It was in the short and troubled reign of Menahem that the Assyrian invader first set foot in the Holy Land. ‘There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria’ (2 Καὶ 151). Schrader (COT? i. 222, 230) has shown that this Pul, the Πῶρος of the Ptolemaic Canon, and Tiglath-pileser 111. of the cuneiform records, are identical, that probably ‘when he became ruler he exchanged the name Palu, which belonged to him as a subject, ... for the other name Tuklat-abal-fSarra. Yet the earlier and original name was perhaps the most popale one. It was that under which he first
ecame known to the Israelites.’ The books of Hosea and Isaiah exhibit a deep and abiding division between an Egyptian and an Assyrian party in Israel. It is possible that at this crisis the king and his faction actually solicited the interposition of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser’s own account would look as though he came unsolicited, sweeping Israel, along with the other states of Western Syria, into his net. In III R9, No. 3, lines 50-57, he enumerates ‘the tribute of Kush- tashpi of Kummuch, Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria (Mi-ni-bi-im-mi Sa-mi-ri-na-ai), Hiram
of Tyre,’ and many other petty kings (see Winckler, Keilinsch. Textbuch, pp. 17, 18; ef. Schrader COT? i. 284). In any case, Menahem succeeded in inducing Tiglath-pileser to accept him as a vassal, and it may well have been his policy on this occasion that evoked the prophet’s reproaches, Hos δ᾽ (cf. 7") 8° 108 (cf. 124) 14%
The method by which Menahem met his suzerain’s demand for money has thrown light on the economic condition of the kingdom. ‘Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver that his hand might be with him. . . . And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver’ (2 Καὶ 151%»). That is to say, there were 60,000 ‘men of means’ in the land.
The mention of Menahem on Tiglath-pileser’s list of tributaries enables us to fix his date with a fair degree of precision, and compels us to correct the number of years assigned to him inv... The Assyrian list is of the year B.c. 738. Pekah, who succeeded Menahem’s son, Pekahiah, after the latter had reigned two years, occupied the throne in 734. The Assyrian invasion must have occurred not very long after Menahem had seized the reins ; otherwise he would not have been so eager to utilize it for the confirmation of his authority. Hence the dates given for Menahem in the art. CHRONOLOGY, vol. i. p. 401 of this Dictionary, are more probable than Wellhausen’s (JJG? p. 80) view that Menahem seized the kingdom in 745, or even than that of Kautzsch (Hist. of OT Lit., Eng. trans., p. 185), who gives 743-737. Three or four years, not ten years, must have been the extent of iis reign. And that was quite long enough. He was a military adventurer, who reigned for him- self, not for his people, and did nothing to heal the sores of theland. ‘The prophecies of Hosea present us with an all too vivid picture of the drunkenness, debauchery, injustice, oppression, superstition, as well as of the confused and fluctuating politics of the time. And if it is unsafe to fix on individual traits as belonging specifically to Menahem’s reign, we are at all events quite justified in forming our general idea of the character of the reign from the dark picture which the prophet paints. Menahem seems to have died a natural death. He was the last king of Israel who was succeeded on the throne by his son.
One of the best sketches of Menahem and his rule is that given by Kittel (Hist. of the Hebrews, li. 332-337), Sarone it is difficult to understand the reason for the assertion (p. 332), ‘Of the few kings of the kingdom of Ephraim who died a natural death, Jeroboam I. is the last.’ Benzinger (Kénige, 167, 168) is excellent; and Stade (Gesch. des V. Isr. i. 576) is still worth reading. See also his discussion of the text of v."*, 7A W, 1886, p. 160.
J. TAYLOR.
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN (75 839 ΝῺ yous; Theod. Mavi, θεκέλ, φαρές ; LXX tr. in Dn 5!” "HplOunrat, κατελογίσθη, étjpra:).—The words of the famous handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast (Dn 5%). The construction of the enigma in this chapter is similar to that in ch. 2: by per- forming one part of it Daniel certifies the correct- ness of his performance of the other part. Here, by deciphering what no one else can read, he gains credit for his explanation and application of the words. The author does not state wherein lay the difficulty of reading the words on the wall, and none of the many guesses on this subject made in ancient and modern times is worthy of attention. Clearly, however, the writing must have been, in the author’s intention, of a kind with which the king and his wise men were familiar, though in this particular case they were unable to read it. It requires no flight of the imagination to conceive
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN
such a case. The CJS contains numerous speci- mens of Phenician and Neo-Punie texts, which, owing to careless writing or ignorant transcription, still baffle the ingenuity of decipherers ; and the same is the case sometimes with Greek cursive. Yet these alphabets are not more liable to become unin- telligible than that Aramaic cursive which was probably in ‘ Daniel’s’ mind, and of which we have specimens in the Blacassian papyri. When such texts are read, those who are familiar with both script and language can easily see whether the readings are right or wrong. The test of Daniel’s ability, though not equal to that given in ch. 2, was ΠΩΣ still considerable.