The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 31

There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all appearance, that the a.s.syrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to Tiglath-pileser a humble message: "I am thy servant, and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me." This would in all probability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a goodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury, but also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that Tiglath-pileser went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however, decided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and obliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous, humour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his supporters-

"... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I took) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view his land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce of his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations, (fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down, and did not leave one ... (the city) ?adara, the house (= dwelling-place) of the father of Ra?unnu (Rezon) of the land of the a-imeriuites, (the place where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their possessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of the city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550 prisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16 districts of the land of a-imeriu I destroyed like flood-mounds."(94)

This is immediately followed by an account of the operations against Samsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she held sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi'ilu as governor over the land of Musru. All these pa.s.sages, however, are exceedingly incomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The shorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place lines of which the following is a translation-

"They overthrew Paqa?a (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi'a (Hosea) (upon the throne) over them. Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ...

their (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of a.s.syria)."

The longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made, may therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows-

"(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns, and had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off, abandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they overthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land)."

As will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings xv. 30-

"And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the 20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah."

Mutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser follow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative continues-

"(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my) agreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)?unnu (Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rukipti, the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne...."

In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the a.s.syrian king suggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due to the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished it to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by his flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put him to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account of the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all probability pursued after him, and thus encompa.s.sed his death. Hoshea then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the a.s.syrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time a.s.sured himself against attack at his hands.

Imitating Hoshea, Rukipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the a.s.syrian text does not enable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such, apparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be supposed that it was death at the orders of the a.s.syrian king, as recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 9.

Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of a-imeri-u or Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlords.h.i.+p. This being the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay him homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2 Kings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other subject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The further result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses of the pa.s.sage in 2 Kings referred to.

Thus ended Tiglath-pileser's successful expedition to Pilita and Damascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The Chaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence to engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabona.s.sar, the king of that country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabu-nadin-zeri, who, however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabu-um-ukin, who murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more than two months, and Ukin-zer, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bit-Amukkani, took possession of the throne, and ruled for three years-much against the inclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for the Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The interference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the Babylonians, who welcomed him as a deliverer. Ukin-zer (the Chinzeros of Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapia, though that city was not taken until the year 729 B.C. The result of this was, the submission of all the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then only a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in accordance with the custom, "took the hand of Bel," an expression apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was accepted by the G.o.d-and the priesthood-as king. This also took place again next year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of Babylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the conditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the Canon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of which only the first character is preserved-possibly to be completed Dir, and perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all probability, were taken in hand next year (727 B.C.), but whilst they were in progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.

How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of a.s.syria was called Pulu is not known. The name only occurs, in native doc.u.ments, in the Babylonian Canon of kings-to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for the a.s.syrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _bulu_ (which may also be read _pulu_) meaning "the wild animal." It occurs, however, as a personal name in the inscriptions of a.s.syria at least twice, the bearer of it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of "the ?u?amite."

The fact that the name Pulu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian doc.u.ment, suggests that the reference to the a.s.syrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26 are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in a.s.syrian history probably accounts for his having ultimately adopted the latter.

"On the 25th day of Tebet ulmanu-aarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne in a.s.syria. He destroyed abara'in." (Babylonian Chronicle.)

"In the eponymy of Bel-?arran-bel-u?ur, of the city of Gozan, To the city ... almanu-aarid sat upon the throne.

In the eponymy of Marduk-bel-u?ur, of the city of Amedi, In the land.

In the eponymy of Ma?de, of the city of Nineveh, To....

In the eponymy of Aur-?al?ani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....

In the eponymy of almanu-aarid, king of a.s.syria, To...."

(Eponym Canon with historical notices.)

These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is, however, it is probably of as much value historically as the a.s.syrian Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from that without historical notices. The completion of this important doc.u.ment from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.

It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at least one doc.u.ment, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.

What may have been the relations.h.i.+p of Shalmaneser IV. of a.s.syria to Tiglath-pileser does not appear. There is every probability that, like his great predecessor, he was an adventurer who, taking advantage of his popularity with the army, and the failing powers of his royal master, seized the throne. As will be seen from the Eponym Canon, an expedition was in progress when he a.s.sumed the reins of power, so that he may have taken advantage of the absence of Tiglath-pileser to carry out his design.

Tebet being the tenth month of the a.s.syro-Babylonian year, the time of his accession corresponds with the winter of 727 B.C., a period at which warlike operations were impossible. In the year 726 B.C. also he remained at home, as was to be expected, consolidating his power.

His first campaign must therefore have taken place in 725 B.C., when, as recorded in 2 Kings xvii. 3, he went against Hoshea, who paid him homage and became tributary. Hearing that the king of Israel had sent privately to So,(95) king of Egypt, asking for his help against the a.s.syrian king, Shalmaneser threw Hoshea into prison, and advancing against Samaria, called upon the city to surrender. Submission being refused, he laid siege against it, and although Josephus relates that he ultimately took it, this must be due simply to an inference, as there is no statement to that effect in the Book of Kings, the words recording the event being simply "the king of a.s.syria took Samaria," and, as we know from the inscriptions, it is Sargon, successor of Shalmaneser, who claims the honour of capturing the city (see below, p. 363).(96)

During the siege, however, the a.s.syrian king busied himself with the subjugation of all the surrounding district. It was probably in the same year (725 B.C.) that he sent his army against Elulaeus, king of Tyre, whose king had just been very successful in subjugating the Cittaeans (people of Cyprus). According to Josephus (or, rather, Menander, whom he quotes), Phnicia submitted (Menander tells the story from the native point of view, and states that "he soon made peace with them all"), but Sidon, Accho, and Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted (this probably means "joined the a.s.syrians"), and several other cities yielded to the king of a.s.syria. Finding that the Tyrians(97) would not submit, the a.s.syrian king returned against them (this must have been in the year 724 B.C.), and attacked them again, being aided on this occasion by the Phnicians, who furnished him with threescore s.h.i.+ps, and 800 men to row them. The attack of the a.s.syrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one, for the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve s.h.i.+ps, and dispersed those of the enemy, taking 500 men prisoners.

The reputation-and also the confidence-of the citizens of Tyre being thus greatly increased, they continued their resistance, and Shalmaneser found himself obliged, in consequence of the inefficiency of his allies, to content himself with a mere blockade of the city, and the placing of guards over the water supply, so as to reduce the inhabitants of Tyre by thirst. The latter, however, dug wells, and were thus enabled to continue their resistance, which Meander states lasted all the time of the siege, namely, five years-_i.e._ until two years after the death of Shalmaneser.

To all appearance the Sabara'in of the Babylonian Chronicle is the place which should be supplied in the historical Eponym Canon, but, if so, the form is a strange one. One would rather expect mat Bit-?umri, "the land of Beth-Omri," Pilita, "Philistia," or al ?urri, "the city of Tyre." There is also the possibility that one of these names may have appeared in each of the three lines which require completing, indicating three different stages of his conquests. Samerina, "Samaria," may also have been the word, or one of the words, to be restored. In this last case, Delitzsch's suggestion that Sabara'in ought to be read Samara'in, and regarded as the Babylonian form of the Heb. Shomeron, "Samaria," is worthy of note. The Babylonians do not state that he captured Sabara'in or Samara'in, but only that he destroyed (perhaps the word means "ravaged") it, and the city may not have really fallen into the hands of the a.s.syrians until Sargon was actually on the throne.

"In the 5th year ulmanu-aarid died in the month Tebet. ulmanu-aarid had ruled the kingdom of Akkad and Aur for five years. In the month Tebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in Aur, and in the month Nisan Marduk-abla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) sat on the throne in Babylon."

Thus does the Babylonian Chronicle record the change of rulers, which was to have wide-reaching results for both countries.

What the verse in Hoshea, "All thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle," refers to, is not known. There is every probability that Shalman stands for Shalmaneser IV., but which is the Beth-arbel which is spoken of? There were two places of the name in Palestine, one west of the Sea of Galilee, and the other at the extreme north of Gilead. Both are now called Irbid. If it be one of these, the verse probably refers to some incident of Shalmaneser's invasion. George Smith, however, thought that the reference may have been due to some domestic strife in a.s.syria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in which the a.s.syrian city of Arbela was involved. That it was one of the two places in Palestine, however, is more probable.

The month which, five years earlier, had seen the death of Tiglath-pileser, saw the departure of Shalmaneser IV. of a.s.syria to the abode of his G.o.d, and in Sargon, who succeeded him, the kingdom to all appearance accepted for the third time a ruler who might be described as an adventurer. Whether he, too, changed his name, in order to s.h.i.+ne in borrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that "Sargon the Later," as he called himself, by a.s.suming that style and t.i.tle, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown, who made the little state which was his original princ.i.p.ality the centre of a wide-spreading domain.

Strange as it may seem, until the discovery of the a.s.syrian inscriptions and their decipherment, nothing was known of this ruler outside of the Old Testament, his name being regarded as another name of Shalmaneser in the pa.s.sage (Isa. xx. 1) where it occurs. Scholars did not realize that the Arkeanos of Ptolemy was the king here mentioned, and that the change in the form of his name was simply due to the change of the initial _s_ into a breathing, according to a rule which is common in Greek etymology.

On a.s.suming the government of the country, Sargon threw himself with energy into the Syrian war, though in his slab-inscription found at Nimroud, and in his annals, he makes his campaign against ?umbaniga of Elam to precede his operations in the west. The following is the text of his "State-Inscription"-

"From the beginning of my reign to the 15th of my regnal-years, I accomplished the overthrow of ?umbaniga the Elamite in the suburbs of Deru. I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them, and allowed them to have the rest of their goods. My commander-in-chief I placed over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.

"?anunu (Hanon), king of ?azitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib'e, the Field-marshal of the land of Mu?uru (Egypt), to make war and battle in Rapi?u (Raphia). I defeated them.(98) Sib'e feared the sound of my weapons and fled, and his place was not found. ?anunu of ?azitu I took with my hands. I received the tribute of Pir'u, king of the land of Mu?uru, Samse, queen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), (and) It'amara, of the land of the Saba'aa (Sabeans)-gold, the produce of the mountains, horses, (and) camels."

"Yau-bi'idi of the land of the Amataa (Hamathites), a loose fellow, a usurper, a frivolous, evil man, set his heart on the dominion of the land of Amattu (Hamath), and caused Arpadda (Arpad), ?imirra (Simyra), Dimaqa (Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them to agree together, and they a.s.sembled for battle. I collected the powerful troops of the G.o.d Aur, and besieged (and) captured him in Qarqaru, his own city, with his warriors. I burned Qarqaru with fire. As for him, I flayed him. I slew the sinners in the midst of their (own) cities, and brought about peace. I embodied 200 chariots (and) 600 cavalry among the people of the land of Amattu, and added to the force of my kingdom."

The general opinion of a.s.syriologists is, that Shalmaneser did not succeed in making himself master of Samaria, the capture of the city falling to the honour of Sargon, and this, as a matter of fact, is what the latter claims. As will be seen from the above extract, he states that he carried captive no less than 27,290 of the inhabitants of the city, but whither he transported them he does not say. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6, he placed them in Halah (probably the ?ala??a of the inscriptions, near Haran), and by the river Habor (the Chaboras) in Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. It is needless to say that these long journeys must in many cases have entailed much suffering.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, the conflict with ?umbaniga took place in the second year of Merodach-baladan of Babylonia, which was the second year of Sargon as well. It is therefore difficult to understand why Sargon, in his record, places this event first. The reason why he dismisses the account of his conflict with the Elamite king in so few words is supposed to be, that he was in reality, as the Babylonian Chronicle says, defeated on that occasion. Though he might have wished to keep it in the background, his successes were so many, that there was no need for him to change the chronological order of his campaigns.

Sargon was naturally unable to be present at the siege and occupation of Samaria, which occurred too close to the date of his a.s.suming power to allow him to reach the place. Besides that, his presence was needed nearer home, lest conspiracies should deprive him of his newly-acquired regal dignity. That he considered the successes of his troops in the west as a most important circ.u.mstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he devotes so much s.p.a.ce in his annals to the account of it-and, indeed, the capture of 27,290 people is a thing of which any ruler might boast. There can be no doubt that the a.s.syrian kings, like the Babylonians before them, always desired to possess the dominion of the Mediterranean provinces, where were marts for the products both of their lands and their people, and entry to the ports, for then, as now, all good rulers tried to further the interests of their subjects in distant lands, and were probably firmly of opinion, that "trade followed the standard."(99)

In addition to this, there was the rivalry of Egypt, the country which had held these provinces in the past, and would have liked to regain them.

Whether the rulers of the Mediterranean states realized this or not, is uncertain, but in any case, like the Israelites, they had no objection to making use of Egypt, "bruised reed" as she was by some considered. Seeing that there was danger from the a.s.syrians, Hanon of Gaza followed the example of Hoshea, in whom Shalmaneser had "found conspiracy," and made overtures with Sib'e, the So of 2 Kings xvii. 4 (the word ought really to be pointed so as to read Seve, which was apparently the p.r.o.nunciation of the a.s.syrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing _b_ into _bh_ or _v_). This ruler is called "king of Egypt" in the pa.s.sage cited, but Sargon says that he was "Tartan," or commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army. This would imply that he was acting for another, a Pharaoh unnamed, and at present unknown. The general opinion is, that So or Sib'e is the same as Sabaco, and is called "king" by antic.i.p.ation in 2 Kings xvii.(100)

The result was one exceedingly gratifying to the a.s.syrian king, for in the battle at Raphia, which followed, Sib'e fled in fear, whilst Hanon of Gaza was made prisoner. The defeat and flight of the Egyptian army does not seem to redound to the credit of its leader, who must have returned bitterly disappointed to his native land.

Immediately after, however, there is a reference to the receipt of tribute from "Pir'u, king of the land of Mu?uru." This would be a natural result of the success of the a.s.syrians (so it seemed to the earlier a.s.syriologists), for surely Pir'u is Pharaoh, and Mu?uru is the Mu?ur of other inscriptions, and stands for Egypt (the Heb. Misraim(101)). This however, is now denied, and Pir'u is said to be the name of a chief of an Arab tribe called Mu?uru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is not Arioch of Ela.s.sar, contemporary of Kudur-la?gumal of Elam who is not Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tud?ula who is admittedly the same in name as Tidal, all of them ruling at or near the same period, but not those referred to in Gen. xiv. as contemporaries. In a.s.syriology, more than in any other study whatever, things are not what they seem, and must always be identified with something else.

According to the annals, it would seem that Yau-bi'idi, who is there called Ilu-bi'idi, acted in concert with Sib'e of Egypt and Hanon of Gaza, the operations against him preceding those against the other two. The order of the translation given above would seem to be preferable, as it must have been in consequence of the flight of Sib'e "like a shepherd whose sheep had been lost," that Yau-bi'idi and Hanon of Gaza were so easily defeated. The former appears to have made Qarqaru the centre from which he intended to press his claim to the throne of Hamath, and he managed so well, that he got Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria to join him. The a.s.syrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this prince, whom he describes as "a loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous (?), evil man" (_?ab ?ubi, la-bel-kussi, amelu patu limnu_). After this it is not surprising that he thought he was justified in flaying him alive.

To all appearance the state of affairs in Syria was satisfactory. The great victory of the a.s.syrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the various states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the power of the a.s.syrian king, who had nothing further to fear from Egypt, and was therefore free to occupy himself with other conquests. In 719, therefore, he turned his attention to the region of the north, the kingdoms of Van and Urar?u or Ararat, the result of the operations against the latter being, that the people were transported to Syria, or, as the original has it, "into Heth of the Amorites." The operations in 718 B.C.

were against Kiakki of Sinu?tu, a city in Tabal.