‘Eradicating’, through revision, some of the late kings of Israel

 

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 Part One:

Menahem to be merged with Hoshea

 

 

“Pul king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to strengthen the kingdom under his control”.

 

2 Kings 15:19

 

“… Hoshea I placed as ruler over them … I received a tribute of … 1,000 talents of silver”.

 

Tiglath-pileser III/Pul

 

 

If there be any validity to my radical shortening of the Assyrian king lists (‘Middle’ to ‘Neo’):

 

Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings

 

https://www.academia.edu/40988894/Folding_four_Middle_Assyrian_kings_into_first_four_Neo_Assyrian_kings

 

then there must follow a corresponding truncating of those kings of Israel tied to Assyria.

 

Can Menahem of Israel (749-738 BC, these conventional dates vary), for instance, be merged with Hoshea of Israel (732-722 BC)?

 

There are indeed some notable similarities between Menahem and Hoshea.

Thus:

 

Act of assassination

 

Menahem murdered Shallum (2 Kings 15:14).

Hoshea murdered Pekah (15:30).

 

Assassinated (previous) king was apostate

 

“The rest of the history of Shallum … all that is recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (15:15).

“The rest of the history of Pekah … is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (15:31).

 

Ruled in Samaria for about a decade

 

“[Menahem] reigned for ten years in Samaria” (15:17).

“[Hoshea] … in Samaria … reigned for nine years” (17:1).

 

Non-Yahwistic ruler

 

“[Menahem] did what is displeasing to Yahweh” (15:18).

“[Hoshea] did what is displeasing to Yahweh” (17:2).

 

Attacked by invading King of Assyria

 

“In [Menahem’s] times, Pul king of Assyria invaded the country …” (15:19).

“Shalmaneser king of Assyria made war on Hoshea …” (17:3).

 

Mackey’s note: In my “Folding four … Assyrian kings” article above, I have identified “Pul”, i.e., Tiglath-pileser, with Shalmaneser.

And, if Menahem was Hoshea, then this would only serve to reinforce my identification.

 

King of Israel pays tribute to King of Assyria

 

“… Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver” (15:19).

“… Hoshea … submitted to him and paid him tribute” (17:3). [Likewise a thousand talents of silver: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/hoshea.htm]

 

 

Part Two:

Need to reduce the later monarchs of Israel

 

 

 

What are the potential biblico-historical ramifications of Menahem, Hoshea,

now being tentatively identified as the one and very same king of Israel,

during the reign of a rampant Tiglath-pileser (“Pul”), king of Assyria?

 

 

 

 

Logically (if Menahem/Hoshea be just the one king of Israel), it ought to follow, now, that:

 

• the biblically-unfavoured king Shallum, whom Menahem murdered, was
• the biblically-unfavoured king Pekah, whom Hoshea murdered.  

 

During this most bloody phase in the history of Israel - {though somewhat less bloody if I am correct in reducing the number of bloodthirsty kings}- the king who was murdered was himself, in turn, a king murdered.

 

This fiendish situation occurred twice according to the standard interpretation of 2 Kings:

 

1.  Shallum murdering Zechariah (2 Kings 15:10) and then himself being murdered; and    
2.  Pekah murdering Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:25) and then himself being murdered.     

 

More than likely, though (at least as I am thinking), this despicable double-murder situation happened only the once: i.e., Shallum/Pekah murdered Zechariah/Pekahiah, and then Shallum/Pekah was murdered by Menahem/Hoshea.

 

Six of the later kings of Israel here reduced to only three – all of whom were contemporaneous with the neo-Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (“Pul”)/Shalmaneser.  

 

As with Menahem/Hoshea, the combination of Zechariah/Pekahiah is an adequate fit.

Compare the following, word for word in some instances:

 

2 Kings 15:8-11

 

Zechariah … became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned six months. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his predecessors had done. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against Zechariah. He attacked him in front of the people, assassinated him and succeeded him as king. The other events of Zechariah’s reign are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel.

 

2 Kings 15:23-26

 

Pekahiah son of Menahem became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned two years.  Pekahiah did evil in the eyes of the Lord.

He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. One of his chief officers, Pekah son of Remaliah, conspired against him. Taking fifty men of Gilead with him, he assassinated Pekahiah, along with Argob and Arieh, in the citadel of the royal palace at Samaria. So Pekah killed Pekahiah and succeeded him as king. The other events of Pekahiah’s reign, and all he did, are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel.

 

Less promising a fit, it seems, is my combination Shallum/Pekah, though we know virtually nothing of Shallum. His reign “in Samaria one month” (2 Kings 15:13) is highly doubtful given that (v. 15): “The other events of Shallum’s reign … are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel”.

Of Shallum’s ‘other half’, Pekah (according to my reconstruction), it is likewise written (v. 31): “As for the other events of Pekah’s reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?”

 

But his length of reign is given far more reasonably as “twenty years” (v. 27).

 

Modern chronologies cannot cope with this length of time, however, and so reduce Pekah’s reign to less than a decade: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-kings-of-ancient-israel

 

737-732  740-732  736-732  Pekah  Pekah ben Remalyahu

Reigned over Israel in Samaria for 20 years. Death: Hoshea son of Elah conspired against him and killed him.

 

 

Marduk event during the reign of Esarhaddon now thought to have occurred well back in his past

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

It is highly embarrassing if, as according to my revision, an incident pertaining to Marduk,

that had occurred during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I (d. 1100 BC, conventional dating),

and thought to have been faithfully imitated by Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating),

approximately four centuries later, was, in fact, the one and very same Marduk incident.

 

 

 

The potent - but at times hopelessly ill and paranoid - king, Esarhaddon, whom I have identified with Nebuchednezzar so-called II:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

“As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists …

[Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. …”.

 

Karen Radner

 

 

but also with his namesake Nebuchednezzar I:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Three: ‘The Marduk Prophecy’

 

https://www.academia.edu/39725289/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Three_The_Marduk_Prophecy_

 

had orchestrated the return of the god Marduk into Babylon in a ritual fashion that was uncannily similar to the procedure followed by Nebuchednezzar I, supposedly long ago in Esarhaddon’s past. We can get a good sense of this from John P. Nielsen’s account of the event in The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory - the author, though, following the conventional view that Esarhaddon was significantly later in time:

 

For those familiar with the traditions surrounding Marduk communicated in the Marduk Prophecy, the god's entry into Babylon with Šamaš-šumaukīn in 668 and the rejoicing of the crowds along the processional way that led to Esagil would have been understood as reassuringly consistent with what was believed to have occurred in the past [sic]. Esarhaddon undoubtedly intended such a reception for either himself or his son [sic] when he began laying the groundwork for Marduk's return. However, it is only certain that the scholarly elite at the city knew of the tradition that held that Marduk had departed and returned to Babylon as far back in the past [sic] as the early Kassite Dynasty. Presumably there would have been among their numbers assembled that day men who has engaged in the discourse that had shaped Esarhaddon’s plans to return Marduk.

 

What is not known is how aware the common citizens of Babylon who witnessed the procession were of the traditions surrounding Marduk and the long-deceased [sic] kings such as Nebuchadnezzar I who had once led Marduk back into the city. However, given the shared aims of Esarhaddon and the Babylonian elite, it is possible to speculate on why and how some aspects of the Marduk tradition, including Nebuchadnezzar I's part in that tradition, could have been communicated to the populace.

… by collaborating with Esarhaddon's wishes to have Babylon rebuilt and Šamaš-šumaukīn installed as king, members of the Babylonian elite may have been viewed with resentment as Assyrian collaborators by factions opposed to Assyrian rule. …. For these reasons, it would also have been in the interest of Esarhaddon and pro-Esarhaddon Babylonians to present the coronation and return of Marduk as consistent with precedents from Babylon’s past. ….

 

 

 

 

Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings

  
by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

The correct Assyrian succession of kings is, I believe:

 

Adad-nirari;

Shalmaneser;

Tukulti-Ninurta;

Assur-nadin-apli.

 

  

 

This is the very order of so-called ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings that one finds listed in, for instance, Marc Van de Mieroop’s book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC (p. 294):

 

Adad-nirari I (1305-1274)

Shalmaneser I (1273-44)

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-07)

Assur-nadin-apli (1206-03)

 

Van de Mieroop then, typically (i.e., like all conventional historians), lists those very same names again (except that “Assurnasirpal” replaces “Assur-nadin-apli”) - but now in an order different from above - on the next page (p. 295):

 

Adad-nirari II (911-891)

Tukulti-Ninurta II (890-84)

Assurnasirpal II (883-59)

Shalmaneser III (858-24)

 

In the first case (p. 294) the order is perfect, so I think, but the dates are hopelessly high.

I have already argued in various articles for the need for so-called ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonia to be folded with the ‘Neo’ period. See e.g. my article:

 

Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology

 

https://www.academia.edu/40237272/Bringing_New_Order_to_Mesopotamian_History_and_Chronology

 

In the second case (p. 295), the so-called ‘beginning of the Neo-Assyrian period’, the correct order of kings has been scrambled, but the dates are far more reasonable.

Still, even those later dates are well out (too high), by a century or more.

 

These four kings need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, even further down the time line, commencing at approximately 755 BC (this still being conventional dating, though, and must still be lowered somewhat).

Let us consider these four kings in revised order:

 

• First King: Adad-nirari

 

He, as Adad-nirari III (811 BC–783 BC), was a contemporary of the Jehu-ide dynasty of Israel, having taken tribute from either Jehoahaz of Israel or his son, Jehoash.

See e.g. Stephanie Page, “A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell al Rimah”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/stela-of-adadnirari-iii-and-nergaleres-from-tell-al-rimah/568A09D10A6DB71415677A57B82B13CE

 

• Second King: Shalmaneser

 

This revision now chronologically demands that Shalmaneser I (and II) be recognised as III -

Shalmaneser III, whom I have previously identified with Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V:

 

Shalmaneser III not of the El Amarna [EA] Era

 

https://www.academia.edu/40931402/Shalmaneser_III_not_of_the_El_Amarna_EA_Era

 

and

 

Finding new opponents for Assyrians at Qarqar

 

https://www.academia.edu/40961824/Finding_new_opponents_for_Assyrians_at_Qarqar

 

And in my university thesis, I had also paired off Tiglath-pileser I and III.

 

 

• Third King: Tukulti-Ninurta

 

Now if, as I have surmised in articles such as:

 

Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib?

 

https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti-Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib

 

Tukulti-ninurta I - conventionally dated (as we read above) to 1243-1207 BC - was the late Assyria king Sennacherib (c. 705 - 681 BC, conventional dating), then ‘Middle’ Assyrian history needs to undergo a massive shrinkage of more than five centuries, and same named Assyrian kings (they all tended to record the same anyway, like Doctor Who Daleks) be identified as one.

  

• Fourth King: Assur-nadin-apli

 

Emmet Sweeney identified Assur-nadin-apli with Ashurnasirpal II, as did I (not sure or not now whether this was done independently of Emmet) on p. 78 of my university thesis.

The names are virtually identical:

 

Aššūr-nādin-apli, “Ashur is the giver of an heir”.

Aššur-nāṣir-apli, “Ashur is guardian of the heir”.

 

The comparison becomes apparent here: “Copies of the Assyrian King List record that "Aššūr-nādin or nāṣir-apli … seized the throne (for himself …) …”.

Now Ashurnasirpal (I-II) I have recently identified with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, who, in my revised scheme of things, now follows on directly from Sennacherib. See e.g. my article:

 

Ashurnasirpal I-II 'King of the World'

 

https://www.academia.edu/40265490/Ashurnasirpal_I-II_King_of_the_World

 

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst the correct order of the four kings, as determined above, is this:

 

Adad-nirari;

Shalmaneser;

Tukulti-Ninurta;

Assur-nadin-apli.

 

these four now require to be greatly enlarged (with alter egos included) to this:

 

Adad-nirari I-III [contemporary of Jehu-ides];

Shalmaneser I-V = Tiglath-pileser I-III;

Tukulti-Ninurta I-II = Sennacherib (my Sargon II);

Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal I-II = Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal = Nebuchednezzar.

 

 

 

Does the famous Black Obelisk really mention a king of Israel?

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

According to the neo-Assyrian revision that I have presented in some recent articles, such as e.g.:

 

Finding new opponents for the Assyrians at Qarqar

 

https://www.academia.edu/40961824/Finding_new_opponents_for_Assyrians_at_Qarqar?email_work_card=view-paper

 

1. the formidable Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, fought the Battle of Qarqar (Karkar), not against Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad I of Syria, amongst others, but, about a century later, against Pekah of Israel and his known confederate, Rezin of Damascus, this thereby
2. lifting Shalmaneser III right out of a revised El Amarna (EA) period where he has caused revisionists so many headaches, and
3. catapulting him into the era of Tiglath-pileser  III - of whom Shalmaneser now becomes an alter ego.  
4. Tiglath-pileser III I have already identified with (Shalmaneser III’s namesake) Shalmaneser V.

 

All of this, apart from having enormous ramifications for neo-Assyrian history in its relation to the Bible, and to Assyrian inscriptions relating to the Battle of Qarqar and associated incidents, must now affect, too, one’s interpretation of Shalmaneser III’s marvellously preserved  Black Obelisk which is generally considered to depict king Jehu of Israel as a vassal king at the feet of the Assyrian monarch.  

 

In our new context, the prostrate king depicted in the Black Obelisk must be one of the various biblical kings, presumably of Israel, who gave tribute to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V. Biblical kings known to have been tributary to Tiglath-pileser III/ Shalmaneser V were Menahem and Hoshea of Israel, and Ahaz of Judah.

 

We read about this, as real history, in the following piece by W. Reinsch (not my BC dates): https://watchjerusalem.co.il/639-king-ahazs-tribute-proof-from-an-assyrian-inscription

 

King Ahaz’s Tribute: Proof From an Assyrian Inscription

 

An inscription that confirms the biblical account of Ahaz’s tribute to Tiglath-Pileser iii

 

….

Discovered in 1873 by Austen Henry Layard in the ancient Assyrian palace of Nimrud, the Tiglath-Pileser iii Summary Inscription Seven lists numerous conquests and building operations of one of Assyria’s most powerful kings, reigning from circa 745 to 727 b.c.e. And the 24 x 19 centimeter clay tablet, dating to circa 729 b.c.e., contains the first known extra-biblical proof of Ahaz, king of Judah.

 

Surrounded

King Ahaz was 20 years old when he began to reign (circa 735 b.c.e.), and was on the throne for 16 years. The Bible states that Ahaz “did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God,” but instead he made idols, sacrificed his children to Molech, and observed pagan rituals (2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4). As a result of his sins, God caused the surrounding nations to rise up and form a confederation against Judah.

Both king Rezin of Syria and king Pekah of Israel came and besieged Jerusalem, but could not break through the city walls. Instead, they moved south toward Elath and joined forces with the Edomites. “At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day” (2 Kings 16:6; Jerusalem Publication Society). The Philistines also invaded Judah’s cities in the south: Beth-shemesh, Ajalon, Gederoth, Shocho, Gimzo and the mining region of Timnah.

Judah found itself surrounded. As a result of the invasions, it suffered great losses. “For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all of them valiant men” (2 Chronicles 28:6; jps). The inhabitants of Judah were experiencing this suffering “because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers.” God “brought Judah low because of Ahaz … for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord” (verse 19; King James Version).

 

The Tribute of Ahaz

At that time, King Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians. He sent messengers to King Tiglath-Pileser iii, saying, Come up, and save me out of the hands of my enemies. “And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 16:8; jps).

This tribute that Ahaz took from the temple is confirmed by the discovery of Summary Inscription Seven from Tiglath-Pileser’s palace. Part of the inscription reads:

 

From these I received tribute … Sanipu of Ammon, Salamanu of Moab, … Mitinti of Ashkelon, Jehoahaz [Ahaz] of Judah, Kaush-malaku of Edom, … Hanno of Gaza … including gold, silver, iron, fine cloth and many garments made from wool that was dyed in purple … as well as all kinds of lavish gifts from many nations and from the kings that rule over them.

 

The inscription uses Ahaz’s full name, Jehoahaz, whereas the Bible uses the short form, Ahaz. The text parallels the biblical account, in both tribute and specific materials that Ahaz sent to Tiglath-Pileser. It also describes the Assyrian king receiving tribute from many kings who were in the confederation against Israel—this indicates that after receiving Ahaz’s request for help, Tiglath-Pileser led a military campaign to conquer these different peoples attacking Judah. The Bible states that Tiglath-Pileser attacked King Rezin of Syria and took away many captives (verse 9). The Annals of Tiglath-Pileser mention the Assyrian king receiving tribute from Rezin.

 

Another artifact, Summary Inscription Four (circa 730 b.c.e.), confirms Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Since its discovery, the clay inscription has been lost; however, Layard made a paper mache imprint, known as a squeeze, before its disappearance. The inscription reads:

 

Israel … All its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their King Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver as their [tri]bute, and brought them to Assyria.

 

This inscription confirms several details in the biblical account. “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took [numerous Israelites cities], and carried them captive to Assyria. And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 15:29-30). It is possible that Hoshea colluded with Tiglath-Pileser to replace King Pekah.

 

These Summary Inscriptions add to the expanding fund of discoveries that help confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible. The biblical kings Ahaz, Pekah, Hoshea, Rezin and Tiglath-Pileser all really lived, Ahaz really did send tribute to the Assyrian king, and Tiglath-Pileser really did attack and conquer much of Israel and subdued the surrounding regions. ….

[End of quotes]

 

 

The relevant part of the Black Obelisk - that supposedly depicting Jehu, king of Israel, at the feet of the Assyrian king - is described by Bill T. Arnold (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 237):

 

Above the second panel on one side is a caption mentioning “Jehu son of Omri” (Akkadian Iaua mar Humri). The image in all probability portrays Israel's King Jehu on his knees, submitting to the Assyrian king .... The caption in full reads as follows:

 

‘I received the tribute of Jehu, the son of Omri: silver (items), gold (items), a gold bowl, a gold goblet, gold cups, gold buckets, tin (Items), a staff of the king’s hand, spears’.

 

Arnold then makes the usual point, that king Jehu was not, however, a son of Omri.

 

But, as explained at: https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/cp/House_of_Omri.html

“Contemporary documents refer to the political units we are used to calling the Judahite and Israelite kingdoms by the name of dynastic founders.

Thus, in Aramean and Assyrian documents, but also in various biblical passages, Israel is called the “House of Omri” and Judah the “House of David” (cf. Isa 7:1). Similarly, Aram-Damascus is called the “House of Hazael.” This usage continues whether or not dynastic succession is disrupted, which means that legitimate succession is related to linguistic, ideological, and cultic rather than physiological aspects of continuity”.

 

The question must now be asked, in our revised context:

 

Who was the Black Obelisk’s Iaua mar Humri?

 

I am going to go left-field here, and suggest that he was, not a king of Israel at all, but was Ahaz king of Judah. Previously I had written on this:

 

King Ahaz of Judah is, I believe, a very good fit for

Shalmaneser III’s Iaui mar Humri.

 

He fits chronologically, given my identification of Shalmaneser III with Tiglath-pileser III, a known contemporary of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7): “Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, ‘I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me’.”

 

And he, like ‘Iaui’, paid tribute to the Assyrian king (v. 8): “And Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria”, whom he later visited (v. 10): “Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria”.

…

Moreover, his name, as rendered in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III’s, Iauhazi, accords perfectly with Iaui (Iau-haz-i) (http://libertyparkusafd.org/Burgon/cd-roms/124bible.html):

 

…. "Iauhazi [Jehoahaz, i.e., Ahaz of Judah." Tribute is mentioned as consisting of "gold, silver, lead, iron, tin, brightly colored woollen garments, linen, the purple garments of their lands ... all kinds of costly things, the products of the sea and the dry land ... the royal treasure, horses, mules, broken to the yoke. . . ." [Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol. I, sec. 801.]

 

[End of quote]

 

Similarly, Shalmaneser III had recorded: “I received from [Iaui] silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king [and] spears”.

 

I now consider there to be an historical correspondence between these records. 

 

Apparently I had also in that piece above suggested an Omride connection between Ahaz through Queen Athaliah. That may yet be a possibility.

Certainly I had, in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

(Volume One, pp. 372-373), made the point (that others have, too) that Jehu-ide blood may have flowed in the veins of Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah (through the wife of Ahaz):

 

It could be that Jehu-ide blood also flowed through his veins, from his mother’s side. This at least is the opinion of Irvine:[1]

 

It may be significant … that Hezekiah’s mother was a certain Abi, the daughter of Zechariah [2 Kings] (18:2). Quite possibly this Zechariah was the last member of the Jehu dynasty whom Shallum brutally assassinated (15:8). If so, it would appear that Ahaz had been married into the Israelite royal house. The political marriage, perhaps arranged by Jotham … would have served to buttress an alliance between the two kingdoms that had existed during the first half of the eighth century and possibly had begun as early as the Omride period ….   

 

[End of quotes]

 

That would at least make king Ahaz about as good a candidate for an Omride as Jehu.

 

Failing Ahaz as the tributary king depicted on the Black Obelisk, one would need to consider whatever other king (of Israel), e.g. Hoshea, had been a vassal of the now composite Assyrian king: (Shalmaneser III =) Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Op. cit, p. 78.