it not for the possibility that Tirhakah rided overEthi- t)pia before becoming king of Egypt. In connection with this theory it must be observed tliat an earlier Ethiopian of tlie same dynasty is called in the Bilde "So, king of Egypt," while this ruler is called " iirha- kah, king of Ethiopia,"' and that a I'haraoh is spoken of in Scripture at the period of the latter, and also that Herodotus (iii, 141) represents the Egyptian opponent of Sennacherib as Sethos, a native king, who may, bow- ever, have been a vassal imder the luhiopian. See So. It is deserving of remark, and strongly favors the view of those writers who maintain that during consider- able periods Ethiopian dynasties nded iu Egypt, that from the time of Shishak to that of Tirhakah it is of Ethiopians that we read in .Scripture as having inainly furnished the hosts which marched to battle out of Egyi)t. While Shishak is called king of Egypt, his army is declared to have been composed, not of Egyp- tians, but of Lubims and Sukkims and Ethiopians (2 Chron. xii, 3). We subsequently read of Zerah the Ethiopian leading an army of Ethiopians and Lubims against Asa (xvi, 8). We now find that while Pharaoh of Egypt may have made great promises, it is the Ethi- opian king Tirhakah who alone brings an army into the field. In the reign of Pharaoh-necho, the Egyp- tian army seems to have been mainly composed of Ethiopians and Libyans ( Jcr. xlvi, 9). The nalural in- ference is that, during this long period, the military power of Egypt was at a low ebb. At the time we are now speaking of, Rawlinson supposes Egypt to have been subject to Ethiopia (//erof/. i, 391). In this he is not quite correct, however. Egypt may have been in- ferior to it in strength and sjiirit, but it was, at least, nominally independent at this time, thongli it may have fallen soon after under the power of the Etbioiii- an king. That Tirhakah was actually king of Egypt at some time is strongly maintained. There is noth- ing in Scripture to prevent our supposing that he be- came so subse(juent to the period when it speaks of him. Indeed, in the position iu which it places him, at the head of a large army in Egypt, with no Assyrian ene- my to dread, it pictures a situation which would tempt an ambitious soldier to extend his power by dethroning an effeminate or irresolute monarch, such as the Pha- raoh of his time would seem to have been. U'ilkiuson (i, 138-142) supposes that he at first ruled over Upper Egypt, while Sethos held the sovereignty of the lower coimtry; that he came to the Egyptian throne rather by legal succession than by usurpation; and that lie did actually fight against the army of Sennacheril), and overthrow it in battle. Scripture, however, expressly ascribes the overthrow of the Assyrian to the supernat- ural interposition of God (2 Kings xix, 3.5). Herodotus (ii, 141) does not mention Tirhakah at all, but only speaks of the king of Egypt, and mentions the over- throw of the Assyrian army very much in the way that crafty priests might pervert the actual occurrence as recorded in Scrij^turc. It is quite possible that Tirha- kah may have led his army in pursuit of the Assyrians after their mysterious midnight overthrow ; may have captured prisoners and treasure; and this would be quite sufficient ground for any successes ascribed to him on the Theban sculptures. If, as is probable, be became king of all Egyjit. there seems strong reason for agreeing with much, at least, of Strabo's account of him (lib. xv) as having extended bis concpiests into Europe. The Assyrian power was effectually checked by the ruin of its army and the divisions of its reign- ing family. At the head of a great army which had come forth to fight the Assyrians, and now foimd itself without a foe, there is every reason why Tirhakah may have extended the Egyptian power as far as any Egyp- tian king before him. If Tirhakah did come into ac- tual collision with the Assyrians at or near Pehisium in Egypt, as many writers maintain, it must have been upon another occasion than that mentioned in Script- ure (see Josephus, .lH^ x, 1, 4). It is, however, more
TIRHANAH
429
TIRZAII
probable that Scripture has sketdieil in a few words the entire matter, and that the variations from it are the eft'ect of ignorance or design. The invasion of As- syria had probably Kgypt and Ethiopia as its ultimate object, but in the account of Scripture tbe Assyrian host plainly was onlj' on its way to the accomplishment of its pur|M)se. See Sennacherib.
Tlie name of TirhaUah is written in hieroglyphics Teharka (or Coptic Tarkhd). His successful opposition to the power of Assyria is recorded on the walls of a Tbeban temple, for at Medinet Habu are the figure and the name of this king and the captives he took (Tre- vor, Kfiypt, p. 71). At Jebel Berkel, or Napata, he con- structed one temple and part of another. Of the events of his reign little else is known, and the account of Me- gasthenes {op. Strabo, xv, G8G, where he is called " Te- arkon the Etliiopian," Ttdpfcuji' 6 AiJio*//) J^ that he rivalled Sesostris as a warrior and