Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Dive into the intriguing world of Shalmaneser III, an Assyrian king whose reign significantly influenced the Biblical narrative. Discover his interactions with Israel and Judah, the mysteries surrounding the Battle of Qarqar, and how archaeological findings like the Black Obelisk corroborate Biblical history. This article sheds light on the fascinating intersection of ancient politics and Biblical events.

Shalmaneser III – A Name Symbolizing Assyrian Superiority

Shalmaneser III, an Assyrian king, is a figure from ancient history whose name translates to “Shulman [an Assyrian god] Is Superior.” This name was carried by five Assyrian monarchs, but it is important to note that only Shalmaneser III and Shalmaneser V had significant interactions with Israel. However, the Bible specifically mentions only Shalmaneser V.

Rise to Power and Leadership Style

Ascending to power after his father, Ashurnasirpal II, Shalmaneser III is recognized for his 35-year reign, marked by his strong and assertive leadership. He boldly described himself as “the king of the world, the king without rival, the ‘Great Dragon,’ the (only) power within the (four) rims (of the earth)” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 276). His rule is characterized by relentless military campaigns, spanning 31 years, aimed at maintaining and expanding the Assyrian empire.

Military Campaigns and Influence

Shalmaneser III’s reign is notable for his aggressive military expeditions, particularly toward the west. He consistently engaged in conflicts with the Aramaean kingdoms in Syria, indicating his determination to strengthen Assyrian dominance in the region. These campaigns reflect his strategy of using military force to secure and extend Assyrian control, leaving a lasting impact on the ancient Near East.

Here is an image depicting the unlikely alliance of King Ahab of Israel with the Syrians, along with the military discrepancies regarding the contribution of chariots, set in a historical and biblical context.

Shalmaneser III’s Inscription and the Alleged Involvement of Ahab

The Battle of Qarqar and Ahab’s Questionable Participation

In Shalmaneser III’s Monolith Inscription, the battle of Qarqar is described as occurring in the sixth year of his reign, involving a coalition of 12 kings, predominantly Syrians. Among these is a figure named A-ha-ab-bu matSir-ʼi-la-a-a, often interpreted as “Ahab the Israelite” in modern references (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 279). However, the Bible does not mention Ahab’s involvement in this battle, and doubts arise about equating A-ha-ab-bu matSir-ʼi-la-a-a with Ahab of Israel. The term matSir-ʼi-la-a-a, translated as “Israelite,” is not consistently used in Assyrian inscriptions to denote the northern kingdom of Israel, which is often referred to as Samaria or Bit Hu-um-ri-ia (Omri-land) (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 284, 285).

The Monolith stele of Shalmaneser III (The British Museum)

Chronological and Historical Inconsistencies

Shalmaneser’s records indicate that 12 years after the battle of Qarqar, in his 18th year, he encountered Hazael of Damascus and received tribute from Jehu, son of Omri (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 280). Linking A-ha-ab-bu with King Ahab contradicts the Bible’s chronology which places a 14-year gap, covering the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, between Ahab’s death and Jehu’s rule (1Ki 22:51; 2Ki 3:1). Scholars like Kamphausen and Kittel have suggested a confusion between Ahab and Jehoram in Assyrian records, but there is no Biblical record of Jehoram’s participation in the battle of Qarqar.

Unlikely Alliance and Military Discrepancies

The idea of Ahab joining forces with Israel’s adversaries, the Syrians, is perplexing, especially considering his previous conflicts with them. The Encyclopedia Americana notes the strangeness of this alliance (1956, Vol. I, p. 269). Additionally, A-ha-ab-bu is credited with contributing “2,000 chariots” to the battle, a number exceeding Israel’s military capacity and larger than any other king’s contribution in the alliance. This discrepancy is further complicated by suggestions of a coalition involving Judean, Tyrian, Edomite, and Moabite forces (Encyclopædia Biblica, Vol. I, col. 92; The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1910, Vol. I, p. 429), despite King Solomon having only 1,400 chariots in his time (1Ki 10:26).

Doubts on the Inscription’s Interpretation

The identification of A-ha-ab-bu matSir-ʼi-la-a-a as “Ahab the Israelite” may not be accurate, reflecting an eagerness to find historical connections. The term “Musri” in the same inscription, often linked to Egypt, is here considered to refer to a location in southern Asia Minor, indicating interpretative inconsistencies (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 279, ftn. 9). Similarly, connecting matSir-ʼi-la-a-a with Israel may be illogical. Shalmaneser III’s primary opponents at Qarqar were King Adad-idri of Damascus and King Irhuleni of Hamath, and despite his claims of victory, further Assyrian advances in the west were not evident, suggesting the battle’s inconclusive outcome.

Evaluating the Evidence

Evaluating the evidence regarding the Battle of Qarqar as described in the Shalmaneser III monolith inscription requires a thorough and objective analysis.

Description of the Battle in the Inscription: The Shalmaneser III monolith inscription is a key artifact in understanding the military campaigns of the Assyrian king. The inscription lists a coalition of kings opposing Shalmaneser at Qarqar, including the name “A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a.” This name is widely interpreted as referring to Ahab, the king of Israel, as noted by scholars like Frederick E. Greenspahn in “The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship” and Jonathan Michael Golden in “Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives.” These interpretations align with the view that ancient Assyrian and Babylonian records often referred to the Northern Kingdom as the “House of Omri,” highlighting a unique occurrence in this inscription.

Debate Over the Identification of “A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a”: There are scholarly debates regarding the identification of “A-ha-ab-bu matSir-ʼi-la-a-a” with Ahab the Israelite. This debate centers on the transliteration and interpretation of ancient terms. For instance, the term “Musri” in the same inscription is often linked to Egypt but is thought to refer to a region in southern Asia Minor in this context (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 279, ftn. 9). Such interpretative variations could similarly affect the identification of “matSir-ʼi-la-a-a” with Israel, leading to questions about the accuracy of identifying this figure as Ahab.

Contextual Analysis: In the broader context of ancient Near Eastern history, the Battle of Qarqar is notable as it is mentioned as the oldest document referencing the Arabs. It also ranks among the few ancient inscriptions mentioning Israel, alongside the Merneptah Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, and the Mesha Stele. However, the inscription’s claim of a decisive victory by Shalmaneser III is questionable. The lack of significant Assyrian advances in the West after the battle suggests a less conclusive outcome, which is a critical point in understanding the geopolitical dynamics of the period.

Conclusion: Considering all evidence, while the identification of “A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a” as Ahab the Israelite is widely accepted, it’s not without contention due to linguistic and historical complexities. The Battle of Qarqar’s description in the Shalmaneser III monolith inscription offers valuable insights into the period, but it also exemplifies the challenges in interpreting ancient texts. The varying interpretations of key terms and the context of Assyrian military campaigns must be carefully considered to understand this period of ancient Near Eastern history fully.

Inscriptions Concerning Hazael and Jehu

Hazael’s Ascension to Power

According to Biblical chronology, Hazael, originally the chamberlain of King Ben-hadad of Damascus, rose to power by assassinating his master. This event likely occurred towards the end of King Jehoram’s reign, which is dated around c. 848-841 B.C.E. (2Ki 8:7-15). An inscription from Shalmaneser III corroborates this, stating, “Hadadezer [Adad-idri, likely Ben-hadad II of Damascus] perished. Hazael, a commoner (lit.: son of nobody), seized the throne.” During Shalmaneser’s 18th and 21st years of rule, his conflicts with Hazael are recorded, showing Assyrian victories but a failure to capture Damascus (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 280).

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, 9th century BC, from Nimrud, in modern-day Nineveh Governorate, Iraq. The British Museum, London. Side D appears on the left while Side A is on the right side of the viewer.

Jehu’s Reign and His Tribute to Shalmaneser III

King Jehu of Israel, whose reign is dated to c. 841-814 B.C.E., is referenced on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which is currently housed in the British Museum. A relief on the obelisk seems to depict an ambassador of Jehu kneeling before Shalmaneser and presenting gifts. The inscription reads: “The tribute of Jehu (Ia-ú-a), son of Omri (Hu-um-ri) [indicating a successor of Omri]; I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 281). This event of paying tribute is not mentioned in the Biblical account of Jehu. While Jehu may have likely taken such an action, as hinted at in 2 Kings 10:31-33, it is crucial to note that Assyrian monarchs often exaggerated their achievements in inscriptions and reliefs, potentially leading to misrepresentations.

The obelisk of Shalmaneser shows Jehu (or, more likely his emissary) paying tribute to the Assyrian king

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).