Talk:Kurkh Monoliths

why improbable

Why is Ahab's force called "improbable"? Bazuz (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ba'sa the man of Bit-Rahub

Ba'sa the man of Bit-Rahubi — that sounds allot like Ba'sha, the Biblical son of Jeroboam / Rehoaboam... some scholars think Jeroboam = Rehoaboam...

The Biblical Basha was of the Tribe of Issachar. If this "Rahubi" is a corruption of a Biblical name it's the Tribe of Reuban, which did settle in land that once belonged to Ammon. But this Ba'sa could not be the same individual as the King who reigned well before the time of Ahab and Jehu, simple a Namesake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendments to lead and interpretation

User:Tritomex, please explain your rationale here. Phrases like "widely accepted" and "minority of scholars" need sourcing themselves, so please provide a quote supporting them. And deleting of WP:RS needs a very strong explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Oncenawhile My proposed wording indeed reflects fully all the sources I have used, but it is also supported by yours and other sources..Grabbe, nowhere claims that the translation of "Israel" is controversial or being disputed. [1] P:142, The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn P.10. Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives By Jonathan Michael Golden P:275, As it is clear from this sources, there is no dispute regarding the translation of "Israel" in broad academic community. Concerning the sources used to explain this "dispute" Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones is a creationist theologian, "who supported a beginning age to life on earth of 4004 B.C" [2], Van Tyul has no any expertise from biblical history. [3] He is described as "Jan van Tuyl is not a professional biblical expert, but he is a dedicated, intelligent, and thorough scholar who has gone out of his way to include both secular and spiritual texts, well-known and rare treatises, and modern and ancient translations to examine the period of 5500 years that ran from the arrival of Adam in the Old Testament to the birth of Jesus in the Gospels. A New Chronology (when it pops) is an absorbing, amusing, historical narrative—relatively spiritual, but not above cracking the occasional joke. Van Tuyl raises questions that may mirror those of many curious readers. Did Moses really float down the Nile in a basket? Where did Adam and Eve get their clothes? How culpable was Pilate in Christ’s crucifixion?" 3)Oswald Thompson Allis was a Presbyterian creationist theologian who is described as "conservative Christian theologian who believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch". He does not have formal education from biblical history and as a theologian his views can only be valid references for religious (and not historic) views regarding Ahab. This are off course, not a reliable sources for this article.

There are a plenty of modern scholars and works dealing with this issue, we have good sources in this article, and nowhere the controversy regarding the meaning of "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" is mentioned.So this claim per WP:RS is unsourced. I indeed made a mistake as I did not checked fully the sources regarding "controversy" stated bellow. As they are fully out of any WP:RS my proposed wording for lead is the following: "This description contains the name "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" a proposed reference to Ahab of Israel. It is significant in biblical archaeology as the only known reference to Israel, under this name, in Assyrian records" with the removal of unsourced claims --Tritomex (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tritomex, on whether or not there was a dispute, the Schrader quote (in German) in note 12 explains it best. He says that the dispute ("Streit" in German) was based on the fact that the phonetic for "sir" doesn't match well with the first syllable of Israel.

There are many others who have disputed the identification, both modern and contemporary to the discovery. Here is another well researched recent piece, and another from a contemporary scholar Fritz Hommel (page 609). With respect to the other scholars you refer to above, when we consider whether a scholar is WP:RS, we consider the specific information that they are being used to justify - for example the fact that two of them are "creationists" should not stop them from raising questions around interpretations of cuneiform texts, particularly given that such ideology would surely normally lead someone to reach the opposite conclusion (i.e. to take for granted that Ahab should be found in archaeology). So I count 6 sources confirming a dispute (four in the article, plus two more here).

On the question of whether this is the only possible known artifact using the term "israel" in cuneiform, Grabbe is saying this clearly and he is following Schrader (quoted in the article in German). This source says the same thing "the sole appearance of the name Israel in cuneiform". Can you point me to another cuneiform artifact stating Israel? I have never seen one.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, The Kurkh Monolith is as you know referring to the extra-biblical war in a way that in many aspects contradicts biblical accounts of Ahab, who was presented as negative polytheistic minor ruler by the scripture. Creationist theologians are not sources for the article regarding biblical historicity. We can test them if you insist at WP:RS noticeboard, but I am sure that this 4 sources are fully useless.

I checked your additional sources.

Source number 1 (Please provide me details about the author and publisher), although raises personal questions, nowhere claims that the translation of Israel is not generally accepted as a fact today. On contrary it reinforces this assumption:

Ahab the Israelite” in modern reference works. (See Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 279.) "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 Encyclopædia Biblica (London, 1899, Vol. I, col. 91) says “The name of 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"

(actually I don't know what today means to this author)

So we have a source that claims that the "identification of Ahab and Israel" is today "generally accepted" However, the importance of this source is pending on who wrote it and I do not see the name author. Old scholarship of 19th century is outdated when faced with plenty of modern new evidence regarding Assyrian scriptures. The second text of Fritz Hommel is not just over 100 years old, its nowhere (as far as my knowledge of German allows to judge) shows any controversy regarding the meaning of Israel.

The creationists theologians without formal education from Biblical history were in all other similar cases defined as not reliable sources and are not reliable as references here. More so as 1)they have religious bias in this question 2) do not have formal education from historic sciences. The 2 other sources, although the origin of first is unknown to me, while the second one is outdated, do not indicate that there is "today" any dispute in the proposed wording. The same are the conclusions of Schrader, Grabbe, Greenspahn, Yamada, Nadav Neeman or Golden. Nowhere such dispute is even mentioned.

Concerning the issue of Israel, yes the Kurkh Monolith is the only Assrian artifact using the name of Israel in this way. The usual name for Israel was the land of Humri.

Shigeo Yamada in his work The Construction of the Assyrian Empire P:193 explains the question you have raised:

"The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"[4] that is why I think that using another (foreign, non Assyrian name) for special purposes (which was not unusual) is not of huge importance for biblical archaeology, as the standard Assyrian name for Israel is used in many other artifacts. So the current wording is per WP:RS unsourced. please see my proposed wording: "This description contains the name "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" a proposed reference to Ahab of Israel. It is significant in biblical archaeology as the only known reference to Israel, under this name, in Assyrian records"

--Tritomex (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tritomex, thanks for your thoughtful response. My thoughts on your points in turn:

1. I think we should test the sources you are questioning at WP:RSN insofar as they are being used to support the statement: "scholars have disputed the translation"
2. The source for the first link in my previous post is the official Jehovah's Witnesses encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2
3. I agree with you here - the article should be clear that Israel is the generally accepted reading
4. I do not agree that "Old scholarship of 19th century is outdated" in this subject. The late 19th century was the golden age of Assyriology, and many artifacts were not "re-analyzed" by scholars in subsequent generations. With respect to this artifact, another reference to "Sir-ila-a-a" hasn't been found in 150 years, so there is no relevant new evidence (at least none that I am aware of). If you can show me some thoughtful modern scholarly analysis on this artifact which brings "new evidence" then I would be delighted to read it, but I don't believe it exists. This situation is very common in biblical archeology, in which there still remains a backlog of hundreds of thousands of undeciphered artifacts, with very few true experts today (only a few hundred qualified cuneiformists in the world)
5. Other than the six sources we are discussing here, I don't think this article includes a single other "primary research" source. The rest of the sources (including Greenspahn, Yamada, Neeman and Golden) are all much broader works, which deal with the topic of this artifact superficially. Can you find any other "primary research" sources on this subject that you trust? It would be very useful to this discussion. I will look as well.
6. Hommel on p.609 states "[beziehungsweise] Jesreel als seiner Residenz" ("or Jezreel as his residence")
7. Per the above and your suggested rewording, I propose: "This description contains the name "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" a proposed reference to Ahab of Israel. Although scholars have disputed the translation, it is significant in biblical archaeology as the only known reference to the term "Israel" in cuneiform (i.e. Assyrian and Babylonian) records"

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, thanks for your response.

I agree with you,and I will present my case for this sources in coming days. What remains open as a question is the following:

1. The reaming sources, presented by you do not support the assumption that the translation is disputed. The Yehovah vitness encyclopedia 1) claims that the translation of Israel is today generally widely accepted 2) lacks any sources of quotation and authorship.
2. Even if I would agree, that sources from 19th century can be useful, none of this sources support the assumption that the translation is disputed. The Homel article says that the person named WAS IDENTIFIED as "Ahab of Israel" ( or Iesreel as his residence) nowhere examines such dispute (as far as my German knowledge allows to judge). However more than 100 years of scholarship on this question is in front of this book, including Yamada specific explanation of this issue, based on artifacts discovered and translated much later.
3. Primary sources, in eventual controversial issues, would be problematic also. However the fact that this primary sources were authored by 1) creationist theologians and people without formal education from the field 2) and is not supported, or even mentioned by any reliable scholarship outside their work, in my opinion disqualify them as useless.
4. Your proposed wording does not reflect, what both of use seems to agree namely that "Israel is the generally accepted reading"--Tritomex (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"What's in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation", Brad E. Kelle, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Winter, 2002), pp. 639-666 has a useful discussion on this issue. Zero^talk 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed a very informative source.--Tritomex (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks. I have also added a useful table at Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)#List_of_proposed_Assyrian_references_to_Samaria from this source. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reliable source noticeboard disccusion on this issue

[5]--Tritomex (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - seems clear.

Any objections to quoting Allis directly, making clear that he is a theologian? His work on the Old Testament is notable and widely cited:

Allis, Oswald Thompson (1972), The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 414-417, ISBN 9780801000379, The name of Ahabbu's country is given as Sir'ila-a-a. The reading is somewhat uncertain, since the first character might also be read as shud or shut. Even if sir is correct, the name is a poor spelling of Israel; and it is double questionable because nowhere else on Assyrian tablets is Israel given this name.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Allis was discussed at WRS noticeboard and was unanimously found as unreliable for historic claims regarding the Bible and biblical figures. He denied historic evidences which contradicted biblical narratives.--Tritomex (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, only User:Ian.thomson specifically commented on Allis; others commented on the source which was quoting him. I just think his statement "the name is a poor spelling of Israel" is a very reasonable observation which we don't otherwise have in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If there's an outside and reliable source documenting his view, sure. The website could be acceptable (but unnecessary given that we have the book) as an additional source to prove the quote is indeed him, but neither the website nor his book are reliable for whether his views are due weight, since his other books (particularly his advocacy of the Mosaic authorship of the Torah) leave me unconvinced he's mainstream. If another theological or religiously-driven historical revisionist work discusses (not merely cites) his work, however, I would not be opposed to mentioning that it's a position among some fundamentalists. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Shrader

Text said about Shrader that he "published the first partial translation of " the Shalmaneser III stela, and the only source provided for this is Shrader's book itself. The book does not claim to be the first of anything, nor does it claim to offer a partial translation. If you look at Shrader's book, it is a strange thing... he basically goes through the Hebrew Bible verse by verse, and picks out words, and discusses how they are discussed in cuneiform texts. This is some kind of strange word study. Nowhere does Shrader do a partial translation. So I changed "published the first partial translation of " to "dealt with part of". Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I definitely read that he published the first partial translation, but I no longer remember the source, so I agree with your edit.

I will add re Julius Oppert, who first identified Ahab of Israel in 1865. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aram Damascus

So the text of this Monolith says Aram and not specifically Damascus. Do any Shalmaneser inscriptions connect this Adad-Idri with Damascus, or is that just an assumption coming from identifying him with one of the Benhadads of The Bible?

I'm curious if any Shalmanezer III inscriptions mention Hazael by name?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the text of the monolith does not say "Aram", but "Imērišu" (see ANET (1969, p. 278), which is an Akkadian name for Damascus (see e.g. here and here), even though some sources translate it as Aram. - Lindert (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi JaredMithrandir, Hopefully, this inscription will answer both the question about Adad-idri being from Damascus, and mentioning Hazael by name. Here is a link to an article that discusses an inscription of Shalmanezer III that says Adad-idri was from Damascus, and also mentions Hazael by name,and that he had taken over after Adad-idri the Damascene died. https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/bible-archeology-Shalmaneser-III-Assyria-inscriptions-annals-Basalt-statue-Hazael-son-of-nobody-murders-Ben-Hadad-II-2kings8-headless-833BC.jpg So, here is a direct reference to Adad-idri being from Damascus. We can also infer from this inscription that Hazael was not of the kingly line, but a usurper, when he says he is a "son of a nobody". A second inscription of Shalmanezer III also mentions Hazael of Aram on lines 102-104 of the Black Obelisk. Notice also in lines 54-62 of the Black Obelisk, we have a review of the battle of Qarqar in Shalmanezer's 6th year, and the king of Aram is Adad-idri. From the two inscriptions, then, we can equate Aram with Damascus, since Adad-idri is from Aram in the Kurkh Monolith, and refered to as the Damascene in the Basalt inscription cited first. By the time we get to lines 102-104 of the Black Obelisk, Hazael is now reigning Aram. This obelisk also mentions Jehu "son of Omri" (which was in error on Shalmanezer's part. Jehu was a distant successor to Omri, just not of the bloodline of Omri--see references below) as the second of the relief captions at the bottom of the page I am citing for the translation. https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/obelisk.html So, from the Black Obelisk, we can see that Hazael was contemporary with Jehu, and they had both succeeded the Ahab and Adad-idri of their respective countries that were mentioned in the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmanezer III. This would also agree with I Kings 19:15-16, in which Elijah is told to anoint Hazael king over Syria and Jehu king over Israel, replacing Ben-Hadad of Syria and the sons of Ahab for Israel. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I+Kings+19%3A15-16&version=NKJV See II Kings 8:7-15 for the death of Ben-Hadad and his servant Hazael taking over Syria. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+8%3A7-15&version=NKJV See Jehu killing Jezebel and the sons of Ahab and taking over Israel in II Kings 9 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings+9&version=NKJV To see that Omri was a king in Israel, read I Kings 16:23 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+16%3A23&version=NKJV. To see that Ahab was the son of Omri, read I Kings 16:29 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+16%3A29&version=NKJV. I hope this helps with the discussion. Regards, Chemistmom. Chemistmom (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chemistmom: I've put the posts back in chronological order. Both editors are still around but not frequently. Bible.ca is an extremely unreliable source by Wikipedia standards - dinosaurs co-existing with man, attacking other faiths, etc. Also as editors we are not allowed to infer, see no original research, nor can we use religious texts as sources to make an argument, we need academic sources discussing those texts. KC Hanson is however a good source for a translation but again you can't make an argument in an article using a translation. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug Weller, talk, but I was attempting to answer a specific question from the user JaredMithrandir . I was under the assumption that talk pages were of different rules than editing articles. Therefore, the explanation and synthesis of sources in my answer to Jared was given. Please forgive me if I am wrong in this assumption. I am also under the assumption that Wikipedia does not like primary sources of information, as I have been chastised other times for citing primary sources in articles previously. Therefore, the reference to the bible.ca website article from a person who synthesized the information and where he gives his sources was given. If, however, I should cite a primary source for the statue, it can be found in the British Museum here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1849-0502-17 and they provide this book as a source for the translation: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIB2721. If I need another scholar saying we can infer Hazael was a usuper to the throne of Syria because of Shalmaneser III's inscription saying he was "the son of a nobody" and using the narrative in II Kings 8 to corroborate his conclusion, please see page 17 of this article by Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh in the Discussion section: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926361?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A162a080c8ee043e44169decd7fc60cd2&seq=17#page_scan_tab_contents. I am truly at a loss as to the reasoning behind not being able to make an argument based on a translation, since most people do not read ancient languages. In fact, the previous commentor cited two translations in the comments previous to mine, and used them as support for his argument or comment. I also see references to Bible verses and references to other religious documents such as the Talmud and Koran in many Wikipedia articles (see this article on Moses, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses), so I guess I need more enlightenment on the rules of Wikipedia. Cheers, Chemistmom (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)