THE MELAMMU PROJECTmelammu-project.eu/pdf/pongratz-leisten2002.pdf · PONGRATZ-L EISTEN “L YING KING ” AND “F ALSE PROPHET ” 215 BEATE PONGRATZ-L EISTEN Princeton “Lying

THE MELAMMU PROJECT

http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/

“‘Lying King’ and ‘False Prophet’. The Intercultural Transfer of a Rhetorical Device

within Ancient Near Eastern Ideologies”

BEATE PONGRATZ-LEISTEN

Published in Melammu Symposia 3:

A. Panaino and G. Pettinato (eds.),

Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena.

Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the

Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project.

Held in Chicago, USA, October 27-31, 2000

(Milan: Università di Bologna & IsIao 2002), pp. 215-43.

Publisher: http://www.mimesisedizioni.it/

This article was downloaded from the website of the Melammu Project:

http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/

The Melammu Project investigates the continuity, transformation and diffusion of

Mesopotamian culture throughout the ancient world. A central objective of the project is to

create an electronic database collecting the relevant textual, art-historical, archaeological,

ethnographic and linguistic evidence, which is available on the website, alongside

bibliographies of relevant themes. In addition, the project organizes symposia focusing on

different aspects of cultural continuity and evolution in the ancient world.

The Digital Library available at the website of the Melammu Project contains articles from

the Melammu Symposia volumes, as well as related essays. All downloads at this website

are freely available for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use is strictly prohibited.

For inquiries, please contact [email protected].

PONGRATZ-LEISTEN “LYING KING” AND “FALSE PROPHET”

215

BEATE PONGRATZ-LEISTEN Princeton

“Lying King” and “False Prophet”:

the Intercultural Transfer of a Rhetorical Device

within Ancient Near Eastern Ideologies

Dedicated to Wolfgang Rölligfor his Seventieth Birthday

he language of power as a coher-ent system of various rhetoricaldevices, subtly interwoven for the

single purpose of acquiring or maintain-ing a specific political status quo, stillremains a field in need of thorough re-search.1 In the first millennium B.C. thegeographical area of the Mediterranean,the Fertile Crescent, and Persia shared anintellectual koinè. The élites of the re-spective empires were in constant con-tact, sharing the same pool of ideas andborrowing from each other those culturalconcepts and institutions that proved tobe successful for political power. Whatwas distinctive about each intellectualand political élite were the ways in whichit patterned these concepts.

While the second half of the secondmillennium B.C. is characterized by an“intensive interaction of great politic-territorial formations, that reciprocallyacknowledge their existence,”2 the his-tory of the first millennium, and espe-

cially the seventh century B.C., is deter-mined by Assyria’s direct or indirectdomination of the whole Fertile Crescentreaching from the Arabian-Persian Gulfup to Anatolia. This political domination,mainly grounded in military achieve-ments and networks of communication,3

produced an intensive interaction be-tween Assyria and the adjacent territo-ries. International treaties, trade, diplo-matic marriages, deportations of crafts-men, and the education of the élite of de-feated enemies at the Assyrian court en-gendered a dynamic intercultural ex-change of figurative and ideological poli-cies, all of which had a formative impacton the development of the ideology ofthe Assyrian empire.

The rapid growth of the Assyrian stateto imperial dimensions within the firsthalf of the first millennium represented achallenge to the political discourse of theruling élite. As P. Machinist put it: “thestate was not just a bureaucratic appara-

T

1 I am most grateful to my colleagues at the sympo-sium in Chicago, from Tübingen University, at Yale,and to M. Davis and Th. Podella for their stimulatingdiscussion of the ideas expressed here.2 C. Zaccagnini, “The Forms of Alliance and Subju-gation in the Near East of the Late Bronze Age,” in:

L. Canfora/M. Liverani/C. Zaccagnini (eds.), I trat-tati nel mondo antico. Forma, ideologia, funzione(Rome, 1990) 37.3 M. Liverani, “The Growth of the Assyrian Empirein the Habur/Middle Euphrates Area,” AAAS 1984,107-115.

A. Panaino & G. Pettinato (eds.)MELAMMU SYMPOSIA III (Milano 2002)ISBN 88-8483-107-5


216

tus for the exchange – often forced – ofgoods and persons, but an arena for thecommunication of ideas, which in turnprovided the energy and lubrication tokeep the state functioning.”4

Architecture, iconography, ritual andtext were the principal media used by theAssyrians to build a coherent ideologicalsystem expressing a particular self-un-derstanding and world-view of the politi-cal élite. Once formulated, this ideologyhad a great impact on the political sys-tems, military policies and ideologies ofthe contiguous territories as well as ofthe empires to follow.5

Recently, the German Old Testamentscholar M. Weippert claimed a commonNear Eastern or at least Syrian-Meso-potamian prophetic language and showedthe interdependencies of formulas con-cerning Neo-Assyrian and Old Testamentprophetism.6 In the following I wouldlike to show that the same is true for aspecific aspect of the rhetoric of ideol-ogy. Rhetorics of power belong in thelarger context of propaganda, a subjectthat has received much attention fromsociologists and historians in the last fewdecades.7 They should be approachedtherefore, as with propaganda, with a fo-cus on the following questions:8 1) Whatis the social and political background? 2)Who is the agent? 3) Who is the ad-

dressee? 4) What goal is pursued? 5)What kind of media and devices areused? 6) Can we grasp the effects of therhetoric and how they did last?

With these questions in mind I will re-strict myself to a small piece of ideologi-cal discourse, namely the motif of the“lie” and its role in the political rhetoricof the Assyrian and Persian ideologies,as well as in the theological discourse ofthe prophets of the Old Testament. Al-though one may claim that “lying” is ageneral human phenomenon,9 its use as aliterary device within political or relig-ious rhetoric is something special, to beevaluated independently of moral judg-ment. I will show that the use of thismotif emerged out of similar contexts ofinteraction among social groups pro-claiming diverging interests, be they po-litical or religious, and that, consequently,a specific historical situation provokedthe use of this motif.

Methodologically, my concept of inter-cultural transfer of ideologies is that of adeliberate and conscious Rezeptionsge-schichte, not that of a Wirkungsge-schichte.10 While Rezeptionsgeschichtepresupposes the absolutely free decisionbetween what a respective user wants toselect and adapt to his own cultural sys-tem and what he does not, and under-stands reception as a creative and pro-

4 P. Machinist, “Assyrians on Assyria in the FirstMillennium B.C.,” in: K. Raaflaub (ed.), Anfängepolitischen Denkens in der Antike (Oldenbourg,1993) 78.5 S. Dalley (ed.), Legacy of Mesopotamia (Oxford,1998).6 M. Weippert, «Ich bin Jahwe» – «Ich bin Ištar vonArbela», in B. Huwyler (ed.), Prophetie und Psal-men, Festschrift Klaus Seybold, AOAT 280 (Münster,2001) 31-59.7 W. Schieder/C. Dipper, “Propaganda,” in:Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 5 (Stuttgart, 1984)69-112; U. Daniel/W. Siemann (eds.), Propaganda.Meinungskampf, Verführung und politische Sinn-stiftung 1789-1989 (Frankfurt, 1994).8 For the asking of similar questions in the context of

myth and propaganda, see J. N. Bremmer, “Myth asPropaganda: Athens and Sparta,” Zeitschrift fürPapyrologie und Epigraphik 117 (1997) 9-16; M.Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in:M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda (Copen-hagen, 1979) 297-317; idem, Prestige and Interest(Padova, 1990) 28f.9 See for example the book recently published by E.Sullivan, The Concise Book of Lying (New York,2001).10 For the difference, see G. Ahn, Monotheismus inIsrael und Iran. Methodologische und historiogra-phische Überlegungen zur Frage nach dem Einflußdes Zoroastrismus auf das nachexilische Judentum,Habilitationsschrift (Bonn, 1994) 62ff.


217

ductive process, Wirkungsgeschichte ismainly concerned with research on im-pact and dependencies.11 This means thatI depart from a pure philological text-immanent reception of concepts in orderto trace the historical conditions pro-voking the migration and interculturaladaptation of concepts.12

First of all, a brief look at the termi-nology is in order. In Sumerian and Ak-kadian language the motif of “lying” canimply different actions and consequentlybe expressed by two different terms orformulas: either 1) “to tell untruthfulthings” in general, or 2) “to tell untruth-ful things” as used synonymously with“to tell evil things” or “to lie,” wherebyin the latter case this formula belongs tojuridical terminology and is used in thecontext of “treachery” or “rebellion” aga-inst the Mesopotamian king. While W. L.Moran many years ago brought the posi-tive terms, such as “love” and “friend-ship,”13 of the treaty language into thefore, this study will contribute to itsnegative components.

The first concept, juxtaposing surruand k nu “lie” and “true” concerns the

veracity of information, a statement orreport. It is formulated by the Akkadianking, Rimuš, in order to emphasize theveracity of his military reports,14 a motifwhich in the later periods is adopted byking Šulgi of Ur,15 and Išme-Dagan,16 andmuch later by Nabopolassar,17 and whichis a well-known motif in wisdom litera-ture. In the texts of royal self-presen-tation, this concept of veracity serves tocharacterize the sincerity of the kinghimself while the concept of the lie asbeing rebellious, expressed either by“lie” or “telling evil/untruthful things” or“planning evil things,” is always used bythe king to characterize his enemies. Inthe following, I will focus exclusively onthis second concept of the lie in the con-text of rebellion and its role as a literarydevice to justify the king’s military reac-tion. While research has been done onthe terminology of war and objects con-nected with it in the Northwest Semiticlanguages,18 and on the ideological for-mulas justifying going to war in Assyrianinscriptions,19 the motif of lie in its dia-chronic and synchronic dimensions hasnot yet been studied.

11 M. Stausberg, Faszination Zarathustra. Zorasterund die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der FrühenNeuzeit (Berlin/New York, 1998) 3.12 On this problem see Ahn 1994, 31ff.13 W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Estern Back-ground of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ25 (1963) 77-87; idem, “A Note on the Treaty Ter-minology of the Sefîre Stelas,” JNES 22 (1963) 173-176.14 Rimuš C 1 74-79: dUTU ù dA-ba4 ú-má la sú-ra-tim lu kí-ni-i!-ma, for further references see B.Kienast/W. Sommerfeld, Glossar zu den altakkadis-chen Königsinschriften, FAOS 8 (Stuttgart, 1994) 272s.v. surr"tum.15 Šulgi E (UMBS X/2 =TCL XV 14, see J. Klein,Three Šulgi Hymns (Ramat Gan, 1981) 40 with n.70:Šulgi E:

“As many lines as there may be in my songs,None of them is false, (all of them) are verily true!”

16 See Išme-Dagan A 381-383; D. R. Frayne, “NewLight on the Reign of Ishme-Dagan,” ZA 88 (1998)6-44.

17 See the Nabopolassar inscription describing hisrestoration of the inner wall of Babylon, F. N. H. al-Rawi, “Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the WallImgur-Enlil at Babylon,” Iraq 47 (1985) iii 15 šum-ma i-nim-ma-a-a sur-ra-tu-ma la ka-a-a-an-tu-um-ma “(I swear by Marduk ...) that my words are notfalse but that they are true.”18 M. Snyczer, “La terminologie de la guerre et de laconquête dans l’épigraphie ouest-sémitique,” in:Guerre et conquête dans le Proche-Orient Ancien,Actes de la table ronde du 14 novembre 1998 or-ganisée par l’URA 1062, «Études Sémitiques» éditéspar L. Nehmé (Paris, 1999) 93-103.19 M. Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Em-pire,” in: M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda(Copenhagen 1979) 297-317; B. Oded, War, Peaceand Empire. Justifications for War in Assyrian RoyalInscriptions (Wiesbaden, 1992); E. Cancik-Kirsch-baum, “Rechtfertigung von politischem Handeln inAssyrien im 13./12. Jh. v.Chr.,” in: B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. (eds.), Ana šadî Labnani l# allik, Fs W.Röllig (Münster, 1997) 69-77.


218

The Evidence in Old Akkadian and Ur III Texts

The motif of “lying” in the sense ofbeing “rebellious” can already be foundfor the first time in an inscription of Sar-gon of Akkade in the second half of thethird millennium B.C. Since it has al-ready entered the text genre of royal in-

scriptions, which serve the ideologicalself-presentation of the kings, it can beclassified as a concept, a rhetorical de-vice used to legitimate the military ac-tion of the king.

Sargon C 920

43 [in] in44 30[+4 KAS.ŠUDUN] 34 battles45 iš11-ar he was victorious.46 URUki.URU[ki] The rebellious (lit.: lying) cities ...47 sà-ar-ru-t[im]

In contrast to the Akkadian traditionwhich explicitly uses the term “lying” inthe context of a rebellion against theking, the Ur III texts refer to the rebel-lious land as ki-bal, never, as far as I cansee, using explicitly the motif of lie. In-stead, it seems that the expression “tospeak evil” is used to depict the hostilityeither of external or internal enemies. Itis very difficult to determine exactly

whether the breaching of a treaty anddisloyalty are implied or whether thisexpression denotes general disobedience,or whether disobedience typically equalsdisloyalty. Thus Šulgi certainly evokesboth disobedience in the more generalsense and disloyalty, emphasizing hisrole as “king of justice” when he depictshimself as follows:

Šulgi A21

22 inim-gi-na-bi !-ma-da-sá-àm23 nì-si-sá-e ki !-ba-ág-gá-àm24 nì-ne-ru-e ki la-ba-ra-ág-gá-àm25 inim-nì-ne-ru-du11-ga "# !-ba-ra-gig-ga-àm

22 Its true/rightful words I strive to attain. 23 Justice is what I love.24 Fraudulent action that I do not love.25 Fraudulent words are what I hate.

Gudea, for instance, refers to the threatof disloyalty in general when he depicts

himself as the guardian of the cult andpolitical and social order:

20 I.J. Gelb (†)/B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königs-inschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v.Chr. (Stuttgart,1990) 183.

21 J. Klein, Three Šulgi Hymns (Ramat-Gan, 1981)190.


219

CylB xviii 2-3

2 eme-ní$- "#-da inim ba-da-kúr3 ní$-érim é-ba im-ma-an-g[i4]

2 He changed the words of evil-speaking tongue,3 He turned everything hostile away from the temple.

And Hammurabi in the prologue to hislaw collection clearly evokes both as-pects by introducing himself as a kingwho by the command of the gods “esta-blished truth (kittu) and justice (m$šaru)

as the declaration of the land.”22

What needs to be stressed is the judi-cial connotation of acting righteously andjustly which will be of major importancein the context of treaty-breaking.

The Old Babylonian Evidence

The development of the rhetorical de-vice of the lie in the sense of being re-bellious, that is, the chain of argumenta-tion and its semantic frame, are only tobe found in the epistolary literature ofthe second millennium B.C. Interest-ingly, the evidence is restricted to thegeographical area of Northern Mesopo-tamia and Syria, that is, the archives ofShemsh ra located east of Mosul in to-day’s Southern Kurdistan and Mari onthe Middle Euphrates, as well as the ar-chives of Amarna reflecting the politicalhistory of the Levant in the 14th centuryB.C.

At the beginning of the second millen-nium, the evidence for the motif of lyingin the context of treachery is attested inthe epistolary literature from Shemsh ra.Southern Kurdistan has always been anarea upon which the Assyrians lookedwith interest.23 Because of its fertility,control of the Sherizor Plain was alreadya major concern by the time of kingŠamš!-Adad I. It is from the end of his

reign that the Shemsh ra archives attestto the importance he attributed to it. Šu-šarra/Shemsh ra was the administrativecenter for an area called m"t Utêm,24

“which included the Rania plain with thestrategic passage through the mountainsat Darband-i-Ramkan.” It was governedby the local ruler Kuwari, who originallyhad entered into an alliance with the rul-ers of the Turukkeans. Kuwari’s mainobligation towards them was the deliveryof grain and flour. This local system ofpolitical alliances seems to have brokendown under pressure of the Gutians andŠamš!-Adad, in connection with his sonIšme-Dagan, viceroy of Ekall tum. Thelocal ruler Kuwari switched his alle-giance from the Turukkeans in the East,and became a vassal of Šamš!-Adad inorder to save himself from the Gutianadvance.25 In the face of the Gutian inva-sion, the Turukkeans moved westwards.Apparently Kuwari was instructed tosend them to Šubat-Enlil, the residenceof Šamš!-Adad, in order to resettle the

22 Codex Hammurabi v 22-24, see M. Roth, LawCollections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (At-lanta, 1997, 2nd edition) 81.23 J. Laessøe, The Shemsh"ra Tablets (Copenhagen,

1959) 17.24 J. Eidem, The Shemsh"ra Archives 2. The Admin-istrative Texts (Copenhagen, 1992) 17.25 Eidem 1992, 18.


220

stream of refugees coming out of theZagros.

The letter SH 920 which follows, wassent by an unknown sender to Kuwariand reflects the situation of Šamš!-Adadafter his conquest of Šušarra. The Gutianleader Endušše assures Kuwari there will

be no hostile interference as a conse-quence of this conquest.

The letter provides evidence for thetheme of speaking truthfully or falsely intandem with treacherous behavior inmilitary context:

§ 2 SH 92026

4 DUMU ši-ip-ri ša Qú-ti-i A messenger from the Gutians,5 ša i-na Ši-ik-ša-am-bi-imki wa-aš-bu who are in Šikšambum6 a-na $i-ri-ja il-li-kam-ma came to me7 ki-a-am iq-bi-im um-ma-mi and said as follows:8 lúQú-tu-ú En-du-uš-še The Gutian Endušše9 ki-a-am iq-bi-im um-ma-mi said to me as follows:10 šum-ma $a-bu-um ša dUTU-ši-dIM a-bi-ja “When the army of Šamš!-Adad, my father,11 a-na Ši-ik-ša-am-bi-imki is-sà-an-qa-am draws near Šikšambum,12 GIŠ.TUKUL.%I.A la te-ep-pé-ša do not engage in battle, (for)

ma-ti-ma a-na a-bi-ja ú-ul u-ga-la-al I will never commit a misdeed against my father.13 šum-ma wa-$a-am iq-ta-bu-ni-ik-ku-nu-ši-im If they tell you to leave,14 $e-e šum-ma iq-ta-bu-nu-ku-nu-ši-im ši-ba leave, if they tell you, stay!”15 an-ni-tam iq-bi-im This he told me.16 a-wa-tu-šu-nu ki-na ù sà-ar-ra Whether their words are trustworthy or

treacherous,17 ma-an-nu-um lu-ú i-de who knows.

The letter of Shemsh ra unfolds thewhole theme (“Wortfeld”) as well as thesemantic frame of the lie. The word abu,“father,” applied to Šamš!-Adad refers toa treaty (riksu or mam$tu) which is swornin the name of the gods. Its violation in-evitably implies a breach with the king,expressed by the verb gullulu, “to com-mit a misdeed.” Hence “lie” (aw"tu sar-ru) implies speech as well as action, aphenomenon that has been already notedby the linguist Harald Weinrich.27 Thecounterpart of sarru is k$nu, which standsnot only for “truthful” but also for “trust-

worthy” and “loyal.” The fact that “lie”(sarru) implies a treacherous action iscorroborated by another letter (SH861),28 in which it is juxtaposed with averb meaning “to change allegiance”(muttablakattu “rebellious” which de-rives from the root nabalkutu).

The whole semantic context may beelucidated by the so-called “protocôledes bédouins” from the city of Mari,which prescribes the behavior of the no-madic sheiks towards the king of Mari intimes of war:

26 Laessøe 1959, 32-37.27 H. Weinrich, Linguistik der Lüge (München, 2000)14ff.

28 Laessøe 1959, 57, SH 861 l.13: sà-ar-ru mu-ut-ta-ab-la-ka-tu “treacherous and rebellious they are.”


221

§ 3 M.606029

1’ [šum-ma na-ak-rum] im-ha-a$ [ ... ] “In case the enemy attacks ...2’ [la ap-pa-ra-š]i-du ù pa-da-[nam] I swear I will not flee and follow a bad3’ la da-mi-iq]-tam la na-wi-ir-tam &la'[ ... ] and shameful path ... ...

6’ [ù] uz-na-ia a-na ma-da-&ri'-ia I will heed my lords7’ [ù pí]-ir-hi-šu-nu i-ba-aš-še-e &ú-lu-ma' and their descendants ...

... ...15’ [x x x x ni]-iš dingir-meš-ia an-ni-&im' ... That oath,16’ [ša? a]-na zi-im-ri-li-im be-l[í-ia] which I have sworn to Zimrilim, my lord,17’ du[mu I]a-ah-du-li-im lugal ma-riki son of (! )"*-Lim, king of Mari18’ ù ma-a-at Ha-na-meš áz-ku-ru and the land of %ana,19’ &la'ú-še-pu-ma I will not transgress.20’ [a-n]a Zi-im-ri-li-im be-lí-ia Against Zimrilim, my lord,21’ [la ú]-ga-la-lu ú-lu a-wa-tam la da-mi-iq-tam I will not commit a misdeed, and the hostile word22’ [ša] pí-i lúHa-na-meš ša na-we-e-im of the nomads of the steppe23’ [ú-lu]-ma i-na pí-i lú-meš ša a-la-ni or of people of the cities,24’ [ša e-še]20-mu-ú um-ma-mi Zi-im-ri-li-im which I hear, saying: “Zimrilim25’ [ù pí]-ri-ih-šu ú-ul i-ša-ap-p[a]-r[u]/-né-[ti] and his descendants will not govern us

anymore …”... ...

28’ [ú-ša-a]n?-ni a-&ta'-x-[ ... ] I will report ...

Here, the sheiks swear an oath to thegods (l.15’: n$š il$ zak"ru) and never theywill transgress it. This is expressed bythe verb šêpu (l.19), which in the lexicallists is equated with the verb et qu and isused in the context of violating treaties.30

Likewise, non-transgression is juxta-posed with not committing of a misdeed,i.e., not acting in a hostile way againstthe king (gullulu). The hostile action isexplicitly evoked by implying the openrepudiation of the king’s reign. Finally,the person put under oath swears to re-

port to the king any hostile activity orspeech occurring in his territory.

I consciously avoided the translation“to commit a sin” for gullulu because thetexts discussed above do not refer to anyreligious connotation of breaking a treaty.This could be due to the fact that the textcategories embraced only letters andtreaties but even royal inscriptions arestill devoid of such rhetoric at that time.The theme still seems to have been re-stricted to the prayer literature.31

29 J.-M. Durand, “Précurseurs syriens aux protocolesnéo-assyriens,” in: D. Charpin/F. Joannès (eds.),Marchands, diplomates et empereurs (Paris, 1991)50ff.30 Durand 1991, 53 (d) with note 107, quoting thesynonym list Malku II 96 and SpTU III, 246 ll.100-102 (malku=šarru).31 See the letter prayer of Yasmah-Adad (ARM I 3)quoted by J.-G. Heintz, “Des textes sémititques an-ciens à la Bible,” in: F. Bœspflug/F. Dunand (eds.),

Le comparatisme en histoire de réligions (Paris,1977) 127-154, 142f. and for example W. G. Lambert,“A Further Attempt at the Babylonian ‘Man and hisGod’,” in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Lit-erature, and History: Philological and HistoricalStudies Presented to Erica Reiner (New Haven,1987) 187-202; for a recent translation see B. Foster,Before the Muses, vol. I (Bethesda, 1993) 75-77 withbibliography.


222

The Evidence in the Levant

Evidence for this specific meaning of“lie” is vividly illustrated some 500years later in the Amarna letters repre-senting part of the political correspon-dence between the pharaoh and his vas-sals in the Levant.

In the following, I quote from a letterfrom Aziru, one of the most powerfulmayors and vassals of the Egyptian phar-aoh in Amurru in the Levant:

EA 15932

1 [a-na] LUGAL EN-ia DINGIR-ia dUTUx-ia [To] the king, my lord, my Sun-God:2 [um-m]a IA-zi-ri LÚ.ÌR-ka-ma [Messa]ge of Aziru, your servant:3 [7-š]u ù 7-šu a-na GÌR.MEŠ EN-ia [7 ti]mes and 7 times at the feet of my lord,4 [DINGIR-i]a ù dUT]Ux-ia am-qú-ut [m]y [god], and my S[u]n-God, I fall.

5 [iš-tu] a-ma-[te.MEŠ L]UGAL EN-ia I shall not depart [from the] wor[ds DINGIR-ia of the k]ing, my lord, my god,6 [ù dUT]Ux-ia la a-pa-a#-#ar [and] my [Su]n-[God].... ...39 [ù? aš-š]um LÚ.MEŠ ha-za-an-nu-ú-[te.MEŠ [Concer]ning the mayor[s,40 [a?-qá]b?-bi gáb-bi-šu-nu [I? sa]y?: All of them41 [LŠ.MEŠ s]a-ar-ru-ú-tum EN-ia-ma [la-(a)] [are t]reacherous [people]. My lord, [do not]42 [ta-qí-i]p-šu-nu [tru]st them.

In a very fragmentary passage Aziruuses the verb kaz"bu II “to lie,”33 a loan-word from West Semitic, to describe thetreacherous action of the mayors, whichis also used in the same context by Abdi-Aširta,34 another powerful local chieftainwho claimed for himself “the status of an

acting deputy in the absence of theEgyptian governor.”35 The diplomatic orpolitical terminology of the Amarna let-ters also uses the term am l arni, “trai-tor,” to denote the political enemies ofthe king in close connection with h$#u,“crime, misdeed”:

EA 157

13 ù i-na-an-na la-a hi-i#-#ám14 la mi-im-ma-an a-na LUGAL EN-[i]a

32 Sh. Izre+el, Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study,vol. II (Atlanta, 1991) 24ff.33 W. L. Moran, Les lettres d’el-Amarna. Correspon-dance diplomatique du Pharaon (Paris, 1987) 395,n.1 refers to J. Nougayrol, Ugaritica V (Paris, 1968)49, EA 159 ... ú-ka-az-zi-[bu-nim] “[alors co]mmentdes [servit]eurs pourraient-ils ment[ir] à mon Sei-gneur, [mon dieu]?” See also the English edition, W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, 1992).

34 EA 62:39, 43, see Izre+el 1991, vol. II, 10ff.; onAbdi-Aširta, see M. Liverani, “Social Implications inthe Politics of Abdi-Aširta of Amurru,” MANE 1/5(1979) 14-20; idem, Prestige and Interest (Padova,1990) 77, 149 with n. 30, 236f.; F. Pintore, “Il carat-tere dell’autorità faraonica in base ad alcuni passiepistolari amarniani,” in Fs Pintore (1983) 323-333.35 I. Singer, “A Concise History of Amurru,” inIzre+el 1991, vol. II, 145.


223

15 la e-te-pu-uš LUGAL-ru EN-[i]a16 i-de4 LÚ.MEŠ.be-el ar-ni-[šu

?]

13 Now there was no misdeed,14 not anything, that I have committed against the king, my lord.15 The king, my lord16 knows [his] traitors.

In the first millennium the words arnu,“wrongdoing,” and h$#u, “misdeed, crime,”will represent central terms in the politi-

cal language of the Neo-Assyrian kingsfor the behavior of traitors, rebels andtreaty-breaking vassals.

The Hittite Evidence

In the Hittite royal inscriptions andtreaties treachery and rebellion are ex-plicitly denoted with concrete terms suchas wakaressar, “rebellion” written withthe Sumerogram BAL, or kuruiyah(h)–,36

“to act in a hostile way” as for examplein the annals of Muršili II from the sec-ond half of the 14th century B.C. TheHittite-Akkadian bilingual text of Hat-tušili I, his so-called “testament” dealingwith his succession, is mainly concernedwith the subject of rebellion, as well.Hattušili I was trying to strengthen themonarchy “by establishing a close part-nership between the king and the repre-sentatives of the most powerful elementsin the kingdom.”37 Here the term kusdu-wai–, “to revile, slander, defame,”38 isused to describe the rebellion of particu-lar cities against the Hittite king. The

term kusduwai– with its Akkadian equi-valent $aliptu, “treachery,” is paired withharna–, “to stir, agitate,” with its Ak-kadian cognate tešû. The pair kuru–,“enmity, hostility,” and kururiyah(h), “towage war, to act in a hostile manner,” isalso attested.39 According to J. Puhvel,harna– and its verbal noun harnamma(r)are regularly used in the context of re-bellion against the Hittite king.40 Simi-larly the historical introductions of theHittite treaties almost exclusively dealwith treachery,41 as do, for instance thetreaty between Muršili and Duppi-Teššub42

and ,") !#-.! IV in his bronze tablet.43

What appears to be new in the rhetoricof the Hittite kings is the explicit blend-ing of the political reality with religiousarguments, a phenomenon, which becomesintegral to the Neo-Assyrian rhetoric. In

36 See for instance J.-P. Grélois, “Les Annales decen-nales de Muršili II (CTH 61, 1),” Hethitica 9 (1988)17-145, see p. 120 for the attestations.37 T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford,1998) 89-110, esp. 95.38 F. Sommer/A. Falkenstein, Die Hethitisch-ak-kadische Bilingue des Hattušili I (Labarna II.)(München, 1938) § 9, 51 ku-uš-du-wa-a-ta.39 Hattušili I § 13 ii 68-77, see J. Puhvel, Hittite Ety-mological Dictionary, vol. 3 (Berlin/New York,1991) 280ff.40 Puhvel 1991, 171ff.41 For a survey see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic

Texts (Atlanta, 1996).42 J. Friedrich, “Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches inhethitischer Sprache,” MVAG 31/1 (1926); D ii 4’-9’;I. Singer, “Treaty between Muršili and Duppi-Tešub,” in: W. W. Hallo (ed.), Context of Scripture,vol. II (Leiden/Boston/Köln, 2000) 96-98; G. delMonte, Il trattato fra Mursili II di Hattuša e Niqmepadi Ugarit (Roma, 1986) 156-17743 H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy: Ein Sta-atsvertrag Tuthalijas IV, StBoT Beiheft 1 (Wies-baden, 1988) § 2:7 kururiyah(h)– “to start hostili-ties”; § 13 ii 31-42 pahšann– “to be loyal”; § 14 ii43-52 aššiyatar “love.”


224

Hittite belief, the breaking of loyaltyoaths brings about the direct interventionof the gods, who turn the wheel of historyin favor of the Hittite king by destroyinghis enemies:

“Although the Kalashma country wasbound to me by treaty, they broke thetreaty and began hostilities (kururiyahh).But the gods of the oath manifested theirjustice, and the gods of the oath seizedthem, so that brother betrayed brother,friend betrayed friend, everybody killedeverybody else.”44

The basic argument is that cosmic or-der is re-established by the will and ac-

tions of the gods rather than by the king’sown initiative: rather, the king appears tobe a tool in the hands of the gods.45 Thisshort survey of the Hittite evidenceshows that the terminology used to de-scribe disloyalty and hostilities is madeconcrete in referring directly to thebreaking of treaties. Hattušili I, by usingthe verb kusduwai–, “to revile, slander,”and thus entering the realm of metaphor,represents a kind of exception whichproves, however, to be important for thestream of tradition in political rhetoricwithin the Ancient Near East.

The Northeastern and Northwestern Syrian Evidence

In his inscriptions from Zincirli datingto the midst of the eighth century B.C.,King Panamuwa takes up the metaphor ofcalumny to describe disloyalty and re-bellion together with the religious com-

ponent of violation against the gods. Inthe so-called Hadad Inscription fromGerçin, seven kilometers northeast ofZincirli, he links his military action tothe will of the gods:

Hadad inscription46

8 [w’n]k*. pnmw. gm. yšbt. ‘l. mšb. ’by*.8-9 wntn.fd*d. b*y*d*y[.] (9) h#r. hl[bbh]9 [w’nk(?). ns‘]t. hrb*. wlšn. mn*. byt. ’by.

8 [“And I], Panamuwa, reigned also on the throne of my father,8-9 And Hadad gave into my hands a scepter of do[minion].9 [And I also cut o]ff war and slander (lit.: sword and tongue).

In his commemorative inscription forhis father Bar-Rakib Panamuwa also em-phasizes the loyalty (s %dq) of his familytoward their overlord, the Assyrian king

Tiglath-Pileser III, by explicitly usingthe antonym of treachery or disloyal be-havior:

Bar-Rakib inscription47

19 w’nky. brkb. br. pn*m*[w]19-20 [bs %]d*q. ’by. wbs %dqy. hwšbny. mr’[y rkb’l. wmr’y. tgltplsr. ‘l mšb]

44 A. Goetze, Die Annalen Muršilis, MVAG 38 (Leip-zig, 1933) 192-193 rev. iv 12-18.45 On this religious argumentation see M. Liverani,Prestige and Interest (Padova, 1990) 135ff.

46 J. Tropper, Die Inschriften von Zincirli, ALASP 6(Münster, 1993) 66.47 Tropper 1993, 127f.


225

(20) ’by.pnmw. br. br$r

19 And I am Bar-Rakib, son of Panamuwa.19-20 Because of the loyalty of my father and because of my loyalty, my lord [Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria] has caused me to reign [on the throne of] my father, Panamuwa, son of Barsur.

The same wording is attested in thebuilding inscription of Bar-Rakib.48

It is, however, only in the Old-Ara-mean treaty between Bar-/!+!0 and

1!2-34# found in Sfire that the religiousaspect of breaking the treaty is alludedto:

Sfire Stela I B ll. 21-2349

[ ... ] lbytkm wlyšm‘ mt‘’l [wlyšm‘n rbwh wlyšm‘ ‘m] [h wlyšm] ‘n kl mlky’ zy ymlkn b‘rpd lm[ly spr’ znh zy yt][šm‘n tht k]l šmyn šqrtm lkl ’lhy ‘dy z[y bspr‘ znh whn]

“And (if) 1!2-34# will not obey [and (if) his sons will not obey, and (if) his people will noto]bey and (if) all the kings who will rule in Arpad [will not obey] . [ ] [ ] . LMNYN, youwill have been unfaithful to all the gods of the treaty...”

Sfire Stela III

14b-17a If the idea should come to your mind and you should express with your lips (theintention) to kill me ... you shall have been false to all gods of the treaty...

The Middle- and Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions

The religious aspect of the treaty andthe connotation of committing a sacrilegeagainst the gods witnessing the treaty al-ready observed in Hittite and NorthernSyrian historiography, will come to thefore in some Middle Assyrian and espe-cially late Neo-Assyrian royal inscrip-tions. This religious dimension willshape the rhetoric of the Sargonid kings.

Whereas the text genres of letters andtreaties describe the real nature of thepolitical relationship between a superiorking and his vassal and do not so much

rely on metaphorical rhetoric, literarytexts, like royal inscriptions, or the re-ports of the Assyrian king to the godAššur, provide an insight into the ideo-logical system constructed to legitimatethe king’s political and military actions.

As early as Shalmaneser I a link atleast between rebellion and the neglect ofthe god Aššur – if not a link between alie and the neglect of the gods – is madein the rhetoric of Middle Assyrian royalinscriptions:

48 Tropper 1993, 135 B1:4-7.49 A. Lemaire/J.-M. Durand, Les inscriptions ara-méens de Sfiré (Paris, 1984); for a new translation see

J. A. Fitzmeyer, S.J., in: W. W. Hallo (ed.), TheContext of Scripture, 2 (Leiden/Boston/Köln, 2000)213-217.


226

RIMA I, A.0.77.1:46-50:

46 ... URU a-ri-na ki-$a šur-šu-da The city Arina, the sanctuary founded in47 ki-$ir hur-šá-ni šá i-na mah-ra bedrock, which had formerly48 ib-bal-ki-tu i-še-#u aš-šur rebelled and scorned Aššur, with49 i-na GIŠ.tukul-ti aš-šur ù DINGIR.MES the support of Aššur and the great gods,

GAL.MEŠ50 EN.MEŠ-ia URU šá-a-tu ak-šud aq-qur my lords, I captured and destroyed that city. ...

This disregard of the will of the Assy-rian god Aššur is expressed by referringto the scorning of the oath sworn to thegods as it is the case in the Tukult!-Ninurta Epic.50 The epic literature of theMiddle Assyrian kingdom develops theline of evidence by linking rebellion andthe breaking of treaties qualified as actof falsehood, with a religious sacrilegetransforming these kinds of politicaldeeds into sins against the gods. I quotesome passages from the Tukult!-NinurtaEpic:

Tukult!-Ninurta Epic

Vs I 33’ f. ana tiq mam$ti Kaštiliašuil"ni š#t šam[ê ers %eti ] rašûma ana šarrim"ti u niš$ “Against the transgressor ofthe oath, Kashtiliash, the gods of Hea-ve[n and Netherworld ...] They were an-gry at the king, the land and the people.”

A I 28’-29’ [ ... ] x-ta [ša]r Kaššî iši#m"m$ta [ ... ] gillata s %aburta ibni “Theking of the Kassites scorned the oath, hecommitted a crime, an act of falsehood.”

A II 20’-21’: ul išhu[t] m"m$tka etiqšiparaka s %aburta ihm[i]l / ušegl[il]a gil-latišu mahraka Šamaš dinanni “He didnot fear your curse, he transgressed yourcommand, he schemed an act of false-

hood, he made his crimes enormous be-fore you, judge me, O Šamaš!”.

The Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptionstoo constantly refer to rebellions,51 andreferences to h$#u, “misdeed,” and gul-lultu, “misdeed, crime,” or z r"t m"tAššur, “hostilities against Assyria,” areattested as early as in the inscriptions ofTiglath-Pileser III.52 In the beginning,however, the rhetorical argumentationstill remains restricted to the person ofthe king; no religious component is yet tobe found, and terms connected with thetopos of the lie do not occur.

It is only in the inscriptions of SargonII in the eighth century B.C. that we ob-serve again evidence for the rhetoricaldevice of the lie. Sargon II consciouslyrelied on the tradition of his Akkadianpredecessor Sargon I, who – as men-tioned above – used this motif in his in-scriptions. Sargon II employed the motifof the lie in his accounts of his militaryactions against the princes of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, as well as against theManneans and the Medes. The historicalcontext is always that of rebellion orconspiracy against the Assyrian king, ex-pressed by the following formula:

50 P. B. Machinist, The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I: AStudy in Middle Assyrian Literature (Diss. Yale Uni-versity, 1978); for a new translation see B. Foster,Before the Muses, vol. 1 (Bethesda, 1993) 209-229.51 For references see CAD N/1, 171 s.v. nak"ru 14.

52 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser IIIKing of Assyria (Jerusalem, 1994) 62 Ann. 19:10;100 Stele I B 22’; 112 Mila Mergi Rock Relief 21;176 Summary Inscription 8 13’.


227

am"t lemutti ... dab"b [sarr"ti] atm t k ti53 “evil speech ... lies and perfidious speech ”

(prince of Carchemish)

Amitašši of Karalla in the Zagrosmountains tries to incite Ad of Šurdaagainst the Assyrian king. His conspiracyagainst Sargon II is expressed in the fol-lowing way:

ana I[Ad" kur Šurd]aja dab"b la kitti šait[tija šum]kuri išpur# el$tu

“He sent mendacious messages to Ad ,untruthful words to instigate hostilityagainst me.”54

And it is now again that political mis-deeds may be linked to a religious argu-mentation which borrows from the termi-nology of the prayer literature by refer-ring to the wrath of the gods expressedby the terms uggat il"ni or šibs"t il"ni,as has also been emphasized by A.Fuchs.55 Thus already in former daysDalt of Ellipi had provoked the anger ofthe gods, which the Assyrian king thenappeases by killing all those people in-volved in the insurrection who “speaktreachery” (idabuba s %aliptu).56 Similarly,the instigating action of the Hittites ofdeposing the king of Ashdod, who hadbeen enthroned by the Assyrian king, infavor of one of their own appointees, aswell as their attempts to draw the localkings of the coastline to their side, aredescribed as dab"b sarr"ti atm nullâte,“lies and perfidious speech.”57 The pun-ishments performed by the Assyrianking, indeed, are now ascribed to thewrath of the god Aššur. This religiouselement represents an important new di-

mension attached to the rhetorical deviceof the lie within the Sargonid royal in-scriptions. Thus, the action of the Urar-tian king Ursâ in plotting a conspiracy isin his Khorsabad inscription expressedwith dab"bti sarr"ti58 “lies,” whereas theNiniveh inscription describing the sameevent uses the expression: la "dir mam$til"ni rabûti "biku d n dŠamaš,59 “(Ursâ),who did not fear the oath sworn by thegreat gods, who neglected the judgmentof (the sungod) Šamaš.”

The climax of the religious argumen-tation appears in the text categories ofthe reports sent by the Assyrian kings tothe god Aššur. Here, the ideologicalsystem presents the king and the gods ascomplementary elements in the universalscheme of history. This shows in Sar-gon’s II report to the god Aššur of hiscampaign to Urartu.60 The encounter bet-ween the Assyrian king and the king ofthe Manneans, Ullusunu, is described ina terminology patterned according to thevocabulary normally used to describe thedevotee’s relationship to his personalgod. The Mannean king and his officialspray (us %allûnima) to the Assyrian kingcrawling like dogs before him. Sargon IIaccepts their prayers (utnenn$šunu) bysaying to them ahulap, a term used toexpress compassion.

With the kings Esarhaddon and his sonAssurbanipal around fifty years later theinterweaving of the political-historicalwith the religious becomes even more

53 A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr.,SAAS VIII (Helsinki 1998) 23 IIb/c 5.54 Fuchs 1998, 37 V.b-d 10.55 Fuchs 1998, 112ff.56 Fuchs 1998, 39 V.b-d 66.57 Fuchs 1998, 46 VII b 29.

58 A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khor-sabad (Göttingen, 1994) 96 Ann. 79.59 Fuchs 1998, 29 III.e 13.60 For a new translation of the text see W. Mayer,“Sargon’s Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Textund Übersetzung,” MDOG 115 (1984) 65-132.


228

elaborate and subtle.King Esarhaddon’s report to the god

Aššur,61 written after his campaign toŠubria in the North of Assyria, depicts asituation similar to that of Shemsh ra,Mari and Amarna. The Šubrian king’srefusal to extradite Assyrian political re-fugees and traitors is interpreted as hav-ing broken the treaty with the Assyrianking and becomes the reason for the lat-ter’s punitive campaign against him. In

his report Esarhaddon quotes from a let-ter which was sent to him by Ik-Teššubexpressing the hope that he could preventthe Assyrian king from invading Šubria.In this letter Ik-Teššub tries to shift theresponsibility for his actions to his coun-selors by calling their counsel “lie”(l.20), and in the next four lines Ik-Teššub’s “failure” against the king isequated to a sin against the god Aššur:

K.2852+K.9662 I 20ff.:62

20 um-ma ru-bé-e ma-li-ki-ia sur-ra-a-ti la šal-ma-a-ti id-bu-bu it-ti-ia21 hi-i#-#u dan-nu a-na dAš+šur ah-#i/#u?-ma a-mat LUGAL EN-ia ul aš-me22 DUMUmeš KUR Aš+šur ÌRmeš-ka ul ú-tir-ra-kam-ma MUN (#"btu) ana ram-ni-iá ul e-pu-uš 23 ma-mit DINGIRmeš GALmeš šá e-ti-qu a-mat LUGAL-ti-ka šá a-me-šú ik-šu-dan-ni24 ag-gu lìb-ba-ka li-nu-ha-am-ma re-e-mu ri-šá-an-ni-ma pu-#ur en-nit-ti

20 The princes, my counselors, told me lies and evil things,21 I sinned heavily against Aššur, because I did not obey the order of my king (am"t šarri),22 I did not extradite the Assyrians, your servants, and therefore I did no good to myself.23 The consequences of having transgressed the oath taken by the great gods and of having neglected the order of the king, have caught up with me.24 May your angry heart calm down towards me, have mercy upon me and release me from punishment.

Because the literary treatment of theevent simultaneously unfolds its relig-ious dimensions, ll.21-24 offer an excel-lent illustration of the implications of avassal’s “failure” against the Assyrianking.

Exactly this religious dimension oper-ating on the meta-level is explicitly de-noted in l.21, when Ik-Teššub’s failure iscalled a heavy sin against Aššur (h$#udannu ana dAššur). Only in a second stepis it paralleled with a crime against theking by his not having obeyed the king’sorder. Then, in line 22 the order itself is

specified, namely that Ik-Teššub did notextradite the Assyrian refugees to theAssyrian king and thus brought this pre-dicament upon him. Again in l.23 theprimary emphasis is on the cultic actionnormally accompanying the conclusionof a treaty, namely, the oath sworn by thegods (mam$t il"ni). In this particularcase, however, it is mentioned alreadyfrom the perspective of the Šubrian king,who broke this oath. Only in a secondstep does he allude to the order of theking, which he ignored (mêšu). Hence, hehas to bear the consequences of both, the

61 A. L. Oppenheim, “The City of Assur in 714B.C.,” JNES 19 (1960) 133-147; idem, in: H. D.Lasswell/D. Lerner/H. Speier (eds.), Propaganda andCommunication in World History, I (Honolulu, 1979)125ff.; E. Leichty, “Esarhaddon’s ‘Letter to the

Gods’,” in: M. Cogan/I. Eph3al (eds.), Ah, Assyria ...Studies ... Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Jerusalem,1991) 52-57.62 Th. Bauer, “Ein Erstbericht Asarhaddons,” ZA 40(1931) 234-259; Borger, Esh., 103 § 68 ii 20ff.


229

cultic default as well as his political mis-deed against the king, expressed by theverb kaš"du. With l. 24 the text refersback to the religious implications of Ik-Teššub’s behavior by using the religiouslanguage of incantation and prayer (aggulibbaka l$nuhamma r mu rišannima pu-#ur ennitti). Ik-Teššub, in fact, addressesthe Assyrian king beseeching him to havemercy (r mu r$šannima) and to releasehim from what in these text genres is di-vine punishment (ennittu). The verb pa-#"ru normally represents the leitmotivphrase lu pa#ra, “be released,” in cathar-tic rituals. Hence, again in the king’s re-port to Aššur we encounter a vocabulary,which is normally used to describe moralor cultic offences and which is nowtransferred to the originally profane levelof the breaking of a treaty.

Consequently, ll. 21 and 24 expressingthe religious meta-level of a “lie” form arhetorical device framing the politicalrelationship of the Assyrian king and hisvassal as described in ll. 22 and 23.Thus, in the ideological presentation ofthe political alliance the oath sworn bythe gods gains primary importance anddetermines the whole situation by trans-forming the political relationship of kingand vassal into the religious relationshipof god and sinner, a topic that is con-stantly addressed in the vassal treaties.63

However, in contrast to Sargon, whouses this rhetorical device in the generalcontext of rebellion by his former vas-

sals, in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon itis restricted to the historical context ofthe succession to the throne and thebreaking of the loyalty oaths. E. Leichty64

has argued convincingly that Esarhaddon’sreport to the god Aššur has to be seen inthe light of the succession of his youngerson Assurbanipal to the Assyrian throne.H. Tadmor65 postulated the same back-ground for Esarhaddon’s Niniveh in-scription, in which Esarhaddon reportshis own succession to the throne.

The motif of the “lie” is used in theintroductory section of the dedicationinscription for his palace at Niniveh thatreports his accession to the throne. Esar-haddon apparently was not his father’sinitial choice as heir,66 and even after hehad been chosen he had to leave thecountry for his safety. He took the throneby force during an uprising after his fa-ther’s death.67

In the Niniveh inscription his acces-sion is likewise put into a religious con-text, since in a first step Esarhaddonclaims that, although he was youngerthan his brothers, his father, by the orderof the gods, chose him for succession tothe throne. In a second step, this choicewas confirmed by the divinatory tech-nique of extispicy and only then were theAssyrians, as well as the brothers,brought together in order to swear theloyalty oath to Esarhaddon. The loyaltyoath (adê) had been introduced by Sen-nacherib according to the Hittite68 and

63 See references in S. Parpola/K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA II (Hel-sinki, 1988) 89 s.v. ha#û. J. Assmann invented theterm of the “Umbuchung” for the transfer of a politi-cal relationship to a religious one in order to describethe relationship between Yahweh and his people, seeJ. Assmann, Politische Theologie zwischen Ägyptenund Israel (Bonn, 1992) 81; idem, Herrschaft undHeil (München, 2000) 49ff.64 Leichty 1991.65 H. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology in theRoyal Assyrian Literature,” in: H. Tadmor/M. Weinfeld

(eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation(Jerusalem, 1983) 36-57, esp. 36ff.66 Sennacherib speaks of Aššur-n din-šumi as beingthe first born son (m"ru r štû), see OIP II, 35 ll.71-74.67 B. Porter, Images, Power, Politics. Figurative As-pects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (Philadel-phia, 1993) 13.68 F. Starke, “Zur urkundlichen Charakterisierungneuassyrischer Treueide anhand einschlägiger hethi-tischer Texte des 13. Jh.,” ZAR 1 (1995) 70-82.


230

Aramaic69 model in order to guaranteepolitical stability during the irregularsuccession of his son.70 These oaths wereimposed on everyone: “the court androyal family, palace staff, soldiers to-gether with their wives, cultic personel,and ‘Assyrians, great and small’ (i.e. allsubjects). They were also sworn by adja-cent states seeking Assyrian protectionand hence adopting the stance of subjects... The oaths were administered in a for-mal ceremony on divinely determinedfavorable days and in the presence of di-vine statues. The gods of all parties werecalled upon to witness the solemnity ofthe occasion, and the divine punishmentsand curses for oathbreakers were de-scribed in blood-curdling detail.”71

However, the ceremony of the oath-taking in this case failed to guarantee asmooth succession for the Assyrianthrone. On the contrary, it seems that thebrothers of Esarhaddon seriously dis-credited him and forced him to hide in a

secluded place north of %anigalbat. TheBabylonian Chronicle informs us aboutthe murder of Esarhaddon’s father Sen-nacherib, who was killed by his sonArad-Mulissi, a fact, which is confirmedby Hebrew as well as Greek sources.72

According to his own account, Esarhad-don left his refuge without waiting forhis infantry which was almost certainlydispersed in their winter quarters or col-lecting provisions for his campaign. In-stead, counting on the element of sur-prise, he won a battle against his broth-ers’ armies, which according to the Biblefled then to Urartu.73

The literary presentation of the situa-tion again transposes political events tothe religious level and describes how thebrothers of Esarhaddon were abandonedby the gods and how they started to makeplans for a upheaval by telling wickedand godless things about Esarhaddonwhich the latter denounced as lies:

Borger, Esh., § 27 Nin. A-F, Ep. 2 24ff.

24 ša il"nimeš umaššir#ma ana epš tišunu whom the gods abandoned, and who šurruh"ti trusted 25 ittakl#ma ikappud# lemuttu only in their arrogant deeds, plotting evil plans,26 liš"n lemuttim kar$i tašqirti k$ l" libbi il"ni evil rumors, calumnies and blasphemies27 el$ja ušabšûma surr"ti l" šalm"ti they produced against me in a way contrary to the will of the gods,

lies and wickedness, 28 ark$ja iddanabbub# z r"ti behind my back they spread hostile rumors.

Esarhaddon continues his narrative de-scribing how in his desperation he turnedto the gods praying for support and pro-

tection, which they granted him by aban-doning the treacherous brothers. Then hetells us:

69 See the Sfire stela mentioned above and H. Tad-mor, “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century andits Aftermath,” in: H. Goedicke/J. J. M. Roberts(eds.), Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History,Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East(Baltimore, 1975) 36-48, esp. 42f.70 On the interconnection between loyalty oath andirregular succesion see Starke 1995, 75, 81f.

71 A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C.,vol. 2 (London/New York, 21997) 515.72 II Kings 19:37; S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca ofBerossus, 24f.; S. Parpola, “The Murderer of Sen-nacherib,” in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia(Copenhagen 1980) 171-182.73 II Kings 19:37.


231

Borger, Esh., § 27 Nin. A-F, Ep. 2 41ff.:

41 ark nu ahh!ja immahûma mimma ša il nimeš Afterwards, my brothers went mad and did what was not good in

the sight of gods42 u am!l"ti l #âba !puš"ma ikpud" lemuttu and men: they plotted evil. 43 issih"ma giškakkêmeš ina qereb Ninua balu And they godlessly drew weapons in il nimeš Niniveh, 44 ana ep!š šarr"ti itti ahameš ittakip" lala’iš They butted each other like goats over the exercise of kingship.

The historical situation, which stimu-lates the use of the motif of the lie, isclearly that of a crisis: the struggle overthe succession to the throne from whichEsarhaddon emerged victorious. In theliterary account of the historical eventsthis victory is ascribed to divine support,hence the political and religious spheresare merged. Consequently, the concept oflie and falsehood is linked to the politicalactions of revolt and disloyalty, as wellas to the religious action of disobedienceagainst the divine will. The two inscrip-

tions, the report to Aššur and the Ninivehinscription, are the only texts in whichEsarhaddon uses the motif of the lie, andwe may deduce that the concept of the lieas characterizing the insurgents clearlyserves on the textual level the purpose ofmaintaining the political status quo,namely the rulership of the designatedheir.

An example from the inscriptions ofAssurbanipal completes the picture fromthe Sargonid period:

R. Borger, BIWA, 179 E-Prismen:

2 ark nu INikû [IŠarruludari] Afterwards, Necho, [Šarruludari].3 IPaqruru šarr" š[a ... (and) Paqruru, kings whom 4 iškunu [abu ban"]a my own father had installed [in Egypt]5 adê Anšar u il ni ra[bûti bel#]ja transgressed the loyalty oath sworn by Aššur and the great gods, my lords,6 !tiq"ma ipru[$]u mam#tsun and broke the oath.7 # bti abi b n#ja imšûma The good deeds of my father, my begetter, they

forgot,8 libbašunu ikpudu lemuttu plotting evil in their hearts,9 dababti surr ti idbub"ma and telling lies.

The previous overview demonstratedthat the motif of the lie is either con-nected to the rebellion against an alreadyexisting overlord, and is thus linked tothe breaching of a treaty, or addressesthe claims of pretenders to the throne incrises occasioned by an irregular succes-sion. It also showed just how long itcould take for a single rhetorical element

to reach its ultimate complex figurativeform within the ideological framework ofa specific culture. In what follows I willproceed to examine the adaptation andtransformation of the rhetorical device ofthe lie by civilizations adjacent to Meso-potamia, focusing on the Persian Empireand the books of the Old Testament.


232

Old Persian Inscriptions

As has been pointed out by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “too often, Persian poli-tics, political behavior or politicalthinking are judged from the Greek re-ports on Persia,”74 or Persian history “isdiscussed in isolation from the whole ofNear Eastern historiography.”75

The motif of the lie is an excellent ex-ample of the close cultural interactionbetween the civilizations within the An-cient Near East and the interdependen-cies of the political élites in constructingand formalizing their respective complexideological systems. And what is more, itwill elucidate Persia’s as well as Israel’splace in the history of the ‘longuedurée’76 of the Near East, as both cameinto close and intimate contact with ear-lier cultures and traditions.

Just as the program of the Persian im-perial art, in terms of iconography andstyle, was planned by the king and hisimage-makers,77 the content, form andstyle of the royal inscriptions were sub-ject to conscious planning and deliberatecreation; absolutely nothing was left tochance. Furthermore, we should not un-derestimate the great mobility of the of-ficials of the royal entourage who trav-eled throughout the empire on behalf ofthe courts and were therefore constantlyexposed to cultural cross-fertilization.

Rather than the generally acceptedview that the Persians emerged out of thecultural vacuum of their nomadic pre-history, they should be seen as being partof a “complex network of extensive his-torical and cultural relationships withinthe Near East.”78 And these relationshipshad a deep effect on the formulation ofthe ideology of the Persian Empire.

I focus now on the trilingual inscrip-tion of Darius at Mount Besitun, carvedin Elamite, Akkadian and Old Persian onthe face of a cliff alongside the ancientstrategic road through the Zagros Moun-tains connecting Iran and the East withMesopotamia and the West79 from Ec-batana to Babylonia.

The Besitun inscription is an excep-tional document among the Persian in-scriptions for its content as well as forthe rock relief connected with it. It obvi-ously follows Assyrian tradition in itsiconography, content and style. Alreadythe introduction of this inscription showsa great similarity to that of the Zinjirliinscription of the Assyrian king Esarhad-don,80 who not only gave his titulaturetogether with his genealogy, but also re-ferred to the importance of being ofAssyrian descent and to the eternal exis-tence of the institution of Assyrian ruler-ship.81 There has been much debate about

74 H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Political Concepts inOld-Persian Royal Inscriptions,” in: K. Raaflaub(ed.), Anfänge politischen Denkens (München, 1993)145.75 Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993, 146.76 J. Le Goff, “Neue Geschichtswissenschaft,” in: J.Le Goff/R. Chartier/R. Revel (eds.), Die Rück-eroberung des historischen Denkens (Frankfurt,1994) 11-61.77 M.C. Root, The King and Kingship in AchaemenidArt, Acta Iranica 19 (Leiden, 1979).78 Root 1979, 28.

79 H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “Darius I and the PersianEmpire,” in: J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the An-cient Near East, vol. II (New York, 1995) 1036.80 On these elements see B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Ge-nealogien als Kulturtechnik zur Begründung desHerrschaftsanspruchs in Assyrien und Babylonien,”SAAB IX (1997) 75-108.81 On the elements of the legitimation to the thronesee H. Tadmor, “History and Ideology in the Assy-rian Royal Inscriptions,” in: F. M. Fales (ed.), Assy-rian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons (Roma, 1981)13-33.


233

the veracity or mendacity of Darius’ tes-timony82 and I hope that with by dia-chronically unfolding the lie as a rhetori-cal device within royal ideology I cancontribute to a critical assessment of Da-rius’ trustworthiness.

In the case of Darius it is not only ir-regular succession but also the politicaldeed of usurpation which has to beadapted to generate legitimacy and ac-ceptance. All the rhetorical elements ef-fectively composed by the scribes of Esa-rhaddon to mobilize the acceptance of hissuccessors and the gods are used byDarius to create his own fiction of a le-gitimate kingship and to distinguish him-self from the so-called lying kings:83

Darius, Besitun, Introduction:84

1.1-3 I am Darius the Great King, Kingof Kings, King in Persia, King of coun-tries (Titulature), son of Hystaspes,grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian(Ethnicity).85

1.3-6 Saith Darius the King: My fatherwas Hystaspes; Hystaspes’ father wasArsames; Arsames’ father was Ariaram-nes; Ariaramnes’ father was Teispes;Teispes’ father was Achaemenes. (Gene-alogy back to eponymous hero)

1.6-8 Saith Darius the king: For thisreason we are called Achaemenians.

From long ago we have been noble. Fromlong ago our family had been kings(eternal status of rulership).1.8-11 Saith Darius the king: VIII ofour family (there are) who were kingsafore; I am the ninth; (altogether) IXnow as ever86 we are kings.

This genealogical formula has to beread as the political address of a usurperthat seeks to legitimize Darius’ claim tothe throne; it is not a historical docu-ment. Rather, it strategically excludesevery pretender who cannot meet thisdynastic principle.87 In a very subtle wayDarius had to combine two differentlines, the non-Achaemenid line of thehouse of Teispes and his own line, in or-der to be able to put himself in line withhis great predecessors Cyrus and Camby-ses.88 Darius’ rhetoric represents a kindof escalation of the use of the lie becausehe as a usurper denounces every otherthrone pretender as a liar.

The inscription proceeds with an enu-meration of the Persian satrapies,89 whichDarius then comments upon by a remark,which is very important for our discus-sion:

1.20-4 Saith Darius the King: Withinthese countries, the man who was loyal

82 For a bibliography see A. Shapur Shahbazi,“Darius,” EncIr VII (1996) 41ff.; R. Rollinger, “DerStammbaum des achaimenidischen Königshausesoder die Frage der Legitimität der Herrschaft desDareios,” AMIT 30 (1998) 155-209, esp. 176 n. 113.83 I herewith follow the proposal made by R. Rollin-ger to consider the genealogy of Darius as a homoge-neous whole created to propagate the historical fic-tion of a royal dynasty from which he originated, seeR. Rollinger 1998, esp. 182ff.84 R.G. Kent, Old Persian. Grammar, Texts, Lexicon(New Haven, 1953) 116ff.85 On the novelty of Darius’ concept of a ruling‘Achaemenid line’ see D. Stronach, “Of Cyrus, Dar-ius and Alexander: A New Look at the ‘Epithaphs’ ofCyrus the Great,” in: R. Dittmann et al. (eds.), Varia-tio Delectat. Iran und der Westen, Gedenkschrift fürPeter Calmeyer (Münster, 2000) 681-702.86 Kent 1953, 119 translates duvit"paranam “in suc-

cession,” whereas many scholars have interpreted itas “in two royal lines,” see lastly H. Koch, Es kündetDareios der König ... (Mainz, 1992) 18; a survey ofthe history of the discussion of this term is given byRollinger 1998, 156ff. I follow him in assuming asimilar meaning as the Babylonian šá z ru(NUMUN) da-ru-ú “of an eternal descent.”87 G. Ahn, Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im Achä-menidischen Iran, Acta Iranica 31 (Leiden, 1992)231.88 Rollinger 1998, 186 and 209.89 For the names of the lands and people living in itsee R. Schmitt, “Der Numerusgebrauch bei Länder-und Völkernamen im Altpersischen,” AAH 25(1977) 91-99; idem, Beiträge zu altpersischen In-schriften (Wiesbaden, 1999) 4ff.; P. Briant, Histoirede l’empire de Cyrus à Alexandre (Leiden, 1996) 75-78.


234

("gariya), him I rewarded well; (him)who was hostile (arika), him I punishedwell; by the favour of Ahuramazda(vašn" Auramazd") these countriesshowed respect toward my law (d"t"); aswas said to them by me, thus it was done.

This passage is of crucial importancebecause it tells us how Darius treated theloyal and the disloyal, and at the sametime emphasizes that under the auspicesof Ahuramazda everyone obeyed his lawand royal order, which also reminds us ofthe Assyrian abat šarri/am"t šarri inEsarhaddon’s letter to the god Aššur.This passage must be interpreted as arhetorical device anticipating the laterdescription of Darius’ punishment of thelying kings. The statement that with thefavor of Ahuramazda everyone acted ac-cording to the order of the king justifiesand legitimates the later suppression ofthe insurgents. Only with the expression“by the favor of Ahuramazda” does therelationship of Darius and the later in-surgents gain a religious dimension,sanctioning the king’s military actions inadvance.

But before this, the history precedinghis accession to the throne is narrated,claiming that Cambyses assassinated hisbrother Bardiya90 before he went toEgypt:

1.33 -35 When Cambyses had gone offto Egypt, after that the people becameevil (arika). After that the Lie (drauga)waxed great in the country, both in Per-sia and in Media and in the other prov-inces.

The story follows of the Median magusGaumata, who pretended to be Bardiyaand instigated a rebellion throughout thecountry, which only Darius could sup-press enumerating the other eight kings

from Elam, Babylonia, Media, Armenia,and other countries who joined the re-bellion. This enumeration is taken upagain in col. iv in the following passagedeclaring the insurgents to be liars:

iv 6ff. by the favor of Ahuramazda Ismote them and took prisoner IX kings.One was Gaumata by name, a Magus; helied (adurujiya); thus he said: “I amSmerdis (Bardiya), the son of Cyrus;” hemade Persia rebellious. One, Açina byname, an Elamite; he lied; thus he said:“I am king in Elam;” he made Elam re-bellious to me...”

In his tomb inscription at Naqš-iRustam Darius juxtaposes the lie-follower (draujanam)91 with what is right(r"stam),92 whereby r"sta- also has themeaning of “straight, true,” and thus theexpression can be linked to the Assyrianconcept of “lie” and “truthfulness,” usedwithin the context of disloyalty and loy-alty.

While the first four columns, in theirdescription of Darius dealing with theuprising and his accession to the throneis remarkably close to Mesopotamiantradition, the fifth column is completelydifferent, and not only because it iswritten in Old Persian. As has alreadybeen stressed by H. Sancisi-Weerden-burg, the first part of this column tells ofthe rebellions in the second and thirdyear of his reign, when the revolts of theElamites and Scythians were crushed.The new element is represented by theconcluding statement on the suppressionof these revolts:

5.14-17 Saith Darius the King: ThoseElamites were faithless (arik") and bythem Ahuramazda was not worshipped(ayadiya). I worshipped (ayadaiy) Ahu-ramazda; by the favor of Ahuramazda, as

90 Briant 1996, 111ff.91 Kent 1953, 138 DNb 12.

92 Kent 1953, 138 DNb 11.


235

was my desire, thus I did unto them.

While in the first four columns the re-bels are called lie-followers, in the fifththe political situation is transferred to thereligious level, by characterizing themas “non-Ahuramazda-worshippers.” Hereworship of Ahuramazda becomes a re-ligious metaphor for being loyal to theking93 also in this context signifies“swearing by Ahuramazda,” or, in otherwords, worship of Ahuramazda equalsthe adherence to the oaths sworn toAhuramazda. This is supported by theAssyrian evidence of the loyalty oath se-curing Esarhaddon’s succession in whichthe god Aššur and loyalty to the Assyrianking become inextricably interconnected:“In the future and forever Aššur will beyour god, and Assurbanipal, the greatcrown prince designate, will be yourlord. May your sons and your grandsonsfear him.”94 A similar concept occurs inan inscription of the Babylonian kingNabopolassar: “He who is loyal to B"l,his foundations will endure. He who isloyal to the son of B"l will last for eter-nity.”95

I would agree therefore with H. San-cisi-Weerdenburg and others that there isno need to assume that there was an en-forced exclusive cult of Ahuramazda,since there is ample evidence in the Per-sepolis archives that the worship of theindigenous gods continued as before.However, the literary phraseology usedto describe political events slowly devel-ops into what Sancisi-Weerdenburg callsa typical Iranian style and culminates inthe formulation used by Xerxes I in his

so-called daiv"-inscription from Perse-polis:

Xph96

§ 4a 28-35. Saith Xerxes the King: WhenI became king, there was among thesecountries which are inscribed above (onewhich) was in commotion. AfterwardsAhuramazda bore me aid; by the favor ofAhuramazda I smote that country and putit down to its place.

§ 4b 35-41. And among these countriesthere was (a place) where previouslyfalse gods were worshipped (ayadiya).Afterwards, by the favor of Ahuramazda,I destroyed this sanctuary of the daiv"s,and I made a proclamation: “The daiv"sshall not be worshipped!”. Where previ-ously the daiv"s were worshipped, thereI worshipped Ahuramazda and Arta rev-erent(ly).

Here, in the inscription of Xerxes notonly is political loyalty juxtaposed withthe worship of Ahuramazda but rebellionor disloyalty is transferred to the relig-ious sphere by describing it as worship ofdaiv"s, translated by Kent as “false god”or “demons.” And very importantly at theend, the worship of daiv"s is replaced bythe image of Darius worshipping Ahura-mazda and Art . It is still debated amongIranists whether art"c" in this case has tobe interpreted as “with, through” or “inaccordance with art" (truth),” or whetherart" already has to be looked upon as anabstract concept which has been personi-fied, as it is to be found in the Gathas.97

The debate surrounding these daiv"shas produced three different interpreta-tions: the text refers to 1) the destruction

93 Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993, 157.94 S. Parpola/K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treatiesand Loyalty Oaths, SAA II (Helsinki, 1988) no. 6 §34, ll. 393-396.95 F. N. H. al-Rawi, “Nabopolassar’s RestorationWork on the Wall Imgur-Enlil at Babylon,” Iraq 47

(1985) 5, ll. 28-29; P.-A. Beaulieu, in: W. W. Hallo(ed.), The Context of Scripture, II (Leiden/Bo-ston/Köln, 2000) 307f.96 Kent 1953, 151.97 Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 1 (London/Boston,1982) 696, s.v. Old Persian “Arta” (B. Schlerath).


236

of the Marduk Temple in Babylon; 2) thepillage of the acropolis at Athens; and 3)the destruction of a non-Zoroastrian cultwithin Iran.98 From the Mesopotamianperspective one would assume that daiv"denotes the gods of the enemy. G. Ahn,however, argues that the religious con-flict between Zoroastrianism and the OldPersian local cults and the Iranization ofthe province of Fars were still going onand that Xerxes’ inscription is just a re-flection of it.99

To sum up the results to be drawn frominvestigating the Persian material fromthe perspective of an Assyriologist, Iwould consider the first appearance ofthe term arta- in the daiv" inscription tobe evidence that only with Xerxes are weable to detect the dualistic concept of theAvesta and signs for a new religious

system, whereas the rhetoric of Dariusstill fits in the wider context of its an-cient Near Eastern background.100

Looking at the Akkadian cognates ofthe Persian terminology in Darius’ trilin-gual Besitun inscription, it is interestingto note that the word used for lie is notsurru and its derivates, but piri$tu usedin the plural form pir$"tu, a derivatefrom the root par"$u “to separate”; thisusage thus already very clearly denotesthe meaning of rebellion and disloyalty.Evidence for the term pir$"tu can also befound in the late Sargonid epistolary lit-erature, where it likewise is used in thecontext of rebellion. This usage may belinked to Aramaic influence as evidencefor the verb pr$ is found in Hebrew aswell as in Aramaic.

SAA X 111 12-17

12 ..........LÚ.gi-mir-a-a ... The Cimmerians13 šá iq-bu-ú um-ma KUR.man-na-a-a ina who said, “The Manneans are at pa-ni-ku-nu your disposal,14 GÌR.2-a-ni ni-ip-ta-ra-su mìn-de-e-ma we shall keep aloof” – maybe15 pi-ir-$a-tu ši-i NUMUN–LÚ.hal-ga-ti-i šu-nu it was a lie; they are barbarians.16 [m]a-me-ti šá DINGIR ù a-de-e ul i-du-ú They recognize no oath sworn by god and no loyalty oath.

And in another letter (SAA X 161: 10)pir$"tu is paired with la kitti (untruly), inthe context of speaking lies and untrulyto the king.

The Aramaic cognate of the Besituninscription in fifth century papyri fromElephantine uses the verb kdb, “to lie,”101

and can be traced back to the Canaaniteloanword kaz"bu in the Amarna letters,102

found in the context of not obeying theorders of the king.

In summarizing the evidence drawnfrom the Mesopotamian and Persiansources we can establish that throughoutthe millennia the motif of the lie repre-sents a central rhetorical device withinthe context of the literary narrative ofdisloyalty and rebellion against an over-lord, i.e., within the context of breakinga treaty in the ancient Near East. In thecases of Esarhaddon and Darius it is con-nected to the critical historical moment

98 G. Ahn, Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation imAchämenidischen Iran, Acta Iranica XVII (Leiden,1992) 113.99 Ahn 1992, 120-122.100 Herewith I differ from Ahn 1992, 108 who claimsthat the dualistic concept of drauga and arta is al-

ready implicit in the inscription of Besitun.101 See for example J.C. Greenfield/B. Porten, TheBisitun Inscription of Darius the Great. AramaicVersion (London, 1982) 46 l. 64.102 EA 159 uses kaz"bu II, see S. Izre+el, Amurru Ak-kadian (Atlanta, 1991) 24ff.


237

of the succession to the throne, that is thebreaking of the loyalty oaths and the at-tempts to consolidate the position of aroyal successor or a usurper. The factthat this literary motif is clearly anchoredwithin the particular historical situationof breaking a treaty transforms it intomore than a rhetorical device. I wouldeven call it a strategy of defense justify-ing the king’s inexorable treatment of hisinsurgents.

The convincing success of this strategyof defense within the official ideologymay have induced Darius, who lackedany prior right to become ruler of thePersians, to adopt this rhetorical devicefor his own self-representation. ThusPersian imperial ideology proves to be adeliberate and conscious adaptation ofthis rhetorical strategy and provides fur-ther evidence for the spreading of ideasand concepts across the cultural and lin-guistic borders within the ancient NearEast. However, Persian ideology trans-forms Assyrian tradition by taking in anew element: that is, the dualistic con-cept introduced by Xerxes juxtaposes thetreacherous action of the enemy withworship of the daiv"s, which shouldprobably be interpreted as swearing bythe gods of the enemy. In the Persianideology these daiv"s are contrasted toAhuramazda and to Arta, eventually be-coming the personification of truth. Thisconcept of exclusivity concerning theoath, which should be sworn only toAhuramazda instead of to the gods ofboth treaty partners, is a typical featureof the Iranian ideological discourse.

The important conclusion we can drawfrom the survey of the ancient Near East-

ern sources in view of the Persian royalinscriptions is that, contrary to formerscholarly opinion, the Persians, at leastin the early stage of Darius I, on the po-litical level did not rely on the ethic-metaphysical dualistic conception of theAvesta103 in order to formulate their con-cept of lie and truth in the context of re-bellion but instead drew on Assyrianideological concepts. It is probably onlywith Xerxes that they created a politicaland religious discourse, which may alsohave embraced Avestan tradition. Andthere are even Iranists who doubt anyAvestan impact on Persian ideology be-cause of the insecurity of dating Zoroas-trianism before the Hellenistic period.

Whether or not the Iranian dualisticconcept, which has been described bymany scholars as a kind of limited mono-theism, had an impact on the monotheis-tic movement in Israel, and whether it islegitimate to establish an analogy be-tween these two religions, cannot be dis-cussed in this context.104 It is, however,striking that in general 1) the categoriesof “monotheism” and “polytheism” arestill the central patterns of classificationof religions, and consequently play animportant role in the history of researchon the intercultural relationship and pos-sible interdependencies between Iran andIsrael, and that 2) the obviously scholarlyconstruct of a monotheism, which as amodel may be applied to different cul-tures, has never been questioned. On thecontrary, recent attempts, like J. Ass-mann’s approach to classify Egypt’smonotheistic tendencies after the revolu-tion of Echnaton as cosmotheism focus-sing on the “verborgenen einen Gott,”105

103 See still the argumentation put forward by Ahn1994, 166.104 For a detailed survey of the history of this debatesee G. Ahn, Monotheismus in Israel und Iran, un-

published Habilitationsschrift (Bonn, 1994) 101-151.105 J. Assmann, Moses der Ägypter. Entzifferungeiner Gedächtnisspur (Frankfurt am Main, 22000).


238

and S. Parpola’s attempt to trace amonotheistic concept in Assyria,106 provethe construct of monotheism still to bethe preferred model of interpretation.107

As will be shown in the following dis-cussion, the motif of the lie formed animportant rhetorical device in the rheto-ric of the prophets propagating the exclu-sivity of the cult of Yahweh.

The evolution towards an exclusivecult of Yahweh took a long time in Israeland suffered several setbacks. It is obvi-ously closely connected to the Monar-chial period, a time when David after thedefeat of the Philistines transferred theworship of Yahweh – who previouslywas worshipped at a multiplicity of sites– to Jerusalem, a historical event whichis reported in the Narrative of the Ark108

and in 2 Sam 7. The transfer of this sin-gle national god to the political capitalentailed a stylization of Yahweh similarto Mesopotamian models such as Mardukor Assur. It is the radical exclusivity ofthe cult site that certainly sharpened theperception of Yahweh’s uniqueness.109

The prophets Isaiah and Hosea wereradical adherents to the royal cult ofYahweh of the Davidic-Solomonic em-pire. At the time of the prophet Hoseaabout 740 B.C. we observe the first evi-dence of the motif of the lie to denote theenemies of this political-religious deci-sion, thereby addressing the peoples ofSamaria and Ephraim (Hos 7.3 “By theirwickedness they make the king glad, andthe officials by their treachery”). How-ever, in this period we are still far from

any organized party or organization ofprophets dedicated to this movement.110

Politically decisive moments like the ex-ile of thousands of North Israelites toSyria and Mesopotamia after the fall ofSamaria entailed a temporary limitationof the Yahweh cult to Jerusalem in 722which was, however, revived under kingJosiah (623-609 B.C.). His interest incentralizing the cult in Jerusalem mayhave been influenced by his wish to con-trol the country.111 With the deportationof the upper class of Israel into Babylo-nian exile, the cult of Yahweh gains insignificance as the central cultural-symbolic element creating identity, andwith the prophets Zefaniah, Jeremiah,and Ezekiel it acquires more and morefollowers.112 Jeremiah accuses the insti-tutionalized prophets of being liars andattacks the priests: “the prophets proph-esy falsely, and the priests rule as theprophets direct” (Jer 5:31). With Jere-miah we find the whole display of ethicalinstructions stipulated to maintain Israelas an outstanding religiously pure com-munity exclusively bound by her cove-nant with Yahweh. Among the stipula-tions concerning the king the propheciesof Jeremiah display the whole range ofthose requirements, which are known tohave been the duties of the king inMesopotamia. These are the requirementto do social justice (mišpa#) between men(Jer 21:12), the requirement not to op-press the widow and the orphan (Jer 7:6;22:3), which recalls CH xlvii 59-78; therequirement not to spill “innocent blood”

106 S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA IX (Hel-sinki, 1997).107 For the negative aspect attached to the model ofpolytheism in the history of religions see Hand-wörterbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegrif-fe, vol. IV (Stuttgart, 1998) 321-330, s.v. “Poly-theismus” (B. Gladigow).108 P. D. Miller/J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of theLord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of

1 Samuel (Baltimore, 1977).109 I am grateful to M. Davis for having pointed outthis aspect to me.110 M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics thatShaped the Old Testament (London, 1987) 31ff.111 Smith 1987, 38.112 Handwörterbuch religionsgeschichtlicher Grund-begriffe, vol. IV (Stuttgart, 1998) 162 s.v. “Mono-theismus” (B. Lang).


239

(Jer 22:3, 17), which evokes likewise CHI 27-49, as well as the inscription ofDarius from Naqš-i Rustam (Dnb), andthe prohibition against worshipping“other gods” (Jer 3:13; 11:10; 13:10,16:11; 25:6: 35:15), a concept which wealready found in the Xerxes inscriptions.There is the repeated accusation, “youare trusting in the words of the lie” (Jer7:9) which introduces the whole range ofinfractions, such as theft, murder, adul-tery, and swearing falsely, followed bythe religious delicts such as burning in-cense to Baal and worshipping other gods(7:8/9; 11:10).

According to M. Smith and R. Al-bertz113 we may suppose that with thereturn of the exiles there existed “threeparties in Jerusalem: a local party, andtwo important groups of former exiles.The local party, composed of descen-dants of the men who had been left in thecountry in 582,”114 adhered mostly to adiversity of cults and had close ties to thesurrounding people. The two groups ofexiles probably consisted of a majority ofYahweh-alone devotees and the “priestsof the Jerusalem temple, who had aneconomic interest in its restoration. ...These various groups did not live inpeace with each other,”115 as is illustratedby the prophecies of Zechariah. Instabil-ity and insecurity were very much theorder of the day until the strong gover-norship of Nehemia.116

It is striking that the concept of the lieas described above plays such an impor-tant role in the Hebrew Bible dealingwith the Persian domination, such as theNehemiah Memorial, the compilation ofthe narratives of Ezra and the propheciesof Zechariah and Haggai all of whichseem to contain some contemporary ma-terial.117 Since copies of the Besitun in-scription circulated in Jewish communi-ties even down to Elephantine,118 we maypresuppose a transcultural migration ofthe motif of the lie, which found its wayfrom an originally political context intothe theological discourse of the HebrewBible.

In the last part of my study I wouldlike to focus on the compilation of thenarratives of the scribe Ezra and the gov-ernor Nehemiah, whose missions reflectthe Achaemenids’ post-exilic involve-ment in the local affairs of Judah in the5th century B.C., as well as on theprophecies of Zechariah. According tothe Old Testament scholar Hoglund,Achaemenid imperial authorities tried “tosecure access to the Satrapy of Egyptalong the strategic routes that ranthrough Jerusalem.”119 He was able toshow that the “dramatic entry of Greekmilitary power onto an imperial territoryin support of” the Egyptian revolt “repre-sented the most serious challenge to im-perial control the Persians faced in thefifth century. ... Consequently, for the

113 R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttes-tamentlicher Zeit, vol. 2 (Göttingen, 1992) 378ff.114 Smith 1987, 81.115 Smith 1987, 81.116 E. M. Meyers, “The Persian Period and the JudeanRestoration: From Zerubbabel to Nehemiah,” in: P.D. Miller Jr./P. D. Hanson/S. D. McBride (eds.), An-cient Israelite Religion, Essays ... Frank Moore Cross(Philadelphia, 1987) 509-521.117 L.L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah (London/New York,1998); idem, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 1(Minneapolis, 1992) 119.118 Greenfield/Porten 1982, 3.

119 K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administra-tion in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra andNehemiah (Atlanta, 1992) 87; Jerusalem was locatedon a national highway that went from Beershebapassing Hebron, Jerusalem, Bethel, Sichem to Sa-maria, see D. A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways ofAncient Israel (Baltimore, 1991) 118-146; the ViaMaris linked Ugarit, Jaffa (the harbor of Jerusalem),Gaza and Rafa with Egypt, ibid., 42; see also P.Högemann, Östlicher Mittelmeerraum. Das achäme-nidische Weltreich von Kyros bis Xerxes 547-479/8v.Chr., TAVO B IV 23.


240

period from 460 BCE on, it can be as-sumed that the Achaemenid empire wasintensely involved in taking steps to con-solidate its hold over those territoriesthat were imperiled by the continuingpressure in the eastern Mediterranean,”120

a fact which is corroborated by archaeo-logical evidence from numerous Achae-menid fortifications in the Levant.

As has been put forward by N. P. Lem-che121 and others, the author and the nar-rator of the Old Testament sources whichare a literary and ideological construc-tion focusing on the conceptualization ofIsrael, have to be clearly distinguished.Consequently, it is the phraseology thatthe authors of the narratives ofZechariah, Ezra and Nehemiah choose todescribe the restoration of the walls andthe temple of Jerusalem, which mattersfor our discussion, and not the historicityof the events themselves. Considering theideological level, therefore, it is only ofminor importance whether these booksreflect the physical restoration of thetemple and the city walls or whether theyshould be read as a symbolic reflectionof the consolidation of a religious com-munity. But in our case, it will provideus with an interesting insight into theideological conceptualization of the textproducers.

In Ezra 4.12 the author describes thediscontent of the Samaritans regardingthe re-building of the temple. Here it isthe local opposition, which adopts therhetoric known from Assyrian and Per-sian royal inscriptions to denounce theYahweh-alone followers. Their report tothe Persian king Artaxerxes reads asfollows:

Ezra 4. 12

“And now may it be known to the kingthat the Jews who came up from you tous have gone to Jerusalem. They are re-building that rebellious (bibl. Aramaic:m"r"d) and wicked (hapax: bi’yš) city,they are finishing the walls and repairingthe foundations.”

The temple completed, its authoriza-tion is emphasized in terms of being le-gitimated by

Ezra 6. 14

“the command of the God of Israel andby the decree of Cyrus and Darius andArtaxerxes, king of Persia.”

What rebellious and evil means is elu-cidated by:

Nehemia 6. 6

“You and the Jews, you intend to rebel(merôd of the verb mrd). That is, whyyou are building the wall.”

In the prophecy proclaimed byZechariah, which is basically devoted tothe new concept of the religious commu-nity of Jerusalem,122 the God of Israelguarantees a prodigious life for the peo-ple of Israel should they behave accord-ing to his ethical instructions which es-tablish the renewed relationship betweenYahweh and his people:

Zechariah 8. 16-17

These are the things you shall do: Speakreliable things (truth) to one another (dbr’emet)! Reliable things (truth) (+emet)and a judgment of peace (mišpa# š"lôm)render in your gates. Do not devise evilin your heart against one another and do

120 Hoglund 1992, 163.121 N. P. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tra-dition (London/Louisville, 1998) 22ff., 129ff.

122 P. Marinkovic, “What does Zechariah 1-8 tell usabout the Second Temple?” in: Eskenazi/Richards1994, 96.


241

not love false oath (literally: oath offalsehood šebu‘at šeqer)! for all these arethings that I hate, says the Lord.

These Old Testament sources showhow in the terminology the political andthe ethical aspect are inextricably inter-woven. The terminology used by theprophets to describe the ethical behaviorof the people is intermingled with thelegal terminology qualifying the politicalrelationship between the Mesopotamiankings and their subjects as well as be-tween the Assyrian or

Documents

THE MELAMMU PROJECTmelammu-project.eu/pdf/pongratz-leisten2002.pdf · PONGRATZ-L EISTEN “L YING KING ” AND “F ALSE PROPHET ” 215 BEATE PONGRATZ-L EISTEN Princeton “Lying