WHO WAS KING OF JUDAH WHEN SAMARIA FELL?
XI. The Problem of Pul of Assyria
by miriam berg
may 1994
XI. THE PROBLEM OF PUL OF ASSYRIA
The other problem posed by the book of II Kings is the reference
during the reign of Menahem to the visit by "Pul of Assyria". Most
if not all authorities equate this king with Tiglath-Pileser III,
who did subjugate most of the tribes round about Palestine, though
his records do not mention Menahem specifically. Since this
Assyrian king reigned from 744 to 727 BCE, most scholars have
concluded that Menahem must have reigned later than is said in the
books of the Kings, which is from 760 to 750 BCE in the biblical
chronology. But this requires attributing more errors to the
writer of the second book of the Kings: that Pekah's reign was 20
years, that he began to reign in the 52nd year of Azariah, that
Menahem began to reign in the 39th year of Azariah and reigned 10
years, and that Pekahiah began to reign in the 50th year of Azariah.
Here are the relevant verses from II Kings:
And Pul the king of Assyria came against Israel;
and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, to let him
continue to keep the kingdom in his own hand.
And Menahem exacted the money from all the wealthy men
of Israel, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria
turned back, and stayed not in Israel. (II Kings 15:19-20)
The conclusion that "Pul" of Assyria is the same as Tiglath-Pileser
III is supported by the reference to an Assyrian king named "Pulu"
in the Babylonian lists during the period when Tiglath-Pileser III
was in fact king. But this does not prove that he was the king
who came into Israel during Menahem's reign, and to whom Menahem
paid 1000 talents. What if the writer, who was Jewish, referred
to the king of Assyria by the wrong name? Furthermore,
the assumption that the king who came into Israel during Menahem's
reign was Tiglath-Pileser III may be doubted, because only a few
verses later that king is referred to as coming into Israel himself
during the reign of Pekah:
In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-Pileser
king of Assyria and took all the cities and the land of Naphtali,
and carried them captive to Assyria. (II Kings 15:29)
This fits because Pekah's reign was from 749 until 730 BCE according
to the biblical chronology. And why would the writer use two
different names for the same king?
But the name "Pul" could only have been known from the Babylonian
lists, and it could only have been learned by the Hebrew historians
during the exile, so that it could not have been known at the time
that the books of the Kings were written. Thus it must have been
added later in an attempt to identify that king, and could easily
have been in error. But the king of Assyria during the reign of
Menahem according to the biblical chronology was Ashurdan IV, who
while not a conquering ruler nevertheless carried out some vigorous
campaigns, and it is easy to suppose that Menahem turned to him
for protection and paid tribute, but that his name wasn't
remembered, and the writer in this case did actually make an error
in attributing the name Pul to that king. Or perhaps the writer
remembered the name of Ashur-nasir-pal, who was a mean king if
there ever was one, and it is equally likely that the name "Pul"
could refer to Ashur-nasir-PAL as that it refers to
Tiglath-PIL-eser III, if the basis for the assumption is merely the
similarity of the consonants.
Thus, while we need not doubt the identification of the name "Pul"
with Tiglath-Pileser III, we may easily doubt the application of
that name to the king who came into Israel during the reign of
Menahem, in the light of the facts that Tiglath-Pileser III is
specifically mentioned practically in the same breath in the
same chapter, and that if we push Menahem forward in history so
that Tiglath-Pileser III came into Israel during both the
reigns of Menahem and Pekah, we completely destroy the otherwise
self-consistent chronology of the Kings which accurately fits
otherwise the dates of the fall of Samaria and the accession of
Jehu. Is it easier to believe that the writer of the second book
of the Kings made an error in the name of a foreign king, or that
he made so many errors in the number of years in which his own kings
reigned and in the correlative accession years of the kings of the
other kingdom? No, it is far easier to believe that the authors
applied the name "Pul" mistakenly to one of the earlier foreign
kings than that they made so many errors about their own kings.