FINAL PROJECT: THE THIRD CAMPAIGN OF SENNACHERIB

FROM THE CHICAGO PRISM, ORIENTAL INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (OIM A2793)

by

Joshua D. Tyra Box T–2693

Dr. Averbeck Old Testament 7021 (Akkadian II) Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

May 2012

Abbreviations ANET James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed., with

supplement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969) ARAB Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, ed. James Henry

Breasted, vol. 2 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1926) AS Daniel David Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, ed. James Henry Breasted, Oriental

Institute Publications II (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1924) BAL Rykle Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Rome: Pontificium

Institutum Biblicum, 1979) CAD Ignace J. Gelb et al., ed., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–) CDA Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian

(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999) GA John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005) GAG Wolfram von Soden and Werner R. Mayer, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, 3rd ed.,

Analecta Orientalia 33 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995) HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament, ed. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994) MEA René Labat and Florence Malbran-Labat, Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne, 6th ed. (Paris:

Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2002) RT Mordechai Cogan, The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia

Relating to Ancient Israel, A Carta Handbook (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008) SB Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World

(Jerusalem: Carta, 2006)

1

Introduction Mordechai Cogan calls the account of the third campaign of Sennacherib “probably the most discussed Neo-Assyrian inscription,”1 due especially to the parallel accounts in 2 Ki 18-19, 2 Chr 32, and Is 36-37. It is rare to see such a spectacular convergence of the Old Testament with extra-biblical historical records, though the exact nature of that convergence remains a “hot topic” in biblical studies and Assyriology. The Text and its Date The text presented here is that of the Chicago Prism, held at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute (OIM A2793). It is the latest version of Sennacherib’s campaign accounts, dated to the eponymy of Gahilu in 689 BC,2 some 11 years after the events of the third campaign (701 BC). The oldest version of the text is the Rassam Cylinder, dated to 700 BC, just a year after the campaign.3 The Taylor Prism in the British Museum, of which the Chicago Prism is a better preserved copy, dates to 691 BC.4 The principal difference in our text from the Rassam cylinder (other than minor points of orthography) is that the list of the tribute paid to Sennacherib by Hezekiah is only half as long as that in Rassam.5 Historical and Chronological Issues One Western Campaign, or Two? Understanding how the biblical and Assyrian accounts fit together is a difficult problem. The main issue is one of chronology, and the facts are as follows. The Bible states that the fall of Samaria to Assyria, dated to 722 or 723 BC,6 occurred in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Ki 18:10). This would place Hezekiah’s accession at around 729, given the overlapping regnal years.7 The Bible goes on to state that Sennacherib threatened Judah in Hezekiah’s 14th regnal year (2 Ki 18:13), which would be 715/714—much too early for the 701 date suggested by the Rassam cylinder.8 This discrepency has given rise to the theory that Sennacherib actually conducted two western campaigns, one in 715/714 (the campaign of the biblical texts) and another in 701, of which the Rassam cylinder and the Prisms must be a composite account.9 On this point scholars are divided. Cogan firmly believes in a single 701 BC campaign, citing

1 Mordechai Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem (2.119B),” in The Context of Scripture II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 302. 2 ARAB, 115. 3 The accounts prior to the Rassam cylinder mention only two campaigns, helping to fix the date of the third campaign at 701 BC (RT, 111–112). 4 ARAB, 2:115. 5 RT, 115. 6 See Bob Becking, “Chronology: A Skeleton Without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign as a Case-Study,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4 (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 53. 7 K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., 2nd ed. with Supplement. (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1986), 494. 8 Becking, “A Skeleton Without Flesh?” 53. 9 Lester L. Grabbe, “Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacherib’s Campaign,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4 (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 60.

2

the lack of evidence for a second campaign.10 Though Rainey does not deal directly with the issue, his narrative reconstruction of the third campaign assumes a “one campaign” theory.11 It is notable that even Becking, a proponent of the “two campaigns” theory, must admit there is no direct evidence for a second western campaign—though he stresses, there is no direct evidence against it, either.12 Kitchen harmonizes the chronological evidence by proposing a co-regency of Hezekiah with his father Ahaz from 729, with his first year of sole reign being 716/715.13 On this scheme, 2 Ki 18:10 will refer to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s co-regency, and 2 Ki 18:13 to the invasion of Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s 14th year of sole reign. This is perhaps not the tidiest of solutions, since it raises the question of why the author of Kings would have dated the events in this inconsistent fashion;14 but it is a solution. The Siege of Lachish in the Bible, the Assyrian Annals, and the Nineveh Reliefs A related historical issue is the siege of Lachish, which is mentioned in the biblical account (e.g. 2 Chr 32:9) and which is given the utmost prominence in Sennacherib’s own victory reliefs at his palace in Nineveh, and yet is totally absent from the Assyrian third campaign account. This situation is not really a problem so much as it is an example of the well-known selectivity of ancient history writers, both within and without the biblical corpus. We are left to speculate as to the reasons for omitting Lachish in the Annals and emphasizing it at Nineveh. In Cogan’s view, “one suspects that the choice of Lachish to represent the battles in Judah was due to the fact that Sennacherib had set up his camp at the site and was on the scene personally supervising the events depicted in this grand relief.”15 Rainey ascribes to Sennacherib a more propagandistic motivation: “Since Jerusalem was not taken, it was necessary to pick another site for the glorification of the Assyrian army during the third campaign.”16 I would also point out that the campaign account mentions Sennacherib as capturing 46 unnamed Judean cities (III:18-III:23), and it seems not unlikely that just one of those might be Lachish.17

10 RT, 112; Mordechai Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, no. 27 (2001): 40–45, 69. 11 SB, 740–741. 12 Grabbe, “Of Mice and Dead Men,” 56. 13 Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., 494. 14 Kitchen has an answer for this: “A new king might continue his old year-numbering at his accession to sole power, or choose to make a complete break to affirm that a different regime was now in power. A good example of the latter is Hezekiah starting a new year-numbering after the death of Ahaz, with whose pro-Assyrian policies he clearly disagreed” K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Paperback ed. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006], 29). 15 RT, 124. 16 SB, 243. 17 A similar situation exists with the biblical account of Shishak/Shoshenq’s invasion of Judah and Israel in 925 BC. The Bible only mentions his campaign in Judah, and specially mentions his threatening Jerusalem. Shoshenq’s own victory relief mentions a great many northern Israelite cities not referenced in the Bible, and fails to list Jerusalem. The solution is either that Jerusalem is among the 80-odd place names which are no longer readable on the relief, or that it is not listed because it simply wasn’t conquered: just like Hezekiah, Rehoboam stripped the gold from the temple and paid the Pharaoh, who, unlike Sennacherib, was thereby placated and left Jerusalem alone.

3

Tirhakah/Taharqa: When is a Pharaoh not a Pharaoh? In 2 Ki 19:8-9a, Sennacherib hears that the forces of Tirhakah, king of Nubia, are coming to fight him. In 701 Tirhakah (Eg. Taharqa) was still eleven years away from being king of anything. He did not accede to the throne of Egypt and Cush until 690. The tendency to view this fact as an anachronism in the biblical text has unfortunately contributed to the creation of a second “two campaigns” theory, with the first western campaign taking place in 701 and the second in 688, to give Taharqa time to become king.18 However, Kitchen points out that the assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Ki 19:37; Is 37:38) dates the present text of 2 Ki to not before 681/680, when that event occurred.19 Thus the book was written or put in its final form when Taharqa was already king, and the biblical author is merely using the same type of expression a modern American would use, e.g., “When President Obama was 20 years old...” (he wasn’t President then, but he is now). Petty Kings and Padî of Ekron The third campaign account contains 14 personal names of the conquered or tribute-paying kings of Phoenicia, Philistia, and the rest of the Levant. None of these is mentioned by name in the Bible except for Hezekiah (indeed, “king” is probably too grand a term for some of these local rulers, and the biblical writers would have had little reason to mention them). And yet, the text connects one of these rulers, Padî king of Ekron, with Hezekiah. Apparently the rebellious Ekronites had deposed their pro-Assyrian king Padî and imprisoned him in Jerusalem under Hezekiah (II:73-II:77). After dealing most harshly with the rebels, Sennacherib has Padî released from prison (part of the tribute he exacts from Hezekiah?) and reinstalls him on the throne of Ekron (III:14-III:17). This incident shows Hezekiah’s collusion in the local anti-Assyrian rebellion, and is markedly absent from the biblical account. Rainey, a little cynically, proposes a reason for this omission: the incident “would severely tarnish the image of King Hezekiah, the persecuted saint and hero of the deliverance of Jerusalem.”20 I think there is reason to question Rainey’s conclusion. The biblical accounts do not hide the fact that Hezekiah was not eager to submit to Assyria. In fact, they show him trying every political expedient to quell the Assyrian threat: he attempts to pay off Sennacherib with heavy tribute, hoping he will go away (2 Ki 18:14-16); and the Rabshakeh’s comments suggest that Hezekiah was involved in summoning the Egypto-Nubian reinforcements to counteract Assyria (2 Ki 18:19-25). The Padî episode would be just one more instance of Hezekiah’s “anti-Assyrian activism”, and if it had been included in the Bible, his image could hardly be tarnished any further. The biblical text already portrays him as a desperate king taking desperate measures. The point is that after every political expedient had failed, it was God who saved Jerusalem, and not Hezekiah’s wealth or the Egyptian chariotry. The End of the Story: What Really Happened at Jerusalem? The central crux in squaring the biblical and Assyrian versions is the seemingly divergent accounts of the siege of Jerusalem. The Bible reports God’s miraculous intervention in sending his angel to strike dead 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, after which Sennacherib went home to Nineveh (no doubt highly demoralized) (2 Ki 19:35-37; Is 37:36-38; 2 Chr 32:21). On the other hand, the Assyrian account reports a victory over Hezekiah—or at least, fails to mention a defeat. Sennacherib says he confined Hezekiah

18 Becking, “A Skeleton Without Flesh?,” 59. 19 Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., 554. 20 SB, 241.

4

in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage”21 (III:27-III:30), he parceled out captured Judean land to the kings of Philistia (III:30-III:34), and on his return to Nineveh, he received heavy tribute (heavier than that mentioned in the Bible) from Hezekiah (III:35-III:49). And yet it is very instructive to attend to what he leaves unsaid. The victory formula which he uses repeatedly for other defeated cities (alme, akšud, ašlula šallassun “I surrounded, I conquered, I carried off their plunder”[II:72, III:7; also “plundered” in III:31]) he does not use when referring to Jerusalem, nor does he mention any captives from there. That there is “something fishy” in Sennacherib’s account is all but confirmed by a passage in Herodotus (2.41), which, though it is set in Egypt and differs in many details, reads like a distant, garbled echo of the biblical account:

The next king was the priest of Hephaestus, whose name was Sethos... So presently came king Sanacharib against Egypt, with a great host of Arabians and Assyrians; and the warrior Egyptians would not march against him. The priest, in his quandary, went into the temple shrine and there bewailed to the god’s image the peril which threatened him. In his lamentation he fell asleep, and dreamt that he saw the god standing over him and bidding him take courage, for he should suffer no ill by encountering the host of Arabia: ‘Myself,’ said the god, ‘will send you champions’. So he trusted the vision, and encampled at Pelusium with such Egyptians as would follow him, for here is the road into Egypt; and none of the warriors would go with him, but only hucksters and artificers and traders. Their enemies too came thither, and one night a multitude of fieldmice swarmed over the Assyrian camp and devoured their quivers and their bows and the handles of their shields likewise, insomuch that they fled the next day unarmed and many fell. And at this day a stone statue of the Egyptian king stands in Hephaestus’ temple, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect: ‘Look on me, and fear the gods’.22

Grabbe is rightly cautious about not conflating this very different account with the biblical one,23 and yet the similarities are remarkable: 1) the Assyrians are invading a country in roughly the right neighborhood, 2) Sennacherib is mentioned by name, 3) there is an appeal to a god for salvation, 4) the god promises to send deliverance, 5) and the deliverance comes in a miraculous way.24 Though here, one might observe, it almost seems easier to believe the angel of the LORD came down than that thousands of mice were selectively ravenous for the edible parts of weapons!

21 Tadmor points out that the same language of confining or imprisoning (esērum) inside a city via blockade was used earlier by Tiglath-Pileser III to describe the punishment meted out to an unsubmissive yet surviving enemy (Sarduri of Urartu), and was a way of putting a good “spin” on an outcome that would reflect badly on Assyria. The exact words that appear in our text (“confined him like a bird in a cage”) were also used by TPIII to describe his treatment of Rezin of Aram-Damascus, though the latter was eventually executed after a protracted siege. According to Tadmor, Sennacherib would have co-opted this “face-saving” language from the earlier king (Hayim Tadmor, “Assyria at the Gates of Tushpa,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph’al, ed. Mordechai Cogan and Dan’el Kahn [Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Press, 2008], 271–272). 22 Quoted in Grabbe, “Of Mice and Dead Men,” 135. 23 Ibid., 135–136. 24 Because of these five obvious points of similarity, I disagree with Grabbe’s statement, “The only resemblance between the two is that Sennacherib is defeated. Whatever gave rise to the Herodotean story, it was not the biblical version. This can be stated on internal grounds alone” (Ibid., 137).

5

Outline of the Third Campaign to Ḫatti (Syria, Phoenicia) and Amurru (the Levant)

I. Phoenicia a. II:37-II:49 – Lulî king of Sidon flees and dies at sea; Sennacherib subdues Phoenicia and

puts a king of his choice, ʾIttôbaʿal, on the throne. II. Philistia and Trans-Jordan

a. II:50-II:60 – Sennacherib brings Philistia, Ammon, Moab, and Edom under his control, making them his vassals.

b. II:60-II:72 – Sennacherib deposes rebellious Ṣidqâ king of Ashkelon and deports him to Syria with his entire household. He installs Šarru-lū-dāri (possibly the brother of Ṣidqâ) on the throne. Sennacherib sacks and plunders Ṣidqâ’s towns in the Coastal Plain and Shephelah, which had apparently rebelled along with their king.

c. II:73-II:77 – Sennacherib next deals with rebellious Ekron, whose citizens had deposed their king Padî (loyal to Assyria) and imprisoned him in Hezekiah’s. Sennacherib deports the royal family and officials of Ekron.

d. The Egyptian Counter-Attack i. II:78-III:17 – The Ekronites summon the Egyptians to their aid; a large army of

Egyptians and Nubians comes to help them, and Sennacherib’s army defeats them in the plain of Elteqeh. Back at Ekron, Sennacherib makes an example of the treacherous officials by gruesomely executing them and hanging their bodies from the ramparts. He secures Padî’s release from Jerusalem, reinstalls him on the throne, and renews his vassalship.

III. Judah a. III:18-III:38 – Sennacherib captures 46 Judean cities, making use of all the accoutrements

of Assyrian siege warfare. He deports over 200,000 people and surrounds Jerusalem with siege forts, famously shutting in Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage”. Sennacherib divides up the land siezed from Judah among his vassal kings in Philistia.

b. III:39-III:49 – Hezekiah, “overwhelmed” by the Assyrian king’s “lordly radiance”, sends a huge tribute to Sennecherib at Ninevah after the Assyrian forces have withdrawn.

Relevant Biblical Passages: 2 Kings 18-19, Isaiah 36-37, 2 Chronicles 32 (from the ESV) Sennacherib Attacks Judah (2 Ki 18:13; cf. Is 36:1, 2 Chr 32:1) In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. Hezekiah Pays Tribute to Sennacherib (2 Ki 18:14-16; not mentioned in 2 Chr or Is) 14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15 And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house. 16 At

6

that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria. Sennacherib Mentioned at Lachish (cf. Is 36:2) And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan,25 the Rab-saris,26 and the Rabshakeh27 with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. (2 Ki 18:17) After this, Sennacherib king of Assyria, who was besieging Lachish with all his forces, sent his servants to Jerusalem to Hezekiah king of Judah and to all the people of Judah who were in Jerusalem, saying, ... (2 Chr 32:9) Siege of Lachish Mentioned; Egypto-Nubian forces under Tirhakah/Taharqa Mentioned (2 Ki 19:8-9a; cf. Is 37:8-9) 8 The Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, for he heard that the king had left Lachish. 9 Now the king heard concerning Tirhakah king of Cush, “Behold, he has set out to fight against you.” Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh Mentions the Egyptian Counter-Attack (2 Ki 18:19-25; cf. Is 36:4-10) 19 And the Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you rest this trust of yours? 20 Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me? 21 Behold, you are trusting now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. 22 But if you say to me, “We trust in the LORD our God,” is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem”? 23 Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. 24 How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants, when you trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 25 Moreover, is it without the LORD that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.’ ” Sennacherib’s Messengers (Quoted by Isaiah) Mention victory over Egypt (2 Ki 19:23-24; cf. Is 73:24-25) 23 By your messengers you have mocked the Lord,

and you have said, ‘With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of the mountains,

to the far recesses of Lebanon; I felled its tallest cedars,

25 Akkadian tartānu “field marshal, principal military officer” (CDA 404). 26 from Akkadian rab ša rēši “‘the one at the head’... which includes steward, director, and later eunuch... high official, political or military” (HALOT 769). 27 Akkadian rab šāqê “chief cupbearer” (high official) (CDA 359).

7

its choicest cypresses; I entered its farthest lodging place,

its most fruitful forest. 24 I dug wells

and drank foreign waters, and I dried up with the sole of my foot

all the streams of Egypt.’28

The LORD Defeats the Assyrians (2 Ki 19:35-37; cf. Is 37:36-38, 2 Chr 32:21) 35 And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. 36 Then Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. 37 And as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer, his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place. The Language of the Text This text is of a decidedly mixed character, somewhere on a continuum between Old Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian. Many of the Neo-Assyrian features outlined by Huehnergard occur,29 but not in every case where they might be expected. In the words of Aristotle, our scribe was “consistently inconsistent.” One could attribute this to the highly formal nature of the text and the classicizing tendencies associated with the emulation of previous royal inscriptions, with their set phrases and established rhetorical turns. And yet, the scribe’s Neo-Assyrian pronunciation shows through in many instances. Phonology Vowel Contractions and Harmony Vowels contract normally, just as in Babylonian: tâmtim (< tiamtim “sea”, II:40), šaddâšu (<šadduāšu “his mountain”, II:40), šâšu (< šuāšu “that one” acc., II:62), urâššu (<uruaššu “I brought him” D pret. 1cs warûm + vent. + 3ms prn. suff., II:64). No words appear in our text which might demonstrate the lack of vowel harmony of the type erābum (vs. Bab. erēbum) which Huehnergard mentions, so it is impossible to comment on this feature. However, the short vowel harmony of the type šarritim (vs. Bab. šarratim) does not seem to be in operation here: šallati (rather than *šalliti “plunder”, III:11), iššiqū (rather than *iššuqū “they kissed”, II:60).30

28 “Sennacherib’s ‘drying up the Nile’ [= “the streams of Maṣor”] is simply metaphorical for his defeating the Egypto-Nubian force at Eltekeh, and nothing more (Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., 553). 29 GA, 559-603. 30 GA, 599-600.

8

Syllable Structure Our text shows a marked preference for closed syllables with short vowels (CaC-) as over against open syllables with long or short vowels (Cā-/Ca-) (where “C”=any consonant and “a”=any vowel). Where, for example, the lexicons give two variants of a noun CāCu/CaCû and CaCCu/CaCCû, our text almost always opts for the latter: ruqqi rather than rūqi (“distance”, II:39), šaddâšu rather than šadâšu (“his mountain”, II:40), rammu rather than râmu (“love” in the personal name Aya-rammu “Aya is love”, II:57). This tendency extends even to foreign place names: Ṣidunnu rather than Ṣidūnu (“Sidon”, II:41 et passim), Bīt-zitti rather than Bīt-zīti (“Beth-Zayta”, II:42), Isqallūna rather than Isqalūna (“Ashkelon”, II:61 et passim). This phenomenon seems to be a feature of the nominal morphology only, and is no doubt prevented from affecting the verbal system by the semantic weight which vowel length and consonantal doubling carry there (e.g. G dur. iparras, N dur. ipparras, verb. adj. paris, participle pāris). Huehnergard states that the abstract nominalizing suffix –ūt is regularly –utt in Assyrian,31 which would fit into the abovementioned pattern perfectly. Ironically, whenever a word with this ending is written out fully in our text, it is never written with a double t, e.g. be-lu-ti-ia (“my lordship”, II:39). This could, of course, be normalized either bēlūtīya or bēluttīya, but I have used the former, given the remarkable consistency our text shows in marking doubled consonants elsewhere. There are several words of this type which are spelled logographically (e.g. gišGU.ZA LUGAL-ú-ti = kussi šarrūti “throne of kingship, royal throne”, II:47). With these I have used the classical –ūt, since there is no point in being more Assyrian that our Assyrian scribe! Morphology Nominal Inflection Mimation is very rare, occuring only three times: once in the genitive singular (qabal tâmtim “in the middle of the sea”, II:40) and twice in the personal name Tubaʾlum (ʾIttô-Baʿal, the new king of Sidon, II:47, II:51) which is nominative in form but indeclinable. Mimation never occurs on plural forms. The word-final ending –i on genitive singulars and on oblique plurals of the –ūt/-āt type shows up mostly as classical –i, but also occasionally as –e. Singular Plural Masculine šalši “third”

ruqqi “distance” dannūti “strong” ṣeḫrūti “small”

Feminine šallati “plunder” mandatte “payment”

dimāti “towers” kalbannāte “siege machines”

Likewise, the masculine plural oblique ending is mostly –ī, but occasionally –ē: emūqī “forces” (could be dual), ṣēnī “flocks”, pulḫī “terrors” melammē “radiance” (pl. form), arammē “siege ramps”, kadrê “greeting gifts” (a-stem) 31 GA, 601.

9

The mixed character of our text is well demonstrated that both the classical and Neo-Assyrian forms stand side by side in the formula pulḫī melammē “The terrors of [my lordly] radiance” (II:38). Only one formally distinct accusative singular exists in this text, the word nība “number” in III:21. The rest are are either in construct or written logographically, obscuring their case endings. The locative-adverbial ending which appears classically as –um shows up in our text as –u (sidru “in a battle line”, II:83; birêtu “in fetters”, II:75). Even with the loss of mimation, this ending still causes doubling in the first consonant of a following suffix (ṣēruššu [< ṣērum + šu ] “upon him, against him”, III:17). Other adverbial endings -išam, -iš occur in the words šattišam (“yearly”, II:49), arḫiš (“quickly”, II:71), nakriš (“in a hostile manner”, II:77), šallatiš “as plunder” (III:27). The gentilic adjective -āya (always spelled -Ca-a-a) plays an important role in the often repeated formula “PN the GN-ite”: Tubaʾlum Ṣidunnāya “ʾIttô-Baʿal the Sidonian” (II:51), Mitinti Asdūdāya “Mitinti the Ashdodite” (II:54), Ḫazaqyahū Yahudāya “Hezekiah the Judean” (III:18), etc. Von Soden explains how the afformative –ayya, -āya (not always inflected) can be added to foreign place names to create gentilic adjectives; these were apparently originally plural, though Rainey and Luckenbill are united in treating these forms in our text as singular (“the Sidonite” etc.). Von Soden notes that the suffix may be West Semitic in origin.32 The form is remarkably similar to the determined (“emphatic”) masc. pl. ending –ayyâ in Aramaic, which also knows a gentilic adjective in –āy.33 Verbal Inflection The verb forms in our text are all quite standard. The subordinating suffix is –u (ša lā iknušu “who did not submit” II:61) and the ventive plural is –nim. (ikterūnim “they sought help”, II:81) The ventive singular is –a without mimation (ašlula “I conquered” II:72), which nevertheless causes doubling in a following suffix or particle (just like loc./adv. –u, see above): urâššu “I brought him” (D warûm, *urua(m)šu > *urâ(m)šu > urâššu, II:65); ušēbilam-ma “he dispatched” (Š (w)abālum, III:48). The Assyrian-style strong conjugation of II-weak verbs is attested once: ušaʾʾalū “they were sharpening” (D dur. šêlu, III:1).34 Because our text is in the first person, 1cs verb forms are far and away the most numerous. The only other verb forms are 3ms and 3mp, with one 3fp, agreeing with the dual for “hands” (ikšudā “[my own hands] conquered”, III:5). Otherwise feminine verb forms are totally absent, as is the second person. Another notable verb form is amdaḫiṣ “I fought” (G pret., III:3), spelled with d rather than t from MB onward, apparently under the influence of sonorant m.35

32 GAG, 85. 33 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 5th printing., Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5 [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983], 23, 29). 34 See GA, 603. 35 CDA, 190.

10

Pronouns The pronouns are all of the standard form and do not seem to demonstrate the Assyrian peculiarities outlined by Huehnergard (our text has šū rather than Ass. šūt, for example).36 Again because of our text’s content, the most frequent pronoun is the 1cs –ya “my”, also appearing in two compounds as –ʾa (šēpūʾa “at my feet”, II:46; ellamūʾa “before me”, II:83; these forms assume a phonetic evolution *–um-ya > *-uʾʾa > *ūʾa).37 The other suffix pronouns are 3ms –šu (acc., suff.), and 3mp –šunūti (acc.), -šun, -šunu (suff.; -šun is more prevalent). Two demonstratives appear, both 3ms: šū (“that”, nom., III:37), šâšu (“that one”, acc., II:62, III:27). Prepositions and Conjunctions Ultu “from” is used instead of ištu with the same range of meanings (III: 15, III:26, III:31). Several compound conjunctions are used, e.g. ultu qereb “from the midst of” (III:31), ina qabal “in the midst of” (III:5). The most common conjunction is –ma, which seems to have the same range of functions as it does in Old Babylonian. Numerals A very large number, 200,150 (the number of Judean prisoners), occurs in III:24. It is to be read as follows:

MIN . ME . LIM . DIŠ . ME . NINNU (2 × 100 × 1000) + (1 × 100 + 50) šinā meāt līm u meat u ḫamšā The normalization of this figure is, of course, speculative.

36 GA, 600. 37 GAG, 27.

11

Syntax Word Order Because the subject is frequently “I”, “he”, or “they” and hence included in the verb form itself, there are no examples of the traditional VOS word order. The most common sentences begin with the topic, usually a nominal form (and often a long chain of them) which functions either as the direct object or part of an adverbial phrase. This topic is frequently uninflected (casus pendens) and merely introduces the persons or objects of interest. Next follow all the rest of the modifiers of all shapes and sizes, and lastly the verb completes the comment about the topic. Ex.: Ṣidunnu rabû, Ṣidunnu ṣeḫru ...[16 intervening words]..., rašubbāt kakki Aššur bēlīya isḫupūšunūtī “(As for) Great Sidon and Little Sidon ... [and lots of other places]..., the terrors of the weapon of Aššur my lord overwhelmed them” (II:41-II:46). Though the verb is usually sentence-final, it is not uncommon in this text for an important adverbial or direct object to come right after the main verb, as the last element in the sentence: ...ukīn ṣēruššu “I imposed [my tribute] on him” (III:37 et passim), ...išpura rakbûšu “[in order to pay the tribute and do obeisance] he sent his messenger” (III:49). Tense While most of the verbs in this straightforward narrative are preterite, the durative is occcasionally used for vividness or progressive aspect in the past: ...-ma išâṭ abšānī “[I imposed tribute on him] ...and he was pulling my yoke” (II:68). Case The use of the three cases are sometimes confused in our text: išpura rakbûšu for expected rakbâšu “he sent his messenger”(III:49); tāmartašunu kabittu “their heavy audience-gift(s)” is a direct object, but appears as nominative rather than accusative (II:59). When the direct object is at the front of the sentence, quite far away from the verb at the end, it is more apt to describe it as being in the casus pendens or the “free form”: Ṣidunnu rabû, Ṣidunnu ṣeḫru ... [16 words intervene] ... rašubbāt kakki Aššur bēlīya isḫupūšunūtī “Great Sidon and Little Sidon ... the terrors of the weapon of Aššur my lord overwhelmed them” (II:41-II:46). Rhetoric and Ideology of Kingship There are quite a few repeated set phrases which must have been common in these royal victory inscriptions. Here are a few examples:

12

The King’s Terrifying Aspect and the Help of Aššur

pulḫī melammē bēlūtīya ušḫupūšū “he was overwhelmed by the terrors of my lordly radiance” (II:38-39, III:38) rašubbāt kakki Aššur bēlīya isḫupūšunūtī “the terrors of the weapon of Aššur my lord overwhelmed them” (II:45-46) ina tukulti Aššur bēlīya “in the trust of Aššur my lord [I conquered, etc.]” (III:1-2)

Language Describing the Conquered or Submissive

iknušū šēpūʾa “they bowed down at my feet”(II:46) alme, akšud, (ašlula šallassun) “I surrounded, I conquered, (and I carried off their plunder)” (II:72, III:7, III:23) išâṭ abšānī “he was pulling my yoke” (II:68)

Language Describing the Rebellious or Unrepentent

ša ana šēpīya arḫiš lā iknušū “who did not quickly bow down at my feet” (II:72-73) ša lā iknušu ana nīrīya “who did not submit to my yoke” (II:61-62, III:19)

Installing a Loyal King as Vassal

ina kussi šarrūti/bēlūti elīšun ušēšib “I installed him on the royal/lordly throne over them” (II:47-48, III:16)

Exacting Tribute from New Vassals

(biltu) mandattu (kadrê) bēlūtīya ukīn ṣēruššu “the (tribute and) payment (and greeting gifts) of my lordship I imposed upon him” (II:48-49, III:17, III:36-37)

The rhetoric of the text succeeds in painting the king and the Assyrian army as a fearful juggernaut not to be resisted. This impression is heightened by the poetic force of the language, such as the terrible harshness and finality of ana Aššur urâššu “I brought (deported) him to Assyria” (II:64). The “yoke” imagery has many biblical parallels. In the curses at the end of the Sinaitic covenant, Moses tells the Israelites that if they fail to serve the LORD, “ therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he [the LORD] will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you” (Deut 28:48, ESV). Ultimately, this is the very curse that is being realized in the third campaign and in 2 Ki 18-19, Is 36-37, and 2 Chr

13

32. Isaiah uses the yoke metaphor himself when he prohesies the downfall of Assyria, after they have been used as a tool to punish Israel: “I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder” (Is 14:25, ESV). Though the yoke is a symbol of the oppression of a harsh king (1 Ki 12:4), reappropriated this language and turned it on its head when said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt 11:29-30). It is instructive to compare this royal inscription with an Egyptian one of the same general type. In the relief celebrating the victory of Shoshenq I in Israel and Judah (ca. 925 BC), for example, most of the text is taken up by a long, congratulatory speech of the god Amun to Shoshenq. Practically all the verbs are 2ms, addressed by Amun to the king, whom he refers to as “my beloved son”; and when a 1cs form occurs, it refers to the god. Add to this the fact that the carving of this relief, which was never finished due to Shoshenq’s death, began not with the figure of the king, but with Amun. Amun was fully completed before the carver started on the image of Shoshenq, who remains to this day only a rough outline! The rhetorical focus in this text38 is clearly on the god, not the king (though the king is also important). Contrast this with the third campaign, which is focused instead on the king in the first person, with only a few (almost casual?) references to the support of Aššur. These differences reflect the varying ideologies of kingship in Egypt versus Mesopotamia: Egypt had a truly divine concept of the kingship, while Mesopotamia in general thought of the king in terms of the “good shepherd” motif, or as the earthly regent of the god, not as a son or incarnation of the god himself.

38 See Robert Kriech Ritner, The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period, ed. Edward Wente, Writings from the Ancient World 21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 200–212; The Epigraphic Survey of the Oriental Institute, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak III: The Bubastite Portal, vol. 74, Oriental Institute Publications (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1954), plates 2–11.

14

Column II 37

L16839

B329A

i-na šal-ši gir-ri-ia a-na kurḫat-ti lu al-lik Ina šalši40 girrīya41 ana Ḫatti lū allik42 In my third campaign, I indeed went to Ḫatti.43

39 The text is that of the Chicago Prism, held in the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago (OIM A2793). The account of the Third Campaign runs from column II, line 37 to column III, line 49, 96 lines in all. The handcopy marked “L” is reproduced from AS, 168–173. Luckenbill’s transliteration is found in Ibid., 29–34. The handcopy marked “B” is reproduced from BAL, 2:327–335. Borger’s transliteration is found in Ibid., 1:73–75. While the two handcopies are identical, I have chosen to include both since it is instructive to compare these two very different styles of handwriting. Luckenbill’s copy has more of the slanting, cramped quality of the prism itself, while Borger’s has a “standardized” feel, almost as regular as a modern Akkadian computer font. 40 šalši – note the loss of mimation as is common in NA; however, in our text the gen. sg. –im appears as –i and not as MA/NA –e (see GA, 600). 41 girru – ‘Weg, Feldzug’ (‘road, campaign’) (BAL, vol. 2, 249). 42 allik – G pret. 1cs alākum ‘to go’ 43 Ḫatti – If kurḫat-ti is read as KUR ḫat-ti, this would give māt Ḫatti ‘Ḫatti-land’; Ḫatti was “the standard term for North Syria. ...originally signified the Hittite empire and the geographical sphere under Hittite rule; later it came to serve as the name for the states of Anatolia and Upper Syria that were the political and cultural heirs of the Hittite Empire” (RT, 35).

15

38

L

B

mlu-li-i LUGAL uruṣi-du-un-ni pul-ḫi me-lam-me Lulî44 šar Ṣidunni45 pulḫī46 melammē47 As for Lulî the king of Sidon,48 by the terrors of my lordly

39 L169

B

be-lu-ti-ia is-ḫu-pu-šu-ma a-na ru-uq-qí bēlūtīya isḫupūšū49-ma ana ruqqi radiance50 he was overwhelmed, and far away51

44 Lulî – Normalizations of his name in the literature are diverse: Luli (Ibid., 115), both (E)lulî and Lūli (SB, 241), Lūlī (HALOT, 54), Lulê (AS, 29; ARAB, 118). Lulî is apparently the Elulaios mentioned in Josephus as king of Tyre (SB, 241). Cogan states that “King of Sidon” is a traditional title of Phoenician kings (RT, 114–115), and Rainey notes that “Sidonian(s) is the biblical generic name for Phoenicians” (SB, 241). 45 The options for normalizing “Sidon” are diverse in CAD; with one or both internal vowels either short or long: Ṣiduni (CAD 8:238), Ṣidūni (Ibid. 11:I:174), Ṣīdūni (Ibid. 3:18-19), all three genitive; or with a different vowel pattern altogether, and apparently indeclinable: Ṣidūna (Ibid. I:1:302), Ṣidānu (Ibid. 4:264), both genitive. CAD does not list any instances with the doubled nūn as in our text. The Hebrew gives Ṣîdôn or Ṣîdōn (HALOT, 1021), forms that presumably represent something closer to the native Phoenician realization. 46 pulḫu – ‘Furcht, Furchtbarkeit’ (‘fear, fearfulness’), freq. pl. esp. in this particular expression (BAL, 2:263; CDA, 278). 47 melemmu, M/NB melammu, mostly pl. ‘fearsome radiance, aura’ (CDA, 207). In Assyrian, ‘the oblique plural of masculine nouns ends in –ē” (GA, 601). 48 “As for Lulî...” – Casus pendens. Lulî is the direct object of the verb in II:39. See A Grammar of Akkadian, 211–212. 49 isḫupūšū – G pret. 3mp saḫāpum ‘to cover, overwhelm’ + 3ms prn. suff. Here 3mp = passive, lit. ‘they overwhelmed him’. 50 “my lordly radiance” (melammē bēlūtīya) – cf. m. šarrūtim ‘royal radiance’ (CDA, 207). 51 “far away” (ana ruqqi) – ruqqu is an adjective ‘far’ or a noun ‘distance’; ana ruqqi = lit. ‘at a distance’ (BAL, 2:269). The form ruqqu with short vowel and doubled q is preferred here to the alternate rūqu, seemingly part of a general tendency of our text to prefer CaCC syllables over CāC syllables (cf. Assyrian šarruttu(m) for Babylonian šarrūtu(m) (GA, 601).

16

40

L

B

qa-bal tam-tim in-na-bit-ma šad-da-šú e-mid qabal tâmtim52 innabit53-ma šaddâšu ēmid54 to the midst of the sea he fled, and disappeared.

41 L

B

uruṣi-du-un-nu GAL-ú uruṣi-du-un-nu TUR Ṣidunnu rabû, Ṣidunnu ṣeḫru,55 As for Greater Sidon, Little Sidon,56

52 tâmtu – ‘Meer’ (‘sea’) (BAL, 2:278). Note the presence of mimation in tâmtim. This could be an archaizing feature, or a sign of hesitation between –i and –im during a period of linguistic change. The uncontracted form is tiāmtu, also the name of the goddess Tiāmat, the primeval sea personified (CDA, 405). Cognate to biblical Hebrew təhôm, “the deep” of Gen. 1:2, “a purely passive element [in creation] as distinct from Tiamat in Enuma-Eliš” (HALOT, 1690). 53 innabit – N pret. 3cs (infin. naʾbutum / nābutum) abātum II ‘to flee’ 54 šaddû, a variant of šadû ‘mountain(s)’; š.-šu emēdu ‘to disappear’ (lit. ‘to reach one’s mountain’) (CDA, 345). The base of šad(d)û is šad(d)u- (GA, 520), and šaddâšu represents the base šaddu + acc. –a + 3ms prn. suff.; ēmid – G pret. 3cs emēdum ‘to cling to, reach, etc.’; Assyrian has ēmid for OB īmid (GA, 603). Note here the value of KUR as the syllable šad (MEA, 269). 55 log. TUR = ṣeḫru ‘small, young’ (BAL, 2:272). 56 Greater Sidon – ‘Perhaps the fortified quarter of the city; also referred to in Josh 11:8, 19:28’; Little Sidon – ‘mentioned only here; it may refer to a particular quarter (the port area?) or to a suburb of the main city’ (RT, 116).

17

42

L

B

uruÉ-zi-it-ti uruṣa-ri-ip-tu uruma-ḫal-li-ba Bīt-zitti,57 Ṣariptu,58 Maḫalliba,59 Beth-Zayta, Zarapheth, Maḫalliba,60

57 Bīt-Zitti – “might be the town of Zayta, south of Sidon” (Ibid). Options for normalization of zi-it-ti include Zitti (RT, 116; ARAB, 2:119), Zīti (SB, 241). Cogan notes that the name appears in Phoenician as bt zt, presumably “house of olives (olive trees)”, and so Zīti may be preferred (RT, 116). However, given the preference in this text for short vowels and doubled consonants, I have chosen Bīt-Zitti to reflect the spelling of the text. The place name is not cited in CAD. 58 Ṣariptu – “On the Mediterranean coast, 13 km south of Sidon. The ancient name is preserved in the nearby village of Sarafand. The prophet Elijah found food and shelter in the home of a woman from this town, Zarephath; see 1 Kgs 17:8-24” (Ibid). The Hebrew is Ṣārəp̄aṯ (HALOT, 1058). There is an Akkadian verbal adjective ṣarpu, ṣariptu, meaning ‘refined (said of silver); fired (said of earthenware)’; ‘tanned and dyed (leather); colored, red’; and, as a substantive, ‘silver’ (Gelb et al., CAD, vol. 16, 113–114). The root ṣrp is well-attested in Semitic languages with a spread of meanings similar to the Akkadian (HALOT, 1057), but it is not possible to say definitively whether the place name Ṣariptu/Zarephath is connected to it. The place name is not otherwise cited in CAD. 59 Maḫalliba – “Kh. el-Maḫālib; referred to in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III.... It is assigned to the tribe of Asher in Judg 1:31” (Ibid). The biblical references to this town are both emendations (at Josh 19:29 and Judg 1:31), but if these emendations are correct, then the Hebrew would give, Maḥallēḇ, with the doubled lamedh of our text. Options for normalization include Maḥalliba (SB, 241), Maḫaliba (RT, 116), Maḫallība (BHS note b at Josh:19:29). The place name does not seem to be cited in CAD. 60 Rainey reads all the instances of URU in this sequence not as determinatives but as logograms, giving āl Bīt-zitti ‘the town of Bīt-zitti”, etc. (SB, 241).

18

43

L

B

uruú-šu-ú uruak-zi-bi uruak-ku-ú Ušû,61 Akzibi,62 Akkû,63 Ušû, Achzib, Acco,

44 L

B

URU.MEŠ-šu dan-nu-ti É BÀD.MEŠ a-šar ri-i-ti ālānîšu dannūti, bīt dūrānī,64 ašar rîtī65 his fortified cities and walled cities, where66 there were pastures

61 Ušû – “The coastal quarter of Tyre, opposite Tyre Island; ... Many identify it with Tell er-Rashidiyeh near Râs el-ʿAyin. Some find the name in the biblical town Hosah [Ḥōsâ] in Josh 19:29... but there are phonetic difficulties with this identification” (RT, 116). Normalization options include Ushu/Ušu (RT, 116; ARAB, 2:119; ANET, 199; HALOT, 337); and Ušû (SB, 241). I have opted for Rainey’s normalization to show the long u vowel in our text. 62 Akzibi – “Located on the seacoast at the mouth of Wadi ez-Zib, in the territory of the tribe of Asher (Josh 19:29; Judg 1:31)” (RT, 116). Hebrew ʾAḵzîḇ (HALOT, 45). Normalization options: Akzibi (SB, 241); Achzib/Akzib (RT, 116; ANET, 199; ARAB, 2:119). The –i ending in our text is apparently the genitive singular. 63 Akkû – “The site of biblical Acco is at Tell el-Fuḥḥar, east of the old city of Acco; assigned to the tribe of Asher (Judg 1:31)” (RT, 116). Hebrew ʿAkkô (HALOT, 823). Normalization options: Akkû (SB, 241; ARAB, 2:119); Acco/Akko (RT, 116; ANET, 199). The former seems best to represent the spelling in our text. 64 BÀD = dūru ‘wall’ (BAL, 2:245). bīt dūrānī = ‘walled cities, fortresses’ (BAL, 2:243). 65 rîtu(m) – ‘pasture for sheep or horses’ (CDA, 306). 66 ašar – ašru A “place” in construct with following genitive nouns is used to express “the place where X is”, e.g. ašar daltim “at the place where the door is” (CAD 2:456).

19

45

L

B

ù maš-qí-ti É tuk-la-te-šú ra-šub-bat gišTUKUL daš.šur u mašqītī67 bīt tuklātēšu68 rašubbāt69 kakki Aššur70 and watering-places for his fortresses, the terrors of the weapon of Aššur,

46 L

B

EN-ia is-ḫu-pu-šú-nu-ti-ma ik-nu-šu še-pu-ú-a bēlīya isḫupūšunūtī71-ma iknušū72 šēpūʾa.73 my lord, overwhelmed them, and they bowed down at my feet.

67 mašqītu(m) – ‘watering place, irrigation outlet’ (Ibid., 203). Mašqītī is governed by ašar in the previous line (see fn. 56). Rîtu u mašqītu ‘pasture and watering-place’ is a set phrase (CDA, 306); rîtī u mašqītī functions as the nomen regens in the construct chain completed by bīt tuklātēšu. 68 bīt tuklātēšu – ‘support centers, fortified towns, refuge locations’ (BAL, 2:243). 69 rašubbatu(m) – ‘terror’ (Ibid., 2:268). 70 daš-šur – the single horizontal stroke of the aš sign is written in ligature with the šur sign (see MEA, 271). 71 isḫupūšunūti – G pret 3mp saḫāpum ‘cover, overwhelm’ + 3mp acc. suff. prn. Interestingly, the fem. pl. subject rašubbāt takes this masc. pl. verb. 72 iknušū – G pret. 3mp kanāšum ‘bow down, submit’ 73 šēpūʾa – noun šēpu(m) + ‘foot’ + loc. adv. ending + 1cs prn. suff. (CDA, 367). Von Soden explains the phonetic progression that gave rise to this form: *šēpum-ja > šēpuʾʾa > šēpūʾa (GAG, 27).

20

47

L

B

mtu-ba-aʾ-lum i-na gišGU.ZA LUGAL-ú-ti Tubaʾlum74 ina kussi šarrūti ʾIttô-baʿal on the royal throne75

48 L

B

UGU-šú-un ú-še-šib-ma GUN man-da-tu be-lu-ti-ia elīšun ušēšib76-ma biltu mandattu77 bēlūtīya I installed over them, and the tribute and payment of my lordship,

49 L

B

šat-ti-šam78 la ba-aṭ-lu ú-kin ṣe-ru-uš-šú šattišam79 lā baṭlu80 ukīn ṣēruššu.81 yearly, without end, I imposed upon him.

74 Tubaʾlum – cf. ʾEṯbaʿal Jezebel’s father in 1 Ki 16:31, probably for Phoenician *ʾIttôbaʿal, “Baʿal is with him”; Josephus also mentions a priest named Ithobalus (HALOT, 101). The name also appears in the Phoenician Ahiram ossuary inscription, as the name of king Ahiram’s father (Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig, Kanaanäische Und Aramäische Inschriften [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002], 1). It was apparently an favorite royal name in Phoenicia. 75 “on the royal throne” (ina kussi šarruti) – lit. “on the throne of kingship”. 76 ušēšib – Š pret. (e-type) 1cs wašābum ‘to cause to sit, install’ 77 mandattu – Nom. –u for expected acc. –a, as object of ukīn in l. 49. Perhaps to be treated as casus pendens. 78 Ú = šam (MEA, 269). 79 šattišam – ‘yearly, year by year’ (CDA, 363). 80 lā baṭlu – ‘incessantly’ (Ibid., 41). 81 ṣēruššu – ‘upon him, against him’ = ṣēr- + loc./adv. suff. –um + 3ms suff. prn. –šu (Ibid., 337).

21

50 L

B

ša mmi-in-ḫi-im-mu urusam-si-mu-ru-na-a-a Ša Minḫimmu Samsimurūnāya,82 Of Menaḥem the Samsimurunite,83

51 L

B

mtu-ba-aʾ-lum uruṣi-du-un-na-a-a Tubaʾlum Ṣidunnāya, ʾIttô-baʿal the Sidonian,

52 L

B

mab-di-li-iʾ-ti kura-ru-da-a-a Abdi-liʾti Arudāya, Abi-liʾti the Arvadite,84

82 Von Soden explains how the afformative –ayya, -āya (not always inflected) can be added to foreign place names to create gentilic adjectives; these were apparently originally plural, though Rainey and Luckenbill are united in treating these forms in our text as singular (“the Sidonite” etc.). Von Soden notes that the suffix may be West Semitic in origin (GAG, 85). The form is remarkably similar to the determined (“emphatic”) masc. pl. ending –ayyâ in Aramaic, which also knows a gentilic adjective in –āy (Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 5th printing., Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5 [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983], 23, 29). 83 “Minḫimmu the Samsimurunite” – An unknown king of an unkown locality (RT, 117). His name corresponds to Hebrew Mənaḥēm (2 Ki 15:14-23), but is to be distiguished from that Israelite king, according to Cogan (Mordechai Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem [2.119B],” in The Context of Scripture II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 303 fn. 5). 84 Arvad(ite) – Biblical Hebrew ʾArwād, ʾArwāḏî (Gen 10:18, Ez 27:8, etc.), referring to “a North-Phoenician island town” (HALOT, 85).

22

53 L

B

mú-ru-mil-ki kurgu-ub-la-a-a Uru-milki Gublāya, Uru-milki the Byblian,85

54 L

B

mmi-ti-in-ti kuras-du-da-a-a Mitinti Asdūdāya, Mitinti the Ashdodite,86

55 L

B

mpu-du-DINGIR kurÉ-am-ma-na-a-a Pudu-ʾilu Bīt-Ammanāya, Pudu-ʾilu87 the Ammonite,88

85 Byblian (Gublāya) – Biblical Hebrew Gəḇal, Giḇlî, referring to the Phoenician coastal city of Byblos (Ez 27:9, etc.) (Ibid., 174). 86 Ashdodite – Biblical Hebrew ʾAšdôd(î); Ashdod was a city of the Philistine Pentapolis (1 Sam 5:1, etc.) (Ibid., 93). 87 Pudu-ʾilu – “also known from an Ammonite stamp seal [pdʾl]” (RT, 117). This king’s name is possibly to be compared to Biblical Hebrew Pəḏahʾēl “God has made free” (Nu 34:28) (HALOT, 912), although Rainey normalizes as Bōdu-ʾilu, for which I have not been able to track down a derivation (SB, 241). 88 Ammonite – Biblical Hebrew ʿAmmôn(î) (1 Sam 11:11, etc.); Ammon was east of the Dead Sea and north of the Arnon River (Ibid., 843).

23

56

L

B

mkam-mu-su-na-ad-bi kurma-ʾa-ba-a-a Kammusu-nadbi Maʾabāya, Kammusu-nadbi89 the Moabite,90

57 L

B

mda-a-ram-mu kurú-du-um-ma-a-a Aya-rammu91 Udūmāya, and Aya-rammu the Edomite,92

89 Kammusu-nadbi – Rainey normalizes Kamōšunadbi, making the name’s derivation clearer: “Chemosh [national god of Moab] has proven himself generous”; cf. such biblical names as ʾAḇînāḏaḇ (SB, 241; HALOT, 5). 90 Moabite (Maʾabāya) – Biblical Hebrew Môʾāḇ(î); Moab was east of the Dead Sea and south of the Arnon River (HALOT, 554). 91 Aya-rammu – This king of Edom has a solid Akkadian name: “Aya [consort of Šamaš] is love”; the second element is more traditionally spelled râmu, but this is another instance of our text’s preference fo CaCC over CāC syllables (CDA, 297). 92 Edomite – Biblical Hebrew ʾeḏôm, ʾaḏômî (Gen 32:4, etc.); the region of Edom was south of Moab and southeast of the Dead Sea (HALOT, 12).

24

58

L

B

LUGAL.MEŠ kurMAR.TUki ka-li-šú-un IGI.SÁ-e šad-lu-ti šarrānī Amurri kalîšun, igišê93 šadlūti94 all the kings of Amurru,95 their bountiful tributes

59 L170

B

ta-mar-ta-šú-nu ka-bit-tu a-di 4-šú a-na maḫ-ri-ia tāmartašunu96 kabittu adi erbîšu ana maḫrīya and their heavy audience-gifts, four-fold, before me

60 L

B

iš-šu-nim-ma iš-ši-qu GÌR.2-ia ù mṣi-id-qa-a iššûnim97-ma iššiqū98 šēpīya.99 U Ṣidqâ they brought, and they kissed my feet. And as for Ṣidqâ,100

93 igisû – ‘tax, tribute’ (BAL, 2:251). 94 šadlu – ‘broad, spacious’ (said of gifts) (CDA, 345). 95 Amurru – “In Sumerian and Old Akkadian texts, ...Syria (in the larger sense)... the scribes of the Neo-Assyrian empire revived Amurru in their royal inscriptions and applied it to the whole of the Levant, especially the kingdoms in the south such as those in Philistia and Judea” (SB, 31). 96 tāmartu – ‘viewing; audience-gift’ (CDA, 396). 97 iššûnim – G pret. 3mp našûm ‘bear, carry’ + vent. suff. 98 iššiqū – G pret. 3mp našāqum ‘kiss’ 99 šēpīya (GÌR.2-ia) – Note the use of the numeral 2 written in ligature with the GÌR sign ( ) to graphically represent the dual of “foot”. This writing also occurs in line 71. 100 Ṣidqâ – “Ṣidqa’s lineage is not known; Tadmor suggested that he was the younger brother of Rukubti [the former king of Ashkelon mentioned in line 65 of our text]. His name appears on a seal of the servant of his son” (RT, 117).

25

61 L

B

LUGAL uruis-qa-al-lu-na ša la ik-nu-šú šar Isqallūna, ša lā iknušu101 the king of Ashkelon, who did not submit

62 L

B329B

a-na ni-ri-ia DINGIR.MEŠ É AD-šú šá-a-šú DAM-su ana nīrīya, ilī bīt abīšu, šâšu, aššassu to my yoke, the gods of the house of his father, himself, his wife,

63 L

B

DUMU.MEŠ-šú DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-šú ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú NUMUN É AD-šú mārīšu, mārātīšu, aḫḫīšu, zēr bīt abīšu his sons, his daughters, his brothers — the offspring of the house of his father —

101 iknušu – G pret. 3cs kanāšum ‘to submit, bow down’, + vent. suff. -u

26

64

L

B

as-su-ḫa-ma a-na kuraš.šurki ú-ra-áš-šú assuḫam102-ma ana Aššur urâššu.103 I deported, and I brought him to Assyria.

65 L

B

mLUGAL-lu-dà-ri DUMU mru-kib-ti LUGAL-šú-nu maḫru-ú Šarru-lū-dāri,104 mār Rukibti šarrašunu maḫrû, Šarru-lū-dāri, the son of Rukibti their previous king,

66 L

B

UGU UN.MEŠ uruis-qa-al-lu-na áš-kun-ma eli nišī Isqallūna aškun-ma over the people of Ashkelon I placed, and

102 assuḫam – G pret. 1cs nasāḫum ‘remove, deport’ + vent. –a(m) 103 urâššu – G pret. 1cs warûm ‘to lead’ (doubly weak) > uru + vent. –a(m) + 3ms prn. suff. –šu = *uruamšu > *urâmšu > urâššu (GA, 208). One must appreciate the violent-sounding finality of the alliteration in ana Aššur urâššu. The inscription is composed to great literary effect. 104 Šarru-lū-dāri – His name means “may the king live forever”, where lū is the precative particle for verbless clauses and dāri is the predicative 3ms form of dārûm, ‘perpetual, lasting, everlasting’; “That a Philistine prince bore an Assyrian name is evidence of the pro-Assyrian stance taken by Ashkelon during Rukibti’s reign” (RT, 117).

27

67

L

B

na-dan GUN kàd-re-e be-lu-ti-ia e-mid-su-ma nadān bilti kadrê105 bēlūtīya ēmissū106-ma I imposed on him the paying of tribute, the greeting gifts of my lordship, and

68 L

B

i-šá-a-aṭ ab-šá-a-ni i-na me-ti-iq gir-ri-ia išâṭ107 abšānī.108 Ina mētiq109 girrīya, he was pulling my yoke. In the course of my campaign,

105 kadrû – ‘present, greeting gift; bribe’ (to king or deity) (CDA, 141). 106 ēmissu – G pret. emēdum ‘impose, exact’ + 3ms prn. suff. –šu; e-mid-su is either a logographic writing, or reflects the colloquial non-assimilation of d to s. 107 išâṭ - G dur. šâṭum ‘to pull, draw’ (CDA, 364; BAL, 2:276). Šâṭum is certainly a II-u verb, which would make the G pret. 3cs išūṭ. This form, then, is durative, confirmed by the extra –a vowel (i-šá-a-aṭ). Perhaps the dur. here conveys a more vivid “historical present”, or even a progressive aspect, “was pulling”, as I have chosen to translate. 108 abšānu – ‘harness, yoke’ (CDA, 3). 109 mētiqu (mētequ, mītiqu, mētaqu) – ‘route, passage’ (of troops, vehicles) (BAL, 2:248; CDA, 209).

28

69

L

B

uruÉ-da-gan-na uruia-ap-pu-ú Bīt-Daganna, Iappû, Beth-Dagon,110 Joppa,111

70 L

B

uruba-na-a-a-bar-qa urua-zu-ru URU.MEŠ-ni Banāy-barqa,112 Azūru,113 ālānî Bene-beraq, and Azor, cities

110 Beth-Dagon – “Situated at the site of modern Bet Dagan (formerly Beit Dajan), 9 km southeast of Joppa, and not to be confused with the town of the same name, Beth-dagon [BH Bēṯ-Dāḡôn], in the Judean Shephelah (Josh 15:41), some 40 km east of the battle area” (RT, 118). Dagon is the Philistine deity which features prominently in connection with the Pentapolis cities of Gaza (Judg 16:23, account of Samson) and Ashdod (1 Sam 5:4, the Ark of the Covenant in Philistia). Connections between Dagon and either fish (cf. BH dāḡ) or vegetation (BH dāḡān, ‘corn, grain’) have been suggested (HALOT, 213). 111 Joppa – “The large mound overlooking the port of Old Jaffa” near modern Tel Aviv (RT, 118). 112 Banāy-barqa – “A Danite city according to Josh 19:45; identified with the former Arab village Ibn Ibraq (Ḥeriya)” (Ibid). BH Bənê Bəraq (HALOT, 139). 113 Azūru – Azor, “located some 6 km east of Joppa, at the former Arab village of Jazur (nowadays Azor). This town appears in the Greek translation to Josh 19:45 [as Αζωρ (Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible Edition [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006])] in place of Hebrew Yehud” (RT, 118).

29

71

L

B

ša mṣi-id-qa-a ša a-na GÌR.2-ia ár-ḫiš ša Ṣidqâ ša ana šēpīya arḫiš of Ṣidqâ which at my feet did not quickly

72 L

B

la ik-nu-šú al-me KUR-ud àš-lu-la šal-la-su-un

lā iknušū, alme,114 akšud,115 ašlula116 šallassun117 bow down, I surrounded, I conquered, and I carried off their plunder.

73 L

B

lúGÌR.NITA2.MEŠ lúNUN.MEŠ ù UN.MEŠ uruam-qar-ru-na šakkanakkū,118 rubû, u nišū Amqarrūna119 The military governors, princes, and people of Ekron,

114 alme – G pret. 1cs lamûm (i/i) [earlier lawûm; cf. amēlu vs. awīlu] ‘to surround’ (CDA, 179). 115 akšud (KUR-ud) – KUR = log. for the verb kašādum (MEA, 167). 116 ašlula – G pret. 1cs šalālum ‘to carry off, plunder’ + vent. -a (Ibid., 350). 117 šallassun – šallatum ‘plundered thing(s), booty’ + 3mp prn. suff. –šun; from the same root (šalālum ‘carry off, plunder’) as the verb ašlula in the same line (Ibid., 351). 118 šakkanakku (lúGÌR.NITA2) – ‘(military) governor’ (Sum. lw.) (Ibid., 349); NITA2 = the ÌR sign. I have put the members of this compound subject in the nominative, rather than oblique plural (as Rainey), since they seem to be a group of casus pendens nouns who will be the topic of the comment in line 78, iplaḫ libbašun ‘their hearts became fearful’. 119 Amqarrūna – Ekron, a Philistine Pentapolis city (Josh 13:3, etc.); BH ʿEqrôn (HALOT, 1502). “Tel Miqne, near Kibbutz Revadim” (RT, 118), and ca. 8 km from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī (=Gath).

30

74 L

B

ša mpa-di-i LUGAL-šú-nu EN a-de-e ù ma-ÚŠ ša Padî šarrašunu bēl adê120 u māmīti121 who had put Padî122 their king, vassal and subject

75 L

B

ša kuraš.šurki bi-re-tu AN.BAR id-du-ma ša Aššur, birêtu123 parzilli iddû124-ma of Assyria, into iron fetters, and

76 L

B

a-na mḫa-za-qi-a-ú kuria-ù-da-a-a ana Ḫazaqiyahū Yahūdāya to Hezekiah the Judean

120 adû – ‘oath’; bēl adê – ‘vassal’, lit. ‘owner of an oath’ (CDA, 5). 121 māmītu – ‘(asseverative) oath’ of vassals and subjects (Ibid., 194). Padî is the “owner” of this type of oath to Assyria, as well, so I have translated bēl adê u māmīti as “vassal and subject”; ma-ÚŠ – the BE sign = ÚŠ, one of whose values is the word mītu, ‘dead person’, used here phonetically as the second part of māmīti (MEA, 67). 122 Padî – “This pro-Assyrian king is known from inscriptions discovered at Ekron” (RT, 118). 123 birītu II, pl. birêtu – ‘fetter’ of bronze, iron; freq. pl. (CDA, 45). 124 iddû – G pret. 3mp nadûm ‘throw’; birêtu/i (parzilli) nadû ‘to throw s.o. (acc.) into (iron) fetters’ (Ibid). The –u ending of birêtu is likely the adv./loc. ending, signifying “into fetters”.

31

77

L

B

id-di-nu-šú nak-riš a-na an-zil-li i-pu-šú iddinūšu, nakriš,125 ana anzilli126 īpušū had given him, in a hostile manner, for the abomination they had committed,127

78 L

B

ip-làḫ lib-ba-šú-un LUGAL.MEŠ kurmu-ṣu-ri iplaḫ libbašun. Šarrānī Muṣuri128 their hearts became afraid. The kings of Egypt

125 nakriš – ‘like an enemy’, ‘in an inimical way’ (Ibid., 234; BAL, 2:261). 126 anzillu – ‘taboo, abomination’; ‘detested, vile, wicked’ (CDA, 19; BAL, 2:240). 127 “for the abomination they had committed” – Here I am following Cogan’s solution, which seems to be the most faithful to the text. Luckenbill, Pritchard and Rainey have variations on “they (or he) held him in prison illegally”, which seems to follow from understanding nakriš ana anzilli īpušū as “they wickedly/in a taboo manner treated him as an enemy”; however, if ana anzilli īpušū is taken as adverbially modifying the next clause, iplaḫ libbašun, it very nicely explains the Ekronites’ motivation in seeking help from Egypt (RT, 114). There is no problem in connecting nakriš with the previous clause; there are many clauses in this text where adverbial or accusative elements come after the main verb. 128 Muṣuri - Although Akkadian had the common noun miṣru “border” as early as the Old Babylonian period, the Assyrian name Muṣri (Babylonian Miṣri) is not unequivocally attested in Akkadian sources as “Egypt” until the late Middle Assyrian period, during the reign of Ashur-bēl-kala (1074- 1057) (Elat, “The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt,” 22). There seem to have been several places known to the Assyrians as Muṣri prior to the 11th c. BC, one of which was probably east of the Tigris. (See Martin Makinson, “Musru, Masuwari and Msr: From Middle Assyrian Frontier to Iron Age City,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin IV [2005 2002]: 33–36.) Tadmor holds that, since Assyria had conquered and assimilated that area in the 12th century BC, “every reference in the Assyrian records to a foreign country Muṣri/Muṣur from the tenth century B. C. onwards should be taken as referring exclusively to Egypt” (Tadmor, “Que and Musri,” 146). The name does not appear in the Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic toponym lists; in those days Magan and Meluḫḫa seem to have been the primary Akkadian terms to refer to Egypt and/or parts of North Africa (Dietz Otto Edzard, Gertrud Farber, and Edmond Sollberger, Répertoire Géographique Des Textes Cunéiformes: Die Orts- Und Gewässernamen Der Präsargonischen Und Sargonischen Zeit, ed. Jean-Robert Kupper, Wilhelmus François Leemans, and Jean Nougayrol, vol. 1, Beihefte Zum Tübinger Atlas Des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B [Geisteswissenschaften] 7 [Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1977], 113, 121). Albright argues that Magan was Egypt under Sargon of Akkad (Albright, “New Light on Magan and Meluḫa,” 321). Biblical Hebrew Miṣrayim (HALOT, 622).

32

79

L171

B

lúERIN2.MEŠ gišPAN gišGIGIR.MEŠ ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ ṣābī qašti, narkabāti, sīsî129 with bowmen, chariots, and horses

80 L

B

ša LUGAL kurme-luḫ-ḫi e-mu-qí la ni-bi ša šar Meluḫḫi, emūqī lā nībi,130 of the king of Cush,131 forces without number,

81 L

B

ik-te-ru-nim-ma il-li-ku re-ṣu-su-un ikterūnim132-ma illikū rēṣūssun133 they sought for help, and they came to their aid.

129 sīsû – ‘horse’; Borger claims an Indo-European origin for this word (BAL, 2:271). 130 nību – ‘name, designation; amount, number’; ša lā nībi ‘without number, countless’ (CDA, 252). 131 Cush (Meluḫḫa) (RT, 118–119). Meluḫḫa could refer to Egypt at an earlier period, but the term for Egypt proper was now Muṣ(u)ri. See fn. 88, above. 132 ikterūnim – G pret katārum ‘to get (as) help; of troops’ + vent. -nim (Ibid., 153). 133 rēṣūssun - rēṣūtu ‘help, assistance’; rēṣūt X alākum ‘to go to s.o.’s assistance’ (Ibid., 302).

33

82

L

B

i-na ta-mir-ti urual-ta-qu-ú Ina tamirti134 Altaqû In the environs of Elteqeh135

83 L

B

el-la-mu-ú-a si-id-ru šit-ku-nu ellamūʾa136 sidru137 šitkunū.138 before me they were assembled in battle lines.

134 tamirtu – older tawwertum ‘(a type of) meadow’; in Ass. royal insc., ‘(cultivated) environs of a city’ (Ibid., 402). Some translators favor “plain”. 135 Elteqah – BH ʾElteqēʾ/ʾElteqēh (HALOT, 60). “The battle against the Egyptians was waged in the coastal plain near Eltekeh, identified with Tell esh-Shallaf, about 3 km west of the city of Rehoboth; Eltekeh is a Danite city in Josh 19:44; 21:23” (RT, 119). Kitchen believes that the Egyptian-Nubian forces under Taharqa (who was only a general at this time, and is here referred to as king retrospectively) regrouped and made to attack the Assyrians again while their forces were divided between Libnah and Jerusalem, and it is this renewed threat which comes to Sennacherib’s attention in 2 Ki 19:9, just before his final threatening dispatch to Hezekiah (K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 385). 136 ellamu- ‘before’, prep. of place or time; ellamūʾa = ‘before me’, cf. šēpūʾa ‘at my feet’ in line 46 (for the form, see fn. 34) (CDA, 70). 137 sidru – ‘row’, ‘line of battle’ (Ibid., 321). The –u ending is a apparently the adv./loc. suffix = ‘in battle line(s)’. 138 šitkunū – Predicative Gt 3mp šakānum ‘be located’ (BAL, 2:273).

34

Column III 1

L

B

ú-šá-ʾa-lu gišTUKUL.MEŠ-šú-un i-na TUKUL-ti daš-šur Ušaʾʾalū139 kakkīšun. Ina tukulti Aššur They were sharpening their weapons. In the trust of Aššur,

2 L

B

EN-ia it-ti-šú-un am-da-ḫi-iṣ-ma áš-ta-kan bēlīya, ittīšun amdaḫiṣ140-ma aštakan141 my lord, I fought with them and I brought about

3 L

B

BAD5.BAD5-šú-un lúEN gišGIGIR.MEŠ ù DUMU.MEŠ LUGAL dabdâšun.142 Bēl narkabāti u mārī šarrim their defeat. The commander of the chariots and the sons of the [

139 ušaʾʾalū – D dur. 3mp šêlu ‘to sharpen, whet’ (CDA, 366). This is an Assyrian-style conjugation of a II-weak verb. Cf. GA, 603. 140 amdaḫiṣ - Gt pret. 1cs maḫāṣum ‘to beat each other, fight’; spelled with d rather than t from MB onward, apparently under the influence of sonorant m (CDA, 190). 141 aštakan – Gt pret. 1cs šakānum ‘put in place, bring about, accomplish, etc.’ Gt listed as a variant of G (Ibid., 348). 142 dabdâšun – dabdû ‘defeat’ (Ibid., 52–53).

35

4

L

B

kurmu-ṣu-ra-a-a a-di lúEN gišGIGIR.MEŠ ša LUGAL kurme-luḫ-ḫi Muṣurāya, adi bēl narkabāti ša šar Meluḫḫi, Egyptian king, along with143 the commander of the chariots of the king of Cush,

5 L

B

bal-ṭu-su-un i-na MURUB4 tam-ḫa-ri ik-šu-da balṭūssun144 ina qabal tamḫāri145 ikšudā in the midst of battle, my own hands captured146 alive.

6 L

B

ŠU.2-a-a urual-ta-qu-ú uruta-am-na-a qātāya.147 Altaqû, Tamnâ, ] Elteqeh, Timnah,148

143 “with” (adi) – lit. ‘up to, until’ (=including, even) 144 balṭūssun - balṭūtu ‘state of being alive’ + 3mp prn. suff. –sun = “alive” (adv.) (CDA, 37). 145 tamḫāru – ‘battle, combat’ (Ibid., 396). 146 captured (ikšudā) – lit. ‘defeated, conquered’ 147 qātāya (ŠU.2-a-a) – Note the numeral 2 written in ligature with the ŠU sign (for qātum) to indicate the dual of “hand”. Cf. the writing of šēpīya at line 60 (see fn. 30). 148 Timnah – “a Judean border town (Josh 15:10), is Tel Batash, on the western bank of the Naḥal Sorek, 7 km west-northwest of Beth-shemesh” (RT, 119). BH Timnāh (HALOT, 1754).

36

7

L

B

al-me KUR-ud áš-lu-la šal-la-sún a-na uruam-qar-ru-na alme,149 akšud,150 ašlula151 šallassun.152 Ana Amqarrūna I surrounded, I conquered, and I carried off their plunder. To Ekron

8 L

B330A

aq-rib-ma lúGÌR.NITA2.MEŠ lúNUN.MEŠ ša ḫi-iṭ-ṭu aqrib-ma šakkanakkī, rubê ša ḫiṭṭu153 I drew near, and the governors and princes who had [

9 L

B

ú-šab-šu-ú a-duk-ma i-na di-ma-a-ti ušabšû154 adūk-ma ina dimāti committed a sin,155 I put to death, and on towers

149 alme, akšud, ašlula šallassun – This sequence is a word-for-word repetition of column II, line 72; alme – G pret. 1cs lamûm (i/i) [earlier lawûm; cf. amēlu vs. awīlu] ‘to surround’ (CDA, 179). 150 akšud (KUR-ud) – KUR = log. for the verb kašādum (MEA, 167). 151 ašlula – G pret. 1cs šalālum ‘to carry off, plunder’ + vent. -a (Ibid., 350). 152 šallassun – šallatum ‘plundered thing(s), booty’ + 3mp prn. suff. –šun; from the same root (šalālum ‘carry off, plunder’) as the verb ašlula in the same line (Ibid., 351). 153 ḫiṭṭu – earlier ḫīṭu ‘failing, defect; crime, sin, error’ (Ibid., 118). The nom. ending –u is unexpected here for acc. –a. 154 ušabšû – Š pret. 3mp bašûm ‘produce; let happen; “weave” a plot’ (Ibid., 40). 155 committed a sin – lit. ‘produced a sin/error’; this is the more literal rendition, following Rainey; Cogan: “stirred up rebellion” (SB, 242; RT, 119).

37

10 L

B

si-ḫir-ti URU a-lul pag-ri-šú-un156 DUMU.MEŠ URU siḫirti157 āli ālul.158 Mārī āli all around the city,159 I hung them up. The citizens160

11 L

B

e-piš an-ni ù gíl-la-ti a-na šal-la-ti am-nu ēpiš161 annī162 u gillāti163 ana šallati amnu.164 who committed misdeeds and sins, I counted as plunder.

156 ḫu = pag (MEA, 73). 157 siḫirtu – ‘entirety’ of people, land; orig. ‘enclosure, circumference’ (CDA, 322). 158 ālul – G pret. 1cs alālum II ‘to hang up’ (as punishment) (Ibid., 11). Rather than “I hung them on towers”, Rainey translates “I impaled them on spikes”. 159 all around the city – lit. ‘of the whole city’ 160 citizens (mārī āli) – lit. ‘sons of the city” (CDA, 199). 161 ēpiš – participle ms const. epēšum ‘the one who does/did’ 162 annu, also arnu – ‘guilt, fault; sin’ (Ibid., 24). 163 gillatu – ‘sin, sacrilege’ (Ibid., 93). 164 amnu – G pret. 1cs manûm ‘to count, include’

38

12

L

B

si-it-tu-te-šú-nu la ba-bil ḫi-ṭi-ti sittûtēšunu165 lā bābil ḫiṭīti166 The rest of them, who did not bear crime

13 L

B

ù gul-lul-ti ša a-ra-an-šú-nu la ib-šu-ú u gullulti,167 ša arānšunu168 lā ibšû,169 or170 sin, who had no guilt,

14 L

B

uš-šur-šú-un aq-bi mpa-di-i LUGAL-šú-nu uššuršun171 aqbi. Padî šarrašunu I ordered their release. Padî, their king,

165 sittu – ‘rest, remainder’; sittûtu – a pl. or abstract form perhaps resulting from sitt-ī-ūtu (BAL, 2:270). 166 ḫiṭītu – ‘sin, crime, guilt’; apparently a fem. variant of ḫiṭṭu, ḫīṭu (col. III line 8) (Ibid., 2:250). 167 gullultu – ‘sin, sacrilegious act’ (CDA, 96). 168 arānu – an infinitive ‘to be guilty’ used substantivally (Ibid., 22). 169 ibšû – G pret. 3cs bašûm ‘be present, exist’ + vent. –u; ša arānšu lā ibšû = lit. ‘whose being guilty was not present’ 170 or – lit. ‘and’ 171 uššuršun – D infinitive uššuru (also wuššuru; not attested in G) ‘to release, set free’ + 3mp prn. suff.

39

15

L

B

ul-tu qé-reb uruur-sa-li-im-mu ú-še-ṣa-am-ma ultu172 qereb Ursalimmu ušēṣâm173-ma from within Jerusalem I released, and

16 L172

B

i-na gišGU.ZA be-lu-ti UGU-šú-un ú-še-šib-ma ina kussi bēlūti elīšun ušēšib174-ma on the lordly throne175 I installed, and

17 L

B

man-da-at-tu be-lu-ti-ia ú-kin ṣe-ru-uš-šú mandattu176 bēlūtīya ukīn ṣēruššu.177 the payment of my lordship I imposed upon him.

172 ultu – preposition; same meaning as ištu (CDA, 135). 173 ušēṣâm – Š pret. 1cs waṣûm + vent. –a(m) ‘let escape, release, bring out’ 174 ušēšib – Š pret. (e-type) 1cs wašābum ‘to cause to sit, install’ 175 on the lordly throne – lit. “on the throne of lordship”; cf. line 47, ina kussi šarrūti ‘on the royal throne’. Lines 16-17 closely parallel col. II lines 47-48. 176 mandattu – Nom. –u for expected acc. –a, as object of ukīn in the same line. Perhaps to be treated as casus pendens. 177 ṣēruššu – ‘upon him, against him’ = ṣēr- + loc./adv. suff. –u(m) + 3ms suff. prn. –šu (Ibid., 337).

40

18

L

B

ù mḫa-za-qi-a-ú kuria-ú-da-a-a U Ḫazaqyahū Yahudāya, And as for Hezekiah the Judean,

19 L

B

ša la ik-nu-šú a-na ni-ri-ia 46 URU.MEŠ-šú dan-nu-ti ša lā iknušu ana nīrīya, erbâ u seššet ālānîšu dannūti who did not submit to my yoke,178 46 of his fortfied cities

20 L

B

É BÀD.MEŠ ù URU.MEŠ TUR.MEŠ ša li-me-ti-šú-nu bīt dūrānī179 u ālānî ṣeḫrūti ša limētīšunu180 and walled cities, and the small cities surrounding them,

178 who did not submit to my yoke – Cf. II:61-62. 179 BÀD = dūru ‘wall’ (BAL, 2:245). bīt dūrānī = ‘walled cities, fortresses’ (BAL, 2:243). Cf. II:44. 180 limētu (also limītu) – ‘environment, surroundings’ (BAL, 2:255).

41

21

L

B

ša ni-ba la i-šu-ú i-na šuk-bu-us a-ram-me ša nība lā īšû, ina šukbus181 arammē182 which were beyond number,183 by laying down of siege ramps,

22 L

B

ù qit-ru-ub šu-pi-i mit-ḫu-uṣ zu-uk GÌR.2 u qitrub184 šupî185 mitḫuṣ186 zūk šēpī187 and bringing near battering rams, the fighting of infantry,

181 šukbus – Š infinitive (bound form) kabāsu ‘to have (a siege ramp) trodden down, built (?)’ (Ibid., 2:252). 182 arammu – ‘causeway, ramp (for siege)’ (CDA, 22). Here, oblique pl. arammē. 183 which were beyond number (ša nība lā īšû) – lit. ‘which had no number’; īšû – G 3mp ešûm ‘to have’ (only pret. forms exist); cf. II:80 emūqī lā nībi ‘forces without number’. 184 qitrub – Gt infinitive (bound form) qerēbum ‘to approach one another, collide’ (BAL, 2:266). 185 šupû (also šubû; orig. yašibum) ‘battering-ram’ (CDA, 441). 186 mitḫuṣ - Gt infinitive (bound form) maḫāṣum ‘to beat each other, fight’ (Ibid., 190). 187 zūku II – ‘infantry’, esp. z. šēpē (Ibid., 449).

42

23

L

B

pil-ši nik-si ù kal-ban-na-te al-me KUR-ud pilši,188 niksi,189 kalbannāte,190 alme, akšud. undermining, breaching, and siege machines, I surrounded and conquered.

24 L

B

200,150191 UN.MEŠ TUR GAL NITA ù MUNUS šinā meāt līm u meat u ḫamšā nišī ṣeḫer rabi, zikar u sinniš192 200,150 people, small and great, male and female,

25 L

B

ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ anšeKUNGA.MEŠ ANŠE.MEŠ anšeGAM.MAL.MEŠ sīsî, parî,193 imērī, gammalī, horses, mules, donkeys, camels,

188 pilšu – ‘mine, undermining’ (wall) (BAL, 2:263). 189 niksi – ‘breach, gap’ (in wall) (CDA, 253). 190 kalbānātu – ‘siege device’ (Ibid., 142); kalbannāte is another example in this text of preferring CaCC over CāC syllables. Other possible meanings: ‘siege machines/storm ladders’ (RT, 120), ‘siege ladders’ (SB, 243), ‘sapper work’ (ANET, 200). 191 200,150 – Logographically, this would be written MIN.ME.LIM.DIŠ.ME.NINNU, and algebraically, (2×100×1000)+(1×100+50). 192 seḫer rabi, zikar u sinniš – Citing these very phrases as his first two examples, Huehnergard notes, “several fixed expressions, usually adverbial in nature, employ the absolute form, for reasons that are unclear” (GA, 234). 193 parû – ‘mule’ (BAL, 2:264).

43

26

L

B

GUD.MEŠ ù ṣe-e-ni ša la ni-bi ul-tu qer-bi-šú-un alpī u ṣēnī ša lā nībi ultu qerbīšun oxen and flocks without number, from their midst

27 L

B

ú-še-ṣa-am-ma šal-la-tiš am-nu šá-a-šú GIM MUŠEN194 qu-up-pi ušēṣâm195-ma šallatiš196 amnu. Šâšu, kīma iṣṣūr197 quppi198 I brought out, and I counted as plunder. That one,199 like a caged bird200

28 L

B

qé-reb uruur-sa-li-im-mu URU LUGAL-ti-šú qereb Ursalimmu, āl šarrūtīšu, inside Jerusalem, his royal city,201

194 ḫu = MUŠEN (MEA, 263). 195 ušēṣâm – Š pret. 1cs waṣûm + vent. –a(m) ‘let escape, release, bring out’ 196 šallatiš – šallatu ‘spoil, plunder’ + adv. suff. -iš 197 iṣṣūru – ‘bird’ (CDA, 132). 198 quppu – ‘box, chest; (bird) cage’ (Ibid., 291). 199 that one (šâšu) – Refers to Hezekiah, last mentioned in line III:18. 200 like a caged bird – lit. ‘like a bird of a cage’ 201 his royal city – lit. ‘the city of his kingship’

44

29

L

B

e-sír-šú uruḪAL.ŠU.MEŠ UGU-šú ú-rak-kis-ma ēsiršu.202 Bīrāti203 elīšu urakkis204-ma I confined him. I hemmed him in with forts, so that

30 L

B

a-ṣe-e ABUL URU-šú ú-tir-ra ik-ki-bu-uš URU.MEŠ aṣê205 abul ālīšu utirra206 ikkibuš.207 Ālānîšu I made it impossible for him to go out of the gate of his city. His cities,

202 ēsiršu – G pret. 1cs esērum ‘to enclose, confine’ + 3ms prn. suff. (CDA, 80). 203 bīrtu (or birtu) – ‘fort, fortress; area protected by fortified outposts’ (Ibid., 45; BAL, 2:242). The idea here seems to be temporary garrisons, hence Rainey’s ‘siege forts’ and Cogan’s ‘armed posts’ (SB, 244; RT, 115). 204 urakkis – D pret. 1cs rakāsu ‘to tie on to; bind round, accoutre with; bind up, bandage’ (CDA, 296); these several definitions seem to suggest ‘surround’, although Rainey gives ‘link together’ (SB, 244). 205 aṣê –bound form of the infinitive (w)aṣûm ‘to go out’ (Gelb, CAD, 7:57); the accusative bound form of the infinitive aṣûm would classically be aṣâ, not aṣê (see the declension of III-weak infinitives in GA, 47), so this must be a Neo-Assyrian form. Rainey reads it as the masc. pl. participle āṣê (though he normalizes as aṣê) ‘the ones going out’ (Rainey SB, 242). This seems formally plausible, although one might expect the singular āṣi as in other “whoever”-type participles in our text (ēpiš, bābil, etc.). 206 utirra – D pret. 1cs târum ‘repulse, turn back; turn or change s.th. into’ (CDA, 401. 207 ikkibuš – for ikkibšu = ikkibu ‘interdicted, forbidden thing, place or action’ + -šu 3ms prn. suff. The several exx. in CAD demonstrate that “X is ikkibšu” means something like, ‘he hates X, fears X, X is abhorrent to him, impossible for him’ (Gelb, CAD, 7:57). Cogan follows CAD in his translation, ‘made it unthinkable (literally, “taboo”) for him to exit by the city gate’ (RT, 115). Rainey translates ‘whoever came forth form the gate I turned back in humiliation’, where ikkibuš = ‘in humiliation’ (SB, 244). If the ‘ones going forth’ (āṣê) are indeed plural (see fn. 166 above), it is curious to find the singular –š(u) on ikkibuš. I have stuck with CAD and Cogan for this challenging line.

45

31

L

B

ša áš-lu-la ul-tu qé-reb KUR-šú ab-tuq-ma ša ašlula ultu qereb mātīšu abtuq-ma which I plundered, I cut off from the midst of his land, and

32 L

B

a-na mmi-ti-in-ti LUGAL uruas-du-di ana Mitinti šar Asdūdi, to Mitinti the king of Ashdod,

33 L

B

mpa-di-i LUGAL uruam-qa-ru-na ù mGISSU-EN Padî šar Amqarrūna, u Ṣilli-Bēl208 Padî the king of Ekron, and Ṣilli-Bēl

208 Ṣilli-Bēl (mGISSU-EN) – GISSU (=GIŠ.MI) is the logogram for ṣillu ‘shade, shadow; protection’; this king’s name means ‘Shadow of Bēl’ or ‘Protection of Bēl’ (CDA, 338).

46

34

L

B

LUGAL uruḫa-zi-ti ad-din-ma ú-ṣa-aḫ-ḫir KUR-su šar Ḫazziti addin-ma uṣaḫḫir209 māssu. the king of Gaza210 I gave, and so I diminished his land.

35 L

B

e-li GUN maḫ-ri-ti na-dan MU-ti-šú-un eli bilti maḫrīti nadān šattīšun over and above the former tribute, [

36 L173

B

man-da-at-tu kàd-re-e be-lu-ti-ia ú-rad-di-ma mandattu kadrê211 bēlūtīya uraddī212-ma I added and imposed on them as their yearly payment213 the tribute and greeting gifts of

my lordship.

209 uṣaḫḫir – D pret. 1cs ṣeḫēru ‘reduce (land, population)’ (Ibid., 335). 210 Gaza (Ḫazziti) – BH ʿAzzāh; the double z also attested in cuneiform sources, Arabic (HALOT, 808). 211 kadrû – ‘present, greeting gift; bribe’ (to king or deity) (CDA, 141). These lines (III:35-36) closely parallel II:67. 212 uraddi – D pret. 1cs redû ‘to add’ (Ibid., 301). 213 as their yearly payment (nadān šattīšun in line 35) – lit. ‘the payment of their year’

47

37

L

B330B

ú-kin ṣe-ru-uš-šú šu-ú mḫa-za-qi-a-ú ukīn ṣēruššu. Šū Ḫazaqiyahū, ] That same Hezekiah,

38 L

B

pul-ḫi me-lam-me be-lu-ti-ia is-ḫu-pu-šu-ma pulḫī melammē bēlūtīya ušḫupūšū-ma by the terrors of my lordly radiance he was overwhelmed;214 and

39 L

B

lúúr-bi ù lúERIN2.MEŠ-šú SIG5.MEŠ ša a-na dun-nun urbī215 u ṣābīšu damqūti ša ana dunnun216 the band of mercenaries and his expert troops — which, in order to strengthen

214 “the terrors of my lordly radiance...” – This line exactly repeats the wording of II:38-39. See footnotes 8-12. 215 urbī – ‘a band of mercenaries’ (plural only) (Gelb et. al, eds., CAD, vol. 20, 213). 216 dunnun – D infinitive (bound form) danānum ‘to strengthen, fortify, reinforce’

48

40

L

B

uruur-sa-li-im-mu URU LUGAL-ti-šú ú-še-ri-bu-ma Ursalimmu āl šarrūtīšu ušēribū217-ma Jerusalem, his royal city, he had brought in and

41 L

B

ir-šu-ú til-la-a-ti it-ti 30 GUN KUG.SIG17 iršû tillāti218 itti šalšā bilat219 ḫurāṣi received as reinforcements — these along with 30 talents of gold,

42 L

B

800 GUN KUG.BABBAR ni-siq-ti gu-uḫ-li samāne meāt bilat kaspi, nisiqti guḫli, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony,220

217 ušēribu – Š pret. 3cs erēbum ‘cause to enter, bring in’ + subord. -u 218 tillatu – ‘help; reinforcement’ (CDA, 406). The BE sign should be read as til here (see MEA, 67). 219 biltu – Previous appearing as ‘tribute’ in this text, it also means ‘load; talent’ (CDA, 44). 220 choice antimony (nisiqti guḫli)– lit. ‘a selection of kohl/antimony paste’ (as for eye-paint, cosmetics); see Ibid., 95, 255; Gelb et al., eds., CAD, vol. 11, 272.

49

43

L

B

ták-kàs-si na4AN.ZA.GUL.ME GAL.MEŠ GIŠ.NÁ.MEŠ ZÚ takkassī na4AN.ZA.GUL.ME rabûti, eršī šinni, large blocks of AN.ZA.GUL.ME-stone,221 beds of ivory,222

44 L

B

gišGU.ZA.MEŠ né-me-di ZÚ KUŠ AM.SI ZÚ AM.SI kussî nēmedi223 šinni, mašak pīri,224 šinni pīri,225 armchairs of ivory, elephant hide, ivory,

221 large blocks of AN.ZA.GUL.ME-stone (takkassī na4AN.ZA.GUL.ME rabûti) – takkassu ‘small block of (usu. semi-precious) stone’ (CDA, 395); na4AN.ZA.GUL.ME – a type of stone, normalization unknown (see CAD, 11:272). NA4 (ZÁ) is the determinative for objects of stone (MEA, 125). Cogan translates ‘carnelian’ (RT, 115), but this is not the typical word for ‘carnelian’. 222 beds of ivory – that is, beds inlaid with ivory (cf. RT, 115). eršu IV – ‘bed’; šinnu ‘tooth’; šinni pīri ‘elephant tooth, ivory’ (CDA, 80, 375). 223 nēmedu – ‘(back)rest’ of furniture; kussê nēmedi ‘chair with back’ (CDA, 249). As with the beds, these chairs are probably inlaid with ivory, rather than made of it. 224 elephant hide (mašak pīri) – mašku ‘skin; speel, skin of fruit plant’; pīru (pīlu, pēru) ‘elephant’; mašak p. ‘elephant hide’ (Ibid., 202, 275). 225 ivory (šinni pīri) - ‘elephant tooth, ivory’ (Ibid., 375).

50

45

L

B

gišE.SI gišTASKARIN mim-ma šum-šú ni-ṣir-tu ka-bit-tu ušî, taskarinni, mimma šumšu niṣirtu kabittu ebony, boxwood, all kinds of heavy treasure,226

46 L

B

ù DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-šú MUNUS.UN.MEŠ É.GAL-šú lúNAR.MEŠ u mārātīšu, sinnišāt ekallīšu, nārī, along with his daughters, the women of his palace,227 male musicians,

47 L

B

MUNUS.NAR.MEŠ a-na qé-reb NINAki URU be-lu-ti-ia nārāti,228 ana qereb Ninua āl bēlūtīya and female musicians, to Nineveh, the city of my lordship,

226 ušû ‘ebony’; taskarinnu ‘box tree, boxwood’; niṣirtu ‘treasure; secret’ (Ibid., 429, 401, 255). ‘all kinds of’ = mimma šumšu, lit. ‘whatever be its name’, = ‘everything, anything at all’ 227 the women of his palace - exact normalization of MUNUS.UN.MEŠ unclear; possibly sinnišāti; for the phrase MUNUS.UN.MEŠ É.GAL, see the examples in Gelb et al., eds., vol. 10, CAD, 303; ibid., vol. 1, 32. 228 nārī, nārāti - nāru II ‘male musician’; nārtu II ‘female musician’ (CDA, 242).

51

48

L

B

EGIR-ia ú-še-bi-lam-ma a-na na-dan man-da-at-te arkīya229 ušēbilam230-ma ana nadān mandatte he sent after me, and in order to pay the tribute

49 L

B

ù e-peš ÌR-ú-ti iš-pu-ra rak-bu-šú u epēš ardūti231 išpura rakbûšu.232 and to do obeisance, he dispatched his messenger.

229 arkīya (poss. urkīya) - (w)arki, Ass. mostly urki ‘after, behind’ Ibid., 434. 230 ušēbilam – Š pret. 3cs (w)abālum, Ass. ubālu ‘send, deliver’ + vent. –a(m) (Ibid., 432). 231 ardūti (poss. also ardutti, urdutti) - (w)ardūtu, Ass. warduttum, urduttu ‘status as slave; vassalage, (political) servitude’ (Ibid., 434). 232 rakbû - ‘messenger’ (BAL, 2:267). Note the nominative form for the expected accusative here.

Reproduced from SB, 240

Reproduced from SB, 242

Reproduced from RT, 115

Bibliography

Albright, W. F. “New Light on Magan and Meluḫa.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 42 (1922): 317–322.

Becking, Bob. “Chronology: A Skeleton Without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign as a Case-Study.” In “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, edited by Lester L. Grabbe, 46–72. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4. London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003.

Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999.

Borger, Rykle. Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke. 2 Vols. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1979.

Cogan, Mordechai. “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem (2.119B).” In The Context of Scripture II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

———. “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?” Biblical Archaeology Review, no. 27 (2001): 40–45, 69.

———. The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel. A Carta Handbook. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.

Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische Und Aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002.

Edzard, Dietz Otto, Gertrud Farber, and Edmond Sollberger. Répertoire Géographique Des Textes Cunéiformes: Die Orts- Und Gewässernamen Der Präsargonischen Und Sargonischen Zeit. Edited by Jean-Robert Kupper, Wilhelmus François Leemans, and Jean Nougayrol. Vol. 1. Beihefte Zum Tübinger Atlas Des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) 7. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1977.

Elat, Moshe. “The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 98, no. 1 (1978): 20–34.

Gelb, Ignace J., ed. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–.

Grabbe, Lester L. “Of Mice and Dead Men: Herodotus 2.141 and Sennacherib’s Campaign.” In “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE, edited by Lester L. Grabbe. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4. London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003.

Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Paperback ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.

———. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C. 2nd ed. with Supplement. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1986.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994.

Labat, René, and Florence Malbran-Labat. Manuel D’épigraphie Akkadienne. 6th ed. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2002.

Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Edited by James Henry Breasted. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1926.

———. The Annals of Sennacherib. Edited by James Henry Breasted. Oriental Institute Publications II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1924.

Makinson, Martin. “Mus ru, Masuwari and Msr: From Middle Assyrian Frontier to Iron Age City.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin IV (2005 2002): 33–62.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed., with supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 5th printing. Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1983.

Von Soden, Wolfram, and Werner R. Mayer. Grundriss Der Akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd ed. Analecta Orientalia 33. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995.

Tadmor, H. “Que and Musri.” Israel Exploration Journal 11 (1961): 143–150.

Tadmor, Hayim. “Assyria at the Gates of Tushpa.” In Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph’al, edited by Mordechai Cogan and Dan’el Kahn. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Press, 2008.