Shalmaneser III was an Assyrian king who has caused interest among scholars. A remarkable archeological find has survived from his time, which has been given a simple name, the Black Obelisk.
Chronology of Tyre
The Bible tells us that King Solomon of Israel made an agreement with King Hiram of Tyre to supply him with cedar trees for the temple. In addition, Hiram's workers are said to have made several metal vessels that came to the temple.18-1 The historian Josephus also tells about the history of Tyre and includes a list of the kings of Tyre. He quotes this information from the writings of Menander of Ephesus. This Menander was evidently a Jew, but his writings relating to this have been lost. For this reason, this writing of Josephus is considered secondary information, because the original documents he used have been lost.18-2
There is some interesting information associated with this information, which is why it cannot be completely ignored.
Scholars say that the related events in the chronology of Tyre between the reigns of Hiram and Pygmalion have been confirmed from three sources, the Bible account, the account of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III and the writings of the Roman historian Pompeius Trogus.18-3
However, there seems to be one slightly peculiar feature related to this.
The events coincide with the reign of Pygmalion, King of Tyre. His sister Dido is said to have fled from her brother and founded the Carthaginian city of Carthage.
This is said to have happened in the 7th year of Pygmalion's reign. The historian Menander, quoted by Josephus, says that this took place 155 years after the accession of Hiram and 143 years after Solomon began building the temple.18-4 When the chronology of Tyre is timed in this way, it is found that this 7th year of Pygmalion dates from 891 BCE. As will be noted later, there was an error of about five years in this Menander calculation, that 1st period was apparently about 160 years rather than 155 years.
But there may also be another error in this Tyrian chronology, which is not so significant. It would seem that the reign of Hiram I was much longer than Menander's estimate, because in the Bible it is said that he supplied cedar wood to David for the construction of the palace. It may be that this palace was built well before the end of David's reign.18-5 David is described as having walked 'on the roof of the king's palace' even before Solomon was born.18-6 David probably built his palace sometime in the 1060s BCE. However, this fact creates a new problem, as Hiram I would have ruled for at least about 60 years. In this thesis, a new assumption is made.
With the word 'you', Solomon did not necessarily mean Hiram personally,18-5 but the kingdom of Tyre. In this treatise, King ’Hiram Unknown’, whose reign ended in 1059 BCE., has been added to the chronology of Tyre.
The king of Tyre mentioned by Menander, Balazeros II, is thought to be the same as the Ba'li-ma-An-zer (or Baal-Eser II) whom Shalmaneser III says was king of Tyre his 18th year of reign.18-7 If Menander's list is applied to this point, then the reign of this king of Tyre would end in 907 BCE. If we look at the earlier mentions in the NCUSES, we find that the reign of Shalmaneser III would not begin until 904 BCE. There seems to be a clear contradiction here. Could it be a mistake in the chronology of Tyre? Let's look at it a little more closely.
King Ethbaal of Tyre
Both Baal-Ezer II and Jehu were involved with Shalmaneser III in his 18th year of reign.
In this thesis, it is considered appropriate to apply the year 1078 BCE. that came up earlier solar eclipse. This inscription of Shalmaneser III is currently such an archaeological find that would speak strongly in favor of its application. It seems that for some researchers, arranging the chronologies to suit it while keeping the biblical history in place seems too challenging and maybe also theoretical, so it is generally not considered probable. To apply it, they would obviously need more archaeological evidence. Another piece of information related to this may be surprising. It seems that according to scholars, one of the biggest reasons for displacing biblical chronology seems to be solar and lunar eclipses (some of which have already been discussed in previous chapters), which they have erroneously applied to Assyrian and Babylonian chronology.
In this treatise, it is considered likely that Shalmaneser III became king much earlier, around 919 BCE.
Another feature related to chronology should also be taken into account here, namely the way in which the timing of the Syrian kings affects it.
King Hazael of Syria
These books of the Bible's Kings also tell about Hazael becoming king of Syria.18-9 The exact time of the beginning of his reign cannot be deduced from the Bible's account, but it happened in about 910 BCE.
Shalmaneser III fought against Hazael in his 18th regnal year, but failed to conquer Syria.18-10 It seems that Hazael's reign ended without violence after he ruled for about 45 years.18-11 If we take that estimate from the beginning of his reign, it seems to have ended in approximately 865 BCE. Hazael is said to have been at war with Israel as long as Israel's king Jehoahaz lived.18-12 Jehoahaz's reign ended, according to the Bible's chronology, around 859 BCE.
Previously, a theoretical assessment of how in 791 BCE. was mentioned. the solar eclipse that occurred could somehow fit into the history of Assyria.18-13 However, this timing of Hazael's reign almost completely eliminates that option, as the 18th year of Shalmaneser III's reign would date to 869 BCE. This would mean that the Assyrian chronology would have to be extended more than usual.
Hadadezer, king of Syria
The Black Obelisk, commissioned by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, reveals another piece of information that points to a discrepancy between the old chronology and the biblical history. Salmanasar says that in his 6th year of the reign, the Syrian king Hadadezer and some other kings joined forces to fight against Assyria18-10 and he fought against this Syrian king even in the 11th year of his reign. This Hadadezer or Ben-Hadad ('son of Hadad') was the king of Syria before the aforementioned Hazael and his reign ended around 910-909 BCE.
In this treatise, that 6th year of Shalmaneser III's reign roughly falls in 914 BCE.
This is another archeological piece of information that supports that 1078 BCE. should be applied from the solar eclipse to the 7th year of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak's reign.
Moving the chronology in this way is a new feature in this new edition of this thesis and can be a surprising situation. However, this shifting of the Assyrian chronology in this way is supported by the history of Israel, the Syrian chronology, the chronology of Tyre and the solar eclipse of 1078 BCE.
A brief summary can therefore be made of how simple it is to justify dating the beginning of Shalmaneser III's reign to approximately 919 BCE. and moving Babylonian chronology at this point as far back:
It can also be observed that in 1078 BCE. the solar eclipse that took place is the only one that adequately covers this time stream. It may be noted that the only equally covering solar eclipse was in May 1012 BCE., but that is several decades too late, given all the evidence previously presented.
Extending the chronology
Here we notice the benefit of the hist ppmory of the Bible when studying history. If the Bible did not say anything about how the history of Syria overlaps with the history of Israel, organizing the chronology of Assyria and Babylonia could be much more challenging.
Extending the Assyrian chronology further may seem awkward. It could be assumed to be related to a periodbefore the reign of Ashur-Dan III, as there may be a strong temptation to apply the solar eclipse of 809 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. In contrast, in the Babylonian chronology, such an extension may seem easier.
Instead, Babylonian chronology supports such an extension.It could be assumed to be related to a period before the reign of Ashur-Dan III, as there may be a strong temptation to apply the solar eclipse of 809 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ahur-Dan III. In contrast, in the Babylonian chronology, such an extension may seem easier.
But let's think about these things without thinking about what would feel most comfortable. Then it is discovered that the Assyrian chronology could be extended by applying the solar eclipse of April 2nd, 824 BCE. to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. This would pose two problems: 1. The calendar would have rolled back by about two months in that year. 2. the combined reigns of Pulu and Tiglath-Pileser III would be longer than usual, about 54 years.
Earlier, in the 20th and 21th centuries BCE. and even hundreds of years later, such a large backward drift of the calendar was quite common. It can be seen in the EAE cuneiform inscriptions related to that time, which will be discussed in a little more detail later. Such a large backward movement of the calendar may seem very rare even in the 8th century BCE. Could it be possible? Let's do a little math.
During one year, the calendar goes back 11 days. In three years, the calendar runs backwards already 33 days, it seems that in the Neo-Babylonian time, one extra month was added to the year every three years. In the past, however, this addition of a month to the calendar could sometimes take place with a longer delay. Just a five-year break in that matter would move the calendar back 55 days. Such a break may have been possible during that time. It can be assumed that at the beginning of April 824 BCE. the solar eclipse that occurred was not so impossible that it could not be applied to the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III. So, this new edition applies this option because it allows the Assyrian chronology to be more accurate.
This is 254 years later than the solar eclipse in the 7th year of the reign of Shimbar-Shipak in 1078 BCE. In the old chronology, the difference between the reigns of these kings (7th year of Shimbar-Shipak - 9th year of Ashur-Dan III) is the same.
Secondly, the preface told us that, according to the historian Josephus, King Pul of Assyria reigned for 36 years. Applying this to the solar eclipse of 824 BCE., the length of Pul's reign is precisely 36 years. It may be interesting to note that the latter can only be possible if the reigns of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II and Sennacherib are to be overlapped, as they are in this new edition.
In the NCUSES, Marduk-zapik-sumi I's reign has been considerably shortened to make the chronology fit 1060 BCE. to the solar eclipse. In this edition of the treatise, the Babylonian chronology is put in place when the length of his reign is extended to the more commonly used 36 years.
Salmanasar III's reign cannot be determined with certainty to the exact year. It could have started around 920 BCE. at the earliest. This definition is because King Jehu of Israel, whose reign began about 905 BCE., sent tribute to Shalmaneser III in his 18th year.
And his reign could have started no later than around 917 BCE. This is because he was at war with King Hadadezer of Syria in his 11th year of reign. King Jehoram of Israel was at war with Hazael, the next king of Syria, around 905 BCE.18-14
Scholars have generally taken a negative view of the use of biblical chronology as a scientific source. However, the eclipse of the sun in the 7th year of the reign of the Babylonian king Shimbar-Shipak provides more support for the biblical chronology than the current old chronology.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment