VI. An Outline of the Late Neo-Assyrian and Early Neo-Babylonian Period

discussions of the poetry and uses “line” and “lines” interchangeably with “colon” and “cola.” Hence, a bicolon can be spoken of here as consisting of two and a tricolon of three lines. Others use “line” for a bicolon and “halfline” for a colon. The usage in this commentary was influenced by the way I have chosen to present the translation of these prophetic texts, with each colon being on a separate line.

VI. AN OUTLINE OF THE LATE NEO-ASSYRIAN AND EARLY NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD

In this section, we will briefly consider the implied historical setting of the three books interpreted in this commentary. On my reading, and broadly speaking, Nahum is set in the period before the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC, which brought the Neo-Assyrian Empire to an end, but after 664/663, because it looks back to the fall of Thebes (see below). Habakkuk is set in the period around the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; I will argue below that the setting is in fact after the rise of the Babylonians rather than shortly before, as many others believe. Zephaniah is placed in the days of Josiah in the second half of the seventh century, around the decline and end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The question whether Zephaniah should be dated early or late in Josiah’s three-decade reign is discussed in the introduction to Zephaniah. For this general overview, it is sufficient to note that the three books are set in the period between 660 and 600 BC. This alone makes it interesting to deal with them in one volume. None of the other prophetic books are set in this period of transition from the Neo-Assyrian to the NeoBabylonian Empire. The setting need not imply that the three books were written at that time, but it is my best guess that in the case of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, the implied setting is also the time at which (most of) the material originated and was put together.

The beginning of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is usually dated from the reign of Ashur-dan II (934–912), under whom a long period of Assyrian decline was reversed. Its climax came with Tiglath-pileser III (744–727), who seems to have come to the throne as a usurper. In several western campaigns, he consolidated Assyrian control over Syria and the eastern Mediterranean, turning local rulers into Assyrian vassals obliged to pay annual tributes. Failure to pay was punished, usually by the appointment of a new ruler, territorial reductions, deportations of members of the upper class, and increased

is occasionally unsatisfactory. My own colometry, therefore, is not always in agreement with that of the MT. Accepting such divergence seems to me preferable to bending the rules to make the alleged masoretic colometry fit my own.

tribute payments. Further anti-Assyrian activity could lead to destruction and annexation. Notably, Damascus fell in 732. The Assyrian preference was for keeping profitable commercial centers such as Tyre and Gaza intact without annexing them. In this way, they tried to extract maximum benefit from these cities at minimum cost.

Tiglath-pileser III was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V (727–722), who destroyed Shechem and besieged Tyre, bringing Sidon, Akko, and the inland territories of Tyre under Assyrian control. Samaria fell in 722, ending the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Sargon II (721–705) had to quell a series of rebellions triggered by the instability that preceded his reign but proved largely successful doing so both in the west, where he collected tribute from Hezekiah among others and stationed a garrison at the Egyptian border, and in the east, where he ultimately ousted Merodach-baladan, the king of Babylon, who for a while had succeeded in uniting his country in opposition to Assyrian domination. After Sargon’s death, Merodach-baladan briefly regained the throne of Babylon, but Sargon’s successor, Sennacherib (704–681), who concentrated much of his military effort on Babylonia, proved too strong for him. Sennacherib also campaigned in the west, bringing much destruction to Judah in 701, including, famously, the sacking of the Judean fortresses Lachish and Azekah, but without conquering Jerusalem itself. It seems that Assyrian culture and religion were not forced upon subject nations, but its dominance could not but shape even those who sought to resist Assyria, let alone any who wanted to ingratiate themselves with the empire.

Esarhaddon (681–669) strengthened Assyrian domination in the east, pursuing a policy of appeasement and rebuilding Babylon. Egyptian attempts to shake off the Assyrian yoke were met by the invasion of Egypt; Esarhaddon took Memphis and gained control of the Nile delta.61 Assyria seemed at the height of its power, but Esarhaddon’s successor Assurbanipal (668–627 [?]) was required to recapture Memphis twice, the second time penetrating far enough into Egypt to take the city of Thebes (ca. 664/663). The latter event, which ended Nubian rule over Egypt, is remembered in Nah 3:8. To Judeans, Assyrian power might have seemed irresistible at that time. But Assurbanipal faced serious problems in the east. Esarhaddon had laid careful plans for his succession, appointing one of his sons, Assurbanipal, heir to the throne in Assyria but another, Shamash-shuma-ukin, heir to the throne in Babylonia. If his idea was to thereby strengthen the union of Assyria and Babylonia, it proved a major error of judgment. Shamashshuma-ukin gained the support of the Babylonians against his brother and, allied with Elamites and Arabs, sought to gain independence from Assyria.

61. For more details see the excursus “Assyrian Campaigns against Egypt” in the commentary on Nahum 3:8.

The resulting civil war lasted four years (652–648). It was ultimately won by Assurbanipal, who then conducted raids into Elam, capturing and destroying Susa. Assurbanipal was also keenly interested in cultural pursuits and undertook extensive building projects. With Assurbanipal’s attention focused on the east, Egypt apparently transitioned from being an Assyrian vassal to being an ally on a more equal footing, able to exercise influence on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

Either toward the end of Assurbanipal’s reign or upon his death, the Babylonians tried again to be free of Assyrian control. Under Nabopolassar’s leadership, this fight for freedom was ultimately won. Nabopolassar was crowned king of Babylon (625–605), marking the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Elam was very weak at the time, but the Medes allied themselves with the Babylonians as well, and together they managed to inflict one defeat after another on Assyria. In 614, Assur was captured. Nineveh fell in 612. The retreating Assyrian troops, now supported by the Egyptian army, were defeated at Harran in 610. In 605, Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar II led a surprise attack against the Egyptian army at Carchemish, forcing them to flee south. The news of his father’s death prompted Nebuchadnezzar to return to Babylon to be crowned king (604–562) before returning to the west to take control of cities and territories formerly under Assyrian (and Egyptian) vassalage.

Assyria, which had exercised such a strong hold on the eastern Mediterranean shores for some three centuries, had brought the Kingdom of Israel to an end and inflicted oppression and devastation on Judah. But it was finished in a comparatively short period of time. Egypt was humiliated. And Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar II became the new superpower to be feared. Nebuchadnezzar’s relentless campaigning ensured that his empire included more or less the same territory as the former Assyrian Empire. His attempt in 601 to conquer Egypt was not successful, however. This prompted Jerusalem’s king, Jehoiakim, to renounce the allegiance to Babylon that he had sworn after the Babylonian victory at Carchemish. The Babylonian response was the beginning of the end of the Kingdom of Judah, a tragedy that the Bible well documents elsewhere.

Nahum speaks to a people for whom Assyria seemed invincible, predicting the fall of Nineveh and the end of its empire. Zephaniah speaks into the period when Assyrian domination began to be less keenly felt but the Neo-Babylonian Empire was not yet on the horizon. Habakkuk addresses the problem that the divinely promised rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire merely substituted one evil for another.