A New Look at the Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III

Tadmor's new edition of the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, opens a door to a fresh discussion on these inscriptions focusing on the history of the relations between Assyria and western kingdoms¹.

1. Summary inscriptions 4, 9, and 10

The reading suggested by Tadmor for lines 5'-8' of summary inscription 4 is problematic: (1) Tadmor claims that Kashpuna marks the northern border of the kingdom of Damascus in summary inscription 4. However, Kashpuna was located near the coast and not near the border of Damascus, and was in a part of the kingdom of Hamath that was annexed to the S9imirra province. Therefore it is unlikely that the author would purposely select Kashpuna as an indication of the northern border of the kingdom of Damascus. Tadmor indeed recognized the difficulties in the suggestion, yet never offered a solution². (2) The reading proposed by Tadmor compels us to assume that the Gilead was included within the kingdom of Aram³. However, this assumption contradicts the biblical sources: the passage in 2 Kgs 15,29 indicates that the territories of the Gilead and the Galilee were included within the confines of the kingdom of Israel, which dominated both upper Galilee and the valley of Ijon and perhaps even the city of Dan. The structure of this passage is chiastic, and it should not be assumed that it consists of late additions:

1 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria 2 and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh and Hazor
  3 and Gilead
2' and Galilee, all the Land of Naphtali
1' and carried them captive to Assyria

2' generally defines the territory that includes the cities mentioned in 2. The term 'Galilee' is quite rare in the Bible. It apparently included the northern part of the country known to be the province of Megiddo in the Assyrian period. The term 'the land of Naphtali' generally indicates the north and is a synonym of Galilee. Compare with Josh 20,7, yltpn rhb lylgb #dq. The fact that the author defines the area in a synonymous manner is not problematic: cf. 2 Kgs 10,32-33 and also external biblical inscriptions such as the Sefire treaties (face B, I, lines 8-10). The form hlylg is not necessarily late as several scholars have claimed⁴. It is mentioned once more in Ezekiel, but this cannot serve as conclusive evidence for its date. On the contrary, other biblical toponyms consist of a -h suffix yet this does not indicate the time they were written: compare hchy / -Chy, etc.

The Gilead is a flexible territorial term, mentioned in the Bible more than 150 times. It often refers to small- and large-scale territories between the Arnon River in the south and the Yarmuk River in the north, and often even represents the Bashan. Determining the extent of the area ruled by Pekah is difficult, but this passage indicates that territories located in Transjordan were included within his kingdom.

Additional proof that several districts in the Gilead were included within the kingdom of Israel can be seen in 2 Kgs 15,25. This passage is faulty and several proposals for its reconstruction have been offered. It includes four indisputable components: (1) But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a captain of his, conspired against him, (2) and smote him in Samaria, in the palace of the kings' house (3) and with him fifty men of the Gileadites; (4) and he killed him, and reigned in his room.

Following the second component are four words whose meaning is unclear:

hyr)h t)w bwgr) t). The toponym Argob defines the area of the Bashan (1 Kgs 4,13; Deut 3; 4,13-14). The description of Solomon's districts in 1 Kgs 4,13 is extremely important because it defines the administrative districts of the son of Geber:

N#bb r#) bwgr) lbx wl d(lgb r#) h#nm Nb ry)y twx wl. 

If we assume that the word hyr) results from ry)y the passages in 1 Kgs 4,13 and 2 Kgs 15,25 would be symmetric: in the first ry)y twx and bwgr) lbx and in the second ry)y (twx) and bwgr) (lbx). It is possible then, that Pekah was in charge of an administrative district, which included regions in the Bashan and in the Gilead, much like the son of Geber in the time of Solomon. In light of this proposal the passage in 1 Kgs 15,25 may be reconstructed thus: But Pekah the son of Remaliah, his officer in [the region of] Argob and [in the towns of] Jair, conspired against him⁵. The fact that a company of fifty Gileadean warriors participated in the revolt supports this assumption. Apparently it was an йlite unit at the disposal of Pekah, and was presumably used as his personal guard on account of his position as head of a district whose security was highly sensitive, especially around the Israel-Aram border.

In light of the tight and unique bonds between Pekah and Rezin (which probably began prior to Pekah's coronation: see 2 Kgs 15,37), it is unreasonable to conclude that the Gilead was torn away from Israel and annexed to Damascus, in the time of Pekah. Moreover, if the above reconstruction is correct it is safe to assume that the Argob region was also included within the kingdom of Pekah (and not only the Gilead).

To resolve the difficulties in Tadmor's proposals, a new reading for line 6' of summary inscription 4 is offered. In my opinion we should add the verb abil or aks$ud at the end of line 6' and separate lines 5'-6' from lines 7'-8'. My new translation of lines 5'-6' of summary inscription 4 is as follows: [I ruled/conquered (the land) from Kash]puna, which is on the shore of the upper sea [up to Qa]-ni-te Gil[ead and (up to)] Abel-Shit[t[i, which is on the border

of [Bit-Humria (or on the border of Moab)]. This pattern refers to the kingdom of Damascus, but also includes territories of more than one kingdom extending from the southern border of the kingdom of Hamath to southern Israel (including the kingdom of Damascus). The Assyrian Royal Inscriptions adduce many examples of this territorial pattern.

According to my new proposal, Kashpuna indicates the northwestern point of the occupied area: Qanite faces east whereas the Gilead and Abel- Shit[t[i mark the central and south area. 'Gilead' probably refers to Ramoth-gilead (for the abbreviation of Ramoth-gilead to Gilead compare Abel-Shittim to shortened Shittim). Abel Shittim indicates the southern point of the described area, which is located at the tip of the Israelite kingdom (or of Moab). Note that the reading 'Abel- Shit[t[i) is problematic. Other readings can be suggested; and the scribe may have made a mistake and it should be read as Abelim. Moreover, Smith was obviously reluctant to read the signs following a-bil in a clear-cut manner. However, additional signs were reconstructed in Smith's initial proposal (ibid., table LI). Was this due to a clarification of the proposed reading, or was it merely an educated guess by Smith, based on the indistinct remains of the name?

A different territorial pattern is presented in summary inscriptions 9–10. This pattern is partially similar to that mentioned in summary inscription 4, where it defines the borders of the kingdom of Damascus: 'I annexed to Assyria the wide [land of Bit]-Hazaili, in its entirely from [Mount Leb]anon as far as the city of Gilea[d, ..., ... on the bor]der of Bit Humria'. This territorial pattern is different from the one in summary inscription 4, and the one should not be completed according to the other. In fact, the only toponym common to both patterns is 'Gilead' (which was preserved almost entirely in summary inscription 10, whereas in summary inscription 9 it was partially preserved and therefore its completion is uncertain). It is reasonable to assume that the letters s$a patti were included in both these patterns, however all the other definitions differ:

(1) In summary inscriptions 9–10 Mount Lebanon; in summary inscription 4 Kashpuna.
(2) In summary inscriptions 9–10 the toponym 'Gilead' comes after the letters adi whereas in summary inscription 4 'Qanite' is probably mentioned after those letters.
(3) A general pattern of the occupied area can be seen in summary inscription 4 (including several kingdoms), whereas in summary inscriptions 9–10 only a territorial pattern of the kingdom of Damascus is seen.
(4) In summary inscriptions 9–10 the kingdom of Israel is specifically mentioned ('the land of Omri'), whereas in summary inscription 4 it is unclear whether to complete 'the house of Omri' or 'Moab'.
(5) In summary inscription 4 Abel-shit[t[i (or Abel-X) is mentioned as a city situated on the outskirts of Beth-Omri or Moab. However, the name of the city mentioned in summary inscriptions 9–10, which was on the confines of Israel, was not preserved, and for the time being it is impossible to complete its name. One can think of names of various cities located along the Israel-Aram border, such as those mentioned in 2 Kgs 15,29.

The precise meaning of the term 'Gilead' in summary inscriptions 9–10 is vague. If we were to accept the identification as the city of Ramoth-gilead, we would still need to ask whether it meant the city, or whether the city stood for an entire region named after it, as, for example, in 1 Kgs 22. In any event, judging by these definitions regions in the Bashan and the Golan were evidently controlled by Aram, perhaps the areas of Geshur and Ashtaroth, and the border apparently passed down the Yarmuk, from Edrei to the west. Nevertheless, the other side of the Bashan was known as 'the Argob region' (perhaps east of the Bashan and the area of Kenath) was in the hands of the Israelites.

 2. The connection between Annals 18, 23, and 24

  Layard's copies (MS A, fol. 115-116), which are the only sources for inscriptions 23 and 24, indicate that both inscriptions were written on one slab⁶. In Tadmor's opinion the slab upon which these inscriptions were written is divided into two columns: inscription 23 was written in column I, whereas inscription 24 was written in column II⁷. This proposal is in fact most reasonable because it is difficult to see in inscription 24 'the ends of the lines' of inscription 23.

We now examine the link between inscription 18 and 24. Smith joined these two inscriptions, and other scholars approved of this⁸. Tadmor rejected Smith's suggestion and assumed that these inscriptions were parallel editions of one text. He completed one according to the other, and read line 3' in both inscriptions as 'the 16 districts of Beth-Omri'. He also argued that the initial part of these inscriptions describes the conquest of the Galilee by Tiglath-pileser III⁹. In my opinion these two inscriptions are indeed parallel versions depicting the events of 732, although the arrangement of the accounts differ. They describe not one but two different events. In the second part of the inscriptions the kingdom of Ashkelon is mentioned, but in the first part other matters are covered. In inscription 18 the conquest of the Galilee, which was ruled by the kingdom of Israel, is apparently described¹⁰. Yet it should not be assumed that the beginning of inscription 24 depicts the subjugation of the Galilee. On the contrary, it is safe to assume that it deals with the conquest of the kingdom of Aram-Damascus. The name of no known settlement is preserved in inscription 24, and the only way to determine the subject matter in lines 1'-11' is through the reference '16 districts'. Since the 16 districts of the kingdom of Damascus are specifically mentioned in inscription 23 (line 17'), and since there is no evidence that the kingdom of Israel was divided at that time to 16 districts, the only logical conclusion is that the first part of inscription 24 concerns the conquest of Damascus and not of Israel.

Moreover, inscription 23 depicts the subjection of 591 cities of Damascus, and not the 16 districts of Damascus; it is quite clear that Damascus was not yet conquered, so the passage may safely be said to cover the events of 733. We may accordingly assume that a complete description of the conquest of Damascus appears later in the original inscription. In my opinion this description is found in inscription 24. Moreover, the assumption that 13,520 (inscription 24, line 9') is the total number of the exiles deported from the cities of the Galilee is doubtful. Consequently, I propose that the figure 13,520 refers to the number of exiles taken away from one city, perhaps Damascus itself (compare with the number of people exiled from Samaria by Sargon II namely 27,280, or 24,280¹¹. According to my proposal, the conquest of the kingdom of Israel is initially mentioned in version A (Anns. 23, 24), followed by the conquest of Damascus. Whereas in version B (which include Ann. 18) the events are presented in reverse order. Both events apparently occurred during the same year, 732 B.C. (Cf. the account of the events of 738 in the Annals of Tiglath-pileser, which are likewise presented in no particular order.)

The left-hand column below sets out my estimated reconstruction of the events mentioned in the slab which contain Anns. 23 and 24; the right-hand column depicts an estimated reconstruction of the events mentioned in the parallel slab (which contains Ann. 18)

 3. The relations between Israel and Assyria (745-738)

  The Assyrian hold on regions south of the Euphrates was abandoned during the reign of Ashur-dan III and Ashur-nirari V, the forerunners of Tiglath-pileser III. The king of Arpad and Unqi were accused by Tiglath-pileser III of violating an oath and revolting against Assyria¹². The kingdom of Urartu expanded its control of the region and weakened its control over Kummuh, Carchemish and the Aleppo area.

In 743-742 the Assyrians defeated a coalition headed by Sarduri II, king of Urartu and Mati'il, king of Arpad and including other kings, for example, those of Melid, Gurgum and Kummuh¹³. The Assyrians besiege the city of Arpad following the victory in the battle fought in the land of Kummuh. The city fell after three years and the kingdom of Arpad became an Assyrian province.

Following the fall of Arpad in 740, most western kingdoms, including the kingdom of Israel, presumably surrendered to Assyria. We have two documents dating to the time of Tiglath-pileser III in which the name of Menahem 'of Samaria' is mentioned; both documents contain the names of the western kings who gave tribute to the king of Assyria¹⁴. In the stele from Iran, Menahem is mentioned before Ethbaal of Tyre (III A, line 6·= Tadmor, Inscriptions, 106-107-the following: list A), whereas in the other inscription Menahem is mentioned before Hiram of Tyre (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann. 13*: 11·= Ann. 27: 2; the following: list B). The Tyrian king's name is not specifically mentioned in the Layard manuscript, but Smith apparently filled in this name according to an additional copy of the inscription he possessed, so his reading should not be rejected¹⁵. The various names of kings of Tyre indicate that list A preceded list B for two reasons: (1) Hiram, king of Tyre, is specifically mentioned in connection with Rezin's revolt and Tiglath-pileser III's campaigns to the west in 734-732: '[Hi]ram of Tyre, who plotted together with Reizn [...]' (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 9: rev.·5'). (2) summary inscription 7 (rev.·16') specifically indicates that Matan reigned after Hiram. The order in which the Tyrian kings appear at that time is Ethbaal, Hiram, and Matan¹⁶. Tadmor correctly argued that the names of western kings who gave tribute to Assyria in 738-737 appear in list B¹⁷. In 739 the Assyrian army marched to the Upper Tigris (Ulluba) so it is reasonable to assume that list A is actually the list of those who brought offerings to Assyria in 740, the year in which the Assyrians conquered Arpad¹⁸.

The list of tribute paid to Assyria in the stele from Iran mentions Israel, Damascus, Tyre, and the Arabs amongst others. Nevertheless, two main groups are missing from the list: (1) The kingdoms located south of Damascus and Israel, which include Judah, the Transjordan kingdoms and the Philistine kingdoms. (2) Northwestern Syrian kingdoms, mainly Hamath and Unqi and also the Phoenician cities located south of Unqi and west of Hamath, including Usnu, Zimarra, Arqa, Siannu and Kashpuna. Unqi is mentioned explicitly as one of the kingdoms revolting against Assyria; the other kingdoms did not surrender, and this was taken by the Assyrians as a hostile act, which demanded a response.

The passage 2 Kgs 15,19-20, which depicts the arrival of the Assyrian king in Israel and the offerings of Menahem, apparently refers to the subjection of Menahem in 740. It appears that Menahem's reign was unpopular and a bond with Assyria was meant to strengthen the new dynasty in Israel. Indeed, the money owed to Assyria was not paid out of the kingdom's treasury but collected from the Israelite nobles who probably resisted Menahem. The Assyrian sources do not relate any arrival of Tiglath-pileser III in Israel in the time of Menahem. Yet it is possible that Tiglath-pileser III's inscriptions do not have details of the events of 742-740; consequently, the biblical testimony should not be rejected¹⁹.

Following the conquest of Arpad and the offerings made by western kings, the Assyrian army headed towards the upper Tigris and fought against Ullubu (739-738). The Assyrians returned to the west in 738-737 and defeated the coalition led by Azriyau and Tutamu, king of Unqi. Azriyau's identity has not yet been settled in research. Several scholars believe that he was Azariah/Uzziah, king of Judah²⁰. However, this assumption is impossible²¹. It is unlikely that Judah exploited Israel's weakness following the death of Jeroboam II in order to expand its borders and turn Israel into a vassal²². Judah probably did not take control of Israel so Israel did not make an alliance with Assyria and Egypt to cast off the yoke of Judah. Uzziah king of Judah was an old man in 738 (approx. 66). He resided in ty#pwxh tyb and probably had no link with the revolt in northern Syria against Assyria. Eni-il king of Hamath is mentioned in the list of tribute of 738 (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann. 13*: 10'-12'; cf. ibid., Summ. 7: 8'), from which we may assume that amongst the kingdoms that acted against Assyria in 736, only Hamath remained independed. Several scholars assume that unlike Azriyau and his allies, Hamath did not revolt against Assyria²³. This suggestion is problematic. It is not accidental that Hamath was not mentioned in the stele from Iran; it teaches us that Hamath apparently did not surrender to Assyria in 740. Moreover, if Hamath was loyal to Assyria in 738 and did not participate in Azriyau's coalition, and in fact suffered from his actions, which resulted in the subjugation of its cities, why was Hamath punished by the Assyrians, who seized nineteen of its districts? Assyria should seemingly have rewarded the loyalty of Hamath's king for suppressing the revolt and not annexing territories from his kingdom. In light of these facts, it is better to assume that Azriyau was actually the king of Hamath. His name may be an indication of an Israelite influence over Hamath in the mid-8th century B.C.²⁴. According to this assumption, Azriyau died in battle or was deposed in a palace revolution, and Eni-il was crowned in his stead. The presumed palace revolution in Hamath and the emergence of a pro-Assyrian group may be the reason why Assyria agreed to the continuation of the partially independent existence of Hamath's kingdom, while narrowing its territorial extent (compare with the reasons for the ascent of Hoshea, the last king of Israel).

The king of Arvad is not listed among the kings offering tribute to Assyria in 738, so we may assume that Arvad did not surrender, not even after the defeat of the kings of Unqi and the Phoenician kingdoms to the north of Byblos. The Assyrians defeated Arvad apparently during their campaign of 734, as is evident from the list of offerings to Assyria in 734 (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 7: rev.·10')²⁵.

4. The relations between Israel and Assyria (737-731)

Aram and Israel attacked Jerusalem during the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah, and wished to crown a king of their choice over Judah. As a result of the Aramean-Israelite attack, Ahaz sent seraphs and offerings to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16,7-8). According to v.·9 the king of Assyria accepted Ahaz's appeal and attacked Aram, conquered Damascus, and killed Rezin. The time when Assyria subjugated Judah cannot clearly be learned from these passages, whether before or after the request of Ahaz²⁶.

Ahaz is specifically mentioned in a summary inscription from Calah (K 3751 = Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 7: rev.·11') 'Jehoahaz [Ya-ъ-ha-zi] of Judah' and the kings of Amon, Moab, Edom and Philistia are mentioned among those who conveyed offerings to Assyria. This summary inscription was written following the 17th year of Tiglath-pileser III, namely 729-728 (rev.·5'). The events are described in geographical order, not chronologically: lines 1'-6', which depict the reduction of the Arabs and other nomads, and the appointment of Idibi'ilu, apparently reflect the events which occurred in 733-732; lines 7'-9' present an updated list of tribute to Assyria during 738 ²⁷. This list does not contain the names of several kings, among them are those of Aram and Israel. Lines 10'-13' list kings of Phoenicia, Philistia, Judah, and Transjordan who were not included amongst those who brought tribute in 738, whereas in lines rev. 14'-16' two additional events apparently dating to the end of this period are mentioned: the payment of offering by Metenna of Tyre and the deposition of Uassurme king of Tabal. Since the latter is included in rev.·9' of the same inscription among the givers of tribute, rev.·14'-16' are obviously additions to the list, which is compiled by the combination of several passages. The mention of Panammu, king of Samal, and of [Mi]tinti of Ashkelon in summary inscription 7 indicates that the tribute was paid in 734, since Panammu king of Samal was killed during the siege of Damascus in 733-732 (KAI, 215, ll. 16-18); whereas [Mi]tinti king of Ashkelon was deposed apparently in 732 (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann. 18: 8'-9' and 24: 12'-16').

Determining the order of Tiglath-pileser III's campaigns during 734-732 is difficult for three main reasons: (1) the Assyrian inscriptions are mostly 'summary inscriptions', and the few Annals passages that have survived provide only minor help in determining the order of the campaigns; (2) the Assyrian inscriptions are contradictory; (3) the biblical data is unclear and cannot assist in deciding among the various reconstructions of the events. In my opinion of the various suggestions made on this issue, the following is the most preferable. The purpose of the Assyrian campaign to the Mediterranean coast in 734 is unclear. It was probably for economic reasons and the desire of the Assyrian kings to take the rich coastal cities²⁸. The following are perhaps the main stages of the 734 campaign. (1) The subjugation of Arvad and the annexation of Kashpuna to the province of Sumur (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 8: 1'-9'). (2) Cities of Tyre, including Mahalab, were conquered during the campaign (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 9: rev.·5'-8'). (3) Following the conquest of the Tyrian cities, the Assyrian army moved south down the coast towards Philistia. (4) The subjugation of Gaza (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 4: 8'-15'; Summ. 9: rev.·13'-16'; Summ. 8: 14'-18'). (5) The erection of a monument in 'the city of the brook of Egypt' (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 8: 18'-19'). (6) The subjugation of Siruatti the Me'nite (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 8: 22'-23').

During the campaign most of the western kingdoms, including Judah and Ashkelon, surrendered to Assyria (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 7: rev.·1'-13'). The Assyrians returned to their homeland as the campaign ended in 734.

Aram and Israel attacked Judah following the departure of the Assyrians from the area because of internal conflicts and the intention of Aram's king to control the kingdom of Judah²⁹. At this time Elath was conquered (2 Kgs 16,6) and the Philistines conquered regions in the Shephelah (2 Chr 28,18). Additional monarchs, including Hanun of Gaza, Hiram of Tyre, Shamshi queen of the Arabs, and others, joined the Aram-Israel alliance, which was also supported by Egypt. As a result of the attack on Judah and Jerusalem, Ahaz sent seraphs to the king of Assyria and asked for his protection and intervention in the conflict. This plea, which corresponded with Assyrian interests, apparently had a minor effect on the Assyrian king's decision to shorten his time in Urartu, lift the siege on Tushpa, and direct his forces to the west in order to halt the erosion of the Assyrian position and prevent the expansion of the Aramean-Israelite coalition.

The 733-732 campaign was mainly aimed against Aram and Israel. Reconstructing the steps of these campaigns is problematic, and only through assumption we can suggest the following order. At the beginning of the campaign, regions in the kingdom of Aram were conquered and Damascus besieged (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann. 23: 1'-17').

The war against Shamshi queen of the Arabs was launched following the invasion of the kingdom of Damascus in 733, as it appears in Ann. 23³⁰.

Shamshi was probably crowned in 737 or 736 and carried on the former policy. The Arabs gave tribute to Assyria in 740-735, whereas in 734 the Arabs joined the Aramean-Israelite coalition. The surrender of the Arabs was closely followed by that of the other nomad tribes mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions (including 'Massa', Tema', Ephah', and others). Transjordan was also conquered during this campaign and the exiles from the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh were deported to Assyria (2 Kgs 15,29; 1 Chr 5,6; 22,25-26).

The subjugation of the kingdoms of Israel and Aram was completed only in 732 (see above discussion on the connection between Anns. inscriptions 18, 23, 24). The Assyrian army conquered the Galilee (2 Kgs 15,26; Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann 18: 2'-7'), the cities of Ephraim and Manasseh, and besieged Samaria (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 13: 17'-18'). Only the reduction of cities located in upper and lower Galilee are mentioned in the biblical and Assyrian sources, yet there is no doubt that Assyria conquered all Israelite cities apart from Samaria³¹.

The siege of Damascus was completed apparently in 732. Rezin was killed and the kingdom of Aram was annexed to Assyria and divided into four provinces (2 Kgs 16,9; Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 9: rev. 3'-4'; Summ. 4: 6'-8'). Samaria and Ashkelon also surrendered due to the fall of Damascus. Palace revolutions occurred in both cities. Mitinti was deposed by Rukibtu, whereas Hoshea, who killed Pekah, seized power over Israel (2 Kgs 15,30; Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 8: 10'-13'; Summ. 9: rev.·9'-11'; Summ. 4: 15'-19'; Summ. 13: 18')³². Hoshea was crowned in 732-731. Evidence for this date comes from an Assyrian inscription which indicates that Hoshea gave tribute to the king of Assyria in Sarabanu, presumably in 731 (Tadmor, Summ. 9: rev.·9'-11')³³.

SUMMARY

The first part of the article re-examines the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, mainly Summary inscriptions 4, 9, 10 and Ann. 18, 23, 24. The author proposes a new reading to line 6 of Summ. 4 by adding a verb (abil or aks$ud) at the end of this line, and separating lines 5-6 from lines 7-8. In the author's opinion Ann. 18 and 24 are indeed parallel versions depicting the events of 732, yet, Ann. 18 describes the conquest of Galilee, while Ann. 24 deals with the conquest of Damascus. The second part of the article examines the relations between Assyria and the West in the days of Tiglath-pileser III in light of the new proposals offered in the first part of the article.

NOTES

¹ H. TADMOR, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introduction, Translations and Commentary (Jerusalem 1994); for detailed reviews of Tadmor's book, see E. FRAHM, AfO 44-45 (1997-1998) 399-404; W. SCHRAMM, Or 68 (1999) 169-171; A.K. GRAYSON, JAOS 118 (1998) 280-281.

² Tadmor, ibid., 138 (note to line 5').

³ For the assumption that the Gilead is included within the territory of Aram during the time of Tiglath-pileser III, see N. NA'AMAN, "Rezin of Damascus and the Land of Gilead", ZDPV 111 (1995) 107-108; cf. S.A. IRVINE, "The Southern Border of Syria Reconstructed", CBQ 56 (1994) 21-41.

⁴ See NA'AMAN, "Rezin" with additional literature there.

⁵ For previous discussion of this problematic issue, see P.A. VIVIANO, "Argob and Arieh", The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D.N. FREEDMAN) (New York 1992) I, 376; and additional literature there.

⁶ TADMOR, Inscriptions, 34.

⁷ Ibid., 220-221.

⁸ G. SMITH, Assyrian Discoveries (London 1875) 283; P. ROST, Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III (Leipzig 1893) 38; with additional literature there.

⁹ TADMOR, Inscriptions, 32, 80-83, 220-221.

¹⁰ Many scholars have accepted this assumption. See TADMOR, ibid.

¹¹ See A. FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Gцttingen 1994) 197.

¹² For the accusation that the kings of Arpad and Unqi revolted against Assyria during the time of Tiglath-pileser III's predecessors, see TADMOR, Inscriptions, 56-57, 132-133.

¹³ For the Assyrian campaign in 743, see TADMOR, Inscriptions, 269-270.

¹⁴ For the stele from Iran, see L.L. LEVINE, Two Neo-Assyrian Stele from Iran (Toronto 1972) 11-24; TADMOR, Inscriptions, 91-110.

¹⁵ H. TADMOR, "Azariah of Judah in Assyrian Inscriptions", The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ed. A. Malamat) (Jerusalem 1961) 177-178 (Hebrew).

¹⁶ M. COGAN, "Tyre and Tiglath-pileser III", JCS 25 (1973) 96-99.

¹⁷ TADMOR, "Azariah of Judah", 178-179.

¹⁸ For a different opinion, see E.R. THIELE, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids ³1983) 143-162.

¹⁹ For the reign of Menahem, see T.R. HOBBS, "Menahem", The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D.N. Freedman) (New York 1992) IV, 692-693, with additional bibliography there.

²⁰ For the identification of Azariah with Azriyau king of Judah, see TADMOR, Inscriptions, 273-274.

²¹ N. NA'AMAN, "Campaigns of the Assyrian Kings to Judah in Light of a New-Assyrian Document", Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 2 (1977) 177-180 (Hebrew).

²² For this assumption, see TADMOR, "Azariah of Judah" 173.

²³ Cf. NA'AMAN, "Campaigns", 178-180.

²⁴ For the Israelite influence in Hamath, see S. DALLEY, "Yahweh in Hamath in the 8th century BC: cuneiform material and historical deductions", VT 60 (1990) 27-32.

²⁵ B. ODED, "The Phoenician Cities and the Assyrian Empire in the Time of Tiglath-pileser III", ZDPV 90 (1974) 46; the subjection of a city located out at sea (probably Arvad) is mentioned in summary inscription 8 — see TADMOR, Inscriptions, Summ. 8: 1'-7'.

²⁶ For the Syrian-Ephraimite war, see B. Oded, 'The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered', CBQ 34 (1972) 153-165; E. LIPINSKI, "Aramaeer und Israel", TRE III, 97-101; H. TADMOR – M. COGAN, "Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations", Biblica 60 (1979) 491-508; G. GALIL, "Conflicts between Assyrian Vassals", SAAB 6 (1992) 60-61; C.S. EHRLICH, "Coalition Politics in Eighth Century B.C.E. Palestine: The Philistines and the Syro Ephraimite War", ZDPV 107 (1991) 48-58; R. TOMES, "The reason for the Syro-Ephraimite War", JSOT 59 (1993) 55-71; P.E. DION, Les aramйens а l'вge du fer: histoire politique et structures sociales (Paris 1997) 213-214.

²⁷ TADMOR, Inscriptions, 170-171, 265-268.

²⁸ ODED, "The Historical Background", 153-165, with additional literature.

²⁹ R. BORGER – H. TADMOR, "Zwei Beitrдge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglat-pilesers III", ZAW 94 (1982) 244-251.

³⁰ I. EPH'AL, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries BC (Jerusalem – Leiden 1982) 82-84; TADMOR, Inscriptions, 80-81, 222-230.

³¹ For the identification of the cities conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in the Galilee, see Y. AHARONI, The Land of the Bible (London ²1979) 372-374.

³² N. NA'AMAN, "Historical and chronological notes on the kingdom of Israel and Judah in the eighth century BC", VT 36 (1986) 72-73; TADMOR, Inscriptions, 202-203.

³³ BORGER – TADMOR, "Zwei Beitrдge" 244-251; TADMOR, Inscriptions, 188-189, 277.