DAMASCUS
649
DAMASCUS
ty iprere perhaps not obflerved. At any rate, three
rs afterwards war broke ont afresh, through the
m of Ahab to the city of Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings
i, l-4>. The defeat and death of Ahab at that
3e ^ib. 15-d7) seems to have enabled the Syrians of
naseus to resume the offensive. Their bands rav- el the lands of Israel during the reign of Jehoram ;
. they even undertook at this time a second siege
Samaria, which was frustrated miraculously (2
igs vi, 24 ; vii, 6-7). After this, we do not hear
iny more attempts against the Israelitish capital.
3 cuneiform inscriptions show that towards the
3e of his reign Benhadad was exposed to the as-
ilts of a great conqueror, who was bent on extend-
: the dominion of Assyria over Syria and Palestine.
ree several attacks appear to have been made by
B prince upon Benhadad, who, though he had the
>port of the Phoenicians, the Hittites, and the Ha-
thites, was unable to offer any effectual opposition
the A8S3rrian irms. His troops were worsted in
reral engagements, and in one of them he lost as
kny as 20,000 men. It may have been these cir-
mstances wluch encouraged Hazael, the servant of
inbadad, to murder him and seize the throne, which
isha had declared would certainly one day be his (2
ings viii, 15). He may have thought that the Syr- ia would willingly acquiesce in the removal of a
ler under whom tiiey haid suffered so many disasters.
le chan^ of rulers was not at first productive of any
[vantage to the Syrians. Shortly aJfter the accession
'Hazael (about B.C. 884), he was in his turn attack-
i by the Assyrians, who defeated him with great loss
nid the fastnesses of Anti-Libanus. However, in his
her wars he was more fortunate. He repulsed an
tack on Bamoth-Gilead, made by Ahaziah, king of
idah, and Jehoram, king of Israel, in conjunction (2
Ings viii, 28-9) ; ravaged the whole Israelitish ter-
tory east of Jordan (ib. x, 82-8) ; besieged and took
ath (ib. xii, 17 ; compare Amos vi, 2) ; threatened
srosalem, which only escaped by paying a heavy
ineom (2 Kings xii, 18) ; and established a species
r suzerainty over Israel^
hich he maintained to the
ay of his death, and hand-
d down to Benhadad, his
>n (2 Kings xiii, 8-7, and
2). This prince, in the
arlier part of his reign,
lad the same good fortune
A his father, like him,
le " oppressed Israel," and
idded various cities of the
Israelites to his own domin-
on (2 Kings xiii, 25) ; but
it last a deliverer appeared ^
[ver. 5), and Joash, the son
df Jelioaliaz, * ' beat Hazael
thrice, and recovered the
cities of Israel" (ver. 26).
In the next reign still fur- ther advantages were gain- ed by the Israelites. Jero-
bcam II (B.C. dr. 886) is
said to have ** recovered
Damascus" (ib. xiv, 28),
and though this may not
mean that he captured the city, it at least implies that he obtained a certain influ- ence over it The mention of this circumstance is fol- lowed by a long pause, dur- uig which we hear nothing
^ the Syrians, and must Captivity of the Inhabitants. From the same.
thsTefore conclude that ,
their relations with the Israelites continued peaceable, cred LUerature, Oetober, 1864^ p. 218 ; January, 1866, See Bbmhadad. When they reappear, nearly a cen- 1 p. 469). See Asstria.
tuiy later (B.C. cir. 742), it is as allies of Israel against Judah (2 Kings xv, 87). We may suspect that the chief cause of the union now established l)etween two powers wMch had been so long hostile was the neces- sity of combining to resist the Assyrians, who at the time were steadily pursuing a policy of encroachment in this quarter. Scripture mentions the invasions of Pul (2 Kings XV, 19 ; 1 Chron. v, 26), and Tiglath- Pileser (2 Kings xv, 29; 1 Chron. v, 26); and there is reason to believe that almost every Assyrian mon- arch of the period made war in this direction. It seems to have been during a pause in the struggle that Rezin, king of Damascus, and Pekah, king of Israel, resolved conjointly to attack Jerusalem, intending to depose Ahaz and set up as king a creature of their own (Isa. vii, 1-6 ; 2 Kings xvi, 6). Ahaz may have already been suspected of a friendly feeling towards Assyria, or the object may simply have been to con- solidate a power capable of effectually opposing the arms of that country. In either case the attempt sig- nally failed, and only brought about more rapidly the evil against which the two kings wished to guard. Jerusalem successfully maintained itself against the combined attack ; but Elath, which had formerly been built by Azariah, king of Judah, in territory regarded as Syrian (2 Kings xiv, 22), having been taken and retained by Rezin (ib. xvi, 6), Ahaz was induced to throw himself into the arms of Tiglath-Pileser, to ask aid from him, and to accept voluntarily the position of an Assyrian feudatory (ib. xvi, 7-8). The aid sought was given, with the important result that Be- zin was slain, the kingdom of Damascus brought to an end, and the city itself destroyed, the inhabitants be- ing carried captive into Assyria (ib. ver. 9 ; comp. Isa. vii, 8, and Amos i, 5). Among the sculptures lately discovered on the site of Nineveh are Uiought to be delineations of this siege and capture of Damascus. Rawlinson even reads the name of the city on an obelisk connected with them (Bonomi, Nineveh, p. 234 sq.). Assyrian remains have lately been dis- covered in a mound near Damascus (Journal of 8a-