whose captain is Judas Maccabeus," as violent zealots, "who nourish war, and are seditious, and will not let the realm be in peace," 2 Macc. xiv. 6, &c.

ASSOS, or Assus, approaching, coming near to, now called Asso, or BERIAM, a sea-port town of Eolis in Asia Minor, considerably west of Adramyttium in the Troas, and which Strabo describes as well fortified both by nature and art. St Paul embarked here for Mitylene, the capital of the Island of Lesbos, which lies near the mouth of the Gulf of Adramyttium, the Apostle having agreed to join St Luke and his companions there, which was the chief reason for touching at the port, Acts xx. 13, 14; St Luke and his friends reaching Assos by sea, while St Paul travelled by land. There is a notice of a Christian church existing here in the eighth century; and John, bishop of Assos, is mentioned as one of the Nicene Council. The ruins adjoining the modern sea-port are described as numerous and interesting.

ASSYRIA, now called KURDISTAN, from the descendants of the ancient Carduchi, who occupied the northern parts, was the name of a very ancient and celebrated empire of Asia. The country was originally of small extent, but was subsequently enlarged by repeated conquests and annexations. Ptolemy describes it as being bounded on the north by part of Armenia, from Mount Niphates to Lake Van; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana, now the Persian province of Chusistan; and on the east by part of Media, and the mountains Choatras and Zagros. Some ancient writers call the country within its limits ADIABENE, and others ATURIA or ATYRIA. Ctesias, who resided long at the Persian Court as physician, and Diodorus Siculus, affirm that the Assyrian monarchy under Ninus and Semiramis included the greater part of the known world; but if this had been the fact, it was too remarkable to have been passed over in silence by Homer and Herodotus. The Scriptures distinctly intimate that none of the ancient states or kingdoms were of

any considerable extent; and we find that neither Chedorlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring princes who flourished in the time of Abraham, were subject to the kings of Assyria; and, as Mr Playfair observes, we find no allusions to the greatness or power of the Assyrian monarchy in the histories of the Judges and the Kings of Israel, although the Israelites were often grievously oppressed and enslaved at those periods.

The Assyrian Empire was one of the first and greatest empires of Asia. The origin of this empire is not satisfactorily ascertained. The commonly received account, founded on the text of the Mosaic narrative in the Book of Genesis (Gen. x. 11), is, that Ashur, or Assur, the second son of Shem, either dreading or driven out by the tyranny of Nimrod, the son of Cush, from the Land of Shinar, migrated from that region with a body of adventurers to the country to which he gave his name, and founded Nineveh, not long after Nimrod had established the Chaldean monarchy at Babylon, and fixed his residence at that city. This account proceeds to state, that shortly afterwards Nimrod attacked Ashur in his new kingdom, subjugated the colony, and placed Ninus, who is alleged by some writers to have been his son, and by others the son of Belus, on the throne, contenting himself with his Babylonian dominions.

The learned Bochart, however, adopts the marginal translation of Gen. x. 11, which, instead of "out of that land went forth Ashur, and builded Nineveh," reads, "out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Assur or Assyria, and builded Nineveh," which means, that he invaded and conquered the new monarchy of Assyria, and built the city of Nineveh, which he called after his son Ninus. This view by Bochart is supported by the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem, Theophilus of Antioch, and Jerome, among the ancients; the writers of the Universal History, Hyde, Marsham, Wells, Lowth, and Faber, among modern writers: the converse being supported by Michaelis

and Bryant. The decision on the point is admitted to be difficult, but Bochart's view of the marginal reading has been generally preferred. According to the united authorities just cited, Nimrod, driven from Babylon, probably by his tyranny and oppression, attended by a strong party of military followers, founded a new empire at or near Nineveh, in a country which, being peopled almost exclusively by the descendants of Ashur or Assur, was called Assyria. This view of the origin of the Assyrian Empire is farther supported by a passage in the Prophecy of Micah (v. 6), wherein the land of Assyria and the land of Nimrod are mentioned as being the same, because Nimrod was the first king of the country. Adopting the view of Bochart, therefore, the subsequent proceedings of Ninus are completely in unison. There is no authentic tradition that Nimrod deposed his cousin Ashur to give the kingdom to Ninus; and if Nimrod reigned in Babylon while Ninus was king of Assyria, why should the latter overrun Chaldea, conquer Babylon, and make it tributary to the Assyrian Empire? It is, however, of little importance whether Ashur or Nimrod founded Nineveh; it is evident that the former gave his name to the country, while it is said that Ninus, who is nevertheless treated as a fabulous personage by some historians, united the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon. It is alleged that he also achieved the conquest of Persia, Media, Egypt, and the adjacent countries; but if he really accomplished these triumphs, they must have been of short duration, for, as has been already observed, in the time of Abraham the neighbouring princes were not tributary to the kings of Assyria, but to Chedorlaomer king of Elam.

The early history of this ancient kingdom is so obscure and intricate, that many modern historians generally follow the account given by Ctesias, and after him by the Greek and Roman writers, particularly Diodorus Siculus. An outline of that history is unnecessary in the present work, as it is easily acces

sible. Ctesias of Cnidus is the chief historian of the Assyrian Empire, and although subsequent ancient writers have endeavoured to give authority to his narration by receiving it as true, it is allowed that all their information was exclusively borrowed from him. Aristotle, who lived a few years after Ctesias, declares that he is altogether unworthy of credit as an historian; the fragments of Assyrian history given by Herodotus are at variance with his account, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts that the Assyrian antiquities are involved in fable. It is evident that some of the events which Ctesias relates are utterly incredible-such as Ninus, so soon after the Flood, leading millions of men to battle; and Queen Semiramis, at the age of twenty-two, performing the most extraordinary exploits, employing two millions. of men in building cities, and procuring three hundred thousand skins of black oxen to dress her camels in the form of elephants. We have already alluded to the fact of Chedorlaomer being an independent prince during the time of Abraham, yet if Ctesias is to be credited, his country, and that of the other confederated kings, must have been tributary to Assyria, which Moses expressly contradicts. The possessions of the Israelites and the neighbouring nations in the time of Joshua and the Judges of Israel, cannot, as is also previously stated, be reconciled to the account given by Ctesias of the extent of the Empire; and at the period of the Trojan War, Priam's dominions must also have been subject to Assyria, which the silence of Homer renders altogether improbable. "His history," observes a writer on this subject, "is inconsistent with the history of the Assyrians recorded in Scripture. The Scripture not only represents David extending his conquests over a great part of the country on one side of the Euphrates, and Benhadad and Hazael governing Syria as an independent kingdom, but Pul is the first king of Assyria which the inspired writer mentions from the time when that country was planted

by Ashur; and that he was in reality the founder of that empire, is proved by Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms. In the long list of Assyrian kings which Ctesias gives, not above two or three have the least affinity with the names mentioned in Scripture. The whole is almost composed of Greek, Persian, and Egyptian names, which, though very common in the countries to which they belonged, were altogether unknown in Assyria."

Without, however, utterly discrediting the authority of Ctesias, it is possible that what he narrates as the history of the Assyrian Empire may be that of a different country, governed by various petty princes, whose exploits he has either credulously or in ignorance incorporated into a history of Assyria. If the empire of Assyria ever existed, it must have been of short duration, for three very ancient kingdoms are said to have risen out of its ruins-Media, the first king of which is named Arbaces, who had formerly been its governor, when that country was a province of Assyria; Babylon, the first king of which was Belesis, who had formerly been viceroy of that city and province-both ministers under Sardanapalus, the last reputed king of the Assyrian Empire; while Pul was acknowledged sovereign of Assyria. We do not pledge the authenticity of this division, and there is no evidence to conclude that Pul laid the foundation of the Assyrian monarchy; but without inquiring as to the manner in which he acquired the crown of Assyria, which would be an impossibility, it is certain that he was king about seven hundred and seventy years before the Christian era. He greatly enlarged the boundaries of his kingdom, which existed, from his time, until the Babylonians and the Medes destroyed Nineveh, about one hundred and fifty years.

Sir Isaac Newton and many others deduce the only authentic history of Assyria from the Sacred Scriptures, dat ing the commencement of the kingdom with Pul, who reigned about the second

year of Menahem, king of Israel, twentyfour years before the era of Nabonassar, one thousand five hundred and seventynine years after the Flood; according to Blair, B.C. 769, or according to Newton, B.C. 790. The first time that Assyria is mentioned in the Scriptures, after the foundation of the small kingdom by Nimrod-for it is of little importance whether it was founded by Ashur or the "mighty hunter"-is in the Second Book of the Kings. Menahem, having murdered Shallum, king of Israel, in Samaria, forcibly usurped the throne, 2 Kings xv. 10. He continued to follow the idolatrous practices of Jeroboam, "who made Israel to sin," and, as it is emphatically expressed by the sacred historian, he “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." He was attacked by Pul, who must have entered into an alliance with the Syrians about that period, as he could not avoid marching through their country to attack Israel; but Menahem avoided the hostilities meditated against him by becoming tributary to the powerful Assyrian, and presenting him with one thousand talents of silver. Pul returned to his own country, leaving Menahem the nominal sovereign of Israel, and received the voluntary homage of various nations, by which he greatly extended his fame as well as his dominions. It has been said that it was in his reign the Prophet Jonah was sent to preach repentance to the Ninevites, but there is no foundation for this conjecture. We are expressly told that God "stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria," to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 1 Chron. v. 26; but it does not appear that he again attacked them, the tribute having probably been regularly paid by Menahem and his son Pekahiah.

Pul was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser. Some writers assert that Pul conquered Babylon, the sovereignty of which he gave to his youngest son Nabonassar, while his eldest son Tiglath-pileser succeeded him in his kingdom of Assyria. Yet Dr Prideaux asserts that Arbaces, governor of Media under Sardanapalus, the last of

the ancient Assyrian kings, is the Tiglathpileser of Scripture; and that Belesis, the viceroy of Babylon at that period, is the same with Nabonassar, who is called in Scripture Baladan (Isa. xxxix. 1), being the father of Merodach, who sent an embassy to King Hezekiah to congratulate him on his recovery from his sickness. Stackhouse has another theory:-"It has been supposed," he says, "by some that Pul, mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 19, was the same as Belesis, but it is more probable that he was the father of Sardanapalus, and that he was the same king of Assyria who, when Jonah preached against Nineveh, gave such great tokens of humiliation and repentance." We shall not attempt at present to reconcile these contradictory opinions maintained by men of great learning, and they are mentioned chiefly to show the difficulty which attends the unravelling of ancient history and chronology. Sir Isaac Newton gives it as his decided opinion that the Assyrian Empire arose in the reign of Pul, which is at variance with the statements of Stackhouse and Prideaux. He thus interprets the words, "since the time of the kings of Assyria,” Neh. ix. 32, namely, since the time, or since the rise, of the kingdom of Assyria; and he further observes, "that Pul and his successors afflicted Israel, and conquered the nations round about them, and upon the ruin of many small and ancient kingdoms erected their empire, conquering the Medes as well as other nations." In support of this view it is farther argued, that during the reign of Jeroboam, nearly twenty years before the reign of Pul, God instructed the Prophet Amos to threaten Israel that "he would raise up a nation against them," which would afflict them "from the entering in of Hamath until the river of the Wilderness"-Hamath being the northern border of their country, and the "river" or valley, as it is in the margin, being the same with the "river of Egypt," the boundary of Judea on the south, Gen. xv. 18; and hence, as the Assyrians were undoubtedly the nation which God was to raise up, and

as Pul reigned immediately after this prophecy of Amos, it is alleged that he may be justly reckoned the first conqueror and founder of the empire. All these arguments have a decided weight; but at the same time, while it is sufficiently evident that the Assyrians first afflicted Israel in the days of Pul, it is not so clear that the era of the kings of Assyria must be necessarily understood as referring to that period as the rise of the Assyrian monarchy.

But to return to Tiglath-pileser, who

was

most likely, notwithstanding the opinions of Prideaux and Stackhouse, the son of Pul, and certainly his immediate successor, we find the second invasion of Israel taking place under his reign, and during the reign of Pekah, who had conspired against Pekahiah, the son and successor of Menahem, and who also usurped the throne. There is an account of this invasion in 2 Kings xv. 29, 30; xvi. 5-10. The kingdom of Syria was included in the invasion along with the subjects of Pekah, as had been distinctly foretold by the Prophet Amos (chap. i. 3, 4, 5). Tiglath-pileser commanded his army in person, and not only took Damascus, the metropolis of Syria, and carried away the Syrians as captives, but in this expedition he "took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria;" that is, he swept all the country belonging to the two tribes and a half east of the Jordan, some of the northern parts of the Western Canaan, made the inhabitants prisoners, and transplanted them into his own kingdom. The account of this invasion under the second king of Assyria proves that the Assyrian kingdom had become great and powerful. We are not informed how the war terminated, nor is the precise period mentioned when the captives returned; but it appears that shortly afterwards Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, formed an alliance against Ahaz, the idolatrous king of Judah, and advanced against Jerusalem. They

besieged that city, and though they could not take it, the two sovereigns committed considerable ravages in Judea, the Syrians in particular seizing Elath on the Red Sea. According to Josephus, the Syrians returned to their own country, and Ahaz, thinking himself able to contend with the king of Israel's army, hazarded a battle, in which he was completely defeated, with a loss of 120,000 men. Alarmed at this calamity, Ahaz sent an embassy to Tiglath-pileser, imploring his assistance, and promising tributary obedience if the Assyrian king would assist him against the kings of Israel and Syria. Tiglath-pileser, induced by the promises and presents of Ahaz, invaded Syria, laid waste the country, took Damascus by force, slew Rezin their king, transplanted the citizens of Damascus to a place called Kir in Media, and repeopled that city by a colony of Assyrians. Having conquered Syria, Tiglath-pileser turned his attention towards Israel, and Josephus informs us that he "afflicted the land of Israel, and took many captives out of it." Ahaz was obliged to purchase the assistance of Tiglath-pileser by pillaging the Temple of its gold and silver, in addition to the treasures of his own palace; and at an interview which he held with the Assyrian monarch at Damascus, "he confessed," says Josephus, "that he owed him thanks for all that he had done for him, and returned to Jerusalem."

In the midst of his career of victory Tiglath-pileser died, and was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser, or Salmanassar, who, according to Stackhouse, is called Enemessar in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (i. 2). This prince prosecuted the wars which his father had begun; he invaded the kingdom of Israel in the reign of Hoshea, the successor of Pekah, about the year B.C. 729, and imposed an annual tribute on Hoshea, who "became his servant," 2 Kings xvii. 3. But Hoshea soon found means to recover his independence, and entered into a private alliance with the Ethiopian prince Sabacon, called by the sacred historian "So,

king of Egypt," who, says Dr Prideaux, "having invaded Egypt, and taken prisoner Boccharis, king of the country, caused him to be put to death with great cruelty, and then seized on the kingdom." The refusal on the part of Hoshea to pay the annual tribute to the Assyrian monarch was held by the latter to be a declaration of war. Shalmaneser advanced at the head of a powerful army to punish Hoshea, and after having subdued the whole territories of the Ten Tribes, "went up" to Samaria, and besieged the king in his capital city. The valour of the citizens and the strength of the place enabled Hoshea to hold out for three years, 2 Kings xviii. 5. Of this siege we have no detailed account in the Second Book of Kings, and Josephus merely mentions the circumstance. On account of its long continuance, the citizens were reduced to the greatest distress, and it has been conjectured that parents were compelled to eat their own children—a fearful extremity, which Moses threatened upon their disobedience, Levit. xxvi. 29; Deut. xxviii. 53-57,-a calamity which had previously happened to the inhabitants of Samaria, when it was besieged by Benhadad, king of Syria, 2 Kings vi. 29, and which subsequently happened in the siege of Jerusalem before the Captivity, Lament. iv. 10, and again in the ever memorable siege under Titus, so affectingly related by Josephus. But the perseverance of the Assyrians, who in this as in other instances were the instruments of Divine Providence to punish the Israelites for their rebellion in the reign of Rehoboam and their obstinate idolatry, at length prevailed; Samaria was reduced; Hoshea was taken prisoner, loaded with chains, and thrown into prison; the inhabitants were made captives, as were also the seven tribes west of the Jordan, and carried into Media, whither his predecessor, Tiglath-pileser, had previously transferred the tribes east of Jordan; and thus, in the course of nineteen years, were those prophecies uttered by Amos and other prophets literally fulfilled, and the captivity of the