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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment