This essay dates portions of the “Burden of Egypt” prophecy in Isaiah 19 to the Neo-Assyrian period, based on its borrowing of motifs from Assyrian royal inscriptions. These include the unique motif of the establishment of a monument on the border with Egypt and Assyrian attempts to dominate Egypt by controlling its trade. The essay also demonstrates the dependence of parts of Isaiah 19 on material in Exodus 1–15, integrating specific phrases from these Exodus chapters with motifs known to us (...) from Assyrian royal inscriptions. This integration could only have taken place during the Assyrian period, and this has obvious implications for the dating of the Exodus text. The essay understands the prophecy as a re-envisioning of the Assyrian campaign of 734, part of which was directed at Egypt. In this re-envisioned campaign, YHWH Himself is directing the Assyrian attack on Egypt. The essay focusses on 19:19–25, which describe how the Egyptians suffer as a result of the Assyrian attack. In their despair, they acknowledge the sovereignty of YHWH. This recognition is based on the Assyrian model of recognizing the Assyrian king as universal sovereign, and the monument described in v. 22 is based on the monument established by the Assyrians on the Egyptian border. The behavior of the Egyptians in vv. 20–22 provokes the unique theological statements of vv. 23–25, in which Egypt and Assyria join Israel in the triad blessed by YHWH. This passage demonstrates Isaiah’s use of a sort of “replacement theology” in which the universal sovereignty of YHWH is imagined and described based on Assyrian claims of universal dominion. (shrink)

In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by AleJandro F. Botta. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, vol. 60. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pp. l + 429, illus. €228.

How different were the claims of Assyrian royal inscriptions from actual Neo-Assyrian practice? This essay explores this question by examining two unusual claims made by Sargon II in relation to his rule of Samaria. The first claim, which appears both in the Khorsabad annals and in a Nimrud prism, should be translated “I again settled Samaria, more than previously.” Based on the historical reconstruction derived from archaeological data, I argue that this phrase refers to the movement of exiles into areas (...) in the western part of the province of Samaria. These areas in the western part of the province, around the sites of Aphek, Hadid, and Gezer, experienced significant population increases in the Assyrian period. The second passage, in Sargon’s Great Display Inscription from Khorsabad, refers to Sargon’s treatment of non-deported Samaritans. It should be translated “I trained the remnant in their crafts.” The historical reality behind this claim is the shift in agricultural techniques and activities in Samaria as a result of the Assyrian conquest. The Assyrian domination of Samaria required the production of grain surpluses, which needed to be made available in the Aphek-Gezer region in the western part of the province of Samaria. In each of the claims from the royal inscriptions examined in this essay, we see that the royal inscriptions credit the king with activities performed by the provincial governor. They change the description of the activity to make it “fit for royalty.”. (shrink)