There can be no doubt that Shishak was a power. ful king, especially as he was strong enough tc invade Judah, and it is therefore probable that he restored the influence of the Egyptians in Ethiopia. Zerah the Ethiopian, on account of his army being of Cushim and Lubim, and thus as well as in con sisting of chariots, horsemen, and foot, of like composition to that of Shishak (2 Chron. xvi. 8; xiv. 9, 12, 13 ; xii. 2, 3), seems certainly to have been either a king of this dynasty, or else a general of such a king. In the former case he would pro bably correspond to Usarken II. The names Usarken and Zerah seem very remote, but it must be remembered that Egyptian words transcribed in Hebrew are often much changed, and that in this case it is probable that both Egyptian and Hebrew forms, if they be two forms of one word, come from a third source. The style Zerah the Cushite' is unlike that applied to kings of Egypt who were foreigners, or of foreign extraction, as in the cases of So king of Egypt,' and Shishak king of Egypt.' On this account, and especially from the omission of the word king, or any royal appellation, though we cannot infer positively from the few in stances in Scripture, Zerah may be rather supposed to have been a genera], but the army that he com manded must, from the resemblance of its com position to that of Shishak's, have been that of a king of the same line.* It is recorded that Asa had an army of 58o,000, and that Zerah the Ethio pian came against hint with 1,000,000, and 300 chariots. These high numbers have been objected to, but the history of our times shews that war upon this large scale is not alone possible to great kingdoms, but also to states of no very large popu lation, which put forth their whole strength.± It is to be noticed that Asa was evidently struck by the greatness of the hostile army, to which the prophet Hanani alludes, reproving him at a later time (2 Chron. xvi. 8). There is, therefore, too general an agreement for us to admit the supposi tion that the original number has not been pre served. Asa encountered Zerah in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah,' and praying for God's aid against this huge army, it was put to the rout, and he pursued it to Gerar, and smote all the cities round Gerar, which seem to have been in alliance with the invaders, and took much spoil from the cities, and also smote the tents of cattle, from which he took many sheep and camels (xiv. 8-15). This great overthrow may have been a main cause of the decline of the power of the 22d dynasty, which pro bably owed its importance to the successes of Shishak.
During the later period of this dynasty, it is pro bable that Ethiopia became wholly independent. The 23d dynasty appears to have been an Egyp tian line of little power. The 24th, according to Manetho of but one king, Bocchoris the Sete, was probably contemporary with it. In the time of Bocchoris, Egypt was conquered by Sabaco the Ethiopian, who founded the 25th dynasty of Ethiopian kings. The chronology and history of this line is obscure. We take Manetho's -list for the chronology, with a necessary correction, in the following table:— The duration we have given to the first and second reigns can only be considered to be con jectural. The sum of the dynasty would be 5o years, which is the duration Herodotus assigns to the Ethiopian dominion in Egypt (ii. 139), and as he lived at no great distance from the time, and is to be depended upon for the chronology of the next dynasty, we should lay some stress upon his evidence, did he not speak of but one Ethiopian king, Sabacos. There are two Hebrew synchron isms and one Egyptian point of evidence which aid us in endeavouring to fix the chronology of this dynasty. Either the first or second king of the dynasty is supposed to be the So of the Bible, with whom Hoshea, who began to reign B.C. 730, made a treaty at least three years before the taking of Samaria : the latter event is held to be fixed to B.C. 721: therefore one of these two Ethiopians was probably reigning in B.C. 723, or somewhat, per haps seven years, earlier. But it is possible that the treaty may have been made before the conquest of Egypt. Tirhakah was contemporary with Hezekiah and Sennacherib at the time of the destruction of the Assyrian army. The chronology of Hezekiah's reign is extremely difficult, but we are disposed to think that the common reckoning, varying not more than three years, is correct, and that the preferable date of the accession of Hezekiah is B.C. 726. In this case we must follow Dr. Oppert in supposing that the date of Sennacherib's invasion should be Hezekiah's 24th year, instead of the 14th year (Chi-axe/ogle des Assyriens et des Babyloniens, pp. 14,
z5), or else infer a long interval between two wars. The last year of Hezekiah is thus B.c. 698, unless we suppose that his reign was longer than is stated in the Masoretic text, and perhaps was for the latter part contemporary with Manasseh's. Tirhakah's reign is nearly determined by the record in a tablet of the tombs of the Bulls Apis, that one of them was born in his 26th year, and died at the end of the loth of Psammetichus I. The length of its life is unfortunately not stated, but it exceeded twenty years, and the longest age recorded is twenty-six.
Supposing the latter duration, the first year of Tirhakah's reign would fall B.C. 695, which would correspond to the 4th Year of Manasseh. This reckoning is probable, as it would leave five years for the calamitous period before the reign of Psam metichus. The contemporaneousness of Tirhakah and Hezekiah can be explained by one of two sup positions, either that Hezekiah's reign exceeded twenty-nine years, or that Tirhakah ruled in Ethi opia before coming to the throne of Egypt. It must be remembered that it cannot be proved that the reigns of Manetho's 25th dynasty form a series without any break, and also that the date of the taking of Samaria is considered fixed by the Assy rian scholars. At present, therefore, we cannot venture on any changes.
We do not know the cause of the rise of the 25th dynasty. Probably the first king already had an Ethiopian sovereignty when he invaded Egypt. That he and his successors were natives of Ethiopia is probable from their being kings of Ethiopia and having non-Egyptian names. Though Sabaco conquered Bocchoris, and put him to death, he does not seem to have overthrown his line or the 23d dynasty : both probably continued in a tribu tary or titular position, as the Sethos of Herodotus, an Egyptian king of the time of Tirhakah, appears to be the same as Zet, who in the version of Manetho by Africanus is the last king of the 23d dynasty, and as kings connected with Psammeti chus I. of the Sete 26th dynasty are shewn by the monuments to have preceded him in the time of the Ethiopians, and probably to have continued the line of the Sete Bocchoris. We think it probable that Sabaco is the ' So king of Egypt,' who was the cause of the downfall of Hoshea, the last king of Israel. The Hebrew name NI:, if we omit the Masoretic points, is not very re mote from the Egyptian SHEBEK. It was at this time that Egypt began strongly to influence the politics of the Hebrew kingdoms, and the prophecies of Hosea, denouncing an Egyptian alliance, probably refer to the reign of So or his successor ; those of Isaiah, of similar purport, if his book he in chronological order, relate to the reign of Tirhakah. Tirhakah is far more com memorated by monuments than his predecessors. At Thebes he has left sculptures, and at Gebel Berkel, Napata, one temple and part of another. There seems no doubt that Sethos (Zet ?) was at least titular king of part of Egypt, or the whole country, under Tirhakah, on the following evi dence :—In the Bible, Tirhakah, when mentioned by name, is called king of Cush (Ethiopia),' and a Pharaoh is spoken of at the same period (Is. xxx. 2, 3 ; xxxvi. 6 ; 2 Kings xviii. 21) ; in the Assyrian inscriptions a Pharaoh is mentioned as contempo rary with Sennacherib ; and the Egyptian monu ments indicate that two or three royal lines centered in that of the 26th dynasty. The only event of Tirhakah's reign certainly known to us is his ad vance against Sennacherib, apparently in fulfilment of a treaty made by Hezekiah with the Pharaoh whom we suppose to be Sethos. This expedition was rendered needless by the miraculous destruction of the Assyrian army, but it is probable that Tirha kah seized the occasion to recover some of the cities of Palestine which had before belonged to Egypt. Herodotus gives a traditional account of Sennache rib's overthrow, relating that when Egypt was ruled by Sethos, a priest-king, the country was invaded by Sennacherib, against whom Sethos, who had offended the military class, marched with an army of artificers and the like, and encamped near Pelu sium, where in the night a multitude of field-mice gnawed the bow-strings and shield-straps of the Assyrians, who being thus unable to defend them selves, took to flight (ii. 141). It has been well observed that it is said by Horapollo that a mouse denoted ' disappearance ' in hieroglyphics (Hierog: i. 50). here we have evidently a confused tradi tion of the great overthrow of the Assyrians. Stra bo, on the authority of Megasthenes, tells us that Tirhakah, in his extensive expeditions, rivalled Sesostris, and went as far as the Pillars of Her cules (xv. p. 686).