Skip to main content

Full text of "The new Biblical guide"

See other formats 


'2^lf.'o6 


^^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


.V 


Presented    by     T^.'S^\  .    O.   Cj^^e^VT'  ~X}7X:). 

Division  ..qO O  Pi 
Sec/ion   «V>>    1^0 

V.  7 


^f- 

.^?. 

^1 

,r^. ' 

^:' 

m:*.- 

-1^.. 

1^''- 

•    i 

' ',' "  '■ " 

.-A     • 

iVi-v  • . 

■^.v 

% 

.?^y- 

-i ' . . 

•jv'J  "     if  .. 

*";h  « 

iVij'. 

^^• 

^• 

\/-'  .  ' 

r-  ■ 

■  "^-. 

Ct: 

^:- 

-:  ■>;_  ■ 


THE   NEW    BIBLICAL   GUIDE. 


Uaunton : 

E.    GOODMAN    AND    SON,    PHCENIX    PRINTING    WORKS. 


THE  NEW 


Biblical  Guide. 


Vol  VII 


REV.   JOHN    URQUHART, 

Author  of 

What  are  we  to  Believe?"       "Modern  Discoveries  and  the  Bible 

"The  Inspiration  and  Accuracy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;"  &'c. 

Member  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  ArchcEology , 

and  Associate  of  The   Victoria  Institute. 


Xonbou : 

S.  W.   PARTRIDGE    &   Co., 

8  &  9,  Paternoster  Row,  E.C. 


ERRATA. 

Page  206,  lines  6  and  5  from  bottom,  for  "  about 
641  "  read  in  639. 

Page  354,  line  4  from  top,  for  "  west "  read  east. 

Page  354,  line  8  from  top,  for  "  east  "  read  west. 


CONTENTS. 


THE    SECOND    BOOK    OF    KINGS. 

CHAPTER    I. 

The  Chronology  of  the  Book  of  Kings. 

I,  Conclusions  of  the  critics  overturned  by  discovery— 2, 
Careful  mode  of  reckoning  in  use  among  the  Assyrians — 4,  The 
eponym  Canon  ;  differences  between  the  Scripture  and  Assyrian 
chronologies — 5,  Ahab  of  Sirlai  not  Ahab  of  Israel — 6,  Possible 
imperfections  in  the  Assyrian  records — 7,  Bible  records  not  yet 
fully  understood — 8,  Proof  that  the  Bible  Numbers  have  not 
seriously  suffered  by  transcription. 

CHAPTER   n. 

Assyria    and   Israel. 

10,  Confirmations  of  2  Kings  conspicuous  by  their  number 
and  importance — 11,  The  importance  of  this  fact — 12,  The  long 
protection  given  to  Israel — 13,  The  Scripture  account  of 
Damascus — 14,  Its  truth  shown  by  the  Assyrian  records — 17, 
The  inscription  which  contained  the  first  mention  of  an  Israel- 
itish  king — 20,  Jehu  named. 

CHAPTER    III. 

Jehu's  Dynasty. 

21,  Jehu's  disobedience — 22,  Who  was  the  Saviour  raised  to 
Israel  ? — 24,  Comparison  of  Scripture  and  Assyrian  dates — 26, 
Elisha's  blessing  of  the  Israelitish  king — 27,  Jehoash  the 
Saviour — 29,  Agreement  of  Assyrian  history  with  the  Bible. 


vi.  Contents. 

CHAPTER    IV. 

PuL,  King  of  Assyria. 

30,  A  great  "Bible  Difficulty" — 31,  The  opinions  of  Oppert 
and  others  :  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  suggestion — 32,  Schrader's 
argument — 34,  The  name  found  in  a  Babylonian  Chronicle — 35, 
Pul  originally  an  Assyrian  general — 36.  The  Scriptures  con- 
tained the  explanation. 

CHAPTER   V. 

TiGLATH-PILESER,    AZARIAH,    MeNAHEM,    AND    PeKAH. 

37,  Tiglath-pileser's  inscriptions  mention  six  kings  named  in 
the  Bible — 38,  What  Menahem's  tax  reveals — 39,Tiglath-pileser 
revives  the  Assyrian  power— 41,  His  mention  of  Azariah  of 
Judah,  and  Rezin  of  Damascus — 42,  Azariah,  Menahem,  and 
Rezin  are  contemporaries  according  to  his  inscriptions — 43, 
Menahem's  tribute. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes. 

46,  The  suggestion  of  a  name — 47,  IdentiScation  of  places 
mentioned  in  2  Kings  xv.  29 — 49,  The  account  confirmed  by 
Tiglath-pileser's  records— 51,  Complete  agreement  of  the  Scrip- 
ture and  Assyrian  accounts  of  Pekah's  death  ;  The  Queens  of 
Sheba — 53,  The  carrying  away  of  the  two  and  a-half  tribes  in 
accordance  with  the  new  policy  of  Assyria — 54,  Illustrations  of 
its  application. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

The  Fall  of  Damascus. 

57,  The  alliance  between  Damascus  and  Israel — 58,  Ahaz 
casts  himself  upon  the  protection  of  Assyria — 59,  Is  the  narra- 
tive history  ? — 60,  Dr.  Driver's  reply:  Schrader's  confession — 
Gi,  Tiglath-pileser's  description  of  the  capture — 63,  He  slays 
Rezin — 64,  The  significance  of  the  introduction  of  Aramaean 
into  Assyrian  commercial  contracts. 


Contents,  vii. 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

So,  King   of    Egypt. 

65,  The  part  played  by  Egypt  in  the  fall  of  the  northern 
kingdom— 66,  And  in  the  politics  of  Judah — 68,  These  things 
point  to  a  revival  of  Egyptian  power :  Is  this  history  ? 
Maspero's  testimony — 71,  The  difference  in  regard  to  the  king's 
name — 72,  The  Bible  records  the  name  by  which  he  was  known 
to  his  contemporaries. 

CHAPTER   IX. 

Shalmaneser  IV.,  Sargon,  and  the  Capture  of  Samaria. 

74,  Hoshea's  rebellion — 75. The  controversyas  to  Shalmaneser: 
He  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible  only :  the  names  found  at  last 
upon  a  bronze  weight — 76,  Other  notices  of  him— 77,  Mention  of 
his  death — 78,  Sargon's  name  likewise  preserved  by  the  Bible 
only — 79,  Knowledge  of  him  had  perished  among  the  Jews  as 
everywhere  besides — 80,  Discovery  of  his  palace  by  Botta — 82, 
His  buildings — 85,  Sargon's  "  Paradise  ":  his  inscriptions  prove 
that  even  the  early  Assyrian  gods  had  to  do  with  moral  conduct 
— 86,  His  new  city  peopled  by  captives— 87,  The  expedition 
mentioned  by  Isaiah  recorded  on  his  monuments — 88,  The  Bible 
more  correct  than  the  stone  record — 89,  The  capture  of  Samaria. 

CHAPTER   X. 

The  Dispersion  of  Israel. 

94,  Sargon's  enumeration  of  his  captives— 95,  Identification 
of  the  settlements  of  the  Israelites— 98,  The  condition  of  the 
captives— 99,  Perpetual  slavery  the  lot  of  multitudes. 

CHAPTER   XI. 

The  new  Inhabitants  of  Samaria. 

100,  Sargon's  depopulation  of  the  country — loi,  His  removals 
of  distant  populations  to  the  land  of  Israel — 102,  Some  from 
Babylon — 103,  The  name  of  Cutha  preserved  in  the  Bible 
alone — 105,  Sepharvaim,  "the  two  Sipars  " — 108,  The  depopu- 
lation of  Hamath. 


viii.  Contents, 

CHAPTER   XII. 

Samaria's  new  Idolatries. 

Ill,  Fidelity  of  the  colonists  to  their  ancestral  faiths: 
Succoth-Benoth,  Sak-kut  Benith,  the  consort  of  Merodach — 
113,  Unexpected  light  thrown  upon  the  identity  of  the  god 
Nergal — 116,  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech — 118,  Were  those 
divinities  connected  with  the  two  Sipars?  Mr.  Rassara's 
discovery. 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib. 

123,  The  typical  importance  of  Assyria — 124,  Hezekiah's  de- 
liverance— 125,  Layard's  excavations — 126,  His  discoveries — 
129,  He  turns  to  the  mounds  at  Kouyounyik — 130,  Discovers 
Sennacherib's  palace — 133,  Description  of  the  great  king. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

Sennacherib's  Invasion. 

135,  The  Scripture  account — 137,  Sennacherib  placed  in  the 
witness  box — 140,  The  mention  of  Menahem — 141,  His  conquest 
of  Phoenicia — 142,  Jerusalem  encircled  by  the  Assyrian  armies 
— 144,  Sennacherib's  description  of  the  tribute — 146,  A  difficulty 
cleared  away  by  the  Book  of  Chronicles — 148,  His  capture  of  the 
Judaean  cities — 149,  Explanation  of  the  difference  between  the 
Assyrian  and  the  Bible  accounts  of  the  tribute — 151,  The  siege 
of  Lachish. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

The  Threatened  Siege  of  Jerusalem  and  Assyrian 
Court  Titles. 

156,  Hezekiah  shut  up — 157,  Description  of  Sennacherib's 
army — 159,  He  carries  away  200,000  captives— 160,  The  Tartan  : 
Rabshakeh  :  a  Jewish  mistake— 162,  The  Rabsaris:  an  Assyri- 
ologist's  blunder— 163,  The  accuracy  of  the  titles. 


Contents,  ix. 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

TiRHAKAH  King  of  Ethiopia,  and  the  Smiting  of  the 
Assyrian  Army. 

i66,  Sennacherib's  Intelligence  Department— 167,  Tirhakah's 
portrait  and  records  :  his  invasion  of  Egypt—  169,  The  Bible 
history  more  accurate  than  the  Assyrian  monuments — 170,  The 
Assyrians  smitten — 171,  The  testimony  of  Berossus— 172,  The 
account  in  Herodotus— 175,  The  event  explains  much  in 
Sennacherib's  after  history. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death. 
177,  His  residence  at  Nineveh— 178,  His  after  inscriptions 
dwell  upon  his  labours  at  Nineveh— 179,  Rawlinson's  descrip- 
tion—182,  His  murder— 183,  Reference  in  the  Babylonian 
Chronicle— 184,  Winckler's  arraignment  of  the  Scripture— 185, 
Vindication  of  the  Bible— 186,  Esarhaddon's  testimony. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

The  Date  of  Sennacherib's  Invasion,  and  the  Embassy 
FROM  THE  King  of  Babylon. 
190,  A  chronological  difficulty— 191,  The  difference  suggests 
a  solution— 193,  The  suggestion  brings  the  statements  into 
harmony— 194,  The  Scripture  does  not  follow  the  order  of 
time— 195.  Merodach  Baladan  :  His  history— 196,  Sargon's 
account  of  him— 197,  Dates  of  Hezekiah's  sickness  and  of 
Baladan's  need  coincide. 

CHAPTER   XIX. 

Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-Necho. 
199.  Manasseh's   daring— 200,  His   the   longest  reign— 201, 
Esarhaddon's   references  to   him— 203,  Description  of  Assur- 
banipal— 204,  His  mention  of  Manasseh— 206,  Josiah's  accession 
—207,  Eclipse  of  Assyria— 209,  Necho's  advance  to  Assyria. 


X.  Contents, 

CHAPTER  XX. 
The  Fall  of  Jerusalem. 
210,  Ignorance  regarding  Carchemish — 211,  True  site  indi- 
cated by  George  Smith— 212,  The  mention  of  Riblah — 213, 
Eclipse  of  the  Egyptian  power— 214,  The  portrait  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar—216,  The  character  of  his  inscriptions:  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem— 218,  Capture  and  punishment  of  Zedekiah — 219, 
Spelling  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  name-  222,  Supposed  late  origin 
of  Kings  inconsistent  with  its  exadl  information ;  its  exact 
chronology. 


THE  BOOKS  OF   CHRONICLES. 

CHAPTER   I. 
The  Books  of  Chronicles  and  their  Numbers. 
227,  Professor  Sayce  on  Chronicles— 228,  The  purpose  of  the 
Books— 229,  Fiercely  attacked  by  rationalism— 230,  A  numeri- 
cal difficulty :  the  numbering  of  the  people— 233,  De  Wette's 
note  on  the  passage. 

CHAPTER   H. 

AZARIAH    OF    JUDAH. 

235,  Information  regarding  Azariah  found  in  Chronicles  only 
—236,  His  greatness— 237,  An  archaeological  mistake  correAed 
—238,  Azariah  too  powerful  to  be  dealt  with  by  Assyria— 240, 
Schrader's  comment— 241,  Sayce's  testimony. 

CHAPTER  III. 

Hezekiah's  Labours. 
242,  Hezekiah's  preparations  for  the  siege— 244,  His  stopping 
of  the  waters— 245,  Solomon's  Pools— 246,  The  Sealed  Fountain 
—248,  Water  raised  to  a  higher  level  by  a  syphon— 241,  A  water 
supply  for  Jerusalem -250,  A  still  greater  work  on  the  east  of 
the  city — 252,  Discovery  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  inscription  at 
the  Pool  of  Siloam— 255,  Its  translation— 256,  Its  age. 


Contents.  xi. 

CHAPTER    IV. 

Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release. 

259,  The  circumstances  of  Alanasseh's  capture — 260,  The 
wholeaccount  of  Manasseh  in  Chronicles  alleged  by  the  critics  to 
be  unhistorical — 262,  The  reply  of  archaeology — 263,  Schrader's 
verdid — 265,  The  conspiracy  against  Assurbanipal — 266, Its  date 
— 267,  Manasseh  returns  an  old  and  broken  man  to  Jerusalem — 
268, The  captains  of  the  king  of  Assyria — 269,  Manasseh  led  to 
Babylon  with  rings — 271,  He  was  taken  to  Babylon — 272,  The 
monuments  again  reply  to  the  critics. 


THE   BOOK  OF   EZRA. 

CHAPTER    I. 

The  Decree  of  Cyrus. 

276,  Ezra  begins  with  repetition  of  the  decree  of  Cyrus— 280, 
Purpose  of  the  Book  revealed  in  the  quotation — 281,  Is  the 
decree  authentic? — 282,  Cyrus  not  a  Zoroastrian — 283,  His 
attempt  to  conciliate  the  gods — 284,  Cyrus's  inscriptions  the 
most  Hebraic  of  all  the  cuneiform  texts — 285,  His  policy  of 
repatriating  the  captive  peoples. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Samaritans  and  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews. 

288,  The  statements  of  the  Samaritans — 294,  Did  Esarhaddon 
and  Assurbanipal  pourcolonists  into  Samaria  ? — 291,  Temporary 
success  of  Samaritan  opposition — 294,  Antagonism  between  the 
Magian  and  Persian  religions— 295,  The  Magian  conspiracy — 
297 — Triumph  of  Darius— 298,  Darius  commands  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Temple — 299,  The  record  chambers  at  Achmetha. 


xii.  Contents. 

THE   BOOK  OF    ESTHER. 

CHAPTER    I. 

The  Critical  Attacks. 

303,  Critical  representations— 305,  Theodore  Parker  and  Dr. 
Samuel  Davidson — 306,  Kuenen— 307,  Noldeke  in  The  Encyclo- 
pcedia  Biblica—^og,  What  lies  behind  critical  hostility. 

CHAPTER   n. 

Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes. 

311,  Despair  as  to  the  identification  of  Ahasuerus — 312, 
Scaliger's  opinion — 314,  Travellers  and  the  inscriptions  at 
Persepolis — 315,  Description  of  the  ruins — 317,  Attempts  at  the 
decipherment  of  the  Persian  inscriptions — 319,  Grotefend's 
success — 321,  The  first  inscription  deciphered  contained  the 
name  of  Ahasuerus — 323,  Grotefend's  discovery  confirmed  by  an 
Egyptian  vase. 

CHAPTER    in. 

Esther  and  History. 

325,  Consequences  of  the  identification  of  Ahasuerus  with 
Xerxes — 327,  The  charadler  of  Xerxes — 328,  Exactness  of  the 
allusion  to  the  extent  of  his  empire — 329,  The  dates  given  in 
Esther  accord  with  the  events  of  his  reign — 331,  The  prolonged 
conference  at  Susa  in  his  third  year  —  332,  Davidson's 
"historical  improbabilities." 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Shushan  the  Palace. 
336,  De  Wette  and  Dr.  Driver — 337,  Was  Shushan  the  resi- 
dence of  Xerxes  ? — 339,  The  Bible  accurate  even  in  regard  to  the 
form  of  the  name— Shushan  the  palace — 342,  The  discoveries  of 
Loftus. 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  British  Diggings  at  Susa. 

344,  The  history  of  Shushan  ;  excavations  by  Mr.  Loftus — 
348,   Discovery    of    pillars — 3^9,    And    of   inscriptions  —  350, 


Contents,  xiii. 

Artaxerxes'  account  of  the  burning  and  the  re-building  of  the 
Apadana. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Recovery  of  Shushan  by  the  French. 

351,  M.  and  Madame  Dieulafoy's  expedition— 352,  Discovery 

of  a  female  skeleton— 353,  The  plan  of  the  royal  buildings— 356, 

The  Bithan—^^S,  The  description  in  Esther  suits  this  only  of  all 

the  ancient  palaces  now  known. 


CHAPTER  Vn. 
Xerxes'    Feast. 
360,  The  order  of  the  names,  Persians  and  Medes— 362,  Why 
the  order  was  changed— 363,  The  king  enthroned  at  the  banquet 
—366,  The  magnificence  of  the  king's  hospitaUty. 


CHAPTER   Vin. 
The  Palace  Furniture. 
369,  Beds  and  couches  of  gold-370,  Xerxes'  guests  recHne— 
371,  Greek  confirmation  of  Esther -372,  The  materials  of  the 
hangings— 373,  The  royal  colours  of  Persia. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Choice  of  Esther. 
375,  The  call  for  Vashti— 377.  The  counsel  of  the  princes— 
378.  That  of  the  eunuchs  of  the  palace:  the  names  of  both 
Persian— 379,  "The  seven  princes  "—3S1,  The  identity  of 
Esther — 382,  The  position  accorded  to  the  queen — 383,  The 
"release"  granted  at  Esther's  elevation— 385,  The  Persian 
practice  of  presenting  gifts— 386,  Dr.  Driver's  contention  that 
Esther  could  not  have  been  queen— 387.  The  ignorance  of  the 
Greeks  regarding  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Xerxes— 388, 
Another  objection  answered. 


xiv.  Contents. 

CHAPTER  X. 

MORDECAI    AND    HaMAN. 

389,  Was  Mordecai  related  to  Saul  ? — 390,  And  Haman  a 
descendant  of  Agag  ? — 391,  Discovery  of  Agag — 392,  An  objec- 
tion of  which  some  critics  are  ashamed— 394,  The  Vizier  of  the 
Persian  empire — 395,  The  greatness  of  the  position. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

Raman's    Revenge. 

397,  Mordecai  a  palace  official — 398,  Haman's  anger  can  be 
appeased  only  by  the  extinction  of  the  race — 399,  His  gift 
intended  to  make  good  the  loss  to  the  royal  treasury — 400,  His 
request  granted  :  the  critical  difficulties — 401,  The  proposed 
massacre — 402,  An  overlooked  confirmation — 403,  The  hugeness 
of  Haman's  gift— 404,  The  incident  characteristic  of  Xerxes — 
405,  Dr.  Driver's  argument  regarding  Pnrim  :  M.  Dieulafoy's 
reply. 

CHAPTER  Xn. 

The    Roval    Deckee. 

408,  The  long  notice  given  to  the  Jews — 409,  "The  king's 
scribes" — 410,  Noldeke's  objection  regarding  the  edicts — 411, 
They  were  sealed  with  the  king's  signet — 412,  The  "  posts." 


CHAPTER    Xni. 

The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews. 

413,  Mordecai's  communicating  with  Esther — 414,  Mordecai's 
caution — 415,  Plan  of  the  palace  buildings— 416,  Prof.  Noldeke's 
misapprehension:  no  "free  communication"  between  Esther 
and  Mordecai— 417,  A  second  mistake:  the  stridnessof  Persian 
court  etiquette— 418,  Esther  unable  to  enter  the  presence  of 
Xerxes  at  her  own  pleasure— 420,  The  minute  acquaintance  with 
the  buildings  shown  in  the  Book— 421,  The  excavated  walls 
explain  the  history. 


Contents.  xv. 

The  Prophet  Isaiah. 

424,  The  saints  of  the  Old  Dispensation — 425,  Isaiah's  char- 
acter and  history — 426,  Tradition  not  a  source  of  history— 427, 
The  prophet's  long  ministry — 428,  Isaiah  the  Moses  of  Israel's 
new  era — 429,  Compared  with  the  Apostle  Paul. 


THE  NEW  BIBLICAL  GUIDE 


THE  SECOND  BOOK  OF  KINGS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Chronology  of  the  Books  of  Kings. 


THE  great  empires  of  the  East,  Assyria,  Babylon, 
and  Persia  will  now,  almost  exclusively,  occupy 
our  attention.  They  all  alike  exercised  the  greatest 
influence  upon  the  destinies  of  ancient  Israel ;  and  it 
is  among  the  most  welcome  surprises  of  recent 
times  that  this  long  period  of  Israel's  history  should 
now  have  found  such  a  continuous  and  marvellous 
commentary  in  the  recovered  records  of  those  great 
world-kingdoms. 

The  confirmations  are  so  numerous  and  so  con- 
clusive that  the  critics  have  had  to  confess  that  here 
at  least  the  Bible  record  must  be  recognised  as  history. 
This  has  been  accompanied  also,  as  we  shall  see, 
with  the  overturn  of  some  of  their  earlier  and  most 
confident  conclusions.     For,  wherever  the  explorer 


2  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

and  the  discoverer  bring  back  to  us  the  past  with 
which  the  Bible  deals,  the  critic  has  to  retire  con- 
founded and  ashamed.  But  in  the  period  of  which 
we  are  now  to  treat  there  is  one  vantage  ground 
which  they  still  occupy  with  their  customary  scorn. 
The  Assyrians  had  what  appears  to  have  been  a 
most  careful  system  of  reckoning.  They  had  official 
astronomers,  who  fixed  the  commencement  of  each 
month  on  the  evening  when  the  new  moon  was  first 
observed.  When  the  moon  could  not  be  observed, 
thirty  days  were  counted  from  the  commencement  of 
the  previous  month.  This  gave  them  six  months  of 
twenty-nine  days  each,  and  six  of  thirty  days  each, 
and  the  year  thus  consisted  of  174  days  (six  by 
twenty-nine),  and  180  days  (six  by  thirty) — in  all,  354 
days.  This  is  eleven  days  short  of  365,  the  number 
of  days  embraced  in  our  own  year,  and  the  difference 
was,  of  course,  bound  in  time  to  put  the  months  out 
of  accord  with  the  seasons.  This  fact  was  as  well 
known  to  them,  however,  as  it  is  to  us,  and  the 
necessary  correction  was  provided.  The  year  began 
with  the  first  new  moon  before  the  spring  equinox, 
that  is,  as  the  reader  is  aware,  when  the  length  of 
the  day  is  exactly  equal  to  that  of  the  night.  The 
difference  (between  this  Assyrian  calendar  year  and 
the  real  year)  of  eleven  and  a-quarter  days  went  on 
increasing ;  but,  whenever  there  were  more  than  thirty 
days  between  the  end  of  the  year  and  the  equinox, 
they  added  a  month,  making  thirteen  months  in  all  in 
that  year. 

This  device  prevented  the    reckoning  from  being 


The  Chronology  of  the  Books  of  Kings.  3 

further  out  of  harmony  with  the  seasons  than  one 
month.  Pains  were  accordingly  taken  to  mark  the 
length  of  the  day  and  of  the  night,  so  as  to  dis- 
tinguish the  equinox  with  certainty.  One  inscription 
runs:  "On  the  6th  day  of  Nisan,  the  day  and  night 
are  equal ;  six  kaspu  the  day,  and  six  kaspu  the 
night."  The  kaspu  equalled  two  hours.  Another 
inscription  says:  "On  the  15th  day  of  Nisan,  the 
day  and  night  were  equal ;  six  kaspu  the  day,  six 
kaspu  the  night."  "As  the  Assyrians,"  says  George 
Smith,  "  had  official  astronomers,  who  observed  the 
heavens  and  regulated  the  calendar,  they  could  not 
be  far  out  in  their  calculations ;  probably,  one  or  two 
days  would  be  the  limit  of  error.  On  the  average, 
in  the  Assyrian  calendar  the  year  would  begin  about 
fourteen  days  before  the  vernal  equinox,  and  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  tenth  month  would  thus  be  about 
the  longest  night.  In  accordance  with  this,  on  one 
fragment  I  found  a  list  of  the  comparative  length  of 
the  night  in  an  average  Assyrian  year,  and  the  longest 
night  was  fixed  in  it  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  tenth 
month."  And  he  adds:  "Among  the  Assyrians  the 
first  twenty-eight  days  of  every  month  were  divided 
into  four  weeks  of  seven  days  each,  the  seventh, 
fourteenth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  days, 
respectively,  being  Sabbaths,  and  there  was  a  general 
prohibition  of  work  on  these  days."  * 

But  care  was  taken  for  more  than  the  fixing  of  the 
months  and  of  the  years.  One  of  the  great  dis- 
coveries made  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  was  that  the 

*  The  Assyrian  Eponym  Canon,  pp.  19,  20. 


4  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

years  were  also  arranged  so  as  to  admit  of  their  being 
used  for  the  dating  of  events.  Among  the  tablets 
brought  to  the  British  Museum  from  Nineveh  were 
some,  more  or  less  imperfect,  which  gave  a  list  of  the 
years  from  gii  B.C.  to  647  B.C.  Each  year  is  named 
either  after  the  king,  or  after  some  leading  official  of 
the  kingdom.  These  officials  have  been  called  by 
Assyriologists  "  Eponyms."  In  this  way  the  date  of  an 
event  was  fixed  by  being  referred  to  the  eponym}-  of 
such  and  such  a  personage ;  and  when  any  one  of 
these  dates  is  fixed,  say,  by  some  natural  occurrence, 
we  are  able  to  reckon  down  or  up  to  any  year  in  an 
Assyrian  king's  reign.  Such  a  fixed  date  was  supposed 
to  be  obtained  by  a  reference  to  an  eclipse,  which  is 
mentioned  in  "the  Eponym  Canon,"  as  this  list  has 
been  named. 

It  is  during  the  very  period  covered  by  this  Canon 
that  the  contact  occurs  between  Assyria  and  Israel. 
It  will  be  at  once  evident,  therefore,  how  important 
the  comparison  becomes.  And  what  is  the  result? 
Not  just  yet  that  perfect  accord  which  we  desire 
to  see.  The  same  events  are,  indeed,  noted  in  both 
records.  The  same  kings  are  named.  Events  and 
kings  occur  in  the  same  order.  These  agreements 
are  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  prove  the  abso- 
lutely historical  character  of  this  part  of  the  Scripture. 
But  in  one  period  the  dates  differ  from  about  eighteen 
to  forty-six  years.  This  has  troubled  many  friends 
of  the  Bible,  and  has  rejoiced  its  foes.  But  the 
despondency  and  the  joy  are  alike  premature.  The 
accuracy  of  the  dates  fixed  from  the  Assyrian  Canon, 


The  Chronology  of  the  Books  of  Kings.  5 

and  the  accuracy  of  the  Canon  itself  are  challenged, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  by  Professor  Oppert,  whose 
authority  in  a  matter  of  this  kind  is  second  to  none. 
I  have  said  that  the  lack  of  perfect  accord  in  regard  to 
dates  is  confined  to  one  period,  and  that  is  the  period 
from  Shalmaneser  II.  to  Sargon,  the  father  of  Sennac- 
herib. From  Sargon's  time  onward  (with  the  exception 
of  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  J  udah)  the  agreement  as  to 
dates  is  absolutely  exact.  There  are  various  reasons 
for  suspecting  the  accuracy  of  the  Eponym  Canon  in 
those  very  parts  in  which  the  disagreement  occurs.  I 
may  add,  too,  that  Assyrian  dates  are  not  faultless. 
In  his  introduction  to  the  translation  of  the  Kurkh 
inscription  of  Shalmaneser  II.  (to  whose  inscriptions 
most  of  these  difficulties  are  due).  Professor  Sayce 
writes:  "  Shalmaneser  had  a  long  reign  of  thirty-five 
years,  during  which  he  came  into  contact  with  Ahab, 
Jehu,  Hazael,  and  other  Biblical  personages.  In 
accordance  with  the  astronomical  system  used  in 
Assyria,  a  sort  of  jubilee  was  kept  in  his  thirty-first 
year,  the  king  '  inaugurating  the  cycle  for  the  second 
time  '  as  he  tells  us  in  the  Black  Obelisk  inscription. 
It  may  be  added,"  he  continues,  "  that  the  dates  given 
in  the  latter  inscription  do  not  always  agree  with  those  in 
the  one  before  us;  a  fact  which  illustrates  the  necessity 
of  critical  caution  even  when  we  are  dealing  with 
contemporary  documents."  * 

We  have  seen  in  the  last  volume  how  grave  the 
reasons  are  for  doubting  the  statement  that  Shalman- 
eser II.  refers  to  Ahab,  of  Israel.     The  Ahab  who  is 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  iii.,  p.  82. 


6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

mentioned  there  is  monarch  of  *'Sirlai"  and  not  of 
Israel.  He  is  one  of  twelve  princes  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean coast  who  are  in  closest  alliance  with  the 
kings  of  Damascus ;  and  (a  fact  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance in  this  question)  the  twelve  kings  are  still 
in  league  with  Damascus  after  the  death  of  Ahab  of 
Israel.  And  this  is  not  a  matter  of  chronology 
merely.  If  the  Israelitish  king  was  so  long  and  so 
closely  leagued  with  Damascus,  the  Bible  history 
would  require  to  be  re-written ;  for,  save  in  one 
brief  period  only,  there  was  long  enduring  and  fierce 
antagonism  between  the  two  countries. 

With  the  removal  of  this  identification  of  Ahab  of 
Sirlai  with  Ahab  of  Israel,  the  most  serious  difficulty 
disappears,  and  the  rest  will  doubtless  follow  as 
fuller  attention  is  devoted  to  this  subject.  There  are 
serious  doubts  regarding  the  Assyrian  lists  which  have 
yet  to  be  cleared  away.  The  system  of  reckoning 
followed  in  Assyria  w^as  similar  to  that  adopted  in 
Rome,  the  chief  difference  being  that,  while  there  were 
two  consuls  chosen  yearly  in  Rome,  only  one  eponym 
was  elecTted  annually  in  Assyria.  But  Eponyms  no 
more  than  other  people  are  able  to  live  for  ever ;  and 
when  an  Eponym  died  during  his  year  of  office,  did 
he  and  his  successor  occupy  only  one  year  between 
them  ?  That  is  a  question  which  cannot  be  yet 
answered.  There  were  other  irregularities  doubtless, 
just  as  there  were  with  the  Roman  Consuls.  In 
Rome  there  were  changes  in  the  date  of  elec5lion,  for 
example.  The  time  was  altered  from  September  to 
March,  and  then  from  March  to  January.    In  seasons 


The  Chronology  of  the  Books  of  Kings.  7 

of  tumult,  too,  the  Romans  suspended  the  eledlion  of 
Consuls,  and  adopted  another  arrangement.  There 
were  tumults  enough  in  x\ssyria,  and  one  is  led  to 
ask  whether  the  Assyrians  were  able  at  such  times  to 
carry  on  orderly  arrangements  which  were  found  to  be 
impossible  at  Rome. 

These  are  questions  which  further  research  will 
probably  answer ;  but  until  they  are  answered  it  is 
much  too  soon  to  commence  corredling  the  chronology 
of  the  Bible  by  the  Assyrian  Eponym  Canon.  Bible 
students  have  also  something  to  do  meanwhile.  For 
though  we  have  in  the  Scriptures  a  carefully  kept  record 
of  the  reigns  of  the  kings,  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  we  understand  as  fully  as  we  might  do  the  Bible 
chronology.  For  one  thing  we  have  proved  ourselves 
unworthy  of  such  illumination.  Bible  students  have 
been  impatient  and  wayward,  suspicious  and  con- 
temptuous. There  are,  to  be  sure,  difficulties  in  the 
numbers.  But  the  real  student  will  be  slow  to  rush 
to  the  conclusion  that,  because  everything  is  not 
clear  to  him,  somebody  must  have  blundered.  And 
yet  that  has  been  the  course  almost  universally 
pursued.  It  is  said  that  those  who  copied  the  ancient 
manuscripts  have  made  mistakes;  and  that,  indeed, 
the  mistakes  have  been  so  serious  and  so  numerous 
that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  the  figures  as 
we  now  have  them.  That  is  a  conclusion  which 
carries  its  own  refutation  upon  the  face  of  it.  For, 
if  there  had  been  such  carelessness  displayed  in  the 
copying  of  the  numbers,  it  must  have  left  its  mark 
upon  the  rest  of  the  text  as  well.     But  the  text  is 


8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

one  which  we  have  no  reason  to  question.  The 
supposition  is,  besides,  an  unworthy  accusation 
against  a  body  of  transcribers  who  have  proved 
themselves  the  most  scrupulously  faithful  copyists 
that  the  world  has  ever  seen. 

That  the  numbers  have  not  suffered  in  this  serious 
fashion  is  proved  by  the  following  table  of  the  reigns 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  of  Israel : — 

Kings  of  Judah. 


Rehoboam 

reigns  17  years 

I  Kings 

;  xiv. 

21. 

Abijam 

reigns    3  years 

)) 

XV. 

2. 

Asa      

reigns  41  years 

n 

XV. 

10. 

Jehoshaphat  ... 

reigns  25  years 

5J 

xxii. 

42. 

Joram... 

reigns    8  years 

2  Kings 

viii. 

17- 

Ahaziah 

reigns    i  year 

j> 

viii. 

26. 

Athaliah 

reigns    6  years 

j> 

xi. 

3- 

Joash  

.     reigns  40  years 

)  J 

xii. 

I. 

Amaziah 

reigns  29  years 

•)■> 

xiv. 

2. 

Uzziah 

reigns  52  years 

5) 

XV. 

2. 

Jotham 

reigns  16  years 

n 

XV. 

33- 

Ahaz   ... 

reigns  16  years 

)» 

xvi. 

2. 

Hezekiah,  till  end  \ 

of     Rosea    of    ^            6  years 

j> 

xviii. 

I. 

Israel's  reign 

...  I 

260  years. 
Kings  of  Israel. 

Jeroboam  I.    .. 

.     reigned  22  years 

I  Kings  xiv. 

,20. 

Nadab 

.     reigned     2  years 

j> 

XV. 

25. 

Baasha 

.     reigned  24  years 

5> 

XV. 

33- 

Elah 

.     reigned    2  years 

n 

xvi. 

,    8. 

Zimri  ... 

.     reigned     7  days 

n 

xvi. 

15- 

The  Chronology  of  the  Books 

of  Kings. 

Kings 

OF  Israel  (Continued). 

Omri    ... 

reigned  12  years 

I  King 

s  xvi.  23. 

Ahab 

reigned  22  years 

)  J 

xvi.  29. 

Ahaziah 

reigned    2  years 

n 

xxii.  51. 

Joram 

reigned  12  years 

2  Kings  iii.     i. 

Jehu     

reigned  28  years 

)j 

X.  36. 

Jehoahaz 

reigned  17  years 

)) 

xiii.  I. 

Jehoash 

reigned  16  years 

>) 

xiii.  10. 

Jeroboam  II.  ... 

reigned  41  years 

>> 

xiv.  23. 

Zachariah 

reigned    6  months 

>          n 

XV.    8. 

Shallum 

reigned     i  month 

jj 

XV.  13. 

Menahem 

reigned  10  years 

J) 

XV.  17. 

Pekahiah 

reigned    2  years 

J) 

XV. 23. 

Pekah 

reigned  20  years 

5> 

XV.  27. 

Rosea 

reigned    g  years 

>> 

xvii.     I. 

241  years, 

7  months,  and 

7  < 

days. 

There  is  thus  a  difference  of  only  some  eighteen 
years  between  the  total  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  from  Jeroboam  to  Hosea  and  the  total  of  the 
reigns  of  the  kings  of  Judah  during  the  same  period. 
When  we  remember  that  there  were  plainly  occa- 
sional intervals  of  confusion  in  Israel,  between  the 
death  of  one  king  and  the  commencement  of  his 
successor's  reign,  we  shall  admit  that  the  eighteen 
years  of  difference  are  largely  accounted  for.  The 
whole  subjedl  is  one  which,  as  has  been  already  said, 
demands  the  attention  of  some  capable  student;  but, 
meanwhile,  these  totals  are  enough  to  convince  us 
that  no  serious  error  has  crept  into  the  text;  and  the 


10  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

small  differences  which  exist  (within  a  limited  area) 
between  the  statements  of  the  Assyrian  monuments 
and  the  Bible  dates  may  be  confidently  expecfted  to 
disappear  with  fuller  knowledge,  as  so  many  other 
difficulties  have  disappeared  already.  Fuller  know- 
ledge has  always  justified  the  Bible,  as  we  shall  now 
see  in  the  chapters  that  are  to  follow,  and  in  the 
chronology  also  triumphs  await  us. 


CHAPTER    II. 

Assyria  and  Israel. 


THE  Book  of  Second  Kings  has  been  much  more 
extensively  confirmed  and  illustrated  through 
recent  research  than  any  other  Book  of  the  Old 
Testament.  One  indication  of  this  is  that  much 
more  than  one-third  of  Schrader's  two  volumes.  The 
Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament  (Second 
Edition),  is  occupied  with  this  Book  alone.  This  is 
due  to  the  fac5t  that  the  annals  of  Assyria  and  of 
Babylon,  covering  the  same  period  as  2  Kings,  have 
been  so  largely  recovered.  Light  has  poured  in  from 
the  monuments  of  those  two  great  empires,  and  in 
that  light  we  note,  with  grateful  astonishment,  how 
one  unexpected  confirmation  after  another  shows  us  the 
absolute  fidelity  and  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  sacred 
history.  In  that  light,  indeed,  even  the  silence  of  the 
Scripture  becomes   another  proof  of  its  reliability ; 


Assyria  and  Israel.  ii 

for  we  see  that  in  the  record  of  those  periods  in 
which  mention  is  made  of  neither  Assyria  nor  of 
Babylon,  it  is  because  these  empires  had  not  come 
into  contadl  with  Israel  or  Judah. 

The  lesson  taught  by  this  ought  to  be  heeded  and 
remembered.  We  have  less  confirmation  of  other 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  history,  because  we  have 
less  information  regarding  the  countries  and  the  times 
with  which  the  Scripture  narrative  deals.  But  where- 
ever  the  curtain  is  lifted,  we  see  the  very  things 
chronicled  in  the  Bible.  Could  there  be  any  fuller 
proof  of  its  reliability  ?  Where  light  breaks  in  from 
other  sources,  the  Scripture  is  shown  to  be  utterly 
trustworthy.  Even  those  slight  difficulties  that  re- 
mained have  been  disappearing  one  after  another  as 
research  has  furnished  moreexadl  information.  And 
where  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  Scripture  from 
outside  sources,  is  awanting,  it  is  because  these  are 
still  wrapped  in  darkness.  The  witnesses  are  dumb 
and  cannot  answer  our  questions.  But  wherever  they 
have  spoken,  they  have  confirmed  the  Bible. 

This  is  triumphantly  illustrated  in  the  confirma- 
tions of  2  Kings.  There  is  still  a  slight  difference,  as 
we  have  just  seen,  between  the  earlier  Assyrian  dates 
and  those  of  the  Bible.  But  "  generally  speaking," 
writes  Colonel  Conder,  "there  is  not  more  than  ten 
years'  difference  between  the  modern  calculation  of 
Bible  dates  and  the  modern  calculation  of  those 
noticed  in  Assyrian  records.  The  supposed  notice  of 
Ahab  is  abandoned,  yet  the  Moabite  Stone  shows  us 
that  he  had  reigned  in  the  period  mentioned  in  the 


12  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Bible.  Ahabu  of  Sirlai,  in  Syria,  was  once  hastily 
assumed  to  be  Ahab  of  Israel ;  but  this  is  impossible, 
and  the  first  king  who  a(ftually  met  the  Assyrians 
appears  to  have  been  Jehu  of  Israel."* 

Before  referring  to  the  Assyrian  record  of  Jehu's 
tribute,  let  us  mark  the  significant  silence  of  the 
earlier  Scripture  record  regarding  Assyria.  From  the 
founding  of  the  Israelitish  kingdom,  about  1095  B.C., 
till  the  days  of  Menahem  king  of  Israel,  about  772  B.C., 
no  mention  is  made  of  Assyria  (2  Kings  xv.  19,  20). 
Thus,  for  a  period  of  more  than  320  years,  it  is  implied 
that  this  great  empire  has  been  kept  outside  the 
territory  of  Israel  and  of  Judah.  Expedition  after 
expedition  (as  we  now  learn  from  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments) has  passed  out  from  Nineveh  and  thrown  itself 
against  the  countries  of  the  west,  like  wave  following 
wave  in  the  advancing  sweep  of  a  mighty  tide.  But 
God  has  been  a  wall  round  His  erring  people.  The 
waters  have  broken  harmlessly  in  the  distance,  and 
Israel  has  only  heard  the  sound  of  the  onset.  And 
nothing  is  said  of  Assyria  in  the  Scripture,- because 
God  forbore  as  yet  to  use  this  rod  of  His  anger. 
Now,  is  there  any  proof  that  Israel  and  Judah  did 
enjoy  this  long  respite?  Is  this  silence  regarding 
Assyria  an  exact  reflection  of  the  history  of  the  times  ? 
The  response  to  this  is  full  and  clear.  Assyria  for 
long  made  no  lasting  conquests  in  the  west.  She 
fought  battles,  took  cities,  visited  the  temporarily- 
subdued  districts  with  fearful  punishments,  and  carried 
away  spoil ;  but  so  soon  as  her  armies  turned  home- 

*  The  Bible  and  the  East,  p.  149. 


Assyria  and  Israel.  13 

ward,  the  gates  of  the  countries  were,  so  to  say, 
closed  behind  them.  Each  subsequent  expedition 
had  to  repeat  the  experiences  of  the  preceding,  and 
to  fight  its  way  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean. "The  inscription  of  Panammu  I.,  recently 
found  at  Samala,  shows  us  that  native  Syrian  princes 
were  still  independent  of  Assyria  about  the  close  of 
the  ninth  century  B.C.  ;  but  about  745  B.C.  Assur- 
nirari  II.  advanced  on  Aleppo  and  on  Arpad,  and  the 
conquest  of  Syria  was  only  delayed  by  revolution  in 
Assyria  itself."*  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  end; 
but  the  end  itself  did  not  fully  come,  as  the  silence 
of  the  Scripture  indicates,  till  nearly  the  close  of  the 
eighth  century  B.C. 

In  another  matter  the  Bible  account  has  been 
strikingly  verified.  Damascus  is  represented  in  the 
Books  of  Kings  as  a  strong,  warlike,  active,  and 
daring  kingdom.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to 
note  this  fact,  but  it  is  one  the  importance  of  which 
in  this  controversy,  as  to  the  historical  character  of 
the  Old  Testament,  cannot  well  be  over-estimated. 
Damascus  is  the  dread  of  Israel  in  the  days  of  Omri 
and  of  Ahab.  Hazael,  the  contemporary  of  Jehu, 
who  usurps  the  throne,  gives  Israel  no  rest.  He  con- 
quered their  entire  territory  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan. 
"In  those  days  the  Lord  began  to  cut  Israel  short: 
and  Hazael  smote  them  in  all  the  coasts  of  Israel ; 
from  Jordan  eastward,  all  the  land  of  Gilead,  the 
Gadites,  and  the  Reubenites,  and  the  Manassites, 
from  Aroer  which  is  by  the  river  Arnon,  even  Gilead 

*  The  Bible  and  the  East,  p.  152. 


14  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

and  Bashan"  (2  Kings  x.  32,  33).  Hazael  carried  his 
victorious  arms  as  far  as  the  south  of  Phihstia,  and 
even  threatened  Jerusalem  so  seriously  that  the  king 
of  Judah  and  his  nobles  prevailed  upon  Hazael  to 
pass  by  only  through  the  surrender  of  the  spoil  which 
he  had  hoped  to  capture.  ''Then  Hazael  king  of 
Syria  went  up,  and  fought  against  Gath,  and  took  it: 
and  Hazael  set  his  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem.  And 
Jehoash  king  of  Judah  took  all  the  hallowed  things 
that  Jehoshaphat,  and  Jehoram,  and  Ahaziah,  his 
fathers,  kings  of  Judah,  had  dedicated,  and  his  own 
hallowed  things,  and  all  the  gold  that  was  found  in 
the  treasures  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the 
king's  house,  and  sent  it  to  Hazael  king  of  Syria:  and 
he  went  away  from  Jerusalem"  (2  Kings  xii.  17,  18). 
Here  we  have  an  eminently  strong  power.  Was 
this,  then,  the  actual  position  of  Damascus  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  ninth  century  B.C.  ?  Was  it  really 
the  leading  kingdom  west  of  the  Euphrates  ?  The 
inscriptions  of  Shalmaneser  II.,  king  of  Assyria,  have 
amply  confirmed  the  statements  of  the  Bible,  and  have 
shown  us  the  very  same  kingdom  and  the  same  king 
with  whom  the  Bible  has  so  long  made  us  familiar. 
Hazael  is  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions  as  Hazailu  of 
Imirisu,  the  Assyrian  name  for  that  portion  of  Syria 
which  formed  the  kingdom  of  Damascus.  "In  the 
eighteenth  year  of  my  reign,"  says  Shalmaneser  II., 
'*  I  crossed  the  Euphrates  the  sixteenth  time,  Hazael 
of  Damascus  advanced  to  battle  against  me  ;  1,121  of 
his  chariots,  470  litters  with  his  camp  I  took  from 
him."    Again  :   "  In  the  twenty-first  year  of  my  reign 


Assyria  and  Israel.  15 

I  crossed  the  Euphrates  the  twenty-first  time ;  against 
the  cities  of  Hazael  of  the  country  of  Damascus 
I  marched;  four  of  his  cities  I  captured."  In  a 
fragment  of  another  inscription  by  the  same  king, 
Shalmaneser  II.,  we  meet  this  fuller  notice  of  the 
campaign  first  mentioned:  "In  the  eighteenth  year 
of  my  reign  I  crossed  the  Euphrates  the  sixteenth 
time.  Hazael  of  Damascus  trusted  in  the  multitude 
of  his  troops,  assembled  his  hosts  without  number, 
and  made  the  mountain  Sanir,  the  summit  of  the 
mountains  which  are  opposite  the  Lebanon-Mountain, 
his  fortress.  With  him  I  contended,  inflicted  on  him 
a  defeat ;  16,000  of  his  warriors  I  overpowered  with 
weapons;  1,121  of  his  chariots,  470  of  his  horsemen 
(litters),  together  with  his  stores  (camp),  I  took  from 
him  ;  to  save  his  life,  he  took  himself  off,  I  pursued 
him.  In  Damaskus,  his  royal  city,  I  besieged  him; 
his  plantations  I  destroyed."* 

The  reader  will  note  the  "hosts  without  number" 
and  "  the  multitude  of  his  troops."  Hazael  brings  into 
the  field  an  army  which  vastly  outnumbers  that  of 
Assyria.  A  predecessor  of  Hazael's  had  to  strengthen 
himself  with  a  strong  confederacy  of  twelve  neigh- 
bouring kings  before  he  could  meet  the  Assyrian 
armies.  But  Hazael  himself  is  apparently  strong 
enough  to  bar  Shalmaneser's  way  single-handed. 
This  defeat  must,  however,  have  weakened  his  power ; 
and  the  subsequent  conflid^  in  which  several  towns 
were  captured,  and  when  Hazael  himself  seems  to 
have    secured    peace    only  by  payment    of    tribute, 

*  Schrader,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i.,  pp.  200,  201 


1 6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

would,  we  are  ready  to  think,  have  confined  him  to 
his  own  territories.  But  what,  then,  of  his  activity  in 
the  south  at  an  evidently  later  period,  when  Gath  was 
taken  and  Jerusalem  was  threatened  ?  The  explana- 
tion is  found  in  the  Assyrian  annals.  The  hammer 
of  this  eastern  power  was  smiting  in  other  quarters, 
and  Syria  had  rest  for  a  season.  ''The  remainder 
of  his  (Shalmaneser's)  reign,"  says  Maspero,  "was 
passed   almost    entirely  in   expeditions    against    the 

north  (of  Mesopotamia)  and  against  the  east 

Then  came  old  age,  and  with  it  its  infirmities.  The 
old  king,  worn  out  by  so  many  campaigns,  quitted  the 
field,  and  left  the  command  to  his  generals.  Assur- 
danipal,  his  eldest  son,  found  that  he  had  lived  too 
long,  and  raised  against  him  more  than  half  of 
his  empire.  Asshur,  Amid,  Arbela,  and  twenty-four 
other  cities  participated  in  the  rebellion:  Kalah  and 
Nineveh  remained  faithful.  Shalmaneser  abdicated 
in  favour  of  his  second  son,  Shamshiraman.  In  less 
than  four  years  the  revolt  was  quelled  ;  Assurdanipal 
was  slain,  and  Shalmaneser  had  at  least  the  consola- 
tion of  dying  in  peace  after  a  reign  of  thirty-five 
years."  ^  This  gave  ample  space  for  the  repairing  of 
Hazael's  losses  and  for  the  renewed  extension  of  his 
conquests. 

The  monument  on  which  these  notices  of  Hazael 
are  found  is  a  small  obelisk  of  black  marble.  It  "is 
five  feet  in  height,"  and  was  "  found  by  Mr.  Layard 
in  the  centre  of  the  Mound  at  Nimroud,  and"  is 
"  now  in  the  British  Museum.  Each  of  its  four  sides  is 

*  Histoire  Ancienne  des  Ptuplcs  ile  L'Orieiit,  p.  382. 


Assyria  and  Israel.  ly 

divided  into  five  compartments  of  sculpture,  repre- 
senting the  tribute  brought  to  the  Assyrian  king  by 
vassal  princes,  Jehu  of  Israel  being  among  the 
number.  Shalmaneser,  whose  annals  and  conquests 
are  recorded  upon  it,  was  the  son  of  Assur-natsir-pal, 
and  died  in  823  B.C.,  after  a  reign  of  thirty-five  years. 
A  translation  of  the  inscription  was  one  of  the  first 
achievements  of  Assyrian  decipherment,  and  was 
made  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  ;  and  Dr.  Hincks  shortly 
afterwards  (in  1851)  succeeded  in  reading  the  name 
of  Jehu  in  it."  *  This  inscription,  containing  the 
first-known  mention  of  an  Israelitish  king  on  the 
Assyrian  monuments,  will  naturally  be  regarded  with 
special  interest  by  our  readers;  and  I,  therefore,  give 
a  representation  of  each  of  its  four  sides.  The  refer- 
ence to  Jehu  is  contained  in  the  description  of  one 
of  the  scenes  pictured  on  the  obelisk.  The  tribute- 
bearers  are  shown  in  the  sculpture,  preceded  by  a 
prince  or  ambassador,  who  kneels  before  the  king ; 
and  there  we  read  these  words  :  *'  I  have  received  the 
tribute  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Omri :  silver,  gold,  bowls 
of  gold,  chalices  of  gold,  cups  of  gold,  pails  of  gold, 
lead,  sceptres  for  the  hand  of  the  king,  (and)  spear 
shafts."  This  tribute  of  Jehu's  is  mentioned  once 
again  on  the  fragment  already  referred  to ;  but  the 
mention  of  it  is  very  brief.  He  merely  says:  "At 
that  time  I  received  the  tribute  of  the  Tyrians, 
Sidonians,  of  Jehu  son  of  Omri." 

And  here  the  silence  of  the  inscription  is  quite  as 
significant  as  its  speech.     The  record  of  the  tribute 

*  Professor  Sayce,  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.,  pp.  27,  28. 


Obelisk  of  Shalmanesek  II.  (two  sides,\ 


Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  II.  (remaining  two  sides). 


20  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

is  there;  but  there  is  no  notice  of  any  invasion  of 
Israel,  or  of  any  threatened  invasion  of  it.  Jehu  has 
evidently  sent  tribute,  not  because  he  was  either 
conquered  or  had  been  threatened  by  Assyria.  We 
are,  therefore,  shut  up  to  the  conclusion  that  for 
some  purpose  or  other  he  sought  the  favour  and  the 
protection  of  Assyria.  Jehu,  with  his  bowls,  and 
chalices,  and  cups  of  ^old,  was  paying  the  price  of 
an  advantage  which  he  wished  to  gain.  This  agrees 
thoroughly  with  Jehu's  position  as  we  see  it  in  the 
Bible.  Israel  had  as  yet  no  need  to  dread  the  ap- 
proach of  Assyria  ;  but  to  gain  Assyria's  help  against 
Hazael  of  Damascus  was  of  the  first  importance  in 
the  eyes  of  Jehu  and  of  the  Israelitish  statesmen  of 
the  period.  There  was  an  arm  on  which  they  might 
have  leaned.  But  God's  help  was  apparently  not  to 
be  thought  of;  and  so  they  leaned  upon  this  reed  of 
Assyria,  which,  so  far  as  that  hope  of  theirs  was 
concerned,  only  broke  and  pierced  them. 


CHAPTER  III. 
Jehu's    Dynasty 


THE  doom  upon  Jezebel  and  her  seed,  which  had 
been  pronounced  by  Elijah  (i  Kings  xxi.  ig-24), 
seemed  to  linger.     Ahab  was  succeeded  first  by  one 


J  elm's  Dynasty,  2r 

son  and  then  by  a  second.  This  last  had  reigned 
twelve  years  before  the  judgment  fell;  but,  when  it 
did  fall,  not  one  trait  in  that  terrible  prophetic  picture 
failed  to  find  its  accomplishment  in  the  awful  tragedy. 
To  Jehu,  who  had  been  the  appointed  instrument  of 
the  Divine  vengeance,  the  Divine  message  came: 
"  Because  thou  hast  done  well  in  executing  that 
which  is  right  in  Mine  eyes,  and  hast  done  unto  the 
house  of  Ahab  according  to  all  that  was  in  Mine 
heart,  thy  children  of  the  fourth  generation  shall  sit 
on  the  throne  of  Israel"  (2  Kings  x.  30). 

But  there  were  limits  to  Jehu's  obedience.  He 
extirpated  the  Baal  worshippers  and  cleansed  the 
land  from  this  open  apostasy;  but,  like  Jeroboam,  he 
judged  it  to  be  impolitic  to  turn  the  attention  of  the 
tribes  to  Jerusalem.  The  ordinances  of  the  Law 
were,  therefore,  not  restored  to  Israel,  and  the  abom- 
inations of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  who  caused 
Israel  to  sin,  were  continued  for  the  same  reason 
which  led  to  their  institution.  This  defiance  of  God 
bore  the  usual  fruit  of  national  weakness  and  disaster. 
We  have  already  seen  how  Hazael  of  Damascus 
**cut  Israel  short,"  and  ''smote  them  in  all  the 
coasts  of  Israel,"  even  in  the  days  of  Jehu.  But  in 
the  days  of  Jehoahaz  his  son,  matters  went  from 
bad  to  worse.  ''And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was 
kindled  against  Israel,  and  He  delivered  them  into 
the  hand  of  Hazael  king  of  Syria,  and  into  the  hand 
of  Ben-hadad  the  son  of  Hazael,  all  their  days.  And 
Jehoahaz  besought  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  hearkened 
unto  him:  for  He  saw  the  oppression  of  Israel,  be- 


22  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

cause  the  king  of  Syria  oppressed  them.  (And  the 
Lord  gave  Israel  a  saviour,  so  that  they  went  out 
from  under  the  hand  of  the  Syrians:  and  the  children 
of  Israel  dwelt  in  their  tents,  as  beforetime.  Never- 
theless they  departed  not  from  the  sins  of  the  house 
of  Jeroboam,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,  but  walked 
therein:  and  there  remained  the  grove  also" — the 
Asherah — the  idolatrous  worship  of  "the  Queen  of 
heaven  " — *'  in  Samaria.)  Neither  did  he  leave  of 
the  people  to  Jehoahaz  but  fifty  horsemen,  and  ten 
chariots,  and  ten  thousand  footmen ;  for  the  king  of 
Syria  had  destroyed  them,  and  had  made  them  like 
the  dust  by  threshing  "  (2  Kings  xiii.  ^-y). 

A  question  has  long  ago  been  raised  by  Assyriolo- 
gists  as  to  who  the  saviour  was  who  was  raised  up  in 
answer  to  the  prayer  of  Jehoahaz  ;  and,  knowing 
that  Assyria  was  at  this  time  the  one  conquering 
power  in  this  region,  it  was  natural  that  Schrader 
should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Israel's  saviour 
was  an  Assyrian  king — Adad-nirari,  the  grandson  of 
Shalmaneser  II.,  to  whom  Jehu  had  paid  tribute, 
and  who  again  invaded  the  west.  In  an  inscrip- 
tion found  at  Calah,  in  which  he  seems  to  recount 
the  whole  of  his  conquests,  he  says :  "  From  the 
Euphrates,  the  land  of  Hatti  (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  Humri  (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 


Jehu^s  Dynasty.  23 

upon  them.  I  went  to  the  land  of  the  Sa-imeri-su 
(Syria  of  Damascus);  Mari'u,  king  of  Sa-imeri-su,  I 
shut  up  in  Damasqu  (Damascus),  his  royal  city.  The 
fear  and  terror  of  Assur,  his  lord,  struck  him,  and  he 
took  my  feet,  performed  homage.  Two  thousand 
three  hundred  talents  of  silver,  twenty  talents  of 
gold,  3,000  talents  of  bronze,  5,000  talents  of  iron, 
cloth,  variegated  stuffs,  linen,  a  couch  of  ivory,  an 
inlaid  litter  of  ivory,  (with)  cushions  (?),  his  goods, 
his  property,  to  a  countless  amount  I  received  in 
Damascus,  his  royal  city,  in  the  midst  of  his  palace. 
All  the  kings  of  the  land  of  Kaldu  (the  Chaldean 
tribes  in  Babylonia)  performed  homage,  tax  and 
tribute  for  future  days  I  fixed  upon  them.  Babylon, 
Borsippa,  Cuthah,  brought  the  overplus  (of  the 
treasures)  of  Bel,  Nebo,  (and)  Nergal  (made)  pure 
offerings."  .  .  .  The  translation  ends  there ;  "the 
remainderof  the  inscription  is  said,"  adds  Dr.  Pinches, 
"to  be  still  at  Calah,  not  yet  uncovered."* 

Now,  when  did  this  conquest  of  Damascus  take 
place  ?  Just  in  this  part  of  the  records  lies  the 
difference  between  the  dates  indicated  in  the  Scrip- 
ture and  those  of  the  Assyrian  monuments,  according 
to  the  edition  furnished  to  us  by  Sennacherib.  It 
would  only  mislead  us  to  quote  these  dates.  But 
they  are  of  special  use  in  one  way:  they  show  us  the 
interval  between  Jehu's  tribute  to  Shalmaneser  and 
this  humbling  of  the  kingdom  of  Damascus.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Assyrian  reckoning 

*  Dr.  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament,  etc.,  p.  341. 


24  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Jehu    paid    his    first    tribute    to 
Shalmaneser  in  ...  ...     842 

And  his  grandson  Adad-^nirari  III.  1^.  a  yyV^n CI  ri  rnra  Tt 
began  to  reign  in  ...  ...     812  ^"-76^^ 

The  interval,  therefore,  between  his 

ascension  and  Jehu's  tribute  is      

30  years. 

One  thing  now  remains  to  determine  the  interval. 
In  what  year  of  his  reign  did  Adad-nirari  conquer 
Damascus  ?  If  that  were  known,  we  should  only 
have  to  add  it  to  the  thirty  years  in  order  to  know  the 
exact  period.  But  this  Assyriology  cannot  yet  tell  us. 
George  Smith  was  of  opinion  that  it  must  have 
occurred  somewhat  late  in  his  reign — about  fifteen 
years  after  his  accession.  This  would  make  the 
entire  interval  between  the  tribute  and  the  humbling 
of  Damascus  forty-five  years.  George  Smith's  date, 
however,  was  based  upon  a  misreading  of  a  word  in 
the  inscription,  and,  says  Dr.  Pinches,  "  it  is  more 
probable  that  the  expedition  to  the  Holy  Land  and 
Syria  took  place  either  in  806,  when  he  went  to 
Arpad,  805,  when  he  was  at  Haza,  or  804,  when  he 
marched  against  Baali,  the  name,  apparently,  of  a 
Phoenician  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."  * 

*  The  Old  Testnmcnt,  etc.,  p.  3^0. 


Jehu's  Dynasty.  25 

This  would  limit  the  interval  to  thirty-six  or  thirty- 
nine  years.  Now,  to  see  what  this  exactly  means  in 
its  bearing  upon  the  Scripture  history,  we  have  to 
attend  for  a  moment  or  two  to  the  Scripture  figures. 

Jehu  reigned  altogether     28  years  (2  Kings  x.  36). 
Jehoahaz,  his  son        ...      17  years  (2  Kings  xiii.  i). 

In  all     45  years. 

We  do  not  know  in  what  year  of  his_xeign_Jehu /^'^/^^^"J.^p"]^ 
paid  tribute.     It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  it  could        »i>'9-  ix^' 
not  have  been  done  quite  at  the  beginning  of   his  "^^'^    *^   p»m1»-v 
reign,  for   the  incursions  of  Hazael  were  sent  as  a 
punishment  for  unfaithfulness  which  did  not  so  much 
mark  the  opening  years.     If  we  say  that  it  was  in  the 
fifteenth  or  twentieth  year,  the  interval  between  the 
tribute  and  the  death  of  Jehoahaz,  his  son,  will  be 
thirty  or  twenty-five  years. 

The  meaning  of  this  will  now  be  plain  when  we 
notice  two  things,  (i)  Hazael's  son,  Ben-hadad,  is 
reigning  after  the  death  of  Jehoahaz ;  and  (2)  he  is  not 
reiejnine:  when  Adad-nirari   enters  Damascus.      The  ^■x)r 

king  whom  he  finds  there  is  named  Mari'u.     Conse- 


Y'ToV>^V\^ 


quently,  this  Assyrian  monarch  cannot  have  been  the  ^y/,  // 

saviour  whom  the  Lord  raised  up  for  Israel.      For  -"Lord" 

that  saviour  must  have  done  his  work  during  Ben- 
hadad's  life-time.  Adad-nirari's  inscription  bears, 
indeed,  its  tribute  of  confirmation  ;  but  that  tribute 
is  not  laid  down  here.  The  Scripture  notice  of  the 
dehverance  seems  to  refer  to  what  it  is  about  to  tell 
us  in  the  account  of  the  interview  between  the  son 


26  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

of  Jehoahaz  and  Elisha.  The  prayer  of  Jehoahaz 
was  heard,  but  it  was  not  answered  then.  The 
deliverance  came  through  his  son,  but  it  was  not 
a  full  deliverance,  nor  a  complete  breaking  of  the 
Syrian  yoke.  It  was  still  true  that  Hazael  and 
Benhadad  oppressed  Israel  all  their  days. 

Kingjehoash  received  tidings  of  Elisha's  sickness, 
and  seems  to  have  hastened  to  visit  the  dying  prophet. 
It  was  a  visit  of  evident  affection;  for,  if  tears  tell 
us  anything,  the  king  mourns  with  deep  sincerity  the 
loss  which  he  and  the  country  are  about  to  sustain  in 
the  death  of  God's  servant.  Probably  he  had  seen 
the  seal  of  death  on  the  prophet's  face;  "And  Joash 
the  king  of  Israel  came  down  unto  him,  and  wept 
over  his  face,  and  said,  O  my  father,  my  father,  the 
chariot  of  Israel,  and  the  horsemen  thereof."  It  was 
a  delicate  allusion  to  his  passing  away;  for  these  had 
been  Elisha's  own  words  when  in  his  anguish  he 
looked  up  after  the  ascending  Elijah.  The  prophet 
was  moved;  and,  no  doubt,  lifted  up  his  touched 
heart  in  prayer  to  God.  He  himself  had  received  a 
blessing,  the  memory  of  which  these  words  recalled. 
Was  there  no  blessing  for  the  king  ?  The  answer  came 
that  he  should  receive  a  blessing;  but,  as  in  his  own 
case,  it  is  a  blessing  which  will  be  according  to  faith. 
"And  Elisha  said  unto  him.  Take  bow  and  arrows. 
And  he  took  unto  him  bow  and  arrows.  And  he  said 
to  the  king  of  Israel,  Put  thine  hand  upon  the  bow. 
And  he  put  his  hand  upon  it:  and  Elisha  put  his 
hands  upon  the  king's  hands.  And  he  said.  Open 
the  window  eastward.     And   he  opened    it.     Then 


Jehu's  Dynasty,  27 

Elisha  said,  Shoot.  And  he  shot.  And  he  said,  The 
arrow  of  the  Lord's  deHverance,  even  the  arrow  of 
dehverance  from  Syria :  for  thou  shalt  smite  the 
Syrians  in  Aphek,  till  thou  have  consumed  them. 
And  he  said.  Take  the  arrows.  And  he  took  them. 
And  he  said  unto  the  king  of  Israel,  Smite  upon  the 
ground.  And  he  smote  thrice,  and  stayed.  And  the 
man  of  God  was  wroth  with  him,  and  said,  Thou 
shouldest  have  smitten  five  or  six  times ;  then  hadst 
thou  smitten  Syria  till  thou  hadst  consumed  it : 
whereas  thou  shalt  smite  Syria  but  thrice"  (xiii.  14-19). 
This  predi(5^ion  was  fulfilled.  The  Scripture  again 
tells  us  (verses  22-25)  that  "Hazael  king  of  Syria 
oppressed  Israel  all  the  days  of  Jehoahaz;"  but,  it 
adds :  "  The  Lord  was  gracious  unto  them,  and  had 
compassion  on  them,  and  had  respe(5l  unto  them, 
because  of  His  covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  and  would  not  destroy  them,  neither  cast  them 
out  from  His  presence  as  yet.  So  Hazael  king  of 
Syria  died ;  and  Ben-hadad  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead.  And  Jehoash  the  son  of  Jehoahaz  took  again 
out  of  the  hand  of  Ben-hadad  the  son  of  Hazael  the 
cities,  which  he  had  taken  out  of  the  hand  of  Jehoahaz 
his  father  by  war.  Three  times  did  Joash  beat  him, 
and  recovered  the  cities  of  Israel."  Jehoash  seems, 
therefore,  to  have  been  the  saviour  of  Israel  at  this 
time,  and  not  Assyria.  But  the  inscription  of  Adad- 
nirari  is,  nevertheless,  confirmatory  of  the  Scripture. 
The  interval  between  the  tribute-giving  of  Jehu  and  the 
Assyrian  king's  presence  in  Damascus  was  somewhere 
between  thirty-six  and  forty-five  years.  This  carries  us 


28  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

down  into  the  reign  of  Jehoash.  Now,  it  is  plain  that 
the  Damascus  which  Adad-nirari  encounters  is  not  the 
Damascus  of  Hazael.  That  Syrian  king  was  able  ta 
meet  the  Assyrian  army  with  a  countless  host,  and 
to  present  such  resistance  as  made  a  descent  upon 
Damascus  on  the  part  of  the  Assyrians  impossible. 
But  now  the  Assyrian  king  is  in  Mariu's  palace,  dic- 
tating his  terms,  and  gathering  the  spoils.  What  has 
happened  in  the  interval  ?  What  has  broken  Syria's 
strength  ?  Turn  to  the  Scripture,  and  all  is  explained. 
Israel,  whom  Ben-hadad  had  despised,  scattered  his 
hitherto  vidlorious  hosts  to  the  winds.  Three  times 
these  are  visited  with  a  signal  overthrow ;  and,  had 
not  Israel's  triumphs  ended  there,  Syria  would,  ac- 
cording to  the  prophet's  words,  have  been  "consumed." 
Ben-hadad  left  a  shattered  kingdom  to  his  successor. 
The  old  resistance  was  no  longer  possible,  and  the 
tents  of  Assyria  were  pitched  among  the  groves  of 
Damascus. 

Jehoash  reigned  sixteen  years,  and  Jeroboam  II., 
his  son,  forty-one  years  (2  Kings  xiv.  23).  Under  him 
Israel  once  more  extended  her  boundaries.  "  He 
restored  the  coast  of  Israel  from  the  entering  of 
Hamath  unto  the  sea  of  the  plain,  according  to  the 
word  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  which  He  spake  by 
the  hand  of  His  servant  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai,  the 
prophet,  who  was  of  Gath-hepher.  For  the  Lord 
saw  the  affliction  of  Israel,  that  it  was  very  bitter  r 
for  there  was  not  any  shut  up,  nor  any  left,  nor  any 
helper  for  Israel"  (verses  25,  26).  The  Scripture  also 
mentions  "how  he  recovered  Damascus  and  Hamath, 


Pul,  King  of  Assyria.  29 

which  belonged  to  Judah,  for  Israel  "  (verse  28).  And 
what  now  of  Assyria  ?  Under  the  watchful  eye  of 
that  ambitious  empire,  and  with  her  armies  sweeping 
over  these  lands  in  one  devastating  wave  after  another, 
was  it  possible  for  the  Israelitish  king  to  possess 
himself  of  Hamath  and  of  Damascus,  and  to  extend 
so  enormously  the  frontiers  of  Israel  ?  Here,  again, 
the  Assyrian  records  enable  us  to  reply.  During  the 
thirty  years  which  followed  the  reign  of  Adad-nirari, 
says  Maspero,  "the  power  of  Assyria  fell  almost  as 
rapidly  as  it  had  risen."*  A  succession  of  weak 
monarchs,  and  a  series  of  insurrections  within  their 
own  dominions,  kept  the  Assyrian  armies  far  from 
Syria  and  Palestine  ;  and  here  again  the  historical 
charad^er  of  this  Second  Book  of  Kings  shows  itself 
in  an  account  which  implies  the  very  state  of  things 
which  we  now  know  to  have  prevailed  in  the  great 
empire  of  the  East. 


CHAPTER    IV. 
Pul,  King  of  Assyria. 


JEROBOAM  II.  closed  his  long  reign  of  forty-one 
years,  and  apparently  left  the  land  of  Israel  in 
the  enjoyment  of  unwonted  prosperity.  But  it  was 
the  brightness  of  a  setting  sun  ;  and  we  have  now  to 
peruse  the  story  of  that  succession  of  judgments  under 
which  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  finally  succumbed. 

'■'  A  ncienne  Histoire,  p.  385. 


30  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Jeroboam  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Zachariah, 
who  after  a  brief  reign  of  six  months,  perished  in  a 
conspiracy. 

The  story  of  the  decHning  kingdom  will  come  before 
us  immediately.  Meanwhile,  another  matter  demands 
our  attention.  We  are  told,  in  chapter  xv.  19,  that 
a  certain  ''Pul,  king  of  Assyria,"  came  against  the 
land  of  Israel  while  Menahem  was  reigning,  and  that 
Menahem  paid  him  the  large  sum  of  1,000  talents  of 
silver.  A  very  few  years  afterwards,  in  the  reign  of 
Pekah,  a  king  of  Assyria  named  Tiglath-pileser  leads 
away  captive  the  two  and  a-half  tribes  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan.  Round  these  names,  and  very  specially 
round  the  former  of  them,  a  warm  controversy  was  not 
long  ago  waged,  the  conclusion  of  which  has  lessons 
of  the  utmost  moment  for  the  scholars  of  to-day. 

This  king  of  Assyria  is  the  first  who  is  mentioned 
by  his  name  in  the  Scripture,  and  the  name  was  a 
heavy  trouble  to  learned  commentators,  Biblical 
scholars,  and  believing  archaeologists.  Tiglath-pileser's 
name  was  indeed  found,  and  inscriptions  of  his  were 
recovered.  These  showed  that  he  had  intimate 
relations  with  the  Israel  of  that  time.  They  contain, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter,  the  names  of 
Menahem  and  of  Pekah,  kings  of  Israel,  and  of  Azariah, 
the  contemporary  king  of  Judah.  That  placed  it 
beyond  doubt  that  Tiglath-pileser  was  the  king  who 
then  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Assyria.  But  who  was 
Phul,  or  Pul  ?  Were  there  two  kings  at  that  time  in 
Assyria?  There  was  no  trace  of  any  co-regency, 
which,   indeed,  would    have    been   a  most    singular 


Pill,  King  of  Assyria,  31 

arrangement  for  Assyria.  Nor  was  there  the  sHghtest 
record  of  any  king  named  Pul  upon  the  Assyrian 
monuments. 

Here  was  a  ''Bible  difficulty"  of  the  first  magnitude. 
The  suggested  explanations  were  various.  A  great 
French  Assyriologist,  M.  Oppert,  whose  name  will 
ever  be  gratefully  remembered  by  lovers  of  the  Bible, 
maintained  that  Pul  and  Tiglath-pileser  III.  were 
different  persons.  Pul  he  believed  to  have  been  a 
Chaldean  general  who  had  conquered  Nineveh,  and 
who  became  king  of  Assyria.  Fr.  Lenormant  for  some 
time  lent  to  this  theory  the  support  of  another  great 
name.  But  it  found  little  favour.  It  was  attended  with 
huge  difficulties,  and  it  was  long  ago  abandoned  by 
Lenormant.  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  at  first  identified 
Pul  with  Adad-nirari  III. ;  for  it  seemed  to  him  that 
some  of  the  sounds  which  could  be  given  to  the 
symbols  which  formed  that  king's  name  had  a  con- 
siderable resemblance  to  the  word  Pul.  But,  in  a 
letter  to  the  AthencEum,  published  in  1869,  he  gave  up 
this  opinion,  and  identified  Pul  with  Tiglath-pileser. 
He  cited  i  Chronicles  v.  26  :  "And  the  God  of  Israel 
stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Pul  king  of  Assyria,  and  (trans- 
late even)  the  spirit  of  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria, 
and  he  carried  them  away,  even  the  Reubenites,  and 
the  Gadites,  and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  and 
brought  them  unto  Halah,  and  Habor,  and  Hara,  and 
to  the  river  Gozan,  unto  this  day."  "The  same 
event,"  he  says,  " — namely,  the  deportation  of  the 
tribes  beyond  the  Jordan — is  attributed  in  Scripture 
(i   Chronicles   v.   26)    to    the    two    kings  associated 


32  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

together,  as  if  they  were  one  and  the  same  individual, 
or,  at  any  rate,  were  acting  together;  and  the  passage 
in  question  is  understood  in  this  sense  by  both  the 
Syrian  and  Arabic  translators,  the  single  name  of 
Tiglath-pileser  being  used  in  one  version,  and  of  Pul 
in  the  other."  Sir  Henry  might  have  added  that  the 
passage  in  Chronicles,  while  mentioning  the  two 
names,  ^ises  a  verb  in  the  singular  instead  of  the  plural, 
thus  showing  that  the  Scripture  regarded  these  as  but 
different  names  of  one  and  the  same  person. 

About  the  same  time,  Richard  Lepsius,  in  Germany, 
suggested  the  same  solution.  It  was  also  adopted  by 
Schrader,  who  urged  it  strongly  upon  the  acceptance 
of  scholars.  After  mentioning  the  supposition  that 
Pul  might  have  been  a  general  of  Tiglath-pileser's,  he 
points  out  that  the  Scriptures  always  draw  a  sharp 
distinction  between  the  king  and  his  generals.  "More- 
over," he  continues,  **they  usually  specify  the  title, 
but  not  the  name  of  these  officers  (Tartan,  Rabsak; 
Isaiah  xx.  i  ;  2  Kings  xviii.  17) ;  lastly,  Pul  is  ex- 
pressly designated  'king  of  Assyria,'  a  fact  which 
ought  not  to  be  ignored  without  some  reason."  He 
then  mentions  two  of  theother  suppositions.  ''Perhaps, 
then,"  he  says,  "  Pul  was  a  rival  king  to  Tiglath- 
pileser,  or  else  a  foreign  prince  who  exercised  a 
supremacy  over  Assyria  ?  Neither  of  these  shifts  is 
to  be  adopted.  As  to  the  first  shift,  we  possess  very 
accurate  information  regarding  the  reign  of  Tiglath- 
pileser.  .  .  .  But  in  the  inscriptions,  which  give  this 
information,  we  have  nowhere  even  the  remotest 
reference  to  any  such  rival  potentate.     Yet  in  other 


Pill,  King  of  Assyria.  33 

cases  Oriental  monarchs  are  wont  to  take  a  special 
delight  in  recording  the  subjugation  of  these  rival 

kings So  we  must   also  abandon  this 

possibility." 

He  then  rejects,  with  equal  firmness,  the  theory 
that  Pul  was  merely  a  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  adds: 
"These  last  considerations,  taken  together  with 
others,  compel  us  to  seek  for  Pul  on  Assyrian  ground, 
and  to  see  in  him  one  of  the  well-known  Assyrian 
kings.  Bearing  the  previous  investigation  in  mind, 
our  thoughts  can  only  light  on  Tiglath-pileser  him- 
self." This  is  only  a  very  brief  summary  of  Schrader's 
learned  discussion  of  this  once  knotty  point.  He 
sums  up  his  argument  some  pages  further  on  under 
nine  distinct  heads  (which  I  spare  the  reader,  ex- 
cellent though  they  are),  and  concludes:  "Under 
these  circumstances  it  appears,  in  my  estimation, 
impossible  to  avoid  the  supposition  that  .  .  .  Pul 
and  Tiglath-pileser  are  one  and  the  same  person. 
If  this,  however,  be  so,  light  is  at  once  cast  on  the 
obscurity  which  involves  the  chronological  problem 
.  .  an  obscurity  which  writers,  for  some  time  past, 
have  only  been  able  to  dispel  by  violent  hypotheses."  * 

Part  of  the  explanation  was  already  found  in  a 
passage  of  the  Greek  fragments  of  the  ancient  work 
of  Berossus,  a  Babylonian  priest,  on  the  kings  of 
Babylon.  Among  the  kings  he  names  is  one  Porus. 
The  letter  r  was  often  exchanged  for  the  letter  /,  so 
that  Porus  was,  no  doubt,  Polus,  or  (dropping  the 
Greek  termination)  Pol,  that  is,  the   long-lost  Pul. 

*  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  vol  i.,  pp.  219-231. 

D 


34  T^he  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Now  Tiglath-pileser  calls  himself  "king  of  Sumir 
and  Accad;"  that  is,  king  of  Chaldaea;  and  in 
another  inscription,  belonging  to  the  end  of  his  reign, 
he  describes  himself  as  Sar  Bdhilit,  king  of  Babylon, 
"a  title,"  says  Schrader,  "which,  it  can  be  shown, 
only  those  Assyrian  kings  assumed  who  were  also 
actually  recognised  by  the  Babylonians  as  kings  of 
Babylon." 

But  further  discovery  has  for  some  time  now  borne 
us  beyond  all  these  discussions.  We  have  left  the 
broken  and  troubled  waters  of  learned  controversy 
and  come  into  the  still  waters  of  certainty.  A 
"Babylonian  Chronicle"  was  discovered  by  Dr. 
Pinches  among  the  tablets  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  was  published  in  1887.  It  is  a  clay  tablet,  which 
was  copied  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  Darius 
Hystaspis,  king  of  Persia,  from  an  older  Babylonian 
document.  "  It  gives  the  names  of  the  kings  who 
ruled  over  Babylon  from  Nabonassar  to  Shamas- 
shum-ukin,  the  Tasoduchinos  of  Ptolemy,  and  the 
brother  of  Sardanapalus,  who  afterwards  put  him  to 
death  ;  the  length  of  each  reign  is  carefully  given, 
and  various  events  of  importance  are  noted  from  time 
to  time."  *  It  names  Tiglath-pileser  by  this  very  name 
of  Pul,  or  Piilu.  "  The  name,"  says  Dr.  Pinches,  "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."  t  This  Chronicle,  which  gives  us  also 

♦Evetts.    New  Light  on  the  Bible,  p.  322.    +  The  Old  Testament,  p.  357. 


Pul,  King  of  Assyria.  35 

important  information  on  another  matter  which  will 
come  before  us,  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  Tiglath- 
pileser  III.  of  Assyria,  and  Pul  king  of  Babylon  were 
one  and  the  same  person.  The  possession  of  two 
names  was  by  no  means  peculiar  among  the  Assyrian 
rulers.  Shalmaneser  IV.,  who  succeeded  Tiglath- 
pileser,  was  known  in  Babylon  as  Ululai,  and  Assur- 
banipal  appears  as  Kandalunu  on  Babylonian  contract 
tablets. 

Schrader  and  Pinches  have  asked  themselves  how 
it  happened  that  Tiglath-pileser  III.  was  also  known 
as  Pul ;  and  they  have  given  what  is  practically  the 
same  reply.  They  think  it  probable  that  Pul  was  his 
original  name.  It  was  a  time  of  confusion  in  Assyria. 
The  representative  of  the  former  dynasty  suddenly 
disappears,  and  this  new  king,  under  whom  order  is 
restored  and  Assyria  once  again  becomes  a  terror  to 
the  surrounding  nations,  takes  his  place.  The  likeli- 
hood is  that,  being  one  of  the  leading  generals,  he 
usurped  the  throne.  This  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  some  of  his  officials  assumed  a  tone  of  equality 
with  Tiglath-pileser  III.,  which  suggests  that  he 
assumed  the  royal  dignity  by  some  sort  of  compacft 
with  them.  Bel-harran-Bel-usur,  an  official  of  Tig- 
lath-pileser III.,  who  describes  himself  as  "master 
of  the  palace,"  tells  us  that  he  founded  a  city  and 
ere(5ted  in  it  a  temple,  which  he  called  by  his  own  namey 
Dur-Bel-harran-Bel-usur.  This  practical  assumption 
of  a  royal  right  is  quite  unusual ;  but  it  would  be 
fully  explained  if  the  officials  had  conferred  the  royal 
dignity  upon  Tiglath-pileser,  and  had  secured  a  place 


36  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

for  themselves  which  the  nobiHty  did  not  usually 
enjoy.  The  name  Pulu  occurs  as  that  of  a  charioteer ; 
and  this  common-place  designation  was  probably  by- 
and-bye  exchanged  for  Tiglath-pileser,  a  name  which 
Assyrian  monarchs  had  already  made  famous. 

But  all  this  might  have  been  gathered  from  the 
Scripture  notices.  Seeing  that  Pul  was  his  earlier 
name,  2  Kings  xv.  19  names  him  by  it  in  the  account 
of  his  first  inroad  into  Palestine  in  the  days  of 
Menahem.  Following  the  order  of  history,  and  re- 
cording the  fad^s  as  an  eye-witness  of  the  times,  the 
Scripture  narrating  the  later  expedition  in  the  days  of 
Pekah  (verse  29),  names  the  monarch  by  the  name  by 
which  he  was  then  known — Tiglath-pileser.  In  other 
words,  Pul  was  the  earlier,  and  Tiglath-pileser  the 
later,  name.  After  all  this  discussion,  in  which  the 
leading  archaeologists  of  Europe  have  joined ;  after 
all  the  questioning  and  flouting  of  the  Scripture  and 
the  thinly-veiled  contempt  for  its  authority,  learned 
opinion  has  come  back  to  the  very  viewpoint  at  which 
the  Bible  had  set  its  readers  from  the  first.  Science 
here,  as  always,  has,  in  its  last  word,  justified  the 
Bible  and  confounded  its  accusers. 


Tiglath-pileseVy  Azariah,  Menahem,  and  Pekah.    37 
CHAPTER   V. 

TiGLATH-PILESER,  AZARIAH,  MeNAHEM,  AND  PeKAH. 


THE  inscriptions  of  Tiglath-pileser  III.  are  the 
most  important  of  the  Assyrian  monuments 
with  which  we  have  so  far  had  to  deal.  They  mention 
six  kings  who  are  named  in  the  Bible,  namely,  these 
three  kings  of  Israel:  Menahem,  Pekah,  and  Hosea ; 
two  kings  of  Judah:  Azariah  or  Uzziah,  and  Ahaz; 
and  Rezin,  king  of  Damascus.  The  references  to 
Azariah  will  be  touched  upon  afterwards,  when  we 
deal  with  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  and  we  shall, 
meanwhile,  confine  ourselves  to  the  mention  made 
of  Menahem  and  Pekah. 

We  read  (2  Kings  xv.  19,  20)  that  "  Pul  the  king 
of  Assyria  came  against  the  land:  and  Menahem 
gave  Pul  a  thousand  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."  The  shekel  was  worth  about 
3s.  4d. ;  so  that  fifty  shekels  amounted  to  £8  6s.  8d., 
and  1,000  talents  to  ^500,000.  This  levy  helps  to 
give  us  an  idea  of  the  temporal  condition  of  Israel 
in  those  days  when  it  was  rushing  down  towards  its 
doom.     Fifty  shekels  made  one  mina  of  silver;  and 


3^  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

as  there  were  sixty  minas  in  a  talent,  the  one  thousand 
talents  make  altogether  60,000  minas.  This  means 
that  among  the  ten  tribes,  even  in  this  period  of 
national  decay  and  financial  impoverishment,  there 
were  60,000  ''  mighty  men  of  wealth  in  the  land,"  to 
whom  the  parting  with  fifty  shekels  was  a  compara- 
tively small  matter.  Israel  was  still,  therefore,  an 
important  people.  It  is  well  to  notice  also  that  the 
money  is  paid  for  expedled  service.  It  was  given,  no 
doubt,  in  the  name  of  tribute.  But  there  was  an 
understanding  that  the  arrangement  involved  help  in 
putting  down  opposition  that  was  now  threatening, 
it  may  be,  the  existence  of  the  new  dynasty.  Of  the 
known  inscriptions  of  Tiglath-pileser  there  are  two 
kinds.  There  is  one  which  gives  a  complete  summary 
of  his  conquests  up  to  his  seventeenth  year ;  and 
there  is  a  number  of  other  inscriptions  which  chronicle 
his  campaigns  from  year  to  year.  But  it  has  fared 
very  badly  with  these  last.  A  later  king,  Assur- 
haddon,  who  belonged  to  a  different  dynasty,  and 
who  had,  on  that  account,  small  respect  for  the  records 
of  his  predecessor's  achievements,  tore  down  the 
slabs  (on  which  the  inscriptions  were  engraved)  from 
Tiglath-pileser's  palace  to  help  in  the  constru(5lion  of 
a  palace  of  his  own.  They  were  not  only  broken  in 
the  removal,  but  were  also  additionally  damaged  in 
a  way  that  displayed  the  new  king's  dislike.  The 
writing  was  partly  chiselled  away.  "  Fortunately, 
however,"  says  Schrader,  "it  is  not  all  the  plates 
that  have  fallen  vicTtims  to  this  fate  ;  and,  moreover, 
the  destruction  of  the  inscriptions  is  often  so  super- 


Tiglath-pileser ,  Azariah,  Menahem,  and  Pekah.    39 

ficial  that  not  infrequently  entire  seftions   are  still 
legible."  * 

Those  monuments  which  detail  the  movements  of 
the  Assyrian   kings  year  by  year  seem  to  have  been 
written  with   more  care  than  the  summaries  of  the 
proceedings   of   an    entire   reign.      They  are  conse- 
quently more  reliable,  and,  therefore,  more  valuable. 
Turning  now  to  the  Bible  record,  it  will  be  observed 
that  the  notices  show  a  new  departure,  both  in  the 
energy  and  in  the  policy  of  the  Assyrian  empire.  Its 
armies  press  in  upon  Israel,  and  one  blow  falls  after 
another  till  the  throne  founded  by  Jeroboam,  the  son 
of  Nebat,  is  finally  overthrown— till  Israel  is  plucked 
up  out  of  its  inheritance,  and  strangers  possess  and 
till   the  fields  that  were  once  divided  by  lot  among 
the  children  of  Abraham.     It  will  have  been  already 
plain    to   the   reader   that   the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
show  us  exactly  the  same  picture,  so  far  at  least  as 
the  renewed  vigour  is  concerned.     Tiglath-pileser's 
annals  exhibit  this  very  revival  of  energy  and  resolute 
policy.       ''  In    745    B.C.,   a   revolt    occurred,"    says 
Maspero,     "at    Kalah,    in    which    Assur-nirari    dis- 
appeared, and  the  power  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  man 
little  disposed  to  lead  the  life  of  a  nominal  monarch. 
We  know  nothing  of  the  origin  of  Tiglath-pileser  II. 
(III.);   and  cannot  say  whether   he  belonged  to  the 
same  family  as  his  predecessors,  or  whether  he  was 
merely  an  able  usurper.     If  his  origin  is  still  obscure, 
his  personality  glows  in  history  with  an  incomparable 
splendour.     He  was   fashioned  after   the  pattern  of 

■'Vol.  i.,  pp.  234,235. 


40  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the  great  conquerors  of  former  times,  active  and 
ambitious,  more  busied  about  the  camp  than  in  his 
palace.  Coming,  as  he  did,  after  years  of  weakness 
and  of  decay,  his  reign  is  one  of  the  turning  points 
in  Assyrian  history.  A  successor  of  Assur-nirari, 
who  would  have  followed  the  errors  of  Assur-nirari, 
would  have  completed  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom. 
Tiglath-pileser  II.  (III.)  revived  the  energies  of  the 
nation,  showed  it  anew  the  way  to  foreign  lands,  and 
led  it  further  than  it  had  ever  been  before  his  time."* 
After  quoting  the  entry  in  the  Eponym  Canon 
which  makes  the  hrst  mention  of  Tiglath-pileser — 
"  In  the  month  Aaru  (lyyar),  day  13,  Tiglath-pileser 
sat  upon  the  throne.  In  the  month  Tisritu  (Tisri), 
he  made  an  expedition  to  (the  district)  between 
the  rivers,"  Dr.  Pinches  says  :  "  Thus  is  ushered  in 
the  Eponym  Canon  one  of  the  most  important  reigns 
jn  Assyrian  history.  How  it  was  that  Tiglath-pileser 
came  to  the  throne  is  not  known.  To  all  appearance, 
he  was  not  in  any  way  related  to  his  predecessor, 
Assur-nirari,  and  it  is  therefore  supposed  that  he  was 
one  of  the  generals  of  that  king,  who,  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  rising  in  Assur  (of  which  he  may,  indeed, 
have  been  the  instigator)  made  away  with  his 
sovereign,  and  set  himself  in  his  place.  .  .  .  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    are,  fortunately,    compensated 

Histoire  Ancienne,  p.  396. 


'    Tiglath-pileser,  Azariah,  Menahem,  and  Pekah.    41 

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."* 

When  we  come  to  the  confirmations  of  the  Books 
of  Chronicles,  we  shall  find  Tiglath-pileser's  notices 
of  Azariah  of  Judah  specially  valuable.  His  name 
appears  in  the  first  of  these  inscriptions  which  touches 
upon  the  Scripture.  The  Assyrian  king,  in  his  sixth 
year  conducted  an  expedition  to  the  north  of  Syria. 
After  naming  a  number  of  cities,  he  says  :  "Nineteen 
districts  of  the  city  of  Hamath,  with  the  cities  which 
were  around  them,  of  the  sea-coast  of  the  setting 
sun  "  (the  Mediterranean),  "which  in  sin  and  wicked- 
ness had  taken  to  Azriau,  I  added  to  the  boundary  of 
Assyria."  f  Here  let  it  be  marked  that  Azariah  is 
reigning,  and  is  making  his  power  felt  in  distant 
regions  in  the  sixth  year  of  Tiglath-pileser.  In  the 
course  of  this  same  expedition  a  large  number  of 
princes  made  their  submission  to  the  Assyrian  power. 
Among  these  are  "  Rasunnu,  of  the  land  of  the  Sa- 
Imerisuites  " — that  is,  Rezin  of  Syria  or  Damascus — 
and  "  Mennihimme  (or  Menahem),  of  the  city  of  the 
Samarians."  Among  the  other  potentates  is  "Zabibe, 
queen  of  the  land  of  Arabia,"  probably  a  successor 
of  the  queen  of  Sheba,  as  from  other  notices  it  would 
appear  that  this  was  a  district  the  throne  of  which 
was  occupied  by  female  representatives  of  the  royal 
house.  The  inscription  proceeds  to  describe  the 
tribute  received — "Gold,  silver,  lead,  iron,  elephant- 

*The  Old  Testavienf,  etc.,  pp.  346,  347.     ^  Ibid,  p.  349. 


42  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

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." 

This  matter  of  the  tribute  I  shall  touch  upon 
immediately.  But  let  us  now  note  that  these  three 
kings  are  contemporaries — Azariah  of  Judah,  Mena- 
hem  of  Israel,  and  Rezin  of  Damascus.  We  have 
here  another  proof  that  theories  which  proceed  upon 
the  supposed  legendary  character  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  have  not  even  so  good  a  foundation  as  the 
house  which  was  built  upon  the  sand.  Treacherous 
[>ioV,\$wA  as  that  foundation  was,  it  formed  a  solid,  though 
y)^--^"^^  merely  temporary,  basis.  But  these  critical  palaces, 
:~^i  ^'^jrs)  reared  to  shelter  a  so-called  Christian  and  cultured 
unbelief,  are  built  upon  air :  they  are  visions  which 
disappear  from  every  rational  and  truly  scholarly 
mind  before  facts  such  as  this.  Rezin  of  Damascus 
comes  to  his  end  about  the  (seventeenth  year  of 
Pekahj  (2  Kings  xvi.  g).  From  that  point  backwards, 
therefore,  Rezin's  reign  must  be  counted.  How  long 
it  lasted  we  do  not  know,  but  he  was  evidently  on 
the  throne  of  Damascus  some  eighteen  or  nineteen 
years  before  the  close  of  Menahem's  reign,  a  con- 
clusion which  cannot  be  charged  with  extravagance. 
With  regard  to  Menahem,  there  is  no  necessity  what- 
ever to  point  out  obvious  inferences.  The  long  reign 
of  Azariah  of  Judah  (named  also  Uzziah  in  2  Kings), 


Tiglath-pileser,  Azariah,  Menahem,  and  Pekah.    43 

covered  in  its  fifty-two  years  the  reigns  of  several 
kings  of  Israel,  and  among  these  the  reign  of  Mena- 
hem. In  2  Kings  xv.  17  we  read:  "In  the  nine 
and  thirtieth  year  of  Azariah  king  of  Judah  began 
Menahem  the  son  of  Gadi  to  reign  over  Israel,  and 
reigned  ten  years  in  Samaria."  Here,  then,  these 
three  kings  are  reigning  together,  and  the  Books  of 
Kings  are,  consequently,  in  as  direct  and  close 
contact  with  the  men  and  the  events  of  these  times 
as  are  the  inscriptions  of  Tiglath-pileser.  In  other 
words,  these  are  equally  historical  documents. 

The  passage  referring  to  Menahem's  tribute  (2  Kings 
xvi.  ig,  20)  has  already  been  quoted  in  the  beginning 
of  this  chapter.  We  are  told  there  that  Pul  "came 
against  the  land,"  and  that  when  the  tribute  was  paid 
"  he  stayed  not  there  in  the  land."  There  is  no  record 
in  the  king  of  Assyria's  inscriptions  of  an  invasion  of 
the  territory  of  the  ten  tribes  ;  but  it  is  very  probable 
that  part  of  his  forces  turned  to  the  south  and  entered 
Menahem's  territory.  The  Scripture  does  not  say 
that  Pul  fought  a  battle  there,  besieged  a  single  city, 
or  destroyed  or  plundered  a  single  district.  Tiglath- 
pileser's  record  is  equally  silent  regarding  these  things. 
The  Assyrian  advance  was  a  mere  demonstration. 
The  intention  was  to  compel  a  recognition  of  Assyrian 
supremacy,  and  not  to  invade  and  conquer.  The 
Scripture  also  intimates  this,  when  it  informs  us  that 
the  money  was  given  in  order  that  the  hand  of  the 
king  of  Assyria  might  be  with  Menahem  "  to  confirm 
the  kingdom  in  his  hand."  That  it  was  a  time  of 
political  unrest  in  Israel  is  shown  in  Menahem's  own 


44  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

usurpation,  and  by  the  subsequent  slaughter  of  his  son. 
The  chronology  appears  to  indicate  that  the  tribute 
was  paid  at  the  end  of  his  reign,  when  friends  may 
have  been  failing  him,  and  enemies  multiplying.  But 
it  may  have  happened  at  the  commencement,  when 
hostile  fa(ftions  were  as  yet  unsubdued.  The  inscrip- 
tion may  also  shed  some  light  upon  the  nature  of  the 
tribute  which  Menahem  colle(5ted.  It  was  all  in  silver, 
though  it  was  an  enormous  amount  of  that  metal — 
a  thousand  talents.  Tiglath-pileser  was  probably 
arranging,  for  some  purpose  of  his  own,  the  variety  and 
the  quantity  of  the  various  metals  which  he  was  to 
take  back  with  him  to  Assyria.  As  we  have  seen,  he 
enumerates  these — "gold,  silver,  lead,  iron,"  &c.,  &c. 
It  was  no  doubt  intimated  to  Menahem  what  special 
form  the  tribute  of  Israel  was  to  take  ;  and  so  it  was 
sent  neither  in  gold,  nor  in  other  objed^s  of  value,  but 
wholly  in  silver. 

To  estimate,  however,  the  full  weight  of  these  con- 
firmations, we  have  to  remember  that  the  Bible  was 
the  only  Book  in  existence  which  recorded  the  deeds 
of  Tiglath-pileser,  or  that  even  handed  down  his  name. 
"The  impression,"  says  Schrader,  ''that  we  gain 
from  these  inscriptions  respecting  Tiglath-pileser 
corresponds  throughout  to  what  we  know  about  him 
from  the  Bible.  Nowhere  else,  as  is  well  known,  is 
the  king  mentioned.  He  appears  to  us  throughout  in 
these  records  as  a  powerful  warrior-prince,  who  has 
subjugated  beneath  his  sceptre  the  Western  Asiatic 
territory,  from  the  Median  frontier  mountains  in  the 
East  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea  in  the  West,  including 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      45 

a  part  of  Cappadocia."  *  The  long-continued  vigour 
of  his  reign,  the  crushing  weight  of  his  blows,  and  the 
thoroughness  of  his  conquests — in  one  word,  the 
same  man  and  the  same  events  live  before  us  on  the 
page  of  Scripture  that  the  archaeologists  now  meet 
with  in  his  broken  records.  Accordance  of  this  kmd 
bears  the  hall-mark  of  history. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Captivity  of  the  Two  and  a-half  Tribes. 


THE  blow  that  was  finally  to  extinguish  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  foreshadowed  in 
the  fate  which  overtook  the  tribes  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  and  a  large  part  of  the  adjacent  Israelitish 
territory.  The  Book  of  Chronicles,  in  dealing  spec- 
ially with  the  two  and  a-half  tribes  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  tells  us  that  these  were  the  first  to  suffer,  as 
they  were  the  first,  apparently,  to  sin.  We  read  that 
"they  transgressed  against  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
and  went  a  whoring  after  the  gods  of  the  people  of 
the  land  whom  God  destroyed  from  before  them.  And 
the  God  of  Israel  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Pul  king  of 
Assyria,  even  the  spirit  of  Tiglath-pileser  king  of 
Assyria,  and  he  carried  them  away,  even  the  Reuben- 
ites,  and  the  Gadites,  and  the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh  " 
(i  Chronicles  v.  25,  26). 

*  Vol.i.,  p.  239. 


46  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

In  their  isolated  position  there  may  have  been 
special  temptations  to  idolatry  ;  but  in  any  case  they 
had  fallen,  and  were  now  to  be  judged.  Let  us  note, 
in  passing,  the  name  by  which  Jehovah  is  here  named 
— ''the  God  of  Israel."  It  was  because  He  was 
Israel's  God,  and  would  not  on  His  part  break  the 
covenant  which  on  their  part  they  had  so  lightly 
broken,  that  His  hand  now  fell  in  heavy  chastisement. 
He  will  not  part  with  Israel,  and,  therefore,  its  heart 
must  be  broken  with  strokes  of  judgment  that  it  may 
seek  and  obtain  mercy.  It  does  not  surprise  us  to  find 
all  that  packed  into  a  phrase  that  merely  indicates 
that  this  is  not  rejecftion  but  corre(ftion — this  does 
not  surprise  us  when  we  remember  that  it  is  God's 
Book.  He  has  in  this  very  fashion  dealt  with  us  in 
nature;  for  there  He  reserves  His  disclosures  for 
those  who  take  pleasure  therein.  But  in  man's  books, 
such  calm  and  confident  dropping  of  a  seed  for  thought 
would  indeed  astonish  us.  A  truth  like  that  in  a  mind 
not  under  the  perfect  control  of  God's  Spirit  would 
have  burned  like  a  fire  in  his  bones.  It  must  needs 
have  been  uttered  ;  and,  if  not  proclaimed  upon  the 
house-tops,  it  would  at  least  have  been  so  largely 
written  here  that  he  who  ran  might  read  it. 

The  passage  in  2  Kings  xv.  29  shows  that  the 
calamity  embraced  also  a  large  distri(5t  to  the  north 
and  to  the  west.  "  In  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of 
Israel  came  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria,  and  took 
IjonandAbel-beth-rnaachah,andJanoah,andKedesh, 
and  Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  all  the  land  of 
Naphtali,  and  carried  them  captive  to  Assyria."  This 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      47 

description,  which  used  to  be  to  us  a  list  of  mere 
names,  has  become  eloquent  in  these  last  days  through 
the  systematic  and  scientific  researches  of  the  Pales- 
tine Exploration  Fund.  The  light  which  has  in  this 
way  been  cast  upon  the  passage  has  been  ably  focussed 
by  the  late  Mr.  Harper.*  He  says  :  ''Ijon  ('ruin') — 
its  position  in  the  hills  of  NaphtaH,  a  store  city — was 
captured  in  the  days  of  Asa  by  Ben-hadad.  The  exact 
site  is  doubtful ;  El  Khiam  has  been  suggested,  north 
of  Banias.  The  name  is  still  preserved  in  a  little  plain 
near  El  Khiam,  called  Merj  'Ayun  ('the  meadow  of 
springs  ').  Abel-beth-Maacah,  a  city  in  the  extreme 
north,  was  an  important  city,  for  it  is  said  to  have  had 
'many  daughters,'  that  is,  inhabitants  (2  Sam.  xx.19), 
now  called  Abl,  a  village  six  and  a-half  miles  west  of 
Banias  ;  also  called  'Abel  on  the  waters.'  There  is  a 
good  stream  of  water  here,  and  some  ruins  on  the  top 
of  a  conical  hill.  The  Derdarah  from  Ijon  falls  from 
the  western  slope  of  the  mound,  and  from  the  mountain 
near  gushes  the  powerful  stream  of  the  Ruahing. 
Janoah,  now  Yanuh,  in  the  mountains  of  Naphtali. 
Then  Kedesh  of  Naphtali,  a  city  of  refuge ;  now  the 
village  of  Kades,  west  of  Lake  Huleh.  The  site  is  on 
a  high  ridge,  jutting  out  from  the  western  hills,  well 
watered,  surrounded  by  plains.  There  are  ruins  of  a 
temple  of  the  sun.  The  hill  on  which  the  buildings 
stand  has  an  artificial  appearance.  It  probably  was 
partly  levelled  and  filled  out  in  places  to  make  it 
regular.  In  the  days  of  Josephus  it  was  populous, 
hostile  to  the  Jews,  and  fortified.     The  place  is  rich 

*  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries,  pp.  455,  456. 


48  The  New  Biblical  Gtiide. 

in  antiquities  of  all  kinds  ;  the  tombs  and  sarcophagi 
are  especially  fine.  Hazor  ('enclosed '),  now  Jebel 
Hadireh  (*  the  mountain  of  the  fold'),  fortified  by 
Solomon.  A  hill  close  by,  now  called  Tell  Hara,  is 
found  to  be  covered  with  ruins.  Here  are  remains  of 
an  ancient  fortress ;  a  city  with  its  walls  and  towers 
is  still  to  be  traced  on  the  eastern  slope  ;  broken  glass 
and  pottery  abound.  This  is  probably  the  site  of 
Hazor.  Galilee,  a  '  circle  '  or  '  circuit '  around  Kedesh, 
bounded  on  the  west  by  Acre — that  is,  the  plain  of 
Acre  to  the  foot  of  Carmel.  The  Jordan,  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  Lake  Huleh,  and  the  spring  at  Dan,  were  the 
eastern  border,  while  the  northern  reached  from  Dan 
westwards  to  Phoenicia.  The  southern  border  ran 
from  the  base  of  Carmel  to  Mount  Gilboa,  then  to 
Bethshean,  to  Jordan.  It  was  divided  into  Upper  and 
Lower  Galilee. 

"Naphtali:  Joshua  calls  it  'the  hill  country  of 
Naphtali.'  It  is  chiefly  mountainous.  'The  soil  is 
rich,  full  of  trees'  (Josephus).  Even  now  its  forests 
and  ever-varying  scenery  are  amongst  the  finest  in 
Palestine.  At  this  moment  the  Arabs  call  it  '  the  land 
of  good  tidings.'  It  and  northern  Israel  was  that  part 
called  'Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,'  from  the  number  of 
heathen  inhabitants." 

Here  we  learn,  therefore,  that  besides  Gilead — the 
territory  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan — the  whole  land 
of  Naphtali  and  Galilee  was  subdued,  and  their  in- 
habitants carried  away  captive.  Also  in  immediate 
conne6tion  with  this  we  read,  in  the  following  verse  : 
"And  Hoshea  the  son  of  Elah  made  a  conspiracy 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      49 

against  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah,  and  smote  him, 
and  slew  him,  and  reigned  in  his  stead,  in  the  twen- 
tieth year  of  Jotham  the  son  of  Uzziah."  As  Pekah 
was  then  the  foe  of  Assyria,  those  opposed  to  the 
IsraeHtish  monarch  would  naturally  reckon  on  the 
assistance  of  Assyria  in  the  execution  of  their  hostile 
designs,  and  Tiglath-pileser  would  as  naturally  regard 
their  successes,  and  indeed  their  ad^s,  as  his  own. 
This  will  explain  the  reference  to  his  slaying  Pekah, 
which  occurs  in  the  following  inscription.  This 
monument  is,  unfortunately,  in  a  very  mutilated  con- 
dition. The  Assyrian  king,  says  Schrader,  had  for 
some  years  been  "exclusively  occupied  in  the  East, 
and,  according  to  the  list  of  Governors  (the  Eponym 
Canon),  involved  in  struggles  with  Armenia  and 
certain  Eastern  countries.  .  .  .  Not  till  the  year  734 
do  we  find  him  again  engaged  in  the  West."*  In 
this  year,  apparently,  occurred  the  memorable  expe- 
dition which  sealed  the  fate  of  so  large  a  portion  of 
the  IsraeHtish  people.  A  piece  of  the  inscription  is 
broken  away  in  the  middle,  ''yet,"  writes  Schrader, 
"  we  can  clearly  make  out  what  the  inscription  on 
this  plate  was  about.  It  commences  with  the  enu- 
meration of  a  number  of  towns  reduced  by  Tiglath- 
pileser."  Among  the  first  of  these  are  two  towns  on 
the  west  of  the  Lebanon  range.  The  next  passage 
is  much  broken,  but  contained  the  names  of  other 
cities,  accompanied  by  the  words,  "  My  officers  I 
placed  over  them."  That  is,  the  native  rulers  were 
displaced  and  their  territory  adtually  included  within 

*  Vol.  i.,  p.  245,  246. 


50  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the  domain  of  Assyria.     Immediately  after  this  comes 

a  passage  which  I  give  with  Schrader's  suggestions 

for  fiUing  up  the  blanks.     These  suggested  readings 

are  in   square  brackets.     " .    .    .    .  the   town    Ga-al 

[ad=Gilead?]    .   .   .    [A]  bel   [Beth-Maacha  ?]  which 

was   above    (on    this    side  ?)    the    land    Beth-Omri 

(Samaria)  the  distant  ....  the  broad,  I  turned  in 

its  entire  extent  into  the  territory  of  Assyria,  I  set  my 

officers,  the  viceroys  over  it.     Hanno  of  Gaza,  who 

took   to    flight   before    my   troops,  fled   to  the  land 

Egypt.     Gaza  ....  [I  captured] ,  his  possessions, 

his  gods  ....  [I  carried  away] ,  my  ....  and  my 

royal  statue  [I  erected]  .   .  in  the  midst  of  Beth  .  . 

the  gods  of  their  land  I  counted  [as  plunder]  .... 

like  birds  ....  transferred  him  to  his  land  and  (?) 

....  gold,  silver,  garments  of  Berom  (?),  wool  (?)• 

....  the  great  I  received  as  tribute.     The  land  of 

Beth-Omri  (Samaria)  the  distant  .   .   .  . ,  the  whole 

of    its   inhabitants    together  with    their    property   I 

deported    to    Assyria.      Pekah,   their    king,    I    slew. 

Hoshea  I  appointed  [to  rule]  over  them.     Ten  talents 

of  gold,  a  thousand  of  silver  (?)  together  with  their 

....   I  received  from  them;  [to  Assyria  brought] 

I  them,  (I)  who  Samsi  queen  of  Aribu,"  &c. 

I  have  said  that  this  statement  that  Tiglath- 
pileser  slew  Pekah  need  not  be  pressed,  and  that 
what  was  done  by  those  who  were  co-operating  with 
him  in  his  antagonism  to  the  Israelitish  king  was 
regarded  by  him  as  his  own  deed.  This  might 
possibly  be  regarded,  however,  as  a  lame  defence  of 
the  Scripture.     The  Bible  contains  no  hint  that  the 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      51 

Assyrian  king  had  anything  to  do  with  Pekah's  death. 
It  says  only  that  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. 
The  two  narratives  might,  consequently,  be  said  to 
give  us  two  quite  different  accounts  of  this  usurper's 
end  ;  and  the  difference  might,  as  is  customary,  have 
been  used  to  point  the  moral  that  the  full  inspiration 
of  the  Scripture  is  a  dream,  and  that  Bible  history 
is  not  to  be  accepted  as  accurate  in  minute  details. 
Fortunately,  however,  Tiglath-pileser  himself  has  set 
our  free-thinking  friends  right  in  this  matter.  In 
another  account  of  the  same  expedition  he  says  : 
"They  overthrew  Pakahah  (Pekah)  their  king,  and 
placed  Ausi'a  (Hosea)  [upon  the  throne]  over  them. 
Ten  talents  of  gold  .  .  .  talents  of  silver  .  .  .  their 
tribute  I  received,"  &c.*  Here  there  is  absolute 
agreement  with  the  Scripture.  Pekah's  death  was 
not  an  assassination  ;  that  is,  it  was  not  the  acl:  of 
one  man  tempted  by  the  prospe(5t  of  a  throne.  It 
was  the  result  of  an  organised  conspiracy.  Hoshea 
was  evidently  the  leading  spirit,  but  he  was  not  alone ; 
and  here  the  Assyrian  record  says  the  same  thing — 
*'  They  overthrew  Pekah  their  king,  and  placed  Hoshea 
over  them." 

The  mention  of  Samsi  queen  of  Arabia  shows  that 
Zabibe,  named  in  a  previous  inscription  which  we  have 
had  before  us,  was  now  succeeded  by  another  sovereign, 
and  that  this  sovereign  was  also  a  queen.  This, 
as  has  already  been  noted,  was  probably  the  distridl 

*  Dr.  Pinches.     The  Old  Testament,  &c.,  pp.  354.  355- 


52  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

from  which  the  queen  of  Shebacame— a  land  whose 
custom  it  was  to  be  governed,  occasionally,  if  not 
always,  by  a  female  sovereign.  But  it  also  shows 
the  energy  and  determination  which  charadlerised 
this  campaign.  Tiglath-pileser  had  swept  not  only 
over  North  Syria  and  the  sea-coast,  but  had  pursued 
his  victorious  march  even  to  Arabia.  And,  though 
the  condition  of  the  inscriptions  gives  us  only  sug- 
gestions, and  not  descriptions,  of  what  was  done, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  annals  of  Tiglath- 
pileser  confirm  the  account  of  Scripture.  For,  even 
though  we  should  hesitate  to  apply  the  words,  "The 
land  of  Beth-Omri  the  distant  .  .  .  the  whole  of  its 
inhabitants,  together  with  their  property  I  deported 
to  Assyria,"  to  Gilead  and  Naphtali,  there  is  no  room 
whatever  for  doubt  that  the  campaign  was  one  of  the 
very  kind  described  in  the  Scripture,  and  that  the 
land  of  Israel — Beth-Omri  it  was  named  in  Assyria 
— escaped  in  part.  For,  instead  of  appointing  his  own 
officers  over  what  remained  of  the  dominion,  Tiglath- 
pileser  himself  tells  us  that  he  set  Hoshea  upon  the 
throne,  and  in  the  second  inscription  that  "they" — 
the  conspirators — "  placed  Ausi'a  over  them."  That 
means,  that  a  large  part  of  the  Israelitish  people  yet 
remained  in  possession  of  their  territory. 

The  fate  of  the  two  and  a-half  tribes  as  well  of 
Naphtali  and  of  the  surrounding  districts  was  in 
complete  accord  with  the  new  policy  of  Assyria.  A 
marked  featureof  the  campaignsof  Tiglath-pileserlll. 
is  this  very  carrying  away  captive  to  Assyria  of  the 
original  populations  of  a  conquered  country,  the  plant- 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      53 

ing  in  their  stead  populations  which  were  Hkewise 
carried  from  a  far  distance,  placing  Assyrian  officials 
over  them,  and  annexing  the  lands  in  this  way  to 
Assyria.  We  have  an  illustration  of  the  effectiveness  of  ^ 
that  policy  in  the  case  of  Samaria — the  rest  of  the 
Israelitish  territory  which  was  afterwards  dealt  with 
in  that  fashion.  Samaria  gave  no  trouble  to  its  new 
masters.  From  broken  men,  with  no  common  ties 
and  with  no  fatherland  to  defend,  no  resistance  was 
to  be  feared.  The  policy  put  an  end  effectually  to 
the  plottings  and  the  alliances  which  had  formerly 
sprung  up  in  the  conquered  districts  as  soon  as  the 
Assyrian  armies  had  withdrawn.  And  this  policy 
may  be  said  to  have  been  Tiglath-pileser's  own  in- 
vention. "The  kings  who  had  preceded  him,"  says 
Maspero,  "  had  the  same  idea  of  conquest  as  the 
Pharaohs  of  the  eighteenth  dynasty:  the  conquered 
countries  were  leisurely  pillaged,  submitted  to  tribute, 
and  their  kings  subjected  to  homage,  but  they  were 
not  incorporated  with  the  territory  of  Assyria. 
Tiglath-pileser  proceeded  by  way  of  annexation  and 
of  colonisation.  In  the  countries  which  he  thought 
it  useful  to  guard,  he  dethroned  the  family  which  had 
reigned  over  them,  he  established  there  troops  of 
prisoners  brought  from  distant  countries,  and  con- 
fided the  government  to  Assyrian  officers  who  were 
directly  responsible  to  himself."* 

And  this  policy  was  ruthlessly  carried  out.  We 
meet  the  evidences  of  this  fact  constantly  in  his 
inscriptions.     He   tells   us  that  he   began   his  reign 

*  Histoiie  Ancienne,  pp.  396,  397. 


54  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

with  this  policy.  On  a  slab,  headed:  ''From  the 
commencement  of  my  rule,"  he  details  his  cam.paigns 
in  Babylonia,  among  the  Aramaeans,  among  "those 
on  the  banks  of  the  Tigris,"  among  ''the  Surapi  as 
far  as  the  river  Ukni,  which  is  on  the  strand  of  the 
lower  sea;  "  and  he  tells  us  that  he  not  only  took 
possession  and  built  towns,  but  that  he  also  trans- 
planted the  inhabitants.  "The  inhabitants,"  he 
says,  "  of  the  countries,  the  plunder  of  my  hand,  I 
settled  there,  my  viceroy  I  placed  over  them."  The 
inscription  proceeds :  "  The  land  Bet-Silan  in  its 
compass  like  ...  I  crushed ;  the  town  Saraban, 
its  great  capital,  I  desolated  like  an  overwhelming 
flood  ;  their  booty  I  carried  away.  Nabu-usabsi  their 
king,  I  caused  to  be  impaled  before  the  gateway  of 
his  city ;  his  prisoners,  his  wife,  his  sons,  his  daughters, 
his  property,  the  treasures  of  his  palace  I  carried 
away  as  plunder.  The  land  Bet-Amukkan  I  trod 
down  as  in  threshing ;  the  whole  of  its  inhabitants, 
its  property,  I  carried  off  to  Assyria.  I  who  smote 
Pukad,  Ruhua,  Lithau,  carried  them  away  from  their 
abodes,  subjugated  the  Aramaeans,  as  many  as  there 
were  of  them,  to  my  yoke  and  took  the  kingdom  of 
their  kings."  * 

He  has  also  recorded  that  he  transported  on  one 
occasion  over  150,000.  He  says:  "I  took  155,000 
people  and  children  from  them.  Their  horses  and 
cattle  without  number  I  carried  off.  Those  countries 
to  the  boundaries  of  Assyria  I  added  ....  like  clay 
I    trampled   and   the   assembly   of  their  people   to 

*  Schrader,  vol.  i.,  pp.  224,  225. 


The  Captivity  of  the  two  and  a-half  Tribes.      55 

Assyria  I  sent."  The  inscription  which  presented  a 
continuous  history  of  his  reign,  contains  several  of 
these  notices.  I  note  them  here  as  they  occur.  ''The 
Puqudu  (Pekod)  Hke  corn  I  swept  away,  their  fighting 
men  I  slew,  their  abundant  spoil  I  carried  off.  The 
Puqudu  in  the  cities  of  Lahiru  of  Idibirina,  Hilimmu, 
and  Pilutu,  which  border  on  Elam,  to  the  boundaries 
of  Assyria  I  added,  and  in  the  hands  of  my  general, 
the  prefect  of  Arapha,  I  placed  them.  The  Kaldudu 
all  there  were  I  removed,  and  in  the  midst  of  Assyria 
I  placed  them."  The  same  system  was  pursued  even 
in  Chaldea.  He  says  that  in  addition  to  impaUng 
Nabu-usabsi,  as  he  has  already  told  us,  he  captured 
*'  5,500  of  their  people  and  children."  Then  we  read : 
"The  cities  of  Tarbazu  and  Yapallu  I  captured. 
Thirty  thousand  of  their  people  and  children,  their 
furniture,  their  goods,  and  their  gods  I  carried  off." 
Again:  "The  people  of  Bit-sahalli  feared  and  the 
tower  ....  them  for  their  stronghold  they  took. 
That  city  by  siege  and  famine  I  took  and  threw  to 
the  ground,  5,400  of  their  people  and  children,  their 
spoil,  their  furniture,  their  goods,  his  wife,  his  sons 
and  his  daughters,  I  carried  off." 

A  number  of  districts  in  "rugged  Media"  were 
attacked.  "The  whole  of  them,"  he  says,  "in 
hostility  I  overwhelmed.  Their  numerous  fighting 
men  I  slew.  Sixty  thousand  five  hundred  of  their 
people  and  children,  horses,  asses,  mules,  oxen,  and 
sheep,  without  number  I  carried  off."  *  In  short, 
Tiglath-pileser  III.  had  reduced  this  new  system  of 

*  George  Smith,  Assyrian  Discoveries,  pp.  254-260. 


56  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

conquest  to  a  science.  It  solved  the  problem  of  how 
to  preserve  lands  in  cultivation  and  people  to  inhabit 
them  who  should  enrich  the  empire  with  their  in- 
dustries, and  nevertheless  to  break  the  spirit  of  revolt, 
and,  in  a  word,  to  make  peace  without  making  a  desert. 
This  problem  had  up  to  that  time  confronted  and 
baffled  every  conquering  power.  Tiglath-pileser  came 
now  with  his  solution,  and  the  bright  and  faithful 
mirror  of  the  Bible  shows  us  just  here  the  advent  of 
this  policy.  "In  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of  Israel 
came  Tiglath-pileser  king  of  Assyria,  and  took  Ijon, 
and  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh, 
and  Razor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  all  the  land 
of  Naphtali,  and  carried  them  captive  to  Assyria" 
(2  Kings  XV.  29).  It  hardly  needed  the  special  con- 
firmation, the  actual  mention  of  this  event  in  the 
Tiglath-pileser's  annals.  We  hear  in  the  words  of 
Scripture  the  tramp  of  his  splendidly-led  armies,  and 
before  our  eyes  are  set  the  special  policy  and  the 
personality  of  the  man  of  the  time. 


CHAPTER  Vn. 
The  Fall  of  Damascus. 


T 


HE  Syrian  capital  has  had  many  masters  and 
many  experiences.  Again  and  again  has  it  been 
overwhelmed  with  disaster,  but  no  disaster  has  as  yet 
been  able  to  bring  its  long  story  to  the  end  that  has 


The  Fall  of  Damascus.  57 

overtaken  that  of  Nineveh,  of  Babylon,  and  of  almost 
every  other  of  its  ancient  peers.  Its  perennial  streams, 
its  abundant  vegetation,  and  its  importance  as  a 
halting-place  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean have  caused  it  to  spring  up  again  and  again 
like  the  grass  of  a  well-watered  meadow  over  which 
the  sharp  scythe  has  swept. 

We  have  seen  how  severely  it  had  been  chastised 
by  Adad-nirari  king  of  Assyria,  and  how  its  inde- 
pendence had  apparently  been  extinguished  by 
Jehoahaz  king  of  Israel.  But  in  sixty  years  after 
that  overthrow  we  find  that  it  had  gathered  strength, 
had  regained  its  independence,  and  was  again  making 
its  existence  felt  in  raids  upon  the  neighbouring  states. 
In  the  closing  words  of  the  notice  of  the  reign  of 
Jotham,  king  of  Judah,  we  read  :  "In  those  days  the 
Lord  began  to  send  against  Judah  Rezin  the  king  of 
Syria,  and  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah"  (2  Kings  xv.37). 

The  traditional  foe  and  victim  of  Syria  had  been 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes ;  but  the  weakness  of 
each  had  probably  suggested  an  end  to  hostilities,  and 
the  formation  of  an '  alliance  for  mutual  protection 
and  support  in  distant  enterprises.  The  news  of  this 
alliance  struck  Judah  with  consternation.  The  Book 
of  Isaiah  has  enabled  us  to  see  the  effect  of  the 
tidings  upon  king  and  people.  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
in  the  days  of  Ahaz  the  son  of  Jotham,  the  son  of 
Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  that  Rezin  the  king  of  Syria, 
and  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah  .  .  .  went  up  toward 
Jerusalem  to  war  against  it,  but  could  not  prevail 
against    it.     And    it    was  told  the   house  of  David, 


58  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

saying,  Syria  is  confederate  with  Ephraim.  And  his 
heart  was  moved,  and  the  heart  of  his  people,  as  the 
trees  of  the  wood  are  moved  with  the  wind  "  (Isaiah 
vii.  I,  2). 

Isaiah  was  sent  specially  to  Ahaz  with  an  offer  of 
Divine  protection.  The  erring  king  was  even  asked 
to  say  what  sign  he  desired  to  assure  him  that  the 
promised  help  would  not  fail.  But  Ahaz  would  none 
of  it,  and  the  prophet's  offer  was  politely  dismissed. 
The  king  thought  he  knew  of  one  whose  help  was 
quite  as  effective  and  as  certain  as  any  help  from 
that  God  could  be  whose  worship  he  was  even  then 
planning  to  extinguish  in  Judea.  He  would  send  to 
the  king  of  Assyria.  God,  who  was  speaking  to  him 
through  His  servant,  immediately  met  the  unspoken 
thought,  and  thereby  gave  the  king  a  sign  which  might 
well  have  brought  him  to  his  Maker's  feet.  "The  Lord," 
said  the  prophet,  "shall  bring  upon  thee  and  upon 
thy  people,  and  upon  thy  father's  house,  days  that 
have  not  come,  from  the  day  that  Ephraim  departed 
from  Judah — even  the  king  of  Assyria."  The  power 
on  the  Tigris  was  the  long-appointed  scourge,  and 
not  the  deliverer,  of  Judah.  But  signs  and  entreaties 
availed  nothing.  The  king's  mind  was  made  up.  "  So 
Ahaz  sent  messengers  to  Tiglath-pileser  king  of 
Assyria,  saying,  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, 
who  rise  up  against  me.  And  Ahaz  took  the 
silver  and  the  gold  that  was  found  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house, 


The  Fall  of  Damascus.  59 

and  sent  it  for  a  present  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  And 
the  king  of  Assyria  hearkened  unto  him :  for  the  king 
of  Assyria  went  up  against  Damascus,  and  took  it, 
and  carried  the  people  of  it  captive  to  Kir,  and  slew 
Rezin  "  (2  Kings  xvi.  7-9). 

In  this  way  Ahab's  policy  seemed  to  be  fully  justi- 
fied. First  Pekah  fell,  and  then  Rezin  and  the  empire 
of  Damascus  with  him.  But  policy  has  to  be  judged 
not  by  its  apparent  first-fruits,  but  by  its  harvest. 
Folly's  captives  are  led  first  into  the  banqueting 
house,  and  they  drink  from  a  cup  that  sparkles  with 
delights;  but  "her  guests  are  in  the  depths  of  hell." 
We  have  now  to  do,  however,  with  the  question 
which  many  an  Ahaz  of  to-day  forces  upon  us.  Is 
this  narrative  history  ?  Two  centuries  elapsed  be- 
tween these  things  and  the  penning  of  this  Book  of 
Kings.  To  us  it  matters  nothing  whether  there  were 
two  or  sixty  centuries  between  the  events  and  this 
record  of  them.  If  we  have  here  "  God's  Word 
written,"  then  the  events  of  the  most  distant  past 
can  be  as  minutely  recorded  as  the  events  of  the 
present  hour.  There  is  no  forgetting  with  God,  save 
the  forgetting  of  mercy.  The  sins  He  forgives  are 
cast  behind  His  back  and  remembered  no  more  for 
ever ;  but  from  His  eye  no  dimness  veils  either  past 
or  future.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  we,  who  believe 
in  the  miracle  of  Inspiration,  expect  to  find  here  the 
clearness  and  the  clean-cut  impression  of  a  fully- 
informed  and  absolutely  true  account.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  critical  theory  is  that  we  have  in  this  Book, 
as  elsewhere  in  the  Scripture  history,  mere  tradition 


6o  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

manipulated  by  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  fingers,  and 
last  of  all  "  insensibly  modified  and  sometimes 
(especially  in  the  later  books)  coloured  by  the  associa- 
tions of  the  age  in  which  the  writer  recording  it 
lived."  *  This  general  accusation,  which  tells  specially 
against  the  later  Books,  is  bad  enough.  What  amount 
of  weight  can  any  thinking  man  place  upon  records 
of  that  kind  ?  But  in  2  Kings  the  matter  is  worse 
than  usual ;  for  we  are  told  by  the  same  "  high 
authority"  that  it  contains  'Mong  continuous  narra- 
tives" which  are  *'now  and  then  expanded  by  the 
compiler."  t 

These  are  the  two  accounts  of  this  Book  which 
we  once  more  bring  into  the  light  of  marvellously 
recovered  fadls.  Which  belief  is  justified  ?  Here  is 
the  verdi(5l  of  a  higher  critic,  but  who,  because  he  is 
also  an  Assyriologist,  has  had  to  pile  up  the  fad^s  which 
need  only  to  be  hurled  against  the  higher  criticism  to 
sink  it.  He  says:  "According  to  the  Bible  (2  Kings 
xvi.  g)  this  despatch  of  tribute  by  Ahaz  was  followed 
by  the  expedition  of  the  Assyrian  against  Damaskus. 
With  this  harmonises  the  list  of  governors" — the 
Eponym  Canon — "which  places  the  siege  of  Damas- 
kus in  the  years  733  and  732.  The  campaign  ended, 
after  what  was  evidently  a  lengthy  siege,  with  the 
capture  of  the  capital  of  the  Syrian  kingdom,  the 
deportation  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  execution  of 
Rezin.  The  cuneiform  records  and  the  Bible  here 
supplement  each  other  in  a  manner  that  leaves  nothing 
to  be  desired.   We  are  informed  in  the  Bible  about  the 

*  Dr.  Driver.     Introduction,  p.  xviii.     I  Ibid,  p.  183. 


The  Fall  of  Damascus,  6i 

conquest  of  the  city,the  deportation  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  the  execution  of  the  king,  but  about  the  length 
of  the  siege  we  are  left  in  uncertainty.  We  obtain 
intelligence  on  the  last  point  from  the  inscriptions, 
which  also  give  details  as  to  the  number  of  those  who 
were  deported,  and  the  way  in  which  the  Great  King 
treated  the  conquered  country,  and  likewise  inform  us 
of  the  death  of  the  king  of  Damaskus  in  an  inscription 
now  unfortunately  lost."  - 

Of  the  main  inscription  of  which  Dr.  Schrader 
speaks.  Dr.  Pinches  gives  the  following  translation. 
-Tiglath-pileser,"  he  writes,  "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  his  treatment  of  his  sup- 
porters  

*'....  (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"— in  other  words,  they  were  impaled—''  forty- 
five  camps  of  soldiers  I  colleaed  (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)  Hadara,the  house  (—dwelling- 
place)  of  the  father  of  Rasunnu  (Rezon)  of  the  land 
of  the  Sa-imerisuites,  (the  place  where)  he  was  born, 
I  besieged,  I  captured  :  800  peoplejvvith  their  posses- 


*  Schrader,  vol.  i.,  p.  250. 


62  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

sions  .  .  .  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  sixteen  distric^ts  of 
the  land  of  Sa-imerisu  (Damascus)  I  destroyed  Hke 
flood-mounds."  Dr.  Pinches  adds  in  a  foot-note  an 
explanation  of  this  last  figure.  That  is,  he  says,  "like 
the  ruins  of  cities  which  had  been  swept  away  by  a 
flood.  In  both  Assyria  and  Babylonia  floods  were 
common  things,  and  the  devastation  they  caused 
naturally  gave  rise  to  the  simile."  * 

This  proves,  what  we  have  already  had  occasion  to 
notice,  that  ''Damascus"  in  2  Kings  means  not  only 
the  city,  but  also  the  territory  of  which  it  was  the 
capital.  Tiglath-pileser  tells  us  that  the  policy  of 
transportingthe  inhabitants  was  systematically  carried 
out  over  the  entire  country.  One  is  naturally  reminded 
of  the  striking  sentence  into  which  Schrader  com- 
presses his  verdidl — '*  The  cuneiform  records  and  the 
Bible  here  supplement  each  other  in  a  manner  that  leaves 
nothing  to  be  desired.''  That  is,  both  stand  on  the  very 
highest  level  of  history.  Tiglath-pileser's  inscriptions 
are  the  testimony,  not  only  of  a  contemporary,  but 
also  of  a  first  mover — indeed,  the  prime  agent — in  these 
transa(5lions.  And  in  a  perfecl:ly  independent  way 
the  Bible  gives  us  a  narrative  displaying  as  full  a 
knowledge,  and  as  absolute  accuracy,  as  that  of  the 
Assyrian  king.  Need  I  say,  then,  that  this  is  not 
tradition,  that  it  bears  no  mark  of  manipulating 
fingers,  and  that  it  has  not  been  coloured  or  enlarged 

*  The  Old  Testament,  p.  354. 


The  Fall  of  Damascus,  63 

by  the  last  narrator  who  placed  it  on  record  ?  A  full 
inspiration,  which  placed  the  writer  at  God's  view- 
point, and  that  illumined  his  understanding  with  the 
light  of  perfect  knowledge,  can  explain  these  phen- 
omena, which,  to  an  open  and  candid  mind,  no  theory 
of  tradition  ever  can  explain. 

We  find,  however,  in  the  inscription  just  quoted  no 
reference  to  Rezin's  execution.  The  animus  against 
him,  entertained  by  the  Assyrian  king,  is  apparent 
enough.  When  he  made  a  special  example  of  the  city 
which  was  the  scene  of  Rezin's  birth,  it  is  scarcely 
likely  that  he  would  have  spared  Rezin  himself.  We 
are  told,  too,  that  he  shut  him  up  in  Damascus  "like 
a  bird  in  a  cage,"  and  we  know  that  he  took  that  city. 
But  all  doubt  on  this  point  has  been  cleared  away  by 
Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  report  of  a  tablet  which  was 
found  at  Nimroud,  but  which  was  unfortunately  left 
behind  in  Asia  and  never  afterwards  recovered.  Sir 
Henry  had,  however,  read  the  inscription,  and  found 
it  to  be  another  account  of  this  triumph,  and  one  in 
which  the  slaying  of  Rezin  was  distind^ly  mentioned.* 

Immediately  after  his  deliverance  from  his  foes,  Ahaz 
went  to  meet  the  Assyrian  king  at  Damascus.  **And 
king  Ahaz  went  to  Damascus  to  meet  Tiglath-pileser 
king  of  Assyria  "  (2  Kings  xvi.io).  In  Tiglath-pileser's 
"great  triumphal  inscription"  there  is  a  long  list  of 
those  who  paid  tribute  to  him.  In  this,  mention  is 
made  of  the  following  names:  "Sanib  of  Ammon, 
Salman  of  Moab,  Mitinti  of  Ashkelon,  Joahaz  of 
Judah,  Kosmalak  of  Edom,"  etc.     It  is  probable  that 

*  Schrader,  vol.,  i.  p.  257. 


64  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

there  was  an  imposing  gathering  at  Damascus  of  all 
the  neighbouring  princes  to  acknowledge  the  over- 
lordship  of  the  Assyrian  king.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
Ahaz  is  called  Jeho-ahaz  in  the  inscription.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  the  king's  name,  and  the 
omission  of  the  first  part  of  it  in  every  reference  to 
him  in  the  Scripture,  whether  in  prophecy  or  in  history, 
is  eloquent  of  Bible  methods.  There  is  purpose  in 
its  very  omissions.  It  teaches  by  its  silences.  How 
deeply  this  man  sinned  is  shown  by  the  parallel  ac- 
count in  2  Chronicles;  and  so  Jehovah  withdraws  His 
name,  and  Jeho-ahaz  becomes  Ahaz.  It  was  the  symbol 
of  God's  withdrawal  from  the  man. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Assyrian  records  of 
this  time  contain  an  indiredl,  but  remarkable  con- 
firmation of  the  Scripture  statements  regarding  the 
carrying  off  to  Assyria  of  the  inhabitants  of  Damascus, 
and  of  Galilee,  andof  Gilead.  Just  at  this  time,  a  change 
is  introduced  into  the  commercial  life  of  Assyria.  The 
Phoenician  writing  (the  Hebrew  and  Syrian  alphabet) 
and  the  Aramaean  language  now  begin  to  be  met  with. 
Assyrian  weights  and  Assyrian  commercial  contracts 
often  bear  Phoenician  or  Aramaean  (Syrian)  inscrip- 
tions. This  shows  that  there  was  now  a  large  element 
in  Assyrian  trade  and  Society  for  which  the  Aramaean 
speech  and  the  Phoenician  writing  were  necessary.  In 
other  words,  there  had  been  just  such  accessions  to  the 
population  of  Assyria  as  the  Scripture  has  described. 


So,  King  of  Egypt.  65 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

So,   King    of    Egypt. 


IN  the  account  of  the  closing  years  of  the  Israel- 
itish  kingdom,  we  meet  a  reference  to  Egypt 
which  throws  Hght  upon  many  of  the  expostulations 
of  the  prophets.  In  2  Kings  xvii.  4,  we  read  :  ''And 
the  king  of  Assyria  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea :  for 
he  had  sent  messengers  to  So  king  of  Egypt,  and 
brought  no  present  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  as  he  had 
done  year  by  year."  To  obtain  relief  from  the  tyranny 
and  the  extortions  of  the  great  Eastern  power, 
Hoshea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,  turned  in  his  poverty 
and  helplessness  to  Egypt.  The  prophet  Hosea,  a 
contemporary  of  the  king  who  bore  the  same  name, 
complains  of  this  failure  to  look  unto  God :  "  Ephraim 
also  is  like  a  silly  dove  without  heart :  they  call  to 
Egypt,  they  go  to  Assyria"  (vii.  11).  But  all  that 
Egypt  had  to  offer  them  was  a  grave.  Their  friend- 
ship with  Egypt  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  hostility  of 
Assyria  on  the  other,  would  alike  fulfil  God's  decree 
and  root  them  out  of  the  land.  Egypt  offers  them  an 
asylum,  and  Assyria  furnished  a  prison.  "  They  shall 
not  dwell,"  says  the  prophet,  ''  in  the  Lord's  land;  but 
Ephraim  shall  return  to  Egypt,  and  they  shall  eat 
unclean  things  in  Assyria.  .  .  For,  lo,  they  are  gone 
because  of  destruction  :  Egypt  shall  gather  them  up, 
Memphis  shall  bury  them  "  (ix.  3,  6). 


66  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Just  at  this  very  time  also  we  find  Isaiah's  message 
to  Judah  filled  with  denunciation  of  a  like  turning 
to  Egypt  on  the  part   of  the  leaders  of  the  Jewish 
people.     "  Woe  to  the  rebellious  children,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  take  counsel,  but  not  of   Me ;    and  that 
cover  with  a  covering,  but   not  of   My  Spirit,  that 
they  may  add  sin  to  sin  :  that  walk  to  go  down  into 
Egypt,  and  have  not  asked  at  My  mouth;  to  strengthen 
themselves  in  the  strength  of  Pharaoh,  and  to  trust 
in  the  shadow  of  Egypt !  Therefore  shall  the  strength 
of   Pharaoh    be  your   shame,  and   the  trust   in  the 
shadow  of  Egypt  your  confusion  "  (xxx.  1-3).     Again 
in  xxxi.  I,  we  read  :   "  Woe  to  them  that  go  down  to 
Egypt  for  help ;    and  stay  on   horses,  and  trust  in 
chariots,  because  they  are  many ;  and  in  horsemen, 
because  they  are  very  strong  ;  but  they  look  not  unto 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  neither  seek  the  Lord."     We 
are  told,  too,  that  when  Sennacherib  sent  his  demand 
for  the  surrender  of  Jerusalem,  his  general  said  to 
Hezekiah  :    "  Lo,  thou  trustest  in  the  staff   of   this 
broken  reed,  on   Egypt ;    whereon  if  a  man  lean,  it 
will  go  into  his  hand,  and  pierce  it ;  so  is  this  Pharaoh 
king  of  Egypt  to  all  that  trust  in  him  "  (Isa.  xxxvi.  6), 
It  is  quite  clear,  then,  if  these  references  to  Egypt 
really  belong  to  the  time — in  other  words,  if  these 
Books  are  genuine  and  reliable — that  Egypt  has  in 
some  way  revived.     It  had  pra6tically  passed  out  of 
the  politics  of  Palestine;  it  was  torn  by  internal  dis- 
sensions ;    its  princes  were  depending  upon  foreign 
troops,  whose    services  were    hired,   and    not    upon 
native  Egyptian  soldiery.     The  country  had,  in  facft, 


So,  King  of  Egypt. 


67 


entered  upon  that  long  period  of  decay  that  comes  to 
one  after  another  of  the  great  martial  kingdoms  of 


So,  OR  Saback,  King  of  Ethiopia  and  of  Egypt  (25th  dynasty). 
(From  the  Monuments.) 

the  earth.     Did  anything  happen  in  the  time  of  Isaiah 
the  prophet  and  of  Hoshea  king  of  Israel  to  arrest 


68  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Egypt's  downward  course  for  the  moment,  to  arouse 
her  energies,  and  to  make  her  power  felt  in  the  ad- 
joining countries  ?  The  reply  to  this  question  brings 
before  us  another  of  those  surprising  confirmations 
of  the  thoroughly  historical  character  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  have  so  woefully  perplexed  the 
critics  and  turned  so  many  of  them  into  defenders  of 
this  Bible  which  their  former  friends  still  continue  to 
determinedly  attack.  Egypt  did,  in  fact,  revive  in 
this  very  fashion  about  the  end  of  the  eighth  century 
before  our  era.  It  became  once  more  a  strong  power. 
It  concerned  itself  again  with  foreign  politics.  It 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  harassed  nations  of 
the  East,  and  made  its  alliances  and  laid  its  plans  for 
re-claiming  its  ancient  conquests.  Maspero  has  told 
the  story  in  connedlion  with  these  very  incidents  in 
Jewish  and  Israelitish  history.  •'  For  the  first  time 
for  200  years,"  he  writes,  ''the  empire  of  the  Pharaohs 
was  re-constituted  from  the  sources  of  the  Blue  Nile 
to  the  mouths  of  the  river,  but  no  longer  for  the 
benefit  of  Egypt.  Ethiopia,  so  long  a  vassal,  now 
lorded  it  in  its  turn.  Napata  was  queen  in  the  place 
of  Thebes  and  of  Memphis."* 

The  first  invasion  under  Piankhi  did  not  succeed 
in  retaining  hold  of  Egypt.  The  Ethiopian  armies 
were  withdrawn  from  the  north  and  the  centre  of 
the  kingdom.  But  the  invasion  was  repeated  by  his 
grandson,  Sabacon,  with  more  permanent  results. 
The  contending  princes  of  Egypt  were  either  at- 
tradled  to  his  side  or  were  put  down,  and  Sabacon 

*  Histoire  Ancienne,  pp.  413,  414. 


So,  King  of  Egypt.  69 

became  the  founder  of  the  dynasty  of  Ethiopian 
kings  known  as  the  twenty-fifth.  *'  It  was  no  longer 
attempted,"  says  Maspero,  *'  as  in  the  time  of  Piankhi, 
to  estabhsh  a  kind  of  vassalage  over  Egypt.  Sabacon 
assumed  the  place  of  the  Pharaohs,  and  became  the 
chief  of  a  new  dynasty  composed  entirely  of  Ethiopian 
kings.  He  at  least  attempted  to  re-organise  the  coun- 
try upon  which  he  imposed  his  sway,  and  to  make  the 
offence  of  his  foreign  origin  forgotten  in  the  wisdom 
of  his  administration.  The  princes  were  respe(fted ; 
but  they  were  closely  watched,  and  compelled  to  obey 
like  the  ordinary  governors.  Their  abasement  and 
the  re-uniting  of  the  country  under  the  hand  of  a 
single  man  rendered  those  labours  for  the  entire  land 
easy,  which  the  wars  of  earlier  ages  had  made  it  im- 
possible to  execute.  The  causeways  were  repaired  ; 
the  canals  cleaned  out  and  enlarged;  the  foundations 
of  the  towns  raised  above  the  level  of  the  inundation. 
.  .  .  To  obtain  the  necessar}-  hands,  Sabacon  sub- 
stituted for  the  death  penalty  labour  upon  the  public 
works ;  and  this  well-contrived  policy  gave  him  a 
reputation  for  clemency.  The  country,  reduced  at 
last  to  tranquility,  commenced  to  breathe  again,  and 
to  re-establish  itself  with  that  power  of  marvellous 
vitality  of  which  it  had  already  given  so  many 
proofs. 

"A  revival  so  unexpected  was  bound  to  attract  the 
attention  of  foreign  peoples.  Only  a  little  while  ago 
Israel  and  Judah  had  sought  the  support  of  a  kinglet 
confined  to  Tanis,  in  a  corner  of  the  Delta ;  what 
ought  they  not  to  do  to  secure  the   friendship  of  a 


70  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

prince  whose  dominion  extended  from  the  fabulous 
regions  of  Ethiopia  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, and  who  commanded  armies  as  great  as 
those  of  the  king  of  Assyria?  Phoenicians,  Jews, 
and  PhiHstines,  all  the  peoples  whom  the  ambition 
of  Tiglath-pileser  had  disquieted,  felt  that  their  sal- 
vation would  come  from  Egypt  if  it  could  come  from 
any  quarter.  Hoshea  sent  presents  to  Sabacon,  and 
solicited  his  alliance  against  Shalmaneser.  Various 
motives  inclined  the  Ethiopian  to  receive  these 
overtures  with  favour.  He  knew  that  his  Egyptian 
predecessors  had  possessed  Palestine  and  carried 
their  arms  even  to  the  Tigris.  What  had  previously 
been  possible  and  glorious  appeared  to  him  to  be  still 
possible  at  the  present  hour.  And,  although  even 
the  desire  of  adding  another  name  to  the  long  list 
of  the  conquering  Pharaohs  might  not  have  disposed 
him  to  favour  the  Jews,  prudence  counselled  that  he 
should  not  discourage  them.  The  progress  of  the 
Assyrians  towards  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  slow  at  first, 
had  within  the  last  twenty  years  been  accelerated  in 
a  menacing  fashion,  and  had  become  for  Egypt  a 
subject  of  perpetual  fears.  It  was  necessary  either 
to  conquer  the  new  masters  of  Asia  and  to  drive 
them  beyond  the  Euphrates,  or  to  at  least  raise  up 
against  them  a  barrier  of  little  kingdoms  in  the  con- 
flict with  which  the  ardour  of  their  attack  might  be 
(juenched.  Sabacon  affected  to  consider  Hoshea's 
gifts  as  tribute,  and  his  requests  for  help  as  an  act  of 
homage.  The  walls  of  Karnak,  which  had  already 
enrolled    so   many  times   the   names  of  vanquished 


So,  King  of  Egypt.  71 

peoples,  complacently  recorded   what  the  vanity  of 
the  Ethiopian  called  '  the  tributes  of  Syria.'  "  * 

That  record  on  the  walls  of  Karnak,  of  tribute  re- 
ceived from  "the  king  of  Shara,"  that  is,  of  Syria,  is  . 
also  in  striking  harmony  with  the  circumstances  of  the 
time;  and  it  need  not  be  set  down  either  to  Egyptian 
vanity  or  to  Egyptian  ignorance.  Damascus  was 
wiped  out,  and  the  only  considerable  native  potentate 
now  remaining  in  that  region  was  Hoshea  king  of 
Israel.  And,  if  not  in  actual  possession  of  some  of 
the  Syrian  territory  through  the  favour  of  Shalman- 
eser,  he  had  claims  founded  on  ancient  conquests 
which  his  ambassadors  to  Egypt  would  not  forget  to 
set  forth  in  the  enumeration  of  their  master's  titles. 
But  what  about  the  name  of  this  new  potentate  who 
ascends  the  throne  of  the  Pharaohs?  "Sabacon,"  or 
"  Sabaco,"  is  not  ''  So,"  as  this  king  is  called  m  the 
Bible.  Is  the  king,  then,  to  whom  the  Bible  tells  us 
Hoshea  sent  for  help,  the  Sabacon  whom  Maspero 
has  so  vividly  and  so  eloquently  placed  before  us  ? 
And  if  the  monarchs  are  identical,  how  comes  the 
form  of  the  Bible  name  to  be  so  widely  different 
from  the  name  which  the  Greek  historians  and  the 
Egyptian  monuments  have  handed  down  to  us  ? 

The  Jewish  Rabbis  or  Scribes,  who  somewhere 
about  the  sixth  century  of  the  Christian  era  intro- 
duced vowel  points  into  the  Hebrew  text — a  text 
which  they  did  not  alter — did  not  always  know  the 
ancient  pronunciation  of  the  words.  The  word  which 
they   read  "  So  "  can  also  be  read  Seveh,  or  Saveh. 

*  Pages  415-415. 


72  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Now,  this  gives  us  the  pronunciation  of  the  Egyptian 
king's  name  which  was  common  at  the  time.  To  his 
contemporaries  he  was  not  Sabaco,  but  Saveh  or 
Sabi.  The  Assyrian  inscriptions  contain  his  name, 
and  there  it  is  given  as  Sab'i — a  form  identical  with 
that  in  the  Hebrew.  But  what,  then,  of  the  c  or  ^ 
sound  which  appears  in  Sabaco,  and  which  is  also 
found  in  the  name  as  it  is  written  on  the  Egyptian 
monuments  ?  This  has  been  explained  by  M.  Oppert. 
The  old  Ethiopian  tongue,  he  tells  us,  possessed  a 
class  of  gutturals  which  is  found  in  no  other  Semitic 
speech,  and  it  is  one  of  these  which  is  represented 
by  the  k  on  the  Egyptian  monuments.  But  this  did 
not  represent  the  true  sound  of  the  Ethiopian  letter. 
*'  The  Hebrew,"  says  Oppert,  *'  suppresses  entirely  this 
embarrassing  letter  ...  the  Egyptian  gives  as  its 
equivalent  the  ruder  sound  of  k,  Shahak.'' 

Here,  again,  therefore,  this  slight  reference  to 
Saveh,  or  So,  king  of  Egypt,  and  the  prophets'  ex- 
postulations about  trusting  to  Egypt  and  forsaking 
the  mercy-seat  of  God — this  condemnation  of  the 
substitution  of  politics  for  prayer — are  throbbing 
with  the  life  and  the  feeling  of  the  time.  To  say 
merely  that  these  are  confirmed  by  recent  discoveries, 
and  that  these  Books,  tested  at  this  point  so  unex- 
pectedly, are  shown  to  be  utterly  historical,  is  to  fall 
far  short  of  the  truth.  The  Books  are  steeped  in  the 
hfe  of  the  time.  So  true  is  this,  that  we  may  surely 
trust  to  their  allusions  and  phrases,  and  even  to  their 
words,  when  closely  scanned,  to  lead  us  back  into  the 
scenes  and  into  the  very  atmosphere  of  those  ancient 


The  Capture  of  Samaria. 


73 


days.     Merely  historical  accuracy  can  never  explain 
that.   This  is  the  fidehty  and  the  fulness  of  inspiration. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Shalmaneser  IV.,  Sargon,  and  the  Capture 
OF  Samaria. 


AS  the  Scripture  had  predicted,  Hoshea's  applica- 
tion to  Egypt  did  not  save  him.  On  the  contrary, 
it  precipitated  the  doom  of  himself  and  of  his  people. 
The  secret  service  of  Assyria 
seems  to  have  been  well  organ- 
ised and  specially  effective  ; 
for  tidings  of  the  Egyptian 
embassy  appear  to  have 
speedily  reached  the  Assyrian 
court;  and,  before  either 
Egypt  or  Israel  could  make 
preparations  for  war,  the 
matter  was  summarily  dealt 
with.  Hoshea  was  apparently 
summoned  to  a  conference 
either  with  the  king  or  with 
one  of  his  generals.  The  proofs  that  he  had  broken 
faith  with  the  Assyrian  monarch  were  too  plain 
to  be  denied,  and  Hoshea  returned  no  more  to  his 
throne  or  to  his  country.  The  Scripture  has  thus 
recorded  the  story:    "In  the  twelfth  year  of  Ahaz 


\       5!HJALJ:iANlll?c 


74 


The  New  Biblical  Guide. 


kingof  Judah  began  Hoshea  the  son  of  Elah  to  reign 
in  Samaria  over  Israel  nine  years.  And  he  did  that 
which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  not  as  the 
kings  of  Israel  who  were  before  him.  Against  him 
came  up  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria;  and  Hoshea 
became  his  servant,  and  gave  him  presents.     And  the 


BEARERS  OF  TRIBUTE  (from  tlic  MoHiimeuts.) 

king  of  Assyria  found  conspiracy  in  Hoshea :  for  he 
had  sent  messengers  to  So  (Saveh)  king  of  Egypt, 
and  brought  no  present  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  as  he 
had  done  year  by  year  :  therefore  the  king  of  Assyria 
shut  him  up,  and  bound  him  in  prison"  (2  Kings 
xvii.  1-4). 


The  Capture  of  Samaria.  75 

This,  however,  was  only  the  first  step.  The  chief 
plotter  was  removed,  preparations  for  rebelHon  were 
arrested,  and  the  plans  of  the  conspirators  were 
thrown  into  confusion.  The  next  step  was  the  advance 
of  the  Assyrian  forces  in  overwhelming  strength. 
"  Then  the  king  of  Assyria  came  up  throughout  all  the 
land,  and  went  up  to  Samaria,  and  besieged  it  three 
years.  In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea,  the  king  of 
Assyria  took  Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into 
Assyria,  and  placed  them  in  Halah  and  in  Habor  by 
the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes" 
(verses  5,  6). 

The  mention  of  Shalmaneser  in  this  passage  led  to 
a  long  controversy.  Had  it  occurred  in  the  merest 
fragment  of  an  Assyrian  slab  every  archaeologist  would 
have  accepted  it  as  quite  conclusive.  They  would 
have  hailed  it  as  the  discovery  of  a  new  king,  and 
would  have  at  once  placed  Shalmaneser  on  their  lists. 
But,  as  the  name  only  occurred  in  the  Bible,  and  in 
Josephus,  who  was  looked  upon  as  merely  retailing 
Bible  statements,  it  was  set  down  as  another  name 
for  Sargon.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
monuments  of  Shalmaneser,  the  successor  of  Tiglath- 
pileser,  had  been  destroyed  by  the  new  dynasty  which 
succeeded  him.  But  there  is  now  no  possibility  of 
questioning  the  correctness  of  the  Scripture  on  this 
matter.  Shalmaneser's  name  has  been  found  on  a 
bronze  weight.  It  is  in  the  shape  of  a  lion.  The 
inscription  runs  as  follows  : — 

Palace  of  Sal  [ma-nu]  -assaridu,  king  of  Assyria 
Two  maim  of  the  king. 


76  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

There  are  also  several  Assyrian  contracts  dated  in  his 
reign,  one  of  them  dated  ''  in  the  second  year  of 
Shalmaneser  IV."  He  is  also  mentioned  in  the 
Eponym  Canon.  In  the  notice  for  the  year  727  B.C., 
we  find  the  words  :  "  Salmanasar  is  seated  upon  the 
throne."  He  himself  also  takes  his  place  as  Eponym 
(or  Consul)  for  the  year  723  b.  c,  where  we  read  : — 
"  In  the  Eponymy  of  Salmanu-asarid,  king  of  Assyria. . ." 

To  this  we  have  to  add  the  following  from  the 
Babylonian  Chronicle : — 

*'  On  the  25th  day  of  Tebet,  Salmanu-asarid  sat 
on  the  throne  in  Assyria.  He  destroyed  Sabara'in."* 
This  is  all,  with  the  exception  of  the  notice  to  which 
we  shall  refer  immediately,  that  Assyriology  can,  up 
to  the  present  moment,  tell  us  concerning  Shalman- 
eser IV.  It  is  the  Scripture  alone  that  enables  us  to 
place  this  man  among  the  a(5tive  and  enterprising 
monarchs  of  Assyria ;  and,  here  also,  we  may  recall 
the  words  of  Schrader  and  say :  ''  The  cuneiform 
records  and  the  Bible  here  supplement  each  other  in 
a  manner  that  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired."  "  It 
is,  therefore,  from  the  Old  Testament,"  writes  Dr. 
Pinches,  ''  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  fadl  that  the  late  George  Smith  refers  to  at 
least  one  document,  the  whereabouts  of  which  at 
present  is  not  known.     What,"  he  adds,  "  may  have 

*Dr.  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament,  etc.,  p.  358. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria. 


77 


been  the  relationship  of  Shalmaneser  IV.  of  Assyria 
to  Tiglath-pileser  is  not  known.  There  is  every 
probabiHty  that,  Uke  his  great  predecessor,  he  was 
an  adventurer,  who,  taking  advantage  of  his  popu- 
larity with  the  army,  and  the  failing  powers  of  his 
royal  master,  seized  the  throne."*  The  remaining 
notice  mentioned  above  tells  us  of  his  death  and  of 


ASSYRIAN  HEAD  (from  the  Monuments.) 

the  enthronement  of  his  great  successor.     It  runs  as 
follows : — 

*'  In  the  fifth  year  Sulmanu-asarid  died  in  the  month 
Tebet.  Salmanu-asarid  had  ruled  the  kingdom  of 
Akkad  and  Assur  for  five  years.  In  the  month  Tebet, 
the  twelfth  day,  Sargon  sat  on  the  throne  in  Assur, 
and  in  the  month  Nisan,  Marduk-abla-iddina  (Mero- 
dach-baladan)  sat  on  the  throne  in  Babylon." 

*  Page  359. 


78  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

This  mention  of  Sargon  recalls  another  vindication 
of  the  Scripture;  for  nowhere  else  in  literature  has 
his  name  been  preserved.  A  prophecy  of  Isaiah's 
(xx.  i)  is  dated  in  the  following  fashion  :  "  In  the  year 
that  Tartan  came  unto  Ashdod,  when  Sargon  the  king 
of  Assyria  sent  him,  and  fought  against  Ashdod  and 
took  it."  It  was  in  vain  that  the  older  commentators 
sought  for  information  regarding  Tartan  and  Sargon. 
There  was  no  help  for  them  in  any  other  source  than 
these  few  words  of  the  Scripture.  To  simple  faith, 
the  inferences  to  be  drawn  were  very  clear.  Sargon 
was  an  Assyrian  king  for  whom  a  place  had  to  be 
found,  and  Tartan  was  a  general  to  whom  the  com- 
mand of  his  armies  was  for  the  time  deputed.  But, 
in  the  utter  silence  of  profane  history  regarding  this 
new  king,  commentators  and  scholars  declined  to 
follow  the  distincft  indication  of  the  Scripture.  It 
was  taken  for  granted  that  in  a  matter  of  this  kind 
profane  history  must  be  respecfted  even  in  its  silences. 
In  other  words,  what  it  did  not  know  was  not  know- 
ledge. The  Scripture  information  was,  therefore,  a 
difficulty  and  a  burden  that  must  be  got  rid  of  in  some 
way  ;  and  the  way  which  seemed  beset  with  the  fewest 
difficulties  was  to  identify  Sargon  with  one  of  the 
monarchs  already  known  to  history.  Old  Matthew 
Poole  gives  all  that  was  then  known  and  guessed  in  the 
following  comment  on  Isa.xx.  i.  Rewrites:  "Tartan; 
a  great  commander  in  Sennacherib's  army,  2  Kings 
xviii.  17."    [This  official  title  is  here  supposed  to  be  a 

proper  name] ''S«r^o«;  what  king  of  Assyria 

this  was  is  much  disputed.     It  is  well  known  and 


The  Capture  of  Samaria. 


79 


confessed  that  one  and  the  same  person  hath  fre- 
quently several  names  .  .  .  and,  therefore,  this  may 
be  either  (i)  Shalmaneser,  who,  when  he  took  Samaria 
might  also  by  Tartan  take  this  place.  Or  (2)  Sen- 
nacherib  Or  (3)  Esarhaddon,  Sennacherib's 

son,  who,  by  cutting  off  the  first  letter,  is  called 
Sarchcdon  (Tob.i.21);  and  thence  possibly,  by  abbrevi- 
ation, Sargon,''  etc. 

Knowledge  as  to  who  this  king  was  had  utterly 
perished  among  the 
Jews,  the  hereditary 
custodians  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Their 
learned  men  were  more 
anxious  to  hand  down 
their  own  fancies  than 
the  information  which 
was  once  fully  possessed 
by  the  Jews.  The  best 
explanation  which 
Jerome  could  gather 
from  them  was  that  Sar- 
gon    had   seven    names, 

and    that    he    was    to    be  ("^''O'"  ^^'^  Monuments). 

identified  with  one  or  other  of  the  Assyrian  monarchs 
elsewhere  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  By  the  time  Kimchi 
had  written,  and  the  Talmud  had  been  compiled, 
Sargon's  seven  names  had  increased  to  eight. 

So  improbable,  however,  did  all  these  explanations 
appear  to  some  scholars,  that  they  held  Sargon  to  be 
a  distinct  king,  and  that  his  reign  was  to  be  placed 


ASSYRIAN    REPRESENTATION    OF 
ANCIENT    CITY. 


8o  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

between  Shalmaneser's  and  Sennacherib's.  One  of 
the  very  earHest  results  of  Assyrian  excavation  proved 
this  to  be  the  truth.  Botta,  French  Consul  at  Mosul, 
after  some  unsuccessful  excavations  elsewhere,  began 
digging  at  Khorsabad.  The  results  not  only  sur- 
prised the  excavators  and  himself,  but  also  became 
everywhere  the  sensation  of  the  time.  He  came 
upon  the  foundations  of  an  immense  building.  He 
laid  bare  gigantic  winged  bulls,  chambers  with  sculp- 
tured walls,  and  numerous  inscriptions.  He  had 
brought  back  to  the  light  of  day  all  that  remained  of 
the  palace  of  Sargon,  the  father  of  Sennacherib,  and 
the  founder  of  one  of  the  greatest  of  Assyrian  dynas- 
ties. These  early  excavations  brought  to  the  Bible 
their  first  fruits  of  confirmation.  "  The  name  of 
Sargon,"  says  Dr.  Sayce,  '*  occurs  once  only  in  the 
Old  Testament.  In  Isaiah  xx.  i,  it  is  said  that  Sargon 
the  king  of  Assyria  sent  his  Tartan,  or  commander-in- 
chief,  against  Ashdod,  and  that  city  was  taken  by  the 
Assyrian  general.  The  statement  is  in  full  accordance 
with  what  we  learn  from  the  annals  of  Sargon  him- 
self. Akhimib,  whom  Sargon  had  appointed  king  of 
Ashdod,  had  been  dethroned,  and  the  crown  given  to 
a  usurper,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  nominee  of 
Hezekiah.  As  the  usurper  is  called  Yavan,  or  '  the 
Greek,'  it  would  appear  that  Greeks  were  already 
settled  in  this  part  of  Palestine,  and  that  Hezekiah 
had  found  in  them  allies  against  the  PhiHstines."* 

"  It   is  remarkable,"    says    Mr.  H.  S.  Roberton, 
**  that    nowhere   else  in    the   whole    Bible   is   King 

•  The  Higher  Criticism  vtrsus  the  ,Vo;n/)'if;j/s,  pp.  424,  425. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria. 


8i 


mmm^'      DUR-SAR-KIN 


PLAN    OF   THE    RUINS    OF    SARGON  S    PALACE. 


82  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Sargon  named — a  fact  that  will  seem  all  the  more 
surprising  when  we  come  to  consider  how  mighty 
and  influential  a  sovereign  he  was.  But  this  is  not 
nearly  all ;  for,  not  only  is  Sargon  mentioned  in  no 
other  verse  in  the  Bible  than  this,  but  no  other 
ancient  writer  has  preserved  for  us  the  slightest 
memory  of  him.  Neither  Greek  nor  Roman,  Persian 
nor  Arab,  ever  refers  to  this  mighty  monarch.  Save 
for  the  passing  and  parenthetical  notice  of  him  in 
Isaiah,  the  world  for  twenty  or  more  centuries  would 
have  been  utterly  unaware  that  he  had  ever  existed. 

*'  Had,  then,  a  hostile  critic  chosen  to  affirm  that 
the  name  of  Sargon,  and  the  incident  referred  to, 
were  entirely  imaginary,  it  would  have  been,  till 
recently,  difficult  to  confute  him.  But  the  discoveries 
in  Assyria  have  entirely  altered  the  state  of  the  case. 
Not  only  do  we  find  abundant  proof  that  a  king, 
named  Sargon,  existed  at  this  time ;  but  we  can  still 
gaze  upon  the  wonderful  remains  he  left  behind  him 
in  Assyria,  and  we  can  read  among  his  records  an 
account  of  the  very  episode  referred  to  by  the 
prophet  Isaiah."  * 

Sargon  was  a  great  builder  as  well  as  a  victorious 
general.  To  Asshur,  one  of  the  earliest  capitals  of 
Assyria,  succeeded  Kalah,  or  Calah.  The  latter,  till 
Sargon's  time,  had  continued  to  be  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom.  But  Sargon  resolved  to  found  a  new 
capital,  which  was  to  bear  his  own  name  and  to  hand 
it  down  to  posterity.  It  was  called  ''  Fort-Sargon," 
Dur-Sharukin.     "'Day  and  night,'  he  tells  us,   'I 

*  Voices  of  the  Past,  pp.  i86,  187. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria, 


83 


planned  the  building  of  that  city,  and  gave  orders  to 
erect  within  it  a  sanctuary  for  the  sun-god,  the  great 
judge  of  the  great  gods,  who  caused  me  to  gain 
victory.'  And,  again!  ^  Day  and  night  I  planned 
and  arranged  for  the  peopling  of  that  city,  and  the 
erection  of  sanctuaries  as  the  dwelling  of  the  great 


ASSYRIAN    HUNTING    SCENE    (fl'Om    the   MoHlimtHts.) 


gods,  and  palaces  as  the  seat  of  my  sovereignty;  and 
I  gave  orders  for  the  work  (to  be  commenced).' 

"  The  site  he  selected  was  that  of  a  very  ancient 
town  which  had  once  flourished  at  the  foot  of  a 
mountain,  a  few  miles  to  the  north  of  Nineveh ;  but 
which,  owing  to  the  neglect,  and  consequent  choking 
up  of  its  canal,  had  fallen  into  utter  ruin.  To  us 
moderns,  a  specia    interest  attaches  to  the  new  city 


84  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

planted  there  by  Sargon,  for  it  now  lies  entombed  in 
the  mound  of  Khorsabad,  which  was  excavated  in 
1842,  by  Monsieur  Botta,  and  was  the  first  place  to 
yield  in  quantity  those  wonderful  Assyrian  discoveries 
which  have  so  distinguished  our  own  century.  Not 
only  was  it  the  first  spot  where  important  excavations 
were  made,  but  many  of  the  very  finest  monuments, 
which  now  adorn  the  museums  of  Europe,  came  from 
this  Khorsabad  mound."  * 

Sargon  gives  other  indications  of  the  care  expended 
upon  the  arrangements  of  his  new  city.  There  is 
still  a  question  between  Assyriologists  and  the  Bible 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  word  ''  Paradise."  The  critics 
have  long  ago  concluded  that  this  is  a  Persian  word, 
and  that  the  Book,  therefore,  in  which  it  is  used 
must  be  of  late  origin — a  vital  point  for  the  critical 
case.  If  a  Persian  word  appears  in  it,  that,  they 
contend,  proves  that  it  must  belong  to  a  time  when 
Persian  words  had  entered  into  Hebrew  speech;  in 
other  words,  to  the  time  of  the  Persian  dominion. 
There  has  been  a  little  wavering  on  the  part  of  later 
Assyriologists,  and  Delitzsch  has  suggested  that  the 
word  after  all  may  be  Semitic,  and  of  Babylono- 
Assyrian  origin.  Schrader  has  replied:  "that  we 
have  no  evidence  that  the  Assyrians  formed  parks 
like  these  in  Palestine,  and  the  supposition  is  hardly 
probable."  t  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  later 
researches  support  Schrader's  position,  and  the  pro- 
bability is  great  that  this  critical  contention  will 
shortly  be  proved  to  be   another   critical    blunder. 

*  Ibid,  pp.  193,  194.      \  Vol.  ii.,  p.  71. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria.  85 

"Assyrian  kings,"  says  Roberton,  "had  a  great  love 
of  parks,  and  felt  special  pleasure  in  imitating  in  these 
enclosures  the  forest  scenery  of  the  mountainous 
parts  of  their  own  and  foreign  lands.  So  Sargon 
began  his  great  undertaking,  by  planting  round  the 
site  of  the  city  he  was  about  to  create,  avast  artificial 
forest,  in  which,  he  says,  was  '  every  kind  of  timber 
that  grows  in  the  land  of  Khatti  (that  is,  the  west- 
country),  and  every  kind  of  mountain  herbs.'  "  * 

It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  Sargon's  testimony 
bears  heavily  against  another  critical  imagination,  and 
one  which  the  critics  have  turned  into  a  foundation- 
stone  for  their  re-constructed  Bible.  This  is  that  the 
notion  that  the  gods  have  anything  to  do  with  morality 
is  a  late  step  in  the  evolution  of  religion.  But,  appar- 
ently, notions  of  what  is  right  and  just  have  not  only 
been  bound  up  in  Assyria  with  conceptions  of  the 
godsfrom  time  immemorial;  but,  according  to  Sargon, 
the  gods  are  alsos/>^aVz//)'concerned  for  the  maintenance 
of  justice.  They  appoint  kings,  says  Sargon,  that 
they  may  fulfil  this  very  end  and  "  defend  right  and 
justice."  He  says,  while  speaking  of  the  building  of 
his  city:  "'In  accordance  with  the  name  I  bear' 
(for  the  name  Sargon  can  be  so  read  in  Assyrian  as 
to  mean  'the  faithful  king,')  'and  which  the  great 
gods  conferred  upon  me  that  I  might  defend  right 
and  justice,  direct  the  powerless,  and  not  harm  the 
weak;  I  paid  in  silver  and  copper  the  price  of  the 
land  for  the  city,  according  to  the  tablets  appraising 
its  value,  to  the  owners  thereof;  and  in  order  to  do 

*  Voices  of  the  Past,  p.  194. 


86  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

no  wrong,  I  gave  to  those  who  did  not  wish  money 
for  their  land,  a  piece  of  ground  situated  opposite  to 
their  original  property.'"* 

Before  leaving  these  glimpses  of  a  great  career, 
which  Sargon  has  himself  afforded  us,  it  may  be  well 
to  note  one  thing  more  which  he  says  about  his  new 
city.  When  the  walls,  the  fortresses,  the  palace, 
and  the  homes  were  built,  another  problem  presented 
itself.  Where  were  the  new  inhabitants  to  be  secured  ? 
It  cost  Sargon,  however,  little  trouble  to  find  a 
solution  of  that  problem.  The  new  policy  and  ex- 
tensive conquests  speedily  provided  the  inhabitants. 
"People,"  he  says,  "from  the  four  quarters  of  the 
world,  of  foreign  tongues  and  various  speech,  who 
had  dwelt  in  mountain  and  plain,  wheresoever  the 
warrior  of  the  gods,  the  lord  of  all,  bears  sway,  and 
whom  I,  in  the  name  of  Asshur,  my  lord,  by  the 
might  of  my  arms,  had  carried  into  captivity,  I  com- 
manded to  speak  one  language,  and  settled  them 
therein.  Sons  of  Asshur  (that  is,  Assyrians),  of  wise 
insight  into  all  things,  learned  men  and  scribes,  I 
set  over  them  to  keep  watch  over  the  fear  of  God 
and  the  King."  f  In  this  way  the  policy  that  rooted 
up  the  nations  brought  about  its  own  punishment. 
Assyria  lost  its  unity,  its  sense  of  brotherhood,  and 
its  love  of  country.  In  these  lay  its  power  for  endur- 
ance, and  for  resistance  to  an  invading  foe.  And  just 
as  this  power  was  being  more  and  more  reduced, 
Assyria  was  preparing  for  its  extinction. 

Among  the  monuments  exhumed   at    Khorsabad 

*  Ibid,  p.  195.     \Ibid,  p.  198. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria.  87 

was  one  which  recorded  the  very  expedition  spoken 
of  by  Isaiah.  George  Smith  gives  the  following 
translation  : — 

"In  my  ninth  expedition  to  the  land  beside  the, 
great  sea,  to  Philistia  and  Ashdod  I  went.     Azuri, 
king   of   Ashdod,    not    to    bring   tribute    his    heart 
hardened,  and  to  the  kings  round  him,  enemies  of 
Assyria,  he  sent,  and  did  evil,"  &c.*     Dr.  Pinches, 
from  a  fuller    text,  gives  the   following   rendering: 
*' Azuri,  king  of  Ashdudu,  planned  in  his  heart  not  to 
send  tribute,  and  sent  to  the   kings  around  hostile 
expressions    (towards)    the   land   of  Assur,  and   on 
account  of  what  he  had  done,  I  changed  his  dominion 
over  the  people  of  his  land.     Ahi-miti,  his  brother 
next  in  order,  I  appointed  to  the  kingdom  over  them. 
Men  of  Hatti,  speaking  treachery,  hated  his  dominion, 
and  raised  up  over  them  Yatna,  a  usurper,  who,  like 
themselves,  knew  no  reverence  for  the  dominion.     In 
the  anger  of  my  heart  I  went  with  the  chariot  of  my 
feet  and  my  cavalry,  which  for  security  quit  not  my 
side,  to  the  city  Ashdudu,  the  city  Gimtu  (and)  the 
city  Ashdudrimnu  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,  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."t 
Here  Sargon  speaks  as  if  he  himself  had  been 

*  Assyrian  Discoveries,  pp.  289,290.    t  The  Old  Testament,  pp.  369,  370. 


88  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

present,  had  personally  triumphed,  and  had  personally 
arranged  everything.  "  In  the  anger  of  my  heart,"  he 
says,  "  I  went  with  the  chariot  of  my  feet,"  &c.  This 
is  quite  opposed  to  the  statements  of  the  Scripture, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  says  that  Sargon  was  not 
present,  but  had  sent  the  Tartan  in  command  of  the 
army.  If  the  above  inscription  had  stood  alone,  and 
had  formed  the  only  Assyrian  record  dealing  with  this 
event,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  we  should  have 
had  here  another  Bible  difficulty,  and  that  any  attempt 
to  explain  that  whatever  was  done  by  the  king's  order 
was  done  by  himself  would  have  been  set  down  as 
special  pleading  quite  unworthy  of  any  teacher  of  the 
truth,  or  of  any  seeker  after  it.  But  fortunately  for 
those  weak  brethren  who  are  so  ready  to  doubt,  and 
even  to  condemn,  the  Bible,  Sargon's  inscription  is  not 
our  only  native  source  of  information.  In  a  reference 
to  this  campaign.  Prof.  Sayce  remarks  that  Sargon 
"  did  not  take  part  in  it  himself.  The  Book  of  Isaiah," 
he  continues,  "  tells  us  that  the  campaign  against 
Ashdod  was  condu6led  by  the  commander-in-chief  of 
the  Assyrian  monarch;  and  in  stride  accordance  with 
this,  the  Assyrian  annals  describe  the  king  as  spend- 
ing the  whole  year  '  at  home.'  Moreover,  his  attention 
was  centred  on  a  more  important  war,  and  a  more 
difficult  conquest  than  that  of  Judah  or  Ashdod."* 

This  was  his  re-conquest  of  Babylon,  which  had 
once  more  asserted  its  independence.  But  are  we  to 
attribute  misrepresentation  to  Sargon  in  speaking  in 
the  inscription  just  quoted,  as  if  he  had  personally 

*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p.  427. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria.  8g 

superintended  all  the  operations  ?  Here,  what  would 
be  set  aside  as  special  pleading  if  urged  on  behalf 
of  Bible  statements,  will  be  accepted  without  scruple 
in  exoneration  of  the  Assyrian  monarch.  When , 
we  read  that  James  Sixth  and  First  beheaded  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh,  no  one  imagines  the  record  to  mean 
that  the  king  personally  decapitated  him.  Nor  are 
we  compelled  by  the  statement  that  Elizabeth  con- 
demned the  Duke  of  Norfolk  to  the  block  to  believe 
that  the  queen  personally  pronounced  sentence  upon 
him.  The  orders  carried  out  by  the  commander-in- 
chief  were  Sargon's;  and  it  was  his  power  that 
overthrew  Ashdod ;  it  was  he  who  pronounced  its 
doom,  and  who  gathered  its  spoils. 

There  is  a  special  reason  why  Sargon's  name  should 
be  introduced  here  ;  for  just  in  this  very  way  are  they 
mixed  up  in  the  Assyrian  records  in  connection  with 
the  fall  of  Samaria.  Sargon  claims  to  have  captured 
the  city,  and  to  have  led  off  more  than  20,000  of  the 
inhabitants  into  captivity.  Apparently,  after  Hoshea 
their  king  had  been  detained  and  imprisoned  by  the. 
Assyrian  king,  the  nobles  of  Samaria  had  resolved  to 
resist.  Their  preparations  for  the  now  inevitable  siege 
must  necessarily  have  been  hurried,  but  they  never- 
theless seem  to  have  been  effe(?tive.  Provisions  had 
been  drawn  from  every  possible  quarter,  and  munitions 
of  war  were  procured,  probably  from  Tyre,  with  which 
the  rebellion  seems,  from  the  statement  quoted  from 
Menander  the  Tyrian  historian,  to  have  been  con- 
certed. This  is  shown  in  that  three  years'  resistance 
during  which   the  practised  and   daring  soldiery  of 


go  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Assyria  were  kept  outside  the  walls  of  the  besieged 
city.  But  the  expe(fted  help  did  not  come  from  Egypt. 
Saveh  was  no  doubt  well  content  that  the  Assyrian 
forces  should  waste  their  strength  before  the  walls  of 
Samaria,  and  that  the  rush  of  this  invasion  should  be 
broken  by  its  stubborn  resistance.  The  politics  of 
antiquity  were  even  more  cold-blooded  and  heartless 
than  those  of  modern  times. 

Samaria  fell,  and  with  it  fell  the  dominion  founded 
by  Jeroboam.  The  northern  kingdom — the  kingdom 
of  Israel — ceased  to  exist.  We  shall  peruse  im- 
mediately Sargon's  inscription,  which  gives  us  the 
confirmation  from  the  Assyrian  royal  archives  of  the 
Scripture  statements.  Meanwhile,  a  word  must  be 
said  as  to  how  it  is  that  Sargon  claims  the  triumph. 
Shalmaneser  seems  to  have  died  about  the  very  time 
of  the  fall  of  Samaria.  There  are  two  references  in 
2  Kings  to  the  capture  of  the  city.  In  xvii.  6  we 
read :  "In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea,  the  king  of  Assyria 
took  Samaria,  and  carried  Israel  away  into  Assyria." 
Here  the  king  is  not  named.  But  just  three  verses 
before,  Shalmaneser  is  spoken  of,  and  it  seems  to  be 
a  warrantable,  although  by  no  means  an  absolutely 
necessary,  inference,  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  king 
of  Assyria  who  is  spoken  of  throughout.  This  would 
mean,  therefore,  that  the  capture  was  to  be  ascribed 
to  Shalmaneser.  In  xviii.  g,  lo  we  have  the  following 
account :  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourth  year  of 
king  Hezekiah,  which  was  the  seventh  year  of  Hoshea 
son  of  Elah  king  of  Israel,  that  Shalmaneser  king  of 
Assyria  came  up  against  Samaria  and  besieged  it. 


The  Capture  of  Samaria.  gi 

And  at  the  end  of  three  years  they  took  it ;   even  in 


^W^^illljWJ^^--^ 


SARGOX,   KING    OF    ASSYRIA. 


the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah,  that  is  in  the  ninth  year 


92  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

of  Hoshea  king  of  Israel,  Samaria  was  taken."  The 
reader  will  observe  the  very  unusual  phrase — ''they 
took  it."  Here  it  seems  to  be  indicated  that  supreme 
authority  had  for  the  moment  disappeared,  and  that, 
though  the  siege  was  begun  and  carried  on  by  the 
king,  it  was  not  completed  by  him.  Now,  all  this  is 
fully  explained  by  the  monuments.  It  was  in  this 
very  year  that  Shalmaneser  died,  whether  by  assassi- 
nation or  not  we  do  not  know.  There  appears  to 
have  been  a  subsequent  time  of  confusion.  The 
conspirators  in  Assyria,  where  Shalmaneser  appears 
to  have  come  to  his  end,  were  unable  to  elevate  their 
nominee  to  the  throne.  This  interregnum  lasted  for 
two  years  ;  for  while  in  one  inscription  Sargon  speaks 
of  a  certain  expedition  as  having  been  made  in  his 
ninth  year,  it  is  stated  in  another  inscription  to  have 
happened  in  his  eleventh  year.  "  This,"  says  George 
Smith,  ''  makes  a  variation  of  two  years  as  to  the 
accession  of  Sargon,  the  one  copy  leading  to  the  date 
B.C.  722,  while  the  other  favours  B.C.  720,"  that  is,  for 
Sargon's  accession.  "  Shalmaneser,  the  predecessor 
of  Sargon,"  continues  Mr.  Smith,"  ''had  died  B.C. 
722,  but  it  is  possible  some  heir  to  the  throne  may 
have  stood  in  the  way  of  Sargon  during  the  tirst  two 
years  of  his  rule." 

The  whole  would  find  an  easy  explanation  if  Sargon 
had  been  in  command  in  Palestine ;  and  had,  in  thelast 
days  at  least,  personally  conducted  the  siege  of  Samaria. 
He  could  then  speak  as  king  of  the  triumphs  which 
he  had  won  as  a  general ;  and  he  may  have  assumed 
even  then  the  royal  prerogatives,  although  he  was  not 


The  Dispersion  of  Israel.  93 

acknowledged  as  sovereign  in  Assyria  itself  until  rival 
claimants  had  been  suppressed.  But,  in  any  case,  the 
records  show  that  in  these  words  of  the  Bible — "they 
took  it  " — we  find  the  very  impress  of  the  time.  The 
writer  does  not  explain.  He  says  nothing  about 
Shalmaneser's  death,  and  the  disorders  that  suc- 
ceeded- Our  attention  is  kept  fixed  and  concentrated 
upon  Israel's  fall.  There  are  lessons  there  which  the 
Scripture  will  not  have  us  miss.  But,  while  Assyria's 
history  is  not  told,  it  is  reflected  ;  and  the  shaping  of 
a  phrase  will  convey  a  hint  down  the  ages  through 
which  he  who  meditates  upon  the  Word  may  still 
discern  the  truth. 


CHAPTER  X. 

The  Dispersion  of  Israel. 


WE  have  just  seen  that  we  are  told  in  2  Kings 
xvii.  6  that  ''the  king  of  Assyria  took  Samaria, 
and  carried  Israel  away  into  Assyria,  and  placed  them 
in  Halah  and  in  Habor  by  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in 
the  cities  of  the  Medes." 

The  policy  invented  by  Tiglath-pileser  afforded  to 
Assyrian  conquerors  too  easy  a  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culties attending  remote  conquests  to  be  discarded. 
It  was  continued,  not  only  by  Shalmaneser  and  by 
Sargon,  but  also  by  later  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
kings.  In  the  great  inscription  recording  his  triumphs, 
Sargon  says :    "  I  besieged  and  captured  Samerina 


94  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

(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."  ^^ 
In  another  inscription  on  his  palace  walls,  which  is 
much  injured,  we  read:  "...  of  me  .  .  [I  besieged 
and  captured  the  town  of  Samaria ;  (27,290)  of  their 
inhabitants]  I  carried  away :  fifty  chariots  I  took  as 
my  royal  share  .  .  in  place  of  (them,  the  deported)  I 
assigned  abodes  to  the  inhabitants  of  countries  taken 
[by  me] .  I  imposed  tribute  on  them  like  Assyria."  t 
"We  learn  from  the  above  passage,"  writes  Schrader, 
that  Sargon  himself,  after  deporting  the  Israelites, 
settled  other  subjugated  races  in  the  abodes  which 
they  left.  This  notice  serves  to  confirm  a  conjecture 
I  once  threw  out  quite  independently  of  the  cuneiform 
records,  and  based  simply  on  a  critical  examination 
of  the  Books  of  Kings.  My  supposition  was  that  the 
king  who,  according  to  verse  24  in  this  chapter, 
transferred  people  from  Babel,  Kutha,  etc.,  into  the 
districts  long  occupied  by  the  Israelites,  and  who  is 
generally  held  to  be  Asarhaddon,  is  the  same  as  he 
who  transported  the  Israelites,  that  is,  not  Salmanasar, 
as  I  formerly  imagined  before  I  was  better  informed, 
but,  as  we  now  know,  Sargon."  % 

The  places  here  named  as  the  new  abodes  of  the 
Israelites  are  Halah,  Habor,  Gozan,  and  the  cities  of 
the  Medes.    Concerning  the  three  first  localities  there 

*  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament,  p.  363.    +  Schrader,  vol.  i.,  pp.  264-266. 
\  Pages  266,  267. 


The  Dispersion  of  Israel.  95 

have  been  many  guesses.     Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  was 
inclined  to  identify  Halah  with  the  Sar-PaU-Zohab 
pass  in  Kurdistan.     But  the  more  Hkely  opinion  is 
that   Halah,  Habor,  and  Gozan  are  to  be  found  in 
Mesopotamia.      ''If   we    can   find    Habor,"    writes 
Ainsworth,  in  his  narrative  oi  The  Euphrates  Expedition, 
we  get  nigh  to  Halah,  whether  Habor  be  a  city  or  a 
river,  or,  as   is   more   likely,  both.      Gozan    simply 
signifies  pastures,  or  pasture  land,  and  the  banks  of 
the   Khabur  are    far    more   renowned   pasture-lands 
amongst  the  Arabs  than  are  the  Zozans,  or  Gozans— 
the  alpine,  summer  pastures  of  the  Khald^eans.     The 
Romans  also  called  the  province  Gauzanitis. 

''The  wonderful  discovery  made  by  Sir  Austin 
Henry  Layard,  of  Assyrian  remains  on  the  banks, 
testifies  that  the  valley  was  dotted  with  cities  and 
towns  in  their  time,  as  it  is  well  known  that  it  consti- 
tuted their  (the  Assyrian)  high-road  in  their  frequent 
invasions  of  Palestine  and  Egypt.  The  identity  of 
the  Habor  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  Khabur,  is 
further  established  by  its  being  mentioned  in  2  Kings 
xix.  12,  in  connection  with  Haran  (still  so-called),  and 
Rezeph— a  well-known  marble  city  on  the  high  road 
from  Tadmor  (Palmyra)  to  Thipsah  (Thapsacus)."  - 

"TotheChebar,"  says  Layard,  "were  transported 
by  the  Assyrian  king,  after  the  destruction  of  Samaria, 
the  captive  children  of  Israel,  and  on  its  banks  'the 
heavens  were  opened'  to  Ezekiel,  and  'he  saw  visions 
of  God,'  and  spake  his  prophecies  to  his  brother 
exiles.     Around  Arban   may  have  been  pitched  the 

'^  Vol.  i.,pp.  340,  341- 


g6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

tents  of  the  sorrowing  Jews,  as  those  of  the  Arabs 
were,  during  my  visit.  To  the  same  pastures  they  led 
their  sheep,  and  they  drank  the  same  waters.  Then 
the  banks  of  the  river  were  covered  with  towns  and 
villages,  and  a  palace-temple  still  stood  on  the  mound, 
reflected  in  the  transparent  stream." 

These  words  afford  us  a  vivid  glimpse  of  the  kind 
of  territory  to  which  the  Israelites  were  carried,  but 
that  was  not  the  sphere  in  which  the  prophet  toiled. 
It  is  a  very  attractive  identification  to  make  the  scene 
of  Israel's  exile  that  of  the  labours  of  Ezekiel.  It 
would  then  have  been  shown,  indeed,  that  God  had 
not  cast  the  exiles  away  when  His  prophet  was  sent 
with  the  Divine  message  to  their  children.  But  the 
name  of  the  Chebar,  where  Ezekiel  laboured,  differs 
thoroughly  in  the  Hebrew  from  that  of  the  Khabor, 
or  Habor,  to  which  the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  were 
carried.  The  Chebar  was  in  Babylonia  in  the  south, 
and  the  Habor  in  Mesopotamia  in  the  north  ;  and, 
though  cities  and  scenery  may  have  resembled  each 
other,  hundreds  of  miles  lay  between  them.  Recent 
scholars  of  considerable  name  have  repeated  this 
identification;  but  it  is  one  that  must  now  be 
definitely  abandoned.  The  following,  also  from  the 
pen  of  Layard,  brings  us,  however,  to  the  real  scene 
of  the  captivity  of  a  part  of  the  ten  tribes.  "We 
know,"  he  says,  ''that  Jews  still  lingered  in  the 
cities  of  the  Khabur  until  long  after  the  Arab  in- 
vasion; and  we  may,  perhaps,  recognise  in  the 
Jewish  communities  of  Ras  al  Ain,  at  the  sources  of 
the  river,  and  of  Karkisia  or  Carchemish,  at  its  con- 


The  Dispersion  of  Israel. 


97 


fluance  with  the  Euphrates,  visited  and  described  by 
Benjamin,  of  Tudela,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  twelfth 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  the  descendants  of  the 
captive  Israelites." 

Halah    is    now   generally  identified  with  a  place 
called  Gla,  a  mere  mound  of  ruins,  situated  on  the 


THE  THRONE  OF  SARGON  (frotu  the  Monitmeiits) . 

upper  part  of  the  river  Khabur.  The  name  is  found 
in  an  Assyrian  list  of  towns  in  Mesopotamia  under 
the  form  of  Halalm.  The  Assyrian  name  for  the 
Khabor  is  also  identical  with  that  in  the  Bible.  It 
is  called  Habfiv.     It   is  a  river  that  flows  into  the 

H 


98  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Euphrates,  and  gathers  into  itself  the  waters  of 
streams  which  flow  from  the  mountain  chain  called 
Masuis,  by  the  ancient  geographers,  but  which  now 
bears  the  name  of  Kharadja  Dagh.  The  river,  in  its 
lower  course,  as  seen  by  Layard,  "flowed  through 
rich  meads  covered  with  flowers.  .  .  .  The  country 
on  both  sides  of  the  river  was  covered  with  mounds, 
the  remains  of  cities  belonging  to  the  Assyrian 
period."  *  The  name  of  Gozan  is  also  found  on  the 
Assyrian  monuments  under  the  form  Guza-a-an.  It 
was  the  name  both  of  a  country  and  of  one  of  its 
cities.  It  occurs  in  the  same  geographical  list  in 
which  we  meet  the  name  of  Halah.  A  discovery 
made  in  Babylon,  which  led  to  so  many  of  what 
have  been  called  "the  Egibi  tablets"  finding  their 
way  to  the  British  Museum,  has  thrown  some  light 
upon  the  condition  of  many  of  these  Israelitish 
captives.  Among  those  documents  is  a  contract 
made  about  this  very  time — in  the  reign  of  Sargon, 
in  708  B.C.,  about  fourteen  years  after  the  Israelites 
were  transported  to  Assyria.  It  is  a  deed  of  sale  by 
which  a  Phenician  hands  over  to  an  Egyptian  for 
a  certain  amount  two  Israelitish  men  and  an 
Israelitish  woman.  The  woman's  name  is  illegible; 
but  the  names  of  the  men  are  Heman  and  Melchior. 
The  contract  is  witnessed  and  sealed  with  all  the 
legal  formalities  which  attended  these  ancient  trans- 
actions— formalities  quite  as  elaborate  as  those  which 
characterise  our  own  legal  documents.  The  price 
paid  was  three  minas  of  silver  (about  £2y).     It  is 

*  Professor  Rawlinson  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 


The  Dispersion  of  Israel.  99 

stipulated  in  the  document  that  each  of  these  minas 
is  to  be  "according  to  the  usage  of  the  city  of 
Carchemish."  "The  price,"  says  the  contract,  "has 
been  definitely  fixed.  These  persons  have  been  paid 
for  and  bought.  Withdrawal  from  the  contract  and 
annulling  of  the  contract  are  not  permitted."  It 
also  provides  that  if,  at  any  time  afterwards — "in 
the  days  of  the  son,  or  of  the  grandson "  of  the 
purchaser,  the  seller,  or  his  heirs,  wish  to  buy  back 
these  individuals  (or  their  descendants),  the  price  to 
be  paid  will  be  "ten  minas  of  silver  and  a  mina  of 
gold"   (about,  in  all,  :f23o). 

This  condition  of  perpetual  slavery  may  not  have 
been  the  general  lot;  but  this  incident  proves  that  it 
must  have  been  the  lot  of  multitudes.  The  Israelites 
had  refused  to  accept  the  glad  and  ennobling  service  of 
God  ;  and  now  the  Divine  protection  was  withdrawn, 
and  they  had  to  taste  the  bitterness,  and  know  the 
degradation,  of  the  servitude  of  man. 

Their  fate  is  held  up  before  us  as  a  warning ;  and 
the  record  of  it  testifies  that  this  warning  rests 
upon  facts.  Here  we  have  no  pious  fiction,  and  no 
blundering,  muddling  tradition.  We  have  been  led, 
in  these  last  days,  to  Sargon's  city.  We  have  been 
made  to  read  his  testimony  upon  his  palace  walls. 
The  captives,  we  now  know,  were  carried  off  as  the 
Bible  says  they  were.  The  places  named  in  the 
Scripture  were  under  the  control  of  the  king,  and  were 
bearing  then  the  very  same  names  in  the  records  of  the 
time.  These  places  were  also  grouped  together  in 
Mesopotamia,  to  the  north  of  Assyria,  as  the  Scripture 


100  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

implies  that  they  were.  And  we  now  know  further 
that  IsraeUtish  men  and  women  were  bought  and 
sold  like  cattle  in  Babylonia  in  the  later  years  of 
this  very  king  who  carried  them  away  from  Samaria. 
Tested  here  by  discovery,  which  no  man  could  have 
foreseen,  the  Word  of  God  is  proved  once  more  to 
be  an  absolutely  exact  and  truthful  Witness. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

The  New  Inhabitants  of  Samaria. 


THE  carrying  out  of  the  new  policy  in  Samaria 
involved  the  planting  of  a  fresh  population  in 
the  desolated  country  and  city.  We  accordingly  read 
that  ''The  king  of  Assyria  brought  men  from  Babylon, 
and  from  Cutha,  and  from  Ava,  and  from  Hamath, 
and  from  Sepharvaim,  and  planted  them  in  the  cities 
of  Samaria,  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel :  and 
they  possessed  Samaria  and  dwelt  in  the  cities 
thereof"  (2  Kings  xviii.  24). 

We  do  not  find  in  Sargon's  inscriptions  any 
statement  which  exactly  repeats  this  made  by  the 
Scripture.  But  we  repeatedly  encounter  passages 
which  remind  us  of  it,  and  confirm  it.  The  number 
which  Sargon  gives  of  the  captives  led  away  from 
Samaria  (20,290)  cannot  have  been  the  whole  of  the 
population  which  he  removed.  It  appears  from  his 
inscriptions  that  he  had,  on  the  contrary,  so  depopu- 


The  New  Inhabitants  of  Samaria.  loi 

lated  the  country  that  he  is  constantly  remembering 
its  needs,  and  pouring  in  new  settlers  from  his  after 
conquests.  In  715  B.C.,  seven  years  after  the  capture 
of  the  city,  he  sends  recruits  from  Arabia.  He  says : 
"The  Tamudu,  the  Ibadidi,  the  Marsimani,  and  the 
Hayapa,  distant  tribes  of  Arabia,  who  inhabit  the 
desert  of  which  the  scholars  and  the  scribes  had  no 
knowledge,  and  who  to  no  king  had  rendered  tribute; 
with  the  protection  of  Assur,  my  lord,  I  destroyed 
them,  and  those  who  remained  I  transported,  and  in 
the  city  of  Samaria  I  placed  them.  From  Pharaoh, 
king  of  Egypt,  from  Samsieh,  queen  of  Arabia,  and 
from  Ithamar  the  Sabaean,  monarchs,  who  dwell  on 
the  shore  of  the  sea  and  in  the  desert  .  .  .  gold, 
produce  of  the  mountains,  precious  stones,  ivory  .  .  . 
wood,  perfumes  of  every  kind,  horses,  and  camels, 
their  tribute  I  received."  In  another  inscription  he 
refers  to  the  same  campaign  :  "  Conqueror  of  the 
Tamudu,  Ibadidi,  Marsimani  and  Hayapa,  who  the 
rest  of  them  enslaved,  and  caused  them  to  be  placed 
in  the  land  of  Beth  Omri "  (Samaria).* 

The  numbers  of  these  new  colonists  were,  probably, 
small.  It  will  be  noted  that  no  figures  are  given,  and 
the  omission  seems  to  indicate  that  their  magnitude 
was  not  enough  to  boast  of.  This  may  also  be 
gathered  from  the  silence  of  the  Scripture.  That 
there  were  Arabians  among  the  new  inhabitants  of 
Damascus  is  shown  by  the  repeated  mention  of 
"  Geshem  the  Arabian  "  by  Nehemiah  in  his  references 
to  the  Samaritan  leaders.     But,  in  proportion  to  the 

*See  George  Smith,  The  Assyrian  Eponym  Canon,  pp.  128,  129. 


102  -  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

rest,  these  must  have  been  comparatively  insignificant ; 
and,  consequently,  the  Scripture  confines  itself  to 
mentioning  the  origin  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
inhabitants.  The  notices  we  have  just  quoted  are, 
nevertheless,  important,  since  they  show  that  for 
years  the  re-peopling  of  the  former  territory  of  the 
ten  tribes  was  a  constant  concern  to  the  Assyrian 
conqueror.  Sargon's  inscriptions,  however,  contain 
still  more  direct  Confirmations.  The  first  colonists 
named  by  the  Scripture  are  those  from  Babylon. 
This  means  that  there  had  been  war  between  the 
Assyrians  and  the  Babylonians ;  and  that  the  war 
had  arisen  after,  and  yet  not  long  after,  the  capture 
of  Samaria.  Was  there,  then,  such  a  war  in  the 
south  of  the  Assyrian  empire  ?  and  did  the  conquest 
of  Babylon  happen  just  as  Samaria  was  demanding 
a  fresh  population  ?  Sargon's  own  inscriptions  con- 
tain a  full  reply.  There  was  war  between  Assyria  and 
Babylon.  It  resulted  in  the  capture  of  the  great 
city  of  the  Euphrates,  and  in  the  carrying  away  of  a 
number  of  its  inhabitants.  These  events  took  place 
also  171  Sargon's  first  year,  just  after  the  taking  of 
Samaria.  Commenting  on  the  words,  "  From  Baby- 
lon," in  2  Kings  xviii.  24,  Schrader  says  :  *'We  have, 
at  least,  an  indirect  confirmation  of  this  in  the 
cuneiform  texts.  We  read  in  the  annals  of  Sargon, 
and  here  again  in  the  report  he  gives  of  his  first  year: 
.  .  .  *  (Merodach-Baladan),  whom  since  he,  not 
according  to  the  will  of  the  gods,  the  rule  over  Babel 
[had  seized  for  himself,  I  overcame  in  war  and  smote] 
....  7  inhabitants  together  with  their  property  I 


The  New  Inhahitants  of  Samaria.  103 

transported  ....  and  settled  them  [in  the  land] 
Chatti  (that  is,  Syria-Palestine).'  It  maybe  assumed," 
Schrader  adds,  "that  Samaria  was  one  of  the  spots 
to  which  the  transportation  took  place."  *  In  Sargon's 
time  the  term,  "the  land  of  Chatti,"  that  is,  "the 
land  of  the  Hittites,"  was  extended  in  its  signifi- 
cation, and  included  northern  Palestine,  and  the 
territory  of  Samaria.  Sargon  calls  the  Philistine 
city  of  Ashdod,  for  instance,  a  Hittite  city.  Under 
Sennacherib,  and  his  son  Esarhaddon,  the  name  "  is 
altogether  transferred  to  the  countries  on  the  coast, 
Canaan  and  Philistia,  as  well  as  to  Edom,  Moab,  and 
Ammon."  t  If  these  captives  from  Babylon  were 
placed  in  Samaria,  this  would  come  under  the  de- 
scription, "the  land  of  the  Hittites."  The  reader 
will  have  noted  that  the  number  of  these  unwilhng: 
colonists  is  not  now  found  on  Sargon's  monument. 
The  whole  number  has  disappeared  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  last  figure,  seven.  But  the  number  was 
large  enough  to  be  recorded  among  the  other  evidences 
of  the  completeness  of  his  triumphs. 

As  to  Cutha,  the  information  of  Jews  and  Christians 
was  like  that  of  Sargon's  scholars  and  scribes  re- 
garding the  distant  peoples  of  Arabia.  The  locality 
of  the  city  was  quite  unknown.  Josephus  places  it 
in  the  centre  of  Persia.  Knobel  and  Winer,  as  well 
as  some  earlier  scholars,  believed  it  to  be  in  Susiana. 
Rosenmuller  was  of  opinion  that  it  was  to  be  found 
in  Arabia.  All  these  learned  surmisings  are  now  at 
an  end.  Mr.  Rassam,  in  the  course  of  his  explorations 

*  Vol.  i.,  pp.  268,  269.     t  Vol.  i.,  pp.  92,  93. 


I04  T^h^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

in  Chaldea,  found  the  site  of  Cutha  at  Tell-Ibrahim, 
about  ten  miles  to  the  north-east  of  Babylon.  The 
name  appears  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions.  On  the 
obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  II.  we  read:  *'I  offered  rich 
sacrifices  at  Babylon,  at  Borsippa,  and  at  Cutha." 
''We  see  from  this  passage,"  writes  Schrader,  "that 
the  town  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  was 
situated  in  Middle-Babylonia,  and  this  conjecture  has 
in  the  meantime  been  corroborated  from  the  monu- 
ments. Considerable  remains  of  buildings,  rooms, 
and  halls  (passages)  have  been  brought  to  light  by 
Hormuzd  Rassam,  at  Tell-Ibrahim,  north-east  of 
Babylon,  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  larger  of  the 
two  mounds  of  ruins."*  The  position  of  the  city, 
all  knowledge  of  which  had  perished  so  early  that  so 
well  informed  a  writer  as  Josephus  was  in  complete 
ignorance  as  to  its  situation,  thus  throws  welcome 
light  upon  the  Bible  statement.  Cutha  had,  no  doubt, 
been  concerned  in  the  insurrection  against  Assyria, 
and  was  involved  in  the  overthrow  which  terminated 
the  brief  struggle.  The  men  of  Cutha  seem  to  have 
formed  the  greatest  number  of  the  new  settlers,  as 
the  name  '  Cutheans '  was  applied  by  the  Jews  to 
all  the  Samaritans.  They  are  spoken  of  in  this  way 
in  the  Talmud,  and  Josephus  explains  that  ''those 
whom  the  Hebrews  name  in  their  language  Cutheans, 
are  those  who  are  called  in  Greek  Samaritans."  t 

Our  information  regarding  "  Sepharvaim  "  is  still 
fuller.  The  Hebrew  word  is  in  the  Dual,  that  special 
form  of  the  plural  which  indicates  that  two,  and  two 

*  Page  271.     tVigouroux,  La  Bible  ct  les  Decouvertes  Modernes,  HI.,  571. 


The  New  Inhabitants  of  Samaria,  105 

only,  are  spoken  of.  The  word  really  means  "the  two 
Sipars,"  or  "  Double-Sipar."  Accordingly,  if  we  are  to 
go  by  the  name,  this  must  have  been  in  some  way  a 
double  town.  Some  hints  were  handed  down  from  , 
ancient  times  regarding  this  city.  Abydenus  tells 
that  Berossus,  the  historian  of  Babylon,  speaks  of  a 
city  called  Sippara.  After  naming  Sisuthrus,  the  last 
of  the  ten  great  monarchs  of  the  antediluvian  world, 
he  says  :  "  To  him  the  deity  Cronos  foretold  that,  on 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Desius,  there  would 
be  a  Deluge,  and  commanded  him  to  deposit  all  the 
writings  whatever  that  he  had  in  the  city  of  the  Sun 
in  Sippara."  Sippar  was,  therefore,  according  to 
Berossus,  an  antediluvian  city.  Abydenus  himself 
calls  it  the  '*  city  of  the  Sipparenians,"  and  says  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  excavated  a  vast  lake  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  it  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  water  for 
the  irrigation  of  the  country.  Pliny  calls  it  a  town  of 
the  Hipparenians,  and  says  that  it  was  a  great  seat 
of  Chaldaic  learning.  The  recovered  records  of 
Babylonia  have  now  carried  us  farther  than  our 
ancient  instruftors.  Sepharvaim,  says  Schrader,  *'is 
likewise  a  Babylonian  town  .  .  .  and  moreover  occurs 
in  the  inscriptions  in  the  form  '  Sipar,'  'Sippar.'" 
There  is  an  indication  that  the  statement  of  Berossus 
as  to  its  great  antiquity  has  some  foundation.  It  is 
referred  to  in  the  old  Accadian — "the  old  non-Semitic 
language  of  Babylonia — as 'the  Euphrates  city.'"  "The 
city  lay  on  the  left,  or  eastern  bank  of  the  Euphrates. 
...  It  has  been  discovered  by  Hormuzd  Rassam  in  the 
ruin-mounds  of  Abu  Habba  .  .  .  somewhat  to  the 


io6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

east  of  the  present  bed  of  the  Euphrates-stream.  This 
explorer  laid  bare  the  walls  of  a  building  of  consider- 
able size,  which  turned  out  to  be  the  celebrated  temple 
of  the  Sun  at  Sipar  -  Heliopolis.  In  a  spacious 
chamber,  or  hall,  in  which  stood  a  large  altar,  Rassam 
discovered  in  a  box,  deposited  beneath  the  floor,  and 
made  of  burnt  clay,  several  clay  documents,  one  of 
which  began  with  the  words  :  *  Image  of  the  sun-god, 
the  great  lord  who  dwells  in  r(Bit)-Parra  (*  temple  of 
light '),  which  is  at  Sippar.' "*  "I  have  been  puzzled," 
says  Mr.  Rassam,  "  to  determine  why  these  relics 
were  buried  in  asphalt  pavement ;  because  if  those 
who  hid  them  there  wished  to  preserve  them  from 
destruction  by  the  enemy,  they  could  not  have  placed 
them  in  a  more  conspicuous  place ;  for  a  man  who  is 
accustomed  to  the  mode  of  Assyrian  paving  could  not 
help  noticing  the  difference.  This  discovery  at  the 
outset  was  most  fortunate,  as  it  proved  to  us  the  exact 
site  of  the  temple  and  city  of  Sippara."  + 

Sipar,  or  Siphar,  or  Sephar,  was  therefore  a  well- 
known  and  important  city  in  Babylonia  in  the  time 
of  Sargon.  But  were  there  twin  cities,  as  is  so  plainly 
intimated  in  the  Scripture  name  ?  Here  is  the  answer 
of  the  Assyrian  monuments  :  "  In  the  passage  Layard 
17,  4,  the  town  is  called  iv  Sippar  sa  Santas^  that  is 
*  Sippar  of  the  Sun.'  ....  It  is  to  be  observed, 
however,  that  there  was  a  second  divinity,  Anunit, 
specially  worshipped  in  Sipar.  Accordingly,  the 
Assyrians,  or  else  the  Babylonians,  made  a  distindtion. 

*  Schrader,  vol.  i.,  pp.  272,  273. 
+  Transactions  of  the  Victoria  Institute,  vol.  xvii.,  p.  225. 


The  New  Inhabitants  of  Samaria.  107 

Besides  Sipar,  or  Sipar  sa  Samas,  '  Sippar  of  the  sun- 
god,'  they  mention  a  Sipar  sa  Aniiituv.  ...  It  is 
in  this  way  '  Double-Sipar '  of  the  Hebrew  becomes 
intelhgible.  .  .  It  is  conjectured  by  Rassam  that  in 
the  neighbouring  Dair  there  may  be  found  the  other 
Sipar  which  was  devoted  to  the  cultus  (worship)  of 
Anunit."* 

"The  Hebrew  Sepharvaim  and  the  Babylonian 
Sippara,"  says  Mr.  Boscawen,  "are  both  dual  forms, 
and  indicate  the  double  nature  of  the  city,  which  is 
quite  borne  out  by  Mr.  Rassam's  discoveries.  Adja- 
cent to  the  temple  of  the  sun-god  there  were  found 
several  decorated  in  black  and  white;  these  were 
evidently  part  of  the  temple  of  the  goddess  Anat, 
whose  attribute  as  Venus,  the  morning  and  evening 
star,  would  be  symbolised  by  these  colours."  t 

Nothing  is  yet  known  of  Ava,  the  third  city  men- 
tioned in  the  Scripture.  "With  respect  to  Avva," 
says  Schrader,  "  no  information  is  to  be  gained  from 
the  inscriptions  defining  its  locality.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  once  more  perfedl  agreement  between 
the  inscriptions  and  the  Bible  in  the  notice  of  the 
latter  respecting  the  deportation  of  inhabitants  from 
Hamath,  and  their  settlement  in  Samaria.  For  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Sargon  we  read  that  the  great  king, 
after  defeating,  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign, Ilubid, 
of  Hamath,  separated  from  the  spoil  200  chariots  and 
600  horsemen  as  his  royal  portion.  From  this  we  may 
infer  that,  as  in  the  capture  of  Samaria,  he  must  have 
carried  away  or  deported  the  main  body  of  the  rest 

*  Schrader,  pp.  272,  273.    t  Transactions  0/  the  Victoria  Institute,  vol.  xvii.,  p.  241. 


io8  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

of  the  population  into  captivity.  But  from  other  pas- 
sages ...  we  learn  that  the  king  transferred  into  the 
region  of  Hamath,  evidently  depopulated  by  the  trans- 
portation, other  Eastern  inhabitants  (ina  kirib  mat 
Amatti  usisile,  '  in  the  midst  of  Hamath  I  settled 
them')."* 

Hamath  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  inscriptions 
from  the  time  of  Shalmaneser  II.  dov^n  to  those  of 
Sargon.  It  was  one  of  the  most  important  cities  of 
Syria,  and  was  strenuously  contested  for  by  every 
invader  of  the  country.  The  name  Hamath  means  a 
walled  town,  a  place  of  strength;  and  the  city  was  no 
doubt,  to  begin  with,  the  fortified  town  of  the  district. 
The  name  was  changed  by  the  successors  of  Alexander 
the  Great  into  Epiphania;  and  this  change  seems  to 
have  led  certain  scholars  to  confound  this  ancient  city 
with  Antioch,  and  with  other  towns  in  Syria.  But  the 
Bible  name  has  all  along  lived  on  the  lips  of  the  people 
in  that  fertile  distri(ft,  and  the  place  is  called  ''Hamah" 
to-day.  The  district  in  which  it  lies  is  thus  described 
by  Ainsworth  :  "Advancing  up  the  renowned  valley  of 
Coele-Syria,  its  leading  features  may  be  summed  up  in 
a  few  words  :  a  central  sluggish  river,  with  a  tortuous 
course — expanding  in  places  into  lakelets — a  level 
tradl  of  greensward  and  marsh,  along  which  courses 
the  ancient  highway,  marked  in  places  by  Roman 
milestones,  and  on  both  sides  ranges  of  hills,  of 
moderate  elevation,  tame  outline,  and  naked  acclivi- 
ties. .  .  Many  of  the  marshy  spots  with  lakelets  owe 
their  origin  to  abundant  springs,  which  burst  forth  like 

*  Pages  273,  274. 


no  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

rivulets  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Belus.  The  riches  and 
renown  of  the  cities  of  Ccele-Syria  would  at  once 
attest  to  its  capabilities  and  its  importance  of  old,  had 
not  historyshown  that  the  different  dominatingnations 
in  the  East  were  ever  contending  for  its  possession."  * 
Speaking  of  the  town,  Robinson  says  :  "  It  lies  on 
both  sides  of  the  Orontes,  in  the  valley  and  on  the 
acclivities.  The  population  is  estimated  at  not  less 
than  30,000.  One  of  the  curiosities  of  the  place  are 
the  immense  Persian  wheels,  called  Na'urah,  for 
raising  water  to  the  upper  town.  Some  of  these  are 
seventy  or  eighty  feet  in  diameter,  and  raise  the  water 
to  nearly  that  height,  being  driven  by  the  force  of  the 
current.  \ 

There  are  numerous  inscriptions  which  have  been 
discovered  long  ago  at  Hamath  which  no  man  as  yet 
is  able  to  read.  They  are  in  a  pi(5lure-writing  which 
bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  more  ancient 
Egyptian  hieroglyphics.  But  Sargon's  inscriptions 
are  in  themselves  sufficient  confirmation  of  this  Bible 
statement.  We  find  him  pouring  in  captives  into 
Hamath.  Why  are  these  being  transported  thither  ? 
What  has  occasioned  the  need  for  a  fresh  population  ? 
He  has  answered  this  inquiry  in  an  earlier  inscription. 
As  Schrader  has  already  said,  Sargon  indicates  that  in 
his  second  year,  that  is,  not  long  after  the  carrying 
away  of  the  ten  tribes,  he  had  depopulated  Hamath. 
What  was  done  with  the  people  of  that  distridt  ?  The 
Scripture  answers  this  question,  and  completes  our 
information.     The    Hamathites   were    set    down    in 

*  The  Euphrates  Expedition,  vol.  i.,  p.  51.     f  Biblical  Researches,  vol.  iii.,  p.  551. 


Samaria's  New  Idolatvies.  iii 

Samaria  by  the  side  of  the  men  from  Babylon,  from 
Cutha,  from  Ava,  and  from  Sepharvaim.  The  com- 
mingUng  together  in  a  conquered  territory  of  far- 
sundered  peoples,  who  had  nothing  in  common,  was 
part  of  the  Assyrian  pohcy ;  and  so  the  new  popula- 
tion was  gathered  in  from  the  north,  from  the  far 
south-east,  and  from  the  south-west— from  Hamath, 
from  Babylonia,  and  from  Arabia. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Samaria's  New  Idolatries. 


THE  new  settlers  in  Samaria  brought  with  them 
the  customs  and  the  beliefs  which  they  had 
received  from  their  fathers.  Unlike  those  into  whose 
land  they  had  now  come,  they  had  not  broken  with 
the  traditions  of  their  past,  nor  gone  after  strange  gods. 
On  the  contrary,  they  gave  what,  in  a  better  cause,  we 
should  have  described  as  a  touching  proof  of  their 
fidelity.  Their  gods  had  been  carried  away  by  the 
victor  as  a  choice  part  of  his  spoils.  Deprived  thus 
of  the  opportunity  of  approach  to  what  they  believed 
to  be  a  Divine  helper  in  a  time  of  deepest  calamity, 
they  busied  themselves  at  once  with  the  making  of 
the  things  that  could  not  save.  "Every  nation," 
says  the  Scripture,  "made  gods  of  their  own,  and 


112  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

put  them  in  the  houses  of  the  high  places  which  the 
Samaritans  had   made,  every  nation   in  their  cities 
wherein  they  dwelt.     And  the  men  of  Babylon  made 
Succoth-benoth,  and  the  men  of  Cuth  made  Nergal, 
and  the  men  of  Hamath  made  Ashima,  and  the  Avites 
made  Nibhaz  and  Tartak,  and  the  Sepharvites  burnt 
their  children  in  fire  to  Adrammelech  and  Anamme- 
lech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim"  (2  Kings  xvii.  29-31). 
Here  again,  wherever  research  has  shed  light  upon 
the  religions  of  these  cities  and  nations,  that  light 
displays  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  Bible.  "Succoth- 
benoth"  was  at  first  regarded  as  a  compound  Hebrew 
word,  meaning  "the  tents  of  the  daughters."     But 
this  is  not  satisfactory,  even  as  a  translation,  and,  in 
addition  to  this,  the  word  is  plainly  intended  to  be 
taken  as  the  name  of  a  heathen  god.    Siiccoth  occurs  in 
Amos  V.   26:   "But  ye    have    borne   the  tabernacle 
(Hebrew,  Siiccoth)  of  your  Moloch."  Here  Snccoth  has 
been  understood  by  our  translators  as  a  Hebrew  word, 
and  translated  "tabernacle,"  or  "tent."   But  the  more 
correct  rendering  is  found  in  the  margin,  "Succoth 
your  king."     Schrader  translates  the  verse:  "Thus 
shall  ye  then  take  Succoth  your  king  and  Kewan  your 
star-god,  your  images  which  ye  have  made  for  your- 
selves, and  I  will  carry  you  off  into  captivity; "  and  he 
adds  in  a  note :  "The  meaning  of  the  entire  passage  is : 
I  take  as  little  pleasure  to-day  in  your  burnt  offerings 
and  meal  (meat)  offerings  (verses  22,  23),  as  formerly 
during  the  journey  through  the  wilderness  (verse  25), 
and  the  people  will  certainly  not  be  able  by  such  external 
ceremonial  service  to  prevent  the  arrival  of  the  judg- 


Samaria's  New  Idolatries.  113 

ment  (verse  24),  which  will  befal  both  the  people  (verse 
26),  andthe  gods  worshipped  by  them  (verse  25),  both 
of  whom  shall  equally  be  destined  to  go  into  exile 
(verse  27)."* 

Sak-kut  was  the  name  of  an  Assyrian  divinity,  and 
Schrader  believes  it  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the 
early  Accadians.     The  original  home  of  this  god  was, 
no  doubt,  in  Babylon.     The  word  may  mean  "Head 
of  decision" — the  god  of  destiny.     But  the  divinity 
made  in  Samaria  by  the  men  of  Babel  seems  to  have 
been — not  the  god — but  tJie  goddess  associated  with 
Suk-koth  or  Sak-kut.     She  bears  the  name  of  Benith, 
a  word  almost  identical  with  the  Babylonian  word 
Banit.     This  word  appears  in  the  well-known  term 
Zir-banit — Banit,  "  She  who  bestows ; "  and  Zir,  seed, 
that  is,  "The  Bestower  of  posterity."     "She  was," 
says  Schrader,  "the  consort  of  Merodach,"  +  the  great 
god  of  Babylon.    Further  investigation  will,  no  doubt, 
make  this  still  clearer;    but,  meanwhile,  it   is  satis- 
factory to  know  that  even  a  rationalistic  Assyriologist, 
like  Schrader,  is  impressed  with  the  indications  to 
which  1  have  just  referred.     On  the  next  statement, 
that  "the  men  of  Cuth  made  Nergal,"  no  obscurity 
now  rests.     What   Schrader    calls   "an   unexpected 
light"  "has  been  thrown,"  he  says,  "on  this  passage 
by  the   cuneiform   inscriptions."     In   sculptures   re- 
presenting lion-hunts,  the   usual   name   for  the   lion 
appears — lik-niah,  which  is  explained  in  other  inscrip- 
tions to  mean  "the  great  dog."     But  in  two  identical 
inscriptions  a  change  is  made  in  the  name,  and  instead 

*Vol.  ii.,  p.  141.      t  Vol.  i.,  p.  274. 


114  ^^^^  ^^'^'  Biblical  Guide. 

of  the  word  lik-mah,  we  read  Nirgalli.  Now  "in  both 
these  passages,"  writes  Schrader,  "we  have  not  to  do 
with  real  Hons,  but  with  the  hon-coUossi  (colossal  lions) 
that  adorn  the  palace-entrances,  and  which,  therefore, 
represent  the  \ion-deity.  It  is  accordingly  evident," 
he  continues,  "that  Nirgal  represented  in  Assyria  the 
lion-god."  *  The  reader  will  notice  that  these  images 
are  called  Nirgalli — that  is,  Nergals. 

Nirgal,  or  Nergal,  was,  therefore,  an  Assyrian  and 
Bab3'lonian  divinity.  But  what  of  Cuth  ?  Was  the 
god  identified  in  such  a  special  way  with  this  Baby- 
lonian city  that  its  former  inhabitants  would  make 
his  image  rather  than  that  of  any  other  of  the  many 
gods  of  Babylonia  ?  A  word  list  discovered  a  con- 
siderable time  ago  enables  us  to  answer  fully.  In  it 
"  Nergal  is  expressly  called  the  god  of  Kutha."  t  The 
inscriptions  call  this  god  of  the  Cutheans  "the  great 
hero,  the  king  of  combats,  the  master  of  battles,  the 
champion  of  the  gods,  the  god  of  the  chase."  We 
are  also  able  to  see  for  ourselves  the  very  form  of  this 
so-called  deity,  which  these  new  settlers  placed  in  the 
old  idolatrous  shrines  of  Samaria.  It  was  not  that 
of  the  colossal  images  before  Assyrian  palace  gates. 
These  also  bore  the  name  and  represented  the  divinit}', 
but  these  were  not  the  figures  under  which  he  was 
apparently  worshipped.  He  is  represented  in  a 
sculpture  with  a  man's  body,  a  lion's  head,  and 
holding  a  sword  in  his  hand.  A  tradition  of  the 
Jewish  rabbis  shows  how  completely  all  knowledge 
as  to  what  Nergal's  form  was  had  died  out  among  the 

*Vol.  i.,p.  275.     \Ibid. 


Samaria's  New  Idolatries,  115 

later  Jews.  The  tradition  referred  to  informs  us  that 
the  Cuthean  inhabitants  of  Samaria  worshipped  Ner- 
gal  under  the  form  of  a  cock.  That  is  the  kind  of 
thing  which,  if  the  higher  criticism  were  true,  we 
should  have  found  in  the  Bible ;  for  they  confidently 
assume  that  the  Bible  history  is  simply  Jewish  tradi- 
tion, and  Jewish  tradition,  too,  into  which  have  filtered 
the  darkness  and  the  blunders  of  times  that  had  long 
ceased  to  be  in  aclual  contaa:  with  the  things  of  which 
the  traditions  spoke.  Now,  that  is  perfectly  true  of 
the  rabbinical  tradition  which  would  lead  us  to  believe 
that  Nergal,  the  god  of  Cutha,  was  figured  under  the 
form  of  a  cock — a  tradition  which  the  discoveries  I 
have  just  referred  to  have  exploded  and  annihilated. 
But  in  regard  to  the  Bible  statement,  this  is  absolutely 
false  witness.  It  is  once  more  shown  here,  as  it  has 
been  shown  everywhere,  where  the  past  has  been  re- 
called, that  the  Bible  contains,  not  traditions,  but  fully 
informed  and  utterly  reliable  history. 

Hamath  was  a  Syrian,  and  not  a  Babylonian  city; 
and  as  to  Ava,  we  have  already  seen  that  we  are 
awaiting  further  light.  We  can  say  little,  therefore, 
of  the  gods  which  the  transported  dwellers  of  these 
cities  made.  ''Yet  the  name  Nibhaz,''  says  Schrader, 
"shows  by  its  formation  an  Assyrian  origin ;  and  the 
second  name  Tartak  reminds  us,  in  the  first  syllable, 
of  names  like  Tur-tan-u;  and  in  its  second,  of  names 
such  as  I-tak."  Even  here,  therefore,  there  is  enough 
to  indicate  that  these  are  not  names  coined  by  a 
Jewish  imagination,  but  that  they  belong  to  the  land 
and  to  the  time  to  which  the  Bible    assigns  them. 


ii6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

But  in  the  mention  made  of  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim, 
we  are  able  once  more  to  test  Bible  statements  by 
actual  facts.  We  are  told  here  that  the  men  of 
Sepharvaim  "  burnt  their  children  in  the  fire  to  Adram- 
melech  and  Anammelech,  the  gods  of  Sepharvaim." 
Here  two  gods  are  named.  This  corresponds  with 
the  name  "  double  Sipara,"  or  Sepharvaim.  Are 
these  names,  then,  names  of  Babylonian  deities  ?  A 
second  question  is  whether  there  was  a  two-fold 
worship  connected  with  these  twin  cities,  and  whether 
these  were  the  deities  who  were  worshipped  there  ? 
Assyriologists  tell  us  that  Adra-melech  is  Adar-prince, 
and  Ana-melech  Anu-prince.  These  were  among  the 
great  gods  of  Babylonia.  The  name  Adar,  according 
to  Fr.  Lenormant,  meant  originally  **fire."  This 
divinity  is  called  in  the  inscriptions  '*  the  god  who 
illumines  the  nations  like  the  sun,"  "the  luminary  of 
the  gods,"  and  his  name  is  sometimes  accompanied 
by  the  ideogram  of  ''wood  "  to  represent  the  notion 
of  "fire."  The  worship  of  Adar  was  widely  spread 
in  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  He  "played,"  says  Prof. 
Sayce,  "  a  conspicuous  part  in  Babylonian,  and  more 
especially  Assyrian,  theology.  He  was  regarded  as 
emphatically  the  warrior  and  champion  of  the  gods. 
.  .  .  Originally,  like  Merodach,  Adar  had  been  a 
solar  deity.  We  are  distinctly  told  that  he  was  'the 
Meridian  sun,'  whose  scorching  heats  represented  the 
fiercer  side  of  Baal-worship.  But  whereas  Merodach 
was  the  sun  conceived  of  as  rising  from  the  ocean- 
stream,  Adar  was  the  sun  who  issues  forth  from  the 
shades  of  night.     His  wife  accordingly  is  'the  lady 


Samaria's  New  Idolatries.  117 

of  the  dawn.' "  *  Comparing  the  representations 
regarding  Merodach,  or  Bel,  and  Adar,  he  says :  '*  Each 
ahke  is  the  son  and  messenger  of  the  older  god.  But 
whereas  the  errands  upon  which  Merodach  are  sent 
are  errands  of  mercy  and  benevolence,  the  errands 
of  Adar  are  those  that  befit  an  implacable  warrior. 
He  contends  not  against  the  powers  of  darkness ;  it 
is  against  mankind,  as  in  the  story  of  the  Deluge, 
that  his  arms  are  directed.  He  is  the  solar  hero  who 
belongs  to  the  darkness  and  not  to  the  light."  t 

Along  with  Adrammelech  the  Sepharvaites  had  a 
second  divinity — Anammelech.  Each  of  the  heathen 
gods  was  accompanied  by  a  goddess;  and  it  is  natural 
to  assume  that  in  the  case  of  the  sun-god  there  was 
some  greatly  distinguished  goddess  of  the  sun  who 
is  here  specially  named  as  associated  with  Adram- 
melech. There  was  such  a  goddess  who  bore  a  name 
in  part  identical  with  Anammelech.  This  is  the 
goddess  x\nounit.  But  in  this  case  what  is  to  be 
said  of  the  latter  part  of  the  word  ?  For  in  the  Hebrew 
we  have,  not  Anounit,  but  Ana.  In  similar  words 
transferred  from  the  Assyrian  to  the  Hebrew,  the  t  is 
dropped.  Idiklat,  the  name  of  the  Tigris,  becomes, 
for  example,  Hiddekel  in  Genesis  ii.  14.  The  name, 
too,  is  found  in  a  form  identical,  as  to  the  two  first 
syllables,  with  the  Hebrew  Ana.  "It  was  this  pair  of 
deities,"  writes  Mr.  Boscawen,  ''Anat,  Anuniture,  or 
Anatis,  and  Shamas,  the  sun-god,  that  were  wor- 
shipped by  the  Samaritans,  who  were  transported 
from  Sepharvaim  by  Sargon  (2  Kings  xvii.  32)."    He 

*  The  Hibbert  Lectures,  pp.  152, 153.    t  Pages  153,  154. 


Ii8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

als.)  mentions  that  Anat  was  regarded  as  both  a  god 
and  a  goddess.*  Still  this  point  cannot  be  regarded 
as  altogether  clear,  and  further  light  will  have  to  be 
awaited.  With  regard  to  Adrammelech,  there  is  no 
doubt  whatever;  and  the  uniting  of  the  name  Anam- 
melech  with  this  certainly  suggests  that  of  his  consort 
Anounit-malkitu. 

When  we  ask  whether  these  were  connecfted  in  any 
way  with  the  two  Sipars,  the  reply  is  full  and  emphatic. 
"  Sippara,"  says  Professor  Sayce,  *'  was  pre-eminently 
the  city  of  the  sun-god.  It  was  there  that  e-Babara, 
*the  house  of  lustre,'  the  great  temple  of  the  sun-god 
had  been  ere6led  in  days  to  which  tradition  alone 
went  back,  and  it  was  around  its  shrine  that  Semitic 
sun-worship  in  Babylonia  was  chiefly  centred."  t 
Sipara  was  called  Sippara  sd  Samas,  Sipar  of  the  sun- 
god.  "  By  the  side  of  Sipar  of  Samas  .  .  .  arose  the 
twin-city  of  Sippara  of  Anounit.":]:  When  excavating 
in  the  mounds  of  Abou-Habba,  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Sippar,  Mr.  Rassam,  as  we  have  already  seen,  found 
in  a  kind  of  chest  made  of  baked  clay,  a  tablet  which 
illustrates  this  sun-worship.  Speaking  of  the  speedy 
success  which  rewarded  his  labours  in  excavating  in 
the  mounds  at  Abu-habbu,  the  site  of  Sepharvaim,  he 
says  :  "  I  was  rewarded,  after  three  days'  trial,  by  one 
of  the  gangs  coming  upon  the  wall  of  a  chamber,  on 
examining  which  I  could  see  it  belonged  to  the  old 
Babylonian  style  of  building.  This  success  encour- 
aged me  to  prosecute  the  research  with  uninterrupted 

*  Transactions  of  the  Victoria  Institute,  vol.  xvii.,  p.  249. 
+  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  168.        J  Page  182. 


Samaria's  New  Idolatries.  ng 

perseverance,  and  before  many  days  were  over  we 
came  upon  other  buildings  in  different  parts  of  the 
mound.  This  made  me  work  with  redoubled  energy, 
and  very  soon  afterwards  we  came  upon  a  chamber 
paved  with  asphalt,  which  proved  to  contain  the 
history  of  the  new  city  which  I  had  discovered. 
Heretofore  all  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  structures 
w^ere  found  to  be  paved  generally  either  with  stone  or 
brick :  consequently  this  novel  discovery  led  me  to 
have  the  asphalt  broken  into  and  examined.  On 
doing  so,  we  found,  buried  in  a  corner  of  the  chamber, 
about  three  feet  below  the  surface,  an  inscribed 
earthenware  coffer,  inside  which  was  deposited  a  stone 
tablet  covered  with  an  inscription,  on  the  top  of  which 
was  represented  some  deity  which  has  since  been 
identified  by  Assyrian  scholars  with  the  sun-god;  also 
two  figures  above,  holding  an  emblem  of  the  sun 
before  him,  and  two  priests  leading  a  youth,  evidently 
a  prince,  to  present  to  him.  With  this  tablet  I  found 
two  perfect  terra-cotta  inscribed  cylinders,  covered 
minutely  with  inscription,  giving  also  the  history  of 
the  place."  * 

Dr.  Pinches  has  translated  the  inscription  which 
occupies  the  lower,  and  larger,  part  of  the  front  of  this 
tablet,  and  the  whole  of  the  back.  It  refers  to  the 
plundering  and  the  destruction  of  the  sandluaries  by 
the  Sutu,  "a  wicked  enemy."  The  king  of  Sephar- 
vaim  asked  in  vam  for  the  restoration  of  the  property. 
He  then  commenced  the  restoration  of  the  temple. 
He  did  not  live  to  complete  the  work,  and  it  was  con- 

*  Transactions  of  the  Victoria  Institute,  xvii.,  p.  223,  224. 


TABLET    SHOWING    THE    ADORATION    OK    THE    SUN-GOD    AT    SIPAR. 


Samaria's  New  Idolatries.  121 

tinued  by  a  subsequent  king.  But  it  was  reserved  for 
a  Babylonian  king,  Nabu-apla-iddin,  to  completely 
restore  the  strudture.  It  was  "  adorned  w'ith  the 
image  of  the  sun-god,  and  with  chased  gold  and 
bright  crystal.  Besides  this,  the  king  found  a 
shrine  for  the  sun-god  in  Bit-kar-zagina,  beside  the 
Euphrates,  where  vic^tims  were  offered,  and  honey 
and  wine  bestowed."* 

The  tablet  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The 
reader  will  find  a  copy  of  it  on  the  opposite  page. 
The  god  is  in  a  shrine.  The  statue  is  of  colossal  size. 
The  throne  on  which  the  god  is  seated  is  without  back 
or  side  supports,  but  is  carved  and  ornamented.  He 
has  a  beard  which  descends  to  his  girdle,  and  his  head 
is  adorned  with  a  crown  composed  of  four  pairs  of 
horns,  symbols  of  power.  Cpon,  or  behind,  the  altar  in 
front  of  him  is  a  huge  solar  disc.  Three  personages, 
as  Mr.  Rassam  has  said,  are  represented  in  the  acSt  of 
worship.  The  first  is  evidently  a  priest,  who  lays  hold 
of  the  altar  with  his  left  hand,  and  with  the  right 
grasps  the  left  hand  of  a  w^orshipper  whom  he  is  pre- 
senting before  the  god.  Behind  the  worshipper  is  the 
king  Nabu-appla-iddina,  the  Babylonian  monarch  who 
caused  this  memorial  of  his  restoration  of  the  temple 
and  his  worship  of  the  god  of  Sippar  to  be  made.  The 
tablet  contains,  besides  the  history  of  the  restoration, 
a  list  of  the  king's  gifts,  and  also  a  list  of  the  festivals 
on  which  the  god  was  specially  honoured.  These 
amounted  to  six  yearly.  One  wonders  whether  the 
youth,  figured  in  the  inscription,  is  a  victim  whom 

'^  Ibid,  p.  224. 


122  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the  priest  leads  to  the  god,  and  behind  whom  the 
Babylonian  king  appears.  The  priests'  grasp,  with 
one  hand  upon  the  altar  and  with  the  other  upon  the 
youth,  may  indicate  that  he  is  intended  for  the  altar. 
These  festivals  were  doubtless  kept  by  his  votaries 
in  Samaria.  The  men  have  long  since  passed  away. 
The  temples  and  altars  of  the  sun-god  and  the 
sun-goddess  have  long  been  buried  in  the  dust.  The 
horrid  rites  by  which  their  favour  was  sought  ceased 
long  centuries  ago,  slain  by  the  beams  of  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness,  whose  light  in  the  fulness  of  the  times 
rose  upon  the  nations.  But  their  memorials,  so 
strangely  recovered  in  these  last  times,  now  serve  the 
God  whom  men  had  abandoned  and  forgotten,  and 
these  now  come  forth  from  their  ruined  heaps  to  swell 
the  cry:  ''Thy  word  is  truth." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib. 


THERE  have  been  great  moments  and  great  char- 
acters in  history  which  inevitably  remind  one  of 
similar  times  and  personages;  and  it  is  long  since 
historians  have  delighted  their  readers  by  pointing  out 
the  parallels,  and  impressing  the  lessons,  which  these 
have  emphasized.  The  Scripture  has  also  availed  itself 
of  those  historic  materials;  but  this  has  been  done  for 
a  purpose  which  is  in  perfect  accord  with  its  own 


Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib.  123 

miraculous  character.  History  has  frequently  availed 
itself  of  such  parallels  for  the  illumination  of  the  past: 
the  Scripture  has  used  them  for  the  illumination  of 
the  future. 

The  Bible  is,  above  all  things,  the  Book  of  the 
Future.  From  the  first  it  proclaimed  the  advent  of  the 
Christ — the  Christ,  not  of  the  Cross  only,  but  also  of 
the  Throne.  Even  in  that  first  glimpse,  in  Gen.  iii.  15, 
we  mark,  on  the  one  side,  the  subtle  and  mahgnant 
adversary,  and  on  the  other,  the  wounded  Helper  and 
triumphant  Deliverer.  We  have  there  both  the  tragedy 
and  the  glory  which  the  Scripture,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  sets  before  us.  This  persistent  purpose 
explains,  I  believe,  the  exceeding  brightness  of  that 
part  of  Jewish  history  with  which  we  are  now  to  deal. 
Who  is  it  that  does  not,  at  the  mention  of  the  names 
of  Hezekiah  and  of  Sennacherib,  bring  forth  from  the 
chambers  of  his  imagery  one  of  the  very  brightest  of 
their  pictures  ?  From  our  childhood  we  have  seen,  as 
vividly  as  if  we  had  looked  upon  them  with  our  own 
eyes,  the  Jewish  king  in  the  midst  of  his  trembling 
people,  bathed  in  tears,  clothed  in  sackcloth,  spreading 
out  that  letter  before  the  Lord,  and  the  proudconqueror 
coming  down  "as  a  wolf  on  the  fold,"  and  causing  his 
blasphemies  to  be  uttered  before  the  gates  of  the  holy 
city.  And  why  is  the  vail  so  fully  lifted  here?  Why 
is  this  bit  of  the  past  endowed  with  such  immortality 
and  made  so  eternally  present  ?  Because  it  casts  light 
upon  the  future.  That  bit  of  the  past,  so  clear  and 
bright,  is  a  window  through  which  we  look  out  upon 
the  things  to  come.     No  reader  of  Isaiah  will  have 


124  T^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

forgotten  ''the  Assyrian"  who  figures  so  largely  in  his 
glowing  pictures  of  the  future.  "The  Lord  of  hosts 
hath  sworn,  saying,  Surely  as  I  have  thought,  so  shall 
it  come  to  pass;  and  as  I  have  purposed,  so  shall  it 
stand:  That  I  will  break  the  Assyrian  in  My  land, 
and  upon  My  mountains  tread  him  under  foot:  then 
shall  his  yoke  depart  from  off  them,  and  his  burden 
depart  from  off  their  shoulders.  This  is  the  purpose 
that  is  purposed  upon  the  whole  earth:  and  this  is  the 
hand  that  is  stretched  out  upon  the  nations"  (Isaiah 
xiv.  24-26).  There  comes  a  moment  when  Israel  will 
once  more  tremble  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and 
when  the  blasphemies  of  the  antichrist  will  be  pro- 
claimed before  its  walls.  But  to  faith  this  will  merely 
be  the  commencement  of  the  story.  Has  not  the  rest 
been  written  from  of  old?  "The  Assyrian"  comes 
only  to  be  "broken  without  hand"  and  to  be  trodden 
under  foot ;  and  the  culmination  of  the  terror  will  mark 
the  beginning  of  the  full  and  enduring  deliverance. 

Though  it  is  impossible  not  to  notice  this,  it  does 
not  belong  to  our  present  effort  to  dwell  upon  it.  We 
have  to  meet  the  issue  forced  upon  us  by  an  unbelief 
which  claims  that  it  has  made  the  old  beliefs  im- 
possible, and  which  clamours  for  "the  indemnity." 
Here  once  more,  then,  we  have  a  field — and  a  field 
specially  spacious — on  which  these  claims  may  be 
tried.  Let  it  be  noted  also  that  that  feature  of  the 
Bible,  which  is  so  obnoxious  to  the  higher  criticism — 
the  supernatural — is  abundantly  present.  Hezekiah 
prays,  God  answers;  and  an  Assyrian  army,  which  it 
is  in  vain  for  Syria  and  for  Egypt  to  think  of  meeting. 


Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib,  125 

is  "broken  without  hand."  In  a  single  night  it  is 
almost  annihilated,  though  undisturbed  by  any  earthly 
foe.  The  awe-stricken  remnant  pass  with  swift 
marches  to  their  own  land;  but  even  there  vengeance, 
awaits  the  man  who  dared  to  measure  himself  with 
God.  While  worshipping  his  god  he  is  slaughtered 
by  his  own  children.  Here  are  miracles,  and  "  a 
poetic  justice"  almost  equally  condemned  as  non- 
natural  by  the  critics.  In  other  words,  the  marks  of 
a  late  and  manipulated  tradition  are  to  such  eyes  not 
only  apparent  but  glaring.  Have  we  here,  then, 
tradition  or  fact?  In  other  words,  does  our  super- 
natural Bible  contain  veritable  history  ?  Or  is  it 
legend  and  fiction  ? 

When  M.  Botta.  the  French  Consul  at  Mosul,  on 
the  Tigris,  commenced  his  excavations  at  Nimroud, 
one  of  his  most  earnest  sympathisers  was  Mr.  Layard, 
then  connected  with  the  British  Embassy  at  Con- 
stantinople. The  deep  interest  taken  by  Layard  in 
those  excavations  was  manifested  by  letters  to  The 
Malta  Times,  in  which  their  results  were  described 
and  discussed.  The  interest  of  Sir  Stratford  Canning, 
our  Ambassador  to  the  Porte,  was  awakened,  and  he 
offered  to  bear  the  expense  if  Layard  would  under- 
take excavations  on  his  own  account.  The  generous 
offer  was  at  once  accepted.  The  explorer,  whose 
fame  will  be  long  linked  with  this  part  of  the  Bible 
history,  proceeded  to  Assyria,  took  up  his  abode  at 
Mosul,  and,  to  escape  the  lynx  eye  of  the  Turkish 
Pasha,  hurriedly  engaged  a  few  workmen,  boarded  a 
raft,  and  giving  out  that  he  was  going  on  a  hunting 


126  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

expedition,  proceeded  to  Kimroud,  a  collection  of 
mounds  some  miles  lower  down  the  river,  where 
Botta  had  commenced  his  excavations  but  had  found 
Httle.  The  result  was  the  commencement  of  the  dis- 
covery of  those  huge,  sculptured,  human-headed  bulls 
and  lions,  with  the  appearance  of  which  everyone  is 
now  familiar.  There  were  inscribed  slabs  also,  which  no 
one  at  that  time  was  able  to  read,  but  the  importance 
of  which  was  universally  admitted.  It  was  felt  that 
the  ancient  East  was  coming  back  into  the  life  of 
to-day ;  and,  as  one  has  said,  that  the  world  in  its 
old  age  was  vividly  recalling  the  long  vanished  scenes 
of  its  youth.  Many  a  heart  responded  to  those  words 
of  Layard's :  "These  winged,  human-headed  lions 
were  not  idle  creations,  the  offspring  of  mere  fancy: 
their  meaning  was  written  upon  them.  They  had 
awed  and  instructed  races  which  had  lived  3,000 
years  ago.  Through  the  portals  which  they  guarded, 
kings,  priests,  and  warriors  had  borne  sacrifices  to 
their  altars,  long  before  the  wisdom  of  the  East  had 
penetrated  to  Greece,  and  had  furnished  its  myth- 
ology with  symbols  long  recognised  by  the  Assyrian 
votaries."  *  On  the  slabs,  which  lined  the  now  roofless 
and  ruined  chambers,  were  the  records  in  sculpture, 
and  apparently  also  in  writing,  of  ancient  conquests. 
''In  the  upper  compartment  of  the  next  slab  was  the 
siege  of  a  city,  with  the  battering  ram  and  movable 
tower,  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The  lower  part 
of  the  two  slabs  was  occupied  by  one  subject,  a  king 
receiving  prisoners  brought  before  him  by  his  vizir 

♦  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  chapter  iii. 


ASSAULT    OF    A    CITY    BY    THE    ASSYRIANS. 
THE    INHABITANTS   LED    AWAY   INTO   CAPTIVITY. 


128  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

.  .  .  .  The  prisoners  were  on  the  adjoining  slab, 
Above  their  heads  were  vases  and  various  objects, 
amongst  which  appeared  to  be  shawls,  and  elephants' 
tusks,  probably  representing  the  spoil  carried  away 
from  the  conquered  nation.  .  .  .  On  the  flooring, 
below  the  sculptures,  were  discovered  considerable 
remains  of  painted  plaster  still  adhering  to  the  sun- 
dried  bricks,  which  had  fallen  in  masses  from  the 
upper  part  of  the  wall.  The  colours,  particularly  the 
blues  and  the  reds,  were  as  brilliant  and  vivid,  when 
the  earth  was  removed  from  them,  as  they  could 
have  been  when  first  used.  On  exposure  to  the  air 
they  faded  rapidly.  The  designs  were  elegant  and 
elaborate."  * 

The  tidings  of  these  discoveries  awakened  the 
greatest  interest  at  home,  and  the  interest  was 
deepened  by  the  announcement  that  Sir  Stratford 
Canning  had  made  over  to  the  British  nation  all  the 
objects  which  had  been  discovered.  The  enthusiasm 
was  great  enough  to  compel  the  attention  of  the 
ministry  of  the  day,  and  a  sum  was  voted  to  the 
British  Museum  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work. 
But  indifference  was  in  this  case  succeeded  only  by 
penuriousness.  So  wretchedly  inadequate  was  the 
amount  voted  that  a  salary  could  not  be  afforded  for 
a  draughtsman,  and  Mr.  Layard  had  to  do  the 
best  he  could  with  unpractised  hands  to  preserve 
sculptures  and  priceless  inscriptions  found  upon  slabs 
which  crumbled  away  almost  as  soon  as  they  were 
bared  to  the  light  of  day.     He  was  also  denied  the 

♦Chapter  v. 


Hczekiah  and  Sennacherib.  129 

aid  of  other  skilled  assistance,  and  he  had  to  remove 
with  his  own  hands  the  earth  which  covered  the  face 
of  monuments  which  would  have  been  ruined  by 
incautious  workmen.  Fortunately,  the  explorer  had 
secured  the  services  of  Mr.  Hormuzd  Rassam,  to 
whom  we  owe  so  much  in  the  work  of  after  excava- 
vation,  and  who  is  still  among  us. 

When  Layard  turned  to  the  mounds  of  Kouyounyik 
he  had  not  the  faintest  notion  that  it  was  the  con- 
nection of  his  name  with  the  ruins  he  was  to  find 
there  that  would  make  him  famous.  After  describing 
the  completion  of  his  excavations  at  Nimroud,  he 
says  :  "  As  a  small  sum  of  money  still  remained  at 
my  disposal,  I  proposed  to  devote  it  to  an  examination 
of  the  ruins  opposite  Mosul,  particularly  of  the  great 
mound  of  Kouyounyik."  One  reason  of  this  hope- 
lessness of  results  was  the  wholesale  destrudlion  of 
the  remains  which  had  been  carried  on  for  ages.  The 
moundshad  formed  the  quarries  of  the  neighbourhood. 
Precious  slabs  had  been  excavated,  broken  up,  and 
built  into  the  houses,  and  quantities  more  had  been 
burned  to  furnish  lime  for  the  buildings. 

His  men  had  not  been  long  at  work,  however, 
before  hopelessness  was  exchanged  for  the  most 
intense  interest  and  expectation.  The  excavators 
made  their  way  into  a  series  of  long,  narrow  chambers. 
The  walls  were,  or  had  been,  panelled  with  sculptured 
slabs.  The  winged  human-headed  bulls  were  much 
larger  than  those  at  N  imroud.  The  palace  had  evidently 
been  destroyed  by  fire,  and  the  slabs  were,  in  many 
cases,  reduced  almost  to  lime.    But  there  were  many 


130  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

also  in  much  better  condition.  On  one  the  king  was 
sculptured.  He  stood  in  a  chariot  with  a  bow  in  his 
hand.  The  right  hand  was  raised  apparently  in  token 
of  triumph.  "He  was  accompanied  by  a  charioteer, 
and  by  an  attendant  bearing  an  umbrella,  to  which 
was  hung  a  long  curtain,  falling  behind  the  back  of 
the  king,  and  screening  him  entirely  from  the  sun." 
Layard  had  found  Sennacherib  and  Nineveh,  the  great 
city  which  Sennacherib  had  re-built  and  adorned. 
**  The  ruins,"  says  Layard,  ''were  evidently  those  of 
a  palace  of  great  extent  and  magnificence.  From  the 
size  of  the  slabs  and  the  number  of  the  figures,  the 
walls,  when  entire  and  painted,  as  they  no  doubt 
originally  were,  must  have  been  of  considerable  beauty, 
and  the  dimensions  of  the  chambers  must  have  added 
greatly  to  the  general  effecSt.  .  .  The  position  of  the 
ruins  proves  that  at  one  time  this  was  one  of  the  most 
important  parts  of  Nineveh  ;  and  the  magnificence  of 
the  remains,  that  the  edifices  must  have  been  founded 
by  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Assyrian  monarchs." 

Scholars  were  then  grappling  with  the  problems 
presented  by  the  Assyrian  writing,  but  the  work  of 
decipherment  had  not  yet  really  begun.  Layard 
noticed,  however,  two  facSts.  It  was  already  known 
that  when  two  names  followed  each  other  in  the 
inscriptions,  the  first  was  the  name  of  the  son,  the 
second  the  name  of  thefather,  the  names  running  thus: 
A,  the  son  of  B.  In  comparing  the  inscriptions  which 
had  been  found  at  Khorsabad  by  Botta  with  those 
which  he  himself  had  now  excavated  at  Nineveh,  he 
saw  that  the  name  of  the  king  at  Khorsabad  occurred 


Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib.  131 

in  the  second  place  in  those  at  Nineveh.     In  other 


Q:&^^na£4e<rt^  .J^kUt'ty&^U^im 


PLAN  OF  THE  RUIN'S  OF  NINEVEH,  AND  OF  THE  PALACES  OF 
SENNACHERIB,  OF  ESARHADDON,  AND  OF  ASSUR-BANI-PAL. 


132  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

words,  the  king  who  had  built  the  Khorsabad  palace 
was  the  father  of  the  restorer  of  Nineveh.  Later 
discoveries  proved  the  corredlness  of  this,  for  the 
names  were  those  of  Sargon  and  of  Sennacherib.  He 
noted,  too,  that  Sargon's  name  was  not  followed  by 
a  second.  This  was  also  true ;  for  Sargon,  being  a 
usurper,  could  make  no  boast  of  royal  descent. 
Another  remark  of  Layard's  ought  not  to  be  forgotten. 
There  has  been,  from  first  to  last,  marvellous  Provi- 
dential guidance  in  these  discoveries,  and  Layard  was 
compelled  to  note  this  in  his  own  case  as  well.  "Had 
these  palaces,"  he  writes,  "  been  exposed  to  view  some 
years  before,  no  one  would  have  been  ready  to  take 
advantage  of  the  circumstance,  and  they  would  have 
been  completely  destroyed  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country.  Had  they  been  discovered  a  little  later,  it 
it  is  highly  probable  that  there  would  have  been 
insurmountable  objed\ions  to  their  removal.  It  was 
consequently  just  at  the  right  moment  that  they  were 
disinterred."  * 

The  monuments  of  Nineveh  enable  us  to  look  upon 
what  are  no  doubt  exact  likenesses  of  Sennacherib. 
We  have  "a  bas-relief,"  writes  Vigouroux — "and 
this  is  not  one  of  the  least  of  the  surprises  which 
the  archaeological  discoveries  in  Assyria  had  in  store 
for  us — which  represents  this  terrible  king  whom  we 
have  all  from  our  infancy  learned  from  this  narrative 
of  sacred  history  to  regard  with  horror.  M.  Oppert 
tells  with  what  emotion  he  saw  at  Nineveh,  at  the 
very  moment  when  it  was  discovered,  the  image  of  this 

♦Chapter  xiv. 


Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib,  133 

conqueror  who  had  done  such  injury  to  his  ancestors. 
What  gives  this  bas-rehef  a  greater  value,  if  that  is 
possible,  is  that  it  represents  Sennacherib,  not  in 
Assyria,  but  in  Palestine,  at  Lachish.  He  is  seated 
upon  a  throne  richly  ornamented,  the  back  of  which 
is  covered  with  a  flowered  carpet,  surrounded  with 
broad  fringes.  The  feet  are  imitations  of  the  pine- 
apple. The  sides  of  the  seat  are  upheld  by  three 
rows  of  personages,  arranged  four  by  four,  who,  with 
uplifted  arms,  sustain  the  cross  bars.  The  king  is 
sumptuously  clothed  with  materials  ornamented  with 
flowers  and  fringes  similar  to  those  on  the  carpet  on 
the  back  of  the  throne.  His  lower  tunic  is  fringed 
withtassels.  His  upper  garment  resembles  a  chasuble. 
His  feet  are  covered  with  rich  slippers.  His  hair  is 
adorned  with  the  tiara,  from  which  hang  down  two 
long  pendants.  His  hair  and  his  beard  are  very  long, 
and  are  carefully  curled.  He  wears  cruciform  earrings. 
A  magnificent  bracelet  surrounds  each  of  his  half- 
bared  arms.  His  right  hand  is  lifted  and  armed 
with  an  arrow.  In  his  left  he  holds  the  bow,  which 
he  leans  upon  the  steps  of  his  throne.  Sennacherib 
has  a  very  pronounced  aquiline  nose.  His  counten- 
ance has  a  severe  air,  and  reveals  the  implacable 
conqueror  and  merciless  warrior."* 

Hezekiah,  a  son  of  Ahaz,  one  of  the  very  worst 
kings  that  ever  filled  the  throne  of  David,  began  his 
reign  at  twenty-five,  and  immediately  set  himself  to 
repair  the  evil  done  by  his  father.  He  re-opened  and 
repaired  the  temple.     He  stirred  up  the  priests  and 

*  La  Bible  et  les  Deconvertes  Modernes,  t.  iv.,  pp.  15, 16. 


134 


The  New  Biblical  Guide. 


SENNACHERIB   SEATED   ON    HIS    THRONE    (from    the   MoUUmeuts). 


Sennacherib's  Invasion,  135 

Levites  to  address  themselves  anew  to  the  discharge 
of  their  long-suspended  duties.  The  temple  was 
cleansed,  and  the  people  were  led  back  to  the  long 
closed  courts  and  to  the  deserted  altar.  Ahaz  had 
made  Judah  tributary  to  Assyria ;  but  Hezekiah 
seems  to  have  resolved  to  omit  the  customary  tribute, 
and  to  trust  in  Him  whose  prophets  and  offered  signs 
Ahaz  had  scorned,  but  whose  promise  to  be  Israel's 
shield  still  stood.  We  shall  now  see  the  results  of 
this  bold  step,  and  of  this  weak  power's  daring, 
but  humble  (because  God-relying),  defiance  of  the 
mightiest  empire  of  the  time. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Sennacherib's  Invasion. 


IN  2  Kings  xviii.  13-16,  we  read  :  "  Now  in  the 
fourteenth  year  of  King  Hezekiah  did  Sennacherib 
king  of  Assyria  come  up  against  all  the  fenced  cities 
of  Judah,  and  took  them.  And  Hezekiah  king  of 
Judah  sent  to  the  king  of  Assyria  to  Lachish,  saying, 
I  have  offended ;  return  from  me  :  that  which  thou 
puttest  on  me  will  I  bear.  And  the  king  of  Assyria 
appointed  unto  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  three  hundred 
talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold.  And 
Hezekiah  gave  him  all  the  silver  that  was  found  in 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures  of  the 
king's  house.  At  that  time  did  Hezekiah  cut  off  (the 
gold  from)  the  doors  of  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and 


136  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

(from)  the  pillars  which  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  had 
overlaid,  and  gave  it  to  the  king  of  Assyria." 

It  was  a  time  of  heavy  trial.  Had  the  writer  of 
this  Book,  been  making,  and  not  recording,  history — 
if,  instead  of  being  inspired  and  used  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  he  had  been  working  up  materials  to  inculcate 
his  own  theory  of  Jewish  history,  he  must  have  sadly 
forgotten  the  "  pragmatism  "  with  which  the  critics 
charge  him.  Instead  of  arranging  the  history 
according  to  the  simple  plan  of  rebellion  and  punish- 
ment, obedience  and  blessing,  here  are  fa(?ts  recorded 
on  which  our  shallow  morahsings  and  the  theories  of 
the  critics  alike  go  to  pieces.  For  this  is  a  king  who 
is  among  the  very  best  that  Israel  has  seen  for  long 
ages ;  he  has  just  completed,  the  Chronicles  tell  us, 
one  of  the  greatest  and  most  thorough  religious 
reforms  which  the  world  has  ever  witnessed ;  and, 
nevertheless,  there  follows  this  time  of  fearful  disaster 
and  suffering.  Judah  passes  through  one  of  the 
bitterest  and  darkest  hours  in  all  its  history.  '*  Sen- 
nacherib the  king  of  Assyria  came  up  against  all  the 
fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them."  There  was 
not  one  fortified  city — the  capital  alone  excepted— 
which  was  not  a  scene  of  terror  and  of  slaughter. 
And,  to  end  this  fearful  visitation,  Hezekiah  has  to 
undo  the  dearest  and  most  sacred  of  all  his  labours. 
He  had  to  strip  the  doors  and  the  pillars  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  and  to  remove  the  splendid  appoint- 
ments for  [its  service,  in  order  to  make  up  the 
appointed  tribute. 

We  might  point  out  that  this  was  but  the  beginning 


Sennacherib's  Invasion.  137 

and  not  the  end  of  the  story,  and  that  there  was  a 
mighty  triumph  in  store  for  faith.  We  might  also 
argue  that  Judah  had  deeply  transgressed  in  the 
former  reign  and  could  not  escape  punishment.  It 
would  also  be  open  to  us  to  remind  those  who  find 
difficulty  here  that  "the  Lord  trieth  the  righteous," 
and  that  only  through  trial  could  both  Judah  and 
Hezekiah  be  estabhshed.  But  let  it  be  noted  that  of 
all  this  there  is  not  a  word  nor  a  hint  in  the  Book 
before  us.  Commentaries  may  be  full  of  it,  but  there 
is  nothing  of  it  in  the  text.  Could  there  possibly  be 
a  more  complete  demonstration  that  the  shallow  and 
childish  moralising  which  the  critics  say  is  the  motive 
and  the  end  of  these  Books  is  not  their  explanation  ?  If 
that  had  been  their  purpose,  faa:s  like  these  would 
never  have  been  placed  on  record  so  baldly  and  so 
calmly. 

But  discovery  has  intervened  in  this  discussion  with 

startling  effecft.     It  has  put  Sennacherib  himself  into 

the  witness  box.     That  king  has  told  the  story  of  the 

invasion,  and  detailed  the  various  items  of  the  tribute 

which    Hezekiah    sent    him.     His    inscriptions    are 

specially  numerous,  and  are  in  an  unusually  perfect 

condition.     His  name,   as  inscribed   upon  his  own 

monuments,  corresponds  with  that  in  the  Scripture 

letter  for  letter — Sin-akhi-enb.     His  third  campaign, 

after  ascending  the  throne,  was  to  the  land  of  Hatti, 

that  is  to  Syria,  which  included  Judasa.    He  says  :— 

"  In  my  third  expedition  I  went  to  the  land 

of  Hatti.     Lull  king  of  the  city  of  Sidunnu 

(Sidon),  fear  of  the  glory  of  my  dominion, 


138  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

struck  him,  and  he  fled  from  the  midst  of  Tyre 
to  Yatnana  (Cyprus),  which  is  in  the  middle  of 
the  sea,  and  I  subjugated  his  country.     Great 
Sidunnu,    little    Sidunnu,    Bit-zitte,    Sareptu 
(Zarephath     or    Sarepta),    Mahal-Hba,     Usu 
(Osah),  Akzibi  (Achzib),  Akku  (Accho),  strong 
cities,  fortresses  where  were  food  and  drink, 
his  strongholds,  the  terror  of  the  weapons  of 
Assur  my  lord  struck  them,  and  they  submitted 
to  my  feet.    Tu-ba'alu  (Ethobaal)  on  the  throne 
of  dominion  over  them  I  set,  and  the  tax  and 
tribute  of  my  overlordship  yearly  without  fail 
I  imposed  upon  him." 
So  begins  the  long  inscription.     The  last  days  of 
the  redoubtable  Sargon  had  been  marked  by  ina(5tivity 
and  civil  war.    The  yoke  had  accordingly  been  thrown 
off  by  the  distant  conquests,  and  Hezekiah  had,  in 
withholding  his  tribute,  only  taken  part  in  a  wide- 
spread  movement.     This  entire  districft  had  to   be 
re-conquered,  and  Sennacherib  commences  with  the 
sea-coast.     Let  it  be  noted  that  Tyre  exercises  at 
this  time  lordship  over  a  wide  districft.     Sennacherib 
proceeds  : — 

"As  for  Minhimmu  (Menahem)  of  the  city 
of  the  Samsumurunaa ;  Tu-ba'alu  of  the  city 
of  the  Sidunaa  (Sidonians) ;  Abdi-H'iti  of  the 
city  of  the  Arudaa  (Arvadites) ;  Urumilki  of 
the  city  of  the  Gublaa  (Gebalites) ;  Mitinti  of 
the  city  of  the  Asdudaa  (Ashdodites) ;  Budu-ilu 
of  the  land  of  the  Bit-Ammanaa  (Beth-Am- 
monites) ;  Kammusu-nudbi  (Chemosh-nadab) 


Sennacherib's  Invasion,  139 

of  the  land  of  the  Ma'abaa  (Moabites) ;  Aa- 


rammu  (Joram)  of  the  land  of  the  Udumanaa 
(Edomites) ;    kings   of    the    land    of   Amoria 


*l 


140  The  New  Biblical  Gtiide. 

(the  Amorites)  all  of  them  extensive  coasts, 
brought  their  valuable  presents  as  gifts  to  my 
presence  and  kissed  my  feet." 
A  word  may  here  be  interposed  as  to  some  of  these 
names.  Who  is  Menahem  of  the  city  of  the  Sam- 
summaruna  ?  Geo.  Smith  translated  "  Menahem  of 
Samaria."  Later  Assyriologists  leave  the  Assyrian 
name  untranslated.  We  shall  find  that  the  inscription 
as  we  proceed  is  not  only  imperfecft,  but  that  it  also 
fails  to  square  with  honesty.  There  is  an  evident 
attempt  to  conceal  some  damaging  blow,  and  to  dazzle 
the  reader  of  Sennacherib's  annals  with  an  imposing 
array  of  conquests.  Is  he  here  including  a  king  long 
dead  and  a  conquest  previously  made  by  his  father, 
Sargon  ?  The  name  is  spelled  somewhat  differently 
from  that  of  Samaria  in  Sargon's  inscription;  and, 
though  it  would  be  hard  to  say  what  other  place  it 
refers  to,  we  must  give  Sennacherib  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt.     Let  us  turn  again  to  his  inscription  : — 

**  And  Sidqa  (Zedekiah)  king  of  the  city  of 
Isqalluna  (Askelon)  who  was  not  submissive 
to  my  yoke,  the  gods  of  his  father's  house, 
himself,  his  wife,  his  sons,  his  daughters,  his 
brothers,  (and)  the  seed  of  his  father's  house 
I  removed  and  brought  to  Assur.  Sarru-ludari 
son  of  Rukibtu,  their  former  king,  I  placed 
over  the  people  of  the  land  of  Isqalluna,  and 
the  payment  of  tribute  as  the  price  of  my  over- 
lordship  I  set  for  him,  and  he  bore  my  yoke. 
In  the  course  of  my  campaign  the  city 
Bit-Daganna   (Beth-Dagon),   Yappu  (Joppa), 


Sennacherib's  Invasion.  141 

Banaa-barqa  (Bene-berak),  Azuru  (Azor),  cities 

of  Sidqa,  which  were  afterwards  not  submissive 

to  my  yoke,  I  besieged,  captured  (and)  carried 

off  their  spoil." 

Plainly  we  have  here  the  narrative  of  an  extensive 

and  resolutely  conducted  campaign.      Sennacherib 

sweeps  along  the  sea  coast,  overthrowing,  one  after 

another,  the  ancient  strongholds  of  the  Philistines, 

which  seem  all  to  be  under  the  rule  of  Sidqa,  that  is, 

of  Zedekiah,  of  Askelon.     We  now  come  to  the  first 

mention  of  the  name  of  Hezekiah. 

"The  prefedls,  the  princes,  and  the  people  of 
the  city  Amqarruna  (Ekron),  who  had  thrown 
Padi  their  king,  who  was  faithful  to  the  agree- 
ment and  oath  of  the  land  of  Assur,  into  fetters 
of  iron,  and  given  him  to  Haziqiau  (Hezekiah) 
of  the  land  of  the  Yaudaa  (Jews) — hostilely  in 
secret  they  a6led  (and)  they  feared  in  their 
hearts.  The  kings  of  the  land  of  Musru 
(Egypt),  (and)  the  soldiers  of  the  bow,  the 
chariots  and  the  horses  of  the  king  of  the  land 
of  Meluhha,  gathered  to  themselves  a  number- 
less force,  and  came  to  their  help.  Over 
against  me,  in  sight  of  Altaqu  (Eltekah),  their 
line  of  battle  was  set  in  array ;  they  called 
for  their  weapons.  In  the  service  of  Assur 
my  lord  I  fought  with  them  and  accomplished 
their  defeat.  The  charioteers  and  the  sons  of 
the  king  of  the  Musuraa  (Egyptians),  with  the 
charioteers  of  the  sons  of  the  king  of  the  land 
of  Meluhha,  my  hands  captured  alive  in  the 


142  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

midst  of  the  battle.  As  for  the  city  of  Altaqu 
(Eltekah)  (and)  the  city  of  Tamna  (Timnah),  I 
besieged,  captured,  (and)  carried  off  their  spoil. 
"I  approached  to  the  city  of  Amqarruna 
(Ekron),  and  the  prefe(fts  and  princes  who  had 
caused  the  wrong  to  be  I  killed,  and  on  stakes 
around  the  city  I  hung  their  corpses.  The 
sons  of  the  city  doing  the  crime  and  misdeed 
I  counted  as  spoil.  The  rest  of  them,  who 
did  not  commit  sin  and  wickedness,  whose 
evil  deed  was  not,  I  commanded  their  release. 
I  caused  Padi,  their  king,  to  come  forth  from 
the  midst  of  Ursalimmu  (Jerusalem),  and  to 
sit  on  the  throne  of  dominion  over  them,  and 
the  tribute  of  my  overlordship  I  imposed  upon 
him.  And  as  for  Hazaqiau  (Hezekiah)  of 
the  land  of  the  Yaudaa  (Jews)  who  had  not 
submitted  to  my  yoke,  forty-six  of  his  strong 
cities,  fortresses  and  small  towns  which  were 
around  them,  which  were  innumerable,  with 
overthrowing  by  battering  rams,  and  advance 
of  towers,  infantry  attack,  breaching,  cutting, 
and  earthworks  I  besieged  (and)  captured: 
200,150  people,  small  and  great,  male  and 
female,  horses,  mules,  asses,  camels,  oxen,  and 
sheep,  which  were  without  number,  from  their 
midst  I  caused  to  come  forth  and  reckoned  as 
spoil.  As  for  him,  like  a  cage-bird  I  shut  him 
up  within  Ursalimmu,  the  city  of  his  dominion. 
Redoubts  I  threw  up  around  him,  and  I  cut 
off  the  exit  from  the  great  gate  of  his  city — it 


144  ^^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide, 

was  (completely)  covered.  His  cities  which  I 
had  spoiled,  I  detached  from  the  midst  of  his 
country,  and  gave  them  to  Metintu,  king  of 
Ashdudu  (Ashdod),  Padi,  king  of  Amqarruna 
(Ekron),  and  Silli-bel  king  of  the  city  Hazitu 
(Gaza),  and  (thus)  reduced  his  land.  Over  the 
former  gift  I  added  a  payment  as  the  due  of 
my  overlordship,  and  imposed  it  upon  him. 
As  for  him  Hazaqiau  (Hezekiah)  fear  of  the 
magnificence  of  my  lordship  struck  him,  and 
the  iirbu  and  his  chosen  soldiers  which  he  had 
brought  in  for  the  defence  of  Ursalimmu,  the 
city  of  his  kingdom,  and  had  as  guards  (?), 
with  thirty  talents  of  gold,  800  talents  of  silver, 
precious  (stones),  gtihli,  dag-gasi,  great  car- 
buncles (?),  couches  of  ivory,  state  thrones  of 
ivory,  elephant-skin,  elephant-tooth  (ivory), 
ebony  (?),  urkarinnu-wood,  all  sorts  of  things, 
and  his  daughters,  the  women  of  his  palace, 
male  singers  (and)  female  singers,  he  (or  I) 
caused  to  be  brought  after  me  to  the  midst  of 
Ninua  (Nineveh),  the  city  of  my  dominion,  and 
he  sent  his  messenger  to  present  the  gift  and 
pay  homage."* 
There  is  nothing  said  in  Scripture  of  any  siege  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  But  when  the 
two  records  are  weighed,  there  is  seen  to  be  the  most 
perfect  agreement.  It  will  be  observed  that  though 
Sennacherib  says  that  he  besieged  Jerusalem  and  shut 
up  Hezekiah  in  it  as  a  cage-bird  (an  old  simile  with 

*  Dr.  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament,  pp.  373-376- 


Sennacherib's  Invasion. 


145 


Assyrian  kings),  he  says  nothing  about  the  capturing 
of  the  city,  or  of  entering  into  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Scripture,  though  it  is  silent  as  to  a  regular  siege, 
says  that  **the  king  of  Assyria  sent  Tartan  and 
Rabsaris  and  Rab-shakeh  from  Lachish  to  king 
Hezekiah  with  a  great  host  against  Jerusalem''  (2  Kings 
xviii.  17).  This  great  host  did  not  come,  we  may 
rest  assured,  merely  to  look  on,  or  only  to  form  an 
escort  for  the  great  Assyrian  officials.  Besides,  too, 
the  passage  says  distinctly  that  the  "great  host"  was 
"sent  against  Jerusalem."  In  other  words,  they  were 
commanded  to  besiege  it.  That  siege  was  interrupted 
in  some  way;  but,  even  according  to  the  Scripture 
account,  it  was  begun.  Sennacherib  mentions  the 
tribute  as  if  it  was  the  result  of  this  operation ;  but 
here,  as  is  plain  from  other  indications,  he  is  seeking 
to  cover  his  disasters  from  the  eyes  of  his  contem- 
poraries and  of  posterity.  Why,  however,  did  he, 
after  receiving  and  accepting  tribute,  renew  hostilities 
and  attack  Jerusalem?  This  has  been  a  difficulty  of 
long  standing,  and  it  is  one  which,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  has  received  no  satisfactory  solution.  One 
explanation  has  been  insisted  upon,  namely,  that  a 
considerable  interval  must  have  occurred  between 
Hezekiah's  paying  the  tribute  and  the  march  of  the 
Assyrian  forces  to  Jerusalem.  "  Sennacherib,"  argues 
one,  ^'cannot,  dired^ly  after  his  demands  had  all  been 
granted,  and  the  tribute  paid  him,  have  turned  on 
Hezekiah  with  the  insulting  message  in  the  text.  He 
must  have  received  fresh  provocation;  and  it  is  not 
difficult  to  see  what  the  provocation  was.     Content 


146  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

with  his  successes,  Sennacherib  had  returned  to 
Nineveh  with  his  spoil  and  his  numerous  captives. 
Hezekiah,  left  to  himself,  repented  of  his  submission. 
Perhaps  he  received  overtures  from  the  Ethiopian 
monarch,  who,  from  distant  Meroe,  bore  sway  not 
only  over  Ethiopia,  but  over  Egypt.  (So  Stanley  con- 
jectures.) ...  It  was  under  these  circumstances 
that  Sennacherib  appears  to  have  made  his  second 
expedition  into  Palestine  very  soon  after  his  first," 

This  writer  must  have  forgotten  that  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  is  described  by  Sennacherib  as  occurring 
in  his  first  expedition  into  Palestine.  The  difficulty 
therefore  remains,  and  the  question  which  it  raises 
is  pressed  upon  us  with  still  greater  urgency.  What, 
then,  turned  Sennacherib's  satisfac5tion  into  the  stern 
resolve  to  blot  out  the  kingdom  of  Judah  as  his 
father  Sargon  had  blotted  out  that  of  the  ten  tribes? 
The  change  in  Sennacherib's  attitude  is  not  formally 
explained  in  the  Bible  statement ;  and  yet  the  Bible 
has  all  along  contained  the  explanation.  Chronicles 
(xxxii.  5)  gives  us  special  information  which  puts  in 
our  hands  the  key  to  this  enigma.  We  read  there 
that  he  ''built  up  all  the  wall  that  was  broken, 
and  raised  it  up  to  the  towers,  and  another  wall 
without,  and  repaired  Millo  in  the  city  of  David." 
Hezekiah  strengthened  the  defences  of  Jerusalem. 
This  was  apparently  done  just  atter  the  tribute  was 
paid.  It  may  have  been  that  a  part  of  the  defences 
which  had  been  planned  but  not  completed  before 
the  tribute  was  paid,  was  now  carried  out  as  soon  as 
peace  was  made.     But  it  was  an  a(ft  that  looked  like 


Sennacherib's  Invasion.  j^y 

preparation  for  a  fresh  rebellion;  and  Sennacherib 
himself  tells  ns  that  this  was  the  cause  of  his  assault  upon 
Jerusalem.  In  another  inscription,  which  also  details 
the  incidents  of  this  third  campaign,  he  says:  "He 
himself,  like  a  bird  in  a  cage,  inside  Jerusalem  his 


SIEGE  OF  A  CITY  BY  THE  ASSYRIANS  :    CAPTIVES  IMPALED    BEFORE    THE 

WALLS  (froTu  the  Monmjieiits). 

royal  city  I  shut  him  up :  siege  towers  against  him  I 
constructed,  for  he  had  given  command  to  renew 

THE   BULWARKS  OF  THE  GREAT  GATE  OF  HIS  CITY."* 

It  would  have  been  absurd  to  have  mentioned  an  act 
of  that  kind  as  the  cause  of  an  Assyrian  campaign, 

*  Records  of  the  Fast  (Second  Edition),  vol.  i.,  pp.  40,41. 


148  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

or  an  excuse  for  an  invasion.  But  it  was  regarded  as 
an  ample  justification  for  the  renewal  of  hostilities. 
Sennacherib  was  advancing  toward  Egypt,  and  judged 
that  he  must  secure  himself  against  even  the  possibility 
of  an  attack  from  the  rear.  This  strengthening  of 
the  gate  was  accordingly  seized  upon  as  an  a(5t  of 
rebellion.  The  Assyrian  spies  had  carried  the  tidings 
to  Lachish,  and  this  was  Sennacherib's  answer.  He 
would  nip  the  rebellion  in  the  bud,  and  secure  lasting 
peace  by  rooting  out  the  race. 

In  pointing  out  the  other  confirmations,  I  shall 
follow  the  Bible  narrative.  They  meet  us  in  clusters 
all  along  the  way.  Verse  13,  as  we  have  already 
marked,  tells  us  that  "Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria, 
came  up  against  all  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah  and 
took  them."  Here  there  is  no  hiding  of  disaster.  All 
the  fortified  cities  were  besieged  and  taken.  In 
perfec5t  accord  with  this,  Sennacherib  tells  us  their 
number,  and  informs  us  besides,  that  the  capture  of 
each  fenced  city  carried  with  it  the  fall  of  the  smaller 
towns  which  it  protected.  *' Forty-six,"  he  says,  "of 
his  strong  cities,  fortresses  and  small  towns  which 
were  around  them,  which  were  innumerable,  with 
overthrowing  by  battering-rams  ...  I  besieged 
and  captured."  He  adds  that  he  carried  away  over 
two  hundred  thousand  people  small  and  great,  and 
horses,  asses,  mules,  camels,  and  flocks  and  herds 
"without  number."  This  enables  us  to  appreciate 
the  importance  of  Judah  even  in  those  times.  In  a 
previous  campaign,  Sennacherib  had  subdued  Baby- 
lonia, which  had  revolted  on  the  death  of  Sargon. 


Sennacherib's  Invasion.  149 

There  in  that  rich  and  highly  populous  territory  there 
were  seventy-nine  strong  towns  subdued.  That  is 
considerably  less  than  double  the  forty-six  of  Judah, 
and  the  number  shows  us  the  importance  of  the 
dominion  of  Hezekiah.  Travellers  who  see  the  land 
as  it  now  is,  desolate  and  wasted,  not  unnaturally 
imagine  that  it  could  never  have  maintained  a  strong 
people ;  and  the  numbers  of  Uzziah's  captains  and 
army,  for  instance,  as  recorded  in  2  Chronicles  xxvi. 
12,  13,  have  been  accordingly  supposed  to  be  grossly 
exaggerated.  But  a  country  with  an  almost  im- 
pregnable capital,  with  forty-six  other  fortified  cities, 
which  Sennacherib  himself  describes  as  "strong," 
and  with  dependent  towns  and  villages,  "which  were 
innumerable,"  was  one  great  enough  to  command  the 
forces  which  Uzziah,  the  great  Jewish  king,  had 
disciplined. 

Hezekiah,  beholding  with  a  grief  which  we  can 
well  imagine  the  ravages  of  the  Assyrian  hosts, 
submits  at  once,  and  asks  Sennacherib  to  name  the 
indemnity  he  is  to  be  asked  to  pay.  Sennacherib 
swells  out  the  list  with  an  array  of  articles  and  of 
persons  which- may  have  been  rendered  by  Hezekiah; 
but,  if  they  were,  they  were  regarded  as  insignificant 
in  comparison  with  the  large  money  payment  amount- 
ing in  all  to  about  ^f 450, 000.  That  appears  in  both 
accounts,  and  so  far  the  agreement  is  again  gratify- 
ing. But  there  is  one  discordant  note  that  has  sadly 
marred  the  harmony.  The  Scripture  says  that  "the 
king  of  Assyria  appointed  unto  Hezekiah  three 
hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty  talents  of  gold" 


150  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

(verse  14).  Sennacherib  himself  says  that  he  received 
indeed  the  thirty  talents  of  gold,  but  he  sets  down  the 
silver  paid  him  at  800,  and  not  300,  talents  !  Here 
the  difference  is  startling.  The  Assyrian  king  claims 
to  have  received  nearly  three  times  as  much  silver  as 
the  Scripture  says  w^as  sent  to  him.  This  was  long 
a  trouble.  No  manner  of  arithmetic  appeared  to  be 
able  to  harmonise  the  two  statem.ents.  It  seemed 
impossible  that  both  could  be  correct;  and  the  only 
course  evidently  left  to  us  was  to  cast  doubt  upon  one 
or  the  other.  When  we  turned  to  learned  commen- 
taries, we  met  statements  such  as  this:  "When 
Sennacherib  says  that  he  received  800  talents  of 
silver,  perhaps  he  exaggerates  ;  perhaps  he  counts  all 
the  silver  which  he  obtained  from  Judaea  in  the  whole 
of  his  expedition.  Or  the  regular  tribute  may  have 
been  fixed  at  300  talents,  and  the  ransom  of  the  city 
at  500  more."  Another  suggestion  was,  that  it  was 
silver  and  not  gold  that  Hezekiah  cut  from  the  doors 
and  pillars  of  the  Temple;  and  that,  owing  to  its 
sacredness,  this  portion  of  the  tribute  was  not  weighed 
by  Hezekiah,  but  was  weighed  without  scruple  by 
Sennacherib,  and  found  to  amount  to  500  talents 
more.  But  all  these  suggestions  are  now  set  aside 
by  the  discovery  that  both  statements  are  correct ; 
and  that  the  harmony  between  the  Bible  and  Sen- 
nacherib's inscriptions,  is,  as  regards  this  matter, 
absolutely  perfect.  Mr.  Basil  T.  A.  Evetts,  formerly 
of  the  Assyrian  Department  of  the  British  Museum, 
says  :  "  The  amount  of  the  tribute  is  identical  in  the 
two   accounts ;   for,   though   the    Hebrew  narrative 


Sennacherib's  Invasion.  151 

mentions  300  talents  of  silver,  and  the  Assyrian  800, 
this  results  from  the  difference  of  the  talent  of  silver 
in  the  two  countries.  The  Palestinian  talent  of  silver 
was  exactly  eight-thirds  of  the  Babylonian  ;  the  talent 
of  gold,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  same  in  both 
countries."*  In  this  way  three  Hebrew  silver  talents 
made  eight  Assyrian  silver  talents  ;  30  made  80  ;  and 
Hezekiah's  300  made  Sennacherib's  800  exactly. 

We  are  now  told  of  the  rapid  advance  of  the 
Assyrian  host  from  Lachish  (verse  17).  It  is  also 
said  that  Sennacherib  himself  sent  it  from  Lachish. 
The  Assyrian  king  was  therefore  besieging,  or  had 
already  besieged  and  captured,  that  city.  Lachish 
lay  about  ten  miles  to  the  south-west  of  Jerusalem, 
and  was  situated  upon  what  must  necessarily  have 
been  Sennacherib's  road  to  Egypt.  This  siege  is  dis- 
tinctly and  repeatedly  referred  to  in  the  Bible.  It  is  to 
Lachish  that  Hezekiah  sends  his  tribute  (verse  14) ; 
and  we  are  told  in  2  Chronicles  that  Sennacherib 
warred  against  Lachish.  But  the  Assyrian  king 
himself  makes  no  mention  of  this  siege ;  and  one 
might  have  urged  that,  if  he  had  fought  against  and 
conquered  so  important  a  place,  it  was  most  impro- 
bable that  it  would  have  been  passed  over  in  silence 
in  inscriptions  recording — and  recording,  too,  with 
considerable  fulness  and  minuteness  of  detail — this 
very  campaign.  Fox  Talbot  has  answered  this  long 
ago.  "  This  omission,"  he  writes,  **  is  merely  owing 
to  the  brevity  of  the  Assyrian  narrative  ;  for  there  are 
some  sculptured  slabs  in  the  British  Museum  repre- 

*  New  Light  on  the  Bible,  p.  347. 


152  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

senting  the  siege  of  a  large  city,  of  which  Layard 
gives  an  animated  account,  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
page  149  :  '  The  city  was  defended  by  double  walls,  with 
battlements  and  towers,  and  by  fortified  outworks.''  To 
capture  this  stronghold.  Sennacherib  brought  up  his 
whole  army,  and  ^raised  against  the  fortifications  as 
many  as  ten  banks  or  mounts  compactly  built  of  stones, 
bricks,  earth,  and  branches  of  trees,' 

"These  seem  to  be  the  'siege  towers'  which  the 
Annals  speak  of,  iii.  21. 

''  *The  besieged  defended  themselves  with  great  determi- 
nation,' No  doubt  this  gallant  defence  contributed  to 
save  Jerusalem  by  delaying  Sennacherib,  and  exhaust- 
ing a  portion  of  his  strength.  The  defenders  of  the 
city  'thronged  the  battlements  and  towers,  showering 
arrows,  javelins,  stones,  and  blazing  torches  upon  the 
assailants,'  while  the  Assyrians  below  'poured  water 
with  large  ladles  upon  the  flaming  brands  which  threatened 
to  destroy  the  engines,'  This  is  very  important,  as 
showing  that  the  Orientals  employed  fire  in  their 
battles.  .  .  .  (See  page  143). 

''Another  bas-relief  represents  the  king  seated  on  a 
magnificent  chair  of  state,  figured  in  Mr.  Layard's 
book,  page  150,  and  'from  a  gateway  issued  a  procession 
of  captives,  reaching  to  the  presence  of  the  king,  who, 
gorgeously  arrayed,  received  them  seated  on  his  throne. 
Amongst  the  spoil  were  furniture,  arms,  shields,  chariots, 
vases  of  metal,  &c.' 

"  Above  the  head  of  the  king  is  seen  the  following 
most  important  inscription  : 

'"Sennacherib  King  of  Nations,  King  of  Assyria, 


Sennacherib's   Invasion, 


153 


sitting  on  his  throne, 
causes  the  spoils  of  the 
city  of  LA  CHI SH  to 
pass  before  him.' 

"  Thus  we  have  a 
full  corroboration  of 
this  important  event 
in  accordance  with 
the  narrative  in  the 
books  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles."* 

I  give  a  representa- 
tion from  the  monu- 
ment to  which  Layard 
refers.  It  shows  Sen- 
nacherib seated  on  his 
throne,  and  receiving 
the  prisoners.  The 
inscription  describing 
the  scene  is  placed 
above  the  heads  of 
those  in  front  of  the 
procession,  and  be- 
fore Sennacherib.  It 
is  here  reproduced. 
A  description  of  the 
throne  and  of  Senna- 
cherib will  be  found 
on  pages  132-134- 


*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  i. 
PP-35-36. 


154  ^^^^  -^^^^  Biblical  Guide. 

In  the  inscription  here  reproduced,  the  name  of 
Sennacherib  will  be  found  at  the  commencement  of  the 
first  line,  and  that  of  Lachish  at  the  end  of  the  third. 

Sin-  ahi-  erba      sarkissatisar(mdtu)Assuri 


ina  kussi  ni-        mi-      di  u-  sib-    ma 

-t-  -^i  ^^  -:=IT  -^i  <ia  -^iT 

sal'  la-         -at  [mahazu]        La-         ki-  su 

ma-    ha-  ar  su         e-  ti-        ig^. 

In  Sennacherib's  case  we  have  a  large  number  of 
inscriptions  that  are  in  an  unusually  perfed^  condition, 
and  yet,  for  some  reason  or  other,  no  notice  of  the 
taking  of  Lachish  is  to  be  found  among  them.  This 
could  not  have  been  because  the  capture  was  regarded 
as  a  trifling  matter.  The  sculpture  described  by 
Layard  (and  of  which  a  sketch  is  here  given)  shows 
that,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  looked  upon  as  a  matter 
of  the  first  importance.  Was  this  city  the  scene  of 
the  judgment  which  fell  upon  the  Assyrian  army  ?  If 
it  was,  we  could  understand  why  no  reference  is  made 
to  it  in  the  King's  records.  But,  whatever  the  reason 
for  the  silence  may  have  been,  the  notice  translated  by 
Mr.  Fox  Talbot  is  amply  sufficient.  It  shows  that  in 
the  siege  of  this  city  Sennacherib's  resources  were 


The  Threatened  Siege  of  Jerusalem,  155 

taxed  to  the  utmost,  and  that  the  Scripture  has  con- 
veyed to  us  a  fuller  knowledge  of  this  incident  in  the 
king's  third  campaign  than  is  supplied  even  by  his 
own  carefully  prepared  annals. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

The  ThreatExNed  Siege  of  Jerusalem  and 
Assyrian  Court  Titles. 


IT  would  appear  that  the  siege  to  which  Sennach- 
erib says  he  subjected  Jerusalem  is  to  be 
numbered  among  the  projecfts  which  that  conqueror 
began  but  did  not  finish.  The  more  carefully  his 
accounts  of  the  Jewish  campaign  are  weighed,  the 
clearer  does  it  become  that,  striclly  speaking,  no  siege 
operations  were  ever  begun.  In  the  inscription  upon 
a  bull  statue  at  Nineveh — one  of  the  guardian  deities 
of  his  palace — Sennacherib  says  of  Hezekiah,  as  we 
have  already  seen  :  *'  Himself  I  made  like  a  caged  bird 
in  the  midst  of  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  his  royalty  : 
garrison  towers  over  him  I  raised :  his  cities  v/hich 
I  had  plundered,  from  the  midst  of  his  country  I 
separated,  and  to  the  kings  of  Ashdod,  Askelon, 
Ekron,  and  Gaza,  I  made  them  over,  and  diminished 
his  land." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  subjeftion  of  the 
cities  of  Judah  to  the  lords  of  the  Philistines  was 
arranged  in  order  to  accentuate  Hezekiah's  humilia- 
tion.    These  had  been  the  old  enemies  of  the  land, 


156  The  New  Biblical  Gtiide. 

and  occasionally  its  masters ;  and  Sennacherib  had 
doubtless  learned  that  faa:  among  many  others.  But 
there  is  no  account  here  of  siege  operations  against 
Jerusalem.  All  that  he  says  was  done  was  to  erecl:  a 
line  of  fortresses,  which  shut  off  Jerusalem  from  sup- 
plies ;  and,  as  he  says,  confined  Hezekiah  to  his  capital 
like  a  bird  to  its  cage.  The  second  account  merely 
repeats  these  very  words.  He  says  there  :  **He  him- 
self like  a  bird  in  a  cage  inside  Jerusalem  his  royal 
city  I  shut  him  up  :  siege-towers  against  him  I  con- 
strucfted."  These  representations  agree  entirely  with 
the  position  of  affairs  as  indicated  in  the  Scripture. 
Hezekiah,  his  court,  and  his  army  are  plainly  shut  up 
in  Jerusalem.  There  is  apparently  neither  coming  in 
nor  going  out.  The  Jewish  king  has  no  army  in  the 
field,  for  the  Assyrians  pass  through  the  mountains 
and  come  up  to  the  very  walls  of  Jerusalem  without 
a  battle  or  a  skirmish.  The  forces  were  plainly  divided 
among  the  fortresses  at  the  beginning  of  the  struggle, 
and  the  open  country  was  abandoned  to  the  foe. 

That  is  the  very  pi(fture  presented  in  Sennacherib's 
inscriptions.  Then  the  agreement  is  perfect  also  as 
to  the  intended  siege  itself.  That  these  "  garrison- 
towers  "  were  the  preliminaries  of  the  usual  terrific 
Assyrian  siege-operations  is  evident;  and  the  Scrip- 
ture intimation  that  there  was  a  purpose  to  besiege 
Jerusalem  is  equally  plain.  **  Then  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz  sent  unto  Hezekiah,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel,  Whereas  thou  hast  prayed  to  Me  against 
Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria  :  this  is  the  word  which 
the  Lord  hath  spoken  concerning  him  ;  The  virgin,  the 


The  Threatened  Siege  of  Jerusalem.  157 

daughter  of  Zion,  hath  despised  thee,  and  laughed 
thee  to  scorn ;  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem  hath  shaken 
her  head  at  thee.  .  .  .  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord 
concerning  the  king  of  Assyria,  He  shall  not  come  into 
this  city,  nor  shoot  an  arrow  there,  nor  come  before 
it  with  shields,  nor  cast  a  bank  against  it.  By  the 
way  that  he  came,  by  the  same  shall  he  return,  and 
shall  not  come  into  this  city,  saith  the  Lord.  For  I 
will  defend  this  city  to  save  it  for  Mine  own  sake,  and 
for  My  servant  David's  sake"  (Isa.  xxxvii.  21,  22,33- 
35).  Here,  too,  it  is  intimated  that  Sennacherib's  plan 
included  both  siege  and  capture.  But,  says  the 
Scripture,  Jerusalem  had  laughed  him  to  scorn. 
Sennacherib  should  win  no  triumph  there,  and  the 
simplest  siege  operations  should  not  even  be  begun — 
"  He  shall  not  come  into  this  city,  nor  shoot  an 
arrow  there,  nor  come  before  it  with  shields,  nor  cast 
a  bank  against  it." 

The  Scripture  tells  us,  however,  that  the  city  was 
summoned.  An  enormous  force  swept  eastward  from 
Lachish ;  and,  headed  by  the  great  officials  of  the 
Assyrian  empire,  encamped  before  Jerusalem.  The 
Assyrian  monuments  enable  us,  as  it  were,  to  see  the 
sight  on  which  the  eyes  of  the  terrified  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  rested.  "  From  the  sculptures  which  in 
our  day  have  come  to  be  an  obje(5t  of  study,"  says  Mr. 
Hosmer,  "we  may  behold  in  detail  the  battle  order. 
The  host  is  in  array,  for  scouts  in  the  van  bring 
tidings  of  the  approach  of  a  hostile  army  from  the 
southward.  The  light-armed  troops  are  slingers  and 
archers.     They   are    dressed   in    short   embroidered 


158  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

tunics,  with  their  hair  surrounded  by  bands.  Like  the 
Saxon  bowmen,  the  archers  draw  their  arrows  to  the 
ear.  Their  weapons  are  handsomely  decorated.  The 
heavy  infantry  carry  spears  and  shields ;  on  their  heads 
they  wear  helmets  of  burnished  brass;  cross-belts 
support  small  arms  at  the  side,  and  shining  discs  of 
metal  cover  their  breasts.  They  stand  in  regular 
ranks,  file  behind  file.  To-morrow,"  should  the  hosts 
of  Judah  make  "its  onset,  the  first  rank  kneeling,  the 
second  stooping,  will  form  with  their  spears  a  bristling 
hedge  ;  and  from  behind,  the  bowmen  will  discharge 
their  arrows.  In  a  similar  way,  twenty-five  centuries 
hence,  the  brigades  of  Napoleon,  at  the  battle  of  Mt. 
Tabor,  not  far  distant,  will  receive  the  charge  of  the 
Mamelukes.  But  the  strength  of  the  host  is  m  the 
swarming  cavalry  and  chariots.  The  horses  are 
spirited  steeds  from  Arabia  and  Armenia.  The  riders 
sit  upon  decorated  saddles,  clad  in  armour,  with 
helmets  and  lances.  The  chariot  bands  are  the 
chivalry  and  flower  of  Asshur.  The  coursers  are 
caparisoned  with  purple  silk  and  embroidered  cloth ; 
from  their  heads  hang  plumes  and  heavy  tassels.  As 
they  hurry  to  and  fro,  flashing  behind  them  with  gold 
and  jasper,  with  ivory  and  enamel,  roll  the  formidable 
vehicles.  The  warriors  within,  the  veterans  of  many 
wars,  are  clad  from  head  to  foot  in  steel ;  embossed 
upon  their  shields  are  heads  of  lions  ;  lofty  standards 
of  precious  stuffs,  embroidered,  hang  over  their 
plumed  helmets,  and  all  along  the  line  hover  pennons 
of  scarlet.  In  the  rear  are  the  rams  and  other  warlike 
engines,  the  ladders  for  escalading,  the  steel  tools 


The  Threatened  Siege  of  Jerusalem.  159 

for  the  mines,  already  battered  and  blunt  with  hard 
service  before  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah.  In  tents  of 
costly  and  gaudy  stuffs  the  concubines  and  eunuchs 
of  the  Great  King  and  the  Ninevite  nobles  outnumber 
even  the  soldiers.  Everywhere,  from  fertile  Jericho 
to  the  sea-coast  of  old  Philistia,  range  the  foragers, 
and,  innumerable  as  a  locust  swarm,  the  beasts  col- 
ledted  for  burden  and  provision  consume  the  pastures. 
Here  and  there  some  great  officer — the  chief  cup- 
bearer, or  the  insolent  Rabshakeh,  or  perhaps  even 
Sennacherib  himself — goes  by  in  his  canopied  chariot, 
accompanied  by  stately  bodyguards."  * 

Such  was  the  scene  on  which  the  Jews  gazed  with 
pallid  cheek  and  sinking  heart.  On  the  surrounding 
hills,  and  in  the  valleys — wherever  the  eye  rested, 
there  were  the  myriads  of  a  hitherto  invincible  foe. 
Would  God  intervene  and  save  Jerusalem  ?  Before 
we  notice  the  titles  of  the  Assyrian  officials,  let  me 
point  out  how  thoroughly  the  Scripture  and  the 
monuments  harmonise.  Sennacherib's  mention  of 
the  carrying  away  of  over  200,000  captives  finds  no 
corresponding  record  in  the  Bible  ;  but  it  is,  never- 
theless, plainly  intimated  that  something  of  the  kind 
has  happened.  God's  message  through  Isaiah  to 
Hezekiah  ran  thus  :  "And  the  remnant  that  is  escaped 
of  the  house  of  Judah  shall  again  take  root  downward, 
and  bear  fruit  upward"  (Isaiah  xxxvii.  31).  From 
these  words  it  is  plain  that  so  heavy  a  blow  has  fallen 
upon  the  country  that  the  fear  is  entertained  that  the 
nation  is  crushed,  and  cannot  recover.     Yes,  says  the 

'  The  Story  0/  the  Nations  :   The  Jet<,'s,  pp.  49-52. 


i6o  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

Scripture,  it  shall  recover.  A  "remnant"  has  escaped ; 
and  that  remnant  will  be  the  seed  of  a  new  population 
which  will  once  again  build  and  inhabit  the  now  ruined 
cities.  Sennacherib's  jubilant  records,  and  this  Divine 
assurance,  have  before  them  the  same  scene.  The 
Assyrian  sees  the  captives  led  away  from  the  ruined 
towns.  The  Scriptures  beholds  the  fugitives  that 
have  escaped,  and  the  wretched  poor  that  have  been 
left  in  the  land  by  the  conqueror.  The  former  gloats 
over  the  blow  inflicfted  ;  the  latter  revives  the  crushed 
spirit  of  the  people.  The  consolation,  however,  implies 
the  very  state  of  things  which  the  triumph  celebrates. 
Three  officials  are  named  who  are  in  command  of 
the  "great  host"  which  now  surrounds  Jerusalem, 
or  who  are  sent  as  special  representatives  of  Sennach- 
erib. "And  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  Tartan  and 
Rabsaris  and  Rabshakeh  from  Lachish  to  king 
Hezekiah  with  a  great  host  against  Jerusalem" 
(2  Kings  xviii.  17).  Tartan  is  the  Assyrian  Turtanu, 
the  title  of  the  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Assyrian 
forces.  To  him,  no  doubt,  the  chief  command  of 
this  "  great  host,"  and  the  conduct  of  the  siege 
operations,  are  entrusted.  But  who  are  the  Rabsaris 
and  the  Rabshakeh  ?  Jewish  commentators  had  given 
an  account  of  these  names  which  was  accepted  even 
by  Assyriologists.  Treating  the  names  as  Hebrew 
words,  Rabsaris  was  made  to  mean  "  the  chief  of  the 
Eunuchs,"  and  Rabshakeh  "  the  chief  cup-bearer." 
This  is  the  kind  of  thing  which  we  should  have  had 
in  abundance  had  we  possessed  in  the  Old  Testament 
history  "  the  late  traditions  "  which  Professors  Driver 


Assyrian  Court  Titles.  i6i 

and  G.  A.  Smith,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the 
critical  host,  assure  us  that  it  is.  These  explanations 
are  now  swept  to  the  winds ;  but,  while  Jewish 
scholarship  is  confounded,  the  Scripture  is  magnified. 
It  may  be  well  to  note,  as  an  instance  of  how  little 
reliance  is  sometimes  to  be  placed  upon  supposed 
scholarship,  that  the  accepted  explanation  was  very 
bad  Hebrew  after  all.  Shakeli,  as  a  Hebrew  word, 
could  only  have  meant  "  a  thing  to  be  drunk,"  and 
not  by  any  means  ''a  giver  of  drink,"  or  "3.  cup- 
bearer." *  But  Rah-sliakeh  is  now  discovered  not  to 
be  a  Semitic  word  at  all;  and  the  attempt,  therefore, 
to  give  it  a  meaning  by  treating  it  as  Hebrew  was 
bound  to  result  in  a  dismal  blunder.  The  title  was 
an  ancient  one,  and  is  now  known  to  be  an  old 
Sumerian  word.  It  is  found  upon  the  monuments, 
which  indicate  that  its  translation  into  Assyrian  is 
Rab-sa-rish,  "  Chief  of  the  Captains."  It  is  now 
known  to  be  the  title  of  a  great  official  of  the  Assyrian 
court ;  and,  strange  to  say,  it  occurs  in  an  inscription 
of  Tiglath-pileser  II.  as  the  title  of  a  trusted  states- 
man whom  that  monarch  sends  on  an  exactly  similar 
mission  to  the  city  of  Tyre.  He  says  :  **  My  officer, 
the  Rabsak,  I  despatched  to  Tyre."  t  We  have, 
consequently,  to  see  in  him  "  the  political  officer  " 
who  accompanies  the  army  as  the  king's  spokesman 
and  Commissioner.  The  reader  will  note  that,  quite 
in  accordance  with  this,  it  is  the  Rabshakeh  alone  of 
all  these  ofiicials  who  makes  the  demand  for  the  sur- 
render of  Jerusalem,  and  who    replies   at    once   to 

*  Halevey.   Revue  des  Etudes  Juives,  vol.  xx.,  pp,  9, 10.      +  Schrader,  vol.  ii.,  p.  4. 

M 


i62  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Eliakim  and  his  fellows  with  all  the  assurance  of 
authority.  As  Tiglath-pileser  sent  his  "  Rabsak  "  to 
Tyre,  so  Sennacherib  has  sent  his  Rabshakeh  to 
Jerusalem. 

On  the  title  "  Rabsaris  "  hangs  the  story  of  another 
error,  not  now  of  venturesome  Hebraists,  but  of  an 
equally  daring  and  equally  unfortunate  Assyriologist. 
Dr.  Hugo  Winckler,  who  has  quite  recently  published 
an  edition  of  Schrader,  almost  every  page  of  which 
bristles  with  antagonism  to  the  Bible,  has  shown  us 
that  the  will  to  strike  is  not  always  accompanied  with 
the  power.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  old  Sumerian 
word  *'Rabshak,"  when  translated  into  Assyrian, 
stands  as  Rab-sa-rish,  or  Rab-sa-ris.  This  could  not 
escape  the  lynx  eye  of  Dr.  Winckler.  Why,  says  he, 
there  stands  the  next  title,  the  Rabsaris  of  the  Bible  ! 
Plainly,  therefore,  we  have  here  the  origin  of  this 
third  title,  and  we  have  (from  the  critical  view-point) 
a  brilliant  light  cast  upon  the  way  in  which  the  Bible 
has  been  built  up.  After  admitting  that  it  has  long 
been  verified  that  the  title  Rabshakeh  corresponds  to 
the  Assyrian  Rab-saq,  he  continues,  in  his  Researches 
into  ancient  Oriental  History:  ''On  the  other  hand,  no 
one  has  hitherto  succeeded  in  finding  Rabsaris  in  the 
inscriptions.  .  .  .  This  word  is  wholly  due  to  the 
sapience  of  a  scholar  acquainted  with  the  Assyrian, 
who,"  in  short,  "wrote  on  the  margin  of  his  manu- 
script this  Assyrian  translation  (Rabsaris)  of  the  old 
word  Rabshakeh."  A  Hebrew  scribe,  who  afterwards 
copied  that  manuscript,  put  "Rabsaris"  into  the 
text;   and   so  what  were   originally  only  two  titles, 


Assyriaji  Court  Titles.  163 

became  three!   The  Jewish  Assyriologist,  Halevey,  has 
(in  the  article  just  quoted)  ground  this  supposed  dis- 
covery to  powder.     Dr.  Winckler  was  not  aware  that 
the  blunder  was  from  first  to  last  his  own.     He  was 
found  to  be  wanting  in  an  adequate  knowledge  of  his 
own  special  science.     The  word  Rabsaris,  which  he 
said  was  not  on  the  monuments,  had  then  been  proved 
to  have  been  on  them  all  the  time.     It  was  written 
in  signs,  like  other  official  titles,  which  Assyriologists 
had  been  unable  to  read,  and  the  proper  pronuncia- 
tion   of  which  was    consequently   unknown.      But, 
fortunately,  on  a  brick  now  in  the  British  Museum, 
an  Aramaean  translation  of  one  of  these  inscriptions 
was  discovered.     This  had  been  published  when  Dr. 
Winckler  brought   his  accusation    of   error   against 
the  Bible,  but  the  learned  Assyriologist  had  not  then 
found  time  to  read  the  account.     The  title  occurred 
in  the  date  of  a  sale  of  grain.     The  note  of  the  date 
runs  thus :  "  In  the  eponymy  of  the  Rabsaris,  Nabusar- 
usar."^  This  date  was  the  last  year  of  Sennacherib's 
reign,  and  it  is  probable  that  we  have  here  the  name 
of  the  very  official  who  that  day  stood  before  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem   at   the  side  of  the  Rabshakeh. 
Dr.  Pinches  has  since  discovered  that  Rab-saris  is  the 
Assyrian  title  Rab-sa-resu,  or  ''  Chief  of  the  heads." 

'•The  accuracy  with  which  these  titles,"  writes 
Professor  Sayce,  ''have  been  reproduced  in  the 
Hebrew  text  suggests  of  itself  that  the  document 
from  which  they  are  quoted  was  contemporaneous 
with   Sennacherib's    campaign.     Equally  suggestive 

*  Revue  des  Etudes  Juives,  vol.  xx.,  p.  9. 


164  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

are  the  words  addressed  to  Rab-shakeh  by  the  ser- 
vants of  Hezekiah :  *  Speak,  I  pray  thee,  to  thy 
servants  in  the  Aramaean  language,  for  we  understand 
it :  and  talk  not  with  us  in  the  Jews'  language.'  * 
The  fall  of  Samaria  had  caused  the  language  of  Israel 
to  become  that  of  the  Jewish  kingdom  alone ;  while 
the  contract-tablets  found  at  Nineveh  have  thrown  a 
flood  of  light  on  the  first  part  of  the  request.  They 
have  made  it  clear  that  Aramaic  was,  at  the  time, 
the  commercial  language  of  the  civilised  East,  the 
medium  of  intercourse  among  the  educated  classes 
of  the  Assyrian  empire.  It  was  a  language  which 
everyone  was  expected  to  know  who  was  concerned 
with  trade  or  diplomacy;  and  accordingly  Eliakim 
and  Shebna  not  only  understood  it  themselves,  but 
expected  the  Rab-shakeh  to  understand  it  also.  Even 
the  words  with  which  the  Rab-shakeh  opens  his 
address  are  indicative  of  the  Assyrian  epoch.  *The 
great  king,  the  king  of  Assyria,'  is  the  stereotyped 
expression  with  which  the  Assyrian  monarchs  de- 
scribe themselves."  t 

Here  the  stamp  of  the  time  is  impressed  distinctly 
and  deeply,  not  only  upon  the  history,  but  also  upon 
the  slight  verbal  references  of  the  Bible.  While 
grateful  to  Professor  Sayce  for  the  candid  testimony 
which  I  have  just  quoted,  I  take  the  liberty  to  doubt 
whether  his  supposition  that  the  writer  of  2  Kings 
consulted  an  ancient  document  carries  us  far  enough. 
An  ancient  document  might  have  supplied  him  with 
a  correct  statement  of  the  facts  ;  but  could  it  possibly 

*2  Kings  xviii.  26.        +  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  pp.  441,442. 


Assyi'iait  Court  Titles.  165 

have  so  penetrated  his  mind  and  so  mastered  his  pen 
as  to  have  changed  his  writing  into  what  is  practically 
a  document  of  that  ancient  time  ?  Historians  con- 
stantly avail  themselves  of  ancient  records ;  but  they 
convey  the  information  which  they  derive  from  these 
in  the  phrases  of  the  day  to  which  they  and  their 
readers  belong.  They  are  not  careful,  for  example, 
to  give  such  a  demand  as  the  Rab-shakeh's  in  the 
very  form  of  words  in  which  it  was  originally  made; 
nor  will  they  place  upon  their  pages,  without  ex- 
planation or  remark,  long-vanished  titles  like  these 
which  have  proved  to  be  such  enigmas  to  posterity. 
The  only  theory  which  gives  a  perfectly  reasonable 
and  satisfactory  account  of  what  we  have  here  and 
everywhere  in  these  Books  is  their  full  inspiration. 
The  Mind  whose  thoughts  they  convey  to  us  is  a 
Mind  in  close  and  full  contact  with  the  times,  the 
personages,  and  the  events  with  which  the  writer  is 
deahng.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  Mind  of  God. 
Therefore,  and  therefore  alone,  is  it  that  the  years 
are,  so  to  say,  annihilated;  that  we  are  set  down  amid 
those  very  times,  that  we  see  those  personages,  and 
that  we  ourselves  become  witnesses  of  the  events. 
We  see  and  hear  as  God  saw  and  heard.  This  abso- 
lutely faithful  reflection  of  an  ancient  past,  presented 
with  such  consummate  ease,  simphcity,  and  natural- 
ness, belongs  to  the  miracle  of  Revelation. 


t66  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

TiRHAKAH,  King  of  Ethiopia,  and  the  Smiting 
OF  THE  Assyrian  Army. 


WHEN  the  Rab-shakeh  returned  to  seek  his 
master,  he  found  that  Sennacherib  had 
passed  from  Lachish  and  was  besieging  Libnah. 
This  is  among  the  ancient  cities  of  Palestine  which 
research  has  so  far  failed  to  identify.  It  may  have 
been  situated  nearer  to  Jerusalem,  though  not  on  the 
diredl  road,  for  Sennacherib  had  evidently  intended 
an  early  siege  of  the  holy  city.  This  seems  to  be 
clear  from  his  irritation  on  hearing  of  the  advance  of 
an  Egyptian  army,  and  on  perceiving  the  absolute 
necessity  of  abandoning  every  other  attempt,  and  of 
hurrying  forward  his  troops  to  meet  the  advancing 
foe.  "And  when  he  heard  say  of  Tirhakah,  king  of 
Ethiopia,  Behold,  he  is  come  out  to  fight  against 
thee:  he  sent  messengers  again  unto  Hezekiah,  king 
of  Judah,  saying,  Let  not  thy  God  in  whom  thou 
trustest  deceive  thee,  saying,  Jerusalem  shall  not 
be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  " 
(2  Kings  xix.  10). 

It  may  be  noted  here  how  well  Sennacherib  seems 
to  have  been  served  by  his  Intelligence  Department. 
He  appears  to  have  had  his  spies  inside  Jerusalem 
who  were  in  a  position  to  know  what  went  on  within 
the  walls.     This  was  the  message  which  Isaiah  had 


Tirhakah,  King  of  Ethiopia.  167 

sent  back  to  Hezekiah  when  the  king  "sent  Ehakim, 
who  was  over  the  household,  and  Shebna  the  scribe, 
and  the  elders  of  the  priests,  covered  with  sackcloth, 
to  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz"  (verse  2).  "And  Isaiah 
said  unto  them,  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  your  master. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Be  not  afraid  of  the  words 
which  thou  hast  heard,  with  which  the  servants  of  the 
king  of  Assyria  have  blasphemed  me.  Behold  I  will 
send  a  blast  upon  him,  and  he  shall  hear  a  rumour, 
and  shall  return  to  his  own  land;  and  I  will  cause  him 
to  fall  by  the  sword  in  his  own  land"  (verses  6,  7). 

Hezekiah's  apprehensions  had  been  allayed  by  "the 
God  in  whom,"  as  Sennacherib  said,  "  he  trusted  "  ; 
and  we  can  understand  the  proud  conqueror's 
vexation,  when  he  had  to  call  in  his  forces  and  so  to 
give  colour  to  the  hope  that  the  assurance  of  the  God 
of  Israel  should  be  fulfilled.  Before  we  note  how 
every  word  of  the  Divine  message  was  fulfilled,  let 
me  point  out  a  verification  which  has  greatly  im- 
pressed some  of  those  who  have  recovered  for  us  the 
history  of  those  times.  The  sacred  historian  mentions 
"Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,"  the  report  of  whose 
advance  had  suddenly  compelled  this  change  in 
Sennacherib's  plans.  This  monarch,  who  now 
marches  out  of  Egypt  to  measure  his  strength  with 
the  ravager  of  Palestine,  has  left  us  his  portrait  and 
the  record  of  his  deeds.  "Tirhakah,"  says  Canon 
Rawlinson,  "was  an  enterprising  monarch,  who  left  a 
name  behind  which  marks  him  as  one  of  the  greatest 
of  Egypt's  later  kings.  ...  He  was  an  enterprising 
prince,   engaged  in   many   wars,  and  a  determined 


i68  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

opponent  of  the  Assyrians.  His  name  is  read  on  the 
Egyptian  monuments  as  Tahark  or  Tahrak ;  and  his 
face,  which  appears  on  them,  is  expressive  of  strong 
determination."* 

In  some  sculptures  at  Mount  Barkal,  Tirhaka's 
portrait  is  coloured  red,  not  black.  This  seems  to 
indicate  that,  though  king  of  Cush,  or  Ethiopia, 
he  was  of  Egyptian  descent.  Referring  to  these 
sculptures,  Mr.  Birch  writes:  ''Tirhaqa,  it  will  be 
observed,  is  coloured  red  ....  like  an  Egyptian. 
He  is  not  depic^ted  as  an  Abyssinian,  leading  to  the 
conjedlure  that  the  Ethiopian  rulers  were  of  dired^ 
Egyptian  origin  and  descent."!  However  that  may 
be,  it  seems  undeniable  that  his  descent  upon  Egypt 
was  a  thoroughly  hostile  invasion.  The  son  of  So 
had  just  succeeded  in  extending  his  sway  over 
the  whole  country  when  the  Ethiopian  avalanche 
descended  upon  him.  He  was  vanquished  and  slain 
by  Tirhakah.  His  attack  upon  the  country  was  not 
only  intended  to  overthrow  the  ruler,  but  also  to 
subjugate  the  people.  The  Egyptians  are  represented 
upon  their  own  monuments  at  Thebes  as  taking 
their  place  among  the  many  nationalities  subdued  by 
the  Ethiopian  king.  He  claims  to  have  conquered 
from  Africa  on  the  one  hand  to  Mesopotamia  on  the 
other,  and  to  have  defeated  the  armies  of  Assyria. 

Before  mentioning  the  result  of  the  battle  between 
Sennacherib  and  Tirhakah,  it  may  be  well  to  notice 
Professor    Sayce's    testimony   to   the   superior  cor- 
dis; g3'/>^  and  Babylon,  pp.  352,  353. 
+  Transactions  of  the  Society  0/ Biblical  Archcsology,  vol.  vii.,  p.  199. 


Tirhakahf  King  of  Ethiopia.  169 

rectness  of  the  Bible  history  in  this  matter,  when 
compared  with  the  Assyrian  monuments.  "There  is 
another  statement  in  the  Assyrian  account,"  he  says, 
"which  at  first  sight  appears  to  conflid^  with  the 
BibHcal  history:  'Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,'  is 
described  as  Hhe  king  of  Egypt.'  But  we  have 
learned  from  the  Egyptian  monuments  that  Egypt 
was  at  the  time  under  Ethiopian  domination. 
Tirhakah  was  an  Ethiopian  by  birth  ;  it  was  conquest 
which  made  him  king  of  Egypt.  The  Old  Testament 
is  consequently  more  exactly  accurate  in  calling  him 
*King  of  Ethiopia'  than  the  Assyrian  description. 
His  army  was  Egyptian;  but  the  Pharaoh  himself 
was  Ethiopian."* 

But  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  was  not  to  come 
from  Egypt.  God  had  always  condemned  that  alli- 
ance, and  was  not  to  bless  it  now.  Sennacherib  has 
told  the  story  of  his  encounter  with  the  Egyptian 
army,  and  of  its  result.  In  the  long  inscription  on  the 
Taylor  Cylinder,  he  says  :  "  The  kings  of  Egypt  called 
forth  the  archers,  chariots  (and)  horses  of  the  king  of 
Melukhkhi,  a  force  without  number,  and  came  to  their 
help  ;  before  the  city  of  Eltekeh  they  arranged  their 
battle  array,  appealing  to  their  weapons.  With  the 
help  of  Assur,  my  lord,  I  fought  with  them,  and 
accomphshed  their  defeat.  The  chief  of  the  chariots 
and  the  sons  of  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  the  chief  of 
the  chariots  of  the  king  of  Melukhkhi  my  hands  took 
alive  in  the  fight."  t 

*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p,  434. 
+  Records  of  the  Past  (New  Series),  vol.  vi.,  p.  89. 


170  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

The  Egyptian  host  was  evidently  routed.  But 
Sennacherib  never  reaped  the  fruits  of  his  victory.  It 
would  seem  to  have  been  after  the  battle,  and  while 
the  victorious  Assyrians  were  actually  on  their  march 
to  the  Egyptian  border,  that  the  bolt  of  heaven  fell 
upon  the  proud  blasphemer  of  the  God  of  Israel.  It 
fell  suddenly,  and  required  no  repetition.  The  army 
had  bivouacked  as  usual,  resting  after  the  hard  day's 
march,  and  anticipating  a  similar  journey  for  the 
morrow.  ''And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  went  out,  and  smote  in  the  camp 
of  the  Assyrians  an  hundred  and  four  score  and  five 
thousand  :  and  when  they  arose  early  in  the  morning, 
behold,  they  were  all  dead  corpses  "  (2  Kings  xix.  35). 
The  survivors  heard  in  the  dimness  of  that  early 
morning  no  bustle  making  answer  to  the  usual  call. 
There  was  a  stillness  that  first  startled  and  then 
appalled.  It  was  the  stillness  of  death.  Instead  of 
a  march  that  day,  there  were  burials,  and  the  speeding 
forth  of  messengers  to  recall  in  haste  the  scattered 
garrisons.  Inside  the  royal  tent,  plans  of  advance  and 
routes  for  the  forces  in  their  triumphal  way  through 
Egypt  are  cast  away  ;  and  nothing  is  thought  of  save 
plans  and  orders  for  an  immediate  and  swift  retreat. 
For  the  news  of  this  huge  disaster  will  rush  over  the 
subjected  peoples  like  wildfire ;  and  there  is  serious 
danger  that,  between  Tirhakah's  hosts  in  their  rear, 
and  the  forces  of  an  ever-increasing  insurredlion  in 
their  front,  Sennacherib  and  the  remnant  of  his  army 
may  never  again  behold  the  plains  of  Assyria,  or  even 
see  the  waters  of  the  Euphrates. 


The  Smiting  of  the  Assyrian  Army.  171 

It  is,  of  course,  in  vain  to  look  to  the  inscriptions 
of  Sennacherib  for  any  diredl  confirmation  of  this 
Divine  intervention.  The  pages  of  Herodotus,  how- 
ever, and  those  of  the  Babylonian  historian  Berossus 
supply  what  Sennacherib  naturally  found  it  incon- 
venient to  publish.  For  our  knowledge  of  the  latter 
we  are  indebted  to  Josephus,  who  has  quoted  the 
passage.  It  runs  as  follows  :  ''  Now  when  Sennacherib 
was  returning  from  the  Egyptian  war  to  Jerusalem, 
he  found  his  army  under  Rabshakeh  in  great  danger, 
for  God  had  sent  a  pestilential  distemper  upon  his 
army,  and  on  the  very  first  night  of  the  siege,  a 
hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand,  with  their  captains 
and  generals,  were  destroyed.  So  the  king  was  in  a 
great  dread,  and  in  a  terrible  agony  at  this  calamity ; 
and  being  in  great  fear  for  his  whole  army,  he  fled 
with  the  rest  of  his  forces  to  his  own  kingdom,  and  to 
his  city  Nineveh ;  and  when  he  had  abode  there  a 
little  while,  he  was  treacherously  assaulted,  and  died 
by  the  hands  of  his  elder  sons,  Adramelech  and 
Sarasar,  and  was  slain  in  his  own  temple  which  is 
called  Araske.  Now  these  sons  of  his  were  driven 
away  on  account  of  the  murder  of  their  father  by  the 
citizens,  and  went  into  Armenia,  whilst  Assarochoddas 
took  the  kingdom  of  Sennacherib." 

In  the  absence  of  any  access  to  the  work  of 
Berossus,  it  would  be  unwise  to  build  too  confidently 
upon  the  words  which  speak  of  Sennacherib's  after- 
stay  at  Nineveh  (''when  he  had  abode  there  a  httle 
while"),  and  to  conclude  that  Sennacherib  had  made 
two  invasions  of  Judah,  and  that  this  was  the  later 


172  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

of  the  two.  Such  a  conclusion  would  meet  with  as 
serious  difficulties  in  the  Assyrian  records  as  in  the 
Bible.  It  is  quite  enough  to  note  that  in  Babylonia, 
where,  as  we  shall  see,  the  movements  of  the  Assyrians 
were  watched  with  jealous  eyes,  this  disaster  was  as 
fully  known  as  it  was  in  Judaea  ;  that  it  resulted  in  the 
almost  total  extin6tion  of  one  of  the  Assyrian  armies; 
that  it  immediately  closed  Sennacherib's  invasion  of 
the  West ;  and  that  the  calamity  was  ascribed  to 
Divine  intervention. 

The  work  of  Herodotus  fortunately  still  remains 
with  us.  He  writes  :  *' After  this,  Sennacherib,  king 
of  the  Arabians  and  of  the  Assyrians,  marched  a  great 
host  against  Egypt.  Then  the  warriors  of  the 
Egyptians  refused  to  come  to  the  rescue,  and  the 
priest  (Hephaistos,  whose  name  was  Sethos),  being 
driven  into  a  strait,  entered  into  the  san(5tuary  of  the 
temple,  and  bewailed  to  the  image  of  the  god  the 
danger  which  was  impending  over  him  ;  and  as  he 
was  thus  lamenting,  sleep  came  upon  him,  and  it 
seemed  to  him  in  his  vision  that  the  god  came  out 
and  stood  by  him  and  encouraged  him,  saying  that  he 
should  suffer  no  evil  if  he  went  forth  to  meet  the  army 
of  the  Arabians ;  for  he  would  himself  send  him 
helpers.  Trusting  in  these  things  seen  in  sleep,  he 
took  with  him,  they  say,  those  of  the  Egyptians  who 
were  willing  to  follow  him,  and  encamped  in  Pelusion, 
for  by  this  way  the  invasion  came;  and  not  one  of 
the  warrior  class  followed  him,  but  shopkeepers,  and 
artisans,  and  men  of  the  market.  Then  after  they 
came,  there  swarmed  by  night  upon  the  enemies  mice 


The  Smiting  of  the  Assyrian  Army,  173 

of  the  fields,  and  ate  up  their  quivers  and  their  bows, 
and  moreover  the  handles  of  their  shields,  so  that  on 
the  next  day  they  fled  ;  and  being  without  defence  of 
arms,  great  numbers  fell.  And  at  the  present  time  this 
king  stands  in  the  temple  of  Hephaistos  in  stone, 
holding  upon  his  head  a  mouse,  and  by  letters  inscribed 
he  says  these  words :  '  Let  him  who  looks  upon  me 
learn  to  fear  the  gods.'  "* 


FIGURES    SUPPORTING  AN  ASSYRIAN  THRONE  (from  the  MoHUmeuts). 

Dr.  Pinches,  from  whose  pages  I  have  quoted  the 
above,  appends  a  note  to  the  words — "  Hephaistos, 
whose  name  was  Sethos  " — to  the  effed^  that  the  king 
named  by  Herodotus  "  reigned  as  early  as  1350  B.C.;" 
that  is,  he  lived  and  died  some  650  years  before  the 

*  The  Old  Testament,  pp.  378-382. 


174  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

time  of  Tirhakah  and  of  Sennacherib  !  This  blunder, 
and  the  confusion  which  marks  the  entire  passage, 
will  give  the  reader  a  good  idea  of  the  kind  of  Bible 
we  should  have  had,  if  it  really  consisted  of  tradi- 
tions picked  up  by  late  writers  just  as  Herodotus,  in 
a  not  much  later  time — about  250  years  only  after  the 
event — tried  to  pick  up  these  traditions  of  the  eastern 
peoples  of  his  time.  The  whole  story  of  the  mice 
seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  mistaken  interpretation 
of  an  ancient  Eastern  symbol.  Referring  to  the 
Scripture  record  of  this  disaster,  Mr.  H.  O.  Roberton 
argues  in  his  Voices  of  the  Past  (pp.  209,  210)  that  the 
reference  must  be  to  "  the  outbreak  of  pestilence  " 
among  the  Assyrian  troops.  He  says  :  ''  One  remark- 
able facft  serves  to  corroborate  this  view.  Two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  later,  the  Greek  historian  Herodotus 
found  a  tradition  still  current  in  Egypt  about  Senna- 
cherib's attempted  invasion  of  that  country.  This 
tradition  related  that  the  Egyptian  king  prayed  to  the 
gods  for  aid,  and  that  the  same  night  a  swarm  of  mice 
entered  the  Assyrian  camp.  .  .  Now,  the  mouse  was 
always  regarded  in  the  East  as  the  emblem  of  the 
plague-boil."  It  may,  however,  have  been  used  also 
in  the  more  general  sense  of  plague,  or  Divine  inflic- 
tion ;  and  the  statue  of  the  king  with  the  mouse 
resting  on  his  head  may  have  commemorated  Senna- 
cherib himself  smitten  in  thisway  by  the  hand  of  God. 
But,  taking  the  words  of  Herodotus  as  they  stand, 
they  give  us  the  testimony  of  the  West,  as  Berossus 
has  given  us  the  testimony  of  the  East,  that  Senna- 
cherib was  overtaken  by  a  strange  and  overwhelming 


The  Smiting  of  the  Assyrian  Army.  175 

disaster;  that  it  terminated  the  projected  invasion 
of  Egypt;  and  that  the  disaster  was  distindlly  and 
universally  assigned  to  Divine  intervention.  How  are 
we  to  account  for  this  essential  agreement  of  the 
Biblical  and  of  the  Babylonian  records,  and  of  the 


FIGURES  SUPPORTING  AN  ASSYRIAN  THRONE  ffrom  the  Moniimeuts). 

Egyptian  tradition  ?  If  no  such  event  had  occurred  ; 
if  Sennacherib's  designs  had  not  been  suddenly 
bHghted  by  some  such  stroke  as  this ;  the  agreement 
of  these  witnesses  is  without  any  possible  explanation. 
And   the  task   of  anyone  who  would  attempt   to 


176  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

efface  Sennacherib's  judgment  from  the  page  of 
history  would  not  end  there.  He  would  have  to 
account  for  some  surprising  gaps  in  Sennacherib's 
own  story.  He  tells  us  of  his  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but 
there  is  no  account  of  its  capture.  He  plainly  attempts, 
however,  to  make  up  for  this  by  putting  Hezekiah's 
tribute  in  the  wrong  place — after  the  siege,  and  not 
before  it.  But  why  was  this  campaign,  undertaken 
in  his  fourth  year,  his  last  attempt  upon  the  West  ? 
And  how  does  it  happen  that  his  after  history,  as 
recorded  by  himself,  is  almost  wholly  the  record  of  a 
life-and-death  struggle  with  revolted  Babylonia  and 
with  Elam  ?  Let  it  be  admitted  that  Assyria  was  so 
stricken  of  God  as  the  Bible  says  it  was,  and  that  the 
tidings  of  this  outran  even  Sennacherib's  swift  retreat, 
and  the  whole  is  explained.  Oppressed  Babylon  and 
Elam  saw  their  chance  and  seized  it.  The  same  ex- 
planation is  also  demanded  by  the  Egyptian  records. 
Tirhakah  has  described  his  victories  among  those  of 
other  Egyptian  kings ;  and,  as  has  been  well  said,  it 
was  not  their  custom  to  record  imaginary  triumphs. 
He  is  described  as  defeating  the  Assyrians,  and  as 
capturing  Syria  and  Mesopotamia.  These  conquests 
are  made  after  Sennacherib's  retreat ;  and  we  can  ex- 
plain this  sudden  reversal  of  the  state  of  things  which 
Sennacherib  paints  on  his  inscriptions  as  prevailing 
in  the  opening  of  his  reign,  only  by  an  unrecorded  blow. 
It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  eastern  and  western 
tradition,  as  well  as  the  silence  of  the  Assyrian  king's 
own  inscriptions,  bear  out  the  Scripture  statements. 
Sennacherib's  western  triumphs  were  arrested  by  the 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       177 

hand  of  One  with  whom  it  was  hopeless  for  Assyria 
to  contend. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death. 


THE  Scripture  closes  its  account  of  the  great 
Assyrian  monarch  with  the  words:  "So  Sen- 
nacherib king  of  Assyria  departed  (broke  up  his 
encampment),  and  went  and  returned,  and  dwelt  at 
Nineveh  "  (2  Kings  xix.  36). 

The  statement  has  been  confidently  made  that  the 
Bible  represents  Sennacherib  as  being  put  to  death 
almost  immediately  upon  his  return  to  Assyria.  The 
reader  will  see  how  groundless  that  assertion  is.  Not 
only  does  the  Bible  not  say  what  it  is  credited  with 
saying,  but  it  also  actually  says  the  opposite.  It  tells 
us  that  Sennacherib  dwelt, that  is,  resided,  at  Nineveh. 
This  implies  a  prolonged  residence;  for  it  means  that 
he  took  up  his  abode  and  settled  there.  In  other 
words,  the  rest  of  Sennacherib's  life  had  as  its  leading 
feature  the  selection,  preparation,  and  occupation  of 
a  new  capital. 

It  is  a  striking  comment  upon  these  words  of 
2  Kings  that  Sennacherib  himself  emphasises  this 
fact  in  his  own  account  of  his  last  years.  After 
detaiHng  his  wars  and  the  slaughter  of  his  Baby- 
lonian foes,  he  says:  "In  those  days,  after  I  had 
finished  the  wall  of  Nineveh  for  a  royal  dwell- 
ing, and  to  the  astonishment  of  all  peoples 

N 


178  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

had  adorned  it ;  the  side  building,  for  keeping 

in  order  the  train,  for  the  keeping  of  horses, 

and  all  sorts  of  things  which  the  kings  my 

forefathers  had  built,  it  had  no  foundation,  its 

room  was  too  small,  the  workmanship  was  not 

tasteful.     In  the  course  of  time  its  base  had 

become  weak,  the  part  underground  had  given 

way,  and  the  upper  part  was  in  ruins.     That 

palace  I  tore  down  completely.     A  great  mass 

of  building  material  I  took  out  of  the  ground. 

The  surrounding   part   of  the  city  I   cut   off 

and  added  to  it.     The  place  of  the  old  palace 

I  left.     With  earth  from  the  river  bed  I  filled 

it  up.     The  lower  ground  I  raised  200  tipki 

above  the  level."  ^ 

He  then  tells  us  how  he  built  on  this  new  foundation 

aided  by  ''  the  wise  builders  of  my  royal  rule,"  and 

how  he  "made  rooms  and  greatly  enlarged  them," 

and  covered  them  with  his  inscriptions. 

Layard's  excavations  have  confirmed  Sennacherib's 
inscription  in  every  particular.  Canon  Rawlinson 
has  described  the  huge  structure  whose  ruins  have 
been  gradually  bared  to  the  light  of  day.  He  says  : 
"  But  if,  as  a  warrior,  Sennacherib  deserves  to  be 
placed  in  the  foremost  rank  of  the  Assyrian  kings, 
as  a  builder  and  a  patron  of  art  he  is  still  more 
eminent.  The  great  palace  which  he  raised  at 
Nineveh  surpassed  in  size  and  splendour  all  earlier 
edifices,  and  was  never  excelled  in  any  respect  except 
by  one  later  building.     The   palace  of   Assur-bani- 

*  Records  of  the  Past  (New  Series),  vol.  vi.,  pp.  99, 100. 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       179 

pal,  built  on  the  same  platform  by  the  grandson  of 
Sennacherib,  was,  it  must  be  allowed,  more  exquisite 
in  its  ornamentation;  but  even  this  edifice  did  not 
equal  the  work  of  Sennacherib  in  the  number  of  its 
apartments,  or  the  grandeur  of  its  dimensions. 
Sennacherib's  palace  covered  an  area  of  above  eight 
acres.  It  consisted  of  a  number  of  grand  halls  and 
smaller   chambers,    arranged   round    at    least    three 

courts  or  quadrangles It  was  elevated  on  a 

platform,  eighty  or  ninety  feet  above  the  plain,  arti- 
ficially constructed  and  covered  with  a  pavement  of 
bricks.  .  .  . 

"  It  was  in  the  size  and  the  number  of  his  rooms, 
in  the  use  of  passages,  and  in  certain  features  of  his 
ornamentation,  that  Sennacherib  chiefly  differed  from 
former  builders.      He   increased   the  width    of    the 
principal  state  apartments  by  one-third,  which  seems 
to   imply  the    employment  of   some   new   mode    or 
material  for  roofing.  .  .  .  The  most  striking  charac- 
teristic of  Sennacherib's  ornamentation  is  its  strong 
and  marked  realism.     It  was  under  Sennacherib  that 
the  practise  first  obtained  of  completing  each  scene 
by  a    background,  such   as   a^ually  existed   at   the 
time  and  place  of  its  occurrence.     Mountains,  rocks, 
trees,  roads,  rivers,  lakes,  were  regularly  portrayed, 
an    attempt    being  made  to  represent  the  locality, 
whatever  it  might  be,  as  truthfully  as  the  artist's 
skill   and   the   character   of    his    material   rendered 
possible.     Nor  was   this   endeavour  limited  to   the 
broad  and  general  features  of  the  scene  only.     The 
wish  evidently  was  to  include  all  the  little  accessories 


i8o 


The  New  Biblical  Guide, 


C^ 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       i8r 

which  the  observant  eye  of  an  artist  might  have 
noted  if  he  had  made  his  drawing  with  the  scene 
before  him.  The  species  of  trees  is  distinguished 
in  Sennacherib's  bas-reHefs ;  gardens,  fields,  ponds, 
reeds,  are  carefully  represented;  wild  animals  are 
introduced,  as  stags,  boars,  and  antelopes ;  birds  fly 
from  tree  to  tree,  or  stand  over  their  nests  feeding 
the  young  who  stretch  up  to  them  ;  fish  disport  them- 
selves in  thewaters;  fishermen  ply  their  craft;  boatmen 
and  agricultural  labourers  pursue  their  avocations; 
the  scene  is,  as  it  were,  photographed,  with  all  its 
features — the  least  and  the  most  important — equally 
marked,  and  without  any  attempt  at  selection,  or  any 
effort  after  artistic  unity. 

''  Besides  constru(fting  this  new  palace  at  Nineveh, 
Sennacherib  seems  also  to  have  restored  the  ancient 

residence  of  the  kings  at  the  same  place He 

confined  the  Tigris  to  its  channel  by  an  embankment 
of  bricks.  He  construcfted  a  number  of  canals  or 
aqueducts  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  good  water  to 
the  capital.  He  improved  the  defences  of  Nineveh, 
erecTting  towers  of  a  vast  size  at  some  of  the  gates. 
And  finally  he  built  a  temple  to  the  god  Nergal  at 
Tarbisi  (now  Sherif  Khan),  about  three  miles  from 
Nineveh,  up  the  Tigris. 

'*  In  the  constru(ftion  of  these  great  works,  he 
made  use,  chiefly,  of  the  forced  labour  with  which  his 
triumphant  expeditions  into  foreign  countries  had  so 
abundantly  supplied  him.  Chaldaeans,  Aramaeans, 
Armenians,  Cilicians;  and  probably  also  Egyptians, 
Ethiopians,  Elamites,  and  Jews,  were  employed  by 


1 82  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

thousands  in  the  formation  of  the  vast  mounds,  in 
the  transport  and  elevation  of  the  colossal  bulls,  in 
the  moulding  of  the  bricks,  and  the  erection  of  the 
walls  of  the  various  edifices,  in  the  excavation  of  the 
canals,  and  the  construction  of  the  embankments. 
They  wrought  in  gangs,  each  gang  having  a  costume 
peculiar  to  it,  which  probably  marked  its  nation. 
Over  each  were  placed  a  number  of  task-masters, 
armed  with  staves,  who  urged  on  the  work  with 
blows,  and  severely  punished  any  neglect  or  remiss- 
ness  The  forced  labourers  often  worked  in 

fetters,  which  were  sometimes  supported  by  a  bar 
fastened  to  the  wrist,  while  sometimes  they  consisted 
merely  of  shackles  round  the  ankles."* 

Such  is  the  story  pointed  to  in  the  words  which 
tell  us  that  Sennacherib  "dwelt  at  Nineveh."  The 
Bible  has  been  equally  vindicated,  through  the  results 
of  widening  research,  in  its  account  of  the  tragedy 
which  closed  the  earthly  existence  of  this  remorseless 
■conqueror  and  masterful  builder.  *'  It  came  to  pass," 
we  read,  "  as  he  was  worshipping  in  the  house  of 
Nisroch  his  god,  that  Adrammelech  and  Sharezerhis 
sons  smote  him  with  the  sword :  and  they  escaped 
into  the  land  of  Armenia.  And  Esarhaddon  his  son 
reigned  in  his  stead  "  (2  Kings  xix.  37).  The  name 
Nisroch  has  not  yet  been  found  upon  the  monuments. 
Some  believe  it  to  be  the  god  called  Nusku  by  the 
Assyrians ;  but  it  may  be  the  reading  of  a  name  of 
some  Assyrian  divinity,  which  in  our  ignorance  we 
are  pronouncing  otherwise  to-day.    On  this  and  other 

*  Geo.  Rawlinson.    The  Five  Great  Monarchies,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  457-463. 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       183 

accounts  the  words  before  us  have  fared  badly  at  the 
hands  of  critics  andof  certain  archaeologists.  Sennach- 
erib's end,  as  described  b}^  the  Scripture,  was  one  of 
those  bits  of  "  poetic  justice"  which  so  rarely  happen 
in  actual  life,  but  which  enter  so  often  into  the  dreams 
of  the  poet  and  the  products  of  the  romancer.  It 
was  impossible,  said  they,  that  a  Jew  could  suffer  this 
story  to  conclude  otherwise.  This  great  enemy  of 
God  and  of  the  Jewish  people  must  not  be  allowed 
to  die  like  other  men.  But  this  matter  assumed  quite 
a  new  aspect  as  the  progress  of  discovery  threw  one 
beam  of  light  after  another  upon  this  dark  spot  in 
Assyria's  histor}'.  The  Babylonian  Chronicle,  to 
which  we  have  referred  before,  contains  the  following 
entry : 

"The  20th  Tebet,    Sennacherib  was    slain 

by  his  son  in  a  revolt.  Sennacherib  reigned 
twenty-three  years  in  Assyria.  From  the  20th 
Tebet  to  the  2nd  Adar  the  revolt  continued  in 
Assyria.  The  iSth  Siwan,  his  son  Esarhaddon 
occupied  the  throne  in  Assyria." 

That  gave  the  death-blow  to  the  notion  that  we  had 
in  the  notice  in  the  Bible  a  mere  romance,  or  a 
tradition  coloured  by  the  wishes  or  the  passions  of 
Jewish  narrators.  Sennacherib  had  been  assassin- 
ated, and  the  assassination  was  the  work  of  his  own 
household.  It  will  have  been  observed,  however,  that 
the  Babylonian  Chronicle,  while  it  so  fully  confirms 
the  Bible  account,  does  not  absolutely  square  with  it. 
It  speaks  of  the  assassination  as  the  work  of  one  son 
— "  Sennacherib  was  slain  by  his  son  in  a  revolt." 


184  'The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

Upon  this  seeming  small  discrepancy  Dr.  Hugo 
Winckler  took  his  stand  in  the  name  of  Assyriology. 
He  asserted  that  the  Bible  statement,  that  there  were 
two  assassins,  was  a  mistake.  Here,  he  maintained, 
the  Bible  and  the  monuments  were  in  distinct  conflict; 
the  former  speaking  of  two  sons  dipping  their  hands 
in  their  father's  blood,  while  the  latter  confined  the 
fratricide  to  one. 

It  might  have  occurred  to  him  that  he  was  placing 
more  upon  his  supposed  authority  than  it  could  well 
bear.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  Chronicle  does 
not  speak  of  the  act  as  if  it  were  a  simple  assassin- 
ation in  which  only  one  criminal  could  be  implicated. 
It  tells  us  distinctly  that  the  king  perished  in  a  revolt. 
There  was  a  conspiracy,  therefore,  which  had  laid  its 
plans  and  had  arranged  their  details.  The  object 
aimed  at  was  to  seize  the  supreme  power ;  and  the 
death  of  Sennacherib  was  merely  one  of  several  in- 
cidents necessary  to  the  triumph  of  the  plot.  The 
assassin  was  not  alone  in  this  movement,  nor  in  the 
unholy  act  which  was  essentiaPto  its  success.  There 
was  room  enough  for  another  son  of  the  ill-fated  king 
in  the  attack  upon  his  life.  But  the  Scripture  goes 
farther,  and  enables  us  to  test  its  rehability.  It  gives 
the  names  of  the  sons  implicated  in  the  murder. 
These  are  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer.  Were  these 
names  of  the  time?  Were  they  borne  by  children 
of  Sennacherib  ?  and  did  those  who  bore  them  take 
part  in  the  revolt  ?  To  these  questions  we  are  able 
to  return  replies  which  are  a  triumphant  vindication 
of  the  Bible.     There  is  a  passage  in  Abydenus  which 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       185 

tells  us  that  Sennacherib  was  slain  by  his  son  Adra- 
melus ;  and  that  after  him  Nergilus  reigned,  who  was 
also  slain.  Here  the  first  of  the  two  names  is  found. 
The  assassin  was  named  Adramelus,  that  is,  the 
Adrammelech  of  the  Bible.  But  the  second  name  is 
also  given  in  the  same  passage.  It  is  this  Nergilus, 
or  Nergal.  Abydenus  places  him  between  Sen- 
nacherib and  Esarhaddon,  the  son  who  eventually 
succeeded  the  great  king.  Nergal  was,  therefore,  the 
son  in  whose  interest  the  insurrection  was  made,  and 
who  actually  ascended  the  throne  and  attempted  to 
reap  the  fruits  of  the  revolt.  Schrader  has  shown 
that  it  was  customary  among  the  Assyrians  to  use 
half-names.  There  are  cases  in  which  the  shortened 
forms  appear  even  upon  the  monuments.  Now  both 
Nergal  and  Sharezer,  or  Sarusur,  are  both  half-names. 
They  are  parts  of  the  name  Nergal-sarusur  ("Nergal 
protect  the  king").  The  Bible  gives  us  the  second 
part  of  the  name,  and  Abydenus  has  recorded  the 
first.  These,  therefore,  were  names  of  the  time  ;  they 
were  names  borne  by  children  of  Sennacherib;  and 
these  were  sons  concerned  in  the  revolt.  A  demon- 
stration can  hardly  be  more  perfect  than  this. 

But  the  Bible  adds  the  information  that  these  two 
men  survived  the  counter-revolution  which  snatched 
the  fruits  of  their  crime  from  their  grasp,  and  that 
they  found  an  asylum  in  Armenia.  This  statement 
always  impressed  Assyriologists,  because  it  was  known 
that  Armenia  was  one  of  the  mighty  monarchies 
of  the  time,  and  that  it  was  distinctly  antagonistic 
to  Assyria.     Esarhaddon  himself,  however,  has  now 


1 86  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

appeared  upon  the  scene,  and  has  told  us  how  the 
revolt  was  suppressed.  The  inscription  is  so  badly 
damaged  at  the  commencement  as  to  be  unreadable. 
Mr.  H.  F.  Talbot  says,  in  his  brief  preface  to  the 
translation  of  the  inscription  :  "  It  is  always  a  pleasure 
to  find  an  Assyrian  inscription  which  describes,  in  its 
own  way,  events  corresponding  to  those  mentioned 
in  the  Scripture.  The  clay-tablets  which  have  been 
brought  home  from  Assyria  are  for  the  most  part 
miserably  fractured ;  but  in  no  instance  is  there  greater 
reason  to  regret  the  loss  of  part  of  an  inscription  than 
here.  For  it  is  evident  that  the  portion  of  it  which 
is  lost  described  the  murder  of  Sennacherib  by  his 
unnatural  sons,  and  the  receipt  of  the  sad  intelligence 
by  Esarhaddon,  who  was  then  commanding  an  army 
on  the  northern  confines  of  his  father's  empire.  Had 
it  been  preserved,  we  should  possibly  have  found  in 
it  the  two  names  of  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer  and 
many  particulars  of  the  tragic  event."* 

What  remains  of  the  tablet  runs  thus:  ''From  my 
heart  I  made  a  vow.  My  liver  was  inflamed  with 
rage.  Immediately  I  wrote  letters  (saying)  that  I 
assumed  the  sovereignty  of  my  Father's  House.  Then 
to  Ashur,  the  Moon,  the  Sun,  Bel,  Nebo,  Nergal, 
Ishtar  of  Nineveh,  and  Ishtar  of  Arbela  I  lifted  up 
my  hands.  They  accepted  my  prayer.  In  their 
gracious  favour  an  encouraging  oracle  they  sent  to 
me:  *Go!  Fear  not !  We  march  at  thy  side!  We 
aid  thy  expedition !     For  one  or  two  days  t  I  did  not 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  iii.,  p.  loi,  102. 
I  "  The  army,"  says  the  translator,  "  was  in  Winter  quarters,  not  expecting  any 
service,  when  it  was  thus  suddenly  called  upon  to  a(5t.    Hence  the  delay  of  some 
days  in  getting  ready." 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.       187 

stir  from  my  position;  I  did  not  move  the  front  of 
my  army,  and  I  did  not  move  my  rear ;  the  tethering 
ropes  of  my  horses,  trained  to  the  double  yoke,  I  did 
not  remove.  I  did  not  strike  my  camp.  But  I  made 
haste  to  provide  the  needful  for  the  expedition.  A 
great  snowstorm  in  the  month  of  January  darkened 
the  sky,*  but  I  did  not  recede.  Then  as  a  sirin  bird 
spreads  its  wings,  so  I  displayed  my  standards,  as  a 
signal  to  my  allies ;  and  with  much  toil  and  in  haste 
I  took  the  road  to  Nineveh.  But,  getting  before  my 
troops,  in  the  hill  country  of  the  Khani-Rabbi,  all 


HUNTING  SCENE  (from  the  Mouumcnts). 

their  warriors  powerful  attacked  the  front  of  my 
army,  and  discharged  their  arrows.  But  the  terrors 
of  the  great  gods  my  Lords  overwhelmed  them. 
When  they  saw  the  valour  of  my  great  army  they 
retreated  backwards.  Ishtar,  queen  of  war  and 
battle,  who  loves  my  piety,  stood  by  my  side.  She 
broke  their  bows.  Their  line  of  battle  in  her  rage  she 
destroyed.  To  their  army  she  spoke  thus:  'An  un- 
sparing deity  am  I.'  By  her  high  command  I  planted 
my  standards  where  I  had  intended." 

^  "  He  was  then  in  the  mountains,  where  the  snow-drifts  would  soon  make  the 
ways  impassable  to  an  army  "  (Translator). 


1 88  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

The  rest  of  the  column  is  wanting.  The  following 
from  the  pages  of  Schrader  supplements  what  has 
just  been  given.  The  battle  was  fought,  it  seems,  in 
South-east  Cappa  docia,  or  Lesser  Armenia,  close  to 
the  Euphrates,  and  it  was  terminated  by  a  revolt  of 
the  troops  led  by  the  rebels.  The  inscription  con- 
cludes with  the  words:  *'In  their  ranks  (literally,  'in 
their  assembly')  resounded  the  cry:  'This  (is)  our 
king.""^  Abydenus  says  that  the  defeated  princes 
then  threw  themselves  into  a  fortified  city  of  the 
Byzantines,  that  is,  a  city  belonging  to  Armenia,  and 
so  escaped  from  the  midst  of  their  mutinous  army.  It 
is  v/ell  to  observe  that  Esarhaddon  does  not  speak  of 
one  adversary  merely.  He  speaks  oi'' their  warriors," 
and  of  ''their  army."  Plainly,  therefore,  he  is  con- 
fronted by  more  than  one  brother.  The  will  of 
Sennacherib  (which  has  been  discovered)  throws 
some  light  upon  these  dark  intrigues.  "It  is,"  says 
Professor  Sayce,  "the  earliest  example  of  a  Will 
extant.  Esarhaddon  was  not  the  eldest  son,  and  at 
the  time  this  will  was  made,  was  not  heir-presumptive 
to  the  throne.  He  was,  however,  Sennacherib's 
favourite  son;  and  the  treasure  named  in  the  Will 
was  accordingly  deposited  with  certain  priests  of 
Nebo  to  be  paid  over  to  him  after  his  father's  death." 
The  Will  is  as  follows: — 

I,  Sennacherib,  King  of  multitudes.  King  of 
Assyria,  have  given  chains  of  gold,  stores  of 
ivory,  a  cjip  of  gold,  crowns  and  chains  besides,, 
all  the  riches  of  which  there  are  heaps,  crystal 

*  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  etc.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  17. 


Sennacherib's  Last  Labours  and  Death.        i8g 

and  another  precious  stone  and  bird's  stone ; 

one  and  a-half  manehs,  two  and  a-half  cibi, 

according  to  their  weight;  to  Esarhaddon  my 

son,"  etc.^ 
The  presence  of  Esarhaddon  also  at  the  head  of  a 
powerful,  and  evidently  too,  the  army  of  Assyria, 
indicated  the  king's  preference.  The  conspiracy  was 
doubtless  hastened  by  the  convidlion  that,  if  acftion 
was  longer  delayed,  it  would  be  too  late. 

There  is  one  item  in  the  Scripture  account  which 
still  remains.  Sennacherib  is  said  to  have  been  slain 
in  the  temple  while  worshipping  his  god.  It  was  a 
spot  which  a  daring  hand  would  find  the  fittest  for 
the  deed.  Here  the  king  would  be  entirely  separated 
from  his  guards  and  from  his  friends.  He  entered 
the  san(5tuary  of  the  god,  accompanied  by  his  son  or 
sons,  or  some  trusted  companion.  And  there  in  the 
presence  of  the  priest  the  deed  was  done,  and  for  the 
moment  successfully  concealed.  That  the  assassina- 
tion was  a(5lually  carried  out  in  this  way  is  proved 
by  the  discovery  of  an  altar,  an  inscription  on  which 
says  that  it  had  stood  in  the  place  where  Sennacherib 
was  murdered.  That  place  must,  of  course,  have  been 
a  temple. 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  i.,  p.  138. 


IQO  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

The  Date  of  Sennacherib's  Invasion,  and  the 
Embassy  from  the  King  of  Babylon. 


THE  chronological  disagreement  between  the 
Scripture  and  the  Assyrian  records  is  (with  one 
exception,  which  I  shall  notice  immediately)  confined 
to  the  period  covered  by  the  reigns  of  Tiglath-pileser 
and  his  successor  Shalmaneser,  the  immediate  pre- 
decessor of  Sargon.  In  the  dynastic  troubles  through 
which  Assyria  passed  during  that  period,  the  Assyrian 
records  suffered,  and  the  labours  of  Sennacherib  may 
not  have  sufficed  to  completely  repair  the  loss.  It  is 
possible  also  that  omissions  may  have  been  made  on 
account  of  dynastic  rivalries  and  animosities.  As  to 
these  things,  no  certainty  is  at  present  obtainable, 
and  the  disagreements  between  the  Assyrian  and  the 
Biblical  records  during  this  period  must  await  the 
results  of  further  research. 

There  is,  however,  one,  and  only  one,  discord 
between  the  chronologies  from  Sargon  downwards. 
With  that  one  exception  there  is  absolute  harmony; 
and  the  question  to  which  I  now  ask  the  reader's 
attention  is  whether  even  this  solitary  note  of  discord 
is  not  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  our  own.  The 
date  of  Sargon's  accession  is  the  date  of  the  capture 
of  Samaria — 722  B.C.  This  event  (as  we  have  seen) 
took    place   in   the   sixth   year   of  Hezekiah's  reign 


The  Date  of  Sennacherib's  Invasion.  191 

(2  Kings  xviii.  10).  This  date  of  722  B.C.  for  the  fall 
of  Samaria  is  in  absolute  agreement  with  the 
Scripture  reckoning.  But  now  comes  the  discord. 
The  very  next  date  which  the  Bible  gives  is  that  of 
Sennacherib's  invasion.  This,  we  are  told,  happened 
in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah  (verse  13).  The 
fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah  would  bring  us  down 
other  eight  years,  that  is,  to  714  B.C.  But  Sargon 
reigned  seventeen  years  after  the  taking  of  Samaria, 
and  Sennacherib's  invasion  took  place  in  the  fourth 
year  of  his  own  reign.  This  brings  us  down  to  twenty- 
one  years  after  the  capture  of  Samaria,  or  to  701  B.C. 
There  is  thus  a  difference  of  thirteen  or  fourteen 
years  between  the  two  chronologies. 

Now  this  very  period  of  thirteen  or  fourteen  years 
seems  to  me  to  suggest  a  solution  of  the  difficulty.  I 
give  it  only  as  a  suggestion  to  be  set  down  at  the 
reader's  valuation  after  he  has  considered  the  fails. 
The  Scripture  tells  us  that  Hezekiah's  reign  was 
divided  into  two  portions.  He  reigned  in  all  twenty- 
nine  years  (2  Kings  xviii.  2) ;  but  fifteen  of  these 
years  were  graciously  granted  as  a  lengthening  of 
his  life  and  reign.  "In  those  days  was  Hezekiah 
sick  unto  death.  And  the  prophet  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz  came  to  him,  and  said  to  him.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Set  thine  house  in  order;  for  thou  shalt  die, 
and  not  Hve"  (2  Kings  xx.  i).  The  king  "turned  his 
face  to  the  wall"  —  it  was  all  the  solitude  which, 
king  though  he  was,  he  was  then  able  to  secure — and  in 
tears  and  silence  lifted  his  cry  to  God.  The  prophet 
was  stopped  on  his  way  through  the  palace  court, 


192  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

and  was  turned  back  with  a  message  of  consolation. 
The  king's  prayer  had  been  heard.  ''Turn  again," 
said  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ''and  tell  Hezekiah  the 
captain  of  My  people,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God 
of  David  thy  father,  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have 
seen  thy  tears :  behold  I  will  heal  thee:  on  the  third 
day  thou  shalt  go  up  unto  the  house  of  the  Lord. 
And  I  will  add  unto  thy  days  fifteen  years:  and  I  will 
deHver  thee  and  this  city  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king 
of  Assyria;  and  I  will  defend  this  city  for  Mine  own 
sake,  and  for  My  servant  David's  sake  "  (verses  5,  6). 
The  reader  will  have  been  struck  by  this  reference 
to  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  the  king  of 
Assyria.  Seeing  that  this  sickness  of  Hezekiah  was 
immediately  followed  by  these  last  fifteen  3''ears  of 
his  twenty-nine  years'  reign,  the  sickness  must  have 
occurred  at  the  close  of  his  fourteenth  year.  But,  if 
Sennacherib's  invasion  was  still  an  event  of  the  future 
at  the  end  of  his  fourteenth  year,  it  could  not  possibly 
have  occurred  in  the  fourteenth  year,  reckoning  from 
the  beginning  of  his  reign.  This  interpretation  is 
clearly  excluded.  The  whole  of  the  first  fourteen 
years  had  already  been  exhausted  at  the  time  of  the 
sickness.  Up  to  this  time,  according  to  2  Kings  xx.  6, 
the  Assyrian  invasion  and  the  escape  of  Jerusalem 
are  still  in  the  future.  They  are  matters  of  prophecy 
and  not  of  history.  They  are  experiences  still  in 
front  of  Hezekiah  and  of  the  Jews.  Is  it  not  clear, 
then,  from  this  that  the  fourteenth  year  spoken  of 
must  be  the  fourteenth  year  of  the  renewed  life-span 
granted  to  Hezekiah?     I  am   persuaded  that  a  deep 


The  Date  of  Sennacherib's  Invasion.  193 

significance  is  frequently,  if  not  always,  attached  to 
the  Scripture  use  of  figures,  and  that  we  have  in  them 
Divine  suggestions  which  hft  them  entirely  out  of  the 
plane  of  ordinary  chronology.  It  is  clear,  I  think, 
from  the  place  given  to  these  incidents  in  the  Book 
of  Isaiah,  that  Hezekiah  and  the  Jews  of  his  time  are 
in  some  way  types  of  the  Jews  in  the  last  days  when 
the  blast  of  the  terrible  ones  shall  be  as  a  storm 
against  the  wall  (Isaiah  xxv.  4).  Into  this  we  cannot 
enter  here,  and  all  that  we  have  now  to  do  is  to  note 
how  closely  the  Scripture  itself  shuts  us  up  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  fourteenth  year  of  2  Kings  xviii.  13 
is  not  the  fourteenth  year  from  the  commencement 
of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and  that  it  must  therefore  be  the 
fourteenth  from  the  beginning  of  the  second  period, 
of  the  renewed  life  given  to  the  king. 

Now,  taking  the  words  in  this  way,  is  the  difficulty 
removed?  If  it  is,  that  will  be  some  assurance  that 
we  have  not  erred  in  giving  heed  to  this  indication. 
Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judaea  is  fixed  by  the 
Eponym  Canon  for  the  year  701  B.C.  Hezekiah's 
sixth  year,  being  the  year  of  Sargon's  accession,  is 
fixed  by  the  Canon  as  722  B.C.  His  fourteenth  year  will 
bring  us  down  another  eight  years  from  that  date  of 
722,  that  is,  to  714  B.C.  From  this  time  begins  the 
second  period  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  Thirteen  years 
of  that  have  completely  gone,  and  he  is  in  the  four- 
teenth year  of  this  extension — of  this  day  of  grace — 
when  Sennacherib's  invasion  occurs.  Now,  if  we 
take  these  thirteen  completed  years  from  714  B.C. 
(the  time  from  which  the  day  of  grace  begins),  we 


194  ^^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

get  701  B.C.     That  is  the  very  year  of  Sennacherib's 
invasion,  according  to  the  Assyrian  Canon. 

It  may  be  well  to  notice  also  that  the  order  of  time 
is  not  followed  by  the  historian.  We  have  been  told 
already  of  Sennacherib's  attempt  upon  the  city,  of 
his  blasphemies,  and  of  his  punishment  and  de- 
parture, in  the  nineteenth  chapter.  All  that  plainly 
transpired  after  the  sickness.  But,  with  the  evident 
intention  of  leaving  with  the  reader  this  picture  of 
the  sickness  of  Hezekiah,  of  God's  mercy  toward 
him,  and  the  prophecy  regarding  the  carrying  away 
to  Babylon — all  this  is  reserved  as  the  closing  word  of 
the  king's  history.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the 
embassy  from  Babylon  m.ust  have  come  to  Jerusalem 
before  Sennacherib's  invasion.  That  is  shown  by  the 
condition  of  Hezekiah's  treasure  chambers.  We  read 
that  the  king  showed  them  "all  the  house  of  his 
precious  things,  the  silver  and  the  gold,"  etc.  (xx.  13). 
But,  had  this  visit  taken  place  after  Sennacherib's  in- 
vasion, the  silver  and  the  gold  would  not  have  been 
there.  The  whole  of  the  silver  and  of  the  gold  would 
have  been  carried  to  Nineveh  ;  for  Hezekiah  had  to 
strip  the  temple  doors  and  pillars  to  add  to  that  which 
was  in  his  own  treasury,  in  order  to  make  up  the  thirty 
talents  of  gold  demanded  by  the  Assyrian  king,  and 
we  read  that  ''  he  gave  him  all  the  silver  that  was 
found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  treasures 
of  the  king's  house"  (11.  Kings  xviii.  15).  Had  the 
embassy  arrived,  then,  after  Sennacherib's  invasion,  the 
silver  and  gold,  and  the  other  precious  things,  would 
not  have  been  there  to  show.     Here  again,  there- 


The  Embassy  from  the  King  of  Babylon.       195 

fore,  it  is  proved  that  Hezekiah's/zrs^  fourteenth  year 
cannot  have  been  that  of  the  Assyrian  invasion.    For 
his  sickness  occurred  when  he  had  reigned  fourteen 
years,  and  the  embassy  from  the  Babylonian  king  to 
congratulate  him  on  his  recovery  must  have  been  sent 
afterwards — very   probably   in    the    following    year. 
This  confirms  the  conclusion  to  which  we  were  pre- 
viously led,  that  the  Assyrian  invasion  took  place  in 
Hezekiah's  second  fourteenth  year,  and  not  in  his  first. 
Can    Assyriologists    tell    us    anything    regarding 
Berodach-Baladan — or,  as    he    is  named  in   Isaiah, 
Merodach-Baladan    (xxxix.    i)  ?      Fortunately,   they 
are  able  to  tell  us  much,  and  their  information  has  a 
very  close  bearing  upon  the  incident  referred  to  in 
the    Scripture.     "Merodach-Baladan,    'the    son    of 
Yagina,'  as  he  is  called  in  the  inscriptions,"  says  Prof. 
Sayce,  "was  a  Kaldu  or  Chaldsean  from  the  marshes 
of  Southern  Babylonia.     He  had  taken  advantage  of 
the  death  of  the  Assyrian  king,  Shalmaneser  IV.,  in 
B.C.  722,  to  enter  Babylon  and  seize  the  throne.  For 
twelve  years  he  governed  the  country.     Sargon  was 
employed  elsewhere,  and  his  wars  in  the  north  and 
west  left  him  no  leisure  for  restoring  Babylonia  to 
Assyria.     Gradually,  however,  the  enemies  who  had 
threatened  the  frontiers  of  the  empire  were   over- 
thrown and  subdued,  and  a  time  came  when  Sargon 
was  free  to  turn  his  eyes  towards  the  south.     Year  by 
year  he  had  grown  more  powerful,  and  the  Assyrian 
army  had  become  irresistible  in  attack.     It  was  clear 
that  it  could  not  be  long  before  a  fresh  Assyrian  in- 
vasion of  Babylonia  would  be  attempted  :  and  even 


196  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

with  the  help  of  his  Elamite  friends,  Merodach- 
Baladan  could  not  hope  to  resist  it  successfully. 
His  sole  chance  was  to  divide  the  forces  of  the  foe 
by  exciting  trouble  in  the  west.'"*^ 

It  may  help  us  to  understand  Merodach-Baladan's 
position  and  present  purpose,  if  we  listen  for  a  moment 
to  what  Sargon  king  of  Assyria  has  to  say  about  him. 
In  a  long  inscription,  in  which  he  gives  us  his  account 
of  the  various  foes  whom  he  had  subdued,  he  says : 
"Merodach-Baladan,  son  of  Jakin,  king  of  Chaldaea, 
the  fallacious,  the  persistent  in  enmity,  did  not 
respect  the  memory  of  the  gods,  he  trusted  in  the 
sea,  and  in  the  retreat  of  the  marshes  ;  he  eluded  the 
precepts  of  the  great  gods  and  refused  to  send  his 
tributes.  .  .  .  He  had  excited  all  the  nomadic  tribes 
of  the  deserts  against  me.  He  prepared  himself  for 
battle  and  advanced.  During  twelve  years,  against 
the  will  of  the  gods  of  Babylon,  the  town  of  Bel 
which  judges  the  gods,  he  had  excited  the  country  of 
the  Sumers  and  Accads,  and  had  sent  ambassadors 
to  them."  f  The  rest  of  the  account  describes  the 
campaign  and  the  terrific  vengeance  taken  upon  the 
Babylonians.  Merodach-Baladan  had  seen  clearly 
that  he  was  soon  to  be  dealt  with,  and  had  under- 
stood the  importance  of  providing  other  employment 
for  Sargon 's  forces. 

Two  questions  naturally  suggest  themselves.  Do 
the  chronologies  agree  in  this  instance?  Did  the 
time  of  Hezekiah's  recovery  coincide  with  the  day  of 

*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p.  425. 
+  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ix.,pp.  13,  14. 


The  Embassy  from  the  King  of  Babylon.       197 

Merodach-Baladan's  need  ?  The  Babylonian  king 
began  to  reign,  as  we  have  just  been  informed,  in 
722  B.C.  He  reigned  twelve  years;  and  his  reign, 
consequently,  endured  from  722  to  710.  We  have 
also  been  told  that  722  B.C.  was  Hezekiah's  sixth 
year.  His  first  year  was,  therefore,  727  B.C.  We 
can  now  with  perfect  ease  determine  the  time  of 
the  Babylonian  embassy  according  to  the  Scripture 
reckoning.  It  must  have  arrived  at  Jerusalem  after 
Hezekiah's  fourteenth  year,  and  very  probably  at  the 
close  of  his  fifteenth  year.  Now,  if  we  take  fifteen 
from  727,  this  will  brings  us  down  to  712  B.C.  as  the 
date  of  the  embassy  according  to  the  Scripture,  Now 
this  was  just  two  years  before  Merodach-Baladan's 
overthrow,  and  it  must,  therefore,  have  been  a  time 
when  that  astute  monarch  was  straining  every  nerve 
to  avert  the  coming  blow.  The  agreement  of  the 
Bible  chronology  with  the  Assyrian  is  in  this,  as  in 
other  instances,  absolutely  perfect. 

Our  other  question  is — does  the  Bible  account 
reveal  anything  of  the  Babylonian  monarch's  pur- 
pose ?  We  are  told  that  the  ambassadors  came  to 
congratulate  Hezekiah.  In  Isaiah  (xxxix.  i)  we  read 
that  he  also  ''  sent  letters  and  a  present  to  Hezekiah: 
for  he  had  heard  that  he  had  been  sick,  and  was 
recovered."  That  was  a  very  fair  pretext ;  but  does 
the  Bible  indicate  that  there  was  anything  else 
beneath  this  fair  exterior  ?  There  is  one  significant 
phrase  in  2  Kings  xx.  13.  We  read  there  that 
"  Hezekiah  hearkened  unto  them."  The  ambassadors 
had  something  for  his  private  ear ;  and  it  was  plainly 


ig8  TJie  New  Biblical  Guide. 

something  which  he  weighed  and  received  with  favour. 
Then  came  his  invitation  to  them  to  view  his  treas- 
ures. And  that  viewing  was  a  serious  business ;  for 
he  himself  tells  the  prophet  that  there  was  nothing 
among  his  treasures  which  he  had  not  shown  to  them. 
Now,  Hezekiah  was  not  a  child;  nor  was  he  a  man 
who  on  any  other  occasion  proved  himself  to  be  the 
slave  of  vanity.  This,  we  may  be  certain,  was  no 
idle  and  boastful  display  of  his  wealth  to  foreign 
visitors.  It  was  a  disclosure  of  the  extent  of  his 
resources  to  those  who  with  himself  hated  and 
dreaded  the  encroachments  of  a  common  and  re- 
morseless foe.  If  Merodach-Baladan  desired  to  have 
resistance  organised  in  the  west,  Hezekiah  was  no 
less  pleased  to  know  that  a  powerful  resistance  would 
be  offered  in  the  east.  More  might  have  come  from 
those  interviews.  The  budding  alliance  with  Babylon 
might  have  borne  fruit  in  frightful  disasters  for  Judaea, 
and  the  offered  friendship  would  have  inevitably 
brought  with  it  loss  of  faith  and  of  purity  for  court 
and  people.  It  was  an  hour  of  temptation,  and  God 
plucked  his  servant  from  the  closing  snare. 

These  side-lights  enable  us  to  understand  the  Bible 
story;  but  they  also  do  more.  They  explode  the 
notion  that  this  story  is  legend  and  myth,  and  show 
that  every  phrase  and  word,  like  a  skilled  painter's 
touch,  sets  before  us  a  living  picture  of  the  men  and 
the  time  which  could  have  been  painted  only  by  One 
who  saw  and  fully  knew  all  these  things. 


Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-Necho.        igg 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-Necho. 


THE  last  years  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  were 
marked  by  striking  indications  of  decay.  There 
were  periods  of  repentance  and  of  eager  seeking  to 
sweep  from  the  land  all  that  had  offended  God.  Then 
followed  a  deep  and  long  plunge  downward  into  the 
pollutions  of  heathenism.  Ahaz  the  father  of  Heze- 
kiah  had  "  sacrificed  unto  the  gods  of  Damascus  .  . 
and  .  .  .  gathered  together  the  vessels  of  the  house 
of  the  God  " — the  Hebrew  says  "the  God,"  for  there 
was  no  other — "  and  cut  in  pieces  the  vessels  of  the 
house  of  the  God,  and  shut  up  the  doors  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  and  he  made  him  altars  in  every 
corner  of  Jerusalem.  And  in  every  several  city  of 
Judah  he  made  high  places  to  burn  incense  unto 
other  gods,  and  provoked  to  anger  the  Lord  God  of 
his  fathers"  (2  Chronicles  xxviii.  23-25).  And  now 
Hezekiah  is  succeeded  by  Manasseh  who  "  made 
Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  to  err,  and 
to  do  worse  than  the  heathen,  whom  the  Lord  had 
destroyed  before  the  children  of  Israel "  (2  Chronicles 
xxxiii.  g).  He  caused  his  children  to  pass  through 
the  fire  to  Moloch.  He  introduced  the  obscene 
worship  of  the  goddess  Astarte  ;  built  altars  in  the 
very  Temple  courts  "for  all  the  host  of  heaven;" 
and  placed  a  graven   statue  in  the  house  of  God. 


200  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

'^  Moreover  Manasseh  shed  innocent  blood  very  much, 
till  he  had  filled  Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  another" 
(2  Kings  xxii.  16). 

Contrary  to  what  critical  theories  might  lead  us  to 
expect,  which  represent  the  Old  Testament  history 
as  traditions  shaped  by  a  theology  which  sought  to 
terrify  wickedness  and  to  encourage  strict  fidelity  to 
Judaism,  Manasseh's  is  the  very  longest  of  Israelitish 
and  Jewish  reigns.  He  '*  was  twelve  years  old  when 
he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned  fifty  and  five  years 
in  Jerusalem  "  (2  Kings  xxi.  i). 

And  not  only  was  his  reign  long,  but  with  one 
exception  it  was  also  unvisited  by  punishment.  The 
exception,  which  is  narrated  only  in  2  Chronicles,  will 
come  before  us  immediately  when  we  touch  upon  those 
Books.  Meanwhile,  there  is  nothing  to  which  our  at- 
tention is  here  called  except  the  length  of  Manasseh's 
reign,  and  the  notices  of  him  in  the  Assyrian  annals. 
He  ascended  the  throne  in  the  year  698.  This  date 
is  fixed  by  statements  to  which  reference  was  made 
in  the  last  chapter.  Hezekiah  began  his  reign  in  727 
B.C. ;  and,  as  he  reigned  twenty-nine  years,  Manasseh 
must  have  commenced  to  reign  in  6g8  B.C.,  and  have 
ended  his  long  career  of  fifty-five  years  in  643  B.C. 
Are  there  any  indications  that  a  king  called  Manasseh 
(i)  did  reign  in  Judaea  at  that  time  ?  and  (2)  that  his 
reign  was  of  this  prolonged  kind  ? 

We  have  already  seen  something  of  Esarhaddon, 
that  son  of  Sennacherib  who  avenged  his  father's 
murder  and  succeeded  him  upon  the  throne.  **  Esar- 
haddon,"  says  Maspero,  "  is  one  of  the  most  original 


Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-Necho.        201 

and  attractive  figures  in  Assyrian  history.  He  was 
as  active  and  resolute  as  Assurnazirpal  or  Tiglath- 
pileser;  but  he  joined  to  these  qualities  of  theirs 
neither  their  austerity  to  his  subjects,  nor  their  ferocity 
to  the  vanquished."*  He  ascended  the  throne  about 
681  B.C. ;  that  is,  he  began  to  reign  over  Assyria  when 
Manasseh  had  been  seventeen  years  upon  the  throne 
of  Judah.  His  reign  extended  to  667  B.C.  He  thus 
guided  the  destinies  of  Assyria,  and  of  the  wide 
dominion  over  which  it  ruled,  for  fourteen  years.  The 
close  of  his  reign,  therefore,  brings  us  down  to  ihe 
thirty-first  year  of  Manasseh.  Is  there  anything,  then, 
to  show  that  Esarhaddon  was  aware  of  Manasseh's 
existence  ?  An  inscription  found  at  Kouyounyik 
(from  which  I  have  already  quoted)  contains  in  its 
fifth  column  the  following  passage : — 

I  assembled  the  Kings  of  Syria,  and  of  the  nations 

beyond  the  sea  : 
Baal  King  of  Tyre  :   Manasseh  King  of  Judah  : 
Kadumukh   Kmg   of    Edom  :    Mitzuri    King   of 
Moab  :  etc.,  etc. 
Here  Manasseh,  King  of  Judah,  is  placed  second  on 
the  list  of  the  subject  kings  of  Syria. 

Another  inscription  tells  of  fierce  vengeance  taken 
upon  Sidon.  Esarhaddon  describes  himself  as  "  Con- 
queror of  the  city  Sidon,  which  is  on  the  sea,  sweeper 
away  of  all  its  villages ;  its  citadel  and  residence  I 
rooted  up,  and  into  the  sea  I  flung  them.  Its  places 
of  justice  I  destroyed.  Abdimilkutti  its  king,  who 
away  from  my  arms  into  the  middle  of  the  sea  had 

*  Histoire  Ancienne,  p.  456. 


202 


The  New  Biblical  Guide. 


fled,  like  a  fish  from  out  of  the  sea  I  caught  him,  and 

I  cut  off  his  head Men  and  women  without 

number,  oxen  and  sheep  and  mules  I  swept  them  all 
off  to  Assyria.  I  assembled  the  Kin^s  of  Syria  and 
the  sea-coast,  all  of  them.  (The  city  of  Sidon)  I 
built  anew,  and  I  called  it  '  The  City  of  Esarhaddon.' 
Men,  captured  by  my  arms,  natives  of  the  lands  and 
seas  of  the  East  within  it  I  placed  to  dwell,  and  I 
set  my  own  officers  in  authority  over  them." 

This  chastisement  was  followed 
by  others,  which  displayed  a  like 
severity ;  and  it  might  have  been 
imaginedthat  itwasto  this  scene 
of  desolation  and  horror  that 
the  twenty-two  kings,  of  whom 
Manasseh  was  one,  were  sum- 
moned. But  this  second  inscrip- 
tion makes  it  plain  that  the  place 
of  assembly  was  Nineveh.  After 
describing  the  re-constru(5tion  of 
his  *' royal  palace  in  the  centre 
— '  of  Nineveh,"  and  his  causing 
''crowds"  of  captives  to  work  in  fetters  in  making 
bricks,  "I  assembled,"  Esarhaddon  says,  in  this 
second  inscription,  "  twenty-two  kings  of  the  land 
of  Syria,  and  of  the  sea-coasts  and  the  islands, 
all  of  them,  and  I  passed  them  in  review.  Great 
beams  and  rafters  of  abimi  wood  (ebony),  cedar  and 
cypress  from  the  mountains  of  Sirar  and  of  Lebanon, 
divine  images,  bas-reliefs  .  .  .  from  the  mountain 
quarries,  the  place  of  their  origin,  for  the  adornment 


Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-Necho.        203 

of  my  palace,  with  labour  and  difficulty  unto  Nineveh 
they  brought  along  with  them."*  There,  at  the  head 
of  his  people,  conveying  his  portion  of  this  heavy 
tribute  of  wood  and  stone,  we  must  pi(5lure  the 
perverse  king  of  Judah. 

The  death  of  Esarhaddon  brings  us  down,  as  we 
have  just  seen,  to  Manasseh's  thirty-first  year;  and 
his  reign  continued  other  twenty-four  years.  Esar- 
haddon raised  his  favourite  son  Assurbanipal  to  share 
the  sovereignty  with  him.  He  reigned  for  the  long 
period  of  forty-two  years,  from  668  to  626  B.C.  This 
second  reign  entirely  covers,  therefore,  the  remaining 
twenty-four  years  left  to  Manasseh.  Does  Assur- 
banipal know  anything,  then,  of  this  Jewish  king? 
Is  it  true  that  the  Jewish  king's  reign  was  as  prolonged 
as  the  Scripture  says  it  was,  and  was  he  reigning  at 
this  very  time?  These  are  questions  to  which  those 
who  know  what  the  Bible  is  have  an  immediate  and 
decisive  answer.  They  know  that  the  Bible  stands 
alone  in  all  literature  for  its  utter  and  unfailing 
reliability,  and  is  indeed  the  only  written  Word 
which  is  "true  from  the  beginning."  But  we  have 
to  minister  in  an  age  in  which  we  encounter  many 
who  are  asking  just  such  questions  as  these;  and, 
seeing  that  God  has  condescended  in  His  gracious 
Providence  to  bring  at  this  very  time  these  witnesses 
from  the  long-undisturbed  dust  of  ages,  we  may  be 
assured  that  there  is  timely  service  done  in  hearing 
and  in  publishing  their  testimony. 

''Assurbanipal,  the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks," 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  119,  120. 


204  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

was,  says  George  Smith,  ''the  greatest  and  most 
celebrated  of  Assyrian  monarchs.  He  was  the 
principal  patron  of  Assyrian  literature,  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  grand  library  of  Nineveh  was 
^yritten  during  his  reign."*  "Almost  the  last  of  his 
race,"  writes  Maspero,  ''it  was  he  whose  domination 
extended  the  farthest,  and  who  surpassed  his  pre- 
decessors in  activity,  in  energy,  in  cruelty;  just  as  if 
Assyria,  feeling  itself  near  its  ruin,  had  wished  to 
unite  in  a  single  man  all  the  qualities  which  had 
made  its  greatness,  and  all  the  faults  which  had 
sullied  its  glory. "f  In  an  elaborate  inscription, 
which  George  Smith  describes  as  "  one  of  the  finest 
Assyrian  historical  documents,"  Assurbanipal  shows 
us  how  the  Assyrian  storm  swept  over  the  lands.  He 
tells  us  that  as  he  was  engaged  in  a  State  procession 
in  Nineveh  one  came  and  told  him  of  Tirhakah's 
fresh  invasion  of  Egypt.  "Over  these  things,"  he 
says,  "my  heart  was  bitter,  and  much  affli(?ted.  By 
command  of  Assur  and  the  goddess  Assuritu  I 
gathered  my  powerful  forces,  which  Assur  and  Ishtar 
had  placed  in  my  hands ;  to  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  I 
direc5led  the  march.  In  the  course  of  my  expedition, 
twenty-two  kings  of  the  side  of  the  sea  and  middle 
of  the  sea,  all  tributaries  dependent  upon  me,  to  my 
presence,  came  and  kissed  my  feet.":|;  Among  these 
twenty-two  kings,  we  might  have  concluded  that 
Manasseh  no  doubt  had  his  place.  But  in  another 
inscription  which  supplements  this,  Assurbanipal  has 

*  Assyrian  Discoveries,  p.  317.  t  Histoire  Ancicnne,  p.  471. 

X  Assyrian  Discoveries,  pp.  322,  323. 


:i-.yfp'-:^^^'-^l:^':^^^^^^ 


KING    ASSDRBANIPAL. 


2o6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

given  a  list  of  these  twenty-two  kings;  and,  just  as  in 
his  father's  list,  Manasseh's  is  the  second  name.  The 
list  runs:  *'Baal,  king  of  Tyre;  Mannaseh,  king  of 
Judah,"  etc.  Here,  therefore,  the  Scripture  account 
of  Manasseh  finds  its  refled^ion  in  the  annals  of 
Assyria.  Manasseh  lives  and  reigns  in  this  very  time  ; 
and  his  reign  is  a  long  one.  There  are  three  kings 
on  the  Assyrian  throne  in  his  time — Sennacherib, 
Esarhaddon,  and  Assurbanipal.  That  Manasseh 
continued  beyond  the  end  of  Sennacherib's  reign 
Esarhaddon  proves  by  his  mention  of  Manasseh  as 
among  his  tributary  kings.  And  in  like  manner 
Assurbanipal  shows  us  Manasseh  still  upon  the  throne 
of  Judah  after  the  death  of  Esarhaddon. 

Nothing  occurs  in  the  story  of  Anion's  disappoint- 
ing two  years'  reign,  ending  in  his  assassination 
through  a  palace-conspiracy,  which  links  it  with  the 
story  of  the  great  world  that  lay  around  Judaea.  The 
next  notice  which  touches  the  historical  personages 
and  events  of  the  time  is  found  in  the  record  of 
Josiah's  reign.  As  in  Assurbanipal's  case  the  glory 
of  Assyria  flamed  out  before  expiring  in  eternal  night, 
so  the  glory  of  Judah  flashed  up  into  something  of 
its  ancient  splendour  just  before  the  throne  of  David 
was  laid  in  the  dust,  where  it  shall  lie  till  He  come 
whose  right  it  is.  Josiah  ascended  the  throne  about 
641  B.C.,  when  he  was  only  eight  years  old.  At  the  age 
of  sixteen,  "  while  he  was  yet  young,  he  began  to  seek 
after  the  God  of  David  his  father  "  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3). 
The  promise  of  those  early  days  was  splendidly 
fulfilled.     During  the  rest  of  his  long  reign  of  thirty- 


Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-NecJio.        207 

one  years  the  attempt  to  lead  the  people  back  to  God 
was  steadily  and  zealously  pursued.  But  Judah  had 
gone  too  far ;  and  the  popular  power  to  respond  to 
the  king's  appeal  was  gone.  There  was  external 
reform,  but  no  inward  returning.  The  first  sign  that 
the  day  of  mercy  had  reached  its  limit,  and  that  the 
day  of  judgment  was  about  to  begin,  came  in  the 
cutting  down  of  Judah's  last  hope.  Assyria  had  fallen 
on  evil  times.  The  armies  of  the  long-oppressed 
peoples  were  closing  in  upon  it  on  every  side.  Necho, 
with  the  Egyptian  host,  was  pressing  onward  to  the 
Euphrates  to  join  them.  But  to  loyal-hearted  Josiah 
there  was  an  irresistible  appeal  in  Assyria's  need.  He 
and  the  rest  had  dwelt  securely  under  its  shadow. 
Whatever  others  might  do,  he  could  not  lightly  cast 
away  his  oft-professed  allegiance.  He  gathered  his 
army  together  and  threw  himself  between  Necho  and 
the  Euphrates.  The  result  was  the  defeat  of  the 
Jews  and  the  death  of  the  king.  ''In  his  days 
Pharaoh-Nechoh,  king  of  Egypt,  went  up  against  the 
king  of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates  :  and  king 
Josiah  went  against  him ;  and  he  slew  him  at  Megiddo 
when  he  had  seen  him.  And  his  servants  carried  him 
in  a  chariot  dead  from  Megiddo,  and  brought  him  to 
Jerusalem,  and  buried  him  in  his  own  sepulchre." 

The  fact  that  this  is  the  only  reference  to  Assyria  in 
Josiah's  history  is  significant.  Till  this  last  year  of 
the  king's  life  the  great  power  of  the  time  is  not  once 
mentioned  in  conne(5lion  with  himself  or  his  people 
either  in  Kings  or  in  Chronicles.  This  is  in  perfect 
accord  with  the  political  conditions  of  the  time.  The 


2o8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

later  years  of  Assurbanipal  were  spent  in  fierce  con- 
ilidls  with  Babylonia  in  the  south,  and  with  Elam  in 
the  south-east.  *'To  preserve  their  authority,"  says 
Maspero,  "the  kings  of  Assyria  were  constrained  to 
run  without  relaxation  from  one  extremity  of  their 
empire  to  the  other.  Every  war,  which  lasted  some 
years,  and  detained  their  armies  in  the  east,  relaxed 
the  bonds  of  allegiance  in  the  west.  It  was  necessary 
to  re-commence  the  conquest,  or  to  give  up  the 
acquisitions  made  in  previous  expeditions.  Assur- 
banipal, worn  out  by  his  struggle  with  Elam,  was 
unable  to  continue  war  perpetually,  and  he  resigned 
his  rights  to  the  sovereignty  over  Egypt,  over  the 
Tubal,  and  over  Lydia."*  He  was  succeeded  by 
kings  who  seemed  to  have  inherited  neither  his 
ability  nor  his  resources.  Assyria  fell,  and  ceased  to 
be  numbered  among  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth. 

And  now,  in  the  mention  of  Necho  and  of  his 
advance  against  Assyria  in  the  very  end  of  Josiah's 
reign  and  life,  we  have  again  the  most  absolute 
accord  with  the  fa(fts  of  the  time.  Josiah  commenced 
to  reign  in  639  B.C.  He  reigned  thirty-one  years,  and 
consequently  died  in  608  B.C.,  a  date  which  the 
reader  will  kindly  note.  Psammetichus,  about  twenty- 
eight  years  earlier,  in  636  b c,  had  subdued,  by  the 
help  of  Greek  mercenaries,  the  various  princes  who 
had  divided  among  them  the  ancient  heritage  of  the 
Pharaohs.  A  large  number  of  the  native  Egyptian 
soldiers,  disgusted  at  the  king's  preference  for  the 
despised  and  hated  foreigners,  abandoned  the  country 

♦  Histoire  Ancienne,  p.  471. 


Manasseh,  Josiah,  and  Pharaoh-N echo .        209 

and  found  an  asylum  in  Ethiopia.  The  weakness 
caused  by  this  desertion  prevented  Psammetichus 
from  taking  advantage  of  the  increasing  weakness  of 
Assyria.  But  the  power  and  the  opportunity  were 
now  found  by  his  son  Necho  II.  Now,  when  did 
Necho  march  his  army  through  Palestine  and  across 
Syria  to  the  Euphrates?  '*In  the  spring  of  608," 
says  Maspero,  "Necho  quitted  Memphis  and  pene- 
trated into  Asia."*  This  is  the  very  year,  according 
to  the  chronology  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings,  in 
which  the  battle  was  fought  at  Megiddo  and  Josiah 
was  slain.  There  is,  however,  one  note  of  discord  in 
Maspero's  reference.  He  believes  that  the  Egyptian 
king  was  marching  against  Babylon,  and  not  against 
Assyria.  He  seems  to  assume  that  Assyria  had 
already  fallen ;  and  that  Babylon,  under  Nabopalasar, 
the  father  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  had  become  the  great 
power  of  the  East.  But,  if  this  were  so,  why  should 
Necho  advance  to  attack  it?  It  had  had  no  time  as 
yet,  even  though  we  should  admit  that  Assyria  had 
already  fallen,  to  subdue,  or  even  to  threaten,  the 
West.  Besides,  Maspero  appears  to  be  at  variance  with 
himself  in  this  matter.  He  says,  on  an  earlier  page  : 
*' Assurachiddin,"  the  last  king  of  Assyria,  "betrayed 
by  the  fate  of  arms,  shut  himself  up  in  Nineveh, 
defended  himself  there  as  long  as  he  could,  and 
burned  himself  alive  in  his  palace  rather  than  fall 
alive  into  the  hands  of  the  foe  (608,  6oo?)."t  Of  the 
two  dates  here  given,  608  is  the  earlier,  and  is  the 
highest  date  which  in  his  judgment  can  be  assigned 

*/6tJ,  p.  538.      t  Page  516. 


210  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

to  the  fall  of  Nineveh  and  the  overthrow  of  the 
Assyrian  power.  With  this,  Schrader  agrees;  and 
thus  research  has  once  more  justified  the  Scripture 
even  in  the  minutest  details.  Necho  advanced  to 
the  Euphrates  *'  against  the  king  of  Assyria,"  and 
the  date  of  his  march  coincides  exacftly  with  that  of 
the  death  of  Josiah. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

The  Fall  of  Jerusalem. 


THE  fatal  tempest  clouds  were  gathering  over  the 
Jewish  kingdom.  It  stood  too  close  to  the  path 
of  the  combatants  for  the  great  prize  of  the  world's 
empire  to  be  neglected  in  the  struggle.  Necho,  after 
the  defeat  of  Josiah,  had  hurried  on  to  Carchemish, 
that  great  city  on  the  Euphrates  whose  possession 
secured  that  of  the  vast  territory  on  the  west  of  the 
river.  Until  quite  recent  times,  nothing  was  known  of 
Carchemish  except  its  great  importance  in  antiquity. 
The  frequent  references  to  it  upon  the  monuments 
removed  all  doubt  as  to  that.  But  as  to  where  the 
city  had  been  placed,  and  with  what  mounds  of  ruins 
its  site  was  to  be  identified,  there  were  opinions 
enough,  but  no  certainties. 

A  fact  like  this  ought  to  be  seriously  considered  by 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  211 

those  who  so  readily  accept  the  critical  representa- 
tions as  to  Old  Testament  history  being  legend  and 
tradition.  They  might,  with  much  advantage,  ask 
themselves  whether  they  have  considered  what  legend 
and  tradition  really  are.  One  prominent  characteristic 
of  these  is  their  independence  of  geography.  Cities  can 
be  set  down  anywhere  that  is  temporarily  convenient. 
And  there  is  another  fact  which  ought  to  be  very 
seriously  weighed.  Wherever  we  lose  the  guidance 
of  exact  history,  it  is  only  with  the  greatest  difficulty, 
and  at  the  cost  of  many  blunders,  that  investigation 
and  scholarship  are  able  to  make  up  for  the  loss. 
Carchemish  was  generally  identified  with  the  Cir- 
cesium  of  the  ancient  geographers.  There  were 
references  in  the  inscriptions,  however,  which  could 
hardly  be  reconciled  with  that  belief;  and  Maspero 
contended  in  1873  that  it  should  be  identified  with  an 
ancient  city  a  little  to  the  east  of  Aleppo,  and  some 
miles  distant  from  the  Euphrates.  Both  these  learned 
opmions,  the  former  of  which  had  misled  almost 
everyone,  have  now  been  finally  set  aside.  Shortly 
before  his  death,  Geo.  Smith  indicated  the  true  site. 
Half-way  between  the  villages  of  Sadjour  and  Biredjik 
is  a  mound  of  ruins  called  Djerablous.  It  is  of  great 
extent.  Sculptures,  bas-reliefs,  and  inscriptions  in 
the  ancient  Hittite  writing  have  been  taken  from 
the  mounds.  These  testify  to  a  very  advanced 
civilisation.  The  caravan  route,  strange  to  say,  still 
passes  the  spot,  thus  indicating  one  of  the  sources  of 
the  ancient  city's  wealth  and  power.  The  walls  of 
the  city  were  between  two  and  three  miles  in  circum- 


212  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

ference ;  but  there  are  indications  that  the  suburbs 
extended  to  a  considerable  distance,  especially  on  the 
south  along  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  where  traces 
are  met  with  of  ancient  irrigation  works. 

In  the  imminent  break-up  of  the  Assyrian  Empire, 
Necho  desired  to  make  sure  of  its  western  portion ; 
that  is,  of  all  that  lay  on  the  west  of  the  Euphrates. 
In  this  he  had  succeeded.  He  had  driven  the  Assyr- 
ians before  him,  taken  Carchemish  and  garrisoned  it, 
and  had  now  returned  to  Riblah.  "  Now,  Riblah," 
says  Mr.  Harper,  "was  on  the  high  road  between 
Palestine  and  Babylon,  and  the  place  or  headquarters 
of  the  Egyptian  monarch.  It  is  still  called  Riblah — 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  Orontes,  thirty  miles  north- 
east of  Baalbec.  Some  few  houses  and  other  ruins, 
surrounded  by  a  vast  and  fertile  plain,  make  it  an 
admirable  camping-ground  for  a  host.  It  is  really  a 
centre  from  which  roads  diverge  to  the  Euphrates, 
Nineveh  ;  or  by  Palmyra  to  Babylon.  The  southern 
roads,  leading  to  Lebanon,  to  Palestine,  or  Egypt, 
mark  it  as  a  line  strategic  position."* 

In  a  bundle  of  traditions,  and  still  more  in  a  col- 
lection of  legends,  it  would  be  astonishing  to  find  a 
word  mentioned  which  had  so  much  as  this  behind  it 
for  after  discovery  to  lay  its  hand  upon.  If,  however, 
the  Mind,  which  is  here  opening  the  past  to  us,  has 
everything  fully  and  perpetually  in  view,  and  is,  in 
one  word.  Omniscient,  this  mention  of  Riblah  is  at 
once  explained.  Having  arrived  at  this  centre,  and 
arranging  the  affairs  of  his  new  dominion,  it   was 

*  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries,  pp.  469,  470. 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  213 

natural  to  expect  that  Necho  would  assert  his  newly- 
won  sovereignty  in  that  little  kingdom,  which  alone 
had  dared  to  withstand  his  march  to  the  Euphrates. 
The  newly-appointed  king,  Jehoahaz,  who  had  reigned 
only  three  months,  and  who  seems  to  be  among  those 
who  are  waiting  upon  Necho  at  Riblah,  is  fettered 
and  taken  with  the  conqueror  to  Egypt  to  grace  his 
triumph.  Another  son  of  Josiah's,  Eliakim,  is  selected 
by  Necho,  who  changes  his  name  to  Jehoiakim,  and 
sets  him  upon  the  Jewish  throne. 

But  the  glory  of  Egypt  under  Necho,  like  that  of 
Assyria  under  Assurbanipal,  was  only  the  last  flicker 
of  an  expiring  flame.  When  Nebuchadnezzar  took 
Carchemish  and  over-ran  the  west,  Egypt  finally 
abandoned  its  eastern  possessions.  '*  The  king  of 
Egypt  came  not  again  any  more  out  of  his  land :  for 
the  king  of  Babylon  had  taken  from  the  river  of  Egypt 
unto  the  river  Euphrates  all  that  pertained  to  the 
king  of  Egypt  "  (2  Kings  xxiv.  7).  Necho,  beaten  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  at  Carchemish,  strained  every  nerve 
to  recruit  his  forces,  and  awaited  an  opportunity  to 
lead  his  army  eastward  again.  But  the  opportunity 
never  came.  ''Two  years  after"  (the  invasion  of  Syria 
by  Nebuchadnezzar),  writes  Maspero,  ''  Necho  died 
without  having  encountered  the  occasion  which  he 
sought,  and  his  son  Psametik  II.,  still  a  child  when 
placed  upon  the  throne,  had  no  leisure  to  undertake 
anything  against  Asia :  an  incursion  into  Ethiopia 
distinguished  his  reign,  but  he  disappeared  before  he 
had  attained  his  majority."* 

* Histoire  Ancienue,  p.  545. 


214  ^^^^  New  Biblical  Guide. 

But  the  avenger,  whose  advent  had  been  predicted 
through  Isaiah  more  than  a  century  before,  had  now 
appeared.  Babylon,  the  most  ancient  mistress  of  the 
nations,  laid  her  hand  once  more  upon  the  sceptre  of 
the  kingdoms.  The  new  empire  endured  for  no  more 
thaneighty-eightyears,and  has  only  one  great  memory 
connedled  with  it,  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  whose 
name  has  become  a  household  word  in  all  lands 
through  the  record  of  him  preserved  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel.  His  portrait  has  been  handed  down  to  us  on 
an  ancient  cameo.  Round  the  portrait  is  read  the 
king's  name  in  Babylonian.  The  inscription  is  as 
follows : — 

I     -^-  <:zx  zC}   <   J- 

Ana  Marduk  bil-  su 

NabukudurruSM'  sar 

Babiln  ana  balati-sn  ibiis 

That  is.  Ana  Marduk  bil-su  Nabukudiirussur  sar  Babilu 
ana  balati-su  ibus :  "  To  Merodach  his  lord,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  has  made  this  for  his  life." 

The  cameo  is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  It  was 
accepted  by  the  German  Assyriologists  as  a  genuine 
portrait  of  the  conqueror  of  Judaea.  But  Lenormant 
believed  that  it  represented  not  the  great  king,  but 
some  later  monarch  bearing  the  same  name.  Schrader, 
however,  has  since  gone  more  fully  into  the  matter, 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  215 

and  has  justified  the  earlier  belief.  To  Lenormant 
the  portrait  seemed  too  Grecian  to  be  genuine.  But 
we  know,  in  spite  of  critical  delusions,  that  Greek 
influence  was  already  touching  the  East,  just  as  it  had 
laid  its  hand  also  at  this  very  time  upon  Egypt.  The 
portrait  shows  the  great  king  in  the  beauty  and  vigour 
of  his  early  manhood.     The  long  and  highly-adorned 


PORTRAIT  OF  NEBUCHADNEZZAR  (after  a  photo^Yaph   taken  from 
the  ancient  cameo). 

beard  of  the  Assyrians  is  discarded.  The  face  is  clean 
shaven.  The  head  is  covered  with  a  helmet,  which 
prote(5t-s  not  only  the  head,  but  also  the  back  of  the 
neck.  The  face  shows  ability,  decision,  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  command.  It  is,  in  short,  a  Napoleonic 
face. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  inscriptions  are  numerous  and 
full ;  but  they  afford  almost  no  direct — although  many 
and  striking  indirect — confirmations  of  Bible  state- 
ments. This  is  entirely  owing  to  the  fact  that  these 
inscriptions  deal  only  with  thanksgivings  to  the  gods, 


2i6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the  erection  of  temples  to  their  honour,  or  with  other 
labours  in  building  and  irrigation.  We  have  no 
record,  for  example,  of  this  campaign  against  Judah ; 
and  the  inscriptions  are  equally  silent  as  to  the 
struggle  of  the  new  Babylonian  empire  with  Egypt. 
*' We  possess,"  says  Schrader,  "a  series  of  inscriptions 
on  bricks  and  clay  cylinders  belonging  to  this  king; 
also  an  inscribed  cameo  with  the  royal  portrait.  By 
far  the  larger  number  of  these  inscriptions — some 
of  which  are  of  considerable  extent — are  exclusively 
occupied,  when  they  are  not  of  a  religious  character, 
with  the  royal  buildings  at  Babel  and  Borsippa.  This 
is  a  general  characteristic  of  Babylonian,  as  opposed  to 
Assyrian,  inscriptions — a  feature  that,  in  the  interests 
of  historical  knowledge,  is  greatly  to  be  deplored."* 
It  is  highly  probable,  however,  that  other  mscriptions 
exist,  and  that  the  excavations  at  Babylon  and  else- 
where may  bring  them  to  light.  But  meanwhile  we 
possess  only  monuments  of  the  character  I  have 
described.  But  the  carrying  away  of  the  Jews  was, 
as  we  know,  a  deed  altogether  in  keeping  with  the 
warfare  of  the  times.  It  followed  the  policy  of  the 
Assyrian  kings,  which  was  now  the  long-established 
method  of  dealing  with  refractory  or  dangerous  popu- 
lations. We  have  similar  confirmation  in  regard  to 
Nebuchadnezzar's  treatment  of  Zedekiah.  When 
further  resistance  to  the  besiegers  had  become  im- 
possible, Zedekiah  fled  from  Jerusalem.  The  plan 
for  his  flight  seems  to  have  been  well  thought  out. 
Instead  of  breaking  out  on  the  west  or  the  south,  and 

Vol.  ii.,  pp.  48,  49. 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem. 


217 


of  making  for  Egypt — a  course  readily  anticipated, 
and  one  which  the  Chaldeans  must  have  taken 
measures  to  prevent — he  made   by  some  probably 


circuitous  and  unobserved  way  for  the  north-east. 
He  then  swept  down  the  pass  to  Jericho  in  order  to 
cross  the  Jordan,  and  to  flee  by  Moab  and  Edom,  and 
to  hide  himself  possibly  in  the  depths  of  Arabia.     So 


2i8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

well-planned  and  secret  had  been  the  flight  of  the  king 
that  he  had  reached  the  plains  of  Jericho  and  was 
within  sight  of  the  Jordan  when  the  Chaldean  army 
overtook  and  captured  him.  **  And  the  cit}^  was 
broken  up,  and  all  the  men  of  war  lied  by  night  by 
the  way  of  the  gate  between  two  walls,  which  is  by 
the  king's  garden :  (now  the  Chaldees  were  against 
the  city  round  about :)  and  the  king  went  the  way 
toward  the  plain.  And  the  army  of  the  Chaldees 
pursued  after  the  king,  and  overtook  him  in  the  plains 
of  Jericho  :  and  all  his  army  were  scattered  from  him. 
So  they  took  the  king  and  brought  him  up  to  the  king 
of  Babylon  to  Riblah  ;  and  they  gave  judgment  upon 
him.  And  they  slew  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  before  his 
eyes,  and  put  out  the  eyes  of  Zedekiah,  and  bound 
him  with  fetters  of  brass,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon  " 
(2  Kings  XXV.  4-7). 

All  these  details  find  their  parallels  in  the  annals 
of  those  eastern  conquerors  and  tyrants.  Assur- 
banipal,  for  instance,  says:  ''In  Hukkurunah  the 
rugged  mountain,  the  servants  of  Abiyateh  son  of 
Tehari,  by  command  of  Assur  and  Ishtar  my  lords, 
in  the  midst  of  battle  I  captured  alive,  I  captured  in 
hand.  Hand  and  foot  in  bonds  of  iron  I  placed  them. 
.    .    .    .    Vaiteh    and    the   Arabians    ....    tied 

and  got  away Vaiteh  heard  of,  and  over 

these  things  feared,  and  from  Nabatsea   I  brought 

him  out By  command  of  Assur  and  Beltis 

with  a  mace  which  was  grasped  by  my  hand,  the  flesh 
coming  out  of  him,  his  son,  in  the  sight  of  his  eyes  I 
struck   down."      Here  the  capturing  of  an  escaped 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  219 

foe  is  followed  by  this  very  putting  in  bonds,  and  by 
the  slaughter  of  a  king's  hope,  the  son  or  sons  who 
should  have  reigned  after  him.  To  these  ruthless 
men,  this  rending  of  an  enemy's  heart  emphasised 
their  vidlory,  and  was  the  sweet  reward  of  endurance 
and  toil.  The  putting  out  of  Zedekiah's  eyes  by 
the  king's  own  hands  has  also  its  parallels  in  the 
inscriptions.  The  reader  will  find  on  next  page  an 
illustration  of  this  taken  from  the  walls  of  an  Assyrian 
palace.  The  unfortunate  prince  is  on  his  knees 
before  the  king,  his  hands  being  raised  in  a  vain 
entreaty  for  mercy.  That  feature  in  the  scene  is  too 
good  to  be  missed  in  this  picture  of  perfect  triumph, 
and  so  the  sculptor  has  taken  care  to  seize  the 
moment  when  the  wretchedness  of  the  conquered  is 
at  its  deepest.  Behind  stand  two  captured  officials, 
or  it  may  be  princes  who  have  been  confederate  with 
the  vidlim.  Their  lips  have  been  pierced  with  rings 
to  which  cords  are  attached.  The  cords  are  grasped 
by  the  king's  left  hand.  A  similar  ring  has  been 
passed  through  the  lip  of  him  who  kneels ;  and  the 
cord,  which  the  king  also  holds  in  his  left  hand,  is 
pulled  so  that  his  face  is  lifted  up  to  receive  in  the 
eye  the  sharp  point  of  the  spear  which  the  king  holds 
in  his  right  hand.  As  he  gives  the  fearful  stroke,  the 
king  keeps  his  eyes  upon  the  vi(5tims  whose  turn  is 
so  soon  to  come,  and  he  seems  to  feast  upon  their 
evident  anguish. 

The  student  of  the  Scriptures  knows  that  two 
ways  of  spelling  this  great  king's  name  are  followed 
in  the  Bible.     In  2  Kings,  Chronicles,  and  Ezra  it  is 


A    CAPTIVE    PRIN'CE    BEING    BLINDED    BY    AN    ASSYRIAN    KING. 
PRISONERS      BOUND      HAND      AND      FOOT      (frO)U      thc     MoilUIIU'lttsJ . 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  221 

spelled  as  all  but  Assyriologists  now  write  it — 
Nebuchad;iezzar;  but  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  it  is 
spelled  Nebuchadrezzar.  This  latter  spelling  corre- 
sponds with  that  on  all  the  monuments  yet  found 
which  contain  the  king's  name.  Now,  this  difference 
raises  the  inquiry  why  the  name  should  be  spelled 
differently.  The  question  has  so  far  been  answered 
only  in  the  usual  regrettable  fashion.  The  monu- 
ments which  we  at  present  know,  we  are  told,  decide 
the  matter.  Nebuchadrezzar  is  the  only  correcft 
spelling.  How  then,  we  ask,  did  it  happen  that  the 
r  was  exchanged  for  n  in  Kings,  Chronicles,  and 
Ezra?  Professor  Sayce  says:  "The  substitution  of 
n  for  r  can  be  explained  only  as  the  error  of  a 
copyist."*  It  is  not  one  instance,  however,  of  this 
variation  with  which  we  have  to  do.  This  might 
possibly  be  explained  as  a  copyist's  blunder,  although 
that  kind  of  solution  of  a  difficulty  is  often  as 
unfounded  as  it  is  easy.  But  it  cannot  possibly 
explain  why  the  name  is  spelled  without  the  slightest 
variation  Nebuchadnezzar  in  certain  Books,  and  quite 
as  steadfastly  Nebuchadrezzar  in  others.  Copyists 
do  not  blunder  in  that  fashion.  It  is  possible 
that  the  king's  name  may  have  been  changed. 
Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  been  the  earlier  form,  and 
Nebuchadrezzar  the  later.  Or  there  may  be  some 
other  reason,  the  discovery  of  which  will  prove,  when 
it  occurs,  to  be  one  of  the  literary  surprises  of  the 
day.  Meanwhile,  the  consistency  with  which  each 
of  these  forms  appear  in  the  Books  named  indicates 

*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p.  453. 


222  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the  probability  that  some  such  discovery  lies  in  front 
of  us. 

It  might  be  supposed,  of  course,  that  2  Kings  was 
less  reliable  than  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel — that  these 
prophets  were  contemporaries  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and,  therefore,  made  no  mistake,  while  2  Kings  was 
written  so  long  after  his  time  that  the  true  spelling 
of  the  name  had  been  forgotten.  How  utterly  shallow 
such  "explanations"  are  becomes  evident  when  we 
rellecfl  that  the  supposed  later  writer  would  have  then 
had  these  two  prophetic  books  before  him;  and  that 
he,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
spelling  of  the  name  followed  there.  But  the  sup- 
posed late  origin  of  2  Kings  and  its  equally  imaginary 
legendary  chara(?ter  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the 
absolutely  exadl  chara(5ler  of  the  information  which  it 
has  handed  down  to  us.  I  add  one  more  instance  of 
this  in  closing  our  comments  upon  this  Book  of  2 
Kings.  This  is  found  in  its  last  words:  "And  it  came 
to  pass  in  the  seven  and  thirtieth  year  of  Jehoiachin 
king  of  Judah,  in  the  twelfth  month,  on  the  seven 
and  twentieth  day  of  the  month,  that  Evil-Merodach 
king  of  Babylon  in  the  year  that  he  began  to  reign 
did  lift  up  the  head  of  Jehoiachin  king  of  Judah  out 
of  prison;  and  he  spake  kindly  to  him,  and  set  his 
throne  above  the  throne  of  the  kings  that  were  with 
him  in  Babylon  ;  and  changed  his  prison  garments  : 
and  he  did  eat  bread  continually  before  him  all  the 
days  of  his  life.  And  his  allowance  was  a  continual 
allowance  given  him  of  the  king,  a  daily  rate  for 
everyday,  all  the  days  of  his  life"  (2  Kings  xxv.  27-30). 


The  Fall  of  Jerusalem.  223 

That   ending  is  thoroughly  in   keeping  with   the 
Divine   mission   of  the   Book.     For  it  teaches   the 
judged  and  dispersed   Israehtes  how  to  read  their 
past  history.   It  shows  them  their  national  perversity, 
and  why  this  fearful  judgment  has  fallen  upon  them. 
It  was  needful  that  the  sad  survey  should  close  with 
a  word  of  consolation  and  hope;  for  why  is  Israel 
taught  to  read  the  past  rightly  if  the  future  contains 
no  hope?     And  so  here,  in  the  uplifting  of  Jeconiah 
and  the  comforts  and  the  honour  of  his  last  days,  the 
future  of  Israel  in  its  long  waiting  is  shown  in  figure. 
It  is  given  over  to  man's  mastery;  for  "the  times  of 
the  Gentiles"  have  begun.     But  the  supremacy  can 
and  will  lose  its  bitterness  when  the  chastened  spirit 
bows  under  the  rod.     But  I  deal  now  with  a  smaller, 
but  still  most  important,  matter.     We  have  here  a 
most    careful   reckoning— I    should  rather  say  two 
reckonings.  The  event  happened  in  the  thirty-seventh 
year  of  Jehoiachin's  captivity  ;  and  that,  we  are  told' 
was  also  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Evil-Merodach. 
Now  we  know  from  the  information  handed  down  to 
us  that  this  monarch  ascended  the  Babylonian  throne 
in  the  year  562  B.C.     That,  then,  is  the  first  year  of 
Evil-Merodach. 

Before  we  turn  to  the  despised  "  Bible-chronology  " 
let  us  carefully  mark  the  Bible  statement.  It  will  be 
observed  that  it  gives  not  only  the  year,  but  also  the 
month,  and  the  very  day  of  the  month.  The  event 
happened  '*  in  the  seven  and  thirtieth  year,"  ''in  the 
twelfth  month,  on  the  seven  and  twentieth  day  of 
the  month."     In  other  words,  the  thirty-seven  years 


224  ^^^^  -^^^  Biblical  Guide. 

lacked    three   days   only   of   being    completed.      In 
dealing,  then,  with  this  thirty-seventh  year  we  are 
dealing,  not  with  thirty-six  years  and  a  fradlion,  bi>t 
with  pra(5tically  thirty-seven  entire  years.     Bearing 
this  in  mind,  let  us  now  turn  to  the  chronology  of  the 
Bible.     According  to  it,  Jeconiah  was  carried  away 
into  captivity  in  ...  ...  ...   599  B.C. 

Deducting  from  this  the       37 

years  mentioned,  we  have    ...  ...   562  B.C.  as  the 

date  of  this  event — the  exa(?t  year  of  Evil-Merodach's 
accession  to  the  throne  of  Babylon.  Figures  are 
sometimes  more  eloquent  than  words ;  and  this  may 
well  be  quoted  as  an  instance. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Books  of  Chronicles  and  their  Numbers. 


PROFESSOR  SAYCE,  in  his  Higher  Criticism 
versus  the  Monuments — a  book  which  first  indi- 
cated his  departure  from  the  critical  school  with  which 
till  that  time  he  had  been  closely  associated,  says : 
** Whether  we  are  'higher  critics'  or  not,  we  cannot 
fail  to  be  struck  by  the  ecclesiastical  tone  of  the 
Books  of  the  Chronicles.  From  the  beginning  of 
the  Books  to  their  end,  a  single  objedt  is  kept  steadily 
in  view;  and  that  objedt  is  the  growth  and  consum- 
mation of  the  Israelitish  theocracy.  We  have  only 
to  compare  the  Books  of  Kings  with  the  Books  of 
the  Chronicles  to  see  how  wide  is  the  difference 
between  them.  In  the  one,  it  is  the  history  of  Israel 
and  Judah  in  the  royal  period  that  is  set  before  us ; 
in  the  other,  it  is  rather  the  history  of  the  temple 
and  the  temple  services.  The  history  of  the  northern 
kingdom,  whose  seats  of  worship  were  elsewhere 
than  at  Jerusalem,  is  put  aside  as  valueless,  and  the 
history  of  Judah  alone  is  given  in  detail.  But  even 
here  the  Chronicler  dwells  rather  on  the  liturgical 
observances  of  the  Jewish  kings  than  upon  their 
secular  poHcy,  and  the  civil  history  of  Judah  is  made 
use  of  to  point  the  moral  that  observance  of  the 
Levitical  laws  brought  with  it  prosperity;  while 
disaster  followed  upon  their  neglec^t."* 

♦Page  457. 


228  Tlie  New  Biblical  Guide. 

I  hope  to  deal  with  these,  as  with  the  other  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  a  subsequent  work,  in  which 
the  plan  and  purpose  of  each  Book  will  be  pointed 
out.  Meanwhile,  let  this  testimony  to  the  uniqueness 
and  unity  of  these  Books  of  Chronicles  be  marked. 
They  are  not  mere  repetitions  of  information  supplied 
by  pre-existing  Books  ;  nor  are  they  made  up  of  odds 
and  ends  left  by  former  writers.  Israel's  story  is  told 
afresh  with  clear,  distin(?t  intention.  That  intention 
is  as  evident  in  the  silence  of  the  Books  as  in  their 
speech.  The  story  of  the  ten  tribes  is  left  out,  and 
Judah  alone  is  dealt  with.  In  the  light  of  the  evident 
purpose  of  Chronicles,  the  reason  is  plain.  Judah  alone 
preserved  the  Divine  ordinances.  And  for  the  re- 
turned Israelites  was  not  this — name  it  "ecclesiastical 
tone,"  or  whatever  one  may  choose  to  call  it — the 
one  thing  that  the  replanted  people  had  to  keep  con- 
stantly before  them  ?  Israel,  unlike  the  other  nations, 
has  no  destiny  apart  from  God's  service.  This  has  been 
proved  by  these  more  than  eighteen  centuries  of 
what  may  be  named  national  existence,  but  cannot  be 
called  national  life.  It  will  be  more  gloriously  shown 
in  the  coming  day  of  Israel's  renewed  consecration. 
But  there  is  enough  even  now  to  teach  the  higher 
criticism,  and  also  a  modified  rationalism,  that 
Chronicles  saw  clearly,  what  is  now  becoming  ap- 
parent as  a  historical  phenomenon,  that  Israel  has 
not  existed,  and  cannot  exist,  for  itself.  It  is  the 
Divinely-appointed  Priest  of  the  nations.  When  it 
recognised  its  mission,  it  impressed  and  led  the 
nations.     When  it  negle(5led  it,  it  sank  into  insigni- 


The  Books  of  Chronicles  and  their  Numbers.  220 

ficance.  When  it  renounced  it,  Israel  was  bereft  of 
fatherland  and  of  spiritual  perception  and  power. 
It  wanders  among  the  nations  to-day  in  its  blindness 
disinherited,  disrobed,  and  yet  with  ineffaceable 
marks  of  its  priestly  destiny.  The  Book  which 
proclaimed  that  destiny  to  restored  Israel  four-and- 
twenty  centuries  ago,  not  only  read  to  them  the  one 
lesson  of  their  past;  it  also  read  to  the  Israelites  the 
story  of  their  future.  This  one  facl;  is  quite  enough  to 
show  the  Book  to  be  prophetic :  it  stamps  it  as  Divine. 

It  has  been  wildly  assailed  by  Rationalism  from 
the  first.  De  Wette  and  Gramberg  refused  to  give 
the  writer  of  it  credit  even  for  honesty.  He  was 
said  to  have  invented  the  genealogies,  the  titles  of 
the  Books  to  which  he  referred,  and  everything  in  the 
history  which  could  not  be  found  in  the  earlier  Books 
of  the  Bible.  This  attack  has  been  fiercely  repeated 
by  Wellhausen.  He  devotes  sixty  pages  of  his 
Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte  Israels  to  demolish  the 
Books  of  Chronicles.  Narratives  are  set  down  as 
*' frightful  examples"  of  the  imagination  of  the  Jews. 
And  he  makes  no  secret  of  what  lies  behind  this 
assault.  If  the  Chronicles  are  history,  then  it  is  clear 
that  Israel  possessed  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form  at  the  very  beginning  of  its  national  career; 
and,  consequently,  if  the  higher  criticism  is  to  stand, 
the  claims  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  upon  our 
acceptance  and  belief  must  be  swept  to  the  winds. 

We  shall  immediately  see  how  fully  recent  investi- 
gation has  repelled  those  unfounded  charges.  Mean- 
while,  we    may   notice   another   hurtful    impression 


230  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

which  is  much  more  widespread,  and  which  betrays 
haste  that  is  equally  lamentable.  This  is  the  notion 
that  we  must  tread  very  lightly  over  the  numbers  of 
Chronicles.  They  are  said,  and  are  largely  believed, 
to  be  ''hopelessly  exaggerated."  One  statement 
is,  that  the  Chronicler  has  taken  the  numbers  in 
Kings  and  simply  multiplied  them  by  ten!  That 
could  not  have  been  said  by  anyone  who  had  even 
once  compared  the  numbers.  We  find  the  objection 
put  more  generally,  as  in  the  following  passage  from 
the  pen  of  a  writer  to  whom  we  are  greatly  indebted, 
but  from  whom  in  this  matter  we  dissent  not  the  less 
strongly.  "The  Chronicler,"  writes  Professor  Sayce, 
"  displays  that  partiality  for  large  numbers  which  is 
still  charaaeristic  of  the  Oriental."  *  Now,  if  the 
charge  could  be  substantiated  even  in  this  form,  these 
Books  would  no  longer  be  Scripture,  nor  could  they 
be  received  even  as  historical. 

But  let  us  look  into  the  Books  and  see  what  they 
contain.  The  reader  will  remember  that  Joab  was 
sent  by  David  to  number  Israel.  The  general  pro- 
tested ;  but  the  king  was  not  to  be  turned  aside,  and 
the  enumeration  was  made.  In  2  Samuel  xxiv.  9, 
we  find  the  results  given  as  follow  : — 

The  valiant  men  of  Israel  that  drew 

the  sword  were  800,000 

"  And  the  men  of  Judah  "       500,000 


In  all      ...   1,300,000. 
Now,  if  there  was  any  truth  in  the  statement  that 


*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p.  463. 


The  Books  of  Chronicles  and  their  Numbers.  231 

the  Chronicler  multiplied  the  numbers  which  he  found 
in  the  earlier  Books  by  ten,  we  could  easily  say  what 
this  census  should  amount  to  if  the  event  were  also 
recorded  by  him.  The  thirteen  hundred  thousand 
would  at  once  become  thirteen  millions.  But,  for- 
tunately, this  event  is  also  narrated  in  these  later 
Books.  Turning  to  i  Chronicles  xxi.  5,  6,  we  read : 
"And  Joab  gave  the  sum  of  the  number  of  the  people 
unto  David.  And  all  they  of  Israel  were  a  thousand 
thousand  and  a  hundred  thousand  that  drew  sword : 
and  Judah  was  four  hundred  threescore  and  ten 
thousand  men  that  drew  sword.  But  Levi  and 
Benjamin  counted  he  not  among  them :  for  the 
king's  word  was  abominable  to  Joab."  Writing  these 
numbers  in  figures,  we  have  the  men  of 

Israel       1,100,000 

The  men  of  Judah         ...  ...  ...        470,000 


In  all  ...  1,570,000. 
Now  the  total  number  is  here  undoubtedly  higher 
in  Chronicles;  but  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
number  assigned  to  Judah  is  less  by  30,000;  so  that 
the  alleged  Oriental  exaggeration  is  not  at  all  appar- 
ent there.  Is  it  possible,  however,  to  explain  this 
divergence,  and  to  show  that  the  numbers  are  in 
substantial  agreement?  This  lower  sum  for  the  men 
of  Judah  seems  to  suggest  a  reply;  for  it  appears  to 
indicate  that  there  is  some  compact  body  of  men, 
enumerated  separately,  and  added  as  a  whole  to 
Israel.  Now,  was  there  any  such  body  as  this  ?  If 
there  was  a  standing  army,  for  example,  it  might  be 


232  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

omitted  in  the  return  as  given  in  Samuel;  and  might, 
on  the  other  hand,  be  included  in  the  return  as  given 
in  Chronicles.  Let  us  look,  then,  once  more  at  the 
figures,  and  mark  how  they  fall  in  with  this  sug- 
gestion. The  number  of  men  fit  for  arms  in  Israel, 
According  to  Chronicles,  is  ...  1,100,000 
And  according  to  Samuel,  is  ...        800,000 


The  difference  being  300,000 
This  would,  in  that  case,  be  the  entire  number  of  the 
standing  army;  and  the  30,000  lacking  to  Judah  in 
Chronicles  would  be  Judah's  contribution  to  it.  This 
would  entirely  explain  the  difference  of  270,000  men 
between  the  two  enumerations. 

But  is  there  any  foundation  for  this  suggestion? 
Was  there  any  standing  army ;  and  one,  too,  of  such 
huge  dimensions  as  these?  Our  questions  find  their 
answer  in  this  very  Book  of  i  Chronicles,  which 
includes  the  army.  In  i  Chronicles  xxvii.,  we  read 
that,  in  David's  elaborate  organisation,  his  army 
had  its  place.  "Now  the  children  of  Israel  after 
their  number,  to  wit,  the  chief  fathers  and  captains  of 
thousands  and  hundreds,  and  their  officers  that  served 
the  king  in  any  matter  of  the  courses,  who  came  in 
and  went  out  month  by  month  throughout  all  the 
months  of  the  year,  of  every  course  were  twenty  and 
four  thousand  "  (verse  i).  Then  follows  an  enumera- 
tion of  each  of  the  twelve  twenty-four  thousands 
and  their  commanders  (verses  2-15).  Each  tribe 
seems  to  have  supplied  2,000  men  per  month;  24,000 
being  the  whole  of  the  host  on  active  duty  in  any 


The  Books  of  Chronicles  and  their  Numbers.   233 

one  month  ;  but  the  lists  were,  no  doubt,  made  up 
for  the  year,  so  that  each  man  would  know  when  he 
was  to  appear,  and  to  do  his  month's  service.     Sum- 
ming  up,  then,  these   twelve  contingents  of  24,000 
men,  we  get  in  all     ....  ...  ...  ...      288,000 

If  to  these  we  add  special  officers...         ...       12,000 


We  reach,  as  the  total  of  the  army  ...    300,000, 

the  number  added  by  the  Chronicler  to  the  return  for 
Israel.  And  when  we  question  that  30,000  deducted 
from  the  men  of  Judah,  and  placed  here  in  the  total 
added  to  Israel,  we  come  upon  an  indication  of  David's 
wisdom.  Twenty-four  thousand  was  the  number 
which  Judah  had  to  contribute  to  this  trained  police 
force,  or  army.  But  it  will  be  noted  that  the  number 
was  30,000,  and  not  24,000,  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  6,000  here  added  were  officers,  so  that  the  pre- 
caution was  apparently  taken  to  have  one-half  of 
these  specially-appointed  officers  of  the  army  taken 
from  the  king's  own  tribe — that  of  Judah. 

De  Wette  has  a  note  on  this  passage  which  is  sadly 
characteristic  of  critical  tactics.  ''Numbers,"  he 
says,  "are  enlarged;  in  i  Chronicles  xxi.  5,  we  have 
1,100,000,  instead  of  800,000,  in  2  Sam.xxiv.g."*  But 
perfect  truthfulness — and  science  is  always  rigidly 
truthful — would  also  have  said:  "Numbers  are 
diminished,  too;  for  in  i  Chronicles  xxi.  5,  we  have 
470,000,  instead  of  500,000  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  9."  But  it 
did  not  suit  De  Wette  to  lay  this  last  fact  before  his 
readers,  and  so  he  confines  himself  to  the  other;  and 

* Einleitung,  §  190,  b. 


234  ^^^^  ^^^  Biblical  Guide, 

yet  we  are  told  that  this  attack  upon  the  veracity  of 
the  Bible  is  both  scientific  and  devout! 

Our  time  and  attention  will  not  have  been  thrown 
away  if  this  has  shown  us  that  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  have  the  facts  as  fully  in  view  as  the  earlier 
Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  If  God  is  the  author 
of  the  one  and  of  the  other,  there  could  of  course 
be  no  difference  in  respect  to  that;  and  this  seeming 
discrepancy  shows,  as  other  incidents  about  to  be 
brought  before  us  will  also  prove  abundantly,  that 
there  is  absolutely  no  difference  whatever  in  regard 
to  fulness  and  accuracy  of  information  in  an  earlier 
Book  as  compared  with  a  later.  It  may  be  added 
also,  that  it  is  to  Chronicles  we  should  have  looked 
for  the  recording  of  the  larger  numbers.  For  it  is 
its  special  mission  to  make  us  see  how  God's  blessing 
rests  upon  obedience.  The  Law  had  proclaimed 
that  it  should  be  so  when  Israel's  history,  as  a  nation, 
began.  And  now  Chronicles,  recounting  to  Israel 
the  story  of  her  past,  proves  that  it  has  been  so. 
Consequently,  the  entire  military  strength  of  the 
people  in  those  days  when  God  was  known  and 
served  by  them,  is  here  set  forth.  None  of  the  army 
lists  are  here  left  out  because  the  reckoning  of  them 
was  a  matter  of  course,  and  was  not  included  in  the 
specific  work  assigned  to  Joab.  These  might  very 
well  be  omitted  in  Samuel,  whose  special  purpose 
was  not  concerned  with  them ;  but  they  could  not  be 
omitted  here  in  the  picture  of  the  greatness  given  to 
Israel  in  the  days  of  her  fidelity.  It  will  be  observed 
also    that   Chronicles   intimates   that   even    in  those 


Azariah  of  Judali.  235 

larger  numbers  the  whole  of  Israel's  strength  is  not 
stated;  for  it  is  careful  to  inform  us  that  two  tribes 
were  omitted  in  the  reckoning.  "  But  Levi  and 
Benjamin  counted  he  not  among  them ;  for  the  king's 
word  was  abominable  to  Joab"  (i  Chron.  xxi.  6). 


CHAPTER   II. 

Azariah    of   Judah. 


TH  E  comparatively  recent  discovery  of  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Tiglath-pileser  has  signally  proved  the 
reliability  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  In  2  Kings  xv. 
we  find  a  very  brief  account  of  Azariah,  or  Uzziah, 
king  of  Judah.  There  is  only  one  event,  indeed,  that 
is  mentioned,  and  that  is  Azariah's  being  struck  with 
leprosy.  In  regard  to  this  even,  we  are  not  told  in 
whatcircumstances,  nor  for  what  reason,  the  judgment 
was  infli(5ted.  It  apparently  did  not  enter  into  the 
plan  of  Kings  to  tell  us  these  things.  But  when  we 
open  the  Chronicles,  we  discover  that  Uzziah  was  one 
of  the  greatest  of  the  descendants  of  David.  His  long 
reign  of  fifty-two  years  displayed  a  statesmanship  and 
a  military  career  seldom,  if  ever,  equalled  by  his 
successors.  "He  sought  God  in  the  days  of  Zechariah, 
who  had  understanding  in  the  visions  of  God:  and  as 
long  as  he  sought  the  Lord,  God  made  him  to  prosper. 
And  he  went  forth  and  warred  against  the  Philistines, 
and  brake  down  the  wall  of  Gath,  and  the  wall  of 
Jabneh,  and  the  wall  of  Ashdod,  and  he  built  cities 


236  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

about  x\shdod,  and  among  the  Philistines.  And  God 
helped  him  against  the  PhiHstines,  and  against  the 
Arabians  that  dwelt  in  Gur-baal,  and  the  Mehunims. 
And  the  Ammonites  gave  gifts  to  Uzziah  :  and  his 
name  spread  abroad  even  to  the  entering  in  of 
Egypt;  for  he  strengthened  himself  exceedingly" 
(2  Chronicles  xxvi.  5-8). 

We  are  then  told  that,  besides  strengthening  the 
fortifications  of  Jerusalem,  "  he  built  towers  in  the 
desert,  and  digged  many  wells :  for  he  had  much  cattle, 
both  in  the  low  country,  and  in  the  plains  :  husband- 
men also,  and  vinedressers  in  the  mountains,  and  in 
Carmel :  for  he  loved  husbandry  "  (verses  9,  10).  His 
army,  too,  was  large  and  well  organised.  "Moreover 
Uzziah  had  a  host  of  fighting  men,  that  went  out  to 
war  by  bands,  according  to  the  number  of  their 
account  by  the  hands  of  Jeiel  the  scribe  and  Maaseiah 
the  ruler,  under  the  hand  of  Hananiah,  one  of  the 
king's  captains.  The  whole  number  of  the  chief  of 
the  fathers  of  the  mighty  men  of  valour  were  2,600. 
And  under  their  hand  was  an  army,  307,500,  that  made 
war  with  mighty  power,  to  help  the  king  against  the 
enemy.  And  Uzziah  prepared  for  them  throughout 
all  the  host  shields,  and  spears,  and  helmets,  and 
habergeons,  and  bows,  and  slings  to  cast  stones.  And 
he  made  in  Jerusalem  engines,  invented  by  cunning 
men,  to  be  on  the  towers  and  upon  the  bulwarks,  to 
shoot  arrows  and  great  stones  withal.  And  his  name 
spread  far  abroad  ;  for  he  was  marvellously  helped,  till 
he  was  strong  "  (verses  11-15). 

Such  is  the  picture  presented  in  2  Chronicles.  But 


Azariah  of  Judah.  237 

if  this  revival  of  Jewish    greatness  was  a   fa(?t,  we 
should  find  some  indication  of  it  in   the  recovered 
records  of  the  time.     We  have  already  seen  that  in 
this  very  period  Tiglath-pileser*  was  subjugating  the 
nations  of  the  west,  and  that  he  mentions  Azariah  of 
Judah.     These  inscriptions  are  in  a  mutilated  condi- 
tion, the  slabs  on  which  they  are  having  been  torn 
down  by  Esarhaddon,  and  used  by  him  in  the  con- 
stru^ion  of  a  palace  of  his  own.     The  greatest  care 
is  consequently  required  in  their  perusal,  and  it  is 
perhaps  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  mistakes  have 
been  made.     Mr.  Roberton,  for  example,  in  his  inter- 
esting and  valuable  little  book,  Voices  of  the  Past,  says, 
in  reference  to  one  inscription :  "  From  it  we  learn  that 
King  Azariah  was  among  those  whom  Tiglath-pileser 
lai  J  under  tribute."  t    He  has  been  misled  as  to  this. 
There  is  an  "  Urijaikki  "  mentioned  among  the  payers 
of  tribute.     This  name  is  given  in  another  place  as 
''  Urikki,"    and    is    quite    different    from    Azariah. 
Besides,  as  Schrader  has  shown, t  this  is  Urikki  of 
Kui,  and  not  of  Judah.     It  is  true  that  on  a  previous 
page  Schrader,  by  piecing  together  the  readings  of 
several    fragments,   believes   that  he   can   read   that 
Tiglath-pileser  claims  to  have  received  the  tribute  of 
Azariah  of  Judah.     This  reading  has  not  been  main- 
tained.    The  latest  authoritative  decision  is  that  of 
Dr.  Pinches,  who  has  kindly  sent  me  a  proof  copy  of 
his  forthcoming  work.  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light 
of  the  Historical  Records  and  Legends  of  Assyria  and 
Babylonia.     He  says,  of  these  ^^  earlier  references," 

*  See  page  37-        +  Page  184.        :  Vol.  i.,  p.  242. 


238  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

that  they  "  are  so  very  fragmentary  that  nothing 
certain  can  be  said  concerning  their  conne(5lion."  * 
The  conclusion  which  he  draws  from  all  the  references 
is  as  follows  :  "  It  would  almost  seem  that  Azariah  of 
Judah  took  part  in  the  attempt  to  get  rid  of  Assyrian 
influence ;  and  though  this  was  fully  recognised  by 
Tiglath-pileser,  the  Assyrian  king,  to  all  appearance, 
did  not  come  into  direct  contadl  with  his  country."  t 
There  is  no  record  whatever  of  any  invasion  of  Judah, 
or  of  any  tribute  received  from  that  land,  though 
Menahem  of  Samaria,  Azariah's  contemporary,  is 
plainly  mentioned  as  a  tributary. 

And  the  following  fadt  not  only  excludes  the  possi- 
bility of  the  subje(5tion  of  Judah  at  this  time,  but  also 
shows  us  that  Tiglath-pileser  saw  in  Judah  the  very 
power  which  is  so  vividly  pictured  in  Chronicles. 
**  Whatever  may  have  taken  place  in  Judah,"  says  Dr. 
Pinches,  "Azariah's  sympathisers  did  not  get  on  so 
well  as  their  leader.  No  less  than  nineteen  places  were 
captured  by  the  Assyrian  king,  including  'Usnu,Siannu, 
Simirra,  Raspuna  on  the  sea-coast,  together  with  the 
cities  of  the  Saue-mountains  (mountains  which  are 
in  Lebanon),  Ba'ali-sapuna  (Baal-Zephon),  as  far  as 
Amanu,  the  mountain  of  urkarinu  wood,  the  whole  of 
the  land  of  Sau,  the  province  of  Kar-Addi  (fortress 
of  Hadad),  the  city  of  Hatarikka,  the  province  of 
Nuqudina,  Hasu  with  the  cities  which  are  around  it, 
the  cities  of  Ara,  and  the  cities  which  are  on  each  side 
of  it,  with  the  cities  which  are  around  them,  the 
mountain  Sarbua  to  its  whole  extent,  the  city  Ashanu, 

*  Page  348.  f  Page  348. 


Azariah  of  J  ltd  ah.  239 

the  city  Yadabu,  the  mountain  Yaraqu  to  its  whole 
extent,  the  city  .  .  .  ri,  the  city  ElU-tarbi,  the  city 
Zitanu  as  far  as  the  city  Atinnu,  the  city  .  .  .  (and) 
thecityBumamu— XIXdistriasofthecityofHamath, 
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  (Azariah),  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."  * 

Here  we  have  a  wide,  populous,  and  important 
territory  in  the  far  north  of  Palestine  so  thoroughly 
in  touch  with  Azariah  of  Judah  that  their  resistance 
is  set  down  by  the  Assyrian  king  to  an  agreement 
with  him.     They  are  incited  to  revolt  or  resistance 
by  this  distant  Judaean  monarch.     He  has  somehow 
managed  to  weld  together  cities  and  distri^s  usually 
separated  by  long-enduring  antipathies  and  confli6ling 
interests,  until  the  whole  is  under  his  control,  and 
answers  to  his  touch.  Is  it  possible  to  imagine  a  more 
ample  admission  of  the  faithfulness  of  this  account  in 
Chronicles  of  Azariah's  greatness  ?     We  have  also  to 
note  that  Tiglath-pileser  does  not  in  these  years  come 
down  into  Azariah's  neighbourhood.     To  explain  all 
that,  we  require  the  very  account  which  I  have  quoted 
in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter— an  account  which 
tells  us  that  Azariah  has  subjefted  Philistia  on  the 
west,  that  Ammon  on  the  east  is  tributary  to  him,  and 
that  he  possesses  in  reality  that  very  army,  and  those 

*  Pages  348,  3^9. 


240  TJie  New  Biblical  Guide. 

very  captains,  whose  huge  numbers  ''scholars"  had 
rejedled  as  ''exaggerations,"  "ficftions,"  and  "false- 
hoods." 

Referring  to  this,  which  he  describes  as  "  that 
important  passage  .  .  .  respecfting  the  alliance  with 
Azarijah  (Uzziah  of  Juda)  with  Hamath,"  Schrader 
says  :  "  From  this  we  learn  that,  while  Tiglath-pileser 
chastised  Hamath  for  its  alliance  with  Juda,  he  did 
not  see  fit  to  molest  the  latter  as  well,  a  clear  proof  of 
the  accuracy  of  the  Biblical  account  of  the  firmly- 
established  power  of  Uzziah."  *  But  this  "  Biblical 
account"  is  furnished  solely  by  the  Books  of  Chronicles. 
Neither  in  2  Kings,  nor  in  Isaiah,  is  there  any  descrip- 
tion of,  or,  indeed,  any  reference  to,  the  mighty 
military  power  and  the  far-reaching  influence  of  him 
who,  we  now  know,  was  the  most  mighty  of  the  kings 
of  Judah.  This  fa(5l,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  is  enough 
to  show  how  unfounded  the  present  attack  upon  the 
chara(fter  of  these  Books  is.  Schrader's  comment 
upon  the  omission  of  Azariah's  name  from  the  tribute 
list  is  equally  strong.  "  As  to  the  omission  of  the  king 
of  Juda  from  the  list,"  he  says,  "  this  agrees  with  what 
we  can  infer  from  the  inscription  itself  about  the 
position  occupied  by  Azariah  -  Uzziah,  and  have 
explained  above.  Azariah-Uzziah  felt  himself  strong 
enough  to  resist  an  attack  from  Assyria  if  the  necessity 
arose.  In  this  he  was  evidently  reckoning  on  the 
support  of  the  peoples  and  kings  living  round  Juda, 
and  which  are  likewise  omitted  from  this  list,  namely, 
those   of  the    Philistine    cities,   Ashdod,  Gaza,  and 

*  Vol.  i.,  p.  24^. 


Azariah  of  Judah.  241 

Ashkelon,  as  well  as  of  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,"  &c.  * 
A  power  which  could  hope  to  resist  successfully  the 
armies  of  Assyria,  even  with  the  aid  of  these  neigh- 
bouring peoples,  must  have  been  mighty  indeed.  The 
political  situation  implies  the  existence  of  those  very 
2,600  captains  and  307,500  men. 

Professor  Sayce,  in  that  book  published  as  he  was 
abandoning  the  critical  camp,  and  in  which  he  retains 
here  and  there  his  former  attitude,  makes  a  distin(5l 
admission  in  regard  to  the  words  of  Scripture  with 
which  we  are  now  dealing.  He  says  :  "  We  may  .  .  . 
consider  the  notices  by  the  Chronicler  of  nations 
whose  names  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Kings 
as  worthy  of  full  credit.  Even  the  '  Mehunims,'  of 
whom  Uzziah  is  said  to  have  been  the  conqueror, 
have  had  light  cast  upon  them  by  Oriental  archaeology. 
Professor  Hommel  and  Dr.  Glaser  see  in  them  the 
Minseans  of  Southern  Arabia,  whose  power  extended 
at  one  time  as  far  north  at  Gaza,  and  who  have  left 
memorials  of  themselves  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Teima,  the  Tema  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
*  Mehunims,'  or  'Maonites,'  are  referred  to  in  another 
passage  of  the  Chronicles  (i  Chronicles  iv.  41),  as 
well  as  in  the  Book  of  Judges  (x.  12).  As  the  power 
of  the  Minseans  waned  before  that  of  Saba,  or  Sheba, 
any  notice  of  their  presence  on  the  borders  of  Pales- 
tine must  go  back  to  a  considerable  antiquity.  If, 
therefore,  their  identification  with  the  Mehunim  of  the 
Chronicler  is  correcfl,  the  reference  to  them  bears  the 
stamp  of  contemporaneous  authority."! 

*  Vol.  ii.,  p.  245.     t  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  p.  468. 

R 


242  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

CHAPTER  III. 
Hezekiah's   Labours. 


WE    are  told  in  2   Chronicles  xxxii.  2-5,  that 
"  When  Hezekiah  saw  that  Sennacherib  was 
come,  and  that  he  was  purposed  to  fight  against 
Jerusalem,  he  took  counsel  with  his  princes  and  his 
mighty  men  to  stop  the  waters  of  the  fountains  which 
were  without  the  city:  and  they  did  help  him.     So 
there  was    gathered    much    people    together,    who 
stopped  (or  hid)  all  the  fountains,  and  the  brook  that 
ran  through  the  midst    of   the    land,  saying.  Why 
should  the  kings  of   Assyria  come,  and  find  much 
water  ?     Also  he  strengthened  himself,  and  built  up 
all  the  wall  that  was  broken,  and  raised  it  up  to  the 
towers,  and  another  wall  without,  and  repaired  Millo 
in  the  city  of  David,  and  made  darts  and  shields  in 
abundance."     In  the  close  of  the  chapter  we   find 
another  reference  to  the  work  done  probably  at  this 
time  :  *'  This  same  Hezekiah  also  stopped  (or  hid)  the 
upper  watercourse  of  Gihon,  and  brought  it  straight 
down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David  "(ver.  30). 
The  account  of  these  preparations  for  the  threatened 
siege  we  owe  to  this  Book  alone.  We  have  references, 
it  is  true,  both  in  2  Kings  and  in  Isaiah,  to  this  timely 
and  strenuous  acflivity.     In  concluding  the  notice  of 
Hezekiah's  reign,  the  former  says  :   **  And  the  rest  of 
the  acts  of  Hezekiah,  and  all  his  might,  and  how  he 


Hezekiah's  Labours.  243 

made  a  pool,  and  a  conduit,  and  brought  water  into 
the  city,  are  they  not  written  in  the  Book  of  the 
Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  ?  "  (2  Kings  xx.  20). 
In  Isaiah,  so  graphic  is  the  prophetic  description, 
that  we  grasp  the  king's  plan,  and  seem  to  see  the 
crowds  of  the  busy  toilers  at  their  work.  "Thou 
didst  look  in  that  day  to  the  armour  of  the  house  of 
the  forest.  Ye  have  seen  also  the  breaches  of  the 
city  of  David,  that  they  are  many :  and  ye  gathered 
together  the  waters  of  the  lower  pool.  And  ye  have 
numbered  the  houses  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  houses 
ye  have  broken  down  to  fortify  the  wall.  Ye  made 
also  a  ditch  between  the  two  walls  for  the  water  of 
the  old  pool :  but  ye  have  not  looked  unto  the  Maker 
thereof,  neither  had  respecl:  unto  Him  that  fashioned 
it  long  ago.  And  in  that  day  did  the  Lord  God  of 
hosts  call  to  weeping,  and  to  mourning,  and  to  bald- 
ness, and  to  girding  with  sackcloth  :  and  behold  joy 
and  gladness,  slaying  oxen,  and  killing  sheep,  eating 
flesh,  and  drinking  wine:  let  us  eat  and  drink;  for 
to  morrow  we  shall  die"  (xxii.  8-13). 

These  last  words  show  us  the  offence  of  that  time 
of  busy  preparation.  The  gathering  of  multitudes  of 
helpers,  and  the  abundant  preparation  made  to  supply 
them  with  food  and  drink  was  apparently  to  the 
frivolous  crowds  merely  a  time  of  highest  gaiety  and 
riot.  The  light  jest  went  round  that,  as  no  one 
knew  how  long  such  bountiful  provision  might  last, 
they  should  enjoy  the  abundance  while  it  was  to  be 
had.  And  few  there  were  who  thought  of  Him  whose 
hand  was  beginning  to  fall  upon  Judah.    But,  graphic 


244  ^^^^  •^^'^  Biblical  Guide. 

as  these  glimpses  are,  we  should  not  have  known  the 
story  to  which  they  point  were  it  not  for  the  account 
in  2  Chronicles.     It  is  here  alone  that  Hezekiah's 
preparation  are  described.      According  to  all  truly 
critical  rules  this  should,  therefore,  be  described  as 
unhistorical.      But   Wellhausen's    attack    upon   this 
Book    is   one  of    so  ferocious  a   kind   that   all   real 
criticism  is   swept   to   the  winds.     He  says   in  one 
place:    ''One  might   as   well  try  to   hear  the   grass 
growing  as  attempt  to  derive  from  such  a  source  as 
this    a   historical   knowledge   of    the    conditions  of 
ancient   Israel;"    and   in    another:    "About  trifles, 
which  produce  an  appearance  of  accuracy,  the  author 
is  never  in  any  embarrassment."     And  again  :  *'  It 
is  thus  apparent  how  inventions  of  the  most  circum- 
stantial kind  have  arisen  out  of  this  plan  of  writing 
history,  as  it  is  euphemistically  called."  *      Upon  the 
atrociousness  of  these  accusations,  I  need  not  dwell. 
Providentially,  we   have   here   another   instance   in 
which  the  critical  case  against  these  Books  can  be 
tested.     For  here  the  Chronicler  suppHes  us  with 
special  information.     He  gives  us  minute  particulars. 
The  account  is  once  more  "of  the  most  circumstan- 
tial kind."     Is  this,  then,  a  tissue  of  inventions,  as 
Wellhausen  and  his  friends  would  have  us  believe,  or 
is    it   aaual  history  for  which   th^y  should   be   as 
devoutly  thankful  as  ourselves  ? 

Let  us  take,  first  of  all,  the  notice  in  verse  30, 
which  tells  us  that  Hezekiah  "  also  stopped  the  upper 
watercourse  of  Gihon,  and  brought  it  straight  down 

♦  Prolegomena 


Hezekiah's  Labours,  245 

to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David."  Research  in 
the  Holy  Land,  and  specially  at  Jerusalem,  has  shed 
a  flood  of  light  on  this,  and  on  many  like  references. 
Mr.  King,  the  author  of  Recent  Discoveries  on  the 
Temple  Hill,  describes  his  first  sight  of  Solomon's 
Pools,  those  ancient  reservoirs  for  the  water  supply 
of  Jerusalem.  "On  passing  Rachel's  tomb  on  the 
Bethlehem  road,"  he  says  in  his  modest  and  inter- 
esting narrative,  ''  he  left  the  main  route,  and  followed 
on  the  right  side  the  path  that  leads  into  the  moun- 
tainous distri(5l.  The  hill-tops  were  bleak  and  bare, 
and  seemed  to  be  composed  entirely  of  grey  rock ; 
but  the  valleys  often  smiled  with  ripening  corn,  and 
blooming  wild  flowers  in  many  places  carpeted  the 
limestone  slopes.  Numerous  flocks  of  goats  supply 
the  natives  with  milk,  and  the  joyous  humming  of 
bees  among  the  wild  flowers  recalled  that  primitive 
description  of  Canaan  which  speaks  of  it  as  "a  land 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey."  On  reaching  the 
summit  of  the  mountain  flank,  a  plateau  was  crossed, 
and  presently  there  came  in  sight  an  extensive  battle- 
mented  castle.  This  is  a  Saracenic  building,  probably 
eredled  in  Crusading  times,  designed  both  as  a 
defence  against  the  enemy  and  a  hospitable  khan 
for  native  wanderers.  It  is  now  kept  by  a  solitary 
Arab,  who  spends  most  of  his  time  in  attending  to 
numerous  hives  of  bees.  Riding  along  under  the 
cool  shade  of  the  west  wall,  and  turning  the  corner, 
a  gladdening  sight  burst  upon  the  view,  for  in  the 
valley  were  seen  three  large  open  cisterns,  known  as 
Solomon's  Pools.     They  were  brimful  of  living  water. 


246  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

and,  refle(5ting  as  they  did  the  blue  of  a  cloudless 
sky,  formed  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  stony  hill-tops 
of  this  thirsty  land."  * 

These  pools  are  on  an  average  400  feet  long  and 
250  feet  broad,  and  are  from  twenty  to  thirty  feet 
deep.  Their  united  surface,  therefore,  is  about  seven 
acres,  and  they  are  capable  of  holding  an  immense 
supply  of  water.  "About  200  yards  north-west  of 
the  Upper  Pool,  standing  in  an  open  field,  is  a  small 
building  that  covers  the  entrance  to  a  spring  called 
the  Sealed  Fountain.  From  this  spring  the  Pools 
derive  their  chief  supply,  and  it  is  well  worthy  of  a 
visit.  The  circular  opening,  resembling  the  mouth 
of  a  well,  is  usually  covered  with  a  large  flat  stone. 
Twenty-five  steps  cut  in  this  rock  lead  down  to  a 
vaulted  chamber  45  feet  long  by  25  feet  wide.  Adjoin- 
ing this  is  a  smaller  chamber,  and  both  are  covered 
with  ancient  stone  arches.  The  water  at  four  points, 
issues  from  the  sides  of  the  hill,  and  by  means  of  small 
ducts  is  colled^ed  in  a  basin ;  thence  it  is  carried 
along  a  vaulted  passage  towards  the  Pools."  f 

But  the  Sealed  Fountain  played  a  still  more  im- 
portant part  in  the  ancient  water-supply  of  the  Holy 
City.  It  stands  at  a  level  of  more  than  200  feet 
higher  than  that  of  the  ancient  Temple,  and  was, 
therefore,  able  to  supply  every  part  of  the  sacred 
city.  This  seems  to  have  been  well  understood  by 
the  engineers  of  those  ancient  times.  "It  has  now 
been  ascertained,"  writes  Mr.  King,  "that  in  the 
subterranean    vault    the    stream    from    the    Sealed 

*  Pages  141,  142.        +  Pages  142, 143. 


Hezekiah's  Labours.  247 

Fountain  is  joined  by  another  stream  of  water  flowing 
from  the  south,  and  deriving  its  supply  from  a  valley 
on  the  Hebron  road,  called  Wady  Arrub,  a  place 
about  six  miles  south  of  Solomon's  Pools.  The 
water  of  this  latter  stream  is  collected  chiefly  from 
the  rocks  in  the  valley  of  Wady  Arrub,  and  conducted 
through  a  rock-bored  tunnel  four  miles  long,  which 
passes  beneath  the  bed  of  another  valley  called  Wady 
Byar,  and  thence  on  toward  the  Sealed  Fountain. 
At  the  junction  above  indicated,  the  aqueduct  tapped 
all  the  water  from  the  Sealed  Fountain,  except  a 
scanty  overflow  conveyed  through  a  square  duct  into 
the  Upper  Pool." 

Solomon's  Pools  were  evidently  not  the  destination 
of  the  water  of  the  Sealed  Fountain.  The  Pools  were 
only  intended  to  receive  and  preserve  the  overflow. 
*'  As  the  valley  of  the  Urtas  descends  somewhat 
abruptly  toward  the  east,"  Mr.  King  continues,  ''the 
construcftors  of  the  Pools  doubtless  perceived  that  it 
was  not  possible  to  make  one  large  reservoir  of  suffi- 
cient size  without  also  making  an  embankment  of 
colossal  dimensions,  extending  right  across  the  valley. 
They,  therefore,  prudently  made  three  pools,  at  a 
distance  of  150  feet  from  each  other,  each  pool  being 
twenty  feet  below  the  level  of  the  one  above  it.  As 
they  occupy  the  bed  of  the  valley,  which  zigzags 
considerably  at  this  part,  the  pools  themselves  do  not 
lie  in  a  straight  line.  The  conduits  conne(fting  them 
were  so  arranged  that  the  lowest  pool  was  first  filled 
with  water,  then  the  other  two  in  succession,  and  the 
discharge  was  effedled  in  the  same  order,  each  pool 


248  The  New  Biblial  Guide, 

when  empty  being  re-filled  by  the  one  above  it."* 
Another  aquedu(5l  ran  from  the  lower  pool,  and 
supplied  Bethlehem.  It  then,  passing  onward  to 
Jerusalem,  went  round  the  west  and  south  of  the  city, 
and  poured  its  waters  into  the  Temple  cisterns.  What 
then,  was  done  with  the  chief  supply?  Mr.  King 
continues:  ''This  aqueducfl,  known  as  the  High 
Level,  though  by  the  Arabs  called  the  Aquedudl  of 
Unbelievers,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  works  of 
ancient  Palestine." 

Speaking  of  the  great  aquedudl  to  which  we  have 
referred  as  coming  from  the  south,  Mr.  King  says  : 
*'With  the  increased  waters  of  the  Sealed  Fountain, 
the  High  Level  passes  along  the  northern  side  of 
Wady  Urtas,  near  the  summit  of  the  valley  side,  then 
cutting  through  the  water  parting,  it  follows  the 
western  slope  of  the  hill,  leaving  Bethlehem  on  the 
east.  It  then  descends  into  the  valley  by  Rachel's 
Tomb,  and,  instead  of  passing  along  a  causeway,  as 
it  probably  would  have  done  had  it  been  construdled 
by  the  Romans,  the  water  flows  through  an  inverted 
stone  syphon,  and  forces  its  way  up  the  slope  on  the 
northern  side  of  the  valley.  This  syphon  is  con- 
stru6ted  of  perforated  stone  blocks  set  in  a  mass  of 
rubble  work.  The  blocks  are  firmly  united  by  the 
fine  jointing  of  the  stone  and  the  use  of  an  extremely 
hard  cement.  The  syphon  was  first  noticed  by  Mr. 
MacNeill,  who  examined  the  course  of  the  aqueduct 
for  the  Syrian  Waterworks  Committee  ;  and  it  clearly 
indicates   not  only  considerable   skill   as  a  piece  of 

♦  Pages  147,  148. 


Hezekiah's  Labours.  249 

masonry,  but  it  shows  also  that  the  makers  possessed 
some  knowledge  of  hydrostatics — a  knowledge  either 
forgotten  by,  or  not  known  to,  the  Romans  for  many 
generations.  The  immense  arched  strudlures  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Rome,  built  for  condudling  water 
across  valleys  and  depressions,  indicate  that  the 
builders  of  these  colossal  bridges  were  ignorant  of  the 
hydrostatic  principle  that  water  flowing  through  a 
tube  can  be  made  to  rise  to  the  level  of  its  source." 

Whither,  then,  did  this  wonderful  aqueduct  bear 
the  precious  stream  ?  What  centre  of  population  did 
the  ancient  constructors  intend  to  supply.  ''Captain 
Wilson,  in  1865,  traced  the  High  Level  Aquedu(5l  from 
its  source  in  Wady  Arrub  to  a  point  north  of  Rachel's 
Tomb ;  and  Captain  Warren,  continuing  the  research, 
found  further  traces  of  it  in  the  plain  of  Rephaim,  on 
the  east  side  of  the  present  road  leading  to  Jerusalem. 
An  ancient  tank  and  part  of  an  aqueduct  have  lately 
been  found  in  the  Russian  ground,  near  the  north-west 
corner  of  the  city  wall,  and  Captain  Warren  is  of 
opinion  that  these  remains  formed  part  of  the  High 
Level.  If  this  be  so,  this  aquedu6l  in  olden  times 
supplied  the  Pool  of  Upper  Gihon,  now  called  Birket 
Mamilla,  and  thence  following  the  channel  still  exist- 
ing at  this  part,  entered  the  Holy  City  at  the  Jaffa 
Gate.  Having  furnished  a  supply  to  the  citadel,  it 
would  flow  on  to  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah,  now  called 
Birket  Hammam,  and  thence  along  the  whole  course 
of  the  Tyropoeon  valley,  till  it  joined  the  waters  of  the 
Pool  of  Siloam."  * 

*  Pages  144-146 


250  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

There  cannot  be  any  doubt  that  the  conclusion 
indicated  above  is  the  right  one.  The  High  Level 
Aquedudl  plainly  led  towards  Jerusalem  ;  and  the 
remains  found  in  the  Russian  possession  point  with 
equal  plainness  to  the  Birket  Mamilla  as  the  reservoir 
which  received  the  far-fetched  treasure.  The  Birket 
Mamilla  was  doubtless  "  the  upper  watercourse  of 
Gihon."  Gihon  means  '*  spring,"  or  source  of  water- 
supply.  To-day  the  Upper  Gihon  is  a  ''  broad  flat 
sweep  of  a  shallow  pool  "  in  the  midst  of  an  extensive 
Mohammedan  cemetery.  ''  It  is  from  this  that  the 
water  found  in  Hezekiah's  Pool  in  the  city  flows  after 
the  rains,  through  a  small  aquedudl:  which  is  open  at 
different  points."  *  That  aquedua  is  "straight."  It 
goes  **to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David,"  and  it 
is  no  doubt  the  work  of  Hezekiah  to  which  reference 
is  made  in  2  Chronicles  xxxii.  30.  It  is  unfortunate 
for  the  critics  that  discoveries  ''of  the  most  circum- 
stantial kind  "  are  constantly  occurring  in  this  way  to 
prove  that  what  they  have  dared  to  call  "inventions" 
are  veritable  history;  and  the  so-called  "trifles  which 
produce  an  appearance  of  accuracy "  are  simply 
marvellously  seledled  incidents  which  make  the  men 
and  events  of  these  ancient  times  still  live  before  us. 

But  a  much  greater  work  was  done  upon  the  east, 
that  is,  the  opposite,  side  of  the  city.  There  was  found 
here  a  specially  large  water  supply,  which  was  open, 
and  "flowing  through  the  land."  Hezekiah  resolved 
to  defend  his  capital,  and  his  first  step  was  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  the  leaders  of  the  people.     He 

*  Cunningham  Geikie,  The  Holy  Land  and  the  Bible,  vol.ii.,  p.  28. 


Hezekiah's  Labours,  251 

gathered  them   together,  and  laid  his  plans  before 
them.  "  So  there  was  gathered  much  people  together, 
who  stopped  all  the  fountains  and  the  brook  that  ran 
through  the  midst  of  the  land."   Dr.  Thomson,  in  his 
visits  to  Jerusalem,  saw  nothing  of  this  brook  in  the 
Kedron  valley,  and  accounts  for  this  by  the  changes 
which  have  come  upon  the  place,  and  the  rubbish  with 
which  the  valley  is  filled.  But  his  visits  were  apparently 
so  timed  as  to  miss  a  phenomenon  which  is  still  to  be 
witnessed.    "  The  brook,"  says  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Birch, 
who  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Harper,  ''has  been  overflowing 
every  year.     Major  Conder  says  *  (under  head  Btr 
Eqilb)  :  '  The  rising  of  the  waters  is  held  as  a  feast  by 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  who  may  be  seen  walking 
beside  the  water,  or  sitting  in  the  valley  in  numbers 
on  a  bright  winter  day,  when  the  water  is  flowing.' 
After  heavy  rains,  the  water  from  the  lower  strata  of 
rock  finds  an  outlet  up  the  shaft  of  the  well.     Sir 
Charles  Warren  discovered   one  entrance  to  three 
staircases,   a  little  north   of  the  well,  one  of  them 
leading  to  a  semi-natural  cistern  in  the  rock,  where 
a  natural  cleft  was  also  visible.     This  staircase  had 
evidently  been    cut   into   at  a  later  date,  but  in  its 
original  form  it  had  once  been  built  up  by  a  cross-wall, 
and  at  the  bottom  of  the  wall  a  hole  or  du^  was  left 
six   and  three-eighths   by   four   inches,   and   on  the 
northern  side  a  stone  plug  to  fit,  and  twelve  inches 
long,  was  found  in   it.     Why?     Here  is  the  very 
PLUG  Hezekiah  put  in  when   Sennacherib  invaded 
Judah.     Talk   of   the    Bible    not  bearing  historical 

'■■  Memoirs,  Jerusalem,  p.  371. 


252  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

criticism  !  Afterwards,  the ^/«^  was  no  longer  needed, 
when  the  1,800  feet  aqueducft  from  the  cistern  was 
made  down  the  Kidron." 

"  It  seems  to  me,"  continues  Mr.  Birch,  ''that  the 
above  staircases  have  been  made  by  the  Jebusites, 
and  that  this  source  of  water  is  to  be  identified  with 
En-rogel.  .  .  . 

"At  an  immense  expenditure  of  labour  a  spacious 
aquedu(5l  (six  feet  high,  and  from  three  feet  six  inches 
to  four  feet  broad)  was  cut  under  the  western  side  of 
the  Kidron  valley,  starting  from  the  grotto,  which  was 
pra(5tically  the  source  of  the  waters,  and  extending  at 
least  1,800  feet  down  the  ravine. 

''  Now,  at  last,  the  brook  was  stopped.  Buried  as  it 
was  forty  or  fifty  feet  out  of  sight,  and  beyond  hearing, 
the  Assyrians  could  never  have  found  it."  * 

A  remarkable  discovery  was  made  in  the  Summer 
of  1880,  which  carried  this  confirmation  of  the  record 
in  Chronicles  much  further.  One  of  the  pupils  of 
Dr.  Schick  a  retired  architect,  who  had  long  resided 
at  Jerusalem,  was  exploring  Hezekiah's  aqueduct 
along  with  some  of  his  companions.  He  happened 
to  fall  into  the  water,  and  when  rising  saw  what 
seemed  to  him  to  be  an  inscription  upon  one  of  the 
stones.  The  news  was  carried  to  Dr.  Schick,  who 
immediately  visited  the  spot.  It  was  plain  that  the 
inscription  was  no  delusion.  But  it  was  under  water, 
and  long  centuries  had  filled  up  many  of  the  letters 
with  deposits  of  lime.  His  copy  was  merely  sufficient 
to  indicate  that  the  inscriptions  was  in  old  Phcenician 

*  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries,  pp.  515-519. 


characters. 
After  telling 

how  Dr. 
Schick's  at- 
tention was 
d  r awn    t  o 
the    matter, 
Prof.  Sayce 
says :  ''The 
first  thing  to 
be  done  was 
to  lower  the 
level  of  the 
water,  so  as 
to  expose 
the  inscrip- 
tion to  view. 
But  his 
efforts  to 
copy  the 
text  were 
not  success- 
ful.  He  was 
not  a  palaeo- 
grapher: 
and  as  the 
letters  of  the 
inscription 
as  well  as 
every   crack 
and  flaw  in 


254  ^^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

the  stone,  had  been  filled  by  the  water  with  a  deposit  of 
lime,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  distinguish  between 
characters  and  accidental  markings  on  the  rock,  or 
to  make  out  the  exact  forms  of  the  letters.  The 
first  intelligible  copy  was  accordingly  made  by  myself 
during  my  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  February,  1881.  As, 
however,  I  had  to  sit  for  hours  in  the  mud  and  water, 
working  by  the  dim  light  of  a  candle,  my  copy  re- 
quired correction  in  several  points ;  and  it  was  not 
till  the  arrival  of  Dr.  Guthe,  six  weeks  later,  that  an 
exact  facsimile  was  obtained.  Dr.  Guthe  removed 
the  deposit  of  lime  by  the  application  of  an  acid, 
and  so  revealed  the  original  appearance  of  the  tablet. 
A  cast  of  it  was  taken,  and  squeezes  made  from  the 
cast  which  could  be  studied  at  leisure  and  in  a  good 
light. 

''The  inscription  is  engraved  on  the  lower  part  of 
an  artificial  tablet  cut  in  the  wall  of  rock  about 
nineteen  feet  from  the  place  where  the  subterranean 
conduit  opens  out  upon  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  and  on 
the  right  hand  side  of  one  who  enters  it.  The  con- 
duit is  at  first  about  sixteen  feet  high;  but  the  height 
gradually  lessens  until  in  one  place  it  is  not  quite 
two  feet  above  the  floor  of  the  passage.  According 
to  Captain  Conder's  measurements  the  tunnel  is 
1,708  yards  in  length  from  the  point  where  it  leaves 
the  Spring  of  the  Virgin  to  the  point  where  it  enters 
the  Pool  of  Siloam.  It  does  not  run,  however,  in  a 
straight  line,  and  towards  the  centre  there  are  two 
ctds  de  sac,  the  origin  of  which  is  explained  by  the 
inscription.      We  there  learn  that  the  workmen  at 


Hezekiah's  Labours.  255 

both  ends,  like  the  engineers  of  the  Mont  Cenis 
tunnel,  intended  to  meet  in  the  middle.  But  they 
did  not  succeed  in  doing  so,  though  the  two  exca- 
vations had  approached  one  another  sufficiently  near 
for  the  workmen  in  the  one  to  hear  the  sound  of  the 
pickaxes  used  by  the  workmen  in  the  other.  How 
such  a  feat  of  engineering  was  possible  m  the  age 
when  the  tunnel  was  excavated  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand, more  especially  when  we  remember  that  the 
channel  slopes  downward  through  the  rock,  and 
winds  very  considerably.  It  may  be  added  that  the 
floor  of  the  conduit  has  been  rounded  to  allow  the 
water  to  pass  through  it  more  easily."* 
The  inscription  runs  thus: — 

"(Behold  the)  excavation  !  Now  this  is  the 
history  of  the  excavation.  While  the  exca- 
vators were  still  lifting  up  the  pick,  each  toward 
his  neighbour,  and  while  there  were  yet  three 
cubits  to  (excavate,  there  was  heard)  the  voice 
of  one  man  calling  to  his  neighbour,  for  there 
was  an  excess  (?)  in  the  rock  on  the  right  hand 
(and  on  the  left?).  And  after  that  on  the 
day  of  excavating  the  excavators  had  struck 
pick  against  pick,  one  against  another,  the 
waters  flowed  from  the  spring  to  the  pool  for 
a  distance  of  1,200  cubits.  And  (part)  of  a 
cubit  was  the  height  of  the  rock  over  the 
head  of  the  excavators."  t 
Was  this  the  excavation  executed  in  hot  haste  in 
the  days  of    Hezekiah  ?     There  is    no   date   in   the 

*  Records  of  the  Past  (New  Series),  pp.  168-170.  ilbiii,  pp.  174.  ^7~- 


256  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

inscription,  nor  is  there  any  king's  name  in  it.  We 
are  reduced  to  inferences  drawn  from  the  forms  of 
the  letters,  the  character  of  the  Hebrew  used,  and 
the  statements  made  in  2  Chronicles.  Very  different 
opinions  have  been  held  as  to  the  date  of  the  inscrip- 
tions, some  believing  it  to  be  older  than  the  time  of 
Hezekiah.  Professor  Sayce,  in  the  paper  from  which 
we  have  just  quoted,  intimates  his  convicftion  that 
this  is  Hezekiah's  tunnel.  Writing  some  five  years 
later,  he  says:  ''Though  there  is  no  indication  of 
date  in  the  text,  the  age  of  the  inscription  can  be 
determined  approximately  by  an  appeal  to  history 
and  palaeography.  We  possess  a  good  many  inscribed 
Jewish  and  Israelitish  seals,  characterised  partly  by 
proper  names  compounded  with  the  sacred  name  of 
Jahveh,  partly  by  lines  drawn  across  the  face  of  the 
seal  and  dividing  the  lines  of  writing  one  from  the 
other.  Several  of  these  seals  are  older  than  the 
period  of  the  Exile,  and  among  them  is  one  said  to 
have  been  found  at  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Mr.  Clark.  The  inscription  upon  it  tells  us 
that  it  once  'belonged  to  Elishama,  the  son  of  the 
king.'  Now  we  know  who  this  Elishama  was.  He 
is  referred  to  in  Jeremiah  xli.  i  as  a  Jewish  prince  of 
*the  seed  royal,'  and  grandfather  of  Ishmael,  the 
contemporary  of  Zedekiah.  He  would,  therefore, 
have  flourished  about  650  B.C.,  and  his  seal  shows  us 
what  forms  were  assumed  by  the  letters  of  the  Jewish 
alphabet  in  his  day.  When  we  compare  these  with 
the  forms  of  the  same  letters  found  in  the  Siloam 
inscription,   it  becomes  evident   that  the  latter    are 


Hezeki all's  Labours.  257 

somewhat  more  archaic,  and  that  consequently  the 
inscription  which  contains  them  must  go  back  to  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century  before  our  era. 

"This  would  bring  us  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
and  historical  reasons  have  made  many  scholars 
believe  that  the  tunnel  of  Siloam  was  the  work  of 
that  king."  Professor  Sayce  himself  is  of  that 
opinion.  After  showing  that  the  forms  of  "  the 
letters  are  rounded,  rather  than  angular,  and  their 
downward  lines  are  curved  at  the  bottom  as  they 
would  be  in  writing  with  a  pen,"  he  continues: 
•'Before  such  forms  could  have  been  imitated  upon 
stone,  they  must  have  been  firmly  fixed  in  the  usage 
of  the  people,  and  so  prove  that  already  before  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah  written  manuscripts  were  plentiful 
in  the  Jewish  kingdom." 

''  What,  then,  becomes,"  he  asks,  "  of  the  theories 
of  a  Vernes  or  a  Havet,  which  assume  that  before 
the  Babylonian  captivity  writing  was  an  art  rarely,  if 
ever,  practised  ?  On  the  contrary,  an  indirect  con- 
firmation of  a  striking  character  is  given  b}-  pala;o- 
graphy  of  the  claims  put  forward  by  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  These  call  upon  us  to  believe  that  books 
were  written  and  read  throughout  the  royal  period  of 
Israelitish  history,  and  that  these  books  were  not 
monuments  of  stone  or  metal,  but  books  in  the  most 
modern  and  genuine  sense  of  the  word.  When  it  is 
stated  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (xxv.  i)  that  Hezekiah 
employed  men  to  copy  out  the  proverbs  of  Solomon, 
w^e  are  reminded  of  the  libraries  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria,    where    scribes    were    constantly    at    work 


258  Tlie  New  Biblical  Guide. 

copying  and  re-editing  the  older  literature  of  the 
country,  and  the  very  forms  of  the  letters  in  the 
Siloam  inscription  rise  up  in  evidence  that  the  state- 
ment is  true.  The  art  of  writing  books,  let  us  feel 
assured,  was  no  new  thing  in  Israel,  and  there  was 
no  reason  why  a  m.anuscript  of  the  age  of  Solomon 
should  not  have  been  preserved  to  the  age  of  Hezekiah. 
We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that '  the  men  of  Hezekiah' 
did  copy  out  'the  proverbs  of  Solomon,'  and  they 
were  more  likely  to  know  whose  proverbs  they  were 
than  the  most  accomplished  critic  of  to-day."* 

That  is  a  typical  event  in  this  struggle,  which,  how- 
ever long  it  may  last,  will  have  the  oft-repeated  result 
— deepened  trust  in  the  Bible.  The  discoveries  made 
here,  as  those  made  everywhere  besides  when  they 
touch  upon  the  Bible,  witness  for  it  and  against  its 
adversaries.  And  they  show  that  the  Chronicler, 
even  when  he  walks  alone,  walks  surely. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release, 


THE  Chronicles,  dealing  so  largely,  in  accordance 
with  their  special  purpose,  with  the  attacks  made 
upon  the  Divinely-instituted  worship  of  Israel,  and  with 
the  reformations  attempted  by  various  kings,  offer 

*  The  Higher  Criticism  versus  the  Monuments,  pp.  380-388. 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release.  259 

very  few  additional  points  of  contact  with  Assyrian 
and  Egyptian  history.  It  might  be  shown,  indeed, 
that  various  references  imply  a  condition  of  affairs 
quite  in  keeping  with  what  we  now  know  to  have 
been  the  history  of  the  times;  but  I  limit  myself  to 
one  more  incident,  for  the  knowledge  of  which  we 
are  indebted  to  this  part  of  Scripture  alone. 

Manasseh,  the  son  of  Hezekiah,  threw  aside  the 
splendid  traditions  of  his  father's  reign,  and  out- 
stripped in  impious  daring  the  worst  of  his  prede- 
cessors. He  introduced  the  hideous  and  obscene 
Baal  and  Venus  worships.  "  He  built  altars  for  all 
the  host  of  heaven  in  the  two  courts  of  the  House 
of  the  Lord.  And  he  caused  his  children  to  pass 
through  the  fire  in  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom: 
also  he  observed  times,  and  used  enchantments,  and 
used  witchcraft,  and  dealt  with  a  familiar  spirit,  and 
with  wizards.  .  .  And  he  set  a  carved  image,  the 
idol  which  he  had  made,  in  the  House  of  God " 
(2  Chronicles  xxxiii.  yj). 

Manasseh  and  the  frivolous  multitude,  who  changed 
their  religion  according  to  what  happened  to  be  in 
favour  at  the  Court,  were  remonstrated  with  in  vain: 
**The  Lord  spake  to  Manasseh  and  to  his  people; 
but  they  would  not  hearken  "  (verse  10).  Then  God's 
chastisement  fell,  and  fell  in  mercy.  ''Wherefore 
the  Lord  brought  upon  them  the  captains  of  the 
host  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  who  took  Manasseh 
among  the  thorns,  and  bound  him  with  fetters,  and 
carried  him  to  Babylon.  And  when  he  was  in 
affliction,  he  besought  the  Lord  his  God,  and  humbled 


26o  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

himself  greatly  before  the  God  of  his  fathers,  and 
prayed  unto  Him  :  and  He  was  intreated  of  him, 
and  heard  his  supplication,  and  brought  him  again 
to  Jerusalem  into  His  kingdom.  Then  Manasseh 
knew  that  the  Lord  He  was  God  "  (verses  11-13). 

The  record  of  this  incident  was  one  which  was 
specially  in  line  with  the  purpose  of  these  Books, 
and  thus  for  our  knowledge  of  Manasseh's  chastise- 
ment and  repentance  we  are  indebted  to  them  alone. 
But  this  very  service  secured  their  condemnation 
at  the  hands  of  the  critics.  Their  ''  account  of 
Manasseh,"  writes  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  '*is  so 
unlike  that  given  in  the  Kings,  as  to  excite  the 
attention  of  the  critic,  and  to  awaken  grave  doubts 
of  historical  fidelity  on  the  part  of  the  former"  (the 
Chronicler).  Then  follows  a  determined  attack  upon 
the  reliability  of  Chronicles  in  this  matter.  He  sums 
up  thus  :  "  From  a  consideration  of  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  we  must  conclude  the  alleged 
reform,  and  consequently  the  repentance,  of  Manasseh 
to  be  unhistorical.  In  relation  to  the  captivity  of 
Manasseh  in  Babylon,  some  critics  who  reject  the 
alleged  fact  of  his  repentance  and  reforms,  maintain 
its  historical  reality ;  such  as  Movers,  Thenius,  and 
Bertheau.  The  silence  of  the  writer  of  Kings  re- 
specting this  captivity  is  very  unfavourable  to  the 
idea  of  its  actual  existence.  That  so  important  an 
event  is  omitted  in  those  books,  and  was  not  found 
of  course  in  the  historical  work  from  which  he  drew 
his  materials,  is  calculated  to  shake  our  faith  in  its 
credibility.     .     .     .     Besides,  it  is  related  that  the 


ManasseWs  Captivity  and  Release.  261 

king  of  Assyria  took  Manasseh  to  Babylon,  instead 
of  to  his  own  capital,  to  the  very  city  which  was 
then  disposed  to  rebel  against  him.  That  is  im- 
probable. .  .  .  On  reviewing  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  alleged  captivity 
of  Manasseh,  as  well  as  his  repentance,  is  unhistorical. 
The  carrying  away  of  Jehoiachin  and  Zedekiah  to 
Babylon  furnished  a  pattern  for  the  alleged  event.  It 
is  strange  that  Thenius  and  Ewald  uphold  the  credit 
of  the  Chronist  on  this  point,  though  they  impugn  it 
so  frequently  in  other  places.  Movers  and  Bertheau 
naturally  defend  it  here.  Graf  has  fully  shown  the 
untenableness  of  both  facts."* 

This  is  a  specially  characteristic  passage.  The 
critic  knows  how  the  Books  of  the  Bible  should  have 
been  written.  If  these  were  facts.  Kings  must  have 
mentioned  them !  He  knows  everything  also  about 
the  writing  of  the  Books.  The  writers  consulted 
"sources,"  that  is,  previously  written  documents. 
They  consulted  these  for  the  one  purpose  of  copying 
their  contents.  They  copied  these  contents  so  com- 
pletely that  an  earlier  writer  like  that  of  Kings  left 
nothing  for  a  late  comer  such  as  he  who  wrote 
Chronicles.  In  that  case,  one  wonders  why  the 
"sources"  were  copied  at  all,  and  why  the  ancient 
books  which  were  preserved  so  long  were  not  suffered 
to  continue.  But  all  this  learned  matter  is  now  worth 
merely  the  price  of  waste  paper,  for  its  intricate  and 
sustained  argument  is  now  seen  to  be  but  the 
vapouring  of   learned  folly. 

*  An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  97-100. 


262  The  Neiv  Biblical  Guide. 

For  there  is  no  longer  doubt  anywhere  as  to  the 
historical  character  of  this  part  of  the  sacred  history. 
Here  is  what  one,  compelled  by  the  astounding  and 
ever-increasing  confirmations  of  Scripture  of  recent 
times  to  turn  his  back  upon  Samuel  Davidson  and 
his  successors,  says:  "Doubt  has  been  cast  upon 
the  narratives  of  political  events "  (in  Chronicles) 
''which  are  supplementary  to  what  we  read  in  the 
Books  of  Kings.  But  there  is  one  case  in  which 
Oriental  archaeology  enables  us  to  test  the  trust- 
worthiness of  these  supplementary  narratives  ;  and 
in  this  case,  as  Professor  Schrader  has  pointed  out, 
the  suspicions  of  the  higher  criticism  have  been 
shown  to  be  unfounded.  Manasseh,  it  is  stated  by 
the  Chronicler,  was  carried  in  chains  to  Babylon  by 
the  king  of  Assyria,  and  subsequently  allowed  to 
return  to  his  own  land.  The  fact  that  the  Assyrian 
king  carried  the  Jewish  prince  to  Babylon  instead 
of  Nineveh  seemed  to  militate  decisively  against  the 
truth  of  the  story.  The  cuneiform  inscriptions, 
however,  have  set  the  matter  in  a  new  light.  We 
have  learned  from  them  that  Esar-haddon,  the  con- 
temporary of  Manasseh,  was  king  of  Babylonia  as 
well  as  of  Assyria,  and  that  he  was  also  the  restorer 
of  Babylon."  This  kindness  to  Babylon,  however,  the 
Professor  goes  on  to  show,  had  been  rewarded  by  revolt 
in  the  next  reign  ;  and,  after  referring  to  incidents 
and  inscriptions  which  we  shall  look  at  immediately, 
he  concludes:  *'We  can  draw  a  conclusion  of  some 
moment  from  this  vindication  of  the  account  given 
us  by  the  Chronicles  of  the  captivity  of  Manasseh. 


Maiiasseh's  Captivity  and  Release,  263 

We  have  no  right  to  reject  as  unhistorical  a  narrative 
which  is  found  only  in  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles, 
merely  because  there  are  no  traces  of  it  in  the  Books 
of  Kings.  On  the  contrary,  as  it  has  been  proved 
that  one  of  these  narratives  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  historical  facts,  we  may  assume  that  in  other 
instances  also  we  should  find  the  same  accord- 
ance, if  only  the  monumental  evidence  were  at 
hand."- 

The  reversal  of  the  verdict  of  the  critics  could  not 
be  more  complete.  They  have  not  only  been  proved 
to  be  mistaken  in  this  special  instance,  but  they  have 
also  badly  damaged  their  whole  case.  What  has  led 
to  the  change  ?  Schrader's  summing  up  will  indicate 
the  answer.  "The  reader  is  aware,"  he  says,  "that 
this  passage  has  been  the  subjecl:  of  much  discussion. 
Objecl:ions  were  raised  by  the  critics  to  a  statement 
which  had  no  place  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  and  it  was 
thought  that  this  passage  should  be  severed  from  the 
narrative,  as  being  altogether  unhistorical.  It  was 
argued,  in  the  first  place,  that  we  have  no  other  mention 
in  the  historical  books  of  a  supremacy  wielded  by  the 
Assyrians  at  that  time  (700-650)  in  Western  Asia, 
such  as  this  account  pre-supposes ;  and  in  the  second 
place,  that  we  here  read  that  Manasseh  was  trans- 
ported to  Babel,  and  not  to  Nineveh,  as  we  should 
have  expected  if  the  king,  who  carried  him  away  into 
captivity,  was  an  Assyrian.  Both  objecftions  lose  their 
force  in  the  presence  of  the  inscriptions.  As  to  the 
first,  we  know  that  even  Asarhaddon,  towards  the  end 

The  Higher  Criticism,  etc.,  pp.  458-461. 


264  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

of  his  reign,  had  reduced  to  subjecftion  the  whole  of 
Syria  and  Egypt.  In  both  the  Hsts  of  the  twenty-two 
tributar}^  kings  of  the  Chatti  country  (that  is,  in  the 
present  case,  in  Phoenicia,  PhiUstia,  and  the  Cyprian 
inland-states),  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us  by 
Asarhaddon  and  (as  a  parallel  list)  by  Asurbanipal,  we 
find  no  less  a  personage  mentioned  than  this  Manasseh 
himself:  Minasi  savmat  Jaudi  (Manasseh  king  of  the 
country  of  Judah). 

''  Now, it  is  not  probable," continues  Schrader,  "that 
the  event  we  are  considering  happened  as  early  as 
in  the  reign  of  Asarhaddon.  Not  a  word  is  said  by 
Asarhaddon,  in  the  inscription  containing  the  above 
list,  about  any  insurrecftion  in  the  Palestinian  States 
(it  was  the  Phoenician  Sidon  that  had  to  be  forcibly 
reduced  to  obedience).  And  we  have  certainly  not  the 
slightest  hint  of  Manasseh's  opposition  to  Asarhaddon, 
when  the  latter  condudled  his  great  conquering  expe- 
dition against  Egypt  towards  the  close  of  his  reign. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  know  from  Assurbanipal,  his 
successor,  that  Mat  MARTU,  'the  Western  country,' 
meaning  Phoenicia  and  Palestine,  was  about  the  middle 
of  his  reign  (about  648-7  B.C.  and  previously)  involved 
along  with  Elam,  the  land  Guti,  and  Millukki-Kush, 
in  the  revolt  of  his  rebellious  brother  Samas-sum-ukin. 

We  may  assume,  with  perfecft  confidence, 

that  Manasseh  was  included  among  the  Palestino- 
Phoenician  rebels.  At  least,  he  may  have  drawn  upon 
himself  the  suspicion  of  having  an  understanding  with 
Assurbanipal's  rebellious  brother.  In  order  to  clear 
himself  of  this  suspicion,  or  to  furnish  the  great  king 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release.  265 

with  guarantees  of  his  faithfulness  and  submission, 
he  was  conveyed  away  to  Babel." ^ 

We  have  already  referred  to  Assurbanipal,  the  last 
great  monarch  who  filled  the  throne  of  Assyria,  and 
in  whose  reign  there  can  be  no  doubt  Manasseh's 
captivity  and  restoration  occurred.  His  is  fortunately 
one  of  the  best  known  reigns.  '*  Few  kings,"  says 
M.  Oppert,  "  have  left  so  great  a  number  of  interesting 
inscriptions."  In  the  beginning  of  his  reign  he  had 
to  subdue  Egypt,  which  had  revolted  in  the  last  days 
of  his  father  Esarhaddon,  and  in  connecftion  with 
that  invasion  and  conquest  he  names  twenty-two 
kings  who  paid  him  homage.  Among  these  we  find 
"  Manasseh  king  of  Judah."  Manasseh  ascended  the 
throne  in  698  B.C.,  according  to  the  Bible  chronology, 
and  he  reigned  fifty-five  years.  This  notice  by  Assur- 
banipal so  far  confirms  these  statements,  seeing  that 
it  assures  us  that  Manasseh  was  still  reigning  about 
660  B.C.  At  that  time,  however,  the  king  of  Judah 
was  still  numbered  among  the  faithful  tributaries  of 
Assyria.  But,  as  Schrader  shows  in  the  passage  just 
quoted,  a  number  of  years  afterwards  Assurbanipal's 
throne  was  threatened  by  a  widespread  and  formidable 
conspiracy.  It  was  led  by  his  brother,  to  whom  he 
had  entrusted  the  vice-royalty  of  Babylon.  He  says: 
"  Saulmaginu  my  younger  brother,  henefiis  I 
had  given  to  him,  and  had  appointed  him  to  the 

kingdom  of  Babylon Tribute  and  taxes 

I  caused  to  return,  and  more  than  the  father 
my  begetter,  /  did- for  him.''  t 

''Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.,  p.  53-55- 
\ Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  i.,  p.  75. 


266  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

He  then  dwells  upon  the  ingratitude  and  treason  with 
which  these  benefits  were  repaid.  Saulmaginu  seems 
to  have  cloaked  his  designs  with  the  most  elaborate 
deceit.  He  sent  the  sons  of  the  leading  Babylonian 
nobles  to  entreat  his  brother's  friendship  ;  and,  while 
Assurbanipal  was  lavishing  his  gifts  upon  these  hypo- 
critical witnesses  of  most  welcome  Babylonian  loyalty, 
Saulmaginu's  messengers  were  passing  secretly  and 
swiftly  through  all  the  neighbouring  courts,  and  were 
engaging  still  more  distant  princes  in  the  attempt  to 
cast  off  the  Assyrian  yoke.     He  says  : — 

"  The  people  of  Akkad,  Chaldea,  Aram,  and 
the   sea-coast,    from    Agaba    to    Babsalimitu, 
tributaries  dependent  on   nie ;    he  caused  to 
revolt  against  my  hand.     And  Ummanigas  the 
fugitive,  who  took  the  yoke  of  my  kingdom,  of 
whom  in  Elam  I  had  appointed  him  to  the 
kingdom  ;  and  the  kings  of  Goim,  Syria,  and 
Ethiopia  ....  all  of  them  he  caused  to  rebel, 
and  with  him  they  set  their  faces."  * 
This  reference  to  "Syria and  Ethiopia"  shows  how 
widespread  the  conspiracy  was,  and  proves  that  the 
entire  West  was  involved  in  it.     Manasseh  and  his 
kingdom  had  been  fired  with  the  delusive  hope  that 
they  were  now  to  escape  from  the  harsh  treatment  of 
Assyria.     Can  we    say  when    this  war   broke  out  ? 
From  the  facft  that  2  Kings  makes  no  reference  what- 
ever to  any  change  in  Manasseh's  character  and  adtion, 
it  seems  clear  that  only  a  mere  fragment  of  that  long 
reign  of  fifty-five  years  could  have  remained  to  the 

^  Ibid.,  \>.  76. 


Manasselis  Captivity  and  Release.  267 

penitent  king — a  fragment  so  small  that  it  was  quite 
inadequate  to  undo  the  evil  that  had  been  resolutely 
persisted  in  for  half  a  century.  The  revolt  was 
subdued,  at  least  in  Chaldea,  in  Assurbanipal's  sixth 
campaign ;  but,  though  this  seems  to  carry  us  well 
into  this  monarch's  forty-two  years'  reign,  we  have  no 
means,  so  far,  of  determining  the  exacfl  date.  Happily, 
however,  we  find  that  Ptolemy's  list  of  Babylonian 
kings  helps  us.  It  proves  its  reliability  in  the  date 
it  gives  to  Saulmaginu's  reign.  That  is  set  down 
as  beginning  in  667  B.C.,  just  one  year  after  his 
brother  Assurbanipal  attained  the  supreme  power  and 
ascended  the  throne  of  Assyria.  According  to  this  list, 
Saulmaginu  reigns  twenty  years,  and  ''  Kineladanu," 
evidently  Assurbanipal,  becomes  king  of  Babylon  in 
647.*"  Shortly  after  this  time,  then,  must  Manasseh 
have  been  taken  to  Babylon,  been  received  into  favour, 
and  been  sent  back  to  Jerusalem.  Let  us  now  mark 
how  this  agrees  with  the  Scripture  chronology  ? 
Manasseh  began  to  reign  in  ...  6g8  B.C. 
and,  having  reigned 55  years,  he  must 

have  died  in      643  B.C. 

But,  if  the  revolt  was  quelled  in  Babylonia  only  in 
647  B.C.,  Manasseh's  return  must  have  fallen  some- 
where about  645  B.C. — that  is,  about  two  years  before 
his  death.  In  those  two  years — the  last  of  the  life 
of  an  old  and  broken  man — little  could  have  been 
accomplished  in  the  way  of  reform.  How  marvel- 
lously these  dates  fall  in  with  the  statements  of  the 

*  See  also  Schrader,  vol.  ii.,  p.  59. 


268  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Chronicles  I  need  not  say.  Wellhausen's  verdi(5l 
upon  the  claims  of  these  Books  is  as  follows  :  "  The 
conclusion  is  forced  upon  us,"  he  says,  "that  the 
Book  of  Kings  cited  by  the  Chronicler  is  a  late  com- 
pilation far  removed  from  acl:ual  tradition,  and  in 
relation  to  the  canonical  Book  of  Kings  it  can  only  be 
explained  as  an  apocryphal  amplification  after  the 
manner  in  which  the  scribes  taught  the  sacred 
history."*  According  to  this,  Chronicles  do  not  possess 
even  the  value  of  tradition.  It  is,  according  to  him, 
a  deliberate  falsification — '*  an  apocryphal  amplifica- 
tion," of  the  tradition.  And  yet  here  again  are  facts, 
the  knowledge  of  which  we  owe  to  this  Book  alone ; 
and,  when  we  carefully  compare  its  statements  with 
the  stone  records  of  Assyria,  we  discover  an  accordance 
so  striking  that  the  verdict  of  the  higher  criticism  is 
left  a  monument  of  recklessness  and  absurdity. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Scripture  indicates 
that  this  campaign  against  the  West  was  not  led  by 
the  king  of  Assyria  in  person.  We  are  told  that  it 
was  the  action  of  his  generals.  ''Wherefore  the  Lord 
brought  upon  them  the  captains  of  the  host  of  the 
king  of  Assyria"  (2  Chronicles  xxxiii.  11).  It  has 
been  pointed  out  by  Assyriologists  that  Assurbanipal 
does  not  appear  to  have  taken  part  personally  in  his 
campaigns,  and  that  this  statement  of  Chronicles  is 
quite  in  keeping  with  what  was  a  feature  of  this  reign. 
But  Assurbanipal  himself  enables  us  to  go  farther 
than  this.  He  tells  us  how  the  western  campaign 
was  conducted.     He  says  : — 

*  Prolegomena,  p.  227. 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release.  269 

"  Yautah  son  of  Hazael,  king  of  Kedar.  .   . 

against  my  agreement  he  sinned and 

he  discontinued  the  presents.     The  people  of 
Arabia  with  him  he  caused  to  revolt,  and  carried 
away  the  plunder  of  Syria.     My  army  which 
on  the  border  of  his  country  was  stationed  I 
sent  against  him.     His  overthrow  they  accom- 
plished.    The  people  of  Arabia  all  who  came 
they  destroyed  with  the  sword.   .   Oxen,  sheep, 
asses,  camels,  and  men  they  carried  off  without 
number."  "^ 
The  reader  will  notice  the  repeated  "  they."     Appar- 
ently the  army  is  not  under  anyone  outstanding  leader 
— the  Tartan,  for  example.    There  are  several  leaders, 
and  the  Scripture  phrase  here  again  presents  us  with 
an  exact  representation  of  this,  when  it  speaks  of  "the 
captains  of  the  king  of  Assyria."    That  phrase  implies 
a  close,  full,  and  minute  acquaintance  with  the  events 
of  the  time. 

We  now  meet  an  expression  which  exercised  the 
ingenuity  and  the  judgment  of  commentators  of 
former  days.  We  are  told  that  the  captains  of  the 
host  of  the  king  of  Assyria  took  Manasseh  ''  among 
the  thorns."  The  word  in  the  original  is  bachochim, 
which  is  composed  of  the  Hebrew  preposition  6' 
*'in,"  or  ''with,"  and  choach,  "a.  thorn,"  or  ''thorn- 
bush,"  and  also  a  "hook."  One  good  old  commentator 
has  the  following  note  upon  the  passage: — "Among 
the  thorns ;  in  some  thicket  where  he  thought  to  hide 
himself  from   the  Assyrians  till  he  could  make  an 

"^  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  6i,  62. 


270  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

escape,  as  the  Israelites  formerly  used  to  do  (i  Sam. 
xiii.  6).  Or,  with  hooks;  a  metaphorical  expression. 
Or,  in  his  forts,  that  is,  in  one  of  them."  Research 
has  now  shown  that  it  is  in  the  second  of  these  senses 
that  the  word  has  to  be  taken,  and  that  poor  Manasseh 
must  have  discovered  that  "with  hooks"  or  ''rings" 
was  no  "  metaphorical  expression."  Through  this 
depth  of  humiliation  many  a  noble  captive  of  the 
Assyrians  had  to  pass.  A  ring  was  passed  through 
the  lip.  A  cord  or  chain  was  attached  to  the  ring  ;  and 
thus  the  captive  was  led  along  through  the  streets  of 
his  own  city,  along  the  high-roads  to  Assyria,  and 

finally    brought    into    the 

presence  of  the   Assyrian 

monarch. 

It  deserves   notice  also 

that  this  method  of  humili- 
pRisoNERs  LED  WITH  RINGS.  ^ting  rcbcl  priuccs  seems 
to  have  been  in  special  favour  with  Assurbanipal.  In 
an  inscription,  which  has  been  only  recently  fully 
translated,  he  describes  his  treatment  of  an  Arabian 
king.  He  says  :  "  With  the  knife  which  I  use  to  cut 
meat  I  made  a  hole  in  his  jaw.  I  passed  a  ring  through 
his  upper  lip.  I  attached  to  it  a  chain  with  which 
one  leads  the  dogs  in  leash."  * 

But,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of  the  chief  objecflions 
of  the  critics  rested  upon  the  supposed  absurdity  of 
imagining  that  an  Assyrian  king  was  to  be  found  at 
Babylon.     The  Chronicles  tell  us  that  the  captains  of 


"  Notes  D'Assyriologie,  by  M,  Alfred  Boissier,  in  The  Proceedings  of  the  Society 
of  Biblical  Archeology,  vol.  xx.,  p.  163. 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release,  271 

the  king  of  Assyria  carried  Manasseh  "  to  Babylon  " 
(verse  11).  I  have  already  quoted  the  words  of 
Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  that  diligent  populariser  in 
England  of  the  objed^ions  of  German  unbelief: 
"  Besides,"  he  says,  "  it  is  related  that  the  king  of 
Assyria  took  Manasseh  to  Babylon,  instead  of  to  his 
ov^n  capital,  to  the  very  city  which  was  then  disposed 
to  rebel  against  him.  That  is  improbable."  But  Dr. 
Davidson  and  his  critical  masters  were  writing  and 
misrepresenting  in  dense  ignorance  of  the  fadls. 
Babylon  was  not  "then  disposed  to  rebel  against" 
Assurbanipal.  The  rebellion  had  been  put  down 
ruthlessly  and  completely.  The  Assyrian  king  had 
taken  to  himself  the  dominion  of  Babylon  imme- 
diately upon  his  brother's  capture  and  execution. 
This  is  now  a  certainty.  One  of  Assurbanipal's 
cylinders  is  dated  by  the  term  of  office  of  a  certain 
Babylonian  magistrate.  That  means  that  Assurbani- 
pal then  regarded  himself  as  a  Babylonian  king.  A 
still  clearer  proof  of  this  is  found  in  a  tablet  which 
is  dated  "  Erech,  in  the  month  of  Nisan,  the  twentieth 
day,  the  twentieth  year  of  Assurbanipal."  During 
the  twenty-one  last  years  of  his  life,  he  personally 
held  the  supreme  power  in  Babylon  as  well  as  in 
Assyria,  and  his  reign  in  the  former  country  began  in 
the  year  in  which  he  re-conquered  the  country,  647  B.C. 
It  was,  consequently,  quite  a  matter  of  course,  just  as 
the  Bible  represents  it  to  have  been,  that  the  captains 
of  the  king  of  Assyria  should  carry  Manasseh  to 
Babylon. 

What  are  we  to  say,  however,  of  the  sudden  and 


272  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

marvellous  reversal  of  Manasseh's  lot  ?  The  guilty 
monarch,  tortured  with  rings  and  bound  with  fetters, 
is  pardoned  ;  and  not  only  pardoned,  but  also  restored 
to  his  former  dominion.  This,  we  are  told,  came  to 
pass  through  his  having  humbled  himself  before  a 
greater  than  Assurbanipal.  "And  when  he  was  in 
afflidlion,  he  besought  the  Lord  his  God,  and  humbled 
himself  greatly  before  the  God  of  his  fathers,  and 
prayed  unto  Him  :  and  He  was  intreated  of  him,  and 
heard  his  supplication,  and  brought  him  again  to 
Jerusalem  to  his  kingdom  "  (verses  12,  13).  This, 
Davidson  tells  us,  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the  critics, 
"unhistorical."  The  '*  Chronist "  was  led  away  by 
"  his  love  of  the  marvellous."  Have  the  monuments 
anything  to  say  in  regard  to  this  matter  ?  They  have ; 
and,  as  usual,  it  is  to  the  confusion  of  the  critics. 
Such  treatment  of  sufficiently  abased  rebels  seems  to 
have  been  a  marked  feature  in  this  very  king's  policy. 
On  a  mutilated  cylinder  of  his,  mention  was  made  of 
someone,  apparently  not  far  distant  from  Manasseh's 
kingdom,  who  had  experienced  Assurbanipal's  mercy. 
It  runs  : — 

"  I  restored  and  favoured  him.     The  towers 

which  over  against  Babel  king  of  Tyre  I  had 

raised,  I  pulled  down  ;  on  sea  and  land  all  his 

roads  which  I  had  taken  I  opened."* 

But  a  complete  record  exists  of  a  still  more  striking 

instance  of  the   royal   clemency.     Egypt   had   been 

subdued,  and  the  kmgs  among  whom  the  territory  had 

been  divided  were  reinstated  by  the  Assyrian  king. 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ix.,  p.  40. 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release.  273 

"Afterwards,"  says  Assurbanipal,  ''all  those  kings 
whom  I  had  appointed  sinned  against  me.  They  did 
not  keep  the  oath  of  the  great  gods."  They  sent 
messengers  to  Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia,  proposing 
that  he  and  they  should  make  common  cause  against 
the  Assyrians. 

"They  devised,"  says  the  inscription,  "a 
wicked  plot.  My  generals  of  this  plot  heard  : 
their  messengers  and  despatches  they  captured, 
and  saw  their  seditious  work.  These  kings 
they  took,  and  in  bonds  of  iron  and  fetters  of 

iron  bound  their  hands  and  feet And 

the  people  of  Sais,  Mendes,  Zoan,  and  the  rest 
of  the  cities,  all  with  them  revolted  and  devised 
an  evil  design.  Small  and  great  with  the  sword 
they  caused  to  be  destroyed.  One  they  did  not 
leave  in  the  midst.     Their  corpses  they  throw 

down  in  the  dust they  destroyed  the 

towers  of  the  cities.  These  kings  who  had 
devised  evil  against  the  army  of  Assyria,  alive 
to  Nineveh,  into  my  presence  they  brought. 
To  Necho  .  .  of  them,  favour  I  granted  him, 

costly  garments  I  placed  upon  him, 

ornaments  of  gold,  his  royal  image  I  made  for 
him,  bracelets  of  gold  I  fastened  on  his  limbs, 
a  steel  sword  its  sheath  of  gold,  in  the  glory 
of  my  name,  more  than  I  write,  I  gave  him. 
Chariots,  horses,  and  mules,  for  his  royal  riding 
I  appointed  him.  My  generals  as  governors  to 
assist  him  with  him  I  sent.  The  place  where_ 
the  father  my  begetter,  in  Sais  to  the  kingdom 


274  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

had  appointed  him  to  his  districft  I  restored 
him.  .  .  .  Benefits  and  favours  beyond  those 
of  the  father  my  begetter  I  caused  to  restore 
and  gave  to  him."  * 
Manasseh's  was  simply  an  additional  instance  of 
the  clemency  of  the  Assyrian  king,  who  apparently 
desired  to  bind  states  to  him  by  affecftion,  as  well  as 
to  suppress  rebellion  by  terror.  The  effedt  of  his  kind- 
ness to  the  king  of  Judah  is  no  doubt  to  be  seen  in 
the  loyalty  of  Josiah,  Manasseh's  grandson,  who  in 
the  days  of  Assyria's  need  threw  himself  between  it 
and  the  Egyptian  invader.  The  reader  will  have 
noticed  the  repeated  phrase  "  my  generals  "  in  this 
inscription.  There  we  have  a  still  more  complete 
proof  of  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  Scripture  as 
shown  in  the  words  "  the  captains  of  the  king  of 
Assyria."  And  now,  in  closing  our  notice  of  these 
Books,  let  me  ask  the  reader  once  more  to  mark  the 
part  which  they  have  played  in  the  present  attack 
upon  the  Bible.  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  will 
not  allow  them  the  value  even  of  tradition.  They 
are  rejecfted  as  an  "  apocryphal  amplification  "  even 
of  that  unreliable  substitute  for  history.  What  drove 
him  and  them  to  that  conclusion  ?  The  only  reply  is 
that  they  were  forced  to  adopt  it  by  their  theories. 
These  lay  it  down  as  absolute  fa(ft  that  the  Law,  the 
Priesthood,  and  the  Temple  ritual  had  no  existence, 
while  the  Chronicles  declare  that  they  both  existed 
and  flourished.  The  Books  had  consequently  to  be 
written  down  as  "  apocryphal  amplifications."     But 

*  Geo.  Smith,  Assyrian  Discoveries,  pp.  325-327. 


Manasseh's  Captivity  and  Release.  275 

another  test  has,  at  this  very  time,  been  providentially 
provided.     Records  have  come  to  light  whose  histor- 
ical charaaer  no  man  can  impugn  ;    and,  tested  by 
them,  the  Chronicles,  as  we  have  just  seen,  are  shown 
to  be  history.     In  the  Hght  shed  by  these  records,  we 
find  not  the  slightest  trace  of  "  apocryphal  amplifica- 
tion," nor  the  faintest  shadow  even  of  blundering, 
exaggerating,  tradition.      We   find   instead  a  sober 
history,  exaa  in  its  minute  details,  and  in  its  slightest 
references.     Now,   if   theories   compel  one    kind   of 
estimate   of   these    Books,   and    fafts   compel  quite 
another  and  opposite  estimate,  what  is  the  inevitable 
conclusion  ?     Is  it  not  that  the  theories  and  the  fadls 
are  in  deadly  antagonism  ?     The  critics  imagined  that 
it  was  the  chara^er  of  the  Chronicles  that  was  in 
question.     But  they  were  mistaken.     It  was  the  char- 
after  of  their  system,  which  they  name  their  ''science." 
And  now  the  epithets,  which  they  boldly  affixed  to  this 
part  of  Scripture,  have  to  be  removed  and  to  be  placed 
upon  their  so-called  science.    It  is  the  higher  criticism 
which  we  must  now  admit  to  be  ''improbable"  and 
'*unhistorical,"  and  a  mere  bundle  of  "apocryphal 
amplifications  after  the  manner  in  which  the  scribes 
treated  the  sacred  history." 


THE  BOOK  OF  EZRA, 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Decree  of  Cyrus. 


THE  Second  Book  of  Chronicles  ends  with  the 
announcement  of  Israel's  restoration,  and  if  the 
reader  will  compare  the  closing  words  of  2  Chronicles 
with  the  commencement  of  Ezra,  he  will  note  some 
clear  marks  of  distinct  intention.  The  decree  of  Cyrus 
is  only  partially  quoted  in  2  Chronicles.  The  quotation 
stops,  indeed,  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence.  It  is  strik- 
ingly significant  of  the  lack  of  real  Bible  study  that 
this  is  usually  overlooked,  and  that  we  are  generally 
told  that  2  Chronicles  ends  and  Ezra  begins  with  the 
record  of  Cyrus's  decree ;  and  the  inference  usually 
drawn  is  that  both  Books  must  have  been  written  by 
the  same  hand,  and  that  this  handwas  probably  Ezra's. 
A  closer  study  of  this  common  passage  would  have 
detected  the  wisdom  of  Him  whom  the  writer  of 
2  Chron.  and  the  writer  of  Ezra  equally  served.  The 
last  words  of  2  Chron.  are  these  :  "  Thus  saith  Cyrus 
king  of  Persia,  All  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  hath  the 
Lord  God  of  heaven  given  me  ;  and  He  hath  charged 
me  to  build  Him  an  house  in  Jerusalem  which  is  in 
Judah.  Who  is  there  among  you  of  all  His  people  ? 
The  Lord  his  God  be  with  him,  and  let  him  go  up  " 
(xxxvi.  23). 

■    When  we  now  pass  on  to  Ezra  we  find  that  this  is 
not  the  whole  of  the  decree  of  Cyrus.     It  is  only  a 


28o  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

part  of  it;  and  it  is  a  part  of  it,  too,  which  stops, 
strangely  enough,  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence.  Ezra 
gives  us  the  completed  sentence  and  the  rest  of  the 
decree.  The  Chronicler  quotes :  "  The  Lord  his 
God  be  with  him,  and  let  him  go  up,"  and,  as  I  have 
said,  stops  there.  Ezra  continues  :  "  to  Jerusalem, 
which  is  in  Judah,  and  build  the  house  of  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel  (He  is  the  God,)  which  is  in  Jerusalem. 
And  whosoever  remaineth  in  any  place  where  he 
sojourneth,  let  the  men  of  his  place  help  him  with 
silver,  and  with  gold,  and  with  beasts,  beside  the 
freewill  offering  for  the  house  of  God  which  is  in 
Jerusalem  "  (Ezra  i.  3,  4). 

In  these  quotations,  the  purposes  of  the  two  Books 
are  revealed  at  a  glance.  Chronicles  is  written  for 
the  people  of  the  Return,  and  all  that  the  writer  does 
there  is  to  emphasise  the  fact  of  their  restoration. 
Ezra,  on  the  other  hand,  tells  of  the  first  task  to 
which  the  returned  tribes  had  to  address  themselves. 
He  speaks  of  the  building  of  the  Temple,  the 
obstacles  which  were  placed  in  their  way,  their  final 
triumph,  their  sinning  and  their  repenting.  Hence 
it  is  needful  that  he  should  give  the  decree  of  Cyrus 
in  full,  and  place  before  the  reader  the  very  specific 
directions  of  Cyrus  about  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple,  and  his  command  to  help  with  silver,  and 
gold,  and  beasts  of  burden  those  who  set  out  with 
that  task  in  view.  But  nothing  of  this  enters  into 
the  purpose  of  Chronicles.  Here  the  eye  rests  not 
on  the  opening  experiences  of  the  immigrants.  Our 
gaze  is  concentrated  upon  the  great  fact,  so  full  of 


The  Decree  of  Cyrus.  '        281 

hope  for  this  waiting  earth,  that  Israel  is  once  more 
being  gathered  out  from  among  the  nations,  and  that 
they  are  being  again  planted  in  that  land  which  was 
promised  to  the  fathers.  The  whole  of  these  two 
Books  of  Chronicles  are  a  prolonged  display  to  Israel 
of  the  secret  of  their  past  failures ;  and,  now  that 
this  light  has  been  shed  upon  their  way,  they  are 
reminded  of  the  fresh  opportunity  for  which  the 
light  is  given.  All  this  is  not  only  indicated,  but  is 
also  laid  upon  Israel's  heart  in  the  arresting  of  the 
Chronicler's  pen  just  as  it  has  placed  these  words 
upon  the  page :  "  Let  him  go  up." 

Criticism  has  failed  to  notice  this  and  much  else, 
and  has  misunderstood  the  Book.  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  says  :  "  The  spirit  of  the  work  is  Levitical 

His  "  (the  Chronicler's)  standpoint  '*  is  an 

ecclesiastical  one."  Now,  if  that  were  true,  the 
Chronicler's  pen  would  have  dwelt  upon  the  decree 
to  build  the  Temple.  He  would  have  described 
its  restoration,  and  would  have  enumerated  the  gifts 
by  which  it  was  to  be  beautified  and  enriched.  But 
of  all  this  there  is  not  one  word.  Our  gaze  is  carried 
above  and  beyond  the  Temple,  to  the  call  to  a  nobler 
work — the  preparation  of  the  spiritual  Temple,  that 
God  the  Lord  may  dwell  among  them. 

Turning  now,  however,  to  Ezra,  is  this  decree  of 
Cyrus  authentic  ?  Have  we  history  here,  or  late 
tradition  with  its  blunderings,  distortions,  and 
exaggerations  ?  Davidson  indeed  speaks  of  the  edict 
as  "  a  Judaising  paraphrase  of  the  original ;  "  but  it 
is  recognised  that  the  fact  of  the  decree  cannot  be 


282  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

successfully  challenged.  For  it  is  undeniable  that 
the  Jews  were  carried  and  driven  away  in  the  time 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  that  they  are  again  restored 
to  their  own  land  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 
Cyrus.  That  restoration  necessitated  official  acts 
and  documents,  and  there  must  consequently  have 
been  some  decree  which  legalised  the  Return,  and 
which  ended  Israel's  captivity.  It  was  also  imagined 
that  Cyrus's  religious  beliefs  made  him  sympathise 
with  the  faith  of  the  Israelites,  and  that  their  libera- 
tion was  owing  to  this  common  sentiment.  But,  while 
this  notion  has  been  rudely  swept  aside  by  later 
discovery,  the  confirmation  of  the  Scripture  has  been 
made  still  more  complete.  The  belief  that  Cyrus 
was  a  Zoroastrian,  and,  therefore,  a  determined  foe 
to  idolatry,  is  now  known  to  be  quite  unfounded. 
Inscriptions  by  Nabonidus,  the  father  of  Belshazzar, 
and  by  Cyrus  himself,  have  been  discovered,  which 
throw  welcome  light  upon  the  fall  of  Babylon  and 
the  Persian  conquest.  Dr.  Pinches  discovered,  in 
1880,  Cyrus's  own  account  of  his  slow  but  triumphant 
advance.  ''The  object  of  this  document,  which  is 
called  'The  Annalistic  Tablet,'"  says  Prof.  Sayce, 
"  was  two-fold ;  on  the  one  hand  to  chronicle  the 
events  of  the  previous  seventeen  years,  on  the  other 
to  trace  the  rise  of  the  power  of  Cyrus,  and  to 
prove  that  his  conquest  of  Babylon  was  due  to  the 
impiety  of  Nabonidus.  The  chosen  of  Bel-Merodach, 
the  true  worshipper  of  the  gods  of  Babylonia  was 
Cyrus  and  not  Nabonidus."  * 

*  The  Higher  Criticism,  etc.,  p.  499. 


The  Decree  of  Cyrus.  283 

This  is  an  unexpected  development.  Cyrus,  so  far 
from  being  a  stern  and  persecuting  monotheist,  is  an 
idolater,  and  attributes  his  vic5tory  over  the  king  of 
Babylon  to  the  gods  of  Babylon.  Every  effort  was 
apparently  made  to  gain  the  favour  of  the  Babylonian 
priesthood,  and  the  tablet  itself  takes  its  place  among 
these  efforts.  This  was  apparently  part  of  Cyrus's 
settled  policy.  He  followed  the  same  plan  with 
regard  to  Israel,  although  in  this  latter  case  some 
other  motive  must  have  intervened,  seeing  that  Israel 
was  powerless  either  to  help  or  to  harm  the  new- 
dominion.  But,  by  whatever  motive  Cyrus  was  led 
to  show  this  favour  to  the  Jews,  his  published 
language  would  have  been  as  carefully  calculated  to 
honour  the  God  of  Israel  and  to  please  the  Jews,  as 
it  was  to  honour  the  gods  of  Babylon  and  to  secure 
the  affection  of  their  worshippers. 

This  would  have  largely  explained  the  features 
which  have  led  Davidson  and  his  fellow  critics  to 
describe  the  decree  recorded  in  the  Bible  as  "  a 
Judaising  paraphrase  of  the  original."  But  this 
important  inscription  of  the  great  warrior  prince 
carries  us  much  farther.  It  brings  to  us  fresh 
surprises  ;  for  it  seems  as  if  in  some  way  or  other 
Cyrus  had  come  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  ideas.  "  In 
reading  the  words  of  Cyrus,"  writes  Prof.  Sayce, 
^'we  are  irresistibly  reminded  of  the  language  in 
which  the  Books  of  Samuel  describe  the  rejection  of 
Saul  and  the  selection  of  David  in  his  place. 

"  But  it  is  not  only,"  he  continues,  "the  Books  of 
Samuel  of  which  the  inscription  reminds  us,  there 


284  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

are  other  Books  and  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  language  of  which  it  presents  a  remarkable 
resemblance.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  most  Hebraic  of  all  the 
cuneiform  texts  known  to  us,  and  on  this  account  is 

more  than  usually  difBcult  to  translate The 

construction  of  the  sentences  is  often  wanting  in  that 
simplicity  which  generally  distinguishes  the  syntax 
of  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  monuments  ;  we  are 
reminded  by  it  of  the  language  of  the  later  Hebrew 
prophets  which  similarly  gives  occasion  to  a  disputed 
interpretation.  Even  the  vocabulary  of  the  inscrip- 
tion is  not  altogether  free  from  what  we  may  term  a 
Hebraism.  Twice  we  find  malku,  the  Hebrew  inelech, 
used  in  the  sense  of  'king,'  in  the  place  of  sarru, 
the  Hebrew  sar.  Everywhere  else  in  cuneiform 
literature  sarru  is  the  '  king,'  ntalku  the  subordinate 
'  prince.'  It  is  only  here  that  the  Hebrew  usage  is 
followed,  according  to  which  melech  was  the  'king' 
and  sar  the  '  prince.'*  " 

These  facts  may  be  left  to  speak  for  themselves. 
As  has  been  already  said,  there  must  have  been 
decrees  issued ;  and  now  Cyrus's  own  inscription 
sets  before  us  a  man,  not  only  ready  to  acknowledge 
to  the  full  the  God  of  Israel,  but  one  apparently  well 
acquainted  also  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and 
influenced  by  them  even  when  detailing  events  which 
have  no  immediate  connection  with  the  Jews. 

The  careful  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels  is 
quite  in  keeping  with  what  we  know  of  Cyrus's 
procedure.     He  indicates  that  the  cause  of  the  fall  of 

*  Pages  503,  504  ;  also  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.  (New  Series),  p.  146.. 


The  Decree  of  Cyrus.  285 

Nabonidus  was  his  carrying  away  the  gods  of  the 

Babylonian   cities   and   bringing   them   to   Babylon. 

Cyrus  says,  in  the  Annalistic  Tablet : 

"  From  the  month  Chisleu  to  the  month 
Adar  (November  to  February)  the  gods  of  the 
country  of  Akkad  (lower  Babylonia)  whom 
Nabonidus  had  transferred  to  Babylon  returned 
to  their  own  cities."  * 

And  again  : 

''From  [the  city  of]  .  .  .  to  the  cities  of 
Zamban,  Me-Turnut  (and)  Dur-IH,  as  far  as 
the  frontier  of  Quti  (Kurdistan),  the  cities 
[which  lie  upon]  the  Tigris,  whose  seats  had 
been  established  from  of  old,  I  restored  the 
gods  who  dwelt  within  them  to  their  places 
and  I  founded  (for  them)  a  seat  that  should 
be  long  enduring  ;  all  their  peoples  I  colleaed 
and  restored  their  habitations.  And  the  gods 
of  Sumer  and  Accad  "  (upper  and  lower  Baby- 
lonia) ''whom  Nabonidus,  to  the  anger  of 
(Merodach)  the  lord  of  the  gods,  had  brought 
into  Babylon,  by  the  command  of  Merodach 
the  great  lord,  in  peace  in  their  sandluaries  I 
settled,  in  seats  according  to  their  hearts.  May 
all  the  gods  whom  I  have  brought  into  their 
own  cities  intercede  daily  before  Bel  and  Nebo 
that  my  days  may  be  long,  may  they  pronounce 
blessings  upon  me,  and  may  they  say  to 
Merodach  my  lord  :  Let  Cyrus  the  king,  thy 
worshipper,  and  Kambyses  his   son    [accom- 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  v.  (New  Series),  p.  163. 


286  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

plish  the  desire  ?]  of  their  heart ;  [let  them 
enjo}^  length  ?]  of  days.  ...  I  have  settled 
[the  peoples]  of  all  countries  in  a  place  of 
rest."  * 
,  The  wide  difference  between  the  spirit  of  this 
inscription  and  that  of  the  inscriptions  of  the  kings 
of  Assyria  will  be  felt  by  everyone.  Here  there  is  no 
revelling  in  slaughter  ;  there  are  no  enumerations  of 
kings  and  princes  flayed  alive,  or  impaled  before  the 
gates  of  their  cities ;  and  there  is  no  gloating  over 
vast  districts  strewn  with  corpses  of  vanquished  foes. 
For  the  first  time  in  such  annals  (so  far  as  we  at 
present  know  them)  we  hear  the  words  of  wide  com- 
passion. The  prisoners  are  freed,  the  exiles  are 
restored  to  their  own  lands,  and  the  gods  are  carried 
back  to  their  ancient  temples.  How  fully  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews,  and  the  very  wording  of  the  decree 
of  Cyrus  recorded  in  the  Scripture  agree  with  his 
own  inscription  will  be  at  once  apparent.  Cyrus's 
tablet  and  the  Scripture  record  are  deeply  marked  by 
the  same  features  ;  they  breathe  the  same  spirit.  The 
subjugated  nations  shared  in  Israel's  joy  just  as  the 
whole  earth  will  yet  share  in  their  coming  deliverance, 
and  gladness,  and  glory,  when  a  greater  conqueror 
than  Cyrus  shall  respond  to  the  call:  "Gird  Thy 
sword  upon  Thy  thigh,  O  most  mighty,  with  Thy  glory 
and  Thy  majesty.  And  in  Thy  majesty  ride  prosperously 
because  of  truth  and  meekness  and  righteousness  " 
(Psalm  xlv.  3,  4).  And  that  Cyrus's  kindness  to  Israel 
does  not  proceed  from  his  conversion  to  the  Jewish 

'  Pages  167.  168. 


The  Decree  of  Cyrus.  287 

faith,  but  CO  exists  along  with  a  recognition  of 
idolatry,  shows  no  lack  of  accord  with  Scripture.  The 
predi(5lion  concerning  the  Persian  king  in  Isaiah  ran 
thus  :  *'  For  Jacob  My  servant's  sake,  and  Israel  Mine 
elecl,  I  have  even  called  thee  by  thy  name :  I  have 
surnamed  thee  though  thou  hast  not  known  Me  : 
I  am  the  Lord  and  there  is  none  else,  there  is  no  God 
beside  Me :  I  girded  thee,  though  thou  hast  not 
KNOWN  Me  "  (xlv.  4,  5).  Here  it  is  foretold  that  one 
who  does  not  know  God,  and  who,  therefore,  is  an 
idolater,  is  to  perform  all  God's  will  in  the  restoration 
of  His  people.  That  this  passage  was  shown  to  Cyrus 
is  probable.  We  have  the  echo  of  it  in  the  words  of 
the  decree—"  He  is  the  God."  The  building  of  the 
Temple,  and  the  restoration  of  the  sacred  vessels  are 
also  easily  explained.  Other  nations  had  their  gods 
restored  to  them,  and  favours  were  shown  to  these 
supposed  deities.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Israelites  no 
image  could  be  given  to  them,  for  no  image  of  their 
God  had  ever  existed.  Consequently,  all  that  Babylon 
possessed  pertaining  to  His  service  was  given  back, 
and  a  decree  was  issued  that  His  Temple  should  be 
re-built. 


The  New  Biblical  Gtiide. 


CHAPTER    II. 


The  Samaritans  and  their  Conflict  with 
THE  Jews. 


IN  the  fourth  chapter  of  Ezra  we  read  that  the 
Samaritans  desired  to  be  associated  with  the 
returned  IsraeHtes  in  the  re-building  of  the  Temple. 
They  advanced  the  plea  that  they  also  were  wor- 
shippers of  Jehovah.  "We  do  sacrifice  unto  Him," 
said  they,  ''since  the  days  of  Esarhaddon  king  of 
Assur,  who  brought  us  up  hither."  But  theirs  was  the 
kind  of  worship  against  which  Israel  had  long  been 
warned;  for  the  Samaritans  "feared  the  Lord,  and 
served  their  own  gods  "  (2  Kings  xvii.  33).  To  such 
a  request,  Israel,  if  it  was  to  be  faithful,  could  give 
only  one  reply.  That  reply  was  given,  with  one  easily 
foreseen  result.  The  weak  remnant  of  the  Return 
had  to  encounter  bitter  and  long-enduring  hostility, 
and  daring  misrepresentations,  which  at  last  bore 
fruit  in  the  temporary  cessation  of  the  building  of  the 
Temple. 

What  we  have  now  to  deal  with,  however,  is  the 
historical  references.  They  say  here  that  they  were 
set  down  in  Samaria,  not  by  Sargon  or  by  Senna- 
cherib, but  by  Esarhaddon,  Sennacherib's  son.  That 
they  could  be  mistaken  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  that 
sort  is  not  to  be  imagined.  But  mistakes  might  very 
easily  have  crept  into  a  mere  tradition  of  what  they 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews.  289 

said ;  and  if  Ezra,  or  some  other  who  penned  this 
Book,  is  nothing  better  than  a  colledlor  of  traditions, 
no  one  could  insist  that  this  notice  should  be  accepted 
as  history.  That  is  the  very  condition  of  uncertainty 
with  regard  to  the  Bible  to  which  criticism  is  attempt- 
ing to  reduce  us.  It  is  worth  noticing  this,  then,  to 
prove  once  more  that  we  have  a(5lual  history  before 
us,  and  not  mistaken,  or  even  uncertain,  tradition. 
The  Samaritans,  in  writing  to  Artaxerxes  in  the  Syrian 
tongue,  describe  themselves  as  "  the  Dinaites,  the 
Apharsathchites,  the  TarpeHtes,  the  Apharsites,  the 
Archevites,  the  Babylonians,  the  Susanchites,  the 
Dehavites,  and  the  Elamites,  and  the  rest  of  the 
nations  whom  the  great  and  noble  Asnapper  brought 
over,  and  set  in  the  cities  of  Samaria  "  (Ezra  iv.  g,  10). 
The  name  "Asnapper  "  has  created  some  difficulty. 
Some  have  supposed  it  to  be  the  name  of  a  general 
serving  under  one  of  the  Assyrian  kings.  But  that 
supposition  will  not  bear  reflection.  Whoever  As- 
napper may  be,  he  is  not  a  subordinate  official 
however  highly  placed,  but  the  absolute  disposer  of 
the  lot  of  these  peoples.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
they  are  writing  in  the  Aramaean  tongue,  and  that 
the  names  of  kings  were  more  or  less  changed  when 
pronounced  and  written  in  Aramaean,  as  in  other 
languages.  Gelzer,  Delitzsch,  and  Schrader  beheve 
it  to  be  a  corruption  of  the  name  Assurbanipal,  the 
son  of  Esarhaddon.  The  names  which  have  come 
down  to  us  through  the  Greek  historians  have  made 
us  famihar  enough  with  such  transformations.  They 
mention  that  the  first  arrival  of  their  colonies  took 


290  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

place  under  Esarhaddon.  The  transportation  of  the 
rest  was  apparently  completed  under  his  son  and 
successor  Assurbanipal.  It  is  probable  that  the  first 
colonists  who  were  poured  by  Sargon  into  the  vacant 
territory  of  the  ten  tribes  had  not  thriven,  and  that 
these  new  arrivals,  perhaps  more  generously  treated 
by  their  conquerors  and  entering  the  land  in  full 
vigour,  at  once  assumed  the  control  of  the  community. 
We  have  now  to  ask  whether  these  two  kings  had 
actually  poured  fresh  colonists  into  this  region,  and 
had  drawn  away  inhabitants  from  the  cities  which 
are  here  named.  The  answer  can  be  given  in  a  word. 
This  was  actually  done  both  by  Esarhaddon  and  by 
his  son  Assurbanipal.  It  will  be  noticed  that  "the 
Susanchites  "  and  "  the  Elamites  "  join  in  this  repre- 
sentation to  the  Persian  king.  That  is,  they  were  men 
of  Susa,  that  is,  of  Shushan,  the  favoured  abode  of 
the  Persian  monarch,  and  of  Elam.  ''Assurbanipal," 
says  Schrader,  *' was  the  only  Assyrian  monarch  who 
penetrated  into  the  heart  of  Elam,  and  in  particular 
gained  possession  of  Susa."  *  Assurbanipal  also  tells 
us  that  he  carried  away  inhabitants  from  Elam.  The 
policy  of  exiling  captured  peoples  was  in  constant 
operation  under  both  these  monarchs.  ''The  cunei- 
form inscriptions,"  says  Schrader,  "  contain  no 
express  mention  of  the  settlement  of  Eastern  races  in 
Samaria,  to  which  this  Biblical  passage  alludes.  From 
the  records  of  Esarhaddon  we  only  learn  that  he 
transferred  Eastern  populations  into  the  land  Chatti 
generally,  that  is,  Syria,  inclusive   of  Phoenicia  and 

*  Vol.  ii.,  p.  65, 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews.  291 

Palestine.  This  latter  statement  cannot  admit  of 
doubt."  *  As  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  so  apparently 
also  in  Samaria,  the  first  colonists  had  great  difficul- 
ties to  encounter,  and  they  required  reinforcements 
from  time  to  time  to  enable  them  to  possess  the  land. 
Archaeology  has  shed  light  upon  various  references 
in  this  account  of  the  attempt  of  the  Samaritans  to 
defeat  the  effort  to  rebuild  the  Temple,  and  to  re- 
plant the  Jewish  people  upon  their  own  soil.  There 
are  four  kings  named  in  chapter  iv.  We  read  there 
that  the  Samaritans  "hired  counsellors  against  them 
...  all  the  days  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  even  until  the 
reign  of  Darius  king  of  Persia  "  (verse  5).  These  are 
the  limits  within  which  the  conflict  in  this  special 
form  lasted.  It  began  in  the  days  of  Cyrus,  and  it 
went  on  till  the  reign  of  Darius.  It  then  stopped,  for 
the  simple  but  sufficient  reason  that  Darius  inter- 
vened and  confirmed  the  decree  of  Cyrus.  How  this 
came  about  we  shall  see  immediately.  The  Scripture 
proceeds:  "And  in  the  reign  of  Ahasuerus,  in  the 
beginning  of  his  reign,  wrote  they  unto  him  an  accu- 
sation against  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem" 
(verse  5).  That  bolt  fell  harmless.  No  decree  was 
issued  by  the  Persian  king  :  and,  so  far  as  we  know, 
no  investigation  even  was  made.  But  they  succeeded 
better  in  the  next  reign.  "And  in  the  days  of 
Artaxerxes  wrote  Bishlam,  Mithredath,  Tabeel,  and 
the  rest  of  their  companions,  unto  Artaxerxes  king  of 
Persia"  (verse  6).  This  brought  back  a  reply  which 
must  have  caused  great  rejoicing  in  Samaria.     "  Give 

*  Page  62. 


292  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

ye  now  commandment,"  so  ran  the  royal  rescript, 
**to  cause  these  men  to  cease,  and  that  this  city  be  not 
builded.  .  .  .  Then  ceased  the  work  of  the  house  of 
God  which  is  at  Jerusalem.  So  it  ceased  unto  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius  king  of  Persia  " 
(verses  21-24). 

Who  were  these  two  kings  who  are  named  here 
Ahasuerus  and  Artaxerxes  ?  It  is  evident  that  they 
were  the  successors  of  Cyrus  and  the  predecessors  of 
Darius.  Now  we  know  that  the  kings  who  inter- 
vened between  Cyrus  and  Darius  were  two  exactly — 
Cambyses,  the  son  of  Cyrus,  and  Smerdis,  a  usurper. 
But  it  will  be  observed  that  these  are  not  the  names 
which  appear  in  the  Scripture.  There,  instead  of 
Cambyses,  we  find  Ahasuerus,  in  the  Hebrew  text 
Akhashverosh,  or  Xerxes;  and  instead  of  Smerdis, 
Artaxerxes.  This  led  earlier  critics  to  contend  that 
the  Darius  mentioned  must  have  been  the  second 
among  the  Persian  kings  who  bore  that  name,  Darius 
Nothus.  He  began  to  reign  in  424  B.C.  If  the 
reader  bears  in  mind  that  the  first  Jewish  colonists 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus 
(Ezra  i.  i),  that  is,  in  538  B.C.,  he  will  see  how  im- 
possible that  supposition  is.  The  Temple  builders, 
whose  labours  had  been  suspended,  are  alive  and 
vigorous  in  the  second  year  of  the  Darius  spoken  of 
by  Ezra  (vi.  13).  In  other  words,  the  long  interval 
between  538  B.C.  and  423  B.C.  (the  second  year  of 
Darius  Nothus)  had  not  impaired  the  energies,  nor 
altered,  in  any  way,  the  purpose  of  these  men  !  For 
115    years    they    had    been    standing    waiting    for 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews,    293 

permission  to  resume  their  labours,  and  when  the 
permission  came,  they  commenced  at  once  and 
completed  their  work  with  great  joy  !  The  glaring 
absurdity  of  this  contention  has  gradually  silenced 
the  critics,  and  it  is  now  recognised  that  the  Darius 
here  mentioned  is  Darius  Hystaspis,  who  began  to 
reign  in  521  B.C.,  or  seventeen  years  after  Cyrus 
conquered  the  Babylonian  empire.  We  must,  there- 
fore, identify  the  Ahasuerus  of  Ezra  iv.  6  with 
Cambyses,  and  the  Artaxerxes  of  verse  7  with  the 
usurper,  the  false  Smerdis.  These  are  the  two  kings 
who,  in  the  Persian  lists,  stand  between  Cyrus  and 
Darius  Hystaspis. 

**That  Persian  kings  had  often  two  names,"  says 
Canon  Rawlinson,  "  is  a  well-known  fact  ot  history."* 
We  meet  this  diversity  especially  in  the  references  to 
the  usurper,  whose  history  was  thus  strangely  mixed 
up  with  the  fortunes  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 
He  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  Smerdis,  at  other 
times  as  Bardes,  while  Darius  himself  calls  him 
Gomates.  It  is  only  since  the  Assyrian  discoveries 
have  been  made  that  we  have  been  able  to  under- 
stand the  part  played  by  the  great  conspiracy,  which 
had  almost  succeeded  in  ending  the  Persian  dominion 
just  as  it  had  seated  itself  upon  the  throne  of  the 
nations.  It  was  a  rehgious  revolt.  The  Persians 
believed  in  the  existence  of  two  great  opposing  Un- 
seen Powers.  Ormazd,  the  Good  Principle,  was  the 
God  who  was  alone  to  be  worshipped ;  Ahriman,  the 
Bad  Principle,  was  a  power  to  be  dreaded  and  re- 

*  speaker's  Covunentary. 


294  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

sisted.  Anciently,  "they  possessed  no  hierarchy,  no 
sacred  books,  no  learning  or  science,  no  occult  lore, 
no  fixed  ceremonial  of  religion.  Besides  their  belief 
in  Ormazd  and  Ahriman,  which  was  the  pith  and 
marrow  of  their  religion,  they  worshipped  the  sun 
and  moon,  under  the  names  of  Mithra  and  Homa, 
and  acknowledged  the  existence  of  a  number  of 
lesser  deities,  good  and  evil  genii,  the  creation  re- 
spectively of  the  great  powers  of  light  and  darkness. 
Their  worship  consisted  chiefly  in  religious  chaunts, 
analagous  to  the  Vedic  hymns  of  their  Indian 
brethren,  wherewith  they  hoped  to  gain  the  favour 
and  protection  of  Ormazd  and  the  good  spirits  under 
his  governance."  * 

But  the  Persians  were  surrounded  on  all  sides  by 
the  devotees  of  another  religion,  which  was  a  nature 
worship,  and  which  paid  Divine  honours  to  all  the 
elements,  and  especially  to  fire.  This  worship  is 
Magism,  and  "was  from  a  remote  antiquity  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Scythic  tribes,  who  were  thickly  spread 
in  early  times  over  the  whole  extent  of  Western 
Asia."t  It  derived  this  name  from  the  tribe  of  the 
Magi,  which  was  alone  permitted  to  supply  the 
members  of  the  priesthood.  It  is  extremely  difficult 
to  say  what  were  the  differences  between  Magism 
and  the  early  Persian  belief.  Lenormant  indicates 
that  the  two  religions  were  at  one  in  their  funda- 
mental ideas.  They  both  believed  in  the  existence 
of  these  two  great  Principles,  the  Good  and  the 
Evil,  and  the  radical  difference  between  them  lay  in 

*  Rawlinson,  History  of  Herodotus,  vol.  i.,  p.  349.    +  Page  348. 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews.  295 

the  fact  that,  while  the  Persians  worshipped  Ormazd 
the  Good  Principle  only,  and  execrated  Ahriman 
the  Evil  Principle,  the  Magians  paid  their  worship 
entirely  to  Ahriman. 

However,  this  may  be,  there  was  constant  and 
bitter  hostility  between  the  two  religions;  and  various 
attempts  were  made  by  the  Magi  to  overthrow  the 
dominion  of  a  religion  which  they  hated.  I  have 
said  that  this  struggle  left  its  trace  on  the  fortunes 
of  the  Second  Temple.  Cambyses,  the  son  of  Cyrus, 
had  sent  orders  to  slay  his  brother  Smerdis  whom  he 
had  left  in  authority  at  Susa,  while  he  himself  con- 
ducted the  Egyptian  campaign  which  formed  the 
great  feature  of  his  reign.  The  Magi  seized  the 
opportunity  to  place  one  of  their  own  creed  upon  the 
throne,  who  represented  himself  to  be  Smerdis,  the 
brother  of  Cyrus.  A  herald  was  sent  to  Cambyses, 
who  met  him  returning  with  his  army  to  Persia. 
When  the  announcement  was  made  that  he  was 
deposed  Cambyses  slew  himself,  and  for  a  time 
Magianism  triumphed  in  the  new  empire.  A  few  of 
the  leading  Persian  nobility  however,  by  secret  and 
prompt  action,  redeemed  the  situation.  The  false 
Smerdis  was  slain,  and  Darius,  the  son  of  Hystaspes, 
was  raised  to  the  throne.  His  first  years  were  occu- 
pied in  overthrowing  one  pretender  after  another  in 
various  districts  of  his  extensive  empire.  He  himself 
has  described  these  conflicts  in  his  great  inscription 
graven  in  the  rock  at  Behistun.  The  following  passage 
has  special  importance  for  us: — 

"And  Darius  the  king  says:  This  is  what  I 


296  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

did  by  the  grace  of  Ormazd,  when  I  gained 
the   kingdom.       The    son    of    Cyrus,    named 


illllilil!!lllliilllllii||||lililll|IIIIIIPIIlillillillllllllMM 


Cambyses,  was  king  here  before  me.  This 
Cambyses  had  a  brother  named  Smerdis. 
They  had   the   same   mother   and  the  same 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews,  297 

father.       Afterwards    this     Cambyses    killed 
Smerdis.     The   people    did    not    know   that 
Smerdis  was  killed.     Then  Cambyses  went  to 
Egypt.     The  people  became  bad,  and  many 
falsehoods  grew  up  in  the  provinces,  as  well  in 
Persia,  as  in  Media,  as  in  the  other   lands. 
And  then  a  man,  a  Magian,  named  Gomates, 
from     Pasargada,    near    the     mount    named 
Arakadris,  there  he  arose.     On  the  14th  day 
of  the  month  Vijakna,  thus  he  arose:  To  the 
people  he  told  lies,  and  said :  '  I  am  Smerdis, 
the  son  of  Cyrus,  the  brother  of  Cambyses.* 
Then  all  the  people  revolted  from  Cambyses, 
went  over  to  him,  and  the  Persians,  and  the 
Medes,  and  the  other  nations.     He  seized  the 
kingdom.  On  the  gth  day  of  the  month  Garma- 
pada  he  took  the  royalty  from  Cambyses.  Then 
Cambyses  died,  killing  himself." 
Darius  then  describes  the  reign  of  terror  which 
followed.     Gomates  slew  everyone  who  had  known 
the  real  Smerdis,  and  all  whom  he  feared.     No  man 
dared  to  say  a  word  against  him,  until  Darius  with  a 
few  men  put  "Gomates  the  Magian,"  and  his  prin- 
cipal adherents  to  death.  The  inscription  continues: — 
"And  Darius  the  king  says:  The  kingdom 
which  had  been  robbed  from  our  race  I  restored 
it.     I  put  it  again  in  its  place.  As  it  had  been 
before  me,  thus  I  did.  I  re-established  the 

TEMPLES  OF  THE   GODS  WHICH  GOMATES  THE 

Magian  had  Destroyed,  and  I  re-instituted, 
in  favour  of  the  people,  the  calendar  and  the 


298  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

holy  language,  and  I  gave  back  to  the  families 
what  Gomates  the  Magian  had  taken  away."*- 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  triumph  of  Gomates 
had  led  to  a  rehgious  revolution.    The  temples  of  the 
gods  were  destroyed.    The  "hired  counsellors"  were 
now  able  to  accomplish  the  desire  of  those  who  had 
so  frequently  paid  them  for  a  service  which  they  had 
previously  been  unable  to  render.     Gomates  forbade 
the  re-erection  of  the  Temple.     This  was  entirely  in 
keeping  with  the  constant  endeavour  which  charac- 
terised his  brief  reign.    It  was  equally  in  keeping  with 
Darius's  endeavour  to  repair  the  havoc  worked  by 
the  Magian,  that  he  should  cause  search  to  be  made 
for  Cyrus's  decree  regarding  the  re-building  of  the 
Temple;  and  that,  when  the  decree  was  found,  he 
should  issue  his  orders  that  nothing  should  be  lacking 
for  the  work.      The  keen  interest  in  this  work  which 
is  displayed  in  every  line  of  Darius's  decree,  as  re- 
corded in  Ezra  vi.,  and  his  directions  to  provide  for 
the  expenses  of  the  work  and  for  the  sacrifices,  reveal 
the  very  spirit  which  breathes  in  the  Behistun  In- 
scription.   And  here,  again,  the  Scripture  is  not  only 
in  perfect  accord  with  the  time,  it  also  reveals  it  to 
us.     Those  very  kings  who  were  supposed  to  have 
been  made  to  speak  as  Jews,  and  whose  decrees,  in 
other  words,  were  supposed  to  have  been  made  for 
them  by  the  writer,  or   the  writers,  of  Ezra,  have 
revealed  themselves  in  the  Scripture  record  in  the 
very  same  way  as  in  the  deeds  which  they  did,  and  in 
the  monuments  which  research  has  now  restored  to  us. 

""  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  89-91. 


The  Samaritans  &  their  Conflict  with  the  Jews.  299 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Cyrus's  decree  was  found 
only  after  a  persistent  search.  "Then  Darius  the 
king  made  a  decree,  and  search  was  made  in  the 
house  of  the  rolls,  where  the  treasures  were  laid  up 
in  Babylon.  And  there  was  found  at  Achmetha,  in 
the  palace  that  is  in  the  province  of  the  Medes,  a 
roll,  and  therein  was  a  record  thus  written"  (vi.  i,  2). 
In  short,  the  original  decree  of  Cyrus  was  at  length 
discovered.  But  several  things,  of  considerable  im- 
portance now,  are  here  implied.  Search  was  made 
"in  the  House  of  the  Rolls."  Was  there  such  a 
Record  House — A  Register  Office — in  those  ancient 
times;  and  were  State  Register  Offices  institutions 
then  existing  in  Persia  ?  In  answer  to  that  question, 
Assyriolog)^  has  much  to  say.  There  were  such 
Register  Houses  in  the  Assyrian,  the  Babylonian, 
and  the  Persian  Empires  ;  and  to  that  fadl  we  largely 
owe  the  light  which  has  restored  to  the  world  the 
knowledge  of  those  ancient  civilisations.  The  ex- 
cavators have  come  upon  some  of  those  Houses  of 
the  Rolls,  and  found  in  their  ruins  large  stores  of  the 
treasured  records. 

But  why  were  the  Record  Chambers  of  Achmetha 
searched,  when  it  was  discovered  that  those  at  Babylon 
(the  capital  of  the  kingdom)  did  not  contain  the 
document  ?  The  explanation  of  this  shows  us  once 
more  the  clear  reflecftion  of  the  times  which  the 
Scriptures  always  present  us.  Ecbatana,  whose 
Persian  name  is  reproduced  in  the  Hebrew  word 
Achmetha,  was  the  summer  residence  of  Cyrus.  It 
and  Babylon  were,  therefore,  the  two  places  to  be 


300  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

searched;  and  when  Babylon  was  known  not  to 
contain  the  decree,  the  immediate  inference  was  that 
it  must,  consequently,  be  resting  in  the  greal  palace 
of  Ecbatana. 

A  word  also  may  be  said,  in  closing  these  notices 

of  Ezra,  on  the  imprecation  with  which  the  decree 

of  Darius  ends  :  "And  the  God  that  hath  caused  His 

name  to  dwell  there  destroy  all  kings  and  people, 

that  shall  put  to  their  hand  to  alter  and  to  destroy 

this  house  of  God  which  is  at  Jerusalem.     I  Darius 

have  made   a  decree ;    let  it  be  done  with  speed  " 

(vi.  12).     Here  we  find  the  very  man — the  Darius 

Hystaspis  of  ad^ual  fadl.     He  concludes  his  Behistun 

Inscription  in  this  very  fashion.    After  saying  that  those 

who  in  future  see  the  tablet  and  the  sculptures,  and 

refrain  from  destroying  them,  will  find  that  Ormazd 

will  be  a  friend  to  them  and  bless  them,  he  proceeds  : 

"And  if  thou  destroy  these  tablets  and  these 

images,  and  dost  not  preserve  them,  Ormazd 

may  kill  thee,  and  thou  mayest  not  have  any 

offspring,  and  whatsoever  thou  doest,  Ormazd 

will  pronounce  his  curses  on  it."* 


*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  107,  108. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER. 


The  Critical  Attacks.  303 

CHAPTER   I. 

The  Critical  Attacks. 


I 


N  an  Introduaion  to  the  Book  of  Nehemiah, 
Canon  Rawlinson  says  :  "The  authenticity  of  the 
Book  of  Nehemiah  is  generally  admitted.  Rational- 
istic criticism  has  been  disarmed  by  the  fadt  that  the 
narrative  comprises  nothing  that  is  miraculous."* 

But  it  is  apparently  impossible  to  formulate  a  rule 
of  this  kind  for  the  higher  criticism.  If  Nehemiah 
comprises  nothing  that  is  miraculous,  Esther  offends 
still  less  in  that  particular.  The  name  of  God,  as  is 
well-known,  is  not  once  mentioned  in  the  Book.  There 
is,  indeed,  a  most  rigorous  exclusion  of  any  Divine  or 
religious  reference.  There  is  not  one  word  about 
prayer  in  the  day  of  Israel's  need,  and  there  is 
absolute  silence  as  to  the  offering  of  praise  in  the  day 
of  their  deliverance.  If  any  Book  in  the  Bible  might 
have  escaped  the  tooth  of  destrudtive  criticism,  we 
should  have  confidently  expected  that  Esther  should 
do  so.  But,  somehow,  from  the  first  day  of  the 
critical  assault,  the  most  determined  attack  has  been 
made  upon  this  part  of  God's  Revelation.  And  to- 
day the  roar  of  the  critical  cannon  is  louder  than  ever 
in  the  endeavour  to  pound  this  sedtion  of  our  strong 
wall  into  dust. 

Semler,  who  laid   the  foundations  of   the  higher 

*  speaker's  Commentary,  vol.  iii.,  p.  428. 


304  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

criticism,  indicated  his  opinion  that  the  Book  of 
Esther  was  a  work  of  pure  imagination,  and  that  it 
was  to  be  taken  as  a  witness  to  the  pride  and  the 
arrogance  of  the  Jews.  Eichhorn,  in  his  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament^  treats  the  Book  with  much 
greater  fairness;  and,  while  he  arranges  the  objec- 
tions to  its  historical  characTter  under  fourteen  heads, 
supplies  answers  to  these,  though  confessing  that  in 
his  judgment  there  were  knots  that  were  still  untied,* 
The  effecft  of  Eichhorn's  intervention,  however,  could 
not  be  described  as  re-assuring.  De  Wette  reverts 
to  the  condemnation  pronounced  by  Semler.  He 
sweeps  aside  the  explanation,  which  occurred  to  un- 
prejudiced scholars  as  soon  as  the  Book  was  studied 
in  the  light  of  ancient  history — that  Ahasuerus  was 
Xerxes.  We  shall  immediately  see  how  that  im- 
pression has  been  substantiated,  and  that  is  now 
placed  upon  a  basis  which  sets  it  above  all  possible 
assault.  But  this  lent  too  historical  a  colour  to  the 
Book  to  permit  it  to  remain.  De  Wette  accordingly 
did  what  he  could  to  discredit  it.  He  said:  "The 
main  point  on  which  the  authenticity  of  this  Book 
has  been  rested,  namely,  that  Ahasuerus  is  the  same 
with  Xerxes,  is  very  doubtful."  He  then  proceeds  to 
marshal  his  objecftions  to  this  identification  which 
are  now  not  worth  the  paper  on  which  they  are 
written.  His  conclusion  was  that  the  Book  "violates 
all  historical  probability,  and  contains  the  most 
striking  difficulties  and  many  errors  in  regard  to 
Persian  manners." 


Zweyter  Band,  p.  628. 


The  Critical  Attacks.  305 

It  will  be  well  for  the  reader  to   make  a  mental 
note  of  that  last  statement ;  for  God,  in  His  gracious 
Providence,   has  supplied  us  with  a  startling  com- 
mentary.    Theodore  Parker,  De  Wette's  translator, 
evidently  thought  that  it  was  needful  to  say  something 
more.     He,  consequently,  adds  a  secftion  in  which 
he    avails  himself  of    Eichhorn's  list  of  objections 
without  even  hinting  at  the  replies  which  the  same 
writer  had  furnished.   He  commences  with  the  words : 
''  For  a  long  time  this  Book  was  considered  a  history 
of  actual  events.    Some  writers  at  this  time  hold  such 
an  opinion,  but  it  is  involved  in  numerous  and  in- 
exphcable  difficulties;  for  the  Book  does  not  bear  the 
marks  of  an  historical  composition."     And  he  thus 
concludes  his  attack:  ''It  seems  most  probable  the 
Book  was  written  as  a  patriotic  romance,  designed 
to  show  that  the  Jews  will  be  delivered  out  of  all 
troubles,  and  he  that  seeks  to  injure  them  shall  him- 
self  be  destroyed.     The  narrative   may  have  some 
historical  facts  for  its  basis,  or  be  purely  fictitious. 
This,  at  least,  is  certain — that  it  is  impossible,  at  this 
day,  to  determine  where  facts  begin  and  fiction  ends."  *  • 
Some  things  have  since  happened,  and  some  had 
also  happened  long  before  those  words  were  penned 
(though  Mr.  Parker  seems  to  have  been  in  ignorance 
of  them),  which  have  cleared  away  the  supposed  im- 
possibility of  knowing  where  facts  began  and  ended. 
And    still    more    had    happened   before  Dr.  Samuel 
Davidson  published  his  Introduction ;  but,  apparently, 
these  things,  though  big  with  fate  for  the  fame  of 


Vol.  ii.,  pp.  340-345. 

W 


3o6  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

himself  and  of  his  "authorities,"  had  not  caught  the 
attention  of  either  himself  or  them.  But  the  pro- 
longed discussion  had,  nevertheless,  begun  to  make 
some  impression.  After  mustering  again  Eichhorn's 
objections  and  a  very  few  others,  he  concludes:  "In 
consequence  of  these  phenomena  we  cannot  regard 
the  Book  as  containing  only  true  history.  Neither 
can  it  he  accounted  pure  fiction.'''  *  But  this  concession 
is  robbed  of  any  value.  "Rather,"  he  says,  "does 
true  history  lie  at  its  foundation,  dressed  out  with  a 
number  of  imaginary  details  and  circumstances.  The 
basis  is  true ;  but  a  good  part  of  the  superstructure, 
and  the  air  thrown  over  it,  are  fabulous." 

The  new  critical  school,  which  has  left  Davidson 
and  his  "authorities  "  so  far  behind,  has  not  dealt  more 
kindly,  nor  indeed  so  kindly,  with  the  Book  of  Esther. 
Kuenen  writes  :  t  "The  Book  of  Esther  is  not  an 
authentic  historical  writing :  in  this  nearly  all  critics 
are  now  unanimous.  But  they  give  very  divergent 
answers  to  the  question,  whether  the  narrative  has 
any  foundation  in  fa6l ;  and,  if  so,  what  fa(5ls  ? 
Herzfeld  leaves  out  the  most  improbable  features, 
and  accepts  the  rest  as  history.  But  this  method  of 
applying  historical  criticism — one  might  call  it  the 
reducing  method — is  not  allowable,  in  the  present  case 
at  any  rate.  The  impossibilities  and  improbabilities 
do  not  lie  upon  the  surface  here,  but  pervade  the  whole 
narrative.  .  .  .  The  Book  of  Esther,  in  a  word,  is  a 
romance."  The  italics  are  Kuenen's  own.  The  writer 
of  the  article  "Esther"  in  The  Encyclopcedia  Britannica 

*  Vol.  ii.,  p.  162.  +  Religion  of  Israel,  vol.  iii.,  p.  148. 


The  Critical  Attacks.  307 

holds  the  balances  between  the  two  opinions  ;  but, 
like  most  mediators  of  the  kind,  he  does  not  help 
matters  much.  He  concludes  his  survey  with  the 
expression  of  the  convic5lion  that  a  comparison  of 
Esther  with  the  apocryphal  additions  made  to  the 
Book  in  the  Greek  translation,  and  with  the  apocry- 
phal books  of  Judith  and  Tobit,  "is  distinctly 
favourable  to  its  historical  verisimilitude;"  but  he 
thinks,  nevertheless,  that  he  must  admit  "some 
amount  of  exaggeration  ....  the  infirmity  of  an 
Oriental  race."  The  latest  critical  opinion,  however, 
up  to  the  time  of  writing,  renews  the  attack  with  even 
more  than  the  old  fierceness.  In  The  Encyclopcedia 
Bihlica,  Professor  Noldeke,  of  Stuttgart,  says:  "The 
precise  dates  and  the  numerous  proper  names  give  the 
narrative  an  air  of  historical  accuracy,  and  at  the  close 
we  actually  find  a  reference  made  to  'The  Chronicles 
of  the  kings  of  Media  and  Persia.'  Unfortunately, 
all  these  pretensions  to  veracity  are  belied  by  the 
nature  of  the  contents  :  the  story  is,  in  facrt,  a  tissue 
of  improbabilities  and  impossibilities." 

He  then  proceeds  to  prove  this  sweeping  statement. 
"One  of  the  main  points  in  the  narrative,"  he  says, 
"namely,  the  decree  for  the  massacre  of  all  the  Jews 
in  the  Persian  empire  on  a  day  fixed  eleven  months 
beforehand,  would  alone  suffice  to  invalidate  the 
historical  character  of  the  Book."  The  following  are 
his  other  arguments : 

"Further,  notwithstanding  the  dates  which  he 
gives  us,  the  author  had  in  reahty  no  notion  of 
chronology.    He  represents  Mordecai  as  having  been 


3o8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

transported  to  Babylon  with  King  Jeconiah — that  is, 
in  the  year  597  B.C. — and  as  becoming  prime  minister 
in  the  twelfth  year  of  Xerxes,  that  is,  in  474  B.C.  It 
is  contrary  to  all  that  we  know  of  those  times  for 
an  Acha^menian  sovereign  to  choose  a  Jewess  for  his 
queen,  a  Jew  for  his  prime  minister.  ...  It  is  still 
harder  to  believe  that  royal  edicfls  were  issued  in  the 
language  and  writing  of  each  one  of  the  numerous 
peoples  who  inhabited  the  empire.  That  Mordecai 
is  able  to  communicate  freely  with  his  niece  in  the 
harem  must  be  pronounced  altogether  contrary  to  the 
usage  of  Oriental  courts.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
queen  is  represented  as  unable  to  send  even  a  message 
to  her  husband,  in  order  that  the  writer  may  have  an 
opportunity  of  magnifying  the  courage  of  his  heroine. 
Such  restri(5tions,  it  is  needless  to  say,  there  can  never 
have  been  in  reality. 

*'The  fabulous  charadler  of  the  Book  shows  itself 
likewise  in  a  fondness  for  pomp  and  high  figures. 
Note,  for  example,  the  feast  of  180  days,  supplemented 
by  another  of  seven  days."  According  to  this,  the 
latest  critical  verdicft,  the  Book  has  not  even  **a 
historical  kernel."  *'  It  is  impossible,"  Noldeke  adds, 
*•'  to  treat  the  Book  as  an  embellished  version  of  some 
real  event — a  *  historical  romance  '  like  the  Persian 
tale  of  Bahram-Chobin,  and  the  novels  of  Scott  and 
Manzoni — and  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  whole  narrative  is  fid^itious."  He  thus  concludes 
his  somewhat  long  and  monotonous  tirade  :  '*  In  the 
Book  of  Esther,  the  Persian  empire  is  treated  as  a 
thing  of  the  past,  already  invested  with  the  halo  of 


The  Critical  Attacks. 


309 


romance.  The  writer  must,  therefore,  have  Hved  some 
considerable  time  after  Alexander  the  Great,  not 
earlier  than  the  third,  probably  the  second,  century 
before  Christ." 

In  an  earlier  work,  Noldeke  pronounces  quite  as 
sweeping  a  condemnation.  He  says:  "That  this 
Book  in  all  its  parts  is  stripped  of  historical  value  is 
the  result  already  arrived  at  by  our  analysis.  A  more 
attentive  study  will  more  and  more  demonstrate  its 
fabulous  charadler.  The  Book  swarms  with  things 
improbable,  impossible.  .  .  .  The  entire  development 
of  the  story  resembles  that  of  a  romance.  Each  new 
unexpecfted  chance  happens  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  author  has  need  of  it."  * 

The  reader  may  ask  what  reason  there  can  be  for 
this  persistent  and  pitiless  attack.  The  Book,  as  has 
been  said,  does  not  contain  the  record  of  a  single 
miracle.  It  does,  indeed,  record  a  marvellous  provi- 
dence. But  that  is  left  for  the  reader  to  discover :  it 
is  not  thrust  upon  his  notice  by  a  single  hint  or  word. 
God  is  not  once  named  in  the  Book,  and  it  would  be 
hard  indeed  to  say  how  a  book  could  be  written  that 
should  give  less  offence  to  rationalistic  prejudices. 
Whence,  then,  comes  this  undying  hostility  ?  Why 
should  the  critical  batteries  rain  their  shot  and  shell 
upon  this  specially  unoffending  part  of  the  Scripture? 
A  little  reflection  will  discover  the  critical  strategy. 
This  is  supposed  to  be  a  weak  portion  of  the  Biblical 
wall.  It  is  one,  too,  which,  it  is  imagined,  few  will 
strenuously  defend.     Multitudes  will  ask,  like  Lot, 

*  Histoire  litteraire  de  I'  A  net  en  Testament. 


310  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

"Is  it  not  a  little  one?"  ''What  does  it  matter  if 
Esther  is  given  up  ?  What  Christian  doctrine  will 
suffer?"  In  calculating  upon  the  help  of  such  men, 
the  critics  do  not  deceive  themselves.  They  are 
always  with  us  ;  and  the  critics  know — what  is  hid 
from  these — that  every  Christian  do(ftrine  will  suffer. 
If  a  fid^itious  Book  was  ever  admitted  among  "the 
ORACLES  OF  GoD,"  there  could  have  been  no  Divine 
selecftion,  and  no  handing  over  of  the  Books  which 
were  to  be  preserved  to  the  high-priest  of  the  time  by 
God,  through  His  servants,  the  prophets.  In  other 
words,  the  Canon  would  be  proved  to  be  a  myth. 
Doubt  would  thus  be  cast  upon  the  whole  Bible,  and 
the  foundation  of  every  Christian  doctrine  would  be 
shattered  to  atoms.  No  man  would  ever  be  able  to 
support  even  the  most  momentous  of  them  all  by  one 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  That  is  the  anarchy  which 
the  critics  and  their  sympathisers  call  freedom.  It  is 
the  goal  of  all  their  striving.  And  hence  this  storm 
which  spends  its  fury  upon  the  Book  of  Esther,  Once 
that  Book  is  down,  the  hordes  of  unbelief  will  pour 
into  our  Holy  City,  and  tread  it  under  foot. 


Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes.  311 


CHAPTER    II. 

Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes. 


I  HAVE  elsewhere  explained  the  absence  of  the 
name  of  God  in  the  Book  of  Esther  and  its 
striking  silence  in  regard  to  prayer  and  to  praise.* 
That  silence,  too  complete  and  too  well  sustained  to 
be  without  a  definite  purpose,  becomes  a  striking 
demonstration  of  the  inspiration  of  this  portion  of 
Scripture.  I  have  there  also  dealt  with  the  objections 
to  the  Book,  and  with  the  reply  which  has  been  so 
marvellously  furnished.  These  objedlions,  however, 
come  specially  within  the  scope  of  The  Guide,  and  a 
fresh  statement  of  the  replies,  which  become  ever 
fuller  as  the  years  roll  on,  will  now  be  given. 

The  older  commentators  had  practically  despaired 
of  our  ever  being  able  to  say  with  certainty  with  what 
Persian  king  the  husband  of  Esther  was  to  be  identi- 
fied. One  said:  ''Which  of  them  it  was  is  not  yet 
agreed,  nor  is  it  of  any  necessity  for  us  now  to 
know."t  And,  indeed,  if  there  was  any  comfort  in 
that  reflection,  it  was  greatly  needed.  The  pitiable 
uncertainty  of  the  learned  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  by  another  learned  commentator:  "Who 
he"  (Ahasuerus)  "was  is  not  easy  to  say;  almost  all 
the  kings  of  Persia  are  so  named  by  one  or  another 

*  The  Inspiration  and  Accuracy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (Marshall  Brothers). 
t  Matthew  Poole. 


312  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

writer.  .  .  .  According  to  Bishop  Usher  this  was 
Darius  Hystaspis.  .  .  Dr.  Prideaux  thinks  Ahasuerus 
was  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  which  is  the  sense  of 
Josephus.  .  .  .  Capellus  is  of  opinion  that  Darius 
Ochus  is  meant,  to  which  Bishop  Patrick  inclines ; 
but  I  rather  think  with  Vitringa  and  others,  that 
Xerxes  is  the  Ahasuerus  that  was  the  husband  of 
Esther  here  spoken  of."  * 

From  this  uncertainty  and  unconcern  the  rational- 
istic objections  effectually  roused  commentators  and 
students.  Scaliger,  in  a  work  published  in  1598,  held 
that  Ahasuerus  was  Xerxes.  He  was  led  to  this  con- 
clusion, however,  not  only  by  the  agreement  of  the 
Scripture  statements  with  the  character  and  history  of 
that  monarch,  but  also  with  the  apparent  resemblance 
between  the  name  of  Esther  and  that  of  Amestris, 
who,  Herodotus  tells  us,  was  the  queen  of  Xerxes. 
This  identification  of  Ahasuerus  with  the  son  of 
Darius  Hystaspis  and  father  of  Artaxerxes  approved 
itself  increasingly  as  the  statements  of  the  Book  were 
more  carefully  weighed.  But  a  new  science  was  about 
to  emerge,  which  was  to  recall  the  distant  past  and  to 
make  the  politics  and  the  personages  of  those  vanished 
ages  as  real  to  us  as  the  politics  and  the  personages 
of  to-day.  And,  strange  to  say,  the  very  first  step, 
which  was  taken  by  this  infant  science,  shed  a  light 
upon  this  point  which  ended  our  uncertainty,  and 
gave  us  an  earnest  of  the  striking  confirmations  of 
the  Scripture  that  were  to  follow. 

To  quite  explain  this  matter,  I  must  ask  the  reader 

*  Dr.  Gill. 


314  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

to  accompany  me  for  a  moment  or  two  elsewhere. 
Nearly  three  centuries  ago,  a  Roman  gentleman, 
named  Pietro  della  Valle,  saw  in  Persia  some  remark- 
able ruins,  the  account  of  which  created  considerable 
interest.  He  mentioned  the  fact  that  the  ruins  were 
covered  in  some  places  with  inscriptions,  the  letters 
of  which  he  described  as  having  a  "pyramidal" 
character.  Those  little  pyramids,  sometimes  perpen- 
dicular, sometimes  horizontal,  and  sometimes  slanted, 
interested  him  greatly.  Accounts  were  published 
later  by  Sir  John  Chardin  and  M.  le  Brun.  As  an 
indication  of  the  deep  impression  providentially  made 
by  these  accounts,  I  may  say  that  that  large  literary 
venture.  The  Universal  History,  described  in  the  letters 
patent  issued  by  George  II.  as  ''a  work  hitherto 
attempted  in  vain  by  other  nations,"  and  published 
in  1747,  and  which  is  not  what  would  be  described 
as  an  illustrated  work,  contains  thirty-two  plates, 
many  of  them  of  great  size,  to  illustrate  the  ruins, 
sculptures,  and  inscriptions.  ''The  plain,"  it  says, 
''in  which  this  famous  city  stood,  is  one  of  the  finest 
in  Persia,  and,  indeed,  in  all  the  East.  Its  length  is 
eighteen  or  nineteen  leagues ;  its  breadth  in  some 
places  two,  in  others  four,  and,  in  some,  six.  It  is 
watered  by  the  great  river  Araxes,  or  Bendemir,  and 
by  a  multitude  of  rivulets  besides.  Within  the  com- 
pass of  this  plain  there  are  between  a  thousand  and 
fifteen  hundred  villages,  without  reckoning  those  in 
the  mountains,  all  adorned  with  pleasant  gardens 
and  planted  with  shady  trees.  The  entrance  of  this 
plain  on  the  west  side  has  received  as  much  grandeur 


Ahastcerus  is  Xerxes.  315 

from  nature  as  the  city  it  covers  could  do  from  in- 
dustry or  art.  It  consists  of  a  range  of  mountains, 
steep  and  high,  four  leagues  in  length,  and  about  two 
miles  broad,  forming  two  flat  banks,  with  a  rising 
terrace  in  the  middle,  the  summit  of  which  is  perfectly 
plain  and  even,  all  of  native  rock. 

''In  this  there  are  such  openings,  and  the  terraces 
are  so  fine,  and  so  even,  that  one  would  be  tempted 
to  think  the  whole  a  work  of  art,  if  the  great  extent 
and  prodigious  elevation  thereof  did  not  convince  one, 
that  it  is  a  wonder  too  great  for  aught  but  nature  to 
produce.  Undoubtedly,  these  banks  were  the  very 
places  where  the  advanced  guards  from  Persepolis 
took  post,  and  from  which  Alexander  found  it  difficult 
to  dislodge  them."  The  writer  then  proceeds  to  give 
an  equally  detailed  account  of  the  city  itself.*  The 
ruins  were  afterwards  visited  by  Carstens  Niebuhr, 
the  father  of  Niebuhr,  the  German  historian.  This 
latter  traveller  published  an  account  of  his  travels  in 
two  volumes,  which  made  his  readers  as  deeply  inter- 
ested in  the  ruins  and  their  inscriptions  as  he  himself 
had  been.  Fortunately,  it  was  known  that  these 
ruins  were  the  remains  of  the  ancient  Persepolis,  a 
favourite  city  of  the  Persian  kings,  which  had  been 
burned  down  by  Alexander  the  Great.  The  remains 
were  a  revelation  to  Europe  of  the  splendour  of  the 
ancient  arts.  Delia  Valle  spoke  of  the  huge  marble 
blocks  which  retain  their  exquisite  polish  to  the 
present  hour.  A  vast  platform  had  first  of  all  been 
constructed  of  solid  stone.     Many  of  the  blocks  are 

*Vol.  v.,  pp.  98,  99. 


Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes.  317 

from  forty-nine  to  lifty-five  feet  long,  and  from  six 
to  ten  feet  broad. 

Of  the  arrangement  of  the  buildings,  of  the  massive 
staircases  by  which  the  platform  was  ascended  from 
the  plain,  which  are  almost  perfectly  preserved  to  the 
present  day,  and  of  the  beauty  of  the  pillars,  a  few 
of  which  were  still  standing,  I  shall  not  speak.*     We 
are  specially  concerned  just  now  with  those  pyramidal 
letters  of   which  Delia  Valle   wrote.     Niebuhr  had 
made  careful  copies  of  these,  and  the  inscriptions 
which  he  reproduced  were  scanned  by  many  eager 
eyes.     The   difficulties,  however,   were    seen    to    be 
immense,  and  they  were  really  greater  than  scholars 
then  knew.  But  the  problem  was  not  laid  aside.  With 
a  persistency,  which  is  one   of  the    most    striking 
features  in  this  long  and  intense  toil,  some  of  the 
most  distinguished  scholars  in  Europe  brought  their 
learning  and  ingenuity  to  bear  upon  the  inscriptions 
of  Persepohs.     As  Joachim   Menant  has  said:    "A 
man's  life  was  given  for  each  letter  of  this  ancient 
alphabet."  t    One  writer  pointed  out  that  there  were 
three  kinds  of  writing  upon  the  monuments:  one  that 
seemed  to  be  the  simplest ;  a  second  that  was  briefer 
and  more  difficuh ;  and  a  third  that  was  still  briefer 
and  still  more  difficult.    This  prevented  the  confusion 
which  would  have  followed  had  scholars  attempted  to 
read  the  inscriptions  right  on.  Another  writer  showed 
that  the  writing  was  to  be  read  from  left  to  right,  like 
our  own.    A  third  suggested  that  one  of  the  wedge-like 


*  See  Rawlinson;  The  Five  Great  Monarchies,  vol.  ii.,  p.  237,  etc. 
\  Les  'Ecritures  Cunciformes.  p.  51. 


A    PILASTER    OF    A    PORTAL    AT    PERSEi'OLI.^ 


Ahasiierus  is  Xerxes.  319 

characters  which  was  always  drawn  in  the  same 
direction,  and  which  occurred  after  every  six  or  more 
letters  was  really  a  mark  (like  the  old  Roman  dot  or 
period)  which  separated  the  words  and  showed  how 
many  letters  were  in  each. 

The  reader  will  be  introduced  to  this  and  other 
characters  immediately.  I  wish  him  now  merely  to 
note  how  slowly  and  yet  how  thoroughly  all  this 
preliminary  work  was  done.  The  scholars  were  not, 
however,  to  reap  the  first  fruits  of  the  great  harvest. 
That  honour  fell  to  one  who  had  few  pretensions  to 
an  equal  place  with  them.  Georg  Friedrich  Grotefend, 
a  young  student  at  the  University  of  Gottingen,  had 
his  attention  directed  to  the  subject  through  a  con- 
versation with  the  librarian.  Books  were  supplied 
to  him,  and  all  that  was  already  done  was  explained. 
He  studied  carefully  the  copies  of  the  inscriptions, 
and  finally  fixed  upon  two.  These  two  were  brief, 
and  they  had  the  peculiarity  that  some  words  which 
were  in  one  were  reproduced  in  the  other.  Later 
inscriptions  had  shown  that  the  royal  titles  ran  in 
this  fashion:  A,  great  king,  king  of  kings,  son  of 
B,  great  King,  king  of  kings.  It  seemed  to  him 
that  these  phrases,  ''great  king,"  ''king  of  kings  " 
were  repeated  in  the  second  inscription.  On  looking 
still  more  narrowly  at  these  texts,  he  found  that  the 
name  which  I  have  indicated  by  B  was  repeated  in 
the  second.  One  can  imagine  with  what  a  heart- 
leap  he  recognised  that  he  had  here  found  a  series  of 
three  names — which  were  names  of  father,  son,  and 
grandson.  For  the  second  inscription  seemed  to  run: 


Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes.  321 

B,  GREAT  KING,  KING  OF   KINGS,  SON   OF  C.      Here  C 

was  the  father,  B  the  son,  and  A  the  grandson.  He 
noticed  also  that  C  had  not  reigned;  for  the  phrases 
"great  king,  king  of  kings"  were  not  placed  after  his 
name. 

The  problem  was  now  reduced  to  this — what  three 
names  known  to  history  were  these?  It  was  known 
that  the  palaces  of  Persepolis  were  built  by  the  first 

«lf^T<HTftf^TnV<!r^fiTTfT<Tm<-VM-THr 

IH      Sa      YARS      A.KHS      A      YaT        1      Ya.VoZ«B 

Xerxes,  KING  GREAT 

]t-\«rTr<  TTfK^<JTTT<:-^<'<Tr<<ff?TTf T<T  Tf  K-  frf 

ta.KHS        A       YGTI      Ya.        KHSA       YaTd      I      Y«         A 
KING  OF         KINGS 

t-<  frf-TrrV  u  TfT^TT<^  ^^^<t«rjX<\  «T[«mT<-  T<T 

HA        H         ,DARYaVa         HUS         .KHSAYflTl 
OF  DARIUS  THt     KING 

tTT«:<T<TT!\^<TT  ^\4<«TTfff-TiTfc:<Tr^T7K-\ 

I    Ya   H    Y      A    .      P      D      TRa    ,         Ha    K  B    A      M  a  N      I    S     I   la      ' 
SON  THE   ACHAMENIAN 

dynasty  of  Persian  kings  who  inherited  the  world- 
wide sway  of  Babylon.  These  were  the  Achaemenian 
kings.  This  confined  the  choice  to  two  sets  of  names; 
for  there  were  only  two  dynasties,  that  of  Cyrus  and 
that  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  to  which  this  could  apply. 
Were  B  and  A,  then,  the  two  first  kings,  that  is 
Cyrus  and  Cambyses?  That  question  was  soon 
answered.  Cyrus's  father  was  also  named  Cambyses, 
and  A  and  C  would  in  that  case  be  the  same.     But 

X 


322  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

the  inscriptions  showed  that  the  names  were  not  the 
same.  This  shut  Grotefend  up,  then,  to  the  other 
three,  Xerxes,  Darius,  and  Hystaspis,  the  father  of 
Darius,  who  was  a  noble,  but  not  a  king. 

It  is  now  time  that  we  also  should  note  the  inscrip- 
tion to  which  Grotefend  first  applied  his  attempted 
decipherment.  I  have  reproduced  it  on  the  preceding 
page. 

Some  notion  of  the  Persian  forms  of  the  names 
was  got,  with  the  result  that  Grotefend  was  fully  con- 
vinced that  he  had  begun  the  solution  of  the  great 
problem.  The  reader  will  observe  the  slanting  letter, 
formed  of  one  wedge,  which  divides  the  words  from 
each  other.  It  is  over  the  small  asterisk  *.  It 
occurs  twice  in  the  first  line,  twice  in  each  of  the 
next  two,  and  three  times  in  the  fourth  line.  It  may 
interest  the  reader  to  note,  for  example,  the  sign  for 
the  letter  A.  It  is  found  at  the  end  of  the  second 
line.  But  our  attention  is  directed  now  to  the  first 
word  in  the  inscription.  When  that  was  deciphered, 
the  question  regarding  the  Book  of  Esther  was 
practically  settled.  Grotefend  knew  that  this  must 
be  the  ancient  Persian  form  of  the  name  Xerxes. 
But  the  Greek  form  of  the  name  of  the  son  of 
Darius  had  long  concealed  an  important  fact ;  for 
here,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  letter  a,  Xerxes 
became  letter  for  letter  the  Hebrew  Ahasuenis,  or 
Akhashverosh !  The  Persian  name  was  Khshayarsha, 
which  in  Greek  became  Xerxes. 

This  reading  has  long  since  been  placed  beyond 
the  reach  of  doubt.     Indeed,  it  was  soon  confirmed 


Ahasuerus  is  Xerxes. 


323 


by  another  fortunate  discovery.  An  alabaster  vase 
was  found  in  Egypt  w^hich  had  an  inscription  on  it 
v^ritten  in  four  languages,  one  of  them  in  Egyptian 


\  m\\\-^m\. 


kh-  i- 


i-     a-     r- 


THE    NAME    OF   XERXES    IN   EGYPTIAN   WRITING    UPON 
AN    ANCIENT   VASE. 

hieroglyphics.     Champollion  recognised  in  this  last 
the  name  of  Xerxes.     In  the  top  line  was  the  very 


324  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

name  which  Grotefend  had  previously  deciphered. 
This  line  of  the  inscription  is  in  Persian ;  the 
second  line  of  the  cuneiform  writing  at  the  top  of 
the  vase  is  in  the  Susian  language;  the  third  line 
gives  the  name  in  Assyrian.  Beneath  these  three 
lines  in  the  wedge-shaped  character,  the  reader  will 
mark  the  now  familiar  figures  of  the  ancient  Egyptian 
hieroglyphics.  These  are  marked  off  by  a  line  sur- 
rounding the  figures.  This  is  the  usual  oval  which 
encircles  a  royal  name.  This  part  of  the  inscription 
is  arranged  at  the  top  of  our  engraving,  where  be- 
neath each  character  will  be  found  its  value  in  the 
letters  of  our  own  alphabet.  The  s  with  the  curve  above 
it  (s)  is  equal  to  our  sh.  The  whole  name  Khsh-yar- 
sha  is,  with  the  addition  of  the  letter  a,  with  which 
the  Hebrews  always  began  such  words,  letter  for 
letter,  the  Ahasuerus  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Frag- 
ments of  four  similar  vases  were  found  by  Loftus  at 
Susa,  and  are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  That 
shown  in  our  illustration  is  preserved  in  the  Cabinet 
des  Medailles  in  Paris.  How  much  depended  upon 
that  identification  of  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes,  which 
was  thus  placed  beyond  the  possibiHty  of  doubt,  we 
shall  now  see. 


Esther  and  History,  325 

CHAPTER   III. 
Esther  and  History. 


THE  identification  of  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes 
enables  us  to  date  the  events,  and  to  see  that 
Esther  occupies  its  proper  place  in  the  series  of  the 
Historical  Books  of  Scripture.  Xerxes  reigned  from 
485  to  465  B.C.,  and  we  have  thus  a  view  afforded  us 
of  the  Jews  who  remained  in  Babylonia  after  the  way 
had  been  opened  for  their  return  to  Palestine.  It  was 
only  bitter  and  unremitting  persecution  which  had 
made  Israel  of  old  leave  Egypt.  That  was  the  sole 
reason  (so  far  as  the  will  of  the  Israelites  was  con- 
cerned) of  the  completeness  of  the  Exodus,  and  that 
they  left  not  a  hoof  behind.  In  Persia,  on  the  contrary, 
they  prospered  ;  and,  if  they  were  not  held  in  honour, 
they  at  least  dwelt  in  security.  The  contentment  of 
the  vast  majority  with  their  lot  in  the  land  of  the 
captivity  enables  us  to  understand  the  words  of  Ezra, 
which  tell  us  (i.  5)  that  "  all  whose  spirit  God  had 
raised  "  went  up  to  build  the  house  of  God,  which  is 
at  Jerusalem. 

Another  and  more  momentous  consequence  of  the 
discovery  was  that  the  objedlions  as  to  the  "  im- 
probabilites "  and  "impossibilities"  of  the  Book 
vanished  Hke  darkness  before  the  light.  It  was  all 
along  felt  that,  however  impossible  it  might  be  to 
make  such  a  history  accord  with  what  was  known  of 


326  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

ordinary  monarchs,  it  bore  the  stamp  of  Xerxes  on 
its  every  feature.  **  In  personal  beauty  and  stately 
bearing,"  writes  Mr.  Philip  Smith,*  "  he  was  the 
fairest  among  the  many  myriads  he  gathered  for  the 
expedition  against  Greece ;  but  in  all  else  he  proved 
how  a  noble  race  might  be  corrupted  in  one  genera- 
tion by  the  training  of  the  Seraglio.  Vain  and  fickle, 
blinded  by  conceit  and  passion,  and  jealous  of  good 
advice,  he  was  such  a  leader  as  the  Greeks  might  have 
desired  to  be  set  over  their  enemies."  "  The  char- 
acter of  Xerxes,"  writes  Canon  RawUnson,  "falls 
below  that  of  any  preceding  monarch.  Excepting 
that  he  was  not  wholly  devoid  of  a  certain  magna- 
nimity, which  made  him  listen  patiently  to  those  who 
gave  him  unpalatable  advice,  and  which  prevented 
him  from  exacfling  vengeance  on  some  occasions,  he 
had  scarcely  a  trait  whereon  the  mind  can  rest  with 
any  satisfaction.  Weak  and  easily  led,  puerile  in  his 
gusts  of  passion,  and  his  complete  abandonment  of 
himself  to  them — selfish,  fickle,  boastful,  cruel,  super- 
stitious, licentious — he  exhibits  to  us  the  Oriental 
despot  in  the  most  contemptible  of  all  his  aspects — 
that  wherein  the  moral  and  the  intellectual  qualities 
are  equally  in  defe(5t,  and  the  career  is  one  unvarying 
course  of  vice  and  folly."  t 

It  seems  clear,  however,  that  the  impression  made 
upon  the  mind  of  antiquity  by  the  personality  and 
the  career  of  Xerxes  was  of  a  higher  order.  Hero- 
dotus and  Plutarch,  for  example,  present  us  with  a 
more  flattering  pidlure.     The  former,  in  words  made 

*  Ancient  History,  vol.  i.,  p.  403.      ^Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  ii.,  p.  485. 


Esther  and  History.  327 

use  of  by  Mr.  Smith,  says,  after  informing  us  that 
the  Persian  army  numbered  more  than  five  millions  : 
**  Amongst  all  these  myriads  of  men,  with  respe^  to 
grace  and  dignity  of  person,  no  one  better  deserved  the 
supreme  command  than  Xerxes  himself."    He  seems 
to  have  been,  like  our  own  Henry  the  Eighth  and 
many  another  strong-willed  personage,  "  every  inch  a 
king."     Xerxes,   as  he   comes  before  us  in  history, 
seems  to  have  had  the  will  of  a  god.     Nothing  was 
impossible.     How  was  his  vast  army  to   cross  the 
Hellespont— those  seven  furlongs  of  a  restless,  and 
often  tempestuous,  sea  ?    Xerxes'  reply  was  to  throw 
two  solid  bridges  across  it,  and  thus  pradlically  to 
extend  the  land  from  shore  to  shore.     "The  bridges 
were  contrived,"   says   Mitford,   **  one  to  resist  the 
current,  which  is  always  strong  from  the  Propontis, 
the  other  to  withstand  the  winds,  which  are  often 
violent  from  the  Aegean  Sea ;  so  that  each  prote(5ted 
the  other."*     Ancient  sailors  dreaded  the  doubling 
of   the  Cape    of  Athos.     Xerxes   decreed   that   the 
necessity  for  doubling  the  Cape  should  cease.     His 
ships  would  go  overland,  just  as  his  soldiers  marched 
across  the  sea.     A  huge  canal  was  dug  across  the 
isthmus,   an  undertaking  so  vast  that  it  has  been 
declared  by  many  to  be  impossible.     These  things 
made  an  immense  impression  upon  the  ancient  world. 
The  unbounded  resources,  the  gigantic  notions,  and 
the  imperious  will,  of  Xerxes  made  the  name  of  Persia 
one  of  terror  to  the  ancient  world  ;  and  these  have  to 
enter  into  the  pi(5ture,  as  well  as  his  fickleness,  vanity, 

*  History  of  Greece,  vol,  ii.,  p.  94. 


328  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

and  passion.  But  when  the  picfture  has  been  thus 
completed,  what  have  we  got  ?  It  is,  in  every  detail, 
the  very  Ahasuerus  of  the  Bible  !  Mark,  too,  that  the 
Book  of  Esther  takes  us  to  entirely  different  scenes 
from  those  presented  in  the  history  of  the  times.  In 
the  Bible  we  have  Xerxes  at  home.  The  Scripture 
presents  not  one  scene  in  common  with  Herodotus, 
or  with  any  other  ancient  writer.  To  have  pictured 
the  same  man  on  an  entirely  different  field  was  a  task 
utterly  impossible  to  any  fidlion  that  has  ever  been, 
or  that  ever  can  be,  written.  To  have  given  us 
this  unique  personality,  this  living  pi(?ture,  required 
an  absolutely  truthful  and  exa(5l  history.  Noldeke's 
verdicTt,  that  the  Book  has  not  even  ''  a  historical 
kernel,"  is  left  a  monument  of  critical  folly.  No  man 
with  the  slightest  historical  faculty  can  fail  to  see  that 
every  fibre  of  the  Book  is  truth,  and  that  it  is  radiant 
with  insight  from  its  first  line  to  its  last. 

The  identification  of  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes  has 
brought  the  statements  of  Scripture  into  full  accord 
with  history.  The  king  is  described  in  the  first  verse 
as  that  "  Ahasuerus  who  reigned  from  India  even  unto 
Ethiopia,  over  a  hundred  and  seven  and  twenty 
provinces."  Herodotus  (iv.  44)  tells  us  that  Darius, 
the  father  of  Xerxes,  ''subdued  the  Indians."  He 
says  also  that  "the  Indians,  the  most  numerous 
nation  of  whom  we  have  any  knowledge  .  .  .  formed 
the  twentieth  satrapy"  under  Darius,  "and  furnished 
six  hundred  talents  in  golden  ingots  "  (iii.  94).  After 
saying  that  the  Persians  were  not  compelled  by 
Darius  to  pay  any  specific  taxes,  but  presented  a  free- 


Esther  and  History.  329 

will  offering,  he  continues:  "The  Ethiopians,  who 
border  upon   Egypt,  subdued   by  Cambyses  in  his 
expedition    against   the  Ethiopian    Macrobians,  are 
similarly  circumstanced  "  (97).  The  Ethiopians,  there- 
fore, also  formed  part  of  the  Persian  empire  under 
Xerxes.   And,  had  there  been  any  doubt  left  in  regard 
to  this  matter,  it  would  be  dispelled  by  the  following 
passages  from  the  description  by  Herodotus  of  the 
army  which  Xerxes  marched  into  Greece.  This  proves 
that  the  widely  extended  empire  was  no  ficftion.    "  The 
dress  of  the  Indians,"  he  says,  "was  cotton :  their  bows 
were  made  of  reeds,  as  were  also  their  arrows,  which 
were  pointed  with  iron.    Their  leader  was  Pharna- 
zathres,    son    of    Artabates."  *     "Arsanes,    son    of 
Darius  by  Aristone,  a  daughter  of  Cyrus,  commanded 
the  Arabians  and  the  Ethiopians  who   came  from 
beyond    Egypt.  .  .  .  Those    Ethiopians  who   came 
from  the  most  eastern  parts  of   their  country    (for 
there  were  two   distindl   bodies  in   this   expedition) 
served  with  the   Indians.     These   differed  from  the 
former  in  nothing  but  their  language  and  their  hair."  t 
These  were,  therefore,  the  very  limits,  on  the  extreme 
east  and  the  extreme  west,  of  the  empire  of  Xerxes. 

The  dates  also  enable  us  to  fill  up  the  story  of 
Xerxes.  We  are  told  that  "in  the  third  year  of 
his  reign  he  made  a  feast  unto  all  his  princes  and 
his  servants;  the  power  of  Persia  and  Media,  the 
nobles  and  princes  of  the  provinces  being  before  him  " 
(i.  3).  Does  anything  hang  upon  this  "third  year" 
that  it  is  so  specially  noted?     And  was  there  any 

♦VII.  65.     +69,70. 


330  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

reason  of  State  for  the  summoning  and  for  the  long 
continuance  of  this  great  national  Council  or  Parlia- 
ment ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  brings  us  to 
the  great  event  of  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  and  that  which 
has  perpetuated  his  fame.  During  the  reign  of  Darius 
his  father,  the  Persians  had  suffered  a  disastrous 
defeat  on  the  plains  of  Marathon.  Darius  set  himself 
to  organise  an  invasion  of  such  proportions  as  would 
bid  defiance  to  any  resistance  the  Greeks  might  make. 
He  died  just  as  he  was  about  to  commence  the  cam- 
paign. The  task  was  thus  inherited  by  Xerxes ;  and 
when,  in  his  second  year  the  rebellion  of  Egypt  had 
been  subdued,  attention  was  concentrated  upon  the 
Grecian  expedition. 

It  was  a  stupendous  undertaking.  Repeated  defeats 
had  convinced  the  Persians  that  in  the  Greeks  they 
had  no  ordinary  foes,  and  that  the  seas  by  which  their 
isles  were  surrounded  made  an  invasion  peculiarly 
perilous.  Herodotus  tells  us  that  "  in  the  year  which 
followed  the  death  of  Darius,"  that  is,  in  Xerxes' 
second  year,  the  Persian  king  "  subdued  ....  the 
whole  of  Egypt,  so  that  it  was  more  effectually  reduced 
than  it  had  been  by  Darius."  "  After  the  subje(5lion 
of  Egypt,"  he  continues,  "Xerxes  prepared  to  lead 
an  army  against  Athens ;  but  first  of  all  he  called  an 
assembly  of  the  principal  Persians  to  hear  their 
sentiments,  and  to  deliver  without  reserve  his  own." 
Herodotus  pretends  to  report  the  speeches  which  were 
delivered,  but  his  account  plainly  implies  that  the 
assembly  continued  in  session  for  some  time,  until  a 
decision  was  finally  reached,  in  which  all  the  Persians 


Esther  and  History.  331 

were  united.  He  says  that  Xerxes,  as  the  time  went 
on,  had  a  number  of  visions  (vii.  12-19).  "Xerxes," 
he  says,  "  saw  a  third  vision.  The  magi,  to  whom  it 
was  related,  were  of  opinion  that  it  portended  to 
Xerxes'  unlimited  and  universal  empire.  The  king 
conceived  himself  to  be  crowned  with  a  wreath  of 
an  olive  tree,  whose  branches  covered  all  the  earth, 
but  that  this  wreath  suddenly  and  totally  disappeared. 
After  the  above  interpretation  of  the  magi  had  been 
made  known  in  the  national  assembly  of  the  Persians, 
the  governors  departed  to  their  several  provinces, 
eager  to  execute  the  commands  they  had  received,  in 
expe(5lation  of  the  promised  reward." 

This  prolonged  consultation  was  in  exacft  accord 
with  the  customs  of  the  times.  Speaking  of  Cyrus, 
Lenormant  says :  "  It  was  by  free  deliberation  in  a 
real  national  assembly  that  he  was  eledled  king. 
Even  in  later  times,  when  the  Persian  empire  was 
at  its  greatest  height  of  glory  and  power,  there 
still  remained  something  of  these  ancient  forms  of 
this  spirit  of  independence  and  liberty.  The  nature 
of  the  government  and  the  authority  of  the  great 
king  were  very  different  in  the  provinces  from  what 
they  were  in  Persia  itself.  Although  elsewhere  he 
was  the  typical  Asiatic  sovereign,  absolute,  uncon- 
trolled, almost  divine;  in  Persia,  the  king  was  only 
the  chief  of  a  free  people.  ...  It  was  their  warlike 
legions,  with  the  hardy  habits  of  mountaineers,  which 
constituted  the  chief  strength  of  the  armies  of  the 
king;  but  he  was  unable  to  march  them  absolutely 
at  his  own  caprice — the  Persian  nation  had  to  decide 


332  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

upon  the  propriety  of  the  war.  On  these  solemn 
occasions  the  king,  whose  word  was  law  to  all  the 
other  nations  beneath  his  sceptre,  assembled  around 
him,  before  taking  his  resolution,  a  real  parliament, 
composed  of  the  chiefs  and  principal  men  among  the 
Persians,  who  were  looked  on  almost  as  his  equals. 
It  is  thus  that  Herodotus,  always  well  informed, 
records  that  the  declaration  of  war  by  Darius  against 
the  Greeks  was  preceded  by  a  careful  deliberation  in 
the  royal  parliament,  in  which  everyone  expressed  his 
opinion  with  entire  freedom.  And  this  fadl  was  so 
well  known  in  Greece,  that  a  celebrated  painted  vase 
in  the  Museum  at  Naples  represents,  with  the  names 
of  the  personages,  the  scene  of  this  deliberation."* 

Here  we  have  another  illustration  of  how  circum- 
scribed the  learning  often  is  which  dares  to  condemn 
the  Bible.  Davidson  says  under  the  heading  ''  His- 
torical Improbabilities":  ''Ahasuerus  keeps  a 
feast  for  half-a-year,  assembling  about  him  all  his 
princes,  nobles,  and  satraps,  and  thus  leaving  their 
provinces  without  a  proper  government."  But  here 
Herodotus  tells  us  that  "the  governors  departed  to 
their  several  provinces."  They^  therefor e,  had  been  at 
Siisa.  Davidson  mixes  up,  in  this  objedlion,  which 
has  been  part  of  the  critics'  stock-in-trade  from  the 
days  of  Eichhorn  to  the  present  time,  two  things — 
(i)  the  facft  of  the  assembly,  and  (2)  its  duration. 
But  of  the  fa(5^  there  can,  in  the  face  of  this  explicit 
testimony  by  Herodotus,  be  no  manner  of  doubt  in 
the  mind  of  any  man  who  loyally  accepts  unbiassed 

♦  Manual  of  the  Ancient  History  of  the  East,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  60,  61. 


Esther  and  History.  333 

and  competent  evidence.  But  this  is  Davidson's  and 
the  critics'  principal  objeaion  to  Esther.  Davidson 
puts  it  first.  If  he  knew  that  this  passage  was  in 
Herodotus,  then  we  are  reduced  to  the  painful  necessity 
of  questioning  his  honesty.  For  he  makes  no  reference 
to  it  whatever.  But  let  me  repeat  that,  in  the  face 
of  the  testimony  quoted  above,  the  Persian  Parliament 
was  an  absolute  faa.  There  took  place,  in  the  third 
year  of  Xerxes,  what  Herodotus  calls,  "the  National 
Assembly  of  the  Persians."  Despite,  therefore,  what 
Davidson  says  about  their  "thus  leaving  their 
provinces  without  a  proper  government,"  the  Gov- 
ernors were  aftually  there  ;  for  Herodotus  says  that, 
at  the  close  of  the  Assembly,  "  the  Governors  departed 
to  their  several  provinces,"  a  thing  which  they  could 
scarcely  have  done,  unless  they  had  previously  left 
their  provinces  to  come  to  Susa. 

It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  the  organisation 
of  the  provinces  was  too  elaborate  to  permit  them  to 
be  "without  a  proper  government"  in  the  temporary 
absence  of  their  Governors.  That  refleaion  naturally 
occurs  to  any  fair-minded  man.  And,  as  to  the  tim.e 
to  which  the  conference  extended,  is  it  to  be  imagined 
that  men  would  have  been  brought  from  the  extremities 
of  the  earth— and  in  those  days,  too,  of  comparatively 
slow  travel — merely  to  meet  and  to  separate  again  ? 
The  faa  that  they  were  personally  summoned,  and 
that  direaions  were  not  sent  to  them  instead,  indicated 
that  not  a  hurried  meeting  but  a  prolonged  Conference 
was  necessary.  Herodotus  tells  us  that,  first  of  all, 
the  question  had  to  be  debated  as  to  whether  the 


334  ^^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

expedition  should  be  made.  Whether  such  a  debate 
took  place  or  not,  we  can  understand  that  it  was  a 
necessity,  in  such  a  gigantic  enterprise,  to  arouse  the 
enthusiasm,  and  so  secure  the  ardent  co-operation  of 
the  whole  empire.  Then,  when  this  was  accomplished, 
arrangements  had  to  be  made  as  to  the  men  to  be 
furnished  by  each  province ;  the  proportion  of  horse 
and  foot,  bowmen  and  spearmen,  of  which  the  con- 
tingent should  consist ;  the  provisions  to  be  supplied 
along  the  course  of  the  army's  march  ;  the  places  and 
the  times  at  which  these  were  to  be  deposited  ;  when 
each  contingent  was  to  set  out ;  the  officers  who  were 
to  command  them,  and  a  host  of  other  details,  which 
necessarily  required  frequent  conferences.  It  was 
only  when  all  these  points  had  been  fully  considered, 
and  when  all  arrangements  had  been  elaborated  by 
the  prolonged  consideration  of  the  best  minds  in  the 
empire,  that  they  could  be  placed  in  their  entirety 
before  the  king  and  his  special  advisers.  This  entailed 
further  time  before  the  arrangements  could  receive 
the  royal  approval,  and  be  issued  as  decrees.  That 
time  was  a(?tually  taken  for  such  deliberations,  and 
that  the  arrangements  had  been  finally  revised  and 
issued  as  royal  decrees,  is  also  plainly  seen  in  the 
statement  of  Herodotus,  that  "the  Governors  departed 
to  their  several  provinces,  eager  to  execute  the  com- 
mands they  had  received.'" 

The  second  "  historical  improbability,"  on  the 
strength  of  which  the  higher  criticism  has  denied 
even  the  truth  of  Esther,  is  the  length  of  the  interval 
between  the  divorce  of  Vashti  and  the  marriage  of 


Esther  and  History.  335 

Xerxes  with  Esther.  That  divorce  takes  place  in  the 
third  year  of  his  reign,  and  the  marriage  is  delayed 
to  the  seventh  year.  This  objed^ion  places  the  critical 
case  against  the  Bible  in  a  still  more  lamentable  light. 
The  decree  to  selecft  the  maidens  was  issued  in  the 
third  year  of  Xerxes.  The  Scriptures  tell  us  that  the 
harem  preparations  occupied  "twelve  months  "  (ii.  12). 
This  brings  us  to  the  fourth  year  of  the  king's  reign. 
By  this  time  Xerxes  had  set  out  for  Greece.  He  set 
out  from  Sardis,  on  his  return  to  Susa,  in  the  end  of 
479,  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign.  The  Scripture  says 
that  ''Esther  was  taken  unto  king  Ahasuerus  into  his 
house  royal  in  the  tenth  month,  which  is  the  month 
Tebeth,  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign  "  (ii.  16). 
This  was  in  the  month  of  January,  following  Xerxes' 
return.  Here  the  coincidence  is  exact;  and  the 
Scripture,  keeping  to  the  story  it  has  to  tell,  and 
saying  nothing  whatever  of  the  Grecian  campaign, 
nevertheless  keeps  step,  with  absolute  exa(?tness,  with 
the  events  and  circumstances  of  the  time.  Agreement 
like  this  reveals  the  fulness  of  knowledge  and  the 
undeviating  truthfulness  that  have  passed  like  life- 
blood  into  every  phrase  and  word  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  have  made  it  the  unique  and  peerless  Book  that  it 
is.  There  is  but  one  such  Book  in  the  entire  literature 
of  humanity. 


336  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

CHAPTER  IV. 

"  Shushan  the  Palace." 


THERE  have  been  significant  changes  in  the 
critical  attack  upon  this  and  other  portions  of 
Scripture.  The  reader  has  already  remarked  De 
Wette's  judgment,  that  Esther  contained  "  many 
errors  in  regard  to  Persian  manners."  But  even 
then,  before  the  investigations  had  begun  which  have 
brought  back  so  much  of  that  ancient  past,  he  was 
constrained  to  add  the  words — "  as  well  as  just 
references  to  them."  We  can  measure  the  advance 
that  has  been  made  by  placing  by  the  side  of  these 
words  the  following  from  Dr.  Driver  :  "On  the  other 
hand,  the  writer  shows  himself  well  informed  on 
Persian  manners  and  institutions ;  he  does  not 
commit  anachronisms  such  as  occur  in  Tobit  or 
Judith ;  and  the  characfter  of  Xerxes  as  drawn  by 
him  is  in  agreement  with  history."*  But  it  is 
significant  of  the  tremendous  issues  of  this  conflidl 
that,  though  former  verdid^s  are  reversed,  the  Scrip- 
ture is  not  re-instated.  Dr.  Driver's  attitude  towards 
Esther  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  Dr.  De 
Wette.  Faith  is  a  grace,  a  sacred  trust.  It  is  the 
birthright  portion  in  God's  kingdom.  Once  scorned 
and  cast  away,  it  may  be  sought  with  tears  and  3^et 
not  be  found.      Such    has   been  the    experience   of 

*  Introduction,  p.  453. 


*'  Shushan  the  Palace^  337 

multitudes.     May  God  grant  that  it  be  not  the  fate 
of  our  country  ! 

We  shall  now  apply  the  test  of  fact  to  the  prevalent 
theory  regarding  the  late  origin  of  the  Book.  Dr. 
Driver  places  it  about  200  years  after  the  events.* 
Others  bring  the  date  of  its  composition  still  lower. 
The  advantage  of  this,  from  the  critical  point  of 
view,  is,  that  it  is  then  impossible  to  regard  the  Book 
as  the  inspired  Word  of  God  or  as  history.  It  is 
mere  tradition — a  collection  of  coloured  representa- 
tions, exaggerations,  mistakes,  distortions,  and  fabri- 
cations. The  critics  in  this  way  attain  the  freedom, 
which  is  the  goal  towards  which  they  are  now 
hurrying  forward  the  English-speaking  race — freedom 
for  unbelief  to  treat  the  Bible  as  it  likes — freedom 
for  everyone  but  for  him  who  will  hold  it  forth  as  the 
Word  of  eternal  life. 

But  in  this  Book  we  hear  the  accent  of  certainty 
so  peculiar  to  the  Bible.  It  possesses  that  strange 
power  also  of  placing  us  in  direct  contact  with  scenes 
and  persons,  so  that  we  are  made  spectators,  and  not 
merely  readers  or  listeners.  Are  we  in  contact,  then, 
with  fact,  or  with  the  painted  imagery  of  fiction  ? 
The  feast,  we  are  told,  is  celebrated  at  "  Shushan 
the  Palace ;  "  and  this  is  plainly  assumed  to  be  the 
residence  of  Xerxes.  He  is  there  when  the  story 
opens.  He  is  there  also  when  Esther  is  wedded,  and 
when  Haman's  intrigue  is  in  progress.  Is  it  a  matter 
of  fact,  then,  that  this  city  was  the  residence  of  the 
Persian  king?     That    is   one  of  those  facts  which 

*  Page  454. 


338  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

would  soon  be  lost  sight  of  when  the  Persian 
dominion  ended,  and  when,  under  the  Greek 
dominion,  Susa  was  neglected,  and  other  cities  had 
long  impressed  the  popular  imagination  as  residences 
of  kings.  But  the  answer  to  our  question  is  clear 
and  decided.  Susa  was  the  abode  of  Xerxes.  Hero- 
dotus is  giving  an  account  of  the  distance  from 
Sardis  of  what  he  calls  "  the  royal  residence  of 
Memnon,"  and  in  the  same  paragraph  he  explains 
that  the  city  of  Memnon  is  Susa.*  It  was,  therefore, 
in  his  day,  what  it  had  been  before,  the  residence  of 
the  Persian  kings.  In  another  passage  he  tells  us 
that  two  Persian  generals  carried  some  captive 
Eretrians  to  Darius  at  Susa.  It  was  consequently 
the  residence  of  Xerxes'  father.!  In  another  place 
we  read :  "  The  Athenians  upon  some  occasion  or 
other  sent  ambassadors  to  Susa,  the  city  of  Memnon, 
amongst  whom  was  Callias,  the  son  of  Hipponicas : 
at  the  same  place  and  time  some  Argives  were 
present  to  inquire  of  Artaxerxes,  the  son  of  Xerxes, 
whether  the  friendship  they  had  formed  with  his 
father  Xerxes  continued  still  in  force."  %  Susa  was 
also  the  residence,  therefore,  of  Xerxes'  son.  Some 
Greeks  from  Thessaly  came  to  Xerxes  to  implore 
him  to  invade  Greece.  They  came  to  Susa,§  so  that 
Susa  was  the  residence  of  Xerxes  himself.  Speaking 
of  Darius,  the  father  of  Xerxes,  Canon  Rawlinson 

says  :  "  Darius had  proceeded  to  the  seat  of 

Government,  which  appears  at  this  time  to  have  been 
Susa.     He  had  perhaps  already  built  there  the  great 

*V.54.        +VI.119.        :VII.i5i.        §vn.6. 


"  Shushan  the  Palace.'"'  339 

palace,  whose  remains  have  been  recently  disinterred 
by  English  enterprise ;  or  he  may  have  wished  to 
superintend  the  work  of  construction.  Susa,  which 
was  certainly  from  henceforth  the  main  Persian 
capital,  possessed  advantages  over  almost  any  other 
site.  Its  climate  was  softer  than  that  of  Ecbatana 
and  Persepolis,  less  sultry  than  that  of  Babylon.  Its 
position  was  convenient  for  communicating  both  with 
the  East  and  with  the  West.  Its  people  were  plastic, 
and  probably  more  yielding  and  submissive  than  the 
Medes  or  the  Persians."* 

In  this  matter,  then,  there  is  no  trace  of  tradition. 
The  Bible  is  accurate  even  in  the  form  of  the  name. 
Sayce  writes :  "  The  Elamite  kings,  whose  capital 
was  at  Susa,  entitle  themselves  lords  '  of  the  king- 
dom of  Anzan,  kings  of  Shushan.'  "  t  But  the  epithet, 
with  which  the  name  is  always  accompanied,  shows 
with  what  full  knowledge  of  the  place  and  time  the 
Book  is  written.  The  phrase  used  is  "  Shushan  the 
Palace,"  or  rather  "  Shushan  the  Fortress."  Birah,  the 
word  employed  in  the  original,  seems  to  be  ancient 
Persian,  and  to  be  closely  allied  to  other  words  in 
that  tongue  which  point  to  the  meaning,  **  a  fortified 
place."  The  full  force  of  this  description  will  be  seen 
when  we  deal  by-and-bye  with  the  recent  discoveries 
which  have  brought  to  the  light  of  day  the  palace  of 
Xerxes  and  of  Esther.  Meanwhile,  it  is  enough  to 
note  that  there  were  two  Shusans.  The  royal  resi- 
dence, covering  an  immense  space,  was  at  some 
distance  from   the  city,  and  was   strongly  fortified. 

*  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  ii.,  p.  442.  +  The  Higher  Criticism,  etc.,  p.  516. 


"  Shushan  the  Palace.'"  341 

These  two  are  carefully  distinguished.  We  read  of 
*'the  city  Shushan,"  when  the  ordinary  inhabitants 
are  referred  to ;  "  the  city  Shushan  was  perplexed  " 
(iii.  15);  ''the  city  of  Shushan  rejoiced  and  was 
glad  "  (viii.  15).  The  royal  residence,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  invariably  spoken  of  as  Shushan  hab-birah, 
"  Shushan  the  Fortress." 

So  much  for  the  place  of  the  gathering  and  of  the 
festival.  In  describing  the  arrangements  for  the  con- 
cluding festivities,  we  are  told  that  these  were  held 
"in  the  court  of  the  garden  of  the  king's  palace." 
It  is  clearly  implied  that  this  "court  of  the  garden  " 
had  been  constructed  with  a  view  to  such  an  occa- 
sional use  as  this.  The  hangings  were  "fastened 
with  cords  of  fine  linen  and  purple  to  silver  rings  and 
pillars  of  marble."  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that 
the  pillars  of  marble  were  brought  together  and  set 
up  for  this  special  seven  days'  festival.  Was  it  part, 
then,  of  palace  arrangements  in  ancient  Persia  to 
have  the  open  courts  planted  with  pillars  ready  to  be 
used  in  this  way  ?  I  may  say  that  the  recognition  of 
this  fadl  has  been  one  of  the  surprises  furnished  by 
the  researches  which  have  restored  to  the  world  a 
knowledge  of  ancient  Persian  archited^ure.  When 
the  ruins  of  Persepolis  were  studied  upon  the  spot, 
it  was  seen  that,  while  pillars  were  still  standing,  and 
the  ground  were  strewed  with  fragments  of  others, 
there  was  not  a  solitary  trace  of  any  roof  throughout 
a  vast  space.  There  were  no  fragments  adhering 
to  the  tops  of  the  pillars  that  were  still  erecSl,  and 
there  were  none  upon  the  ground  below.     "Amon^ 


342  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

the  ruins  remaining  at  Persepolis,"  says  Le  Bruyn, 

**is  a  court  containing  many  lofty  pillars:  one  may 

even  presume  that   these  columns  did  not  support 

any  architrave,  as  Sir  John  Chardin  has  observed ; 

but  we  may  venture  to  suppose  that  a  covering  of 

tapestry,  or  linen,  was  drawn  over  them  to  intercept 

the  perpendicular  projedlion  of  the  sun-beams.     It  is 

also  probable  that  the  trad^  of  ground  where  most  of 

the  columns  stand  was  originally  a  court  before  the 

palace,  like  that  which  was  before  the  king's  house  at 

Susa,  mentioned  in  Esther  v.,  and  through  which  a 

flow  of  fresh  air  was  admitted  into  the  apartments." 

I  shall  refer  to  the  exploration  of  Susa  shortly  ; 

but,  meanwhile,  the  following  from  the  pen  of  Mr. 

Loftus,  who  discovered  the  hall  of  columns  at  Susa, 

may  be  cited.     He  quotes  the  words:    "The  king 

made  a  feast  unto  all  the  people  that  were  present  in 

Shushan  the  palace,  both  unto  great  and  small,  seven 

days,  in  the  court  of  the  garden  of  the  king's  palace; 

where  were  white,  green,  and  blue  hangings,  fastened 

with  cords  of  fine  linen  and  purple  to  silver  rings  and 

pillars  of  marble :  the  beds  were  of  gold  and  silver, 

upon  a  pavement  of  red,  and  blue,  and  white,  and 

black,  marble  "  (Esther  i.  5,  6).     The  reader  will  note 

the  italics  by  means  of  which  he  calls  attention  to 

the  points  which  his  discovery  had  illustrated.     He 

says   that,   if   it    be    admitted   that    Ahasuerus  was 

Xerxes,  ''we  cannot  but  regard  the  edifice  in  question 

as  the  adlual  building  referred  to."     He  continues : 

**  It  was  here,  among  the  pillars  of  marble  in  the  court 

of  the  garden  in  Shushan  the  palace,  'when  the  heart 


"  Shushan  the  Palace.'"  343 

of  the  king  was  merry  with  wine,'  that  the  order  was 
given  for  Queen  Vashti  to  overstep  the  bounds  of 
Oriental  female  modesty,  and  'show  the  people  and 
the  princes  her  beauty.'  By  referring  to  the  plan  of 
the  ruins,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  position  of  the 
great  colonnade  corresponds  with  the  account  above 
given.  It  stands  on  an  elevation  in  the  centre  of  the 
mound,  the  remainder  of  which  we  may  well  imagine 
to  have  been  occupied,  after  the  Persian  fashion,  with 
a  garden  and  fountains.  Thus  the  colonnade  would 
represent  the  'court  of  the  garden  of  the  king's 
palace,'  with  its  'pillars  of  marble.'"  ".  .  .  .  I  feel 
persuaded  ....  that  the  outer  groups,  or  porticoes, 
stood  distin(ft  from  the  central  square  of  columns,  or 
were  connedled  simply  by  means  of  curtains.  It  seems 
to  be  to  this  that  reference  is  made  in  the  '  hangings 
fastened  with  cords  to  silver  rings  and  pillars  of 
marble  '  at  the  feast  of  the  royal  Ahasuerus.  Nothing 
could  be  more  appropriate  than  this  method  at  Susa 
and  Persepolis,  the  spring  residences  of  the  Persian 
monarchs.  It  must  be  considered  that  these  columnar 
halls  were  the  equivalents  of  the  modern  throne- 
rooms,  that  here  all  pubhc  business  was  despatched, 
and  that  here  the  king  might  sit  and  enjoy  the  beauties 
of  the  landscape.  With  the  rich  plains  of  Susa  and 
Persepolis  before  him,  he  could  well,  after  his  winter's 
residence  at  Babylon,  dispense  with  massive  walls, 
which  would  only  check  the  warm  fragrant  breeze 
from  those  verdant  prairies  adorned  with  the  choicest 
flowers.  A  massive  roof,  covering  the  whole  expanse 
of  columns,  would  be  too  cold  and  dismal,  whereas 


344  ^'^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

curtains  around  the  central  group  would  serve  to 
admit  both  light  and  warmth.  Nothing  can  be  con- 
ceived better  adapted  to  the  climate  or  the  season."* 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  British  Diggings  at  Susa. 


DARIUS,  the  father  of  Xerxes,  had  chosen  Susa, 
or  Shushan — the  name  by  which  the  city  is 
named  upon  the  Assyrian  monuments — and  built  there 
a  magnificent  palace.  The  reputation  which  it  then 
enjoyed  may  be  j  udged  by  the  words  which  Aristagoras 
addressed  to  the  king  of  Sparta,  when  he  wished  his 
help  in  a  revolt  against  Darius.  ''  Susa,"  he  said, 
*'  where  the  Persian  monarch  occasionally  resides, 
and  where  his  treasures  are  deposited — make  yourself 
master  of  that  city,  and  you  may  vie  in  influence  with 
Jupiter  himself!  " 

About  a  century  and  a-half  earlier,  Assurbanipal, 
king  of  Assyria,  had  invaded  Elam.  He  had  previously 
subdued  the  country,  and  placed  upon  the  throne  a 
nominee  of  his  own.  In  the  account  of  that  campaign 
he  mentions  Susa.  He  says  :  '' Assur  and  Istar  have 
lifted  me  above  my  enemies.  I  have  taken  the  great 
city  of  Shushan,  the  seat  of  their  great  divinities, 
the  sancftuary  of  their  oracles."  f  But  his  troubles 
with  that  country  were  not  ended.     The  king  of  his 

*  Chaldcea  and  Susiatta,  pp.  373-375. 
+  Menant,  Annates  du  Rots  d'Assyrie,  p.  267. 


The  British  Diggings  at  Susa.  345 

choice  threw  off  his  yoke,  and  the  land  had  to  be  con- 
quered afresh.  Frightful  vengeance  was  taken  upon 
the  people,  their  cities,  and  their  country.  He  tells 
how  his  warriors  had  burned  the  huge  impenetrable 
forests  of  Elam,  and  continues:  *' I  have  dried  up 
their  cisterns.  During  a  march  of  a  month  and 
twenty-five  days  I  have  ravaged  the  provinces  of  the 
land  of  Elam.    I  have  covered  them  with  destruction, 

slavery,  and  famine The  dust  of  the  city  of 

Shushan,  of  the  city  of  Madaktu,  of  the  city  of 
Hultemas,  and  of  the  rest  of  their  cities,  I  have  carried 
away  to  the  land  of  Assyria."  * 

Shushan  was  plainly  the  chief  city  of  Elam  in  the 
time  of  Assurbanipal,  and  one  which  he  had  to  describe 
as  *'the  great  city  of  Shushan."  The  legends  of 
ancient  Greece  ascribed  a  huge  antiquity  to  this 
city,  and  it  is  certain  that  its  fame  had  long  extended 
to  these  islands  of  the  west.  Alexander  the  Great 
became  its  possessor  while  it  still  retained  its  riches 
and  its  splendour.  It  was  striven  for  by  his  suc- 
cessors, and  it  became  part  of  the  new  Parthian 
empire  in  226  a.d.  It  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
Mahometans  in  the  year  640  of  our  era ;  and  about 
half  a  century  afterwards  it  was  deserted,  the 
inhabitants  having  removed  to  other  towns.  When 
General  Williams,  the  hero  of  Kars,  and  Mr.  Loftus 
visited  the  place,  it  seemed  as  if  the  work  of  Assur- 
banipal had  been  repeated,  and  that  its  very  dust 
had  been  swept  away.  All  that  remained  was  a 
series  of  mounds,  and  it  was  only  in  the  ravines 

*  Ibid,  p.  268. 


34^  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

ploughed  out  by  the  winter  rains  that  any  trace  of 
ruins  could  be  detected.  "At  the  eastern  base  of  the 
ruins,"  writes  Mr.  Loftus,  *'  stands  the  (reputed) 
tomb  of  Daniel,  on  the  verge  of  the  Shaour,  a  deep 
but  narrow  stream,  rising  from  the  plain  a  few  miles 
on  the  north,  and  flowing  at  a  sluggish  pace  towards 
its  junction  with  the  river  of  Dizful.  The  area 
occupied  by  the  ruins  covers  an  extent  of  ground 
three  and  a-half  miles  in  circumference,  and,  if  the 
numerous  small  mounds  around  the  great  mass  be 
included,  spreads  over  the  whole  visible  plain  east  of 
the  Shaour." 

"The  principal  existing  remains,"  he  continues, 
"  consist  of  four  spacious  artificial  platforms,  dis- 
tinctly separated  from  each  other.  Of  these,  the 
western  mound  is  the  smallest  in  superficial  extent, 
but  considerably  the  most  lofty  and  important  (num- 
bered I  on  the  plan).  ...  It  is  apparently  constructed 
of  earth,  gravel,  and  sun-dried  brick,  sections  being 
exposed  in  numerous  ravines  by  the  rains  of  winter. 
.  .  .  From  the  remarkably  commanding  position  of 
the  great  mound,  which  is  called  by  the  people  of  the 
country  '  the  Kal'a  '  or  castle,  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  recognising  in  it  the  citadel  of  Susa  to  which 
Arrian  pointedly  alludes  in  the  following  passage : — 
'  When  we  had  sacrificed  according  to  the  national 
custom,  and  held  torch  races  and  athletic  games, 
Alexander  appointed  Abulites,  a  Persian,  Satrap  of 
Susiana,  gave  the  command  of  the  garrison  (i,ooo 
disabled  Macedonian  soldiers)  in  the  citadel  of  Susa, 
to  Mazarus,  one  of  his  own  staff,  and  made  Archelaus, 


The  British  Diggings  at  Susa. 


347 


son  of  Theodorus,  governor  of  the  city  (with  3,000 
men);  after  which  he  set  out  to  go  into  Persia.'  .   .   . 


The  importance  of  the  citadel,  commanding  the  rest 
of  the  city,  may  be  gathered  from  the  fadt  that  he 


348  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

placed  in  it  the  well-tried  soldiers  who  had  followed 
him  from  his  own  native  kingdom  of  Macedonia."* 

*' It  is  difficult,"  he  says,  "to  conceive  a  more 
imposing  site  than  Susa,  as  it  stood  in  the  days  of  its 
Kayanian  splendour — its  great  citadel  and  columnar 
edifices  raising  their  stately  heads  above  groves  of 
date,  konar,  and  lemon  trees — surrounded  by  rich 
pastures  and  golden  seas  of  corn — and  backed  by  the 
distant  snow-clad  mountains.  Neither  Babylon  nor 
Persepolis  could  compare  with  Susa  in  position — 
watered  by  her  noble  rivers,  producing  crops  without 
irrigation,  clothed  with  grass  in  spring,  and  within  a 
moderate  journey  of  a  delightful  summer  clime."  t 

Excavations  were  hindered  by  the  intense  fanati- 
cism of  the  Moslem  inhabitants,  but  were  nevertheless 
pushed  forward.  General  (then  Colonel)  Williams, 
after  digging  in  various  parts  of  the  citadel  mound 
(marked  i)  and  discovering  nothing,  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  the  northern  mound  (marked  2).  He  here 
"  observed  a  small  piece  of  limestone  projedling 
through  the  soil."  On  digging  around  this,  he  found 
the  base  of  a  gigantic  pillar.  He  then  discovered  two 
others  at  equal  distances  of  27^  feet  from  the  centre 
of  one  pillar  to  the  centre  of  the  next.  "There  could 
be  no  hesitation  in  concluding,"  says  Mr.  Loftus, 
"that  Colonel  Williams  had  discovered  a  palace  of 
the  ancient  Persian  monarchs  at  Susa,  rivalling,  if  not 
surpassing,  that  at  Persepolis  in  grandeur."  %  Largely 
on    account    of  the   annoyances  from    the  fanatical 

*ChaUicea  and  Susiana,  pp.  342-344.       +  Ibid,  p.  347. 
:  Page  353. 


The  British  Diggings  at  Susa.  349 

Moslems,    little    more   was    accomplished,  and   the 
excavations  were  for  a  time  abandoned. 

;f  500  having  been  sent  out  by  Lord  Palmerston's 
government  to  carry  on  the  exploration,  Mr.  Loftus 
returned,  and  continued  the  excavations  on  mound 
No.  2.  After  several  disappointments  in  the  attempt 
to  discover  additional  pillars,  he  succeeded  in  laying 
bare  five  more  of  the  huge  pedestals.  *'I  was  now 
satisfied,"  he  says,  "that  the  stru(5lure  was  one  of 
similar  description  to  the  so-called  Great  Hall  of 
Xerxes  at  Persepolis.  Further  researches  not  only 
confirmed  this  impression,  but  proved  likewise  that, 
although  the  two  colonnades  differed  in  details,  they 
were  erected  on  the  same  plan,  and  with  nearly  the 
same  measurements.  It  is,  therefore,  natural  to  con- 
clude that  they  were  the  designs  of  the  same  archite(5l. 
<  .  .  The  Great  Hall  at  Susa,"  he  adds,  "consisted 
of  several  magnificent  groups  of  columns,  together 
having  a  frontage  of  343  feet  g  inches,  and  a  depth  of 
244  feet.  These  groups  were  arranged  into  a  central 
phalanx  of  thirty-six  columns  (six  rows  of  six  each), 
flanked  on  the  west,  north,  and  east,  by  an  equal 
number  disposed  in  double  rows  of  six  each,  and 
distant  from  them  sixty-four  feet  two  inches." 

On  the  pedestals  of  four  of  the  columns  an  inscrip- 
tion was  engraved  in  three  languages.  This  showed 
that  the  palace  found  by  Loftus  had  been  built  by 
Artaxerxes  Mnemon ;  and  the  information  which  it 
contains  has  a  special  bearing,  as  we  shall  afterwards 
see,  upon  the  controversy  regarding  the  age  of  Esther. 
M.  Oppert,  whose  translation  I  now  give,  says  :  "The 


350  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

texts  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  are  much  more  import- 
ant :  they  are  all  due  to  Loftus's  excavations  at  Susa. 
The  text  of  the  columns  in  two  copies  is  of  a  very- 
high  value ;  it  affords  the  only  new  historical  state- 
ment in  all  the  texts,  except  the  Behistun  document. 
We  learn  that  the  palace  of  Susa  was  burnt  under  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  I.,  and  restored  only  by  his  grand- 
son. During  this  time  the  Persian  monarchs  resided 
principally  at  Babylon,  and  Darius  II.  died  there. 

*'  The  great  importance  of  the  Artaxerxes'  texts 
results  from  their  giving  the  genealogy  of  the 
Achaemenidae,  and  in  confirming  the  statements 
transmitted  to  us  by  the  Greeks,  which  are  in  dire(5^ 
contradiction  with  the  traditions  of  the  modern 
Persians."  The  translation  of  the  inscription  is  as 
follows : 

Says  Artaxerxes,  the  great  king,  the  king  of 
kings,  the  king  of  the  land,  the  king  of  this 
wide  earth,  the  son  of  King  Darius,  of  King 
Darius  the  son  of  King  Artaxerxes,  of  King 
Artaxerxes  the  son  of  King  Xerxes,  of  King 
Xerxes  the  son  of  King  Darius,  of  King  Darius 
the  son  of  Hystaspes,  the  Achaemenian. 

This  palace  (apaddnum),  Darius,  my  grand- 
forefather,  built  it.  In  the  time  of  Artaxerxes, 
my  grandfather,  it  was  burnt  by  fire.  By  the 
grace  of  Ormazd,  Anahita,  and  Mithra,  I  made 
anew  this  palace.  May  Ormazd,  Anahita,  and 
Mithra  protect  me  from  all  evil,  and  may  they 
not  attack  nor  destroy  my  work.* 

*  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  ix.,  pp.  85,  86. 


Recovery  of  Shnshan  by  the  French,  351 

Little  more  was  accomplished  by  this  first  attempt 
to  lay  bare  the  scene  of  the  sorrow  and  the  triumph  of 
Esther  and  Mordecai.  Many  years  passed,  and  this 
was  all  that  was  known  of  the  ancient  Shushan.  But 
the  time  came  at  last  when  the  spade  was  once  more 
busy  in  the  dust  and  rubbish  of  centuries,  and  the 
result  was  another  and  fuller  triumph  for  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

Recovery  of  Shushan  by  the  French. 


THE  British  Government  has  occasionallyassisted 
Oriental  research,  as  in  the  case  of  Loftus  and 
of  Layard  :  and  when  it  has  done  so,  laurels  have 
been  won  which  have  been  a  truer  glory  to  us  than 
many  of  the  vic^lories  achieved  through  lavish  ex- 
penditure of  blood  and  treasure.  This  makes  every 
lover  of  our  country  regret  the  more  keenly  that  the 
encouragement  of  research  has  depended  upon  the 
predilections  of  individual  statesmen,  and  has  never 
been  a  settled  national  policy. 

The  fruits  of  the  excavation  begun  by  Mr.  Loftus 
were  in  this  way  left  to  be  reaped  by  our  French 
neighbours.  Mr.  Dieulafoy  set  out  for  the  now 
famous  ruins  along  with  his  wife,  who  nobly  shared 
his  labours  and  his  dangers.  Of  the  results  of  their 
memorable  discoveries  I  shall  immediately  speak; 
but,  meanwhile,  it  may  be  said  that  the  mounds  of 
Shush  have  recently  been  still  more  fully  explored 


352  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

with  surprising  results.  The  French  Minister  of 
Pubhc  Instruction  sent  out  to  Susa  an  expedition, 
with  M.  J.  de  Morgan  at  its  head,  which  conducted 
researches  there  from  1897  to  1902.  Special  facilities, 
along  with  a  grant  of  all  objects  found,  were  given 
by  the  Shah  of  Persia.  Father  Scheil  has  lent  his 
help  in  the  decipherment  of  the  inscriptions.  A 
large  assortment  of  objects  has  been  recovered,  and 
the  history  of  Elam  has  had  light  shed  upon  it,  even 
up  to  the  remotest  times.  There  is  one  discovery 
which  will  excite  the  lively  interest  of  our  readers. 
It  is  the  discovery  of  a  sepulchre  belonging  to  the 
very  dynasty  of  Xerxes.  In  it  was  a  huge  sarcophagus 
of  bronze.  The  skeleton  of  a  female,  which  fell  in 
pieces  when  the  tomb  was  opened,  is  adorned  with 
rich  jewellery,  the  only  known  specimens  which  belong 
to  the  Persia  of  the  time.  The  head  was  decked  with 
*'  a  marvellous  torque,  the  extremities  of  which  are 
adorned  with  two  heads  of  lions,  of  an  astonishing 
kind,  two  bracelets  of  massive  gold,  a  collar  with 
pendules,  imitating  teeth."*  The  jewellery  is  deli- 
cately engraved,  and  is  enriched  with  precious  stones. 
There  is  no  inscription  to  say  whose  body  was  thus 
honoured ;  but  just  so  may  Esther  have  been  laid  to 
rest. 

We  shall  not  follow  the  story  of  M.  Dieulafoy's 
excavations.  It  will  be  enough  for  our  present  purpose 
to  note  their  clearly-established  results.  No  part  of 
the  mounds  of  ruins,  which  we  have  already  noticed, 
belonged  to  the  ancient  town — "  the  city  Shushan  " 

*  Revue  de  I'Ecole  d'Anthropologie  de  Paris,  Juin,  1902,  p.  191. 


1 ::::::  n 

1 — ' 

1 

/(F>At>AA/A. 

^ 


'^  1  <^U^a.. 


i^O^yxUtyvt^, 


HxTLUC  (ff^tki,  Unxk'HJtM^. 


^^ 


Hijvutc^  at 


i^  liiM-, 


PLAN    OF    SHUSHAN    THE    PALACE. 


354  ^^^^  ^^"^  Biblical  Guide. 

of  the  Bible.  That  lay  entirely  outside  their  range. 
The  reader  will  find  the  site  of  the  town  marked  on 
the  upper  part  of  the  plan  (see  page  347).  The  ruins 
lie  on  the  west  of  the  palace,  and  the  site  is  marked 
4  on  the  plan.  It  is  to-day  merely  a  series  of  low 
mounds,  or  rather  undulations  of  the  soil,  some  of 
them  scarcely  perceptible.  The  large  mounds  to  the 
east  of  these  were  discovered  to  be  parts  of  one  huge 
palace.  The  whole  of  this  raised  platform  constituted 
the  Shushan  Hab-birah  mentioned  in  Esther — that  is, 
"Shushan,  the  Fortress."  This  upper  city,  or  Acro- 
polis, covered  123  acres,  not  measuring  the  ground 
taken  up  by  the  outer  walls.  It  constituted  a  formid- 
able fortress,  and  the  defensive  works  occupied  one- 
tenth  of  the  whole  extent  of  the  royal  city.  It  was 
completely  separated  from  the  town,  the  only  means 
of  communication,  apparently,  being  a  bridge  at  the 
south-east  corner.  This  was  defended  by  a  fort. 
Another  gate  has  since  been  discovered  on  the  east 
side.     On  the  west  was  the  citadel. 

The  reader  will  note  on  the  east  of  the  citadel,  "the 
house  of  the  king"  on  the  south,  and  "the  house  of 
the  women  "  on  the  north.  These  two  last  groups  of 
buildings  formed  the  chief  part  of  the  huge  strudlure. 
The  house  of  the  women  communicated  with  the 
palace  gardens  by  a  gate  on  the  north  which  is 
marked  on  the  plan.  In  these  gardens  stood  another 
notable  part  of  the  strucfture — the  Apadana,  or 
Biihan,  3iS  it  is  called  in  Esther.  This  was  an  immense 
pillared  hall,  covering  nearly  an  acre  of  ground.  It 
was    the  great   throne-room,  and  the  scene  of  the 


Recovery  of  SJmshan  by  the  French.  355 

prolonged  banquet  with  the  description  of  which  the 
Book  begins.  To  the  south,  and  fronting  the  Bithan, 
are  the  palace  gardens.  To  the  south  of  these  again 
lay  a  vast  terrace,  probably  adorned  with  hanging 
gardens.  From  this  a  grand  staircase  led  down  to 
'*  the  outer  court,"  which  communicated  by  a  gateway 
with  the  terrace  between  the  walls  which  in  turn  led 
to  the  bridge  which  has  been  already  described  as  the 
chief  means  of  access  to  the  Palace  from  without. 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  royal  apartments.  The 
reader  will  observe,  in  the  Parade  ground,  the  forti- 
fied gate  of  the  king's  house.  Within,  there  was 
another  grand  staircase  of  colossal  dimensions,  leading 
up  to  the  royal  apartments.  This  led  into  the  passage 
indicated  on  the  plan,  and  the  passage,  again,  into  "the 
inner  court "  of  the  king's  house.  The  king's  house 
occupies,  with  the  exception  of  the  citadel,  the  whole 
of  the  southern  portion  of  the  Acropolis.  It  is  com- 
pletely separated  from  the  great  throne-room,  the 
Apadana,  on  the  north-east.  "It  contains,"  says 
M.  Dieulafoy,  "  a  central  court  bounded  on  the  west 
by  the  fortified  works  of  its  special  gate,  on  the  north 
by  the  apartments  bordering  upon  the  road  separating 
it  from  the  harem,  on  the  east  by  other  apartments 
forming  part,  like  those  on  the  north,  of  the  special 
dwelling  of  the  monarch,  on  the  south  by  a  great 
hall."  To  this  place  were  attached  apartments  for 
the  service  of  the  State,  guard-rooms,  &c.  North  of 
this  palace,  and  entering  from  it,  was  the  house  of 
the  women,  a  place  of  huge  extent,  like  a  small  town. 
This   vast    extent    was    a    necessity    of    the    palace 


35^  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

arrangements,  as  each  of  the  numerous  inhabitants 
of  this  sedlion  had  her  own  apartments  and  atten- 
dants. "  It  was  closed  and  guarded  hke  a  prison ; 
no  one  was  able  to  penetrate  into  it  with  the  exception 
of  the  chief  eunuch,  and  the  eunuchs  who  were  under 
his  orders."  The  reader  will  notice  that  (with  the 
exception  of  the  gate  since  discovered)  it  has  neither 
exit  nor  entrance  save  from  the  king's  palace  and  the 
gardens  which  surround  the  Bithan,  or  throne-room. 
Such  was  the  plan  of  the  palace  of  Xerxes  and 
Esther  as  it  has  been  restored  to  us  through  the  per- 
severing labours  of  M.  Dieulafoy  and  his  noble  lady. 
And  this  plan  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  reply  to  Professor 
Noldeke  and  the  other  assailants  of  the  Book.  The 
word  Bithan  occurs  in  three  passages  in  Esther,  and 
is  found  nowhere  besides  in  the  Bible.  The  passages 
referred  to  are  the  following :  We  are  told  (i.  5)  that 
"  the  king  made  a  feast  ....  in  the  court  of  the 
garden  of  the  king's  palace."  The  phrase  in  the 
original  is — "  in  the  court  of  the  garden  of  the  Bithan 
of  the  king."  The  next  place  in  which  the  word 
occurs  is  vii.  7,  where  it  is  said  that  the  king  rose 
from  Esther's  banquet  and  ''went  into  the  palace 
garden;  "  literally — "into  the  garden  oi  the  Bithan," 
The  only  other  passage  is  in  the  following  verse, 
where  the  king  is  said  to  have  "  returned  out  of  the 
palace  garden  " — "  out  of  the  garden  of  the  Bithan,** 
No  light  was  able  to  be  shed  upon  the  meanmg  of 
this  word,  for  it  has  no  conned^ion  with  any  term  in 
the  Hebrew  language.  So  soon  as  it  was  known, 
however,  that  it  corresponded  with  the  term  Apadana, 


Recovery  of  Shiishan  by  the  French.  357 

it  was  impossible  to  resist  the  suggestion  that  Bithan 
was  the  corresponding  Hebrew  term  for  the  Throne- 
room  of  the  great  king.  This  has  now  been  fully 
confirmed  ;  and  the  use  of  the  word  in  these  passages 
in  Esther  proves  that  the  author  of  the  Book  must 
have  had  before  him  this  very  palace.  That  convidlion 
was  one  of  the  chief  results  of  M.  Dieulafoy's  inves- 
tigations. He  says  that,  after  two  years'  work  and 
refle(5^ion,  "  it  was  impossible  not  to  recognise  in  the 
bithan  of  the  Bible  the  Susian  apadana.  Like  the 
apadana,''  he  continues,  "the  bithan  was  sufficiently 
isolated  from  the  apartments  devoted  to  the  Sover- 
eign and  to  the  queens  to  introduce  into  it,  without 
inconvenience,  a  considerable  number  of  men  ;  like 
the  apadana,  the  bithan  alone  of  all  the  buildings  of 
the  palace  was  eredled  in  the  midst  of  a  '  paradise,' 
[or  garden  planted  with  trees] .  The  inner  courts 
of  the  Susian  palaces  were  too  confined  and  too  much 
shut  in  by  lofty  walls  to  permit  the  hope  of  growing- 
trees  in  them.  Entirely  different  was  the  situation 
of  the  terrace  between  the  south  front  of  the  Throne- 
room  and  the  Pylons  " — those  masses  of  building  on 
each  side  of  the  gate.  ''  It  lent  itself  marvellously  to  the 
planting  of  those  paradises  and  those  hanging  gardens 
which  were  always  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  abode 
of  the  Great  Kings. — Like  the  gardens  of  the  apa- 
dana, the  gardens  of  the  bithan  (Esther  i.  5  ;  vii.  7,  8) 
were  preceded  by  an  immense  vestibule  (Esther  i.  5) 
capable  of  containing  all  the  guests  [of  Ahasuerus] ; 
like  the  gardens  of  the  apadana,  the  gardens  of  the 
bithan  were  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the 


358  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

harem  (Esther  vii.  7,  8).  Like  the  apadana,  the  bithdn 
was  pillared  (a  fadl  to  be  specially  noted  in  Persia), 
and  paved  with  marble  of  various  colours  (Esther  i.6). 
Last  of  all,  like  the  bithdn,  it  played  a  special  part  in 
the  life  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  and  in  the  ceremonial 
of  the  court  of  the  Achaemenian  monarchs.  These 
are  resemblances  too  striking  to  be  the  effed^  of 
chance.  In  addition  to  this,  none  of  the  palaces  of 
Nimrud,  of  Khorsabad,  of  Pasargade,  of  Firouzabad, 
of  Hatra,  of  Ctesiphon,  of  Machita,  of  Rabbath- 
Ammon,  and  of  Eivan-Kherkha,  any  more  than  those 
of  Persepolis,  whether  they  were  constru(5led  under 
the  Assyrians,  or  the  Persians,  under  the  Achaemen- 
ians,  the  Parthians,  or  the  Sassanides,  correspond  in 
their  entirety  to  the  description  given  by  the  Bible 
of  the  palace  of  Ahasuerus."  * 

That  is  testimony  of  the  strongest  kind.  The  fadt 
that,  of  all  those  recovered  Eastern  royal  abodes  of 
ancient  times,  this,  and  this  alone,  agrees  with  the 
references  in  the  Book  of  Esther  is  the  more  striking 
that  this  bithdn  was  destroyed  by  fire  and  passed  away 
from  the  sight  of  men  not  long  after  the  death  of 
Xerxes.  And  it  is  only  one  of  several  proofs  that  this 
very  palace  lived  before  the  eyes  of  the  author,  and 
that  the  slightest  references  of  the  Book  prove  its 
absolutely  historical  character.  The  reader  has  already 
marked  the  various  parts  of  this  royal  city — for  no 
less  name  can  properly  describe  it.  He  will  find  the 
same  plan  set  before  him  in  the  statements  of  the 
Book.     We  have  already  considered  the  apadana,  or 

♦  L'Acropole  de  Suse,  p.  376. 


Recovery  of  Shiishan  by  the  French.  359 

bithdn.  There  are  two  other  parts  frequently  men- 
tioned— "the  house  of  the  women,"  and  "the  house 
of  the  king."  These  are  separate,  and  are  yet  adjacent 
to  each  other.  A  glance  at  the  plan  of  the  explored 
buildings  shows  the  very  arrangement  to  which  the 
words  refer.  The  house  of  the  women,  for  example, 
opens  into  the  house  of  the  king.  The  bithdn  was 
adorned  with  "pillars  of  marble"  (Esther  i.  6),  and 
was  paved  with  "red  and  blue  and  white  marble." 
The  words  which  occur  in  the  Hebrew  text,  which 
are  rendered  "red  and  blue  and  white,"  occur  in  this 
place  only,  and  our  rendering  is  largely  a  venture. 
The  sense  to  be  attached  to  them  is  as  yet  quite  un- 
known. The  facft,  however,  is  clear  that  the  pavement 
was  a  mosaic.  Now,  not  only  have  the  bases  of  some  of 
the  marble  pillars  been  found,  but  also  the  pieces  of 
gray  and  white  marble  which  formed  the  pavement. 
M.  Dieulafoy  has  set  up  the  bithdn  in  the  museum  of  the 
Louvre,  where  one  can  now  see  the  remains  of  the 
marble  pillars,  and  of  the  marble  pavement,  of  the  hall 
of  the  feast.  There  are  other  coincidences  which  will 
come  before  us  in  conne(5lion  with  various  incidents 
of  the  history  ;  but,  even  if  those  now  mentioned  stood 
alone,  the  discoveries  would  have  provided  an  over- 
whelming proof  of  the  historical  character  of  the  Book. 
It  is  significant  of  the  thorough  unreliability  of  the 
higher  criticism  that  these  discoveries  were  quite 
within  the  reach  of  Professor  Noldeke,  had  he  cared 
to  make  himself  acquainted  with  them.  It  is  evident, 
too,  that  no  one  who  pretends  to  judge  the  claims  of 
the  Book  could  afford  to  be  ignorant  of  them.  Yet  he 


360  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

makes  no  reference  to  them,  and  we  are  asked  to 
believe  that  his  is  the  last  word  of  **  science  "  in  regard 
to  the  matter !  The  daring  and  the  unscrupulousness 
of  such  criticism  will  yet  be  amply  punished  in  a  repu- 
diation that  will  sweep  them  from  the  high  places 
which  they  have  so  long  occupied  in  theological 
scholarship. 


CHAPTER    VII. 
Xerxes'  Feast. 


IT  is  with  the  festal  scene  in  the  Apadana  that  the 
great  drama  of  Esther  opens.  The  account  of  the 
prolonged  festival  contains  numerous  references  to 
the  building,  and  also  to  ancient  Persian  customs, 
which  enable  us  to  mark  once  more  the  accuracy  of 
the  Book,  and  to  judge  that  so-called  ''  science  "  which 
asks  us  to  cease  to  regard  Esther  as  history,  and  to 
treat  it  as  a  late,  and  consequently  ignorant,  fi(ftion. 

We  catch  the  accent  of  truth  in  what  may  seem  a 
very  small  matter,  but  which  may  well  detain  us  a 
moment — the  order  in  which  two  words  stand  in  the 
3rd  verse  of  the  ist  chapter.  There  we  read  that 
Ahasuerus  made  "a  feast  unto  all  his  princes  and  his 
servants  :  the  power  of  Persia  and  Media."  In  Daniel^ 
an  earlier  Book,  which  tells  us  of  the  founding  of  the 
new  kingdom,  the  order  in  which  these  two  peoples 
is  named  is  reversed.  There  it  is,  "The  Medes  and 
the   Persians"   (Daniel  v.  28;   vi.  8,  12,  15).     This 


Xerxes''  Feast.  361 

order  of  the  two  names  in  Daniel  is  constantly 
observed.  The  Medes  are  first  named,  and  then 
follows  the  name  of  their  allies.  In  Esther,  the  order 
is  equally  constant ;  but  now,  four  reigns  after  that 
of  Cyrus,  the  latest  reign  of  which  Daniel  speaks,  the 
Persians  are  placed  first,  the  Medes  second.  Had 
anything  occurred  in  the  interval  to  bring  such  a 
change  about  ? 

This  finds  its  explanation  in  the  records  of  the  time 
which  are  now  happily  recovered.  Cyrus  was  a  man 
of  unsparing  generosity  and  of  deep  political  insight. 
The  union  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians  had  carried 
him  to  the  very  summit  of  earthly  power ;  and  he 
knew  that  only  the  closest  fellowship  of  these  two 
dominant  races  could  retain  the  kingdom  which  they 
had  won.  He,  himself  a  Persian,  consequently  gave 
all  honour  to  the  Medes.  One  proof  of  this  preference 
was  their  being  named  first.  We  have  other  indica- 
tions of  the  honour  paid  to  the  Medes  in  the  positions 
that  were  accorded  to  them.  Cyrus  has,  for  instance, 
to  put  down  an  insurrection  in  Sardis,  where  the 
Persian  governor  is  besieged,  and  the  newly-made 
conquest  of  Lydia  is  threatened.  He  detached  a 
force  for  this  service  from  the  main  army,  and  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  expedition  Mazares,  a  Mede.* 
When  Mazares  died,  he  was  succeeded  in  the 
command  of  the  forces  in  Lydia  by  Harpagus,  another 
Mede.  There  was  wise  pohcy  in  this.  The  Medes 
had  been  before  the  world  as  the  power  to  whom  the 
fall  of  Nineveh  and  of  the  Assyrian  empire  had  been 

*Rawlinson,  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iv.,  p.  365. 


362  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

mainly  due.  The  Persians  themselves  had  been 
subje(5l  to  them.  Cyrus  secured  their  conquests  by 
still  keeping  afloat  their  banner.  Their  name  still 
awed  the  surrounding  nations,  and  the  hearty  co- 
operation of  a  brave  and  spirited  people  enabled  him 
to  extend  and  to  retain  his  empire. 

But  when  the  usurper  Smerdis  was  slain,  and 
Darius,  the  father  of  Xerxes,  was  raised  to  the  throne, 
the  empire  seemed  to  dissolve  around  him.  Insurrec- 
tions broke  out  successively  on  every  side,  and  the 
new  monarch  had  to  spend  his  early  years  in  the  re- 
conquest  of  the  kingdom.  After  putting  down  the 
insurrections  in  Babylon  and  in  Susiana,  "  a  more 
important  rebellion,"  writes  Rawlinson,  "followed. 
Three  of  the  chief  provinces  of  the  Empire — Media, 
Armenia,  and  Assyria — revolted  in  concert.  A  Median 
monarch  was  set  up,  who  called  himself  Xathrites, 
and  claimed  descent  from  the  great  Cyaxares  ;  and  it 
would  seem  that  the  three  countries  immediately 
acknowledged  his  sway."  After  testing  the  strength  of 
the  enemy  by  sending  his  generals  against  them, 
Darius  himself  took  the  field,  defeated  the  Median 
forces,  captured  their  king,  and,  after  mutilating  him 
and  exhibiting  him  chained  in  this  pitiable  condition 
at  his  palace  gate,  he  had  him  crucified.*  This  event 
modified  the  relations  between  the  two  peoples, 
though  even  then  it  was  found  impossible  to  abolish 
them.  The  alliance  was  continued.  Darius,  in  another 
of  the  outbreaks  with  which  he  had  to  contend,  put 
an  important  army  of  Persians  and  Medes  under  the 

*Ibui,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  409,410. 


Xerxes'  Feast.  363 

command  of  the  Median  general,  Tachmaspates.  The 
two  nations  still  formed  the  great  body  of  the  army, 
and  their  nobles  served  among  the  governors  and  the 
satraps  of  the  empire ;  but  Persia  had  now  finally 
asserted  her  superiority,  and  took  henceforth  the 
unchallenged  leadership. 

Returning  to  the  Feast  of  Xerxes,  and  following 
the  pi(5lure  as  it  is  unrolled  before  us  by  the  Scripture, 
we  mark  the  great  state  maintained  by  the  king.     It 
is  this  that  seems  to  be  referred  to  in  i.  2,  "when  he 
sat   upon  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  which  was  in 
Shushan  the  palace."     This  is  plainly  not  a  figure 
of  speech  for  his  having,  as  we  say,  "ascended  the 
throne,"  or  "  begun  to  reign."     The  words,  "which 
was  in  Shushan  the  palace,"  show  that  the  actual 
sitting  upon  the  royal  throne  is  meant.     The  festival 
began  when  the  king,  surrounded  by  all  the  pomp  and 
the  symbols  of  his  greatness,  had  taken  his  place,  and 
seated  himself  upon  the  throne.     It  was  that  act 
which,  so   to   say,  opened  the    prolonged   banquet. 
Now,  was  this  state  acftually  observed  ?     Was  it  a 
feature  of  that  court  at  the  time,  or  is  this  touch  due 
to  the  fertile  imagination  of  a  late  writer?  The  refer- 
ences in  the  ancient  Greek  authors,  who  have  left  us 
a  picfture  of  the  Persian  court,  prove  that  here,  too, 
we  have  a  real  glimpse  of  that  vanished  splendour. 
Plutarch,  in  his  life  of  Themistocles,  tells  us  that 
Xerxes  was  a  spectator  of  the  naval  battle  of  Salamis, 
which  ended  so  disastrously  for  his  forces.   "As  soon 
as  it  was  day,"  says  Plutarch,  "Xerxes  sat  down  on 
an  eminence  to  view  the  fleet,  and  its  order  of  battle. 


364  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

He  placed  himself,  as  Phanodemus  writes,  above  the 
temple  of  Hercules,  where  the  isle  of  Salamis  is  sepa- 
rated from  Attica  by  a  narrow  frith.  .  .  He  was  seated 
on  a  throne  of  gold,  and  had  many  secretaries  about 
him,  whosebusinessitwasto  write  down  the  particulars 
of  the  action." 

Royal  state  seems  to  have  reached  the  utmost 
height  of  its  splendour  in  the  great  Persian  empire. 
The  ancient  Greek  writers  have  many  references  to  it 
which  are  summarised  in  the  following  description : 
"The  king's  palace  was  deemed  sacred,  and  respecfted 
as  a  temple.  It  was  extremely  magnificent,  and 
furnished  with  utensils  of  inestimable  value.  The 
walls  and  roofs  of  the  rooms  were  all  covered  with 
ivory,  silver,  amber,  or  gold.  The  throne  was  of  pure 
gold,  supported  by  four  pillars  richly  set  with  precious 
stones.  The  king's  bed  was  likewise  of  gold ;  and 
Herodotus  mentions  a  plane-tree  and  vine  of  gold 
presented  to  Darius  by  Pythius,  a  Lydian,  who,  after 
the  king  of  Persia,  was  accounted  the  richest  man  in 
the  world.  The  body  and  branches  of  this  vine,  says 
Athenseus,  were  enriched  with  jewels  of  great  value; 
and  the  clusters  of  grapes  were  all  precious  stones; 
which  hung  over  the  king's  head  as  he  sat  on  the 
throne.  At  his  bed's  head  stood  always  a  chest,  or 
coffer,  containing  5,000  talents,  which  was  called  the 
king's  bolster,  and  another  at  his  feet,  with  3,000 
talents.  Adjoining  to  the  king's  palace  were  large 
gardens  and  parks,  stocked  with  all  sorts  of  game  for 
his  diversion.  .  .  .  The  Persian  kings  drank  no  other 
water  but  that  of  the  river  Choaspes,  which  was 


Xerxes'  Feast.  365 

carried  about  with  them  in  silver  vessels  whitherso- 
ever they  went.  They  drank  only  Calybonian  wine, 
made  at  Damascus,  in  Syria  :  and  touched  no  bread 
but  what  was  of  the  wheat  of  Assos,  in  Phrygia  ;  and 
their  salt  was  brought  from  Egypt.  The  magnificence 
of  their  public  feasts  exceeded,  as  appears  from  holy 
writ,  what  we  read  of  in  histories  of  other  nations. 
Their  table  was  daily  served  with  somewhat  of  the 
produdl  of  each  nation  subjecft  to  them.  Among  the 
prisoners  taken  by  Parmenio  at  Damascus,  were,  as 
Athenaeus  informs  us,  277  cooks,  twenty-nine  who 
took  care  of  the  dishes,  seventeen  who  ministered 
water,  seventy  who  had  in  charge  the  wine,  forty 
employed  about  ointments,  and  sixty-six  whose  pro- 
vince it  was  to  prepare  garlands,  used,  according  to 
the  customs  of  those  times,  in  banquets."* 

These  banquets  were,  according  to  the  Scripture,  a 
prominent  feature  in  the  life  of  the  Persian  court. 
The  great  Council  of  the  Satraps  and  Nobles,  which 
Xerxes  convened  in  his  third  year  to  decide  upon,  and 
to  arrange  for,  the  Grecian  campaign,  is  recorded  in 
Esther  as  a  prolonged  festival.  It  concluded  with  a 
great  and  splendid  outburst  of  festivity,  surpassing  in 
its  extent  and  magnificence  all  that  had  gone  before. 
"  In  the  third  year  of  his  reign,  he  made  a  feast  unto 
all  his  princes  and  his  servants  ;  the  power  of  Persia 
and  Media,  the  nobles  and  princes  of  the  provinces 
being  before  him  :  when  he  showed  the  riches  of  his 
glorious  kingdom  and  the  honour  of  his  excellent 
majesty  many  days,  even  an  hundred  and  fourscore 

*Antient  Universal  History,  vol.  v.,  pp.  123-125. 


366  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

days.  And  when  these  days  were  expired,  the  king 
made  a  feast  unto  all  the  people  that  were  present  in 
Shushan  the  palace,  both  unto  great  and  small,  seven 
days"  (Esther  i.  3-5). 

Is  this  romance  or  history  ?  Were  these  huge 
hospitalities  really  customary  at  the  Persian  court  ? 
"Banquets  on  an  enormous  scale,"  says  Professor 
Rawlinson,  "were  not  uncommon  in  Persia;  and  the 
profuseness  and  vain-glory  of  Xerxes  would  naturally 
lead  him  to  go  to  an  extreme  in  this,  as  in  other  matters. 
.  .  Persian  kings,  according  to  Ctesias  and  Dinu,  ordi- 
narily entertained  at  their  table  15,000  persons  !  This 
is,  of  course,  an  exaggeration  ;  but  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  their  hospitality  was  on  a  scale  unexampled 
in  modern  times."  *  These  writers  add  that  the  royal 
expenditure  on  such  occasions  amounted  occasionally 
to  400  talents.  Their  accounts  at  least  testify  to  the 
impression  which  this  characteristic  of  the  Persian 
Court  had  made  upon  the  Greeks.  In  Esther,  we  have 
the  fact  without  the  huge  numbers  and  the  exag- 
geration of  the  Greek  writers.  There  is  another 
characteristic  of  the  feast,  however,  to  which  our 
attention  is  called  by  the  word  in  the  original.  This 
is  mishteh,  literally,  "a  drinking."  It  is  a  word  which, 
while  not  excluding  the  consumption  of  solid  food, 
nevertheless  indicates  that  the  main  feature  of  the 
festival  was  the  consumption  of  liquor.  This  species 
of  banquet  was  a  long-established  custom  among  the 
imperial  nations  of  the  East.  Speaking  of  the  Baby- 
lonians, Professor  Rawlinson  says:  "The  diet  of  the 

♦  The  Pulpit  Commentary. 


Xerxes'  Feast.  367 

richer  classes  was  no  doubt  varied  and  luxurious. 
Wheaten  bread,  meats  of  various  kinds,  luscious 
fruits,  fish,  game,  loaded  the  board ;  and  wine,  im- 
ported from  abroad,  was  the  usual  beverage.  The 
wealthy  Babylonians  were  fond  of  drinking  to  excess  ; 
their  banquets  were  magnificent,  but  generally  ended 
in  drunkenness;  they  were  not,  however,  mere  scenes 
of  coarse  indulgence,  but  had  a  certain  refinement, 
which  distinguishes  them  from  the  riotous  drinking- 
bouts  of  the  less  civilised  Medes."  *  Speaking  of  the 
Assyrians,  he  says:  "Great  banquets  seem  to  have 
been  frequent  at  the  court,  as  at  the  courts  of  Babylon 
and  Persia,  in  which  drinking  was  practised  on  a  large 
scale.  ...  In  the  banquet  scenes  of  the  sculptures, 
it  is  drinking,  and  not  eating,  that  is  represented. 
Attendants  dip  the  wine-cups  into  a  huge  bowl,  or 
vase,  which  stands  on  the  ground  and  reaches  as  high 
as  a  man's  chest,  and  carry  them  full  of  liquor  to  the 
guests,  who  straightway  fall  to  a  carouse."  t 

Another  reference  to  them  is  as  follows:  '*We  are 
told  that  the  Medes  were  very  luxurious  at  their 
banquets.  Besides  plain  meat  and  game  of  different 
kinds,  with  the  ordinary  accompaniments  of  wine  and 
bread,  they  were  accustomed  to  place  before  their 
guests  a  vast  number  of  side  dishes,  together  with  a 
great  variety  of  sauces.  .  .  .  Wine  was  drunk  both 
at  the  meal  and  afterwards,  often  in  an  undue 
quantity."  %  And  again,  referring  to  the  special 
customs    of   the    Persian    Court,   he   writes:    "The 

*  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  450,  451. 
+  Volume  ii.,  p.  213  +  Volume  iii.,  pp.  87,  88. 


368  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

monarch  himself  rarely  dined  with  his  guests.  For 
the  most  part  he  was  served  alone.  Sometimes  he 
admitted  to  his  table  the  queen  and  two  or  three  of 
his  children.  Sometimes,  at  a  'banquet  of  wine,'  a 
certain  number  of  privileged  boon-companions  were 
received,  who  drank  in  the  royal  presence,  not,  how- 
ever, of  the  same  wine,  nor  on  the  same  terms.  The 
monarch  reclined  on  a  couch  with  golden  feet,  and 
sipped  the  rich  wine  of  Helbon  ;  the  guests  drank  an 
inferior  beverage,  seated  upon  the  floor.  At  a  great 
banquet,  it  was  usual  to  divide  the  guests  into  two 
classes.  Those  of  lower  degree  were  entertained  in 
an  outer  court,  or  chamber,  to  which  the  public  had 
access ;  while  such  as  were  of  higher  rank  entered 
the  private  apartments  and  drew  near  to  the  king."* 
Herodotus  tells  us  also  that  such  banquets  had  an 
important  connection  with  deliberations  of  the  very 
kind  that  were  now  proceeding  at  Susa.  ''Of  wine," 
he  says,  "they  drank  profusely.  .  .  .  They  are  accus- 
tomed to  deliberate  on  matters  of  the  highest  moment 
when  warm  with  wine ;  but  whatever  they  in  this 
situation  may  determine  is  again  proposed  to  them  on 
the  morrow,  in  'their  cooler  moments,  by  the  person 
in  whose  house  they  are  assembled.  If  at  this  time 
also  it  meet  their  approbation,  it  is  executed,  other- 
wise it  is  rejected.  Whatever  also  they  discuss  when 
sober,  is  always  a  second  time  examined  after  they 
have  been  drinking."  t 

National  customs,  in  the  East  especially,  abide.  Sir 
Henry    Rawlinson,    in    a    note    on    this   passage    of 

*  Volume  iv.,  pp.  167,  168.      t  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.,  note,  p.  219. 


The  Palace  Furniture,  369 

Herodotus,  says  that  it  is  still  usual  for  Persians,  fond 
of  the  pleasures  of  the  table,  "  to  sit  for  hours  before 
dinner  drinking  wine,  and  eating  dried  fruits,  such  as 
filberts,  almonds,  pistacchio  nuts,  melon  seeds,  &c. 
A  party,  indeed,  often  sits  down  at  seven  o'clock,  and 
the  dinner  is  not  brought  in  till  eleven."  "^  Here  we 
find  that  the  Book  of  Esther  has  once  more  led  us 
back  to  the  times  which  it  professes  to  describe. 
There  is  no  shadow  of  the  thought  and  the  customs 
of  a  later  age,  and  of  a  different  civilisation.  We  are 
face  to  face  with  Persia,  and  that,  too,  the  Persia  of 
Xerxes. 


CHAPTER   Vin. 
The  Palace  Furniture. 


WE  read  (Esther  i.  6)  that  the  beds,  or  couches, 
which  accommodated  the  guests,  "  were  of 
gold  and  silver."  In  this,  as  well  as  in  similar  allu- 
sions, it  might  seem  as  if  the  language  were  at  least 
tinged  with  exaggeration.  We  are  told  in  the  next 
verse  that  the  very  numerous  drinking-cups  were 
also  made  of  gold.  Even  this  indicates  a  profusion 
of  the  precious  metal  which  approaches  the  limits  of 
all  that  seems  to  us  to  be  probable.  But  couches  of 
gold  may  appear  to  bear  us  quite  beyond  the  bounds 
of  probability. 

Fortunately,  some  of  that  furniture,  or  of  furniture 
similar  to  it  provided  for  the  camp,  was  captured  in 

*  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.,  note,  p.  219. 

AI 


^yo  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

Greece,  and  has  been  described  by  Herodotus. 
Xerxes  had  gone  back  to  Persia,  but  had  left  his 
camp  furniture  with  his  commander-in-chief,  Mar- 
donius.  "It  is  further  recorded,"  says  "the  father 
of  history,"  "  that  when  Xerxes  fled  from  Greece,  he 
left  all  his  equipage  to  Mardonius.  Pausanias,  seeing 
this  composed  of  gold,  silver,  and  cloth  of  the  richest 
embroidery,  gave  orders  to  the  cooks  and  domestics 
to  prepare  an  entertainment  for  him  as  for  Mardonius. 
His  command  was  executed,  and  he  beheld  couches 
of  gold  and  silver,  tables  of  the  same,  and  everything 
that  was  splendid  and  magnificent."  *  The  identity 
of  that  phrase,  "  couches  of  gold  and  silver,"  is 
remarkable.  The  materials  were  of  the  same  kind, 
and  had  to  be  described  in  the  same  way  ;  and  when 
the  reader  reflects  again  that  this,  if  not  part  of  the 
identical  furniture  of  the  Bithan  of  Susa  described 
in  the  Scripture,  must  have  been  purposely  made  to 
resemble  it,  so  that  the  king  might  be  surrounded 
with  the  usual  pomp  and  display  in  the  midst  of  his 
army,  he  will  feel  that  no  confirmation  could  be  more 
complete. 

And  the  statement  settles  another  question.  We 
have  representations  upon  the  monuments  of  Assyrian 
banquets.  There  the  guests  are  seated,  as  guests  on 
similar  occasions  are  seated  among  ourselves.  They 
do  not  recline.  Was  the  custom  of  the  Persians  so 
utterly  diverse  in  this  matter,  then,  from  that  of  the 
Assyrians  ?  The  description  of  the  banquet  prepared 
for   Pausanias   by  the    captured   attendants   of    the 

*1X.  82. 


The  Palace  Furniture. 


3>7^ 


Persian  general  gives  us  a  clear  reply.  The  Greek 
conqueror  saw  before  him,  not  seats,  but  ''couches" 
on  which  the  guests  were  wont  to  recline.  Here 
again  we  have  the  scene  at  Susa  as  described  in  the 
Scripture.  The  alleged  improbabilities  about  the 
profusion  of  the  precious  metals  are  also  swept  away. 
"  Pausanias,"  says  Herodotus,  ''afterwards  pro- 
claimed by  a  herald  that  no  person  should  touch  any 
of  the  booty ;  and  he  ordered  the  helots  to  collecfl 
the  money  into  one  place  They,  as  they  dispersed 
themselves  over  the  camp,  found  tents  decorated  with 
gold  and  silver,  couches  of  the  same,  goblets,  cups, 
and  drinking  vessels  of  gold,  besides  sacks  of  gold 
and  silver  cauldrons  placed  on  carriages.  The  dead 
bodies  they  stripped  of  bracelets,  chains,  and  scimi- 
tars of  gold.  .  .  .  Many  things  of  value  the  helots 
concealed,  and  sold  them  to  the  ^Eginetae.  .  .  .  The 
^ginetae  from  this  became  exceedingly  rich  ;  for  they 
purchased  gold  of  the  helots  at  the  price  of  brass."  * 
Here  we  have  the  same  astonishing  profusion  of 
the  precious  metals.  Herodotus,  after  telling  how 
the  command  of  Pausanias  was  obeyed,  and  the 
gorgeous  spectacle  of  a  Persian  banquet  was  set 
before  him,  proceeds  to  say  that  Pausanias,  "aston- 
ished at  the  spectacle,  again  with  a  smile  directed  his 
servants  to  prepare  a  Lacedemonian  repast.  When 
this  was  ready,  the  contrast  was  so  striking,  that  he, 
laughing,  sent  for  the  Greek  leaders.  When  they  were 
assembled,  he  showed  them  the  two  entertainments. 
*  Men  of  Greece,'  said  he,  'I  have  called  you  together 

*  IX.  80. 


372  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

to  bear  testimony  to  the  king  of  Persia's  foll3s  who 
forsook  all  his  luxury  to  plunder  us  who  live  in  so 
much  poverty.'  "  Herodotus  adds  that  "  in  succeed- 
ing times,  many  of  the  Plataeans  found  on  the  field  of 
battle  chests  of  gold,  silver,  and  other  riches."  *  Had 
this  feature,  then,  been  absent  from  the  picture  so 
vividly  presented  in  Esther ,  the  court  of  Xerxes  would 
not  have  been  shown  to  us ;  and  the  very  astonish- 
ment, which  we  share  with  the  Greeks  who  won  that 
memorable  battle  of  Platsea,  proves  that  we  are 
looking  upon  the  same  things;  and  that,  through  the 
description  of  the  Scripture,  we  see  the  very  magnifi- 
cence which  amazed  the  victorious  Greeks. 

We  read  also  in  verse  6  that  there  "were  white, 
green,  and  blue  hangings,  fastened  with  cords  of  fine 
linen  and  purple  to  silver  rings  and  pillars  of  marble." 
In  the  original  Hebrew  the  word  which  is  rendered 
*' green"  is  charpas.  This  word  occurs  nowhere 
besides  in  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Our 
translators,  mistaking  it  for  a  Hebrew  word,  gave  it 
the  sense  of  "  green."  It  is,  however,  an  old  Persian 
word,  the  carp asa  of  the  Sanscrit,  and  was  the  current 
name  for  fine  cotton.  The  word  rendered  "blue" 
(techeleth)  means  a  blue  shade  of  purple,  and  the 
other  word  (argaman)  a  reddish  shade  of  the  same 
colour.  The  "fine  linen,"  the  Egyptian  byssus,  was 
also  white  ;  and  being  of  great  strength,  suited  admir- 
ably for  the  cords  or  ropes  on  which  the  awning  was 
suspended.  Our  attention  is  turned  now,  however, 
more  to  the  colours  which  are  named  than  to  the 

*  IX.,  82,  83. 


The  Palace  Furniture. 


373 


materials.  These  are,  in  each  case,  white  and  purple. 
There  is  nothing  said  as  to  why  these  colours  are 
named.  So  silent,  indeed,  is  the  Scripture  upon  this 
matter,  that  the  writers  of  the  Authorised  Version 
did  not  note  this  fact,  and  gave  the  translation 
"  green  "  to  the  word  charpas.  The  writer  of  Esther  is 
plainly  describing  what  attracted  any  observer's  eye  in 
this  scene  of  Oriental  splendour,  and  we  have  accord- 
ingly in  this  another  proof  of  the  historical  character  of 
the  Book,  and  of  the  utterly  untrustworthy  character 
of  the  higher  criticism  which  sets  it  aside  as  fable. 
For  these  are  the  royal  colours  of  Persia.  Xenophon, 
describing  Cyrus's  State  procession  to  the  Temple 
of  Babylon,  says:  "After  these  things,  Cyrus  himself 
appeared  without  the  gates  with  a  turban  on,  that 
was  raised  high  above  his  head,  with  a  vest  of  purple 
colour  half  mixed  with  white ;  and  this  mixture  of 
.white  none  else  is  allowed  to  wear."  *  Round  this 
high  turban  or  ''  tiara,  the  king  wore  a  purple  and 
white  band,  or  diadem ;  for  nothing  else  is  meant  by 
the  word  '  diadem,'  in  the  antient  writers,  but  a  band 
of  this  nature  wreathed  round  the  forehead.  This 
tiara,  with  the  purple  and  white  band,  is  the  only 
ensign  of  royalty  we  find  among  the  Persian  kings  of 
the  first  dynasty."? 

We  find  another  reference  to  the  place  given  to 
these  colours  in  ancient  Persia.  In  viii.  15  we  read  : 
"  Mordecai  went  out  from  the  presence  of  the  king  in 
royal  apparel  of  blue  and  white  ;  "  that  is,  of  "  purple 
and  white."     Here,  as  well  as  in  the  materials  for 

*  Cyropcedeia  VIII.  \  Antient  Universal  History,  vol.  v.,  p.  121. 


374  ^^^^  New  Biblical  Guide. 

the   canopy,  we  again    mark   the   refle(5lion    of  the 
time. 


CHAPTER    IX. 
The  Choice  of  Esther. 


THE  Scripture  has  taken  us  to  the  Persian  Court 
to  teach  us  that,  amid  the  gaieties  and  the 
folHes,  the  sadness  and  the  joy,  of  our  Kttle  Hves,  the 
purposes  of  God  are  passing  on  to  their  accompHsh- 
ment.  Our  estimate  of  man  varies  according  to  our 
age  and  mood.  At  one  time,  man  is  everything ;  at 
another,  he  is  nothing.  In  neither  estimate  do  we 
grasp  the  truth.  Gripped  by  the  compassions  of 
God — remembered  by  Him — our  well-being  planned 
by  the  Creator,  so  that  God's  story  is  bound  up  with 
our  story,  and  with  the  story  of  our  race — what  is 
nobler,  or  more  worthy  of  regard,  than  man  ?  In 
ourselves  we  are  nothing ;  but,  with  God's  love 
resting  on  us,  we  are  everything. 

To  write  this  truth  once  more  upon  the  hearts  of 
God's  people,  the  story  of  Esther  opens  in  the  king's 
banqueting  house.  The  Jews  in  Persia  were  there 
largely  because  they  had  despised  their  birthright. 
They  had  refused  to  return  to  their  own  land  when 
God  had  opened  the  door  of  their  prison-house.  And 
yet  He  will  save  them  even  there;  and  so  He  now 
makes  provision  for  the  evil  day  that  is  so  nigh. 
While  those  days  of  festivity  were  brightening  the 


The  Choice  of  Esther.  oje 

life  of  Shushan,  no  one  dreamed  that  they  were  big 
with  fate  for  the  second  personage  of  the  Persian 
kingdom.  But  a  sudden  command  is  issued  by 
Ahasuerus.  The  seventh  day — the  last  and  the 
greatest  day  of  the  feast— has  come.  The  king  is 
elated.  He  is  ''merry  with  wine."  And  in  the 
illusory  joy  and  triumph  of  the  time  he  asks 
himself  what  else  can  be  done  to  add  a  fresh 
splendour  to  such  an  immortal  moment.  The  thought 
flashes  up  in  answer — *'  they  have  not  seen  Vashti !  " 
Let  their  eyes  but  rest  on  her,  and  that  festal  scene 
will  never  be  forgotten  as  long  as  they  live!  But 
Vashti  is  queen,  and,  perhaps,  Xerxes  remembers, 
with  some  shadow  of  misgiving,  that  she  is  not 
unmindful  of  what  pertains  to  her  dignity.  And  so 
no  bare  request  is  sent  her  to  show  herself  to  the 
assembly.  He  summons  the  seven  Royal  Chamber- 
lains, and  commissions  them  to  lay  the  king's  com- 
mandment before  the  queen.  She  is  now  herself 
presiding  over  a  similar  assembly;  for  ''Vashti  the 
queen  made  a  feast  for  the  women  in  the  royal  house 
which  belonged  to  king  Ahasuerus."  She  has  but  to 
pass  from  the  one  festal  chamber  to  the  other,  and 
the  seven  great  officers  of  State  with  their  attendants 
are  sent  off  to  summon  and  to  escort  her. 

Meanwhile,  there  has  been  a  lull  in  the  festive 
enjoyment  and  clamour.  The  news  of  the  coming 
spectacle  has  spread  rapidly  among  the  guests,  and 
each  eye  is  turned  to  the  approach  to  the  Bithan 
from  the  apartments  of  the  women.  By-and-bye,  the 
returning   procession    is   marked,   and    all   is   eager 


yj^  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

expectancy.  A  thrill  runs  through  the  throng  when 
it  is  seen  that  no  queen  is  there,  and  that  the  great 
officials  approach  the  throne  with  manifest  marks  of 
fear  and  apprehension.  Vashti  has  refused  to  come  [ 
For  the  first  time,  the  authority  of  the  great  king  has 
been  defied,  and  he  is  put  to  shame  before  his  people. 
And  a  moment  has  been,  as  it  were,  chosen  for  this 
humiliation  which  has  made  it  fall  with  crushing 
weight ! 

It  says  something  for  the  much  and  loudly  con- 
demned Xerxes  that  he  restrains  himself.  Instead  of 
yielding  to  a  not  unnatural  outburst  of  anger,  and 
pronouncing  judgment  upon  the  offending  queen 
there  and  then,  he  restricts  himself  to  the  forms  pre- 
scribed by  law  and  custom.  He  turns  to  the  seven 
counsellors  of  the  throne,  "  the  seven  princes  of 
Persia  and  Media  who  saw  the  king's  face,  and  who 
sat  the  first  in  the  kingdom,"  and  asked  in  the  hearing" 
of  the  awed  and  silent  throng:  "What  shall  we  do 
unto  the  queen  Vashti  according  to  law,  because  she 
hath  not  performed  the  commandment  of  the  king 
Ahasuerus  by  the  chamberlains  "  (verses  14,  15)  ?  To 
this  judicial  bench  the  matter  had  plainly  issues  that 
went  further  than  the  contempt  into  which  the  royal 
authority  might  now  be  brought — an  authority  that 
was  the  bond  which  then  united  the  nations  together, 
and  gave  the  world  peace.  This  revolt  in  the  king's 
household  threatened  the  unity  and  the  peace  of  the 
home  everywhere.  We  can  see  in  that  well-weighed 
judgment  something^  what  formed  the  real  strength 
of  Persia  and  of  Media  among  the  nations.     When 


The  Choice  of  Esther. 


^77 


they  had  said :  '*  If  it  please  the  king,  let  there  go  a 
royal  commandment  from  him,  and  let  it  be  written 
among  the  laws  of  the  Persians  and  the  Medes,  that 
it  be  not  altered.  That  Vashti  come  no  more  before 
king  Ahasuerus  ;  and  let  the  king  give  her  royal  estate 
to  another  that  is  better  than  she,"  "the  saying 
pleased  the  king  and  the  princes ;  and  the  king  did 
according  to  the  word  of  Memucan  "  (verses  19,  21). 
The  counsel  of  the  seven  princes  stopped  there. 
They  said  nothing:  about  a  successor  to  Vashti.    This 


A    PERSIAN    QUEEN. 

was  done  at  a  later  time,  and  the  suggestion  is  sadly 
eloquent  of  the  circle  from  which  it  sprang.  "After 
these  things,"  we  read,  "when  the  wrath  of  the  king 
Ahasuerus  was  appeased,  he  remembered  Vashti,  and 
what  she  had  done,  and  what  was  decreed  against 
her."  The  king's  anger  was  forgotten;  and  when,  in 
calmer  mood,  and  with  returning  affection,  he  remem- 
bered her  condemnation,  he  might  well  have  concluded 
that  her  punishment  had  been  heavier  than  her  offence. 
The  great  officers  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  palace 


378  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

saw  danger  in  these  relenting  thoughts.  He  might 
forget  the  counsel  which  led  to  Vashti's  disgrace,  and 
who  gave  it.  But  Vashti  would  remember !  Her 
return  meant  their  destruction ;  and,  therefore,  it 
must  be  prevented  by  turning  the  king's  interest  and 
affection  elsewhere ;  and  in  the  case  of  Xerxes  this 
was  only  too  easily  accomplished.  "  The  king's 
servants  that  ministered  unto  him  " — no  doubt  the 
princes  and  the  eunuchs  of  the  Palace — counselled 
that  officers  should  be  appointed  to  sele(5l  the  fairest 
maidens  in  all  the  provinces  for  whom  accommodation 
should  be  found  in  the  house  of  the  women,  and  that 
a  successor  to  Vashti  should  be  chosen  from  among 
them.  The  reader  knows  how  Esther  was  among  the 
number  selected,  and  how  the  royal  choice  fell  upon 
her.  My  aim  is  not  to  tell  the  story,  but  to  ask  the 
reader  to  note  how  here  also  the  Scripture  has  been 
confirmed ;  and  that,  too,  in  a  part  where  criticism 
was  supposed  to  be  unassailable. 

The  names  of  the  eunuchs  and  of  the  counsellors 
are  given.  "On  the  seventh  day,"  we  read,  "when 
the  heart  of  the  king  was  merry  with  wine,  he  com- 
manded Mehuman,  Biztha,  Harbona,  Bigtha,  and 
Abagtha,  Zethar,  and  Carcas,the  seven  chamberlains" 
(eunuchs)  to  bear  his  message  to  Vashti  (i.  10).  The 
names  of  the  seven  princes  are  also  given.  These  are 
"  Carshena,  Shethar,  Admatha,  Tarshish,  Meres, 
Marsena,  and  Memucan  "  (ver.  14) .  These  are  so  clearly 
Persian  in  form  that  they  have  somewhat  shaken  the 
confidence  of  the  critics  ;  for  how  was  it  possible  that 
anyone,  writing  in  the  year  180  B.C.  (when  they  say 


The  Choice  of  Esther,  379 

the  Book  was  composed),  to  be  so  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  Persian  names  ?  The  Persian 
dominion  had  then  been  buried  for  140  years.  Every 
trace  of  it,  and  of  its  language,  and  its  customs  had 
been  swept  away  from  Palestine  before  the  flood  of 
Grecian  life,  and  thought,  and  speech,  and  customs 
that  had  swept  over  the  East.  How,  then,  could  the 
absence  of  any  Greek  influence  in  the  record  of  these 
names,  and  the  presence  of  this  deeply-impressed 
Persian  character,  be  accounted  for  ?  Noldeke,  after 
declaring  that  the  Book  is  destitute  of  any  historical 
value,  finds  himself  arrested  by  these  names,  and 
by  the  now  ascertained  fact  that  Ahasuerus  is  the 
exad^  Persian  for  Xerxes.  He  asks :  "  Does  the 
narrative  rest  upon  any  historical  foundation  ?  One 
cannot,"  he  continues,  *' reply  with  certainty.  The 
name  Akhashverosh  seems  to  indicate  that  it  does.  All 
are  agreed  to-day  in  recognising  it  as  identical  with 
Xerxes.  It  is  quite  possible,"  he  concludes,  ''that  he 
admitted  into  his  seraglio  a  Jewess  named  Esther, 
and  that  he  took  adlion  in  favour  of  her  people."* 

In  addition,  however,  to  the  names,  there  is  the 
reference  to  these  ''seven  princes  of  Persia  and  Media 
who  saw  the  king's  face,  and  who  sat  the  first  in  the 
kingdom."  Were  there  nobles  who  possessed  these 
exceptional  privileges,  and  was  this  the  number  to 
which  those  piivileged  personages  were  confined? 
Herodotus  tells  us  that  this  was  made  an  institution 
in  the  time  of  Darius,  the  father  of  Xerxes.  Seven 
princes,  of  whom  Darius  was  one,  banded  themselves 

*Histoire  Litteraire. 


380  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

together  to  slay  Smerdis  the  usurper.  When  he  was 
slain,  the  question  was  debated  among  them  whether 
Persia  should  be  a  monarchy  or  not.  Six  voted  that 
it  should  be,  and  the  seventh,  Otanes,  then  amicably 
withdrew.  Having  narrated  all  this,  Herodotus  con- 
tinues: **  After  this,  the  six  took  counsel  together  as 
to  the  fairest  way  of  setting  up  a  king:  and  first 
with  respedl  to  Otanes,  they  resolved  that  if  any 
of  their  own  number  got  the  kingdom,  Otanes,  and 
his  seed  after  him,  should  receive  year  by  year,  as  a 
mark  of  special  honour,  a  Median  robe,  and  all  such 
other  gifts  as  are  accounted  the  most  honourable  in 
Persia.  .  .  These  privileges,  therefore,  were  assigned 
especially  to  Otanes.  The  following  were  made 
common  to  them  all  :  It  was  to  be  free  to  each, 
whenever  he  pleased,  to  enter  the  palace  un- 
announced." Here  we  have  this  special  privilege 
described  as  exa6tly  as  it  could  be  without  verbal 
repetition.  The  Bible  says:  ''Who  saw  the  king's 
face;"  and  Herodus  tells  us  that  the  representatives 
of  the  seven  princes  were  permitted  "to  enter  the 
palace  unannounced."  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
Behistun  inscription,  in  which  Darius  refers  to  these 
princes  as  *'  my  faithful  men"  *  in  the  first  column,  and 
again  in  the  fourth  column  in  the  words  :  "These  are 
the  men  who  alone  were  there  when  I  slew  Gomates, 
the  Magian,  who  was  called  Bardes.  These  alone  are 
the  men  who  were  my  assistants."  He  then  names 
them  one  by  one,  and  he  adds:  "Says  Darius  the 
king  : — Thou  who  mayest  be  king  hereafter,  remember 

*  Records  of  the  Fast,  vcl.  1.,  p.  115. 


The  Choice  of  Esther.  381 

to  show  favour  to  the  descendants  of  these  men."* 
Xerxes  was  the  son,  and  the  immediate  successor,  of 
Darius,  and  we  may  be  certain  that  this  diredlion  was 
fully  attended  to. 

Several  of  the  allusions  in  this  chapter  recur  else- 
where in  the  Book,  and  will  be  noticed  further  on. 
Meanwhile,  a  word  may  be  said  as  to  the  identity  of 
Esther.  It  has  been  supposed  that  she  is  the  queen 
mentioned  by  the  Greek  writers  under  the  name  of 
Amestris.  This  is,  so  far,  by  no  means  certain, 
and  we  must  wait  for  further  light.  But  the  change 
which  is  made  in  Esther's  name  when  she  has  entered 
the  house  of  the  women  is  quite  in  keeping  with 
Persian  customs.  Her  name  was  ''Hadassah"  (ii.  7), 
which  means  in  Hebrew ''myrtle. "  ''Esther"  is  a 
Persian  word,  and  means  "star."  "An  ancient  usage 
in  the  court  of  Persia,"  says  M.  Dieulafoy,  the  dis- 
coverer of  Shushan,  "renders  it  desirable  that  the 
great  officers  of  State  receive  a  title  which  shall  cling 
to  their  persons  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  their 
own  name  forgotten.  I  meet,  under  the  Achae- 
menides  "  (the  dynasty  to  which  Xerxes  belonged), 
"  the  sons,  the  brothers,  the  eyes,  and  the  ears  of  the  king. 
....  The  Parthian  sovereigns  were  treated  as 
*  brothers  of  the  moon,  and  of  the  sun;'  the  Shah 
himself  is  saluted  by  his  courtiers  as  '  Kibla  of  the 
Universe'  (Kibla  e  alem).  The  queen-mother,  the 
princesses  of  the  blood,  the  favourite,  have  a  right  to 
the  same  favours.  The  bride  of  Phraataces  I.  was 
described    as    'Celestial    Goddess.'     The    favourite 

*  Ibid,  pp.  128,  129. 


382  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

mistress  of  Nasser  eddin  Shah  is  always  designated 
by  her  title,  'the  Sincere  Friend  of  the  State.'  .  .  . 
The  humble  'Myrtle'  of  Israel  is  named  without 
doubt  'the  Star  of  the  Government.'"  Esther's 
change  of  name  was  also,  therefore,  in  keeping  with 
the  customs  of  the  place  and  of  the  time. 

This  chapter  may  fitly  close  with  the  following 
description  of  the  dignity  from  which  Vashti  was 
deposed,  and  to  which  Esther  was  raised.  Professor 
Rawlinson  says  that  of  the  king's  wives  "there  was 
always  one  who  held  the  most  exalted  place,  to  whom 
alone  appertained  the  title  of  'queen,'  and  who  was 
regarded  as  'wife'  in  a  different  sense  from  the  others. 
Such  was  Atossa  to  Darius  Hystaspis,  Amestris  to 
Xerxes,  Statira  to  Darius  Codomannus.  .  .  .  The 
chief  wife,  or  Queen-Consort,  was  privileged  to  wear 
on  her  head  a  royal  tiara,  or  crown.  She  was  the 
acknowledged  head  of  the  female  apartments,  or 
Gynaeceum,  and  the  concubines  recognised  her  dignity 
by  actual  prostration.  .  .  .  She  had  a  large  revenue 
of  her  own  assigned  her,  not  so  much  by  the  will  of 
her  husband,  as  by  an  established  law  or  custom.  Her 
dress  was  splendid,  and  she  was  able  to  indulge  freely 
that  love  of  ornament  of  which  few  Oriental  women 
are  devoid.  .  .  The  status  of  the  other  wives  was  very 
inferior  to  this."  * 

This  enables  us  to  understand  what  Esther  gained 
and  what  Vashti  lost.  The  latter  was  reduced  to  the 
position  occupied  by  the  wives  of  the  king — one  of 
comfort   and   of    comparative   splendour,   but    with 

♦  The  Five  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  171, 172. 


The  Choice  of  Esther.  383 

nothing  of  the  regal  magnificence  an  d  almost  divine 
honour  which  made  the  queen  the  one  woman  of  an 
empire  so  vast  that  it  might  be  called  the  world. 
Vashtiwas  doubtless  at  once  removed  from  the  central 
palace  in  the  spacious  House  of  the  Women  ;  her 
retinue  was  cut  down  ;  and  the  crown,  with  the  other 
insignia  of  royalty,  was  removed  from  her  custody. 
These  last,  along  with  the  palace  filled  with  all  that 
unbounded  wealth  and  the  arts,  then  at  the  very 
height  of  their  splendour,  could  supply,  awaited  the 
advent  of  Vashti's  successor. 

That  advent,  the  Scripture  tells  us,  was  celebrated 
over  the  entire  empire.  "  The  king  made  a  great  feast 
unto  all  his  princes  and  his  servants,  even  Esther's 
feast ;  and  he  made  a  release  to  the  provinces,  and 
gave  gifts,  even  according  to  the  state  of  the  king" 
(ii.  18).  Here  three  things  are  named  as  connecfted 
with  the  enthronement  of  Esther.  The  "great  feast" 
we  have  already  seen  to  be  a  distinctly  Persian  feature. 
Was  this  the  case  also  with  the  other  two  ?  Was  it  usual 
for  the  Persian  monarch  to  call  the  subjec5l  nations  to 
rejoice  with  him  by  giving  them  *'a  release,"  and  to 
gratify  his  nobility  by  the  bestowal  of  gifts  ?  With 
us  a  somewhat  contrary  custom  prevails.  A  marriage 
and  a  coronation  are  times  rather  for  the  receiving  of 
gifts.  Does  the  Scripture,  however,  present  us  here 
with  ideas  and  customs  which  take  us  back  to  the 
very  times  of  Xerxes  and  Esther  ? 

The  answer  will  be  plain  from  the  following.  Hero- 
dotus incidentally  touches  upon  this  very  custom  in 
his  notice  of  the  usurper,  the  false  Smerdis,  the  pre- 


3^4  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

decessor  upon  the  Persian  throne  of  Darius  the 
father  of  Xerxes.  The  usurper  reigned  only  seven 
months;  but  he  managed,  notwithstandingthe  extreme 
shortness  of  his  reign,  to  endear  himself  to  the  empire 
generally.  "His  subjects,  while  his  reign  lasted," 
says  the  Greek  historian,  "received  great  benefits 
from  him,  insomuch  that,  when  he  died,  all  the 
dwellers  in  Asia  mourned  his  loss  exceedingly,  except 
only  the  Persians.  For  no  sooner  did  he  come  to  the 
throne  than  forthwith  he  sent  round  to  every  nation 
under  his  rule,  and  granted  them  freedom  from  war- 
service  and  from  taxes  for  the  space  of  three  years."* 
Commentators  have  had  difficulty  in  explaining  what 
the  "release"  mentioned  in  the  Scripture  was ;  for 
there  was  so  little  within  their  experience  or  their 
knowledge  that  could  throw  light  upon  the  term. 
And  now,  when  we  come  to  the  Persia  of  the  very 
time  of  which  the  Bible  speaks,  the  difficulty  imme- 
diately disappears.  The  "release"  is  seen  to  be  a 
release  indeed.  The  nations  are  temporarily  freed 
from  the  immense  contributions  in  men,  money,  and 
produce,  which  formed  a  constant  anxiety  to  the 
governors,  and  which  were  a  constant  and  heavy 
drain  upon  the  peoples.  It  was  a  simple  but  effedlual 
means  of  creating  widespread  and  unfeigned  gladness, 
and  of  making  Esther's  name  a  household  word 
among  all  the  nations. 

The  answer  is  equally  remarkable  with  regard  to 
the  gifts.     Xenophon,  who  accompanied  the  younger 
Cyrus   when    he    attempted    to  wrest    the    Persian 
*in.67. 


The  Choice  of  Esther.  385 

dominion  from  his  brother,  with  the  help  of  the 
Greeks,  tells  us  that  this  very  plan  of  giving  gifts 
was  steadily  pursued  by  Cyrus  to  win  and  increase 
the  affec5lion  of  his  friends.  ''As,  upon  many  accounts," 
he  says,  "  he  (Cyrus)  received,  in  my  opinion,  more 
presents  than  any  one  man  ;  so,  of  all  men  living,  he 
distributed  them  to  his  friends  with  the  greatest 
generosity,  and  in  this  distribution  consulted  both  the 
taste  and  the  wants  of  everyone.  And  as  for  those  orna- 
ments for  his  person  that  were  presented  to  him,  either 
as  of  use  in  war,or  embellishments  to  dress,  he  said  .  .  . 
that  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to  wear  them  all,  but 
that  he  looked  upon  a  prince's  friends,  when  richly 
dressed,  as  his  greatest  ornament."  Xenophon  then 
proceeds  to  give  details  to  show  that  in  the  hands  of 
Cyrus  this  practice  was  reduced  to  a  science,  and  that 
he  outdid  all  his  friends,  **not  only  in  the  magnifi- 
cence of  his  favours,"  but  "also  in  his  care  and  his 
earnest  desire  to  oblige."*  The  same  writer  also 
informs  us  that  Cyrus  the  Great  celebrated  his  first 
assumption  of  regal  state  in  the  newly-acquired  city 
of  Babylon  in  a  similar  fashion.  He  gained  the 
hearts  of  his  commanders,  and  their  friends,  and 
others,  and  won  them  to  ready  obedience  and 
sympathy  by  the  presentation  of  rich  robes.  "When 
he  had  distributed  the  finest  robes  to  the  greatest 
men,"  says  Xenophon,  "  he  then  produced  other  robes 
of  the  Median  sort ;  for  he  had  provided  them  in  great 
numbers,  and  was  not  sparing  either  in  the  purple 
habits,  or  those  of  a  dark  colour,  or  in  the  scarlet,  or 

*  Anabisis,  i.  g. 

B  I 


386  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

in  the  murrey.  And  having  distributed  a  certain 
portion  of  these  to  each  of  the  commanders,  he  bade 
them  adorn  and  set  out  their  friends  with  them,  *  as 
I,'  he  said,  *  adorn  you.'"*  The  guards  were  also 
treated  in  the  same  fashion,  and  the  day  of  the  great 
ceremony  was  thus  made  a  day  of  rejoicing,  not  so 
much  in'.the  splendour  of  the  robes  as  in  the  assurance 
of  the  hero's  favour.  Xerxes,  in  like  manner,  carried 
brightness  into  the  hearts  and  the  homes  of  his  people, 
and  we  once  more  recognise  that  the  Bible  sets  us 
down  in  the  very  times,  and  among  the  scenes  which 
it  describes.  Those  very  circumstantial  details  which 
draw  the  critics'  scorn  prove  themselves  once  more  to 
be  a  Divine  seal  to  the  truth  of  the  Book. 

Dr.  Driver  pradlically  admits  that  much  of  the 
critical  case  against  the  Book  cannot  now  be  main- 
tained ;  but,  he  adds,  *'it  can  still  hardly  be  pronounced 
altogether  free  from  improbabilities;"  and  the  sup- 
posed improbability  which  he  places  at  the  head  of 
the  now  greatly  reduced  list  is  this — ''Esther  cannot, 
it  seems,  have  been  Ahasuerus'  queen.  Between  the 
seventh  and  the  twelfth  years  of  his  reign,  Xerxes' 
queen  was  Amestris,  a  superstitious  and  cruel  woman 
(Herodotus  vii.  114  ;  ix.  112),  who  cannot  be  identified 
with  Esther,  and  who  leaves  no  place  for  Esther  beside 
her.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  manner  in  which  she  was 
seledled  is  in  confli(5l  with  the  law,  by  which  the 
Persian  monarch,  in  his  choice  of  a  queen,  was  limited 
to  seven  noble  families  of  Persia  (Herodotus  iii.84)."t 
It  is  quite  true  that,  if  the  Greek  historians  were  well 

*  Cyrop,  viii.  3.     +  Introduction,'^.  453. 


The  Choice  of  Esther,  387 

informed  regarding  Amestris,  she  could  not  have  been 
Esther;  and  the  burying  alive  of  fourteen  Persian 
children  in  honour  of  the  god  of  the  infernal  regions 
is  an  adl  which  assuredly  could  not  have  been  done 
by  a  woman  who  feared  the  God  of  Israel.  But  to 
accept  their  testimony  as  final  in  the  face  of  the 
statements  of  this  Book,  proved  to  be  a  contemporary 
document  of  the  most  minutely  correct  chara(5ler,  is 
a  course  to  which  no  criticism  worthy  of  the  name  can 
lend  itself.  As  has  been  already  said,  the  Greek  refer- 
ences to  Persian  affairs,  after  Xerxes'  return  to  Persia, 
are  very  few.  It  was  a  period  of  interrupted  relations 
with  Greece.  The  old  coming  and  going  ceased,  and 
no  curious  Greek  could  have  entered  the  territories  of 
an  exasperated  king  and  people  without  deadly  peril. 
The  reference  to  the  law,  by  which  Darius  and  his 
successors  were  bound  to  seledl  his  wives  from  the 
families  of  the  conspirators  who  overthrew  the  false 
Smerdis,  is  equally  inconclusive,  and  shows  to  what 
straws  the  critical  case  is  forced  to  cling.  Has  Dr. 
Driver  not  noticed  that  Esther's  elevation  is  provided 
for  by  a  new  law,  or  decree  of  the  king,  published 
throughout  the  entire  kingdom  (ii.  2-4)  ?  He  ought 
also,  in  fairness  to  his  readers,  to  have  mentioned 
that  the  Persian  king  was,  in  reality,  bound  by  no 
such  law.  When  Cambyses  desired  to  marry  his  sister, 
he  inquired  of  the  royal  judges,  says  Herodotus  (the 
very  author  whom  Dr.  Driver  quotes),  whether  it  was 
lawful  for  a  brother  to  marry  his  sister.  They  replied 
that,  although  they  could  find  no  law  which  permitted 
such  a  union,  "they  had  discovered  one  which  enabled 


388  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

a  monarch  of  Persia  to  do  what  he  pleased."  ^    That 
finding  of  the  supreme  legal  authority,  not  very  many 
years  before  this  very  time,  left  the  king  untrammelled. 
There  was  no  law  to  hinder,  and  no  human  authority 
to  question  the  king.     And  how  perfectly  the  feeHng 
of  that  time  is  impressed  upon  us  by  the  Book  of 
Esther,  and  how  completely  out  of  accord  with  it  is 
the  critical  position,  may  be  judged  by  the  following 
description  of  the  Persian  Court :  *'The  feeling  of  the 
Persian  towards  his  king  is  one  of  which  moderns  can 
with   difficulty  form  a  conception.      In  Persia,  the 
monarch  was  so  much  the  State,  that  patriotism  was, 
as  it  were,  swallowed  up  in  loyalty ;   and  an  absolute 
unquestioning  submission,  not  only  to  the  deliberate 
will,  but  to  the  merest  caprice  of  the  sovereign,  was  by 
habit  and  education  so  engrained  into  the  nature  of 
the  people  that  a  contrary  spirit  scarcely  ever  mani- 
fested itself.  .  .  .  Uncomplaining  acquiescence  in  all 
the  decisions  of  the  monarch — cheerful  submission  to 
his  will,  whatever  it  might  chance  to  be — character- 
ised the  conduct  of  the  Persians  in  time  of  peace.  .  . 
The  voice  of  remonstrance,  of  rebuke,  of  warning,  was 
unheard  at  the  court ;    and  tyranny  was  allowed  to 
indulge  unchecked  in  the  wildest  caprices  and  extra- 
vagances." t     These  are  the  very  king  and  the  very 
Court  pictured  in  Esther.     Had  it  been  in  line  with 
the  supposed  ''  historical  probabilities  "  of  Dr.  Driver 
and  his  fellow-critics,  it  would  have  been  the  fiction 
which,  in  their  ignorance  of  the  times,  they  imagine 
it  to  be.     But  even  as  an  accurate,  and,  therefore, 


♦  HI.  31.      +  Rawlinson.     Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  112,  113. 


Mordecai  and  Haman.  389 

priceless,  picture  of  the  times,  Esther  will  be  valued 
when  they  will  be  forgotten. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Mordecai  and  Haman. 


A  BRIEF  account  is  given  in  chapter  ii.  5,  6  of  the 
genealogy  of  Mordecai.  This  is  in  accordance 
with  the  custom  of  Scripture  in  presenting  us  with 
the  story  of  anyone  who  becomes  the  servant  of  God, 
and  the  helper  of  God's  people.  We  read  there  :  '*  Now 
in  Shushan  the  palace  there  was  a  certain  Jew,  whose 
name  was  Mordecai,  the  son  of  Jair,  the  son  of  Shimei, 
the  son  of  Kish,  a  Benjamite ;  who  had  been  carried 
away  from  Jerusalem  with  the  captivity  which  had 
been  carried  away  with  Jeconiah  king  of  Judah,  whom 
Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon  had  carried 
away." 

This  passage  first  suffered  somewhat  at  the  hands 
of  the  Jews.  The  name  of  Kish  at  once  suggested 
that  of  Saul,  and  it  was  imagined  that  the  aim  of  the 
passage  was  to  show  that  Esther  was  of  royal  descent ! 
But  if  that  had  been  the  intention,  two  things  had 
been  strangely  neglected.  For,  first  of  all,  Saul  him- 
self might  surely  have  been  named ;  and,  secondly, 
the  genealogy  might  have  appeared  as  that  of  Esther, 
and  not  of  Mordecai.  But  the  mention  of  the  name  of 
Agag  in  the  lineage  of  Haman  caused  this  interpre- 


390  ^^^^  ^^'^'  Biblical  Guide, 

tation  to  be  clung  to  with  increased  tenacity.     We 
are  told  (iii.  i)  that  Haman  was  *'  the  son  of  Ham- 
medatha  the  Agagite."     Here  then,  on  the  one  side, 
was  the  descendant  of  Saul;  and,  on  the  other,  the 
descendant  of  Agag,  the  king  of  Amalek,  Israel's  in- 
veterate enemy.     A  lively  imagination  finds  that  the 
identification  has  a  certain  charm  ;  but  a  sober  judg- 
ment remembers  that  more  is  required  to  establish 
such  an  identity  than  the  two  words  Kish  and  Agag ; 
that  Saul's  name  does  not  appear;  and  that  we  should 
also  have  to  conclude  that  Shimei,  who  cursed  the 
Lord's  anointed,  was  Saul's  brother — a  relationship 
never  hitherto  suspected,  and,  indeed,  set  aside  by  the 
Scripture  which  tells  us  that  he  was  the  son  of  Gera — 
and  that  Mordecai  and  Esther  would,  in  this  case, 
have  descended  from  Kish,  not  through  Saul,  the  king 
of  Israel,  but  through  Shimei,  the  railer  upon  David ! 
But  discovery  has  shed  light  which  dispels  the  dark- 
ness of  these  rabbinical  fancies.     Haman  is  a  purely 
Persian  name.     It  is  read  in  an  inscription,  and  it 
appears  in  Greek  under  the  form  of  Omanes.    Ham- 
medatha,  his  father's  name,  is  also  recognised  at  once 
as  pure  Persian.     It  means  ''given  by  Homa  " — "a 
divinity  " — says  M.  Dieulafoy,  ''whose  worship  goes 
back  to  a  high  antiquity  in  Persia."   It  has  fared  quite 
as  badly  with  the  great  foundation  stone  of  this  Jewish 
theory   which    has    found    such   favour   with    many 
Christian  writers.     Agag  is  the  name  of  a  district  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Media.     "  It  has  been  long  be- 
lieved," writes  M.  Oppert,  the  famous  Assyriologist, 
"that  (Haman)  was  an  Amalekite,  because  one  of  the 


Mordecai  and  Hainan.  ogi 

kings  of  Amalek  is  called  Agag.  And  seeing  that  in 
antiquity  the  names  of  Esau  and  of  Amalek  were  used 
as  designations  for  the  pagans  of  Europe,  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translates  the  Hebrew  Agagi  by  'the  Mace- 
donian.' Nevertheless,  the  name  of  Haman,  as  well 
as  that  of  his  father,  belongs  to  the  Medo-Persian. 
We  now  know,  by  the  inscriptions  of  Khorsabad,  that 
the  country  of  Agag  was  really  part  of  Media."  Here 
is  the  inscription  referred  to.  Sargon,  the  father  of 
Sennacherib,  says  in  his  account  of  a  certain  cam- 
paign :— 

Thirty-four  districts  of  Media  I  conquered 
and  I  added  them  to  the  domain  of  Assyria;  I 
imposed  upon  them  an  annual  tributeof  horses. 
The  country  of  Agazi  (Agag)  ...  I  ravaged, 
I  wasted,  I  burned. 
But  while  Jewish  speculation  left  the  authority  of 
the  Scripture  untouched,  so-called  Christian  scholar- 
ship has  attempted  to  lay  its  honour  in  the  dust. 
"Accordingtothe  most  natural  construction  of  ii.  5, 6," 
says  De  Wette,  ''  Mordecai  must  have  been  carried 
into  exile  with  Jeconiah  ;    consequently,  at  the  time 
these  events  took  place,  he  must  have  been  about  120 
years  old,  and  Esther  must  have  been  a  superannuated 
beauty."  *     Here  would  have  been  one  of  those  in- 
consistencies into  which  a  romancer  falls  so  easily, 
and  from  which  few  forgers,  or  writers  of  historical 
novels,  have  managed  to  escape.    But  on  what,  then, 
we  ask,  is  this  grave  charge  founded  ?    Let  the  reader 
kmdly  mark  the  re^ly—npon  a  relative  pronoun !  In  the 

=^  Eiuhihmg,  §  198  a. 


392  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

words  :  ''  Mordecai  the  son  of  Jair,  the  son  of  Shimei, 
the  son  of  Kish,  a  Benjamite,  who  had  been  carried 
away,"  ^^c,  we  naturally  conclude  that  the  *'who"  refers 
to  the  name  which  immediately  precedes  it,  and  that  it 
was  Kish  who  was  carried  away.  But  "  no,"  exclaims 
De  Wette,  in  the  name  of  outraged  Hebrew  :  "  *  Who,' 
can  only  refer  to  the  principal  name  in  the  sentence, 
and  that  is  Mordecai !  It  is  he  who  was  led  captive 
from  Jerusalem  in  598  B.C.,  and  who  must  now,  in 
495  B.C.,  have  been  103  years  in  captivity,  and,  if  we 
say  that  he  was  seventeen  when  he  left  Jerusalem, 
will  be  now  120,  while  his  cousin  can  not  be  very 
much  younger."  To  this  it  might  be  replied  that 
*'  Kish,  a  Benjamite,"  is  plainly  he  who  is  referred 
to  as  led  away  from  his  native  land.  The  very 
description,  "a  Benjamite,"  makes  the  reference  lie 
there.  He  was  wrenched  away  from  his  inheritance, 
and  therefore  it  is  that  his  tribe  is  named.  In  this 
way  everything  is  in  line  with  probability  and  fact. 
Mordecai  and  Esther  belonged  to  the  fourth  genera- 
tion from  the  captivity.  It  might  also  be  shown  that 
this  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  Hebrew  usage ;  but 
it  is  enough  to  point  out  that  this  argument  has  been 
withdrawn.  Driver  does  not  mention  it,  and  Davidson 
is  ashamed  of  it.  He  says  :  ''  This  argument,  though 
adduced  by  De  Wette  and  others,  does  not  appear  to 
be  valid.  The  true  explanation  of  the  original  words 
makes  Kish,  great-grandfather  of  Mordecai,  the  person 
carried  away  in  Jehoiachin's  captivity."  *  But  if  the 
argument  is  not  valid,  why  was  it  stated  and  urged 

*  Introduction,  vol.  ii.,  p.  159. 


Mordecai  and  Human.  393 

with  such  determination  ?  If  the  true  explanation  is  in 
favour  of  the  Bible,  why  was  a  false  explanation  rushed 
forward  like  a  battering-ram  to  overthrow  faith  in  the 
Scripture  ?  It  was  supported,  too,  in  the  name  of 
Hebrew  scholarship,  and  it  imposed,  on  this  account, 
even  upon  some  defenders  of  the  Bible.  It  is  worth 
remembering,  in  this  warfare,  that  Hebrew  scholar- 
ship, when  it  assaults  a  Book  which  the  greatest 
Hebrew  scholars  the  world  has  ever  seen  have  revered 
as  the  Word  of  God,  may  indulge  in  an  argument 
that  is  "not  valid,"  and,  in  its  haste  to  destroy,  may 
furnish  what  has  to  be  afterwards  surrendered  as 
not  "the  true  explanation." 

Each  of  these  two  men  fills  in  turn  a  great  place  in 
the  Persian  State.  There  is  no  mention  of  Haman 
among  the  seven  princes,  nor  in  conne(5lion  with  the 
opening  incidents  of  the  history.  It  was  some  time 
after  the  return  of  Xerxes  from  Greece  and  the 
marriage  of  Esther,  that  Haman  was  promoted.  His 
promotion  is  also  noted  as  an  innovation.  "  After 
these  things,"  we  read,  "did  king  Ahasuerus  promote 
Haman  the  son  of  Hammedatha,  the  Agagite,  and 
advanced  him,  and  set  his  seat  above  all  the  princes 
that  were  with  him.  And  all  the  king's  servants  that 
were  in  the  king's  gate,  bowed,  and  reverenced 
Haman :  for  the  king  so  commanded  concerning 
him  "  (iii.  i,  2).  To  this  great  position  Mordecai 
succeeded.  The  last  words  of  the  book  are  these 
which  speak  of  "  the  greatness  of  Mordecai,  where- 
unto  the  king  advanced  him.  .  .  .  For  Mordecai  the 
Jew  was  next  unto  king  Ahasuerus  and  great  among 


394  ^^^^  ^^'^  Biblical  Guide. 

the  Jews,  and  accepted  of  the  multitude  of  his  brethren, 
seeking  the  wealth  of  his  people  and  speaking  peace 
to  all  his  seed  "  (x.  2,  3). 

Is  there  any  notice  of  such  a  great  position  as  this 
existing  in  connec5tion  with  the  Persian  empire  ?  We 
have  none  among  the  references  to  Persia  left  us  by 
the  Greek  writers  ;  for  these  references  to  the  time  of 
Xerxes  almost  entirely  cease  with  the  account  of  the 
campaign  against  Greece.  They  show  us  the  king  as 
the  one  spring  of  acStion  and  the  wielder  of  all  authority 
in  the  vast  Persian  dominion.  The  inscriptions  of 
the  Persian  kings,  on  the  other  hand,  are  exceedingly 
scanty;  and,  with  the  exception  of  those  of  Darius 
Hystaspis,  comparatively  unimportant.  It  need  hardly 
be  said,  therefore,  that  these  shed  no  light  upon  this 
matter.  But  it  may  be  noted  that  the  silence  of  the 
Greek  writers  is  so  far  in  complete  agreement  with 
the  statements  of  Scripture.  Xerxes  does  not  seem 
to  have  delegated  his  authority  to  any  one  till  this 
change  was  made ;  and  it  was  not  made,  the  Scripture 
tells  us,  till  some  time  after  the  Grecian  campaign 
had  ended,  and  when  perhaps  the  disasters  of  that 
conflid^  called  for  special  activity  and  careful  oversight 
of  the  imperial  finances.  It  may  be  remarked  also 
that,  even  after  the  special  position  is  given  to  Haman, 
Xerxes  is  no  less  king  than  he  had  been  before.  In 
face  of  the  royal  anger,  Haman  is  absolutely  without 
resources.  He  is  crushed  like  a  worm  of  the  dust. 
There  is  no  popular  commotion  in  consequence  of  his 
death,  nor  the  slightest  murmur  of  disaffection.  A 
breath  made  him,  and  a  breath  unmakes  him.    Xerxes 


Mordecai  and  Human.  395 

is  as  supreme,  and  as  much  the  one  possessor  of 
authority  after  the  elevation  of  his  favourite  as  he 
was  before. 

But  it  would  seem  that  there  must  have  been  some 
precedent  for  a  State  arrangement  of  this  kind ;  and 
we  naturally  ask  whether  the  elevation  of  a  single 
noble  to  the  supreme  administrative  power  had  been 
customary  in  the  dominions  to  which  Persia  had  now 
succeeded  ?  The  reader  will  remember  that  it  was 
the  purpose  of  Darius  the  Mede  to  set  Daniel  "  over 
the  whole  realm  "  (Daniel  vi.  2)  which  led  to  the  deep- 
laid  plot  against  Daniel's  life.  Was  this,  therefore, 
like  the  acTtion  of  Xerxes,  a  recurrence  to  a  method  of 
government  with  which  these  lands  had  been  long 
familiar  ?  The  following  from  Professor  Rawlinson's 
description  of  the  Assyrian  Court  sheds  welcome  light 
upon  this  matter.  **  Among  the  officers  who  have  free 
access  to  the  royal  person,  there  is  one  who  stands 
out  with  such  marked  prominence  from  the  rest,  that 
he  has  been  properly  recognised  as  the  Grand  Vizier, 
or  prime  minister — at  once  the  chief  counsellor  of  the 
monarch,  and  the  man  whose  special  business  it  was 
to  signify  and  execute  his  will.  The  dress  of  the 
Grand  Vizier  is  more  rich  than  that  of  any  other 
person  except  the  monarch ;  and  there  are  certain 
portions  of  his  apparel  which  he  and  the  king  have 
alone  the  privilege  of  wearing.  These  are  principally 
the  tasselled  apron  and  the  fringed  band  depending 
from  the  fillet,  the  former  of  which  is  found  in  the 
early  period  only,  while  the  latter  belongs  to  no 
particular  time,  but  throughout  the  whole  series  of 


39^  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

sculptures  is  the  distinctive  mark  of  royal  or  quasi- 
royal  authority.  To  these  two  may  be  added  the  long 
ribbon  or  scarf,  with  double  streamers  at  the  ends, 
which  depended  from,  or  perhaps  fastened,  the  belt — 
a  royal  ornament  worn  also  by  the  Vizier  in  at  least 
one  representation." 

After  a  further  description  of  the  dress,  etc.,  of 
the  Vizier,  Canon  Rawlinson  concludes  :  "  The  pre- 
eminent rank  and  dignity  of  this  officer  is  shown,  not 
only  by  his  participation  in  the  insignia  of  royal 
authority,  but  also  and  very  clearly  by  the  fadl,  that^ 
when  he  is  present,  no  one  ever  intervenes  between 
him  and  the  king.  He  has  the  undisputed  right  of 
precedence,  so  that  he  is  evidently  the  first  subjecfl  of 
the  crown.  He,  and  he  alone,  is  seen  addressing  the 
monarch.  He  does  not  always  accompany  the  king 
on  his  military  expeditions ;  but,  when  he  attends 
them,  he  still  maintains  his  position,  having  a  dignity 
greater  than  any  general,  and  so  taking  the  entire 
dire(5tion  of  the  prisoners  and  of  the  spoil."  * 

It  was,  consequently,  no  new  and  unheard  of  thing, 
to  raise  a  subject  to  such  a  lofty  pinnacle  of  power. 
It  was  merely  the  continuation  of  an  office  which 
even  the  strong  autocrats  of  Assyria  had  found  to  be 
necessary ;  and  it  is  not  a  matter  for  astonishment 
that  Xerxes,  after  his  early  vigour  had  fled,  and  when 
the  disasters  of  the  Grecian  campaign  had  called  for 
renewed  adlivity,  fell  back  upon  a  custom  which 
relieved  the  king  of  labour,  while  it  in  no  wise 
diminished  his  authority. 

*  The  Five  Great  Monarchies,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  115-117. 


Haman's  Revenge.  397 

CHAPTER   XI. 
Haman's    Revenge. 


IT  has  not  been  sufficiently  noticed  that  Mordecai 
was  evidently  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  Court. 
When  he  is  first  mentioned  (ii.  5),  we  are  told  that  he 
was  resident  in  "  Shushan  the  Palace."  But  no  one, 
who  was  not  connected  more  or  less  directly  with 
the  royal  service,  could  have  been  permitted  to  reside 
within  those  jealously  guarded  precincts.  Apparently, 
between  the  arrival  of  the  first  section  of  the 
maidens  brought  into  the  house  of  the  women  and 
the  coming  of  those  from  the  more  distant  provinces, 
a  change  had  been  made  in  the  position  of  Mordecai. 
"When  the  virgins  were  gathered  together  the  second 
time,  then  Mordecai  sat  in  the  king's  gate  "  (ii.  19). 
This  "sitting  in  the  king's  gate"  was  plainly  a 
matter  of  daily  duty,  and  was  due  neither  to  choice 
on  the  part  of  Mordecai,  nor  to  a  spirit  of  bold 
intrusion.  He  was  there  on  the  king's  service ;  for 
otherwise  the  palace  guards  would  have  summarily 
punished  him,  or  have  swept  him  aside,  on  his  refusal 
to  obey  the  king's  commandment  in  the  honouring 
of  Haman.  It  was  plainly  some  post  also  of  con- 
siderable, though  no  doubt  minor,  authority.  There 
is  no  one  at  the  gate  with  power  enough  to  punish 
or  to  suspend  him. 

The   Divine    honours  paid  to  the   new    favourite 


39^  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

were  such  as  the  God-fearing  Jew  could  not  render. 
He  had  explained,  when  his  fellow-officials  remon- 
strated with  him,  that  he  was  an  Israelite,  and  could 
not  therefore  yield  to  man  what  was  due  to  God 
alone.  The  refusal  was  too  marked,  however,  and 
perhaps  the  love  of  intrigue  was  too  keen,  for  them 
to  permit  the  matter  to  rest  there.  Haman's  atten- 
tion was  directed  to  it.  '*  Now  it  came  to  pass,  when 
they  spake  daily  unto  him,  and  he  hearkened  not 
unto  them,  that  they  told  Haman,  to  see  whether 
Mordecai's  matters  would  stand :  for  he  had  told 
them  that  he  was  a  Jew.  And  when  Haman  saw 
that  Mordecai  bowed  not,  nor  did  him  reverence, 
then  was  Haman  full  of  wrath  "  (iii.  4,  5). 

Haman's  indignation  at  the  affront  daily  given  to 
him  could  not  be  appeased  by  the  death  of  Mordecai 
alone.  The  Grand  Vizier's  eye  swept  over  the 
millions  whom  the  king  had  now  placed  under  his 
control.  He  recognised  that  those  Jews,  peculiar, 
prejudiced,  intractable,  were  everywhere.  This  was 
not  a  solitary  instance  of  trouble.  He  would  deal 
with  the  Mordecai  of  the  empire,  and  would  rid  the 
world  once  for  all  of  what  he  now  recognised  as  an 
intolerable  nuisance.  He  believed  he  had  only  to  let 
loose  the  animosity,  which  they  had  excited  every- 
where among  the  idolatrous  populations  of  the  wide- 
spread Persian  dominion,  and  the  Jew  would  become 
merely  a  fast  fading  memory.  The  publication  of  an 
edidl  from  Pekin  could  exterminate  the  Christians  in 
China  without  the  use  of  a  single  regiment  of  the 
Chinese  army;    and,  in  ancient  Persia,  a  universal 


Hainan's  Revenge.  399 

massacre  of  the  Jews  required  only  the  intimation  of 
the  royal  will.  Even  in  Palestine  there  was  not  a 
neighbouring  nation  or  tribe  that  would  not  have 
rushed  to  accomplish  all  that  Haman,  in  the  moment 
of  his  fiercest  passion,  had  desired.  The  fearful 
work  would  have  been  thoroughly  and  gleefully 
done. 

But  he  was  statesman  enough  to  foresee  one 
objection  to  his  plan.  The  royal  revenues  might 
suffer.  He  had  an  answer,  as  we  shall  see,  to  that. 
There  was  something  else,  however,  which  had  to  be 
seen  to  before  he  could  ask  for  a  royal  decree.  For 
that  decree  must  fix  the  date — and  to  prevent  the 
possibility  of  escape  of  any  Jew  by  his  removing  from 
one  district  to  another,  it  must  be  the  same  date  for 
the  whole  empire.  Haman,  therefore,  first  of  all, 
calls  his  priests  together  to  fix  a  fortunate  day  for 
this  huge  undertaking;  and  so  "in  the  first  month, 
that  is,  the  month  Nisan,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  king 
Ahasuerus,  they  cast  Pur,  that  is,  the  lot,  before 
Haman  from  day  to  day,  and  from  month  to  month, 
to  the  twelfth  month,  that  is,  the  month  Adar"  (iii.  7). 
Having  determined  the  fortunate  day,  which  is  after- 
wards named  in  the  decree,  he  approached  the  king. 
The  Vizier  presents  his  case  with  skill.  Not  a  word 
is  said  about  Mordecai,  nor  of  any  private  end  that 
Haman  has  to  serve.  As  becomes  his  great  position, 
he  is  occupied  only  with  the  king's  interests  and  with 
the  welfare  of  the  empire.  "And  Haman  said  unto 
king  Ahasuerus,  There  is  a  certain  people  scattered 
abroad  and  dispersed  among  the  peoples  in  all  the 


400  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

provinces  of  thy  kingdom  ;  and  their  laws  are  diverse 
from  all  people;  neither  keep  they  the  king's  laws: 
therefore  it  is  not  for  the  king's  profit  to  suffer  them" 
(verse  8).  He  asks  that  they  may  be  exterminated, 
and  he  offers  to  pay  10,000  talents  of  silver  to  make 
good  any  loss  of  revenue  that  may  be  feared.  The 
king's  favour  for  Haman  was  too  new  and  too  strong 
to  admit  of  hesitation.  Permission  was  instantly 
granted.  The  king's  signet  was  confided  to  the  Vizier, 
the  secretaries  were  summoned,  and  the  couriers  swept 
out  from  Shushan  the  Palace  to  carry  the  royal  com- 
mands to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  empire  that  the 
Jews  should  perish  everywhere,  ''both  young  and  old, 
little  children  and  women,  in  one  day,  even  upon  the 
thirteenth  day  of  the  twelfth  month,  which  is  the 
month  Adar,  and  to  take  the  spoil  of  them  for  a  prey" 
(iii.  ij). 

This  part  of  the  narrative  has  specially  attradled 
the  critical  fire.  Davidson  puts  some  of  these 
objections  in  their  mildest  form.  He  says  that  the 
determination  to  slay  two  millions  of  people,  the 
king's  agreeing  to  the  request  of  Haman,  and  the 
latter's  offer  of  10,000  talents  of  silver,  or  nearly 
three  and  a-half  millions  sterling,  are  "  somewhat 
incredible  on  the  part  of  the  king  and  the  Prime 
Minister."*  It  has  been  pointed  out,  in  reply,  that 
here  the  critics,  as  usual,  fall  into  a  very  obvious  trap. 
They  judge  a  narrative  of  the  past  by  the  ideas  and 
the  practices  of  the  present.  Such  massacres  were 
not  unknown  to  Persian  history,  and  were  not  regarded 

*  Introduction,  vol.  ii.,  p.  402. 


Human' s  Revenge.  401 

then  as  they  are  regarded  to-day.  Every  reader  of 
Xenophon  will  recall  the  massacre  of  the  Grecian 
generals,  invited  by  the  Persian  commander  to  a 
banquet.  But  such  an  a6t  was  even  then  no  new  thing 
in  Persian  history.  There  were  two  outstanding 
deeds  of  the  kind  which  had  been  done  heartily  and 
thoroughly,  and  which  prove  that  to  the  public  mind 
the  idea  of  such  an  atrocity  was  neither  unusual, 
abhorrent,  nor  unwelcome.  "  The  dominion  of  the 
Scythians  over  Asia,"  writes  Herodotus,  ''lasted  eight 
and  twenty  years,  during  which  time  their  insolence 
and  oppression  spread  ruin  on  every  side.  For  besides 
the  regular  tribute,  they  exacl:ed  from  the  several 
nations  additional  imposts,  which  they  fixed  at 
pleasure  ;  and  further,  they  scoured  the  country,  and 
plundered  everyone  of  whatever  they  could.  At 
length  Cyaxares  and  the  Medes  invited  the  greater 
part  of  them  to  a  banquet,  and  made  them  drunk  with 
wine,  after  which  they  were  all  massacred.  The  Medes 
then  recovered  their  empire,  and  had  the  same  extent 
of  dominion  as  before."  * 

That  event  lived  in  the  memories  of  the  Persian 
people,  and  a  similar,  but  much  more  recent,  massacre 
was  ever  viewed  by  them  with  special  satisfaction. 
The  path  to  the  throne  trod  by  Darius,  the  father  of 
Xerxes,  had  been  paved  with  bloodshed.  When  he 
assassinated  the  Magus,  who  had  seized  the  throne, 
there  fell  with  the  Magus  a  number  of  his  chief 
adherents.  "Nor,"  says  RawHnson, '' did  the  ven- 
geance   of    the    successful    conspirators   stop  here. 

I.  106. 

c  I 


402  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Speeding  to  the  capital,  with  the  head  of  the  Magus 
in  their  hands,  and  exhibiting  everywhere  this  proof 
at  once  of  the  death  of  the  late  king,  and  of  his 
imposture,  they  proceeded  to  authorise,  and  aid  in 
carrying  out,  a  general  massacre  of  the  Magian  priests, 
the  abettors  of  the  late  usurpation.  Every  Magus  who 
could  be  found  was  poniarded  by  the  enraged  Persians ; 
and  the  caste  would  have  been  well-nigh  exterminated 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  approach  of  night.  Dark- 
ness brought  the  carnage  to  an  end ;  and  the  sword, 
once  sheathed,  was  not  again  drawn.  Only,  to  com- 
plete the  punishment  of  the  ambitious  religionists  who 
had  insulted  and  deceived  the  nation,  the  day  of  the 
massacre  was  appointed  to  be  kept  annually  as  a 
solemn  festival,  under  the  name  of  the  Magophonia : 
and  a  law  was  passed  that  on  that  day  no  Magian 
should  leave  his  house."  * 

Herodotus  says  (III.  79)  that  such  was  the  fury  of 
the  Persians  "that,  unless  night  had  closed  in,  not  a 
single  Magus  would  have  been  left  alive."  We  can 
now  perceive  where  Haman  got  his  idea,  and  how 
the  suggestion  awakened  no  aversion  in  the  mind 
of  Xerxes,  nor  the  decree  among  the  Persian 
people.  We  are  also  able  to  appreciate  one  feature  of 
the  history,  which  seems  to  have  quite  escaped  the 
notice  of  commentators.  The  massacre  0/ the  Jews  is 
fixed  for  one  day.  It  is  not  to  begin  before  the  13th 
day  of  Adar :  it  is  not  to  continue  after.  When  we 
remember  that  Haman  aims  at  the  complete  extirpa- 
tion of  the  Jews,  we  are  the  more  astonished  at  the 

*  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  4,  p.  402. 


Hainan's  Revens^e. 


403 


limitation.  What  can  it  mean  ?  It  means  that  JBs^Aer 
is  history.  The  massacre  was  limited  by  precedent — 
a  precedent  possibly  older  than  Darius.  The  Bible 
says  nothing  about  previous  massacres.  It  does  not 
explain  the  limitation.  It  keeps  to  a  simple  and  clear 
statement  of  the  facts.  But  when,  as  here,  we  are 
able  to  go  back  into  the  times,  we  find  not  only  that 
its  statements  are  confirmed  :  they  are  also  illustrated 
and  explained.  The  Persians  seem  to  have  been, 
beyond  every  other  ancient  people,  tenacious  of  pre- 
cedent. They  were  tenacious  of  it  even  here.  A 
massacre  might  last  for  a  day,  but  the  sword  returned 
to  its  sheath  at  nightfall. 

The  objedlion,  urged  on  the  ground  of  Haman's 
offer  of  a  sum  amounting  to  about  three  and  a-half 
millions  sterling  of  our  money,  is  based  upon  similar 
ignorance  of  the  times.  It  is  apparently  suggested 
that  such  a  sum  must  have  been  vastly  beyond  the 
means  even  of  a  favoured  subjecTt ;  but  we  fortu- 
nately possess  the  record  of  an  incident  in  this  very 
king's  reign,  which  shows  that  the  possession  of  vast 
fortunes  by  private  persons  was  by  no  means  "in- 
credible." While  passing  through  Phrygia,  on  his 
way  to  Greece,  "  a  man  named  Pythias,  son  of 
Atys,  a  native  of  Lydia,"  says  Herodotus,  "enter- 
tained Xerxes  and  all  his  army  with  great  magnificence; 
he  further  engaged  to  supply  the  king  with  money  for 
the  war."  He  offered  Xerxes  about  five  and  a-half 
millions  sterling,  saying  that  his  slaves  and  his  farms 
were  quite  sufficient  to  support  him.  "  '  My  Lydian 
friend,'  returned  Xerxes,  much  delighted,  *  since  I 


404  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

iirst  left  Persia  you  are  the  only  person  who  has 
treated  my  army  with  hospitality,  or  who,  appearing 
in  my  presence,  has  voluntarily  offered  me  a  supply  for 
the  war ;  you  have  done  both  ;  in  acknowledgment 
for  which  I  offer  you  my  friendship.'  "  He  then, 
besides  restoring  to  him  the  money,  supplied  a  sum 
which  made  his  fortune  still  greater,  and  accompanied 
the  gift  with  the  words :  '*  Retain,  therefore,  and 
enjoy,  your  property  ;  persevere  in  your  present  mode 
of  condudl,  which  will  invariably  operate  to  your 
happiness."*  Here  we  have,  so  far  as  the  offered  gift 
is  concerned,  an  exactly  similar  incident.  Haman's 
gift  is  returned  to  him  in  the  same  kingly  fashion. 
The  very  hugeness  of  the  offer  has  left  Xerxes  no 
possibihty  of  aught  but  a  pleased  and  generous 
response.  The  emotions  of  the  monarch  leave  no 
room  for  cautious  inquiry,  or  for  deliberate  con- 
sideration of  Haman's  request.  The  request,  so 
accompanied,  has  made  Haman  more  than  ever  the 
king's  friend;  ''and  the  king  took  his  ring  from  his 
hand,  and  gave  it  unto  Haman,  the  son  of  Hamme- 
datha,  the  Agagite,  the  Jews'  enemy.  And  the  king 
said  unto  Haman,  the  silver  is  given  to  thee,  the 
people  also,  to  do  with  them  as  it  seemeth  good  to 
thee"  (iii.  10,  11).  Do  we  not  here  meet  the  very 
man  with  whom  Pythias  the  Lydian  talked  in 
Phrygia  ? 

But  if  the  critics  have  any  call  to  speak  in  regard 
to  these  matters,  they  are  fully  within  their  rights 
when    they  object  to   the    Book   on    the  ground  of 

♦Vil.  28,29. 


Human  s  Revenge.  405 

language.  There,  their  special  studies  give  them  an 
undoubted  claim  to  be  heard.  Dr.  Driver  writes  : 
"Whether  the  word   *  Purim  '    is  rightly  explained 

(ix.  26)  is  open  to  doubt No  Persian  word 

resembling  Pur,  with  the  meaning  *  lot,'  is  known  to 
exist."  But,  having  said  so  much,  Dr.  Driver  was 
bound  to  have  said  more.  He  should  surely  have 
told  his  readers  that  our  knowledge  of  the  ancient 
Persian  is  extremely  limited,  being  confined  to  the 
words  which  occur  upon  the  few  Persian  monuments 
which  have  survived  the  destruction  of  ages.  He 
might  also  have  added,  that  the  testimony  of  the 
related  languages  supports  the  statement  of  the  Scrip- 
ture. "Piirim  itself,"  says  Colonel  Conder,  "  is  an 
Aryan  word  connected  with  the  root  whence  the 
Latin  fors  is  derived."  "^  "Pur,  or  Purim,''  writes 
M.  Dieulafoy,  "is  not  a  Persian  word,  argues  the 
rationalistic  school,  and  does  not  signify  *  lot,'  as 
the  Bible  insists,  in  any  language,  nor  in  any  known 
dialedl.  It  would  be  more  exaft  to  insist  that /)wr 
does  not  appear  in  the  very  limited  di(?tionary  com- 
posed according  to  the  inscriptions  of  the  Achaemenides 
at  Behistun,  Nakshi-Rustem,  and  Persepolis  ;  for  the 
word,  considered  in  itself,  is  one  of  the  best  known 
and  most  clearly  defined  roots  in  the  Aryan  languages. 
Par  in  Sanscrit,  Por  in  'Persis.n, plere  in  Latin,  plein  in 
French,  correspond  to  the  same  idea,  and  hand  on  the 
same  sense  to  their  derivatives.  Is  this  sense  adapted 
to  the  name  given  to  the  festival  ? 

"I  borrow  from  the  Bible  itself  the  definition  of 

*  The  Bible  and  the  East,  p.  193. 


4o6  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

the  word  Pur.  Before  sacrificing  the  Jews  to  his 
vengeance  Haman  requests  the  diviners  to  fix  a  day 
for  the  massacre  :  '  In  the  first  month,  which  is  the 
month  Nisan,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  the  king 
(Ahasuerus),  they  threw /^z^r — that  is,  the  lot — in  the 
presence  of  Haman,  day  for  day,  month  for  month, 
even  to  the  thirteenth  day  of  the  twelfth  month, 
which  is  the  month  of  Adar.' 

"The  phrase  is  involved  in  no  obscurity,  if  one 
keeps  to  the  literal  sense.  They  use  a  prophetic 
instrument  cdWed  ptiv  in  the  Persian  tongue,  which  is 
thrown  before  any  one  wishing  to  obtain  the  counsel 
of  destiny.     The  piir  doubtless  gave  its  reponses  by 

*  yes  '  and  by  '  no.'  It  had  to  reply  to  a  clearly 
defined  question,  placed  before  it  in  a  two-fold  fashion, 

*  Will  the  Jews  be  massacred  on  the  first  day  of  the 
month  ? '  We  know  that  when  consulted  day  for 
day,  month  for  month,  the  purg3.ve  at  first  a  negative 
reply,  then,  when  one  called  out  the  thirteenth  day 
and  the  twelfth  month  it  replied  '  yes ; '  that  is  to 
say,  'kill.' 

''Among  the  obje(5ts  found  in  the  deep  excavations 
of  '  Shushan  the  Palace,'  was  a  quadrangular  prism, 
three-eighths  of  an  inch  broad  and  one  inch  and 
three-quarters  in  height.  On  the  four  sides  the 
following  numbers  appear  in  points  :  i — 2 — 5 — 6. 
Throw  down  the  prism  and  it  will  be  forcibly  arrested 
on  a  number  that  is  either  odd  or  even. 

"  The  Persians  were  as  fond  of  games  of  chance  as 
of  wine.  Is  not  this  small  Susian  relic  one  of  their 
dice ;  and  have  they  not  used  their  dice,  under  the 


The  Royal  Decree.  407 

name  of  pur,  for  consulting  the  lot  and  trying  their 
fortune  ?  Pwr  has  not,  properly,  any  more  than  cards, 
urns,  or  dice,  the  sense  of  '  lot ;  '  but  all  these  words 
enter  into  the  similar  phrases — to  cast  the  pur,  to  draw 
the  cards,  to  put  the  hand  in  the  urn,  to  throw  the 
dice,  which  awaken  the  same  idea — to  consult  the  lot. 
The  Persian  expression, /2ir — literally,  *  full,'  'solid' 
— even  corresponds  in  a  certain  measure  to  the  shape 
of  the  Archaemenian  dice."  * 

This  may  possibly  be  the  origin  of  the  phrase. 
The  belief  also  in  lucky  and  unlucky  months  and 
days  had  long  taken  deep  root  in  that  region,  and  in 
a  matter  of  this  kind  the  day  and  the  month  had  to 
be  fixed,  not  in  accordance  with  Haman's  conven- 
ience, nor  by  any  such  considerations  as  avail  with 
ourselves  to-day,  but  by  the  decree  of  the  gods, 
without  whose  approval  he  believed  the  design  would 
meet  with  no  success.  Here,  therefore,  in  this  part 
of  the  history,  so  confidently  challenged,  we  find 
everything  still  in  closest  agreement  with  the  place 
and  the  time. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

The    Royal   Decree. 


AS  soon  as  the  king's  consent  was  obtained,  the 
decree  was  issued.  The  empire  was  wide,  ex- 
tending from  Ethiopia  to  India,  and  time  was  needed 
to  make  the  tidings  known,  and  to  permit  of  adequate 


*  L'Acropole  de  Suse,  pp.  362,  363. 


4o8  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

preparation.  Besides,  Hainan's  thirst  for  vengeance 
had  an  immediate  satisfaction  in  the  consternation 
and  terror  that  fell  upon  this  hated  race  wherever  the 
decree  was  pubHshed.  These  considerations  seem  to 
have  quite  escaped  the  critics,  straining  every  nerve 
to  secure  a  verdict  against  this  Book.  They  add, 
too,  that  such  long  notice  would  have  defeated 
Haman's  objedt,  as  it  would  have  permitted  the  Jews 
to  flee.  Where  could  they  have  fled  to  ?  It  is  perhaps 
possible  that  they  might  have  thought  of  Greece, 
which  had  just  successfully  resisted  the  arms  of 
Xerxes.  But  was  there  the  slightest  possibility  of 
their  making  their  way  through  the  intervening 
provinces,  the  entire  population  of  which  were  aware 
of  their  approaching  fate,  and  would  at  once  have 
divined  their  purpose  ? 

Details,  however,  are  given  not  only  of  the  time 
when  the  decree  was  issued  and  of  the  day  when  it 
fell  to  be  executed,  but  also  of  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  published.  We  pass,  with  the  writer,  into  the 
government  offices  of  Shushan.  We  note  how  copies 
of  the  royal  edidt  are  prepared,  how  they  are  attested, 
and  how  they  are  forwarded  to  their  destinations. 
We  are  shown  the  royal  Secretariat  and  the  postal 
service.  Are  these  the  adlual  institutions  of  the 
time  ;  or  is  this  a  pidture  painted  by  an  imaginative 
Jewish  writer  about  two  centuries  after  the  Persian 
monarchy  and  its  institutions  had  been  swept  away  ? 
These  are  questions  by  which  the  critical  case  against 
this  Book  must  stand  or  fall.  Let  us  once  more 
note  the  verdict  of  history. 


The  Royal  Decree,  409 

We  are  told  that  Haman  at  once  summons  "  the 
king's  scribes  " — '*  Then  were  the  king's  scribes  called 
on  the  thirteenth  day  of  the  twelfth  month,  and  there 
was  written  according  to  all  that  Haman  had 
commanded"  (iii.  12).  We  know  that  the  royal 
Secretariat  was  not  only  a  Persian  institution,  but 
that  it  was  also  a  distincftive  mark  of  this  very  time. 
Xerxes,  wherever  he  went,  was  accompanied  by  his 
scribes.  They  attracfted  the  attention  of  the  Greeks 
amid  all  the  magnificence  and  all  the  terrors  of  his 
great  invasion  of  their  territory.  Herodotus  says 
that  "  Xerxes,  having  ranged  and  numbered  his 
armament,  was  desirous  to  take  a  survey  of  them 
all.  Mounted  in  his  car,  he  examined  each  nation  in 
their  turn.  To  all  of  them  he  proposed  certain 
questions,  the  replies  to  which  were  noted  down  by 
his  secretaries."^'  And  again  :  *' The  king,"  that  is, 
Xerxes,  ''  placed  on  Mount  Aegaleos,  which  is  oppo- 
site to  Salamis,  was  particularly  observant  of  the 
battle,  and  when  he  saw  any  person  eminently  dis- 
tinguish himself,  he  was  minute  in  his  enquiries 
concerning  his  family  and  city ;  all  of  which,  at  his 
direction,  his  scribes  recorded."  t 

Here,  then,  we  once  more  have  beneath  us  the 
solid  ground  of  history,  and  not  the  illusions  of  ficftion. 
Noldeke  is  particularly  severe  upon  another  part  of 
this  account.  "  It  is  still  harder  to  believe,"  he  says, 
"that  royal  edid^s  were  issued  in  the  language  and 
writing  of  each  one  of  the^numerous  peoples  who 
inhabited  the  empire."     One  is  strongly  inclined  to 

*  VII.  100.  t  VIII.  90. 


410  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

ask  him  in  what  manner  he  thinks  the  inhabitants 
could  have  been  communicated  with,  if  not  through 
the  medium  of  the  only  language  which  they  were 
able  to  understand  ?  Perhaps  the  answer  would  be 
that  the  work  of  translation  would  be  left  with  right 
royal  indifference  to  the  governors  or  to  other  local 
authorities.  But,  had  that  been  the  representation  in 
Esther,  we  can  imagine  with  what  a  note  of  triumph 
the  critics  would  have  swooped  down  upon  it.  They 
would,  doubtless,  have  reminded  us  that  this  was 
supremely  improbable,  in  view  of  the  highly-organised 
system  adopted  by  the  Persian  government ;  and  we 
should  have  been  asked  whether  important  decrees 
were  likely  to  be  left  to  the  possible  blundering  of 
provincial  translators,  imperfe(5tly  acquainted  with 
the  Persian  tongue.  But  this  is  not  the  representation 
of  the  Book.  Just  as  in  India  the  British  Government 
has  its  highly  paid  official  translators,  so  were  these 
provided  and  constantly  employed  in  Persia.  Even 
the  monuments  in  Xerxes'  own  palaces  bore  inscrip- 
tions in  three  languages — the  Persian,  the  Susian, 
and  the  Assyrian.  The  reader  will  also  note  how  the 
accuracy  of  the  Scripture  is  revealed  in  the  two 
phrases  which  tell  us  that  the  decree  was  sent  to  the 
rulers  of  every  province  "  according  to  the  writing 
thereof,"  and  to  every  people  *'  after  their  language" 
(iii.  12).  The  peoples  differed  in  language,  but  the 
differences  did  not  end  there.  The  alphabet,  and 
other  charad^ers  and  signs,  which  made  up  the  writing 
systems  of  the  nations,  were  different.  Thus  there 
were  three  different  kinds  of  writing,  as  well  as  three 


Tke  Royal  Decree.  411 

languages,  upon  Xerxes'  own  home  monuments. 
There  were,  besides,  in  the  provinces  the  hieroglyphs 
of  Egypt,  the  Hebrew  alphabet  of  Syria  and  Phoenicia, 
the  Greek  alphabet,  the  yet  unread  Hittite  character, 
etc.  A  writer,  with  the  times  fully  before  him,  would 
naturally  record  this  two-fold  difference.  Professor 
Noldeke's  objection  shows  how  readily  a  late  writer 
would  omit  any  mention  of  it. 

Another  slight,  but  significant,  phrase  tells  the 
same  story.  It  is  said  of  the  decree  :  *'  In  the  name 
of  king  Ahasuerus  was  it  written,  and  sealed  with  the 
king's  ring,"  or  with  the  king's  seal  (iii.  12).  That  is, 
the  letters  were  not  signed  by  the  hand  of  Ahasuerus. 
They  were  authenticated  as  from  him,  not  by  a  signa- 
ture, but  by  a  seal.^  This  method  of  certifying  the 
royal  decrees  is  also  indicated  when  we  are  told  that 
the  king  "  took  his  ring  (signet)  from  his  hand,  and 
gave  it  unto  Haman  the  son  of  Hammedatha" 
(verse  10).  But  was  this  the  practice  of  the  kings  of 
this  dynasty  ?  Did  they  seal,  and  not  sign,  their 
documents  ?  Recent  research  in  Persia  has  again 
confirmed  the  Scripture.  That  this  was  the  custom 
of  the  monarchs  of  this  very  dynasty  is  proved  by  the 
discovery  of  some  of  their  seals.  The  seal,  for  example, 
of  Darius,  the  father  of  Xerxes,  has  been  found.  It 
bears  the  figure  of  the  king  shooting  arrows  at  a  lion. 
This  is  accompanied  by  an  inscription  in  Persian, 
Susian,  and  Assyrian  :  "  I,  Darius,  great  king." 

The  letters  were  sent  off  by  "  posts  ;"  literally,  '*  by 
the  hand  of  the  runners  "  (verse  13).  This  implies 
that  there  was  a  regularly  organised  postal  service. 


412  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

Certain  men  are  spoken  of  here  as  set  apart  for  this 
work.  It  is  their  sole,  and  their  universally  recog- 
nised, duty.  They  are  spoken  of  as  "the  runners." 
When  we  once  more  ask  whether  this  was  indeed  a 
Persian  institution,  and  one  which  characterised  this 
very  reign,  the  reply  is  that  it  was  one  of  its  most 
distinguishing  characteristics.  Speaking  of  a  despatch 
sent  from  Greece  to  Persia  by  this  very  monarch, 
Herodotus  says :  *'  The  Persian  messengers  travel 
with  a  velocity  which  nothing  human  can  equal.  It 
is  thus  accomplished :  as  many  days  as  are  required 
to  go  from  one  place  to  another,  so  many  men  and 
horses  are  regularly  stationed  along  the  road,  allowing 
a  man  and  a  horse  for  each  day ;  neither  snow,  nor 
rain,  nor  heat,  nor  darkness,  arepermitted  to  obstrudl 
their  speed.  The  first  messenger  delivers  his  business 
to  the  second,  the  second  to  the  third,  as  the  torch  is 
handed  among  the  Greeks  at  the  feast  of  Vulcan." 
These  expressions,  which  occur  so  naturally,  and  yet 
come  in  so  incidentally,  are  among  the  most  convincing 
proofs  that  the  writer  lived  and  moved  among  the 
scenes  which  he  describes.  A  late  writer  might,  if 
well  informed,  easily  mention  pra(5lices  and  customs 
belonging  to  the  times  of  Xerxes  and  of  Esther ;  but 
it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  have  his  phrases 
shaped  and  moulded  by  the  Persia  of  that  very  time. 
To  have  been  influenced  to  such  an  extent  by  the 
Persia  of  Xerxes,  he  must  have  lived  in  it,  and  been 
of  it. 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews.  413 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews. 


PROF.  NOLDEKE  says:  *' That  Mordecai  is 
able  to  communicate  freely  with  his  niece  in 
the  harem  must  be  pronounced  altogether  contrary 
to  the  usage  of  Oriental  courts."  One  is  frequently 
amazed  at  the  methods  of  the  higher  criticism  ;  and 
I  must  confess  that  the  above  astonishes  me.  It  takes 
for  granted — for  the  statement  is  made  without  one 
word  of  explanation  or  of  argument — that  Mordecai 
did  *'  communicate  freely  with  his  niece  in  the  harem." 
But  that  is  surely  one  of  the  last  impressions  which 
the  Book  would  make  upon  the  mind  of  any  ordinary 
reader.  The  fadls,  stated  clearly,  show  that,  on  the 
contrary,  he  had  considerable  difficulty  in  communi- 
cating with  Esther.  He  was  plainly  engaged,  as  has 
been  said,  in  the  palace ;  and  he  was  able,  conse- 
quently, to  have  access  to  the  outer  courts.  But, 
when  Esther  is  removed  from  under  his  roof,  he  does 
once  see  her  again  so  far  as  the  Book  informs  us.  We 
read  that,  at  first,  ''  he  walked  every  day  before  the 
court  of  the  women's  house,  to  know  how  Esther  did, 
and  what  should  become  of  her  "  (ii.  11).  The  singu- 
larity of  his  action,  though  he  made  no  attempt  to 
intrude  into  the  part  of  the  palace  grounds  assigned 
to  the  women,  would  naturally  attradl  the  attention  of 
the  lynx-eyed  guardians  of  that  special  domain  ;  and. 


414  T^^i^  Ar^z£^  Biblical  Guide. 

as  Mordecai  doubtless  expedled,  he  would  be  asked  for 
an  explanation.  Then  would  come  his  inquiry.  It 
was  perfed\ly  natural  that,  in  a  levy  such  as  had  just 
been  made,  the  young  women  should  have  left  many 
attached  friends  behind  them,  who  anxiously  desired 
some  tidings  of  them.  These  would  be  more  readily 
given  to  a  palace  official.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
in  this  way  Mordecai  must  have  betrayed  his  relation- 
ship to  Esther,  and  brought  about  the  very  revelation 
which  he  had  warned  her  to  guard  against.  We  may 
be  certain,  however,  that  he  who  gave  that  counsel 
would  keep  his  own,  and  that  there  would  be  nothing 
in  his  inquiries  to  suggest  the  nearness  of  the  tie  that 
bound  him  to  her. 

When  a  channel  of  communication  once  was  found, 
it  was  used  to  convey  to  Esther  the  news  of  the  palace 
conspiracy,  and  to  save  the  king's  life;  but  that 
Mordecai's  means  of  communication  were  still  of  a 
most  restridled  charad^er  is  plain  from  his  ac^tion  when 
the  decree  to  exterminate  the  Jews  was  issued.  He 
rent  his  clothes,  and  went  out  of  the  palace  to  the 
city  without  even  warning  Esther  of  the  common 
peril.  He  has  to  present  himself  in  his  mourning 
before  the  king's  gate  to  attracfl  the  attention  of  the 
inmates  of  the  palace.  The  later  excavations  of  the 
ruins  of  Susa  have  enabled  M.  Dieulafoy  to  trace  the 
walls  more  fully,  and  to  discover  a  gate  upon  the  east 
side  of  the  walls.  This  is  shown  in  a  plan  borrowed 
from  his  work.  This  gate  communicated  with  the 
city  on  the  east,  and  was  close  to  the  house  of  the 
women.      Here    Mordecai    appeared  attradling    the 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews.  415 

attention  of  the  watchers  and  of  the  attendants  upon 


.;  /Jjrclin  ou  Paradis  •  ^X       7---  . , ' 
;urd«d  escalierr 


.'  / 


.'     PLACE   O'ARMES 


m%  \ 


Maison  desfemmcsKV 


eiTAOELLE- 


-.J^ 


;Gran(3  escaliar 


■b 


■Maison  des  hommes  J  Jl  W;^. 
Be/  ham  -mefeA    Cr^  /"ri/ 


.  Restauralhns  directes  ^spres ksfoai/ks  1 
Fesraurj/ions  rs/cu/efs 
■  ResfituCions-  /typor/to//^ues 
'MaQonner/ffs  decouverfes 
•  Chemise  de  qrsv/er. 
'I^imite  des  /bu/f/e.7 


Echellf    aM»5 


the  queen.     There  was  no  direcft  intercourse;   and, 


4i6  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

even  in  this  supreme  moment,  there  was  no  inter- 
course whatever  till  Esther  herself,through  the  eunuch 
who  specially  waited  upon  her,  sent  to  inquire  the 
cause  of  Mordecai's  grief. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  "  free  communication " 
whatever  in  the  Book,  and  that  representation 
belongs  entirely  to  the  bundle  of  critical  fidlions 
which  Prof.  Noldeke  and  his  kind  are  endeavouring 
to  substitute  for  the  Word  of  God.  It  may  be  asked, 
however,  whether  even  the  restrid^ed  intercourse, 
which  the  Scripture  records,  was  possible.  The 
narrative  of  Herodotus  has  left  us  in  no  doubt  upon 
this  point.  One  of  the  conspirators,  who  assisted 
Darius  to  slay  the  false  Smerdis,  was  Otanes.  This 
nobleman  had  a  daughter  in  the  very  same  position 
as  Esther.  He  and  his  fellow-conspirators  desired 
to  make  sure  as  to  the  identity  of  the  usurper,  and 
Otanes  had  messages  conveyed  to  her,  and  received 
replies  which  were  of  the  greatest  assistance  to  them 
in  assuring  them  that  the  king  was  an  impostor.  And 
yet  they  seem  to  have  had  no  friends  among  those 
who  surrounded  the  king's  person.  They  had  to 
adventure  their  own  lives,  and  to  fight  their  way  into 
the  king's  presence.* 

Another  objecftion  urged  by  Noldeke  is  ''that  the 
queen  is  represented  as  unable  to  send  even  a  message 
to  her  husband,"  and  he  says  this  has  been  imported 
into  the  narrative  "  in  order  that  the  writer  may  have 
an  opportunity  of  magnifying  the  courage  of  his 
heroine;"    and  he  adds:    "Such  restridlions,  it  is 

♦HI.  68,  69. 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews.  417 

needless  to  say,  there  can  never  have  been  in  reality." 
It  will  be  admitted  by  every  one  that,  judged  by  our 
western  ideas,  Esther's  inability  to  enter  the  king's 
presence,  or  to  send  a  message  to  him  requesting  an 
audience,  has  a  most  improbable  look.  But  it  will 
be  equally  plain  that,  if  the  customs  of  the  Persian 
Court  were  really  what  they  are  here  said  to  have 
been,  this  fa(5l  will  tell  the  more  strongly  in  favour  of 
the  Book.  For  the  very  hugeness  of  the  improba- 
bility would  have  effectually  prevented  any  romancer, 
who  desired  his  work  to  pass  as  history,  from  intro- 
ducing any  feature  of  the  kind.  What,  then,  are  the 
fadls  ?  "  The  whole  ceremonial  of  the  Court,"  says 
RawHnson,  "  seems  to  have  been  imposing.  Under 
ordinary  circumstances  the  monarch  kept  himself 
secluded,  and  no  one  could  obtain  admission  to  him 
unless  he  formally  requested  an  audience,  and  was 
introduced  into  the  royal  presence  by  the  proper 
officer.  On  his  admission  he  prostrated  himself  upon 
the  ground,  with  the  same  sign  of  adoration  which 
were  made  on  entering  a  temple.  The  king,  sur- 
rounded by  his  attendants,  eunuchs,  and  others, 
maintained  a  haughty  reserve,  and  the  stranger  only 
beheld  him  from  a  distance."-  ''The  Persian 
monarchs,"  says  another  writer,  "were  under  no 
control,  but  governed  by  their  own  arbitrary  will 
and  pleasure.  They  were  revered  by  their  subje(5ls  like 
deities  on  earth,  none  daring  to  appear  before  their 
throne  without  prostrating  themselves  on  the  ground, 
with  a  kind  of  adoration.  .  .  .  While  they  were  in 

*  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iii.,  p.  88. 

DI 


4i8  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

the  king's  presence  they  were  to  hold  their  hands,  so 
long  as  the  audience  lasted,  within  their  sleeves ;  for 
neglecting  this  ceremony,  Autosaces  and  Mitraeus 
were  put  to  death,  as  we  read  in  Xenophon,  by  Cyrus 
the  younger."  * 

It  will  be  observed  that  even  Haman  cannot  enter 
the  king's  presence  at  will.  He  has  to  wait  in  the 
outer  court  till  the  king  invites  him  to  enter  the  more 
sacred  precincts.  Into  the  House  of  the  King  evi- 
dently no  one  dares  penetrate  unless  upon  the  distinct 
invitation  of  the  monarch.  And  the  privilege  given 
to  the  representatives  of  the  seven  conspirators  is 
eloquent  of  the  same  scrupulous  restrictions.  Had 
it  not  been  a  thing  of  such  an  outstanding  kind,  it 
would  not  have  been  fixed  upon  as  a  distinctive  mark 
of  the  honour  due  to  the  men  who  risked  everything 
to  save  their  country.  It  may  be  added,  too,  that, 
when  we  read  the  account  in  Herodotus  of  the 
appeals  by  Otanes,  one  of  the  noblest  of  the  con- 
spirators, to  the  inmates  of  the  royal  harem,  we  feel 
ourselves  to  be  in  the  very  atmosphere  of  the  Book 
of  Esther.  '*  Otanes,"  he  says,  '*  was  one  of  the  first 
rank  of  the  Persians,  both  with  regard  to  birth  and 
affluence.  This  nobleman  was  the  first  who  suspected 
that  this  was  not  Smerdis,  the  son  of  Cyrus  ;  and  was 
induced  to  suppose  who  he  really  was,  from  his  never 
quitting  the  citadel,  and  from  his  not  inviting  any  of 
the  nobles  to  his  presence."  Now,  if  one  asks  why 
he  did  not  himself  enter  the  royal  presence  and  make 
sure   whether   this  was,    or   was   not,    Smerdis,   an 

♦  Antieiit  History,  vol.  v.,  p.  120. 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews,  419 

answer  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  idea  never 
occurs  to  Herodotus.  And  why  does  it  not  occur  to 
him  ?  For  the  simple  reason  that  such  an  intrusion 
would  have  been  a  crime.  It  maybe  supposed,  how- 
ever, that  he  might  have  done,  as  Prof.  Noldeke  thinks 
Esther  should  have  done.  He  might  have  requested  an 
interview.  But  neither  does  this  occur  to  either  Otanes 
or  Herodotus ;  and  that,  apparently,  for  the  reason 
that  for  a  resident  in  the  country  to  have  thrust  him- 
self in  this  way  upon  the  king  would  have  been  nearly 
as  flagrant  an  insult  to  the  royal  dignity  as  to  have 
entered  the  House  of  the  King  uninvited.  If  Otanes 
was  suffering  from  wrong  inflicted  by  any  one,  or  had 
a  proposal  of  any  kind  to  make,  there  were  appointed 
channels  through  which  he  might  obtain  satisfaction ; 
but  the  king's  door  opened  only  at  the  spontaneous 
will  and  desire  of  the  king  himself. 

But  let  us  follow  Herodotus's  story.  Otanes,  he 
tells  us,  sent  a  message  to  his  daughter  to  ask  her  to 
speak  to  Atossa,  the  sister  of  the  real  Smerdis,  and 
another  of  the  wives  of  the  usurper.  She  replied : 
"  I  can  neither  speak  to  Atossa,  nor  indeed  see  any 
of  the  women  that  live  with  him.  Since  this  person, 
whoever  he  is,  came  to  the  throne,  the  women  are  all 
kept  separate."  She  might,  indeed,  according  to  our 
ideas,  have  tried  to  get  to  Atossa,  or,  at  least,  to  open 
communication  with  her,  but  that  idea  does  not 
apparently  occur  to  any  of  the  parties  concerned; 
but  why  ?  Simply  because  to  have  made  the  attempt 
would  have  been  to  try  to  defeat  the  intentions  of  the 
king.     When  at  last  the  daughter  of  Otanes  resolves 


420  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

to  make  the  attempt  to  identify  the  king,  she  does  it 
in  the  very  spirit  of  Esther,  taking  her  life  in  her 
hands.  What  she  was  asked  to  do  was  to  ascertain 
whether  the  king  had  ears,  the  Magian,  whom  Otanes 
suspected  of  usurping  the  throne,  having  been  de- 
prived of  his  ears  by  Cambyses.  *'  To  this,"  says 
Herodotus,  "Phaedyma  repHed :  'That  she  would 
obey  him,  notwithstanding  the  danger  she  incurred ; 
being  well  assured,  that  if  he  had  no  ears,  and  should 
discover  her  in  endeavouring  to  know  this,  she  should 
instantly  be  put  to  death.'  "  Here  we  have  the  very 
Court  in  which  Esther  moves.  The  messages  of 
Mordecai  to  Esther  are  an  exact  parallel  to  those  of 
Otanes  to  his  daughter;  and  the  evident  explanation 
of  this  is  that  the  same  court  regulations  are  con- 
fronting each  of  the  women  whose  interference  is 
requested. 

We  read  that  "on  the  third  day  Esther  put  on  her 
royal  apparel,  and  stood  in  the  inner  court  of  the 
king's  house"  (v.  i).  She  had  evidently  devoted 
three  days  to  a  solemn  fast  before  taking  her  life  in 
her  hand  and  trying  to  save  her  people.  The 
reader  will  note  how  minute  the  Scripture  here  is  in 
its  descriptions ;  and  it  is  to  this  minuteness  of  de- 
scription that  we  owe  our  ability  to  show  that  this 
Book  is  history,  and  not  fiction.  Esther  proceeds 
from  the  House  of  the  Women  to  the  inner  court  of 
the  King's  House.  How  she  is  enabled  to  do  this, 
and  still  to  keep  within  the  private  precincts  of  the 
palace,  becomes  plain  the  moment  we  glance  at  the 
plan  of  the  now  fully-explored  buildings.     It  will  be 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews.  421 

noticed  (see  page  353)  that  a  wide  corridor  leads 
down  from  the  House  of  the  Women  on  the  north 
to  the  House  of  the  King  on  the  south.  This  corridor 
joins  the  House  of  the  Women  to  the  Inner  Court 
of  the  King's  House,  so  that  this  was  the  first  place 
which  Esther  could  reach.  Here  she  stood  and 
waited,  uniting  modesty  and  meek  submission  with 
her  boldness.  She  "  stood  in  the  inner  court  of  the 
king's  house,  over  against  the  king's  house :  and  the 
king  sat  upon  his  royal  throne  in  the  royal  house, 
over  against  the  gate  of  the  house  "  (v.  i). 

To  understand  her  position  and  purpose  we  have 
to  look  once  more  at  the  plan.  At  the  south  end  of 
the  King's  House  there  is  a  large  Hall,  the  king's 
reception  room,  and  through  whose  gates  apparently 
entrance  is  had  to  the  King's  House.  The  throne  is 
in  the  centre  of  the  southern  wall,  and  from  that 
elevated  seat  the  king,  looking  over  an  intermediate 
screen,  sees  right  across  the  court  towards  the 
corridor.  It  was  impossible  that  Esther  should  escape 
his  notice.  It  was  a  moment  in  which  Esther's  fate 
hung  in  the  balance ;  for  the  result  of  that  surprised 
recognition  depended  on  the  king's  mood.  The  signal 
is  given  which  indicates  that  the  intrusion  is  viewed 
with  pleasure  and  not  with  anger.  The  sceptre,  which 
the  king  holds  in  his  right  hand,  is  raised.  It  is  a 
token  which  the  courtiers  know  well.  Esther  is 
invited  to  approach,  and  is  escorted  into  the  royal 
presence.  It  is  evident  that  she  has  come  to  present 
some  request,  and  with  feminine  ta6t  that  was  never 
more  essential  and  priceless,  she  entreats  the  presence 


422  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

of  the  king  and  his  vizier  to  a  banquet  which  she  has 
prepared  in  her  own  palace.  Asked  at  that  feast 
what  her  request  may  be,  she  begs  his  and  Haman's 
presence  at  a  similar  feast  upon  the  morrow.  She  is 
dealing  with  matters  of  life  and  death — handhng 
weapons  of  fatal  sharpness—  and  one  ill-considered 
movement  may  be  the  destruction  of  herself  and  of 
her  people.  The  king's  desire  to  serve  her  will  be 
deepened  by  this  repeated  pleasure  on  which,  we  may 
well  believe,  all  the  arts  of  the  court  were  lavished. 
Made  to  know  her  in  this  repeated,  and  very  probably 
unwonted,  intercourse,  the  king  will  insensibly  be 
drawn  to  her  side,  and  the  ardent  sympathy  of  a 
fresh  affecftion  will  prepare  him  to  break  with  his 
trusted  favourite  and  to  reward  him  according  to  his 
deeds.  Haman's  presence  will  complete  the  prepara- 
tions, for  it  puts  aside  the  peril  of  delay  if  Haman 
had  to  be  sought  for  and  brought  into  the  royal 
presence.  The  culprit's  confusion  and  the  king's  fierce 
anger  will  seal  the  doom  of  her  nation's  foe. 

It  is  needless  to  point  out  how  all  these  details 
complete  the  proof  to  which  we  have  been  listening 
in  these  chapters.  There  is  no  narrative  in  human 
literature  that  conveys  more  fully  to  a  reader's  mind 
and  heart  the  impression  that  he  is  in  contact  with 
reality ;  and  the  ancient  palace  that  was  the  scene  of 
this  eventful  drama  has  come  back  from  a  long  buried 
past  to  witness  to  the  absolute  correctness  even  of  its 
minute  details.  Here,  as  everywhere  besides,  dis- 
covery which  has  got  back  to  the  times,  the  scenes, 
and  the  events  of  which  the  Bible  speaks,  witnesses 


The  Deliverance  of  the  Jews.  423 

to  its  truth,  and  turns  into  foolishness  the  theories 
and  the  contentions  of  an  unbelieving  and  ignorant 
criticism. 


424  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 


THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH. 


THERE  are  many  bright  stars  amid  the  glory  of 
that  cloud  of  witnesses  which  proclaim  the 
might  of  faith  and  the  unfailing  help  of  God.  It  is 
only  when  we  recall  those  names,  and  remember  that 
there  were  multitudes  like  them  of  whom  no  earthly 
record  exists,  that  we  see  that  the  Old  Dispensation 
was  not  the  failure  which  we  are,  sometimes  at  least, 
inclined  to  think  it  was.  It  failed  only  as  Christianity 
fails  to-day — through  unbelief.  The  multitudes  were 
idolatrous  or  indifferent ;  but  there  was  ever  a 
remnant  that  tasted  and  saw  that  God  is  good.  To- 
day the  Cross  has  no  attracftion  for  the  crowd.  Its 
gifts  are  not  the  good  they  seek.  But  there  are, 
nevertheless,  those  in  every  generation  who  hear 
Christ's  voice,  who  turn  and  receive  Him,  and  receive 
with  Him  the  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God. 
These  have  been  the  glory  of  humanity  in  all  the  past 
ages  of  the  new  era.  We  feel,  as  we  look  on  them, 
that  God  has  not  made  all  men  in  vain.  And  those 
in  the  old  era  are  its  glory  likewise.  They  join  hands 
with  the  men  of  the  Christian  centuries.  They  form 
with  them  the  glorious  brotherhood  that  binds 
together  the  ages,  and  that  links  earth  with  heaven. 

Among  those  luminaries  no  one  can  fail  to  reckon 
Isaiah.     He    ranks   with    Moses,    Joshua,    Samuel, 


The  Prophet  Isaiah,  425 

David,  Elijah,  and  Elisha.  We  know  little  of  the 
man;  for,  as  with  other  writers  of  the  Scripture, 
neither  he  nor  his  personal  concerns  are  obtruded 
upon  our  notice.  We  have  to  search  for  hints  and 
indications ;  and  it  is  only  when  we  have  pondered 
these  that  the  manner  of  the  man  is  revealed  to  us. 
He  must  have  entered  upon  his  prophetic  service 
early,  for  his  was  almost  a  life-long  ministry.  In  this 
he  resembles  Jeremiah  and  Daniel,  whose  service 
began  in  their  youth.  No  one  can  fail  to  notice  the 
deep  devotion,  the  whole-hearted  consecration,  and 
the  richly  endowed  nature  of  the  man.  We  learji 
that  he  was  married,  and  the  names  of  some  of  his 
children  are  told  us.  It  is  plain  also  that,  though 
despised  and  easily  set  aside  in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  in 
the  time  of  Hezekiah,  that  king's  son,  there  is  no 
more  revered  personality  in  the  kingdom  than  Isaiah. 
All  this  is  revealed  in  the  Book,  and  we  know  nothing 
more.  When  we  turn  from  the  Scripture,  and 
question  the  people  among  whose  fathers  he  lived 
and  ministered,  we  find  that  they  can  give  us  no 
information.  Isaiah  was  one  of  the  greatest  person- 
alities of  his  time;  but  tradition  has,  nevertheless, 
absolutely  nothing  to  say.  And  this  can  surprise 
us  only  if  we  have  never  questioned  our  own  national 
experiences.  Some  among  the  personalities  of  a 
bygone  age  have  been  fortunate  enough  to  secure 
an  early  record,  and  they  have  come  down  to  our 
day  through  that  record  alone.  But  of  the  rest 
who  found  no  record  what  remains  ?  The  nation's 
memory  is  a  blank.     Apart  from  contemporary,  or 


426  The  New  Biblical  Guide. 

nearly  contemporary-references,  what  has  tradition 
handed  down  of  Warwick  the  King-maker,  of  WicHf, 
of  Spenser,  or  Raleigh,  or  Bacon,  or  even  of  John 
Knox  ?  Absolutely  nothing.  The  present  knows 
them  not.  It  puts  its  foot,  in  utter  unconsciousness, 
upon  the  very  spot  where  their  feet  rested.  Tradition 
is  supposed  by  the  critics  to  be  a  river  flowing  down 
through  the  ages,  and  receiving  along  its  broadening 
and  deepening  course  contributory  streams  from  the 
memories  of  every  generation.  But  this  is  as  sheer 
ficftion  as  those  other  critical  imaginations  JE,  P,  D, 
and  the  rest  of  the  phantom  substitutes  for  the  despised 
Spirit  of  God  and  His  rejecfted  servants.  Tradition 
is  not  a  "source."  The  deeds,  the  sayings,  the 
strivings,  and  the  services  of  men,  as  far  as  tradition 
is  concerned,  are  like  water  spilled  upon  the  ground 
that  cannot  be  gathered  up  again. 

The  Jewish  rabbis  were  ready,  however,  to  make 
up  for  the  deficiencies  of  tradition  with  their  inven- 
tions. Jerome  hands  on,  for  instance,  a  report, 
received  from  his  Hebrew  teachers,  that  Isaiah  gave 
his  daughter  in  marriage  to  Manasseh  king  of  Judah. 
Some  say  that  he  himself  belonged  to  the  royal  house, 
his  father  being  brother  to  king  Amaziah.  Others 
affirm  that  his  father  was  a  prophet,  and  Amos  the 
prophet  and  Amoz  (Amotz)  the  father  of  Isaiah  have 
been  confounded  together,  although  their  names  are 
spelled  differently  in  Hebrew.  Perhaps  there  may  be 
some  comfort  in  the  suggestion  that  the  alleged  tradi- 
tion of  his  having  been  sawn  asunder  has  quite  as 
little  to  support  it.     When  Manasseh,  the  supposed 


The  Prophet  Isaiah.  427 

murderer  of  the  prophet,  ascended  the  throne,  Isaiah 
was  probably  beyond  his  reach.  The  period  of  his 
service  ended  with  the  reign  of  Manasseh's  father 
Hezekiah  (see  I.  i) ;  and  we  can  well  believe  that 
Isaiah's  service  ended  only  with  his  life.  One  Jewish 
doc5lor,  Kimchi,  was  bold  enough  to  lay  down  the 
traditions,  and  to  acknowledge  that  nothing  wa.s 
known  of  the  prophet  beyond  what  is  to  be  learned 
from  the  Scriptures.  "We  know  not  his  race,"  he 
said,  "nor  of  what  tribe  he  was." 

The  prophet's  ministry  is  admitted  to  have  been 
one  of  unusual  duration.  The  vision  in  chapter  vi.  is 
dated  "  in  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died ;"  and  it  was 
to  Isaiah  that  Hezekiah,  not  long  before  the  end  of 
his  reign,  sent  for  dire(?tion  when  Sennacherib's  army 
threatened  Jerusalem.  If  we  suppose  that  his  ministry 
began  in  the  fifth  last  year  of  Uzziah,  we  reach  the 
following  result : 

Uzziah  ...  ...       5 

Jotham         16 

Ahaz 16 

Hezekiah     ...         ...     29 

66 
His  prophetic  work  would,  therefore,  have  continued 
for  the  long  period  of  nearly  sixty-six  years.  In  so 
prolonged  an  extension  of  one  man's  service  there 
must  have  been  more  than  what  one  might  describe 
as  the  happy  chance  of  a  long  life.  In  the  Divine 
arrangements  there  are  no  chances.  Can  we,  then, 
discern  any  purpose  in  it  ?     The  period  in  which  the 


428  The  New  Biblical  Guide, 

prophet  served  and  the  character  of  his  work  suggest 
an  evident  answer.  Isaiah  is  the  Moses  of  Israel's 
new  era.  Hitherto  God's  people,  as  a  people,  have 
declined  to  treat  His  purpose  seriously.  He  has 
chosen  them  to  be  the  priests,  the  spiritual  leaders, 
and  the  ministers  of  the  nations.  Their  only  desire,, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  been  to  be  as  the  nations* 
They  lived  the  Gentiles'  life.  They  had  ever  been 
fatally  ready  to  conform  to  the  Gentile  worship. 
These  manners  God  had  winked  at.  The  Lord  does 
not  willingly  afflicft  nor  grieve  the  children  of  men ; 
and  the  stroke  of  final  judgment  had  been  long 
delayed.  But  now  the  time  was  come  ;  and  in  order 
that  God's  people  may  be  guided,  and  that  even  the 
darkest  heart  may  understand,  the  prophet  called  for 
by  the  time  was  provided,  and  his  ministry  was  so 
prolonged  and  so  glorious  as  to  challenge  and  to  fix 
the  attention  of  generations. 

The  reader  will  recall  the  outburst  of  prophetic 
a(5livity  among  the  ten  tribes.  Just  before  God  began 
to  deal  with  them  in  judgment,  Elijah  and  Elisha 
were  raised  up.  And  now  it  will  be  noticed  that 
almost  the  whole  of  Jewish  prophetic  adlivity  is 
centred  upon  this  part  of  Jewish  history.  God's 
people  are  to  be  cast  into  the  furnace  that  their  dross 
may  be  purged,  and  the  true  gold  alone  remain  ;  and 
that  this  work  may  be  done  the  coming  trial  is  fore- 
told. No  room  is  left  for  doubt  as  to  whether  it  is 
from  God's  hand  or  not.  The  sin  for  which  it  is  sent 
is  also  manifested.  But  Judah  is  not  to  be  cast 
away.     The   banishment   is  not  for  ever ;    and  the 


The  Prophet  Isaiah,  429 

limits  set  by  Him  who  in  wrath  remembers  mercy 
are  disclosed.  Consolation  and  assurance  are  stored 
up  for  them  in  their  affliction,  and  the  glories  of  that 
future  for  which  God  is  preparing  them,  and  for 
which  He  will  prepare  the  whole  earth,  are  unveiled. 
And  at  the  head  of  those  who  thus  prepare  God's 
people  for  the  coming  days  of  trial,  and  who  furnish 
light  for  their  returning  feet,  is  Isaiah.  He  has  been 
happily  compared  with  the  Apostle  Paul.  To  Isaiah 
in  the  Old  Dispensation,  and  to  Paul  in  the  New 
has  it  been  given  to  unfold  God's  counsel  in  all  its 
fulness,  and  to  enrich  the  Church  with  the  Divine 
consolations. 

Our  space  prevents  my  entering  now  upon  the 
questions  which  have  been  raised  regarding  the 
Book,  which  perpetuates  the  great  prophet's  ministry. 
To  our  next  volume,  therefore,  it  must  be  left  to  ask 
whether  there  are  "two  Isaiahs,"  and  to  notice  what 
recent  research  has  to  say  upon  that  and  other 
matters  pertaining  to  this  great  inheritance  of  the 
Church  of  God. 


E.  Goodman  and  Son,  Phoenix  Printing  Works,  Taunton.