Shalmaneser,[1] was evidently able to hold its own from 854 to 839. The anti-Assyrian alliance was, as often in west Asia, a temporary one, and the inveterate rivalries of the small states are illustrated, in a striking manner, in the downfall of Omri’s dynasty and the rise of that of Jehu (842–c. 745); in the bitter onslaughts of Damascus upon Israel, leading nearly to its annihilation; in an unsuccessful attack upon the king of Hamath by Damascus, Cilicia and small states in north Syria; in an Israelite expedition against Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings xiv. 13 seq.); and finally in the recovery and extension of Israelite power—perhaps to Damascus—under Jeroboam II. In such vicissitudes as these Palestinian history proceeds upon a much larger scale than the national biblical records relate, and the external evidence is of the greatest importance for the light it throws upon the varying situations. Syria could control the situation, and it in turn was influenced by the ambitions of Assyria, to whose advantage it was when the small states were rent by mutual suspicion and hostility. It is possible, too, that, as the states did not scruple to take advantage of the difficulties of their rivals, Assyria played a more prominent part in keeping these jealousies alive than the evidence actually states. Moreover, in the light of these moves and counter-moves one must interpret the isolated or incomplete narratives of Hebrew history.[2] The repeated blows of Assyria did not prevent the necessity of fresh expeditions, and later, Adad-Nirari III. (812–783) claims as tributary the land of Hatti, Amor, Tyre, Sidon, “the land of Omri” (Israel), Edom and Philistia. Israel at the death of Jeroboam was rent by divided factions, whereas Judah (under Uzziah) has now become a powerful kingdom, controlling both Philistia and the Edomite port of Elath on the gulf of ‛Akaba. The dependence of Judaean sovereignty upon these districts was inevitable; the resources of Jerusalem obviously did not rely upon the small district of Judah alone. If Ammon also was tributary (2 Chron. xxvi. 8, xxvii.), dealings with Israel and perhaps Damascus could probably be inferred.
A new period begins with Tiglath-Pileser IV. (745–728):
pro- and anti-Assyrian parties now make themselves felt, and
when north Syria was taken in 738, Tyre, Sidon,
Damascus (under Rezin), “Samaria” (under
Menahem) and a queen of Aribi were among the
tributaries. It is possible that Judah (under Uzziah and Jotham)
Predominance
of Assyria.
had come to an understanding with Assyria; at all events Ahaz
was at once encircled by fierce attacks, and was only saved by
Tiglath-Pileser’s campaign against Philistia, north Israel and
Damascus. With the siege and fall of Damascus (733–32)
Assyria gained the north, and its supremacy was recognized by
the tribes of the Syrian desert and Arabia (Aribi, Tema, Sheba).
In 722 Samaria, though under an Assyrian vassal (Hoshea the
last king), joined with Philistia in revolt; in 720 it was allied
with Gaza and Damascus, and the persistence of unrest is
evident when Sargon in 715 found it necessary to transport
into Samaria various peoples of the desert. Judah itself was
next involved in an anti-Assyrian league (with Edom, Moab
and Philistia), but apparently submitted in time; nevertheless
a decade later (701), after the change of dynasty in Assyria, it
participated in a great but unsuccessful effort from Phoenicia
to Philistia to shake off the yoke, and suffered
disastrously.[3]
With the crushing blows upon Syria and Samaria the centre of
interest moves southwards and the history is influenced by
Assyria’s rival Babylonia (under Marduk-baladan and his
successors), by north Arabia and by Egypt. Henceforth
there is little Samarian history, and of Judah, for nearly a
century, few political events are recorded (Jews: § 16). Judah
was under Assyrian supremacy, and, although it was
involved with Arabians in the revolt planned by Babylonia
(against Assurbanipal), it appears to have been generally
quiescent.
At this stage disturbances, now by Aramaean tribes, now by Arabia, combine with the new rise of Egypt and the weakness of Assyria to mark a turning-point in the world’s history. Psammetichus (Psamtek) I. (663–609) with his Greeks, Carians, Ionians and soldiers from Palestine and Syria, re-established once more an Egyptian Empire, Revival of Egypt. and replaced the fluctuating relations between Palestine and the small dynasts of the Delta by a settled policy. Trading intercommunication in the Levant and the constant passage to and fro of merchants brought Egypt to the front, and, in an age of archaic revival, the effort was made to re-establish the ancient supremacy over Palestine and Syria. The precise meaning of these changes for Palestinian history and life can only incompletely be perceived, and even the significance of the great Scythian invasion and of the greater movements with which it was connected is uncertain (see Scythia). At all events, Egypt (under Necho, 609–593) prepared to take advantage of the decay of Assyria, and marched into Asia. Judah (under Josiah) was overthrown at Megiddo, where about nine centuries previously the victory of Tethmoses (Thutmose) III. had made Egypt supreme over Palestine and Syria. But Egypt was now at once confronted by the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean Empire (under Nabopolassar), which, after annihilating Assyria with the help of the Medians, naturally claimed a right to the Mediterranean coast-lands. The defeat of Necho by Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish (605) is one of the world-famous battles.
Although Syria and Palestine now became Babylonian, this revival of the Egyptian Empire aroused hopes in Judah of deliverance and led to revolts (under Jehoiachin and Zedekiah), in which Judah was apparently not alone.[4] They culminated in the fall of this kingdom in 586. Henceforth the history of Palestine is disconnected Babylonian Empire. and fragmentary, and the few known events of political importance are isolated and can be supplemented only by inferences from the movements of Egypt, Philistia or Phoenicia, or from the Old Testament. According to the Chaldean Nabonidus (553) all the kings from Gaza to the Euphrates assisted in his buildings, and the Chaldean policy generally appears to have been favourable towards faithful vassals. Cyrus meanwhile was rising to lead the Persians against Media. After a career of success he captured Babylonia (553) and forthwith claimed, in his famous inscription, the submission of Amor. For the next 200 years Palestine remained part of the new Persian Empire which, with all its ramifications on land and on sea, embraced the civilized world from the Himalayas to the Levant, until the advent of Alexander the Great (see Jews: § 19). Very gradually the face of history underwent a complete change. Egypt had resumed its earlier connexions with the Levantine heirs of the ancient Aegeans, the old empires of the Nearer East had practically exhausted themselves, and Palestine passed into the fresh life and thought of the Greeks.
In any consideration of the internal conditions in Palestine it must be observed that there is a continuity of thought, custom and culture which is independent of political changes and vicissitudes of names. With the establishment of an independent monarchy Palestine did not enter into a new world. Whatever internal changes Internal Conditions. Northern Influences. ensued between the “Amarna” age and 1000 B.C., they have not left their mark upon the course of culture illustrated by the excavations. These still indicate communication with Egypt and the north (Syria, Asia Minor; Assyria and the Levant not excluded), and even when a novel culture presents itself, as in certain graves at Gezer, the affinities are with Cyprus and Asia Minor (Caria) of about the 11th or 10th century.[5] The use of
- ↑ Recently found to be the third of that name (H. W. Hogg, The Interpreter, 1910, p. 329).
- ↑ So e.g. in references to Ammon, Damascus and Hamath, and in Judaean relations with Philistia, Moab and Edom.
- ↑ See art. Hezekiah. A recently published inscription of Sennacherib (of 694 B.C.) mentions enslaved peoples from Philistia and Tyre, but does not name Judah.
- ↑ Cf. Jer. xxvii. 2 seq., and the history of the Egyptian Hophra (Apries, 588–569).
- ↑ At present it is difficult as regards Palestine to distinguish Aegean influence (direct and indirect) from that of Asia Minor generally. Only after the old Cretan (Minoan) culture had passed its zenith and was already decadent does it suddenly appear in Cyprus (H. R. Hall, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxi. 227).
