For example: in one of the earliest inscriptions
mentioning a king of Israel, Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, claims a
great victory over the Western allies in the battle of Karkar in 854;
but, strange to say, the victory resulted in a rather hasty retreat of
the Assyrian army. Another evidence of the "absolute reliability" of
the historical tablets is offered by the inscriptions of the same king.
In connection with the battle of Karkar, one inscription declares that
the allies killed numbered 14,000; another, 20,500; while a third
claims 25,000. We have, indeed, reason to say that "the evident
uncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the clearness of the
entire result. The claim of a great victory is almost certainly
false."[18]

Once more: the translation of the inscriptions is not in every case
beyond question. For example, in lines 7-9 of the Moabite Stone we
read, according to the common translation, "Now Omri annexed all the
land of Medeba, and Israel occupied it his days and half the days of
his son, forty years." This rendering would imply that the {147}
period from the conquest under Omri to the end of the first half of
Ahab's reign was forty years. The chronology of Kings gives as the
total of the full reigns of the two kings only thirty-four years, while
the above translation of the inscription would require about sixty--a
serious discrepancy. Now, it is generally conceded that the chronology
of the Bible cannot be accepted as final in all its details, and that
it must be checked by the chronology of the inscriptions wherever that
is possible. Yet before we can make use of the monumental testimony we
should be sure of its exact meaning. In cases such as the one
mentioned this certainty is absent, and we should move very slowly.
Another translation of the passage has been proposed: "Omri conquered
the whole land of Medeba and held it in possession as long as he
reigned and during half of my reign his son, in all forty years; but
yet in my reign Chemosh recovered it."[19] This translation would
bring the total of the two reigns to about forty years, and thus the
chronological difficulty apparently offered by 2 Kings 3 would be
removed.

The five considerations to which attention has been called must be
observed if we would understand rightly the bearing of the monuments on
the Old Testament, when viewed from the standpoint of the inscriptions.
Attention must now be called to certain co