The Hebrews and their conquering empires all share similarities, but due to the Hebrews having often being on the oppressed side of wars rather than successors as well as vastly different faiths and lifestyle values, the Hebrews perception of the same events as the conquers will invariably have its differences.
They both held an importance to keeping strong record of important prophets, and highly regarded family legacies and lines of succession. The standard inscription of Ashurnasirpal (865 BC) This inscription goes to great detail of his family legacy. This among many of the artifacts from the perspective of the conquerors have a notably similar importance stressed upon an almost ‘apostolic’ line of leaders. Although the Hebrews perspective on Ashurnasirpal is a complete polarisation found within Isaiah 10:5-19, such similar importance given to family ties and succession within leadership is to be found in Hebrew texts written within the same timeframe. In Old testament texts most people of notoriety come with a detailed description of family legacy, rulers of ancient Israel where often from a line of related successors.
Additionally, great leaders or priests within both the conquering perspectives as well as the Hebrews were regarded as being divinely appointed by God or the gods and supported by them. Leaders such as Ashurnasirpal were regarded as supported by the gods, similarly to Persian king cyrus, appointed messiah for allowing the Jewish captives to their land.
The hebrews would hold solely the Lord of Israel as divine. Whereas many of their oppressors they were polytheistic. Even when many Jewish people practiced some polytheistic acts, such as figures of various gods and deities within the home, their God was consistently the Lord of israel.
Another difference in perspectives is the hebrews believed when the lord was finished with completing his plans for israel he would have his vengeance, whereas the opposing side thought they were doing the right thing for their Gods. The inscription of Ashurnasirpal describes a leader supported by their gods, polarised by the biblical recounting that describes God’s anger to assyrians behavior, it details how the Lord will: “Therefore the Lord God of hosts will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors-” The conquering perspective comes from a place of war tactic success or personal triumph, contrasting with the hebrew perspective of survival and struggle.
From looking at hebrews sources in the British museum it seems the the conquerors write about their success in taking over land rather than Hebrew success stories that speak of their own people being safe and returning home, on in the case of the Cyrus cylinder (539 bc) a great pride in returning captive people back to their homes and making peace, contrasting from conquering writings priding themselves in takeover and keeping captive citizens. However what remains similar is the many conquering empires that have people held captive who wrote of being set free and carry those stories with them however less documented than the hebrews there is a shared theme of suffering under corrupt and harsh leadership.
It is interesting the way the Hebrews held solely the Lord of Israel as divine. Their opponents relied on their gods which shows the vast differences in their belief system.
This post does a great job of showing how the Hebrews and their conquerors saw things differently. The conquerors focused on winning battles, while the Hebrews cared more about survival and their faith. It’s interesting how both sides believed their leaders were chosen by a higher power. The point about Hebrews celebrating freedom while conquerors focused on control is very clear.
Hi Alexander,
You brought up some great points about the similarities and differences between the Hebrews and their conquerors. I especially like your point about both groups valueing family legacy and divine appointment, its so cool how these similarities exist even despite drastically differing belief systems. I also think your mention of the Cyrus Cylinder is a great example of how perspective shifts depending on the source.
Wow. This is another really insightful post. You’ve demonstrated a very strong understanding of the cultural and historical contexts that surround this question. I find your insights on the cultural similarities very interesting, particularly as they pertain to the area of religious authority. I also really appreciate the way you’ve highlighted how power and identity interact. The Hebrews never really saw themselves as a ‘powerful nation’, yet they believed that their God was superior to all other gods. The Babylonians and Assyrians in contrast viewed their victories as a sign of the power of their gods. Makes me wonder how they later dealt with defeat.
Hebrew religion was certainly better posed to endure, because it seemed to make much more room for human failure and fragility.