Difference between revisions of "Achav, Aram, and the Battle of Qarqar/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Extra-Biblical Sources | <category>Extra-Biblical Sources | ||
| − | <p>Extra-Biblical sources do not speak of the Israelite wars with Aram discussed at the end of Sefer Melakhim I, but they do describe another interaction between the two powers, an alliance made by Ben-Hadad and Achav against | + | <p>Extra-Biblical sources do not speak of the Israelite wars with Aram discussed at the end of Sefer Melakhim I, but they do describe another interaction between the two powers, an alliance made by Ben-Hadad and Achav against the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, in the Battle of Qarqar. Significantly, this took place in 853 BCE, right in between the two battles mentioned above.</p> |
| − | <p>The Battle of Qarqar is discussed on the <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=150815001&objectid=367117">Kurkh Monolith</a>,<fn>The stele was discovered by J. Taylor in 1861 and is named after the location in which it was found. It is currently housed in the British Museum. The stele is made of limestone, and stands about 7 feet tall.  The inscription is written in Assyrian cuneiform.</fn> a stele which | + | <p>The Battle of Qarqar is discussed on the <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=150815001&objectid=367117">Kurkh Monolith</a>,<fn>The stele was discovered by J. Taylor in 1861 and is named after the location in which it was found. It is currently housed in the British Museum. The stele is made of limestone, and stands about 7 feet tall.  It depicts Shalmaneser III standing before four divine emblems: (1) the winged disk, symbol of the god Ashur or Shamash; (2) the six-pointed star of Ishtar (3) the crown of the sky-god Anu and (4) the crescent of the god Sin. The inscription is written in Assyrian cuneiform and runs across the stele.</fn> a stele which describes the various military campaigns Shalmaneser III undertook in the first six years of his reign.<fn>The battle is also mentioned in later editions of the annals of Shalmaneser, and alluded to in the Black Obelisk Inscription, but it is only in the Kurkh monolith that Achav is mentioned by name.</fn>  According to the stele, in 853 BCE, the Assyrians met a coalition of "12 kings" at Qarqar in Syria.<fn>The inscription goes on to list only 11 names.  As such, it is possible that the phrase "twelve kings" is a scribal error, or, alternatively, that it is simply an expression used to denote a large alliance of enemy kings and does not signify a specific number.</fn> Hadadezer of Damascus<fn>Hadadezer is the equivalent of Tanakh's Ben Hadad.</fn> and Irhuleni of Hamath stood at the head of the alliance, while Achav of Israel provided major military support.<fn>The inscription attributes to him 2000 chariots (which is more than that of all the other countries combined) and 10,000 soldiers. In addition, he is listed third, suggesting that he was the next most important member of the coalition. See, though, H. Tadmor, "Que and Musri", IEJ 11:3,(1961):144 and N. Naaman, "<a href="http://www.academia.edu/12934222/Two_Notes_on_the_Monolith_Inscription_of_Shalmaneser_III_from_Kurkh_Tel_Aviv_3_1976_pp._89-106">Two Notes on the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh,</a>" Tel Aviv 3 (1976): 89-106 who point out that the number 2000 is likely a scribal error.  Even the much larger Assyrian army only records having that many chariots.  A. Malamat <a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/rishonim/melmet.htm">מלחמות ,ישראל ואשור</a> in היסטוריה צבאית של ארץ ישראל בימי המקרא, ed. Y. Liver (Jerusalem, 1964): 240-261, on the other hand, suggests that Achav might have headed an army composed from other nations in the area who were his vassals or allies (such as Yehuda).  The chariots, thus, did not come from Israel alone.</fn> After delineating the number of soldiers and chariots supplied by each king, Shalmaneser declares himself victorious, and claims to have slain 14,000 of his enemies.<fn>undefined</fn>  It should be noted, however, that despite the king's claims, it seems that the battle's outcome was not decisive. None of the listed kings appear to have lost their thrones, and Shalmaneser embarks on several more campaigns to the region in the ensuing years, suggesting that his goals had not been achieved.</p> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Relationship to Tanakh | <category>Relationship to Tanakh | ||
| − | <p>The information gleaned about the Battle of Qarqar might shed light on Achav's motives in freeing Ben Hadad. The | + | <p>The information gleaned about the Battle of Qarqar might shed light on Achav's motives in freeing Ben Hadad. The statement, "וַאֲנִי בַּבְּרִית אֲשַׁלְּחֶךָּ," apparently relates to the coalition spoken of on the monolith.  It is likely that Achav recognized that Assyria was a much bigger enemy than Aram, and that it was politically expedient to make peace with Aram so the two could work together to topple the real superpower.<fn>See A. Grossman, "השימוש ברקע הסטורי בהוראת נביאים ראשונים" in הוראת המקרא (Jerusalem, 1985): 294-297 and Y. Aharoni, "ארץ ישראל בתקופת המקרא" (Jerusalem, 1988): 258-260.</fn> Thus the two made an alliance, issuing in a couple of years of cooperation between the powers. They joined to battle Assyria, but once there was relative quiet on that front, the two resumed their old feud.</p> |
| − | <p> | + | <p>If the above reconstruction is correct, might question the prophet's negative reaction to Achav's deed.  Why was he so upset if Achav' motives were pure and he was acting in the country's best interests?</p> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Prof. Grossman<fn>See article cited above.</fn> points out that | + | <li>Prof. Grossman<fn>See article cited above.</fn> points out that the prophet's response was in line with the general prophetic opposition to making alliances with foreign nations. Such alliances were looked down upon as they often brought foreign spiritual influences in their wake.<fn>See Melakhim II 16 regarding Achav's alliance with Tiglat Pilesser and his ensuing cultic changes in the Mikdash.</fn> In addition, they expressed the belief that victory is a matter of military power, and not God's doing.</li> |
<li>The prophetic wrath might also relate to the events of Chapter 21, and the story of Navot's Vineyard. In that episode Achav allows a judicial farce so as to have the innocent Navot killed. The prophet decries Achav's willingness to let a national enemy survive, while at home he kills his own citizens.</li> | <li>The prophetic wrath might also relate to the events of Chapter 21, and the story of Navot's Vineyard. In that episode Achav allows a judicial farce so as to have the innocent Navot killed. The prophet decries Achav's willingness to let a national enemy survive, while at home he kills his own citizens.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
Version as of 14:51, 3 February 2018
Achav, Aram, and the Battle of Qarqar
Biblical Sources
Melakhim I 20 and 22 discuss the foreign relations between Aram and Israel during the reign of Achav.
- In Chapter 20, Ben Hadad, the king of Aram, initiates war and is defeated. He and his servants surrender, don mourning garments, and approach the Israelites in the hopes that Achav will have mercy and spare them death. Somewhat surprisingly, Achav greets him without malice, saying "הַעוֹדֶנּוּ חַי אָחִי הוּא." Ben Hadad offers to return to Achav certain Israelite cities previously conquered by Aram and the two make an alliance.1 The prophetic reaction to Achav's actions is severe, and the king is told that he will pay with his life for having sent Ben Hadad free.
- Chapter 22 tells of another battle between Aram and Israel, which takes place just three years after the previous one. This time, Achav is the initiator, and the point of contention is Aram's possession of Ramot Gilad. During the war, Achav meets his death as an archer innocently hits him by arrow, fulfilling the prophecy of Chapter 20.
Extra-Biblical Sources
Extra-Biblical sources do not speak of the Israelite wars with Aram discussed at the end of Sefer Melakhim I, but they do describe another interaction between the two powers, an alliance made by Ben-Hadad and Achav against the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, in the Battle of Qarqar. Significantly, this took place in 853 BCE, right in between the two battles mentioned above.
The Battle of Qarqar is discussed on the Kurkh Monolith,2 a stele which describes the various military campaigns Shalmaneser III undertook in the first six years of his reign.3 According to the stele, in 853 BCE, the Assyrians met a coalition of "12 kings" at Qarqar in Syria.4 Hadadezer of Damascus5 and Irhuleni of Hamath stood at the head of the alliance, while Achav of Israel provided major military support.6 After delineating the number of soldiers and chariots supplied by each king, Shalmaneser declares himself victorious, and claims to have slain 14,000 of his enemies.7 It should be noted, however, that despite the king's claims, it seems that the battle's outcome was not decisive. None of the listed kings appear to have lost their thrones, and Shalmaneser embarks on several more campaigns to the region in the ensuing years, suggesting that his goals had not been achieved.
Relationship to Tanakh
The information gleaned about the Battle of Qarqar might shed light on Achav's motives in freeing Ben Hadad. The statement, "וַאֲנִי בַּבְּרִית אֲשַׁלְּחֶךָּ," apparently relates to the coalition spoken of on the monolith. It is likely that Achav recognized that Assyria was a much bigger enemy than Aram, and that it was politically expedient to make peace with Aram so the two could work together to topple the real superpower.8 Thus the two made an alliance, issuing in a couple of years of cooperation between the powers. They joined to battle Assyria, but once there was relative quiet on that front, the two resumed their old feud.
If the above reconstruction is correct, might question the prophet's negative reaction to Achav's deed. Why was he so upset if Achav' motives were pure and he was acting in the country's best interests?
- Prof. Grossman9 points out that the prophet's response was in line with the general prophetic opposition to making alliances with foreign nations. Such alliances were looked down upon as they often brought foreign spiritual influences in their wake.10 In addition, they expressed the belief that victory is a matter of military power, and not God's doing.
- The prophetic wrath might also relate to the events of Chapter 21, and the story of Navot's Vineyard. In that episode Achav allows a judicial farce so as to have the innocent Navot killed. The prophet decries Achav's willingness to let a national enemy survive, while at home he kills his own citizens.
