor, so that we need no longer feel surprised at their being able to call Trojans and Lydians to their aid in their wars against Egypt.

The existence of Hitt.i.te inscriptions at Hamath goes to show that Hamath also was once under Hitt.i.te rule. This throws light on several facts recorded in sacred history. David, after his conquest of the Syrians, became the ally of the Hamathite king, and the alliance seems to have lasted down to the time when Hamath was finally destroyed by the a.s.syrians, since it is implied in the words of 2 Kings xiv. 28, as well as in the alliance between Uzziah and Hamath, of which we are informed by the a.s.syrian monuments. Hamath and Judah, in fact, each had a common enemy in Syria, and were thus drawn together by a common interest. It was only when a.s.syria threatened all the populations of the west alike, that Hamath and Damascus were found fighting side by side at the battle of Karkar.

Otherwise they were natural foes.

The reason of this lay in the fact that the Hitt.i.tes were intruders in the Semitic territory of Syria. Their origin must be sought in the highlands of Kappadokia, and from hence they descended into the regions of the south, at that time occupied by Semitic Arameans. Hamath and Kadesh had once been Aramean cities, and when they were again wrested from the possession of the Hitt.i.tes they did but return to their former owners. The fall of Carchemish meant the final triumph of the Semites in their long struggle with the Hitt.i.te stranger.

Even in their southern home the Hitt.i.tes preserved the dress of the cold mountainous country from which they had come. They are characterised by boots with turned-up toes, such as are still worn by the mountaineers of Asia Minor and Greece. They were thick-set and somewhat short of limb, and the Egyptian artists painted them without beards, of a yellowish-white colour, with dark black hair. In short, as M. Lenormant has pointed out, they had all the physical characteristics of a Caucasian tribe. Their descendants are still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the language or languages their forefathers spoke. What this language was is still uncertain, though the Hitt.i.te proper names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and a.s.syria show that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European. With the help of the bilingual inscription in cuneiform and Hitt.i.te, already mentioned, Professor Sayce believes that he has determined the values of a few characters and partially read three or four names, but until more inscriptions are brought to light it is impossible to proceed further.

Only it is becoming every day more probable that the hieroglyphics in which the inscriptions are written were the origin of a curious syllabary once used throughout Asia Minor, which survived in Cyprus into historical times.

Hitt.i.te art was originally borrowed from Babylonia, but modified by the borrowers in a peculiar way. The borrowing took place before the rise of a.s.syria. The astronomical and astrological tablets belonging to the great work on the heavenly bodies which was compiled for the library of Sargon I of Accad speak from time to time of the Khatta or Hitt.i.tes, a clear proof that already at that remote epoch they had moved down from their northern home into their new quarters in Syria. Besides the art of Babylonia they also borrowed several of the Babylonian deities and religious legends. The supreme G.o.ddess of Carchemish was the Babylonian Istar or Ashtoreth, and the representation of her found on early Babylonian cylinders was carried by the Hitt.i.tes to the western coasts of Asia Minor, and from thence made its way across the aegean Sea to Greece. Even the Amazons of Greek mythology were really nothing more than the priestesses of this. .h.i.tt.i.te divinity, who wore arms in honour of the G.o.ddess. The cities which according to the Greeks were founded by the Amazons were all of Hitt.i.te origin.

We may expect to discover hereafter that the influence exercised by the Hitt.i.tes upon their Syrian neighbours was almost as profound as that exercised by them upon their neighbours in Asia Minor, and through these upon the fathers of the Greeks. For the present, however, we must be content with the startling results that have already been obtained in this new field of research. A people that once played an important part in the history of the civilised world has been again revealed to us after centuries of oblivion, and a forgotten empire has been again brought to light. The first chapter has been opened of a new history, which can only be completed when more Hitt.i.te inscriptions have been discovered, and the story they contain has been deciphered. All that is now needed are explorers and excavators, who shall do for the buried cities of the Hitt.i.tes what Botta and Layard have done for Nineveh or Schliemann for Mykenae and Troy.

CHAPTER VI. THE a.s.sYRIAN INVASIONS.

_Capture of Jerusalem.-Shishak.-Shalmaneser II.-Inscription describing the campaign of his sixth year.-Correction of the Biblical chronology.-The worship of Rimmon.-War against Hazael.-The black obelisk.-Rimmon-nirari.-Tiglath-Pileser II.-The fall of Arpad.-Menahem pays tribute.-Alliance of Ahaz with a.s.syria.-Capture of Samaria and of Damascus.-Destruction of Samaria.-Sargon, Cuthah, and Sepharvaim.-Merodach-baladan.-Invasion of Judah by Sargon.-True interpretation of Isaiah x. and xi.-Sennacherib's invasion.-His account of it.-The Biblical account.-The date.-The Lachish bas-relief.-Jewish policy in Hezekiah's reign.-Hezekiah's public works.-The will of Sennacherib.-Esar-haddon's reign.-Explanation of 2 Chron. x.x.xiii. 2.-Isaiah xix.-Reign of a.s.sur-bani-pal.-Date of the fall of a.s.syria.-Chronological table of events described in the chapter._

When David founded his empire his two powerful neighbours, Egypt and a.s.syria, were both in a state of decline. a.s.syria had fallen into the hands of unwarlike kings, who were unable to retain the conquests of their predecessors, even upon their immediate frontiers; while Egypt was divided among rival dynasties and rent with civil wars. Egypt, however, was the first to recover her strength. The monarchs of the twenty-second dynasty once more united the country under one rule, and Shishak or Sheshank I turned his arms against the cities of Palestine. The brief account given in 1 Kings xiv. 25, 26, and the fuller history in 2 Chron. xii. of his invasion of Judah and his capture of Jerusalem, are supplemented by his own record of it on the walls of the ruined temple of Karnak. Here the Egyptian king is represented as striking down the conquered Hebrews with a colossal club, while beside him run long rows of embattled shields, within each of which is the name of a vanquished city. Among them we find the names not only of Jewish towns but of Israelitish fortresses also-such as Megiddo, Taanach, and Abel-a proof that the Egyptian campaign was directed against the northern kingdom as well as against Judah, and could not, therefore, have been undertaken at the instigation of Jeroboam, as has sometimes been supposed. One of the cities is called Judah-melek, or "Judah-king," a t.i.tle by which it is possible that Jerusalem may have been intended. At any rate, there is otherwise no mention of the royal city of Rehoboam among the shields that have been preserved.

The vigorous rule of Shishak had not ceased long before Egypt once more sank into a state of anarchy and weakness, which ended in its conquest by the Ethiopian Sabako, the So of the Old Testament (2 Kings xvii. 4).

Meanwhile a.s.syria had recovered its strength, and had entered upon a new career of conquest. In B.C. 858 Shalmaneser II came to the throne, and his long reign of thirty-five years was one continuous history of campaigns against his neighbours, in the course of which the authority of a.s.syria was extended as far as the Mediterranean. The growing power of Damascus, which Rezon had torn from the empire of David in the time of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 23-25), formed the chief object of his attack. Already, in the sixth year of his reign, he had overthrown the combined forces of Damascus, of Hamath, and of the Hitt.i.tes, and had slain 20,500 of his enemies in battle. Damascus was at this time governed by Hadad-idri or Hadadezer, the Ben-hadad II of Scripture, the Scriptural name being a standing t.i.tle of the Syrian kings, and signifying "the son of Hadad," the supreme deity of Damascus. Three years later Shalmaneser again attacked the Syrian king; but it was not until his fourteenth year, when he crossed the Euphrates with an army of 120,000 men, that he achieved any substantial success.

The campaign of the sixth year is narrated in detail in an inscription engraved by the a.s.syrian monarch on the rocks of Armenia. Here we learn that, after crossing the Euphrates, he received the tribute of the Hitt.i.te states in Pethor, the city of Balaam, which he describes as being situated at the junction of the Euphrates and Sajur. He then marched to Aleppo, where more gifts were brought to him, and after capturing three of the fortresses of Hamath, reached the royal city of Karkar or Aroer. This, he says, "I threw down, I dug up, I burned with fire; 1,200 chariots, 1,200 war-magazines, and 20,000 men belonging to Hadadezer of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 war-magazines, and 10,000 men belonging to Irkhulina of Hamath; 2,000 chariots and 10,000 men belonging to Ahab of Israel (_Sirla_); 500 men of the Kuans; 1,000 men from Egypt; 10 chariots and 10,000 men from the land of Irkanat; 2,000 men belonging to Matinu-baal of Arvad; 2,000 men from the land of Usanat; 30 chariots and 10,000 men belonging to Adoni-baal of Sizan; 1,000 men belonging to Gindibuh of the Arabians; and several hundred men belonging to Baasha, the son of Rehob, of the Ammonites-these twelve kings led their troops to its help, and came to make war and fighting against me. By the supreme help which a.s.sur, the lord, gave (me), with the mighty weapons which the great defender who went before me lent (to me), I fought with them. From the city of Karkar, as far as the city of Guzau I overthrew them. Fourteen thousand of their fighting men I slew with weapons; like the Air-G.o.d I bade the storm issue forth upon them; with their corpses I filled the face of the waters; their vast armies I brought down with my weapons; there was not room enough in the country for their dead bodies; to preserve the life of it I brought back a vast mult.i.tude, and distributed them among its men. The banks of the River Orontes I reached. In the midst of this battle I took away from them their chariots, their war-magazines, and their horses trained to the yoke."

The first question that presents itself to us when we read this inscription is how we are to reconcile the mention of Ahab in it with the date of the battle of Karkar (B.C. 853). According to the chronology adopted in the margin of our Bibles, Ahab would have been dead long before the event. The a.s.syrian monuments, however, have proved that this chronology exceeds the true one by more than forty years; and the date a.s.signed to Ahab by the inscription harmonises completely with the dates that other inscriptions a.s.sign to later kings of Israel and Judah. In all probability, the battle of Karkar took place shortly before Ahab's death; and it was no doubt in consequence of the defeat undergone there by the Syrian forces that Ahab was not only enabled to shake off his subjection to Damascus, but also to ally himself with Judah, and endeavour to recover the frontier fortress of Ramoth, of which Israel had been robbed. The alliance between Ahab and the king of Damascus is recorded in 1 Kings xx.

34. The battle of Karkar must have followed not very long afterwards, since the attack on Ramoth was made within three years after the conclusion of the alliance. Ahab's death may, therefore, be placed in B.C.

851.

Another question that may be asked is how the a.s.syrian monarch can say that twelve princes were arrayed in arms against him, when, according to his own enumeration, the forces of only eleven nations were present, some of which do not seem to have been under the command of any king. The only answer that can be given is that Shalmaneser is guilty of a similar arithmetical inaccuracy to that which makes him say that 14,000 of the enemy fell in battle, whereas, according to other accounts, the number was really 20,500; though it is possible that the latter number may include the loss in other battles that took place during the campaign besides the decisive one at Karkar. When, however, we find such arithmetical corruptions as these in contemporaneous doc.u.ments, we need not wonder that the numerical statements of the Old Testament have become changed and uncertain in their pa.s.sage through the hands of generations of copyists.

We may infer from the fifth chapter of 2 Kings that the G.o.d Rimmon was the chief object of worship of Hadadezer or Ben-hadad, the Syrian king. The a.s.syrian inscriptions have shown us why this was so. Rimmon is the a.s.syrian Ramman, the Air-G.o.d, and Ramman is specially identified with the Syrian deity Hadad, whose name enters into that of Hadadezer.

Hadad-Rimmon, in fact, was the supreme divinity of Damascus, where he represented, not the G.o.d of the air, as among the a.s.syrians, but Baal, the Sun-G.o.d, himself. Hence it is that in Zechariah xii. 11, reference is made to the "mourning of Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo," that is to say, to the yearly festival, when the women mourned for the death of the Sun-G.o.d, slain, as it was imagined, by the winter. In Phnicia the G.o.d was known as Adonis, the "lord," or under his old Babylonian t.i.tle of Tammuz.

It was for Tammuz, it will be remembered, that Ezekiel saw the women sitting and weeping within the precincts of "the Lord's house" itself in Jerusalem (Ezek. viii. 14).

Hadadezer was murdered between the fourteenth and eighteenth years of Shalmaneser, and the crown seized by Hazael. In his eighteenth year the a.s.syrian king moved against the usurper, and captured his camp along with 1,121 chariots and 470 war-magazines. The battle took place on the summit of Sanir or Shenir-the name given to Mount Hermon by the Amorites according to Deut. iii. 9-"which lies over against Lebanon." Here 16,000 of the Syrians fell in battle, and Hazael fled to Damascus, whither he was followed by the a.s.syrians. Damascus, however, proved too strong to be captured, and Shalmaneser accordingly contented himself with cutting down the trees by which it was surrounded, and retiring into the Hauran, where he burnt the unwalled towns, and carried away their inhabitants into captivity. He then followed the high road from Damascus to the Mediterranean, and on the promontory of Baal-rosh, at the mouth of the Dog River, near Beyrut, had an image of himself carved upon the rocks. At the same place he received the tribute of Tyre and Sidon, as well as of "Yahua, the son of Khumri," that is to say, of Jehu, the descendant of Omri. In calling Jehu a descendant of Omri, the a.s.syrian king was misinformed; he had heard nothing of the revolution which had extirpated the house of Omri, and had placed Jehu upon the throne. Like Ahab, therefore, Jehu was supposed to be a son of Omri, the founder of Samaria, which is frequently termed Beth-Omri, "the house of Omri," in the a.s.syrian inscriptions, though in the later days of Tiglath-Pileser II and Sargon, "Beth-Omri" is superseded by "Samirina." This was the Aramaic form of the native name-Shimron, and must consequently have been derived by the a.s.syrians from the Aramaic neighbours of the Israelites.

In the a.s.syrian Hall of the British Museum there now stands a small obelisk of black marble, which was brought from Calah by Sir A. H. Layard, on which Shalmaneser records the annals of his reign. The upper portion of the monument is occupied by a series of reliefs representing the tribute brought to the a.s.syrian monarch by the distant nations which had sought his favour. Among the reliefs is one in which the amba.s.sadors of Jehu are depicted bearing their offerings of gold and silver bars, of a golden vase and a golden spoon, of cups and goblets of gold, of pieces of lead, of a royal sceptre and of clubs of wood. Their features are those which are still characteristic of the Jewish race, and their fringed robes descend to their ankles.

The death of Shalmaneser brought with it a period of peace for Damascus and Palestine. His son and successor turned his arms in other directions, and Hazael and his successor, Ben-hadad III, were left free to ravage Israel (2 Kings xiii. 3). It was not until the Israelites, under Jeroboam II, had taken ample revenge upon the Syrians, and the coast of Israel was restored "from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain," that an a.s.syrian monarch once more marched towards the west. This was Rimmon-nirari, grandson of Shalmaneser, who reigned from B.C. 810 to 781, and reduced the kingdom of Damascus to a condition of va.s.salage. Damascus was now under the government of a king called Marih, the successor, probably, of Ben-hadad III, who, after undergoing a siege at the hands of the a.s.syrians, was glad to make terms with them by acknowledging the supremacy of Rimmon-nirari, and by giving him 2,300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3,000 talents of copper, 5,000 talents of iron, embroidered robes and clothes of fine linen, a couch inlaid with ivory and an ivory parasol, besides other treasures and furniture without number which his palace contained. It is very possible that Jeroboam's successes against the Syrians were in large measure due to the extent to which they had been weakened by the a.s.syrians. Rimmon-nirari also claims to have received tribute from Tyre and Sidon, from Beth-Omri, from Edom, and from Palastu or Palestine-a name under which we should probably include not only the district inhabited by the Philistines, but the kingdom of Judah as well. The tribute was no doubt sent to him after his triumphal entry into Damascus.

With Rimmon-nirari the power of the older dynasty of the a.s.syrian kings came to an end. His successors were scarcely able to defend themselves against the attacks of their neighbours on the north and south; diseases and insurrections broke out in the great cities of the kingdom, and finally, in B.C. 746, there was a rising in Calah; the king either died or was put to death, and before the year was over, in the month of April, B.C. 745, the crown was seized by a military adventurer, named Pul, who a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of Tiglath-Pileser II. Tiglath-Pileser I had been the most famous monarch and most extensive conqueror of the older dynasty, and had reigned over a.s.syria five centuries previously; by a.s.suming his name, therefore, the usurper wished to show that he intended to emulate his deeds. According to later tradition, the new king had begun his career as a gardener; whether this were true or not, he showed great military and executive capacities after he had established himself on the throne, and it was to him that the second a.s.syrian empire owed its origin.

Tiglath-Pileser determined to cement the various states of Western Asia into a single empire, governed by satraps appointed at Nineveh, and accountable only to the king. Each satrapy, or province, had to provide a certain number of men for the imperial army, and to pay a fixed annual tribute to the imperial treasury. Thus, Nineveh itself was a.s.sessed at 30 talents, ten of which went to the general expenditure, while the remaining twenty were devoted to the maintenance of the fleet. Calah paid 9 talents; Carchemish, once the rich capital of the Hitt.i.tes, paid 100; Arpad 30; and Megiddo but 15. Besides gold and silver, the cities and provinces were called upon to furnish chariots, clothing, and other similar contributions.

Two years after his accession (B.C. 743) Tiglath-Pileser II turned his attention to the west. Arpad, now Tel-Erfad, near Aleppo, was the first object of attack. It held out for three years, and did not fall until B.C.

740. But, meanwhile, the kingdom of Hamath had been shattered by the a.s.syrian arms. Nineteen of its districts were placed under a.s.syrian governors, and the a.s.syrian forces made their way as far as the Mediterranean Sea. Azri-yahu, or Azariah (Uzziah), the Jewish king, had been the ally of Hamath, and from him also punishment was accordingly exacted. He was compelled to purchase peace by the offer of submission and the payment of tribute. The alliance between Judah and Hamath had been of long standing. David had been the friend of its king Tou or Toi; and at the beginning of Sargon's reign the king of Hamath bears a distinctively Jewish name. This is Yahu-bihdi, or, as it is elsewhere written, Ilu-bihdi, where the word _ilu_, "G.o.d," takes the place of the name of the covenant G.o.d of Israel. It is even possible that Yahu-bihdi was a Jew who had been placed on the throne of Hamath by Azariah. At any rate, the alliance between Judah and Hamath explains a pa.s.sage in 2 Kings xiv. 28, which has long presented a difficulty. It is now clear that Jeroboam is here stated to have won over Hamath to Israel, though previously it had "been allied with Judah." But after Jeroboam's death, Jewish influence must once more have gained an ascendency among the Hamathites.

Two years after the fall of Arpad, Tiglath-Pileser was again in the west.

On this occasion he held a _levee_ of subject princes, among whom Rezon of Damascus and Manahem of Samaria came to offer their gifts and do homage to their sovereign lord.(7) The tribute which Tiglath-Pileser states that he then received from the Israelitish king was given, according to the Book of Kings, to Pul. We may infer from this, therefore, that the a.s.syrian monarch was still known to the neighbouring nations by his original name, and that it was not until later that they became accustomed to the new t.i.tle he had a.s.sumed. The inference is further borne out by the statement of an ancient Greek astronomer, Ptolemy. When speaking of the eclipses which were observed at Babylon, Ptolemy gives a list of Babylonian kings, with the length of their reigns, from the so-called era of Nabona.s.sar, in B.C. 747, down to the time of Alexander the Great. In this list, Tiglath-Pileser, after his conquest of Babylon, is named Poros or Por, Por being the Persian form of Pul.

During the lifetime of Menahem Israel remained tributary to a.s.syria, and the a.s.syrian king did not again turn his arms against the west. After the death of Menahem and the murder of his son Pekahiah, however, important changes took place. The usurper, Pekah, in alliance with Rezon of Damascus, attacked Judah with the intention of overthrowing the dynasty of David and placing on the throne of Jerusalem a va.s.sal king whose father's name, Tabeel, shows that he must have been a Syrian. Jotham, the Jewish king, died shortly after the war began, and the youth and weakness of his son and successor Ahaz laid Judah open to its antagonists, who were further aided by a disaffected party within the capital itself (Isa. viii.

6). In his extremity, therefore, Ahaz appealed to the a.s.syrian monarch, who was already seeking an excuse for crushing Damascus, and reducing the Jewish kingdom, with its important fortress of Jerusalem, to a condition of va.s.salage. In B.C. 734, accordingly, Tiglath-Pileser marched into Syria. Rezon was defeated in a pitched battle, his chariots broken in pieces, his captains captured and impaled, while he himself escaped to Damascus, where he was closely besieged by the enemy. The territory of Damascus was now devastated with fire and sword, its sixteen districts were "overwhelmed as with a flood," and the beautiful gardens by which the capital was surrounded were destroyed, every tree being cut down for use in the siege. The city itself, however, proved too strong to be taken by a.s.sault; so, leaving a sufficient force before it to reduce it by famine, Tiglath-Pileser proceeded against the late allies of the Syrian king.

Israel was the first to be attacked. The north of the country was overrun, and the tribes beyond the Jordan carried into captivity. Gilead and Abel-beth-maachah are mentioned by name as among the towns that were taken and sacked.(8) The a.s.syrians then fell upon Ammon and Moab, which had aided Israel and Syria in the attack on Judah, and next made their way along the sea-coast into the country of the Philistines, who had seized the opportunity of the late war to shake off the yoke of the Jewish king.

Their leader, Khanun or Hanno of Gaza, fled into Egypt; but Gaza itself was captured and laid under tribute, its G.o.ds carried away, and an image of the a.s.syrian king set up in the temple of Dagon. Ekron and Ashdod were also punished, and Metinti of Ashkelon committed suicide in order to escape the vengeance of the conqueror.

Now that all fear of danger in the south had been removed, Tiglath-Pileser marched back into the northern kingdom, took Samaria, and (according to his own account) put Pekah to death, appointing Hosea king in his place. A yearly tribute of ten talents of gold and a thousand of silver was at the same time exacted. Shortly afterwards some of the a.s.syrian troops were sent against the Edomites and the Queen of the Arabs, who had also revolted against a.s.syria and joined the Syro-Israelite league. Indeed, this league seems to have been formed for the purpose of checking the a.s.syrian advance, and the war against Judah to have been due to a refusal of Jotham to take part in it. It was an antic.i.p.ation of the league that was afterwards formed in the time of Hezekiah against the growing power of Sargon.

Meanwhile, after a siege of two years, Damascus fell in B.C. 732. Rezon was slain, his subjects transported into captivity, and a great court, like a durbar in modern India, was held in his palace by Tiglath-Pileser.

Among the subject-princes who attended it was Ahaz of Judah. He is called Jehoahaz in the a.s.syrian inscriptions, and it is therefore clear that the sacred historians have dropped the first part of the name, in consequence of the character of the king. The divine name would have been profaned by its a.s.sociation with an idolatrous and unworthy prince. As Khanun appeared at the court along with Kavus-melech of Edom, Metinti of Ashkelon, Solomon of Moab, and Sanib of Ammon, he must have succeeded in obtaining a pardon.

It was while Ahaz was at Damascus in attendance on the a.s.syrian monarch that he saw the altar, the pattern of which he sent to Urijah, ordering it to be set up in the court of the Lord's house.

Tiglath-Pileser died in B.C. 727, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV. The refusal of Hosea to continue the annual tribute brought the new a.s.syrian monarch into the west. Tyre was besieged unsuccessfully, Hosea carried away captive, and Samaria blockaded for three years. During the blockade Shalmaneser died, and the crown was seized by one of the a.s.syrian generals. The latter a.s.sumed the name of Sargon, in memory of the famous Babylonian monarch who had reigned so many centuries before. The capture of Samaria took place in his first year (B.C. 722); 27,280 of its inhabitants were sent into exile, but only fifty chariots were found in the city. An a.s.syrian governor was appointed over it, who was commissioned to send each year to Nineveh the same tribute as that paid by Hosea. The comparatively small number of Israelites who were carried into captivity shows that Sargon contented himself with removing only those persons and their families who had taken part in the revolt against him; in fact, Samaria was treated pretty much as Jerusalem was by Nebuchadrezzar in the time of Jehoiachin. The greater part of the old population was allowed to remain in its native land. This fact disposes of the modern theories which a.s.sume that the whole of the Ten Tribes were carried away. The districts to which the captives were taken were Halah, the banks of the Habor, or river of Gozan, and the cities of the Medes. Halah was not far from Haran in Mesopotamia, on the western side of the Habor, the modern Khabur, which flows into the Euphrates, and rises in the country called Guzana, or Gozan, in the a.s.syrian inscriptions. The Medes were the tribes who lived eastward of Kurdistan, which, like Mesopotamia, had been overrun by Tiglath-Pileser.

The places of the captive Israelites were not supplied immediately. We learn from the Old Testament that it was from Hamath and the cities of Babylonia that the new inhabitants were brought. Now Hamath was not conquered by Sargon until B.C. 720, and Babylonia not until B.C. 710.

Hamath had broken into revolt under Yahu-bihdi or Ilu-bihdi, who induced Arpad, Damascus, and Samaria to follow its example. But its chastis.e.m.e.nt was speedy and sharp. Sargon captured Ilu-bihdi in the city of Aroer, and flayed him alive; while Hamath received a colony of 4,300 a.s.syrians and an a.s.syrian governor. Samaria was next punished, and Sargon then marched southward against the combined forces of Khanun of Gaza and Sabako or So of Egypt. A battle at Raphia decided the fate of the struggle, and Khanun fell into the hands of his enemies.

The Babylonian cities from which some of the new settlers in Samaria were taken were Cuthah and Sepharvaim. Cuthah is now represented by the mounds of Tel Ibrahim, to the north-west of Babylon. It was under the special protection of Nergal, whose name means "the lord of the great city," the G.o.d of the under-world. Sepharvaim, or "the two Sipparas," stood on opposite banks of the Euphrates. The quarter on the eastern bank, now called Abu-Habba, was Sippara proper, where, according to Babylonian tradition, Sisuthros had buried his books before the Deluge; the quarter on the other bank being Agade or Accad, the old capital of Sargon I, which gave its name to the whole of the northern portion of Chaldea. In later times the two quarters were distinguished from one another as "Sippara of Samas," the Sun-G.o.d, and "Sippara of Anunit." Anunit was the wife of the G.o.d Anu, "the sky"; and when the Bible says that "the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Anammelech" reference is made to "Anu the king."

Adrammelech, or "Adar the king," was another Babylonian deity, who was originally a form of the Sun-G.o.d.

We may gather from Ezra iv. 2, 10, that Samaria was colonised a second time by the a.s.syrians, perhaps in consequence of an unsuccessful revolt.

This took place in the reign of Esar-haddon. His son Asnapper, or a.s.sur-bani-pal, settled a number of Elamite tribes in the country, among them being natives of Susa and of Apharsa or Mal Amir. Men from Babylon and Erech were also settled there at the same time. The names of the new colonists would suit the reign of a.s.sur-bani-pal better than that of Esar-haddon, since it was a.s.sur-bani-pal, and not Esar-haddon, who conquered Elam and Susa, and took by storm both Babylon and Erech. It is, therefore, probable that Esar-haddon in verse 2 is a scribe's error for Asnapper.

The reduction of the northern kingdom of Israel into an a.s.syrian province brought the a.s.syrian empire to the very borders of Judah, and the a.s.syrian kings began to cast longing eyes upon the territory of the latter. Its capital, Jerusalem, was an almost impregnable fortress, the possession of which would open the road into Egypt, as well as block the pa.s.sage of an Egyptian army into Asia. But as yet there was no excuse for attacking it.

Hezekiah, the successor of Ahaz, continued to pay the tribute his father had consented to give to the a.s.syrians, and Sargon accordingly occupied himself in wars elsewhere. Suddenly, however, an event occurred which brought him once more into Palestine. In order to understand this, we must turn our eyes for a moment or two to Babylonia.

The Babylonians had seized the opportunity offered by the death of Tiglath-Pileser to shake off the a.s.syrian yoke. For five years they remained free. Then in B.C. 722 the country was occupied by a man of great energy and ability, Merodach-baladan, the son of Yagina.(9) Merodach-baladan was the hereditary chief of the Kalda or Chaldeans, a small tribe at that time settled in the marshes at the mouth of the Euphrates, but which, in consequence of his conquest of Babylon afterwards, became the dominant caste in Babylonia itself. For twelve years he continued undisputed master of the country we may henceforth call Chaldea. Sargon, however, was becoming every year more powerful, and it was evident that another a.s.syrian invasion of Babylonia would not be long postponed. Merodach-baladan determined to antic.i.p.ate the attack. He therefore endeavoured to form a vast league between the states on both the eastern and the western sides of the a.s.syrian empire, whose independence was menaced by their powerful neighbour. Babylonia and Elam were the eastern members of the league, and amba.s.sadors were sent to the west, to concert measures with the various states of Palestine, as well as with Egypt, for common action against Sargon.

Hezekiah, now in the fourteenth year of his reign (2 Kings xx. 6), had just recovered from a dangerous illness, which had been aggravated by the fear of a.s.syria, and the fact that as yet he had no son to succeed him.

The illness formed the pretext by which the conspirators hoped to blind the eyes of Sargon to the real objects of the emba.s.sy; it was published to the world that the amba.s.sadors had come merely to congratulate the Jewish king on his recovery. But Sargon knew well that Merodach-baladan would not have troubled himself to enquire after the health of a brother-king without a further motive, and he doubtless learned that Hezekiah had shown the amba.s.sadors all the treasures and arms with which he hoped to support the league. The consequence was, that before the confederates were prepared to resist him, the a.s.syrian monarch had swooped down upon them and attacked them singly.

Palestine was the first to suffer. Akhimit, whom Sargon had appointed king of Ashdod, had been dethroned, and the crown given to an usurper named Yavan or "the Greek." Yavan seems to have been the nominee of Hezekiah, who at this time exercised a sort of suzerainty over the Philistine cities, and he was set up as king for the purpose of heading the Philistine revolt against a.s.syria. Edom and Moab also sent contingents to the war, and the Ethiopian king of Egypt promised help. Of the details of the struggle between Sargon and the western states we unfortunately know nothing. But it did not last long; neither Babylonia nor Egypt had time to send any a.s.sistance to their allies. The _Tartan_ or Commander-in-chief was ordered to invest Ashdod (see Isa. xx. 1), while Sargon himself overran "the wide-spreading land of Judah," and captured its capital Jerusalem. This conquest of Judah by Sargon explains prophecies of Isaiah which have hitherto been unsolved mysteries. Thus an explanation is at length offered of the circ.u.mstances described by the prophet in chapters x. and xi. Here the a.s.syrian army is described as marching along the usual high-road from the north-east, and as halting at n.o.b, only an hour's journey distant from Jerusalem, on the very day when the oracle was uttered,(10) while Isaiah declares that the capital itself shall fall into the hands of the enemy (x. 6, 12, 22, 24, 34).

All this is inapplicable to the invasion of Sennacherib, when a detachment only of the a.s.syrian army was sent against Jerusalem from the south-west, and when Isaiah was commissioned by G.o.d to promise that the king of a.s.syria should "not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it." The older commentators were accordingly driven to the desperate expedient of supposing that the invasion described by Isaiah in the tenth chapter of his prophecies was an ideal one. Thanks, however, to the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, all is now clear, and we can now understand why it is that the a.s.syrian monarch, whose march is described by Isaiah, claims to be the conqueror of Calno and Carchemish, of Hamath and Arpad, of Damascus and Samaria (w. 8-10). All these were conquests of Sargon, not of Sennacherib.

Ashdod was taken and razed to the ground, and its inhabitants sold into captivity. Yavan managed to escape to the Egyptian king, who was cowardly enough to give him up to his enemies. Edom and Moab were punished for the part they had taken in the rebellion, and the authority of Sargon was paramount as far as the frontier of Egypt.