reader of
the Bible is aware. When it became known that the accounts of these
invasions formed a part of the records preserved in the Assyrian
libraries, historian and theologian alike waited with breathless
interest for the exact revelations in store; and this time expectation
was not disappointed. As, one after another, the various tablets and
cylinders and annalistic tablets have been translated, it has become
increasingly clear that here are almost inexhaustible fountains of
knowledge, and that sooner or later it may be possible to check the
Hebrew accounts of the most important periods of their history with
contemporaneous accounts written from another point of view. It is true
that the cases are not very numerous where precisely the same event is
described from opposite points of view, but, speaking in general terms
rather than of specific incidents, we are already able to subject
considerable portions of history to this test. The records of
Shalmaneser II., Tiglath-Pileser III. and Sennacherib, kings of Assyria,
of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, and of Cyrus, king of Persia, all
contain direct references to Hebrew history. An obelisk of Shalmaneser
II. contains explicit reference to the tribute of Jehu of Samaria, and
graphically depicts the Hebrew captives. Tiglath-Pileser III., a usurper
who came to the throne of Assyria in 745 B.C., and whose earlier name of
Pul proved a source of confusion to the later Hebrew writers, left
records that have served to clear up the puzzling chronology of a
considerable period of the history of Samaria. Most interesting of all,
perhaps, are the annals of Sennacherib, the destruction of whose hosts
by the angel of God is so strikingly depicted in the Book of Kings. The
court historian of Sennacherib naturally does not dwell upon this event,
but he does tell of an invasion and conquest of Palestine. The Hebrew
account of the death of Sennacherib is corroborated by a Babylonian
inscription. Here, however, there is an interesting qualification. The
account in the Book of Kings is so phrased that one might naturally
infer from it that Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons immediately
after his return from the disastrous campaign in Palestine; but in point
of fact, as it now appears, the Assyrian king survived that campaign by
twenty years. One cannot avoid the suspicion that in this instance the
Hebrew chronicler purposely phrased his account to convey the impression
that Sennach