Talk:Kurkh Monoliths

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Ba'sa the man of Bit-Rahub

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Aram Damascus