Judith - turning an Assyrian Crown Prince into a Prize Clown

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“Judith had nothing but contempt and irony in her heart when she had,

with all customary protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was assembled

with his impressive entourage (Judith 10:23)”.

 

 

Ben Dewar has written in the Abstract to his article:

Rebellion, Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššu...

 

Rebellion, Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions of Sennacherib

 

• Ben Dewar 

 

Abstract

 

Despite the frequency of rebellions against the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his annals are described as such. Instead rebels are often described as having never submitted to Sennacherib before. This reluctance to write about rebellion is unusual in Assyrian inscriptions, but has not been commented upon in the previous scholarship. This study investigates the reasons for this peculiarity of Sennacherib’s inscriptions. It is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was intended to draw attention away from the connection between these events and the death of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II. 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. 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.

 

Let us unpack this short piece in a revised context.

 

With Sennacherib qua Sennacherib, we get only a portion of his overall story.

For Sennacherib was also, according to my reconstructions, Tukulti Ninurta; Shamsi-Adad II/V; and Sargon II. See e.g. my articles:

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib

 

(7) Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib

 

Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again

 

(7) Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

(7) Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

So the “very few events” in Ben Dewar’s opening statement: “Despite the frequency of rebellions against the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his annals are described as such”, might be less “few” in actuality. 

 

Now, in my context, Ben Dewar’s qualifying statement:

 

“It is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was intended to draw attention away from the connection between these events and the death of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II” - with Sennacherib identified by me as Sargon II - is hopelessly wide of the mark.

 

The Assyrian text upon which everything hangs was doctored by Winckler and Delitzsch to incorporate the name “Sargon”, which does not actually appear there.

Thus I wrote in my (2007) university thesis (Volume One, p. 137):

 

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:[1]

 

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.

 

Jonsson, who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more heavily bracketted than had Tadmor:[2] “[Year 17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”.

 

This document will become hugely significant in the context of this thesis. ….

 

The land of Tabal appears to have become the location of the death of both Sargon II – which it wasn’t – and of Sennacherib’s (that is Sargon II’s) ill-fated Crown Prince son, Ashur-nadin-shumi.

 

Now, the latter was the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and also the wretched Nadin (Nadab) of the Book of Tobit:

 

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

 

(7) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith

 

But did he meet his fate at Tabal, which is apparently in SE Anatolia?

 

No, “Holofernes” (Ashur-nadin-shumi) met his fate outside “Bethulia”, which is Shechem in the southern Levant:

 

Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’

 

(7) Judith’s City of 'Bethulia'

 

It seems that there was also a Tabal in this approximate region:

Tabal (region) - Wikipedia

“The name Tabal appears to have been a widely used one, since a location sharing this name is recorded from southern Syria, and the toponym Dabal or Tabal is recorded during the period of the Akkadian Empire …”.

 

Indeed, “Holofernes” had just marched his army down from the Damascus region (Judith 2:27).

 

One possible identification for the southern Tabal may be Jibleam (Ibleam), as the Belamon/Belameh/Belmain of Judith 4:4 is thought probably to be.

For the name Tabal (Tubal) may well be derived from Ibleam:

Ibleam | The amazing name Ibleam: meaning and etymology

“… Jabal, Jubal, Jubilee, Obil, Tubal …”. 

 

I recently wrote in my article:

 

Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc

 

Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc - Search

 

…. In the Book of Judith, all the deference and respect shown by the heroine towards a royal person is entirely faked, part of Judith’s ruse, because it is directed towards the enemy leader, Holofernes. He, somewhat like the Dauphin, was second to the Great King (of Assyria), hence not crowned. Judith in fact has nothing but contempt for Holofernes and the Assyrians (somewhat like Joan’s attitude towards the English).

 

But she will tell Holofernes, very much in Joan of Arc fashion - but with complete irony in Judith’s case - that, after his victory (Judith 11:19): ‘… I will lead you through Judea, until you come to Jerusalem; there I will set your throne. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and no dog will so much as growl at you’.

 

Judith claimed before Holofernes to be a messenger from God who was now supposedly favouring the Assyrians (v. 19): ‘For this was told me to give me foreknowledge; it was announced to me and I was sent to tell you’.

 

In Joan’s case, the ruse was on the part of the Dauphin, not her. “To test her, the king had disguised himself, but she at once saluted him without hesitation amidst a group of attendants” (New Advent). Her opening words to him were direct and to the point just like Judith’s had been to Holofernes (Spoto, p. 48): ‘My most eminent lord Dauphin, I have come, sent by God, to bring help to you and to the kingdom’.

 

Donald Spoto adds: “It was as direct and unadorned a summary as the Dauphin – and anyone else before or since – could ask.

 

Help for him and for France: that was her message and her vocation”. But her reverence for the Dauphin was completely honest.

 

Judith, on the other hand, had nothing but contempt and irony in her heart when she had similarly, with all customary protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was – just like the Dauphin – assembled with his impressive entourage (Judith 10:23): “When Judith came into the presence of Holofernes and his servants, they all marvelled at the beauty of her face. She prostrated herself and did obeisance to him, but his slaves raised her up”.

 

The pressure upon the young woman at this time must have been enormous.

 

Donald Spoto says of Joan that (ibid., p. 49): “Charles was fascinated by the seventeen-year old girl who stood calmly and confidently before him … after a brief but apparently intense private conversation, he seemed to one member of his court to be “radiant””.

 

Certainly ‘fascination’ is one word that could also be used to describe Holofernes’ impression of the young Judith, though the biblical text uses “passion”, as well as “greatly pleased with her”, and it has “[being] merry” rather than being “radiant” (Judith 12:16-17, 20):

 

Holofernes’ heart was ravished with her and his passion was aroused, for he had been waiting for an opportunity to seduce her from the day he first saw her. So Holofernes said to her, ‘Have a drink and be merry with us!’

…. Holofernes was greatly pleased with her, and drank a great quantity of wine, much more than he had ever drunk in one day since he was born.

 

Joan [Jehanne], as we read, was regarded by the enemy, the English, as a “prostitute”.

 

And Holofernes likewise presumed Judith [Jehudith], in a camp full of men, to be fair game, saying to his chief eunuch, Bagoas (Judith 12:12): “… it would be a disgrace if we let such a woman go without having intercourse with her. If we do not seduce her, she will laugh at us’. This Bagoas had summoned Judith to the tent of his master, Holofernes, with the words (12:13): ‘Let this pretty girl not hesitate to come to my lord to be honoured in his presence …’ .

 

Similarly had Jean de Metz first addressed Joan (Spoto, p. 37), “M’amie [“Sweetheart” or “Honey”] …”.

 

Whilst Joan will eventually attend the coronation of Charles (New Advent): “… on Sunday, 17 July, 1429, Charles VII was solemnly crowned, the Maid standing by with her standard, for — as she explained — “as it had shared in the toil, it was just that it should share in the victory”,” Judith will not have to suffer the humiliating indignity of attending a victorious Holofernes’ being crowned in Jerusalem.

 

---

[1] H. Tadmor, ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur’, p. 97.

[2] ‘The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology’, p. 21.

Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 If, as I believe, Hezekiah and Josiah were one and the same king, of the same era, with whom in Josiah’s realm are we to match Shebna the scribe of Hezekiah?

  

A colleague of mine, a smoker, used to make the comment, whenever I (a non-smoker) would ask him for a match:

 

‘If I had a match for you, I could start a circus!’

 

So far I have managed to strike a match for a sequence of famous names from the Hezekiah-Josiah narratives.

My task has been greatly facilitated by the excellent Chart 37 from the Domain of Man site: Chart 37: Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives

 

See e.g. my article:

 

Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

(8) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

Chart 37, however, does list several connections with which I may not agree, and it also lacks a few that I would consider to be essential ones.

For example, it has failed to strike a match for Josiah’s prophetess Huldah.

She was the great Simeonite heroine, Judith.

 

But the one official upon whom I intend to focus in this article is Hezekiah’s scribe, Shebna (Sobna), whose matching partner in Chart 37 is Josiah’s Shaphan.

This is a superficially attractive pairing that I, too, had accepted. For one, the names Shebna and Shaphan appear to be tolerably interchangeable, and, secondly, the official status appears to be exact: “Shebna … over the Temple” (Isaiah 22:15, Douay); but also “the scribe” (2 Kings 18:18), and “Shaphan the scribe [or secretary]” (2 Kings 22:8).

 

However, chronological and other considerations lately have caused me to consider rejecting this matching. In preparation for this, I had concluded my above-mentioned article by writing: “Finally, as promising as it may look, I can no longer juxtapose Shebna and Shaphan”.

 

For what are we looking?

 

To find (hopefully) the right match for Shebna in the Book of Jeremiah and related texts, we would expect to encounter a Levite of high status in the kingdom who was pro-Egyptian, and who had no toleration whatsoever for the teachings and politics of the prophet Jeremiah. For here is Isaiah’s snapshot of the “mighty man” (22:15-16):

 

Go, say to this steward,
    to Shebna the palace administrator:
‘What are you doing here and who gave you permission
    to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
    and chiseling your resting place in the rock?’

 

And this will be his fate (vv. 17-19):

 

‘Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
    and hurl you away, you mighty man.
He will roll you up tightly like a ball
    and throw you into a large country.

There you will die
    and there the chariots you were so proud of
    will become a disgrace to your master’s house.
I will depose you from your office,
    and you will be ousted from your position’.

 

What is more, Isaiah foretells that Jeremiah son of Hilkiah - here named alternatively as “Eliakim son of Hilkiah” - will replace Shebna (vv. 20-24):

 

‘In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 

I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand

your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem

and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the

House of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one

can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat

of honor for the House of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him:

its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars’.

 

Jeremiah, in other words, will replace Shebna as high priest in the House of his father, Hilkiah.

 

V. 25: “In that day,” declares the Lord Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken”.

 

            Will be deposed and go into exile

 

The crucial information that Shebna will be deposed and will be hurled, like a ball, into exile in a foreign land, had encouraged me in my university thesis (2007) to attempt to forge a connection between Shebna and the foreign-sounding rebel against Assyria’s Sargon II, namely, Iatna-Iamani.

This Iatna-Iamani famously appears in the Tang-i Var inscription in which he is handed over to Sargon II by pharaoh Shebitku of Egypt-Ethiopia.

 

Now, as if Shebitku as an opponent of Sargon II does not already throw right out of whack the conventional chronology, I have added further to the controversy by identifying this Shebitku Khaemwaset with Khaemwaset the co-regent son of Ramses II:

 

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

 

(5) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

And, just as Isaiah had predicted about Shebna, so, too, was Iatna-Iamani sent into exile. In the following account of him, Iatna-Iamani is wrongly, I think, called “a Philistine king of Ashdod” : Iamani Explained

 

Iamani Explained

 

Iamani (akk| ia-ma-ni, "Ionian") or Iadna (akk| ia-ad-na, "Cypriot") was a Philistine king of Ashdod during the reign of Neo-Assyrian emperor Sargon II. His names, meaning "Ionian" and "Cypriot" … seemingly indicate he was of Greek extraction, and therefore a foreigner amongst the Philistines, although the names themselves are Semitic.

 

According to Sargon II's annals, the emperor had deposed Azuri, the previous king of Ashdod, for plotting to skirt the paying of tribute to Assyria, and replaced him with his brother, Ahi-Miti. However, shortly afterwards, the Hittites apparently invaded Ashdod and placed Iamani, a member of the lower class, on the throne. Much like Azuri, Iamani did not respect Neo-Assyrian suzerainty, and so in c. 712 BCE … Sargon marched with his personal retinue to the Levant. When Iamani became aware of the emperor's advance, he fled to Egypt, leaving behind his family. Upon his arrival, Sargon captured Ashdod and Ashdod-Yam, as well as Gath; which Ashdod apparently controlled during Iamani's reign. Incidentally, this is the last time Gath appears in historical records, which may indicate Sargon II's forces destroyed the city rather than simply capturing it.

 

In any event, Sargon's successful invasion marked the end of an independent Philistia, which would now persist under direct Assyrian rule until the empire's collapse.

After Ashdod's capture, Shebitku, the king of Egypt, apparently found Iamani in the midst of a people whom the Assyrians had never heard of, or rather, "[who]se ancestors [from the] distant [past] until now had nev[er s]ent their mounted messenger(s) to the kings, (Sargon II's) ancestors, in order to inquire about their well-being", and captured Iamani and sent him to Assyria for fear that the empire would inflict a similar fate upon Egypt. …. At this point, Iamani disappears from the annals, and his fate is never mentioned. ….

[End of quote]

 

As for Shebna’s match in the realm of King Josiah, I would have to go for the wicked priest, Pashhur (Pashur) son of Immer, who was totally inimical to Jeremiah, and about whom the prophet predicted that he, likewise, would end up as a captive in exile. “And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die, and shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast prophesied lies” (Jeremiah 20:6).

 

Pashhur, like Iatna-Iamani, (like Shebna?) had a foreign type of name.

Pashhur is considered to be an Egyptian name, Pš-Ḥr – befitting Shebna’s pro-Egyptian stance. It is not unlike the famous Egyptian name Pasenhor (Horpasen).

I had, in fact, in my (2007) thesis, surmised that Iamani might have been an Egyptian name, “… Iamani (or Imn, Amen).” (Volume One, p. 383)

 

The names Sheb-Na and Iat-NA do have in common, at least, an -NA ending.

 

None of this appears to fit with Shaphan, anyway, who comes across as having been a respectable secretary still performing his duties for King Josiah in the latter’s Year 18, which would be somewhat too late to match with the insurrection of Iatna-Iamani during the Assyrian-Judean war – Jeremiah’s “northern” enemy (Jeremiah 1:13-19).

 

An apparent loyal Yahwist, with a family that largely supported the prophet Jeremiah, Shaphan did have one son, Jaazaniah, though, who would turn to idolatrous worship.

 

Are You Acquainted With Shaphan and His Family? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

Are You Acquainted With Shaphan and His Family?

 

WHEN reading your Bible, have you ever noticed references to Shaphan and some members of his influential family? Who were they? What did they do? What lessons can we learn from them?

 

The Bible introduces “Shaphan the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam” to us in connection with Josiah’s restoration of true worship in about 642 B.C.E. (2 Kings 22:3) During the following 36 years, until Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E., we are introduced to his four sons, Ahikam, Elasah, Gemariah, and Jaazaniah, and to his two grandsons, Micaiah and Gedaliah. …. “The family of Shaphan dominated the bureaucracy [in the kingdom of Judah] and held the position of king’s scribe from the time of Josiah until the Exile,” explains the Encyclopaedia Judaica. A review of what the Bible says about Shaphan and his family will help us appreciate how they supported the prophet Jeremiah and the true worship of Jehovah.

 

Shaphan Supports True Worship

 

In 642 B.C.E., when King Josiah was about 25, we find Shaphan serving as the king’s secretary and copyist. (Jeremiah 36:10) What did that involve? The above-mentioned reference work states that a royal scribe and secretary was a close adviser to the king, in charge of financial matters, competent in diplomacy, and knowledgeable in foreign affairs, international law, and trade agreements. Thus, as a royal secretary, Shaphan was one of the most influential men in the kingdom.

 

Ten years earlier, young Josiah had “started to search for the God of David his forefather.” Shaphan was evidently much older than Josiah and could therefore be a good spiritual adviser to him and a supporter of Josiah’s first campaign of restoring true worship. a​—2 Chronicles 34:1-8.

 

During temple repair work, “the very book of the law” was found, and Shaphan “began to read it before the king.” Josiah was shocked to hear its content and sent a delegation of trusted men to Huldah the prophetess in order to inquire of Jehovah concerning the book. The king showed confidence in Shaphan and his son Ahikam by including them in the delegation.​—2 Kings 22:8-14; 2 Chronicles 34:14-22.

 

This is the only reference in the Scriptures to what Shaphan himself did. In other Bible verses, he is just referred to as a father or a grandfather. Shaphan’s offspring came into close contact with the prophet Jeremiah.

 

Ahikam and Gedaliah

 

As we have already noted, Shaphan’s son Ahikam is first mentioned in connection with the delegation sent to the prophetess Huldah. A reference work notes: “Although Ahikam’s title is not given in the Hebrew Bible, it is evident that he was high-ranking.”

 

Some 15 years after that incident, Jeremiah’s life was in danger. When he warned the people about Jehovah’s intention to destroy Jerusalem, “the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying: ‘You will positively die.’” What then developed? The account continues: “It was the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan that proved to be with Jeremiah, in order not to give him into the hand of the people to have him put to death.” (Jeremiah 26:1-24) What does this show? The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “This incident not only attests the influence wielded by Ahikam, but also indicates that he, like other members of the family of Shaphan, was kindly disposed toward Jeremiah.”

 

About 20 years later, after the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and taken most of the people into exile, Shaphan’s grandson Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was appointed governor over the remaining Jews. Did he, like Shaphan’s other family members, care for Jeremiah? The Bible record reads: “Accordingly Jeremiah came to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam at Mizpah and took up dwelling with him.” Within a few months, Gedaliah was killed, and the remaining Jews took Jeremiah with them when they moved to Egypt.​—Jeremiah 40:5-7; 41:1, 2; 43:4-7.

 

Gemariah and Micaiah

 

Shaphan’s son Gemariah and grandson Micaiah played a prominent part in the events described in Jeremiah chapter 36. The time was about 624 B.C.E., in the fifth year of King Jehoiakim. Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary, read aloud from the book the words of Jeremiah at the house of Jehovah, “in the dining room of Gemariah the son of Shaphan.” Accordingly, “Micaiah the son of Gemariah the son of Shaphan got to hear all the words of Jehovah from out of the book.”​—Jeremiah 36:9-11.

 

Micaiah notified his father and all the other princes about the scroll, and they all wanted to hear what it said. How did they react? “Now it came about that as soon as they heard all the words, they looked at one another in dread; and they proceeded to say to Baruch: ‘We shall without fail tell the king all these words.’” Before speaking to the king, however, they advised Baruch: “Go, conceal yourself, you and Jeremiah, so that no one at all will know where you men are.”​—Jeremiah 36:12-19.

 

As anticipated, the king rejected the message in the scroll and burned it piece by piece. Some princes, including Shaphan’s son Gemariah, “pleaded with the king not to burn the roll, but he did not listen to them.” (Jeremiah 36:21-25) The book Jeremiah​—An Archaeological Companion concludes: “Gemariah was a strong supporter of Jeremiah at the court of King Jehoiakim.”

 

Elasah and Jaazaniah

 

In 617 B.C.E., Babylon took control of the kingdom of Judah. Thousands of Jews, “all the princes and all the valiant, mighty men . . . and also every craftsman and builder of bulwarks,” were taken into exile, including the prophet Ezekiel. Mattaniah, whose name the Babylonians changed to Zedekiah, became the new vassal king. (2 Kings 24:12-17).

 

Later Zedekiah sent a delegation that included Shaphan’s son Elasah to Babylon. Jeremiah entrusted to Elasah a letter that had an important message from Jehovah to the exiled Jews.​—Jeremiah 29:1-3.

 

The Bible record thus indicates that Shaphan, three of his sons, and two of his grandsons used their influential positions to support true worship and the faithful prophet Jeremiah. What about Shaphan’s son Jaazaniah? Unlike the other members of Shaphan’s family, he evidently engaged in idol worship. In the sixth year of Ezekiel’s exile in Babylon, or about 612 B.C.E., the prophet had a vision in which 70 men offered incense to idols at the temple in Jerusalem. Among them was Jaazaniah, the only one mentioned by name. This may suggest that he was a prominent member of this group. (Ezekiel 8:1, 9-12) Jaazaniah’s example demonstrates that being raised in a godly family does not ensure one’s becoming a faithful worshiper of Jehovah. Each individual is responsible for his own course of action.​—2 Corinthians 5:10.

 

Historicity of Shaphan and His Family

 

By the time Shaphan and his family played a part in the events that took place in Jerusalem, the use of seals had become common in Judah. Seals were used to witness or sign documents and were made of precious stones, metal, ivory, or glass. Usually the name of the seal’s owner, his father’s name and, occasionally, the owner’s title were engraved on them.

 

Hundreds of Hebrew seal impressions on clay have been found. Professor Nahman Avigad, scholar on Hebrew epigraphy, the study of ancient inscriptions, noted: “The seal inscriptions are the only Hebrew epigraphic source that mentions persons known from the Bible.” Have any seal inscriptions of Shaphan or his family members been found? Yes, the names Shaphan and his son Gemariah appear on the seal ….

 

Scholars also say that possibly four other members of the family are referred to on seal impressions​—Azaliah, the father of Shaphan; Ahikam the son of Shaphan; Gemariah the son of Shaphan; and Gedaliah, who was apparently referred to on a seal impression as being “over the House.” The fourth of these seals is considered to have belonged to Gedaliah, grandson of Shaphan, although his father, Ahikam, is not mentioned. His title on the seal impression indicates that he was one of the highest officials in the state.

 

[Footnote]

 

Shaphan must have been much older than Josiah, considering that Shaphan’s son Ahikam was a grown man when Josiah was about 25 years old.​—2 Kings 22:1-3, 11-14.

 

Huldah​—An Influential Prophetess

 

Upon hearing the reading of “the very book of the law” found in the temple, King Josiah ordered Shaphan and four other high-ranking officials to “inquire of Jehovah” about the book. (2 Kings 22:8-20) Where could the delegation find the answer? Jeremiah and possibly Nahum and Zephaniah, all prophets and Bible writers, lived in Judah at the time. The delegation, however, approached Huldah the prophetess.

 

The book Jerusalem​—An Archaeological Biography comments: “The remarkable thing about this episode is that the male-female aspect of the story was completely unremarked. No one considered it the least bit inappropriate that an all-male committee took the Scroll of the Law to a woman to determine its status. When she declared it the word of the Lord, no one questioned her authority to determine the issue. This episode is often overlooked by scholars assessing the role of women in ancient Israel.” Of course, the message received was from Jehovah. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

Pashhur the son of Immer

 

Notice that Pashhur, exactly like Shebna, “over the House [Temple], was “governor in the House of the Lord [Temple]”.

He tormented the prophet Jeremiah, placing him in the stocks.

 

Jeremiah 20:1-6

 

Now Pashur the son of Immer the priest, who was also chief governor in the house of the Lord, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things.

Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the Lord.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Pashur brought forth Jeremiah out of the stocks. Then said Jeremiah unto him, The Lord hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magormissabib.

For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword.

Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.

And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die, and shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast prophesied lies.

 

Pashhur, son of Immer, my match for Shebna, fits Shebna chronologically (revised); as a priest over the Temple; as pro-Egyptian; as inimical to true Yahwism.

 

Sargon II is here referred to as “the king of Babylon”, which he also was.