The cruel wages of apotheosis

by Damien F. Mackey Daedalus and Icarus Father and son kept looking at the skies Full of clouds and aviary of every kind. They had a sparkle deep in their eyes Human flight kept fueling their minds. If birds can fly then humans can too We'll build wings of wax and glue, Feathers from the hawk, the osprey And tack them and tuck them tightly. So he built wings with a ten foot span Tied them to his son soon to be a man But he warned him not to get them wet In waters from the seas or he'd have regret. And to his son he said stay away from high Don't get too close to the sun when you fly, So he took him to an Aegean stone cliff Pushed him off as the wind gave him lift. Slowly Icarus was lifted on the cool air As he gained altitude his dad did beware He flapped his man made contraption And headed up to the suns location, Soon the heat started melting the wax As high flight the solar god would tax They came apart in mid air both wings May the gods save him as to hope he would cling. But young Icarus fell like an eagle of lead And fell in the blue ocean waters dead. Poor Daedalus his son he would mourn Not one man at the time was meant to fly was born. In Athens Heracles went searching the waves Brought back young Icarus his body did save. Never try to challenge that god called sun Cause death is the reward to a man each one. Rick Fernandez Sr. For those who would fly close to the Sun, who would seek to manifest themselves as gods, the ending is never pretty. The fall is invariably quick and shattering, the stench often putrid. And this is especially the case with those who have risen as tyrants over the people of God. The wages of their folly are ‘fire and worms’. The Israelite (Simeonite) heroine, Judith, who had been the courageous agent of the fall of the seemingly invincible “Holofernes”, had then proclaimed what would happen to such as would rise in tyranny against the people of God (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever’. Not that “Holofernes” may have actually thought of himself as a god. That was not the typical Assyrian way, and nor was he even the king of Assyria. “Holofernes” was the eldest son (the Crown Prince) of king Sargon II/Sennacherib. He was Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Assyrian King of Babylon. But, according to the prophet Isaiah, his father did thus aspire, Icarus-like, to “ascend to the heavens”, even to become god-like: ‘I will make myself like the Most High’. Isaiah 14:12-21, which can also be taken allegorically as the fall of Satan, of Adam, literally, however, bespeaks of disaster for the aggressive Assyrians: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’. But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?’ All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again. Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. And then, Isaiah, turning his attention to the defeat of Sennacherib’s eldest son in Israel, ‘I will crush the Assyrian in my land’, concludes triumphantly (vv. 24-27): The Lord Almighty has sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders’. This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? I’d like to look at two of biblico-history’s starkest examples of a tyrant, a would-be god, who ultimately came crashing down to earth with a thud, filled with worms and putrid decay. The first one is, famously: 1. Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ Epiphanes (Ἐπιφανής), “God Manifest”. Here is the vivid Maccabean account of how this accursed tyrant for the Jews was struck down in an instant and died a most disgusting death (2 Maccabees 9:1-18, 28): About that time it so happened that Antiochus was leading an ignominious retreat from the region of Persia. He had entered the city called Persepolis and attempted to plunder the temple and gain control of the city. However, the people immediately rose up in armed defense and repulsed Antiochus and his men, with the result that Antiochus was put to flight by the inhabitants and forced into a humiliating retreat. On his arrival in Ecbatana, he learned what had happened to Nicanor and to the forces of Timothy. Bursting with anger, he devised a plan to make the Jews suffer for the injury inflicted by those who had put him to flight. Therefore, he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he completed his journey. However, the judgment of Heaven rode with him, since in his arrogance he declared, ‘Once I arrive in Jerusalem, I will turn it into a mass graveyard for Jews’. And so the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an unseen but incurable blow. Hardly had he spoken those words when he was seized with excruciating pains in his bowels and acute internal torment— an entirely suitable punishment for one who had inflicted many barbarous torments on the bowels of others. Nevertheless, he did not in the least diminish his insolent behavior. More arrogant than ever and breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a result, he was hurled from the lurching chariot, and the fall was so violent that every part of his body was racked with pain. Thus he who only a short time before had in his superhuman arrogance believed that he could command the waves of the sea, and who imagined that he could weigh high mountains on a scale, was thrown down to the ground and had to be carried in a litter, clearly manifesting to all the power of God. The body of this ungodly man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive suffering agonizing torments, his flesh rotted away, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his decay. Only a short time before, he had thought that he could touch the stars of heaven. Now no one could even bring himself to transport the man because of his intolerable stench. Ultimately, broken in spirit, he began to lose his excessive arrogance and to come to his senses under the scourge of God, for he was racked with incessant pain. When he no longer could endure his own stench, he exclaimed: ‘It is right to be subject to God. Mere mortals should never believe that they are equal to God’. Then this vile wretch made a vow to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him, that he would publicly declare to be free the holy city toward which he had been hurrying to level it to the ground and transform it into a mass graveyard; that the Jews, whom he had not deemed to be worthy of burial but fit only to be thrown out with their children and eaten by wild animals and birds, would all be granted equality with the citizens of Athens; that the holy Temple that he had previously plundered, he would now adorn with the finest offerings, replace all the sacred vessels many times over, and provide from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices. In addition to all this, he would become a Jew himself and would visit every inhabited place to proclaim the glory of God. However, when his sufferings did not abate in any way, inasmuch as the judgment of God had already justly befallen him, he lost all hope for himself …. And so this murderer and blasphemer, after enduring agonizing sufferings to match those he had inflicted on others, died a wretched death in the mountains of a foreign land. Thus died the would-be Epiphanes (Ἐπιφανής), “God Manifest”, whom his Jewish detractors had re-named Epimanes, “the Madman”. 2. Herod Antipas In my article: Let us not over multiply the Herods and Agrippas (5) Revising the Herodian Narrative in Context I wrote this on a revised Herod Antipas: …. With Agrippa I and II taken out of a late context, and connected with Herod ‘the Great’ (Part One), then the “King Herod” of Acts 12 can only be (so I think) Herod Antipas, also known as “Herod the Tetrarch” (cf. Matthew 14:1). The Great Persecutor He was the confused king who gave permission for the beheading of John the Baptist. By so doing, Herod Antipas was symbolically (though unwittingly) removing the head of the Old Testament, and thereby enabling for the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Herod, whom Jesus had earlier called ‘that fox’ (some insist, ‘vixen’) (Luke 13:32), and who had warned his disciples to ‘Beware of … the leaven of Herod’ (Mark 8:15), would, with his soldiers, mock the captive Jesus (Luke 23:11). Not much later, after the martyrdom of Stephen, he had the Apostle James beheaded. Acts 12:1-2: “It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword”. Uncannily like Henry VIII, Herod Antipas first beheaded a John (Fisher) and then, afterwards, a ‘James the Greater’ (Thomas More). Am I missing something? Henry VIII certainly is: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Goaded on by a rising popularity, Herod Antipas then had the Apostle Peter arrested (Acts 12:3-11): When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him. The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. … Todd Bolen (July 2010) tells of the extraordinary death of King Herod, whom he identifies (wrongly, I believe) as Herod Agrippa I: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/agrippa357926 The death of Herod Agrippa I is one of the few events that is reported by both the book of Acts and Josephus. Bible readers recall that Agrippa was struck down by an angel of the Lord while delivering a public address in Caesarea (Acts 12:19-23). The account is brief, but the immediate cause of his illness is clearly given in the text: the crowd hailed Herod as a god and the king passively accepted their praise. Despite the miraculous elements, most scholars believe that the account in Acts is generally accurate because of a parallel record in Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-50). Most scholars believe that the two reports had independent sources, and though they agree in several respects, Josephus’s longer account contains more details, including the incident’s occasion, location, and aftermath. …. Acts records that Herod gave the address in Caesarea, and Josephus places it in the theater of Caesarea. Acts does not say anything about the time of day, but Josephus writes that it occurred early in the morning. Acts connects the episode with the resolution of a quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon, but says of the public address itself only that it occurred “on the appointed day.” Josephus relates that Agrippa appeared to the crowd on the second day of a festival intended to honor Caesar. Both sources speak of Herod’s clothing, but whereas Acts says simply that he was “wearing his royal robes,” Josephus describes the garments as made “wholly of silver” and when “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays . . . was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him.” Josephus indicates that the crowd hailed Agrippa as a god because of his radiant clothing, but Luke’s brief account may imply that they did so in response to the sound of Agrippa’s voice. Both agree that Agrippa accepted the crowd’s enthusiastic praise and consequently died shortly thereafter. Excavations at Caesarea are helpful in reconstructing this event. It is likely that as successor to most of the vast holdings of his grandfather King Herod, Agrippa I took up residence in the promontory palace on the south side of the city. …. About a decade later, Agrippa’s successor, the Roman governor Felix, occupied the same palace (Acts 24:35). Presumably, then, on the morning in which he was struck down, Agrippa left this palace and proceeded to his appointed place in order to address the crowd. According to Josephus, Agrippa came to the theater (θέατρον) where he so inspired the gathered populace that he was hailed as a god. On this basis, tourists today usually visit the Herodian theater and envision the event occurring in this semi-circular entertainment venue. I believe, however, that Josephus’s designation of the location was inaccurate. Analysis of his account indicates that the amphitheater, rather than the theater, was the setting for Herod’s public address. …. The first clue that Josephus gives is the time of day. He says that it occurred at “the beginning of the day” (ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας). Dressed in a garment made “wholly of silver,” Agrippa dazzled the crowd when his robes were “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it.” The theater, however, faces west. If the king was positioned on the stage, the sun would not have reached over the multi-storied seating area before mid-morning. And if he was speaking from the seating area, the sun would not have reflected off his clothes until even later. The amphitheater, by contrast, is wide, and the twelve rows of seating would not have blocked the sun. Agrippa could have been addressing the crowd from the western side of the amphitheater where the sun would be able to reflect off his clothes early in the morning. The second indication that Agrippa was struck down in the amphitheater is the occasion of his death. Acts says only that it occurred “on the appointed day” (τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ), but Josephus describes the event occurring on the second day of a festival in honor of Caesar in which a great multitude was assembled. …. These games included combats and horse races (Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 §§136-141), and were conducted in the amphitheater, not in the theater which was designed for dramatic performances. The emperor’s birthday was also celebrated with sports, and thus a setting in the amphitheater is most likely for this event as well.’ A third piece of supporting evidence can be adduced from Josephus’s report of an encounter between Pilate and a large crowd about a decade earlier (War 2.9.3 §§172). When the Roman governor sent standards with Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, a large delegation traveled to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove these offensive placards. Josephus writes that “on the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal [βήμα] in the great stadium [μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ].” …. The word for stadium more naturally refers to the amphitheater, particularly with the modifier “great.” …. It is reasonable that the bema was located in the same place in Agrippa’s day, and that he addressed the crowd from the customary place. Finally, it should be noted that Josephus’s use of terms designating buildings of entertainment is known to be imprecise. In Jerusalem he states at one point that Herod built a theater and an amphitheater (Ant. 15.8.1 §268), and elsewhere he mentions a hippodrome (War 2.3.1 §44; Ant 17.10.2§255). None of these buildings have been located in Jerusalem today, and most scholars conclude that only one, or at most two, existed, and that Josephus referred to a single building by multiple terms. The model at the Israel Museum (formerly located at the Holyland Hotel), for instance, reconstructs only a theater and a hippodrome in the city. …. In other words, if Josephus could refer to an amphitheater as a hippodrome in Jerusalem, he certainly could have identified an amphitheater as a theater in Caesarea. He appears to have made precisely this mistake in describing sporting events and horse races as occurring in the theater of Jerusalem (Ant. 15.8.1-4 §§269-85). …. The lines of evidence thus converge to locate the amphitheater of Caesarea as the place where Agrippa addressed the people and contracted his fatal illness. It was here that the Roman governor’s bema was located, and it was here where the crowds gathered to hear Agrippa’s address in advance of the day’s games. Unlike the theater, the design of the amphitheater best suits illumination of Agrippa’s garments by the rays of the early morning sun. One other aspect is elucidated by an understanding of the event’s location. Immediately adjacent to the northern end of the amphitheater was the imperial temple, the center of worship of the emperor and the goddess Roma. …. The crowds that hailed Agrippa that day were very familiar with the practice of honoring the emperor as a god. Only a few years earlier, Agrippa’s close friend, Emperor Caligula, demanded that he be revered as a god. One way that Caligula signaled his desire for worship was by the clothing he wore, oftentimes dressing himself in the attire of one of the deities. …. Unfortunately for Agrippa, the God of Israel was less willing to overlook such blasphemy in a king with Jewish heritage ruling in the Promised Land. The king who called himself “the great” recognized that his punishment was just—the intense pain apparently brought moral clarity—for he declared with irony that “I, who was called immortal by you, am now under sentence of death” (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §347). …. [End of quotes] ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. [Judith 16:17]

Great King Hezekiah, archaeologically verified, but somewhat poorly known

by Damien F. Mackey ‘I’ve never read a King Hezekiah of Judah like that before’. Professor Rifaat Ebied Such was basically the comment made by professor Rifaat Ebied of the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies (University of Sydney), upon having read the draft of my doctoral thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf However, as often occurred to me whilst writing that thesis, King Hezekiah of Judah, though presumably the focal point of the thesis, remained for the most part a largely obscure figure, unlike some of his contemporaries whom I was able to develop in far more detail. But, firstly, how did this thesis come about? Providentially, I would suggest (appropriately writing this early in the Holy Jubilee Year of 2025). In the (Holy) Year 2000 AD, professor Ebied asked me if I would like to do a doctoral thesis, and he gave me the choice of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah, or the era of King Josiah of Judah. I, having at that stage absolutely no clear-cut ideas about the era of king Josiah, jumped at the chance to write about the era of King Hezekiah. The reason for this was that I had already spent almost two decades trying to ascertain an historical locus for the Book of Judith and had finally come to, what was all along the obvious conclusion, that the Judith drama was all about the destruction of Sennacherib of Assyria’s 185,000-strong army during the reign of Hezekiah. Let us pause for a moment, though, to consider the historicity of King Hezekiah of Judah, as affirmed by archaeological finds. Bryan Windle has written on this (2019 – I do not necessarily accept his BC dates): https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/ King Hezekiah: An Archaeological Biography …. Hezekiah reigned as King of Judah from 716 to 687 BC, after having ruled for approximately 13 years in a co-regency with his father Ahaz. …. In 2 Chronicles 29:1-2 we read, “Hezekiah began to reign when he was twenty-five years old, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abijah the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done.” He is, perhaps, best known for this religious reforms and for his stand against the Assyrian invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Hezekiah Bulla Multiple bullae (clay seal impressions) of King Hezekiah have been found. While most have come via the antiquities market, in 2015 Dr. Eilat Mazar announced that another Hezekiah bulla had been discovered while wet-sifting material excavated from a refuse dump in a Royal Building at the Ophel. …. The bulla is about one centimeter in diameter bears an ancient Hebrew inscription: “לחזקיהו [בן] אחז מלך יהדה” “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah” The seal impression also depicts a two-winged sun and ankh symbols. Scholars at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem explained the iconography this way: “The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in his life, when both the Royal administrative authority and the King’s personal symbols changed from the winged scarab (dung beetle)—the symbol of power and rule that had been familiar throughout the Ancient Near East, to that of the winged sun—a motif that proclaimed God’s protection, which gave the regime its legitimacy and power, also widespread throughout the Ancient Near East and used by the Assyrian Kings.”…. The Hezekiah bulla affirms not only Hezekiah’s historicity, but his lineage as well, affirming these biblical details about his life. Evidence of Religious Reforms Hezekiah was instrumental in leading the people of Judah away from idolatry and back to the worship of Yahweh. In 2 Kings 18:4 we read, “He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” Evidence of Hezekiah’s religious reforms have been discovered at Arad, Beer-Sheba, Lachish, Tell Motza, and Tell Lahif. …. For example, the famous four-horned alter at Beer-Sheba was dismantled during Hezekiah’s reign and three of its four horns were found in secondary use in a wall, indicating the structure was no longer considered sacred. At Lachish, a gate-shrine was unearthed in 2016. Two small horned alters were discovered, whose horns had been broken off, and a toilet had been placed in the shrine as a symbolic act of desecration (2 Kings 10:27). …. Hezekiah’s Tunnel and Broad Wall Perhaps the defining moment in King Hezekiah’s life occurred when Sennacherib, King of Assyria came to attack Jerusalem. Hezekiah received word prior to the impending invasion, giving him enough time to improve the city’s fortifications and build a tunnel to bring water into the city. In 2 Chron. 32:2-4, 30 we read: “When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to make war on Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. A large force of men assembled, and they blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. “Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?” they said …. It was Hezekiah who blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David.” 2 Kings 20:20 further summarizes Hezekiah’s life: “As for the other events of Hezekiah’s reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?” An ancient aqueduct, dating to the time of King Hezekiah, was discovered by Edwin Robinson in 1838. Several years later an inscription was discovered in the tunnel which recorded how it had been built. Written in ancient Paleo-Hebrew and dated to the 8th century BC, the inscription reads, And this was the way in which it was cut through: While [the quarrymen were] still […] axes, each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed [the rock], each man towards his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the heads of the quarrymen was a hundred cubits….. Within the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, archaeologists unearthed further evidence of Hezekiah’s preparation for war. The Broad Wall, as it is known today, is a 7m thick defensive fortification that still stands 3.3 m tall in some places. It was built by Hezekiah to enclose the Western Hill and it increased the defensive walls of the city five-fold. …. Sennacherib’s Attack Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13 “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” This was in response to Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian king, refusing to serve him as a vassal (2 Kings 18:7). The Bible isn’t the only ancient text that describes this attack, however; multiple copies of the Annals of Sennacerib [sic] have been unearthed. The Taylor Prism, the Oriental Institute Prism and the Jerusalem prism are three clay prisms that contain the same text describing events from the reign of Sennacherib. The Taylor Prism was discovered in 1830 by Colonol [sic] Robert Taylor while excavating the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh. On it, Sennacherib boasts: “As for Hezekiah the Judahite who had not submitted to my yoke, I surrounded 46 of his strong walled towns, and innumerable small places around them, and conquered them by means of earth ramps and siege engines, attack by infantrymen, mining, breaching, and scaling. 200,150 people of all ranks, men and women, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep without number I brought out and counted as spoil. He himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I put watch-posts around him, and made it impossible for anyone to go out of his city.” …. Sennacherib also states, “Now the fear of my lordly splendor overwhelmed that Hezekiah” … and he confirms that the Judahite King did indeed pay him tribute (2 Kings 18:14). It is interesting to note that Sennacherib does not boast of destroying Jerusalem, but merely shutting Hezekiah up in his royal city “like a bird in a cage.” This would be consistent with the biblical description of God’s rescue of his people and Sennacherib’s return to Assyria without conquering Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35-36). Mackey’s comment: But Sennacherib had conquered Jerusalem in this his 9th Campaign. The miraculous deliverance of the city would occur some years later, during a second Assyrian invasion. Bryan Windle concludes: Summary The account in the Bible of Hezekiah’s life, his religious reforms and his stand against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, align with what is known about him from the archaeological record. He was one of the greatest kings Judah had ever had. In Scripture, his life is summarized this way: “He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.” (2 Kings 18:5). King Hezekiah of Judah King Hezekiah, quite a formidable historical figure, whom his neo-Assyrian opponent King Sennacherib described as “the strong, proud Hezekiah” (Sennacherib’s Bull Inscriptions), and who reigned for almost three decades (2 Kings 18:2), tends to disappear from the scene of conflict after about his 14th year, the year of his sickness. Yet this was well before the confrontation with the ill-fated army of Sennacherib. More recently, though, I have managed to enlarge Hezekiah considerably, by identifying him with the similarly good and pious king of Judah, Josiah (one of professor Ebied’s two points of reference). For my arguments on this, and for my radical revision of the later kings of Judah, see e.g. my articles: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (4) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah (4) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I have also enlarged King Hezekiah scripturally by proposing that: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (3) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, too, with my most radical identification of him with two supposedly very ancient rulers of Lagash in Sumer (my Lachish in Judah): Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (6) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. and: Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (3) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Sennacherib of Assyria This notorious king of Assyria I had already enlarged in my thesis by multi-identifying him, especially in Volume One, Chapter 6. His chief alter ego, I had concluded, was the potent Sargon II. I have since written further articles on this fusion of supposedly two Assyrian mega-kings, along the lines of e.g: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib My other move on Sennacherib at that time involved the necessary (in terms of the revision) folding of so-called ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian history with ‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian history. Revised attempts at this so far do not seem to have been very successful. I thought that I had found the perfect solution with my folding of the mighty Middle Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, conventionally dated to the C12th BC - he, I then declared to have been ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II/Sennacherib. Such an identification, which seemed to have massive support from the succession of Shutrukid-Elamite kings of the time having names virtually identical to the succession of Elamite kings at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib (see Table 1 below), had the further advantage of providing Sargon II/Sennacherib with the name, “Nebuchednezzar”, just as the Assyrian king is named in the Book of Judith (“Nebuchadnezzar”). My more recent collapsing of the late neo-Assyrian era into the early neo-Babylonian era has caused me to drop the identification of Nebuchednezzar I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib. Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel (4) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu More appropriately, now, Nebuchednezzar I might be found to have been Nebuchednezzar so-called II. Fortunately though, with this tightened chronology, the impressive Shutrukid-Elamite parallels that I had established in my thesis might still remain viable. Having rejected my former folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib the question must be asked, ‘At what point does Middle fold with Neo?’ Hopefully, I had identified that very point of fusion in my thesis (see next). King Merodach-baladan of Babylonia Here, I shall simply reproduce part of what I wrote about the best point of folding in my thesis (Chapter 7, beginning on p. 180): So, with what ‘Middle’ Babylonian period are we to merge the ‘Neo’ Babylonian Merodach-baladan [II], in order to show that VLTF [Velikovsky’s Lowering on Timescale by 500 Years] is convincing for this part of the world as well at this particular time? Actually, there is a perfect opportunity for such a merger with one who is considered - perhaps rightly - to have been one of the last Kassite kings: namely, Merodach-baladan [I] (c. 1173-1161 BC, conventional dates). Now, as I have emphasized in the course of this thesis, identical names do not mean identical persons. However, there is more similarity between Merodach-baladan I and II than just the name I would suggest. For instance: • There is the (perhaps suspicious?) difficulty in distinguishing between the building efforts of Merodach-baladan [I] and Merodach-baladan [II]: Four kudurrus ..., taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa ... show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk ..., assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities ... cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 ...). Further: • Wiseman contends that Merodach-baladan I was in fact a king of the Second Isin Dynasty which is thought to have succeeded the Kassites. Brinkman, whilst calling this view “erroneous”, has conceded that: “The beginnings of [the Second Dynasty of Isin] ... are relatively obscure”. • There is the same approximate length of reign over Babylonia for Merodach-baladan [I] and [II]. Twelve years as king of Babylon for Merodach-baladan II, as we have already discussed. And virtually the same in the case of Merodach-baladan I: The Kassite Dynasty, then, continued relatively vigorous down through the next two reigns, including that of Merodach-baladan I, the thirty-fourth and third-last king of the dynasty, who reigned some thirteen years .... Up through this time, kudurrus show the king in control of the land in Babylonia. • Merodach-baladan I was approximately contemporaneous with the Elamite succession called Shutrukids. Whilst there is some doubt as to the actual sequence of events - Shutruk-Nahhunte is said to have been the father of Kudur-Nahhunte - the names of three of these kings are identical to those of Sargon II’s/ Sennacherib’s Elamite foes, supposedly about four centuries later. Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! [End of quotes] Who of Hezekiah and his contemporaries re-emerge in Judith? Interfacing the era of King Hezekiah of Judah with the drama of the Book of Judith. The historical event [in Judith 1] … is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan and his Elamite allies. About half a dozen of King Hezekiah’s contemporaries may be found, I believe, amongst the rather small cast of the drama of the Book of Judith. Four of these characters have names that are nicely compatible the one with the other, whilst the rest have ‘dud’ names in accordance with what I wrote in my article: Book of Judith: confusion of names https://www.academia.edu/36599434/Book_of_Judith_confusion_of_names The Book of Judith opens with a major war (Judith 1:1-6): While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes from his capital city of Ecbatana. Around Ecbatana King Arphaxad built a wall 105 feet high and 75 feet thick of cut stones; each stone was 4 1/2 feet thick and 9 feet long. At each gate he built a tower 150 feet high, with a foundation 90 feet thick. Each gateway was 105 feet high and 60 feet wide—wide enough for his whole army to march through, with the infantry in formation. In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite alliance. This is describing, as I have argued, an actual historical war. However, owing to the insertion of those ‘dud’ names as mentioned above, it is now extremely difficult to identify which historical event it is. The historical event that it is, is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan the Chaldean (“Chelodite” above) and his Elamite allies. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/sargon-ii-the-assyrian-king-history-essay.php After [Sargon II] secured his empire, he began his military activity against the Elamites in Babylon who were allies of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. …. in his 12th year in 710 he defeats and gets rid of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. For the first time ever Sargon makes himself the official king of Babylon in 710 B.C …. After the defeat of Merodach-Baladan he devotes most of 710 B.C campaigning against the Aramean tribes. The Arameans are known as the bandits to the Assyrian people and had always been their enemies. …. “Nebuchadnezzar” here is Sargon II, who is also Sennacherib. It was common in antiquity for King Sennacherib to be confused with King Nebuchednezzar (see “confusion of names” article above). “Arphaxad” here can only be Merodach-baladan, a biblical king who figures e.g. in Isaiah 39:1. The king doing the city building may actually be Sargon, not Merodach-baladan (“Arphaxad”), the Assyrian king building his fabulous new city of Dur Sharrukin, not “Ecbatana”: A Description of the Building of Sargon II's City in the Book of Judith https://www.academia.edu/3704934/A_Description_of_the_Building_of_Sargon_IIs_City_in_the_Book_of_Judith “King Arioch of Elam” here is Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, who governed Elam for the Assyrians. Judith 1:6, though, is a gloss, because Ahikar was not then governing the Elamites, but only later. See e.g. my article: “Arioch, King of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6) https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_ Later in the Book of Judith (5:1) he will be referred to as “Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites”, leading commentators naturally to conclude that Achior was an Ammonite, who converted to Yahwism, which is highly controversial in relation to Deuteronomic Law. But he was in reality a northern Israelite, as more properly described in Judith 6:2: “And who art thou, Achior, and the hirelings of Ephraim, that thou hast prophesied against us as to day …?” As “Arioch”, Achior may re-emerge in the Book of Daniel - according to my tightened chronology - as “Arioch” the high official of King Nebuchednezzar (Daniel 2:14-23). Ahikar-Achior is a most famous historical character, a revered sage down through the ages, known in the Assyrian records as Aba-enil-dari. Achior is the first of our Hezekian-Judith interface characters to bear a consistent name, he, Ahikar, actually being called “Achior” in the Vulgate version of the Book of Tobit. The other recognisable names are Eliakim (Eliachim) the high priest in the Vulgate Judith 4:5: Sacerdos etiam Eliachim scripsit ad universos qui erant contra Esdrelon, quae est contra faciem campi magni juxta Dothain …. elsewhere named as “Joakim”. He is King Hezekiah’s chief official, Eliakim: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest In Judith 6:15 we first encounter “Uzziah son of Micah”. These names represent two famous prophets of the era of King Hezekiah, namely Isaiah and his father Amos, or Micah: Prophet Micah as Amos https://www.academia.edu/27351718/Prophet_Micah_as_Amos Isaiah must have accompanied his father Amos to the northern Bethel (Amos 7:10-14) where we know Isaiah as the prophet Hosea. By the time of Judith, he, now named Uzziah, had become chief official of the town of Bethel, which was Judith’s city of Bethulia, or Shechem: Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’. Part Two (ii): Shechem https://www.academia.edu/34737759/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_ii_Shechem “Holofernes” and Bagoas” “Holofernes” and “Bagoas” are further ‘dud’ names, they being non-Assyrian, that have found their way into the Book of Judith. The correct name for the Assyrian military leader, “Holofernes”, in the Book of Judith, is to be found in the Book of Tobit 14:10. It is “Nadin” (var. “Nadab”). Tobit, now near death, recalls the incident in which Nadin (“Holofernes”) had double-crossed his apparently former mentor and his uncle, Ahikar (“Achior”): ‘Remember what Nadin did to Ahikar his own uncle who had brought him up. He tried to kill Ahikar and forced him to go into hiding in a tomb. Ahikar came back into the light of day, but God sent Nadin down into everlasting darkness for what he had done. Ahikar escaped the deadly trap which Nadin had set for him, because Ahikar had given generously to the poor. But Nadin fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him. The “deadly trap” laid by “Holofernes” was this (Judith 6:7-9): ‘Now my men will take you into the mountains and leave you in one of the Israelite towns, and you will die with the people there. Why look so worried, Achior? Don't you think the town can stand against me? I [Holofernes] will carry out all my threats; you can be sure of that!’ But the heroine Judith would turn all of that on its head, so to speak, so that it would be ‘Nadin [who] fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him’. For more on this, see: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith This Nadin (“Holofernes”) was Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, known to have been slain in enemy territory – but wrongly thought to have been killed in Elam. Ben Dewar, writing of Ashur-nadin-shumi in his article: Rebellion, Sargon II's “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions of Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/36189988/Rebellion_Sargon_IIs_Punishment_and_the_Death_of_A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi_in_the_Inscriptions_of_Sennacherib will have this to say in his Abstract: …. A second instance of a death in Sennacherib’s family affecting the content of his inscriptions is also identified. His son Aššur-nādin-šumi’s death followed a pair of campaigns to the borders of Tabal, the location of Sargon’s death [sic]. Because of this it was viewed as a “punishment” for undertaking these campaigns to regions tainted by association with Sargon. After his death, Aššur-nādin-šumi is never mentioned in the same inscription as these campaigns. Although Sennacherib generally avoids mentioning rebellion, overcoming such events was an important facet of Assyrian royal ideology. Because of this, events in some ideologically or historically significant regions are explicitly stated to be rebellions in the annals. Sennacherib’s inscriptions therefore demonstrate, perhaps better than those of any other Assyrian king, the two sides of rebellion’s ideological importance as both an obstacle overcome by a heroic king, and as a punishment for a poor one. His attempts to obscure some occurrences of rebellion demonstrate a fear of the more negative ideological aspect of rebellion which is not usually present in the inscriptions of other kings. This provides new insight into the factors which influenced the composition of Sennacherib’s inscriptions. What I wrote in my university thesis on King Hezekiah of Judah (2007) about this situation was as follows: Another seemingly compelling evidence in favour of the conventional chronology, but one that has required heavy restoration work by the Assyriologists, is in regard to Sennacherib’s supposed accession. According to the usual interpretation of the eponym for Nashur(a)-bel, 705 BC, conventional dating, known as Eponym Cb6, Sargon was killed and Sennacherib then sat on the throne: “The king [against Tabal….] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [……] The king was killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken……]. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son of [Sargon took his seat on the throne]”. Tadmor informs us about this passage that: “Winckler and Delitzsch restored: [MU 16 Šarru-ki]n; ana Ta-ba-lu [illik]”. That is, these scholars took the liberty of adding Sargon’s name here. Jonsson, who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more heavily bracketted than had Tadmor: … “[Year 17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war”. On the 12th of Abu Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”. [End of quote] The incorrect (non-Assyrian) name, “Holofernes”, and also, “Bagoas”, must be late insertions into the Book of Judith, based on the very unreliable Diodorus Siculus, C1st BC (conventional dating), who told of an “Orophernes” and a “Bagoas” among the commanders of a campaign of Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ (c. 359-338 BC, conventional dating). See Ida Fröhlich, Time and Times and Half a Time (p. 118). For historical uncertainties surrounding Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ see e.g. my articles: Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith (8) Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith and: Medo-Persian history has nor adequate archaeology (8) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology According to the above, the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith was King Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the “Nadin” of Tobit 14:10), who was - like his father, Sennacherib - a contemporary of King Hezekiah. That being the case, which Assyrian contemporary of King Hezekiah was Assyria’s second-in-command on this campaign against Israel, “Bagoas”? Well, basing myself on a Jewish tradition that the future Nebuchednezzar himself was on this ill-fated campaign, and also on my crunching of neo-Assyrian into neo-Babylonian history, I have suggested that a possible candidate for “Bagoas” was that very Nebuchednezzar (= my Esarhaddon), another son of Sennacherib. See e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Sargon - Sennacherib, not Cyrus, was Isaiah 21’s destroyer of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there”. Gordon Franz Charles Boutflower, in his 1930 book, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 in Light of the Assyrian Monuments (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge), would prove most helpful in showing that Isaiah 21, often considered to prophesy the Fall of Babylon to King Cyrus, could neither refer to this relatively peaceful event nor to the initial, similarly peaceful taking of Babylon by Sargon II. I would fully agree with this, except that – with my identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (4) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sargon II’s initial peaceful entrance into Babylon would be followed up, years later, by that same king’s destruction of the mighty city. Gordon Franz has conveniently picked up this discussion of Charles Boutflower and Isaiah 21, the Assyrians and Cyrus, in his article “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21 Author: Gordon Franz MA Category: Contemporary Issues Created: 06 October 2010 …. Introduction During the First Gulf War - Operation Desert Storm - Saddam Hussein was brought to the forefront of world events. Students of Bible prophecy asked, “What, if anything, does he or Iraq have to do with prophetic events?” Passages concerning Babylon were studied to see where Saddam Hussein, or Iraq for that matter, might fit into a particular prophetic scheme. One passage which deals with the fall of Babylon is Isaiah 21. Verse 9 states, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.” I would like to re-examine this passage of Scripture and ask the question, “Was this passage fulfilled, or even partially fulfilled during Operation Desert Storm?” (as some prophecy teachers suggest), or, “Was the passage actually fulfilled in Isaiah’s day?” One of the best-selling books on the place of Babylon in prophecy during the First Gulf War was The Rise of Babylon by Dr. Charles Dyer. It is interesting that Dr. Dyer never addressed this passage in the book, nor does he address it in his follow-up book, World News and Bible Prophecy. Noah Hutching, the radio pastor for Southwest Radio Church in Oklahoma quoted Isaiah 21:9 in his book The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Final Fall of Babylon (1990: 27). Yet surprisingly, in the chapter entitled “Isaiah Against Babylon” (chapter 9), he only discusses Isaiah 13 and ignores completely chapter 21. Other popular prophecy teachers did address this chapter. J. R. Church, in his prophetic magazine Prophecy in the News, states: “While researching the prophets for their perspective on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we came across Isaiah’s prediction of doom upon the ‘desert of the sea’ (Isaiah 21). The description fits the Persian Gulf nations perfectly” (1990: 1). He goes on to identify the “lion” in verse 8 with Great Britain because the British Petroleum Company was given half of the oil rights in Kuwait (1990: 1). At the end of the article he predicted (prior to Operation Desert Storm) that “during the upcoming war with Iraq, Israel will become involved and occupy Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. When Israel destroys Damascus, Russia will retaliate. The U.S.S.R. has a 20-year defense treaty with Syria, promising to come to Syria’s aid in case of attack. The eventual Israeli invasion of Syria will precipitate Russian involvement. Ezekiel called this the Battle of Gog and Magog” (1990: 4). Apparently Rev. Church has not consulted Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s excellent work (1982) on the proper identification of Gog and Magog! And, with 20-20 hindsight, his predictions were not fulfilled. Another popular prophecy teacher, Dr. Robert Lindsted, in his book Certainty of Bible Prophecy had a little more to say about this chapter. In his chapter entitled “Saddam Hussein, The Persian Gulf, and the End Times” written just prior to Operation Desert Storm, he speculated that the “chariot of men” in verse 9 are the Israeli manufactured “Merkavah” tanks, the word meaning chariot (1990: 21-22). He goes on to quote a bit more of the verse “Babylon is fallen, is fallen” and suggested “again again, two fallings, one an ancient one under the Medes and Persians, and another which could be just around the corner” (1991: 22). Interestingly, he does not quote or comment on the last part of the verse which deals with the smashing of idols. Students of Bible prophecy have generally overlooked an important tool for understanding this chapter; mainly, the archaeologist’s spade. Archaeology has a direct bearing on this passage from two different angles. First, there are ancient inscriptions that give first hand accounts, or historical reflections, of the fall of Babylon in 689 BC. Second, there is confirmation of this destruction by the German excavation at the beginning of the 20th century. With this, let us turn our attention to Isaiah 21. The Context of Isaiah 21 This chapter falls within the “Burden against the nations” section of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 13-23). It was pronounced by Isaiah around 713 BC, just prior to the “14th year of the reign of King Hezekiah” (713/12 BC), in an attempt to influence Judean foreign policy. It seemed that a group within the “State Department” of Judah, led by Prime Minister Shebna (the royal steward), wanted to join an anti-Assyrian coalition of surrounding nations, lead by Merodah-baladan of Babylon. Isaiah tried to point out the futility of trusting in these foreign powers. He predicted that they would all soon be destroyed. He encouraged Hezekiah to trust only in the LORD for deliverance (Franz 1987: 28-30). Possibilities for Historical Fulfillment There are several candidates for the fulfillment of this passage in the history of ancient Babylon. The older commentaries stated that this was fulfilled when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC. In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates verse 2 as, “Against me are the Elamites, and the princes of the Persians are coming against me.” The “banquet” in verse 5 was seen as Belshazzar’s feast the night of the fall of Babylon. However, when Cyrus entered Babylon he did not treat the carved images the way it was described in verse 9. In fact, “on the contrary, we are expressly assured that his entrance, save for the attack on the palace in which Belshazzar was slain, was a peaceful one, and that there was no cessation whatever of the temple worship” (Bautflower 1930: 148-149). Another possibility is Sargon II’s campaign against Merodah-baladan in 710 BC. This possibility was first suggested by the Assyriologist George Smith and expanded on by Kleinert. George Adam Smith follows this idea in his commentary on Isaiah (nd: 1:201-204). More recently, John Hayes and Stuart Irvine, in their commentary on Isaiah, likewise adapted this view (1987: 271-276). This view, however, also has problems. The entrance of Sargon II into Babylon to assume the throne in 709 BC is described in the Assyrian sources as quite peaceful. Joan Oates in her book on Babylon states: “The cities of northern Babylonia are alleged to have welcomed the Assyrian king, throwing open their gates ‘with great rejoicing’” (1991: 116). Sargon II boastfully inscribed on the wall of his palace in Khorsabad: “Into Babylon, the city of the lord of the gods, joyfully I entered, in gladness of heart, and with a beaming countenance. I grasped the hand(s) of the great lord Marduk, and made pilgrimage (lit., completed the march) to the ‘House of the New Year’s Feast’” (ARAB 2:35). Hardly the way Isaiah described it! The best candidate is Sennacherib’s conquest of the city in 689 BC. When Sargon II died in battle in 705 BC [sic], his son Sennacherib ascended to the throne. In so doing, he assumed the kingship of Babylon as well. In 703 BC, Marduk-zakir-shumi II seized the throne of Babylon. Soon after, Merodah-baladan made a bid for the throne as well. Sennacherib turned his attention on him and he fled to the marshes. A Babylonian puppet, Bel-ibni, was installed as king. He lasted several years until he was replaced by Sennacherib’s son, Assur-nadin-shumi, who ruled in relative peace for about six years (699-694 BC). In 694 BC, Sennacherib launched a daring campaign against the Chaldeans on the western frontier of Elam. While Sennacherib’s forces were engaged near the Persian Gulf, some Elamites made a bold “end-run” and captured Sennacherib’s son at Sippar. The son was never heard from again, so it is assumed he was murdered by the Elamites. Mackey’s comment: No, Ashur nadin shumi was the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and was also the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Gordon Franz continues: An Elamite puppet, Nergal-ushezib, was placed on the throne of Babylon (694 BC). The Assyrians removed him on their way back to Nineveh several months later. A certain Mushezib-Marduk seized the throne with Aramaean support. This support prompted the new king and his Elamite alliance, paid for with silver, gold, and precious stones from the treasuries of the temples in Babylon, to attack Assyria. A major battle ensued at Halule on the Tigris River. The outcome of the battle depends on whose account you believe. Sennacherib boasted a victory with 150,000 of the enemy dead. The Babylonian Chronicles said the Assyrians retreated. The fact that Sennacherib did not continue the attack suggests that he suffered a reversal so he had to regroup. In 690 BC, he returned to lay siege against Babylon (Oates 1991: 116-119). The Bivian Inscription described the fall of Babylon in 689 BC in these terms. “In a second campaign of mine I advanced swiftly against Babylon, upon whose conquest I had determined. Like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose, and overwhelmed it like a hurricane. I completely invested that city, with mines and engines my hands [took the city]. The plunder ...... his powerful ..... whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places). Shuzubu, king of Babylonia, together with his family and his [nobles], I carried off alive into my land. The wealth of that city, - silver, gold, precious stones, property and goods, I doled out (counted into the hands of) to my people and they made it their own. The gods dwelling therein, - the hands of my people took them, and they smashed them. Their property and goods they seized” (ARAB 2:151-152). That is exactly what Isaiah “saw” in verse 9. In fact, A. A. Macintosh points out, “the Assyrian word used for ‘broke them in pieces’ (ushabbiruma) is ‘radically identical to the shbr of verse 9’” (1980: 72). It was as if Isaiah “saw” (prophetically) an advance copy of the “Nineveh News” with the headlines blaring “Babylonian Gods Smashed, Assyrian Army Victorious Over Babylonia” and he lifted the words right off the page and placed them in his book. You’ll pardon the pun, but this prophecy was literally fulfilled to the letter! Sennacherib goes on to describe the total destruction of Babylon in these terms: “The city and (its) houses, from the foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of bricks and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu Canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals, I flooded its site (lit., ground) with water, and the very foundations thereof (lit., the structure of its foundation) I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow” (ARAB 2:152). Is it any wonder that Isaiah predicted the destruction of Babylon in similar words? “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation ...” (13: 19-20a). He later wrote, “’for I will rise up against them,’ says the LORD of Hosts, ‘and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, and offspring and posterity,’ says the LORD. ‘I will also make it a possession for porcupine, and marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,’ says the LORD of Host” (14: 22-23). That is exactly what happened in 689 BC! Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” …. Some students of Bible prophecy might question whether this destruction was a literal fulfillment of the words of Isaiah. He said God would overthrow Babylon like Sodom and Gomorrah and it would never be inhabited again. After all, Esarhaddon rebuilt the city only eight years later. I think an archaeologist would understand this better than most. We know that when a city is destroyed by a military campaign or natural calamities it falls into ruins. When someone comes back to rebuild the city, they either fix up the previous buildings, if there is anything left, or reuse the stones that may be scattered on the surface to build an entirely new city. When Esarhaddon surveyed what used to be Babylon he found an uninhabited marshy area with some ruins of houses and palaces inhabited by wildlife. The city that he built was a completely new city on top of the previous one. So Isaiah, in truth, could say, “Babylon ... will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation.” And, “I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, and marshes of muddy water.” The city that Sennacherib destroyed was completely covered over when Esarhaddon rebuilt it so that level was never inhabited again. Esarhaddon built a completely new city on top of the marshy ruins of the old one. The words of Isaiah were literally fulfilled. I do not believe there is any need to speculate whether Saddam Hussein is in any of these passages. They were already fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. ….

Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

by Damien F. Mackey But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2): “And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”. But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana “The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”. Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers. This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”. Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere. For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”. Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river. And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”. This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). W. F. Albright ostensibly made easier the geographical task by reducing Nimrod’s early cities from four to three. While the biblical text, as it stands, reads (Genesis 10:10): “And the beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”, Dr. Albright, ingeniously, with a slight tweaking of the Masoretic, translated Calneh as “all of them”. Now, all of Babel, Erech and Akkad (without any Calneh) were in the land of Shinar. Clever on the part of W.F. Albright, but wrong, I think. For Calneh (Calno) is referred to several times in the Bible, its approximate location being fairly tightly circumscribed with it being linked by Ezekiel (27:23) to Haran; by Sennacherib (in Isaiah (10:9) to Carchemish; and by Amos (6:2) to Hamath. Nimrod ‘the Great’ and his early cities “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.” Genesis 10:8-9 Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod. Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended. Dr. David Livingston (I presume) has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk. http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm (i) Erech A possible candidate for Nimrod’s Erech, then, may be Terqa (t-Erqa), an ancient capital which, as we read, was in the environs of Shinar. Terqa was notable for its walls: https://www.terqa.org/pages/10.html#:~:text=The%20City%20Walls “If one could typify the impact of the size and scope of the ancient city of Terqa in one image, it would have to be the sight of the massive defensive rings surrounding the city – 60 acres of land surrounded by three concentric, solid masonry walls, 60 feet thick, with an additional 60 foot wide moat encircling the outer ring: these are extraordinary dimensions by any standard. So wide were these walls, that the outer ring possessed a passageway to allow for circulation along its perimeter. The date of construction for these extraordinary defenses, supported by Carbon 14 determinations as well as by the ceramic sequences, is indicated at 3000 B.C. for the inner wall, followed in turn by the middle and outer walls at one century intervals. This makes the walls of Terqa among the largest, oldest, tallest and most complex monuments in the Near East”. While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad. I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon. Despite the greatness of the Akkadian so-called dynasty, and its fame down through the ages, it is poorly attested stratigraphically. As I have written previously: The long Akkadian empire phase of history (c. 2350-2150 BC), so admired by subsequent rulers and generations, is remarkably lacking in archaeological data. ….: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”. But here I want to highlight the enormity of the problem. Archaeologists have actually failed to identify a specific pottery for the Akkadian era! This is, of course, quite understandable given that they (indeed, we) have been expecting to discover the heart of the Akkadian kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia. [End of quote] “Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad?” So, let us identify emperor Nimrod’s Akkad, not found by archaeologists to this day. (ii) Akkad (Agade) What do we know about Akkad? Well, the mighty Sargon of Akkad (Nimrod himself?) tells in an Inscription that ships (read reed boats) from Magan and Meluḫḫa docked in the Quay of Akkad: ‘The ships from Meluhha the ships from Magan the ships from Dilmun he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad’. Magan and Meluḫḫa in the Assyrian records are, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia. But, for Akkadian times, historians strangely (due to wrong geography and other things) identify them differently, as, say, respectively, Oman - in the Persian Gulf (their Sumer region) - and the Indus Valley. Egypt’s maritime trade with NW Syria was on the Mediterranean. So I looked around the area and found, roughly in line with Carchemish, the famous port city of Ugarit. Nimrod would have needed a port city if he were to embark upon important Mediterranean trade. And here may be the clincher. Another name for Ugarit (used by the Egyptians) was IKAT (very close to Akkad). Nimrod’s city of Akkad was, I believe, a Mediterranean port city, and it - contrary to Dr. Albright (his Calneh theory) - was not actually situated in the land of Shinar. Nimrod did not necessarily found any of these ancient sites, but he built upon them. All of my four (i-iv) proposed candidates (tentative or otherwise) for Nimrod’s first cities will be sites going right back to (with the possible exception of Terqa) the agricultural and farming age (Neolithic) - appropriate to Noah and his descendants. My four choices were all strategic ancient capitals, key strongholds and trade locations. First humanity, coming away from the mountain of the Ark’s landing, Karaca dağ, would have arrived at early sites such as Göbekli Tepe; Ur; and Haran; and would then have moved off from there in all directions. The Cretans from Anatolia, for instance, quickly became a technologically advanced sea-faring people. The land of Shinar, with its waters, early loomed as an attractive prospect. Shem, who no longer appears textually linked to brothers Ham and Japheth, may well have been an eye-witness to the Babel incident that he has recorded (Genesis 11:1-10): “This is the toledôt of Shem”. But it needs to be understood that, prior to this famous event, humanity may already have been divided up into nations and languages (cf. Genesis 10:31-32). Perhaps Ham had already gone to Egypt, “the land of Ham” (Psalm 105:22 Douay), and his son, Cush, to Ethiopia (Kush). Dr. John Osgood has made a very interesting video on: Into Africa - The True History of Man - John Osgood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgAeRFNOOhM Southern Mesopotamia was apparently not yet habitable due to the Flood water levels. There are some intriguing debates amongst Creationists, including Dr. John Osgood and Kenneth Griffith (co-discoverer of Noah’s mountain as Karaca dağ), on southern and central Mesopotamia at this early time. Their contributions can be read at: https://answersresearchjournal.org/tower-of-babel/where-is-tower-babel-reply/ (iii and iv) Babel and Calneh Here, I shall be pinning a lot on the Septuagint version of Isaiah 10:9, which differs appreciably from the usual version according to which: ‘Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?’ These boastful words by the all-conquering Assyrian king Sargon II (Sennacherib) are translated somewhat differently in the Septuagint, with a clue to the Tower of Babel: ‘Have I not taken the country above Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built?’ The name ‘Chalanes’ here is simply one of those several biblical variations for Nimrod’s Calneh, along with ‘Calno’ (above), and ‘Canneh’ (Ezekiel 27:23). Two vital points arise from this Septuagint verse. Firstly, by substituting the usual Carchemish with Babylon, the text may be telling us exactly where Babylon was. It was Carchemish. Appropriately, Carchemish lies on a river, the Euphrates, and is situated in the approximate region of Shinar. We know from Daniel 1:2 that Babylon was in Shinar. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4027-carchemish “[Carchemish’s] importance seems to have been based on its situation at the end of the most direct route from the mouth of the Orontes to the Euphrates and to Harran”. One of Babylon’s ancient names was, in fact, Šanḫara (= Shinar). Thus Rita Francia: (3) The Name of Babylon in Hittite Texts - Kasion 2 FS de Martino | Rita Francia - Academia.edu Carchemish, which had treaty relationships with Ugarit (my Akkad), had a name which I think comes linguistically close to a common ancient name for Babylon(ia): Karduniash. The meaning of this last name is not really known. I have tentatively identified Karduniash also with the famous, but not firmly located, capital city of Tarhuntašša. “Apparently, it was Sargon’s intention that Karkemish would become more than a mere provincial capital, i.e., simply the seat of an Assyrian governor. Rather, because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire …”. Gianni Marchesi Sargon II (Sennacherib) of Assyria initially had great plans for the famous Carchemish, according to Gianni Marchesi (2019, pp. 15-16): A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish (3) A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish [CORRECTED ONLINE VERSION] | Gianni Marchesi - Academia.edu …. In Karkemish, Sargon built not just a dwelling for his provincial governor, but a true royal palace where he stayed for a time and received tribute. In this connection, note the reference to the planting of what appears to be a botanical garden, an essential component of any Assyrian royal palace. Finally, the inauguration ceremony of his palace at Karkemish recalls well the inauguration cerimonies [sic]of Sargon’s palaces in the great Assyrian capitals of Kalhu and Dur-Sharrukenu. All this is quite telling of the great importance that Sargon attributed to Karkemish, putting the city on the Euphrates in a very special position. Apparently, it was Sargon’s intention that Karkemish would become more than a mere provincial capital, i.e., simply the seat of an Assyrian governor. Rather, because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the Empire. …. [End of quote] Archaeologists have identified a megaflood in the region - much later than the Noachic Flood, of course - which they have put down to climate change. But might not this flood which overwhelmed the region, including Carchemish’s ‘outer town’ of Jerablus (Tahtani), have been the work of the vindictive Sargon II (Sennacherib) who tells us that, regarding Babylon: ‘I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow’?: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/745/the-mutual-destruction-of-sennacherib--babylon/ I swiftly marched to Babylon which I was intent upon conquering. I blew like the onrush of a hurricane …. I completely surrounded it and captured it by breaching and scaling the walls. I did not spare his mighty warriors, young or old, but filled the city square with their corpses...I turned over to my men to keep the property of that city, silver, gold, gems, all the moveable goods. My men took hold of the statues of the gods in the city and smashed them. They took possession of the property of the gods. …. The city and houses I completely destroyed from foundations to roof and set fire to them. I tore down both inner and outer city walls, temples, temple-towers made of brick and clay - as many as there were - and threw everything into the Arahtu canal. I dug a ditch inside the city and thereby levelled off the earth on its site with water. I destroyed even the outline of its foundations. I flattened it more than any flood could have done. In order that the site of that city and its temples would never be remembered, I devastated it with water so that it became a mere meadow (Nagle, 26). “There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. We read in this report on Carchemish: https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/carchemishreport03brituoft/carchemishreport03brituoft.pdf “In the mass of debris against slabs B. 22 a and h there were charred pieces of poles, round in section, of a lightgrained wood resembling poplar; some of them were tilted up against the wall, others lay parallel to it. These must have been roofing-poles”. Secondly, the way the Septuagint verse is worded, the Tower was built at “Chalanes”, not Babylon. This may be just a matter of the original wording being re-arranged, with Calno usually preceding Carchemish, whereas the Septuagint version has ‘Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built’. Or, was it that the Tower was actually built in Calneh, and that Carchemish (original name?) became known as Babel (Babylon) afterwards due to its being the leading city of the Shinar region? Just a thought. But why I ask this question is because King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (c. 600 BC, conventional dating) will later appear to identify Borsippa, rather than Babylon, as the place of the Tower – which might also suggest, for the true location of Calneh, a Shinar(ian) Borsippa. The similarly named (phonetically) trio Borsippa (not on map – 11 miles SW of Babylon), Sippar and Nippur are thought to have lain in fairly close proximity to Babylon in southern Mesopotamia. Interestingly, the uncertain (in that southern Mesopotamian region) Calneh has been traditionally connected with Nippur: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/calneh “At present there is no acceptable identification of Calneh, although the other cities mentioned together with it in Genesis are known from Akkadian inscriptions. No identification of Calneh can be made on the basis of the "land of Shinar," which serves in this instance, as elsewhere in the Bible, as a synonym for Babylonia (cf. Yoma 10a, which identifies Calneh with נופר, i.e., the modern Tell Nuffar, ancient Nippur, connecting this name with נינפי, i.e., nymphe; the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew כַּלָה, kallah, "bride")”. Nippur, Borsippa, are regarded as being sacred cities dependent upon Babylon with no independent hegemony, never the seat of a regional power. Could ‘they’ be the same? And could they (it) equate to Nimrod’s Calneh? Here is what King Nebuchednezzar said about the Tower at Borsippa. It reads very much like Nimrod’s effort: https://armstronginstitute.org/125-nebuchadnezzars-tower-of-babel …. One thing Nebuchadnezzar isn’t generally known for, though, is a link with the tower of Babel—the attempt by Nimrod to build a tower up to heaven, dashed by God’s confounding of the languages (Genesis 11). A small handful of artifacts, however, help show an interesting link between Nebuchadnezzar and the biblical colossus. Birs Cylinders The Birs Cylinders are a series of clay cylinders dating to c. 600 b.c.e., discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson during the mid-19th century at the Babylonian site of Borsippa. The cylinders, bearing parallel inscriptions, were found inserted into the walls of a massive, heavily damaged tower at the site. This tower—a type of the famous Mesopotamian religious ziggurats—had been heavily repaired during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. Bricks were found around the site, having been stamped with the name of the king. And the wall cylinders had an interesting story to tell. Rawlinson (known as the father of Assyriology) translated the inscriptions as follows: I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon … my great lord has established me in strength, and has urged me to repair his buildings … the Tower of Babylon, I have made and finished … the Tower of Borsippa had been built by a former king. He had completed 42 [cubits?], but he did not finish its head; from the lapse of time it had become ruined … the rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork; the casing of burnt brick had bulged out … Merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation platform; but, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I undertook the rebuilding … I set my hand to build it up, and to finish its summit. As it had been in ancient times, so I built up its structure …. As translated above, Nebuchadnezzar literally calls this monument the Tower of Babylon. (“Babylon” is interchangeable with Babel.) He describes this tower as an important ancient Babylonian edifice built by a “former king” that, for some reason or other, the workers stopped short in finishing—they “did not finish its head.” Why not? Some clue could be taken from the second name Nebuchadnezzar gives for this tower: the Tower of Borsippa. Borsippa literally means tongue tower, thus providing a link to language. Surely a significant linguistic event must have happened in order for Borsippa to receive its unique name? The Bible—as well as early secular histories—provide the explanation. There is another translation of this text that is even more direct in language. This one comes from Rawlinson’s contemporary Assyriologist, Julius Oppert. He translates a couple of lines slightly differently: … the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it … A former king built it—they reckon 42 ages [ago]—but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it without order expressing their words …. This translation calls this massive, unfinished tower the most ancient monument of Babylon. This fits squarely with the tower of Babel (Genesis 10:10; 11:4). And, if indeed more accurate, it provides an even stronger link to the language “phenomenon” at the tower of Babel, stating that sometime during this original building project the people had “abandoned it without order expressing their words.” Was this, then, the reason that the tower was named Borsippa—because a great “Babel” of “unordered words” led to the abandonment of the project? And what caused such a linguistic phenomenon, that such a rich and luxurious tower would be built and then abandoned, with only its upper “head” left to finish? …. [End of quotes] Nimrod’s Calneh has proven somewhat troublesome for commentators. Taking Isaiah’s seemingly close association of Calneh with Babylon-Carchemish (10:9 Septuagint), and considering that it may be the original Borsippa-Nippur, then I would connect it with the almost identically named (as Borsippa) site of Til Barsip. Til Barsip (modern Tall al-Ahmar) was located about 20 kilometres south of Carchemish, which, situationally, accords very well with the conventional Borsippa (Birs Nimrud), which is located about 11 miles SW of Babylon. And both Til Barsip and Birs Nimrud are to be found to the east of the Euphrates River. Borsippa was closely connected with Babylon:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsippa “Borsippa is mentioned, usually in connection with Babylon, in texts from the Third Dynasty of Ur through the Seleucid Empire and even in early Islamic texts”. Akkadian culture Before proceeding to a consideration of the Babel incident itself, I need to return briefly to these phenomena: “The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then, so few traces of their work? Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad? Hopefully the second of these questions has now been answered (ii) Akkad (Agade) above. As to the first question, part of the answer may be that (as also argued above) the Akkadian dynasty - whilst being mighty and famous - was by no means as lengthy as is thought, with duplication (triplication?) occurring in the lists. As to the worrying lack of a stratigraphical culture, this may be due to chronological miscalculation. I have proposed that the brilliant Halaf culture (c. 6500-5500 BC, conventional dating), geographically most appropriate for the empire of Nimrod (including Nineveh, see map below) needs to be massively re-dated (lowered by some 4000 to 3000 years) to impact upon the Akkadian era (c. 2300 BC, conventional dating). Globalisation of the Babel Incident Shem writes in his toledôt history (Genesis 11:1-10): Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly’. They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth’. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other’. So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. This is the account [toledôt] of Shem’s family line. As with the interpretation of any parts of early Genesis, idiom, original language, scribal methods, ancient customs, etc., all have to be taken into consideration. Idiom will be important here. Conservative scholars have a tendency to globalise the Flood and Babel incidents, with phrases such as “the whole earth” meaning for them the globe, and including everybody. The biblical scribes tended to think more locally. The whole earth, in the case of the Babel incident, for instance, could simply mean the whole region of Shinar. Nor is Babel probably all about language as tends to be concluded. Sam Boyd, finding similar sentiments to the Babel account in Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription, has suggested that the point of the story is, not about a single language, but about speaking in harmony. In other words, the tyrant Nimrod had instigated a program to which his obedient (terrified?) subjects had conformed, as one. “Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9”: (6) Sargon's Dūr-Šarrukīn Cylinder Inscription and Language Ideology: A Reconsideration and Connection to Genesis 11:1-9 | Sam Boyd - Academia.edu Sam Boyd writes: …. One of the foremost pieces of evidence in this discussion has been Sargon II’s Dūr-Šarrukīn cylinder inscription, in which he mentions the role of administrators and overseers in an attempt to consolidate his empire and allegedly to impose “one mouth” (pâ ištēn) on rebellious groups. The passage that has gained particular attention is the following, with phrases that will be important in the analysis below translated in boldface: …. Subjects of the four regions, foreign people, of non-harmonious speech, dwellers of mountains and lands, as many as the light of the gods, lord of all, guides, whom, by the order of Assur my lord, with the power of my scepter, I plundered. I made them act in concert, and I settled them in its (Dūr-Šarrukīn’s) midst. Natives of Assyria, masters of every craft, I dispatched them as overseers and officials to teach correct behavior, namely fear of god and king. …. … I claim that Genesis 11:1–9 is not a story about language, and rather that the idioms that have been translated as such concern political action and the authority to govern. I am not the first to argue so, noting especially Christoph Uehlinger’s groundbreaking 1990 study Weltreich und “eine Rede,” and works as old as Campegius Vitringa’s 17th century dissertation De confusione linguarum. …. Moreover, my explanation both uses more of a political than a personal lens than Virtringa’s interpretation, and makes better exegetical sense of Genesis 11:7 in particular. …. … Neo-Assyrian kings not only developed rhetoric, imagery, and literary and artistic motifs to provide justification to expand and to organize the empire, but, in doing so, also met with resistance. For example, texts from Sargon II’s time indicate a dissatisfaction with the king’s building campaign, specifically the Weidner Chronicle from Babylon. Several key elements of criticism correspond to themes in Genesis 11:1–9. As Marc Van de Mieroop argues, Assyrian kings had long taken credit for the construction of buildings, but did not ever claim credit for the founding of cities per se. The act of selecting the site for a new capital was the prerogative of the divine realm. In contrast, Sargon claimed credit for the identification of the location of his capital Dūr-Šarrukīn, comparing himself to the sage Adapa in the process, in addition to the construction of the capital buildings (part of a massive building campaign generally). Even the dimensions of the city contained proportions that called to mind his name, ensuring that the “measure of the city walls represents a numerical cryptographic writing of his name.” Yet the founding of the city had cosmological significance as well, and Sargon inscribed the language of creation from the Enūma Eliš in his description of his new capital. Sargon, then, not only created a parallel between himself and Adapa, but between himself and the creative acts of [the god] Marduk. This building act and the rhetoric that accompanied it was met with criticism. As Beate Pongraz-Leisten argues, “founding a new city was considered a primordial act of creation by the gods; when performed by a king, it was regarded as an act of hubris.” Indeed, the Babylonian Weidner Chronicle was likely written in the Neo-Assyrian period, possibly to criticize Sargon II’s building campaign. Given the themes that Uehlinger noted, the criticisms seen in the Weidner Chronicle attacking Sargon’s hubris for taking the divine right of founding a city has obvious correlations to the Tower of Babel episode. Indeed, just as the builders of the tower met with divine wrath, so also Sargon II’s untimely death was interpreted as an act of divine retribution in the “Sin of Sargon.” …. Other political transformations have also been identified during Sargon’s reign according to some scholars, most notably the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca. This innovation and a certain inscription that supposedly attests to it have also been connected to Genesis 11:1–9, as discussed below. …. Sargon II may so have admired Nimrod that he took his name, Sargon (‘True King’), and imposed the language of Aramaïc, as Nimrod may have imposed Akkadian: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/king-sargon-akkad#:~:text=Sargon%20sent%20Akkadian%20governors%20to,within%20Mesop “Sargon sent Akkadian governors to rule Sumerian cities and tear down defensive walls. He left the Sumerian religion in place but made Akkadian the official language of all Mesopotamia [sic]. By lowering physical and linguistic barriers and unifying his realm, he promoted commerce both within Mesopotamia and well beyond”.

Sennacherib’s oldest son triplicated

by Damien F. Mackey I have detected a telling X-NADIN-SHUMI name pattern in connection with the rule of ancient Babylon: 1. Sennacherib would place his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, upon the throne of Babylon. 2. A Ninurta-nadin-shumi would precede Nebuchednezzar so-called I upon the throne of Babylon. 3. Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I’s contemporary, Enlil-nadin-shumi, would take his place upon the throne of Babylon. So what, one might say! Well, in the context of my revision, this all would be the one and the same historical situation. Allow me to explain. A. First Ramifications 1. Sennacherib, conventionally dated to c. 700 BC, placed upon the throne of Babylon his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, who later dies and is replaced by Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s youngest ‘son’. D. T. Potts writes: “For reasons which are not entirely clear, as heir presumptive following the abduction (and presumably execution) of his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib had chosen his youngest son, Esarhaddon, bypassing three older children (see the discussion in Porter 1993: 16ff.)”. (The Archaeology of Elam, p. 274) 2. Ninurta-nadin-shumi, preceding as he does in the king-lists Nebuchednezzar, known as I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating), on the throne of Babylon, is sometimes wrongly considered to have been the father of this Nebuchednezzar. However, with my identification of: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (4) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, who, in turn, was Esarhaddon (see also my): Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ninurta-nadin-shumi must merge into Ashur-nadin-shumi, now in c. 700 BC. The sequence in 1. and 2. is consistent: (Sennacherib) X-nadin-shumi Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) 3. Enlil-nadin-shumi will sit upon the throne of Babylon during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta (c. 1200 BC, conventional dating), whom I have confidently identified as Sennacherib: Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? (5) Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus, again, our sequence: Sennacherib (= Tukulti-Ninurta) X-nadin-shumi (Esarhaddon = Nebuchednezzar) C13th/C12th BC Assyro-Babylonia needs to be slid down the time scale and re-located in the C8th BC period. A perfect example of this required chronological adjustment is to be found in the succession of Shutrukid Elamite kings of the supposed C12th BC perfectly paralleling those of the C8th BC, according to what I tabulated in my university thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 180): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (5) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! B. Second Ramifications D. T. Potts (above) is not too far wrong in referring to “the abduction (and presumably execution) of [Sennacherib’s] eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi …”. For Ashur-nadin-shumi, the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of the Book of Tobit (14:10), was also the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, the Assyrian Commander-in-chief, who was indeed “executed”: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (5) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, though, we can add some more to this. “Holofernes”/Nadin was, all at once, Enlil-/Ninurta-/Ashur-nadin-shumi, the oldest son of Tukulti-Ninurta/Sennacherib. Upon his execution, this one-time ruler of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-27) was succeeded on the throne by Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar, with whom there commenced a new dynasty (Chaldean). If Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar is to be looked for in the Book of Judith, he can only be “Bagoas”, second to “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (5) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sennacherib’s oldest son may, in fact, have been quadruplicated in the person of the ill-fated Sin-nadin-apli, wrongly thought to have been the oldest son of Esarhaddon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ama%C5%A1-%C5%A1uma-ukin “… the crown prince Sin-nadin-apli. …. Upon the unexpected death of Sin-nadin-apli [the Judith incident?] … the Assyrian court was thrown into upheaval”.