Gershon Galil, «A New Look at the Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III», Vol. 81 (2000) 511-520

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.

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