The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 30

[Plate VIII.]

Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H.

Ra.s.sam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, a.s.syrian Saloon.) I_a_.-The expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia).

Sacrificing to the G.o.ds by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of the army over the mountains. I_b_.-Siege and capture of the city Suguni, in Ararat. II_a_.-Bringing to Shalmaneser "_the tribute of the ships of Tyre and Sidon_." II_b_.-March against the city Hazizi. Procession of prisoners. III_a_. and III_b_.-Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of Enzudu. (Page 337.)

"In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. ?aza-'ilu of the land of Imeri-u trusted to the might of his troops, and called his troops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is before Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished his defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save his life-I set out after him. I besieged him in Dimaqu (Damascus), his royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land of ?auranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and burned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went to the mountains of Ba'ali-ra'asi" (Aramaic: "lord of the promontory"), "which is a headland" (lit., "head of the sea")-"I set up an image of my majesty therein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, (and) of Yaua, son of ?umri."

The description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows-

"In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. ?aza'-ilu of the land of Imeri-u came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I took away from him."

These two doc.u.ments, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and the story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding years of Shalmaneser's reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as confirming the opinions. .h.i.therto held concerning the ident.i.ty of A?abbu mat Sir'ilaa with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of Damascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad, Adad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and the annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of ?umri or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing s.p.a.ce, does not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the battle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that event. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which I gave in 1886(91)-

"The tribute of Yaua, son of ?umri: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden vases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the king (and) sceptres, I received."

The account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had taken place in the Mediterranean coast-lands since Shalmaneser's former campaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and Hamath with "a dozen kings" in alliance with them, but against Hazael alone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they had no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be certain that they no longer feared the a.s.syrian king, who, they must have felt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab having been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was succeeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again to subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad's attempt to capture Samaria was made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was probably the cause of Jehoram's attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where Ahab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall on the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to return to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth's vineyard is one of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.

Jehu's payment of tribute to the a.s.syrian king in 842 B.C. was probably due to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a cheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in an encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do, could hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was important for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this submission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that he would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the a.s.syrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839 B.C., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this occasion four towns of the king of Damascus were captured, and tribute again received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the same way.

That Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called "son of Omri"

in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of a.s.syria, is strange, and needs explanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as his son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known, Belshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which, according to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu may have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant of Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him in a direct line is certain.

It is noteworthy that the a.s.syrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the unp.r.o.nounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise p.r.o.nounced in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. ?umri shows that they said at that time Ghomri.

After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser's life, the great a.s.syrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son ami-Adad III. (825-812 B.C.). The first work of the new ruler was the pacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he tried to restore a.s.syrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom.

During his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W.

and S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on the Euphrates, near Carchemish.

His son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 B.C., followed in his footsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and north-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The only campaign of which details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however, is not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place earlier than 797 B.C., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash king of Israel-a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the comparison of Mansuate with Mana.s.seh. As the a.s.syrian form of this name is Minse or Minase, such an identification is impossible, and this being the case, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria took place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at ?aza, or 804, when he marched against Ba'ali, the name, apparently, of a Phnician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this was the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded as very probable, and if so, 803 B.C. must be added to the dates already named, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may have extended over one or more of the years here referred to.

So, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of a.s.syria had the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far as it is at present known-

"Palace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the world, king of the land of Aur; the king who, in his youth, Aur, king of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal; his shepherding he (Aur) made good as pasture for the people of the land of Aur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of e-arra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of e-kura, who continually walketh in the service of Aur, his lord, and hath caused the princes of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered from the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the land of Ellipu, the land of ?ar?ar, the land of Arazia, the land of Mesu, the land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the land of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land of Abdadana, the land of Na'iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole of it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the mountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of the sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of ?atti (Heth, the Hitt.i.tes), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of ?umri (Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far as the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused to submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the land of a-imeri-u (Syria of Damascus); Mari'u, king of a-imeri-u, I shut up in Dimaqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of Aur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two thousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch of ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cushions (?), his goods, his property, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in the midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean tribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I fixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the treasures) of Bel, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings...."

(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet uncovered.)

Schrader, in his _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, makes the campaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 B.C., and sees in Adad-nirari the deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of Jehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to Hazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability that the successor of the latter was the Mari'u mentioned in the translation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate that the Israelites submitted to the a.s.syrian king, and paid him tribute in order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous amount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having come, and the tribute paid, "Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime"

(2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation, probably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of Jehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the last-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see ver. 19). Apparently "all their days" in ver. 3 is not to be taken literally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before the death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of there being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death of Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre pa.s.sing into younger and more vigorous hands, so that "a saviour" was still needed, and found in the person of the a.s.syrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being in a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to Adad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit the country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made against the Israelites.

The fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in it. She was named Sammu-ramat, "(the G.o.ddess) Sammu loveth (her)," a name which is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical Semiramis of Herodotus. That she was looked up to by the subjects of her royal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum (there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the inscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief officers of the kingdom, Bel-tar?i-ili-ma ("a lord before G.o.d"), who furnished them with the following dedication-

"To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of e-saggil,(92) the wise one, high-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme; prince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he who knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed (and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is (the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords, whose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in heaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth in E-zida, which is within Calah-the great lord, his lord-for the life of Adad-nirari, king of the land of Aur, his lord, and the life of Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bel-tar?i-ili-ma, ruler of the city of Calah, the land of ?amedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of Temeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of his days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his people (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made as a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo-trust not another G.o.d."

It is rare that an a.s.syrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions, especially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is added by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the same as that of Semiramis. In a.s.syrian and Babylonian history, it is always the king who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in determining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore unknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to testify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and that one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by a.s.sociating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for the preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether the history of Sammu-ramat, queen of a.s.syria, was laid under contribution to furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be known; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the warlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of a.s.syria, her husband, should break off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.

Adad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783 B.C. The expeditions of this king were princ.i.p.ally against Armenia and Itu'u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 B.C. he went to the cedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Ama.n.u.s, Lebanon, or of a district called ?aur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of expeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 B.C. we find Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there again into subjection.

Although doubt is now expressed as to whether ?atarika, whither Shalmaneser III. marched in 772 B.C., the last year of his reign, be really Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well as they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from Damascus to which he went.

Aur-dan, his successor, ascended the throne in the following year, and at once began warring in Babylonia and on the east. In 765 B.C. he marched to ?atarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in a.s.syria, probably on account of the pestilence with which the land was afflicted, and it must have been for this reason that no expedition was undertaken in the year 764 B.C. Next year the rising, which was evidently expected, took place in the city of Aur, and there was an eclipse of the sun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has been identified with an eclipse which pa.s.sed over a.s.syria on the 15th of June, 763 B.C., and was supposed by Mr. Bosanquet to be referred to in Amos viii. 9, "I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and will darken the earth in the clear day."

To all appearance this eclipse, taken in conjunction with the presence of pestilence and rebellion, was regarded as an evil omen. This revolt lasted into the next year, and spread, in 761 B.C., into Arrap?a, where it continued three years. In 759 the revolt reached Gozan, and there was a recrudescence of the plague. There is no reference to the stamping out of the revolt in a.s.syria, but it seems very probable that the king and his supporters were active to that end, as he was able to march in the year 758 B.C., to Gozan, after which there is the entry, "Peace in the land."

Two years were to all appearance occupied in reorganizing the country and providing against a repet.i.tion of such risings, unless it be that Aur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received chronology, he died in 755 B.C. when Aur-nirari II. ascended the throne.

This new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the year of his accession, to ?atarika, and the other, in 754 B.C., to Arpad.

What the additional statement, "Return from the city of Aur," really refers to, is exceedingly doubtful-perhaps troops had been stationed there during the whole period since the breaking out of the revolt there in 763 B.C.

For four years no expeditions were made, pointing to a continued ferment of discontent in a.s.syria. In 749 and 748 B.C., however, Aur-nirari made expeditions to Namri, south-west of Media. It is significant, however, that the Canon has, for the next year (747 B.C.), the usual words ("In the land") when no expedition took place, the reason probably being the unsettled state of the country. The entry for the next year is "Revolt in Calah," which, as has already been seen, was one of the princ.i.p.al cities of the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end of a reign, followed by the words "(Eponymy of Nabu-bel-u?ur, governor of) Arrap?a. In the month Aaru (Iyyar), day 13, Tiglath-pileser sat upon the throne. In the month Tisritu (Tisri) he made an expedition to (the district) between the rivers." This corresponds with 745 B.C.

Thus is ushered in, in the Eponym Canon, one of the most important reigns in a.s.syrian history. By what right Tiglath-pileser III. took the throne is not known. To all appearance, he was not in any way related to his predecessor, Aur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of the generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in Aur (of which he may, indeed, have been the instigator), made away with his sovereign, and set himself in his place. Further light, however, is needed upon this period, before anything can be said as to the circ.u.mstances attending Tiglath-pileser's accession to the throne.

[Plate IX.]

Tiglath-pileser III. in His Chariot. British Museum, Nimroud Central Saloon.

Though all Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions are imperfect, and most of them very fragmentary, they nevertheless contain enough to show of what enormous value they are. Their incompleteness and the absence of dates consequent thereon is fortunately compensated somewhat by the fact that the Eponym Canon is perfect in the part which refers to this king, and that we are therefore able to locate with certainty all the events of his reign.

As the entry translated above shows, his first campaign was "between the rivers," that is, to Babylonia, the land lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates. His object in leading his forces thither was to break the power of the Aramean tribes, with the Arabs and others who were in alliance with them. Going first south-east, he subjugated the Chaldean tribes, including the Pekodites; turning afterwards west, he went against the Arameans, capturing Sippar, Dur-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is supposed that it was on this occasion that he a.s.sumed the t.i.tle "king of umer and Akkad." To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the Babylonians themselves as king, Nabona.s.sar being then on the throne. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged a.s.syrian overlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some justification for a.s.suming the t.i.tle.

Having arranged things to his satisfaction in Babylonia, Tiglath-pileser turned his attention to the East (Namri, 744), Ararat (743), and Arpad (same year), the last being his objective up to and including the year 740 B.C. Sardurri of Ararat, however, saw his influence threatened by this move, for he, too, was a conqueror, and had had such success, that he felt justified in calling himself "king of Suri," or North Syria. How matters fell out is not known, but it may be supposed that the a.s.syrian king went and besieged Arpad, was attacked whilst doing so by Sardurri and his allies, and compelled to raise the siege. A pursuit of the Armenian forces by the a.s.syrians was the result of this attack, the end being, in all probability, a decisive victory for Tiglath-pileser. This, according to Rost, would seem to be the most reasonable supposition, for the a.s.syrian king was able to besiege Arpad again next year without any hindrance. The capture of the city in the third year brought the rulers of the district in which it stood to the feet of the a.s.syrian king-all except one, Tutamu king of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed to a.s.syria.

During the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 B.C., risings took place in Syria and North Phnicia, and this gave Tiglath-pileser the wished-for opportunity to bring these districts again under his sway. The Eponym Canon gives for this year the simple entry, "He captured the city of Kullanu," which Rost supposes to have been in the neighbourhood of Hamath, and if so, must be the Calne of Isaiah x. 9, which is there mentioned with Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, Samaria, and Damascus as having been subdued by a.s.syria. The mention of Kullanu as the object of the expedition is probably due to its having been one of the chief factors in the disturbances which took place. It would also seem that Azariah of Judah took part in the attempt to get rid of a.s.syrian influence, and though this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the a.s.syrian king to all appearance did not come into direct contact with his country.

Azriau or Izriau (Azariah-Rost's collation of the squeezes shows that both spellings of the name were used) of Judah is mentioned at least four times. The earlier references, however, are so very fragmentary that nothing certain can be said concerning their connection-in one of the pa.s.sages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was captured by the a.s.syrian king, though, as Rost has shown, this may simply mean that certain sympathizers of his had taken his part. But whatever may have taken place in Judah, Azariah's sympathizers did not get on so well as their leader. No less than nineteen places were captured by the a.s.syrian king, including "Usnu, Siannu, ?imirra (Simyra), Rapuna, on the sea-coast, together with the cities of the Saue-mountains (mountains which are in Lebanon), Ba'ali-?apuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Ama.n.u.s, or according to Winckler, the anti-Lebanon), the mountain of _urkarinu_-wood, the whole of the land of Sau, the province of Kar-Adad (fortress of Hadad), the city of ?atarikka, the province of Nuqudina, ?asu with the cities which are around it, the cities of Ara, and the cities which are on each side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the mountain Sarbua to its whole extent, the city A?anu, the city Yadabu, the mountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city Elli-tarbi, the city Zitanu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and) the city b.u.mamu-XIX. districts of the city of Hamath, with the cities which were around them, of the sea-coast of the setting of the sun, which in sin and wickedness had taken to Azriau, I added to the boundary of a.s.syria. I set my commander-in-chief as governor over them, 30,300 people I removed from the midst of their cities and caused the province of the city of Ku- ... to take them."

Notwithstanding that there is no reference to the above in the Old Testament, there is no reason to doubt that it is substantially correct.

Its omission is in all probability due to the fact, that neither Judah nor Israel were menaced by the forces of the a.s.syrian king. Notwithstanding this, the expedition and the success of Tiglath-pileser had its effect, the result being that all the princes of middle and north Syria showed their submission to the a.s.syrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the safety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the defeat of Kii, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other districts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to districts in other princ.i.p.alities, a proceeding calculated to destroy national feeling and thus contribute to the safety of the empire by rendering rebellion more unlikely. The following is the list of the princes who secured immunity from attack by paying tribute:-

"Kutapu of the city of the Comagenians; Ra?unnu (Rezon) of the land of the Sa-Imeriuites (Syria); Meni?imme (Menahem) of the city of the Samarians; ?irummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi'ili of the city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the Kuites; Pisiris of the Carchemis.h.i.tes; eni-ilu of the city of the ?ammat.i.tes; Panammu of the city of the Sam'allites; Tar?ulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of the land of the Melidites; Dadi-ilu of the land of the Kaskites; Ua.s.surme of the land of the Tabalites; U?itti of the land of the Tunites; Urballa of the land of the Tu?anites; Tu?amme of the city of the Itundites; Urimme of the city of the ?uimnites; Zabibe, queen of the land of Arabia.

Gold, silver, lead, iron, elephant-skins, ivory, variegated cloth, linen, violet stuff, crimson stuff, terebinth-wood, oak (?), everything costly, the treasure of a kingdom, fat lambs whose fleeces were coloured crimson, winged birds of heaven, whose feathers were coloured violet, horses, mules, oxen and sheep, male camels and female camels with their young, I received."

It was a rich booty, and was probably held to be a sufficient return for all the expense, and trials, and hardships of the campaign. Though the kingdom of Judah seems not to have suffered (we must not be too hasty to a.s.sume that this was the case, as the a.s.syrian records are exceedingly defective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not appear from the a.s.syrian account that Tiglath-pileser went against Samaria, but notwithstanding this, 2 Kings xv. 19 has the following-

"There came against the land Pul the king of a.s.syria; and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of a.s.syria. So the king of a.s.syria turned back, and stayed not there in the land."

It is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the a.s.syrian king off-the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem's hand.

The writer apparently a.s.sumed that the a.s.syrian king might not altogether be hostilely inclined, notwithstanding that "he came against the land."

Perhaps by "land" we are to understand "district." In any case, the two accounts can hardly be said to disagree. He did not war there, but he received Menahem's tribute-it was therefore needless to mention his visit, if such it was. Many a ruler in this district must have done the same thing on this occasion, and there could have been no reason to mention one more than the other-hence, probably, the absence of references to any threatening approach to the borders of Israel and other states on the part of the a.s.syrian king.

But whilst absent in the west, rebellion was rife nearer home, and was put down with vigour by the governors of the provinces of Lullumu and Na'iru (Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who were sent west to ?imirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu'immu, and other places in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Madaa (the Medes), where he had a very successful campaign. As some of the places mentioned have the element Kingi as part of the name, it has been suggested that in all probability the Sumerians, whose Babylonian home was called Kingi, had their original seat in Media.

Campaigns against the district of the mountains of Nal and Ararat, the former as a preparation for the latter, follow, after which comes, according to the Eponym Canon, an expedition to the land Pilita. This is set down as the event of 734 B.C. There is, it is needless to say, some uncertainty in this expression, as the question naturally arises, What is really included in the term? a.s.suming, with Rost, that the statements in the Canon indicate the point intended to be reached, and not the farthest point attained, it is very probable that Israel did not come into the sphere of the a.s.syrian king's operations, and this is all the more probable in that Rost's collation of one of the squeezes in the British Museum shows that instead of the a.s.syrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we have to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description "on the boundary of Israel (Bit-?umria)." It will be seen, therefore, that though he may not have entered the country, or, at least, made any warlike operations there, he approached well within striking distance of its borders. On this occasion it would seem that he found it necessary to install six new governors so as to ensure the due obedience of the inhabitants. After this, Tiglath-pileser goes on to speak of Hanon of Gaza, who on seeing the approach of the a.s.syrians fled to Egypt, leaving his capital at the mercy of the invader. Having captured the city, Tiglath-pileser entered Hanon's royal palace, taking possession of all his property, and setting therein his royal couch. He speaks of having delivered something to the G.o.ds of the land, and of having laid upon its inhabitants (the payment of tribute and gifts). Further mutilated lines follow, referring to the spoil taken, and there is a reference to the land of Israel (mat Bit-?umria). After this comes the words, "the whole of his people, (with their property) I sent to a.s.syria." The gap between the reference to Israel and this line, however, makes it doubtful to what it really refers. The record immediately goes on, however, to speak of the death of Pekah.

In the Eponym Canon the entries for the two years following the campaign to Pilita (_i.e._ 733-732 B.C.) are, "to the land of Dimaqa." It would therefore seem that, having a.s.sured himself of the submission of his north-Phnician va.s.sals, Tiglath-pileser attacked the northern district of Israel, taking Ijon, Abel-beth-maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 Kings xv. 29). No account of this, however, occurs in the a.s.syrian inscriptions,(93) which, as already pointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the reference to Israel, in the mutilated pa.s.sage quoted above, relates to this invasion, and possibly also to the payment of tribute by Pekah in order to secure himself against further attacks.

Whether before or after the above is not known, but possibly on the departure of the a.s.syrians, Rezin (Rezon), king of Syria, made alliance with Pekah, and their combined forces invaded Judah. Ahaz, who was at this time king of Judah, was apparently besieged in Jerusalem, and the king of Syria took advantage of this opportunity to recover possession of Elath, which never fell into the hands of the Jews again (2 Kings xvi. 6).