A careful comparison of the collections with Esarhaddon' s inscriptions (see Appendix, p. LXIlff) confirms this hypothesis. It appears that the oracles collected in these tablets were arranged chronologically and, it seems, thematically as well.
Collection 1 begins with an oracle which seems to have been delivered just before the decisive battle fought in 681-XI. The following five oracles ( 1.2- 1.6) seem to date after the battle but before Esarhaddon's arrival in Nineveh (681-XII-8). Oracle 1.6 refers to an impending crossing of the river (i.e., the Tigris), which represented the last obstacle on the king's journey to the capital; the references to battles yet to be fought indicate that (in contrast to oracle 1.8) the final victory had not yet been achieved. Section 1.9 alludes to the triumphal celebrations arranged after the final victory, and in the last oracle of the collection (1. 10) the king already rules in his palace, albeit still in a precarious position.
Collection 2 contains no references to battles, but it is dominated by repeated references to the internal disorder of Assyria (2. 1, 2.3-5), the stabilization of Esarhaddon' s kingship (2.2, 2.6), the elimination of disloyal subjects and a general feeling of uncertainty prevailing in Assyria (2.4 ). This fits the political situation of Assyria after Esarhaddon's accession (in the early part of year 680), which is described in Esarhaddon' s inscription Aššur A composed in early 679.
The central theme of this inscription is the stabilization of the king's rule, the relenting of the gods and the restoration of the cosmic harmony - the very themes which are also central to Collection 2 (especially 2.5). After citing a number of favourable omens, the inscription notes that the king also regularly received oracles from ecstatic prophets "concerning the establishment of the foundation of my sacerdotal throne until far-off days." The oracles are mentioned after a Mars omen that occurred between the 5th and 7th months of the year, but this order does not necessarily have chronological relevance, since the signs received from the gods are grouped in the text in three main categories (portents, oracles, dreams), not in a strict chronological sequence. Most likely the oracles date from the same period as the portents, the first of which (an omen derived from Venus) is datable between the 1 1th month (Shebat) of 681 and the third month (Sivan) of 680.
At least three oracles of the collection (2. 1, 2.3 and 2.5) contain a reference to Babylon and/or its exiled gods and its destroyed temple, Esaggil. The restoration of Babylon and Esaggil was also a central theme of the early inscriptions of Esarhaddon (see Borger Esarh. pp. 12- 18, below p. LXXV), and the Jupiter omen cited in support of the project occurred in Sivan, 680.
It seems, accordingly, that Collection 1 contains (in chronological order) oracles relating to the accession of Esarhaddon and dating from the end of year 681, whereas Collection 2 contains oracles from the early part of the next year and relating to the stabilization of Esarhaddon' s rule. The existence of two thematic collections of oracles correlating with two separate sets of inscriptions strongly points to a mutual dependency between the two classes of texts; in other words, it seems that the oracle collections were compiled at about the same time as the respective inscriptions. This would date Collection 2 to year 679 (the date of Ass. A) and Collection 1 to late 673 (the date of Nin. A). [[303]] The temporal difference (six years) between the compilation of the two would explain the slight differences in their formulation, which would be surprising if the texts had been drawn up simultaneously.
The incentive for the compilation of the Nin. A inscriptions, and hence of Collection 1 as well, was certainly Esarhaddon' s controversial decision to promote his younger son Aššurbanipal as his successor, put into effect in early 672.[[304]] The detailed account of his own miraculous rise to power served to remind any potential critics of the decision- in the first place, Assurbanipal' s elder brother, Šamaš-šumu-ukin, and his supporters- of the fate of those who would try to usurp power against the will of the gods.
Collection 3, which contains the oracles sealing Aššur's covenant with Esarhaddon, is likely to have been recited at the coronation of Esarhaddon and hence is probably the earliest of the three collections, dating from the very last days of 681 or early 680. It is written by the same scribe as nos. 1 and 2 and displays considerable affinity with no. 2 both in its external appearance (tablet format, size, ductus) and orthography.
Collection 4 shares the two-column format and subject matter of nos. 2 and 3 and may thus date from the same time, that is, 680 B C.
303 Cf. already M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens II (Giessen 1912), p. 158: "Die Orakel (stammen] zwar aus den ersten Jahren der Asarhaddonischen Regierung, aber die Sammlung [wurde] wohl erst gegen Schluss seiner Herrschaft oder gar nach seinem Tode veranstaltet."
304 See H. Tadmor, "Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature," in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation (Jerusalem 1984), pp. 36-57, esp. p. 45.
Simo Parpola
Simo Parpola, 'The Dates of the Collections', Assyrian Prophecies, SAA 9. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1997; online contents: SAAo/SAA09 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2021 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa09/thehistoricalcontextsanddatesoftheoracles/thedatesofthecollections/]