(Genesis 10:18), the modern Symra, the ancient Simyros.**

* The jArkh of Josephus (Ant. 1. 6, 2), the Caesarea Libani of the Roman Emperors.

** Near the Nahr-el-Kebir, "the great river," the ancient Eleutheros (1 Maccabees 12:30), which

partly formed the northern boundary of the Lebanon district.

After an unhappy break of two lines in the inscription, we next come upon the names of two of the

cities which in 2 Kings 15:29 are described as taken by Tiglath-pileser, Gi lead and Abel-beth-

Maachah, with express notice of their situation in the land of Beth-Omri (Samaria), and of their

having been added to the territory of Assyria. The inscription further states that Tiglath-pileser had

set his own officials and governors o ver these districts. Thence the victorious expedition is traced

as far as Gaza, whence no doubt, after having subjugated all the border-tribes to Northern Arabia,

it returned to the land of "Beth-Omri." It is added that Tiglath-pileser carried away to Assy ria all

its inhabitants, with their chattels, and killed Pekah their king, appointing Hoshea in his place (2

Kings 15:30).

We do not fail to perceive in this record boastful exaggerations by the Assyrian monarch, since,

although the revolution which cost Pekah his life (2 Kings 15:30) was no doubt occasioned by the

victories of Tiglath-pileser, yet the Israelitish king fell by the hand of Hoshea, the leader of the

rising. At the same time Hoshea was absolutely dependent on Assyria, to which he became

tributary. On the Assyrian inscription the sum exacted from him is said to have amounted to ten

talents of gold (67,500 pounds) and 1,000 talents of silver (375,000 pounds).*

* These sums seem enormous. According to Professor Sayce (Fresh Light from the Ancient

Monuments, p. 123), the Babylonian talent was considerably smaller than the Judaean. The

proportion of silver to gold was according to Herzfeld, as 1:13; according to Schrader, as

The list of the conquered Israelitish cities given in 2 Kings 15:29 enables us to follow the course

of the campaign of Tiglath-pileset straight down from north to south, through Upper Galilee. The

Assyrians took first Ijon, in the tribe of Naphtali (2 Chronicles 16:4), a place formerly conquered

by Ben-hadad (1 Kin gs 15:20), probably the modern Tell Dibbin, on a hill in a "well watered"

district, on the road from Damascus to Sidon. Thence the conquerors passed to Abel-beth-

Maachah, "the meadow" of Beth-Maacah (a neighboring small Syrian district), also called Abel

Mayim, "meadow of waters" (2 Chronicles 16:4), a considerable town, known to us from the clays

of David (2 Samuel 20:18) and of Ben-hadad (1 Kings 15:20), situated about one and a half hours

west-north-west from Dan. The next town occupied, Janoah (not that of Joshua 16:6), probably the

modern Hunin, lay about midway between Abel-beth-Maachah and Kedesh, the place next

captured. It was also in the possession of Naphtali - and indeed, to distinguish it from other places

of the same name, was known as Kedesh-Naphtali, or Kedesh in Galilee (Joshua 20:7; 21:32; 1

Chronicles 6:76). This was one of the ancient Levitical cities, and the birthplace of Barak (Judges

4:6, 9). Although belonging to Upper Galilee, it was at the time of Christ held by the Tyrians (Jos.

Wars, 2. 18, 1), whose territory here bounded with Galilee. It still retains its old name, and lies

north-west of the marshes that surrounded Lake Merom. The other three names in 2 Kings 15:29

among the conquests of Tiglath-pileser seem those of districts ra ther than towns: Gilead, the later

Gaulonitis,* the northern portion of the trans-Jordanic district whixch Jeroboam II had only lately

won back for Israel (2Kings 15:25); Galilee, in the more restricted sense of the term, that is: the

northern part of it, or "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 9:1; compare 1 Kings 9:11) - in short, "all

the land of Nephtali."

* The LXX. Renders it Galaan. A city of Gilead (no doubt in that district) is mentioned in Hosea

6:8; 12:11 (?). The context would certainly lead us to apply to a city rather that to the district the

term in 2 Kings 15:29. But the localization hiterto proposed for this Gilead does not meet the

exigencies of the narrative, being too far south. A very important question here arises in