Sargon II seeking to emulate the original Sargon, of Akkad

 

“The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both

came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked

on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule”.

 

Jared Krebsbach

  

 

What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?

 

Although they were unrelated, two of the greatest leaders of the ancient Near East were named Sargon. Both rulers were builders, warriors, and cultural influencers.

 

Published: Jul 31, 2025 written by Jared Krebsbach, PhD History

Krebsbach, Jared. "What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?" TheCollector.com, July 31, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/jared-krebsbach/

 

Sargon of Akkad (ruled c. 2334-2279 BCE) and Sargon II of Assyria (ruled 721-705 BCE) were two of the greatest rulers in ancient Near Eastern history.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: The dates for Sargon of Akkad as given here are about 400 years too large. He, as Naram-Sin, was a contemporary of Abram in late Chalcolithic En-geddi; Ghassul IV; Gerzean; and Naqada (Egypt). See e.g. my article:

 

Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

 

(5) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Despite sharing the same name, the two men were from different dynasties and lived more than 1,500 years and hundreds of miles apart. With that said, both kings left an indelible mark on the ancient world through numerous military campaigns, ambitious building projects, and efforts that changed Near Eastern culture. When several kings in the same culture have the same name, it is historical tradition to name the one with the greatest accomplishments “the Great.” Sargon of Akkad is sometimes referred to as “the Great,” but a compelling case can be made for Sargon of Assyria’s greatness.

 

They Were Young Men Destined to Rule 

 

Although the primary source documents about the early lives of both Sargons are scant, there is enough to piece together a general outline.

 

An Akkadian language text mentions Sargon of Akkad’s birthplace as along the Euphrates River near the important city of Kish. Perhaps the most interesting detail of the text states: “My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not.” Definitely an inauspicious beginning for a man who would later rule most of Mesopotamia.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my greatly revised ancient geography: 

 

“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon’s less than noble origins is also probably why he took the name that he did, which means “the legitimate king.” The obvious question then is, how did this man from a questionable background become king of an empire? The answer to that question can be found in another Akkadian cuneiform text dated to the time of Sargon.

 

….

According to the text, Sargon overthrew King Lugalzagesi (ruled c. late 2300s BCE) of the Uruk Dynasty. At the time, Mesopotamia consisted of several city-states, with most of the political power and cultural influence centered in the Sumerian dominated south [sic]. The background of the battle is not related in the text, only the aftermath.

 

“Sargon, king of Agade, overseer of Ishtar, king of Kish, anointed priest of Anu, king of the country, great ensi of Enlil; he defeated Uruk and tore down its wall; in the battle with the inhabitants of Uruk he was victorious. Lugalzaggisi, king of Uruk, he captured in (this) battle, he brought him in a (dog) collar to the gate of Enlil. Sargon, king of Agade, was victorious in the battle with the inhabitants of Ur, the(ir) town he defeated and tore down its wall.”

 

How Sargon became the commander of what was likely a large and well-trained and equipped army remains a mystery. The Sumerian King List adds few details, so one must assume that Sargon was quite charismatic, intelligent, and could also probably handle weapons quite well. Sargon of Akkad likely learned his knowledge of ancient warfare hands-on in the military. The victory gave Sargon dominion over southern Mesopotamian and allowed him to start a new political dynasty.

 

Unlike Sargon of Akkad, Sargon II of Assyria was born into royalty. Sargon of Assyria was actually the second Assyrian king named Sargon. The first Sargon ruled in the late third millennium BCE, and little is known about him. [???] Therefore, Sargon II will be referred to here as “Sargon of Assyria” as he was the greater of the two Assyrian Sargons and to differentiate him from Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Assyria was one of the sons of King Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 744-727 BCE), and based on what is known about the family, he was probably born in the royal palace in Kalhu/Nimrud.

 

Modern historians believe that Sargon usurped the royal throne from his brother, Shalmaneser V (ruled 726-722 BC), and started a new dynasty, although the details are unclear.

Damien Mackey’s comment: Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser were one and the same:  

 

Book of Tobit a guide to neo-Assyrian succession

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule.

 

They Built Cities

 

Perhaps one of the more unique aspects that both Sargons shared was their construction of entirely new capital cities. There are a number of reasons why the Sargons built these new cities, with the most important and obvious being to legitimize their rules. Because Sargon of Akkad was not of the royalty and Sargon of Assyria was a usurper, a large construction project was vital.

 

The construction of the new project would placate the gods and keep the people busy, not thinking of how their new king came to power.

 

Sargon of Akkad’s new city was named Akkad, sometimes written as “Agade.”

 

Modern archaeologists have not yet located Akkad, but it is believed to have been on the Euphrates River, near Sargon’s hometown of Kish.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: For the correct location of ancient Akkad, see my “Sumer” article above.

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Not to be outdone by his namesake, Sargon of Assyria also built a new city.

 

Located north of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, high on a citadel, Sargon of Assyria built his new capital city, Dur-Sharrukin/Khorsabad, in 717 BCE. The name of the city is translated into English as “fortress of Sargon,” and archaeological work at the site has revealed how impressive it was. The city was surrounded by a nearly four-and-a-half-mile wall and encompassed 740 acres of space. Curiously, Dur Sharrukin was not located on the Tigris River as all of the other major Assyrian cities were.

 

Until Akkad is located and excavated it is impossible to determine which city was the greatest. One interesting thing that both cities had in common, though, was that they were promptly abandoned by the Sargons’ successors.

 

They Fought Wars and Ruled People

 

Sargon of Akkad unified central and southern Mesopotamia under his rule through warfare. He pushed against the conventions of the era by building a standing army and a large personal guard of 5,400 men.

 

It is believed that Sargon made the big military push late in his reign, when he had made alliances throughout Mesopotamia [sic] and had trained his army. The same historical text cited above that related Sargon’s rise to power also details part of his conquest of Mesopotamia.

 

“Sargon, king of Kish, was victorious in 34 campaigns and dismantled (all) the cities, as far as the shore of the sea… Enlil did not let anybody oppose Sargon.”

 

In order to control such a large standing army, Sargon needed to revamp Mesopotamia’s bureaucratic culture. Instead of eliminating the kings of the numerous city-states, Sargon made the kings regional governors. Although the government was unified under the rule of one king, the nature of the system prevented competing dynasties from forming. The regional governors had more land that they theoretically ruled, but they were less tied to their former cities, which was where power emanated from in ancient Mesopotamia.

 

Sargon of Assyria’s reign was also marked by several successful military campaigns. As an Assyrian, Sargon was expected to live up to the martial deeds of his father and other illustrious ancestors, and warfare also had a religious component for the Assyrians.

 

Sargon also had to keep his critics and potential usurpers at bay, so he personally led major military campaigns in every year of his rule. The Assyrian king defeated the state of Uratu and then went north to Cilicia and south to the border of Egypt. He then retook the important city of Babylon after ten years of Elamite interference. Several texts discovered in the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin detail how Sargon dealt with his enemies.

 

“The people and their possessions I carried off. Those cities I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

 

[The people] of the cities of Sukka, Bala and Abitikna, conceived a wicked plan of tearing up the roots of (their) land and with Ursâ, of Urarut (Armenia), they came to terms. Because of the sin which they had committed, I tore them away from their homes and settled them in Hatti of Amurru.”

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: I’d like to throw this in here:

 

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

 

(7) Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon of Assyria’s most notable military campaign was against the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, as related in 2 Kings 18:9-11 of the Old Testament. The siege and destruction of Israel’s capital city of Samaria is also related in Assyrian texts. The Old Testament states that Shalmaneser led the siege, but many modern historians believe that Sargon finished the job after assassinating his brother [sic].

 

Like his much earlier namesake, Sargon of Assyria also overhauled the Assyrian state. When Sargon came to power, 25 provinces were ruled by semi-autonomous governors. Their power varied widely, with some of the governors being quite powerful and a potential threat to Sargon. So, to counter the potential of recalcitrant governors, Sargon reduced the number of provinces to just 12. The restructuring was successful because Sargon died, as most Assyrian kings would have wanted, on the battlefield and not at an assassin’s hands.

 

Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria: Two Culture Warriors 

 

It is arguable that Sargon of Akkad’s greatest legacy was the influence he had on ancient Mesopotamian culture. His very name was revered for centuries, as demonstrated by two [sic?]  Assyrian kings taking it, but his greatest impact was on the language of the region. Before Sargon, the Sumerian language was the dominant written and spoken language in Mesopotamia. After Sargon came to power, the Akkadian language began to be written in the cuneiform script, which was originally used for the Sumerian language. The Semitic Akkadian language quickly overtook Sumerian as the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and all later major dynasties used it. The 1st dynasty of Babylon, the Kassites, the Assyrians, and the Neo-Babylonians all wrote their texts exclusively in Akkadian cuneiform, although some native languages were probably still spoken.

 

Even the Hittites, who were based in Anatolia and spoke an Indo-European language, wrote Hittite-Akkadian bilingual texts. Akkadian became so widely spoken and written that by the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BC), Akkadian was the lingua franca of the entire Near East.

 

Akkadian was the default diplomatic language used in the letters of correspondence between kings of the Great Powers: Egypt, Hatti, Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashiya. A cache of more than 300 of these letters were discovered in the Egyptian village of Amarna in 1887. In addition to the Amarna cache, Akkadian literature was discovered in other cities outside of Mesopotamia, including Hattusa, Ugarit, and Megiddo.

 

Sargon of Assyria also had an impact on the culture of the Near East, but it was not as apparent. Although, as noted earlier, Sargon was not mentioned as the Assyrian king who destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, he is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. As modern Biblical historians have corroborated the fall of Samaria/Israel with Assyrian texts, Sargon’s role in one of the most important events in the Bible has come into focus. The result is that Sargon of Assyria has become famous, or infamous, in the eyes of millions of Christians around the world.

 

It is difficult to compare any two leaders in order to gauge which one is “greater,” especially when they lived in the ancient world. When comparing Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria, it is clear they were both great in their own right. Both Sargons were warrior kings, with Sargon of Assyria even dying in battle [sic]. The two Sargons also initiated government reforms and built new cities, which were later abandoned.

 

One could argue that Sargon of Akkad had a greater impact on the culture of the ancient Near East. Yet Sargon of Assyria’s name may be better known to modern people through his impact on Biblical history. Ultimately, both Sargons were impactful leaders who could be named “the great,” so it is your choice to decide which one is the greatest.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: See also my related article:

 

Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

 

(4) Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

 

 

Which neo-Assyrian king conquered Samaria?

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

And indeed Irvine has discussed the surrender of Hoshea to Assyria, interestingly, and quite significantly, to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria, in connection with

what he refers to as “ND4301 and ND4305 … adjoining fragments of

a summary inscription found during the 1955 excavations at Nimrud and subsequently published by D. J. Wiseman”.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

It seems that three neo-Assyrian names must be considered with regard to the siege and Fall of Samaria in the late C8th BC. These are: Tiglath-pileser (so-called III); Shalmaneser (so-called V); and Sargon II.

 

Here is some of what I wrote on this, at times quite complicated, subject in my postgraduate thesis (2007), with the inclusion of Tiglath-pileser towards the end of it.

 

It needs to be noted that I had argued in this thesis for Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser to have been just the one great king of Assyria, and so I was not surprised – rather, would have expected it – that Tiglath-pileser would have been involved in the defeat of King Hoshea of Israel.

 

I began (Volume One, pp. 22-23):

 

 

 

1. The Fall of Samaria

 

 

This famous event has traditionally been dated to c. 722/21 BC[1] and, according to the statement in 2 Kings, it occurred “in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of King Hoshea of Israel” (18:10). While all this seems straightforward enough, more recent versions of biblical chronology, basing themselves on the research of the highly-regarded Professor Thiele,[2] have made impossible the retention of such a promising syncretism between king Hoshea and king Hezekiah by dating the beginning of the latter’s reign to 716/715 BC, about six years after the fall of Samaria. Moreover, there is disagreement over whether Samaria fell once or twice (in quick succession) to the Assyrians (e.g. to Shalmaneser V in 722 BC, and then again to Sargon II in 720 BC); with Assyriologist Tadmor, whom Thiele has followed, claiming a ‘reconquest’ of Samaria by Sargon II.[3] Let us briefly touch upon these objections here, to be discussed and analysed in more detail in Chapter 5 (p. 127) and Chapter 12 (3.).

 

Firstly, regarding the Hezekian chronology in its relationship to the fall of Samaria, one of the reasons for Thiele’s having arrived at, and settled upon, 716/715 BC as the date for the commencement of reign of the Judaean king was due to the following undeniable problem that arises from a biblical chronology that takes as its point of reference the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology. I set out the ‘problem’ here in standard terms.

 

If Samaria fell in the 6th year of Hezekiah, as the Old Testament tells it, then Hezekiah’s reign must have begun about 728/727 B.C. If so, his 14th year, the year in which Sennacherib threatened Jerusalem, must have been about 714 B.C.

 

But this last is, according to the conventional scheme, about ten years before Sennacherib became king and about thirteen years before his campaign against Jerusalem which is currently dated to 701 B.C. On the other hand, if Hezekiah’s reign began fourteen years before Sennacherib’s campaign, that is in 715 B.C, it began about twelve to thirteen years too late for Hezekiah to have been king for six years before the fall of Samaria. In short, the problem as seen by chronologists is whether the starting point of Hezekiah’s reign should be dated in relationship to the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C, or to the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. 

 

A second reason for Thiele’s divergence from the traditional dating for Hezekiah, to be more fully discussed in Chapter 5, is that Thiele, following others such as Zöckler,[4] had found no evidence whatsoever for any contact between king Hezekiah and king Hoshea.

 

Not even when Hezekiah had, in his first year, sent his invitations throughout Hoshea’s territory for the great Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30). Thus Thiele could not accept that these two kings had reigned concurrently.

 

In regard to the first point, the true date of commencement of the reign of king Hezekiah, I should simply like to make the general comment here that this is in fact an artificial ‘problem’. The situation has arisen, as we shall find, from Thiele’s heavy reliance upon the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology, which, as I shall be arguing in Chapter 6, has been significantly over-stretched, thereby doubling the activities of the one Assyrian king: Sargon II/ Sennacherib.[5] Failure to recognize this - and a too confident reliance upon the conventional scheme in general - has caused Thiele, and those who have followed him, to turn the reign of Hezekiah of Judah into one of the most vexed problems of Old Testament chronology.

 

And, despite the undoubted merits of Thiele’s own chronological scheme, his treatment of the chronology of king Hezekiah, specifically, is perhaps the least satisfactory part of his entire work. ….

 

Continuing on (Volume One, pp. 127-128), I considered the controversial issue of whether Samaria was taken once or twice:  

 

I suggested in Chapter 1 (p. 26) that Hoshea’s revolt against Assyria, involving his turning to ‘So King of Egypt’, would have occurred close to 727 BC, the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign.

 

Some years earlier, with the Assyrian forces of Tiglath-pileser III “approaching the very border of Israel and … threatening to push onward to Samaria”, according to [Stuart] Irvine’s construction of events, Hoshea had led “a pro-Assyrian, anti-Pekah movement within Israel …”.[6] But now, in the face of Hoshea’s revolt, the swift-acting Shalmaneser V,[7] (who I am identifying with Tiglath-pileser), had promptly “confined [Hoshea] and imprisoned him” (2 Kings 17:4) …. Hoshea was thus rendered inactive from about the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign and on into the siege and subsequent capture of Samaria. And so the Egyptian-backed Hezekiah, who had like Hoshea rebelled against Assyria, became for a time the sole ruler of the entire land, prior to the Assyrian incursions into Judah. In this way, one presumes, Hezekiah would have been able to have sent his messengers into northern Israel.

 

The other legitimate objection that I had noted in Chapter 1 (on p. 22) concerned Tadmor’s view, followed by Thiele, that Samaria was captured twice by Assyria; a second time in 720 BC.[8] Moreover, Roux considers whether it were Shalmaneser V or Sargon II who captured Samaria as “still a debated question”.[9] While van de Mieroop writes of Shalmaneser V as conquering Israel’s capital “just before his death”,[10] adding that:

 

“His successor Sargon II claimed the victory for himself and turned the region into the province of Samaria”. Whilst I intend to discuss in detail, in the next chapter, the neo-Assyrian chronology in its relation to Hezekiah, I should like to make some preliminary comments here, following Boutflower. Sargon, according to Luckenbill, had claimed that the fall of Samaria occurred (i.e. he caused it) in his first year:[11] “[At the beginning of my rule, in my first year of reign ... Samerinai (the people of Samaria) ... 27,290 people, who lived therein, I carried away ...]”. I see no good reason though not to accept Sargon’s plain statement here. There is apparently a one year discrepancy between Sargon II’s Annals and the document that Winckler called Cylinder B, according to which the fall of Samaria could not have occurred in the reign of Sargon, but of his predecessor, Shalmaneser. Here is Boutflower’s explanation of the apparent puzzling discrepancy:[12]

 

… the Annals make Sargon’s reign to commence in the year 722 BC., styled the rish sharruti or “beginning of the reign”, 721 being regarded as the first year of the reign; whereas our cylinder, which after Winckler we will call Cylinder B, regards 721 as the “beginning of the reign”, and 720 as the first year of the reign.

 

From this conclusion we obtain the following remarkable result. The capture of Samaria is assigned by the Annals to the “beginning of the reign” of Sargon, i.e. to the last three months of the year 722, and it is recorded as the first event of the reign. But according to this new reckoning of time on Cylinder B that event would not be included in the reign of Sargon at all, but would be looked upon as falling in the reign of his predecessor Shalmaneser V.

 

When, then, it is objected that in 2 Kings xvii. 3-6 the capture of Samaria - which took place in 722 - appears to be assigned to Shalmaneser … we can answer that the sacred writer is no more at fault than the scribe who wrote Cylinder B ….

 

Next, we come to Tiglath-pileser’s involvement (Volume One, pp. 371-372):

 

According to my revised neo-Assyrian chronology (as argued in detail in Chapter 6), Tiglath-pileser III himself was heavily involved in the last days of the kingdom of Israel. And indeed Irvine has discussed the surrender of Hoshea to Assyria, interestingly, and quite significantly, to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria, in connection with what he refers to as “ND4301 and ND4305 … adjoining fragments of a summary inscription found during the 1955 excavations at Nimrud and subsequently published by D. J. Wiseman”.[13] Here is Irvine’s relevant section of this:[14]

 

Line 11 reports that Hoshea … submitted personally to Tiglathpileser. Where and when this occurred is not altogether clear, for the Akkadian text is critically uncertain at this point. Wiseman reads, ka-ra-ba-ni a-di maḥ-ri-ia, and translates, “pleading to my presence”. This rendering leaves open the date and place of Hoshea’s submission. More recently, R. Borger and H. Tadmor restored the name of the southern Babylonian town, Sarrabanu, at the beginning of the line …. On linguistic grounds this reading is preferable to “pleading” (karabani). It appears then that Hoshea paid formal homage to Tiglathpileser in Sarrabanu …

 

… this incident would have been the prelude to the following Assyrian action as recorded in 2 Kings 17:5-6:

 

“Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria; for three years he besieged it. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria; he carried the Israelites away to Assyria” …. That event, as we know, occurred in c. 722 BC.

And it may just be that this apocalyptical moment for Israel is recorded in the fragments of Tiglath-pileser III now under discussion. I continue with Irvine’s account:[15]

 

The Assyrian treatment of Israel at large, presumably once described in 1. 10, is also uncertain. According to Wiseman’s translation, the text refers cryptically to “a district” and “their surrounding areas” …. Alternatively, Borger and Tadmor restore the Akkadian along the lines of III R 10,2:15-18: “[House of Omri] in [its] en[tirety …together with their pos]sessions [I led away] to [Assyria]” …. This reading is conjectural but possible. If it is correct, the text reports the wholesale deportation of Israel. The truth of this sweeping claim is a separate question ….

 

Further on, Irvine will propose that this “statement exaggerates the Assyrian action against Israel”, though he does not deny the fact of an Assyrian action. Thus:[16] “Not all the people could have been exiled, for some people obviously must have remained for the new king Hoshea to rule”. But if this were, as I am maintaining, the time of Hoshea’s imprisonment by Assyria, with the subsequent siege and then capture of Samaria, his capital city, then there may have been no king Hoshea any more in the land of Israel to rule the people. ….

[End of quotes]

 

Christopher Eames has battled with the difficulties of this famous incident in his endeavour to show that the Bible is not contradicting itself (2021):

The Annals of Sargon: Evidence of Bible Error—or Insight? | ArmstrongInstitute.org

 

[Christopher may perhaps be finding inter-Assyrian intrigue,

between Shalmaneser and Sargon, that was never really there].

 

The Annals of Sargon: Evidence of Bible Error—or Insight?

 

A puzzling series of apparently contradicting accounts describe Israel’s fall. But what if there is more to 2 Kings 18:9-11 than meets the eye?

By Christopher Eames • March 23, 2021

 

The downfall of the northern kingdom of Israel, with the ultimate defeat of the capital Samaria, is clearly described in 2 Kings 18. “And it came to pass … [in] the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it …. And the king of Assyria carried Israel away unto Assyria …” (verses 9-11).

 

It sounds straightforward with plenty of archaeological corroboration: Shalmaneser v is a well-known Assyrian king of this period; Israel’s king Hoshea is likewise attested to on Assyrian inscriptions during this time; Assyria’s defeat of Israel is well documented by archaeology, as is the deportation of the Israelites and “importation” of foreign peoples into the land (as described in 2 Kings 17). Overall, a case of remarkable corroboration for the biblical account.

 

Apart from one thing: Assyrian annals say that Sargon ii—not his predecessor, Shalmaneser v—defeated Israel. As such, this passage has been pointed to as evidence of biblical error. Is it?

 

There is more to this event—and to this passage of scripture—than meets the eye.

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

 

 

Sargon’s Record

 

King Sargon ii’s reign is dated from around 721–705 b.c.e. No less than eight of his inscriptions proudly boast of his conquest of Samaria. Note especially the following two partial inscriptions:

 

“The inhabitants of Samaria … I fought against them … I settled … them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands ….” (Nimrud Prism)

“I besieged and conquered Samaria ….” (The Great Summary Inscription)

So Sargon ii did it—simple enough. But it’s not.

 

One suggestion is that Sargon was claiming for himself the triumphs of the former king Shalmaneser. Such false self-attribution was right up the alley for the boastful kings of the ancient world. And the Bible would have no reason to “lie” about the Assyrian king responsible for this event.

 

Yet what about the dates for this siege? The three-year siege of Samaria is dated to 721–718 b.c.e., fitting right into the start of Sargon’s reign. And to the Bible critic, the history could have easily been misconstrued—if it was written many centuries after the event it describes (a fairly standard assumption).

 

We therefore have two apparently conflicting claims. In the biblical spirit of “at the mouth of two or three witnesses,” let’s bring in another one.

….

 

Babylon’s Record

 

Normally, we would consult the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle, a detailed year-by-year listing of Assyrian campaigns (covering some 160 years of Neo-Assyrian history). Unfortunately, though—in conspiracy-like manner—the events of the years 724–718 b.c.e. are erased. That is to say, the leaders traditionally listed at the start of each year are there, including Shalmaneser and Sargon, but not the events that happened. It’s a glaring blank spot among a generally complete body of events.

 

There is another ancient chronicle we can turn to, though. The Babylonian Chronicles, dating to around 600 b.c.e. (just over a century after the events at hand), contain a similar listing of important events in Assyrian and Babylonian history.

 

This is what the Babylonian Chronicle i says, regarding Shalmaneser v:

On the 25th day of the month Tebet, Shalmaneser [v] ascended the throne of Assyria [and Akkad]. He ruined Samaria. Year 5: Shalmaneser died in the month of Tebet.

 

The above statement seems pretty unequivocal, and pairs well with the biblical account (although the case has been made that the Assyrian word translated “ruined” could simply mean “pacification of a region”).

In any case, surely someone’s lying.

 

But what if all accounts are correct?

 

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

….

 

Sargon ii did not take the throne of Assyria by normal succession. His name, translated as “the legitimate king,” speaks to the court intrigue at the time. Sargon claimed to be the son of the revolutionary king Tiglath-Pileser iii (who reigned before Shalmaneser); however, modern researchers believe this probably was not the case and that Sargon usurped the throne, thus starting his Sargonid dynasty.

 

It doesn’t help that records of Shalmaneser v’s reign are scarce—and it is unknown exactly how he died.

 

Let’s return to 2 Kings 18 to reconstruct the series of events: “And it came to pass … [in] the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it” (verse 9).

This verse, set in 721 b.c.e., could fit snugly into the final year of Shalmaneser’s reign.

 

But note the following verse: “And at the end of three years they took it”—not he, Shalmaneser specifically, but they, the Assyrians—“even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken.”

“And the king of Assyria carried Israel away unto Assyria …” (verse 11). This verse does not say Shalmaneser specifically did it—simply a king of Assyria (even the “the” is technically not in the Hebrew text). The vague identity of this individual is notable, and could fit with a then-vague idea in Israel of who the rightful ruler of Assyria was. As such, the verse in no way contradicts either of the Assyrian accounts, but gives a whiff of behind-the-scenes treason occurring in the Assyrian royal courts.

 

This same theme is found in the parallel account in 2 Kings 17: Shalmaneser is clearly named as bringing Hoshea into subjection throughout his rule (verse 3), but it is an unnamed “king of Assyria” that continues and concludes the grueling three-year siege, ultimately conquering Israel and taking it captive (verses 4-6).

 

Perhaps the decision not to name Sargon in the biblical account at this time was a political hint too—refusing to recognize him as legitimate ruler.

 

Thus, we re-create the following series of events: Shalmaneser v rules over a subjugated Samaria throughout his reign (2 Kings 17:3); Hoshea forms a conspiracy with Pharaoh So (verse 4); in 721 b.c.e., Shalmaneser orders his army to besiege Samaria (18:9); that same year, he is overthrown by the usurper [sic] Sargon ii; Sargon then continues the siege for the remaining period of 2½-3 years, resulting in the final destruction of the capital city of Israel and the northern kingdom in general (verses 10-11).

 

In such manner, all three accounts—biblical, Assyrian and Babylonian—lock together.

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

 

 

Record of Accuracy

 

It’s a bit ironic when Sargon ii is used to “disprove” the Bible—because up until the 19th century, he was completely unknown to archaeology. Even the historian Josephus, in his exhaustive writings, failed to mention him. He went totally unrecognized in classical histories.

 

But “unknown” is not the full story. Because Sargon was known historically—from a single Bible reference: Isaiah 20:1 (describing an event much later in Sargon’s reign). As such, the Bible was singled out for either a confused or fabricated reference, or for using an obscure name for another known Assyrian king.

Today, however, Sargon ii is known as one of the most significant kings in Assyrian history, thanks to the deciphering of cuneiform in the late 19th century and the excavation of his chief city, Dur-Sharrukin.

 

The archaeological discovery of Sargon ii was a remarkable testament to the accuracy of a single standalone biblical verse.

 

And it seems that something similar could be said for the short biblical description of the conquest of Samaria by an unnamed king of Assyria—revealing a glimpse into what would have been a distant, yet dramatic, Assyrian insurrection [sic].

 

---

[1] E. Thiele dates it to 723/722 BC. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 162.

[2] Ibid, ch. 9: “The Chronology of the Kings of Judah (715-561 BC)”.

[3] H. Tadmor, ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur’, p. 94. Tadmor here refers to Sargon’s “reconquest of Samaria”. For Thiele’s discussion of what he calls Tadmor’s “masterly analysis”, see Thiele, op. cit, e.g. pp. 167-168.

[4] Ibid, p. 169, with reference to O. Zöckler et al. in n. 20.

[5] See e.g. Thiele’s acceptance of the conventionally determined “701 [BC as] a precise date from which we may go forward or backward on the basis of the regnal data to all other dates in our pattern”. Ibid, p. 174.

[6] Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, p. 34.

[7] We recall, from the Introduction to this thesis, the metaphor of Assyria as the swiftly flowing Tigris river. And Irvine has labelled Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign against Philistia at this approximate time as “a kind of Blitzkrieg”, adding that: “The lack of Philistine opposition to the advancing Assyrian army seems to reflect the suddenness with which the army appeared in the area”. Ibid, p. 47.

[8] ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur’, p. 94. Tadmor here refers to Sargon’s “reconquest of Samaria”.

[9] Ancient Iraq, p. 310.

[10] A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 235.

[11] As quoted by D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria & Babylonia, vol. 1, # 4. At least, the fall of Samaria is generally regarded as being the incident to which Sargon referred here.

[12] The Book of Isaiah, pp. 112-113.

[13] Ibid, p. 56.

[14] Ibid, pp. 59-60.

[15] Op. cit, p. 60. Emphasis added.

[16] Ibid, p. 68.