ORIENTAL DISCOVERIES ON OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 



21 



but, though tlie viclorious Assyrian armies were in its 

 iieio-libourliood, «Iudah was not troubled. " It would almost 

 seem," says Dr. Pinches, " that Azariah of Judah took part in 

 the attempt to get rid of Assyrian intluence; and although 

 this was fully recognised by Tiglath-Pileser, the Assyrian 

 king, to all appearance, did not come into direct contact with 

 his country.''* 



This fact is highly significant. Tiglath-Pileser mentions a 

 number of cities with their surrounding territories which lie 

 punished for what seems to have been a wide-spread rebellion. 

 Tlie inscription proceeds : " XIX districts of the city of Hamath 

 with the cities which were around them, of the sea-coast of the 

 settino- of the sun, Avhich in sin and wickedness had taken to 

 Azri-a-u (Azariah), I added to the boundary of Assyria, I set 

 my commander-in-chief as governor over them ; 30,300 people 

 I lemoved from tiie midst of their cities, and caused the 



])rovince of the city of Xu to take them." It is clear from 



the above that Uzziah was the soul of the confederacy against 

 Assyria. It was to him as Assyria's adversaiy that those 

 distiicts of Hamath liad given tlieir adhesion. That Jerusalem 

 and Judah were not dealt with in like manner can be explained 

 only by Azariah's possession of power and generalship such as 

 are ascribed to him in Chronicles. Schrader speaks of the part 

 of the inscription above quoted as " that important passage 

 respecting the alliance of Azarijalr (Uzziah of Juda) with 

 Hamath." He continues, " From this we learn that, while 

 Tiglath-Pileser chastised Hamath for its alliance with Juda, he 

 did not see fit to molest the latter as well ; a clear proof of the 

 accuracy of the Biblical account of the firmly-established power 

 of Uzziah."t In the face of the fact that, as already stated, we 

 are indebted to Chronicles alone for our knowledge of Uzziah's 

 greatness, it is impossible to maintain an unbroken confidence 

 in the critical estimate of these books. In any case, this 

 iiccount of Uzziah's warlike preparations and achievements, 

 which was part of the supposed exaggerations of the chronicler, 

 now takes its place as sober history. 



Confirmation has also come from other sides. " We may," 

 writes Professor Sayce, " consider the notices by tlie chronicler 

 of nations whose names are not mentioned in the Books of 

 Kings as worthy of full credit. Even the Mehunims, of whom 

 Uzziah is said to have been the conqueror, have had light cast 



The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Recorc'S, etc., p. 348. 

 t Vol. i, p. 245. 



