The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament - The Search For ...

6 THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS AND THE 0. T.
322 herib but in those of Sargon (see the inscription of Khor-
sabad lines 33 foil. 49. 56). In the records of Sanherib
there is no longer any mention of either of these cities.
Hence it seems as though the historian transferred to
Sanherib what properly - speaking belonged to Sargon.
Accordingly we must assume that there was here a
blending of the military campaigns of Sargon and those
of Sanherib*. If this hypothesis be correct ^ we can at
once understand : 1) that in the historical records of the
Bible not a word is said throughout of Sargon or of his
expeditions in the years 720, 715 and 711, which we know
to have affected Juda also (comp. Is. XX. 1 and my
observations on that passage). 2) That Sanherib's cam-
paign, which, as we have seen above, cannot under any
circumstances have occurred before 701, has been placed
80 early in Hezekiah's reign as the year 714**. This cam-
paign has evidently been confused with the previous ex-
peditions of Sargon, and simply substituted for the latter,
so that these latter have been entirely passed over in the
narrative. It is only in such anachronisms as the mention
of the destruction of the kingdom of Hamath as Sanherib's
military exploit, whereas it was really Sargon's, as well as
in the confused chronology, that we still perceive some in-
dication of a dim recollection of the actual course of events.
34. Wliere are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? where
* On this subject see Studien und Kritiken 1872, pp. 733 (Sayce). 738.
** On this compare also P. Kleinert in Stud, und Krit. 1877, p. 177.
But this writer assigns too high an importance to the numerical
statements of the Bible. See on this subject Nowack ibid. 1881, pp.
300 foil., and comp. above p. 303 foil, footnote. Vol. I. [But the Bibli-
cal and Assyrian statements would agree chronologically if we place,
with Kamphausen, the accession of Hezekiah in 715 (714)— Translator.]