And much the same may be said of Isaiah's mention of _Sargon_ of Assyria, who is stated to have taken Ashdod. Yet the very existence of such a king was unknown to secular history, till the last century; when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with inscriptions recording, among other things, his capture of Ashdod.[113] [Footnote 113: Isa. 20. 1. Orr's Problem of Old Test., 1906, p. 399.] Two other cases are of special interest, because the monuments seemed at first to show that the Bible was wrong. One of these refers to a so-called _Pul_, King of Assyria;[114] but when the list of Assyrian monarchs was discovered, no such king could be found. It looked like a serious discrepancy, and was even spoken of as 'almost the only important historical difficulty' between the Bible and the monuments.[115] But it has now been discovered that _Pulu_ was the original name of a usurper, who changed it to Tiglath Pileser III. on ascending the throne; though he was still sometimes called Pulu.[116] This not only removes the difficulty, but tends to show the early date of the narrative; for a late writer would probably have called him by his better-known name. [Footnote 114: 2 Kings 15. 19.] [Footnote 115: Rawlinson, Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, 1871, p. 121.] [Footnote 116: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. iv., p. 761.] The other instance refers to _Jehu_, who is stated in the Assyrian inscriptions to be the son of Omri; though according to the Bible he was no relation whatever. But it has now been shown that the words translated _son of Omri_ may only mean _of the land or house of Omri_, which is a common Assyrian name for the kingdom of Israel.[117] [Footnote 117: Driver, Schweich Lecture, 1908, p. 17.] As a last example we will take the _dates_ given for the Fall of the two capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem. These were calculated long ago (margin, A.V.) from a number of statements in the Bible, giving the lengths of different reigns, etc., at B.C. 721 and 588 respectively.[118] And now the inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia fix the former at _B.C._ 722 and the latter at 586.[119] Everyone must admit that these are remarkable agreements, considering the way in which they have had to be calculated. [Footnote 118: 2 Kings 17. 6; 25. 3.] [Footnote 119: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. i., p. 401.] We have now briefly considered the Books of the Old Testament, both as to their _undesigned agreements_, which are very interesting; their _alleged mistakes_, which are unimportant; and the effect of _modern discoveries_, which has undoubtedly been to support their accuracy. What, then, is the value of the evidence they afford as to the history of the Jewish Religion having been confirmed by miracles? (_B._) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES.