It is not quite clear what was the religious signilicance ot this destruction of the Baal temple in Samaria and of its devotees. Doubtless Wellliausen is right in saying (/«r. «. Jiid. Gesch.'- p. 77) tliat Jehu was essentially a soldier, and his aims were political rather than religious. Yet he posed as a religious zealot, and some meaning must have been ascribetl to his destruction of the Baal worshiiii)er8. It is more dilHcult to ascertain the precise significance of this act when we remember that Jehoram, Allah's son (note that the name of Jahweh is expressed in this royal name), is distinctly stated to have withdrawn the specific 'rj'rian Baal worship from Samaria, which had been instituted bv Ahab under the inlluence of Jezebel (2 K 3^). Yet it is quite obvious that this act of Jehoram did not touch the old local Canaanitish Baal worship which still prevailed in the high places of Israel, and too much stress should certainly not be [placed on this act of suppres.sion, which appears to have been only temporary or partial in character. This is the view taken by I'rof. Peake, the writer of the article Baal in the Urst volume of this Dictionary. Accord in'dy, we may regard the murderous policy of Jehu as simply directed to a drastic supiire.ssion of the Phcenician form of Baal worship. 'I'his view is supported by the following considerations: (1) The annihilation of Baal wor- ship by Jehu took place in Samaria, the capital and residence of the Omri dynasty, where tlie Phu.-niciaD Baal had his speciEil shrme (1 K 16^). We nowhere read of the suppression of Baal cults generally in the hi"h places. (2) The extinc- tion of Canaanitish Baal worship, if it had ever taken place, could not have been efl'ectual or per- manent, since in the 8lh cent, the writings of the piuphet llosea reveal the wide prevalence of local Baal cults in the Northern Kingdom. (3) The worship of the golden calf of Jeroboam I. still survived, as we infer from 2 K 10". This verse and the language of v." lead us to the conclusion that the words, ' And Jehu destroyed the Baal from Israel ' (v.*), can refer only to the 8])Ccifio cult introduced by Jezebel perhaps characterized by gross licentiousness. (4) That Jehu wrought no real religious reformation is shown by the neutral tone of the writer of chs. 9. 10, while the strong reprobation of Ilos 1* faithfully reflceta not only the prophetic but the i>opular verdict on the character and career of this monarch.
The policy luirsued liy Jehu towards the dyna.sty of Omri, and the murder of the I'lmnician queen as well a-s the overthrow of the Plueniciau worship, at once shattered the close bonds of an alliance which the dyniusty of Omri had found of considerable value to Israel, and which it had taken the utmost pains to consolidate. Ahab, as we have already seen (art. AllAU), had abandoned the friendship of
• C'p^n ifyi n' J rendered by Targ. ' a-isembUng house of shep- herds' (cf. IJV 'bind' in <!n 2-«i). I,X.\ IU,«...!l, identitli-d with Rril K"l almit 9 miles K. of JnAn (V") in the plain ot Jeireel. Hee lUi-ileker, I'al. and ^yna. 2nd ed. p. 242- Ths HijH«K«9 of Kusebius U liis sama spot 16 Roman milos from Leglo or LcJJuo.
666
JEHU
JEOPAED, JEOPARDY
Syria after the disastrous battle of I^^arkar (854). He had formed a pretty shrewd estimate of the rising' power of the Assyrian empire under Shal- maneser II., and thought it wiser to have its ruler as his friend rather than his foe. The further attacks made by the As.>>yrians upon the Arama-an kingdom of Benhadad (Dadidri) in the years 849, 846, and 842 only made this policy of friendsliip with AssjTia more necessary for Israel ; and Jehu, weakened by his break with Phwnicia and by the hostility of Judah, was driven by tlie force of events to adopt the siune policj' of subservience to the Assyrian monarcli. The black obelisk of Shalmaneser, in a brief statement that runs in clearly legible characters of cuneiform between the graphic figures of its reliefs, records the im- portant statement : ' Tribute of Jehu, son of Omri — objects of silver and gold — bars of silver, bars of gold, a golden bowl, a "olden ladle, fjolden goblets, golden pitchers, bars of lead — a stall for the band of a king, shafts of spears . . , these I received."
Another inscription [COT' p. 200 ; III. Rawl. 5, No. 6, 40-65) places this event in a clearer li^ht. We there learn that the Tyrians and Sidonians followed the same policy as Jehu. Jehu was forced to adopt this attitude at the commencement of his reign (842 B.C.), because in that year Slial- maneser II. made another invasion of Syria and attacked Ilazael of Damascus. It was terribly disastrous for the young Syrian king. He lost 16,000 men and more than 1000 chariots. To save his life he fled to Damascus, whither lie was pur- sued and then besieged. The Assyrians ravaged and laid his territory waste as far as the Haurin range and even the frontiers of Lebanon. This terrible overthrow of the year 842 was followed by another invasion three years later, in which Syria made little resistance. This at any rate is the inference which may be drawn from the long anualistic inscription taken from the obelisk of Nimrud,t lines 102-104 : ' In the 21st year of my reign (i.e. 839) I crossed the Euphrates for the 21st time and marched against the towns [mafuxzdni) of Hazael of Damascus. Four of his towns I conquered, and received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Byblians.'