by
Damien
F. Mackey
They are: Judith;
Micah; Isaiah; Eliakim; Tobit; Ahikar; Merodach-baladan;
Sennacherib;
Ashur-nadin-shumi; Esarhaddon.
‘I’ve never read a King Hezekiah of Judah
like that before’.
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 thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
However,
as often occurred to me whilst writing that thesis, King Hezekiah, 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.
In the
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.
King Hezekiah of Judah
King
Hezekiah, a formidable historical figure, whom his 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 (prof. 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 article:
This article, if correct, takes
us far deeper at least into the reign of King Hezekiah, and it even tells of
his violent death at the hands of pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29-30).
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
My other move on Sennacherib at
that time involved the necessary (in terms of the revision) folding of 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 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.
More appropriately, now,
Nebuchednezzar I might be found to have been Nebuchednezzar 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 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]:[1]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:
- 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:[4]
- 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[5] - 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 the
Book of Judith?
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:
Book of
Judith: confusion of names
The Book
of Judith opens with an eastern 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.
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 deafeats 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 as discussed in Part One: https://www.academia.edu/38974665/In_search_of_less_obscure_King_Hezekiah_of_Judah
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.
“Medes”
and “Ecbatana” are ‘dud’ geographical names, the same set also causing great confusion
in the Book of Tobit:
A Common
Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
The king
doing the city building is actually Sargon II, not Merodach-baladan
(“Arphaxad”), the Assyrian king building his fabulous new city of Dur Sharrukin,
not “Ecbatana”:
“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)
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 re-emerges in the Book of Daniel - according to my tightened
chronology - as “Arioch” the high official of King Nebuchednezzar II. See my
article:
Meeting of
the wise – Arioch and Daniel
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
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
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:
Assyrians “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 my article:
"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
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:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
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:
and:
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 II 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 II?
No comments:
Post a Comment