Bonus 51 - Azekah Inscription

Azekah Inscription tablets (British Museum no. 81-3-13, 131) .
Photo from Hayim Tadmor “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A
Chronological-Historical Study (Conclusion)” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 12, No. 3 (1958): 80. The Trustees of the British Museum.

Azekah Inscription tablets (British Museum K.6205 + BM 82-3-23,131).
Photo from Na’aman, Nadav. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His
Campaign to Judah.”  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 214 (Apr., 1974): 27. Trustees of the British Museum.

Azekah Inscription tablets (K6205 + 81-3-13, 131, British Museum) are several Akkadian cuneiform tablets, discovered in 1903 by Henry Rawlinson in the Library of Ashurbanipal,1.  but identified as belonging to a single tablet by Nadav Na’aman in 1974. 2.  Initially scholars believed that the K 6205 tablet belonged to the military campaign of Tiglath-pileser III, 3. while the 81-3-13, 131 tablet 4. belonged to the military campaign of Sargon II. 5.  While Shea argues that the joined text now refers to the Sennacherib’s second campaign in 689 BC, 6.  most scholars still maintain the campaigns of Sargon II. 7.

The relevance for biblical studies is that the tablets reportedly mention the Assyrian attack by Sennacherib against Hezekiah, the king of Judah, and the conquest of Azekah (2 Kgs 18-19, 2 Chron 32). 8.
The inscription on the combined tablet has been translated as follows:

(3) […Ashur, my lord, encourage]ed me and against the land of Ju[dah I marched. In] the course of my campaign, the tribute of the ki[ng(s)... (4) […with the mig]ht of Ashur, my lord, the province of [Hezek]iah of Judah like […(5) […] the city of Azekah, his stronghold, which is between my [bo]rder and the land of Judah […(6) [like the nest of the eagle? ] located on a mountain ridge, like pointed iron daggers without number reaching high to heaven […(7) [Its walls] were strong and ricaled the highest mountains, to the (mere) sight, as if from the sky [appears its head? …(8) [by means of beaten (earth) ra]mps, mighty? Battering rams brought near, the work of […], with the attack by foot soldiers, [my] wa[rriors…(9) […] they had seen [the approach of my cav]alry and they had heard the roar of the mighty troops of the god Ashur and [their] he[arts] became afraid […(10) [The city Azekah I besieged,] I captured, I carried off its spoil, I destroyed, I devastated, [I burned with fire… 9.

Although not the final word on the subject, Becking points out:

The joined text forms a part of a “Letter to the deity” written by Sennacherib after his campaign against Juda [sic Judah] in 701 BCE. Therefore the Azriyau of the Annals of Tiglath Pileser III is nowadays interpreted as a rebel from the area of Hamath. As a result of this reconsideration of the sources a Judaean or Israelite interference in the coalition of 738 BCE is very unlikely. 10. 

 Footnotes

• 1. Henry Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Bd. III: A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria, Bowler, 1870.
• 2. Nadav Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 214 (Apr., 1974): 25-39
• 3. P. Rost, Die Keilinschrifttexte Tiglat Pilesers III (Leipzig: Pfeiffer), 18-20; Hayim Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, no. 3 (1958): 80-84.
• 4. H. Winckler. Altorientalische Forschungen II, 570-574
• 5. Nadav Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah.”  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 214 (Apr., 1974): 26-28.
• 6. William H. Shea, “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104, no. 3 (1985): 404-407.
• 7. Hayim Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study (Conclusion),” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, no. 3 (1958): 80-84.
• 8. See Shea for the debate over the details. Shea, “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign,” 404-407.
• 9. David Miano and Sarah Miano, eds., Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 126; David Miano, Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel, Resources for Biblical Study 64 (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). 235; .
• 10. Bob Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 3.

For Further Study

• Becking, Bob. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
• Borger, Riekele. Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestucke: Heft I: Elemente der Grammatik und der Schrift Ubungsbeispiele Glossar. II:Die Texte in Umschrift. III: Kommentar die Texte in Keilschrift. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963.
• Borger, Riekele. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh, 1984  I, 4, 370.
• Dalley, Stephanie. “Yahweh in Hamath in the 8th Century BC: Cuneiform Material and Historical Deductions.” Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 1 (1990): 21-32 
• Miano, David, and Sarah Miano, eds. Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
• Miano, David. Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel. Resources for Biblical Study 64. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.
• Na’aman, Nadav. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah.”  Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 214 (Apr., 1974):  25-39.
• Na’aman, Nadav. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps.”  Vetus Testamentum 29, no. 1 (1979): 61-86.
• Rawlinson, Henry. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Bd. III: A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria, Bowler, 1870.
• Shea, William H. “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 104, no. 3 (1985): 401-18. 
• Tadmor, Hayim. “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study (Conclusion).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, no. 3 (1958): 77-100. 22 f. 80-84.