The History of Antiquity, Vol. 2 (of 6)

Movers ("Phœniz." 1, 536) assumes that Iolaus may be identical with Esmun (I. 377).

162

Sallust, "Jugurtha," 19, 1.

163

Movers, loc. cit. s. 144.

164

"De mirab. ausc." c. 146.

165

"Hist. nat." 16, 79.

166

Arkal or Archal may mean "fire of the All," "light of the All."

167

Etym. Magn. Γαδεῖρα.

168

Diod. 5, 19, 20.

169

On the meaning given in Avienus ("Ora marit") of Abila as "high mountain," and Calpa as "big-bellied jar," cf. Müllenhoff, "Deutsche Alterthumsk," 1, 83.

170

Strabo, pp. 169-172. Justin (44, 5) represents the Tyrians as founding Gades in consequence of a dream. In regard to the name cf. Avien. "Ora marit," 267-270.

171

Movers, "Phœniz." 2, 622. Strabo (p. 48) puts the first settlements of the Phenicians in the midst of the Libyan coast and at Gades just after the Trojan war, Velleius (1, 2, 6, in combination with 1, 8, 4), in the year 1100 B.C. Cf. Movers, loc. cit. S. 148, note 90. The Greeks called both land and river Tartessus. The pillars of the Tyrian god "Archaleus," are with them the pillars of their "Heracles," which he sets up as marks of his campaigns. Here, opposite the mouth of the Tartessus, they place the island Erythea, i. e. the red island on which the giant Geryon, i. e. "the roarer," guards the red oxen of the sun: Erythea is one of the islands near Cadiz; Müllenhoff, Deutsche "Alterthumsk: " 1, 134 ff.

172

Sall. "Jugurtha," c. 19.

173

Ezek. xxvii. 12, 25.

174

In Strabo, p. 148; Müllenhoff, loc. cit. 1, 81.

175

Herod. 4, 152.

176

"De mirab. ausc." c. 147.

177

In Strabo, p. 148.

178

Aristoph. "Ranae," 475.

179

Diod. 5, 35; Strabo, p. 144 seqq.

180

Scylax, "Peripl." c. 111.

181

Judges v. 10, 14; x. 4.

182

Judges x. 1-5; xii. 8-15.

183

e. g. Judges ix. 27.

184

Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. i. 3; ii. 13.

185

Judges xx. 1; vol. i. 410.

186

1 Sam. x. 3; vol. i. 390, 411.

187

Judges xvii. 5, 10; xviii. 30; 1 Sam. vii. 1; 2, vi. 3.

188

Judges xvii. ff.

189

1 Sam. xix. 13-16; xxi. 9; Gen. xxxi. 34; Judges xvii. 5; xviii. 14, 17; 2 Kings xxiii. 24.

190

e. g. Judges vi. 36-40; xviii. 5; xx. 18 ff. The priests wore a pocket with lots (apparently small stones) on the breast. The Urim and Thummim of the High Priest was originally nothing but these lots.

191

On the composition of the Book of Judges, cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," 325 ff.

192

In David's time only 270,000 are given: below, chap. 7.

193

Judges xx. 8; xxi. 7-18.

194

Gen. xlix. 27; Judges xx. 16; 1 Chron. viii. 39; xii. 2; 2 Chron. xiv. 7.

195

These events belong, according to Judges xx. 27 ff., to the period immediately after the conquest: as a fact, the war against Benjamin is not to be placed long after this, i. e. about 1200 B.C. Cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," S. 326.

196

Judges iii. 12 ff.

197

Judges iv., v.

198

Judges vi. 2-5.

199

Judges viii. 19.

200

The observation that Gideon was the least in the house of his father, and his family the weakest in Manasseh (Judges vi. 15), is due no doubt to the tendency of the Ephraimitic text to show how strong Jehovah is even in the weak. From similar motives it is said that Gideon himself reduced his army to 300 men (Judges vii. 2-6). In the presence of the Ephraimites Gideon speaks only of the family of Abiezer.

201

What is meant in Judges viii. 27 by an ephod is not clear. The words which follow in the verse – that all Israel went whoring after Gideon – are obviously an addition of the prophetic revision.

202

Judges viii. 22.

203

Gideon's date can only be fixed very indefinitely. He and the generations after him must have belonged to the second half of the twelfth century B.C.

204

Joseph. "Antiq." 5, 11, 5.

205

1 Sam. ii. 22-25.

206

Judges xiii. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 11; 1 Sam. iv. 9.

207

In Samson, who overcomes the lion, and sends out the foxes with firebrands, who overthrows the pillars of the temple, and buries himself under it, Steinthal ("Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie," 2, 21) recognises the sun-god of the Syrians. The name Samson means as a fact "the sunny one." The long hair in which Samson's strength lay may symbolise the growth of nature in the summer, and the cutting off of it the decay of creative power in the winter: so too the binding of Samson may signify the imprisoned power of the sun in winter. As Melkarth in the winter went to rest at his pillars in the far west, at the end of his wanderings, so Samson goes to his rest between the two pillars in the city on the shore of the western sea. If, finally, Samson becomes the servant of a mistress Dalilah —i. e. "the tender" – this also is a trait which belongs to the myth of Melkarth; cf. I. 371. It is not to be denied that traits of this myth have forced their way into the form and legend of Samson, although the long hair belongs not to Samson only, but to Samuel and all the Nazarites; yet we must not from these traits draw the conclusion that the son of Manoah is no more than a mythical figure, and even those traits must have gone through many stages among the Israelites before they could assume a form of such vigorous liveliness, such broad reality, as we find pourtrayed in the narrative of Samson.

According to the canon of the Assyrians, the epochs in which were fixed by the observation of the solar eclipse of July 15 in the year 763 B.C., Samaria was taken in the year 722 B.C. If from this we reckon backwards 261 years for Judah, Solomon's death would fall in the year 983 B.C., his accession in 1023 B.C., David's accession in 1063 B.C., Saul's election in 1085 B.C. If we keep to the amount given for Israel (241 years + 722), Solomon's death falls in 963, his accession in 1003, the building of the temple in 1000 B.C., David's accession in 1043 B.C., Saul's accession in 1065 B.C. But neither by retaining the whole sum of 430 years, according to which the building of the temple begins 1015 B.C. (430 + 586), and Solomon dies in 978 B.C., nor by putting the death of Solomon in the year 983 or 963 B.C., do we bring the Assyrian monuments into agreement with the chronological statements of the Hebrews. If we place the date of the division of the kingdom at the year 978 B.C., Ahab's reign, according to the numbers given by the Hebrews for the kingdom of Israel, extends from 916 to 894 B.C.; if we place the division at 963 B.C., it extends, according to the same calculation, from 901 to 879 B.C. On the other hand, the Assyrian monuments prove that Ahab fought at Karkar against Shalmanesar II. in the year 854 B.C. (below, chap. 10). Since Ahab after this carried on a war against Damascus, in which war he died, he must in any case have been alive in 853 B.C. Hence even the lower date taken for Ahab's reign from the Hebrew statements (901-879 B.C.) would have to be brought down 26 years, and as a necessary consequence the death of Solomon would fall, not in the year 963 B.C., but in the year 937 B.C.

If we could conclude from this statement in the Assyrian monuments that the reigns of the kings of Israel were extended by the Hebrews beyond the truth, it follows from another monument, the inscription of Mesha, that abbreviations also took place. According to the Second Book of Kings (iii. 5), Mesha of Moab revolted from Israel when Ahab died. The stone of Mesha says: "Omri took Medaba, and Israel dwelt therein in his and his son's days for 40 years; in my days Camus restored it;" Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa." Hence Omri, the father of Ahab, took Medaba 40 years before the death of Ahab. Ahab, according to the Hebrews, reigned 22 years, Omri 12. According to the stone of Mesha the two reigns must have together amounted to more than 40 years. Since Omri obtained the throne by force, and had at first to carry on a long civil war, and establish himself on the throne (1 Kings xvi. 21, 22), he could not make war upon the Moabites at the very beginning of his reign. Here, therefore, there is an abbreviation of the reign of Omri and Ahab by at least 10 years.

Hence the contradiction between the monuments of the Assyrians and the numbers of the Hebrews is not to be removed by merely bringing down the division of the kingdom to the year 937 B.C. In order to obtain a chronological arrangement at all, we are placed in the awkward necessity of making an attempt to bring the canon of the Assyrians into agreement with the statements of the Hebrews by assumptions more or less arbitrary. Jehu slew Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the same time. From this date upwards to the death of Solomon the Hebrew Scriptures reckon 98 years for Israel, and 95 for Judah. Jehu ascended the throne of Israel in the year 843 B.C. at the latest, since, according to the Assyrian monuments, he paid tribute to Shalmanesar II. in the year 842 B.C. If we reckon the 98 years for Israel upwards from 843 B.C., we arrive at 941 B.C. for the division of the kingdom; and if to this we add, as the time which has doubtlessly fallen out in the reigns of Omri and Ahab, 12 years, 953 B.C. would be the year of the death of Solomon, the year in which the ten tribes separated from the house of David. If we keep the year 953 for the division, the year 993 comes out for the accession of Solomon, the year 990 for the beginning of the building of the temple, the year 1033 for the accession of David at Hebron, and the year 1055 for the election of Saul. Fifteen years may be taken for the continuance of the heavy oppression before Saul. For the changes which we must in consequence of this assumption establish in the data of the reigns from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Athaliah and Jehu, i. e. in the period from 953 B.C. to 843 B.C., see below. Omri's reign occupies the period from 899-875 B.C. (24 years instead of 12), i. e. a period which agrees with the importance of this reign among the Moabites and the Assyrians; Ahab reigned from 875-853 B.C. According to 1 Kings xvi. 31, Ahab took Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal the king of the Sidonians to wife. If this Ethbaal of Sidon is identical with the Ithobal of Tyre in Josephus, the chronology deduced from our assumptions would not be impossible. Granted the assertion of Josephus that the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre is the fourth year of Solomon (990 B.C.), Hiram's accession would fall in the year 1001 B.C.; according to Josephus, Ithobal ascended the throne of Tyre 85 years after Hiram's accession, when he had slain Pheles. He lived according to the same authority 68 years and reigned 32 years, i. e. from 916-884 B.C. Ahab, either before or after the year of his accession (875), might very well have taken the daughter of this prince to wife. And if we assume that the statement of Appian, that Carthage was in existence 700 years before her destruction by the Romans, i. e. was founded in the year 846 B.C., the 143⅔ or 144 years of Josephus between the building of the temple and the foundation of Carthage, reckoned backwards from 846 B.C., lead us to the year 990 B.C. for the building of the temple.

208

The simplest method of obtaining a fixed starting-point for the date of the foundation of the monarchy in Israel is to reckon backwards from the capture of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in the year 604 B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were burned down in the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer. lii. 12), i. e. in the year 586 B.C. From this year the Hebrews reckoned 430 years to the commencement of the building of the temple (430 = 37 years of Solomon since the beginning of the building + 261 years from the death of Solomon to the taking of Samaria + 132 years from the taking of Samaria to the destruction of the temple). Hence the building of the temple was commenced in the year 1015 B.C. Since the commencement of the building is placed in the fourth year of Solomon, his accession would fall in the year 1018 B.C.; and as 40 years are allotted to David, his accession at Hebron falls in 1058 B.C., and Saul's election about 1080 B.C. In the present text only the number two is left of the amount of the years of his reign (1 Sam. xiii. 1), the years of his life also are lost; we may perhaps assume 22 years for his reign, since Eupolemus gives him 21 years (Alex. Polyh. Frag. 18, ed. Müller), and Josephus 20 ("Antiq." 6, 14, 9, 10, 8, 4). His contemporary, Nahash of Ammon, is on the throne before the election of Saul, and continues beyond the death of Saul and Ishbosheth, and even 10 years into the reign of David. Nahash must have had an uncommonly long reign if Saul reigned more than 22 years. It makes against the dates 1080 B.C. for Saul, 1058 B.C. for David, 1018 B.C. for Solomon, that they rest upon the succession of kings of Judah, from the division of the kingdom down to the fall of Samaria, which is reckoned at 261 years, while the succession of kings of Israel during the same period only fills 241 years. Movers ("Phœniz." 2, 1, 140 ff.) has attempted to remove this difficulty by assuming as a starting-point the statements of Menander of Ephesus, on the succession of kings in Tyre, preserved in Josephus ("c. Apion," 1, 18). Josephus says that from the building of the temple, which took place in the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre, down to the founding of Carthage, which took place in the seventh year of Pygmalion king of Tyre, 143 years 8 months elapsed. From the date given by Justin (18, 7) for the founding of Carthage (72 years before the founding of Rome; 72 + 754), i. e. from 826 B.C., Movers reckons back 143 years, and so fixes the building of the temple at the year 969 B.C., on which reckoning Solomon's accession would fall in the year 972 B.C., David's in the year 1012 B.C., and Saul's election in 1034 B.C. But since the more trustworthy dates for the year of the founding of Carthage, 846, 826, and 816, have an equal claim to acceptance, we are equally justified in reckoning back from 846 and 816 to Saul's accession.

209

Now Beit-Rima, north-east of the later Lydda.

210

1 Sam. iii. 1, 19.

211

1 Sam. xiii. 19-23, from the older account.

212

1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 20-24.

213

Compare the division of the corpse by the Levite, above, p. 96.

214

Owing to the later conceptions that the king needed to be consecrated by the prophets, that Jehovah is himself the King of Israel, an almost inexplicable confusion has come into the narrative of Saul's elevation. Not only have we an older and later account existing side by side in the books of Samuel, not only has there been even a third hand at work, but the attempts to bring the contradictory accounts into harmony have increased the evil. In 1 Sam. viii. we are told: The elders of Israel and the people required from Samuel a king at Ramah, because he was old and his sons walked not in his ways. Jehovah says to Samuel: They have not rejected thee, but me; yet Samuel accedes to the request of the Israelites. Samuel gives the elders a terrifying description of the oppression which the monarchy would exercise upon them, a description which evidently predates the experiences made under David, Solomon, and later kings, whereas at the time spoken of the nation had suffered only too long from wild anarchy. The reasons, moreover, given by the elders, why they desired a king, do not agree with the situation, but rather with the time of Eli, who also had foolish sons. In spite of Samuel's warning the people persist in their wish to have a king. Further we are told in chap. ix. 1-x. 16, how Saul at his father's bidding sets out in quest of lost she-asses, and goes to inquire of Samuel, for the fourth part of a silver shekel, whither they had strayed. At Jehovah's command Samuel anoints the son of Kish to be king, when he comes to him; he tells him where he will find his asses, and imparts to him two other prophecies on the way. Then we are told in chap. x. 17-27 that Samuel summons an assembly of the people to Mizpeh, repeats his warning against the monarchy, but then causes lots to be cast who shall be king over the tribes, and families, and individuals. The lot falls upon Saul, who makes no mention to any one of the anointing, but has hidden himself among the stuff. Finally, in chap. xi. we find the account given in the text, to which, in order to bring it into harmony with what has been already related, these words are prefixed in ver. 14: "And Samuel said to the people, Come, let us go to Gilgal to renew the kingdom;" but in xi. 15 we find: "Then went all the people to Gilgal, and made Saul king before Jehovah in Gilgal." The contradictions are striking. The elders require a king from Samuel, whom they could choose themselves (2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3; 1 Kings xii. 1, 20; 2 Kings xiv. 21), and whom, according to 1 Sam. xi. 15, the people actually choose. Jehovah will not have a king, but then permits it. Nor is this permission all; he himself points out to Samuel the man whom he is to anoint. Anointed to be king, Saul goes, as if nothing had taken place, to his home. He comes to the assembly at Mizpeh, and again says nothing to any one of his new dignity. Already king by anointment, he is now again made king by the casting of lots. He returns home to till his field, when the messengers from Jabesh were sent not to the king of Israel, but to the people of Israel, to ask for help. In Gibeah also they do not apply to the king; not till he sees the people weeping in Gibeah, does Saul learn the message. Yet he does not summon the people to follow him as king; he requests the following just as in earlier times individuals in extraordinary cases sought to rouse the people to take up arms. It is impossible that a king should be chosen by lot at a time when the bravest warrior was needed at the head, and simple boys, who hid themselves among the stuff, were not suited to lead the army at such a dangerous time. At the time of Saul's very first achievements his son Jonathan stands at his side as a warrior; at his death his youngest son Ishbosheth was 40 years of age (2 Sam. ii. 10). Saul must therefore have been between 40 and 50 years old when he became king. The request of the elders for a king, and Samuel's resistance, belong on the other hand to the prophetic narrator of the books of Samuel, in whose account it was followed by the assembly at Mizpeh and the casting of lots. The same narrator attempts to bring the achievement at Jabesh, and the recognition of Saul as ruler and king which followed it, into harmony with his narrative by the addition of the restoration of the kingdom and some other interpolations. The Philistines would hardly have permitted minute preparations and prescribed assemblies for the election of king. The simple elevation and recognition of Saul as king after his first successful exploit in war corresponds to the situation of affairs (cf. I xii. 12). And I am the more decided in holding this account to be historically correct, because it does not presuppose the other accounts, and because the men of Jabesh, according to the older account, fetched the bodies of Saul and his sons to Jabesh from Beth-shan and burned them there, 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, 13. The older account in the books of Samuel knows nothing of the request of the elders for a king. After the defeat which caused Eli's death, it narrates the carrying back of the ark by the Philistines, and the setting up of it at Beth-shemesh and Kirjath-jearim. Then follows Saul's anointing by Samuel (ix. 1-10, 16); then the lost statement about the age of Saul when he became king, and the length of the reign; then the great exploits of Saul against the Philistines (xiii. 1-14, 46); xiii. 8-13 stands in precise relation to x. 8. That the achievement of Jabesh cannot have been wanting in the older account follows from the express reference to it at the death of Saul.

215

1 Sam. xiii. 3-7; xiv. 22.

216

1 Sam. xiii. 16-18.

217

1 Sam. xiv. 1-23.

218

So the older account, 1 Sam. xiv. 24-45.

219

Numbers ii. 18-24; Joshua xviii. 12-20; Judges v. 14. That Ephraim remained true to Saul follows from the recognition of Ishbosheth after Saul's death, 2 Sam. ii. 9, 10.

220

1 Sam. xiv. 52.

221

1 Sam. xiii. 2.

222

1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18, 37; xxviii. 6.

223

1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9.

224

2 Sam. xxi. 2, 5.

225

The ark was brought by David from Kirjath-jearim to Zion. That could not take place before the year 1025 B.C. Saul's death falls, as was assumed above, in the year 1033 B.C. But the ark is said to have been at Kirjath-jearim 20 years (1 Sam. vii. 2; vi. 21), it must therefore have been carried thither 1045 B.C., or a few years later. The stay among the Philistines must have been more than seven months, as stated in 1 Sam. vi. 61; the stay at Beth-shemesh was apparently only a short one. The battle at Tabor and Eli's death cannot, as shown above, be placed much later than 1070 B.C. According to 1 Sam. xiv. 3; xviii. 19, the ark was in Saul's army at the battle of Michmash, and Ahijah (Ahimelech), the great-grandson of Eli, was its keeper.

226

1 Chron. xxvi. 28.

227

Only one concubine is mentioned, by whom Saul had two sons.

228

1 Sam. xviii. 3, 17-20, 28; xxii. 4.

229

1 Sam. xvii., xviii., xxiii. 28.

230

1 Sam. xiv. 47, 48.

231

1 Sam. xv. 12. The place near Hebron still bears the name Carmel.

232

Nöldeke, "Die Amalekiter," s. 14, 15.

233

2 Sam. i. 21-24.

234

This follows from the fact that the monarchy remains even after Saul's death, from the lamentation of the Israelites for Saul, and their allegiance to his son Ishbosheth.

235

1 Sam. vii. 15.

236

1 Sam. x. 8; xiii. 8-15.

237

1 Sam. xv.

238

Ruth iv. 18-22.

239

In 2 Sam. v. 4, 5 it is stated that David when he was raised at Hebron to be king of Judah was 30 years old. This took place 1033 B.C. (p. 113, note); David must therefore have been born 1063 B.C., and could not have marched out to battle before 1043 B.C.