The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 29

The inscribed vase in the British Museum, and the inscribed figure found by the German explorers at the same place have already been referred to (pp. 317-318), and it has been suggested as probable that they were sent as presents to one or more of the Babylonian kings, though the possibility that they were part of the spoils of an expedition to that part of the world, or specimens of Hitt.i.te art carried off at a later date, when the nations producing them had pa.s.sed away, are also probable explanations. In any case, they seem to show that there were, at some period or other, political relations between the Hitt.i.tes and the Babylonians.

Jebusites.

The importance of the Jebusites, who were, to all appearance, but a small tribe, lies in the circ.u.mstance, that their capital and stronghold, at the time the Israelites entered the Holy Land, was Jerusalem. In consequence of this, Jerusalem is mentioned, in one or two places (Jud. xix. 10; 1 Chron. xi. 4, 5, etc.), apparently poetically, under the name of Jebus, perhaps so called by the Jebusites because of its being the capital of their tribe. The original name of the city, however, as we know from Gen.

xiv. and the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (see p. 239), was Uru-salim. When the Jebusites took possession of the city, however, is unknown, but in all probability neither Melchizedek nor Abdi-?aba belonged to the race.

Apart from the references to this tribe in connection with Jerusalem, there is no indication as to its origin and race. The name of their ruler, Adoni-zedek, however, seems to show clearly that they were Semites, and we may suppose, with Driver, that they were Canaanites (Hastings, _Dict. of the Bible_, s.v.). It is apparently one of the tribes of which the Babylonian and a.s.syrian inscriptions know nothing as a body, but the name of Yabuu, which would be the old form of Jebus, occurs in a contract tablet of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and, if really the name of the tribe, as it would seem to be, confirms its antiquity, as indicated by the references to it in Genesis.

It is not improbable that future discoveries will give us more information concerning this tribe, interesting princ.i.p.ally on account of its having come into contact with the Jews.

Girgas.h.i.tes.

This nation, descended from the fifth son of Canaan, seems to have inhabited the tract on the western bank of the Jordan, and on that account was not within easy reach of the Babylonians and a.s.syrians. The name, it is thought, is closely connected with that of Gergesa, where Christ healed the demoniac, and allowed the evil spirits to enter into the herd of swine which then ran down the slope into the sea. This Gergesa has, in its turn, been identified with Kersa, a ruined town near the mouth of the Wady Samakh. If this be the case, there is some probability that the Girgas.h.i.tes are the Kirkiati of a tablet from a.s.syria which seemingly contains an early historical record, or an historical legend. Whether the Kirkiati be identical with the Girgas.h.i.tes or not, the text is of sufficient importance to make it a valuable record, and a translation of the more perfect and interesting of the lines is given here-

"Gazzani to the resting-place he has decided upon,(84) to the fortress camp of Kirkiati, to Zakar-gimilli (king?) of the Si?ites, to wide-spreading Kirkiati, to ?arri-si'ii, to Dur-Dungi, and the neighbourhood of Tengurgur (?) may he go forth, and to the land of ?alman, the place to which his eyes are set, may he go.

By the command of the enemy, the Lullubite, may he accomplish (it)- As for him, his horses, his soldiers, his chariots, in peace to the land of ?alman have approached, and the enemy, the Lullubite, whether from before him, or from beside him, or from his right, or from his left, did not cease (?) from him, and shall not destroy him, shall not make him fail, shall not cause him to diminish."

That the majority of the countries mentioned are near to Babylonia, is against the probability that Kirkiati (if it be a country) is the land of the Girgas.h.i.tes, unless ?alman be Aleppo, and not the Mesopotamian tract of the same name; or unless, being a "numerous people," they had sent out colonies to the neighbourhood of Babylonia, as did the Amorites; or emigrants, like the Jebusites. Whatever be the explanation, however, the above fragment is exceedingly interesting, the more so, that in the first line of the extract as given above, the person spoken of is to all appearance Gazzani, which is possibly the completion of the name of the father of Tud?ula, and is written, as far as it is preserved, in the same way.(85)

It is noteworthy that the prefix for country is absent in every case, except that of ?alman.

Moabites.

Concerning the early history and state of the Moabites we get no information from the inscriptions of Babylonia and a.s.syria, though the name Muab occurs on the base of one of the six colossal inscriptions at Luxor (_Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 21). For a time, in all probability, it was like an Egyptian province, or, at least, greatly under Egyptian influence. It is not until comparatively late times that the Moabites come before us in a.s.syrian history, and the same thing may be said with regard to the Edomites, Ammonites, and other petty states. As these will be referred to incidentally in the chapters which follow, it has been thought well not to treat of them here, in order to avoid repet.i.tion as much as possible.

CHAPTER X. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE a.s.sYRIANS.

Aur-na?ir-apli II.-Shalmaneser II.-Tiglath-pileser III.

(Pul)-Shalmaneser IV.

(Elulaeus)-Sargon-Sennacherib-Esarhaddon-Aur-bani-apli (the great and n.o.ble Asnappar)-The downfall of a.s.syria.

The Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a monarchy, which, pa.s.sing through many vicissitudes, reached its highest pitch of glory in the time of David and Solomon, to suffer, after the death of the latter, diminution by the falling away of the ten tribes.

Thus weakened, the two parts of what had been erstwhile a powerful whole became tempting morsels to any power whose ruler was ambitious of conquest. It was probably more from unwillingness to attack with but little chance of success than inability from inherent weakness which caused the a.s.syrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally, the kings of a.s.syria preferred making conquests nearer home, and Tukulti-Ninip I., who reigned in the 13th century B.C., annexed Babylonia and ruled there for seven years, a.s.syrian predominance in that land coming to an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son, Aur-na?ir-apli, took part. Though this was a check to a.s.syrian ambition in that quarter, its kings returned from time to time to the attack, but with very varying success, which probably caused them to turn their attention to other districts as the field of their warlike zeal.

Tukulti-Ninip II. (891-885 B.C.) and his son, Aur-na?ir-apli II., therefore aimed at the conquest of the north and west, and though the latter came into conflict with Babylonia, no permanent accession of territory resulted therefrom.

It seems not to have been until somewhat late in his reign that he reached, in his numerous expeditions, the Mediterranean Sea, "the great western sea," or "the great sea of the land of Amurru,"(86) as he calls it. Here, after performing ceremonies to the G.o.ds of a.s.syria, he received the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast-"of the land of the Tyrians, the land of the Sidonians, the land of the Gebalites, the land of the Ma?allat.i.tes, the land of the Maizites, the land of the Kaizites, the land of the Amorites, (and) the city of Arvad, which is amid the sea." This is followed by a list of the objects received, and the statement that they (the rulers) paid him homage. Having thus spied out the nakedness of the land, and ascertained the willingness of the rulers to give tribute, the a.s.syrian king proceeded to the mountains of ?amanu (Ama.n.u.s), and cut beams of cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple e-arra, for his house or temple (apparently that in which he worshipped), "a house of rejoicing, (and) for the temple of the moon and the sun, the glorious G.o.ds."

Shalmaneser II., son of Aur-na?ir-apli, during the first six years of his reign, warred, like his father, on the north and west, his object being to complete what his father had begun, namely, the subjugation of the territory of A?uni, son of Adini, king of Til-barsip. This having been successfully accomplished, he was free to turn his attention to the more southern regions of the old land of the Amorites. In the year 854 B.C., therefore, he marched against Giammu, a ruler whose land lay on the river Belichus. To all appearance this chief wished to resist, but his people feared the power of the a.s.syrian king, and put Giammu to death. Taking possession of the district, he then proceeded to further successes, and after crossing the Euphrates again in boats of skins, he received the tribute of the kings on the farther side-Sangara of Carchemish, Kundapu of Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, ?aianu the son of Gabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, "(at) the city Aur-uttir-a?bat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is upon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hitt.i.tes call the city Pitru"

(Pethor). Having reached Aleppo, he received also tribute there, and offered sacrifices before Hadad of Aleppo.

Next came the turn of Ir?uleni of Hamath (Amataa), whose cities Adennu, Parga, and Argana were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in flames.

"From Argana I departed, to Qarqara I drew near: Qarqara, his royal city, I ravaged, destroyed, (and) burnt with fire. One thousand two hundred chariots, 1200 yoke of horses, 20,000 trained soldiers of Adad-'idri (= Bin-Adad-idri = Ben-Hadad) of a-imeriu (= the province of Damascus); 700 chariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Ir?uleni of the land of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of A?abbu (regarded as Ahab) of the land of the Sir'ilites (regarded as the Israelites); 500 men of the Guites; 1000 men of the Musrites; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 men of the Irqanat.i.tes; 200 men of Matinu-ba'ali of the city of the Arvadites; 200 men of the land of the Usanat.i.tes; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Adunu-ba'ali of the land of the ianians;(87) 1000 camels of Gindibu'u of the Arbaa (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba'asa son of Ru?ubu of the land of the Amanians (Ammonites)-these 12(88) kings he took to aid him, (and) to make war and battle they advanced against me. With the supreme powers which Aur, the lord, has given; with the mighty weapons which _ura-gala_ (Nergal(89)) going before me, has presented (me), I fought with them. From the city Qarqara as far as the city Gilzau(90) I made an end of them. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I caused to be slain with the sword. Like Hadad I caused a torrent to rain down upon them...."

Such is the account of the first recorded contact of the a.s.syrians with the Jews-that is, if Sir'ilaa be rightly rendered "Israelites"; as to Ahab, there may have been more than one of the name, just as there were two Kalparudas, he of the Patinians, and he of the Gurgumians.

Nevertheless, the probability that it really is Ahab of Israel is great, and this theory is held by most a.s.syriologists.

In truth, however, the Hebrew and the a.s.syrian histories of this period are not altogether easy to reconcile. Ben-Hadad II., the son and successor of Ben-Hadad I., was in almost continual conflict with the Israelites. The story is told in 1 Kings xx., according to which Ben-Hadad entered into an alliance with thirty-two other kings, who, with their armies, horses, and chariots, besieged Samaria. Too full of confidence, he sent to Ahab of Israel, who was in the besieged city, demanding his surrender, the second time with terms more than usually humiliating. In consequence of the words of a prophet who is unnamed, the rejection of these terms was followed by a sortie of the inhabitants, who seem to have taken the besiegers unawares, whilst they were feasting and drinking in their over-confidence.

The result was the raising of the siege, and the complete defeat of the allied forces.

The next attack of Ben-Hadad upon Ahab was at Aphek, he hoping to obtain a victory over the Israelites because he considered their G.o.d to be a G.o.d of the mountains, and that they would not be under his protection in the plains. Here, too, the Israelites were victorious, and Ben-Hadad submitted, and agreed to restore cities taken by his father (xx. 34), and to allow the Israelites to build streets at Damascus (probably as a quarter for Jewish merchants).

Admitting the correctness of the general opinions of a.s.syriologists concerning _A?abbu mat Sir'ilaa_, it must have been between this period and his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of a.s.syria, with a force only half that of Ben-Hadad, though his chariots were nearly twice as many. Notwithstanding this, however, the Israelitish troops were sufficiently numerous, and the defeat of such a large army as that of the allies of the Syrian league, and the slaughter of a total of 14,000 men among them (another account says 20,500), many of them in all probability Israelites, finds no place, strange to say, in the sacred record, notwithstanding that the Hebrew writers do not, as a rule, in the least object to mentioning national defeat, and in this case it would have been a most important thing to refer to, the danger which threatened them and their allies being such as promised to overthrow their national existence altogether. Perhaps the compiler of the sacred record, however, did not realize to the full what the a.s.syrian invasion meant; or he may not have desired to justify Ahab's policy (which, in view of the danger which threatened, was a sound one), and so discredit with the people the fanatical behaviour and tragic warning of the prophet who reproached the king so mercilessly because he had made friends with Ben-Hadad instead of pressing on against him in hostility, even to the death.

The Rev. Joseph Horner (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1898, p. 244), besides bringing in the chronological difficulty, which is very real, in spite of Prof. Oppert's _Noli me tangere_ (P.S.B.A., 1898, pp. 24-47), notes (pp. 237, 238) the difficulty of the name. This is the only place where Israel is called in the a.s.syrian inscriptions Sir'ilaa-in all other pa.s.sages it is _bit ?umri_, "the house of Omri," or _mat bit ?umri_, "the land of the house of Omri," and he regards it as incredible that a name never used before, and never afterwards found, should be employed. Elsewhere, when speaking of Jehu, Shalmaneser calls him "son" or "descendant of Omri," apparently intending thereby to indicate his nationality, for, as is well known, the relationship expressed is not correct.

Nevertheless, allowance must be made for the uncertainty attending the introduction into the literature of a country of a name with which the people, including the scribes, are unfamiliar. ?umri or Omri may have been, to the scribe who composed the account given by the Black Obelisk, very much easier to remember than the comparatively unfamiliar Sir'ilaa, and it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means certain-Isra'ilaa would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the monolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the a.s.syro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir'ilaa (or Ser'ilaa) exists in the Sar-ili of a contract tablet of the reign of Ammi-zaduga, translated in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1897, pp. 594-595 (cf. p. 157).

But, as before remarked, the chronological difficulty still remains, the date, from Hebrew sources, being, according to Prof. Oppert, before 900 B.C. (the last year of Ahab), whilst, according to a.s.syrian chronology, it should be 853 B.C. (cf. Sayce in Hastings's _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. p. 272).

The importance of the city of Hamath is well indicated not only by the above extract, but also by the numerous other pa.s.sages where Ir?uleni (or Ur?ileni) of Hamath is referred to. The Guites were regarded by the late Geo. Smith as the Biblical Goim-a rather doubtful identification. As for the Musrites, the same scholar thought them to be the Egyptians, Mu?raa, "Mu?rites," coming apparently from Mu?ur, the name of Egypt in the a.s.syrian inscriptions. Others regard them as being a people of the north, and this is more probable, though it would perhaps be better to regard the name as unidentified. The mention of "camels" in connection with Gindibu'u of the Arbaa is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being Arabic, and this is very probable. In Ba'asa son of Ru?ubu of the Ammonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and Rehob in their a.s.syrian forms. It will therefore be seen that the extract translated above is of considerable interest quite independently of its historical bearings, which are of great importance, whatever may be the ultimate opinion concerning them.

During the next three years Shalmaneser was occupied on the west and north-west and in Babylonia, so that it was not until 850 B.C. that he was again able to turn his attention to the neighbourhood of Palestine.

The clemency of Ahab towards Ben-Hadad had apparently ended, as has been seen, in an alliance between the two nationalities, but that alliance did not, to all appearance, last very long. There is every probability that it was an unwilling one on the part of Ben-Hadad, and in all probability he took advantage of the death of Ahab to repudiate it. In any case, Ben-Hadad is represented in 2 Kings vi. 24 ff., as again besieging Samaria, but with disastrous results. What interval there was between his raising the siege of Samaria and his death, the sacred narrative does not say, but according to a.s.syrian chronology, there should be from four to six years at least (850-846 B.C.).

In the tenth year of his reign Shalmaneser II. of a.s.syria crossed the Euphrates for the eighth time, and advanced against Sangara of Carchemish, whose cities he destroyed, made waste, and burned in the flames. After this came the turn of Arame, whose capital city, with one hundred other places around it, was laid in ruins. Adad-idri of Damascus (Imeri-u), however, set himself, with Ir?uleni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of Syria, to resist the a.s.syrian king. Shalmaneser claims to have defeated them, put them to flight, and captured their chariots, horses, and war-material.

There is hardly any doubt, however, that his success was not by any means what he desired and expected, for he found himself obliged to march again to the same region in his eleventh year, when he crossed the Euphrates for the ninth time. On this occasion he says that he destroyed ninety-seven cities of Sangara of Carchemish and one hundred cities of Arame. Having reached the edge of the ?amanu (Ama.n.u.s) range of mountains, he traversed the portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites, where he captured the city Atamaku and ninety-nine other places, defeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with Ir?uleni of Hamath and the twelve "kings of the sea-coast." In the battle which follows he claims to have defeated them and killed 10,000 of their fighting-men with the sword. He also states that he took their chariots, horses, and war-material. On his way back he again turned his attention to Arame, capturing his capital Apparazu. At that time he likewise received the tribute of Kalparundu of the Patinians, consisting of silver, lead, gold, horses, oxen, sheep, and textile fabrics. Ascending again into the Ama.n.u.s mountains, he brought away a further supply of cedar-wood for his palaces.

In the two following years (648 and 647 B.C., according to a.s.syrian reckoning), Shalmaneser was not to all appearance engaged in any expeditions of importance, or at least their importance is unknown. In his fourteenth year, 846 B.C., however, he crossed the Euphrates again, and met Ben-Hadad for the last time. As before, the latter was in alliance with Ir?uleni of Hamath and the "twelve kings of the sea-coast above and below." Again the a.s.syrian king fought with them and defeated them, destroying their chariots and teams, and capturing, as before, their war-material, and "to save their lives, they fled."

Naturally all these historical details are of great interest and value.

The question naturally arises whether, being so much alike in wording and results, they may not all refer to the same expedition, which the a.s.syrian king repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the a.s.syrian rulers are exceedingly correct, and there is consequently but little reason to doubt the accuracy of Shalmaneser's statements. It is noteworthy that, in all these descriptions of expeditions to the west, twelve kings are mentioned, whilst in the first instance eleven only are enumerated, and in the other two the twelve are spoken of as if in addition to Adad-idri and Ir?uleni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to translate "the twelve kings," meaning the eleven which are referred to along with and including A?abbu of the Sir'ilaa, or are the twelve kings referred to in the account of the second and third encounters with Ben-Hadad merely an indefinite number, meaning "a dozen," _i.e._"twelve more or less"? As it is impossible that Ahab of Israel should have been one of the Syrian league all this time, the latter must be held to be the more probable explanation-"In those days Adad-idri of the land of Imeri-u (and) Ir?uleni of the land of Hamath with a dozen kings of the sea-coast trusted each other's might, and came against me to make war and battle."

Notwithstanding all his efforts, however, as detailed in his annals, Shalmaneser II. was still very far from the subjugation of the "sea-coast," as he calls Palestine and Syria, and realizing that he had a hard task before him, he returned to his own country and occupied himself in the two following years in Mesopotamia, Ararat, and Namri, south-east of a.s.syria. The following year, 843 B.C., for the first time during his reign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Ama.n.u.s mountains for use in the palaces of a.s.syria. This period of rest was in all probability necessary to enable the army to be reorganized for further campaigns in that part of the world which he seems to have set his heart upon subjugating.

This being the case, he set out, in his eighteenth year (842 B.C.), and crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. This expedition, however, was not against his old foe, Ben-Hadad or Adad-idri, but against ?aza'-ilu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously murdered his master, as related in this pa.s.sage, and seized the throne.

Hearing of the advance of the a.s.syrian army, he prepared for resistance, as is related in the following narrative.