The Last Years of Samaria

Following the reign of Adad-Nirari III, Assyria once again lapsed into a period of weakness during which three kings ruled for approximately four decades. Since the Assyrian army did not campaign into Palestine during this period, Jeroboam II of Israel used the opportunity to expand his holdings at the expense of his now-weakened northern neighbor Damascus. The Biblical record states that he "restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath [in central Syria] as far as the Sea of the Arabah [the Gulf of Aqabah]" (2 Kings 14:25, R.S.V.). Thus the first half of the eighth century was a time of expansion and prosperity for the northern kingdom; this prosperity led to many of the abuses that were denounced by Amos and Hosea.

The political and military successes of Jeroboam's reign, with their attendant prosperity, were not to last, however, and within a quarter of a century the northern kingdom came to an end. The turning point, as far as factors external to Israel were concerned, came with the accession of Tiglath-pileser III to the throne of Assyria in 745. During the first two years of his reign he directed his army against Babylon to the south and the state of Namri in the north. With these two quarters attended to, Tiglathpileser turned his attention to the west, where he campaigned five out of the next six years. The first three of these campaigns were expended upon Arpad, the same site taken first by Adad-Nirari III. Arpad, like Carchemish, was strategically important as a guard of the routes from the north and east into central Syria. With Arpad conquered, Tiglathpileser was free to turn his attention to objectives that lay farther to the south. Considering the amount of time Tiglathpileser spent in the west between 743 and 738, it was only natural that he eventu ally came in contact with a king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and Menahem was that king.

Menahem's payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser

This payment of tribute is well documented both in the Bible and in the Assyrian king's inscriptions.

"Pul the king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thou sand talents of silver, that he might help to confirm his hold of the royal power. Menahem exacted the money from Israel, that is, from all the wealthy men, fifty shekels of silver from every man, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and did not stay there in the land" (chap. 15:19, 20, R.S.V.).

The king of Assyria called Pulin this passage was Tiglath-pileser III. This can be inferred from the Bible itself, since 2 Kings 15:29 goes on to state that Tiglath-pileser was the king of Assyria who conquered a considerable portion of the northern kingdom in the days of Pekah, the king who came to the throne two years after Menahem died.

When Assyria was stronger than Babylon it was able to conquer the latter kingdom. When this happened the Assyrian kings governed Babylon in one of several ways. Sometimes they put a loyal Babylonian on the throne, some times they installed an Assyrian official or prince as king, and sometimes the Assyrian king took the title to the throne of Babylon himself, which is what Tig lath-pileser did during the last two years of his reign (728-727), according to the Babylonian King List A. When an Assyrian king took the title to the throne of Babylon, he commonly employed a new royal or throne name there. Thus, while Tiglath-pileser was this king's royal name in Assyria, his throne name in Babylon was Pul(u), and this was the name by which the Biblical author, writ ing from a point in time subsequent to the end of his reign, chose to identify him in the passage quoted above.

As a result of his victories in the west, Tiglath-pileser received tribute from quite a few kings of that region in addition to Menahem. The western kings who paid such tribute are listed in three places in the Assyrian king's inscriptions, and Menahem appears in all three lists. Two of these lists occur in the Assyrian king's annals a short list given in the course of the passage that describes his western campaigns of 743- 738 and a long summary list at the end of that section. In 1972 L. D. Levine published a stela of Tiglath-pileser from Iran that includes Menahem in a list of western tributaries. In all three instances Menahem is identified as a Samarian.

Because of the unusual arrangement of Tiglath-pileser's annals, it has been difficult to determine the year in which Menahem paid his tribute to this king. Ordinarily, Assyrian royal annals were written with year-by-year entries that were labeled, and sometimes delimited by lines drawn across the clay tablets. Unfortunately, for us, Tiglath-pileser's annals were not so well organized. All of his western campaigns (conducted from 743 to 738, according to the Eponym List) have been lumped together, and the datelines skip from his third year to his ninth year. The Eponym List suggests a reasonable date for Menahem to have paid his tribute—740, after Tiglathpileser completed his conquest of Arpad. The short list of the annals that includes Menahem's name fits well with this date since it is located in the middle of the account of the western campaigns con ducted from 743 to 738. The Iran Stela lends some support to that date by listing a different and earlier king of Tyre as a tribute payer with Menahem, in contrast to the longer and later summary list of the annals. I would suggest that Mena hem paid his tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 740 and died in 739.

The Samaria ostraca

Some 63 ostraca, shards of pottery with writing in ink on them, were dis covered during the Harvard University excavations at Samaria prior to World War I. These ostraca have remained somewhat of an enigma. The purpose of the ostraca is clear: they were receipts for taxes delivered to the royal store houses in Samaria by agents of the king, who collected them from different locations in the northern kingdom. The king or kings with whom they should be connected, however, has been a matter of considerable debate. G. A. Reisner, who excavated the ostraca, dated them to Ahab. We now know that this date is too early, because of the type of pottery upon which they were written, the level in the excavations in which they were found, and the date of the script in which they were written.

All of these factors converge to date the Samaria ostraca late in the life of the northern kingdom. Most scholars date them to the time of Jeroboam II, but the Israeli scholar Y. Yadin has held they should be connected with Menahem. The reason for this is that a large number of them date to the years 9 and 10, and Menahem was the only king of the northern kingdom who reigned exactly 10 years (see 2 Kings 15:17). Yadin was unable, however, to explain the ostraca dated to year 15. Another Israeli scholar, Y. Aharoni, emphasized that the ostraca clearly divide into two groups. He argued this not only on the basis of their dates but also on the basis of the personal and place names mentioned by them and the way in which the receipt formula was written. Aharoni's conclusion was that the two different sets of ostraca belonged to two different kings.

Working from these two suggestions, that of Yadin to date the ostraca from 9 and 10 to Menahem and that of Aharoni to date those from year 15 to another king, I would suggest that the second set of ostraca belongs to Pekah, the next king of importance to reign after Men ahem. The objection to this suggestion has been that the dated inscriptions from Assyria allow Pekah a reign of only eight years, from 740 when Menahem paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser until 732 when Tiglath-pileser confirmed Hoshea, Pekah's successor, upon the throne of Israel. However, 2 Kings 15:27 gives the length of Pekah's reign as twenty years. E. R. Thiele has explained this difference by attributing Pekah's excess years to a period of time, dating from Jeroboam's death, during which Pekah set himself up as a rival ruler in Gilead. When Pekah assassinated Pekahiah and assumed the throne of Samaria, he simply dated his regnal years in continuity with those he had already established in Gilead. In this way the ostraca written in Samaria dated to year 15 can be attributed to Pekah while those dated to years 9 and 10 can be connected with Menahem, who ruled before him.

The Syro-Ephraimite War

Pekah of Samaria and Rezin of Damascus joined forces to fight against Ahaz of Judah. They besieged Jerusalem but could not conquer it (see chap. 16:5). This episode is known as the Syro-Ephraimite War because Syria or Damascus joined forces with Ephraim or Samaria in this venture. This placed Ahaz in a very difficult position, and he called upon Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria, for help, accompanying his re quest with silver and gold from the Temple (see verses 7, 8). The Assyrians did intervene, and as a result, Rezin's kingdom was decimated and Damascus was destroyed (see verse 9). The Eponym List indicates that two campaigns were required for this conquest, 733 and 732, and the annals also describe these events:

"I laid siege to and conquered the town Hadara, the inherited property of Rezin of Damascus [the place where] he was born. I brought away as prisoners 800 (of its) inhabitants with their possessions, . . . their large (and) small cattle. 750 prisoners from Kurussa, [. . . prisoners] from Irma, 550 prisoners from Metuna I brought (also) away. 592 towns ... of the 16 districts of the country of Damascus I destroyed, (making them look) like hills of (ruined cities over which) the flood (had swept)."

Having taken care of Damascus, Tiglath-pileser turned his attention to the other partner in this alliance, Samaria. The Bible refers to the devastating effects of the extension of this campaign into Israelite territory.

"In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Gali lee, all the land of Naphtali; and he car ried the people captive to Assyria" (2 Kings 15:29, R.S.V.). Tiglath-pileser's annals refer to this turn of events cryptically: "All the inhabitants of Israel and their possessions I led to Assyria." It was at this time, and perhaps as a result of the disastrous consequences of Pekah's policies, that Hoshea assassinated Pekah and took over the rule of Israel. Both the Bible and the Assyrian annals refer to this event, albeit in slightly different terms. Second Kings 15:30 states: "Then Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him down, and slew him, and reigned in his stead" (R.S.V.).

Tiglath-pileser's annals acknowledge that Pekah was assassinated by residents of the northern kingdom, but they do not specifically identify the individuals involved in the plot. Tiglath-pileser took credit for installing Hoshea as king in Samaria, but from the Biblical point of view this installation should be viewed more as a confirmation of what had already taken place. The annals add the detail of how much tribute Tiglathpileser took away from Samaria at this time, which is not mentioned in the Biblical account.

"They overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold and 1,000(?) talents of silver as their [tribute and brought them to Assyria."

The fall of Samaria

According to 2 Kings 18:9-11, Shalmaneser (V) was the Assyrian king who conquered Samaria after a siege of three years.

"In the fourth year of the King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it and at the end of the three years he took it. In the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. The king of Assyria carried the Israelites away to Assyria, and put them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (R.S.V.).

Unfortunately for the historian, Shalmaneser V's annals have never been found. On the other hand, we do have quite a few historical tests from Sargon II, the king who succeeded Shalmaneser, and he claims to have conquered Samaria. This claim can be seen in titles he applied to himself, such as the "conquerer of Samaria and of the entire country of Israel," and in such statements as "I besieged and conquered Samaria, and led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it." The question that arises from these conflicting statements is, Who really conquered Samaria? Did Shalmaneser conquer it as indicated in 2 Kings, or did Sargon conquer it as he claimed in his inscription?

The Eponym List is of little assistance here because the name of the objective for the three years of campaigns in question is badly damaged and illegible. The matter of impartiality favors the Biblical account. Although the loss of Samaria was a great disaster for the He brews, undoubtedly it was a matter of little moment to them whether that loss was caused by Shalmaneser or Sargon the net result was the same. The Assyrian king, on the other hand, could only have added to his prestige by claiming such a conquest. It is suspicious that references to the conquest of Samaria do not occur among the records that come from early in Sargon's reign; they come mainly from inscriptions attributable to his fifteenth and sixteenth years.

Finally, there is the Babylonian Chronicle, which may be looked upon as a relatively impartial source for information about Assyria and Samaria. It is also considered to be one of the most objective sources for the history of Mesopotamia during the periods for which it is available. Since the Babylonian Chronicle attributes the conquest of Samaria to Shalmaneser and not to Sargon, the weight of evidence supports the claim that the former king was indeed the conqueror of Samaria in 722 B.C. In Sargon's favor, however, it may be noted that he took over from Shalmaneser in December of that year and probably served as a general in the army before succeeding to the throne. Thus he probably did play an important part in directing the attack upon Samaria, though Shalmaneser V still is the most likely candidate for the king who ruled Assyria at the time Samaria fell to its army.

(To be continued.)