Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FALSIFICATION O F H I S T O R Y IN T H E ROYAL
INSCRIPTIONS OF SENNACHERIB
by
ANTTI LAATO
bo
Perhaps the most important studies are the following H Barth, Die JesajaWorte in der Josiazeit Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der
Jesajauberheferung (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977), R E Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (Sheffield,
1980), W Werner, Eschatologische Texte injesaja 1-39 Messias, Heiliger Rest, Volker
(Wurzburg, 1982), F J Gongalves, L'Expdition de Sennacherib en Palestine dans la
Littrature Hbraque Ancienne (Pans, 1986), C Hardmeier, Prophtie im Streit vor dem
Untergang Judas Erzahlkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und
Jeremiaerzahlungen in II Reg 18-20 undjer 37-40 (BZA W 187, Berlin and New Yoik,
1990) In some other studies a more cautious treatment of the Assyrian sources
has been suggested See, e g , S Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London,
1967), N a ' a m a n , " S e n n a c h e r i b ' s campaign to J u d a h and the date of the Imlk
s t a m p s " , VT 29 (1979), pp 61-86, Wildberger, Jesaja 28 39 (NeukirchcnVluyn, 1982), A R Millard, " S e n n a c h e r i b ' s Attack on H e z e k i a h " , The Tyndale
Biblical Archaeology Lecture 1984, pp 61-77, A Laato, " H e z e k i a h and the Assyrian
Crisis in 701 C " , SJOT2 (1987), pp 49-68, and especially in Who Immanuel?
E J
Vetus Testamentum X L V , 2
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
199
I
The official reports of the military campaigns in the ancient Near
East were deeply influenced by the prevailing political and religious
ideology. The king was regarded as under the protection of the
gods, and this was used to legitimate his position among his own
people. Such legitimation implied that the military campaigns of
the king were regarded as being under divine blessing. It was
believed that the gods would provide for the king and his army and
see to it that their enemies were defeated. It can be said that a social
expectation connected with the religious and political legitimation
The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah 's Messianic Expectations (bo, 1988), C S Seitz,
Zion 's Final Destiny The Developments of the Book of Isaiah A Reassessment of Isaiah 3639 (Minneapolis, 1991) Seitz, in his criticism as well as his treatment of the textual material in Isa i-xxxix, concurs with my approach at many points However,
he fails to document this agreement for his readers but presents only his critical
reactions to my approach I shall return to Seitz's studies of Isaiah elsewhere
200
ANTTI LAATO
ASSYRIAN PROPAGANDA
201
202
ANTTI LAATO
the country of Amurru, and when he then had defeated the king of
the land of Egypt and the country of Amurru, he returned to the
country Apa. When Muwatallis, my brother, had (also) defeated
Apa, he [returned to] the Hatti land, but [left] me in the country
of A p a " (ANET, p. 319). This text claims that the Hittite army was
victorious in Kadesh. The reality was probably that the Hittite
army gained the upper hand in the battle, even though there is no
reason to believe that the Egyptian army was totally defeated. That
the Hittite army was victorious receives support from the following
evidence. First, the Hittite army was still functional after the battle
of Kadesh in the country of Apa (the region of Damascus) which
gives us reason to believe that if anyone was victorious at Kadesh
it was the Hittites. 3 Second, we know that Ramesses II was forced
to do battle in Canaan during his 6th-8th regnal years. This can be
explained by the hypothesis according to which the cities of Canaan
had received information that the Egyptian army had been defeated
at Kadesh and that this provided the impetus to launch a rebellion
against Egypt. 4
In Ramesses' 21st regnal year the parity treaty between Hattusil
III and Ramesses II was made. We know of this treaty both from
Egyptian hieroglyphs (upon the walls of the Temple of Anion at
Karnak) and from the Hittite cuneiform texts of Boghazky. The
treaty was a diplomatic compromise which guarded both Egyptian
and Hittite political interests in Palestine (ANET, pp. 199-203).
This political agreement shows that both the Hittite and the Egyptian Empires were still powerful. Therefore, they regarded a peace
agreement as a mutually beneficial alternative for them both in
order to avoid further bloody strife. It is worth noting that this
treaty is framed in neutral terms in both Egyptian and Hittite
sources. Apparently, it was an important political principal to state
the content of the treaty in an objective and respectful way. 5 Later
3
See F Cornelius, Geschichte der Hethiter Mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der geographischen Verhaltnisse und der Rechtsgeschichte (Darmstadt, 1979), pp 229-32, 237
31
4
See R O Faulkner, The Cambridge Ancient History II/2a (3rd edn , Cambridge,
1975), pp 226-9
5
T h e recent archaeological excavations at Aphek have revealed data which can
be interpreted as an indication of the diplomatic peace between the Egyptian and
Hittite Empires See M Kochavi, A F Ramey, I Singer, R Grveon, A
Demsky, Aphek-Antipatris 1974-1977 Inscriptions (Tel-Aviv, 1978), M Kochavi,
Aphek in Canaan The Egyptian Governor's Residence and Its Finds (Jerusalem, 1990)
ASSYRIAN P R O P A G A N D A
203
204
ANTTI
LAATO
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
205
Gallery inscription 9 (line 17) where these four regions, and one
additional Nagitu-di'bina, are mentioned. However, the Babylonian Chronicle adds that after these events Hallushu, the king of
Elam, marched on Akkad and penetrated to Sippar. Ashur-nadinshum was taken as prisoner and Nergal-ushezib was put on the
throne of Babylonia. The king of Elam also forced the Assyrian
army into retreat. This military setback is not mentioned in Sennacherib's annals. O n the other hand, Sennacherib gives the
impression that he was victorious from the beginning to the end of
his sixth campain against Elam and Babylonia. He reports in the
Chicago and Taylor Prisms that he conquered the five abovementioned regions and that he then defeated Nergal-ushezib
( = Shuzubu, the Babylonian) " o n my r e t u r n " (iv 46-53) and captured him. However, the Babylonian Chronicle reveals that Sennacherib apparently was forced to organize a new military campaign against Babylonia and Elam because the Elamite troops had
"effected an Assyrian retreat". This being the case, the impression
given in the Chicago and Taylor Prisms that Sennacherib defeated
Elam and took Nergal-ushezib prisoner in the same military campaign ( = the sixth campaign) is historically problematic. It is worth
noting that in Bull 4 which was written immediately after the sixth
campaign there is no mention that Nergal-ushezib was taken
prisoner. In fact, there is no mention of Nergal-ushezib at all in
Bull 4. Neither is there any mention of the Elamite troops having
effected an Assyrian retreat. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that Nergal-ushezib was not taken prisoner until the seventh campaign. In the Chicago and Taylor Prisms Sennacherib combines
the events of these two campaigns, asserting that he had been able
to defeat his enemy already in his sixth campaign.
(4) The fourth military operation reported in the Babylonian
Chronicle was connected with the earlier military setback suffered
by the Assyrian army in the battle against the Elamite king,
Hallushu (BabChr 1 ii 46-iii 12). The description begins with the
military operation of Nergal-ushezib who captured, plundered and
sacked Nippur. In the subsequent military revenge operation
Assyrian troops defetated Nergal-ushezib in the district of Nippur,
took him prisoner and transported him to Assyria. This cor9
See this inscription in A.K. Grayson, "The Walters Art Gallery Sennacherib
Inscription", AfO 20 (1963), pp. 83-96.
206
ANTTI LAATO
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
207
12
"Problematical Battles in Mesopotamian H i s t o r y " , in H G Gutersbock and
T h Jacobsen (ed ), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday
(Chicago, 1965), pp 337-42, see also his treatment of the question in (n 11) pp
108-9
13
" S e n n a c h e r i b ' s Babylonian Problem An I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , JCS 25 (1973),
p p 89-95
208
ANTTI LAATO
14
102
ASSYRIAN PROPAGANDA
209
210
ANTTI LAATO
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
211
212
ANTTI LAATO
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
213
pearance of the enemey kings from the battlefield, which is interpreted as a sign of military defeat in the face of the Assyrian army
(vi 16-35). In spite of this detailed description there is no mention
of any concrete political hegemony which Sennacherib should have
gained in Babylonia or Elam. In the light of the Babylonian
Chronicle the lack of concrete political success should be taken as
an indication that the Assyrian army suffered a setback. A similar
exaggerated description of the battle at Halule can be found in the
Walters Art Gallery inscription.
(4) Aggressive presentation of enemies. A peculiar feature of Sennacherib's annals is the use of demeaning references to enemies
who have caused him difficulty. In the Walters Art Gallery inscription Humban-nimena is called " a rash fellow who had neither
insight nor counsel" (lines 15-16). The Chicago and Taylor Prisms
pronounce against his capacity for sound judgement in a similar
way: " w h o possessed neither sense nor j u d g e m e n t " (v 14-15, 334), while the Slab inscription asserts that he " h a d not any sense"
(Rev. line 6). Mushezib-Marduk ( = Shuzubu, the Chaldean) who
together with the Elamite kings was a source of great problems for
Sennacherib is called " a weakling hero, who had no knees, a slave,
subject to the governor of the city of Lahiri" (v 20-2). It is worth
noting that Sennacherib normally refers to his military opponents
using conventional phrases such as " t h e king of L N " , especially
when he has won a great victory over them. A reading of Sennacherib's inscriptions suggests that the frequent occurrence of perjorative adjectives and attributions is connected only with those
enemies who have caused significant military problems for the king
of Assyria.
IV
Sennacherib's account of his third campaign in Palestine contains propagandistic literary and stylistic devices similar to those
noted above in section III. Accounts of this third campaign are also
given in several of Sennacherib's annals.
According to the Chicago (and Taylor) Prisms, Sennacherib's
third campaign was directed at Palestine. First, he overthrew King
Luli of Sidon, who fled to Cyprus without resisting. Next came the
battle of Eltekeh, at which the rebels, who were supported by Egyptian and Ethiopian troops, were put down. Thereafter, Sen-
214
ANTTI
LAATO
18
T h e text has been published by N a ' a m a n , " S e n n a c h e r i b ' s 'Letter to G o d '
on his C a m p a i g n to J u d a h " , BASOR 214 (1974), pp 25-39
19
T h e n a m e " G a t h " is not cleary preserved in the text, but is a possible recon
struction This letter serves to explain the difficult passage in Micah 10, where
the prophet laments the fate of Gath Sometimes commentaries solve the problem
of why Micah bemoans the fate of Gath in addition to the cities of J u d a h by sugge
sting a conjecture See e g J L Mays, Micah (London, 1976), 53
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
215
216
ANTTI
LAATO
nacherib easily gained the upper hand over his enemy Merodachbaladan, since the latter fled without attempting to engage the
Assyrian army (according to Bab-Chr 1 ii 26-31 Sennacherib was
victorious). That may also be the reason why he does not mention
this campaign at all in the shorter version of the Bull inscription or
in the Nebi Yunus Inscription. The threat from Babylon does not
seem to have been great in 700. It is also worth noting that the
Rassam cyclinder from the year 700 does not mention this fourth
campaign at all. So it would seem that it was not militarily
necessary for Sennacherib to hurry from Palestine to quell a new
rebellion in Babylon. Otherwise, he would likely have included
some note to that effect on the Rassam Cyclinder such as ' O n my
return I defeated Merodach-baladan again . . . " (cf. the phrase
"Sennacherib went down to A k k a d " in BabChr 1 ii 26-7 which
even though it is stereotypicalindicates that the Assyrian army
came from Assyria and not from Palestine).
Could perhaps the great tribute which Hezekiah paid be
intended to placate Sennacherib, so that he would leave J u d a h and
Jerusalem in peace? Theoretically speaking it is possible. However,
Sennacherib does not say that the great tribute which the main
rebel Hezekiah sent to him was paid to procure an Assyrian retreat.
Rather, it seems that Sennacherib simply ends his account by refer
ring to the tribute of Hezekiah sent to Nineveh in order to give the
impression that his military campaign against Hezekiah had ended
successfully (see below).
T h e biblical sources refer to a second attack by the Egyptian and
Ethiopian armies against the Assyrian army (2 Kgs xix 8; Isa.
xxxvii 9). However, 2 Kgs xviii 17 ff.// Isa xxxvi-xxxvii seem to
represent a conflation of two independent traditions, 2 1 which make
this supposed second Egyptian invasion improbable. In my view,
the explanation that the Egyptian and Ethiopian armies forced Sen
nacherib to leave Jerusalem in peace seems artificial, since they
were already fighting against Assyria at Eltekeh where they suffered
defeat. Y. Aharoni has suggested that the battle of Eltekeh took
place only after the invasion of J u d a h . 2 2 This theory can hardly be
right, for the following reasons:
21
ASSYRIAN P R O P A G A N D A
217
218
ANTTI
LAATO
ASSYRIAN
PROPAGANDA
219
220
ANTTI LAATO
ASSYRIAN PROPAGANDA
221
d e s c r i p t i o n of E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y , H e r o d o t u s m e n t i o n s a m y s t e r i o u s
defeat suffered b y S e n n a c h e r i b ' s a r m y at P e l u s i u m ( I I , 141). T h e
b r o a d e r context of this passage is I I , 9 9 - 1 4 2 , w h e r e H e r o d o t u s cites
tales told b y E g y p t i a n priests.
T h e next king, I was told, was a priest of Vulcan, called Seths. This
monarch despised and neglected the warrior class of the Egyptians,
as though he did not need their services. Among other indignities
which he offered them, he took from them the lands which they had
possessed under all the previous kings, consisting of twelve acres of
choice land for each warrior. Afterwards, therefore, when Sennacherib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into
Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his aid. O n this
the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary,
and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended
over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came
and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly
forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he
himself would send those who should help him. Seths, then, relying
on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow
him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands
the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two
armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings
of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their
shields. Next morning then commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves.
There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of
Seths, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription of this effect
" L o o k on me, and learn to reverence the gods". 2 7
T h i s story h a s m o s t likely b e e n p r e s e r v e d fairly precisely in t h e
form in w h i c h t h e E g y p t i a n priests told it. T h o u g h it c o n t a i n s
l e g e n d a r y features ( e . g . , d e s t r u c t i o n b y field m i c e ) , it c o n t a i n s t w o
i n t e r e s t i n g details:
1. N e i t h e r M a n e t h o n o r t h e E g y p t i a n inscriptions c o n t a i n t h e n a m e
S e t h s (cf. Contra Apionem I, 15). H o w e v e r , t h e n a m e Sanakharibos
clearly refers to t h e A s s y r i a n k i n g S e n n a c h e r i b . T h i s b e i n g t h e case,
it is likely t h a t t h e l e g e n d refers to S e n n a c h e r i b ' s t h i r d c a m p a i g n ,
27
222
ANTTI
LAATO
28
ASSYRIAN P R O P A G A N D A
223
VI
Several scholars have discussed the nature of the so-called Isaiah
legend in 2 Kgs xviii 17-xix 36 // Isa. xxxvi-xxxvii and shown that
many features of this text correspond well to the historical circum
stances of the time of Isaiah. 3 0 The only detail in the biblical des
cription which is obviously unhistorical is the exaggerated number
of the Assyrian soldiers whom " t h e angel o f Y H W H " destroyed.
As we know from other biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources,
such numbers may differ greatly from one version to another. If we
assume that a large number like 185,000 is an absurd exaggeration
(which originates from the subsequent transmission of the tradi
tion) and that the biblical account together with Herodotus provi
des an account about the bubonic plague or some other disease
which forced the Assyrian army to retreat from its campaign in
J u d a h , it is not difficult to solve the problems which Sennacherib's
own accounts present.
Sennacherib's campaign began with an attack on King Luli of
Sidon. But there was no battle, for Luli fled to Cyprus from his
capital, Tyre. Sennacherib relates in the Chicago prism that there
after Lull's cities of " G r e a t S i d o n " (Tyre) and "Little S i d o n "
(Sidon), as well as Bit-zitti, Zaribtu, Mahalliba, Ushu, Achzib and
Akko, gave in to him without a struggle. When Luli had fled to
Cyprus, the kings of Amurru, namely the kings of Shamsimuruna,
Sidon, Arvad, Byblos, Ammon, Moab and Edom, made haste to
pay tribute to Sennacherib. Sennacherib appointed king T u b ' a l u of
Sidon to the throne instead of Luli, apparently because T u b ' a l u
had shown allegiance by paying tribute to the Assyrian king. There30
See e g H o n o r ( 29), Wildberger, " D i e Rede des Rabsake vor Jerusa
l e m " , ThZ 35 (1979), pp 35-47, idem, Jesaja 28-39, E Vogt, Der Aufstand Hiskias
und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 Chr ( R o m e , 1986) Laato, Immanuel (n 1), pp
271-96
224
ANTTI
LAATO
31
Concerning xxxvii 9 and its connection with the earlier traditions see my
literary-critical analysis in Laato, Immanuel ( 1), pp 271-81
32
Ashkelon was probably present at the battle of Eltekeh, since its king did not
want to surrender to Sennacherib
33
In the Chicago and Taylor Prisms Sennacherib mentions how, before the
conquest of these towns, he seized Ashkelon But this does not mean that Ashkelon
was taken soon after Sidon T h e conquest of Ashkelon is mentioned because, after
the conquest of Sidon, Sennacherib seized those towns near Sidon which Sidqia
had taken Cf Vogt ( 38), p p 17-18
ASSYRIAN PROPAGANDA
225
34
226
ANTTI LAATO
duration and Isa. xxii 12-14 clearly shows that the Jerusalemites
had sufficient food. O n the other hand, some disease (like a plague)
may well have caused this mortality. In that case v. 2 lends support
to the view that a plague swept through Jerusalem and the Assyrian
camp in 701 and forced Sennacherib to return to Nineveh.
As a result, Sennacherib reorganized the governments of Philistia and J u d a h , handing over to the Philistine princes those towns
which Hezekiah had captured in Philistia and probably also the
Shephelah region. In order to ensure that Sennacherib would not
return later and seize Jerusalem, Hezekiah sent a great tribute to
Nineveh (with his first annual payment of tax?!) to assure Sennacherib of his allegiance. Thus Sennacherib may have left Hezekiah
on the throne, saving face in so doing. In spite of the destruction
wrought by the plague, he had good reason to boast in his annals
of how greatly he had humilated the proud king of J u d a h , ending
his account with the great tribute paid by Hezekiah.
O u r examination in this article should give a new impulse, for
Old Testament scholars at least, to re-evaluate their attitude to
historical propaganda which orignates from ancient Iraq.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.