Assyria

ASSYRIA

A celebrated country and empire, had its name from Ahur, or Assur, the second son of Shem, who settled in that region, Gen 10:22 . In the Bible the name Assyria is employed in three different significations: namely, 1. Assyria ancient and proper lay east of the Tigris, between Armenia, Susiana, and Media, and appears to have comprehended the six provinces attributed to it by Ptolemy, namely, Arrapachis, Adiabene, Arbelis, (now Erbil,) Calachene, (Heb. Halah? 2Ki 17:6, ) Apollonias, and Sittacne. It is the region which mostly comprises the modern Kurdistan and the pashalik of Mosul. Of these provinces, Adiabene was the most fertile and important; in it was situated Nineveh the capital; and the term Assyria, in its most narrow sense, seems sometimes to have meant only this province. 2. Most generally, Assyria means the Kingdom of Assyria, including Babylonia and Mesopotamia, and extending to the Euphrates, which is therefore used by Isaiah as an image of this empire, Isa 7:20 ; 8:7. In one instance, the idea of the empire predominates so as to exclude that of Assyria proper, namely, Gen 2:14, where the Hiddekel or Tigris is said to flow eastward of Assyria. 3. After the overthrow of the Assyrian state, the name continued to be applied to those countries which had been formerly under its dominion, namely, (a) To Babylonia, 2Ki 23:29 ; Jer 2:18 . (b) To Persia, Ezr 6:22, where Darius is also called king of Assyria.The early history of Assyria is involved in obscurity. We know from the sacred narrative that it was a powerful nation. Israel was subjugated by one of its monarchs in the period of the Judges, and during the reign of the kings the Assyrian power was an object of perpetual dread. Pul, king of Assyria, invaded Israel in the reign of Menahem. Tiglath-pileser assisted Ahaz against a confederate army formed of the Syrian forces in league with those of the ten tribes. Shalmanezer invaded Israel, conquered Hoshea, and made him a vassal, bound to pay a yearly tribute. Hoshea wishing however to throw off the yoke, attempted to form a league with Egypt, and refused the tribute. On ascertaining this secret design of the Israelitish prince, Shalmanezer again invaded Israel, reduced Samaria, loaded its king with fetters, and transported the people of the land into Media, and put an end to the separate kingdom of the ten tribes. The three tribes located east of Jordan had already been deported into Media by Tiglath-pileser, when he ravaged Israel to save Ahaz, and the kingdom of Judah. Sennacherib of Assyria come into Judah with a powerful army in the reign of Hezekiah, but was miraculously defeated. Esarhaddon, his son and successor, ravaged Judah in the days of Manasseh, and carried the conquered sovereign in chains to Babylon. After this period the empire of Assyria suddenly waned, and its last monarch was the effeminate Sardanapalus, Num 24:22 . Its capital was one of the most renowned of the eastern world. See NINEVEH. But the kingdom fell at length into the hands of the Medes, the monarchy was divided between them and the Babylonians, and the very name of Assyria was thenceforth forgotten.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Assyria

(Hebrew: Aram-Naharaim, Aram of the two rivers) A country which occupied the northern and middle part of Mesopotamia, extended as far south as the Persian Gulf, and included Babylonia and Chaldea. The Assyrians were probably of Semitic origin, descendants of Assur, one of the sons of Sem (Genesis 10), and an independent Assyrian kingdom began about the seventeenth century B.C. The sources of Assyrian history are the Old Testament, the Greek, Latin, and Oriental writers, and the records and remains of the Assyrian people. Their religion and civilization were in many respects identical with that of Babylonia, their language belonged to the Semitic family, closely related to the Hebrew, and they had a cuneiform (Latin: cuneus, wedge) system of writing. Their most famous rulers were: Theglathphalasar I (1120-1110 B.C. ), under whom Assyria rose to the height of military glory; Asshur-nasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), in whose reign Assyria first came into touch with Israel; Theglathphalasar III (745-727 B.C.), founder of the second Assyrian empire; Sargon II (722-705 B.C.), who conquered Samaria and destroyed Israel; Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.), who invaded Juda and crushed the rebellion of Ezechias (4 Kings 18); Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.), a great ruler who conquered Egypt and destroyed Sidon; and Asshur-bani-pal (668-626 B.C.), greatest of all Assyrian kings, to whom we owe part of our knowledge of Assyro-Babylonian history, as he caused the most important historical texts and inscriptions to be copied and placed in a fine library which he built in his palace. With his death, Assyrian power declined. In 606 B.C. Nineveh was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians, and Assyria became a province of these countries.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Assyria

In treating of Assyria it is extremely difficult not to speak at the same time of its sister, or rather mother country, Babylonia, as the peoples of these two countries, the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, are both ethnographically and linguistically the same race, with identical religion, language, literature, and civilization. Hence Assyro-Babylonian religion, mythology, and religious literature especially in their relation to the Old Testament will be treated in the article BABYLONIA, while the history of the modern explorations and discoveries in these two countries will be given in the present article.

GEOGRAPHY

Geographically, Assyria occupies the northern and middle part of Mesopotamia, situated between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris; while the southern half, extending as far south as the Persian Gulf, constitutes the countries of Babylonia and Chaldea. Assyria originally occupied but a scant geographical area, comprising the small triangular shaped land lying between the Tigris and Zab Rivers, but in later times, owing to its wonderful conquests its boundaries extended as far north as Armenia to Media on the east; to northern Syria, and to the country of the Hittites, on the west and to Babylonia and Elam on the south and southeast, occupying almost the entire Mesopotamian valley.

By the Hebrews it was known under the name of Aram-Naharaim, i.e. “Aram [or Syria] of the two rivers” to distinguish it from Syria proper, although it is doubtful whether the Hebrew name should be read as dual, or rather as a plural, i.e. Aram-Naharîm (Aram of the many rivers or “Of the great river” — Euphrates. In later Old Testament times, it was known under the name of Asshur. By the Greeks and Romans it was called Mesopotamia, and Assyria; by the Aramaeans, Beth-naharim, “the country of the rivers”; by the Egyptians Nahrina; by the Arabs, Athûr, or Al-Gezirah, “the island”, or Bain-al-nahrain, “the country between the two rivers” — Mesopotamia. Whether the name Assyria is derived from that of the god Asshur, or vice versa, or whether Asshur was originally the name of a particular city and afterwards applied to the whole country cannot be determined.

The area of Assyria is about fifty thousand square miles. In physical character it is mountainous and well watered, especially in the northern part. Limestone and, in some places, volcanic rock form the basis of its fertile soil. Its southern part is more level, alluvial, and fertile. Its principal rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates, which have their source in the Armenian mountains and run almost parallel as far south as Babylonia and Chaldea, flowing into the Persian Gulf. There are other minor rivers and tributaries, such as the Khabur; the Balikh, the Upper and Lower Zab, the Khoser the Turnat, the Radanu, and the Subnat. Assyria owes to these rivers, and especially to the Tigris and Euphrates, somewhat as Egypt owes to Nile, its existence, life, and prosperity.

The principal cities of Assyria are: Asshur whose site is now marked by the mound of Kalah-Shergat, on the right bank of the Tigris. Calah, the eastern bank of the Tigris and at its junction with the Upper Zab, a city built (c.1280 B.C.) by Shalmaneser I, who made it the capital of Assyria in place of Asshur. Its site is nowadays marked by the ruins of Nimroud. Nineveh (in the Douay Version, Ninive), represented by the villages and ruins of the modern Kujunjik and Nebi-Yunus, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite Mosul. Nineveh was undoubtedly one of the most ancient cities of Assyria, and in the time of Sennacherib (7th cent. B.C.) it became the capital of the empire, and the centre of the worship of Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian Venus, who was called Ishtar of Nineveh, to distinguish her from Ishtar of Arbela. In the Old Testament the city of Nineveh is well known in connection with the prophets, and especially as the theatre of Jonah’s mission. Dur-Sharrukin, or Dur-Sargon (i.e. Sargonsburg) built by Sargon II (8th cent. B.C.), the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty. It was made first the royal residence of Sargon, and afterwards became the rival of Nineveh. Its site is represented by the modern Khorsabad. Arhailu, or Arbela, famous in Greek and Persian annals for the decisive victory won by Alexander the Great over the formidable army of Darius, King of Persia and Babylon (331 B.C.). Nasibina, or Nisibis, famous in the annals of Nestorian Christianity. Harran, well known for the worship of Sin, the moon-god. Ingur-Bel, corresponding to the modern Tell-Balawât. Tarbis, corresponding to the modern Sherif-Khan. The sites and ruins of all these cities have been explored.

SOURCES OF ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN HISTORY

These may be grouped as: (1) the Old Testament; (2) the Greek, Latin, and Oriental writers, and (3) the monumental records and remains of the Assyrians and Babylonians themselves.

In the first division belong the Fourth (in Authorized Version, Second) Book of Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles), the writings of the prophets Isaias, Nahum, Jeremias, Jonas, Ezechiel, and Daniel, as well as the Iaconic but extremely valuable fragments of information contained in Genesis, x, xi, and xiv. To the second group of sources belong the Chaldeo-Babylonian priest and historian Berosus, who lived in the days of Alexander the great (356-323 B.C.) and continued to live at least as late as Antiochus I, Soter (280-261 B.C.). He wrote in Greek a great work on Babylonian history, under the title of “Babyloniaca”, or “Chaldaica”. This valuable work, which was based on contemporary Babylonian monuments and inscriptions has unfortunately perished, and only a few excerpts from it have been preserved in later Greek and Latin writers. Then we have the writings of Polyhistor, Ctesias, Herodotus, Abydenus, Apollodorus, Alexander of Miletus, Josephus, Georgius Syncellus, Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius, and others. With the exception of Berosus, the information derived from all the above-mentioned historians is mostly legendary and unreliable, and even their quotations from Berosus are to be used with caution. This is especially true in the case of Ctesias, who lived at the Persian court in Babylonia. To the third category belong the numerous contemporary monuments and inscriptions discovered during the last fifty years in Babylonia, Assyria, Elam, and Egypt, which form an excellent and a most authoritative collection of historical documents.

For the chronology of Assyria we have some very valuable means information. These are The “Eponym List” which covers the entire period from the reign of Ramman-nirari II (911-890 B.C.) down to that of Asshurbanipal (669-625 B.C.). The eponyms, or limmu, were like the eponymous archons at Athens and the consuls at Rome. They were officers, or governors, whose term of office lasted but one year, to which year they gave their name; so that if any event was to be recorded, or a contract drawn in the year e.g., 763 B.C., the number of the year would not be mentioned, but instead we are told that such and such an event took place in the year of Pur-Shagli, who was the limmu, or governor, in that year. Another source is found in the chronological notices scattered throughout the historical inscriptions, such as Sennacherib’s inscription engraved on the rock at Bavian, in which he tells us that one of his predecessors, Tiglath-pileser (Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) reigned about 418 years before him, i.e. about 1107 B.C.; or that of Tiglath-pileser himself, who tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Anu and Ramman, which sixty years previously had been pulled down by King Asshurdan because it had fallen into decay in the course of the 64I years since its foundation by King Shamshi-Ramman. This notice, therefore, proves that Asshur-dan must have reigned about the years 1170 or 1180 B.C. So also Sennacherib tells us that a seal of King Tukulti-Ninib l had been brought from Assyria to Babylon, where after 600 years he found it on his conquest of that city. As Sennacherib conquered Babylon twice, once in 702 and again in 689 B.C., it follows that Tukulti-Ninib I must have reigned over Assyria in any case before 1289 B.C., and possibly a few years before 1302 B.C. Another chronological source is to be found in the genealogies of the kings, which they give of themselves and of their ancestors and predecessors. Further valuable help may be obtained from the so-called “Synchronous History” of Babylonia and Assyria, which consists of a brief summary of the relations between the two countries from the earliest times in regard to their respective boundary lines. The usefulness of this document consists mainly in the fact that it gives the list of many Babylonian and Assyrian kings who ruled over their respective countries contemporaneously.

ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN EXPLORATION

As late as 1849, Sir Henry Layard, the foremost pioneer of Assyro-Babylonian explorations, in the preface to his classical work entitled “Nineveh and Its Remains” remarked how, previously, with the exception of a few cylinders and gems preserved elsewhere, a case, hardly three feet square, in the British Museum, enclosed all that remained not only of the great city, Nineveh, but of Babylon itself. At that time few indeed would have had the presumption even to imagine that within fifty years the exploration of Assyria and Babylonia would have given us the most primitive literature of the ancient world. What fifty years ago belonged to the world of dreams is at the present time a striking reality; for we now in possession of the priceless libraries of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians, of their historical annals, civil and military records, State archives, diplomatic correspondences, textbooks and school exercises, grammers and dictionaries, hymns, bank accounts and business transactions, laws and contracts; and extensive collection of geographical, astronomical, mythological, magical, and astrological texts and inscriptions. These precious monuments are actually scattered in all the public and private museums and art collections of Europe, America, and Turkey. The total number of tablets, cylinders, and cuneiform inscriptions so far discovered is approximately estimated at more than three hundred thousand, which, if published, would easily cover 400 octavo volumes of 400 pages each. Unfortunately, only about one-fifth of all the inscriptions discovered have been published so far; but even this contains more than eight times as much literature as is contained in the Old Testament. The British Museum alone has published 440 folio, and over 700 quarto, pages, about one-half as much more has appeared in various archaeological publications. The British Museum has more than 40, 000 cuneiform tablets, the Louvre more than 10, 000, the Imperial Museum of Berlin more than 7, 000, that of the University of Pennsylvania more than 20, 000, and that of Constantinople many thousands more, awaiting the patient toil of our Assyriologists. The period of time covered by these documents is more surprising than their number. They occur from prehistoric times, or about 5000 B.C., down to the first century before the Christian Era. But this is not all, for, according to the unanimous opinion of all Assyriologists, by far the largest part of the Assyro-Babylonian literature and inscriptions are still buried under the fertile soil of these wonderful regions, which have ever been the land of surprises, awaiting further explorers and decipherers.

As has already been remarked, the meagre and often unreliable information concerning Assyria and Babylonia which has come down to us through the Persian, Greek, Latin, and Arabic writers — historians and geographers — has contributed little or nothing to the advancement of our knowledge of these wonderful countries. The early European travellers in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates valley such as Benjamin of Tudela (1160), John Eldred (1583), Anthony Shirley (1599), Pietro della Valle (1614-26), John Cartwright (1610), Gasparo Balbi (1590), John Otter (1734), Niebuhr (1765), Beauchamp, Olivier, Hagers, and others at the end of the eighteenth century, have left us a rather vague and superficial account of their personal visits and impressions. Later travellers, however, such as Claudius James Rich (1811, 1821-22), J.S. Buckingham (1816), Sir Robert Ker Porter (1817-20), Captain Robert Mignan (1826-28), G. Baillie-Fraser (1834-35), the Euphrates Expedition under Colonel Chesney (1835-47), James Felix Jones, Lynch, Selby, Collingwood, Bewsher, and others of the first half of the nineteenth century made a far more searching and scientific study of the Mesopotamian region. But the real founders and pioneers of Assyro-Babylonian explorations are Emile Rotta (1842-45), Sir Henry Austen Layard (1840-52), Victor Place (1851-55), H. Rassam (1850, 1878-82), Loftus (1850), Jules Oppert, Fresnel and Thomas (1851-52), Taylor (1851), Sir Henry Rawlinson, G. Smith, and others who have not only opened, but paved, the way for future researches and explorations. The first methodical and scientific explorations in Babylonia, however, were inaugurated and most successfully carried out by the intrepid French consul at Bassora and Bagdad, M. de Sarzec, who, from about 1877 with 1899, discovered at Tello some of the earliest and most precious remains and inscriptions of the pre-Semitic and Semitic dynasties of Southern Babylonia. Contemporaneously with de Sarzec there came other explorers, such as Rassam, already mentioned above, who was to continue George Smith’s excavations; the American Wolf expedition, under the direction of Dr. Ward, of New York (1884-85); and above all, the various expeditions to Nippur, under Peters, Hayes, and Hilprecht, respectively, sent by the University of Pennsylvania (1888-1900). The Turkish Government itself has not altogether stood aloof from this praiseworthy emulation, sending an expedition to Abu Habba, or Sippar, under the direction of the well-known Dominican scholar, Father F. Scheil of Paris, in 1894 and the following years. Several German, French, and American expeditions have later been busily engaged in excavating important mounds and ruins in Babyloma. One of these is the German expedition under Moritz and Koldewey, with the assistance of Dr. Meissner, Delitzsch, and others, at Shurgul, El-Hibba, Al-Kasr, Tell-ibrahim, etc. The expedition of the University of Chicago, under the direction of Dr. Banks, at Bismaya, in South Babylonia, came unfortunately to an early termination.

THE LANGUAGE AND CUNEIFORM WRITING

All these wonderful archaeological researches and discoveries would have been useless and destitute of interest, had not the language of Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions been deciphered and studied. These inscriptions were all written in a language, and by means of characters, which seemed for a while to defy all human skill and ingenuity. The very existence of such a language had been forgotten, and its writing seemed so capricious and bewildering that the earlier European travellers mistook the characters for fantastic and bizarre ornamental decorations; their dagger- or arrow-headed shape (from which their name of cuneiform) presenting a difficult puzzle. However, the discovery, and tentative decipherment, of the old Persian inscriptions (especially those of Persepolis and of the Behistun rock, not far from Hamadan, in Persia), by Grotefend, Heeren, the Abbe Saint Martin, Rask, Bournouf, Lassen, Westergaard, de Saulcy, and Rawlinson, all taking place at about the end of the first half of the nineteenth century, opened the way for the decipherment of the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions. The principal credit unquestionably belongs to Rawlinson, Norris, J. Oppert, Fox Talbot, and especially to Dr. Hinks of Dublin. The acute and original researches of these scholars were successfully carried out by other Semitic scholars and linguists no less competent, such as E. Schrader and Fred. Delitzsch, in Germany; Ménant, Halévy, and Lenormant, in France; Sayce and G. Smith, in England.

The Assyro-Babylonian language belongs to the so-called Semitic family of languages, and in respect to grammar and lexicography offers no more difficulty to the interpreter than either Hebrew or Aramaic, or Arabic. It is more closely allied to Hebrew and Aramaic than to Arabic and the other dialects of the South-Semitic group. The principal difficulty of Assyrian Consists in its extremely complicated system of writing. For, unlike all other Semitic dialects, Assyrian is written not alphabetically, but either syllabically or ideographically, which means that Assyrian characters represent not consonants, but syllables, open or closed, simple or compound, and ideas or words, such as ka, bar, ilu, zikara, etc. These same characters may also have both a syllabic and an ideographic value, nearly always more than one syllabic value and as many as five or six; so that a sign like the following (=|) may be read syllabically as ud, ut, u, tu, tam, bir, par, pir, lah, lih, hish, and his; ideographically as umu, “day”; pisu “white”; Shamash, the Sungod; etc. The shape of these signs is that of a wedge, hence the name cuneiform (from the Latin cuneus, “a wedge”). The wedges, arranged singly or in groups, either are called “ideograms” and stand for complete ideas, or then stand for syllables. In course of time the same ideographic signs came to have also the phonetic value of syllables, without losing however, their primitive ideographic value, as can be seen from the example quoted above. This naturally caused a great difficulty and embarrassment even to the Assyro-Babylonians themselves and is still the principal obstacle to the correct and final reading of many cuneiform words and inscriptions. To remedy this great inconvenience, the Assyro-Babylonians themselves placed other characters (called determinatives) before many of these signs in order to determine their use and value in certain particular cases and sentences. Before all names of gods, for example, either a sign meaning “devine being” was prefixed, or a syllabic character (phonetic complement), which indicated the proper phonetic value with which the word in question should end, was added after it. In spite of these and other devices, many signs and collocations of signs have so many possible syllabic values as to render exactness in the reading very difficult. There are about five hundred of these different signs used to represent words or syllables. Their origin is still a subject of discussion among scholars. The prevailing theory is that they were originally picture-signs, representing the ideas to be conveyed; but at present only about sixty of these 500 signs can be with certainty traced back to their original picture-meanings.

According to the majority of Assyriologists, the cuneiform system of writing originated with the Sumerians, the primitive non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, from whom it was borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, and applied to their own language. In the same way the Greeks adopted the Semetic Phoenician alphabet, and the Germans adopted the Latin. The Semitic language of Babylonia and Assyria was, therefore, written in Sumerian characters, just as Hebrew can be written in English letters, or Turkish in Armenian, or Arabic in Syriac (Karshuni). This same cuneiform system of writing was afterwards adopted by the Medians, Persians, Mitannians, Cappadocians, ancient Armenians, and others. Hence five or six dlfferent styles of cuneiforrn writings may be distinguished. The “Persian” style, which is a direct, but simplified, derivative of the Babylonian, was introduced in the times of the Achaemenians. “Instead of a combination of as many as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian style never more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing words by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of several hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style was fractionally abolished.” The second style of cuneiform generally known as “Median”, or “Susian”, is, again, a slight modification of the “Persian”. Besides these two, there is a third language (spoken in the northwestern district of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as ‘Mitanni’, the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained, but which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fourth variety, found on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again modification of the ordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni, the writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in Mesopotamia, while the so-called ‘Cappadocian’ tablets are written in a corrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the ‘ corrupt ‘ forms that the signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself quite a number of signs exist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that took place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is, from 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped. The linear writing is the modification that the original pictures underwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the modification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges became the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay, as against stone came to be used led to an imitation of the wedges by those who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there developed two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed lapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical records, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care; the other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets, and becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of Babylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In Assyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is easily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the more vertical position of its wedges. (Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, p. 20). The material on which the Assyro-Babylonians wrote their inscriptions was sometimes stone or metal, but usually clay of a fine quality most abundant in Babylonia, whence the use spread all over Western Asia. The clay was very carefully prepared, sometimes ground to an exceeding fineness, moistened, and moulded into various forms, ordinarily into a tablet whose average size is about six by two and one-half inches in superficial area by one inch in thickness, its sides curving slightly outwards. On the surface thus prepared, and while still soft, the characters were impressed with a stylus, the writing often standing in columns, and carried over upon the back and sides of the tablet. The clay was quite frequently moulded also into cones and barrel-shaped cylinders, having from six to ten sides on which writing could be inscribed. These tablets were then dried in the sun, or baked in a furnace — a process which rendered the writing practically indestructible, unless the tablet itself was shattered. (G.S. Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, p. 28). Unlike all other Semitic systems of writing (except the Ethiopic, which is an adaptation of the Greek), that of the Assyro-Babylonians generally runs from left to right in horizontal lines, although in some very early inscriptions the lines run vertically from top to bottom like the Chinese. These two facts evidence the non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform system of writing.

VALUE OF ASSYRIOLOGY FOR STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The part played by these Assyro-Babylonian discoveries in the exegesis and interpretation of the Old Testament has been important in direct proportion to the immense and hitherto unsuspected influence exercised by the Assyro-Babylonian religion, civilization, and literature upon the origin and gradual development of the literature and the religious and social institutions of the ancient Hebrews. This Babylonian influence, indeed, can be equally traced in its different forms and manifestations through all western Asia, many centuries before that conquest of Palestine by the twelve Israelitish tribes which put an end to the Canaanitish dominion and supremacy. The triumph of Assyriology, consequently, must be regarded as a triumph for Biblical exegesis and criticism, not in the sense that it has strikingly confirmed the strict veracity of the Biblical narratives, or that it has demonstrated the fallacies of the “higher criticism”, as Sayce, Hommel, and others have contended, but in the sense that it has opened a new and certain path whereby we can study the writings of the Old Testament with their correct historical background, and trace them through their successive evolutions and transformations. Assyriology, in fact, has given us such excellent and unexpected results as to completely revolutionize our former exegetical methods and conclusions. The study, it is true, has been often abused by ultra-radical and enthusiastic Assyriologists and critics. These have sought to build up groundless theories and illogical conclusions, they have forced the texts to say what they do not say, and to support conclusions which they do not support; but such an abuse, which is due to a perfectly natural enthusiasm and scientific ardour, can never vitiate the permanent value of sober Assyriological researches, which have demonstrably provided sources of the first importance for the study of the Old Testament. These few abuses can be discerned and in due time corrected by a more temperate and judicious criticism. If the value of Assyriology in its bearing upon the Old Testament has been too often exaggerated, the exaggeration is at least partly excusable, considering the comparatively recent date of these researches and their startling results in the way of discovery. On the other hand, that school of critics and theologians which disregards the genuine merits and the great value of Assyriological researches for the interpretation of the 0ld Testament is open to the double charge of unfairness and ignorance.

HISTORY OF ASSYRIA TO THE FALL OF NINEVEH (c. 2000-606 B.C.)

The origin of the Assyrian nation is involved in great obscurity. According to the author of the tenth chapter of Genesis, the Assyrians are the descendants of Assur (Asshur) one of the sons of Sem (Shem — Genesis 10:22). According to Gen., x, 11, “Out of that land [Sennaar] came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale. Resen also between Ninive and Chale”, where the Authorized Version reads: “builded Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah”. Till quite recently the most commonly accepted interpretation of this passage was that Assur left Babylonia, where Nemrod (Nimrod) the terrible was reigning, and settled in Assyria, where he built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Chale (Calah), and Resen. Nowdays, however, this interpretation, which is mainly based on the Vulgate version, is abandoned in favour of the more probable one, according to which Nemrod himself, the beginning of whose kingdom was Babylon (Babel), Arach (Erech), Achad (Accad), and Chalanne (Calneh), in Southern Babylonia (Genesis 10:10), went up to Assyria (Assur in this case being a geographical name, i.e., Assyria, and not ethnographical or personal), and there he built the four above-mentioned cities and founded the Assyrian colony. Whichever of these two interpretations be held as correct, one thing is certain: that the Assyrians are not only Semites, but in all probability an offshoot of the Semitic Babylonians, or a Babylonian colony; although, on account of their apparently purer Semitic blood, they have been looked upon by some scholars as an independent Semitic offshoot, which at the time of the great Semitic migration from Arabia (c. 3000-2500 B.C.), migrated and settled in Assyria. Assyrian rulers known to us bore the title of Ishshaku (probably “priest-prince”, or “governor”) and were certainly subject to some outside power, presumably that of Babylonia. Some of the earliest of these Ishshaki known to us are Ishmi-Dagan and his son Shamshi-Adad I (or Shamshi-Ramman). The exact date of these two princes is uncertain, although we may with reasonable certainty place them about 1840-1800 B.C. Other Ishshaki are Igur-Kapkapu, Shamshi-Adad II, Khallu, and Irishum. The two cities of Nineveh and Assur were certainly in existence at the time of Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.) for in one of his letters he makes mention of them. It is significant, however, that in the long inscription (300 lines) of Agumkakrime, one of the Kassic rulers of Babylonia (c. 1650 B.C.), in which he enumerates the various countries over which his rule extended, no mention is made of Assyria. Hence, it is probable that the beginning of an independent Assyrian kingdom may be placed towards the seventeenth century B.C. According to an inscription of King Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.), the first Assyrian Ishshaku to assume the title of King was a certain Bel-bani, an inscription of whom, written in archaic Babylonian, was found by Father Scheil. His date, however, cannot be determined.

Towards the fifteenth century B.C. we find Egytian supremacy extended over Syria and the Mesopotamian valley: and in one of the royal inscriptions of Thothmes III of Egypt (1480-1427 B.C.), we find Assyria among his tributary nations. From the Tel-el-Amarna letters also we know that diplomatic negotiations and correspondences were frequent among the rulers of Assyria, Babylonia, Syria, Mitanni, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, especially Amenhotep IV. Towards this same period we find also the Kings of Assyria standing on an equal footing with those of Babylonia, and successfully contesting with the latter for the boundary-lines of their Kingdom. About 1450 B.C. Asshr-bel-nisheshu was King of Assyria. He settled the boundary-lines of his kingdom with his contemporary Karaindash, King of Babylonia. The same treaty was concluded again between his successor, Puzur-Asshur, and Burnaburiash I, King of Babylon. Puzur-Asshur was succeeded by Asshur-nadin-Ahhe, who is mentioned by his successor, Asshur-uballit, in one of his letters to Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, as his father and predecessor.

During most of the long reign of Asshur-uballit, the relations between Assyria and Babylonia continued friendly, but towards the end of that reign the first open conflict between the two sister-countries broke out. The cause of the conflict was as follows: Asshur-uballit, in sign of friendship, had given his daughter, Muballitat-sherua, for wife to the King of Babylonia. The son born of this royal union, Kadashman-Charbe by name, succeeded his father on the throne, but was soon slain by a certaln Nazi-bugash (or Suzigash), the head of the discontented Kassite party, who ascended the throne in his stead. To avenge the death of his grandson the aged and valiant monarch, Asshur-uballit, invaded Babylonia, slew Nazi-bugash, and set the son of Kadashman-Charbe, who was still very young on the throne of Babylonia, as Kurigalzu II. However, towards the later part of his reign (c. 1380 B.C.), Kerizalu II became hostile to Assyria; in consequence of which, Belnirari, Assyhur-uballit’s successor on the throne of Assyria, made war against him and defeated him at the city of Sugagu, annexing the northern part of Babylonia to Assyria. Belnirari was succeeded by his son, Pudi-ilu (c. 1360 B.C.), who undertook several successful military expeditions to the east and southeast of Assyria and built various temples, and of whom we possess few, but important, inscriptions. His successor was Ramman-nirari, who not only strengthened the newly-conquered territories of his two predecessors, but also made war and defeated Nazi-Maruttash, King of Babylonia, the successor of Kurigalzu II, adding a considerable Babylonian territory to the newly arisen, but powerful, Assyrian Empire.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century B.C. (about 1330-1320 B.C.,) Ramman-nirari was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser I. During, or about the time of this ruler, the once powerful Egyptian supremacy over Syria and Mesopotamia, thanks to the brilliant military raids and resistance of the Hittites, a powerful horde of tribes in Northern Syria and Asia Minor, was successfully withstood and confined to the Nile Valley. With the Egyptian pressure thus removed from Mesopotamia, and the accession of Shalmaneser I, an ambitious and energetic monarch, to the throne of Assyria, the Assyrian empire began to extend its power westwards. Following the course of the Tigris, Shalmaneser I marched northwards and subjugated many northern tribes; then, turning westwards, invaded part of northeastern Syria and conquered the Arami, or Aramaeans, of Western Mesopotamia. From there he marched against the land of Musri, in Northern Arabia, adding a considerable territory to his empire. For strategic reasons he transferred the seat of his kingdom from the city of Asshur to that of Kalkhi (the Chale, or Calah, of Genesis) forty miles to the north, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, and eighteen miles south of Nineveh. Shalmaneser I was succeeded by his son Tukulti-Ninib (c. 1290 B.C.) whose records and inscriptions have been collected and edited by L.W. King of the British Museum. He was a valiant warrior and conqueror, for he not only preserved the integrity of the empire but also extended it towards the north and northwest. He invaded and conquered Babylonia, where he established the seat of his government for fully seven years, during which he became obnoxious to the Babylonians, who plotted and rebelled against him, proclaiming a certain Ramman shur-usur king in his stead. The Assyrians themselves also became dissatisfied on account of his long absence from Assyria, and he was slain by his own nobles, who proclaimed his son, Asshur-nasir-pal, king in his stead. After the death of this prince, two kings, Asshur-narrara and Nabudayan by name, reigned over Assyria, of whom, however, we know nothing. Towards 1210-1200 B.C. we find Bel-Kudur-usur and his successor, Ninib-pal-Eshara, reigning over Assyria. These, however, were attacked and defeated by the Babylonians who thus regained possession of a considerable part of their former territory. The next Assyrian monarch was Asshur-dan, Ninib-pal-Eshara’s son. He avenged his father’s defeat by invading Babylonia and capturing the cities of Zaban, lrria, and Akarsallu. In 1150 B.C., Asshur-dan was succeeded by his son, Mutakkil-Nusku; in 1140 B.C., by the latter’s son Asshur-resb-ishi, who subjugated the peoples of Ahlami, Lullumi, Kuti (or Guti) and other countries, and administered a crushing defeat to his rival and contemporary, Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) I, King of Babylonia.

About 1120-1110 B.C. Asshur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son, Tiglath-pileser I, one of the greatest Assyrian monarchs, under whose reign of only ten years duration Assyria rose to the apex of its military success and glory. He has left us a very detailed and circumstantial account of his military achievements, written on four octagonal cylinders which he placed at the four corners of the temple built by him to the god Ramman. According to these, he undertook, in the first five years of his reign, several successful military expeditions against Mushku, against the Shubari, against the Hittites, and into the mountains, of Zagros, against the people of Nairi and twenty-three kings, who were chased by him as far north as Lake Van in Armenia; against the people of Musri in Northern Arabia, and against the Aramaens, or Syrians. “In all”, he tells us, forty-two countries and their kings, from beyond the Lower Zab, from the border of the distant mountains as far as the farther side of the Euphrates, up to the land of Hatti [Hittites] and as far as the upper sea of the setting sun [i.e. Lake Van], from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year, has my hand conquered. I carried away their possessions, burned their cities with fire, demanded from their hostages tribute and contributions, and laid on them the heavy yoke of my rule.” He crossed the Euprates several times, and even reached the Mediterranean, upon the waters of which he embarked. He also invaded Babylonia, inflicting a heavy blow on the Babylonian king, Marduk-nadin-ahhe and his army, and capturing several important cities, such as Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Babylon, and Opis. He pushed his triumphal march even as far as EIam. Tiglath-pileser I was also a daring hunter, for in one of his campaigns, he tells us, he killed no fewer than one hundred and twenty lions on foot, and eight hundred with spears while in his chariot, caught elephants alive, and killed ten in his chariot. He kept at the city of Asshur a park of animals suitable for the chase. At Nineveh he had a botanical garden, in which he planted specimens of foreign trees gathered during his campaigns. He built also many temples, palaces, and canals. It may be of interest to add that his reign coincides with that of Heli (Eli), one of the ten judges who ruled over Israel prior to the establishment of the monarchy. At the time of Tiglath-pileser’s death, Assyria was enjoying a period of tranquillity, which did not last, however, very long; for we find his two sons and successors, Asshur-bel-Kala and Shamshi-Ramman, seeking offensive and defensive alliances with the Kings of Babylonia.

From about 1070 to 950 B.C., a gap of more than one hundred years presents itself in the history of Assyria. But from 950 B.C. down to the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire (606 B.C.) the history of Assyria is very completely represented in documents. Towards 950 B.C., Tiglath-pileser II was king over Assyria. In 930 B.C. he was succeeded by his son, Assuhr-dan II, and about 910 B.C. by the latter’s son, Ramman-nirari II, who, in 890, was succeeded by his son, Tukulti-Ninib II. Kings of Babylonia.

The last two monarchs appear to have undertaken several successful expeditions against Babylonia and the regions north of Assyria. Tukulti-Ninib’s successor was his son Asshur-nasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), with whose accession to the throne began a long career of victory that placed Assyria at the head of the great powers of that age. He was a great conqueror, soldier, organizer, hunter, and builder, but fierce and cruel. In his eleven military campaigns he invaded, subdued, and conquered, after a series of devastations and raids, all the regions north, south, east, and west of Assyria, from the mountains of Armenia down to Babylon, and from the mountains of Kurdistan and Lake Urmi (Urum-yah) to the Mediterranean. He crossed the Euphrates and the Orontes, penetrated into the Lebanon region, attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, invaded Syria, and compelled the cities of the Mediterranean coast (such as Tyre, Sidon, Bylos, and Armad) to pay tribute. But the chief interest in the history of Asshur-nasir-pal lies in the fact that it was in his reign that Assyria first came into touch with Israel. In his expedition against Karkemish and Syria, which took place in 878 B.C., he undoubtedly exacted tribute from Amri (Omri), King of Israel; although the latter’s name is not explicitly mentioned in this sense, either in Asshur-nasir-pal’s inscriptions, or in the Old Testament. The fact, however, seems certain, for in the Assyrian incriptions from about this time down to the time of Sargon — nearly 150 years — land of Israel is frequently mentioned as the “land of Omri”, and Jehu, a later King of Israel, but not of the dynasty of Amri, is also called the “son of Omri”. This seems to show that the land of Israel was known to the Assyrians as the land of that king who happened to be reigning when they were first brought into political relations with it, and we know that this king was Amri, for in 878, the year of Asshur-nasir-pal’s expedition to Syria, he had been king over Israel for some nine years.

Asshur-nasir-pal was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser II, who in the sixth year of his reign (854 B.C.) made an expedition to the West with the object of subduing Damascus. In this memorable campaign he came into direct touch with Israel and their king Achab (Ahab), who happened to be one of the allies of Benhadad, King of Damascus. In describing this expedition the Assyrian monarch goes on to say that he approached Karkar, a town to the southwest of Karkemish, and the royal residence of Irhulini. I desolated and destroyed, I burnt it: 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen, 20,000 men of Biridri of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 horsemen, 10, 000 men of Irhulini of Hamath; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab of Israel . . . these twelve kings he [i.e. Irhulini] took to his assistance. To offer battle they marched against me. With the noble might which Asshur, the Lord, granted, with the powerful weapons which Nergal, who walks before me, gave, I fought with them, from Karkar into Gilzan I smote them. Of their soldiers I slew 14,000.

The Old Testament is silent on the presence of Achab in the battle of Karkar, which took place in the same year in which Achab died fighting in the battle of Ramoth Galaad (1 Kings 22).

Eleven years after this event Jehu was proclaimed king over Israel, and one of his first acts was to pay tribute to Shalmaneser II. This incident is commemorated in the latter’s well-known “black obelisk”, in the British Museum, in which Jehu himself, “the son of Omri”, is sculptured as paying tribute to the king. In another inscription the same king records the same fact, saying: At that time I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Jehu the son of Omri”. This act of homage took place in 842 B.C., in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser’s reign.

After Shalmneser II came his son Shamshi-Ramman II (824 B.C.), who, in order to quell the rebellion caused by his elder son, Asshur-danin-pal, undertook four campaigns. He also fought and defeated the Babylonian King, Marduk-balatsuiqbi, and his powerful army. Shamshi-Ramman II was succeeded by his son, Ramman-nirari III (812 B.C.). This king undertook several expeditions against Media, Armenia, the land of Nairi, and the region around Lake Urmi, and subjugated all the coastlands of the West, including Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Philistia, and the “land of Omri”, i.e. Israel. The chief object of this expedition was again to subdue Damascus which he did by compelling Mari’, its king, to pay a heavy tribute in silver, gold, copper, and iron, besides quantities of cloth and furniture. Joachaz (Jehoahaz) was then king over Israel, and he welcomed with open arms Ramman-nirari’s advance, in as much as this monarch’s conquest of Damascus relieved Israel from the heavy yoke of the Syrians. Ramman-nirari III also claimed sovereignty over Babylonia. His name is often given as that of Adad-nirari, and he reigned from 812 to 783 B.C. In one of his inscriptions, which are unfortunately scarce and laconic, he mentions the name of his wife, Sammuramat, which is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis. The personal identity of the two queens, however, is not admissible. Ramman-ni-rari III was succeeded by Shalmaneser III (783-773 B.C.), and the latter by Asshurdan III (773-755 B.C.). Of these three kings we know little, as no adequate inscriptions of their reigns have come down to us.

In the year 745 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III (in the Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) seized the throne of Assyria, at Nineveh. He is said to have begun life as gardener, to have distinguished himself as a soldier, and to have been elevated to the throne by the army. He was a most capable monarch, enterprising, energetic, wise, and daring. His military ability saved the Assyrian Empire from the utter ruin and decay which had begun to threaten its existence, and for this he is fitly spoken of as the founder of the Second Assyrian Empire. Tiglath-pileser’s methods differed from those of his predecessors, who had been mere raiders and plunderers. He organized the empire and divided it into provinces, each of which had to pay a fixed tribute to the exchequer. He was thus able to extend Assyrian supremacy over almost all of Western Asia, from Armenia to Egypt, and from Persia to the Mediterranean. During his reign Assyria came into close contact with the Hebrews as is shown by his own inscriptions, as well as by the Old Testament records, where he is mentioned under the name of Phul (Pul). In the Assyrian inscriptions his name occurs only as that of Tiglath-pileser, but in the “List of Babylonian Kings” he is also called Pul, which settles his identity with the Phul, or Pul. of the Bible. He reigned for eighteen years (745-727 B.C.). In his annals he mentions the payment of tribute by several kings, among whom is “Menahem of Samaria”, a fact confirmed by 2 Kings 15:19-20. During his reign, Achaz was king of Juda. This prince, having been hard pressed and harassed by Rasin (Rezin) of Damascus, and Phacee (Pekah) of Israel, entreated protection from (Tiglath-pileser) Theglath-phalasar, who, nothing loath, marched westward and attacked Rasin, whom he overthrew and shut up in Damascus. Two years later, the city surrendered. Rasin was slain, and the inhabitants were carried away captives (2 Kings 16:7-9).

Meanwhile Israel also was overrun by the Assyrian monarch, the country reduced to the condition of a desert, and the trans-Jordanic tribes carried into captivity. At the same time the Philistines, the Edomites, the Arabians, and many other tribes were subdued; and after the fall of Damascus, Tiglath-pileser held a durbar which was attended by many princes, amongst whom was Achaz himself. His next expedition to Palestine was in 734, the objective this time being Gaza, an important town on the sea-coast. Achaz hastened to make, or, rather, to renew his submission to the Assyrian monarch; as we find his name mentioned again with several other tributary kings on one of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions. In 733 the Assyrian monarch carried off the population from large portions of the Kingdom of Israel, sparing, however the capital, Samaria. Tiglath-pileser was the first Assyrian king to come into contact with the Kingdom of Juda, and also the first Assyrian monarch to begin on a large scale the system of transplanting peoples from one country to another, with the object of breaking down their national spirit, unity, and independence. According to many scholars, it was during Tiglath-pilesar’s reign that Jonas (Jonah) preached in Nineveh, although others prefer to locate the date of this Hebrew prophet a century later, i.e. in the reign of Asshurbanipal (see below).

Tiglath-pileser III was succeeded by his son (?), Shalmaneser IV, who reigned but five years (727-722 B.C.). No historical inscriptions relating to this king have as yet been found. Nevertheless, the “Babylonian Chronicle” (which gives a list of the principal events occurring in Babylonia and Assyria between 744 and 688 B.C.) has the following statement: on the 25th of Thebet [December-January] Shalmaneser [in D.V. Salmanasar] ascended the throne of Assyria, and the city of Shamara’in [Samaria was destroyed. In the fifth year of his reign he died in the month of Thebet.” The Assyrian “Eponym Canon” (see above) also informs us that the first two years of Shalmaneser’s reign passed without an expedition, but in the remaining three his armies were engaged. In what direction the armies of Shalmaneser (Salmanasar) were engaged, the “Canon” does not say, but the “Babylonian Chronicle” (quoted above) and the Old Testament (2 Kings 18) explicitly point to Palestine, and particularly to Samaria, the capital of the Israelitish Kingdom. In the second or third year of Shalmaneser’s reign, Osee (Hoshea) King of Israel, together with the King of Tyre, rebelled against Assyria; and in order to crush the rebellion the Assyrian monarch marched against both kings and laid siege to their capitals. The Biblical account (Douay Version 2 Kings 17:3 sqq.) of this expedition is as follows: Against him came up Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, and Osee became his servant, and paid him tribute. And when the king of the Assyrians found that Osee endeavouring to rebel had sent messengers to Sua the king of Egypt, that he might not pay tribute to the king of the Assyrians, as he had done every year, he besieged him, bound him and cast him into prison. And he went through all the land: and going up to Samaria, he besieged it three years. And in the ninth year of Osee, the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria; and he placed them in Hala and Habor by the river of Gozan, in the cities of the Medes. See also the parallel account in IV Kings, xviii, 9-11, which is one and the same as that here given. The two Biblical accounts, however, leave undecided the question, whether Shalmaneser himself or his successor conquered Samaria; while, from the Assyrian inscriptions it appears that Shalmaneser died, or was murdered, before he could personally carry his victory to an end. He was succeeded by Sargon II.

Sargon, a man of commanding ability, was, notwithstanding his claim to royal ancestry, in all probability a usurper. He is one of the greatest figures in Assyrian history, and the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty, which held sway in Assyria for more than a century, i.e. until the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. He himself reigned for seventeen years (722-705 B.C.) and proved a most successful warrior and organizer. In every battle he was victor, and in every difficulty a man of resource. He was also a great builder and patron of the arts. His greatest work was the building of Dur-Sharrukin, or the Castle of Sargon, the modern Khorsabad, which was thoroughly explored in 1844-55 by Botta, Flandin, and Place. It was a large city, situated about ten miles from Nineveh, and capable of accommodating 80, 000 in habitants. His palace there was a wonder of architecture, panelled in alabaster, adorned with sculpture, and inscribed with the records of his exploits. In the same year in which he ascended the throne, Samaria fell (722 B.C.), and the Kingdom of Israel was brought to an end. “In the beginning of my reign”, he tells us in his annals, “and in the first year of my reign . . . Samaria I besieged and conquered . . . 27, 290 inhabitants I carried off . . . I restored it again and made it as before. People from all lands, my prisoners, I settled there. My officials I set over them as governors. Tribute and tax I laid on them, as on the Assyrians.” Sargon’s second campaign was against the Elamites, whom he subdued. From Elam he marched westward, laid Hamath in ruins, and afterwards utterly defeated the combined forces of the Philistines and the Egyptians, at Raphia. He made Hanum, King of Gaza, prisoner, and carried several thousand captives, with very rich booty, into Assyria. Two years later, he attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, and conquered it, capturing its king, officers, and treasures, and deporting them into Assyria. He then for fully six years harassed, and finally subdued, all the northern and northwestern tribes of Kurdistan of Armenia (Urartu, or Ararat), and of Cilicia: the Mannai, the Mushki, the Kummukhi, the Milidi, the Kammani, the Gamgumi, the Samali, and many others who lived in those wild and inaccessible regions. Soon after this he subdued several Arabian tribes and, afterwards, the Medians, with their forty-two chiefs, or princes.

During the first eleven years of Sargon’s reign, the Kingdom of Juda remained peacefully subject to Assyria, paying the stipulated annual tribute. In 711 B.C., however, Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, partly influenced by Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, and partly by promises of help from Egypt, rebelled against the Assyrian monarch, and in this revolt he was heartly joined by the Phoenicians, the Philistines, the Moabites, and tbe Ammonites. Sargon was ever quick to act; he collected a powerful army, marched against the rebels, and dealt them a crushing blow. The fact is recorded in Isaias, xx, 1, where the name of Sargon is expressly mentioned as that of the invader and conqueror. With Palestine and the West pacified and subdued Sargon, ever energetic and prompt, turned his attention to Babylonia, where Merodach-baladan ruling. The Babylonian army was easily routed and Merodach-balaclan himself abandoned Babylon and fled in terror to Beth-Yakin, his ancestral stronghold. Sargon entered Babylonia in triumph, and in the following year he pursued the fleeing king, stormed the city of Beth-Yakin, deported its people, and compelled all the Babylonias and Elamites, to pay him tribute, homage and obedience. In 705, in the flower of his age and at the zenith of his glory, Sargon was assassinated. He was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib (705 to 681 B.C.), whose name is so well known to Bible students. He was an exceptionally cruel, arrogant, revengeful, and despotic ruler, but, at the same time, a monarch of wonderful power and ability. His first military expedition was directed against Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, who, at the news of Sargon’s death, had returned to Babylonia, assuming the title of kings and murdering Merodach-zakir-shumi, the viceroy appointed by Sargon. Merodach-baladan was, however, easily routed by Sennacherib; fleeing again to Elam and hiding himself in the marshes, but always ready to take advantage of Sennacherib’s absence to return to Babylon. In 701, Sennacherib marched eastward over the Zagros mountains and towards the Caspian Sea. There he attacked, defeated, and subdued the Medians and all the neighbouring tribes. In the same year he marched on the Mediterranean coast and received the submission of the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He conquered Sidon, but was unable to lay hands on Tyre, on account of its impregnable position. Thence he hurried down the coast road, captured Askalon and its king, Sidqa; turning to the north he struck Ekron and Lachish, and dispersed the Ethiopian-Egyptian forces, which had assembled to oppose his march. Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, who together with the above-mentioned kings had rebelled against Sennacherib, was thus completely isolated, and Sennacherib, finding his way clear, marched against Juda, dealing a terrific blow at the little kingdom. Here is Sennacherib’s own amount of the event: But as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not subsmitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled cities and the smaller cities round about them without number, by the battering of rams, and the attack of war-engines [?], by making breaches, by cutting through, the use of axes, I besieged and captured. Two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, and sheep without number I brought forth from their midst and reckoned as spoil. Himself [ Hezekiah] I shut up like a caged bird in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up fortifications against him, and whosoever came out of the gates of his city I punished. His cities, which I had plundered, I cut off from his land and gave to Mitinti, King of Ashdod, to Padi, King of Ekron, and to Cil-Bel, King of Gaza, and [thus] made his territory smaller. To the former taxes, paid yearly, tribute, a present for my lordship, I added and imposed on him. Hezekiah himself was overwhelmed by the fear of the brilliancy of my lordship, and the Arabians and faithful soldiers whom he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred tatents of silver, precious stones, guhli daggassi, large lapis lazuli, couches of ivory, thrones of elephant skin and ivory, ivory, ushu and urkarinu woods of every kind, a heavy treasure, and his daughters, his palace women, male and female singers, to Nineveh, my lordship’s city, I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his ambassador to give tribute and to pay homage.

The same event is also recorded in IV Kings, xviii and xix, and in Isaias, xxxvi and xxxvii, but in somewhat different manner. According to the Biblical account, Sennacherib, not satisfied with the payment of tribute, demanded from Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezachias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh’s help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezechias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh’s help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. But in that same night the whole Assyrian army, gathered under the walls of Jerusalem, was stricken by the angel of the Lord, who slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrian soldiers. At the sight of this terrible calamity, Sennacherib in terror and confusion, departed and returned to Assyria. The Assyrian and the Biblical accounts are prima facie conflicting, but many more or less plausible solutions have suggested. In the first place we must not expect to find in Sennacherib’s own annals mention of, or allusion to, any reverse he may have suffered; such allusions would be clearly incompatible with the monarch’s pride, as well as with the purpose of annals incribed only to glorify his exploits and victories. In the second place, it is not improbable that Sennacherib undertook two different campaigns against Juda: in the first, to which his annals refer, he contented himself with exacting and receiving submission and tribute from Ezechias (Hezekiah); but in a later expedition, which he does not mention, he insisted on the surrender of Jerusalem, and in this latter expedition he met with the awful disaster. It is to this expedition that the Biblical account refers. Hence there is no real contradiction between the two narratives, as they speak of two different events. Furthermore, the disaster which overtook the Assyrian army may have been, after all, quite a natural one. It may have been a sudden attack of the plague, a disease to which Oriental armies, from their utter neglect of sanitation, are extremely subject, and before which they quickly succumb. Josephus explicitly affirms that it was a flagellum prodigiosum (Antiq. Jud., X, i, n. 5); while according to an Egyptian tradition preserved to us by Herodotus (Lib. II, cxli), Sennacherib’s army was attacked and destroyed by a kind of poisonous wild mice, which suddenly broke into the Assyrian camp, completely demoralizing the army. At any rate Sennacherib’s campaign came to an abrupt end, and he was f’orced to retreat to Nineveh. It is noteworthy, however, that for the rest of his life Sennacherib undertook no more military expeditions to the West, or to Palestine. This fact, interpreted in the light of the Assyrian monuments, would be the light of the complete submission of Syria and Palestine: while in the light of the Biblical narrative it would signify that Sennacherib, after his disastrous defeat, dared not attack Palestine again.

While laying siege to Jerusalem, Sennacherib received the disquieting news of Merodach-baladan’s sudden appearance in Babylonia. A portion of the Assyrian army was detached and hurriedly sent to Babylonia against the restless and indomiable foe of Assyria. In a fierce battle Merodach-baladan was for the third time defeated and compelled to flee to Elam, where, worn and broken down by old age and misfortunes, he ended his troubled life, and Asshur-nadin-shum, the eldest son of Sennacherib, was appointed king over Babylonia. After his return from the West and after the final defeat of .Merodach-baladan, Sennacherib began lengthy and active preparations for an effective expeditions against Babylonia, which was ever rebellious and restless. The expedition was as unique in its methods as it audacious in its conception. With a powerful army and navy, he moved southward and in a terrific battle near Khalulu, utterly routed the rebellious Chaldeans, Babylonians, and Elamites, and executed their two chiefs, Nergal-usezib and Musezib-Merodach. Elam was ravaged, “the smoke of burning towns obscuring the heavens”. He next attacked Babylon, which was stormed, sacked burnt, flooded, and so mercilesslv punished that it was reduced to a mass of ruins, and almost obliterated. On his return to Assyria, Sennacherib appears to have spent the last years of his reign in building his magnificent palace at Nineveh, and in embellishing the city with temples, palaces, gardens, arsenals, and fortifications. After a long, stormy, and glorious reign, he died by the hand of one of his own sons (681 B.C.). The Bible tells us that “as he [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of Nesroch his god, Adramelech and Sarasar his sons slew him with the sword, and they fled into the land of the Armenians, and Asarhaddon [Esarhaddon] his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 19:37). The “Babylonian Chronicle”, however, has “on 20 Thebet [December-January] Sennacherib, King of Assyria, was slain by his son in a rebellion . . . years reigned Sennacherib in Assyria. From 20 Thebet to 2 Adar [March-April] was the rebellion in Assyria maintained (in to Adar his son, Esarhaddon, ascended the throne of Assyria.” If the murderer of Sennacherib was, as the “Babylonian Chronicle” tells us, one of his own sons, no son of Sennacherib by the name of Adrammelech or Sharezer has as yet been found in the Assyrian monuments; and while the Biblical narrative seems to indicate that the murder took place in Nineveh, on the other hand an inscription of Asshur-banipal, Sennacherib’s grandson, clearly affirms that the tragedy took place in Babylon, in the temple of Marduk (of which Nesroch, or Nisroch, is probably a corruption).

Sennacherib was succeeded by his younger son, Esarhaddon, who reigned from 681 to 668 B.C. At the time of his father’s death, Esarhaddon was in Armenia with the Assyrian army, but on hearing the sad news he promptly set out for Nineveh, first to avenge his father’s death by punishing the perpetrators of the crime, and then to ascend the throne. On his way home he met the assassins and their army near Cappadocia, and in a decisive battle routed them with tremendous loss, thus becoming the sole and undisputed lord of Assyria. Esarhaddon’s first campaign was against Babylonia, where a fresh revolt, caused by the son of the late Merodach-baladan, had broken out. The pretender was easily defeated and compelled to flee to Elam. Esarhaddon, unlike his father, determined to build up Babylon and to restore its ruined temples, 2 palaces, and walls he gave back to the people their property, which had been taken away from them as spoils of war during Sennacherib’s destructive campaign, and succeeded in restoring peace and harmony among the people. He determined, furthermore, to make Babylon his residence for part of the year, thus restoring its ardent splendour and religious supremacy. Esarhaddon’s second campaign was directed against the West, i.e. Syria, where a fresh rebellion, having for its centre the great maritime city of Sidon, had broken out. He captured the city and completely destroyed it, ordering a new city, with the name of Kar-Esarhaddon, to be built on its ruins. The king of Sidon was caught and beheaded, and the surrounding country devastated. Twenty-two Syrian princes, among them Manasses, King of Juda, surrendered and submitted to Esarhaddon. Scarcely, however, had he retired when these same princes, including Manasses, revolted. But the great Esarhaddon utterly crushed the rebellion, taking numerous cities, captives, and treasures, and ordering Manasses to be carried to Babylon, where the king was then residing. A few years later Esarhaddon had mercy on Manasses and allowed him to return to his own kingdom. In a third campaign, Esarhaddon blockaded the impregnable Tyre, and set out to conquer Egypt, which he successfully accomplished by defeating its king, Tirhakah. In order to effectively establish Assyrian supremacy over Egypt, he divided the country into twenty provinces, and over each of these he appointed a governor; sometimes a native, sometimes an Assyrian.

He exacted heavy annual tribute from every one of these twenty provinces, and returned in triumph to Assyria. “As for Tarqu [Tirhakah], King of Egypt and Cush, who was under the curse of their great divinity, from Ishupri as far as Memphis, his royal city — a march of fifteen days — every day without exception. I killed his warriors in great number, and as for him, five times with the point of the spear I struck him with a deadly stroke. Memphis, his royal city, in half a day, by cutting through and scaling, I besieged, I conquered, I tore down, I destroyed, I burned with fire, and the wife of his palace, his palace women, Ushanahuru, his own son, and the rest of his sons, his daughters, his property and possessions, his horses, his oxen, his sheep without number, I carried away as spoiI to Assyria. I tore up the root of Cush frorn Egypt, a single one — even to the suppliant — I did not leave behind. Over all Egypt I appointed kings, prefects, governors, grain-inspectors, mayors, and secretaries. I instituted regular offerings to Asshur and the great gods, my lords, for all time. I placed on them the tribute and taxes of my lordship, regularly and without fail.” Esarhaddon also invaded Arabia, penetrating to its very centre, through hundreds of miles of sandy lands which no other Assyrian monarch had penetrated before. Another important campaign was that directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus, and against rnany other tribes, in Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Asia Minor, and Media. The monarch’s last expedition was a second campaign against Egypt. Before leaving Assyria, however, i.e. in the month of Iyyar (April-May), 668 B.C., as if forecasting future events, he constituted his son Asshurbanipal co-regent and successor to the throne, leaving to his other son, Shamash-shum-ukin, Babylonia. But, while on his way to Egypt, he fell sick, and on the 10th of Marsheshwan (October), in the year 668, he died.

Esarhaddon was a truly remarkable ruler. Unlike his father, he was religious, generous, forgiving, less harsh and cruel, and very diplomatic. He ruled the various conquered countries with wisdom and toletation, while he established a rigorous system of administration. A great temple-builder and lover of art he has left us many records and inscriptions. At Nineveh he rebuilt the temple of Ashur, and in Babylonia, the temples at Ukuk, Sippar, Dur-Ilu, Borsippa, and others, in all about thirty. In Nineveh he erected for himself a magnificent palace and arsenal, and at Kalkhi (Calah; Douay, Chale) another of smaller dimensions, which was still unfinished at the time of his death. Asshurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor, was undoubtedly the greatest of all Assyrian monarchs. For generalship, military conquests, diplomacy, love of splendor and luxury, and passion for the arts and letters, he has neither superior nor equal in the annals of that empire. To him we owe the greatest part of our knowledge of Assyrian-Babylonian history, art, and civilization. Endowed with a rare taste for letters, he caused all the most important historical, religious, mythological, legal, astronomical, mathematical, grammatical, and lexicographical texts and inscriptions known to his day to be copied and placed in a magnificent library which he built in his own palace. “Tens of thousands of clay tablets systematically arranged on shelves for easy consultation contained, besides official dispatches and other archives the choicest religious, historical, and scientific literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian world. Under the inspiration of the king’s literary zeal, scribes copied and translated the ancient sacred classics of primitive Babylonia for this library, so that, from its remains, can be reconstructed, not merely the details of the government and adminitration of the Assyria of his time, but the life and thought of the far distant Babylonian world.” (G.H. Goodspeed, Hist. of the Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 315, 316.) Of this library, which must have contained over forty thousand clay tablets, a part was discovered by G. Smith and H. Rassam, part has been destroyed, and part yet remains to be explored. Here G. Smith first discovered the famous Babylonian accounts of the Creation and of Deluge in which we find so many striking similarities with the parallel Biblical accounts. Asshur-banipal was also a great temple-builder — in Nineveh, Arbela, Tarbish, Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar, Nippur, and Uruk. He fortified Nineveh, repaired, enlarged, and embellished Sennacherib’s palace, and built next to it another palace of remarkable beauty. This he adorned with numerous magnificent statues, sculptures, bas-reliefs, inscriptions, and treasures. Assyrian art, especially sculpture and architecture, reached during his reign its golden age and its classical perfection, while Assyrian power and supremacy touched the extreme zenith of its height; for with Asshurbanipal’s death Assyrian power and glory sank into the deepest gloom, and perished presumably, to rise no more.

Asshurbanipal’s military campaigns were very numerous. He ascended the throne in 668 B.C. and his first move was against Egypt, which he subdued, penetrating as far as Memphis and Thebes. On his way back, he exacted tribute from the Syrian and Phoenician kings, among whom was Manasses of Juda, who is expressly mentioned in one of the king’s inscriptions. He forced Tyre to surrender, and subdued the Kings of Arvad, of Tabal, and of Cilicia. In 655, he marched against Babylonia and drove away from it a newly organized, but powerful coalition of Elamites, Chaldeans, and Arameans. He afterwards marched into the very heart of Elam, as far as Susa, and in a decisive battle he shattered the Elamite forces. In 625, Shamash-shum-ukin, Asshurbanipal’s brother, who had been appointed by his father King of Babylonia, and who had till then worked in complete harmony with his brother, rebelled against Asshurbanipal. To this he was openly and secretly incited by many Babylonian, Elamite, and Arabian chiefs. Asshurbanipal, however, was quick to act. He marched against BabyIonia, shut off all the rebels in their own fortresses, and forced them to a complete surrender. His brother set fire to his own palace and threw himself into the flames. The cities and fortresses were captured, the rebels slain, and Elam completely devastated. Temples, palaces, royal tombs, and shrines were destroyed. Treasures and booty were taken and carried away to Assyria, and several thousands of people, as well as all the princes of the royal family, were executed, so that, a few years later Elam disappeared for ever front history. In another campaign, Asshurbanipal advanced against Arabia and subdued the Kedarenes, the Nabataeans, and a dozen other Arabian tribes, as far as Damascus. His attention was next attracted to Armenia, Cappadocia, Media, and the northwestern and northeastern regions. In all these he established his supremacy, so that from 640 till 626, the year of Asshurbanipal’s death, Assyria was at peace. However, most scholars incline to believe that during the last years of the monarch’s reign the Assyrian Empire began to decay.

Asshurbanipal is probably mentioned once in the Old Testament (Ezra 4:10) under the name of Asenaphar, or, better, Ashenappar (Ashenappal) in connection with his deportation of many troublesome populations into Samaria. He is probably alluded to by the Second Isaias and Nahum, in connection with his campaigns against Egypt and Arabia. According to G. Brunengo, S.J. (Nabuchodnossor di Giuditta, Rome, 1886) and other scholars, Assuhrbanipal is the Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) of the Book of Judith; others identify him with the Sardanapalus of greek historians. In view, however, of the conflicting characters of the legendary Sardanapalus and the Asshurbanipal of the cuneiform inscriptions, this last identification seems impossible. Besides, Asshurbanipal was not the last king of Assyria, as Sardanapalus is supposed to have been.

Asshurbanipal was succeeded by his two sons, Asshur-etil-elani and Sin-shar-ishkun. Of their respective reigns and their exploits we know nothing, except that in their days Assyria began rapidly to lose its prestige and power. All the foreign provinces — Egypt, Phoenicia, Chanaan, Syria, Arabia, Armenia, Media, Babylonia, and Elam — broke away from Assyria, when the degenerate and feeble successors of the valiant Asshurbanipal proved unable to cope with the situation. They had probably abandoned themselves to effeminate luxury and debaucheries, caring little or nothing for military glory. In the meanwhile Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and Cyaxares, King of Media, formed a family and political alliance, the latter giving his daughter in marriage to the formers’s son, Nabuchodonossor (Nebuchadnezzar). At the head of a powerful army, these two kings together marched against Nineveh and laid siege to it for fully two years, after which the city surrendered and was completely destroyed and demolished (606 B.C.), and Assyria became a province of Babylonia and Media.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION The religion and civilization of Assyria were almost identical with those of Babylonia, the former having been derived from the latter and developed along the same lines. For, although the Assyrians made notable contributions to architecture, art, science, and literature, these were with them essentially a Babylonian importation. Assyrian temples and palaces were modelled upon those of Babylonia, although in the building material stone was far more liberally employed. In sculptural decorations and in statuary more richness and originality were displayed by the Assyrians than by the Babylonians. It seems to have been a hobby of Assyrian rnonarchs to build colossal palaces, adorned with gigantic statues and an infinite variety of bas-reliefs and inscriptions showing their warlike exploits. Asshurbanipal’s library shows that Assyrian religious literature was not only an imitation of that of Babylonia, but absolutely identical therewith. An examination of the religions of the two countries proves that the Assyrians adopted Babylonian doctrines, cults, and rites, with such slight modifications as were called for by the conditions prevailing in the northern country. The chief difference in the Assyrian pantheon, compared with that of Babylonia, is that, while in Semitic times the principal god of the latter was Marduk, that of the former was Asshur. The principal deities of both countries are: the three chief deities, Anu, the god of the heavenly expanse; Bel, the earth god and creator of mankind; Ea, the god of humanity par excellence, and of the water. Next comes Ishtar, the mother of mankind and the consort of Bel; Sin, firstborn son of Bel, the father of wisdom personified in the moon; Shamash, the sun-god; Ninib, the hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits; Nergal, chief of the netherworld and of the subterranean demons, and god of pestilence and fevers; Marduk, originally a solar deity, conqueror of storrns, and afterwards creator of mankind and the supreme god of Semitic Babylonia; Adad, or Ramman, the god of storms, thunders, and lighting; Nebo, the god of wisdorn, to whom the art of writing and sciences are ascribed; Girru-Nusku, or, simply, Nusku, the god of fire, as driving away demons and evil spirits; Asshur, the consort of Belit, and the supreme god of Assyria. Besides these there were other minor deities.

———————————–

GABRIEL OUSSANI Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Assyria

(). We must here distinguish between the country of Assyria and the Assyrian empire. They are both designated in Hebrew by , ASSHUR, the people being also described by the same term, only that in the latter sense it is masculine, in the former feminine. In the Septuagint it is commonly rendered by or , and in the Vulgate by Assur and Assyrii, and seldom or never by , or Assyria. The Asshurim () of Gen 25:3, were an Arab tribe; and at Eze 27:6, the word ashurim (in our version Ashurites”) is only an abbreviated form of tedshur, box-wood. Assyria derived its name from the progenitor of the aboriginal inhabitants-Asshur, the second son of Shem (Gen 10:22; 1Ch 1:17), a different person from Ashchur, son of Hezron, and Caleb’s grandson (1Ch 2:24; 1Ch 4:5). In later times it is thought that Asshur was worshipped as their chief god- by the Assyrians (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 537). SEE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS.

The extent of Assyria differed greatly at different periods. Probably in the earliest times it was confined to a small tract of low country between the Jebel Maklub, or Taurus range on the N., and the Lesser Zab (Zab Asfal) toward the S., lying chiefly on the immediate bank of the Tigris. Gradually its limits were extended, until it came to be regarded as comprising the whole region between the Armenian mountains (lat. 37 30′) upon the north, and upon the south the country about Bagdad (lat. 33 30′). Eastward its boundary was the high range of Zagros, or mountains of Kurdistan; westward it naturally retained the Tigris as its boundary, although, according to the views of some, it was eventually bounded by the Mesopotamian desert, while, according to others, it reached the Euphrates. Taking the greatest of these dimensions, Assyria may be said to have extended in a direction from N.E. to S.W. a distance of nearly 500 miles, with a width varying from 350 to 100 miles. Its area would thus a little exceed 100,000 square miles, or about equal that of Italy.

I. ASSYRIA PROPER.

1. Ancient Notices of its Position.-This was a great and powerful country, lying on the east of the Tigris (Gen 2:14), the capital of which was Nineveh (Gen 10:11, etc.). Its exact limits in early times are unknown; but when its monarchs enlarged their dominions by conquest, the name of this metropolitan province was extended to the whole empire. Hence, while Homer calls the inhabitants of the country north of Palestine Arimoi (evidently the Aramim or Aramesans of the Hebrews), the Greeks of a later period, finding them subject to the Assyrians, called the country Assyria, or (by contraction) Syria, a name which it has ever since borne. It is on this account that, in classical writers, the names Assyria and Syria are so often found interchanged (Henderson, On Isaiah p. 173; Hitzig, Begriff d. Krit. d. A lt. Test. p. 98); but it may be questioned whether in Hebrew “Asshur” and “Aram” are ever confounded. The same, however, cannot be affirmed of those parts of the Assyrian empire which lay east of the Euphrates, but west of the Tigris. The Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Romans, appear to have spoken of them in a loose sense as being in Assyria, because in the Assyrian empire. Thus Isaiah (Isa 8:20) describes the Assyrians as those ” beyond the river,” i.e. east of the Euphrates, which river, and not the Tigris, is introduced at 8:7, as an image of their power.

In Gen 25:18, the locality of the Ishmaelites is described as being east of Egypt, ” as thou goest to Assyria,” which, however, could ;only be reached through Mesopotamia or Babylonia, and this idea best reconciles the apparent incongruity of the statement in the same book (ii, 14), that the Hiddekel, or Tigris, runs “on the east of Assyria,” i.. e. of the Assyrian provinces of Mesopotamia and Babylonia; for there can be no doubt that, not only during the existence of the Assyrian monarchy, but long after its overthrow, the name of Assyria was given to those provinces, as having once formed so important a part of it. For example, in 2Ki 23:29, Nebuchadnezzar is termed the king of Assyria, though resident at Babylon (comp. Jer 2:18; Lam 5:6; Judith 17; Jdt 2:1); even Darius, king of Persia, is called, in Ezr 6:22, king of Assyria (comp. Plin. Hist. Nat. 19:19); and, on a similar principle, in 2Ma 1:19, the Jews are said to have been carried captive to Persia, i.e. Babylonia, because, as it had formerly been subject to the Assyrians, so it was afterward under the dominion of Persia. (Comp. Herodotus, i, 106, 178; iii, 5; 7:63; Strabo, ii, 84; 16:1; Arrian, vii; Exped. Alex. 7:21, 2; Ammianus Marcellinus, 23:20; 24:2; Justin, i, 2, 13.) One writer, Dionysius Periegetes (v, 975), applies the designation of Assyria even to Asia Minor, as far as the Black Sea. Yet, ultimately, this name again became restricted to the original province east of the Tigris, which was called by the Greeks (Ptolemy, 6:1), and more commonly (Strabo, 16:507), or (Dion Cassius, lxviii, 28), the latter being only a dialectic variety of pronunciation, derived from the Aramaean custom of changing s into t. A trace of the name is supposed to be preserved in that of a very ancient place, Athur, on the Tigris, from four to six hours N.E. of Mosul. Rich, in his Residence in Kurdistan (ii, 129), describes the ruins as those of the “city of Nimrod,” and states that some of the better informed of the Turks at Mosul ” said that it was Al Athur, or Ashur, from which the whole country was denominated.

2. Boundaries. According to Ptolemy, Assyria was in his day bounded on the north by Armenia, the Gordieean or Carduchian mountains, especially by Mount Niphates; on the west by the River Tigris and Mesopotamia; on the south by Susiana, or Chuzistan, in Persia, and by Babylonia; and on the east by a part of Media, and Mounts Choathras and Zagros (Ptolemy, 6:1; Pliny, Hist. Nat. v, 13; Strabo, 16:736). It corresponded to the modern Kurdistan, or country of the Kurds (at least to its larger and western portion), with part of the pashalic of Mosul.

Toward the north Assyria bordered on the strong and mountainous region of Armenia, which may have been at times under Assyrian dominion, but was never reckoned an actual part of the country. (See 2Ki 19:37.) Toward the east her neighbors were originally a multitude of independent tribes, scattered along the Zagros chain, who have their fitting representatives in the modern Kurds and Lurs-the real sovereigns of that mountain range. Beyond these tribes lay Media, which ultimately subjected the mountaiieers, and was thereby brought into direct contactwith Assyria in this quarter. On the south, Elam or Susiana was the border state east of the Tigris, while Babylonia occupied the same position between the rivers. West of the Euphrates was Arabia, and higher up Syria, and the country of the Ilittites, which last reached from the neighborhood of Damascus to Antitaurus and Amanus.-Smith.

3. General geographical character. The country within these limits is of a varied aspect. “Assyria,” says Mr. Ainsworth (Researches in Assyria, Babylonia, and Chaldcea, Lond. 1838, p. 17), “including Taurus, is distinguished into three districts: by its structure, into a district of plutonic and metamorphic rocks, a district of sedimentary formations, and a district of alluvial deposits; by configuration, into a district of mountains, a district of stony or sandy plains, and a district of low watery plains; by natural productions, into a country of forests and fruit-trees, of olives, wine, corn, and pasturage, or of barren rocks; a country of mulberry, cotton, maize, tobacco, or of barren clay, sand, pebbly or rocky plains; and into a country of date-trees, rice, and pasturage, or a land of saline plants.” The northern part is little else than a mass of mountains, which, near Julamerk, rise to a very great height, Mount Jewar being supposed to have an elevation of 15,000 feet; in the south it is more level, but the plains are often burnt up with scorching heat, while the traveller, looking northward, sees a snowy alpine ridge hanging like a cloud in mid air. On the west this country is skirted by the great river Tigris, the Hiddekel of the Hebrews (Gen 2:14; Dan 10:4), the Dijlah of the Arabs, noted for the impetuosity of its current. Its banks, once the residence of mighty kings, are now desolate, covered, like those of its twin :river the Euphrates, with relics of ancient greatness, in the ruins of fortresses, mounds, and dams, which had been erected for the defence or irrigation of the country. Niebuhr describes a large stone dam at the :castle of Nimrod, eight leagues below Mosul, as a work of great skill and labor, and now venerable for its antiquity; and some suppose that it was from the circumstance of so many canals from the Tigris watering the country, and rendering it fruitful, that that river received the Arabic name of Nahres-Salam, the River of Peace, i.e. prosperity. It leaves the high land at some distance above Tekrit, rushing with great velocity through a pass in the Hamrine mountains. In its progress along Assyria, the Tigris receives from that country, besides other rivers, two rapid mountain streams-the Great and Little Zab (Arab. Dhab, i.e. Wolf), called by the Greeks the Lykos, or Wolf, and the Capros, or Wild Boar. The Greater Zab (called by the Kurds Zerb), used to be laid down as a different river from the Hakkary, but Dr. Grant found them to be identical; and he likewise detected an error of Kinneir, in representing the Bitlissu as the same as the Khabur, whereas they are different streams. (See Grant’s Nestorians, p. 46.)

On the north and east the high mountain chains of Armenia and Kurdistan are succeeded by low ranges of limestone hills of a somewhat arid aspect, which detach themselves from the principal ridges, running parallel to them, and occasionally inclosing, between their northern or north-eastern flank and the main mountain-line, rich plains and fertile valleys. To these ridges there succeeds at first an undulating zone of country, well watered and fairly productive, which finally sinks down with some suddenness upon the great Mesopotamian plain, the modern district of ElJezireh. This vast flat, which extends in length for 250 miles from the latitude of Mardin (370 20′) to that of Tekrit (34 33′), and which is in places of nearly equal width, is interrupted only by a single limestone range, a narrow ridge rising abruptly out of the plain, which, splitting off from Zagros in lat. 33 30′, may be traced under the names of Sarazur, Hamrin, and Sinjar, from Iwan in Luristan nearly to Rakkah on the Euphrates. ” From all parts of the plain the Sinjar is a beautiful object. Its limestone rooks, wooded here and there with dwarf oak, are of a rich golden color; and the numberless ravines which furrow its sides form ribs of deep purple shadow” (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 265). Above and below this barrier, stretching southward and westward farther than the eye can reach, and extending northward and eastward 70 or 80 miles to the hill-country before mentioned, is an immense level tract, now for the most part a wilderness, scantily watered on the right bank of the Tigris, but abundantly supplied on the left, which bears marks of having been in early times throughout well cultivated and thickly peopled.

This plain is not alluvial, and most parts of it are even considerably raised above the level of the rivers. It is covered in spring time with the richest vegetation, presenting to the eye a carpet of flowers, varying in hue from day to day; but as the summer advances it is parched up, and gradually changes to an arid and yellow waste, except along the courses of the rivers. All over this vast flat, on both sides of the Tigris, rise “grass-covered heaps, marking the site of ancient habitations” (Layard, p. 245). Mr. Layard counted from one spot nearly a hundred (Nineveh and its Remains, i7 315); from another above 200 of these lofty mounds (Nin. and Bab. p. 245). Those which have been examined have been uniformly found to present appearances distinctly connecting them with the remains of Nineveh. SEE NINEVEH. It may therefore be regarded as certain that they belong to the time of Assyrian greatness, and thus they will serve to mark the extent of the real Assyrian dominion. They are numerous on the left bank of the Tigris from Bavian to the Diyaleh, and on the right they thickly stud the entire country both north and south of the Sinjar range, extending eastward beyond the Khabour (Layard, chs. xii-xiv), northward to Mardin, and southward to the vicinity of Bagdad.-Smith.

4. Natural Productions.-The most remarkable feature, says Ainsworth, in the vegetation of Taurus, is the abundance of trees, shrubs, and plants in the northern, and their comparative absence in the southern district. Besides the productions above enumerated, Kurdistan yields gall-nuts, gum Arabic, mastich, manna (used as sugar), madder, castor-oil, and various kinds of grain, pulse, and fruit. An old traveller, Rauwolf, who passed by Mosul in 1574, dwells with admiration on the finely-cultivated fields on the Tigris, so fruitful in corn, wine, and honey as to remind him of the Assyrian Rabshakeh’s description of his native country in 2Ki 18:32. Rich informs us that a great quantity of honey, of the finest quality, is produced; the bees (comp. Isa 7:18, “the bee in the land of Assyria”) are kept in hives of mud. The naphtha springs on the east of the Tigris are less productive than those in Mesopotamia, but they are much more numerous. The zoology of the mountain district includes bears (black and brown), panthers, lynxes, wolves, foxes, marmots, dormice, fallow and red deer, roebucks, antelopes, etc., and likewise goats, but not (as was once supposed) of the Angora breed. In the plains are found lions, tigers, hyenas, beavers, jerboas, wild boars, camels, etc.-Kitto.

5. Subdivisions and Principal Towns. Assyria in Scripture is commonly spoken of in its entirety, and unless the Huzzab () of Nahum (Nah 2:7) is an equivalent for the Adiabene of the geographers, no name of a district can be said to be mentioned. The classical geographers, on the contrary, divided Assyria into a number of regions-Strabo (16:1 and 4) into Aturia, Arbelitis, Artacene, Apolloniatis, Chalonitis, Dolomene, Calachene, Adiabene, Mesopotamia, etc.; Ptolemy (vi, 1) into Arrapachitis, Adiabene, the Garamcean country, Apolloniatis, Arbelitis, the country of the Sambatce, Calacine, and Sittacene. These provinces appear to be chiefly named from cities, as Arbelitis from Arbela; Calcine (or Calachene) from Calah or Halah (Gen 10:11); Apolloniatis from Apollonia; Sittacene from Sittace, etc. Adiabene, however, the richest region of all, derived its appellation from the Zab (Diab) rivers on which it lay, as Ammianus Iarcellinus informs us xxiii, 20). Ptolemy (Gen 10:18) made Mesopotamia (which he understood literally as the whole country between the Euphrates and the Tigris) distinct from Assyria, just as the sacred writers distinguish ” Aram-Naharain” from “Asshur.” Strabo (xvi, 1) extended Assyria to the Euphrates, and even across it into Arabia and Syria! Farthest north lay the province Arrapachitis, so called, as Rosenmuller conjectures, from Arphaxad, Asshur’s brother (Gen 10:22-24; but see Vater on Genesis, i, 151). South of it was Calacine, by Strabo written Calachene; perhaps the Chalach of 2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 18:11. Next came Adiabene, so important a district of Assyria as sometimes to give name to the whole country. SEE ADIABENE.

In Aramsean it is called Chadyab or Hadyab. North-east of it lay Arbelitis, in which was Arbela (now Arbil, of which see an account in Rich’s Kurdistan, ii, 14; and Appendix, No. i and ii), famous for the battle in which Alexander triumphed over Darius. South of this lay the two provinces of Apolloniatis and Sittacene. The country of Kir, to which the Assyrians transported the Damascene Syrians (2Ki 16:9; Amo 1:5), was probably the region about the river Kur (the Cyrus of the Greeks), i.e. Iberia and Georgia.

The chief cities of Assyria in the time of its greatness appear to be the following: Nineveh, which is marked by the mounds opposite Mosul (Nebbi-Yunus and Kouyunjik); Calah or Halah, now Nimrud; Asshur, now Kaleh Sherghat; Sargina, or Dur-Sargina, now Khorsabad; Arbela, still Arbil; Opis, at the junction of the Diyaleh with the Tigris; and Sittace, a little farther down the latter river, if this place should not rather be reckoned to Babylonia. (See the Journal of the Geograph. Soc. vol. 9:part i, p. 35, Lond. 1830.) The capital of the whole country was Nineveh, the Ninos of the Greeks (Herodot. i, 102), the Hebrew name being supposed to denote “the abode of Ninus,” the founder of the empire. Its site is believed to have been on the east bank of the Tigris, opposite the modern town of Mosul, where there is now a small town called Nebbi Yunus (i.e. the prophet Jonah), the ruins around which were explored by Rich, and are described in his work on Kurdistan. SEE NINEVEH.

In Gen 10:11-12, three other cities are mentioned along with Nineveh, viz. Rechoboth Ir, i.e. the city of Rehoboth, the locality of which is unknown. Calach (in our version Calah), either a place in the province of Calachene above mentioned, or the modern Hulwan, called by the Syrians Chalach; and Resen, ” a great city between Nineveh and Calach,” which Bochart identifies with the Larissa of Xenophon (Anabasis, iii, 47), and Michaelis with a place called Ressin (Rish-Ain, caput fontis?), destroyed by the Arabs A.D. 772. Rich notices an old place and convent of that name near Mosul (ii, 81). At the town of Al-Kosh, north of Mosul, tradition places the birth and burial of the prophet Nahum, and the Jews resort thither in pilgrimage to his tomb. But, though he is styled an Elkoshite (Nah 1:1), his denunciation against Assyria and Nineveh were evidently uttered in Palestine; and St. Jerome fixes his birthplace at Helkesei, a village in Galilee.-Kitto; Smith. SEE JONAH.

6. Present Condition. The greater part of the country which formed Assyria Proper is under the nominal sway of the Turks, who compose a considerable proportion of the population of the towns and larger villages, filling nearly all public offices, and differing in nothing from other Osmanlis. The Pasha of Mosul is nominated by the Porte, but is subject to the Pasha of Bagdad; there is also a pasha at Solymaneah and Akra; a bey at Arbil, a mussellim at Kirkuk, etc. But the aboriginal inhabitants of the country, and of the whole mountain tract that here divides Turkey from Persia, are the Kurds, the Carduchii of the Greeks; from them a chain of these mountains were anciently called the Carduchian or Gordymean, and from them now the country is designated Kurdistan. Klaproth. in his Asia Polyglotta (Paris, 1823, 4to, p. 75), derives the name from the Persian root kurd, i.e. strong, brave. They are still, as of old, a barbarous and warlike race, occasionally yielding a formal allegiance, on the west, to the Turks, and on the east to the Persians, but newer wholly subdued; indeed, some of the more powerful tribes, such as the Hakkary, have maintained an entire independence. Some of them are stationary in villages, while others roam far and wide, beyond the limits of their own country, as nomadic shepherds; but they are all more or less addicted to predatory habits, and are regarded with great dread by their more peaceful neighbors. They profess the faith of Islam, and are of the Sunite sect. All travellers have remarked many points of resemblance between them and the ancient Highlanders of Scotland. (See Mr. Ainsworth’s second work, Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, etc., Lond. 1842, 2 vols.)

The Christian population is scattered over the whole region, but is found chiefly in the north. It includes Chaldaeans, who form that branch of the Nestorians that adheres to the Church of Rome, a few Jacobites, or monophysite Syrians, Armenians, etc. But the most interesting portion is the ancient Church of the primitive Nestorians, a lively interest in which has lately been excited in the religious world by the publications of the American missionaries (see, especially, The Nestorians, by Asahel Grant, M.D., Lond. 1841; and compare Dr. E. Robinson, in the Am. Bibl. Repos. Oct. 1841; Jan. 1842; Rev. J. Perkins, ib. Jan. 1843; and Residence in Persia, N. Y. 1843). SEE NESTORIANS.

Another peculiar race that is met with in this and the neighboring countries is that of the Yezidecs (q.v.), whom Grant and Ainsworth would likewise connect with the ten tribes; but it seems much more probable that they are an offshoot from the ancient Manichees, their alleged worship of the Evil Principle amounting to no more than a reverence which keeps them from speaking of him with disrespect (see Homes, in the Am. Bibl. Repos. for April, 1842). Besides the dwellers in towns and the agricultural population, there are a vast number of wandering tribes, not only of Kurds, but of Arabs, Turkomans, and other classes of robbers, who, by keeping the settled inhabitants in constant dread of property and life, check every effort at improvement; and, in consequence of this and the influence of bad government, many of the finest portions of the country are little better than unproductive wastes. A copy of a famous history of Kurdistan, entitled Tarikh al-Akrad (Akrad being the collective name of the people), was procured by Mr. Rich when in the country, and is now, along with the other valuable Oriental MSS. of that lamented traveller, preserved in the British Museum. SEE KURDISTAN.

II. THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. No portion of ancient history is involved in greater obscurity than that of the empire of Assyria. Nor is this obscurity in any very great degree removed by the recent remarkable discoveries of the monumental records of the nation by Layard, Botta, and Loftus.

1. Scriptural Notices of Assyrian History. In attempting to arrange even the facts deducible from Scripture, a difficulty presents itself at the outset, arising from the ambiguity of the account given of the origin of the earliest Assyrian state in Gen 10:11. After describing Nimrod, son of Cush, ” as a mighty one in the earth,” the historian adds (Gen 10:10), ” And the beginning of his kingdom (or, rather, the first theatre of his dominion) was Babel, and Erech, and Accad; and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,” i.e. Babylonia. Then follow the words (as it is in the margin), ” Out of that land he (i.e. Nimrod) went out into Assyria and builded Nineveh,” (comp. Noldius, Concord. Hebr. Particles, ed. Tymp., p. 223.) Moses is enumerating the descendants of Ham, and it is not likely that he would interrupt the’ details to give an account of Asshur, a son of Shem, whose posterity are not introduced till Gen 10:21. Besides, in the circumstance of Asshur leaving one country to settle in another, there was nothing remarkable, for that was the case with almost all Noah’s grandchildren. But if we understand it of Nimrod, both the connection and the sense will be manifest. The design obviously is to represent him as a potent monarch and ambitious conqueror. His brethren, the other sons of Cush, settled in the south, but he, advancing northward, first seized on Babylonia, and, proceeding thence into Assyria (already partially colonized by the Asshurites, from whom it took its name), he built Nineveh and the other strongholds mentioned, in order to secure his conquests.

This view is confirmed by a passage in Mic 5:6, where, predicting the overthrow of Assyria by the Medes and Babylonians, the prophet says, “They shall devour the land of Asshur with the sword: even the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof” (comp. Mic 5:5). It likewise agrees with the native tradition (if we can depend on the report of Ctesias), that the founder of the Assyrian monarchy and the builder of Nineveh was one and the same person, viz., Ninus, from whom it derived its name (q. d. Nin’s Abode), and in that case the designation of Nimrod (the Rebel) was not his proper name, but an opprobrious appellation imposed on him by his enemies. Modern tradition likewise connects Nimrod with Assyria; for while, as we have seen, the memory of Asshur is preserved in the locality of Athur, that place is also termed the “city of Nimrufd,” and (as the above-mentioned dam on the Tigris is styled Nimrod’s Castle) Rich informs us that “the inhabitants of the neighboring village of Deraweish consider him as their founder.” He adds, that the village story-tellers have a book they call the Kisseh-Nimrud, or “Tales of-Nimrod.”

It is true that the Authorized Version of Gen 10:11 is countenanced by most of the ancient translators and by Josephus; but, on the other hand, the one we have preferred is that of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and of Jerome; and (among the moderns) of Bochart, Hyde, Marsham, Wells, Faber, Hales, and many others. Yet, though Nimrod’s ” kingdom” embraced the lands both of Shinar and Asshur, we are left in the dark as to whether Babylon or Nineveh became the permanent seat of government, and consequently whether his empire should be designated that of Babylonia or that of Assyria. No certain traces of it, indeed, are to be found in Scripture for ages after its erection. In the days of Abraham, we hear of a king of Elam (i.e. Elymais, in the south of Persia) named Chedorlaomer, who had held in subjection for twelve years five petty princes of Palestine (Gen 14:4), and who, in consequence of their rebellion, invaded that country along with three other kings, one of whom was “Amraphel, king of Shinar.” Josephus says “the Assyrians had then dominion over Asia;” and he styles these four kings merely commanders in the Assyrian army. It is possible that Chedorlaomer was an Assyrian viceroy, and the others his deputies; for at a later period the Assyrian boasted, “Are not my princes altogether kings ?” (Isa 10:8.) Yet some have rather concluded from the narrative that by this time the monarchy of Nimrod had been broken up, or that at least the seat of government had been transferred to Elam. Be this as it may, the name of Assyria as an independent state does not again appear in Scripture till the closing period of the age of Moses. Balaam, a seer from the northern part of Mesopotamia, in the neighborhood of Assyria, addressing the Kenites, a mountain tribe on the east side of the Jordan, “took up his parable,” i.e. raised his oracular, prophetic .chant, and said, ” Durable is thy dwelling- place! yea, in a rock puttest thou thy nest: nevertheless, wasted shall be the Kenite, until Asshur shall lead them captive.” In this verse, besides the play upon the word ken (the Hebrew for a nest), the-reader may remark the striking contrast .drawn between the permanent nature of the abode, and the transient possession of it by the occupants. The prediction found its fulfilment in the Kenites being gradually reduced in strength (comp. 1Sa 15:6), till they finally shared the fate of the Transjordanite tribes, and were swept away into captivity by the Assyrians (1Ch 5:26; 2Ki 16:9; 2Ki 19:12-13; 1Ch 2:55.)

But, as a counterpart to this, Balaam next sees a vision of retaliatory vengeance on their oppressors, and the awful prospect of the threatened devastations, though beheld in far distant times, extorts from him the exclamation, “Ah! who shall live when God doeth this ? For ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict ASSHUR, and shall afflict Eber, but he also [the invader] shall perish forever.” This is not without obscurity; but it has commonly been supposed to point to the conquest of the regions that once formed the Assyrian empire, first by the Macedonians from Greece, and then by the Romans, both of whose empires were in their turn overthrown. In the time of the Judges, the people of Israel became subject to a king of Mesopotamia, Chushan-rishathaim (Jdg 3:8), who is by Josephus styled King of the Assyrians; but we are left in the same ignorance as in the case of Chedorlaomer as to whether he was an independent sovereign or only a vicegerent for another. The eighty-third Psalm (Jdg 3:9) mentions Ashur as one of the nations leagued against Israel; but as the date of that composition is unknown, nothing certain can be founded on it. The first king of Assyria alluded to in the Bible is he who reigned at Nineveh when the prophet Jonah was sent thither (Jon 3:6). Hales supposes him to have been the father of Pul, the first Assyrian monarch named in Scripture, and dates the commencement of his reign B.C. 821. By that time the metropolis of the empire had become “an exceeding great” and populous city, but one pre-eminent in wickedness (Jon 1:2; Jon 3:3; Jon 4:11). SEE JONAH.

The first expressly recorded appearance of the Assyrian power in the countries west of the Euphrates is in the reign of Menahem, king of Israel, against whom “the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul or (Phul), king of Assyria” (1Ch 5:26), who invaded the country, and exacted a tribute of a thousand talents of silver “that his hand,” i.e. his favor,

“might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand” (2Ki 15:19-20). Newton places this event in the year B.C. 770, in the twentieth year of Pul’s reign, the commencement of which he fixes in the year B.C. 790. As to his name, we find the syllable Pal, Pel, or Pul entering into the names of several Assyrian kings (e.g. Pileser, Sardanapal-us); and hence some connect it with the Persian ” balm,” i.e. high, exalted, and think it may have been part of the title which the Assyrian monarchs bore. Hales conjectures that Pul may have been the second Belus of the Greeks, his fame having reached them by his excursions into Western Asia. About this period we find the prophet Hosea making frequent allusions to the practice both of Israel and Judsea, of throwing themselves for support on the kings of Assyria. In ch. 5:13; 10:6, our version speaks of their specially seeking the protection of a “King Jareb,” but the original there is very obscure; and the next Assyrian monarch mentioned by name is Tiglath-pileser. The supposition of Newton is adopted by Hales, that at Pul’s death his dominions were divided between his two sons, Tiglath-pileser and Nabonassar, the latter being made ruler at Babylon, from the date of whose government or reign the celebrated era of Nabonassar took its rise, corresponding to B.C. 747. The name of the other is variously written Tiglath and Tilgath, Pileser and Pilreser: the etymology of the first is unknown (some think it has a reference to the river Dijlath, i.e. the Tigris). Pileser signifies in Persian “exalted prince.” When Ahaz, king of Judah, was hard pressed by the combined forces of Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of DamasceneSyria, he purchased Tiglath-pileser’s assistance with a large sum, taken out of his own and the Temple treasury. The Assyrian king accordingly invaded territories of both the confederate kings, and annexed a portion of them to his own dominions, carrying captive a number of their subjects (2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 16:5-10; 1Ch 5:26; 2Ch 28:16; Isa 7:1-11; comp. Amo 1:9).

His successor was Shalman (Hos 10:4), Shalmaneser or Salmanassar, the Enemessar of the apocryphal book of Tobit (ch. 1:2). He made Hoshea, king of Israel, his tributary vassal (2Ki 17:3); but finding him secretly negotiating with So or Sabaco (the Sabakoph of the monuments), king of Egypt, he laid siege to the Israelitish capital, Samaria, took it after an investment of three years (B.C. 720), and then reduced the country of the ten tribes to a province of his empire, carrying into captivity the king and his people, and settling Cutheeans from Babylonia in their room (2Ki 17:3-6; 2Ki 18:9; 2Ki 18:11). Hezekiah, king of Judah, seems to have been for some time his vassal (2Ki 18:7); and we learn from the Tyrian annals, preserved by Menatlder of Ephesus (as cited by Josephus, Ant. 10:14, 2), that he subdued the whole of Phoenicia, with the exception of insular Tyre, which successfully resisted a siege of five years. The empire of Assyria seems now to have reached its greatest extent, having had the Mediterranean for its boundary on the west, and including within its limits Media and Kir on the north, as well as Elam on the south (2Ki 16:9; 2Ki 17:6; Isa 20:6). In the twentieth chapter of Isaiah (Isa 20:1) there is mention of a king of Assyria, Sargon, in whose reign Tartan besieged and took Ashdod in Philistia (B.C. 715) SEE SARGON; and as Tartan is elsewhere spoken of (2Ki 18:17) as a general of Sennacherib, some have supposed that Sargon is but another name of that monarch, while others would identify him either with Shalmaneser, or with Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s successor. But the correctness of all these conjectures may fairly be questioned; and we adhere to the opinion of Gesenius (Comment. zu Jesa. in loc.), that Sargon was a king of Assyria, who succeeded Shalmaneser, and had a short reign of two or three years. He thinks the name may be equivalent to Ser-jaumeh, “Prince of the Sun.” Von Bohlen prefers the derivation of sergun, “gold-colored.” His attack on Egypt may have arisen from the jealousy which the Assyrians entertained of that nation’s influence over Palestine ever since the negotiation between its king So, and Hoshea, king of Israel. From many incidental expressions in the book of Isaiah we can infer that there was at this time a strong Egyptian party among the Jews, for that people are often warned against relying for help on Egypt, instead of simply confiding in Jehovah (Isa 30:2; Isa 31:1; comp. 20:5, 6). The result of Tartan’s expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia was predicted by Isaiah while that general was yet on the Egyptian frontier at Ashdod (Isa 20:1-4); and it is not improbable that it is to this Assyrian invasion that the prophet Nahum refers when he speaks (Nah 3:8-10) of the subjugation of No, i.e. No-Ammun, or Thebes, the capital of Upper Egypt, and the captivity of its inhabitants. The occupation of the country by the Assyrians, however, must have been very transient, for in the reign of Sapgon’s successor, Sennacherib, or Sancherib, we find Hezekiah, king of Judah, throwing off the Assyrian yoke, and allying himself with Egypt (2Ki 18:7; 2Ki 18:21). This brought against him Sennacherib with a mighty host, which, without difficulty, subdued the fenced cities of Judah, and compelled him to purchase peace by the payment of a large tribute. But “the treacherous dealer dealt very treacherously” (Isa 33:1), and, notwithstanding the agreement, proceeded to invest Jerusalem. In answer, however, to She prayers of the ” good king” of Judah, the Assyrian was diverted from his purpose, partly by the “rumor” (Isa 37:6) of the approach of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, and partly by the sudden and miraculous destruction of a great p rt of his army (2Ki 18:13-37; 2 Kings 19; Isaiah 36, 37). He himself fled (B.C. 712) to Nineveh, where, in course of time, when worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, he was slain by his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer, the parricides escaping into the land of Armenia-a fact which is preserved in that country’s traditionary history. SEE ARARAT.

Regarding the period of Sennacherib’s death chronologists differ. Hales, following the apocryphal book of Tobit (i, 21), places it fifty-five days after his return from his Jewish expedition; but Gesenius (Comment. zu Jesa. p. 999) has rendered it extremely probable that it did not take place till long after. He founds this opinion chiefly on a curious fragment of Berosus, preserved in the Armenian translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius. It states that, after Sennacherib’s brother had governed Babylon as the Assyrian viceroy, the sovereignty was successively usurped by Acises, Merodach, or BerodachBaladan (Isa 39:1; 2Ki 20:12), and Elibus or Belibus. But, after three years, Sennacherib regained dominion in Babylonia, and appointed as viceroy his own son Assordan, the Esarhaddon of Scripture.’ This statement serves to explain how there was in Hezekiah’s time a king at Babylon, though, both before and after, it was subject to Assyria. SEE SENNACHERIB.

Sennacherib was succeeded by- his son Esarhaddon, or Assarhaddon, who had been his father’s viceroy at Babylon (2Ki 19:37; Isa 37:38). He is the Sacherdon or Sarchedon of Tobit (i, 21), and the Asaradinus of Ptolemy’s Canon (B.C. 680). Hales regards him as the first Sardanapalus. The chief notice taken of him in Scripture is that he settled some colonists in Samaria (Ezr 4:2), and as (at Ezr 4:10) that colonization is ascribed to the “great and noble Asnapper,” it is supposed that that was another name for Esarhaddon, but it may have been one of the great officers of his empire. It seems to have been in his reign that the captains of the Assyrian host invaded and ravaged Judah, carrying Manasseh, the king, captive to Babylon. The subsequent history of the empire is involved in almost as much obscurity as that of its origin and rise. The Medes had already shaken off the yoke, and the Chaldaeans soon appear on the scene as the dominant nation of Western Asia; yet Assyria, though much reduced in extent, existed as an independent state for a considerable period after Esarhaddon. Hales, following Syncellus, makes him succeeded by a prince called Ninus (B.C. 667), who had for his successor Nebuchodonosor (B.C. 658), for the transactions of whose reign, including the expedition of his general Holofernes into Judesa, Hales relies on the apocryphal book of Judith, the authority of which, however, is very questionable. The last monarch was Sarac, or Sardanapalus II (B.C. 636), in whose reign Cyaxares, king of Media, and Nabopolassar, viceroy of Babylon, combined against Assyria, took Nineveh, and, dividing what remained of the empire between them, reduced Assyria Proper to a province of Media (B.C. 606).

2. Comparison with ancient Historians and the Intimations on the Monuments. The original sources of profane history on this subject are Herodotus and Ctesias; but every attempt to reconcile their statements with those of Scripture, or even with each other, has hitherto failed. The former fixes the duration of the Assyrian dominion in Upper Asia at 520 years (Herod. i, 95), while the latter again assigns to the Assyrian empire, from Ninus to Sardanapalus, no less a period than 1305 years (Diodor. Sicul. ii, 21). The authority of Ctesias, however, is very generally discredited (it was so even by Aristotle), though he has recently found a defender in Dr. Russell, in his Connection of Sacred and Profane History. The truth is (as is remarked by the judicious Heeren), that the accounts of both these historians are little better than mere traditions of ancient heroes and heroines (witness the fables about Semiramis!), without any chronological data, and entirely in the style of the East. To detail all the fanciful hypotheses which have been propounded, with the view of forming out of them a consistent and coherent narrative, forms no part of our present design. Considerable light, however, has been thrown, by recent researches, upon certain points of this history.-Kitto.

(1.) The original Settlement of the Country. Scripture informs us that Assyria was peopled from Babylon (Gen 10:11), and both classical tradition and the monuments of the country agree in this representation. In Herodotus (i, 7), Ninus, the mythic founder of Nineveh, is the son (descendant) of Belus, the mythic founder of Babylon-a tradition in which the derivation of Assyria from Babylon, and the greater antiquity and superior position of the latter in early times, are shadowed forth sufficiently. That Ctesias (ap. Diod. Sic. ii, 7). inverts the relation, making Semiramis (according to him, the wife and successor of Ninus) found Babylon, is only one out of a thousand proofs of the untrustworthy character of his history. The researches recently carried on in the two countries clearly show, not merely by the statements which are said to have been deciphered on the historical monuments, but by the whole character of the remains discovered, that Babylonian greatness and civilization was earlier than Assyrian, and that, while the former was of native growth, the latter was derived from the neighboring country. The cuneiform writing, for instance, which is rapidly punched with a very simple instrument upon moist clay, but is only with much labor and trouble inscribed by the chisel upon rock, must have been invented in a country where men “had brick for stone’ (Gen 11:3), and have thence passed to one where the material was unsuited for it. It may be observed, also, that while writing occurs in a very rude form in the earlier Babylonian ruins (Loftus’s Chaldaa, p. 169), and gradually improves in the later ones, it is in Assyria uniformly of an advanced type, having apparently been introduced there after it had attained to perfection.

(2.) Date of the Foundation of the Kingdom.-With respect to the exact time at which Assyria became a separate and independent country, there is an important difference between classical authorities, Herodotus placing the commencement of the empire almost a thousand years later than Ctesias! Scripture does but little to determine the controversy; that little, however, is in favor of the former author. Geographically, as a country, Assyria was evidently known to Moses (Gen 2:14; Gen 25:18; Num 24:22; Num 24:24); but it does not appear in Jewish history as a kingdom till the reign of Menahem (B.C. cir. 770). In Abraham’s time (B.C. 2000 ?) it is almost certain that there can have been no Assyrian kingdom, or its monarch would have been found among those who invaded Palestine with Chedorlaomer’ (Gen 14:1). In the time of the early judges (B.C. 1575), Assyria, if it existed, can have been of no great strength; for Chushan-Rishathaim, the first of the foreigners who oppressed Israel (Jdg 3:8), is master of the whole country between the rivers (Aram Naharim=” Syria between the two rivers”). These tacts militate strongly against the views of Ctesias, whose numbers produce for the founding of the empire the date of B.C. 2182 (Clinton, Fast. Hell. i, 263). The more modest account of Herodotus is at once more probable in itself, more agreeable to Scripture, and more in accordance with the native writer Berosus. Herodotus relates that the Assyrians were “lords of Asia” for 520 years, when their empire was partially broken up by a revolt of the subject- nations (i, 95). After a period of anarchy, the length of which he does not estimate, the Median kingdom was formed, 179 years before the death of Cyrus, or B.C. 708. He would thus, it appears, have assigned to the foundation of the Assyrian empire a date not very greatly anterior to B.C. 1228. Berosus, who made the empire last 526 years to the reign of Pul (ap. Euseb. Chronicles Arm. i, 4), must have agreed nearly with this view-at least he would certainly have placed the rise of the kingdom within the 13th century. This is, perhaps, the utmost that can be determined with any approach to certainty. If, for convenience’ sake, a more exact date be desired, the conjecture of Dr. Brandis has some claim to be adopted, which fixes the year B.C. 1273 as that from which the 526 years of Berosus are to be reckoned (Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 17).

(3.) Early Kings, from the foundation of the Kingdom to Pul. The long list of Assyrian kings which has come down to us in two or three forms, only slightly varied (Clinton, F. H. i, 267), and which is almost certainly derived from Ctesias, must of necessity be discarded, together with his date for the kingdom. It covers a space of above 1200 years, and bears marks besides of audacious fraud, being composed of names snatched from all quarters, Arian, Semitic, and Greek-names of gods, names of towns, names of rivers-and in its estimate of time presenting the impossible average of 34 or 35 years to a reign, and the very improbable phenomenon of reigns in half the instances amounting exactly to a decimal number. Unfortunately, we have no authentic list to substitute for the forgery of Ctesias. Berosus spoke of 45 kings as reigning during his period of 526 years, and mentioned all their names (Euseb. ut sup.); but they have unluckily not been preserved to us. The work of Herodotus on Assyrian history (Herod. i, 106 and 184) has likewise entirely perished, and neither Greek nor Oriental sources are available to supply the loss, which has hitherto proved irreparable. Recently the researches in Mesopotamia have done something toward filling up this sad gap in our knowledge; but the reading of names is still so doubtful that it seems best, in the present condition of cuneiform inquiry, to treat the early period of Assyrian history in a very general way, only mentioning kings by name when, through the satisfactory identification of a cuneiform royal designation with some name known to us from sacred or profane sources, firm ground has been reached, and serious error rendered almost impossible.

The Mesopotamian researches have rendered it apparent that the original seat of government was not at Nineveh. The oldest Assyrian remains have been found at Kaleh-Sherghat, on the right bank of the Tigris, 60 miles south of the later capital; and this place the monuments show to have been the residence of the earliest kings, as well as of the Babylonian governors who previously exercised authority over the country. The ancient name of the town appears to have been identical with that of the country, viz. Asshur. It was built of brick, and has yielded but a very small number of sculptures. The kings proved to have reigned there are fourteen in number, divisible into three groups; and their reigns are thought to have covered a space of nearly 350 years, from B.C. 1273 to B.C. 930. The most remarkable monarch of the series was called Tiglath-Pileser. He appears to have been king toward the close of the twelfth century, and thus to have been contemporary with Samson, and an earlier king than the Tiglath- Pileser of Scripture. He overran the whole country between Assyria Proper and the Euphrates; swept the valley of the Euphrates from south to north, from the borders of Babylon to Mount Taurus; crossed the Euphrates, and contended in northern Syria with the Hittites; invaded Armenia and Cappadocia; and claims to have subduedforty-two countries ” from the channel of the Lower Zab (Zab Asfal) to the Upper Sea of the Setting Sun.” All this he accomplished in the first five years of his reign. At a later date he appears to have suffered defeat at the hands of the king of Babylon, who had invaded his territory and succeeded in carrying off to Babylon various idols from the Assyrian temples (Offerhaus, De ant. Assyr. imperio, Linga, 1727).

The other monarchs of the Kaleh-Sherghat series, both before and after Tiglath-Pileser, are comparatively insignificant. The later kings of the series are only known to us as the ancestors of the two great monarchs Sardanapalus the first and his son, Shalmaneser or Shalmanubar, who were among the most warlike of the Assyrian princes. Sardanapalus the first, who appears to have been the warlike Sardanapalus of the Greeks (Suidas, s.v.; comp. Hellan. Frag. p. 158), transferred the seat of government from Kaleh-Sherghat to Nimrud (probably the Scriptural Calah), where he built the first of those magnificent palaces which have recently been exhumed by English explorers. A great portion of the Assyrian sculptures now in the British Museum are derived from this edifice. A description of the building has been given by Mr. Layard (Nin. and its Remains, vol. ii, ch. 11). By an inscription repeated more than a hundred times upon its sculptures we learn that Sardanapalus carried his arms far and wide through Western Asia, warring on the one hand in Lower Babylonia and Chaldea, on the other in Syria and upon the coast of the Mediterranean. His son, Shalmaneser or Shalmanubar, the monarch who set up the Black Obelisk, now in the British Museum, to commemorate his victories, was a still greater conqueror. He appears to have overrun Cappadocia, Armenia, Azerbejan, great portions of Media Magna, the Kurdish mountains, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Phoenicia; everywhere making the kings of the countries tributary to him. If we may trust the reading of certain names, on which cuneiform scholars appear to be entirely agreed, he came in contact with various Scriptural personages, being opposed in his Syrian wars by Benhadad and Hazael, kings of Damascus, and taking tribute from Jehu, king of Israel. His son and grandson followed in his steps, but scarcely equalled his glory. The latter is thought to be identical with the Biblical Pul, Phul, or Phaloch, who is the first of the Assyrian kings of whom we have mention in Scripture. SEE PUL.

(4.) The Kings from Pul to Esarhaddon. The succession of the Assyrian kings from Pul almost to the close of the empire is rendered tolerably certain, not merely by the inscriptions, but also by the Jewish records. In the 2d book of Kings we find the names of Pul, Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, following one another in rapid succession (2Ki 15:19; 2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 17:3; 2Ki 18:13; 2Ki 19:37); and in Isaiah we have the name of ” Sargon, king of Assyria” (xx, 1), who is a contemporary of the prophet, and who must evidently, therefore, belong to the same series. The inscriptions, by showing us that Sargon was the father of Sennacherib, fix his place in the list, and give us for the monarchs of the last half of the 8th and the first half of the 7th century B.C. the (probably) complete list of TiglathPileser II, Shalmaneser II, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. For a detailed account of the actions of these kings, see each name in its place. (See Oppert, Chronologie des Assyriens et des Babylonens, Paris, 1857.)

(a.) Establishment of the Lower Dynasty. It seems to be certain that at or near the accession of Pul a great change of some kind or other occurred in Assyria. Berosus is said to have brought his grand dynasty of forty-five kings in 526 years to a close at the reign of Pul (Polyhist. ap. Euseb. 1. c.), and to have made him the first king of a new series. By the synchronism of Menahem (2Ki 15:19), the date of Pul may be determined to about B.C. 770. It was only twenty-three years later, as we find by the Canon of Ptolemy, that the Babylonians considered their independence to have commenced (B.C. 747). Herodotus probably intended to assign nearly to this same era the great commotion which (according to him) broke up the Assyrian empire into a number of fragments, out of which were formed the Median and other kingdoms. These traditions may none of them be altogether trustworthy; but their coincidence is at least remarkable, and seems to show that about the middle of the eighth century B.C. there must have been a break in the line of Assyrian kings-a revolution, foreign or domestic and a consequent weakening or dissolution of the bonds which united the conquered nations with their conquerors.

It was related by Bion and Polyhistor (Agathias, ii, 25), that the original dynasty of Assyrian kings ended with a certain Belochus or Beleus, who was succeeded by a usurper (called by them Beletaras or Balatorus), in whose family the crown continued until the destruction of Nineveh. The general character of the circumstances narrated, combined with a certain degree of resemblance in the names-for Belochus is close upon Phaloch, and Beletaras may represent the second element in TigIath-Pileser (who in the inscriptions is called Tiglath-Palatsira”)-induce a suspicion that probably the Pul or Phaloch of Scripture was really the last king of the old monarchy, and that TiglathPileser II, his successor, was the founder of what has been called the “Lower Empire.” It maybe suspected that Berosus really gave this account, and that Polyhistor, who repeated it, has been misreported by Eusebius. The synchronism between the revolution in Assyria and the era of Babylonian independence is thus brought almost to exactness, for Tiglath-Pileser is known to have been upon the throne about B.C. 740 (Clinton, Fast. Tell. i, 278), and may well have ascended it in B.C. 747.

(b.) Supposed Loss of the Empire at this Period. Many writers of repute- among them Clinton and Niebuhr-have been inclined to accept the statement of Herodotus with respect to the breaking up of the whole empire at this period. It is evident, however, both from Scripture and from the monuments, that the shock sustained through the domestic revolution has been greatly exaggerated. Niebuhr himself observes (Vortrige uber alte Geschichte, i, 38) that, after the revolution, Assyria soon “recovered herself, and displayed the most extraordinary energy.” It is plain, from Scripture, that in the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, Assyria was as great as at any former era. These kings all warred successfully in Palestine and its neighborhood; some attacked Egypt (Isa 20:4); one appears as master of Medil (2Ki 17:6); while another has authority over Babylon, Susiana, and Elymais (2Ki 17:24; Ezr 4:9). So far from our observing symptoms of weakness and curtailed dominion, it is clear that at no time were the Assyrian arms pushed farther, or their efforts more sustained and vigorous. The Assyrian annals for the period are in the most complete accordance with these representations. They exhibit to us the above- mentioned monarchs as extending their dominions farther than any of their predecessors. The empire is continually rising under .them, and reaches its culminating point in the reign of Esarhaddon. The statements of the inscriptions on these subjects are fully borne out by the indications of greatness to be traced in the architectural monuments. No palace of the old monarchy equalled, either in size or splendor, that of Sennacherib at Nineveh. No series of kings belonging to it left buildings at all to be compared with those which were erected by Sargon, his son, and his grandson. The magnificent remains at Kouyunjik and Khorsabad belong entirely to these later kings, while those at Nimrud are about equally divided between them and their predecessors. It is farther noticeable that the writers who may be presumed to have drawn from Berosus, as Polyhistor and Abydenus, particularly expatiated upon the glories of these later kings. Polyhistor said (ap. Euseb. i, 5) that Sennacherib conquered Babylon, defeated a Greek army in Cilicia, and built there Tarsus, the capital. Abydenus related the same facts, except that he substituted for the Greek army of Polyhistor a Greek fleet; and added that Esarhaddon (his Axerdis) conquered Lower Syria and Egypt (ibid. i, 9). Similarly Menander, the Tyrian historian, assigned to Shalmaneser an expedition to Cyprus (ap. Joseph. Ant. 9:14), and Herodotus himself admitted that Sennacherib invaded Egypt (ii, 141). On every ground it seems necessary to conclude that the second Assyrian kingdom was really greater and more glorious than the first; that under it the limits of the empire reached their fullest extent, and the internal prosperity was at the highest.

The statement of Herodotus is not, however, without a basis of truth. It is certain that Babylon, about the time of Tiglath-Pileser’s accession, ventured upon a revolt, which she seems afterward to have reckoned the commencement of her independence. SEE BABYLON. The knowledge of this fact may have led Herodotus into his error; for he would naturally suppose that, when Babylon became free, there was a general dissolution of the empire. It has been shown that this is far from the truth; and it may farther be observed that, even as regards Babylon, the Assyrian loss was not permanent. Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon all exercised full authority over that country, which appears to have been still an Assyrian fief at the close of the kingdom.

(5.) Successors of Esarhaddon. By the end of the reign of Esarhaddon the triumph of the Assyrian arms had been so complete that scarcely an enemy was left who could cause her serious anxiety. The kingdoms of Hamath, of Damascus, and of Samaria had been successively absorbed; Phoenicia had been conquered; Judsea had been made a feudatory; Philistia and Idumaea had been subjected, Egypt chastised, Babylon recovered, cities planted in Media. Unless in Armenia and Susiana there was no foe left to reduce, and the consequence appears to have been that a time of profound peace succeeded to the long and bloody wars of Sargon and his immediate successors. In Scripture it is remarkable-that we hear nothing of Assyria after the reign of Esarhaddon, and profane history is equally silent until the attacks begin which brought about her downfall. The monuments show that the son of Esarhaddon, who was called Sardanapalus by Abydenus (ap. Euseb. i, 9), made scarcely any military expeditions, but occupied almost his whole time in the enjoyment of the pleasures of the chase. ‘Instead of adorning his residence-as his predecessors had been accustomed to do–with a record and representation of his conquests, Sardanapalus II covered the walls of his palace at Nineveh with sculptures exhibiting his skill and prowess as a hunter. No doubt the military spirit rapidly decayed under such a ruler; and the advent of fresh enemies, synchronizing with this decline, produced the ruin of a power which had for six centuries been dominant in Western Asia.

(6.) Fall of Assyria. The fate of Assyria, long previously prophesied by Isaiah (Isa 10:5-19), was effected (humanly speaking) by the growing strength and boldness of the Medes. If we may trust Herodotus, the first Median attack on Nineveh took place about the year B.C. 633. By what circumstances this people, who had so long been engaged in contests with the Assyrians, and had hitherto shown themselves so utterly unable to resist them, became suddenly strong enough to assume an aggressive attitude, and to force the Ninevites to submit to a siege, can only be conjectured. Whether mere natural increase, or whether fresh immigrations from the east had raised the Median nation at this time so far above its former condition, it is impossible to determine. We can only say that soon after the middle of the seventh century they began to press upon the Assyrians, and that, gradually increasing in strength, they proceeded, about the year B.C. 633, to attempt the conquest of the country. For some time their efforts were unsuccessful; but after a while, having won over the Babylonians to their side, they became superior to the Assyrians in the field, and about B.C. 625, or a little earlier, laid final siege to the capital. SEE MEDIA. Saracus, the last king-probably the grandson of Esarhaddon- made a stout and prolonged defence, but at length, finding resistance vain, he collected his wives and his treasures in his palace, and with his own hand setting fire to the building, perished in the flames. This account is given in brief by Abydenus, who probably follows Berosus; and its outline so far agrees with Ctesias (ap. Diod. ii, 27) as to give an important value to that writer’s details of the siege. SEE NINEVEH. In the general fact that Assyria was overcome, and Nineveh captured and destroyed by a combined attack of Medes and Babylonians, Josephus (Ant. 10:5) and the book of Tobit (xiv, 15) are agreed. Polyhistor also implies it (ap. Euseb. i, 5); and these authorities must be regarded. as outweighing the silence of Herodotus, who mentions only the Medes in connection with the capture

(i, 106), and says nothing of the Babylonians.

(7.) Fulfilment of Prophecy.-The prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah (Zep 2:13-15) against Assyria were probably delivered shortly before the catastrophe. The date of Nahum is very doubtful, but it is not unlikely that he wrote about B.C. 718, or at the close of the reign of Hosea. Zephaniah is even later, since he prophesied under Josiah, who reigned from B.C. 639 to 609. If B.C. 625 be the date of the destruction of Nineveh, we may place Zephaniah’s prophecy about B.C. 635. Ezekiel, writing in B.C. 588, bears witness historically to the complete destruction which had come upon the Assyrians, using the example as a warning to Pharaoh-Hophra and the Egyptians (ch. 31).

It was declared by Nahum (q.v.) emphatically, at the close of his prophecy, that there should be “no healing of Assyria’s bruise” (Nah 3:19). In accordance with this announcement we find that Assyria never rose again to any importance, nor even succeeded in maintaining a distinct nationality. Once only was revolt attempted, and then in conjunction with Armenia and Media, the latter heading the rebellion. This attempt took place about a century after the Median conquest, during the troubles which followed upon the accession of Darius Hystaspis. It failed signally, and appears never to have been repeated, the Assyrians remaining thenceforth submissive subjects of the Persian empire. They were reckoned in the same satrapy with Babylon (Herod. iii, 92; comp. i, 192), and paid an annual tribute of a thousand talents of silver. In the Persian armies, which were drawn in great part from the subject-nations, they appear never to have been held of much account, though they fought, in common with the other levies, at Thermopyle, at Cunaxa, at Issus, and at Arbela.

(8.) General Character of the Empire. In the first place, like all the early monarchies which attained to any great extent, the Assyrian empire was composed of a number of separate kingdoms. In the East, conquest has scarcely ever been followed by amalgamation, and in the primitive empires there was not even any attempt at that governmental centralization which we find at a later period in the satrapial system of Persia. As Solomon ” reigned over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and the border of Egypt,” so the Assyrian monarchs bore sway over a number of petty kings–the native rulers of the several countries-through the entire extent of their dominions. These native princes-the sole governors of their own kingdoms–were feudatories of the Great Monarch, of whom they held their crown by the double tenure of homage and tribute. Menahem (2Ki 15:19), Hoshea (2Ki 17:4), Ahaz (2Ki 16:8), Hezekiah (2Ki 18:14), and Manasseh (2Ch 33:11-13), were certainly in this position, as were many native kings of Babylon, both prior and subsequent to Nabonassar; and this system (if we may trust the inscriptions) was universal throughout the empire. It naturally involved the frequent recurrence of troubles. Princes circumstanced as were the Assyrian feudatories would always be looking for an occasion when they might revolt and re-establish their independence. The offer of a foreign alliance would be a bait which they could scarcely resist, and hence the continual warnings given to the Jews to beware of trusting in Egypt. Apart from this, on the occurrence of any imperial misfortune or difficulty, such, for instance, as a disastrous expedition, a formidable attack, or a sudden death, natural or violent, of the reigning monarch, there would be a strong temptation to throw off the yoke, which would lead, almost of necessity, to a rebellion. The history of the kings of Israel and Judah sufficiently illustrates the tendency in question, which required to be met by checks and remedies of the severest character. The deposition of the rebel prince, the wasting of his country, the plunder of his capital, a considerable increase in the amount of the tribute thenceforth required, were the usual consequences of an unsuccessful revolt; to which were added, upon occasion, still more stringent measures, as the wholesale execution of those chiefly concerned in the attempt, or the transplantation of the rebel nation to a distant locality. The captivity of Israel is only an instance of a practice long previously known to the Assyrians, and by them handed on to the Babylonian and Persian governments.

It is not quite certain how far Assyria required a religious conformity from the subject people. Her religion was a gross and complex polytheism, comprising the worship of thirteen principal and numerous minor divinities, at the head of the whole of whom stood the chief god, Asshur, who seems to be the deified patriarch of the nation (Gen 10:22). The inscriptions appear to state that in all countries over which the Assyrians established their supremacy, they set up “the laws of Asshur,” and “altars to the Great Gods.” It was probably in connection with this Assyrian requirement that Ahaz, on his return from Damascus, where he had made his submission to Tiglath-Pileser, incurred the guilt of idolatry (2Ki 16:10-18). The history of Hezekiah would seem, however, to show that the rule, if resisted, was not rigidly enforced; for it cannot be supposed that he would have consented to re-establish the idolatry which he had removed, yet he certainly came to terns with Sennacherib, and resumed his position of tributary (2Ki 18:14). In any case it must be understood that the worship which the conquerors introduced was not intended to supersede the religion of the conquered race, but was only required to be superadded as a mark and badge of subjection.

The political constitution of the Assyrian empire was no doubt similar to that of other ancient states of the East, such as Chaldsea and Persia. The monarch, called ” the great king” (2Ki 18:19; Isa 36:4), ruled as a despot, surrounded with his guards, and only accessible to those who were near his person (Diod. Sicul. ii, 21, 23; comp. Cephalion, in Syncell. p. 167). Under him there were provisional satraps, called in Isa 10:8, ‘princes,” of the rank and power of ordinary kings (Diod. Sic. ii, 24). The great officers of the household were commonly eunuchs (comp. Gesenius on Isa 36:2). The religion of the Assyrians was, in its leading features, the same as that of the Chaldaeans, viz. the symbolical worship of the heavenly bodies, especially the planets. In Scripture there is mention’of Nisroch (Isa 37:38), Adrammelech, Anammelech, Nibhaz, Tartak (2Ki 17:31), as the names of idols worshipped by the natives either of Assyria Proper or of the adjacent countries which they had subdued, besides planets (see Gesenius, Zu .Jesaias, ii, 347). The language did not belong to the Semitic, but to the MedoPersian family. As Aramaic, however, was spoken by a large part of the Western population, it was probably understood by the great officers of state, which accounts for Rabshakeh addressing Hezekiah’s messengers in Hebrew (2Ki 18:26), although the rabbins explain the circumstance by supposing that he was an apostate Jew (but see Strabo 16:745).

(9.) Its Extent. With regard to the extent of the Assyrian empire very exaggerated views have been entertained by many writers. Ctesias took Semiramis to India, and made the empire of Assyria at least coextensive with that of Persia in his own day. This false notion has long been exploded, but even Niebuhr appears to have believed in the extension of Assyrian influence over Asia Minor, in the expedition of Memnon whom he considered an Assyrian-to Troy, and in the derivation of the Lydian Heraclids from the first dynasty of Ninevite monarchs (Alte Geschicht. i, 28-9). The information derived from the native monuments tends to contract the empire within more reasonable bounds, and to give it only the expansion which is indicated for it in Scripture. On the west, the Mediterranean and the river Halys appear to have been the extreme boundaries, but the dominion beyond the confines of Syria and Asia Minor was not of a strict character; on the north, a fluctuating line, never reaching the Euxine, nor extending beyond the northern frontier of Armenia; on the east, the Caspian Sea and the Great Salt Desert; on the south, the Persian Gulf and the Desert of Arabia. The countries included within these utmost limits are the following: Susiana, Chaldaea, Babylonia, Media, Matiene, Armenia, Assyria Proper, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Idumaea. Cyprus was also for a while a dependency of the Assyrian kings, and they may perhaps have held at one time certain portions of Lower Egypt. Lydia, however, Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pontus, Iberia, on the west and north, Bactria, Sacia, Parthia, India-even Carmania and Persia Proper-upon the east, were altogether beyond the limit of the Assyrian sway, and appear at no time even to have been overrun by the Assyrian armies.

(10.) Civilization of the Assyrians. This, as has been already observed, was derived originally from the Babylonians. They were a Semitic race, originally resident in Babylonia (which at that time was Cushite), and thus acquainted with the Babylonian inventions and discoveries, who ascended the valley of the Tigris and established in the tract immediately below the Armenian mountains a separate and distinct nationality. Their modes of writing and building, the form and size of their bricks, their architectural ornamentation, their religion and worship, in a great measure, were drawn from Babylon, which they always regarded as a sacred land the original seat of their nation, and the true home of all their gods, with the one exception of Asshur. Still, as their civilization developed, it became in many respects peculiar. Their art is of home growth. The alabaster quarries in their neighborhood supplied them with a material unknown to their southern neighbors, on which they could represent, far better than upon enamelled bricks, the scenes which interested them. Their artists, faithful and laborious, acquired a considerable power of rendering the human and animal forms, and made vivid and striking representations of the principal occupations of human life. If they do not greatly affect the ideal, and do not, in this branch, attain to any very exalted rank, yet even here their emblematic figures of the gods have a dignity and grandeur which is worthy of remark, and which implies the possession of some elevated feelings. But their chief glory is in the representation of the actual. Their pictures of war, and of the chase, and even sometimes of the more peaceful incidents of human life, have a fidelity, a spirit, a boldness, and an appearance of life, which place them high among realistic schools. Their art, it should be also notcd, is progressive. Unlike that of the Egyptians, which continues comparatively stationary from the earliest to the latest times, it plainly advances, becoming continually more natural and less uncouth, more life-like and less stiff, more varied and less conventional. The latest sculptures, which are those in the hunting-palace of the son of Esarhaddon, are decidedly the best. Here the animal forms approach perfection, and in the striking attitudes, the new groupings, and the more careful and exact drawing of the whole, we see the beginnings of a taste and a power which might have expanded under favorable circumstances into the finished excellence of the Greeks. The advanced condition of the Assyrians in various other respects is abundantly evidenced alike by the representations on the sculptures and by the remains discovered among their buildings. They are found to have understood and applied the arch; to have made tunnels, aqueducts, and drains; to have used the lever and the roller; to have engraved gems; to have understood the arts of inlaying, enamelling, and overlaying with metals; to have manufactured glass, and been acquainted with the lens; to have possessed vases, jars, bronze and ivory ornaments, dishes, bells, ear-rings, mostly of good workmanship and elegant forms in a word, to have attained to a very high pitch of material comfort and prosperity. They were still, however, in the most important points barbarians. Their government was rude and inartificial; their religion coarse and sensual; their conduct of war’ cruel; even their art materialistic and so debasing; they had served their purpose when they had prepared the East for centralized government, and been God’s scourge to punish the people of Israel (Isa 10:5-6); they were, therefore, swept away to allow the rise of that Arian race which, with less appreciation of art, was to introduce into Western Asia a more spiritual form of religion, a better treatment of captives, and a superior government.

A fuller account of the customs and antiquities of Assyria than has heretofore been possible may be found in the recent works of Rich, Botta, and Layard; see also Manners, Customs, Arts, and Arms of Assyria, restored from the Monuments, by P. H. Gosse (Lond. 1852); Fresnel, Thomas, and Oppert, Expedition en Mesopotamie (Par. 1858); Outline of the Hist. of Assyria, by Col. Rawlinson (Lond. 1852); Jour. Sac. Lit. 2d ser. 4:373 sq.; Critica Biblica, vol. i; Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis (Lond. 1851). SEE NINEVEH; SEE BABYLON. On the recent efforts to decipher the cuneiform inscriptions on the Assyrian monuments, see Rawlinson, in the Jour. As. Soc. 12, No. 2; 14, No. 1; Hincks, ib. 12, No. 1; Botta, Mim. sur l’Ecriture Ass. (Par. 1848); Lowenstein, Essai de dechiffr. de l’Ecrit. ssyr. (Par. 1850). SEE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS. For the geography, see Captain Jones’s paper, in vol. 14 of the Asiatic Society’s Journal (pt. 2); Col. Chesney’s Euphrates Expedition (Lond. 1850). SEE EDEN. For the historical views, see Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vol. i; Brandis’s Rerum Assyriarum Temporaq Emendata; Sir H. Rawlinson’s Contributions to the Asiat. Soc.-Journ. and the Alhenceum; Bosanquet’s Sacred and profane Chronology; Oppert’s Rapport a son Excellence M. le Ministre de l’Instruction; Dr. Hincks’s Contributions to the Dublin University Magazine; Vance Smith’s Exposition of the Prophecies relating to Nineveh and Assyria; and comp. Niebuhr’s Vortrage uber alte Geschichte, vol. i; Clinton’s Fasti Hell. vol. i; Niebuhr’s Geschichte Assurs’s und Babel’s; Gumpach, Abriss der Babylonish- Assyrischen Geschichte (Mannheim, 1854). SEE ASSHUR.

Assyria (ADDENDUM FROM VOLUME 11):

The recent explorations in that country, especially those of Messrs. Smith’ and Rassam, have been so intimately connected with those relating to Babylonia that some of them will be more appropriately considered under that head; but in many respects both countries can conveniently be considered together. Indeed, the two powers were nearly coextensive as to territory, the one merely being the sequel of the other. The separate history of the Assyrian empire is, in fact, but that of Nineveh, its capital, in the treatment of which, in connection with that of the several kings mentioned in Scripture, especially Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, and Sennacherib, details of special Biblical interest are given. We here gather up some additional particulars under general heads.

I. Origin. The name Assyria itself primarily denoted the small territory immediately surrounding the primitive capital, “the city of Assur” (thought: to be the Ellasar of Genesis), which was built, like the other chief cities of the country, by Turanian tribes, in whose language the word signified ” water meadow.” It stood, according to the latest Assyriologists, on the right bank of the Tigris, midway between the Greater and the Lesser’ Zab, being represented by the modern Kalah Sherghat. It appears to have remained the capital city long after the Assyrians had ‘become the’ dominant power in Western Asia, but was finally supplanted by Calah (supposed by many to be the present Nimrud), Nineveh (now Nebbi Yunus and Kuyunjik), and DurSargina (now Khorsabad), some sixty miles farther north. SEE NINEVEH. The city of Babylon itself, however, was of earlier origin, and formed the centre of a province or monarchy at times more or less prominent, until it at length rose into imperial importance on the downfall of its rival Nineveh. SEE BABYLON.

II. The Assyrian Monarchy. Under this head we present a historical abstract in the words of an acknowledged expert (Prof. Sayce, in the last ed. of the Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. n” Babylonia”), although we dissent from many of its synchronisms;

“We possess an almost continuous list of Assyrian kings; and, as from the beginning of the 9th century downwards there exists a native canon, in which each year is dated by the limmu, or archon eponymos, whose name it bears, as well as a portion of a larger canon which records the chief events of each eponymy, it is evident that our chronology of the later period of Assyrian history is at once full and trustworthy. Similar chronological lists once existed for the earlier period also, since an inscription of a king of the 14th century B.C. is dated by one of these eponymies; and the precise dates given in the inscriptions for which occurrences took place in the reigns of older monarchs cannot otherwise be accounted for. How far back an accurate chronological record extended it is impossible to say; but astronomical observations were made in Babylonia from a remote period, and the era of Cudur-nakhundi was known, as we have seen, more than 1600 years afterwards; while in Assyria not only can Sennacherib state at Bavian that Tiglath-pileser I was defeated by the Babylonians 418 years before his own invasion of that country, but the same Tiglath-pileser can fix 701 years as the exact interval between his restoration of the temple Ann and Rimmon at Kalah Sherghat and its foundation by the dependent viceroys of the city of Assur.

“This Tiglath-pileser, in spite of his subsequent defeat by the Babylonians, was one of the most eminent of the sovereigns of the first Assyriau empire. He carried his. arms far and wide, subjugating the Moschians, Comagcnians, Urumians, and other tribes of the north, the Syrians and Hittites in the west, and the Babylonians (including their capital) in the south. His empire, accordingly, stretched from the Mediterranean, on the one side, to the Caspian and the Persian Gulf, on the other; but, founded as it was on conquest, and centralized in the person of a single individual, it fell to pieces at the least touch. With the death of Tiglath-pileser, Assyria seems to have been reduced to comparative powerlessness; and when next its claims to empire are realized it is under Asur-natsir-pal, whose reign lasted from B.C. 883 to 858. The boundaries of his empire exceeded those of his predecessor; and the splendid palaces, temples, and other buildings raised by him, with their elaborate sculptures and rich painting, bear witness to a high development of wealth and art and luxury. Calah, which had been founded by Shalmaneser I some four or five centuries previously, but had. fallen into decay, became his favorite residence, and was raised to the rank of a capital. His son Shalmaneser had a long reign of thirty-five years, during which he largely extended the empire he had received from his father. Armenia and the Parthians paid him tribute; and, under the pretext of restoring the legitimate monarch, he entered Babylon and reduced the country to a state of vassalage. It is at this time that we first hear of the Chaldai, or Chaldeans carefully to be distinguished from -the Casdim, or Shemitic, ‘conquerors’ of Scripture-who formed a small but independent principality on the sea-coast. In the west Shalmaneseu succeeded in defeating, in B.C. 854, a dangerous confederacy, headed by Rimmon-Idri or Ben-Hadad of Damascus, and including Ahab of Israel and several Phoenician kings. Later on in his reign he again annihilated the forces of Hazael, Ben-Hadad’s successor, and extorted tribute from the princes of Palestine, among others from Jehu of Samaria, whose servants are depicted on the black obelisk. The last few years, however, were troubled by the rebellion of his eldest son, which well-nigh proved fatal to the old king. Assur, Arbela, and other places joined the pretender, and the revolt was with difficulty put down by Shalmaneser’s second son, Samas- Rimmon, who shortly after succeeded him. Samas-Rimmon (824-811) and Rimmon-Nirari (811-782) preserved the empire of Assyria undiminished; but their principal exploits were in Babylonia, which they wasted with fire and sword and converted into an Assyrian province.

“The first Assyrian empire came to an end in 744, when the old dynasty was overthrown by a usurper, Tiglathpileser, after a struggle of three or four years. ‘Once set tied on the throne, however, Tiglath-Pileser proceeded to restore ‘and reorganize the empire. Babylonia was first attacked; the Assyrian monarch offered sacrifices and set up his court-in its chief cities; and the multitudinous Arab tribes who encamped along the banks of the Euphrates were reduced to subjection.

“The Chaldai in the south alone held out, and to them belonged the first four kings given in Ptolemy’s canon. Indeed, it may be said that from the invasion of Tiglathpileser to the revolt of Nabopolassar Babylonia ceased to have any separate existence. It was governed by Assyrian kings, or the viceroys they appointed, and the only attempts to recover independence were made under the leadership of the Chaldaean chiefs. It becomes nothing more than an important province of Assyria.

“The second Assyrian empire differed from the first in its greater consolidation. The conquered provinces were no longer loosely attached to the central power by the payment of tribute, and ready to refuse it as soon as the Assyrian armies were out of sight; they were changed into satrapies, each with its fixed taxes and military contingent. Assyrian viceroys were nominated wherever possible, and a turbulent population was deported to some distant locality. This will explain the condition in which Babylonia found itself, as well as the special attention which was paid to the countries on the Mediterranean coast. The possession of the barbarous and half- deserted districts on the east was of little profit; the inhabitants were hardy mountaineers, difficult to subdue and without wealth , and, although, Tiglath- pileser penetrated into Sagartia, Ariaan, and Aracosia, and even to the confines of India, the expedition was little more than a display of power. The rich and civilized regions of the west, on the contrary, offered attractions which the politicians of Nineveh were keen to discover. Tiglath- pileser overthrew the ancient kingdoms of Damascus and Hamath, with its nineteen districts and, after receiving tribute from Menaham (which a false reading in the Old Test. ascribes to a non-existent Pul) in 740, placed his vassal Hoshea on the throne of Samaria in 730 in the room of Pekah. Hamath had been aided by Uzziah of Judah; and on the overthrow of the Syrian city, Judah had to become the tributary of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser seems to have met with a usurper’s fate, and to have fallen in a struggle with another claimant of the throne, Shalmaneser. The chief event of Shalmaneser’s reign (727-722) was the campaign against Samaria. The capture of that city, however, was reserved for his successor, Sargon, in 720, who succeeded in foundilng a new dynasty. Sargon’s reign of seventeen years forms an sera in later Assyrian history. At the very commencement of it he met and defeated the forces of Elam, and so prepared the way for the future conquest of that once predominant monarchy. He came into conflict also with the kingdoms of Ararat and Van in the north; and the policy of the countries beyond the Zagros was henceforth influenced by the swishes of the Assyrian court. But it was in the west that the power of Nineveh was chiefly felt. ‘Syria and Palestine were reduced to a condition of vassalage, Hamath was depopulated, and Egypt, then governed by Ethiopian princes, came first into collision, with Assyria. The battle of Raphia in 719. in which the Egyptians and their Philistine allies were defeated, was an omen of the future, and from this time onward the destinies of civilized Asia were fought out between the two great powers of the ancient world. As the one rose the other fell; and just as the climax of Assyrian glory is marked by the complete subjugation of Egypt, so the revolt of Egypt was the first signal of the decline of Assyria. The struggle between the representative states of the East led, as was natural, to the appearance of the Greek upon the time of history. Sargon claims the conquest of Cyprus as well, as Phoenicia, and his effigy, found at Idalitum, remains to this day a witness of the fact. Babylonia, however, was the point of weakness in the empire. It was too like, and yet too unlike, Assyria to be otherwise than a dangerous dependency; and its inhabitants could never forget that they had once been the dominant nation. New blood had. been infused into them by the arrival of the Chaldai, whose leader, Merodich-baladan, the son of Yacin, called Mardokempados in Ptolemy’s canon, had taken advantage of the troubles which closed the life of Tiglath-pileser to possess himself of Babylonia; and for twelve years he continued master of the country, until, in 710, Sargon drove him from the province and crowned himself king of Babylon. Merodach-baladan had foreseen the attack, and endeavored to meet it by forming alliances with Egypt and the principalities of Palestine. The confederacy, however, was broken up in a single campaign by the Assyrian monarch; Judaea was overrun and Ashdod razed to the ground. Sargon, who now styled himself king of Assyria and Babylon, of Sumir and Accad, like Tiglath-pileser before him, spent the latter part of his reign in internal reforms and extensive building. A new town called after his name was founded to the north of Nineveh (at the modern Kuyunjik), and a magnificent palace erected there. The library of Calah was restored and enlarged, in imitation of his semi-mythical namesake of Agane, whose astrological works were re-edited, while special attention was given to legislation. In the midst of these labors Sargon was murdered, and his son Senuacherib ascended the throne on the 12th of-Ab, B.C. 705. Sennacherib is a typical representative of the great warriors and builders of the second Assyrian empire, and is familiar to the readers of the Old Test. from his invasion of Judah, which the native monuments assign to the year 701. The check he received at Eltakeh, where he was met by the forces of Egypt and Ethiopia, saved the Jewish king; not, however, before his towns had been ravaged, a heavy tribute laid upon the capital, and his allies in Ascalon and Ekron severely. punished. At the commencement of this campaign, Sennacherib had reduced Tyre and Sidon, and the overthrow of these centres of commerce caused a transfer of trade to Carchemish. Babylonia had shaken off the yoke of Assyria at the death of Sargon under Merodach-baladan, who had escaped from his captivity at Nineveh, but was soon reduced to obedience again and placed under the government of the Assyrian viceroy, Belibus. In 700, however, the year after the Judaean war, Babylon rebelled once more under the indomitable Merodach-baladan and Suzub, another Chaldaean.’ Sennacherib was occupied with a naval war the first ever engaged in by the Assyrians-against a body of Chaldaeans who had taken up refuge in Susiana, and the revolt in his rear was stirred up by the Susianian king. But the insurgents were totally defeated; Assur-nadin-sum, Senuacherib’s eldest son, was appointed viceroy of the southern kingdom; and the Assyrian monarch felt himself strong enough to carry the war into the heart of Elam, wasting the country with fire and sword. A last attempt made by the Susianians and the Chaldaeans of Babylonia to oppose the power of Assyria was shattered in the hardly contested battle of Khaluli. The interregnunm, however, which marks the last eight years of Sennacherib’s rule in Ptolemy’s canon shows that Chaldaea still continued to give trouble and resist the Assyrian yoke.

“Meanwhile, Sennacherib had been constructing canals and aqueducts, embanking the Tigris, and building himself a palace at Nineveh on a grander scale than had ever been attempted before. His works were interrupted by his murder, in 681, by his two sons, who, however, soon found themselves confronted by the veteran army of Esar-haddon, their father’s younger and favorite son. Esar-haddon had been engaged in Armenia; but in January, 680, he defeated them at Khanirabbat and was proclaimed king. Soon afterwards he established his court at Babylon, where he governed in person during the whole of his reign. After settling the affairs of Chaldaea, his first campaign was directed against Syria, where Sidon was destroyed and its inhabitants removed to Assyria, an event which exercised a profound influence upon Asiatic trade. The most remarkable expedition of his reign was into the heart of Arabia to the kingdoms of Huz and Buz, 980 miles distant from Nineveh, 280 miles of the march being through arid desert. The Assyrian army accomplished a feat never since exceeded. In the north, also, it penetrated equally far, subjugating the tribes of the Caucasus, receiving the submission of Teispes the Cimmerian, and taking possession of the coppermines on the most remote frontiers of Media. All this, part of the country was now in the hands of Aryan settlers, and each small town had its independent chief, like the states of Greece. In fact, on two sides, on both north and west, the Assyrian empire was in contact with an Aryan population, and among the twenty-two kings who sent materials for Esar-haddon’s palace at Nineveh were Cyprian princes with Greek names. But the most important work of Esar-haddon’s reign was the conquest of Egypt, which left the ancient world under the rule of a single power for some twenty years, and, by fusing the nations of Western Asia together, broke down their differences, spread an equalized civilization, and first struck out the idea of universal empire. In B.C. 672 the land of the Pharaohs was invaded, Tirhakah,. the Ethiopian, driven beyond its borders, and the country divided into twenty governments. Vain efforts to shake off the Assyrian supremacy were made from time to time; but, just as Babylon had to look to the foreign Chaldai for the championship of its independence, so Egypt found its leaders in Ethiopian princes. In 669 Esar-haddon fell ill, and on the 12th day of Iyyar in the following year he associated his son, Assur-bani-pa], with him in the kingdom. On his death at Babylon in 667, Assur-bani-pal was left sole king. “One of his first acts was to appoint his brother Savul-sum-yucin (Saulnnnghes) governor of Babylonia.

“Assur-bani-pal the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the ‘grand monarque’ of ancient Assyria. The empire on his accession was at the height of its glory and magnitude; the treasures and products of the world flowed into Nineveh, and its name was feared from the frontiers of India to the shores of the AEgean. Constant wars asserted the superiority of the Assyrian troops, though they drained the empire of money and men; and the luxury which had come in like a flood was sapping the foundations of the national strength. Assur-bani-pal, in spite of his victories, his buildings, and his patronage of literature, left a diminished inheritance to his son; and the military expeditions formerly conducted by the king in person were now intrusted to his generals. His first work was to check the southward advance of the Cimmerians, who were thus driven upon Asia Minor, and to quell a revolt which had broken out in Egypt. Two campaigns were requisite to effect this, and meanwhile Gyges of Lydia had sent tribute to the formidable Assyrian monarch. War had also broken out with Elam, which ended, after a long and hard struggle, with the complete conquest of the country. It was divided into two states, each ruled by Assyrian vassals. But soon after this (in 652) the first blow was struck which eventually led to the downfall of the empire. A general insurrection then suddenly took place, headed by Assur-bani-pal’s own brother, the viceroy of Babylonia. Elam, Arabia, Egypt, and Palestine made common cause against the oppressor. Egypt alone, however, under the guidance of Psammetichus, and with the help of Gyges, succeeded in recovering her independence; the wandering tribes of Northern Arabia-:Kedar, Zobah, Nabathsea, etc. were chastised, and summary vengeance taken on Babylonia and Elam. Babylon and Cutliah were reduced by famine (649), Saunnughes was captured and burned to( death, and fire and sword were carried through Elam. After a protracted war, in which Assur-bani-pal was aided by internal dissensions, Shushan was plundered and razed, and the whole of Susiana reduced to a wilderness. This happened in 643. Assur-baui-pal’s buildings were unrivalled for size and grandeur. Assyrian culture reached its culminating point in his reign, and his palaces glittered with the precious metals and were adorned with the richest sculpture. The library which he formed at Nineveh far surpassed any that had ever existed before; literary works were collected from all sides; the study of the dead language of Accad was encouraged, grammars and dictionaries were compiled, and learned men of all nations were attracted to the court. Patron of the arts as he was, Assur- bani-pal’s character was stained by cruelty and sensuality. Under his second name of Sin-inadina-pal, he appears as king of Babylon in Ptolemny’s list; and the complete amalgamation of Assyria and Babylonia in the later years of his rule is shown by the appearance of a praefect of Babylon among the Assyrian eponyms. He was succeeded in 625 by his son Assur-ebil-ili. His death was the signal for a general revolt. Nabopolassar, the viceroy of Babylonia, made himself independent; and Assyria, shorn of its empire, was left to struggle for bare existence, until, under Saracus, its last monarch, Nineveh was taken and burned by the Babylonians and Medes.”

III. Government and Military Operations. Both the Assyrians and the Babylonians evidently were ruled by an absolute despotism lodged in the hands of a hereditary autocrat, subject to all the caprices and fluctuations of Oriental custom. Revolutions, insurrections, and arbitrary depositions were the natural and frequent consequence. Sargon was evidently a usurper of obscure parentage, and Sennacherib was removed by assassination. In these respects these nations resembled their neighbors or successors the Persians. The king was surrounded by guards and attended by a pompous retinue. His harem was filled with the captives or hostages of conquered royalty. In the kindred passion for hunting, he was a veritable successor of the famous Nimrod.

War was the great occupation of the nation, and bat. tie the favorite theme of the artist. Invasion, rapine, butchery, and enslavement or transportation were the constant policy towards other nations, until they were reduced to vassalage, and a continued system of tribute was relentlessly exacted. Defection was regarded as treason, and a revolted viceroy was flayed alive. The army was thoroughly equipped and trained, both horse (chiefly chariots) and foot; and military engines were in habitual use. Of the field manoeuvres of the troops we have little knowledge, but the siege operations are frequently depicted on the monuments; and of the courage and endurance of the soldiers in engagements we have abundant proof. See each of these topics in its alphabetical place.

IV. Civil and Mercantile Regulations. Legal transactions are frequently referred to in the records lately exhumed by Mr. Smith from the ruins of Mesopotamia, which show a high degree of advancement in social order. In the family relation, as in the East generally, the mother occupies a ruling influence, and the wife a subordinate position. Wills were made, and contracts were respected. Slaves were common, but were under legal protection. The rate of interest was limited, and debts were secured as well as titles to real estate. Money was coined, and leases executed. The trade of Assyria was chiefly with adjoining or subject provinces, and yet became quite considerable from her position as an entrepot; but the commerce of Babylon was proverbially extensive and lucrative. Both nations imported as well as exported; and the shipping upon the Tigris and Euphrates must have been enormous. SEE COMMERCE.

V. Arts and Sciences. These included both useful and ornamental branches. Architecture was highly developed; but, from the nature of the two regions, the buildings of the Babylonians were of brick and painted panels, on artificial platforms, and carried up to an imposing height with terraced stories, while those of the Assyrians were of stone (at least for facing), especially the soft. alabaster of the adjoining mountains, carved with elaborate figures, and usually of two stories only. SEE ARCHITECTURE. For similar reasons imposing tombs were common among the Assyrians, while the Babylonians chiefly buried the dead in terra-cotta caskets. SEE BURIAL. The progress of luxury is easily traced in both nations, in the effeminacy of personal ornaments, in the later period. The massive limbs of kings, soldiers, and even private persons are seen on the monuments loaded with jewelry, decked with embroidery; and the hair is always elaborately curled, even to the beard. SEE ORNAMENT. Sculpture and painting were highly cultivated; but there is a total lack of perspective in the productions of both. Intaglio was the favorite method of engraving, and bass-relief in carving. Music was pursued, as the instruments depicted on the monuments show; but under what system remains unknown. The decorative arts were proportionally well developed. Pottery was of an elegant form, and glass was known. Among the metals, gold and copper were highly wrought, but iron appears to have been scarce.

Astronomy was the chief science, and for this Babylon became famous. Observatories were erected in Ur, and the Tower of Belus probably had some such use. The stars were designated, and a calendar was adopted. with an intercalation as often as required. The year, however, was the vague or defective one. Eclipses were calculated, cycles were in use, and the night was divided into watches. The lunar changes were noted, and some traces of meteorological observations are found. Arithmetic was systematized, the unit being 60, and squares and cubes were calculated. The sundial, the clepsydra, the lever, and the pulley were known; and the minuteness of some of the cuneiform inscriptions argues the use of the lens.

VI. Language and Literature. The speech of the original inhabitants of the Mesopotamian valley is a question of great difficulty and dispute, as is, indeed, their ethnological relation. The extant records, however, are all in the cuneatic character, which, so far as the region in question is concerned, may conveniently be divided into two branches-the Assyrian and the Babylonian dialects-the latter being characterized by a preference for the softer forms and a fuller use of the vowels. Both belong to the Shemitic class of languages, and thus are strongly akin to the Hebrew and the Arabic. With the aid of the texts, grammars, and lexicons now readily accessible, scholars have no difficulty in mastering the elements of the written language of either nation, and in satisfactorily determining the meaning of the literature remaining. (Classes are regularly formed in London for instructing beginners in cuneatic philology.) Much of this has been translated into European languages, and convenient abstracts may be found in Baxter’s series of little volumes entitled Records of the Past, and in the Transactions of the (Lond.) Society of Biblical A rchceology. More elaborate works, giving the original texts, have been published by the learned Assyriologists Rawlinson, Oppert, Lenormant, Menant, Schrader, and others. See Sayce, Assyrian Grammar (Lond. 1872), p. 18 sq.

The literature of Assyria and Babylonia, so far as hitherto discovered, is almost entirely buried in the mounds of those ruined cities of that region, and consists of arrow-headed inscriptions on clay tablets, sculptured walls and figures, or engraved gems and cylinders. The late Mr. George Smith succeeded in disinterring and bringing home to England a vast store of the terracotta inscriptions, which. have added immensely to our knowledge of the literature of those lost empires. Among them we may especially mention the records of the early traditions of the nations, on the Fall and the Deluge, which so remarkably illustrate the scriptural narratives; and the remains of what that explorer regarded as the library of Sargon at Nineveh. Manuscripts on papyrus or other materials of a frail character, if they existed among these people, have utterly perished. The works thus far recovered, besides the sculptured inscriptions (which chiefly relate to regal annals), are largely religious, consisting of hymns and mythological poems. Two whole epics have been restored from pieces of different copies-one on the Deluge, and the other on the descent of Ishtar into Hades; while the fragment of a third describes the war of the seven spirits against the moon. See the recent volumes of Mr. Smith and the other works above cited. Other treatises exhumed contain fables, and a few exhibit legal documents and chronological treatises of later date and little interest. See Sayce, Babylonian Literature (Lond. 1878).

VII. Religious Beliefs. The basis of these appears to have been a polytheistic conception of daemoniacal powers residing in natural objects; and this led to superstitious practices for the purpose of appeasing the supposed spirits. Prominent among these supernatural influences was a sort of triad, consisting of Na or Anna (the sky), Ea (the earth), and Mulge (the underworld). This reveals an astronomical element, which was eventually developed into uranolatry under various new deities allied to the other Oriental forms of idolatry. Thus in Babylon especially, where the mythology was more elaborately refined, Bel as the sun-god was the principal deity; and his female counterpart (under whatever title) was associated with him in power. Subordinate deities innumerable crowd the Pantheon. From the distinction of sex thus introduced, naturally sprang a licentious worship, notices of which abound in all ancient authorities, and traces of which clearly appear in the legend of Ishtar (the Assyrian Venus) above mentioned. The whole system, at length, was characterized by the grossest features of sensuous image-worship. At the same time, the superstitious fears of the ignorant devotees were wrought upon by the sprites and goblins of the nature-deification, and sorcery and magic were the ruling arts of professional experts. SEE DIVINATION.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Assyria

the name derived from the city Asshur on the Tigris, the original capital of the country, was originally a colony from Babylonia, and was ruled by viceroys from that kingdom. It was a mountainous region lying to the north of Babylonia, extending along the Tigris as far as to the high mountain range of Armenia, the Gordiaean or Carduchian mountains. It was founded in B.C. 1700 under Bel-kap-kapu, and became an independent and a conquering power, and shook off the yoke of its Babylonian masters. It subdued the whole of Northern Asia. The Assyrians were Semites (Gen. 10:22), but in process of time non-Semite tribes mingled with the inhabitants. They were a military people, the “Romans of the East.”

Of the early history of the kingdom of Assyria little is positively known. In B.C. 1120 Tiglath-pileser I., the greatest of the Assyrian kings, “crossed the Euphrates, defeated the kings of the Hittites, captured the city of Carchemish, and advanced as far as the shores of the Mediterranean.” He may be regarded as the founder of the first Assyrian empire. After this the Assyrians gradually extended their power, subjugating the states of Northern Syria. In the reign of Ahab, king of Israel, Shalmaneser II. marched an army against the Syrian states, whose allied army he encountered and vanquished at Karkar. This led to Ahab’s casting off the yoke of Damascus and allying himself with Judah. Some years after this the Assyrian king marched an army against Hazael, king of Damascus. He besieged and took that city. He also brought under tribute Jehu, and the cities of Tyre and Sidon.

About a hundred years after this (B.C. 745) the crown was seized by a military adventurer called Pul, who assumed the name of Tiglath-pileser III. He directed his armies into Syria, which had by this time regained its independence, and took (B.C. 740) Arpad, near Aleppo, after a siege of three years, and reduced Hamath. Azariah (Uzziah) was an ally of the king of Hamath, and thus was compelled by Tiglath-pileser to do him homage and pay a yearly tribute.

In B.C. 738, in the reign of Menahem, king of Israel, Pul invaded Israel, and imposed on it a heavy tribute (2 Kings 15:19). Ahaz, the king of Judah, when engaged in a war against Israel and Syria, appealed for help to this Assyrian king by means of a present of gold and silver (2 Kings 16:8); who accordingly “marched against Damascus, defeated and put Rezin to death, and besieged the city itself.” Leaving a portion of his army to continue the siege, “he advanced through the province east of Jordan, spreading fire and sword,” and became master of Philistia, and took Samaria and Damascus. He died B.C. 727, and was succeeded by Shalmanezer IV., who ruled till B.C. 722. He also invaded Syria (2 Kings 17:5), but was deposed in favour of Sargon (q.v.) the Tartan, or commander-in-chief of the army, who took Samaria (q.v.) after a siege of three years, and so put an end to the kingdom of Israel, carrying the people away into captivity, B.C. 722 (2 Kings 17:1-6, 24; 18:7, 9). He also overran the land of Judah, and took the city of Jerusalem (Isa. 10:6, 12, 22, 24, 34). Mention is next made of Sennacherib (B.C. 705), the son and successor of Sargon (2 Kings 18:13; 19:37; Isa. 7:17, 18); and then of Esar-haddon, his son and successor, who took Manasseh, king of Judah, captive, and kept him for some time a prisoner at Babylon, which he alone of all the Assyrian kings made the seat of his government (2 Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:38).

Assur-bani-pal, the son of Esarhaddon, became king, and in Ezra 4:10 is referred to as Asnapper. From an early period Assyria had entered on a conquering career, and having absorbed Babylon, the kingdoms of Hamath, Damascus, and Samaria, it conquered Phoenicia, and made Judea feudatory, and subjected Philistia and Idumea. At length, however, its power declined. In B.C. 727 the Babylonians threw off the rule of the Assyrians, under the leadership of the powerful Chaldean prince Merodach-baladan (2 Kings 20:12), who, after twelve years, was subdued by Sargon, who now reunited the kingdom, and ruled over a vast empire. But on his death the smouldering flames of rebellion again burst forth, and the Babylonians and Medes successfully asserted their independence (B.C. 625), and Assyria fell according to the prophecies of Isaiah (10:5-19), Nahum (3:19), and Zephaniah (3:13), and the many separate kingdoms of which it was composed ceased to recognize the “great king” (2 Kings 18:19; Isa. 36:4). Ezekiel (31) attests (about B.C. 586) how completely Assyria was overthrown. It ceases to be a nation. (See NINEVEH; BABYLON)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

ASSYRIA

The land of Assyria was centred on the Tigris River in north-western Mesopotamia. Originally the land was known as Asshur, after the descendants of Asshur (son of Shem, son of Noah), who were among the early settlers in the region. Over many centuries they were joined by migrants from other regions in the neighbourhood, with the result that the race that developed was a mixture. The people were known by the name of the land, Asshur, and this name developed into Assyria. Among Assyrias chief cities was Nineveh, which later became the capital (Gen 10:11-12; Gen 10:22).

Assyria was one of the great nations of the ancient world, but it did not extend its power into Palestine till after the rise of a new dynasty about 900 BC. Assyria then set out to become the dominant power in the region, and after a series of conquests of other nations it turned its attention to Syria and Israel. On one occasion God sent his prophet Jonah to preach to the Assyrians so that they might repent and be saved from a threatened invasion (Jonah 3). God was preserving Assyria to be his means of punishing Israel (Isa 10:5).

The history of Assyria as it concerns the Bible story may be summarized according to its kings, many of whom are mentioned in the Bible. In the following summary, Israel refers to the northern part of the divided Israelite kingdom, Judah to the southern part.

Kings of Assyria

Tiglath-pileser III, also known as Pul (who reigned 745-727 BC), was the first Assyrian king to launch a major attack on Israel, but he withdrew after taking a bribe from the Israelite king, Menahem. Menahems action was really a form of submission to Assyria, and it placed Israel under Assyrian influence (2Ki 15:17-20). The prophets predicted that Assyria would soon conquer Israel completely (Hos 10:5-8; Amo 7:17). The next king of Israel, Pekah, then combined with the king of Syria, Rezin, to attack Judah. Their aim was to take control of Judah and force it into a three-part alliance that might be able to withstand Assyria. But Judahs king, Ahaz, appealed to Assyria for help, and Assyria responded by conquering Syria and much of Israel (in 732 BC; 2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 15:37; 2Ki 16:1-9; Isa 7:1-9; Isa 8:4; Isa 17:1-3).

Shalmaneser V (727-722 BC), in response to a rebellion by another Israelite king, Hoshea, overran Israel and attacked the Israelite capital, Samaria. The siege had been in progress three years when Shalmaneser died (2Ki 17:1-5).

Sargon II (722-705 BC), the new king of Assyria, wasted no time in bringing the siege to a triumphant conclusion. He crushed Samaria and took the people into captivity. This marked the end of the northern kingdom, Israel (in 722 BC; 2Ki 17:6). In the meantime the southern kingdom, Judah, because of the disastrous policies of Ahaz, had fallen under the domination of Assyria and was forced to pay it heavy taxes (Isa 7:17; Isa 8:5-8; Isaiah 20).

Sennacherib (705-681 BC) met opposition from Judah when the new Judean king, Hezekiah, refused to pay further taxes (in 701 BC; 2Ki 18:7). When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem, Hezekiah repented of his rebellion and offered to pay whatever the Assyrians demanded. Sennacherib took a large sum of money, but he deceived Hezekiah by refusing to lift the siege. Hezekiah appealed desperately to God for help, and God replied by miraculously destroying a large part of the Assyrian army. Sennacherib escaped home to Nineveh, but some time later he was assassinated (2Ki 18:13-37; 2Ki 19:1-35).

Esarhaddon (681-669 BC), son of Sennacherib, succeeded his father as king (2Ki 19:36-37). He was one the greatest kings to rule over Assyria. Soon after coming to the throne, he asserted his power over the weakened Judah (now ruled by the evil Manasseh) and over the more powerful Babylon (2Ch 33:11).

Ashurbanipal (669-627 BC) continued the work that his father had begun in expanding Assyrian power. Under him the Assyrian Empire spread to an extent it had never known before.

After Ashurbanipals death, Assyrias Empire began to crumble. Babylon was rising to power, and with the establishment of a new Babylonian dynasty in 626 BC, the Assyrians were soon driven out of Babylon. The Babylonians went from conquest to conquest, till in 612 BC they destroyed the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, as foretold by Gods prophets. Nahum, in particular, rejoiced to see a fitting divine judgment fall on such a cruel and ruthless oppressor (Nah 1:1; Nah 3:1-7; cf. Isa 10:12; Zep 2:13; see also NINEVEH). Some in Assyria made an attempt at resistance but it did not last, and within three years Assyria ceased to be a nation.

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Assyria

a-siri-a:

I.Geography

II.Early History

III.Climate and Productions

IV.Population

V.Trade and Law

VI.Art

VII.Mechanics

VIII.Furniture, Pottery and Embroidery

IX.Language, Literature and Science

X.Government and Army

XI.Religion

XII.Excavations

XIII.Chronology

XIV.History

1.Early Period

2.The Older Empire

3.The Second Empire

4.Last Period and Fall of Empire

Literature

Assyria, a Greek name formed from Asshur (, ‘ashshur; , Assour; Assyrian Assur): The primitive capital of the country.

I. Geography

The origin of the city (now Kala’at Shergat), which was built on the western bank of the Tigris between the Upper and Lower Zab, went back to pre-Sem times, and the meaning of the name was forgotten (see Gen 2:14, where the Hiddekel or Tigris is said to flow on the eastern side of Asshur). To the North of the junction of the Tigris and Upper Zab, and opposite the modern Mossul, was a shrine of the goddess Ishtar, around which grew up the town of Nina, Ninua or Nineveh (now Kouyunjik and Nebi Yunus). Another early sanctuary of Ishtar was at Urbillu, Arbailu or Arbela, East of the Upper Zab. North of Nineveh was Dur-Sargina (now Khorsabad) where Sargon built his palace (720 bc). All this district was embraced in the kingdom of Assyria which extended from Babylonia northward to the Kurdish mountains and at times included the country westward to the Euphrates and the Khabur.

II. Early History

The whole region was known to the early Babylonians as Subartu. Its possession was disputed between Semitic Amurru or AMORITES (which see) and a non-Semitic people from the North called Mitannians. The earlier high priests of Assur known to us bear Mitannian names. About 2500 bc the country was occupied by Babylonian Semites, who brought with them the religion, law, customs, script and Semitic language of Babylonia (Gen 10:11, Gen 10:12, where we should read He went forth to Asshur; see Mic 5:6). The foundation of Nineveh, Rehoboth-‘Ir (Assyrian Rebt-Ali, the suburbs of the city), Calah and Resen (Assyrian Res-eni, head of the spring) is ascribed to them. The triangle formed by the Tigris and Zab, which enclosed these cities, was in later times included within the fortifications of the great city (Gen 10:12; Jon 3:3). Assyria is always distinguished from Babylonia in the Old Testament, and not confounded with it as by Herodotus and other classical writers.

III. Climate and Productions

Assyria, speaking generally, was a limestone plateau with a temperate climate, cold and wet in winter, but warm during the summer months. On the banks of the rivers there was abundant cultivation, besides pasture-land. The apple of the North grew by the side of the palm-tree of the South. Figs, olives, pomegranates, almonds, mulberries and vines were also cultivated as well as all kinds of grain. Cotton is mentioned by Sennacherib (King, PSBA, December, 1909). The forests were tenanted by lions, and the plains by wild bulls (rimi, Hebrew re’emm), wild asses, wild goats and gazelles. Horses were imported from Cappadocia; ducks were kept, and mastiffs were employed in hunting.

IV. Population

The dominant type was Semitic, with full lips, somewhat hooked nose, high forehead, black hair and eyes, fresh complexion and abundance of beard. In character the Assyrians were cruel and ferocious in war, keen traders, stern disciplinarians, and where religion was concerned, intense and intolerant. Like the Ottoman Turks they formed a military state, at the head of which was the king, who was both leader in war and chief priest, and which offered a striking contrast to theocratic state of theBabylonians. It seems probable that every male was liable to conscription, and under the Second Empire, if not earlier, there was a large standing army, part of which consisted of mercenaries and recruits from the subject races. One result of this was the necessity for constant war in order to occupy the soldiery and satisfy their demands with captured booty; and the result, as in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, was military revolution, with the seizure of the throne by the successful general. As might be expected, education was confined to the upper classes, more especially to the priests and scribes.

V. Trade and Law

As far back as the age of Abraham, when Assyria was still a dependency of Babylonia, trade was carried on with Cappadocia and an Assyrian colony of merchants settled at Kara Eyuk near Kaisariyeh. Down the Euphrates came the silver, copper and bronze of Asia Minor, together with horses. Cedar wood was brought from Mount Amanus, and there was already trade, through Syria, with the Mediterranean. Nineveh itself was probably founded in the interests of the trade with the North. In later days commercial reasons had much to do with the efforts of the Assyrian kings to conquer eastern Asia Minor and the Mediterranean coast of Syria and Pal: under the Second Empire no pains were spared to obtain possession of the Phoenician cities and divert their commerce into Assyrian hands. Hence the importance of the capture of the Hittite stronghold, Carchemish, by Sargon in 717 bc, as it commanded the road to Syria and the passage across the Euphrates. Nineveh had at that time already become a great resort of merchants, among whom the Semitic Arameans were the most numerous. Aramaic, accordingly, became the language of trade, and then of diplomacy (compare 2Ki 18:26), and commercial documents written in cuneiform were provided with Aramaic dockets. As in Babylonia, land and houses were leased knd sold, money was lent at interest, and the leading firms employed numerous damgari or commercial agents.

Assyrian law was, in general, derived from Babylonia and much of it was connected with trade. The code of Khammu-rabi (Code of Hammurabi) or AMRAPHEL (which see) underlay it, and the same system of judicial procedure, with pleading before judges, the hearing of witnesses, and an appeal to the king, prevailed in both countries.

VI. Art

Unlike Babylonia, Assyria abounded in stone; the brick buildings of Babylonia, accordingly, were replaced by stone, and the painted or tiled walls by sculptured slabs. In the bas-reliefs discovered at Nineveh three periods of artistic progress may be traced. Under Assur-nazir-pal the sculpture is bold and vigorous, but the work is immature and the perspective faulty. From the beginning of the Second Empire to the reign of Esar-haddon the bas-reliefs often remind us of embroidery in stone. Attempts are made to imitate the rich detail and delicate finish of the ivory carvings; the background is filled in with a profusion of subjects, and there is a marked realism in the delineation of them. The third period is that of Assur-bani-pal, when the overcrowding is avoided by once more leaving the background bare, while the animal and vegetable forms are distinguished by a certain softness, if not effeminacy of tone. Sculpture in the round, however, lagged far behind that in relief, and the statuary of Assyria is very inferior to that of Babylonia. It is only the human-headed bulls and winged lions that can be called successful: they were set on either side of a gate to prevent the entrance of evil spirits, and their majestic proportions were calculated to strike the observer with awe (compare the description of the four cherubim in Ezek 1).

In bronze work the Assyrians excelled, much of the work being cast. But in general it was hammered, and the scenes hammered in relief on the bronze gates discovered by Mr. Rassam at Balawt near Nineveh are among the best examples of ancient oriental metallurgy at present known. Gold and silver were also worked into artistic forms; iron was reserved for more utilitarian purposes. The beautiful ivory carvings found at Nineveh were probably the work of foreign artificers, but gems and seal cylinders were engraved by native artists in imitation of those of Babylonia, and the Babylonian art of painting and glazing tiles was also practiced. The terra-cotta figures which can be assigned to the Assyrian period are poor. Glass was also manufactured.

VII. Mechanics

The Assyrians were skilled in the transport of large blocks of stone, whether sculptured or otherwise. They understood the use of the lever, the pulley and the roller, and they had invented various engines of war for demolishing or undermining the walls of a city or for protecting the assailants. A crystal lens, turned on the lathe, has been found at Kouyunjik: it must have been useful to the scribes, the cuneiform characters inscribed on the tablets being frequently very minute. Water was raised from the river by means of a shaduf.

VIII. Furniture, Pottery and Embroidery

The furniture even of the palace was scanty, consisting mainly of couches, chairs, stools, tables, rugs and curtains. The chairs and couches were frequently of an artistic shape, and were provided with feet in the form of the legs of an ox. All kinds of vases, bowls and dishes were made of earthenware, but they were rarely decorated. Clothes, curtains and rugs, on the other hand, were richly dyed and embroidered, and were manufactured from wool and flax, and (in the age of the Second Empire) from cotton. The rug, of which the Persian rug is the modern representative, was a Babylonian invention.

IX. Language, Literature and Science

The Assyrian language was Semitic, and differed only dialectically from Semitic Babylonian. In course of time, however, differences grew up between the spoken language and the language of literature, which had incorporated many Summerian words, and retained grammatical terminations that the vernacular had lost, though these differences were never very great. Assyrian literature, moreover, was mainly derived from Babylonia. Assur-bani-pal employed agents to ransack the libraries of Babylonia and send their contents to Nineveh, where his library was filled with scribes who busied themselves in copying and editing ancient texts. Commentaries were often written upon these, and grammars, vocabularies and interlinear translations were compiled to enable the student to understand the extinct Sumerian, which had long been the Latin of Semitic Babylonia. The writing material was clay, upon which the cuneiform characters were impressed with a stylus while it was still moist: the tablet was afterward baked in the sun or (in Assyria) in a kiln. The contents of the library of Nineveh were very various; religion, mythology, law, history, geography, zoology, philology, mathematics, astronomy, astrology and the pseudo-science of omens were all represented in it, as well as poetry and legendary romance. See NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.

X. Government and Army

Assyria was a military kingdom which, like the Northern Kingdom of Israel, had established itself by a successful revolt from Babylonia. In contradistinction to Babylonia, which was a theocratic state, the king being subordinate to the priest, the Assyrian king was supreme. Whereas in Babylonia the temple was the chief public building, in Assyria the royal palace dominated everything, the temple being merely a royal chapel attached to the palace. The king, in fact, was the commander of an army, and this army was the Assyrian people. How far the whole male population was liable to conscription is still uncertain; but the fact that the wars of Assur-bani-pal so exhausted the fighting strength of the nation as to render it unable to resist the invaders from the North shows that the majority of the males must have been soldiers. Hence the constant wars partly to occupy the army and prevent revolts, partly for the sake of booty with which to pay it. Hence too, the military revolutions, which, as in the kingdom of Israel, resulted in changes of dynasty and the seizure of the throne by successful generals. The turtannu or commander-in-chief, who took the place of the king when the latter was unable or unwilling to lead his forces, ranked next to the sovereign. From the reign of Tiglath-pileser IV onward, however, the autocracy was tempered by a centralized bureaucracy, and in the provinces a civil governor was appointed by the side of the military commander. Among the high officials at court were the rab-saki or vizier, and the rab-sa-risi or controller, the rabhsars (RAB-SARIS (which see)) of the Old Testament.

The army consisted of cavalry, infantry, bowmen and slingers, as well as of a corps of charioteers. After the rise of the Second Empire the cavalry were increased at the expense of the chariotry, and were provided with saddles and boots, while the unarmed groom who had run by the side of the horse became a mounted archer. Sennacherib further clothed the horseman in a coat of mail. The infantry were about ten times as numerous as the calvary, and under Sargon were divided into bowmen and spearmen, the bowmen again being subdivided into heavy-armed and light-armed, the latter being apparently of foreign origin. Sennacherib introduced a corps of slingers, clad in helmet and cuirass, leather drawers and boots. He also deprived the heavy-armed bowmen of the long robes they used to wear, and established a body of pioneers with double-headed axes, helmets and buskins. Shields were also worn by all classes of soldiers, and the army carried with it standards, tents, battering-rams and baggage-carts. The royal sleeping-tent was accompanied by tents for cooking and dining. No pains, in fact, were spared to make the army both in equipment and discipline an irresistible engine of war. The terror it excited in western Asia is therefore easily intelligible (Isa 10:5-14; Nah 2:11-13; Nah 3:1-4).

XI. Religion

The state religion of Assyria was derived from BABYLONIA (which see) and in its main outlines is Babylonian. But it differed from the religion of Babylonia in two important respects: (1) The king, and not the high priest, was supreme, and (2) at the head of it was the national god Asur or Assur, whose high priest and representative was the king. Asur was originally Asir, the leader in war, who is accordingly depicted as a warrior-god armed with a bow and who in the age when solar worship became general in Babylonia was identified with the sun-god. But the similarity of the name caused him to be also identified with the city of Asur, where he was worshipped, at a time when the cities of northern Babylonia came to be deified, probably under Hittite influence. Later still, the scribes explained his name as a corruption of that of the primeval cosmogonic deity An-sar, the upper firmament, which in the neo-Babylonian age was pronounced Assor. The combination of the attributes of the warrior-god, who was the peculiar god of the commander of the army, with the deified city to which the army belonged, caused Assur to become the national deity of a military nation in a way of which no Babylonian divinity was capable. The army were the troops of Assur, the enemies were the enemies of Assur who required that they should acknowledge his supremacy or be destroyed. Assur was not only supreme over the other gods, he was also, in fact, unlike them, without father or wife. Originally, it is true, his feminine counterpart, Asirtu, the ASHERAH (which see) of the Old Testament, had stood at his side, and later literary pedants endeavored to find a wife for him in Belit, the Lady, or Ishtar, or some other Babylonian goddess, but the attempts remained purely literary. When Nineveh took the place of Assur as the capital of the kingdom, Ishtar, around whose sanctuary Nineveh had grown up, began to share with him some of the honor of worship, though her position continued to be secondary to the end. This was also the case with the war-god Nin-ip, called Mas in Assyria, whose cult was specially patronized by the Assyrian kings. See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF.

XII. Excavations

Rich, who had first visited Mossul in 1811, examined the mounds opposite in 1820 and concluded that they represented the site of Nineveh. The few antiquities he discovered were contained in a single case in the British Museum, but the results of his researches were not published until 1836. In 1843-45 the Frenchman Botta disinterred the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, 15 miles North of Nineveh, while at Nimrud (Calah) and Kouyunjik (Nineveh) Layard (1845-51) brought to light the ruins of the great Assyrian palaces and the library of Assur-bani-pal. His work was continued by Rassam (1851-54). Nothing more was done until 1873-75 when George Smith resumed excavations on the site of Assur-bani-pal’s library; this was followed in 1877-79 by the excavations of Rassam, who discovered among other things the bronze gates of Balawt. At present a German expedition under Andrae is working at Kala’at Shergat (Assur) where the English excavators had already found the cylinder-inscription of Tiglath-pileser I (see SHERGHAT).

XIII. Chronology

The Assyrians reckoned time by means of limmi, certain officials appointed every New Year’s day, after whom their year of office was named. The lists of limmi or Eponyms which have come down to us form the basis of Assyrian chronology. Portions of a synchronous history of Assyria and Babylonia have also been discovered, as well as fragments of two Babylonian Chronicles written from a Babylonian point of view. The Eponym lists carry back an exact dating of time to the beginning of the 10th century bc. Before that period Sennacherib states that Tiglath-pileser I reigned 418 years before himself. Tiglath-pileser, moreover, tells us that Samas-Ramman son of Isme-Dagon had built a temple at Assur 641 years earlier, while Shalmaneser I places Samas-Ramman 580 years before his own reign and Erisu 159 years before Samas-Ramman, though Esar-haddon gives the dates differently. Apart from the native documents, the only trustworthy sources for the chronology (as for the history) of Assyria are the Old Testament records. In return the Eponym lists have enabled us to correct the chronology of the BOOKS OF KINGS (which see).

XIV. History

1. Early Period

Assyrian history begins with the high priests (patesis) of Assur. The earliest known to us are Auspia and Kikia, who bear Mitannian names. The early Semitic rulers, however, were subject to Babylonia, and under KHammurabi (AMRAPHEL) Assyria was still a Babylonian province. According to Esar-haddon the kingdom was founded by Bel-bani son of Adasi, who first made himself independent; Hadad-nirari, however, ascribes its foundation to Zulili. Assyrian merchants and soldiers had already made their way as far as Cappadocia, from whence copper and silver were brought to Assyria, and an Assyrian colony was established at Kara Eyuk near Kaisariyeh, where the Assyrian mode of reckoning time by means of limmi was in use. In the age of Tell el-Amarna Letters (1400 bc) Assur-uballid was king of Assyria. He corresponded with the Egyptian Pharaoh and married his daughter to the Bah king, thereby providing for himself a pretext for interfering in the affairs of Babylonia. The result was that his son-in-law was murdered, and Assur-uballid sent troops to Babylonia who put the murderers to death and placed the grandson of the Assyrian king on the Babylonian throne. Babylonia had fallen into decay and been forced to protect herself from the rising power of Assyria by forming an alliance with Mitanni (Mesopotamia) and Egypt, and subsequently, when Mitanni had been absorbed by the Hittites, by practically becoming dependent on the Hittite king. Shalmaneser I (1300 bc), accordingly, devoted himself to crippling the Hittite power and cutting it off from communication with Babylonia. Campaign after campaign was undertaken against the Syrian and more eastern provinces of the Hittite empire, Malatiyeh was destroyed, and Carehemish threatened. Shalmaneser’s son and successor Tukulti-Mas entered into the fruits of his father’s labors. The Hittites had been rendered powerless by an invasion of the northern barbarians, and the Assyrian king was thus left free to crush Babylonia. Babylon was taken by storm, and for seven years Tukulti-Mas was master of all the lands watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. The image of Merodach was carried to Assur as a sign that the scepter had passed from Babylon to the parvenu Assyria. A successful revolt, however, finally drove the Assyrian conqueror back to his own country, and when he was murdered soon afterward by his own son, the Babylonians saw in the deed a punishment inflicted by the god of Babylon.

2. The Older Empire

A few years later the Assyrian king Bel-kudur-uzur lost his life in battle against the Babylonians, and a new dynasty appears to have mounted the Assyrian throne. About 1120 bc the Assyrian king was Tiglath-pileser I, whose successful wars extended the Assyrian empire as far westward as Cappadocia. In one of his campaigns he made his way to the Mediterranean, and received presents from the king of Egypt, which included a crocodile. At Assur he planted a botanical garden stocked with trees from the conquered provinces. After his death the Assyrian power declined; Pitru (Pethor, Num 22:5) fell into the hands of the Arameans and the road to the Mediterranean was blocked. A revival came under Assur-nazir-pal III (884-860 bc) who rebuilt CALAH (which see) and established the seat of the government at Nineveh, where he erected a palace. Various campaigns were carried on in the direction of Armenia and Comagene, the brutalities executed upon the enemy being described in detail by their conqueror. He then turned westward, and after receiving homage from the Hittite king of Carchemish, laid the Phoenicians under tribute. The road to the West was thus again secured for the merchants of Assyria. Assur-nazir-pal was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser II (859-825 bc), who, instead of contenting himself, like his father, with mere raids for the sake of booty, endeavored to organize and administer the countries which his armies had subdued. The famous bronze gates of Balawt were erected by him in commemoration of his victories. In his reign the Israelites and Syrians of Damascus first came into direct relation with the Assyrians. In 854 bc he attacked Hamath and at Qarqar defeated an army which included 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry and 20,000 infantry from Ben-hadad of Damascus, 2,000 chariots, and 10,000 infantry from. Ahab of Israel, besides considerable contingents from Ammon, Arvad, Arabia and elsewhere. In 842 bc Shalmaneser penetrated to Damascus where Hazael, the successor of Ben-hadad, who had already been defeated in the open field, was closely besieged. The surrounding country was ravaged, and Jehu son of Omri hastened to offer tribute to the conqueror. The scene is represented on the Black Obelisk found at Nimrud and now in the British Museum. Shalmaneser’s campaigns were not confined to the West. He overran Armenia, where the kingdom of Van had just been established, made his way to Tarsus in Cilicia, took possession of the mines of silver, salt and alabaster in the Taurus mountains among the Tabal or Tubal, and obliged the Babylonian king to acknowledge his supremacy. In his later days, when too old to take the field himself, his armies were led by the turtannu or commander-in-chief, and a rebellion, headed by his son Assur-danin-pal (Sardanapalus) broke out at home, where Nineveh and Assur were jealous of the preference shown for Calah. Nineveh, however, was captured and the revolt suppressed after two years’ duration by another son, Samas-Ramman IV, who shortly afterward, on his father’s death, succeeded to the throne (824-812 bc). His chief campaigns were directed against Media. His son Hadad-nirari III (811-783 bc) was the next king, whose mother was Sammu-ramat (Semiramis). He claims to have reduced to subjection the whole of Syria, including Phoenicia, Edom and Philistia, and to have taken Mari’a, king of Damascus, prisoner in his capital city. After this, however, Assyria once more fell into a state of decay, from which it was delivered by the successful revolt of a military officer Pulu (Pul), who put an end to the old line of kings and took the name of Tiglath-pileser IV (745-727 bc).

3. The Second Empire

Tiglath-pileser founded the second Assyrian empire, and made Assyria the dominant power in western Asia. The army was reorganized and made irresistible, and a new administrative system was introduced, the empire being centralized at Nineveh and governed by a bureaucracy at the head of which was the king. Tiglath-pileser’s policy was twofold: to weld western Asia into a single empire, held together by military force and fiscal laws, and to secure the trade of the world for the merchants of Nineveh. These objects were steadily kept in view throughout the reigns of Tiglath-pileser and his successors. For the history of his reign, see TIGLATH-PILESER. In 738 bc Tiglath-pileser put an end to the independent existence of the kingdom of Hamath, Menahem of Samaria becoming his tributary, and in 733 bc he commenced a campaign against Rezin of Damascus which ended in the fall of Damascus, the city being placed under an Assyrian governor. At the same time the land of Naphtali was annexed to Assyria, and Yahu-khazi (Ahaz) of Judah became an Assyrian vassal, while in 731 bc, after the murder of Pekah, Hoshea was appointed king of Israel (compare 2 Ki 15 through 17). In 728 bc Tiglath-pileser was solemnly crowned at Babylon and the following year he died. His successor was another military adventurer, Shalmaneser IV (727-722 bc), whose original name was Ulula. While engaged in the siege of Samaria Shalmaneser died or was murdered, and the throne was seized by another general who took the name of Sargon (722-705 bc). Sargon, for whose history see SARGON, captured Samaria in 722 bc, carrying 27,290 of its inhabitants into captivity. A large part of his reign was spent in combating a great confederation of the northern nations (Armenia, Mann, etc.) against Assyria. Carchemish, the Hittite capital, was captured in 717 bc, a revolt of the states in southern Palestine was suppressed in 711 bc and Merodach-Baladan, the Chaldean, who had possessed himself of Babylonia in 722 bc, was driven back to the marshlands at the head of the Persian Gulf. In 705 bc Sargon was murdered, and succeeded by his son SENNACHERIB (which see). Sennacherib (705-681 bc) had neither the military skill nor the administrative abilities of his father. His campaign against Hezekiah of Judah in 701 bc was a failure; so, also, was his policy in Babylonia which was in a constant state of revolt against his rule, and which ended in his razing the sacred city of Babylon to the ground in 689 bc. Nine years previously his troops had been called upon to suppress a revolt in Cilicia, where a battle was fought with the Greeks.

4. Last Period and Fall of the Empire

His son Esar-haddon, who succeeded him (681-669 bc) after his murder by two other sons on the 20th Tebet (compare 2Ki 19:37), was as distinguished a general and administrator as his father had been the reverse. For his history see ESARHADDON. Under him the Second Empire reached the acme of its power and prosperity. Babylon was rebuilt and made the second capital of the empire, Palestine became an obedient province, and Egypt was conquered (674 and 671 bc), while an invasion of the Cimmerians (Gomer) was repelled, and campaigns were made into the heart of both Media and Arabia. Esar-haddon died while on his way to repress a revolt in Egypt, and his son Assur-bani-pal succeeded him in the empire (669-626 bc), while another son Samas-sum-ukn was appointed viceroy of Babylonia. Assur-bani-pal was a munificent patron of learning, and the library of Nineveh owed most of its treasures to him, but extravagant luxury had now invaded the court, and the king conducted his wars through his’ generals, while he himself remained at home. The great palace at Kouyunjik (Nineveh) was built by him. Egypt demanded his first attention. Tirhakah the Ethiopian who had headed its revolt was driven back to his own country, and for a time there was peace. Then under Tandamane, Tirhakah’s successor, Egypt revolted again. This time the Assyrian punishment was merciless. Thebes – No-amon (Nah 3:8) – was destroyed, its booty carried away and two obelisks transported to Nineveh as trophies of victory. Meanwhile Tyre, which had rebelled, was forced to sue for peace, and ambassadors arrived from Gyges of Lydia asking for help against the Cimmerians. Elam still remained independent and endeavored to stir up disaffection in Babylonia. Against his will, therefore, Assur-bani-pal was obliged to interfere in the internal affairs of that country, with the result that the Elamites were finally overthrown in a battle on the Eulaeus beneath the walls of Susa, and the conquered land divided between two vassal kings. Then suddenly a revolt broke out throughout the greater part of the Assyrian empire, headed by Assur-bani-pal’s brother, the viceroy of Babylonia. For a time the issue was doubtful. Egypt recovered its independence under Psammetichus, the founder of the 26th Dynasty (660 bc) who had received help from Lydia, but Babylonia was reconquered and Babylon after a long siege was starved out, Samas-sum-ukn burning himself in the ruins of his palace. Elam remained to be dealt with, and an Assyrian army made its way to Susa, which was leveled to the ground, the shrines of its gods profaned and the bones of its ancient kings torn from their graves. Then came the turn of northern Arabia, where the rebel sheikhs were compelled to submit. But the struggle had exhausted Assyria; its exchequer was empty, and its fighting population killed. When the Cimmerians descended upon the empire shortly afterward, it was no longer in a condition to resist them. Under Assur-etil-ilani, the son and successor of Assur-bani-pal, Calah was taken and sacked, and two reigns later, Sin-sar-iskun, the last king of Assyria, fell fighting against the Scythians (606 bc). Nineveh was utterly destroyed, never again to be inhabited, and northern Babylonia passed into the hands of Nabopolassar, the viceroy of Babylon, who had joined the northern invaders. Assur, the old capital of the country, was still standing in the age of Cyrus, but it had become a small provincial town; as for Nineveh and Calah, their very sites were forgotten.

Literature

See G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies of the Eastern World, 1862-67; Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquit, II, 1884; Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, and Passing of the Empires, 3 volumes, 1894-1900; Rogers, A History of Babylonia and Assyria, 1900; Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 1898; Schrader, KAT, English translation by Whitehouse, 1885; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1902.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Assyria

Assyria. We must here distinguish between the country of Assyria, and the Assyrian empire. They are both designated in Hebrew by Asshur. The Asshurim of Gen 25:3, were, however, an Arab tribe; and in Eze 27:6, the word ashurim (in our version ‘Ashurites’) is only an abbreviated form of teashur, box-wood.

Assyria Proper

Assyria Proper was a region east of the Tigris, the capital of which was Nineveh. It derived its name from the progenitor of the aboriginal inhabitantsAsshur, the second son of Shem (Gen 10:22; 1Ch 1:17). Its limits in early times are unknown; but when its monarchs enlarged their dominions by conquest, the name of this metropolitan province was expended to the whole empire.

According to Ptolemy, Assyria was in his day bounded on the north by Armenia, the Gordian or Carduchian mountains, especially by Mount Niphates; on the west by the river Tigris and Mesopotamia; on the south by Susiana, or Chuzistan, in Persia, and by Babylonia; and on the east by a part of Media, and mounts Choathras and Zagros. It corresponded to the modern Kurdistan, or country of the Kurds (at least to its larger and western portion), with a part of the pashalik of Mosul. ‘Assyria,’ says Mr. Ainsworth (Researches in Assyria, Babylonia, and Chalda, Lond. 1838), ‘including Taurus, is distinguished into three districts: by its structure, into a district of plutonic and metamorphic rocks, a district of sedentary formations, and a district of alluvial deposits; by configuration, into a district of mountains, a district of stony or sandy plains, and a district of low watery plains: by natural productions, into a country of forests and fruit-trees, of olives, wine, corn, and pasturage, or of barren rocks; a country of mulberry, cotton, maize, tobacco, or of barren clay, sand, pebbly or rocky plains; and into a country of date-trees, rice, and pasturage, or a land of saline plants.’ The northern part is little else then a mass of mountains, which, near Julamerk, rise to a very great height, Mount Jewar being supposed to have an elevation of 15,000 feet; in the south it is more level, but the plains are often burnt up with scorching heat, while the traveler, looking northward, sees a snowy alpine ridge hanging like a cloud in mid air. On the west this country is skirted by the great river Tigris, the Hiddekel of the Hebrews (Gen 2:14; Dan 10:4), noted for the impetuosity of its current [TIGRIS].

The most remarkable feature, says Ainsworth, in the vegetation of Taurus, is the abundance of trees, shrubs, and plants in the northern, and their comparative absence in the southern district. Besides the productions above enumerated, Kurdistan yields gall-nuts, gum-arabic, mastich, manna (used as sugar), madder, castor-oil, and various kinds of grain, pulse, and fruit. Rich informs us that a great quantity of honey, of the finest quality, is produced; the bees (comp. Isa 7:18, ‘the bee in the land of Assyria’) are kept in hives of mud. The naphtha springs, on the east of the Tigris, are less productive than those in Mesopotamia, but they are much more numerous. The zoology of the mountain district includes bears (black and brown), panthers, lynxes, wolves, foxes, marmots, dormice, fallow and red deer, roebucks, antelopes, etc. and likewise goats, but not (as was once supposed) of the Angora breed. In the plains are found lions, tigers, hyenas, beavers, jerboas, wild boars, camels, etc.

Ptolemy divides Assyria into six provinces. Farthest north lay Arrapachitis, south of it was Calakine, perhaps the Chalach of 2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 18:11. Next came Adiabene, so called from the above-mentioned rivers Dhab or Diab; it was so important a district of Assyria, as sometimes to give name to the whole country [ADIABENE]. North-east of it lay Arbelitis, in which was Arbela, famous for the battle in which Alexander triumphed over Darius. South of this lay the two provinces of Apolloniatis and Sittakene. The capital of the whole country was Nineveh, the Ninos of the Greeks, the Hebrew name being supposed to denote ‘the abode of Ninos,’ the founder of the empire. Its site is believed to have been on the east bank of the Tigris, opposite the modern town of Mosul, where there is now a small town called Nebbi Yunus (i.e. the prophet Jonah) [NINEVEH]. At the town of Al Kosh, N. of Mosul, tradition places the birth and burial of the prophet Nahum, and the Jews resort thither in pilgrimage to his tomb.

The greater part of the country which formed Assyria Proper is under the nominal sway of the Turks, who compose a considerable proportion of the population of the towns and larger villages, filling nearly all public offices, and differing in nothing from other Osmanlis. But the aboriginal inhabitants of the country, and of the whole mountain-tract that here divides Turkey from Persia, are the Kurds, from whom the country is now designated Kurdistan. They are still, as of old, a barbarous and warlike race, occasionally yielding a formal allegiance, on the west, to the Turks, and, on the east, to the Persians, but never wholly subdued; indeed, some of the more powerful tribes, such as the Hakkary, have maintained an entire independence. Some of them are stationary in villages, while others roam far and wide, beyond the limits of their own country, as nomadic shepherds; but they are all, more or less, addicted to predatory habits, and are regarded with great dread by their more peaceful neighbors. They profess the faith of Islam, and are of the Sunni sect. All travelers have remarked many points of resemblance between them and the ancient Highlanders of Scotland.

The Christian population is scattered over the whole region, but is found chiefly in the north. It includes Chaldeans, who form that branch of the Nestorians that adheres to the Church of Rome, a few Jacobites, or monophysite Syrians, Armenians, etc. But the most interesting portion is the ancient church of the primitive Nestorians, a lively interest in which has lately been excited in the religious world by the publications of the American missionaries, especially by a work entitled The Nestorians, by Asahel Grant, M.D. Lond. 1841. Besides the settlements of this people in the plain of Ooroomiah to the east, and in various parts of Kurdistan, where they are in a state of vassalage, there has been for ages an independent community of Nestorians in the wildest and most inaccessible part of the country. It lies at nearly equal distances from the lakes of Van and Ooroomiah, and the Tigris, and is hemmed in on every side by tribes of ferocious Kurds; but, entrenched in their fastnesses, the Nestorians have defied the storms of revolution and desolation that have so often swept over the adjacent regions; and in their character of bold and intrepid, though rude and fierce mountaineers, have so entirely maintained their independence unto the present day, as to bear among the neighbors the proud title of Ashiret, ‘the tributeless.’ The attempts lately made by Dr. Grant and others to prove that this interesting people are the descendants of the ten ‘lost’ tribes of Israel, cannot be regarded as successful, and will not bear the test of rigid examination. Another peculiar race that is met with in this and the neighboring countries is that of the Yezidees, whom Grant and Ainsworth would likewise connect with the ten tribes; but it seems much more probable that they are an offshoot from the ancient Manichees, their alleged worship of the Evil Principle amounting to no more than a reverence which keeps them from speaking of him with disrespect. Besides the dwellers in towns, and the agricultural population, there are a vast number of wandering tribes, not only of Kurds, but of Arabs, Turkomans, and other classes of robbers, who, by keeping the settled inhabitants in constant dread of property and life, check every effort at improvement; and, in consequence of this, and the influence of bad government, many of the finest portions of the country are little better than unproductive wastes.

The Assyrian Empire

No portion of ancient history is involved in greater obscurity than that of the empire of Assyria. In attempting to arrange even the facts deducible from Scripture, a difficulty presents itself at the outset, arising from the ambiguity of the account given of the origin of the earliest Assyrian state in Gen 10:11. After describing Nimrod, son of Cush, ‘as a mighty one in the earth’ the historian adds (Gen 10:10), ‘And the beginning of his kingdom (or rather, the first theatre of his dominion) was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,’ i.e. Babylonia. Then follow the words:’Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh,’ or (as it is in the margin) ‘out of that land he (i.e. Nimrod) went out into Assyria and builded Nineveh.’ Looking at the entire context, and following the natural current of the writer’s thoughts, we shall find that the second translation yields the most congruous sense. It likewise agrees with the native tradition, that the founder of the Assyrian monarchy and the builder of Nineveh was one and the same person, viz. Ninus, from whom it derived its name, and in that case the designation of Nimrod (the Rebel) was not his proper name, but an opprobrious appellation imposed on him by his enemies. Modern local tradition likewise connects Nimrod with Assyria.

But though Nimrod’s ‘kingdom’ embraced the lands both of Shinar and Asshur, we are left in the dark as to whether Babylon or Nineveh became the permanent seat of government, and consequently, whether his empire should be designated that of Babylonia or that of Assyria. No certain traces of it, indeed, are to be found in Scripture for ages after its erection. In the days of Abraham, we hear of a king of Elam (i.e. Elymais, in the south of Persia) named Chedorlaomer, who had held in subjection for twelve years five petty princes of Palestine (Gen 14:4), and who, in consequence of their rebellion, invaded that country along with three other kings, one of whom was ‘Amraphel, king of Shinar.’ It is possible that Chedorlaomer was an Assyrian viceroy, and the others his deputies; for at a later period the Assyrian boasted, ‘Are not my princes altogether kings?’ (Isa 10:8). Yet some have rather concluded from the narrative, that by this time the monarchy of Nimrod had been broken up, or that at least the seat of government had been transferred to Elam. Be this as it may, the name of Assyria as an independent state does not again appear in Scripture till the closing period of the age of Moses. Balaam, a seer from the northern part of Mesopotamia, in the neighborhood of Assyria, addressing the Kenites, a mountain tribe on the east side of the Jordan, ‘took up his parable,’ i.e. raised his oracular, prophetic chant, and said, ‘Durable is thy dwelling-place! Yea in a rock puttest thou thy nest: nevertheless, wasted shall be the Kenite, until Asshur shall lead them captive,’ Num 24:21-22. The prediction found its fulfillment in the Kenites being gradually reduced in strength (comp. 1Sa 15:6), till they finally shared the fate of the trans-Jordanite tribes, and were swept away into captivity by the Assyrians (1Ch 5:26; 2Ki 16:9; 2Ki 19:12-13; 1Ch 2:55). But as a counterpart to this, Balaam next sees a vision of retaliatory vengeance on their oppressors, and the awful prospect of the threatened devastations, though beheld in far distant times, extorts from him the exclamation, ‘Ah! who shall live when God doeth this? For ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, but he also [the invader] shall perish forever,’ Num 24:23-24. This is not without obscurity; but it has commonly been supposed to point to the conquest of the regions that once formed the Assyrian empire, first by the Macedonians from Greece, and then by the Romans, both of whose empires were in their turn overthrown.

In the time of the Judges, the people of Israel became subject to a king of Mesopotamia, Chushanrishathaim (Jdg 3:8), who is by Josephus styled King of the Assyrians; but we are left in the same ignorance as in the case of Chedorlaomer, as to whether he was an independent sovereign or only a vicegerent for another. The first king of Assyria alluded to in the Bible, is he who reigned at Nineveh when the prophet Jonah was sent thither (Jon 3:6). Hales supposes him to have been the father of Pul, the first Assyrian monarch named in Scripture, and dates the commencement of his reign B.C. 821. By that time the metropolis of the empire had become ‘an exceeding great’ and populous city, but one pre-eminent in wickedness (Jon 1:2; Jon 3:3; Jon 4:11).

The first expressly recorded appearance of the Assyrian power in the countries west of the Euphrates is in the reign of Menahem, king of Israel, against whom ‘the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul (or Phul), king of Assyria’ (1Ch 5:26), who invaded the country, and exacted a tribute of a thousand talents of silver ‘that his hand’ i.e. his favor, might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand’ (2Ki 15:19-20). Newton places this event in the year B.C. 770, in the twentieth year of Pul’s reign, the commencement of which he fixes in the year B.C. 790. About this period we find the prophet Hosea making frequent allusions to the practice both of Israel and Judea, to throw themselves for support on the kings of Assyria. The supposition of Newton is adopted by Hales, that at Pul’s death his dominions were divided between his two sons, Tiglathpileser and Nabonassar, the latter being made ruler at Babylon, from the date of whose government or reign the celebrated era of Nabonassar took its rise, corresponding to B.C. 747. When Ahaz, king of Judah, was hard pressed by the combined forces of Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Damascene-Syria, he purchased Tiglathpileser’s assistance with a large sum, taken out of his own and the Temple treasury. The Assyrian king accordingly invaded the territories of both the confederated kings, and annexed a portion of them to his own dominions, carrying captive a number of their subjects (2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 16:5-10; 1Ch 5:26; 2Ch 28:16; Isa 7:1-11; comp. Amo 1:5; Amo 9:7). His successor was Shalman (Hos 10:4), Shalmaneser or Salmanasser, the Enemessar of the apocryphal book Tobit (Tob 1:2). He made Hoshea, king of Israel, his tributary vassal (2Ki 17:3); but finding him secretly negotiating with So or Sobaco (the Sabakoph of the monuments), king of Egypt, he laid siege to the Israelitish capital, Samaria, took it after an investment of three years (B.C. 719), and then reduced the country of the ten tribes to a province of his empire, carrying into captivity the king and his people, and settling Cuthaeans from Babylonia in their room (2Ki 17:3-6; 2Ki 18:9-11). Hezekiah, king of Judah, seems to have been for a time his vassal (2Ki 18:7). The empire of Assyria seems now to have reached its greatest extent, having had the Mediterranean for its boundary on the west, and including within its limits Media and Kir on the north, as well as Elam on the south (2Ki 16:9; 2Ki 17:6; Isa 20:6). In the twentieth chapter of Isaiah (Isa 20:1), there is mention of a king of Assyria, Sargon, in whose reign Tartan besieged and took Ashdod in Philistia. He is supposed to have been the successor of Shalmaneser, and to have had a short reign of two or three years. His attack on Egypt may have arisen from the jealousy which the Assyrians entertained of that nation’s influence over Palestine ever since the negotiation between its King So, and Hoshea, king of Israel. From many incidental expressions in the book of Isaiah we can infer that there was at this time a strong Egyptian party among the Jews, for that people are often warned against relying for help on Egypt, instead of simply confiding in Jehovah (Isa 30:2; Isa 31:1; comp. Isa 20:5-6). The result of Tartan’s expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia was predicted by Isaiah while that general was yet on the Egyptian frontier at Ashdod (Isa 20:1-4); and it is not improbable that it is to this Assyrian invasion that the prophet Nahum refers when he speaks (Nah 3:8-10) of the subjugation of No, i.e. No-Ammun, or Thebes, the capital of Upper Egypt, and the captivity of its inhabitants. The occupation of the country by the Assyrians, however, must have been very transient, for in the reign of Sargon’s successor, Sennacherib, or Sancherib, we find Hezekiah, king of Judah, throwing off the Assyrian yoke, and allying himself with Egypt (2Ki 18:7; 2Ki 18:21). This brought against him Sennacherib with a mighty host, which, without difficulty, subdued the fenced cities of Judah, and compelled him to purchase peace by the payment of a large tribute. But ‘the treacherous dealer dealt very treacherously’ (Isa 33:1); and, notwithstanding the agreement, proceeded to invest Jerusalem. In answer, however, to the prayers of the ‘good king’ of Judah, the Assyrian was diverted from his purpose, partly by the ‘rumour’ (Isa 37:6) of the approach of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, and partly by the sudden and miraculous destruction of a great part of his army (2Ki 18:13-37; 2 Kings 19; Isaiah 36, 37). He himself fled to Nineveh, where, in course of time, when worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, he was slain by his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer, the parricides escaping into the land of Armeniaa fact which is preserved in that country’s traditionary history [ARARAT].

Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon, or Assarhaddon, who had been his father’s viceroy at Babylon (2Ki 19:37; Isa 37:38). Hales regards him as the first Sardanapalus. The only notice taken of him in Scripture is that he settled some colonists in Samaria (Ezr 4:2), and as (at Ezr 4:10) that colonization is ascribed to the ‘great and noble Asnaapper,’ it is supposed that that was another name for Esarhaddon, but it may have been one of the great officers of his empire. It seems to have been in his reign that the captains of the Assyrian host invaded and ravaged Judah, carrying Manasseh, the king, captive to Babylon. The subsequent history of the empire is involved in almost as much obscurity as that of its origin and rise. The Medes had already shaken off the yoke, and the Chaldeans soon appear on the scene as the dominant nation of Western Asia; yet Assyria, though much reduced in extent, existed as an independent state for a considerable period after Esarhaddon. The last monarch was Sarac, or Sardanapalus II (B.C. 636), in whose reign Cyaxares, king of Media, and Nabopolassar, viceroy of Babylon, combined against Assyria, took Nineveh, and, dividing what remained of the empire between them, reduced Assyria Proper to a province of Media (B.C. 606).

In this brief sketch of the history of the Assyrian empire, we have mainly followed the writers of the Old Testament, from whom alone any consistent account can be derived.

The political constitution of the Assyrian empire was no doubt similar to that of other ancient states of the East, such as Chaldea and Persia. The monarch, called ‘the great king’ (2Ki 18:19; Isa 36:4), ruled as a despot, surrounded with his guards, and only accessible to those who were near his person. Under him there were provincial satraps, called in Isa 10:8, ‘princes’ of the rank and power of ordinary kings. The great officers of the household were commonly eunuchs. The religion of the Assyrians was, in its leading features, the same as that of the Chaldeans, viz. the symbolical worship of the heavenly bodies, especially the planets. In Scripture there is mention of Nisroch, Adrammelech, Anammelech, Nebchaz, Tartak, etc. as the names of idols worshipped by the natives either of Assyria Proper or of the adjacent countries which they had subdued.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Assyria

[Assy’ria]

The great kingdom of Assyria was situated near the river Tigris, having Armenia on the North, Mount Zagros and Media on the east, Babylonia on the south, Syria and the Syrian desert on the west; but its boundaries were doubtless not always the same. Nineveh became its capital. The first allusion to Assyria is found in Gen 2:14, where we read that one of the rivers of Paradise went “toward the east of Assyria,” or “went eastward to Assyria,” margin.

The name of Assyria appears to have arisen from its first capital, Asshur (now called Kalah Sherghat ) on the Tigris. Apparently a monarchy was established there by some from Babylonia, and there were several kings before SHALMANESER I. (about B.C. 1300), whose family kept the throne for six generations until TIGLATH-PILESER I. (about B.C. 1130), who may be said to be the founder of the first Assyrian Empire. He beautified Nineveh and carried his arms in various directions. After him the kingdom became feeble until RIMMON-NIRARI II., B.C. 911, but his victorious career was excelled by his grandson, the great ASSUR-NATSIR-PAL, B.C. 883, who made conquests over the Phoenicians and the ‘Kaldu’ (Chaldeans).

SHALMANESER II succeeded, B.C. 858. He carried his arms still farther. We have his conquests told by himself on three monuments in the British Museum, one of which is known as the Black Obelisk. If the names are correctly interpreted he mentions as allied against him Benhadad king of Syria and Ahab king of Israel. These were defeated at the battle of Karkar, B.C. 853. Hazael of Damascus was also defeated; and from Yahua, the son of Khumri, that is, Jehu, whom he incorrectly calls son of Omri, king of Israel, he received tribute; but of this scripture says nothing.

The next king who invaded Syria was RIMMON-NIRARI III B.C. 810. He extended his victories to what he calls, ‘the shore of the sea of the setting sun,’ which is doubtless the Mediterranean, and imposed tribute on the Phoenicians, Israelites, Edomites, Philistines, and the king of Damascus. After this king the power of Assyria waned for a time.

The next king of note was TIGLATH -PILESER II. or III. B.C. 745, who is considered to have founded the second Assyrian kingdom. He consolidated the various dependencies, turbulent populations were removed, and the empire was divided into provinces, each of which paid a fixed annual tribute. In his inscriptions occur the names of Jehoahaz (Ahaz) of Judah; Pekah, and Hoshea of Israel; Reson (Resin) of Damascus; and Hiram of Tyre. The name of Merodach-baladan is also found. Hamath was taken and then all Palestine was at his feet. He attacked those on the east of the Jordan, and carried away the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. 1Ch 5:26. Ahaz sought his alliance against Rezin the king of Damascus. Rezin was slain and the city taken; and there Ahaz met the king of Assyria. 2Ki 16:1-10; 2Ch 28:16-21. He also made himself master of Babylonia; but this afterwards gained its independence under Merodach-baladan. Some Assyrian scholars take Tiglath-pileser (whose name appears to have been Pulu) to be the same person as the Pul mentioned in the Bible; but this does not at all agree with the dates of scripture, and in 1Ch 5:26 the names of Pul and Tiglath-pileser are mentioned as of two persons. See PUL.

In B.C. 727 SHALMANESER IV. succeeded to the throne. Hoshea king of Israel was subject to him; but on being found in treaty with the king of Egypt, Samaria was besieged. 2Ki 17:3-5.

In B.C. 722 SARGON succeeded, and apparently it was he who captured Samaria. An inscription of his at Khorsabad reads, “I besieged the city of Samaria and carried away 27,280 men who dwelt there into captivity, and took fifty chariots from among them, and ordered the rest to be taken. I set my judges over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former kings.” He also placed colonists in Samaria, but it is supposed by the names of the places mentioned from which these were sent, that this was not done immediately. Sargon captured Carchemish, punished the king of Syria, flayed alive the king of Hamath, and then successfully overcame So or Sabako. Sargon is mentioned in Isa 20:1 as sending his general to Ashdod, who took it. An inscription also mentions the fall of the city. Sargon defeated Merodach-baladan in Babylonia, but was assassinated in B.C. 705. He was called SHARRU-KENU, that is, ‘faithful king.’

SENNACHERIB succeeded Sargon his father, B.C. 705. Hezekiah had been tributary; but on his revolting Sennacherib took the fenced cities of Judah, and then Hezekiah sent him the treasures of his own house and the house of the Lord. Still Jerusalem was attacked, and profane speeches made against the God of Israel. Hezekiah humbled himself before God, and the angel of the Lord smote of the Assyrians 185,000. Sennacherib returned to his land and was eventually murdered by two of his sons. 2Ki 18:13-37; 2Ki 19:1-37. In Sennacherib’s own account he says, “Hezekiah himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city . . . . in addition to his former tribute and yearly gifts I added other tribute and the homage due to my majesty, and I laid it upon them.” The above date would clash with the date of Hezekiah, but it is probable that Sennacherib was co-regent with his father some nine years before he reigned alone.

A tablet shows Sennacherib sitting on a throne to receive the spoils of the city of Lachish. It is supposed he lived 20 years after he left Palestine before he was assassinated. He says nothing of the loss of his army, and perhaps never recovered the shock.

ESAR-HADDON succeeded, B.C. 681. He is said to have reigned from the Euphrates to the Nile. He also conquered Egypt, and divided it into 20 provinces, governed by Assyrians. According to an inscription he claimed the sovereignty of Babylon, and held his court there. This accounts for him, as king of Assyria , carrying Manasseh captive to Babylon. 2Ch 33:11. He is mentioned also in Ezr 4:2 as having sent the colonists into Judaea. After reigning about 10 years he associated with him his son the noted ASSUR-BANI-PAL. Egypt was again conquered. He gathered a famous library at Kouyunjik, the terra cotta tablets of which have been preserved. Assur-bani-pal died about B.C. 626. The glory of the Assyrian kingdom was permanently departing, and about B.C. 606 Nineveh was taken and destroyed. Nahum 1 – 3.

There are many monuments and inscriptions on tablets which the learned are deciphering; but the difficulties of distinguishing the proper names on the Assyrian monuments are shown by M. Joachim Menant, who gives as an instance one sign which may be read kal , rip , dan, or lip , being one of the signs called ‘polyphones.’

The following list of kings is from Rawlinson, Sayce, and other Assyrian scholars. The early dates are uncertain and several of the later dates do not agree with the usual chronology of scripture.

ASSYRIAN KINGS. B.C.

Shalmaneser I. 1300

Tiglath-Adar I., his son 1280

Bel-kudur-utsur (Belchadrezzar) his son 1260

Assur-narara and Nebo-dan 1240

Adar-pal-esar (Adar-pileser) 1220

Assur-dan I., his son 1200

Mutaggil-Nebo, his son 1180

Assur-ris-ilim, his son 1160

Tiglath-pileser I., his son 1140

Assur-bel-kala, his son 1110

Samas-Rimmon I., his brother 1090

Assur-rab-buri ?

Assur-zalmati ?

Assur-dan II 930

Rimmon-nirari II., his son 911

Tiglath-Adar II., his son 889

Assur-natsir-pal, his son 883

Shalmaneser II., his son 858

Samas-Rimmon II., his son 823

Rimmon-nirari III., his son 810

Shalmaneser III. 781

Assur-dan III. 771

Assur-nirari 753

Pulu, usurper, Tiglath-pileser II. or III 745

Ulula (Elulaeos) of Tinu, usurper, Shalmaneser IV. 727

Sargon, usurper 722

Sennacherib of Khabigal, his son 705

Esar-haddon, his son 681

Assur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus) his son 668

Assur-etil-ili-yukinni, his son? 626

Esar-haddon II. (Sarakos) ?

Fall of Nineveh? 606

The Assyrians were idolaters: from the inscriptions the names of hundreds of gods can be gathered.

The Assyrian language was a branch of the Semitic, and came from the Accadian. It was written in Cuneiform or wedge-shaped characters.

Assyria was used by God as His rod to punish His guilty people Israel, and then, as in other instances, the rod itself, for its pride and wickedness, had to bear God’s judgement. See Isa 10:5-19; Isa 14:25; Eze 31:3-17; Nah 3:18-19; Zep 2:13. Some of the passages that speak of the kings of Assyria are prophetic, and refer to the still future, when as ‘kings of the north’ they will again have to do with Israel and will be judged of God. The indignation against Israel ceases in the destruction of the Assyrian: see Isa 10:12; Isa 14:25; Isa 30:27-33. One remarkable passage speaks of Assyria with Egypt and Israel as being brought into blessing, Isa 19:23-25, “Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.” We thus see that the Assyrians have a large place in scripture both in the past and in the future, doubtless because they have had, and will yet have, to do with Jehovah’s earthly people, “the Israel of God.” The Assyrian is the over-flowing scourge of God’s anger because of Israel’s connection with idolatry.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Assyria

H804

An empire founded by Nimrod

– General references

Gen 10:8-12; Mic 5:6

– It extended from east of the Tigris

Gen 2:14; Gen 10:11

– It extended possibly to Egypt

Gen 25:18

– Its armies invade the land of Israel under:

b Pul

2Ki 15:19; 1Ch 5:26

b Tiglath

2Ki 15:29; 1Ch 5:6; 1Ch 5:26

b Shalmaneser

2Ki 17:3-6; 2Ki 17:24-27; 2Ki 18:9-12; Jer 50:17

b Sennacherib

2Ki 18:13-37; 2Ki 19; 2Ch 32; Isa 36

Army of:

– Destroyed by the angel of the Lord

Isa 37:36

– Alliances with, sought by Judah and Israel

Hos 5:13

– Israelites subject to

Lam 5:6

– Israelites carried captive into

2Ki 17:3-23

– Jews carried captive to

2Ki 24; 2Ch 36:5-21

– Invaded by Pharaoh Nechoh

2Ki 23:29

Commerce of

Eze 27:23

Productiveness of

Isa 36:17

Prophecies concerning

Isa 7:17-25; Isa 8:4-10; Isa 10:5-34; Isa 14:24-28; Isa 19:23-25; Isa 20:1-6; Isa 30:27-33; Isa 31:8-9; Isa 37:21-35; Jer 1:15; Eze 31; Jon 3:1-4; Nah 1; Zep 2:13-15; Zec 10:11

Prophecies of captivity of Israelites in

Hos 9:3; Hos 11:5; Hos 11:11

Idols of

Adrammelech; Anammelech; Nisroch; Tartak

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Assyria

Assyria (as-syr’i-ah). A great empire of western Asia, founded at a very early date probably the oldest on the Euphrates, and is traced to Asshur, Gen 10:10-11, who built Nineveh, Rehoboth (?), Calah, and Resen. Assyria proper, the northern (Babylonia the southern portion), had about the same territory as Kurdistan. The empire at times covered a far larger extent of territory, and in its prosperity nearly all of western Asia and portions of Africa were subject to its power. According to Prof. F. Brown, “the Babylonio-Assyrian territory was about 600 miles from northwest to southeast, and in the widest part 300 miles from east to west, including Mesopotamia.” The Persian Gulf formerly extended about 130 miles further to the northwest than it does now, the gulf having been filled up by mud borne down by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. There are immense level tracts of the country, now almost a wilderness, which bear marks of having been cultivated and thickly populated in early times. Among its products, besides the common cereals, were dates, olives, cotton, mulberries, gum-arabic, madder, and castor-oil. Of animals, the bear, deer, wolf, lynx, hyena, antelope, lion, tiger, beaver, and camel were common. The fertility of the country is frequently noted by ancient writers.

History. Of the early history of Assyria little can be said. Profane historians differ; and scripture gives but scanty information. The deciphered inscriptions are revealing more, but are not yet folly examined; new ones are coming to light every year. Babylon is older than Nineveh; it was the beginning of Nimrod’s empire, but not content with the settlements he had acquired, he invaded the country called Asshur from the son of Shem, and there founded cities afterwards most famous. Gen 10:8-12. So far the sacred record would seem to teach us. But that it mentions an early Assyrian kingdom is not certain. Certain eastern monarchs are named, Gen 14:1; Gen 14:9, as pushing their conquests westwards, but there is a record of a Chaldean but not of an Assyrian king among them. Says Prof. Brown: “We find mention in the inscriptions of Persia (Parsua), Elam (Elamtu), with Susa (Shushan, cf. Neh 1:1, etc.), its capital, and Media (Mada), with Ecbatana (Agamtanu = Achmetha, Ezr 6:2), its capital, and Armenia (Urartu = Ararat, 2Ki 19:37), and the land of the Hittites (Chatti), who, we thus learn, as well as from the Egyptian inscriptions, had their chief seat far to the north of DamascusCarchemish (Gargamish), their capital, being on the Euphrates, not far from the latitude of Nineveh (modern Jerabis). The river Habor (Chabur), of 2Ki 17:6, is a river often named that flows into the middle Euphrates from the northeast, and Gozan (Guzanu) (ib.) is a city and district in the immediate vicinity. These are but a few of the important identifications.” At first the Assyrian empire was confined within narrow limits; it became at length, by the addition of neighboring districts, a formidable state. Left partially under the sway of their own chiefs, who were reduced to vassalage, they continually had or took occasion for revolt. This led to the deportations of captives, to break the independent spirit of feudatory states, and render rebellion more difficult and hopeless. The Assyrian empire, at its widest extent, seems to have reached from the Mediterranean Sea and the river Halys in the west, to the Caspian and the Great Desert in the east, and from the northern frontier of Armenia south to the Persian Gulf. Abraham came from Ur Kasdim (Ur of the Chaldees), according to Gen 11:28; Gen 11:31; Gen 15:7; Neh 9:7. “The only known Ur situated in the territory of the Chaldeans is the city of Uru, lying on the right bank of the Euphrates, far below Babylon, whose site now bears the name Muqayyar (Mugheir). The identification of this with the biblical Ur Kasdim has been disputed, but the arguments against it are not conclusive, and no other satisfactory identification has been proposed. We are therefore entitled to hold that the Hebrews were, from the beginning of their history, under the influence not only of the common stock of Shemitic endowments, customs, and beliefs, but also of those that were specifically Babylonian.” After Abraham, for nearly 1200 years, we have no record of the contact of Hebrews with Assyrian or Babylonian peoples. In the ninth century, b.c., Nineveh and Assyria push into Hebrew territory. Shalmanezer II. encounters Benhadad of Damascus, and probably Ahab of Israel. The dark cloud threatening Israel and Judah from Assyria for their unfaithfulness to God is described in strains of solemn warning. Sometimes “the nations from far” are spoken of; and their terrific might and mode of warfare are detailed without naming them. Isa 5:26-30. Sometimes in express words the king of Assyria is said to be summoned as the Lord’s executioner, and the desolation he should cause is vividly depicted. Isa 8:17-22. Samaria would fall; and her fall might well admonish Judah. Judah should deeply suffer. The invader should march through her territory; but the Lord would effectually defend Jerusalem. Isa 10:5-34. The Assyrian king, in the might of his power, subjected the ten tribes, and carried multitudes of them into the far east; he passed also like a flood over the country of Judah, taking many of the cities throughout her territory; and in his presumptuous boldness he conceived that no earthly power could resist him, and even defied Jehovah, the God of Jacob. But the firm purpose of the Lord was to defend that city to save it. The catastrophe is related with awful brevity: “Then the angel of the Lord went forth, 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.” Isa 37:1-38. The Assyrian empire attained afterwards probably its greatest power and widest extent. But it was doomed.

In later Persian times “the Ahashwerosh (Ahasuerus) of Ezr 4:6 and the book of Esther is Xerxes, the son of Darius, b.c. 486-464; and the Artachshashta (Artaxerxes) of Ezr 4:7-8; Ezr 4:11; Ezr 4:23, etc., Neh 2:1; Neh 5:14, etc., is the son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes Longimanus, b.c. 464-420. Ezr 4:7-8, etc., is thought by many to refer to the false Smerdis, the pretended brother of Cambyses, who in b.c. 522 reigned eight months; but the difficulty in supposing both that he had the name Artaxerxes ana that Artaxerxes in the different passages does not refer to the same persons is too great.” Finally, in “Darius the Persian,” Neh 12:22, we have a reference to Darius Codomannus, b.c. 836-330. He who rules justly in the world would destroy Assyria (which had been long before warned by Jonah), as Assyria had destroyed other kingdoms. Accordingly, in the prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah, we find denunciations predicting the entire downfall of this haughty power. The language is fearfully precise. Nah 1:1-15; Nah 2:1-13; Nah 3:1-19; Zep 2:13-15. The work of destruction seems to have been effected by the Medes and Babylonians. Assyria fell, and was never again reckoned among the nations; the very places being for long centuries unknown where her proudest cities had stood. The people. The excavations which have been so successfully prosecuted have supplied a fund of information as to the manners and habits of the Assyrians. The sovereign was the despotic ruler and the pontiff, and the palaces contained also the temples. With no limitation of the monarch’s power, the people were kept in a servile condition and in moral degradation. The conquered provinces being placed under the authority of dependent princes, insurrections were frequent; and the sovereign was almost always engaged in putting down some struggle for independence. War was waged with ruthless ferocity. Cities were attacked by raising artificial mounds; the besieging armies sheltered themselves behind shields of wicker-work, and battered the defences with rams. In the field they had formidable war chariots. And the sculptures exhibit the modes of cruelty practiced upon those that were subdued. They were flayed, they were impaled; their eyes and tongues were cut out; rings were placed in their lips; and their brains were beaten out with maces. Comp. Eze 26:7-12. The Assyrians worshipped a multitude of gods. Asshur (probably the Nisroch of the Scriptures, and the eagle-headed deity of the sculptures), was the chief. But there were 4000 others, presiding over the phenomena of nature and the events of life. The architecture of the Assyrians was of a vast and imposing character. In the fine arts they made considerable proficiency. Their sculptures are diversified, spirited, and faithful. They had, however, little knowledge of perspective, and did not properly distinguish between the front and the side views of an object. Animals, therefore, were represented with five legs; and sometimes two horses had but two forelegs. The later sculptures are found to be better than the earlier. The Assyrians were skilled in engraving even the hardest substances. They were familiar with metallurgy, and manufactured glass and enamels; they carved ivory, and varnished and painted pottery. They indulged in the luxuries of life. Men wore bracelets, chains, and earrings, flowing robes ornamented with emblematic devices wrought in gold and silver; they had long-fringed scarfs and embroidered girdles. The vestments of officials were generally symbolical; the head-dress was characteristic; and the king alone wore the pointed tiara. The beard and hair were carefully arranged in artificial curls; and the eyebrows and eyelashes were stained black. Of the women there are few representations. The weapons of war were richly ornamented, especially the swords, shields and quivers. The helmets were of brass, inlaid with copper. The chariots were embellished, and the horses sumptuously caparisoned. Their literature was extensivegrammars, dictionaries, geographies, sciences, annals, panegyrics on conquerors, and invocations of the gods. Little, however, can be expected from a series of inscriptions, dictated by the ruling powers, who did not hesitate sometimes to falsify the records of their predecessors. The wealth of Assyria was derived from conquest, from agriculture, for which their country was favorably circumstanced, and from commerce, for which they had peculiar facilities. The recent explorations have brought to light immense libraries illustrating the habits and life of a cultured people, recording their history on clay tablets, 2000 years before Abraham. The ruins are a splendid monument in testimony of the truth of prophecy and of Scripture.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Assyria

Assyr’ia. Assyria was a great and powerful country lying on the Tigris, Gen 2:14, the capital of which was Nineveh. Gen 10:11, etc. It derived its name apparently from Asshur, the son of Shem, Gen 10:22, who in later times was worshipped by the Assyrians as their chief god.

Extent. — The boundaries of Assyria differed greatly at different periods, Probably, in the earliest times, it was confined to a small tract of low country lying chiefly on the left bank of the Tigris. Gradually its limits were extended, until it came to be regarded as comprising the whole region between the Armenian mountains (lat. 37 30′) upon the north, and upon the south the country about Baghdad (lat. 33 30′). Eastward its boundary was the high range of Zagros, or mountains of Kurdistan; westward it was, according to the views of some, bounded by the Mesopotamian desert, while according to others it reached the Euphrates.

General character of the country. — On the north and east, the high mountain-chains of Armenia and Kurdistan are succeeded by low ranges of limestone hills of a somewhat arid aspect. To these ridges, there succeeds at first an undulating zone of country, well watered and fairly productive, which extends in length for 250 miles, and is interrupted only by a single limestone range. Above and below this barrier is an immense level tract, now for the most part a wilderness, which bears marks of having been in early times well cultivated and thickly peopled throughout.

Original peopling. — Scripture informs us that Assyria was peopled from Babylon, Gen 10:11, and both classical tradition and the monuments of the country agree in this representation.

Date of the foundation of the kingdom. — As a country, Assyria was evidently known to Moses. Gen 2:14; Gen 25:18; Num 24:22; Num 24:24. The foundation of the Assyrian empire was probably not very greatly anterior to B.C. 1228.

History. — The Mesopotamian researches have rendered it apparent that the original seat of government was not at Nineveh, but at Kileh-Sherghat, on the right bank of the Tigris. The most remarkable monarch of the earlier kings was called Tiglath-pileser. He appears to have been king towards the close of the twelfth century, and thus to have been contemporary with Samuel.

Afterwards, followed Pul, who invaded Israel in the reign of Menahem, 2Ki 15:29, about B.C. 770, and Shalmaneser who besieged Samaria three years, and destroyed the kingdom of Israel B.C. 721, himself or by his successor Sargon, who usurped the throne at that time. Under Sargon, the empire was as great as at any former era, and Nineveh became a most beautiful city. Sargon’s son Sennacherib became the most famous of the Assyrian kings. He began to reign 704 B.C. He invaded the kingdom of Judea in the reign of Hezekiah.

He was followed by Esarhaddon, and he by a noted warrior and builder, Sardanapalus. In Scripture, it is remarkable that we hear nothing of Assyria after the reign of Esarhaddon, and profane history is equally silent until the attacks began which brought about her downfall.

The fall of Assyria, long previously prophesied by Isaiah, Isa 10:5-19, was effected by the growing strength and boldness of the Medes, about 625 B.C. The prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah Zep 2:13-15 against Assyria were probably delivered shortly before the catastrophe.

General character of the empire. — The Assyrian monarchs bore sway over a number of petty kings through the entire extent of their dominions. These native princes were feudatories of the great monarch, of whom they held their crown by the double tenure of homage and tribute. It is not quite certain how far Assyria required a religious conformity from the subject people. Her religion was a gross and complex polytheism, comprising the worship of thirteen principal and numerous minor divinities, at the head of all of whom stood the chief god, Asshur, who seems to be the deified patriarch of the nation. Gen 10:22.

Civilization of the Assyrians. — The civilization of the Assyrians was derived originally from the Babylonians. They were a Shemitic race originally resident in Babylonia (which at that time was Cushite) and thus acquainted with the Babylonian inventions and discoveries, who ascended the valley of the Tigris and established in the tract immediately below the Armenian mountains a separate and distinct nationality. Still, as their civilization developed it became in many respects peculiar. Their art is of home growth. But they were still in the most important points barbarians. Their government was rude and inartificial, their religion coarse and sensual, and their conduct of war cruel.

Modern discoveries in Assyria. — (Much interest has been excited in reference to Assyria by the discoveries lately made there, which confirm and illustrate the Bible. The most important of them is the finding of the stone tablets or books which formed the great library at Nineveh, founded by Shalmaneser B.C. 860, but embodying tablets written 2000 years B.C. This library was more than doubled by Sardanapalus. These tablets were broken into fragments, but many of them have been put together and deciphered by the late Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum. All these discoveries of things hidden for ages, but now come to light, confirm the Bible. — Editor).

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

ASSYRIA

kingdom founded by Asshur and Nimrod

Gen 2:14; Gen 10:11; Gen 25:18; 2Ki 15:19; 2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 18:9; 1Ch 5:26; Isa 36:1

Jer 50:17; Mic 5:6

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Assyria

a kingdom of Asia, of the extent, origin, and duration of which very different accounts have been given by ancient writers. Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus affirm, that the Assyrian monarchy, under Ninus and Semiramis, comprehended the greater part of the known world: but, if this had been the case, it is not likely that Homer and Herodotus would have omitted a fact so remarkable. The sacred records intimate that none of the ancient states or kingdoms were of considerable extent; for neither Chederlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring princes, were tributary or subject to Assyria; and we find nothing, says Playfair, of the greatness or power of this kingdom in the history of the judges and succeeding kings of Israel, though the latter kingdom was oppressed and enslaved by many different powers in that period. It is therefore highly probable that Assyria was originally of small extent. According to Ptolemy, this country was bounded on the north by part of Armenia and Mount Niphates; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana; and on the east by part of Media and the mountains Choatra and Zagros. Of the origin, revolutions, and termination of Assyria, properly so called, and distinguished from the grand monarchy which afterward bore this appellation, the following account is given by Mr. Playfair, as the most probable:The founder of it was Ashur, the second son of Shem, who departed from Shinar, upon the usurpation of Nimrod, at the head of a large body of adventurers, and laid the foundations of Nineveh, where he resided, and erected a new kingdom, called Assyria, after his name, Gen 10:11. These events happened not long after Nimrod had established the Chaldean monarchy, and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it does not appear that Nimrod reigned in Assyria. The kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon were originally distinct and separate, Mic 5:6; and in this state they remained until Ninus conquered Babylon, and made it tributary to the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the successor of Ashur, Gen 10:11, seized on Chaldea after the death of Nimrod, and united the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon. This great prince is said to have subdued Asia, Persia, Media, Egypt, &c. If he did so, the effects of his conquests were of no long duration; for, in the days of Abraham, we do not find that any of the neighbouring kingdoms were subject to Assyria. Ninus was succeeded by Semiramis, a princess bold, enterprising, and fortunate; of whose adventures and exploits many fabulous relations have been recorded. Playfair is of opinion that there were two princesses of this name, who flourished at different periods; one, the consort of Ninus; and another, who lived five generations before Nitocris, queen of Nebuchadnezzar. Of the successors of Ninus and Semiramis nothing certain is recorded. The last of the ancient Assyrian kings was Sardanapalus, who was besieged in his capital by Arbaces, governor of Media, in concurrence with the Babylonians. These united forces defeated the Assyrian army, demolished the capital, and became masters of the empire, B.C. 821.

After the death of Sardanapalus, says Mr. Playfair, the Assyrian empire was divided into three kingdoms; namely, the Median, Assyrian, and Babylonian. Arbaces retained the supreme authority, and nominated governors in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured with the title of kings, while they remained subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs. Belesis, he says, a Chaldean priest, who assisted Arbaces in the conquest of Sardanapalus, received the government of Babylon as the reward of his services; and Phul was intrusted with that of Assyria. The Assyrian governor gradually enlarged the boundaries of his kingdom, and was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser, Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who asserted and maintained their independence. After the death of Assar-haddon, the brother and successor of Sennacherib. the kingdom of Assyria was split, and annexed to the kingdoms of Media and Babylon. Several tributary princes afterward reigned in Nineveh; but we hear no more of the kings of Assyria, but of those of Babylon. Cyaxares, king of Media, assisted Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the siege of Nineveh, which they took and destroyed, B.C. 606.

The history of Assyria, deduced from Scripture, and acknowledged as the only authentic one by Sir Isaac Newton and many others, ascribes the foundation of the monarchy to Pul, or Phul, about the second year of Menahem, king of Israel, twenty-four years before the aera of Nabonassar, 1579 years after the flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, according to Newton, 790, years before Christ. Menahem, having taken forcible possession of the throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum, 2Ki 15:10, was attacked by Pul, but prevented the hostilities meditated against him by presenting the invader with a thousand talents of silver. Pul, thus gratified, took the kingdom of Israel under his protection, returned to his own country, after having received voluntary homage from several nations in his march, as he had done from Israel, and became the founder of a great empire. As it was in the days of Pul that the Assyrians began to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 2Ki 11:9; 1Ch 5:26, this was the time, according to Sir Isaac Newton, when the Assyrian empire arose. Thus he interprets the words, since the time of the kings of Assyria,

Neh 9:32; that is, since the time of the kingdom of Assyria, or since the rise of that empire. But though this was the period in which the Assyrians afflicted Israel, it is not so evident that the time of the kings of Assyria must necessarily be understood of the rise of the Assyrian empire. However, Newton thus reasons; and observes, that Pul and his successors afflicted Israel, and conquered the nations round about them; and upon the ruin of many small and ancient kingdoms erected their empire; conquering the Medes, as well as other nations. It is farther argued, that God, by the Prophet Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten or twenty years before the reign of Pul, (see Amo 6:13-14,) threatened to raise up a nation against Israel; and that, as Pul reigned presently after the prophecy of Amos, and was the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he may be justly reckoned the first conqueror and founder of this empire. See 1Ch 5:26. Pul was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by his elder son Tiglath-pileser; and at the same time he left Babylon to his younger son Nabonassar, B.C. 747. Of the conquests of this second king of Assyria against the kings of Israel and Syria, when he took Damascus, and subdued the Syrians, we have an account in 2Ki 15:29; 2Ki 15:37; 2Ki 16:5; 2Ki 16:9; 1Ch 5:26; by which the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, and from which it appears that the empire of the Assyrians was now become great and powerful. The next king of Assyria was Shalmaneser, or Salmanassar, who succeeded Tiglath-pileser, B.C. 729, and invaded Phoenicia, took the city of Samaria, and, B.C. 721, carried the ten tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Chabor, by the river Gazon, and in the cities of the Medes,

2Ki 17:6. Shalmaneser was succeeded by Sennacherib, B.C. 719; and in the year B.C. 714, he was put to flight with great slaughter by the Ethiopians and Egyptians. In the year B.C. 711 the Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Sennacherib was slain, and he was succeeded by his son Esar-Haddon, Asser-haddon, Asordan, Assaradin, or Sarchedon, by which names he is called by different writers. He began his reign at Nineveh, in the year of Nabonassar 42; and in the year 68 extended it over Babylon. He then carried the remainder of the Samaritans into captivity, and peopled Samaria with captives brought from several parts of his kingdom; and in the year of Nabonassar 77 or 78 he seems to have put an end to the reign of the Ethiopians over Egypt. In the reign of Sennacherib and Asser-Hadon, says Sir I. Newton, the Assyrian empire seems arrived at its greatness; being united under one monarch, and containing Assyria, Media, Apolloniatis, Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia; and reaching eastward into Elymais, and Paraetaecene, a province of the Medes, and if Chalach and Chabor be Colchis and Iberia, as some think, and as may seem probable from the circumcision used by those nations till the days of Herodotus, we are also to add these two provinces, with the two Armenias, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as far as to the river Halys: for Herodotus tells us that the people of Cappadocia, as far as to that river, were called Syrians by the Greeks, both before and after the days of Cyrus; and that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the Greeks. Asser-Hadon was succeeded in the year B.C. 668 by Saosduchinus. At this time Manasseh was allowed to return home, and fortify Jerusalem; and the Egyptians also, after the Assyrians had harassed Egypt and Ethiopia three years, Isa 20:3-4, were set at liberty. Saosduchinus, after a reign of twenty years, was succeeded at Babylon, and probably at Nineveh also, by Chyniladon, in the year B.C. 647. This Chyniladon is supposed by Newton to be the Nebuchadonosor mentioned in the book of Judith, Jud 1:1-15, who made war upon Arphaxad, king of the Medes; and, though deserted by his auxiliaries of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria, Phoenicia, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, routed the army of the Medes, and slew Arphaxad. This Arphaxad is supposed to be either Dejoces or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus. Soon after the death of Phraortes, in the year B.C. 635, the Scythians invaded the Medes and Persians; and in 625, Nabopolassar, the commander of the forces of Chyniladon in Chaldea, revolted from him, and became king of Babylon. Chyniladon was either then or soon after succeeded at Nineveh by the last king of Assyria, called Sarac by Polyhistor. The authors of the Universal History suppose Saosduchinus to have been the Nebuchadonosor of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chynaladan to have been the Sarac of Polyhistor. At length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, married Amyit, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and sister of Cyaxares and by this marriage, the two families having contracted affinity, they conspired against the Assyrians. Nabopolassar being old, and Astyages dead, their sons Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares led the armies of the two nations against Nineveh, slew Sarac, destroyed the city, and shared the kingdom of the Assyrians. This victory the Jews refer to the Chaldeans; the Greeks, to the Medes; Tobit, Tob 14:15, Polyhistor, and Ctesias, to both. With this victory commenced the great successes of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares, and it laid the foundation of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians and Medes, which were branches of the Assyrian empire; and hence the time of the fall of the Assyrian empire is determined, the conquerors being then in their youth. In the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah prophesied, Nineveh and the kingdom of Assyria were standing; and their fall was predicted by that Prophet, Zep 1:3; Zep 2:13. And in the end of his reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, the successor of Psammitichus, went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, to fight against Carchemish, or Circutium; and in his way thither slew Josiah, 2Ki 23:29; 2Ch 35:20; and therefore the last king of Assyria was not yet slain. But in the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim, the successor of Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nineveh, and finished their war in Assyria, prosecuted their conquests westward; and, leading their forces against the king of Egypt, as an invader of their right of conquest, they beat him at Carchemish, and took from him whatever he had recently taken from the Assyrians, 2Ki 24:7; Jer 46:2; and therefore we cannot err, says Sir Isaac Newton, above a year or two, if we refer the destruction of Nineveh, and fall of the Assyrian empire, to the third year of Jehoiakim, or the hundred and fortieth, or according to Blair, the hundred and forty-first year of Nabonassar; that is, the year B.C. 607.

Of the government, laws, religion, learning, customs, &c, of the ancient Assyrians, nothing absolutely certain is recorded. Their kingdom was at first small, and subsisted for several ages under hereditary chiefs; and their government was simple. Afterward, when they rose to the sublimity of empire, their government seems to have been despotic, and the empire hereditary. Their laws were probably few, and depended upon the mere will of the prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division of the Assyrian empire into provinces and governments; for we find that this institution was fully established in the reigns of Semiramis and her successors. The people were distributed into a certain number of tribes; and their occupations or professions were hereditary. The Assyrians had several distinct councils, and several tribunals for the regulation of public affairs. Of councils there were three, which were created by the body of the people, and who governed the state in conjunction with the sovereign. The first consisted of officers who had retired from military employments; the second, of the nobility; and the third, of the old men. The sovereigns also had three tribunals, whose province it was to watch over the conduct of the people. The Assyrians have been competitors with the Egyptians for the honour of having invented alphabetic writing. It appears, from the few remains now extant of the writing of these ancient nations, that their letters had a great affinity with each other. They much resembled one another in shape; and they ranged them in the same manner, from right to left.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary