It was formerly held by Assyriologists, includ- ing especially Schrader, that the records of Tiglath- pileser prove that Uzziah (Azariah) was the head of a powerful confederacy of Northern Hamathite States against Assyria. Unfortunately, the pas- sages in which reference is made to Azariah (Az(Iz)ri-ya-u), whom Schrader identified with Uzziah (KGF 399-421), are much mutilated. The following is a translation of the passages so far as they can be deciphered and interpreted on the basis of Rost's edition of Tiglath-pileser's Annals, lines 101-111—
101-2 . . . my otflcer as ruler of the province I placed over them [gifts and tribute like the Assyrian imposed on them]
103 in the further course of my campaign the tribute of th6
ki[ng3
104 I received Azar]iah king of Ja-u-di like , , ,
105 . . . zariah of Ja-u.di . . .
[106 and 107 seem to refer to the towns in which Azariah sought reJugeJ
108 by the attack of the light-armed (7) of the bodyguard . . .
[of the approach of
109 the Assyrian troops] the numerous, they heard [their
heart) feared
110 [the town) 1 destroyed, laid waste, burnt down
111 . . . placed themselves on the side of [Azarjiah streng-
thened (?) him . . . Lines 125-132 refer to the 19 districts of Hamath which 'placed themselves on the side of Azariah,' the series bemg enumerated from South to North, the most southerly beuig Arkfi, Zim.arra, Usnu, Sianna, and Simirra, and the most northerly Eilitarbi and Bumami.
Now, even twenty years ago, the identification of the Azri-ia-u of Tiglath-pileser's Annals with Azariah of Judah was disputed, for example, by Gutschmid (Neite Bcitragc zur Kunde des altcn Orients, p. 55 tf.) and by Wellhausen (Jahrhiirher fiir deutsclw Theologie, xx. 632). But at that time there were certainly many reasons why the identi- fication made by Schrader should have been con- sidered sound. No other land Ja-u-di was then known except Judah. Judah was called by that name in the Nabt-Junus inscription preserved in Constantinople, in which Sennacherib refers to his subjugation of tiezelfiah (of which the following is a transcription, line 15 : rap-iu na-gu-u (mdtu) Ja-u-di Haza-ki-a-u Sarri-iu i-mid ap-Sa-a-ni), while the references to the same king in connexion with (»u7tu) Ja-u-da-ai in the Prism inscription of Sennacherib (col. ii. 72, iii. 12, 13) need not be cited here. Indeed Tiglath-pileser himself (2 llawl. 67, line 61) refers to Ja-u-lui-zi (mAtu) Ja-u-da-ai in close juxtaposition to the rulers of Ashkelon and Edom, so that it is absolutely certain that Ja-u-lutzi ( = Joahaz) is the Assyrian name of king Ahaz. Moreover, the fact here mentioned, that Ahaz paid tribute to the Assyrian monarch, is certified by 2 K 16*. Certainly, the evidence for Schrader's identification seemed cogent.
Nevertheless, there are serious diliiculties in tha way of its acceptance. In the first place, the geographical conditions militate strongly against it. The nineteen districts of Hamath can hardly have depended for supjiort on the ruler of so distant a realm as Jmiah. Second///, the chioiio- logical argument tells decisively against it. For
UZZIEL
VALE, VALLEY
845
if Uzziali was the mainstay of a conspiracy of nineteen Uaiuatbit« States in 73S B.C., winch is the year wliich Assyrian data would lead us to assign to its overthrow, we can allow only three years lor the leprosy of L'zziah, the interregnum of Jotham, Jotham's sole reign, and the Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah. Thirdly, the discovery of the Zinjerli inscription (on the stele erected by 3-i i3 the son of raiuininiu, king of Sam'al, to his father) has thrown a fresh light on the problem. There we lind mention of a land nic (and also on the stele of Hadad, erected by Panauimu its king). We might with Winckler regard the k here as hamza and pronounced as u, and thus read the word (as the Assyrians did) Ja'uUi. This country lay north of the Orontes and bordered on the land Unki, and it is possible that Sargon refers to it in his Niuir. insc. line 8: {nWUu) Ja-u-du Sa aSciriu riiku, 'J. whose situation is remote.' The men- tion of Uaniath in the same line lends colour to this view. The objection tliat the name Azi-ijuhu, with its Heb. name of deity, clearly indicates a Hebrew personality, loses force when we re- member that llamath, as we learn from the same inscription of Sarijon, liad a prince called Jauhi'di, elsewhere called Ilu-bi'di. This shows that a deitj' Jafiu was also worshipped in those regions. Lastly, the close similarity which subsisted be- tween the language of the Zinjerli inscr. and Hebrew renders it in no way improbable that the land Ja'di should have a ruler named Azariah. The capital of the land was KuUani, the Caluo of Is K/'.
This is the evidence ba.sed on the arguments used by Winckler (Alttcst. Forsch. i. (18'J3) pp. 1-23 ; CI. KAT' i. 54 ff., 202) for disconnecting the inscr. of Tiglath-pileser from any reference to Uzziali (Azariah) of Judah.* McCurdy, however, upholds Schrader's position (IIPMi. 413ir.), but the argu- ments of Winckler have been adopted by Hommel (art. Assyria in this Diet. vol. i. p. 185, footn.t), Guthe(CF/ p. 18S), Maspero (Pasdng, etc., 150). The chronological difficulties which beset the biblical student of the latter half of the Sth cent, become in this way somewhat lessened. The death-j-ear of Uzziah may be placed, as Winckler suggests, in 739 B.C., but it may easily be earlier (KAT' i. 320) — in fact as early as 750 (Winckler, Ocsch. Israel's, Theil i. p. 179). Cf. Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, pp. 4, 16 IT. OwEN C. WlllTEUOUSE.