Isaiah family’s name changing reflects Divine game changing

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

“Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic”.

 Charles Boutflower

 

 

Isaiah, Hosea, whose names are of very similar meaning, being basically derived from the same Hebrew root for ‘salvation’, יֵ֫שַׁע

 

- “Isaiah” (Hebrew יְשַׁעְיָהוּ , Yeshâ‘yâhû) signifies: “Yahweh (the Lord) is salvation”.

- “Hosea” (Hebrew הוֹשֵׁעַ) means practically the same: “Yahweh (the Lord) is saviour”.

 

was, in fact, one and the same prophet.

 

Hosea’s/Isaiah’s Family

 

Though no doubt young, the prophet was given the strange command by God to marry an ‘unfaithful’ woman:

 

“‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord’. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim …” (Hosea 1:2-3). Biblical scholars have agonised over the type of woman this Gomer might have been: adulteress? harlot? temple-prostitute? But essentially the clue is to be found in the statement above that she was a citizen of the ‘land of great harlotry’: namely, the northern kingdom of Israel.

 

A further likeness between Isaiah and Hosea, central to this article, was the fact that ‘their names’ and those of ‘their’ children were meant to be, in their meanings, prophetic signs.

 

- The prophet Isaiah tells us: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents ...” (Isaiah 8:18).

- Similarly, the names of the children of the prophet Hosea were meant to be prophetic (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9).

 

Charles Boutflower, who had written perceptively on Isaiah’s children, had rightly noted the prophetic significance of their names and those of Hosea’s children, without however connecting Isaiah and Hosea as one: “Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic” (The Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX, 1930, p. 49).

 

Previously, I had written:

 

It is most unlikely, one would have to think, to have two great prophets operating contemporaneously over such a substantial period of time, and each having three children whose names were prophetic.

The fact is, I believe, that this was just the one prophet, who may possibly have had six children in all. (This still needs to be sorted out, however).

 

Just today (14^th August, 2026), though, I have come to think that at least one of these children was a duplicate.

I intend to write an article on this, Deo volente.

 

Stuart Irvine has, in the course of his detailed study of the so-called Isaianic Denkschrift [‘personal memoir’] (Isaiah 6:1-9:6) of the Syro-Ephraïmitic crisis, written extensively on the chronological significance of Isaiah’s children and their names in connection with this crisis for Judah.

 

I also appreciate Stuart Irvine’s concern for scholars to study the prophets (thus Isaiah) according to the “historical events and politics” of their time….. (Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series No. 123, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1990).

 

What of Isaiah’s other names, such as Nahum?

 

In various articles, now, e.g. in my detailed:

 

De-coding Jonah

 

(3) De-coding Jonah

 

I have multi-identified the Simeonite prophet Isaiah.

 

Apart from his Isaiah like names: Hosea; Uzziah (Book of Judith); Asaiah (reign of king Josiah); and Uriah (Urijah), martyred at the command of king Jehoiakim (= Manasseh) of Judah, Isaiah was also the prophet Jonah.

 

Another major identification of Isaiah that I have proposed is with the differently named (but Jonah-related, cf. Tobit 14:4) Nahum, who prophesied about Assyria.

See e.g. my articles:

 

Not so obscure prophet Nahum

 

(DOC) Not so obscure prophet Nahum | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

 

(3) Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

 

Now, if names mean anything – and we know that, in the case of the prophet Isaiah, names mean everything – then “Nahum” (Hebrew נַחוּם), too, must have a particular relevance to a new phase in the long life of the prophet, Isaiah, especially in relation to Israel.

 

The happy new phase coincides with the wonderful Isaiah 40, of which we read:

Isaiah 40 RSVCE - God’s People Are Comforted - Comfort, - Bible Gateway

“Here begins the “Book of the Consolation of Israel,” as it has been beautifully called”.

 

The chapter begins (40:1) with what virtually amounts to Isaiah’s new name: Nahum, meaning “consolation”. Thus: “Console, console, My people, says your God …”.

(נַחֲמוּ נַחֲמוּ, עַמִּי--יֹאמַר, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם) The repeated Hebrew word here, na-ḥă-mū, is of the same root as Isaiah’s new name, Nahum.

 

The next verse tells us what this new phase was to be in the life of Israel (v. 2):

 

‘…. proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
    that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
    double for all her sins’.

 

Evidence for the prophet Isaiah during the reign of King Josiah

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

It seems ridiculous, doesn’t it, the prophet Isaiah, considered to have been martyred during the reign of King Manasseh of Judah (d. c. 643 BC, conventional dating), yet somehow still functioning during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (c. 640-609 BC)?

 

How to explain this?

 

That Isaiah was, with his father, Amos (Amoz) (Isaiah 1:1), or Micah, a Simeonite – unlike the typical prophets of Israel (cf. Amos 7:14) – I have now well established in articles such as:

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(5) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

Now, there was a Simeonite leader whose name was Asaiah (1 Chronicles 4:36), and his name is the same as King Josiah’s personal secretary, “Asaiah, servant of the king” (עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ). This was a very high office: Topical Bible: The King of Israel's Servants

“The term "The King of Israel's Servants" refers to those individuals who served the monarchs of the ancient kingdom of Israel. These servants played various roles, ranging from military leaders and advisors to household managers and personal attendants. Their duties and influence varied depending on their position and the king they served”.

 

And his name was found last year (2025) inscribed on a seal.

 

But before we get to that wonderful discovery (see article below), I need briefly to explain how the prophet Isaiah, of the reigns of King Hezekiah and Manasseh, could be the same as the Asaiah who was a high official serving King Josiah.

 

Isaiah was all at once, as I have shown: the prophet Hosea, and the Simeonite Uzziah of the Book of Judith (6:15, “Uzziah, son of Micah of the tribe of Simeon …”), on duty in N. Israel; also Jonah/Nahum, cf. Tobit 14:4 (reputed to be a Simeonite).  

 

Only, though, with my folding of the reforming king, Hezekiah, into the reforming king, Josiah, and the wicked son, Manasseh, into the wicked son, Jehoiakim:

 

Manasseh - Jehoiakim

 

(5) Manasseh - Jehoiakim

 

Advantages if Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is identified with Josiah’s son Jehoiakim

 

(5) Advantages if Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is identified with Josiah's son Jehoiakim

 

can any further necessary connections of Isaiah - also the martyred Isaiah (reign of Manasseh) - with Asaiah - also the martyred Uriah/Urijah (reign of Jehoiakim) (Jeremiah 26:20-23) - be established. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Simeonite prophet, Isaiah, was the same person as the king’s high official, Asaiah.

 

Now to the exciting discovery of that seal:

Has the Name of King Josiah’s Trusted Official Been Found on an Ancient Sealing? - The Temple Mount Sifting Project

 

Has the Name of King Josiah’s Trusted Official Been Found on an Ancient Sealing?

A rare seal impression on clay bearing the Hebrew name “Yed[a‛]yah (son of) Asayahu,” has recently been uncovered in the sifting. This exciting discovery raises the intriguing possibility of a direct link to a well-known biblical story: the finding of a sacred biblical law scroll during the reign of King Josiah of Judah, just years before the destruction of Jerusalem’s First Temple.

…

Discovery and the Decoding of the Sealing

 

… archaeologist Mordechai Ehrlich discovered a rare and exceptionally well-preserved clay sealing, impressed by a stamp seal inscribed with ancient Hebrew letters.

 

Since the discovery of the sealing, an intensive, fast-track study has been conducted …. The researchers—epigrapher Dr. Anat Mendel-Geberovich and Zachi Dvira—have fully deciphered the inscription. They read it as follows:

 

“Belonging to Yed[a‛]yah (son of) Asayahu.”  – ליד[ע]יה (בן) עשיהו

 

Marks on the back of the artifact indicate it was used as a sealing on a bag or storage container. Remarkably, the sealing still retains a clear fingerprint, presumably left by the ancient official who once owned it. According to the style of writing, the sealing dates to the late First Temple period (approximately the late-7th century BCE to the early-6th century BCE).

 

Who was Yeda‛yah, Son of Asayahu?

 

The names inscribed on the sealing are reminiscent of famous figures described in the Hebrew Bible. About 2,600 years ago, King Josiah of Judah ordered repairs made to the Temple in Jerusalem. During these repairs, workers discovered an ancient sacred scroll (Sefer haTorah), likely the Pentateuch book of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:12; 2 Chronicles 34:20). When the royal scribe read the scroll to King Josiah, its warnings about the people’s sins and impending divine punishment deeply alarmed the king.

 

Josiah then dispatched trusted officials to seek divine counsel from the prophetess Huldah, who foretold Jerusalem’s future destruction but assured Josiah that he personally would not live to witness it.

 

Among Josiah’s trusted envoys was a senior official named Asayahu [Asaiah], described as “the king’s servant.” Given his prominent role, it is reasonable to assume that his son, Yeda‛yah, may have also served in a prominent position, either at the same time or shortly thereafter.

 

Could the newly discovered sealing belonging to “Yeda‛yah son of Asayahu” indeed reference the son of King Josiah’s trusted official?

 

Judith as Gurdi who slew the Assyrian commander

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

What I think are certainties

 

First certainty.

Whether or not one believes that the Book of Judith is a genuine historical account, what is certain, so I think (and others do, too), is that Charles C. Torrey – who did not believe that the book was meant to be considered as historical – has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the author of the Book of Judith had in mind the highly strategic city of Shechem when he told about the heroine Judith’s city of “Bethulia” (his “Betylūa”).

 

Just read his account of it in which he establishes “Bethulia”, north, south, east and west, as Shechem:

 

The Site of ‘Bethulia’

Charles C. Torrey

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 20 (1899), pp. 160-172 (13 pages)

 

The name “Bethulia” (“Betylūa”) can be accounted for as the northern Bethel of Israel’s King Jeroboam I. For, as Dr. John Osgood has explained it: Techlets · Creation.com “W. Ross in Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1941), p.22–27 reasoned, I believe correctly, that the Bethel of Jeroboam must be Shechem, since it alone fills the requirements”. 

 

And the following site has accepted Charles C. Torrey’s identification of Judith’s “Bethulia” with Shechem: Bethulia Explained

“It has widely been speculated that, based on location descriptions in the book, that the most plausible historical site for Bethulia is Shechem. Shechem was a large city in the hill-country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem, lying in the path of the enemy, at the head of an important pass and is a few hours south of Geba. Both Charles Cutler Torrey and The Jewish Encyclopedia subscribe to this theory. …. the Jewish Encyclopedia claims that Shechem is the only location that meets all the requirements for Bethulia's location, further stating: "The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question". …. Torrey pointed out that the description of water being brought to the city by means of an aqueduct from a spring above the city on the south side is a trait that can only belong to Shechem. …”.

 

My second certainty is that the 182,000-plus Assyrian army that came up against “Bethulia” and its environs (Judith 7:2):

 

That same day their troops went into action, an army numbering

one hundred and seventy thousand infantry and twelve thousand cavalry,

not to mention the baggage train and the foot soldiers charged with its maintenance—an immense multitude.

 

could only have been Sennacherib’s ill-fated 185,ooo (cf. 2 Kings 19:35).

 

And this leads me to a third certainty.

 

Sennacherib must be the “King Nebuchadnezzar … ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh” of Judith 1:1.

 

In other words, the Book of Judith is set in the late neo-Assyrian era, and not the Chaldean era of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (and, a fortiori, it can have nothing to do with the Maccabean age).

 

The insertion into the text of the name “Nebuchadnezzar” is indeed unfortunate, and confusing, but has been satisfactorily explained by Dr. Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University’s Oriental Institute, author of the fascinating book, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon (2013), according to whom the ancients commonly confused Sennacherib of Nineveh with Nebuchednezzar of Babylon. 

 

My fourth certainty is that Sennacherib was the same as Sargon II, as I argued at length in my university thesis (2007), and have since done in various other articles, e.g.:

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib?sm=b&rhid=41435406210

 

And that makes me certain about another thing, too, my fifth.

 

The heavily bracketted neo-Assyrian eponym entry:

 

“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]”.

 

Eponym Cb6

 

to which Assyriologists took the liberty of adding the name “Sargon”, is wrong in (a) separating Sargon from Sennacherib, and (b) having Sargon killed in this campaign.

 

He was not.

 

Sargon, as Sennacherib, was murdered some time after this disaster for Assyria, assassinated by two of his own sons (cf. Tobit 1:21): “But not fifty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat”. 

 

Certainty number six.

Eponym Cb6 above could only be describing the prelude to the rout of the 185,000 Assyrians, when Judith slew the Assyrian commander-in-chief, and the Assyrian “camp” was overrun. The title “king” would be applicable to the commander-in-chief, who had been appointed by Sennacherib as King of Babylon.

Isaiah 10:8: “‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says”.

He was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Crown Prince, the treacherous “Nadin” (Nadab) of the Book of Tobit:

 

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

 

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

 

The name “Holofernes” appears to be, like “Nebuchadnezzar”, another of those unfortunate confusing of names.   

 

Ešpai the Kulummaean

 

In my consideration of how to fit Eponym Cb6’s names, “Ešpai the Kulummaean”, into the Book of Judith’s scheme of things, as I think these, now, must inevitably be fitted, I had come to the conclusion, in my most recent article: 

 

Assyriology has Sargon II dying during Tabal campaign – except that he didn’t

 

(12) Assyriology has Sargon II dying during Tabal campaign – except that he didn’t

 

that Ešpai, or Ushpia, could only have been Israel’s prince-commander, “Uzziah”, that is, Isaiah, appointed by King Hezekiah over places such as “Bethulia” and Chelmon (hence “the Kulummaean”), where the Assyrian Wehrmacht would shudder to a halt (Judith 7:3, Douay): “All prepared themselves together to the fight against the children of Israel, and they came by the hill side unto the top, which looketh toward Dothaim, from the place which is called Belma unto Chelmon, which is against Esdrelon”.

 

It now becomes a seventh certainty that the one who killed the Assyrian commander (supposedly, but not, Sargon), Gurdi of Kulumma[n], was Judith herself – the only one who did actually slay Assyria’s commander-in-chief:

Sargon II - Wikipedia

“Sargon's final campaign ended in disaster. Somewhere in Anatolia [sic], Gurdî of Kulumma, an otherwise poorly attested figure, attacked the Assyrian camp. …. Gurdî has variously been assumed to have been a local ruler … or a tribal leader of the Cimmerians [sic], during this time allied with the rebels in Tabal. …. In the ensuing battle, Sargon was killed. The Assyrian soldiers fleeing from the attack were unable to recover the king’s body. ….

 

The unexpected death of Sennacherib’s Crown Prince son (here wrongly given as Sargon himself) rocked Sennacherib to his superstitious core:

Sargon II - Wikipedia

 

Sargon forgotten

 

Sargon's legacy in ancient Assyria was severely damaged by the manner of his death; in particular, the failure to recover his body was a major psychological blow for Assyria.^[16] The shock and theological implications plagued the reigns of his successors for decades.^[133] The ancient Assyrians believed that unburied dead became ghosts that could come back and haunt the living.^[16][108] Sargon was believed to be doomed to a miserable afterlife; his ghost would wander the Earth, eternally restless and hungry.^[10][133] Soon after the news of Sargon's death reached the Assyrian heartland, the influential advisor and scribe Nabu-zuqup-kena copied Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh.^[16] This tablet contains a section eerily similar to Sargon's death, with the miserable implications described in detail,^[e] which must have left the scribe stunned and distressed.^[16] In the Levant, Sargon's hubris was mocked. It is believed that a foreign ruler chided in the Biblical Book of Isaiah is based on Sargon.^[16]

 

Sennacherib was horrified by his father's death. The Assyriologist Eckart Frahm believes that Sennacherib was so deeply affected that he began suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.^[118] Sennacherib was unable to acknowledge and mentally deal with what had transpired.^[143] 

 

Sargon's dishonorable death in battle and his lack of a burial was seen as a sign that he must have committed some serious and unforgivable sin that made the gods completely abandon him.^[144] Sennacherib concluded that Sargon had perhaps offended Babylon's gods by taking control of the city.^[145]