The Cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament; - The Search For ...

I KINOS XVI. 189
root "T)p), that is to say "without delay". The rest is perfectly intel-
ligible. Simittu, constr. state simdat, meaning (comp. TJ^Ji "yoke")
the animal bound to the yoke (ni'r) i.e. a horse or ass; the ideogram
that occurs here LAL. at is explained by Tiglath-Pileser I col. VII. 199
28; ikimSunu 1 pers. Imperf. with suiEx, root Q^X "take", "take
away". For the rest see glossary.
The parallel passages in the obelisk- and in the bull-
inscription may be consulted in the note on 1 Kings XX. 1.
Observe that here Ahab , the Sir'lite , and Hadadezer =
Benhadad II (see below) ofDaraaskus appear in conjunction
also that this same monarch (Salmanassar II) in the inscrip-
tion subsequently drawn up, on the Nimrlid obelisk, mentions
Jehu the son of Omri as well as Hazael of Damaskus.
Hence there is no room for doubt that the Biblical Ahab of
Israel is meant by this "Ahab the Sir'lite". On the other
hand, the circumstance that Ahab appears in alliance with
Damaskus is completely in accord with the Scriptural ac-
count. From the latter we learn that Ahab, after the battle
of Aphek, concluded an alliance with Benhadad, which
mainly involved the restoration to Israel of the cities which
had been lost, and the cession of "alleys" in Damaskus
to the Israelites (1 Kings XX. 34 foil. Wellhausen).
This alliance, however, was brought about by the common
danger which threatened both the kingdoms from the
empire of Assyria. For the allies the confederacy had
a disastrous issue, as we perceive from the passage of
the inscription which has been quoted. In the sixth year
of the reign of the Great King the allies were totally
defeated in the battle of Karkar. No less than 14,000* of
their soldiers were put liors de combat. The misfortune of
Benhadad and his confederates reacted on the alliance. Its
* On the varying traditions respecting the number of the enemies
who fell, see Keilinsch. u. Gesch. p. 47.
;