01_Dubovský_321_346 28/10/14 10:32 Pagina 334 334 PETER DUBOVSKÝ Both reports start with a narrative introduction containing qatal of the verb awb and give the name of Assyrian invaders (cf. 2 Kgs 25,1). A series of wayyiqtols following the verb awb describes how the real power slid out of the hands of the Israelite kings. In the first case Menahem was the subject of two actions: he gave the money to the Assyrian king, and he exacted the money from Is- raelite nobility. Menahem though facing the Assyrian invasion had still enough power to negotiate the terms of the invader’s retreat and even to obtain a desired confirmation of his throne. The second Assyrian invasion is described in a different manner. The protago- nist (grammatical subject) of all actions is the Assyrian king; he captured the cities which he wanted, and he deported the people whom he wanted and wherever he wanted. Comparing both inva- sion reports we can see the differences. In the first case the country is stripped of money; in the second case it is stripped of people. In the first case the country is ravaged by the Israelite king; in the sec- ond by the Assyrian king. In the first case the Assyrian king re- turned to Assyria, but the Israelites stayed in the land; in the second case the Israelites were deported to Assyria 29. In the first invasion Menahem is still an active protagonist able to negotiate with the invaders; in the second case Pekah becomes a passive observer silently witnessing the pillage of his country. The contrast between the two invasion reports points not only to increasing Assyrian power, but also to the gradual loss of executive power of the Is- raelite kings. During the second invasion the Israelite king had al- ready lost any real power and had to put up with Assyrian whims. A touch of irony can be easily recognized in these verses as well. While Menahem planned to outwit the Assyrian king, in reality this seemingly shrewd political move turned out to be the beginning of the end of the Northern Kingdom. 29 It is important to notice the rhetorical device used for the description of the captured cities: syndeton containing seven regions followed by an asyn- deton mentioning the “entire land of Naphtali”. The seven regions mentioned here constitute more than a factual list of captured towns. It should rather be taken as a literary device indicating completeness meaning that the entire north of Israel fell into Tiglath-Pileser’s hands.