by
Damien F. Mackey
“In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, when
Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it”
(Isaiah 20:1)
This
article presupposes my:
Assyrian King
Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
The
following is taken from my postgraduate thesis (Volume 1, Ch. 6, pp. 154-155):
A Revised
History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its
Background
‘Ashdod’
Now,
when Sargon II refers to ‘Ashdod, we need to be clear as to which exact
location he had in mind, for he also refers in the same account to an
‘Ashdod-by-the-Sea’. Thus we read: “Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu
[Ashdod-by-the-Sea], I besieged and captured”. It is the maritime Ashdod that I
am going to propose - contrary to the usual view - is the well known Ashdod of
the Philistine plain; whilst the ‘Ashdod’ mentioned first here by Sargon, I
shall identify as the mighty inland stronghold of Lachish (approx. 50 km south
west of Jerusalem), the most important Judaean fort after Jerusalem itself.
These
three cities of Lachish, Gath and Ashdod, taken together, formed something of a
line of formidable forts in Judaea. Assyria had to take them as they were a
dangerous base for hostile Egypt.
That
Sargon would have had to confront Lachish would seem to be inevitable,
militarily, due to the fact that he did indeed capture its neighbouring fort of
Azekah. (For more on
this,
see pp. 158-159). Did not Sargon II boast anyway of his having been the “subduer
of the land of Iaudu (Judah), which lies far away …”?
Now,
the fortress of Lachish was the high point of Sennacherib’s western campaign.
To no Judaean city apart from Jerusalem itself would the description ‘Ashdod’ -
that is, ‘a very strong place’ - apply more aptly than to Lachish. The name ‘Ashdod’,
from the root shádad, ‘to be strong’, signifies ‘a stronghold’. “What a surprise,
then”, writes Russell, regarding the surrender of Lachish, “to turn to the annalistic
account of that same campaign - inscribed on the bulls at the throne-room entrance
- and discover that Lachish is not mentioned at all”.
Was
it that Sargon II - hence, that Sennacherib - had instead referred to Lachish
by the descriptive title of ‘Ashdod’, whose capture Sargon covers in detail?
No comments:
Post a Comment