VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH…

VII. ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH

Jacob, Yakub, and Yakub-ilu—Joseph, Yasup, and Yasup-ilu—Other similar names—The Egyptian monuments and the Semites.

With the disappearance of Abraham from the scene of his earthly wanderings, a prominent figure connecting Babylonia with Palestine vanishes from history. His son Isaac and his grandson Jacob retain, however, their connection with those of the family who resided at Haran, taking their wives from among their relatives there—Isaac because his father wished it, Jacob because the souls of his father and mother were vexed on account of the daughters of Heth whom Esau, Jacob’s brother, had married. In this primitive story of three generations of a primitive family there is much to interest the student of ancient west Semitic manners and customs—the love of Isaac for Esau, because Isaac loved the savoury venison which the former provided for him; how Jacob, “the supplanter,” obtained his brother’s birthright and the blessing which he ought to have had; Laban’s covetousness and duplicity—all these things furnish material for the student of manners and customs and of human nature, but very little for the comparative archæologist who wishes to find connections between Abraham’s descendants and the country which gave their father (or their grandfather) birth. Nevertheless there are points which deserve illustration.

To all appearance the manners and customs of the families of the patriarchs had not changed since they came out of Babylonia. There is the same pastoral life, the same dislike (and probably mistrust) of strangers and foreigners, the same freedom on the part of the men, even the most honoured among them, with regard to the marriage-tie, the same tendency to add to this world’s goods, and to become great and mighty chiefs in the land (would that Jacob had done this otherwise), as at first. The Babylonian spirit of commerce and the desire for “supplanting” was well developed in the father of the twelve tribes, and may be regarded as adding, as far as it goes, to the confirmation of the theory (but the question is more one of fact than of theory) that Abraham was of Babylonian race.

Exceedingly interesting are all the names borne by the patriarchs, and the reasons why they were given to them. Indeed, the punning references to circumstances concerning their birth are similar in their character to those of the patriarchs before the Flood. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that many of the names found in this part of the sacred narrative are not by any means unique. Thus the name of Jacob occurs many times in the tablets of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon under the forms of Yakubu, Yakubi, etc., and there are also forms with the word îlu attached—Ya’kubi-îlu, Yakub-îlu, etc. In like wise we find what is apparently the same name as that of Joseph, namely, Yašupum with its longer form Yašup-îlu, types of many others, such as Yakudum, Yakunam, etc., Yabnik-îlu, Yagab-îlu son of Yakub-îlu, etc. As far as I have at present been able to find out, however, none of the names of this class, except Yakub-îlu and Yašup-îlu, have as yet been discovered in both forms (i.e. with and without the element îlu), which may turn out to be of importance, or may be simply a remarkable coincidence.

This, naturally, leads to the question: What are the meanings of these names? According to Genesis, Jacob means supplanter, or, rather, “he has supplanted,” and the further query then arises: What does the name mean when îlu is added to it? The meaning in this case ought to be “God has supplanted,” which clearly will not fit.

The best explanation probably is, that the name of Jacob was never Ya´kub-ilu, but Ya´kub simply, meaning, “he has supplanted,” and referring, naturally, to the person who bore the name. As the name “Supplanter” is not one which a man would be proud to bear, in all probability it was seen that it would be taken for the usual abbreviation for Ya´kub-îlu, with the probable meaning of “God hath restrained” (another signification of the root ´aqab), and thus it may be that there is no record of any one having reproached him on account of it, except the members of his own family, who knew why it was given to him, and recognized in his character as a man something which corresponded with the name given to him because of what was said to have happened at his birth.

Notwithstanding the two etymologies of the name of Joseph which are given (Gen. xxx. 23, 24), “He (God) hath taken away,” and “He (God) hath added,” there is but little doubt that the latter rendering is the correct one, agreeing, as it does, better with the root yāsaph, from which it is derived, the other rendering, from the root āsaph, “to take away,” being due to a kind of pun. (The former rendering is explained as being from the Elohist narrative, the other from that of the Jehovist, but it seems not at all improbable that a woman, even a Canaanitess of those primitive ages, should have made a joke sometimes—they seem always to have been given to making strange comparisons with regard to words, and even the ancient Babylonians were not free from that failing, as at least one of the bilingual tablets shows.) The meaning of the name Joseph is therefore “He (God) hath added,” corresponding with that of the Yašup-îlu, “God hath added,” of the tablets of the time of the dynasty of Babylon. The use of š for s must be due to the fact that Yašup-îlu was, for the Babylonians, a foreign name, and that, in Assyro-Babylonian, šin was pronounced like samech and samech like šin, as a general rule.

Besides the names of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, the name Sar-îli, “prince of God,” suggests a comparison with Israel, which is written Sir´ilâa, “Israelites,” in the time of Shalmaneser II. The meaning attributed to this name would seem to be somewhat strained, as it would signify rather “God hath striven,” than “he hath striven with God.” That word-play exists also here, and that the name was a changed form of Sar-îli, “prince of God,” is possible, and is at least justified as a suggestion by the form recorded by Shalmaneser II. already referred to.

The name of his brother Esau may possibly exist in the Babylonian Esê, found on a tablet dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna. Laban does not occur, except as the name of a god in a list of deities worshipped in the city of Aššur. With regard to Bethuel, one cannot help thinking that it must be the same as the place-name Bethel, the terminal u of the nominative being retained in the name of Abraham’s nephew. If this be the case, he may have been so named after the “Bethel of cedar” (see p. 201), though there is just the possibility that, as Gesenius suggests, Bethuel may be for Methuel, the Babylonian Mut-îli, “man of god.” That the Bethel of Haran was a heathen place of worship, however, can hardly be regarded as any objection to one of the family to which Abraham and his descendants belonged bearing such a name. If the Hebrew text be correct, therefore, it is probably an abbreviation, forming part of a name similar to Ê-sagila-zērâ-êpuš, “Ê-sagila (the temple of Belus at Babylon) has created a name,” and others like it. It is also to be noted, that the name given by Leah to the son which Zilpah her handmaid bore to Jacob after she herself left off bearing was Gad, rendered in the Hebrew itself by “Fortunate,” and probably the name of a west Semitic deity, Gad, the god of good fortune.

But the heathenism of the portion of the family living at or near Haran is clearly proved by the matter of the teraphim, which Rachel stole from her father Laban. It is true that they are generally regarded as figures used for the purpose of magic, but as Laban himself calls them his “gods,” there is every probability that they were worshipped as such. It is to be regarded as simply an indication of the difficulty which most dwellers in the midst of polytheism in those days must have found in dissociating themselves from the practices of those with whom they came daily into contact. They may have had all the tendencies possible towards monotheism, but how were they to embrace it in all its perfection in the midst of a population recounting from time to time the many wonderful things which their gods and protecting genii did for them, and which the hearer had no opportunity of probing to the bottom and estimating at their true value? As these people were, to all appearance, but simple shepherds (though sufficiently wealthy), it is hardly to be expected of them that they would go deeply into philosophical considerations concerning the Deity, especially when we remember that the family of Laban was in close contact with the idolatry of Haran.

With regard to the teraphim which Rachel took with her when Jacob fled from her father, there is not much that can be said. Figures so called were in common use among the Jews and other nations for purposes of magic, and to all appearance they were statues of deities (as indicated in the passage now under consideration) which were consulted by some means when anything of importance was about to be undertaken. To all appearance they were the household gods, like the Lares and Penates of the Romans, though they were also used when on expeditions, as when Nebuchadnezzar is represented (Ezekiel xxi. 21-26 in the Heb.) standing at the parting of the ways to use divination, shaking arrows to and fro, consulting the teraphim, and looking at a liver to decide what his success in the operations which he was about to undertake against Jerusalem would be. In Zechariah x. 2 also, there is a reference to the teraphim, which, as oracles, had “spoken vanity,” and the diviners had “seen a lie.” Little doubt exists, therefore, as to what these things were used for. With regard to their form, it is supposed that they were similar to the small figures found in the ruins of the ancient palaces of Assyria, generally under the pavement, in all probability images of the gods of Assyria who, by their effigies, were supposed to protect the palace and its inhabitants. Some of these are four-winged figures similar to those found on the bas-reliefs, whilst others are representations of a deity, probably the god Êa or Aê, the god of the sea, who is represented clothed with a fish’s skin, etc. The size of these teraphim must have differed greatly; that which was placed in David’s bed by Michal, his wife, to deceive Saul’s messengers, must necessarily have been of considerable height—probably not much under that of a man. Those hidden by Rachel when her father came to look for them, however, must have been comparatively small, and the figures found in the foundations of the Assyrian palaces rarely measure more than six inches in height.

In the light of what this incident of the teraphim reveals, it is not to be wondered at that Jacob, when about to go up to Bethel from Shechem, after the treacherous spoiling of the city by his sons, should have said, “Put away the strange gods that are among you,” and it shows also a considerable amount of tolerance on the part of the patriarch. Did he, too, believe that the gods which his relatives and dependents worshipped were in any sense divine beings? In any case, it is to be noted that, after they were given to him, he did not destroy them, but hid them, with the trinkets which they possessed—in all probability in many cases heathen emblems—under the terebinth-tree which was by Shechem.

To all appearance they were allowed to keep these strange gods and heathen emblems until they set out on the journey to make the commanded sacrifices to the God who had revealed Himself to Jacob at Bethel.

It was after this sacrifice at Bethel that God again revealed Himself as El-shaddai, His name in the text of “the priestly narrator” (Gen. xvii. 1), and in many other passages. The word Shaddai here is generally connected with the root shadād, “to act powerfully,” and the translation “God Almighty” is based on this. As the word is a very difficult one, however, there have been many attempts to find a more satisfactory etymology. It is to be noted, therefore, that there is in Semitic Babylonian a word šadû, often applied to deities, and expressed, in the old language of Akkad, by means of the same ideograph (KURA) as is used for mountain (šadû or šaddû in Semitic Babylonian). This word šadû, applied to divinities, Prof. Fried. Delitzsch regards as being distinct from the word for mountain, notwithstanding that they are both expressed by the same word in Akkadian, and renders it by the words “lord,” “commander.”

Have we, in this word, an Assyro-Babylonian form of the Hebrew Shaddai? We do not know, but the likeness between the two is worth referring to. The god Bêl, for example, is called šadû rabû, “the great mighty one,” and Sin, with other deities, bears a similar title, found in such names as Sin-šadûnu, “the Moon-god is our lord.” That the idea of almightiness should be expressed by means of the borrowed Akkadian idiomatic use of the word KURA, “mountain,” as that which towers up commandingly, a mighty mass, would seem to offer an acceptable explanation of what has long been felt as a difficulty. “But God knows best.”

After a long and noteworthy account of Esau and his descendants, the interest of the narrative shifts, and is transferred to Joseph, the youngest but one of Jacob’s twelve sons, though the narrative is for a time interrupted by the story of Judah.

With the transfer of the interest of the narrative to Joseph, Egypt, the country into which he was sold as a slave, becomes the scene of the action. Here a vast and interesting store of material meets the student, which, unfortunately, we can only very imperfectly touch upon, partly from considerations of space, and partly because the present work is intended to be more the story of the Hebrews in connection with Babylonia and Assyria. It is necessary, however, to speak of Egypt not only on account of the continuity of the narrative, but also as an introduction to the chapter in which the Tel-el-Amarna tablets are examined—documents found in Egypt, and addressed to an Egyptian king.

There is no doubt, that in the story of Joseph there exists a considerable amount of what is known as “local colour.” This is shown by the freedom which the women of Egypt evidently enjoyed (as exhibited in the story of Potiphar’s wife), the matter of Joseph shaving himself before going to see Pharaoh, the many undoubtedly Egyptian names, etc. These, of course, are undeniable points in favour of the authenticity of the narrative, which, perfect as it is, omits one important thing, namely, the name of the Pharaoh who ruled at the time. That there should be such an omission in the comparatively unimportant references to the visits of Abraham and Isaac to Egypt is, perhaps, not so very strange, but that there should be no clue to the identity of the Egyptian ruler under whom Joseph entered Egypt, nor to the persecutor of the Israelites under whose reign they went forth from what had become to them practically a hostile land, is noteworthy, and a matter for great regret. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that scholars have arisen who doubt the whole story, for the least flaw in a narrative in the present day, when unbelief and the desire for scientific proof meet one on every hand, will cause a thinking man to doubt anything and everything.

The degree of civilization to which Egypt had attained at this period, and probably thousands of years earlier, is so remarkable that it is difficult for us at this distance of time to realize it. Whether the country was in reality more civilized than Babylonia is a matter of doubt—possibly we regard their civilization as superior on account of the monuments being so much better preserved, and because, in consequence of the nature of the climate (which is such as to preserve even perishable things), an untold wealth of material exists. This was not the case with Babylonia, in which country the annual rains have caused almost all woodwork to decay, and only objects of stone and clay, and much more rarely metal, remain, even these being in many instances more or less damaged and therefore defective as really useful historical documents.

Egyptian antiquities testify to the civilization of the Egyptians, as has already been remarked, from remote ages, and the inscriptions show that the kingdom was well organized, and governed by rulers whose sway was popular and in accordance with the wishes of the priesthood. This state of things lasted, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie, until about 2098 B.C., when suddenly this exceedingly conservative nation, possessing as great a dislike for foreigners as do the Chinese at the present time, found itself attacked and invaded by barbarian hordes from Western Asia. From what district these people came is not known. According to Josephus, they were regarded by some as Arabians, but Josephus himself regarded them as being of his own race, i.e. Jewish. Quoting from Manetho, he shows that, under a ruler called Timaios, these people from the east, “men of an ignoble race,” invaded the land, and easily made themselves master of it without a battle. When the rulers of Egypt fell into their hands, they burned the cities, destroyed the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of indignity upon the inhabitants. At last they raised one of themselves named Salatis (a name evidently derived from the Semitic root šālaṭ, “to rule”) to the throne. This king made Memphis his capital, both Upper and Lower Egypt become tributary to him, and he stationed garrisons in those places which were most suitable for the purpose. One interesting point is, that he directed his attention especially to the security of the eastern frontier, because he feared the Assyrians, who, he foresaw, would one day undertake an invasion of his kingdom. This, to all appearance, refers to the Babylonian dominion, which, as we have seen (see pp. 124 and 155) extended to the Mediterranean. As far as our historical knowledge extends, his fears were groundless, as no serious attempt (and certainly no successful attempt) to conquer Egypt was made until long after the time of Salatis, when Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, succeeded in subjugating the country, which remained under Assyrian overlordship until the reign of his son Aššur-banî-âpli.

Salatis ruled 19 years, and was succeeded by a king named Beon or Bnōn, who reigned 44 years. The next ruler of this race bears the Egyptian-sounding name of Apakhnas, and ruled for 37 years and 7 months. Next came Apophis, the Apepi of modern scholars, who occupied the throne no less than 61 years, Ianias, who ruled for 50 years and 1 month, having also a very long reign. After all these ruled Assis, 49 years and 2 months. These six, says Manetho, were the first of their rulers, and constantly strove to exterminate the Egyptians by making war upon them. Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, and their successors, he goes on to say, retained possession of Egypt 511 years.

In the end the kings of Thebais, and of other provinces of Egypt, arose against the Shepherds, and a long and mighty war was carried on between them, until the Shepherds were overcome by a king whose name was Misphragmouthosis, who, having expelled them from other parts of Egypt, shut them up in Avaris, a tract consisting of about 10,000 acres. All this tract the Shepherds fortified with great strength, whilst Thummosis, son of Misphragmouthosis, tried to force them to surrender by a siege, and surrounded them with an army of 480,000 men. He was beginning to despair of being able to reduce them, when they agreed to capitulate, stipulating that they should be permitted to leave Egypt, and go with all their families whithersoever they pleased. This was agreed to, and they bent their way through the desert towards Syria. Fearing the Assyrians (Babylonians), however, who then had dominion over Asia, they built a city in the country called Judea, of sufficient size to contain them all (they numbered not less than 240,000), and named it Jerusalem.

From this it would appear that, taking advantage of the disorganized state of Egypt about 2100 years before Christ, these Shepherd kings invaded the country, and gradually consolidated their power there. In process of time they had the whole of the country in their possession, and such rulers as remained were allowed to retain their provinces only as vassals, being really princes only in name. It is also very probable that if, as really appears, they were barbarians on entering Egypt, they became civilized by intercourse with the nation which they had conquered. This having been done, the monarchy which they established conformed more and more with that of the native Egyptian kings, so that their court and manner of administration were, to all intents and purposes, Egyptian; native administrators being appointed to many important posts in order to obtain the willing obedience of the people.

As the rule of these Shepherd kings began about 2100 B.C., and finished about 1587 B.C. (Petrie), it is clear that the visits of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, including Jacob and his family, all fall within this period. As will easily be understood, such a synchronism is not without its value, especially when considering the historical authority of the Pentateuch. That it was during the dominion of the above-named rulers that Joseph entered Egypt is or has been the opinion of all the best students of Egyptian history—Birch, Brugsch, Maspero, Naville, Wiedemann, and many others—and there can be but little doubt of its correctness. It is remarkable that there is no native record of Joseph’s administration, but this is, after all, hardly to be wondered at, especially when we consider the disturbed state of the country at a later date, when many records, especially those of the hated conquerors, must have been destroyed, and in any case there is the ever-present chance of some untoward fate overtaking them, by which such documents, if they really existed, may have become lost to the world for ever.

The strange thing about the foreign rulers who held possession of Egypt so long is, as has already been pointed out by Prof. Petrie, that they remained throughout to all intents and purposes a distinct nationality. Intermarriage between the two races, even when they were on the most friendly terms, must have been comparatively rare, and it is on this account that the native princes succeeded at last in ridding the land of the “impure,” as the native recorder has it. From this same record we get the information that one of the Shepherd kings was ’Apop’i (Apepy), the Apophis of the Greeks, and that he ruled at Hawar, a town which is identified with Avaris. The only god which this ruler served was Sutekh, identified with Râ or Rê (in earlier times also, to all appearance, pronounced Ria), the Egyptian Sun-god. According to the Sallier papyrus, from which the above details are taken, it would seem that Râ-’Apop’i, as he is there called, sent to Seqnen-Rê, “king of the South,” proposing that the latter should clear away all the hippopotamuses on the canals of the country, in order that Râ-’Apop’i might sleep. If the king of the South did not succeed in doing this, then he was to embrace the worship of Sutekh, but if he did succeed, then Râ-’Apop’i promised not to bow down before any other god of Egypt except Amon-Râ, the king of the gods.

This, of course, was a distinction without a difference, and is evidently put forward by the writer as such, for the worship of Sutekh in all probability meant the renouncing of the worship of all the other gods of Egypt, a thing which no Egyptian was likely to consent to. On the other hand, the worship of Amon-Râ by the Hyksos king would have been no great hardship, as it would in all probability not have involved any change in his faith, seeing that it was generally recognized that this deity and Sutekh were identical.

The end of this story is lost, so that there is no means of finding out how matters were brought to a head, and the flame of revolt kindled which ended in the expulsion of Egypt’s Semitic invaders. What the historical value of the fragment may be is uncertain, as it reads more like a romance than a true history. In all probability, however, its greatest importance will be found to lie in its local colour.(50)

Joseph, on arriving in Egypt, therefore, found himself, to all intents and purposes, among friends. The man to whom the Ishmaelites sold him was, as stated in the sacred narrative, Potiphar, “an officer of Pharaoh’s, captain of the guard, an Egyptian.” The writer of the narrative evidently wished to convey the idea that a man in the service of the king of Egypt, and bearing an Egyptian name, was not necessarily a native of the country. One in the favour of the Semitic ruler of the country, and enjoying his confidence, would naturally be favourably disposed towards a person of Semitic race falling into his hands, and this was actually the case with the Hebrew youth, who “found grace in his sight,” and became overseer of all his house. Indeed, it is possibly on account of this kindly disposition towards him (though also, and perhaps chiefly, on account of his being of the same race as the then ruler of Egypt), that Joseph was not at once put to death by his enraged master on hearing his wife’s lying accusation against him, for no man, in those days, would have looked leniently upon such a crime as that with which Joseph was charged. In connection with this, it is noteworthy that he is said to have been consigned to “the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were bound.” Here, being of Semitic race, and helped by his God, he obtained the favour of the keeper of the prison, whose trusted deputy he became. Later on, after interpreting to the king’s imprisoned chief butler his dream, he asks this official, when he should again be restored to his place, to make mention of him to Pharaoh, stating that he had been stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews, and had also done nothing to merit being detained a prisoner in that place. To all appearance he firmly believed that his nationality would favour him.

In accordance with his wish, so it turned out, for after two years mention was made of him by the chief butler to Pharaoh, and he is careful to state that Joseph was “an Hebrew.” When called, by the ruler of Egypt, in accordance with the custom of the country, Joseph shaved himself, and put on other clothes, before entering the royal presence. The sympathy of the king towards him was manifested immediately after his interpretation of his dreams, and he was at once, with Oriental promptitude, made governor of all the land of Egypt, receiving from the king his ring in token of the authority conferred upon him. The hero’s complete Egyptianizing is to all appearance terminated by his receiving an Egyptian name, Zaphnath-paaneah, and marrying an Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Poti-phera, priest of On.

There are a great many points for consideration in these few statements.

As has been remarked, it was doubtless due to the custom of Egyptian etiquette that Joseph shaved himself, setting aside his Semitic prejudices to the fashion, for it is supposed that Semites abhorred such a ceremony. Surely, it might be objected, the Semitic ruler of Egypt would have liked Joseph none the worse if he had retained his hair, and thus proclaimed his nationality, as it were, on this occasion. And such an objection would possess a certain amount of force. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Semitic abhorrence to the practice has been greatly exaggerated, for it was the custom for high-placed personages in Babylonia, in Joseph’s time, to do this, and it remained the custom in that country until a very late date. This was, in all probability, a sacred duty with certain classes of people, such as priests and those dedicated to a divinity. A Hebrew at that time would probably have had no objection, therefore, to adopting the practice, especially in such a climate as that of Egypt, where the necessity of keeping as cool as possible would probably be recognized.

That it should be desired that the new viceroy should try to assimilate himself as much as possible with the natives of the country was probably the reason of Joseph’s assuming an Egyptian name and taking an Egyptian wife. A great deal of uncertainty exists, however, as to the true Egyptian form and meaning of the name Zaphnath-paaneah (better Zaphenath-pa’eneakh). Many conjectures have been made as to its true Egyptian form and meaning, but that of Steindorff, “(God), the living one, has spoken,” is undoubtedly the best of all.(51) The meaning generally given to the name of Asenath, his wife, is “Belonging to (the goddess) Neith,” but a certain amount of doubt is attached to this rendering. As for the name of Poti-phera, her father, of that there is but little doubt: it is the Egyptian Pa-ti-pe-Ra’, “the gift of Ra,” or “of the Sun,” and was naturally a very appropriate name for the priest of On, or Heliopolis, the centre of the worship of the Sun-god. Potiphar, the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites, is regarded as being a shortened form of this same name.

Another point, and that a very interesting one, is the question of the derivation of the word abrech, which the criers were ordered to call out before the newly-chosen viceroy. Professor Sayce compares this expression, with a great amount of probability, with the Babylonian abriqqu, from the Akkadian abrig, the meaning which he attributes to it being “seer.” He also refers to another word, namely, abarakku (fem. abarakkatu). Of these two, the latter etymology, on account of the consonants, is the more preferable, though the former one would probably suit better in the matter of vowels. But which is the right word?—they cannot both have been the original of abrech. The meaning of abriqqu is “wise one,” and that of abarakku “seer,” a high official of the Assyrian (and probably also the Babylonian) court. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that Assyro-Babylonian literature was known and studied in Egypt, and this would account for the word being introduced into Egyptian. It must be confessed, however, that seductive though these comparisons may be, the forms hardly fit, otherwise nothing would seem to be more appropriate than that a crier should be sent to precede Joseph during his triumphal progress through the streets of On or Avaris, announcing that this was the new grand vizier, or the great seer, who had successfully interpreted the king’s dream. One would like to have, moreover, at least one instance of the occurrence of the word in Egyptian literature.

Naturally the Jews of later days were very much exercised in their minds that one of the favourites and primitive heroes of their race should have married a heathen woman, daughter of the priest of the Sun at On, and legends seem to have been invented to account for this undesirable circumstance and explain it away. It is regarded as being due to this that there exists a Christian legend, preserved in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin, purporting to give the history of Asenath. She is represented as the proud and beautiful daughter of Pentephres (Poti-phera), of Heliopolis, who lived in magnificent exclusion, and despised all men. Her parents wished her to marry Joseph, the great prime minister, but this she would not do. In the course of his visits to collect corn, Asenath sees him, and at once falls in love with him. Joseph, however, will have nothing to do with her because she worships idols. Shutting herself up for seven days in sackcloth and ashes, she threw her idols out of the window, and performed a strict penance. An angel in the form of Joseph then visits her, and blesses her, giving her to eat a mystic honeycomb, signed with the sign of the cross. Asenath, thus accepted, arrays herself in beautiful garments, and goes forth to meet Joseph. He had returned to the house in her parents’ absence, but notwithstanding this, the betrothal at once takes place, and afterwards their marriage in the Pharaoh’s presence. Her subsequent adventures include an attempt to carry her off on the part of Pharaoh’s first-born, aided by Dan and Gad, and in this attempt the heir to the throne loses his life. The original legend made Asenath a Jewess by birth. (See Smith’s _Dictionary __ of Christian Biography_, and Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, sub voc.)

To what has already been said about the points tending to show that Joseph was viceroy in Egypt under one or more of the Hyksos or Shepherd kings, may be added the fact that, when his father and brethren came to settle in the land, they were instructed to say that they were shepherds, though it is at once added that “shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians.” The only thing, to all appearance, that can be argued from this is, that however the native Egyptians might be inclined to look upon the new-comers, the ruler of the land (who is also represented as being pleased that Joseph’s brethren had come) had no objection to them on that account. In support of the contention that the period of Joseph was the Hyksos period, it must also be pointed out that this new viceroy introduced at least one measure which might be regarded as somewhat harsh. He appropriated the surplus produce of the seven years of plenty, and when the years of famine came, he compelled the Egyptians to buy back, “even to their own impoverishment,”(52) what they had themselves previously parted with for nothing. The reason for this, however, seems to be clear. The Pharaoh upon the throne was of the same race as himself, and he and all Semitic foreigners in the land, including his father and brethren, were dependent on the same state of things continuing. What he then did would have the effect of placing the native Egyptians still more in the power of their ruler, consolidating the dynasty of Semites to which he belonged, and going far, therefore, to ensure the permanency of its rule. In acting as he did, Joseph was only doing what any other man in his position and of his race would have done.

As has been frequently pointed out, famines occurred from time to time in Egypt, and records of them are in existence. Even before the time of the Hyksos kings, a failure of the waters of the Nile to rise to their ordinary height would bring great want and distress. At such times the governors of the various provinces of the kingdom gloried, as Ebers says, in helping their subjects, and saving them from distress. Thus Ameni or Amen-em-ha, whose tomb is at Benihasan, praises himself in the following words—

“I cultivated the entire nome of Maḫ with many workpeople, I troubled no child and oppressed no widow, neither did I keep a fisherman from his fishing, or a herdsman from his herd. There was no head of the village whose people I had taken away for compulsory labour, and there was no one unhappy in my days or hungry in my time. When, however, a famine arose, I tilled all the fields in the nome of Maḫ, from its southern to its northern boundary, and gave nourishment and life to its inhabitants. So there was no one in the nome who died of hunger. To the widow I allowed as much as to the wife of a man, and in all that I did I never preferred the great man to the small one. When the Nile rose again, and everything flourished—fields, trees, and all else—I cut off nothing from the fields.”—Ebers in Bædeker’s Upper Egypt, 1892, p. 15.

Amen-em-ha departed this life in the 43rd year of Usertesen I., or about 2714 B.C.

More interesting still, however, is the famine which occurred in the time of Baba, or Beby, as his name is also written. This functionary actually lived during the period of the dominion of the later Hyksos kings, and therefore very close to the time of Joseph. According to Brugsch, Baba lived and worked under the native king Ra-seqenen or Seqenen-Rê III., at the city now represented by the ruins of El-Kâb. Though the famine of which he speaks lasted “many years,” and notwithstanding that the ruler whom he served was a contemporary of ’Apop’i, the Apophis of Josephus, in whose reign, according to this Jewish historian, Joseph lived, it is thought that there is no reason to regard the calamity here referred to as being the famine of which so full an account is given in Genesis—such a supposition is “entirely gratuitous,” according to the writer in Bædeker’s Upper Egypt. However this may be, there is no doubt that it is a very important parallel, and would imply that two disastrous famines took place in Egypt in close succession.

The following is Brugsch’s translation of this text—

“The chief of the table of princes, Baba, the risen again, speaks thus: ‘I loved my father, I honoured my mother; my brother and my sisters loved me. I stepped out of the door of my house with a benevolent heart; I stood there with refreshing hand, and splendid were the preparations of what I collected for the feast-day. Mild was my heart, free from noisy angers. The god bestowed upon me a rich fortune on earth. The city wished me health and a life full of freshness. I punished the evildoers. The children who stood opposite me in the town during the days which I have fulfilled were, small as well as great, 60; there were prepared for them as many beds, chairs (?) as many, tables (?) as many. They all consumed 120 ephas of durra, the milk of three cows, 52 goats, and nine she-asses, of balsam a hin, and of oil two jars.

“ ‘My speech may appear a joke to some opponent. But I call as witness the god Month that my speech is true. I had all this prepared in my house; in addition I gave cream in the pantry and beer in the cellar in a more than sufficient number of hin measures.

“ ‘I collected the harvest, a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at the time of sowing. And now, when a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued corn to the city at each famine.’ ”(53)

As, in Hebrew, “seven” is often a round number, equivalent to the English “several,” the parallel is noteworthy. An additional remark upon the subject of the Pharaoh of Joseph by Ebers (Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 1729) is sufficiently striking. He says that the Byzantine chronographer who is known under the name of Syncelles (he held the office of Syncellus or suffragan in his monastery), like Josephus and others, calls the Pharaoh of Joseph Apophis. Now Arab tradition, “in which little or no reliance can be placed,” says that he was an Amalekite of the name of Raian ibn el-Walid, and Naville, when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund, at Bubastis, found a block with the name of Apophis, and near it the lower part of a statue of black granite with the name of Ian-Ra or Ra-ian, in hieroglyphics. In consequence of this, Dr. Rieu and Mr. Cope Whithouse maintain that this Arab tradition was founded on fact. “We must therefore leave it uncertain,” adds Prof. Ebers, “whether Joseph came down into Egypt in the reign of Apophis, or in the reign of the hitherto unknown Raian.” Perhaps both are right, and Joseph was in Egypt during the reigns of two or more Egyptian kings. Traditions are sometimes strangely correct, in certain points, though grossly untrustworthy in others.

In Ebers’s article to which reference has already been made, the writer is of opinion that Joseph met the king of Egypt on the occasion of the interpretation of the latter’s dream, either at Tanis, the Zoan of the English translation (better Ṣo’an), the Arab. Ṣân, borrowed to all appearance from the Coptic Dzhane (Dzhani, Dzhaane, Dzhaani), from the Egyptian Dzha’an, or at Bubastis, the Egyptian Pi-Bast, the Pi-Beseth of Ezekiel xxx. 17, or at Memphis, the Egyptian Men-nofr, the Biblical Moph or Noph. Of these three sites the first (Tanis) is considered the most probable. It is situated at the north-east of the Delta, and was founded, according to Numbers xiii. 22, seven years after Hebron. From this statement, one would think that there must be some connection between these two places, or else some historical fact is to be associated with it. One thing is certain, and that is, that Tanis was the residence of the Hyksos kings, who held court there for a considerable period, as did also many who preceded and followed them. The ruins are extensive, and the place is noted for its Hyksos sphinxes, in whose faces “the coarse Hyksos type” is strongly marked. The officers under the Pharaoh of the Exodus speak, in their letters, of the life there as being sweet, and praise the neighbourhood for its fertility and the abundance of the food it produced (Ebers).

Nevertheless, Bubastis (the modern Tel-Basta) may have been the place where Joseph saw Pharaoh for the first time, as it was a place of great importance, and had a celebrated temple dedicated to the goddess Bast. Memphis, too, may be regarded as having claims, on account of its being situated so near to On, the abode of Joseph’s father-in-law.

On, where Potiphera (“dedicated to the Sun”) was priest, was the celebrated city of the Sun-god in Egypt, whose foundation went back to an exceedingly remote antiquity. Besides Râ, Tum or Tmu (the evening sun), Râ-Harmachis (the morning sun), his companion Thoth, Sehu and Tefnut, children of Tum, and Osiris, who was venerated there as the soul of Râ, were among the deities of the place. To these must be added Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, god of the upper world or region of light. His mother Isis was worshipped at On under the name of Isis-Hathor, corresponding with Venus Urania. Besides these deities, various animals were held in honour, among them being two lions, perhaps representing Sehu and Tefnut, who were worshipped under the form of these animals; the bull Mnevis, sacred to Râ or Rê; and the Phœnix, called by the Egyptians Bennu, the bird of Râ, which was supposed to bring the ashes of its father to On once every 500 years, after the latter had been consumed by fire. Other sacred animals in this city were cats and a white sow. No wonder the Israelites of old winced at the thought that their hero Joseph, so perfect in character, wedded the daughter of a priest of this idolatrous city.

The shrine here was immensely wealthy. The staff of priests, officials, and subordinates connected with the temple is said to have numbered no less than 12,913. As the embodiment of the god Râ on earth, the king of the land naturally gave this shrine predominance, and increased its wealth by his gifts. This, added to the fact that the place had the honour of giving him a title (“Lord of On”) of which he, in his turn, was naturally proud, added greatly to the renown of the city. Besides the great temples, it is said to have been also “full of obelisks,” which were dedicated to the Sun-god in consequence of their being emblematic of his rays. “Cleopatra’s Needle” on the Embankment, the obelisk bearing the same name at Cairo, the Flaminian obelisk at Rome, and probably many others, all came from this city. According to Herodotus, the priests of Heliopolis or On were renowned above all others in Egypt for learning.

The Hyksos who held rule in Egypt for so many centuries are regarded as having been wandering hordes of Bedouin Asiatics, called by the Egyptians “the impure,” though they also spoke of them under their name of Amu, regarded as being a word derived from the Semitic ’Am, from the root ’amam, meaning “people.” How early they entered the country is not exactly known, but Petrie’s estimate, 2097 B.C., may be taken as the nearest at present possible. In connection with this it may be noted that, at the modern fishing-village of Sân, the present representative of the ancient Tanis, which was the city of the Hyksos kings described above, the faces and figures of the inhabitants are strange and unlike those of the remainder of Egypt. They call themselves Melakiyin, i.e. Melekites or “Royalists,” a name applied in the Christian period to a sect of the orthodox Church. They were anciently known as Pi-shemer, corrupted to Bashmurites, and also as Pi-Amu, corrupted to Biamites. There is, therefore, hardly any doubt that these people, the descendants of the wild and turbulent Bashmurites and Biamites who gave so much trouble to the khalifs Merwân II. (744-750) and Mamun (813-822), may claim for their ancestors either such of the followers of the Hyksos kings who, on the expulsion of the latter, decided to remain in the country, or else of those Semites whom the Hyksos found in Egypt when they conquered the country, and who helped them to consolidate their dominion, partly from sympathy and partly from interest.

Notwithstanding Joseph’s long residence in Egypt, it is noteworthy that, like the Hyksos rulers of the land, he did not, to all appearance, become in any sense Egyptianized, but retained his Semitic nationality to the last, as is shown by his command to his Hebrew fellow-subjects to carry his remains away with them when they, in the fulness of time, should leave the country. This being the case, Kalisch has asked, very naturally, “Why did not Joseph, like Jacob, order his body to be conveyed at once to Canaan?” In all probability the explanation is, that the Apophis referred to by the Greek writers was, as has been suggested, a contemporary of Seqnen-Rê III., and therefore quite close to the end of the Hyksos period. Joseph must, then, have passed at least part of his life under native Egyptian rule, and at this time national feeling must have been more violently anti-Semitic than ever. It may therefore be supposed that it would not have been by any means politic for him to proclaim his nationality in this way, for this might have the effect of endangering the lives and prospects of his surviving countrymen, who were all related to him, by attracting to them the attention of the hostile populace and court—a thing which would, and did, happen soon enough.

A still more difficult question to answer would be, “Why did not the Hebrews go out of Egypt with the Hyksos?” The answer probably is, that Joseph was, to all appearance, still known and honoured by the native Pharaoh, when he came to the throne, for what he had done for the country. It was seemingly not until after Joseph’s death that a Pharaoh arose who knew him not. It may therefore be supposed that, until that time, the Hebrews lived unmolested in the land which they had so long made their home.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

VIII. THE TEL-EL-AMARNA TABLETS AND THE EXODUS

Egypt and Syria before the Exodus—The testimony of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets—The relations between the two countries during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV.—Burra-burias of Babylonia, Ašur-ubalit of Assyria—Yabitiri, and others in Palestine—The Ḫabati and the Ḫabiri—The Letters of Abdi-ṭâba (Ebed-tob, Abd-ḫiba)—The Pharaoh and the prince of the Amorites—Mahler and the date of the Exodus.

“Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal with them wisely, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us: and get them out of the land.”

Such are the words which the new king who knew not Joseph, when he came to the throne, spoke to his people with regard to the alien population which had been allowed during a former reign to settle in the land of Goshen, a fruitful district on the north-east of Egypt, east of Bubastis (Zakāzik). It is the speech of one who feared that, if nothing were done to prevent them from becoming too powerful, they would be a source of danger to the state, as they might join, with every chance of success, in any attack which might be made on the kingdom over which he ruled. It was, in all probability, the presence of a similar foreign (Semitic) population in or near this district, about 2100 years B.C., which had contributed—or perhaps even made—the success of the Hyksos invaders, through which Egypt had been ruled by an alien dynasty for five hundred years. The repetition of such a catastrophe was at all hazards to be prevented. It would seem, therefore, that the persecution of the Hebrews was not undertaken altogether wantonly, but with the object of turning aside a possible misfortune.

As the historical nature of the Exodus has not as yet been absolutely disproved, it is here taken to be a matter of history, and this being the case, it is necessary to try to identify, or, rather, to state what are the most probable opinions, as to the rulers of Egypt at the time of the Oppression and the Exodus. Ramses II. of the nineteenth dynasty is generally held to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Meneptah, his son and successor, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Lieblein, however, would regard this latter event as having occurred during the reign either of Amenophis III., or his son, Amenophis IV., of the eighteenth dynasty. This latter theory is based on the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which speak of the Ḫabiri, roving bodies of men which went about Palestine stirring up the people, and even compelling them by force to renounce Egyptian rule (which extended in those days over the whole of this district). It will be part of the scope of the present work to examine into this question.

After the death of Seqnen-Rê in battle (see p. 255), he was buried in the usual way at Thebes, implying, as Petrie points out, that the Egyptians had pushed their frontier some way to the north, “so that ceremonials at Thebes were uninterrupted.” Further advance, he thinks, was made in the reign of Kames, “the valiant prince,” as he calls himself, because Aah-mes was able to besiege the stronghold of the Hyksos down in the Delta at the beginning of his reign, about 1585 B.C. It is to be noted that two names come, to all appearance, between those of Kames and Aah-mes, but these are probably not those of important kings, though a part of the honour of the progress made ought to be accredited to them. To all appearance it was the efforts of the Thebans, who had been pushing their way northwards during these last three years, which prepared the way for the successes of Aah-mes—successes which placed him on the throne of Egypt, thus making him the founder of the eighteenth dynasty.

Before he became Pharaoh, he succeeded, within four or five years, not only in getting rid of the overlordship of the Hyksos kings, but also in driving them out of the Nile valley, taking possession of Avaris, and pursuing them into Palestine. Here, in the fifth year, he was able to capture Sharhana or Sharuhen, some miles south of Lachish. He then went on to Zahi (Phœnicia), and later defeated the Mentiu of Setet (the Bedouin of the hill-country), attacking afterwards the Anu Khenti. On his return to Egypt, he found that he had to deal with two outbreaks on the part of those of the Hyksos (probably half-breeds) who remained, and these having been reduced to subjection, there was apparently no further trouble from the Asiatics remaining in the country. So popular was this founder of a new dynasty in Egypt, that both he and his queen had divine honours paid to them beyond those rendered to any other Egyptian ruler. His son Amen-hotep I. shared largely in these testimonies of popular esteem.

After this the power of Egypt increased. The venerable captain of marines, Aah-mes, relates that ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê (Thothmes I.) went against the Rutennu (Syrians) for the purpose of taking satisfaction, and marched as far as Naharaina (Upper Mesopotamia), where he found that an enemy had plotted conspiracy. On this occasion Thothmes gained many victories and took many captives. Another official mentioning the Syrian campaigns of this ruler is Pen-nekheb, who accompanied him to Naharaina. Thothmes III. also refers to his grandfather’s conquest in Syria, stating that he placed another inscription where the tablet of his father ’Aa-kheper-ka-Rê was, and adds that “his majesty came to the city of Niy on his return. Then his majesty set up his tablet in Naharaina to enlarge the frontiers of Kemi,” i.e. Egypt. Niy was in the region of Aleppo, on the Euphrates.

Thothmes II. (1516-1503, Petrie) retained those portions of Syria which his father had conquered. An expedition thither is also mentioned by Pen-nekheb, who says: “I followed the king ’A-kheper-en-Rê (Thothmes II.), the blessed one. I brought away from the land of the Shasu (Bedouin, apparently the same tribes as those to which the Hyksos or hak shasu belonged) very many prisoners—I cannot reckon them.... The king ’A-kheper-en-Rê gave me two gold bracelets, six collars, three bracelets of lapis-lazuli, and a silver war-ax.”

Thothmes III. (1505-1449), son of Thothmes II., had one of the longest and most glorious reigns in all Egyptian history. He was born at Thebes, and crowned when about nine years old. On the death of Hatshepsut, the queen regent, his father’s first wife, who, however, was not his own mother, his warlike expeditions began, and he assembled an army on the frontier of Zalu, preparatory to an expedition against the chiefs of Southern Syria, who had rebelled. This was his twenty-second year. Next year, on his coronation-day, he found himself, after a long march, at Gaza, on the way to Carmel and Megiddo, where he defeated the assembled Syrian chiefs, and utterly routed them on the plain of Esdraelon. The allies then took refuge in the town, which was besieged, and they were obliged to capitulate. Enormous spoils from this place, as well as from the other cities of Syria, was the result. This expedition was repeated in the two following years.

In his twenty-ninth year he made his fifth expedition to the Syrian hill-country, Tunep, Arvad, and Phœnicia, from which latter district much spoil was obtained. The two following years found him in the same region. In his thirty-third year he set up a tablet on the boundaries of Naharaina. The next year he made a campaign to, and received tribute from Syria, Phœnicia, and Cyprus. In his thirty-fifth year he went to Phœnicia, and received tribute from Naharaina. The year following this he received tribute from Cyprus. After this he again went to Phœnicia, and he is supposed to have received tribute from Cyprus, Syria, and the Hittites in the fortieth and forty-first years of his reign. In his forty-second year there was an expedition to Tunep, Kadesh, etc. Besides the above, he either made himself, or dispatched, under his generals, during his long reign (fifty-four years) many expeditions into other lands than those mentioned above, and also took part in numerous works and public functions in his own country.

The expeditions in Syria made by this king are told very graphically and at great length. The march to Megiddo, the council of war, and the dispositions for the attack, are given in full, and the king claims to have himself protected his army when going through a narrow defile in which all might have been lost had the enemy against whom they were marching made an onslaught. Representations of the spoil taken accompany the lists enumerating the amount, and show that the ancient Syrians had attained to a skill, in the arts as then known, equal, if not superior, to that of the Egyptians. Among the places mentioned are Arvad, Kadesh, Gaza, Yemma, etc. Besides Thothmes III.’s own annals, there is an inscription of one of his officers, Amen-em-heb, who gives his version, which, however, is not divided into different years. This text mentions the Negeb, where he took some captives; Carchemish, from which place he obtained spoil, and other places. He speaks also of Thothmes III. having hunted elephants in the land of Niy, one hundred and twenty in number, for their tusks. This agrees with what has been stated from the Assyrian inscriptions (pp. 200, 201) concerning the existence of these animals in the Lebanon and around Haran.

Thothmes III. was succeeded by Amenophis II., a warlike and vigorous ruler, who followed in his father’s footsteps, and by so doing maintained the power and influence of his country. Petrie (History, ii. p. 154) argues with great probability that he was not of age when he came to the throne, and that he was apparently not the eldest of his father’s sons. His first expedition, which was a raid in Asia “to establish his renown,” was probably, as Prof. Petrie says, in the first or second year of his reign. “His majesty had success (in Shemesh-atuma of South Galilee), his majesty himself made captives there.... Account of what his majesty himself took in this day: living prisoners Satiu 18, oxen 19.” Later on he had some further success, and took spoil from the Satiu with whom he fought.

In his second year, six months after the above expedition, he seems to have made a promenade in force as far as the frontiers of the Egyptian domains in Asia, in order to assert his power, and as a check to any disaffection which might exist. After this there was a triumphal return to Egypt, where he held a festival on the occasion of the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple of Amadeh. Among the captives sent to Egypt were seven chiefs of the territory of Takhsi, near Aleppo, who were hung up by the feet on the fore-part of the king’s barque. Of these six were afterwards hung up on the wall of Thebes in the same manner, a circumstance which suggests that the Egyptians were upon about the same level as the Assyrians with regard to their barbarous customs in war, notwithstanding their civilization and polish in other things.

He claims as his own nearly all the lands which his father had conquered—the South land, the Oases, the Lybians, Nubians, Semites, Kefto (according to W. Max Müller, Cilicia), and the Upper Rutennu, or district of Megiddo.

Amenophis II. died in 1423 B.C., and was succeeded by his son, Thothmes IV. His earlier years seem to have been occupied in asserting his power in Syria, and his later years were devoted to Nubia. Naharaina and the Kheta or Hittites occur in inscriptions referring to the former period. According to Manetho, he reigned nine years and eight months. He was succeeded by his son, Amenophis III. (1414-1379, according to Petrie).

At this time Syria was completely in the hands of the Egyptians. Constant intercourse went on between the princes of the two countries, who in Syria seem to have been contented with their subordinate position. It is during this reign that the now celebrated Tel-el-Amarna tablets come to our aid, and show how this was brought about. Alliance between the two countries by marriage had taken place, and the royal and various princely families were therefore related. Besides this, there was naturally reluctance on the part of a prince of Syria to take up a hostile attitude with regard to the king who had taken his daughter in marriage, as he would always be in fear of endangering his daughter’s safety, and for the same cause he would naturally try to restrain the petty rulers of his own district, including those of his neighbours who were more of the nature of equals. In addition to this, the sons of the Syrian chiefs were sent to be educated in Egypt, and as the Egyptian ruler at the time had married Syrian princesses, it is probable, as Petrie says, that the sons of Syrian chiefs, educated in Egypt, were married to Egyptians at the close of their education. As it was only stipulated that they should be restored to their native country to succeed their fathers, they may, it is thought, have lived in Egypt until middle life. This being so, the rulers of Syria would naturally become imbued with the thoughts and ways of the Egyptians, and undesirous, therefore, of throwing off the yoke. If, however, things were all really as thus depicted, there is one thing which is strange, namely, that the correspondence which was carried on between the two districts was not in Egyptian (which the princes of Syria ought to have known sufficiently well to write), but in Assyro-Babylonian, which was a foreign tongue to them all, especially the king of Mitanni, whose native language was not even Semitic. That the kings of Babylonia should correspond with the king of Egypt in Babylonian was to be expected, but if the kings of Syria, or their sons, were educated in Egypt, it is remarkable that we find so many letters in the Babylonian language.

Apparently, therefore, everything pointed to a continuance of the state of things which existed at the time of the king’s accession to the throne. It was evidently his desire that nothing should occur to change the cordial relations which existed between himself and the Egyptian dependencies, hence the mild suzerainty exercised. There was an Ethiopian campaign in his fifth year, after which, to all appearance, no warlike expeditions were undertaken—in fact, it was considered that there was no need for them.

The first wife of Amenophis III. was Teie, as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets call her, the Teyi of the Egyptian monuments. She was daughter of Yewea and Tewa, and was to all appearance of Asiatic nationality. Prof. Petrie thinks that she may have been of Syrian race, and as a matter of fact, her portrait shows her with a pleasant face of Semitic type and a pointed chin. To all appearance, she was a personage of great importance in the land, and when negotiations with the princes of the north were being carried on, she was one of those who were taken into consideration by the outlanders.

[Plate VII.]

Colossal statue of Hadad, dedicated by Bar-Rekub, King of Sam’allu, to Hadad. El, Rekub-el, Shamash, and the gods of Yadî, in memory of his father, Panammû, about 730 B.C. The horned cap which the god wears probably shows Assyro-Babylonian influence. Gerchin N.E. of Zenjirli. From Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

In one of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna, it would appear that, besides Teie, Amenophis III. had married a sister of Dušratta, king of Mitanni, named Gilu-ḫêpa, for news of whom Dušratta wrote to the Pharaoh, sending presents to him, as well as to his sister. Later on, the Egyptian king asks Dušratta for one of his daughters, sending a messenger named Manê with a tablet to that effect. As Dušratta in his letter to the Pharaoh Nimmuaria (Neb-mut-Ra,(54) Amenophis III.) refers to her as the (future) mistress of Egypt, it is clear that she was intended as the consort of his son, Amenophis IV. From other letters which passed between them, it would seem that the princess in question was named Tâdu-ḫêpa, called, in Egyptian, Nefer-titi (perhaps a translation of her Mitannian name). It was to all appearance the custom in those days, as at the present time, for the kings of the various states to ally themselves by marriage with other royal houses; and at a time when kings, at least, were allowed more wives than one, it was possible for them to take pledges for the preservation of peace by making use of the privilege. Quite in accordance with this are the statements contained in other texts concerning intermarriages of this kind, both Amenophis III. and IV. having likewise espoused Babylonian princesses, daughters of Kallima-Sin and Burra-buriaš, the son of the latter being at the same time betrothed to Amenophis IV.’s daughter. They were also constantly making presents to each other, each trying to get as much as he possibly could of the things which were not common in his own land—gold, much gold, being the commodity that the king of Egypt was expected to supply. The other kings sent him, in return, various stones (lapis-lazuli being often mentioned), chariots, horses, and other things, both natural and manufactured products. The women by whose means these friendly relations had been established, made use of the messengers sent to their fatherland to transmit messages to their relatives and ask after their health.

From these tablets we obtain certain details as to the state of the Holy Land and the surrounding country before the entry of the Israelites. Besides the kingdom of Mitanni mentioned above, there were the states of Alašia (supposed to be Cyprus), Ziri-bašani (plain of Bashan), Hazor, Askelon, Lachish, Gaza, Qatna (west of Damascus), Accho, Simyra, Tyre, Sidon, the Amorites, the Hittites, Dunip (Tenneb), Jerusalem, etc., etc. Many of them were small states with the cities after which they are named as capital, and naturally were obliged to enter into a league for their common protection, or else accept the suzerainty of some more powerful state, falling, if its protector went under, into the power of the common invader. It must have been in consequence of this state of things in the east Mediterranean littoral that Egypt was able to extend her power so far, and subdue this large district.

From these tablets we learn something of their religion. To all appearance one of the gods most worshipped in the extreme west of Asia was Rimmon, the Rammānu (“thunderer”) of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Addu or Hadad of the Semitic nations of this district (the name Addu afterwards became general as the appellation of the god in Babylonia and Assyria), and the Tešupa or Tešub of Mitanni (Aram-Naharaim) and district to the north (Armenia). At Tyre they seem to have worshipped a personage or deity called Šalmayātu, whilst the Phœnician Astarte is commemorated in âl Aštarti, “the city of Aštartu,” perhaps Ashtaroth, 29 miles east of Tiberias (Petrie). As the word Ashtoreth is evidently a lengthening of the name of the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ištar, it is not to be wondered at that this goddess should be mentioned by the king of Mitanni, Dušratta, who refers to a statue of Ištar of Nineveh, which had been sent to Egypt, and requests that it may be returned to him soon. The name of Nergal, also, was evidently familiar to the king of Alašia, for he speaks of the hand of that god as having killed all his people, when wishing to refer to the prevalence of a pestilence there, Nergal being the Assyro-Babylonian god of disease and death. In the same way Dušratta speaks of Šamaš, the Assyro-Babylonian Sun-god, but he refers to him more as the luminary which men love than as a god, though there is every probability that he was worshipped in Mitanni.(55) Another Assyro-Babylonian deity whose name occurs is Ninip, once in the name of Abdi-Ninip, “servant of Ninip,” apparently a Gebalite, and again in âl Bêth-Ninip, “(city of) the temple of Ninip,” in a district which Abdi-Aširta called upon to unite against Gebal—perhaps the Beth-Ninip in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. In the name of Abdi-Aširta it is to be noted that we have here, to all appearance, the name of the asherah or “grove” of the Authorised Version, the “token” of the goddess Ištar,(56) with the ideogram for which the word once interchanges. The Egyptian god Amāna (Amon) is mentioned several times, invoked apparently as a god in whom the writer believed, though he was the special god of the Egyptians and the Egyptian king. In addition to the above deities, the names of men reveal Uraš, the god of Dailem near Babylon, Bidina, another Babylonian deity, and Merodach, the principal god of the Babylonians. Among west Semitic deities may be mentioned Dagan (Dagon), Milku (Melech, Moloch), and others.

Notwithstanding a considerable period of Egyptian rule, therefore, Babylonian influence, which had been predominant in the tract for many centuries, still held the upper hand. Merodach was to all appearance venerated, Nergal was worshipped as the god of death and disease, Ištar was held in high esteem. It must have been during those centuries of Babylonian rule that the worship of Tammuz or Adonis got into the country, becoming one of the stumbling-blocks of the Israelites in later days, when Hebrew women lamented for him, hidden in the realm of darkness where dwelt Persephone (Ereš-ki-gala, “the lady of the great domain” of the Babylonians), into whose realm, at great risk, Ištar, his spouse, descended to seek him, but only escaped from the rival’s clutches by the intervention of the gods.

Exceedingly interesting are the various forms of government in Western Asia at this period. Among hereditary chiefs may be mentioned Etakama of Gidši (Kadesh), Šum-addu, who is probably the same as Šamu-Addu, prince of Šamḫuna, Mut-zu’u (see p. 286), and Azru, though this last is doubtful, as in one of the letters he calls himself a governor installed by the king of Egypt. The best example of an elected chief, however, is in all probability Yabitiri, governor of Gaza and Jaffa, who, when young, went down to Egypt and served in the Egyptian army, being afterwards appointed to the posts which he held later. The power of the Egyptian kings of a period somewhat preceding this is well exemplified by the fact, that Addu-nirari of Assyria attributes to an Egyptian ruler the appointment of his grandfather and father as kings of Nuḫašše, on account of which all three rulers seem to have acknowledged Egyptian overlordship. An interesting instance of female rule is that of Nin-Urmuru (?),(57) who, in her letters, mentions Ajalon and Sarḫa (identified with Zorah), probably lying in her district.

Most interesting of all, however, is the case of Jerusalem, whose ruler, as will be seen from the letters quoted later on, was apparently elected by some of the magnates of the district which acknowledged his sway, and who were probably the members of a religious community. Nothing, however, is known of the electorate or the system of election employed—all that can be said is, that the ruler was not placed there by virtue of his father or his mother, but by the “mighty king.”

The matter of the government of Dunip, one of the most important towns of ancient Palestine, is also of importance, as it does not seem to have possessed an autocratic head of any kind, and may have been a kind of republic. Its government was probably similar to that of Irqata, which was ruled over by its elders, acknowledging the overlordship of the Egyptian king. A similar state of things seems to have prevailed in Babylonia, where, however, the king of Babylon was naturally recognized as lord of the country. In all probability the towns governed by their elders were regarded as royal cities of Egypt, whilst the others were semi-independent states.

The relations of the Egyptian king with foreign states is well illustrated by the following—

Letter From The Babylonian King Burra-Buriaš (Burna-Buriaš) To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

“(To) Napḫu’ruria the king of Egypt, my brother, say also thus: ‘It is Burra-buriaš, king of the land of Karu-duniaš, thy brother. My health is good. To thee, thy country, thine house, thy wives, thy sons, thy great men, thine horses, thy chariots, may there be very good health.

“I and my brother have spoken friendship with each other, and we said as follows: ‘As our fathers were with each other, let us be friendly.’ Now my merchants, who went with Aḫi-ṭâbu, remained in the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan) for trade. After Aḫi-ṭâbu proceeded to my brother,(58) in the city Ḫinnatunu of the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), when Šum-adda, son of Malummê, (and) Šutadna, son of Šarâtum, of the city of Akka (Accho), sent their people, they killed my merchants, and took their money away. When I have sent (Azzu (?)) to thy presence, ask him, and let him tell thee.”

(Reverse)

“(Ki)naḫḫi is thy land, and (its) king(s are thy servants). In thy land have I been ill-treated—res(train them): make (up) the money which they have taken away; and kill the people who have killed my subjects, and avenge them. And if thou kill not these people, they will return, and both kill my caravans and thy messengers, and the messenger will be broken off between us, and if (this happen), they will fall away from thee. One man (of) mine, when Šum-adda had cut off his feet,(59) he held him prisoner; and another man, when Šutadna, the Akkaite (Acchoite), had caused him to be placed with the servants, became a servant before him.(60) Let (them take) those men to thee, and see thou to (it). And mayest thou know how I fare. I have caused to be brought to thee 1 mana of lapis-stone (as a gi)ft. (Let) my (messe)nger (come back) quickly. Let me know how my brother fares. Do not de(tain) my (mess)enger—let him come (back) quickly.”

It is clear from this, and from other inscriptions of the series, that a kind of international law existed among the nations of the ancient East, by which they were expected to protect the caravans passing through each other’s territory, and, in fact, see that no harm came to any of each other’s subjects. They were expected to punish all persons who may have attacked and ill-treated or murdered them, and make restitution of property stolen. The law (probably an unwritten one) was evidently much the same as prevails among civilized nations at the present day. That these ancient rulers always obtained from their “brothers” the redress which they demanded, is more than doubtful. Burra-buriaš’s entreaty that his messenger might be returned to him quickly points to vexatious delays on former occasions, and probable failure to obtain any justice or redress whatever.

The relations of Egypt with Assyria were similar to those with Babylonia, except that the Assyrian king, as has been shown, was, in some respects, a vassal.

Letter From The Assyrian King Ašur-Uballiṭ To Amenophis IV. King Of Egypt.

(Divided into paragraphs in accordance with the indications of the original text.)

“To Napḫurî, (the great king?), the king of Egypt, my brother, (say) thus: ‘It is Ašur-uballiṭ, king of Aššur, the great king, thy brother.’

“To thee, to thy house and thy country, may there be peace.

“When I saw thy messengers, I rejoiced greatly. Thy messengers are staying with me for a time.

“I have caused to be brought to thee as thy gift a fine royal chariot of my y(ok)e, and 2 white horses of m(y y)oke, and one chariot without yoke, and 1 seal of fine lapis-lazuli.

“The great king’s return-gift may be thus: Gold in thy land is (as) dust—they gather it up. Why should it go round into thine eyes? I have undertaken to build a new palace. Cause gold, as much as its over-laying and its need (requires), to be sent.

“When Ašur-nadin-âḫi, my father, sent to the land of Egypt, they caused to be sent to him 20 talents of gold.

“When the Ḫanigalbatian king sent to Egypt to thy father, he caused 20 talents of go(ld) to be brought to him.

“(Behold), thou hast caused to be brought ... gold to the Ḫani(gal)ba(tian) king ... and to me, (but f)or the going and returning it suffices (?) not for wages for my messengers.

“If friendship be desirable unto thee, cause much gold to be brought; and as it will be thy house, send, and let them take what thou desirest.

“We are distant countries—in this wise let our messengers go about.

“Those who delayed thy messengers were the Sutites, their persecutors; dead (was I) until I had sent, and they had taken the persecuting Sutites. Their bands (?) shall verily not delay my messengers.

“As for messengers abroad, why should they be detained and die there? If they stay abroad, the king will have the advantage, so let him stay and let him die abroad—let the king then have the advantage. And if not, why should the messengers whom we send die abroad? ... attack the messengers and cause them to die abroad.”

The last paragraph is difficult to understand on account of its being so mutilated, but the sense of the whole seems now to be fairly clear. Ašur-uballiṭ desires to be on friendly terms with Egypt, but he is anxious to get, above all, the precious metal which was said to be so plentiful there, and for which all the rulers of Western Asia seem to have hungered. And this leads to the interesting statement in the fifth paragraph, in which gold in Egypt is said to have been as dust; and there is the question, “Why should it go round into thine eyes?” (Amminî ina ênē-ka isaḫḫur?) implying that, being dust, it behaved as dust, and was in that respect undesirable, and therefore to be got rid of. He would like to have some for the decoration of his palace—his father, and the king of Ḫanigalbat had been favoured in this way. Let it not be as little (apparently), as that sent to the Ḫanigalbatian king, for that would not suffice to pay his messengers. The interchange of things needed as presents made good friends. It was a lawless band of Sutites who had detained the Egyptian king’s messengers, and he was as one dead until his people had stopped their depredations. It was useful to a king that his ambassadors lived and died abroad, but not that they should be attacked and killed there.

The relations of Egypt with another class of ruler is well illustrated by the following letter from a prince or governor brought up in Egypt—

Yabitiri Asserts His Faithfulness, And Touches Upon His Early Life.

“To the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, say also thus: ‘(it is) Yabitiri thy servant, the dust of thy feet. At the feet of the king my lord, my gods, my Sun-gods, seven times, and twice seven times I fall. Furthermore, behold, I am a faithful servant(61) of the king my lord. I look here, and I look there,(62) and it is not clear; then I look upon the king my lord, and it is clear. And the brick-foundation may give way from beneath its wall, but I will not give way from beneath the feet of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask Yanḫama, his official, (concerning) when I was young, and they sent me down to Egypt, where I served the king my lord, and stood in the city-gate of the king my lord. And the king my lord may ask his official when I guard the city-gate of Azzati (Gaza) and the city-gate of Yapu (Jaffa). And I am with the hired troops of the king my lord, where they go, I am with them, and I am also, therefore, with them now. The yoke of the king my lord is on my neck, and I bear it.’ ”

Apparently there had been spread abroad some statement reflecting on the faithfulness of the writer, who seeks to justify himself by appealing to his former services to the Egyptian king. His letter has a ring of sincerity in it which is wanting in many of the communications of this nature.

Reference has already been made to the caravans which passed through the territory of the various rulers, and the protection which those rulers were supposed to extend to them. Burra-buriaš, in his letter translated above, complains that Babylonian caravans had been attacked in the land of Canaan, and asks for the punishment of the persons involved. To all appearance the protection of the caravans was entrusted to certain chiefs, owing allegiance to the Egyptian king, who always held themselves ready to perform this duty. The following translation shows how one of the chiefs or governors of a Canaanitish district looked after the caravans, as his father did before him—

Letter From Mut-Zu’u To The King Of Egypt.

“To the king, my lord and my sun, say thus: ‘It is Mut-zu’u(63) thy servant, the dust of thy feet, the earth for thee to tread upon. Seven times, twice seven times, I fall down at the feet of the king my lord.’

“The king my lord has sent by Ḫâya to speak of the Ḫana-galbat(64) caravan. This I have dispatched and have directed it. Who am I, that I should not dispatch the caravans of the king my lord? Behold, (Lab)’aya, my father, (who was faithful) to the king his lord, used to send (a caravan, and give directions concerning it. The cara)vans (which) the king (di)rected to the land of Ḫana-galbat (and) to the land of Kara-duniaš let the king my lord send. (As to) the caravan, I will bring it so that it is safe.”

As will be seen from this, Mut-zu’u was one of the humble vassals of “the king his lord,” who at that time—evidently the peaceful days of Amenophis III.—was the happy possessor of many such. As examples of the relations between the smaller rulers and their suzerain, may be quoted two of the numerous letters of Yidia of Askelon, who provided the necessaries for the Egyptian army in Palestine.

Yidia, The Askelonite, Concerning The King’s Representative.

“To the king, my lord, my Sun, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(It is) Yidia, the Askelonite, thy servant, the dust of thy feet, thy charioteer.(65) I fall down before the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast.’

“Now (for) my (lord), (for) the gods of the king my lord, my god, my Sun, I guard this city, and again ... let me protect all his land.

“I have heard the words of the king my lord to his representative, when he is not able to protect the country of the king my lord. So now the king my lord has appointed Rianappa, the representative of the king my lord, to whom(66) I will bring (?) good fortune for the king.

“Whatever cometh out of the mouth of the king my lord, lo, that will I keep day and night.”

Yidia Concerning The Commissariat.

“To the king my lord, my Sun, my god, the Sun who (cometh) from the heavens, (say also) thus: ‘(it is) Yidia thy servant, the dust of thy feet, thy charioteer. I fall down at the feet of the king my lord seven times and twice seven times, back and breast. Behold, I am keeping the commands of the king my lord, the son of the Sun, and behold, I have provided the food, drink, oil, grain, oxen, (and) sheep, for the soldiers of the king my lord—provisions, every kind, for the soldiers of the king my lord. Who would be a vassal, and not obey the words of the king my lord, the son of the Sun?’ ”

Letters similar to the above are numerous, and show that Egyptian rule was not regarded as burthensome—indeed, it may have been even welcome, tending in all probability to the preservation of peace. It must have been difficult, however, for the Egyptian king to hold the scales of justice always even, for among the governors were always men who professed faithfulness, but who aimed at throwing off the Egyptian yoke, light as it was.

In all probability the trouble began in the north, that district being farthest from the Egyptian marches, and what was going on there was on that account longer in reaching the knowledge of the king. Judging from a letter from Ili-rabiḫ, written from Gebal, Etakama, of Kinza and Kadesh, smote the whole of the lands of Amki, “the territory of the king.” “And now,” the inscription continues, “he has sent his people to seize the lands of Amki and the places. Further, the king of the land of Ḫatta (Heth), and the king of the land of Narima (Naharaim), have been unsuccessful (?), and” (here the writer breaks off the narrative).

Another account of this affair is as follows—

Bêri (Or Bieri) To The King About The Attack On Amki.

“To the king, my lord, (my god, my sungod), say then thus: ‘It is Bêri, (thy servant), the Ḫašabite.’ Down to the dust of the feet of the king my lord 7 (times) and 7 (times) I fall. Behold, we occupy, in Amki, the cities of the king, my lord, and Edagama, the Kinzite, has gone to meet the soldiers of Ḫatta (Heth), and set (the cities) of the king my lord on fire. And may the king my lord know, and may the king (my) lord give field-soldiers. And we will occupy the cities of the king my lord, and we will dwell in the cities of the king my lord, my god, my sungod.”

This and two other accounts, one of which is from “Ilu-dâya, the Ḫazite,” all agree, and show that three officials were occupying cities in the territory known as Amki (identified with ’Amq, a plain by Antioch, or ’Amqa, N.E. of Akka), when Edagama (whose name also appears as Etagama, Etakkama, Itatkama, Itakama, Aiṭugama, and Aidaggama) joined the Hittite troops who were hostile to Egypt. It was in consequence of this, in all probability, that the three officials decided to write to the king of Egypt to let him know how things were going, and this they did in identical terms, with the same expressions, and the same peculiarities of spelling, pointing to the probability that the same scribe wrote all three communications. In the letter of Ili-rabiḫ, from which a quotation is given on p. 288, Amki is called “the king’s territory,” implying that it was a tract acknowledging Egyptian supremacy, which Etagama was trying to wrest from the Pharaoh’s grasp. It was the king’s friends who were occupying the king’s cities (as Bêri, Ilu-dâya, and the unknown writer call them), because they desired to hold them against this active enemy. With help from the Egyptian king, they thought that they would be able to do this without difficulty. There seems to be (as far as can at present be judged) no reason to suppose that the beginning of the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine was due to the over-zeal of the supporters of Egyptian rule in that country, who, striving to extend the influence and the dominions of their suzerain, drew down upon him, and upon themselves, the hostility of all the independent states of Western Asia, as well as of those which wished to throw off the Egyptian yoke. The Egyptian kings would surely have warned their vassals in Palestine against the danger of such action on their part.

As an additional light upon the events here referred to, the following extract from a letter from Akizzi of Qaṭna to Amenophis III. may be of interest:—

“O lord, Teu(w)atti of the city L(apa)n(a) and Arzauia of the city Ruḫizzu are setting themselves with Aiṭugama (Etagama) and the land of (U)be. He is burning the territory of my lord with fire.

“O lord, as I love the king my lord, and likewise the king of the land Nuḫašše, the king of the land of Nî, the king of the land of Zinzar, and the king of the land of Tunanat; and all these kings are for the king my lord serviceable.

“If the king my lord will, then he will go forth. (But they say) thus: ‘The king my lord will not go forth.’ Then let my lord send out field-troops, and let them come, since this land, as also, my lord, these kings, is well disposed towards him. (They are) my lord’s great ones, and whatever their gifts (contributions), let him speak, and they will give (them).

“O lord, if this land is to be off the mind of my lord, then let my lord send forth field-troops, and let them come. The messengers of my lord have arrived.

“O lord, if Arzauia of the city of Ruḫizzu and Teuwatti of the city Lapana remain in the land of Ube, and Daša remain in the land of Amki, then may my lord know concerning them, that the land of Ube is not my lord’s. They send to Aiṭugama every day saying thus: ‘Come and take the land of Ube completely.’

“O lord, as the city Timašgi in the land of Ube is at thy feet, so also is the city Qaṭna at thy feet. And, my lord, with regard to my messenger, I ask for life, (and a)s I do not fear with regard to the field-troops of my lord, that the field-troops of my lord will come, as he will send (them) forth to me, I shall re(tire) into the city Qaṭna.”

Thus the trouble spread, and the Hittites and their allies took possession of the territories south of the tracts referred to, trying, at the same time, to win over to their side the governors who were faithful. All this time posing as a friend of the Pharaoh, Etagama complained of the others, particularly Namya-waza, one of Egypt’s most trustworthy allies, who, in a letter couched in the usual humble style of the period, announces his readiness to serve “with his horses and chariots, and with his brothers, and with his SA-GAS, and with his Sutites, along with the hired soldiers, whithersoever the king his lord should command him.”

Now in this letter there is one noteworthy fact, and that is, that the SA-GAS and the Sutites are mentioned together as the allies of an important vassal of the Egyptian king, the latter being apparently wandering hordes of plunderers (see above, p. 283), whom Kadašman-Muruš, king of Babylonia, sent from east to west “until there were no more.” This took place at a somewhat later date, so that they still roamed about the eastern portion of the country, between Palestine and Babylonia, apparently giving their services to any power which might desire to make use of them.

The question of the identification of the troops or bands of warriors designated by the Akkadian compound SA-GAS is, however, of still greater importance. Most Assyriologists regard them as being identical with the Ḫabiri, mentioned in the letters of Abdi-tâbu or Ebed-tob. This, of course, is possible, but it is unfortunate that no direct confirmation of this identification exists. In the bilingual lists of Babylonia and Assyria, the expression SA-GAS, duly provided with the determinative prefix indicating a man or a class of men, occurs, and is always translated by the word ḳabbatu, the probable meaning of which is “robber,” from the root ḫabātu, “to plunder”. It is also noteworthy that there is a star called SA-GAS, and this is likewise rendered by the same word, namely, ḫabbatu. The fact that it is once provided with the determinative ki (“place”) does not help us, for this may be simply an oversight or a mannerism of the scribe. Moreover, the difficulty of identifying the SA-GAS with the Ḫabiri of the inscriptions of Abdi-ṭâba is increased by the word occurring in these texts (Winckler’s No. 216, l. 11), followed by the explanation (amēlūti ḫabati), an arrangement which we find in others of these letters, when an ideograph has to be explained; and when they are, as here, Akkadian ideographs and Babylonian words, the second is always the pronunciation of the first—never the alternative reading. Indeed, in the present case, such an explanation would be misleading instead of helpful (were the word SA-GAS to be read Ḫabiri), for the scribe tells you to read it ḫabati—the same word as is given in the bilingual lists, but spelled with one b instead of two.

In all probability, therefore, the ḫabati were wandering hordes differing from the Sutites in not having any special nationality, and being composed of the offscourings of many peoples of the ancient East. They were probably included in the ḫabiri, together with the nations with which they were afterwards associated. The ḫabiri were not the Hebrews, neither the word nor the date being what we should expect for that nationality, who were still in Egypt. The best identification as yet published is that of Jastrow, who connects it with the Hebrew Heber, the patronymic of various persons. Better still, however, would be the Heb. ḥaber, pl. haberim, “companions,” also used of tribes joined together to form a nation. Whether an advance guard of the Hebrews is to be included in this term or not, must be left to the judgment of the student.

The gradual loss of the districts south of Damascus in all probability followed. A letter from Mut-Addu (the only one from him) to Yanḫamu speaks of the cities of the land of Garu (identified—though the identification is not quite satisfactory—with the Heb. Gur), namely Udumu (identified by Petrie with Adamah, though the form does not agree so well as might be wished, and Udumu is the usual way of rendering the word Edom, which is referred to in the cuneiform inscriptions both as a land and a city), Aduri (Petrie: et-Tireh), Araru (Petrie: Arareh), Meštu (Petrie: Mushtah), Magdali (Magdala), Ḫini-anabi (Ain-anab, if rightly identified—there is a certain difficulty in the word possessing a guttural at the beginning and not likewise as the first letter of the second component—probably ’Anab, south-west of Hebron, the Anab of Josh. xi. 21), and Sarki. At this time, according to the tablet, Hawani and Yabiši (Jabesh) had been captured. It is probably on account of the occupation of the country by so many hostile tribes that the protest of Burra-buriaš of Babylonia (see p. 281) was sent, but it was in all probability exceedingly difficult for the Egyptian king to afford any protection whatever to the caravans which passed through the disaffected area.

One of the things which the Tel-el-Amarna letters show very clearly is, that it must have been very difficult for the Pharaoh to know who were his friends and who were his enemies among the rulers of the Philistines. The Amorite Abdi-Aširta and his allies were from the first desirous to throw off the Egyptian yoke, but this prince at the same time constantly sent letters to Amenophis IV. protesting his fidelity. Other chiefs who were hostile to Egypt are Etakama, the sons of Lab’aya, Milkîli, Yapa-Addu, Zimrêda of Sidon, Aziru, and others. On the king’s side were Namyawaza, who held Kumidi (Petrie: Kamid-el-Lauz), Rib-Addi, whose chief cities were Gebal, Beyrout, and Simyra, Zimrêda of Lachish, and Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem. Numbers of chiefs, at first faithful, went over to the enemy when they saw the success of the league against the foreign power.

It is impossible to suppose that the letters now known (about three hundred in number) represent all the correspondence which passed between Palestine and Egypt concerning the state of the country during the reigns of Amenophis III. and IV., and from the time the troubles there commenced, complaints and applications for help must have claimed the attention of the Egyptian translator literally in shoals. One of the most remarkable of these is the letter from the people of Dunip, who say that, in consequence of the state of things in Palestine, they belong no longer to the king of Egypt, to whom they had been sending for twenty years, but their messengers had been retained. Their prince (to all appearance) had been taken back to Egypt by the king’s orders, after he had allowed him to return to his country, so that they had not seen him again. “And now Dunip, thy city, weeps, and its tears flow, and there is no one to take our hands (i.e. help us). We have sent to the king, the lord, the king of Egypt, and not a single word from our lord hath reached us.”

Were they really sorry to be no longer under Egyptian rule? or were they merely desirous that their prince should be restored to them?

During this period, naturally enough, recriminations were going on on every side. Those who were faithful very properly made complaints and uttered warnings concerning those who were unfaithful. The waverers, the unfaithful, and the hostile, on the other hand, were continually asserting their fidelity, and accusing those who were really well-disposed towards Egypt of all kinds of hostile acts against the supreme power. This is evident from the correspondence of Abdi-ṭâba of Jerusalem, who, in one of his letters, writes as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord say also thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. At the feet of my lord the king twice seven times and twice seven times I fall. What have I done against the king my lord? They back-bite—they slander(67) me before the king my lord, (saying): “Abdi-ṭâba has fallen away from the king his lord.” Behold, (as for) me, neither my father nor my mother set me in this place—the arm of the mighty king caused me to enter into the house of my father. Why should I commit a sin against the king my lord? As the king my lord lives, I said to the commissioner of the king (my) lord: “Why love ye the Ḫabiri and hate the gover(nors)? it is on account of this that they utter slander before the king my lord.” Then he said: “The countries of the king my lord have rebelled, therefore they utter slander to the king my lord.” ’ ”

The ruler of Jerusalem then seems to say, that the king had placed a garrison in some city or other, but it had been taken, apparently by Yanḫamu—there was no longer a garrison (in that place). The king’s cities under Ili-milku had revolted, the whole of the land of the king was lost, so let the king have care for his land. He would like to go to the king, to urge him to take action, but the people in his district were too mighty for him, and he could not leave it. As long as the king lived, and as long as he sent a commissioner, he would continue to give warning. If troops were sent that year, things would be saved, otherwise the king’s lands would be lost. Abdi-ṭâba ends with an appeal to the scribe to place the matter clearly before the king.

Another very important letter from Abdi-ṭâba is as follows—

“(T)o the king my lord, (my) Sun, (say also) thus: ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, thy servant. Twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down before the feet of the king my lord. Behold, the king my lord has set his name to the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. The slandering which they slander against me! Behold, I am not a governor, the king my lord’s magnate. Behold, I am an officer of the king, and have brought the tribute of the king. (As for) me, it was not my father nor my mother—it was the arm of the mighty king who set me in the house of my father. (When so and so),(68) the commissioner of the king, returned to me, 13 prisoners (?) (and a certain number(69)) of slaves I gave. Šûta, the commissioner of the king, came (back t)o me; 21 girls (and) 20(70) (?) prisoners I gave (in)to the hand of Šûta (as) a gift for the king my lord. Let the king take counsel with regard to his land—the land of the king, all of it, has revolted, it has set itself against me.(71) Behold, (as for) the lands of Šêri (Seir) as far as Guti-kirmil (Gath-Carmel), the governors have allied themselves(72) and there is hostility against me. Even though one be a seer, one wishes not to see the tears of the king my lord, when enmity exists against me. As long as ships were in the midst of the sea, the power of the mighty king took Naḫrima (Naharaim) and the land of Kašsi,(73) but now the Ḫabiru have taken the cities of the king. There is not one governor for the king my lord—all have rebelled. Behold, Turbazu has been killed at the gate of the city Zilû, (and) the king (?) remained inactive. Behold, (as for) Zimrêda of the city of Lakisu (Lachish), (his) servants lay in wait for him (?), they took (him) to kill (?) (him). Yapti’-Addu has been killed (at) the gate of the city of Zilû, (and) the king remained inactive ... ask (?) him ... (let) the kin(g have care for his land, and let) the king give attention ... (let him send) troops to the land of (the city of Jerusalem, (?), and) if there are not troops this year, the whole of the lands of the king my lord are lost. They do not tell the king my lord (this). When the country of the king my lord is lost, then are lost (also) all the governors. If there be not troops this year, let the king direct his commissioner and let him take me—(send him) to me with my brothers, and we will die with the king my lord.’ (To the) scribe of the king my lord (say also thus): ‘It is Abdi-ṭâba, (thy) servant. (I fall down) at (thy) feet. Cause (my) words to enter (pl)ainly to the king (my lord). I am thy (faith)ful servant.’ ”

The final phrase resembles that of an English letter.

According to Petrie, Sêri is Shaaraim (Josh. xv. 36), now Khurbet es-Sairah. If the character read as gu in Guti-Kirmil (Winckler, Gin(?)ti-Kirmil) be correctly drawn in the official published copy, there is considerable doubt as to the reading of the first syllable of this interesting name. Zilû, where Turbazu and Yapti’-Addu were killed, is identified by Petrie with Zelah, north of Jerusalem. This letter gives an excellent illustration of the state of the country at the time.

In another letter Abdi-ṭâba explains how all the lands had concluded a bond of hostility against him, and the districts of Gezer, Askelon, and Lachish had supplied these people with food. After this comes the usual request for troops, and the indication that, if troops be sent “this year,” the situation would be saved—next year there would be neither countries nor governors for the king (in Palestine). “Behold, this land of the city of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave it to me—the power of the mighty king gave it to me, (even) to me.” “See,” he continues, “this deed is the deed of Milki-îli, and the deed of the sons of Lab’aya, who have given the land of the king to the Ḫabiri.” He then goes on to speak of the Kaši, who seem to have supported the confederates with food, oil, and clothes. Next follows what Paura, the king’s commissioner, had told him about the disaffection of Adaya. Caravans had been robbed in the field of the city of Yaluna (Ajalon), but Abdi-ṭâba could not prevent this: “(I mention this) in order to inform thee.” “Behold, the king has placed his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever, and the forsaking of the lands of Jerusalem is not possible.” After this comes the usual note to the scribe in Egypt, followed by a postscript referring to the people of Kâsi, disclaiming some evil deed which had been done to them. “Do not kill a worthy servant (on that account”).

Yet another letter refers to Milki-îli and Lab’aya: “Behold, has not Milki-îli fallen away from the sons of Lab’aya and from the sons of Arzawa to ask the land of the king for them?(74) A governor, who has done this deed, why has the king not called him to account for this?” The narrative breaks off where Abdi-ṭâba begins to relate something further concerning Milki-îli and another named Tagi. When the text again becomes legible, Abdi-ṭâba is again referring to the fact that there is no garrison of the king in some place whose name is lost. “Therefore—as the king lives—Puuru (= Pauru) has entered it—he has departed from my presence, (and) is in the city of Gaza. So let the king indicate to him (the necessity) of a garrison to protect the country. All the land of the king has rebelled. Send Ya’enḫamu (Yanḫamu), and let him become acquainted with (lit. let him know) the country of the king (i.e. the true state of affairs”). Here follows a note to the scribe in Egypt similar to that translated above.

One of the most interesting and instructive of the letters of Abdi-ṭâba is that which Petrie regards as the latest of the series; and on account of its importance, it is given in full here—

“(To) the king, my lord, (s)ay also thus: ‘It is (Abdi)-ṭâba thy servant. At the feet of the (ki)ng my lord twice seven times and twice seven times I fall down. (Behold, the deed) which Milki-îli and Šu-ardatum have done to the land of the king my lord has been successful (?). The men of the city of Gazri (Gezer), the men of the city of Gimti (Gath), and the men of the city of Kîlti (Keilah) have been captured. The land of the city of Rubute has revolted. The land of the king (belongs to) the Ḫabiri. And now, moreover, a city of the land of Jerusalem, the city Beth-Ninip (“House” or “Temple of Ninip”)—(this is) its name—has revolted to the people of Kîlti. Let the king hearken to Abdi-ṭâba thy servant, and let him send hired soldiers, and let me bring back the land of the king to the king. And if there be no hired soldiers, the land of the king will go over to the men, the Ḫabiri. This deed (is the deed of) Šu-ardatum (and) Milki-îli ... city ... and let the king care for his land.’ ”

Whether the fall of Jerusalem followed or not is doubtful; nor is it certain that the Egyptians were ultimately driven out. Other letters seem to show how the influence of those whom Abdi-ṭâba calls the Ḫabiri, and others the Ḫabati—the “confederates” and the “plunderers”—spread still farther southward. Naturally more information is required to enable it to be known in what manner the Egyptians tried to retrieve their position, and how it was that Amenophis IV. delayed so long the sending of troops. All the governors who were in the least degree faithful to Egypt united in repeatedly warning him as to what was taking place, and urging him to send troops. Had the rebellion or invasion—whichever it was—been nipped in the bud, Palestine would have remained a faithful Egyptian province. All the king did, however, was to send his commissioner, and, occasionally, exhorting and even threatening letters, which had in all probability little or no effect, except to excite a little mild amusement on account of their erratic spelling. A very noteworthy communication of this class is the following—

The King Of Egypt Rebukes The Prince Of The Amorites.

“(To) the Amorite say then thus, (‘It is the king’). The king thy lord (hath hear)d thus: ‘The Gebalite whose brother drove him from the gate (hath spoke)n to thee thus: “Take me and cause me to enter into my city, (and a reward) then let me give thee—yea, however much, (though) it be not with me.” Thus did he speak to thee.’

“Writest thou (no)t to the king thy lord (th)us: ‘I am thy servant like all the former governors who (were each) in the midst of his city’? But thou doest wrong to receive a governor whose brother hath driven him from his gate out of his city.

“And (whilst) dwelling in Sidon, thou deliveredst him to the governors as was thy will. Knewest thou not the hatred of the people?

“If thou be in truth a servant of the king, why hast thou not made possible his transmission to the presence of the king thy lord, (saying) thus: ‘This governor sent to me thus: “Take me to thee, and cause me to enter into my city” ’?

“And if thou hast done according to right, then all the matters are not true concerning which thou wrotest: ‘They are trustworthy,’ for the king thought thus: ‘All that thou hast said is not correct.’

“And behold, the king hath heard thus: Thou art in agreement with the man of Kidša (Kadesh), food and drink together have ye supplied. And be it true, why doest thou thus? why art thou in agreement with a man with whom the king is on bad terms? And if thou hast done according to right, and hast regard to thy opinion, then his opinion existeth not. Thou hast no care for the things which thou hast done from the first. What hath been done to thee among them (the disaffected ones), that thou art not with the king thy lord?

“Behold, those who attract(?) thee to themselves seek to throw thee into the fire; and it is kindled, and thou findest everything very satisfactory.

“And if thou do homage to the king thy lord, what is there which the king would not do for thee? If on account of anything thou wish to work evil, and if thou set evil, and words of hate, in thine heart, then by the king’s ax shalt thou die, together with all thy family.

“So do homage to the king thy lord, and thou shalt live. And thou knowest, even thou, that the king desireth not to attack the land of Kinaḫḫi (Canaan), the whole of it.

“And as thou hast sent thus: ‘Let the king leave me this year, and let me come in the second year before the king, my lord—my son is not here to ...;’ behold, then, the king thy lord will grant thee this year, according as thou hast said. Come thou (or if thy son, send), and thou shalt see the king at the sight of whom all the lands live. And say not thus: ‘Let him leave me this year in addition.’ If it be not possible to go into the presence of the king thy lord, direct thy son to the king thy lord instead. He (need) not (stay with thee), let him come.

“And, behold, the king thy lord hath heard that thou hast written to the king thus: ‘Let the king my lord allow Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, to come a second time and let me cause the enemies of the king to be taken back by his hand.’ Behold, he hath come to thee, as thou hast said, and leave not one of them behind. Behold, the king thy lord causeth to be brought to thee the names of the enemies of the king in this letter at the hands of Ḫanni, the king’s messenger, so cause them to be brought to the king thy lord, and do not leave one of them (behind). And brazen bonds shall be placed on their feet. Behold, the men whom thou shalt cause to be sent to the king thy lord (are):

“Šarru with all his sons; Tûya; Lêya with all his sons; Wišyari with all his sons; The son-in-law of Mania (or Ma-ili-ia) with his sons, (and) with his wives; The pa-maḳâ of Ḫanni the pa-itêiu (? messenger) who reads (this) message; Dâ-šartî; Pâlûma; Nimmaḫê, the ḳapadu in the land of Amurru.

“ ‘And mayest thou know: well is the king, like the Sun in Heaven; his soldiers and chariots are many. From the upper country as far as the lower country, (from) sunrise as far as sunset (i.e. from the extreme east to the extreme west), great is the prosperity.’ ”

To all appearance Amenophis IV. trusted too much to his own prestige, and that of the country over which he ruled. He was “the son of the Sun,” “like unto the Sun in Heaven,” “the king at the sight of whom all the lands live,” and naturally took it for granted that he was everywhere looked upon with the same veneration as in his own country.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

As may easily be imagined, the expulsion of the Egyptians from Palestine left the country in a very disturbed state, and marauding bands, having no longer anything to do in the way of wresting territory from the Egyptians, must have given considerable trouble to the native princes and governors, now once more independent in their own territories.

The loss of Palestine, on the other hand, probably brought with it a certain amount of loss of prestige to Egypt, which must have endured for some time. In any case, the Egyptian kings who succeeded Amenophis IV. seem to have made no attempt to regain the lost provinces.

Ankh-kheperu-Ra, the king who succeeded the ruler just named, lived for a while at Tel-el-Amarna, during which time, in all probability, the tomb of his predecessor’s six daughters was finished. Several rings of this king exist, on two of which he calls himself “beloved of Nefer-kheperu-Ra” (or, in accordance with the indications of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets: Nafar-khoperu-Ria) and “beloved of Ua-en-Ra,” names of Amenophis IV. During his reign the worship of the sun’s disc (Aten, or, if the derivation from the Semitic Adon, “lord,” be correct, Aton) began to give way to that of the national gods of Egypt. He reigned thirteen years (1365-1353 B.C.), and was succeeded by Ra-kheperu-neb (1353-1344). The paintings in the tomb of Hui at Thebes show that tribute was still received from the Syrians (Rutennu), as well as from the people of Kush in the Soudan. Evidently the road was being paved for the conquest of the lost provinces of Syria.

After this came a ruler who seems to have held the throne only on account of his wife being of royal blood. According to Petrie, he was “divine father Ay,” and his wife’s name was Ty. He reigned thirteen years (1344-1332 B.C.). During his reign a complete reversion to the old worship took place.

Ay’s successor, Ra-ser-kheperu (Hor-em-heb), 1332-1328 B.C., was apparently also a commoner, and is identified (Petrie) with the Hor-em-heb who was general in an earlier reign. He is represented being adored by negroes and Asiatics.

One or two other obscure names occur, and then begins the reign of king Rameses I., who came to the throne about 1300 B.C. This reign was short enough, but there is hardly any doubt that in it the prosperity of Egypt was renewed. From the treaty of the Khita with Rameses II., the grandson of Rameses I., we learn that the latter had a war with the Khita, and from the fact that he founded a storehouse for the temple of his divine father Hor-khem, and filled it with captive men-servants and maid-servants, we may conclude that he was fairly successful in his warlike expeditions.

With his son, Seti (Sethos) I., or Meneptah (“beloved of Ptah”), we attain firmer ground. In the very first year of his reign he warred in the east, among the Shasu Bedouin, “from the fortress of Khetam (Heb. Etham) in the land of Zalu, as far as Kan’ana (Canaan).” Kadesh, at that time a city of the Kheta (it had apparently fallen into the hands of the Hittites during the reign of Amenophis IV.), was conquered by him. Not only the Hittites, however, but also Naharain (Naharaim), the country of which Dušratta of old had been king, upper and lower Rutennu (Canaan and North Syria), Sinjar, the island of Cyprus, and Cappadocia, felt the force of his arms. His son, Rameses II., was associated with him on the throne, and afterwards succeeded him. This took place about 1300 B.C. It is to this ruler that the glory of the name of Rameses is principally due, and his grandfather, the first who bore it, shines mainly with a reflected light.

It is impossible here to do more than touch upon such of the details of his career as are essential in the present work. In all probability he is best known on account of his expedition into Syria, and the conquest of the Hittites, who, as recorded in the celebrated heroic poem of Pentaur, were allied with a number of other tribes, including the people of Naharaim, Aleppo, Gauzanitis, the Girgashites (?), Carchemish, etc. The result was success for the Egyptian arms, and the Hittites, on the whole, submitted, though some of the towns acknowledging Hittite rule, notably Tunep, refused to accept Egyptian suzerainty, necessitating another expedition, the result of which was, that the Egyptians found no more opposition to their overlordship. In his eighth and succeeding years he fought against the Canaanites, and in his descriptions of his operations there, many familiar names are to be found—names of great interest to all students of ancient Oriental history. It was in his eighth year, according to the texts in the Ramesseum, that he conquered Shalam (Salamis W. of Capernaum, according to Prof. Flinders Petrie), Marom (Merom), the spring of Anamimi (identified with Anamim), Dapur (identified with Tabor by Brugsch), and many other places.

Rameses II. is generally regarded as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and one of the tasks placed upon the oppressed Israelites was the building of his store-cities, Pithom (Pi-tum, discovered by M. Naville when excavating for the Egypt Exploration Fund) and Raamses, the Pi-Ramessu of the inscriptions, concerning which there is a very interesting letter by an Egyptian named Panbesa, who visited it. As Brugsch says: “We may suppose that many a Hebrew, perhaps Moses himself, jostled the Egyptian scribe in his wandering through the gaily-dressed streets of the temple-city.”

The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved by the same document. As this is a text of the very first importance, a translation of the concluding lines is given here—

“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,(75) Syria is like the widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”

Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews, which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.

Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites, “Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he suggests. The translation of the word feket (which is rendered by other Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by “horde,” allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.

Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question. He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after Joseph’s death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year of his reign. Starting from this period,(76) which, according to Oppolzer, was renewed in the year 1318 B.C., he calculates that the first year of Rameses II. was 1347 B.C., and that the Exodus took place in his thirteenth year, i.e. 1335 B.C.

According to the Pirke di Rabbi Elieser, Dr. Mahler says, the departure of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the Shulchan-Aroch also maintains that the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday. This all agrees with the year B.C. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan fell on a Thursday, and indeed on Thursday the 27th of March (Julian calendar).”

If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the Exodus took place in 1335 B.C., then Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415 B.C., i.e. the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of this ruler was queen Teie (see p. 275), a woman who was certainly of foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie, being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course, would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and educated by an Egyptian princess at her father’s court, and that he had no real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics, should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless, circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued. Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were, who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers, though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.

Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this portion of the narrative.(77) On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid of if we suppose that the Exodus took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr. Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir, User-kheperu-Ra’, who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their father’s lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who ultimately came to the throne.

Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have been a solar eclipse.

Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler’s seductive theory, it must be admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IX. THE NATIONS WITH WHOM THE ISRAELITES CAME INTO CONTACT

The Amorites—The Hittites—The Jebusites—The Girgashites—Moab.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Amorites

The earliest mention of the Amorites in the Old Testament is the passage in Gen. x. 16, where the name occurs along with that of the Jebusites and the Girgashites, from which may be gathered that they were all three very powerful tribes, though their power is in all probability not to be measured by the order of their names, the most important of the three being the Amorites, whose name comes second. They were regarded by the ancient Jews as an iniquitous and wicked people (Gen. xv. 6; 2 Kings xxi. 11), though they may not, in reality, have been worse than other nations which were their contemporaries. That they were a powerful nation is implied by the statement in Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob speaks of the tract which he had taken out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and his bow, as a feat of which a warrior might be proud.

The Amorites in Babylonia have already been referred to in Chap. V., and from that part of the present work it will easily be understood that they were an extensive and powerful nationality, capable, with organization, of extending their power, as they evidently did from time to time, far and wide. Indeed, as has been pointed out, there is great probability that the Babylonian dynasty called by Berosus Arabic, was in reality Amorite. In any case, the kings of this dynasty held sway over Amoria, as the inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, translated on p. 155, clearly shows. The importance of this nationality in the eyes of the Babylonians is proved by the fact that their designation for “west” was “the land of Amurrū,” and the west wind was, even with the Assyrians, “the wind of the land of Amurrū” (though the Hittites, in Assyrian times, seem to have been the more powerful nation), and this designation of the western point of the compass probably long outlived the renown of the nationality from which the expression was derived. Among other Biblical passages, testifying to the power of the Amorites, may be quoted as typical Amos ii. 9, 10, and in this the Babylonian and the Hebrew records are quite in agreement.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Sayce, in process of time a great many tribes—Gibeonites, Hivites, Jebusites, and even Hittites—were classed as Amorites by the ancient Jewish writers, a circumstance which likewise testifies to the power of the nationality. These identifications must be to a large extent due to the fact that all the tribes or nationalities referred to were mountaineers, and, as we have seen (p. 122), the Akkadian character for a mountainous region or nationality, stood not only for Armenia, and the land of the Amorites, but also for the land of Akkad, because the Akkadians came from a mountainous country, perhaps somewhere in the neighbourhood of the mountains of Elam. This character was pronounced Ari when it stood for Amoria, but ceased to be used for that on account of its signifying also the mountainous region of Armenia, and Akkad, for which it still continued to be employed, and it is only the context, in many cases, which enables the reader to gather which is meant. Other groups used for Amoria were the sign for foot, twice over (sometimes with one of them reversed), [Cuneiform], and [Cuneiform], the ordinary pronunciation of which is Saršar, though it is probable that the latter was pronounced, in Akkadian, like the former, i.e. Tidnu. In the inscriptions of Gudea, viceroy of Lagaš about 2700 B.C., there occurs the name of a country called Tidalum, “a mountain of Martu,” from which a kind of limestone was brought. This Hommel and Sayce regard as another form of Tidnu, by the interchange of l and n, which is not uncommon in Akkadian. The fact that Martu is also used in the inscriptions for Amurrū, (the land of) the Amorites, and also, with the prefix for divinity, for the Amorite god (îlu Amurrū), which was introduced into Babylonia at an exceedingly early date, confirms this explanation. In all probability there is not at present sufficient data for ascertaining the dates when these names first appear, but Tidnu or Tidalu was probably the earlier of the two.

What the exact boundaries of the district were are doubtful. Prof. Sayce, after examining the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, comes to the conclusion that it denoted the inland region immediately to the north of the Palestine of later days. In this Petrie concurs, the country being, according to him, the district of middle and lower Orontes, and certainly covering a large area. This, of course, would be the position of the tract over which they held sway in the earlier ages, but later they must have extended their power so as to embrace the Jebusites (Jerusalem), and even Mamre in Gen. xiv. 13. From this wide extension of the dominions of the Amorites in the book of the Bible dealing with the earliest period of Jewish history, and from the fact that the Assyro-Babylonians used the word to indicate the west in general, it is clear that the Amorites occupied a wide tract in the earlier ages, and must have been pushed gradually back, probably by the Babylonians under Sargon of Agadé, leaving, however, centres of Amorite influence in the south, which, when the power of Egypt, which followed that of Babylonia, waned and disappeared, left certain independent states under Amorite rulers. It is thus that, at the time of the Exodus, we find Og ruling at Bashan, who had threescore cities, all the region of Argob, his chief seats being Edrei and Ashtaroth. This ruler and his people were of the remnant of the Rephaim, regarded by Sayce as of Amorite origin (Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, under “Amorites”). Whatever doubt there may be, however, about the origin of the Bashanites, there is none concerning Sihon king of the Amorites dwelling more to the south. A man of great courage and daring, he had driven the Moabites out of their territory, obliging them to retreat across the Arnon. On the entry of the Israelites, he gathered his troops and attacked them, but was defeated and killed. Josephus (Ant. iv. 5, sect. 2) has some curious details of this battle, in which he states that the Amorites were unable to fight successfully when away from the shelter of their cities, but in view of their successes against the Moabites, we may be permitted to doubt this.

In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the ruler of the Amorites is apparently Abdi-Aširti,(78) who, with his son Aziru, warred successfully against Rib-Addi (Rib-Hadad), governor of Phœnicia, driving him from Ṣumuru and Gublu (Gebal), which last city was occupied, according to Petrie’s analysis, by the two hostile parties in turn. Naturally there are a great many recriminations on the part of Rib-Addi against Abdi-Aširti on account of the hostility between them, and the former is constantly complaining to the Pharaoh of what the latter had done, frequently calling him a dog, and once seemingly referring to the Amorites as “dogs.” (Elsewhere Abdi-Aširti applies this word to himself as an expression of humility.) His letters to the king of Egypt, however, are merely assurances of fidelity, and are all short:—

“To the king my lord say then thus: ‘(It is) Abdi-Aštarti, the king’s servant. At the feet of the king my lord I fall down—seven (times at) the feet of the king my lord, and seven times again (?) both front part and back. And may the king my lord know that strong is the hostility against me, and let it be acceptable before the king my lord, and let him direct one of the great men to protect me.’

“ ‘Secondly, the king my lord has sent word to me, and I have heard—I have heard all the words of the king my lord. Behold, the ten women forgotten (?) I have brought’ ” (?).

(It is here worthy of note, that he does not, in this letter, call himself Abdi-Aširti, “servant of the Ashera,” but Abdi-Aštarti, “servant of Astarte,” using the Assyro-Babylonian ideograph for Ištar, the original of the goddess in question. On another document from him, the word is spelled out, Ab-di-aš-ta-ti, in which the scribe intended to write Ab-di-aš-ta-ar-ti, but omitted the last character but one. Yet another letter gives his name as Abdi-Aš-ra-tum, in the second element of which we must see another form of Abdi-Aširti, unless the scribe has also made a mistake in this case, and written Ašratum for Aštaratum, which is just possible. In any case, it shows a close connection between the goddess Aštarte or Ištar, and the Ashera, which was in Palestine, at that date, and for centuries before and after, her emblem. To be the servant of the one was to be the servant of the other, though the bearer of the name seems to have the desire rather to be considered the priest of the goddess. Even unintentional variants in names furnish valuable contributions at times to comparative mythology.)

If there are but few letters from the father, there is a sufficient number, and of considerable extent, from the son. He, too, is the faithful servant of the Pharaoh, and he writes also to Dûdu (a form of the name David) and Ḫâi, telling of the difficulties which he had with regard to the king of the Hittites. It is apparently this prince to whom the Pharaoh writes in the letter translated on pp. 300-302, a circumstance which leads to the belief that the complaints of Rib-Addi with regard to Abdi-Aširti and his son Aziru were well-founded. That the king of Egypt asks therein for the delivery to him of certain persons whom he names, implies that he had trustworthy information as to who the intriguers were, and though apparently willing to give Aziru the benefit of the doubt, he certainly did not hold him blameless.

It will probably be long ere the true order of these letters is known, and until this be found, much of the history of the period to which they refer must necessarily remain uncertain.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Hittites

Another nationality which took a predominant part in the politics of ancient Palestine is the Hittites. To all appearance they were a later power than the Amorites, as their name does not occur in the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria until a comparatively late date, whilst the Amorites are mentioned 2200 years before Christ, and their name had become the common Assyro-Babylonian expression for “the west.” That the Hittites were nevertheless of considerable antiquity, however, is implied by the presence of the sons of Heth at Mamre in the time of Abraham, who purchased from Ephron the Hittite the cave of Machpelah in that place. It is difficult to assign to these people any definite limits, especially in early times, but it seems certain that they began to act far in the north, and gradually extended their power southwards. In the times of Joshua, the tract between the Lebanon and Euphrates is described as theirs, and their domain was, in fact, the country to the north of Palestine. It was no doubt due to their predominating power that the Assyrians of later days called the whole of Palestine “the land of Ḫatti,” a designation not altogether correct, but sufficient for their purpose, namely, that of indicating the position of the nationalities enumerated. Nevertheless, it had some justification, several colonies of these people inhabiting that district, as is indicated by Gen. xxiii. 3, xxv. 10; Numbers xiii. 29, etc. The statement in Ezekiel xvi. 3, that the father of Jerusalem was an Amorite and its mother a Hittite, shows what was the opinion of the more learned Jews of the time in the matter.

The earliest mention of the Hittites outside the Bible is in the Egyptian monuments, where, in the annals of Thothmes III., it is recorded for the year 1470 B.C., that the king proceeded to the banks of the Euphrates, and received tribute from “the greater” land of the Hittites. In the year 1463 B.C., the king of this district again paid tribute. During the reign of Thothmes IV., grandson of Thothmes III., the relations between the two countries must have changed, and the Egyptian king had to repel an attack made by the Hittites upon Tunib (now Tennib) in Northern Syria. This hostile policy was continued by them also at a later date, for the successors of Thothmes IV., Amenophis III. and his son, Amenophis IV., had often to oppose the Hittite king, who either attacked Northern Syria, or stirred up strife among the Egyptian vassals in Canaan.

Here, again, the Tel-el-Amarna tablets come in, and supply a mass of details. At times the Ḫatti still send tribute, both to Amenophis III. and IV., but at the close of the reign of the former, hostilities again broke out, the Hittites being, to all appearance, the aggressors. Dušratta, king of Mitanni, writes that he sends to the king of Egypt tribute of the spoils which he had taken from the Ḫatti; and the king of Nuḫašše, who bears the Assyrian name of Addu-nirari, and whose grandfather had been appointed by Thothmes III., complains that the king of the Ḫatti is against him, and asks for help. From these and other statements it would seem, that whoever was on the side of the king of Egypt was the enemy of the Hittites, and therefore to be attacked by them. Akizzi, king of Qatna, complains in one of the letters that the Ḫatti had burned down a city, and reports in another that they had tried to win him over to their side. Aziru, another prince in the neighbourhood, complains that the king of Ḫatti has entered Nuḫašše, and for this reason he could not leave his own territory to go to the king of Egypt. At the end of one of his communications, Akizzi states that the Sun-god had taken away the king of the Ḫatti, but as no name is given, any historical importance which this fact might have is greatly minimized. In other letters they are spoken of as despoiling the princes of Gebal, capturing a personage named Lupakku and the cities of Amki “even from the cities of Aaddu” (or Bin-Addu = Ben-Hadad). As we have seen (pp. 288-289), at least a portion of them was led by Etakama of Kinza.

As is well known, a large number of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a people regarded as the Hittites exist, and many attempts have been made to translate them. In addition to these, there are many sculptures, mostly on rocks, and still in situ. The most remarkable of these are at Bogaz Keui, Eyouk, Iasili-Kaia, Ghiaour-kalesi, Doganlu-deresi, Ibriz, Eflatun-bunar, Karabeli, and elsewhere in Asia Minor, as well as at Jerabis (anciently called Carchemish), Hamah (Hamath), and monuments of the Hittites have even been found at Babylon. How they came to this last place is not at present known, but they may have formed part of the spoils brought from the west by any of the later conquerors (such a supposition would probably be better than attributing to them a very early date), or sent thither as presents or as specimens of Hittite work. It is noteworthy that the inscriptions, with the exception of the bowl brought from Babylon, are all in relief and boustrophedon. A large number of seals, both of the ordinary kind and cylindrical, are known, and though there are bilingual inscriptions (Hittite and Babylonian), none of them are of sufficient length to make them really serviceable in translating other texts in the same character.

Notwithstanding the great difficulty attending such a task as the translation of these inscriptions, a certain amount of success has been attained. Those who have advanced the study most are Prof. Sayce in England, and Profs. Jensen and Hommel in Germany. It will be many years, however (unless some unexpected help come to light), before renderings in any real sense of the word useful can be made.

In the opinion of Prof. Sayce, Cappadocia was the earliest home of this nationality, which spread thence in every direction (except, perhaps, northwards), and made itself master of a part of Palestine, from which circumstance the district came to have, in Assyrian literature, the name of “the land of Ḫatti.” Though later than the Amorite invasion, it nevertheless took place at a very early date, as is shown by the fact that Abraham had dealings with Ephron, a Hittite or “son of Heth.”

Coming down to a later date, it is interesting to see what is said about them by the kings of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1120 B.C.) says as follows—

“... 4000 Kaškaians (and) Urumaians, people of the land of Ḫattê, disobedient, who in their strength had taken the cities of Subarte, subject unto the god Ašur, my lord, heard of my march to Subarte; the brilliance of my power overwhelmed them, they feared the conflict, my feet they embraced. With their goods and II. sos (120) of chariots of their system of yoking(79) I took from them, and delivered to the people of my land.”

Farther on in his record, Tiglath-pileser I. states that he collected his chariots and warriors, and took to the desert, going to the border-people of the Arameans, enemies of Ašur his lord. From before the land of Sūḫi (the Shuhites) as far as the city Carchemish of the land of Ḫattê, he boasts of having plundered in a single day, slaughtering their soldiers, and taking back to his own country all their property. Some of them fled across the Euphrates, followed by the Assyrians in boats of skins, and the result of this flight to seek safety was, that six of their cities at the foot of the mountain known as Bišru, were taken, plundered, and destroyed.

In other passages of his record also, this king refers to certain districts which were undoubtedly Hittite, but without calling them by that name. One of these—the interesting description of his operations in Commagene—is especially worthy of notice. It reads as follows—

“In those days the people of Qurḫê, who had come with the people of Kummuḫi to save and help the land of Kummuḫi, I caused to go down like šûbe.(80) The corpses of their warriors I heaped up in heaps on the tops of the mountains, the carcases of their warriors the river Namê took forth to the Tigris. Kili-Tešub son of Kali-Tešub, whom Irrupi put to flight (?), their king, my hand took in the midst of the battle. His wives, children, offspring of his heart, his force, III. sos (180) plates of copper, 5 censers of bronze, with their gods, (objects) of gold and silver, and the best of their property, I carried off. Their spoil and their goods I sent forth, that city and its palace I burned with fire, destroyed (it), laid (it) waste.

“The city Urraḫinaš, their stronghold, situated in the land of Panari, fear dreading(81) the glory of Ašur, my lord, overwhelmed them; to save their lives they carried away their gods (and their goods), they fled to the peaks of the lofty mountains like a bird. I collected my chariots and troops, (and) crossed the Tigris, Ša-di-Tešub, son of Ḫattu-šar, king of Urraḫinaš, not to be captured in his own country, took my feet. The children, offspring of his heart, and his family, I took as hostages. I. sos (60) plates of copper, libation-vases of bronze, offering-dishes of bronze, great ones, with II. sos (120) men, oxen, sheep, tribute and gifts, he brought, (and) I received it. I had mercy on him, spared his life, (and) set the heavy yoke of my dominion over him for ever. I captured the wide land of Kummuḫi to its (whole) extent (and) made it submit to my feet. At that time I offered one bronze offering-dish and one bronze libation-vase of the spoil and gifts of the land of Kummuḫi to Ašur my lord, (and) I. sos of copper plates, with their gods, I presented to Hadad who loveth me.”

In the above extract the names containing that of the god Tešub show clearly that we have here to do with nationalities in the neighbourhood of Mitanni (see p. 277), and a close relation with the Hittites is suggested by the other name Ḫattu-šar, father of Šadi-Tešub, which is an analogous formation to Ḫattu-šil, the Kheta-sir of Egyptologists, with whom Rameses II. made a treaty (cf. p. 304). Another reading of Ḫattu-šar is Ḫattuḫi, a name which Prof. Sayce translates, “the Hittite,” in the second series of the Records of the Past, vol. i. p. 97, note 2. In the same passage he analyzes the name of the city Urraḫinaš as being derived from Urra, with the termination ḫi-naš, denoting in Vannite, “the place of the people of.”

Another interesting reference to the Hittites is that of the Assyrian king Aššur-naṣir-âpli, renowned for his cruelty. The king ruling at the time was Sangara, who had as his capital the city of Carchemish. The text reads as follows—

“I drew near to the land of Carchemish. The tribute of Sangara, king of the land of Ḫatte—20 talents of gold, bangles (?) of gold, rings of gold, swords of gold, 100 talents of bronze, 250 talents of iron, dishes of bronze, vases of bronze, libation-vases of bronze, a brazier of bronze, and the numerous vessels of his palace, the weight of which was not taken; couches of oak, chairs of oak, tables of oak and ivory inlaid, 200 slave-girls (or virgins), cotton stuffs, woollen cloth, white and black and white and grey, white marble (?), tusks of elephants, a white chariot, an umbrella of gold filled with overlaying (?), the ornament of his royalty, I received. The chariots, horses, (and) grooms of the city Carchemish, (of the Hittites(82)) I set (aside) for myself.”

The riches and importance of the city of Carchemish are here well indicated, and to all appearance the place maintained its position to the end, long after the power of the Hittites had completely disappeared. Indeed, as will be recognized from the above, Sangara has every appearance of having been a local ruler, implying that the district under Hittite control was already broken up into small states practically independent of each other. Another prince of the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of Diarbekir, from whom this Assyrian king received tribute was “the son of Baḫiani.” Apparently he was called thus on account of his ancestor, Baḫiani, being chief of a tribe, the district over which he ruled bearing, in Aššur-naṣir-âpli’s second reference to it, the name of Bît-Baḫiani, “the house of Baḫiani.” The special products of this tract are well indicated by the nature of the gifts sent to the Assyrian king: “chariots, harness, horses, silver, gold, lead, bronze, and vessels of bronze.” That these Hittite districts paid tribute so submissively would seem to indicate that they had no coherence among themselves, and did not feel called upon to aid each other in time of need.

Sargon of Assyria, who claims to have subjugated all the land of the Hittites, speaks, as do other Assyrian kings, of the people of Hamath, and what he did to Ilu-bi’idi or Yau-bi’idi, their king. This, too, was the capital of a Hittite principality, and it is in the modern town of Hamah, in which form the name still survives, that the so-called “Hamah-stones,” now generally regarded as Hittite, were found.

The disappearance of the Hittite confederate states (if such they really were), and the rise in their place from time to time of other powers, caused the Assyrians, who regarded this territory as their own special possession, won by conquest, to apply to the whole district the name of mât Ḫatti, “the land of Heth,” which would seem to have included (probably in its extended sense) Samaria, Sidon, Arvad, Gebal, Ashdod, Beth-Ammon, Moab, Edom, Askelon, and Judah.(83) It thus, to all appearance, took the place of the ancient “land of the Amorites” (not, however, when indicating the points of the compass), and in this the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Aššur-banî-âpli agree.

What the influence of the Hittites over the nations contemporary with them may have been is difficult to estimate. The Assyrians, to all appearance, borrowed from them a certain style of architecture, used for the entrance-hall of the royal palaces. Their style of art, of which numerous examples are preserved, shows that they had made considerable progress, and that they had individuality as artists. Neither in sculpture nor in engraving of hard stone, however, did they ever attain to the exquisite fineness and finish of the best work of the artists of Babylonia and Assyria. The subjects, too, seem to be usually more grotesque, though this suggestion, which their work gives, may be due merely to our ignorance of their religious beliefs and the legends on which the designs were probably based.

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 Hittite art carried off at a later date, when the nations producing them had passed away, are also probable explanations. In any case, they seem to show that there were, at some period or other, political relations between the Hittites and the Babylonians.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Jebusites

The importance of the Jebusites, who were, to all appearance, but a small tribe, lies in the circumstance, 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-ṭâba 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 Assyrian inscriptions know nothing as a body, but the name of Yabušu, 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 principally on account of its having come into contact with the Jews.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Girgashites

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 Assyrians. 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 Girgashites are the Kirkišāti of a tablet from Assyria which seemingly contains an early historical record, or an historical legend. Whether the Kirkišāti be identical with the Girgashites 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—

“Gazzāni to the resting-place he has decided upon,(84) to the fortress camp of Kirkišāti, to Zakar-gimilli (king?) of the Siḫites, to wide-spreading Kirkišāti, to Ḫarri-si’iši, to Dûr-Dungi, and the neighbourhood of Tengurgur (?) may he go forth, and to the land of Ḫalman, 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 Ḫalman 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 Kirkišāti (if it be a country) is the land of the Girgashites, unless Ḫalman 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 Gazzāni, which is possibly the completion of the name of the father of Tudḫula, 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 Ḫalman.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Moabites

Concerning the early history and state of the Moabites we get no information from the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, 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 Assyrian 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 repetition as much as possible.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

X. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE ASSYRIANS

Aššur-naṣir-âpli II.—Shalmaneser II.—Tiglath-pileser III. (Pul)—Shalmaneser IV. (Elulaeus)—Sargon—Sennacherib—Esarhaddon—Aššur-banî-âpli (the great and noble Asnappar)—The downfall of Assyria.

The Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a monarchy, which, passing 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 Assyrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally, the kings of Assyria 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, Assyrian predominance in that land coming to an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son, Aššur-naṣir-âpli, took part. Though this was a check to Assyrian 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, Aššur-naṣir-âpli 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 Amurrū,”(86) as he calls it. Here, after performing ceremonies to the gods of Assyria, 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 Maḫallatites, 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 Assyrian king proceeded to the mountains of Ḫamanu (Amanus), and cut beams of cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple Ê-šarra, 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 gods.”

Shalmaneser II., son of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, 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 Aḫuni, 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 Assyrian 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, Kundašpu of Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, Ḫaianu the son of Gabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, “(at) the city Aššur-uttir-aṣbat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is upon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hittites 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 Irḫulêni of Hamath (Amatâa), whose cities Adennu, Pargâ, and Arganâ were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in flames.

“From Arganâ 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 Ša-imērišu (= the province of Damascus); 700 chariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Irḫulêni of the land of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Aḫabbu (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 Irqanatites; 200 men of Matinu-ba’ali of the city of the Arvadites; 200 men of the land of the Usanatites; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Adunu-ba’ali of the land of the Šianians;(87) 1000 camels of Gindibu’u of the Arbâa (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu 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 Aššur, 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 Assyrians with the Jews—that is, if Sir’ilâa 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 Assyriologists.

In truth, however, the Hebrew and the Assyrian 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 God to be a god 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 Assyriologists concerning Aḫabbu mât Sir’ilâa, it must have been between this period and his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, 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 Assyrian 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 Archæology, 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 Assyrian inscriptions Sir´ilâa—in all other passages it is bît Ḫumrî, “the house of Omri,” or mât bît Ḫumrî, “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. Ḫumrî 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´ilâa, and it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means certain—Isra´ilâa would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the monolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the Assyro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir´ilâa (or Ser´ilâa) exists in the Sar-îli 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 Assyrian 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 passages where Irḫulēni (or Urḫilēni) 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, Muṣrâa, “Muṣrites,” coming apparently from Muṣur, the name of Egypt in the Assyrian 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 Arbâa is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being Arabic, and this is very probable. In Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu of the Ammonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and Rehob in their Assyrian 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 Assyrian 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 Assyria 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 (Imēri-šu), however, set himself, with Irḫulēni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of Syria, to resist the Assyrian 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 Ḫamanu (Amanus) range of mountains, he traversed the portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites, where he captured the city Aštamaku and ninety-nine other places, defeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with Irḫulēni 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 Amanus 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 Assyrian 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 Irḫulēni of Hamath and the “twelve kings of the sea-coast above and below.” Again the Assyrian 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 Assyrian king repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the Assyrian 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 Irḫulēni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to translate “the twelve kings,” meaning the eleven which are referred to along with and including Aḫabbu of the Sir’ilâa, 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 Imēri-šu (and) Irḫulēni 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 Assyria. The following year, 843 B.C., for the first time during his reign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Amanus mountains for use in the palaces of Assyria. 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 Ḫaza’-îlu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously murdered his master, as related in this passage, and seized the throne. Hearing of the advance of the Assyrian army, he prepared for resistance, as is related in the following narrative.

[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. Rassam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, Assyrian Saloon.) I_a_.—The expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia). Sacrificing to the gods 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. Ḫaza-’îlu of the land of Imēri-šu 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 Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land of Ḫauranu (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 Ḫumrî.”

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. Ḫaza’-îlu of the land of Imēri-šu came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I took away from him.”

These two documents, 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 hitherto held concerning the identity of Aḫabbu mât Sir’ilâa 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 Ḫumrî or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing space, 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 Ḫumrî: 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrian 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 Assyria, 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 Assyrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the unpronounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise pronounced in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. Ḫumrî shows that they said at that time Ghomrî.

After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser’s life, the great Assyrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son Šamši-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 Assyrian 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 Manasseh. As the Assyrian form of this name is Minsē or Minasē, 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 Ḫaza, or 804, when he marched against Ba’ali, the name, apparently, of a Phœnician 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 Assyria 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 Aššur; the king who, in his youth, Aššur, king of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal; his shepherding he (Aššur) made good as pasture for the people of the land of Aššur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of Ê-šarra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of Ê-kura, who continually walketh in the service of Aššur, 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 Ḫarḫar, the land of Araziaš, 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 Ḫatti (Heth, the Hittites), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of Ḫumrî (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 Ša-imēri-šu (Syria of Damascus); Mari’u, king of Ša-imēri-šu, I shut up in Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of Aššur, 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 Bêl, 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 Assyrian 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 passing into younger and more vigorous hands, so that “a saviour” was still needed, and found in the person of the Assyrian 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 goddess) 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, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma (“a lord before God”), who furnished them with the following dedication—

“To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of Ê-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 Aššur, his lord, and the life of Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma, ruler of the city of Calah, the land of Ḫamedu, 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 god.”

It is rare that an Assyrian 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 Assyrian 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 associating 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 Assyria, 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 Assyria, 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 principally 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 Amanus, Lebanon, or of a district called Ḫašur 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 Ḫatarika, 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.

Aššur-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 Ḫatarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in Assyria, 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 Aššur, and there was an eclipse of the sun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has been identified with an eclipse which passed over Assyria 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 Arrapḫa, 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 Assyria, 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 repetition of such risings, unless it be that Aššur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received chronology, he died in 755 B.C. when Aššur-nirari II. ascended the throne.

This new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the year of his accession, to Ḫatarika, and the other, in 754 B.C., to Arpad. What the additional statement, “Return from the city of Aššur,” 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 Assyria. In 749 and 748 B.C., however, Aššur-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 principal cities of the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end of a reign, followed by the words “(Eponymy of Nabû-bêl-uṣur, governor of) Arrapḫa. 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 Assyrian 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, Aššur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of the generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in Aššur (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 circumstances 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, Dûr-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is supposed that it was on this occasion that he assumed the title “king of Šumer and Akkad.” To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the Babylonians themselves as king, Nabonassar being then on the throne. There is hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged Assyrian overlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some justification for assuming the title.

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 Assyrian 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 Assyrians 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrian king—all except one, Tutamû king of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed to Assyria.

During the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 B.C., risings took place in Syria and North Phœnicia, 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 Kullanû,” 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 Assyria. The mention of Kullanû 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 Assyrian influence, and though this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian 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 passages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was captured by the Assyrian 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 Assyrian king, including “Usnû, Siannu, Ṣimirra (Simyra), Rašpûna, on the sea-coast, together with the cities of the Sauê-mountains (mountains which are in Lebanon), Ba’ali-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Amanus, 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 Ḫatarikka, the province of Nuqudina, Ḫasu with the cities which are around it, the cities of Arâ, and the cities which are on each side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the mountain Sarbûa to its whole extent, the city Ašḫanu, the city Yadabu, the mountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city Elli-tarbi, the city Zitānu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and) the city Bumamu—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 Assyria. 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the safety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the defeat of Kišî, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other districts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to districts in other principalities, 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:—

“Kuštašpu of the city of the Comagenians; Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Sa-Imērišuites (Syria); Meniḫimme (Menahem) of the city of the Samarians; Ḫirummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi’ili of the city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the Kûites; Pisiris of the Carchemishites; Êni-îlu of the city of the Ḫammatites; Panammû of the city of the Sam’allites; Tarḫulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of the land of the Melidites; Dadi-îlu of the land of the Kaskites; Uassurme of the land of the Tabalites; Ušḫitti of the land of the Tunites; Urballâ of the land of the Tuḫanites; Tuḫamme of the city of the Ištundites; Urimme of the city of the Ḫušimnites; Zabibê, 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 assume that this was the case, as the Assyrian records are exceedingly defective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not appear from the Assyrian 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 Assyria; 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 Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.”

It is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the Assyrian king off—the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem’s hand. The writer apparently assumed that the Assyrian 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 Assyrian 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 Lullumû and Na’iru (Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who were sent west to Ṣimirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu’immu, and other places in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Madâa (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 Pilišta. 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? Assuming, 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we have to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description “on the boundary of Israel (Bît-Ḫumria).” 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 Assyrians 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 gods 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 (mât Bît-Ḫumria). After this comes the words, “the whole of his people, (with their property) I sent to Assyria.” 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 Pilišta (i.e. 733-732 B.C.) are, “to the land of Dimašqa.” It would therefore seem that, having assured himself of the submission of his north-Phœnician vassals, 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 Assyrian inscriptions,(93) which, as already pointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the reference to Israel, in the mutilated passage 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 Assyrians, 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).

There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all appearance, that the Assyrians 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) Ḫādara, the house (= dwelling-place) of the father of Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Ša-imērišuites, (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 Ša-imērišu 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 passages, 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 Paqaḫa (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 Assyria).”

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)ṣunnu (Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rûkipti, the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....”

In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the Assyrian 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 encompassed his death. Hoshea then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the Assyrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time assured himself against attack at his hands.

Imitating Hoshea, Rûkipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the Assyrian 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 Assyrian king, as recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 9.

Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of Ša-imēri-šu or Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlordship. 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 passage in 2 Kings referred to.

Thus ended Tiglath-pileser’s successful expedition to Pilišta 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. Nabonassar, the king of that country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabû-nadin-zēri, who, however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabû-šum-ukîn, who murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more than two months, and Ukîn-zēr, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bît-Amukkāni, 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. Ukîn-zēr (the Chinzēros of Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapîa, 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 Bêl,” an expression apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was accepted by the god—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 Assyria was called Pûlu is not known. The name only occurs, in native documents, 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 Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, bûlu (which may also be read pûlu) meaning “the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a personal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of “the Ḫuḫamite.”

The fact that the name Pûlu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the reference to the Assyrian 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 Assyrian history probably accounts for his having ultimately adopted the latter.

“On the 25th day of Tebet Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne in Assyria. He destroyed Šabara’in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.)

“In the eponymy of Bêl-ḫarran-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Gozan, To the city ... Šalmanu-ašarid sat upon the throne.

In the eponymy of Marduk-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Amedi, In the land.

In the eponymy of Maḫdê, of the city of Nineveh, To....

In the eponymy of Aššur-ḫalṣani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....

In the eponymy of Šalmanu-ašarid, king of Assyria, 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 Assyrian Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from that without historical notices. The completion of this important document 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 document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.

What may have been the relationship of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria 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 assumed 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 Assyro-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 Assyrian 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 Assyria 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 Assyrian 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), Phœnicia 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 Assyrians”), and several other cities yielded to the king of Assyria. Finding that the Tyrians(97) would not submit, the Assyrian 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 Phœnicians, who furnished him with threescore ships, and 800 men to row them. The attack of the Assyrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one, for the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve ships, 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 mât Bît-Ḫumrî, “the land of Beth-Omri,” Pilišta, “Philistia,” or âl Ṣurri, “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 Assyrians until Sargon was actually on the throne.

“In the 5th year Šulmanu-ašarid died in the month Tebet. Šulmanu-ašarid had ruled the kingdom of Akkad and Aššur for five years. In the month Tebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in Aššur, and in the month Nisan Marduk-âbla-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 Assyria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in which the Assyrian 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 Assyria to the abode of his god, 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 shine in borrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that “Sargon the Later,” as he called himself, by assuming that style and title, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown, who made the little state which was his original principality the centre of a wide-spreading domain.

Strange as it may seem, until the discovery of the Assyrian 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 passage (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 assuming 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 Ḫumbanigaš 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 Ḫumbanigaš the Elamite in the suburbs of Dêru. 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.

“Ḫanunu (Hanon), king of Ḫazitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib’e, the Field-marshal of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt), to make war and battle in Rapiḫu (Raphia). I defeated them.(98) Sib’e feared the sound of my weapons and fled, and his place was not found. Ḫanunu of Ḫazitu I took with my hands. I received the tribute of Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣuru, Samsê, 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 Amatâa (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), Ṣimirra (Simyra), Dimašqa (Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them to agree together, and they assembled for battle. I collected the powerful troops of the god Aššur, 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 Assyriologists 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 Ḫalaḫḫa 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 Ḫumbanigaš 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 assuming 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 circumstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he devotes so much space 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 Assyrian 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 Assyrians, 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 pronunciation of the Assyrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing b into bh or v). This ruler is called “king of Egypt” in the passage 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 anticipation in 2 Kings xvii.(100)

The result was one exceedingly gratifying to the Assyrian 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 Muṣuru.” This would be a natural result of the success of the Assyrians (so it seemed to the earlier Assyriologists), for surely Pir’u is Pharaoh, and Muṣuru is the Muṣur 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 Muṣuru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is not Arioch of Elassar, contemporary of Kudur-laḫgumal of Elam who is not Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tudḫula 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 Assyriology, 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 Assyrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this prince, whom he describes as “a loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous (?), evil man” (ṣab ḫubši, lâ-bêl-kussī, amēlu patû 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 Assyrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the various states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the power of the Assyrian 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 Urarṭu 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 Sinuḫtu, a city in Tabal.

The next year, 717 B.C., came the turn of Pisîris of Carchemish, who had tried to get Mitâ king of Musku to join him in a rebellion against Assyria. Assyrians were after this settled there, and Carchemish became an integral part of the Assyrian empire. The next entry in the Annals of Sargon is a reference to the Pâpites and the Lalluknites, “dogs brought up in his palace,” who planned treacherously against the land of Kakmê, though the full extent of their crime is not stated. These people were removed from their places, and sent down to the midst of Damascus of Amoria (Syria). In this year Ḫumbanigaš of Elam died, and was succeeded by Šutur-Nanḫundi, a man of a more peaceful character than his predecessor.

Extensive operations, chiefly in Ararat, are recorded for 716 B.C., in which year also Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the city-chief of Kišešim, a Median province, was deposed, and his territory added to the boundaries of Assyria, together with several other west-Median districts. Among these was Ḫarḫar, whose city-chief was driven away by the Assyrian king. This city was re-peopled with prisoners of war, and its name having been changed to Kar-Šarru-ukîn, made the capital of the province. The war against Ararat continued during the next year, resulting in the submission of Yanzû king of Na’iri or Mesopotamia. On the east, a rebellion in Ḫarḫar was put down, and the city fortified as a defence against Media. In this year people of Tumadu, Ibâdidu, Marsimanu, Ḫayapâ, and the remote Arbâa (Arabs?), an unlettered tribe which had never paid tribute to an Assyrian king, were overthrown, and the survivors transported to Samaria. The receipt of tribute from Pir’u king of Muṣuru, Samsi queen of Aribbu (Arabia), It’amra of the land of the Sabâa (Sabeans), kings of the sea-coast and the desert, consisting of “gold, the produce of the mountain, precious stones, ivory, seeds of the ûšû-tree, all kinds of spices, horses and camels,”(102) is recorded.

To all appearance, Pir’u of Muṣuru is regarded as one of the kings of the sea-coast and the desert, but whether this is evidence against his being Pharaoh of Egypt or not, may be doubted. Egypt is as much a country of the sea-coast as any part of Palestine, but it is naturally on the south shore of the Mediterranean, and not on the east.

714 B.C. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and seems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713 expeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In 712 B.C. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tarḫunazi of Meliddu, who, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in Tilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This city, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sutî(103) and placed under Assyrian rule.

At this time, as Sargon says, he received the treasure (?) of the land of Heth (the high-lands of Syria), among the things sent being copper, iron, lead or tin, white marble from the Amanus mountains, royal garments of the colour of uknû-stone (lapis-lazuli), something which came from the mountain Ba’il-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon), “a great mountain,” and silver, which, in consequence of the large consignments received at Dûr-Sargina (Khorsabad), became in value like copper. The next year (711 B.C.) an expedition against Muttallu, son of Tarḫulara, one of the kings of “the land of Heth,” took place. The son had killed his father and mounted the throne, hence the necessity for this campaign.

A similar expedition also took place to Ashdod. It happened that Azuri, king of the district of which Ashdod was the capital, had withheld the tribute agreed upon, and Sargon had therefore deposed him, and set his brother Aḫi-miti in his place. The following is Sargon’s own account of this, and the sequel—

“Azuri, king of Asdudu, planned in his heart not to send tribute, and sent to the kings around hostile expressions (towards) the land of Aššur, and on account of the evil he had done, I changed his dominion over the people of his land. Aḫi-miti, his brother next in order, I appointed to the kingdom over them. Men of Ḫattî,(104) speaking treachery, hated his dominion, and raised up over them Yaana, a usurper, who like themselves knew no reverence for the dominion. In the anger of my heart I went hastily with the chariot of my feet and my cavalry, which for security quit not my side, to the city Asdudu, the city of his dominion, and the city Asdudu, the city Gimtu, (and) the city Asdudimma I besieged (and) captured. The gods dwelling in the midst of them, himself, with the people of his land, gold, silver, (and) the property of his palace, I counted as spoil. Their cities I rebuilt,(105) and settled therein the people of the lands captured by my hands. I placed my commander-in-chief as governor over them, and counted them with the people of my land, and they bore my yoke.”

Another inscription calls Yaana by the name of Yawani, and states that, hearing from far of the advance of the Assyrian army, he fled to the border of Muṣuru, which lies on the boundary of Meluḫḫa, and there hid himself. The king of Meluḫḫa seems thereupon to have feared for his own land, and placing Yatna in chains, sent him to Assyria. A third text referring to this campaign adds the following details—

“(People) of the land of Pilište (Philistia), the land of Yaudu (Judah), the land of Udumu (Edom), the land of Ma’abi (Moab), dwellers by the sea, bringers of the tribute and the gift of Aššur my lord, (for) sedition-mongering without measure, and evil, which was against me to cause hostility, unto Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣri, a prince who could not save them, they brought their homage-offering, and asked him for aid. I, Sargina, the true prince, fearing the oath of Lag-gi (= Nebo) and Merodach, keeper of the commands of the god Aššur, caused (my troops) to cross the Tigris and the Euphrates at high water, the fulness of the flood, as on dry land. And he, Yawani, their king, who trusted to his own power, and had not submitted to my dominion, heard from afar of the march of my expedition, and the glory of Aššur, my lord, overthrew him, and ... of the region of the river ... depth of the waters ... possession (?) of his land ... afar ... he fled ... Asdudu....”

In this, too, there is a reference to Pir’u, here called king of Muṣrí, either Egypt, or that mysterious and otherwise unknown kingdom to whose help so many trusted.

The years 710 and 709 B.C. were devoted to the operations against Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean prince who had made himself master of Babylonia. This is the Merodach-baladan who is referred to in 2 Kings xx. 12, but as his embassy really belongs to a somewhat later date, reference will be made to it in its place. Suffice it here to say that he was a usurper on the Babylonian throne, head of the Chaldean tribe called Bît-Yakîn, and one of the most influential chieftains of the district. To all appearance, the Babylonians themselves (as in earlier days when they tried to seize the throne) preferred the Assyrians to the semi-barbarous Chaldeans and Arameans, with whom they were, in fact, in too close connection to have any great respect for. It is needless to say that this entirely fell in with the ambition of the kings of Assyria, who, from the time of Tukulti-Ninip, if not earlier, had desired, and sometimes obtained, dominion over Babylonia. Sargon, the successor of two kings of Assyria who were acknowledged to be at the same time kings of Babylonia, naturally regarded himself as inheriting that crown in virtue of his being king of Assyria, whilst the Babylonians themselves were probably not displeased with the idea that they formed part of the world-renowned and powerful Assyrian empire, whose kings spoke the same language as themselves, and with whose religion they were in sympathy. Thus it happened, therefore, that in the course of the operations against Merodach-baladan, success frequently crowned the arms of the Assyrians, and the inhabitants of Babylon, sending to Dûr-Ladinna, where Sargon was staying, brought him in solemn possession to Babylon, where he made the prescribed offerings to the gods, took up his abode in Merodach-baladan’s palace, and received the tribute of the Babylonian tribes which he had subjugated. He still continued, however, his operations against Merodach-baladan, who was by no means willing to give up the struggle, to which there could be one end only, namely, the overthrow of the Chaldean king, which took place in 709 B.C.

Whilst Sargon was busy in Babylonia, the governor of Quê invaded Musku (Mesech) and brought the country to subjection. The seven kings of Cyprus also sent gifts, and a stele of Sargon was set up in the island, which, though mutilated, is of considerable importance, and is now preserved in the Berlin Museum. Kummuḫ (Comagene) was also added to the Assyrian empire (708 B.C.), and probably in the same year, a new king (in consequence of a dispute concerning the succession) set up in the land of Ellipu. In this reign also, the Elamites were generally against the Assyrians in their conflicts in Babylonia and on the eastern borders.

Concerning his death there is much uncertainty. The supposition is, that he was assassinated by one of his soldiers, as is indicated by the entry in an eponym-list with historical references—

Lîmme Upaḫḫir-bêlu, D.P. šakin âl Amedi ... îna êli purussî Kulummâa.... amēl tidûki madaktam ša šar mât Aššur D.S.... âraḫ Abi, ûmu šinšēru, Sin-âḫê-êriba (îna kussī ittušib).

“Eponymy of Upaḫḫir-bêlu, prefect of the city Amedu.... according to the oracle of the Kulummite(s).... a soldier (entered) the camp of the king of Assyria (and killed him?). month Ab, day 12th, Sennacherib (sat on the throne”).

[Plate X.]

Reception by Sennachereb of Prisoners and Spoil. British Museum, Nineveh Gallery, No. 57.

That he died a violent death seems to be nearly certain, and how many others of the overbearing rulers of Assyria had come to an end in the same way is not known. The fate of his son, to which reference will be made in its place, is a historical fact.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us