« AnteriorContinuar »
except by this nation of the Cuseans, who had made the Assyrian their professed enemy; from whose resentment they had fled ; and within the verge of whose vengeance they were afraid of returning. From all which we may conclude, that Babylon at this time was not in the hands of the sons of Chus. They must have been ejected by the Assyrians ; otherwise there would have been a safe retreat for this people to their original place of residence: they might at least have put themselves under the protection of their brethren ; so that there could have been no-grounds for their apprehensions. The Assyrians would have been too remote to have hurt them; as is evident from the situation of their country, that lay upon the upper part of the Tigris ; between which and Egypt many nations intervened. The sons of Ashur must therefore have regained the place which was so unjustly held from them; and were in possession of Babylonia. That this was the case, while the Cuseans were in Egypt may, I think, be farther proved; and their fears at their departure justified by a passage in the Mosaic history, which will give, and at the same time receive, much light by being compared with this extract from Manetho. We are informed of a very early warfare, undertaken by four kings against many tributary
* Ninus çonquered Babylon. Diodor. Sic. lib. 2. pag. 64. 9 Gen. 14. v. 1. &c.
nations, that had withdrawn themselves from their allegiance: “ And it came to pass in the days of
Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, “ Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of “nations; That these made war with Bera king of “ Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab
king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, “and the king of Bela, which is Zoar. All these “were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which “is the Salt sea. Twelve years they served Chedor“ laomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, "and the kings that were with him, and smote the
Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims “ in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, “ And the Horites in their mount Seir unto El-paran, “ which is by the wilderness ;-all the country of the “ Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in “ Hazezon-tamar.” We have here an account of an early and formidable confederacy of four potent princes in order to make war upon their tributaries, and to reduce thein to their pristine obedience. This union seems to have been no other, than a grand alliance of the house of Shem. The king of Elam was confessedly of his lineage. Arioch Melech Ellasar is the same as Arioch Melech al Asur, and so it may be read ; that is, “ Arioch king of Nineve ;" for both the country and the capital were called by that name: and Mousul, built on the ruins of Nineve, still retains it; if we may believe modern tra
vellers, and especially Benj. Tudelensis, who terms it 10 AL Assur. As to any objection, that may be raised to this prince's being king of Assyria, because he is termed Ellasar, it amounts to nothing. "Tiglath Pul Assur is called Tiglath-pileser; and Assur Adon, that is, “ the great lord Assur" is termed Esar-haddon: which is owing to the different manner of writing and pronouncing words in different ages; and that variation, which will sometimes arise through want of vowels in the Hebrew. ELlasar, like the words above, is somewhat diversified: yet is in reality the same as Arioch Melech al Asur or Assur, “ Arioch the great Assyrian,” the mighty prince of Nineve : and answers precisely to the Arius," who stands fourth in the dynasties of Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus. Tidal king of nations we may imagine was either of the line of Arphaxad, or of Aram : but of the two, the latter is the more probable. " Indeed it is in a manner confirmed by Eupolemus, who gives a particular account of this transaction; and mentions the exploit
10 Benj, Tudelensis Itinerar. pag. 61,
" 2 Kings 15. v. 19, 29.-19. v. 37. “Since the days of “ Esar-haddon king of Assur," Ezra. 4. v. 2. called by the Se. denty, Agapadar.
?? Of this Arius see Pasch. Chron. pag. 37. His true name was Thyras : he was the son of Ninias.
" Theophilus supposes these kings to come from Chaldea anal Assyria; but is so confused, that little light can be obtained from what he says. Theoph. ad Autolycum, lib. 2. pag. 160.
of Abraham in recovering his brother Lot, who had been taken prisoner. He tells us that, after the patriarch had settled in Canaan, this war began : and he mentions the Armenians, that is, the sons of Aram, as principals in it: that they defeated their enemies, and took many prisoners; among others the brother of Abraham : that Abraham armed the servants of his household, and regained his brother and the other captives; and in his turn took prisoners the wives and children of the enemy.
14 'TSE ρον δε Αρμενιες επιςρατευσαι τοις Φοινιξι: νικησαντων δε και αιχμαλωτισαμενων τον αδελφιδες αυτε, τον Αβρααμ μετα οικετών βοηθησαντα, εγκρατη γενεσθαι των αιχμάλωτισαμενων, και των πολεμιων αιχμαλωτισαι τεκνα και γυναικας. By this we find, that three of the principal branches of the house of Shem are represented as joining their forces with the king of Shinaar. Now it does not seem probable, that the sons of Shem should enter into an alliance with the chief of the family of Ham and Chus, who must necessarily have been their professed enemies. And it is still less probable, that the house of Chus should join themselves to that of Shem, in order to destroy the Amalekites and the Amorites, and the nations of Canaan, who were of the same lineage, that they were of theirselves, all equally descended from Ham : between whom one would have imagined there had subsist
14 Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. 9. cap. 17.
ed a natural alliance. We therefore can scarce suppose, that the king of Shinaar here mentioned was a Cusean, or a descendant froin Ham. He was certainly descended from Shem : and Babylon must have been at this time in the hands of the Assyrians. From these premises, which I submit to the reader, Į beg leave to draw up this historical epitome. The kings of Elam, and of Assur seem to hạve called in to their assistance another powerful prince, who was of the family of Aram, a collateral branch of Shem, in order to extirpate their common enemy. Which when they had effected, and driven the sons of Chus from Shinaur and Babylon, they placed a king of their own on the throne. His name was Amraphel : and to secure themselves from any future insults, they weakened every branch of them, and obliged the most distant to be tributaries. And upon their rising in rebellion thirteen years afterwards, they invaded their country with a powerful army, and destroyed or captivated all that they engaged with. Among others that they invaded, were the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim, and the Horites in mount Seir unto El-paran : likewise the Amorites, and Amalekites, all which were the descendants of Ham, and some of the family of Chus. From these circumstances laid together we may find out the true cause of this war, the most antient of any upon record; the occasion and grounds of which were never, that I know of explained. It is the