156 Peter Dubovsk´ y (see below). Since the entire region between the Jordanian desert and the Mediterranean Sea was in the hands of this movement we can rightly call it a coalition. This coalition controlled the trade of the Mediterranean sea ports and along three major traffic routes — the sea route (coastal route), the hill route (route through the Judahite hills), and the king’s route (Transjordanian route) (8). Whatever the primary goal of this coalition was, according to written, glyptic as well as archaeological evidence, Tiglath-pileser III considered the development in the Levant hostile enough to be punished by military intervention. According to the second group of biblical texts, Judah perceived the expansionist policy of the Levantine states, in particular Aram, Philistia and Israel, from its own perspective. Judah lost Transjordan, was plundered by invading troops and a number of Judahites were exiled and killed (9). Ahaz, the king of Judah, seeing his kingdom falling apart opted for a shrewd diplomatic move: he invited Tiglath- pileser III to save him (10). This move, even though highly criticized by (8) M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, II Kings. A New Translation (Garden City, NY 1988) 191. (9) Three biblical accounts differ in describing the details of the Syro- Ephramite campaign against Judah. According to 2 Kgs 15,37 Rezin, the king of Damascus, and Pekah, the king of Samaria, started oppressing Judah as early as during Jotham reign (759-743 B.C.), whereas the Chronicler’s account presents Jotham as a mighty king who expanded the border of Judah to the detriment of Amon. Second, according to Isaianic version the Syro-Ephramite coalition attacked the city of Jerusalem. Isa 7,1 adds a preposition h;yl,[; with a feminine personal pronoun indicating that the object of the attack was Jerusalem herself. The version presented in 2 Kgs 16,5 does not contain any indication that Jerusalem was attacked. However, this difference can be reconciled by the interpretation of the expression “they laid siege against Ahaz” which in view of verse 2 Sam 20,15 means to besiege a king in his city. Third, the versions also differ in presenting the intentions and results of the punitive campaign. Isaianic version emphasizes Ahaz’s fear and the intention of Pekah and Rezin to substitute Ahaz with Tabeel. MT version reads in 2 Kgs 16,6 that Elath was added to Aram, whereas 2 Chr 28 refers to Philistians and Edomites who captured parts of Judah. 2 Chr 28 also lists Judahite dignitaries killed by Israel and the booty captured by Aram and Israel. Such booty is not mentioned in other accounts. (10) Ahaz’s invitation is mentioned explicitly in 2 Kgs 16,7 and 2 Chr 28,16 and it can also be derived from Isaiah’s critique of Ahaz’s decision (Isa 7). MT version of the Chronicler’s account says that Tiglath-pileser III wyl;[; aboY:w", “came against him” and adds /l rxYw" rWVa' Ël,m, rs,a,n“l]Pi tg"L]Ti, “Tiglath-pileser, the king of ': Assyria besieged him/oppressed him”. LXX interprets MT version that Tiglath- pileser III ejpavtaxen aujtovn, “struck him a heavy blow” (2 Chr 28,20). The Assyrian sources do not mention any invitation coming from Ahaz.