Moab named Salamanu, but there is no historical basis for connecting him with a “despoiling” in Israel.

Shalman is therefore most generally thought to be a shortened form of “Shalmaneser,” the name of five Assyrian kings. Shalmaneser V emerges as the most likely person here referred to, for toward the end of Hosea’s period of prophesying, Shalmaneser V invaded Israel and laid siege to Samaria.

SHALMANESER

(Shal·man·eʹser) [the god Shulman is chief].

Five different Assyrian monarchs bore this name; however, only two of them appear to have had direct contact with Israel: Shalmaneser III and Shalmaneser V. Only the latter is actually mentioned in the Bible account.

1. Shalmaneser III succeeded his father Ashurnasirpal to the Assyrian throne. In one inscription he speaks of himself as “the king of the world, the king without rival, the ‘Great Dragon,’ the [only] power within the [four] rims [of the earth].” He is considered to have ruled for about thirty-five years. Thirty-one of those years appear to have been employed in warring campaigns to maintain and extend Assyrian dominion. Shalmaneser III made repeated thrusts to the W against the Aramaean kingdoms in Syria.

HIS INSCRIPTION SUPPOSEDLY INVOLVING AHAB

In the Monolith Inscription of Shalmeneser III a description is given of the battle of Qarqar (near Hamath in the Orontes Valley), fought in the sixth year of Shalmaneser’s reign. The Assyrians there battled an enemy coalition of twelve kings, primarily Syrians. However, in the list appears one called A-ha-ab-bu ^matSir-ʼi-la-a-a. This name is regularly translated as “Ahab the Israelite” in modern reference works, and the participation of Ahab in the battle as an ally of the Syrians is popularly viewed as an accepted fact. Yet, the Bible makes no mention of such event and, despite the apparent similarity in the names, there are serious reasons for doubting the identification of A-ha-ab-bu ^matSir-ʼi-la-a-a with Ahab of Israel. The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899, Vol. I, column 91), referring to this name, says “. . . Ahabbu Sirʼlai, which, as most scholars are now agreed, can only mean Ahab of Israel (or, as Hommel thinks, of Jezreel).” [Italics ours] This shows that the identification was not always as generally accepted as today, and shows as well that the translation of ^matSirʼi-la-a-a as “Israelite” has also been subject to doubt. It may be noted that ^matSir-ʼi-la-a-a is not the term used elsewhere in Assyrian inscriptions to refer to the northern kingdom of Israel. In other Assyrian inscriptions of the time that land is referred to either by the name of its capital Samaria (Samerina in the inscriptions) or as Bit Hu-um-ri-a (land of Omri), an expression still used a century after the death of Omri.

Shalmaneser’s inscriptions show that in his eighteenth year of rule, or twelve years after the battle of Qarqar, he fought against Hazael of Damascus and also that: “At that time I received the tribute of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and of Jehu, son of Omri.” Thus, the identification of A-ha-ab-bu with King Ahab would create a contradiction of the Bible chronology which shows that between Ahab’s death and Jehu’s reign there intervened a period of approximately fourteen years, covering the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram. (1 Ki. 22:51; 2 Ki. 3:1) Though most commentators would place Ahab’s supposed joining the Syrian alliance toward the close of his reign, this still does not fit the Bible’s chronological framework. Recognizing this problem, scholars Kamphausen and Kittel offered the suggestion that ‘Ahab’s name has been confused with that of Jehoram’ in the Assyrian records. (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 53) There is, however, no record in the Bible of any such participation by Jehoram in the battle of Qarqar.

It is also difficult to explain why Ahab would unite with the hard-set enemies of Israel in such a coalition. Thus, The Encyclopedia Americana (1956 ed., Vol. I, p. 269) says, “. . . we find [Ahab] strangely allied with his old enemy Benhadad against Shalmaneser (q.v.) of Assyria, though one would suppose he would gladly have seen Benhadad crushed, and Assyria was no immediate danger.” Ahab had just fought two wars with the Syrians, and though there was a brief period of nonaggression between Israel and Syria, in the third year of that period Ahab fought a final conflict with them, losing his life. (1 Ki. 22:1-4, 34-37) The efforts made at explaining his entry into the Syrian combine, either as a willing ally or as under compulsion, are not convincing.

Finally, the large force attributed to A-ha-ab-bu in Shalmaneser’s inscription does not ring true with the Biblical indications of Israel’s war equipment. A-ha-ab-bu is listed as bringing “2000 chariots” with him, more than any of the other kings in the alliance. Recognizing the difficulty here, the advocates of A-ha-ab-bu’s identification with King Ahab only compound the strangeness of the whole situation by suggesting a further strange union of Judean, Tyrian, Edomite and even Moabite contingents with Ahab’s forces to fill out the needed number of chariots! (Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, column 92; The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh ed., Vol. I, p. 429) It may be noted that in his reign even powerful King Solomon had only 1,400 chariots.—1 Ki. 10:26.

In view of all the above points, it appears entirely possible that the translation of A-ha-ab-bu ^matSir-ʼi-la-a-a as “Ahab the Israelite” is not the correct rendering and that the decipherers of the inscription were perhaps overly eager to see in the name an association with a known figure of history. It may be noted that in the same inscription reference is made to Musri, and, although this term is elsewhere used to refer to Egypt, the translators here reject such connection as illogical and suggest that the name “refers probably to a country in southern Asia Minor.” There seem to be equally good reasons for viewing the connection of ^matSir-ʼi-la-a-a with Israel as illogical. Time may prove this to be the case.

The principal leaders in the Syrian coalition that Shalmaneser III faced at Qarqar appear to have been King Adadiri of Damascus and King Irhuleni of Hamath. Shalmaneser claims to have gained a great victory in the battle but the results were evidently not sufficiently decisive to allow for further Assyrian advance in the W. Thus, additional battles against Adadiri of Damascus are listed during succeeding years.

HIS INSCRIPTIONS CONCERNING HAZAEL AND JEHU

In fulfillment of Jehovah’s prophecy through Elijah, Hazael, the chamberlain of King Ben-hadad of Damascus, killed his master and became king, probably toward the close of the reign of King Jehoram (c. 917-905 B.C.E.). (2 Ki. 8:7-15) An inscription of Shalmaneser III confirms this, stating: “Hadadezer [Adad-ʼidri, evidently Ben-hadad of Damascus] perished. Hazael, a commoner [or, literally ‘a son of a nobody’], seized the throne.” Conflicts with Hazael are mentioned in Shalmaneser’s eighteenth and twenty-first years, with the Assyrian gaining victories but never able to take Damascus.

The name of King Jehu of Israel (c. 904-876 B.C.E.) also appears on the “Black Obelisk” of Shalmaneser III (now at the British Museum) accompanying a relief depicting what appears to be an ambassador of Jehu kneeling before the Assyrian king and bringing him presents. The inscription states: “The tribute of Ia·uʹa [Jehu], son of Hu·um·ri [meaning a successor of Omri]; I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king.” This tribute is not mentioned in the Bible account concerning Jehu, and, while such action may quite possibly have been taken by the Israelite king in view of the conditions described at 2 Kings 10:31-33, it should