cheenc03a.pdf

parativeiy in;ignifieant ; but he restored the temple of
Nabh there. c. H. W. J.
1s. 20. is the only OT o3sraee . - which mentions the
areat usurper by name. The view that o.%a and
is sometimes a corruption, or, at any rate, a sylionym
of iaoa7,, , Jerahmeel' (e.g. in Judg, lir 191 IS. 1 r ;
cp RAMXTHAIM~ZOPLZIM, XICAW, 2). oblige the present
xyriter to modify or even reject sorne of the current
views on what are called the 'Assyrian prophecies' of
lsaiah. According to his theory it kcomes in the
highest degree probable thtt the danger which beset the
stare from N. Arabia was as much in the mind of
Hebrew prophets and statesmen as the danger from
Assyria, and that some prophecies whteh have bee11
thought to refer lo Assyrian invaders may refer after all
to N. Arabians.
I. We will look figst at Is. 105fi. and specially at
YU. 8.1~. These verses are usually suppored to refer to
the fall of Carchemirh, Calno (7). Arpad, Hamath,
Dam;ucus, and Samaria, and are thought to indicate as
the date of the prophecy some period in the reign of
Sargon after 717 (fall of Carchemiih). This vpprarr
to be a mistake. The placer referred to in u. g are probably
not to the N. but lo theS. of Judah: Kir-cusham.
Jernhmrel, Ephrath, Maacaih. Curham, and Shimron
-places on the N. Arabian bordcr, of the two latter of
whlch Isaiah had predicted the conquest in a much misunderstood
earlier prophecy (see 84, where probably
' Dammeirk' [EV Damascus] should be 'Cusham.' and
' Shbmrbn' [EV ' Samaria'] should be 'Shimron').
This critical conclusion, however, dwr not force nr to
give up referring Is. 10 sfi to the reign of Sargon. The
prediction of Isaiah in 84 (as we can now understand
it) was fulfilled, at least to a moderate extent, not by
Tiglath-pileser, but by Sargon. who war perhaps starting
on his Arabian campaign (see above, 5 13) when the
prophet put dramatically into the mouth of