The History of Antiquity, Vol. 3 (of 6). Duncker Max

1

The older Zachariah mentions the land of Hadrach beside Damascus and Hamath, Zech. ix. 1, 2.

2

Fifteen miles to the north-west of Aleppo the ruin-heaps at Tel Erfad mark the site of the ancient Arpad; Kiepert, "Z.D.M.G." 25, 665.

3

A document has been preserved from the reign of Assur-nirar, belonging to the year 747 B.C., regarding the lease of a piece of land; Oppert et Ménant, "Docum. Juridiq." p. 151.

4

The list of rulers represents him as marching to the stream, i. e. to the Euphrates, immediately after his accession, and afterwards to the land of Namri, i. e. to the Zagrus.

5

G. Smith reads Zimri.

6

Nissi in G. Smith, "Disc." p. 260, but in frag. 4 Nissa.

7

So according to G. Smith [who reads Likruti].

8

Ll. 29-33 in G. Smith, "Disc." p. 260; Ménant, "Annal." pp. 142, 143.

9

Ll. 34-42, in G. Smith, "Disc." p. 261; Ménant, loc. cit. 143. The words "I possessed anew" are wanting in G. Smith; cf. Lenormant, "Z. Ægypt. Sprache," 1870, s. 48 ff. The statement about the subjugation of Bit Hamban and the regions which follow, ll. 34-37, is repeated in the inscription in Layard, pp. 17, 18, l. 17; in Ménant, loc. cit. 139. The statement about the campaign of Assurdainani is repeated in frag. 4, p. 271 in G. Smith, loc. cit.

10

This gives 745-744 B.C.: Bildanil. To the land of Namri; cf. frag. 3 in G. Smith, "Disc." p. 269.

11

Ménant translates, "city of Zikruti;" G. Smith's rendering does not give this description in this passage (p. 260), but on p. 271.

12

G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 279; Ménant, loc. cit. p. 146.

13

L. 17 in Ménant, loc. cit. p. 139.

14

Above, p. 2, note 4.

15

Frag. 1, 2 in G. Smith, "Disc." pp. 266, 267.

16

Ménant, loc. cit. p. 139.

17

The list of rulers inserts a second campaign of Tiglath Pilesar to the land of the stream in the year 737 B.C.; frag. 8, 11. 18, 19, 52-55 in G. Smith, loc. cit. pp. 277, 280, 281.

18

Ll. 12-19 in G. Smith, "Disc." pp. 255, 256.

19

Ll. 14-28 in G. Smith, "Disc." pp. 258-260.

20

G. Smith, loc. cit. pp. 255, 258.

21

Oppert, "Dur Sarkayan," p. 20; Ménant, "Annal." pp. 160, 181.

22

Vol. II. p. 27; Euseb., "Chron." 1, p. 26, ed. Schöne.

23

2 Kings xv. 19, 29; xvi. 7-9; 1 Chron. v. 26.

24

G. Smith, "Disc." p. 277.

25

G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 263.

26

G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 284.

27

It is due to E. Schrader.

28

Frag. 4, ll. 12-23 in G. Smith, "Disc." pp. 271, 272.

29

Frag. 5 in G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 272, 273.

30

The large inscription, lines 57-59, 64, 65 in G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 263.

31

Frag. 8, l. 33 in G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 279.

32

Frag. 13, l. 3; cf. frag. 10, l. 16; frag. 12, l. 19 in G. Smith, pp. 283, 285, 286.

33

Tablet of Chalah, l. 6 in G. Smith, p. 254; stone of Chalah, ll. 6, 8, 13, p. 254.

34

Stone of Chalah, ll. 53-55 in G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 262.

35

Frag. 13, loc. cit. p. 286.

36

Ll. 67-86 in G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 264, 265.

37

G. Smith, "Disc." ll. 1-4, p. 256, 257.

38

G. Smith, loc. cit. p. 254.

39

The three private documents on the sale of a slave, the loan on the mortgage of a field, and the interest and security for an advance, which are placed in the time of Tiglath Pilesar III., are given in Oppert et Ménant, "Docum. Juridiq." p. 153 sqq.

40

2 Kings xiv. 23; Amos vi. 2, 14.

41

Amos iii. 11; vi. 4-8; Hosea xii. 9. That the commencement of Jehu and Athaliah must be placed at the year 843 B.C., has been shown Vol. II. p. 234. The Books of Kings give 165 years from the accession of Athaliah to the fall of Samaria, and 143 years from the accession of Jehu to the same time. Hence the synchronism which they observe for corresponding reigns in Israel and Judah cannot be correct at any rate for the last half-century of this time, and varying statements with reference to these reigns show that this fact was known to those who made these observations. Moreover, the canon of the Assyrians puts the fall of Samaria in the year 722 B.C., from which it follows (843-722=121), that 44 years in excess for Judah, and 22 for Israel, have been added. Thus we are driven to hypotheses for the period from 843 to 722 B.C., as well as for the period 953-843. In the traditional numbers at least in one reign there has been abbreviation, not extension, as in the previous period. Samaria was taken in the ninth year of Hoshea, the seventh of Hezekiah (2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 10). Hoshea therefore ascended the throne in 730, Hezekiah in 728 B.C. But the facts narrated in a fragment of the annals of Tiglath Pilesar, that he reached the borders of Bit Omri, that he conquered Gaza and made Hoshea king (frag. 11, in G. Smith, "Disc." p. 284), fall, according to the list of rulers, in the year 734 B.C. Hoshea's accession must, therefore, be placed in the year 734 B.C. Hoshea's predecessor, Pekah, is said to have reigned 20 years. If Hoshea ascended the throne in 734 B.C., Pekah, according to this statement, must have ascended it in 754 B.C., and Pekahiah, the son of Menahem, who only reigned two years, in 756. But the fragment of the annals of Tiglath Pilesar, which mentions the payment of tribute by Menahem, puts this payment immediately before the ninth year of Tiglath Pilesar, i. e. before the year 737 B.C.,; frag. 8, in G. Smith, loc. cit. In 738, therefore, Menahem was still on the throne; and his death cannot have taken place before this year. Thus the interval between Menahem's death and Hoshea's accession, which the Books of Kings reckon at 22 years, is reduced to four years; Pekah cannot have reigned 20, but only two or three years. Menahem's death in 738 B.C., fixes the beginning of his reign, which lasted 10 years, at 748 B.C. Before him, Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam, and Shallum, reigned

Скачать книгу