Search Results

This chapter witnesses the reduction of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, along with many other cities and states west of the Euphrates, from sometime tributaries of the Assyrians to mere provincial components of the Assyrian empire. The progression is, however, by no means a smooth one. It is interrupted by the intervention of other powers to challenge Assyrian supremacy, notably Urartu in the east and towards the end of the century Phrygia in the west. Assyrian supremacy west of the Euphrates is also challenged by local centres of resistance, notably the Aramaean kingdom of Arpad (Bit-Agusi) in north-central Syria. But Assyria ultimately prevailed. Its provincialization of the west, including the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, was made a certainty by the two most powerful rulers of the second half of the century, Tiglath-pileser III (745-727) and Sargon II (721-705). By the end of Sargon’s reign, all the Neo-Hittite kingdoms had been absorbed into the Assyrian provincial administration.

The Persian-Egyptian conflict was actually one phase of continuous conflict between successive Near Eastern imperial powers and Egypt, which contested for control of the Levant (Syria-Palestine). This began ca. 1500 bc, when Egypt extended its authority over much of the Levant. Conflict was almost continuous in the ninth–sixth centuries, when the Assyrians mounted repeated campaigns and ultimately incorporated the Levant into the Assyrian Empire, instigating Egyptian military and diplomatic opposition, which led to Assyrian conquest of Egypt and installation of a native client king and the beginning of the 26th or Saite Dynasty. Saite kings opposed Babylonian takeover of the Levant and prompted numerous Babylonian campaigns through the 560s. Once the Persians took over the Babylonian Empire in 539, they inherited their predecessors’ Egyptian problem, making a Persian attempt to conquer Egypt inevitable.

This chapter focuses on the Assyrian Empire which from the 9th to the late 7th century BC dominated the political history of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. The creation of an innovative relay postal service covering the expanse of the empire was instrumental in guaranteeing cohesion and its infrastructure proved one of Assyria’s most lasting heritage. The 1,200 letters-strong state correspondence of King Sargon II (r. 721–705 BC) allows a close study of the mechanisms of state communication.

Most scholars tend to overlook Nahum because of its purportedly vengeful spirit, but the book is designed to celebrate the downfall of the city of Nineveh in 612 b.c.e. Because Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire that had subjugated Judah for approximately a century prior to Josiah's reign, its downfall was pivotal to Josiah's efforts to reestablish Israelite/Judean independence. An analysis of the structure of the book indicates that Nahum is formulated as a prophetic refutation speech that is designed to convince its audience of YHWH's role in bringing down the Assyrian oppressor.

This chapter explores the archival texts of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and attempts to gauge the legal and economic position of slavery in Assyrian society. It shows that the Assyrians held a similar legal understanding of slavery to the Greeks, and knew also of the phenomenon of debt bondage. The chapter then moves on to consider the location of slavery in Assyrian society, showing widespread and significant levels of slave ownership among the Assyrian elite; however, relatively high slave prices prevented slave ownership from becoming a more widespread phenomenon. The third part of the chapter looks at the Assyrian countryside more broadly, and shows that despite often owning large numbers of slaves, members of the Assyrian elite more probably drew the bulk of their income from the exploitation of bound tenant farmers.

This chapter analyses the structure of the Book of Daniel's text that shows Near Eastern history from the sixth century up to the 160s bc The Book of Daniel, written in the 160s bc, incorporates a series of narratives relating the impact on the Jewish community of Near Eastern empires, going back through the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids to the Babylonian and Assyrian empires.

All prophets, in some way, speak of events that are going to happen. Arguably the best known of all such statements about the future is the ‘swords into ploughshares’ passage in Micah 4:1–5. The multitude of diverse opinions about this text are often closely related to each scholar’s understanding of the significance of the chronologically significant phrase with which it begins—‘In days to come …’ Some take this as a reference to a distant apocalyptic future or a utopian ideal of an ultimate universalism, mysterious and mythical. Others see it as an eminently feasible vision for a better world, able to be imagined without requiring particularly unusual miracles. Sociologists, anthropologists, and social psychologists have written about conceptions of the future, and their observations call into question the presuppositions which often underlie the exegesis of biblical scholars. In order to understand better Micah’s sociology of the future, his historical context is particularly relevant, as regards both the pronounced violence in his era and the typically hyperbolic (but no less serious) rhetoric of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. It seems that modern doubts about a world without weapons have determined whether we believe that an ancient Israelite author could possibly have thought such a future was real. Sociological approaches require us to treat these visions as historically and temporally situated assertions of political agency, and motivational statements intended to influence action in the present—utopian perhaps, but by no means unrealistic.

The book of Joshua, the first book of the Former Prophets, has historically been used to justify violent conquest, but it is better read as a model of anti-propaganda. The narrative draws a sharp contrast between the reliability of YHWH’s word and Israel’s slackness and offers a surprisingly sympathetic picture of Canaanites, the ostensible historical enemy. Origen’s practice of reading the story symbolically is suggestive: this is a complex theologically shaped story in which conquest is the dominant metaphor. The whole narrative may be seen as work of cultural memory that draws on stories of the distant past in order to support Israel’s resistance to apostasy and religious assimilation under the pressure of imperial threats, starting with the Assyrian empire in the seventh century.