James Frederick McCurdy.

History, prophecy and the monuments (Volume 2) online

. (page 38 of 39)
Online LibraryJames Frederick McCurdyHistory, prophecy and the monuments (Volume 2) → online text (page 38 of 39)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Ashdod (As-du-di), had made up his mind not to pay tribute,
and had sent to the kings round about seditious proposals
against Assyria, and on account of the evil he had committed
I had put an end to his rule, and installed as their king Ahi-
miti, his full brother. The Hettites, plotting insurrection, re-
belled against his rule, and exalted over themselves a (certain)
Yatna, who was not of the royal house, and like-minded Avith
them knew no reverence for the kingly authority. In the
wrath of my soul, with chariots of ray body-guard (lit. of my
feet), and horsemen who do not quit my immediate presence
(lit, do not fail from the place of the inclining of my hands),
I marched rapidly to Ashdod, the city which he ruled. Ashdod,
Gatli, and Asdudimniu, I besieged and took. Of the gods who
had their dwelling there, of himself, with the people of his



418 APPENDIX Note 4

land, gold, silver, the treasures of liis palace, I made spoil.
Their cities I occupied ancAv, and settled in them people from
the lands which I had conquered. My viceroys I set as ad-
ministrators over them. I reckoned them as of the people of
Assyria, and they came under my yoke."

The synoptic Inscription adds (lines 101 ff.) details sub-
sequent to the Assyrian march : " But Yamani heard from afar
of the coming of my expedition, and fled to the borders of
Egypt, Avithin the limits of Melueha (§ 96), and it was not
found out where he was. . . . The king of Melueha who
[dwelt] in an obscure [out of] the way region, Avhose fathers
since remote days, the time of the Moon-god (cf. Ps. Ixxii. 5),
had sent no ambassadors (riders) to the kings my fathers to
ask for a treaty of peace, heard afar of the might of Asshur,
IN'ebo, and Merodach ; fear of the splendour of my royalty
overspread him, and terror was shed forth upon him; he
threw him into chains, and fetters and bonds of iron, and
they brought him to Assyria into my presence."

The Ashdod Inscription tells of defences made by the
usurper, and of his canals made for water supply, Avhich Smith
compares with the similar work undertaken by Hezekiah about
the same time (2 Chr. xxxii. 3 f.). Its most important state-
ment, however, which immediately follows this, refers to the
part taken in the revolt by other principalities in Palestine.
As the passage has not been quite correctly understood, I give
a rendering of the text (Winckler, pi. 44 D. lines 25-33) : —

" [The kings] of Philistia, Judah, Edom, ]\Ioab, dwellers by
the sea, payers of tribute and gifts to Asshur, my lord, plotters
of sedition, did not refrain froiii mischief, for in order to stir
up rebellion against me they brought gifts of friendship to
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, a prince who was no saviour to them,
and sued with him for an alliance." — Eor memi (line 29) in
the sense of "restraining, withholding," cf. the vexed line
V E. 1, 122.

The above interesting extracts suggest one or two remarks.
The " Hettites " mentioned in the Annals are the i>eople of
Ashdod of Palestinian origin, as distinguished from the
Grecian immigrants that had settled in Philistia, and who now
formed an influential class in Ashdod. One of these was the



Note 5 ArPEXDIX 419

Yatna of the Annals, the Yamani of the synoptic and of the
Ashdod Inscription (line 15), Avho in the last-named passage is
also called " a soldier." These names are in this case appella-
tive surnames like the English proper name " French " when
first employed. The former name (= "Cyprian") implies that
he came from Cyprus (Assyr. Yatnan), and the latter (= |V)
that he was of Ionian race. These phrases indicate that the
Greek adventurers, who as pirates, kidnappers, and slave-
dealers (cf. Joel iii. 6 ; Zech. ix. 13), had for centuries been
harrying the Mediterranean coast as far as Egypt, now had an
actual settlement in Ashdod and its vicinity, and were aspir-
ing to a leading place. We could not wish for a better ex-
planation than this fact affords of a passage written a few
years before (§ 315) : " And a spurious race (LXX dkXoyev^s)
shall have its seat in Ashdod, and I Avill cut off the pride of
the Philistines " (Zech. ix. G).

Sargon in all these accounts sa3"s conventionally that he
himself led his chosen troops to the West-land. The express
testimony of Isa. xx. 1, to the effect that it was his general Avho
led the corps against Ashdod, shoAvs Iioav his statement is to
be interpreted, and reminds us that a great proportion of the
triumphs of the Assyrian kings Avere Avon by the generals to
whom they rarely give the credit that is their due (cf. § 57).

The Avords applied to the Ethiopian king of Egypt by the
scribe of Sargon, " no saviour to them," remind one of the sar-
castic language of the Rabshakeh, 2 K. xviii. 21, and concisely
expresses contemporary Assyrian opinion as to the value of
Egyptian alliances to the helpless people of Palestine. The
" Pharaoh " alluded to is probably Sabataka, aa^Iio had already
rendered a kind of homage to Assyria (§ G30, 632).



NOTE 5 (§ G33)

SAKGOX AXD .TUDAH

Besides this reference to Jiulah, there is ])ut one other to be
found in the numerous inscriptions of Sargon. In the so-called
Nimrud Inscription (ST. pi. 48), in a list of self-exalting epi-
thets based on his achievements, occurs the phrase (line 8) :



420 APPENDIX Note 5

7nu-sak-ni^ mdt Ya-ic-du sa a-sar-Su ru-u-ku: "The subjugator
of the land of Juclah whose situation is remote." This ex-
pression has been much drawn upon in support of the hypothe-
sis of a systematic invasion of Judah ; so, for example, by
Cheyne, in his Prophecies of Isaiah (but virtually disavowed in
his Introduction to Isaiah, 1895, p. 121), and by Sayce in his
Life and Times of Isaiah (where on p. 55 the phrase is twice
mistranslated). But it has been pointed out (Winckler, ST.
I, p. xvii, cf. p. vi, note 2) that this inscription found at
Nimrud must have been composed several years before 711,
the date of the supposed invasion, since no event occurring
later than 716 is mentioned in it. To those familiar with the
style and contents of the historical inscriptions, this considera-
tion will be conclusive. What, then, can be the application of
the words? There are two possible explanations. It may be
supposed that Sargon was claiming for himself more than the
words literally imply, that he speaks of himself as " subduing"
the country when he had only received its formal subjection
with or without a display of force. Or it may be conjectured
(as by Winckler, I.e.) that he uses " Judah " by a curious inac-
curacy for Israel, or the " Land of Omri," and therefore refers
to the catastrophe of 722-1. I am inclined to press the former
alternative, and to assume that the " subjugation," so-called, was
effected in 720. In this critical year, when insurrection was
rife throughout Syria and Palestine (see § 624 f.), it seemed
necessary to put Judah under bonds to keep the peace, even
if it had no intention of breaking it. Its relations to the
Philistines alone (§ 268), who were immediately concerned in
the outbreak, would make this of essential consequence. It
was doubtless in this year that the allegiance sworn to Tig-
lathpileser III was formally renewed to Sargon.



NOTE 6 (§ 638)

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS

I SHALL not trouble my readers with a detailed discussion of
the chronological problems which present themselves in con-
nection with the era of Hezekiah, and which have given rise



Note 6 APPENDIX 421

to unlimited speculation and controversy. The simple plan
■which I have adopted of following a single main guiding thread
downward to the end, ought to be justitied by the results if the
Biblical figures are right. By taking the lengths of the several
reigns from the ascertained date of the accession of Ahaz
onward, we should reach the correct date for the captivity of
Zedekiah (§ 586), the goal of the whole investigation. It will
be in place here to make a general reference to the methods of
timing events and marking the length of reigns among the
ancient Hebrews. Without clear notions on these matters, it
is impossible to understand either a date or a synchronism in
the Old Testament, or to reckon up periods of time. As there
was no fixed era among the Hebrews, it was necessary to date
from some well-known event. At first, and for long, it would
seem that some striking widely known occurrence {e.g. an
earthquake, Am. i. 1) was chosen ; but from about the time of
Ahaz, and perhaps through Assyrio-Babylonian influence, the
accession of the reigning king was used as the point of de-
parture, just as is still the case with parliaiuentary statutes in
England and her colonies. It has been supposed that the Jews,
like the Assyrians, reckoned the first regnal year, not from the
day of the accession, but from the beginning of the next civil
year, that is, the first of Nisan following; in other words, the
regnal years were dislocated, and conformed, for purposes of
convenience, to the civil years. The interval which formed the
actual beginning of the reign was included in the " last year "
of the preceding king, whose name Avould already have appeared
upon documents dated earlier in that portion of the current
year preceding his death. It is altogether probable that this
method was followed by the editors of the historical books in
their arrangement of their materials. The Talmud (Rosh
hashana 2a) states that the reigns of kings began with Nisan.
Such a system, when universally understood, would produce no
confusion in matters of dating, and there was a necessity of
conforming the regnal to the civil year, because, as Stade puts
it (GVI. I, 99, note), one could not always keep in mind the
exact month in which the reigning king came to the throne.

The other matter, which is now our more immediate con-
cern, is the principle followed in reckoning the duration of the



422 APPENDIX Notk 6

several reigns. Here two customs might be followed. Inas-
much as the years of any given reign were a matter of record
in state documents and elsewhere, they might be simply noted
in the chronicles as fixing the lengths of the several reigns.
The data thus drawn upon would usually not furnish an abso-
lutely exact indication, — a thing which as a rule was not
attempted. An accurate statement had to be given when the
king reigned only a fraction of a year; but as soon as he
reached the beginning of the next civil year he entered upon
the " first year " of his reign. If he died at any time during
that civil year, he would be said to have reigned one year,
though it might be several months more or less than a full year,
and so on, up to any number of years. Thus Zedekiah was
dethroned in his eleventh year (2 K. xxv. 2) four months after
Nisan, and is said to have reigned eleven years (2 K. xxiv. 18).
The Babylonian Chronicle is, it may be remarked, much more
exact. But there is another possible method which was per-
haps usually employed. The portion of the reign intervening
between the accession and the following Nisan might also
be reckoned separately as a year. Thus, for example, a reign
including one full civil year and a fraction of a year at each
end might be roughly set down as lasting three years, just as
the interval from Friday evening to Sunday morning was
reckoned as three days. So even the Assyrian Sargon calls the
interval b.c. 721-710 " twelve years " (Annals, 235 f .). In dat-
ing, it would manifestly be impracticable to count the portion
preceding the first Nisan as belonging to the current reign,
for then in one civil year there Avould be two forius of dating,
one referring to the deceased, and the other to the reigning
king. But the shortening of the beginning of the reign, thus
made legally necessary, was known to be a conventional fiction
and would naturally be disregarded when a considerable frac-
tion of a year intervened before the constructive commence-
ment. If this was the usual procedure, it would be right in
our reckonings ordinarily to deduct a full year from the num-
ber of years assigned to each alternate reign at least. It is
upon the assumption that this method of reckoning the dura-
tion of reigns was usually followed that I shall attempt to
divide the period between Ahaz and the fall of Jerusalem (586)



Note 7 APPENDIX 423

according to the Biblical data, which are in these matters
surely correct. Upon no other hypothesis can all the recorded
numbers for the lengths of the reigns be explained.

The most notable of the recent contributions to the chrono-
logical question have been made by the following : H. Brandes,
Ahhandlungen zur Geschichte des Orients im AUertlmm, 1874;
Wellhausen, in Jahrbilcher filr deutsche Theologie, 1875, p. 607—
640; W. K. Smith, in Propltets, p. 413 ff. ; Kamphausen, Die
Chronologie der hebrdiscken Konige, 1883 ; Stade, in GVI. I,
88 ff. ; Davis, " Chronology of the Divided Kingdom," Fresh, and
Ref. Mevietv, Jan. 1891. Most recent critics seem to favour
715 as the date of Hezekiah's accession, though many still
prefer 727. Between these two the former should have the
preference, mainly because his years and those of his succes-
sors, taken with no deduction, fill up exactly the time inter-
vening until the fall of Jerusalem. But neither of the dates
accounts for the embassy of Merodach-Baladan or the sixteen
years assigned to the reign of Ahaz.



NOTE 7 (§ 640)

THE ALTAR AT DAMASCUS

Max Duncker perceived justly that this altar was associ-
ated with Assyrian worship {History of Antiquity, Engl. tr.
1879, vol. iii, p. 78) ; and he is wrongly criticised by Stade
(GVI. I, p. 598), who maintains that it was "the altar of
Rezon, the chief altar of Damascus," and that the ground of
the change made by Ahaz was merely that the pattern pleased
him better. The " chief altar of Damascus," if the phrase can
be used at all, was now, however, devoted for a time at least
to the gods of Assyria. Damascus had just been politically
obliterated, and it was a part of the process by which it was
made an Assyrian province that the gods of Assyria should be
introduced into the old temples. Such a procedure is stated
by the Assyrian kings, over and over again, as having been
employed by them after the conquest of rebellious cities.
Whatever remained of the Syrian cultus after the destruction
and transformation described in 2 K. xvi. 9, was, we may be



424 APPENDIX Note 7

sure, degraded and kept well in tlie background during the
occupation of Damascus by Tiglathpilcser. The altar, being
thus devoted to the uses of Assyrian worship, was acceptable
to the timid and superstitious subject prince. It was for this
reason that " the pattern pleased him better " than the altar of
the depreciated God of Israel. Just as the changes which he
introduced in the arrangements and furniture of the temple
are expressly said (v. 18) to have been made "because of
C^SJi) the king of Assyria," so without doubt the whole spirit
and method of the national worship were modified in defer-
ence to the majesty of the all-conquering gods of the new rulers
of the West-land.



NOTE 8 (§ 644)

DATE OF MICAH I. -III.

As is well known, it is impossible to fix -with absolute cer-
tainty the time of every individual utterance of Micah, or even
to define the limits of each discourse, for the reason that we
have his prophecies in a condensed form, edited some time
after they Avere spoken, and then grouped around two or three
leading motives. In spite of the many ingenious arguments
that have been brought forward in favour of a dual or even a
triple authorship, I see no sufficient reason for abandoning
absolutely the hypothesis of an original unity (cf. § 595, note).
The common division of the book into three sections is the
best : ch. i.-iii. ; iv., v. ; vi., vii.

According to Jer. xxvi. 18, Micah flourished in the days of
Hezekiah ; and ch. iii. 12, which is there quoted, would seem
therefore to belong to his reign. The statement referred to
necessarily means only that the greater portion of his pro-
phetic career was passed under Hezekiah. Chapter i., which
has been synchronized and harmonized Avith Isa. xxviii., on
account of its reference to the impending ruin of Samaria
(b.c. 722-21), was apparently written towards the end of the
reign of Ahaz ; cf . § 638 and the heading i. 1, Avhich presuma-
bly did not come from INIicah himself, but represented a fairly
reliable tradition. On account of the lack of data for deter-



NoTK 9 APPENDIX 425

mining the precise time of eli. ii., iii., it is convenient, on
account of their general contents, to refer to them as repre-
senting in general the same period, which of course includes
the earlier years of Hezekiah.



NOTE 9 (§ 673)

IXSCRIPTIOXS OF SIXACHERIE

The monuments relating to Sinacherib, though fairly abun-
dant, are not so extensive as the inscriptions of several other
Assyrian kings. The principal document is the cylinder, or
rather six-sided prism, published in I R. 37-42, Avhich was
discovered in Kuyunjik in 1830 by J. E. Taylor, British Yice-
Consul at Bassora, and is now in the British IMuseum. This
describes the events of the first eleven years of his reign in
the order of his expeditions or campaigns. The section relat-
ing to the Palestinian expedition has been frequently trans-
lated and commented on, and is the best known portion of the
whole Assyrian historical literature. A briefer edition of the
same, found in Kuyunjik and now in Constantinople, contains,
as a memorial tablet, an addition relating to one of Sinache-
rib's palaces in Nineveh. It is published in I B. 43, 44. An
inscription upon the Bulls of Kuyunjik (III R. 12, 13) gives a
few additional facts. We must add the so-called Grotefend or
Bellino Cylinder, published in Lay. 63 f., which goes no further
than the second campaign; also the remarkable inscription dis-
covered at Bavian, northeast of Nineveh, which describes the
construction and dedication of a canal for the water-supply of
the capital. It narrates also the last Babylonian campaign, and
gives the important information that four hundred and eigh-
teen years had elapsed between Tiglathpileser I and the date
of the inscription. All of the inscriptions have been translated
in HP. ; the Taylor Cylinder, with extracts from the others, in
KB. I R. 37-42 has also been transcribed and translated by
R. Hornung (Leipzig, 1878). G. Smith's History of Sennache-
rib (1878), ed. by Sayce, has the available records in the orig-
inal texts, in historical order, transcribed and translated.

Since the inscriptions of Sinacherib do not distinguish events



426 APPENDIX Note 9

directly by the proper years of his reign, some important occur-
rences cannot with certaiut};- be supplied with exact dates.
There is no space for a discussion of the various cases, and
in the text I have for the most part contented myself with
giving the most probable indications of time. Very important
help is afforded by the Bab. Chr., col. II, III, especially in
what relates to Babylonian affairs and their dates.



NOTE 10 (§ 683)

SIXACHERIB AXD THE SIEGE OF TYRE

This scheme of harmonizing the two accounts is substan-
tially that adopted by Meyer (GA. § 357, 383), Hommel (GBA.
p. 676, 704 f.), and Winckler (GBA. p. 251 f.) after Smith
(History of Sennacherib, p. 69). Special points in which the con-
structions above made differ from one or another of these authori-
ties it is unnecessary to specify. The opinion that Josephus is
right in regarding Shalmaneser as the Assyrian king in ques-
tion is still maintained by Tiele (BAG. p. 223, 237 f .). A minor
difficulty not yet solved on either of the hypotheses, arises
from the fact that Menander makes Elulseus to have reigned
thirty-six years over the Tyrians, while Tiglathpileser III
names Hirom as king of Tyre in 738 (§ 310) and Metenna
in 729. For possible solutions, see Schrader, KGF. p. 49 ff.



NOTE 11 (§ 688)

THE SUBMISSION OF HEZEKIAH

The old expositors are, after all, right in insisting that
Hezekiah must have " sinned " in refusing to pay the stipu-
lated tribute to Sinacherib ; but his conscientiousness was not
so great as they suppose, since his conception of " sinning " in
this case was quite different from theirs. Hezekiah here uses
the phraseology which was regularly employed by the Assyr-
ian suzerain of all those who rebelled against his authority
(§ 290). Compare, for instance, Sinacherib's description of
the insurgents in Ekron (§ 675, col. Ill, 2), where the word



Note 12 APPENDIX 427

for sin (JiittiC) is the exact equivalent of Hebrew SlpH. — The
current rendering of Xw'K (v. 14 a), *•' 1 shall bear," is quite
unsuitable, for it was of no consequence to Sinacherib whether
Hezekiah would bear the additional burden or not. It more-
over ignores the usage of Xw'] in the sense of raising, bring-
ing, contributing, as in 2 S. xix. 43. Driver's remark on this
passage {Notes on Samuel, p. 260, note) to the eifect that S't?]
nowhere means " gave," misses the point of connection between
the primary and the derived meanings of the root. It more-
over leaves out of reckoning the derivatives X*»rX2 and nX'tltS
" contribution, present " ; cf . D!p " tribute " and " tributary "
derived from DD3 ''to raise," and the Aram. pDX (see
the Targ. of 1 K. v. 28 (13) and Josh. xvii. 3), meaning
"contribute," also the Assyr. biltu "tribute" from abdhc
" carry."

As to the amount of the fine paid by Hezekiah, it has been
conjectured that the Hebrew and Phosnician silver talent stood
in value to the Babylonian in the proportion of eight to three.
Hence the statement of Sinacherib (col. Ill, 34) that he took
eight hundred talents of silver from Hezekiah, would agree
with 2 K. xviii. 14. So J. Brandis, Das Milnz-, Mass- unci
Geioichtsioesen in Vorderasieu, 1866, p. 98. The agreement
as to the number of gold talents renders this probable, but
direct proof has not yet been offered.



KOTE 12 (§ 690)

THE CAPTUIIE OF LACHISH

This sculpture is preserved in the Basement Room of the
British Museum. It is one of the most instructive of this
whole class of monuments. The photograph published by the
Museum is very clear. It is reproduced in Stade, GVI. I. p.
620, and in Ragozin's History of Assyria.

The accompanying inscription is published I R. 7, Nr.
YIII. I. It reads:

" Sinacherib, king of the universe, king of Assyria, took his
seat on his movable (lit. set up) throne, and the captives of
Lachish came forward into his presence."



428 APPENDIX Note 13

NOTE 13 (§ 707)

THE PLAGUE IX SINACHERIb's ARMY

As the "words stand, it is impossible to read 5180 as the
number of the dead. But neither is it in accordance with
classical Hebrew usage to write 185000 in the form which
the present text offers. I believe there is no otlier instance in
the Old Testament, in which hundreds (or a hundred) of thou-
sands with tens of thousands is expressed without the word
for thousand being used twice. Cf. Numb. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31 ;
xxvi. 51. Why is it used here only once ? If the hundreds
and thousands are transposed, 5180 will result.

For the ravages of disease at night compare Ps. xci. 5 f.
Homer (IJmcl, I. 37) makes Apollo as the pest-god descend
"like the night" upon the Grecian camp. It is interesting
also to notice that the name of Apollo as the plague-dealer is
Smintheus, the mouse-god, and that he received his name
among the Teucrians, because by means of field-mice he indi-
cated to them, when they had emigrated from Crete and landed
in Asia Minor, the spot where they were to settle. When they
encamped for the night, a large number of these animals gnawed
their baggage-straps and the thongs of their shields. Now the
oracle had told them that they should make their home in the
place where they should be attacked by the original inhabi-
tants of the country, and in acknowledgment of this direction
they gave Apollo the name in question. It is further signifi-
cant that the rat, the symbol of pestilence, is also an emblem
of night. On the Egyptian plague in Palestine, see G. A.
Smith, H G. p. 157 ff. ^

NOTE 14 (§ 709)

COURSE OF THE IXVASION OF SINACHERIB

The foregoing sketch of Sinacherib's expedition differs in
some important points from those made by my predecessors.
A principal misconception as to the time of the invasion of
Judah and the siege of Jerusalem has, apparently, been due to



Note 14 APPENDIX 429

the supposition that Sinacherib's account is held to narrate the
events in strict chronological order. But even a cursory read-
ing makes it obvious that his report deals with and disposes



Online LibraryJames Frederick McCurdyHistory, prophecy and the monuments (Volume 2) → online text (page 38 of 39)