Part 31 (1/2)
There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all appearance, that the a.s.syrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to Tiglath-pileser a humble message: ”I am thy servant, and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.” This would in all probability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a goodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury, but also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that Tiglath-pileser went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however, decided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and obliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous, humour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his supporters-
”... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I took) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view his land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce of his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations, (fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down, and did not leave one ... (the city) ?adara, the house (= dwelling-place) of the father of Ra?unnu (Rezon) of the land of the a-imeriuites, (the place where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their possessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of the city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550 prisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16 districts of the land of a-imeriu I destroyed like flood-mounds.”(94)
This is immediately followed by an account of the operations against Samsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she held sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi'ilu as governor over the land of Musru. All these pa.s.sages, however, are exceedingly incomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The shorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place lines of which the following is a translation-
”They overthrew Paqa?a (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi'a (Hosea) (upon the throne) over them. Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ...
their (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of a.s.syria).”
The longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made, may therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows-
”(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns, and had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off, abandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they overthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land).”
As will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings xv. 30-
”And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the 20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”
Mutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser follow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative continues-
”(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my) agreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)?unnu (Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rukipti, the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....”
In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the a.s.syrian king suggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due to the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished it to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by his flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put him to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account of the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all probability pursued after him, and thus encompa.s.sed his death. Hoshea then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the a.s.syrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time a.s.sured himself against attack at his hands.
Imitating Hoshea, Rukipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the a.s.syrian text does not enable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such, apparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be supposed that it was death at the orders of the a.s.syrian king, as recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 9.
Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of a-imeri-u or Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlords.h.i.+p. This being the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay him homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2 Kings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other subject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The further result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses of the pa.s.sage in 2 Kings referred to.
Thus ended Tiglath-pileser's successful expedition to Pilita and Damascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The Chaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence to engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabona.s.sar, the king of that country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabu-nadin-zeri, who, however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabu-um-ukin, who murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more than two months, and Ukin-zer, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bit-Amukkani, took possession of the throne, and ruled for three years-much against the inclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for the Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The interference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the Babylonians, who welcomed him as a deliverer. Ukin-zer (the Chinzeros of Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapia, though that city was not taken until the year 729 B.C. The result of this was, the submission of all the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then only a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in accordance with the custom, ”took the hand of Bel,” an expression apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was accepted by the G.o.d-and the priesthood-as king. This also took place again next year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of Babylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the conditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the Canon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of which only the first character is preserved-possibly to be completed Dir, and perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all probability, were taken in hand next year (727 B.C.), but whilst they were in progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.
How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of a.s.syria was called Pulu is not known. The name only occurs, in native doc.u.ments, in the Babylonian Canon of kings-to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for the a.s.syrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _bulu_ (which may also be read _pulu_) meaning ”the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a personal name in the inscriptions of a.s.syria at least twice, the bearer of it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of ”the ?u?amite.”
The fact that the name Pulu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian doc.u.ment, suggests that the reference to the a.s.syrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26 are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in a.s.syrian history probably accounts for his having ultimately adopted the latter.
”On the 25th day of Tebet ulmanu-aarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne in a.s.syria. He destroyed abara'in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.)
”In the eponymy of Bel-?arran-bel-u?ur, of the city of Gozan, To the city ... almanu-aarid sat upon the throne.
In the eponymy of Marduk-bel-u?ur, of the city of Amedi, In the land.
In the eponymy of Ma?de, of the city of Nineveh, To....
In the eponymy of Aur-?al?ani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....
In the eponymy of almanu-aarid, king of a.s.syria, To....”
(Eponym Canon with historical notices.)
These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is, however, it is probably of as much value historically as the a.s.syrian Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from that without historical notices. The completion of this important doc.u.ment from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.
It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at least one doc.u.ment, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.