1 jan 841 ano antes da era comum - Alleged Jehu Tribute to Shalmaneser III of Assyria

Descrição:

Jehu is shown paying tribute, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser.

18th year of Shalmaneser III


_____

EXAMINATION OF ANACHRONISMS IN BIBLICAL AND ASSYRIAN CHRONOLOGIES by Gerard Gertoux

The main action of Shalmaneser III, after the annexation of Bīt Adani, was to annex the Aramaic kingdoms federated by Hazael, the powerful Syrian king who had plundered the Israelite kingdom. The victory of Shalmaneser III and the annihilation of Hazael's army in 841 BCE as well as the looting of his capital could not be presented as a tribute paid by Hazael since this king had escaped from the battle. Shalmaneser therefore transformed a plunder of Hazael's capital, who had himself plundered the cities of Jehu, into a tribute paid indirectly by Jehu. The presentation of this tribute, at the end of the inscription, does not conform to protocol. The recension on the bulls of Calah, in 841 BCE, adds at the end: « In those days (sic), I received the tribute of the Tyrians and Sidonians, and Jehu the son of Omri (Iu-ú-a mâr Ḫu- um-ri-i) ». Contrary to custom, the tribute has not been dated (“In those days”). Moreover, Jehu is not attached to his real dynasty, Bīt Dawid, according to the Tel Dan stele, but to an ancestor who had not been a king but a chief general who had become king (1Ki 16:16). In addition, Jehu was not the son of Omri, but of Jehoshaphat (2Ki 9:14), and there were four kings between Omri and Jehu: Ahab (1Ki 16:29), Achaziah (1Ki 22:52), Jehoram (2Ki 3:1) and Achaziah II (2Ki 8:25). The next recension (marble slab), in 840 BCE, adds at the end another fictitious tribute: I received the tribute of Bali-ma-AN-zêri and Jehu son of Omri. The fictitious tribute of Bali-ma-AN-zêri disappeared in the next recension of 838 BCE, but that of “Jehu son of Omri” became the tribute of “Jehu of Bīt Omri” and was depicted on the Black Obelisk. The events that took place during this year explain why the “tribute of Jehu” was magnified by the Assyrians.

* In my 21st regnal year (in 838 BCE), I crossed the Euphrates for the 21st time (and) marched to the cities of Hazael of Damascus. I captured four cities (and) received tribute from the people of the lands Tyre, Sidon, (and) Byblos (...) Booty from the temple of the deity Šēru (Moon-god) of the city Malaḫa (Hazor), a royal city of Hazael of Damascus, which Shalmaneser, son of Ashurnasirpal, king of Assyria, brought back inside the wall of Inner City (Aššur) (Grayson: 2002, 67,151).

The booty (of the fourth city) had to be significant because Malaḫa, the Aramaic name of Hazor (Lipiński: 2000, 350-352), was very wealthy (Block: 2008, 251-252). The remark “I marched against the towns of Hazael” instead of “I marched against Hazael, the king of Aram”, in the annals of Shalmaneser, shows that Hazael was dead and that his successor (Ben-Hadad III) had not manifested himself to defend his towns. This new plundering of the towns of Hazael (in 838 BCE) was again transformed by Dayyan- Aššur, the commander-in-chief of Shalmaneser III, and depicted on the Black Obelisk, into a tribute paid by Jehu of Bīt Omri (Israel). It appears that these reliefs were intended primarily to illustrate exotic scenes of tribute-bearing and to demonstrate Shalmaneser’s power over distant lands, rather than to record recent historical events. For example, the scenes of tribute-bearing of Egypt and Suhu do not contain any reference to these cases of tribute-bearing in Shalmaneser’s inscriptions, nor to the king’s visits to thesecountries (Yamada: 2000, 251-258). It is likely that diplomatic gifts given to the king of Assyria were transformed into tributes paid by vassal kings. The best proof that the tribute of Jehu engraved on the Black Obelisk is fictitious is provided by the representation itself.

The five tribute bearers on the Black Obelisk are therefore fictitious, they were mainly intended to serve the propaganda that systematically presented the Assyrian kings as dominant over the “four corners (regions) of the world”. However, to be credible propaganda must be based on known historical facts. The Black Obelisk confirms the existence of Jehu, a king of Israel, from the “Bīt Dawid”, according to the Tel Dan stele. In fact, the primary purpose of Shalmaneser III’s campaigns was to accumulate as much loot as possible by conquering the wealthy kingdoms of Syria and Samaria. Therefore, the tribute paid by Ahabbu (855-825) from Asriel (a town in the north-east of Samaria) and the tribute paid by Jehu were in fact former lootings used to legitimise a future annexation of Samaria. These tributes were fictitious: evidence is found in an inscription written by Nergal-ereš, a powerful Assyrian governor (803-775), who replaced the tribute paid by “Jehu son of Omri (Ia-a-ú mār Ḫu-um-ri-i)” by “Jehoash the Samarian (Ia-’a- su mātSa-me-ri-na-a-a)”.

Consequently, the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Dayyan-Aššur, the powerful commander-in- chief of Shalmaneser III, as well as the inscription of Nergal-ereš, the powerful governor of Adad-nirari III, are above all tools of Assyrian propaganda (Laato: 1995, 198-226), and therefore, have little historical value apart from confirming the existence of the kings of Israel: Jehu and Jehoash.

Adicionado na linha do tempo:

Data:

Imagens: