Ahiqar and Aba-enlil-dari

 

Part One:

Ahiqar as a figure of real history

 

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“… the listing of Ahiqar in a Late Babylonian tablet testifies to the fact that the

role of Ahiqar, as known from the Aramaic version found at Elephantine, the book of Tobit, and the later Ahiqar sources, was firmly entrenched in Babylonian tradition”.

 

John Day et al.

 

 

John Day, Robert P. Gordon, Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson write about the important sage, Ahiqar, in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, pp. 43-44:

 

The figure of Ahiqar has remained a source of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. The search for the real Ahiqar, the acclaimed wise scribe who served as chief counsellor to Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, was a scholarly preoccupation for many years. …. He had a sort of independent existence since he was known from a series of texts – the earliest being the Aramaic text from Elephantine, followed by the book of Tobit, known from the Apocrypha and the later Syriac, Armenian and Arabic texts of Ahiqar. …. An actual royal counsellor and high court official who had been removed from his position and later returned to it remains unknown.

 

Mackey’s comment: I have also identified this Ahiqar (var. Achior, Vulgate Book of Tobit) as the “Achior” (and also the “Arioch”) of the Book of Judith; and as the “Arioch” of the Book of Daniel. See e.g.:

 

Meeting of the wise – Arioch and Daniel

 

https://www.academia.edu/37485637/Meeting_of_the_wise_Arioch_and_Daniel

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. E. Reiner found the theme of the 'disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister' combined with that of the ‘ungrateful nephew’ in the 'Bilingual Proverbs’, and saw this as a sort of parallel to the Ahiqar story.

 

Mackey’s comment: For my identification of the ‘ungrateful nephew’, Nadin (var. Nadab), see my article:

 

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

 

https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judi

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. She [Reiner] also emphasized that in Mesopotamia the ummânu was not only a learned man or craftsman but was also a high official.

 

At the time that Reiner noted the existence of this theme in Babylonian wisdom literature, Ahiqar achieved a degree of reality with the discovery in Uruk, in the investigations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE).

 

Mackey’s comment: For my proposed radical revision of this Seleucid era, see my article:

 

A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ

 

https://www.academia.edu/36672214/A_New_Timetable_for_the_Nativity_of_Jesus_Chri

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. This tablet contains a list of antediluvian kings and their sages (apkallû) and postdiluvian kings and their scholars (ummânu). The postdiluvian kings run from Gilgamesh to Esarhaddon. This text informs us (p. 45, lines 19-20) that in the time of King Aššur-aḫ-iddina, one A-ba-^dninnu-da-ri (= Aba-enlil-dari), (whom) the Aḫlamu (i.e., Arameans) call Aḫ-'u-qa-ri (= Aḫuqar), was the ummânu. As was immediately noted, Aḫuqar was the equivalent of Aḥiqar. ….

The names of the ummânē of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon are known to us from a variety of sources, but Ahiqar's name does not appear in any contemporary source. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: But what is actually “contemporary” may now need to be seriously reconsidered if there is any weight to my series:

 

Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330231/Aligning_Neo_Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_One_Shortening_the_Chaldean_Dynasty

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

Day et al. continue:

 

Indeed, it has been recently claimed that the passage from the Uruk document 'is clearly fictitious and of no historical value’, for A-ba-^dninnu-da-ri was the name of a scholar known from the Middle Babylonian period.

 

Mackey’s comment: That is exactly what I would expect to find, the sage ummânu existing in both the so-called Middle and the neo Assyro-Babylonian periods, due to a necessary as demanded by revision) folding of the Middle into the later period.

Day et al. continue:

 

…. Yet, the listing of Ahiqar in a Late Babylonian tablet testifies to the fact that the role of Ahiqar, as known from the Aramaic version found at Elephantine, the book of Tobit, and the later Ahiqar sources, was firmly entrenched in Babylonian tradition.

 

 

He may also be Esagil-kini-ubba

 

 

“The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it

has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several

different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish”.

 

R. Murphy

 

 

 

Looking further to identify the Israelite sage and proverb-writer, Ahiqar (Ahikar) - a most famous ummânu in the neo Assyrian court - with a similarly famous Middle Babylonian ummânu, Esagil-kini-ubba, I wrote in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

(Volume One, pp. 185-186)

 

A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu)

 

Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib ….

 

My comment: At that stage I had considered Nebuchednezzar I to be what I had described as ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II (my Sennacherib).

But now, with my further crunching of neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian history:

 

Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330231/Aligning_Neo_Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_One_Shortening_the_Chaldean_Dynasty

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

I would be more inclined to identify Nebuchednezzar I as Nebuchednezzar II.

Continuing with my thesis:

 

… is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier.

I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: …. “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”.

Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: ….

 

The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself.

 

According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22).

Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of BOT as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’.

 

This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the

same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith].

 

Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: … “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar ….

….

I had suggested … that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-apla-iddina…”.

 

Babylonia, a cunning, ‘crooked serpent’ diplomatically, has also been a tortuous riddle for historians to try to unravel. ….

 

Achior and Demaratus

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

“Several commentators compare the exchange … between

Holophernes and Achior to a discussion between the Persian ruler

Xerxes and the exiled Spartan king Demaratus found in Herodotus …”.

 

Deborah Levine Gera

 

 

 

 

 

That the Jewish (Simeonite) heroine, Judith, and her deeds have been picked up in various pseudo-histories and mythologies, both BC and (supposedly) AD, I have shown in my series:

 

World Renowned Judith of Bethulia

 

https://www.academia.edu/37051861/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia

 

Another important character in the Book of Judith, Achior, has similarly been reproduced.

I gave an example of this in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

(Volume Two, p. 60, n. 1286):

 

This fiery confrontation between the commander-in-chief, his subordinates and Achior would be, I suggest - following on from my earlier comments about Greco-Persian appropriations - where Homer got his idea for the main theme of The Iliad: namely the argument at the siege of Troy between Agamemnon, supreme commander of the Greeks, and the renowned Achilles (Achior?). ….

 

Deborah Levine Gera has drawn a comparison between the Achior of the Book of Judith and the Spartan king Demaratus in Herodotus (Judith. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, 2013), which is rather interesting in light of the statement in I Maccabees 12:20-21 that the Spartans were, like the Jews, descendants of Abraham: “Arius, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greeting. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren and are of the family of Abraham”.

On p. 200, she writes:

 

Achior is also associated with two figures found outside biblical literature, the Assyrian sage Ahiqar ….

 

Mackey’s comment: In my university thesis, but also in articles such as:

 

"Arioch, King of the Elymeans" (Judith 1:6)

 

https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_

 

I have estabished this very connection between Achior and “the Assyrian sage Ahiqar”. But this Ahiqar was not, as Deborah Levine Gera describes next, a “pagan”, nor was he ethnically “Assyrian”. He was an Israelite (Naphtalian) captive in Assyrian Nineveh.

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

…. and the Herodotean wise adviser, the Spartan Demaratus. Ahiqar, the pagan wise man who had a checkered career at the court of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and produced a series of of maxims and proverbs, may have been an actual historical Assyrian [sic] figure. Like Achior, Ahiqar is a good pagan [sic] who is persecuted by the powerful, but ultimately receives his due. The earliest surviving version of Ahiqar's story is in Aramaic, found in fragmentary bits of the fifth century B.C.E. Elephantine papyri, but there are Greek, Arabic, Armenian, and Syriac versions as well. The tale was probably Assyrian in origin and clearly was popular in the East, among Jews as well as gentiles; see the useful survey of Lindenberger (1985, 479–493). Thus we find a Jewish Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit (1:21–22; 2:10; 11:19; 14:10). There, Ahiqar is said to be Tobit's nephew, and he helps Tobit return to Nineveh, interceding on his behalf with Esarhaddon. He cares for the blind Tobit for two years and shares in the joy of the happy end of his story. We also hear of the bad behavior of Nadin, the adopted nephew of Ahiqar.

 

Mackey’s comment: This “Nadin” is, as I have explained:

 

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

 

https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith

 

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

The Vulgate Tobit 11:20 has a reading “Achior” for the Greek Αξιαξαρο« or Αξικαρ (Tobit 11:19 short and long versions) …

 

Mackey’s comment: That is because Judith’s “Achior” is the Vulgate Tobit’s “Achior”,

 

and this may have influenced modern commentators who link the two figures; see Schmitz (2004b, 20–21 nn. 4-8).

There is a resemblance of sorts between the Ahiqar of Tobit (“converted” to Judaism by the author of Tobit, as it were) and Achior of Judith (a pagan who converts to Judaism in the course of the tale): both combine theoretical wisdom with actual deeds. Indeed Achior will later apply his theological speech to himself personally when he converts to Judaism (14:10); see further Cazelles (1951) and Schmitz (2004b).

Several commentators compare the exchange here between Holophernes [Holofernes] and Achior to a discussion between the Persian ruler Xerxes and the exiled Spartan king Demaratus found in Herodotus (Hdt. 7.101-104).

 

Mackey’s comment: This strengthens me in my view that the Herodotean “Xerxes” was a non-historical composite character. See e.g. my article:

 

King ‘Xerxes’. Part One: ‘Xerxes’ and Sennacherib

 

https://www.academia.edu/25282804/King_Xerxes_._Part_One_Xerxes_and_Sennacherib

 

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

Xerxes questions Demaratus about the Spartans' willingness to fight the much larger Persian army and Demaratus, speaking freely, contrasts Spartan courage, ability to wage war, and love of freedom with the Persian way of life. Both Achior and Demaratus describe the characteristics of a foreign people to an enemy leader about to go to war, but Demaratus concentrates on the Greek way of life, while Achior deals chiefly with the history of the Jews and their relationship with their God. Thus the chief parallel between the Xerxes-Demaratus scene and the encounter here between Holophernes and Achior is in the function of the speeches, rather than their content, as Schmitz (2004b) notes. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: As I also noted in my thesis, B. Childs (Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 3-4, SCM Press, London, 1967) had discerned some degree of commonality between the speech of Achior to Holofernes, in the Book of Judith, and that of the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib’s army, with which high official I had further identified Achior/Ahiqar in my thesis.

Thus I wrote (Volume Two, p. 9):

 

Most interestingly, Childs - who has subjected the Rabshakeh’s speech to a searching form-critical analysis, also identifying its true Near Eastern genre - has considered it as well in relation to an aspect of the speech of [the Book of Judith’s Achior (who I shall actually be identifying with this Rabshakeh in Chapter 2, e.g. pp. 46-47) to Holofernes (Judith 5:20f.). ….