Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Holofernes

12. Saosduchin

20 667

9. Sarac, or Sardanapalus II. 636 13. Chyneladon ·

22 647

14. Nabopolassar, or

[blocks in formation]

Labynetus I. S

[blocks in formation]

* The destruction of Niniveh, B.C. 606, forms a fundamental date in Profane Chronology, both upwards and downwards; upon which depends the adjustment of the antecedent periods of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronology, and also of the subsequent periods of Babylonian, Median, and Persian Chronology; and by its connexion with the Eclipse of Thales, (determined chiefly from thence, to B. C. 603) of Lydian and Græcian Chronology also.

This date is not specified in the Canon of Ptolemy, but may be collected from thence, aud from a fragment of Berosus, cited by Josephus, Ant. 10, 11, 1; which states, that Nebuchadnezzar, (whom both Berosus and Ptolemy call Nabokolassar) having heard of his father's death, during his own expedition into Syria, Phanicia, Judea, and Egypt, left his army and captives to the care of his friends, and hastened across the desert, with a small party, to Babylon, in order to take possession of the kingdom. The accession of Nebuchadnezzar is dated by the Canon in B. C. 604; but his father, Nabopolassar, died earlier, or in the Julian year before, B. C. 605, the date of the Babylonish captivity; as we have seen, vol. ii. p. 478. The capture of Niniveh, therefore, must have taken place in the year before his death, or not later than B. C. 606. Herodotus also mentions the capture of Nineveh among the last events of the reign of Cyarares 1. ending B. C. 601. Book i. §. 106. It probably, therefore, was not earlier than B. C. 606.

2. We learn from Scripture, that Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria, as far as the river Euphrates, to besiege Carchemich, (or Circutium, which belonged to Assyria, Isa. x. 9.) but Josiah, king of Judah, opposed Necho, and was slain at Megiddo,

I 2

PUL.

This prince was probably the son of the king of Nineveh, in Jonah's time. He first began to interfere in the concerns of the Western States; and invaded Israel, B. C. 770, in the twentieth year of his reign, commencing B. C. 790, according to Newton; and after having received a contribution. of a thousand talents of silver, from Menahem, who had usurped the crown of Israel in the same year, and wished to purchase the favour and protection of Pul, as his vassal; he returned home. 1 Chron. v. 26; 2 Kings xv. 19, 20. See vol. ii. p. 452.

Pul was perhaps the second Belus of the Greeks; who built the temple of that name, at Babylon; and, like the first, was deified after his death*. He probably attracted their notice by his excursions into Syria and Pales

tine.

TIGLATHPILESAR AND NABONASSAR.

Newton ingeniously conjectures, that at Pul's death, his dominions were divided between his two sons; when the sovereignty of Assyria was given to the elder, Tiglathpilesar; and the prefecture of Babylon, to the latter,

Megiddo, 2 Kings xxiii. 29. This determines the year of the Invasion, to B. C. 608, at which time there was a king of Assyria; who was then unable to oppose Necho, we may presume, on account of the siege of Niniveh, his capital, by the Babylonians and Medes, that same year; but the siege lasted two years, according to Diodorus Siculus, b. ii. ch. 2; and therefore was taken in B. C. 606: which also agrees with the deaths of Tobit before, about B. C. 610; and of Tobias after, about B. C. 605, as shewn in the sequel.

3. When the siege was over, and the Assyrian empire destroyed, "the king of Babylon," Nebuchadnezzar, in the very first year of his reign, B. C. 605—604, retaliated, with a vengeance, on Necho, and stript him of all his conquests. 2 Kings xxiv. 7; Jer. xlv. 2—26.

Hence we may conclude, with Eusebius and Jackson, that B. C. 606, is the correct date of the capture of Niniveh. See Jackson, vol. i. p. 343-346.

* Jackson antedates Belus II. supposing that the celestial observations at Babylon, 1903 years before Alexander visited it in B. C. 330, were made B. C. 2233, at the Observatory, built by him. Vol. i. p. 242, 267. They might have been made still earlier; even from the days of Nimrod, or Belus I.

Nabonassar;

Nabonassar; from the date of whose reign, or government, the celebrated era of that name took its rise, B. C. 747. See vol. i. p. 268, of this work. The celebrated Semiramis, who built the walls of Babylon, according to Herodotus, might have been either his wife, or his mother.

The ferocious Tiglathpilesar, in the seventh year of his reign, found an opportunity of intermeddling in the disturbances that broke out in Syria and Palestine; having been invited by Ahaz, king of Judah, to assist him against Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Damascus, who had confederated to dethrone Ahaz, and the family of David; and to substitute the son of Tabeal. They invaded Judea, and besieged Ahaz in Jerusalem; but could not take the city. During the siege, a gracious sign of deliverance to Ahaz, and of stability to the house of David, was offered to him, from THE LORD, by Isaiah the prophet: which Ahaz incredulously refused, trusting to the king of Assyria. Tiglathpilesar accordingly came to his assistance, slew Rezin, and took Damascus, the capital of Syria; and carried away the inhabitants captives to Kir, or Assyria Proper; fulfilling the prophecies of Amos: "Syria shall go into captivity to Kir;" i. 5: "Have not I brought the Assyrians from Kir?" ix. 7. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 5-9, and Isa. vii. 1-11. And see the article Ahaz, vol. ii. p. 455.

At the same time, the king of Assyria carried away the Transjordanite tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, captives to Media, where he planted them in Halah, Habor, and on the river Gozan, 1 Chron. v. 26; and also the other half of Manasseh, in Galilee, 2 Kings xv. 29. See vol. ii. p. 454. The geographical position of those several places in Media, and the policy of the kings of Assyria, in transplanting the captives thither, are explained, vol. i. p. 458, 459.

SHALMANASSAR, OR SHALMAN.

This prince, called simply Shalman, Hos. x. 14, in the fourth year of the reign of Hezekiah, B.C. 722, invaded the kingdom of Israel, besieged Samaria, and took it the third year of the siege, in the sixth of Hezekiah, B. C. 719, and transplanted the seven remaining western tribes to Media likewise, in

the

the same stations with their brethren, 2 Kings xvii. 3-6; xviii. 9-11. See vol. ii. p. 464.

To supply the place of the captives, "the king of Assyria" brought a mixed colony from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria," 2 Kings xvii. 23.

This king of Assyria is supposed, by several Chronologers, Usher, Marsham, Newton, and Bishop Lowth, to have been Esarhaddon; from the present text of Ezra, iv. 2. But the genuineness of the reading "Esarhaddon" there, may be questioned. 1. Because Josephus, referring thereto, reads Shalmanasar, Ant. xi. 4, 3; as he does expressly in two other passages, namely, Ant. 9, 14, 1; and again, Ant. 10, 9, 7. In this last passage, he represents the new settlers from Cuthah, as brought from the interior of Media and Persia. And Josephus is followed by the judicious Abulfaragi, p. 42; by Eutychius, p. 232; and by several of the best critics and chronologers. 2. Because Babylon was subject to Shalmanassar, during his whole reign; so that he might easily have transplanted colonists from thence at any time; whereas, it revolted in the beginning of Esarhaddon's reign, and was not reduced, or recovered, till 30 years after, when the measure would have been rather late. 3. Because David Ganz, and the Jewish writers, take no notice of Esarhaddon's colonizing Samaria.

The remainder of Shalmanassar's reign was spent in endeavouring to reduce the revolted western provinces of Syria and Phenicia, and in the blockade of Tyre; which was raised at his death, as we learn from the Tyrian Annals, cited by Josephus, Ant. 9, 14, 2.

SENNACHERIB*.

Sennacherib succeeded his father, Shalmanassar, in the Assyrian throne. He made immense preparations for invading Judea; because Hezekiah had rebelled against him, and served him not, or withheld the stipulated tribute

By a curious and valuable coincidence with Sacred History, Herodotus expressly mentions Sennacherib by name; and he notices his invasion of Egypt, and sudden flight from thence, by a divine judgment inflicted at the prayer of Sethon, the king.

which

which his father, Ahaz, had paid to the king of Assyria, as his vassal, 2 Kings xviii. 7. For this cause, indeed, Shalmanasar had threatened to dethrone him; but was prevented, by more urgent avocations, as we have already seen. The execution now devolved on Sennacherib; who, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, B. C. 711, came with an immense army, besieged, and took all the fenced cities of Judah; and having reduced Ashdod, or Azotus, by his general, Tartan, and taken Libnah, while he was besieging Lachish, (three important frontier towns toward Egypt, preparatory to his invasion of that country also; because So, king of Egypt, had encouraged the Jews to rebel) he sent off a great part of his army to Jerusalem, under his generals, Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh, to intimidate Hezekiah into a surrender, after having been guilty himself of a notorious breach of faith, in not accepting Hezekiah's humiliation, when he had taken his money. But this army was miraculously destroyed in one night, by a pestilential blast; and the faithless and arrogant Sennacherib, who had defied the God of Israel, fled in disgrace to his own country; where he was, 52 days after, assassinated by his two eldest sons, who fled into the land of Armenia; fulfilling prophecy. See the article Hezekiah, vol. ii. p. 463-467.

ESARHADDON.

This prince, on their flight, reigned in his father's stead. He was variously named, Sargon, Isa. xx. 1; Sarchedon, Tobit i. 21; and Asarudin, by Ptolemy, in his Canon. He came to the crown at a disastrous season of general rebellion and revolt of the provinces. The Medes first led the way; and, after a severe battle, regained their liberty, and retained their independance. They were followed by the Babylonians, Armenians, &c.

The epoch of this general revolt, is fixed by the defeat and death of Sennacherib, to B. C. 710. In this same year, we may conclude, Merodach Baladan sent a letter of congratulation to Hezekiah, on his recovery, and a present; wishing, probably, to form an alliance with him against the common enemy. It is remarkable, that Merodach is the first "king of Babylon," noticed in Scripture: his predecessors having been properly præfects, or viceroys, under the king of Assyria.

For

« AnteriorContinuar »