266 p. GARD FLEAY, ESQ., M.A., ON THE SYNCHRONOUS 



conspiracy of Shallum and the consequent change of policy. 

 It seems likely indeed that this invasion of Judah was the 

 motive of the conspiracy ; for Jehizkiah, son of Shallum 

 (2 Chron. xxviii, 12) was one of the heads of the children of 

 Ephraim who " stood up against them who came from the war." 

 Surely this is much more likely to have happened immediately 

 on the success of his father's conspiracy than after the interval 

 of three reigns of two distinct stocks (as required in the 

 received arrangement) between the reign of Shallum and the 

 intervention of his powerful son and his three friends. 



So much stress has been laid by Duncker and others on the 

 bearing of the statement of Menander as to the reigns of the 

 Phoenician kings, that I must not, though I attach little weight 

 to it as a ground for argument, pass it by unnoticed. This is 

 as good a place for touching on it as any other. Josephus 

 against Apion, Book I, quotes Menander to this effect. From 

 the 12th year of Hiram, when the temple of Solomon was 

 built, to the 7th of Pygmalion, when Dido founded Carthage, 

 are 143 years 8 months (say 144 years). I do not give the 

 years for the intervening kings which are defective somewhere 

 by a score of years. If we take the building of Carthage to 

 date 846 B.C., in accordance with Appian (Duncker, Hist, of 

 Antiquity, ii, 113), this gives for the Temple date 846 + 144 = 

 990 B.C., which is Duncker 's date ; but if, as I think, Josephus 

 means the completion and dedication of the Temple (not the 

 laying the foundation as Duncker supposes), we must add 

 seven or eight years. This brings us to 998 ; my own date is 

 998-9. This would be quite satisfactory, but as Justin's date 

 for the foundation of Carthage is 826, and there are other con- 

 flicting testimonies on this point, an equally good case can be 

 made out for the reckoning of the Assyriologers. It is futile 

 to ground any argument on a datum so uncertain ; all that I 

 can do, and this I am bound to do and have done, is to show 

 that no inference can be made from Josephus' quotation irre- 

 concilable with the scheme proposed. 



Now we have sufficient data before us to be able to discuss 

 that most difficult question ; are the eponym lists of Assyria 

 continuous throughout, or is there a break in them either before 

 Tiglath Pileser (as Oppert supposes) or elsewhere ? Let us 

 briefly enumerate the facts as given in the book of Kings and 

 the Assyrian records. Eezin or Hazion of Damascus was 

 adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon : his son Jabrimon 

 was contemporary with Jeroboam, and his son Benhadad with 

 Baasha. Then comes a King of unknown name, no doubt a son 



