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”.

Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “In view of the notoriety of Piankhi [Piye], as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery”. Displaced Dynasties Better not blink or you might miss it. Thus we have, to name a few, those: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the: Great King Omri missing from Chronicles https://www.academia.edu/42235075/Great_King_Omri_missing_from_Chronicles and, again: Nero’s missing architecture (6) Nero's missing architecture | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Even: Henry VIIIs palaces [are] missing (6) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, of course, there is the Missing Link, still missing and he won’t be missed either (G.K. Chesterton). Or as someone less sensibly put it, “found missing”. The above are just a few of the examples of important, presumably historical, characters, who are either poorly attested (statues, relief depictions, etc.), or not at all. “No monument within Egypt bears [Piankhi’s] name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources”. Displaced Dynasties Reading about the impressive, yet most obscure, pharaoh Piankhi (or Piye), took my mind back to when we used to be intrigued, as children in Tasmania, by the famous Disappearing House. Pauline Conolly tells about it: THE DISAPPEARING HOUSE IN TASMANIA - Pauline Conolly The Disappearing House at “The Corners” Conara Standing at the turnoff to St Marys at Conara, the so-called “Disappearing House” earned its name by the illusion of its sinking into the ground as travellers approached along the main road from Hobart to Launceston, due to the peculiar conformation of the landscape. On the old road the house would “vanish” as you descended one hill, the other seemed to rise up in front of you and the house would “disappear” behind it. Then as you ascended the next small hill, it would miraculously reappear. …. That pharaoh Piankhi qualifies for the first part of this trick, the disappearing bit, comes through most clearly in the Displaced Dynasties article, Volume 2- Piankhi the Chameleon (pp. 12-14): Piankhi: The Traditional View In view of the notoriety of Piankhi, as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery. When the Piankhi stela was first read by scholars it was immediately recognized that the dignitaries named therein belonged to the late 22nd and 23rd dynasties, and that the rebel Tefnakht must be the father of Bocchoris, the sole occupant of Manetho’s 24th dynasty. With confidence early Egyptologists dated the insurrection of Tefnakht and the response by Piankhi to the last quarter of the 8th century B.C. Flinders Petrie, the eminent and influential British Egyptologist, writing at the turn of the 20th century, dated the “invasion” to the year 720 B.C., with the reigns of the 25th dynasty kings Shabaka and Shabataka following closely on its heels. The whole of the 25th dynasty, including most of the reign of Taharka, is of necessity placed between the time of the Tefnakht rebellion and the conquest and occupation of Egypt by the Assyrians, the later event securely dated to the years 671-664 B.C. A century of scholarship has refined Petrie’s dates only slightly. K.A. Kitchen, the foremost living authority on the 3rd Intermediate Period, Piankhi – 618 B.C. … dates the Piankhi incident to 727 B.C. and the most recent analysis by the Egyptologist D.A. Aston … has placed Piankhi’s 21st year only a decade earlier, in the time span 740-735 B.C. If Aston is correct, the median year 738 B.C. cannot be far wrong. The slight difference of opinion on the date of the Piankhi invasion is related to a secondary question of fundamental concern to this revision. How long did Piankhi continue to rule after the rebellion was suppressed late in his 20th year? …. On this issue as well, there is some divergence of opinion. The question takes on added significance if it be admitted that he ruled over Egypt for much of this time. Who is Piankhi, this Nubian king who had, some years before the Tefnakht rebellion, conquered the southern and central portions of Egypt, if not the entire country, and who now scoffed at any challenge to his authority? If we correctly interpret the stela inscription he was a sovereign of long standing in Egypt, not a recent intruder. The stela is dated, as mentioned earlier, to the first month of his 21st year. Based on normal standards of interpretation we should glean from this fact that he had been king of Egypt, or a king within Egypt, for twenty years. That is, however, not the typical interpretation of his great stela. With few exceptions scholars believe that Piankhi had ruled central and southern Egypt for at most a few years before the rebellion, and that his control of the country was lost soon after. When they discuss his dates they are debating only his tenure as king in Nubia, not the length of his sovereignty over Egypt. The explanation for this opinion is related to considerations apart from the stela inscription itself. There is no evidence within Egypt that Piankhi ruled the country for a single year, much less for twenty years, prior to his 21st year. No monument within Egypt bears his name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources. In view of his renown, as evidenced in the narrative of the great stela, this is … D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 139-153. ….The Great Stele dateline cites the first month of the first season of the civil calendar in Piankhi’s 21st year. The rebellion is over. We assume it ended several months earlier, time for Piankhi to return to Napate and have the monument inscribed (see figure 4 on page 27). …. Piankhi 618 B.C. a particularly troublesome silence. If he lived in Thebes, wherein he based an army, he has left no evidence of the fact. If he became king in Thebes two decades before the Tefnakht rebellion the lack of inscriptional evidence is difficult, if not impossible to explain. The conclusion follows that his involvement in Egyptian affairs was brief. He came; he conquered; and for reasons unknown, he quickly departed the country. Or so we are told. When Piankhi withdrew from the delta, laden with treasure, he was the uncontested sovereign of all of Egypt. Where did he go and for how long did he continue to rule? According to scholars, if he moved south to Thebes he did not long remain there. His home was Napata and there he lived out his years. But for how long? On this issue academia is divided. The majority believe that he continued to rule for either ten or twenty additional years, a conclusion based on the most fragile of evidence. Were it not for an obscured year date on a bandage, it might be argued that his name vanishes from Egypt entirely within a few years of the rebellion. Kitchen, who believes his reign in total lasted only 30 years, provides a summary of the evidence: The one generally accepted year-date of Piankhy is Year 21 on his great stela. However, a minimum of 31 years is assignable to him on the external evidence which is outlined above (sect. 114). To these factors, a little more can be added. First, there are three documents dated by the reign of ‘Pharaoh Py, Si-Ese Meryamun’ - two papyri of his Years 21 and 22, most probably Theban, and the lesser Dakhla stela of Year 24. There is good reason to view Py as the real reading of Piankhy and to attribute all three documents to Piankhy’s reign. Second, a fragmentary bandage from Western Thebes bears an obscure date of Sneferre Piankhy. The visible traces indicate ‘Regnal Year 20', a patch and trace (the latter compatible with a ‘10'), and a shallow sign perhaps an otiose t. In other words, we here have a date higher than Year 20 of Piankhy, and very possibly Year 30 - which would fit very well with the 31 years’ minimum reign which has been already inferred on independent grounds. …. [End of quotes] This bears out what I wrote about pharaoh Piankhi in my article, quoting Sir Alan Gardiner: The Complete Ramses II (7) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Gardiner has written: It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn. No mention of Piankhi by Manetho? Obviously, then, this great pharaoh is in crying need of his being united with a major alter ego, so that he can, like the Disappearing House, re-emerge again (including in Manetho). And this is the way that Displaced Dynasties will choose to go - though with quite the wrong alter ego connection as far as I am concerned. It is also the way that I chose to go in my Ramses II article (above) in which the reader will find how I was able to fill out the Disappearing Pharaoh, Piankhi.

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

by Damien F. Mackey “Such representations … are found in the palace of Khorsabad, where the co-regent Sennacherib is facing king Sargon”. Gerard Gertoux A history follower of long-standing from Brazil has enthusiastically embraced my Sargon II as Sennacherib thesis in the context of the drama of the Book of Judith. However, an article by Gerard Gertoux: Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah (5) Dating the Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah | Gerard GERTOUX - Academia.edu has prompted him to raise some questions with me now about the validity of my university thesis (2007) identification. Thus he has written: Dear “Professor” [sic] Mackey, I hope everything is well with you and yours. I recently read a very interesting academic article titled “Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah,” which discusses the possibility of a co-regency between Sargon and Sennacherib, following a synchronization involving other kings from the period of Hezekiah; astrological phenomena; and the analysis of inscriptions and other Assyrian reliefs. All of this adheres to a biblical dating. You might already be aware of this article. However, if it’s not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate knowing what you think about the article. Is it very or slightly plausible? Your opinion is very important to me. …. He went on to write in his next e-mail (re the Khorsabad and Lachish reliefs): …. Mr. Gertoux … some of his statements made me think: “… Some authors also noted an anomaly (underlined) on line 44 of the inscription: They counted (them) as booty, then one would expect more logically from Sargon the sentence: I have counted (them) as booty (with the co-regency anomaly disappears).” I ask you, how would you explain this anomaly differently? “… On the relief carved (below) representing the siege of Lachish, the central element is the king seated on his throne clearly identified by his tiara and scepter and facing the crown prince. The crown prince was always represented (without exception) on panels or stelae as tall as the king and wearing a diadem with two ribbons behind the head, facing the king wearing the tiara, who also bore the two ribbons behind the head: The identification of the two characters is not a problem because Assyrian art (or Babylonian) is stereotyped: gods, kings, and their subjects are prioritized based on their size, according to conventional representations. When a character next to a king is shown the same size, with a tiara, it is another king and when he is without tiara but with the regalia it is a co-regent, like King Darius (522-486) and Xerxes co-regent (496-475) behind him (below). For example, Shalmaneser III (859-824), king of Assyria, and Marduk-zakir-shumi I (855-819), king of Babylon, shake hands as a sign of alliance and mutual support. On the relief carved of Lachish, the co-regent facing the king, seated on the throne, cannot be Ardu-Mulissu, called Adrammelech in Isaiah 37:58 because the latter has been designated heir only from 698 BCE, 3 years after the new 3rd campaign of Sennacherib as king (not co-regent). Therefore, the king seated on the throne at Lachish is King Sargon facing Sennacherib. On the relief of the siege of Lachish, Sennacherib is on the left and Sargon is on the right as on the relief in the palace of Khorsabad. The epigraph of four lines over Sennacherib (in a label) confirms this identification because it is presented as co-regent (MAN) and not as king (LUGAL) and the other epigraph of three lines over the tent of Sennacherib describes him as king (afterward): The MAN sign, written with 2 nail heads << (like number “20”), later translated sharru “king” into Akkadian, literally means shanû “second”. The usual word used for “king” is not MAN but LUGAL, literally “great man” (both terms are used in Sennacherib’s inscriptions). Sennacherib could not bear the title of king during Sargon’s lifetime, because the latter was considered to be “without rival”, but only the title of viceroy (double or replica of the king). In addition, the term -ma meaning “and” connects one who sits to the one passing booty reviewed (who was King Sargon).” If the character next to Sennacherib was neither Sargon nor Adrammelech, who was it? …. Anyone who reads the entire article will notice numerous other small pieces of evidence. I am not an expert like you, but I trust you and, if possible, I would very much like to hear from you on this matter. My best regards …. My response to these e-mails, in part, was as follows: …. What is to stop him from being Crown Prince and Turtan (general)? Ramses II 'the Great', in my revision, had his talented son, Khaemwaset, as such. Khaemwaset, or Shebitku Khaemwaset, was the “Si’be tartan of Egypt” whom Sargon II chased away in 720 BC (conventional dating). His father was the long-reigning Sabacos, or Psibkhanno Ramses (Ramses II), who gave a gift of horses to Sargon. Sargon called Psibkhanno, "Shilkanni king of Egypt". Historians imagine that this Shilkanni was an Osorkon, but the name fits far better as an Assyrian transliteration of Psibkhanno. We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. This Nadin was the king's oldest son, Ashur nadin shumi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi .... After defeating uprisings in 700 BC, Sennacherib named his own son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, as the new king of Babylon. Aššur-nādin-šumi was also titled as māru rēštû, a title that could be interpreted either as the "pre-eminent son" or the "firstborn son". His appointment as King of Babylon and the new title suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was being groomed to also follow Sennacherib as the King of Assyria upon his death. Aššur-nādin-šumi being titled as the māru rēštû likely means that he was Sennacherib's crown prince; if it means "pre-eminent" such a title would be befitting only for the crown prince and if it means "firstborn", it also suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was the heir as the Assyrians in most cases followed the principle of primogeniture (the oldest son inherits) .... Gerard Gertoux has, in the Abstract to his article, separated certain characters who I think were the same: Abstract. The traditional date of 701 BCE for Sennacherib's campaign to Judah, with the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem and the Battle of Eltekeh, is accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, the inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var in 1968, requires to date this famous campaign during his 10th campaign, in 712 BCE, implying a coregency with Sennacherib from 714 BCE. Mackey’s comment: That is a long co-regency considering that Assyriologists do not tend to recognise any co-regency there. If Sargon II was Sennacherib, as I have suggested, then the apparently large overlap of reigns becomes irrelevant. Tangi-i Var is only a problem because of the conventional misalignment of Egyptian chronology. Gerard Gertoux continues: A thorough analysis of the annals and the reliefs of Sargon and Sennacherib shows that there was only one campaign in Judah and not two. Mackey’s comment: A thorough analysis of Isaiah shows that there were two. For, what Isaiah says Sennacherib is not going to do, henceforth (in a failed second effort), the Assyrian king had already done in spades during his 3rd campaign (Isaiah 37:33): “And this is what the LORD says about the king of Assyria: ‘His armies will not enter Jerusalem. They will not even shoot an arrow at it. They will not march outside its gates with their shields nor build banks of earth against its walls’.” Gerard Gertoux continues: The Assyrian assault involved the presence of at least six kings (or similar): 1) taking of Ashdod by the Assyrian king Sargon II in his 10th campaign, 2) taking of Lachish by Sennacherib during his 3rd campaign, 3) siege of Jerusalem dated 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah; 4) battle of Eltekeh led by Nubian co-regent Taharqa; 5) under the leadership of King Shabataka during his 1st year of reign; 6) probable disappearance of the Egyptian king Osorkon IV in his 33rd year of reign. This conclusion agrees exactly with the biblical account that states all these events occurred during the 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah dated 712 BCE (2Kings 18:13-17, 19:9; 2Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 20:1, 36:1, 37:9). Mackey’s comment: Where are we told that Taharqa was at the battle of Eltekeh? Indeed, Taharqa was co-regent with Shabataka (Shebitku), who, as Shebitku Khaemwaset, was Taharqa’s – as Ramses II – very son, Khaemwaset. Ramses II’s son, Shebitku Khaemwaset of the Tang-i Var document, had been the Turtan, Si’be, but later was co-regent with the great Pharaoh. Osorkon belongs to a later period. Gerard Gertoux will come back to the battle of Eltekeh again, about which he will write: …. the Battle of Eltekeh (Joshua 21:23) which can also be dated in 712 BCE. According to the two stelae of Kawa …after the death of Shabaka, his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an army which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa, a young son of Piye aged 20, to repel Assyrian attack which was threatening. …. But Piye (Piankhi) was actually, again, Taharqa. For, as I noted in my thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 384. Emphasis added): …. Now Piye, conventionally considered to have been the first major 25th dynasty pharaoh, and whose beginning of reign (revised) must have been very close to 730 BC (given that he reigned for 31 years), and whose 21st year (Stele) fell during the reign of Tefnakht - had also adopted the name of Usermaatre. Thus Grimal: “[Piankhy] identified himself with the two great rulers who were most represented in the Nubian monuments, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and adopted each of their coronation names: Menkheperre and Usermaatra respectively”. In other words, Piye was an eclectic in regard to early Egyptian history; and this fact may provide us with a certain opportunity for manoeuvring, alter ego wise. Fortunately we do not need to guess who Piye was, because there is a scarab that tells us precisely that Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah, much to the puzzlement of Petrie. It reads: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”. …. Piye (Piankhi) Usermaatre was both Taharqa (Tirhakah) and Ramses II Usermaatre. But the mighty Piankhi seriously needs one or more alter egos: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib at Khorsabad and Lachish could be either, or both, of the two to whom I referred in my correspondence (above): We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. And he could also be the Turtan of Sennacherib’s first major campaign against Judah (2 Kings 18:17): “And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem”. The likelihood is, I think, that, given that “Holofernes” and his military deeds were well known to the Bethulian Jews, he had been around for quite a while. For thus Judith will say to the Commander-in-Chief (Judith 11:8): ‘For we have heard of your wisdom and skill, and it is reported throughout the whole world that you alone are the best in the whole kingdom, the most informed and the most astounding in military strategy’. That would put the odds very much in favour of “Holofernes” being the Turtan of Sargon II as early as Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it”. And he continued on through Sennacherib’s most successful 3rd campaign, and into the later ill-fated one, when he was slain by the hand of Judith, with the consequence that 185,000 horrified Assyrians were routed. “And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not wielded by a man, And a sword not of man will devour him”. Isaiah 31:8

Luciferic fall of Ninurta-nadin-shumi King of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey Isaiah 14:12-27 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. ‘I will rise up against them’, declares the Lord Almighty. ‘I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants’, declares the Lord. ‘I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction’, declares the Lord Almighty. 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? If, as I have proposed in my article: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (2) (DOC) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu he, supposedly ‘the most potent monarch of the (so-called) second Isin dynasty’, was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself (conventionally known as II), then it would follow that Ninurta-nadin-shumi was not the father of Nebuchednezzar, as is generally thought, but was Ashur-nadin-shumi, Nebuchednezzar’s predecessor on the throne of Babylon. According to Marc Van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 166): “… the second Isin dynasty. Its most forceful and famous ruler was Nebuchadnezzar I (ruled 1125-04) …”. These dates will now need to be lowered on the timescale by about half a millennium. On p. 292, Van de Mieroop will give this sequence of rulers of Babylon: Tiglath-pileser III … Sennacherib … Assur-nadin-shumi … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal. But, with Nebuchednezzar (now I-II) also re-set as a ruler of Assyro-Babylonia, as Esarhaddon: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Van de Mieroop’s conventional scenario will need to be re-shaped like this: Tiglath-pileser III [= I] … Sennacherib [= Nabopolassar] … Assur-nadin-shumi [= Ninurta-nadin-shumi] … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal [= Nebuchednezzar I and II]. Ashur-nadin-shumi (= Ninurta-nadin-shumi), now to be regarded as the oldest brother of Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar I-II), will play a massive, though ill-fated, rôle in ancient biblico-history: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (2) (DOC) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from Ninurta-nadin-shumi, the other character connected with Nebuchednezzar supposedly of Isin, and who may have seemed right out of place in my revised chronology, is the Assyrian who fought against him, Ashur-resha-ishi. I explained about him in “The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar” article: As to Ashur-resha-ishi, he seems to create something of a problem as an Assyrian fighting against Nebuchednezzar, when the latter I have also identified as a ruler of Assyria, as Esarhaddon/Assurbanipal. I would suggest that this Ashur-resha-ishi was the Sharezer (shureshi) who was one of the two sons who murdered their father, Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37): “One day when [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon succeeded him”. Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was thus fighting, against one of Sennacherib’s remaining sons, in a life or death civil war for the control of Assyria. These names, at least, are common to the supposedly two eras: Tiglath-pileser; Merodach-baladan; (three Elamites); Ninurta-nadin-shumi/Ashur-nadin-shumi; NEBUCHEDNEZZAR; Ashur-resha-ishi/Sharezer

Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

by Damien F. Mackey Introductory Having Lagash-Eshnunna (var. Ashnunna) re-identified now - so that instead of being places in Mesopotamia, as is generally believed, they (now it) belong(s) to Judea, as, Lachish-Ashdod (var. Ashduddu) - has necessitated that the Sumerian history that has been written around the location has since needed to be re-written, as Judean history. And I have already made a positive start on this. See e.g. my article: Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu From this research it has been learned that certain places thought to have been situated in Sumer, such as Lagash, Girsu, Puzrish-Dagān, and Umma, eventually fall off the political map. I attributed this to the fact that they (or some of them, at least) never actually belonged on the political map of Sumer, that Lagash (or Lakish) and Girsu, for instance, were, respectively, Lachish and Jerusalem, in Judea. The obscure Umma will become a focal point in this article. The Judean history that was being re-written in relation to Lagash and Girsu (supposedly in Sumer) and Eshnunna (supposedly in central Mesopotamia) seemed to revolve entirely around kings David and Solomon and the later Hezekiah of Judah. See, for example, my articles: Prince of Lagash (8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? (8) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus David and Solomon were, respectively, Dadusha (Naram-Sîn) and Ibāl pî-el of Eshnunna; Solomon was also Gudea of Lagash; and Hezekiah was Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina “Uru-ka-gina, Uru-inim-gina, or Iri-ka-gina was King of the city-states of Lagash and Girsu in Mesopotamia [sic]”. While Girsu (my Jerusalem) is considered to have been the actual capital of Lagash, the region is generally designated by the name of Lagash, rather than of Girsu. According to the Wikipedia explanation, article “E-ninnu”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ninnu “Girsu was the religious centre of a state that was named Lagash after its most populous city…”. In the biblical narrative, however, it is Jerusalem that always takes centre stage. With nearly all of the main players (Dadusha/Naram-Sîn, Ibāl pî-el, Gudea and Urukagina) now having been dealt with, the only one left to be considered, I think, would be Eannatum (var. Eanatum) of Lagash. Odds are, I thought, that Eannatum would be either David or Solomon, or Hezekiah. I quickly ruled out King Solomon, considering that Eannatum was no Gudea (Solomon) type, but was a ruler whose land, Lagash, was under severe invasive threat. Nor did that particular scenario appear to fit King David’s era either, despite the fact that David was a warrior who fought many battles. No, this war was on a far more vast scale, reaching even as far, supposedly, as Mesopotamia and Elam. The era of King Hezekiah of Judah came closer to it, and I had already identified the reforming king Hezekiah with the reforming king Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu, whose land of Lagash (Lachish) had been invaded and overcome by one Lugalzagesi of Umma. In this context - a reforming king of the Lachish region (Judea), overcome by an invader - it became fairly apparent who Lugalzagesi must have been, though Umma itself continued to remain obscure, or imprecise. Lugalzagesi must be Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria. Here is some of what I wrote on the matter in the Urukagina article: Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that: https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/ “Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”. Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’” There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted. …. These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi, the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond). Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element. Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map …. Umma may either be a well-known place … under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2] Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same. Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted. Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish. And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”. Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished. Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet, and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi. Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi. Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities. Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem. Although Lugalzagesi was currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it. The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle. Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom. Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. …. The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617): n lines missing “For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him: “I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)” n lines missing Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. He went away to his city, but a second time he came ... rest of column missing The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while. Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13-17: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace. At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria. Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. Urukagina – Hezekiah during siege of Jerusalem Eannatum – Hezekiah victorious over Assyria This is how I am beginning to see it. Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu belongs to the successful invasion of Sennacherib during the latter’s Third Campaign, when everything went right for the Assyrians. Lachish (Lagash/Lakish) was taken and the capital city of Jerusalem (Girsu) was successfully besieged: Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. Eannatum of Lagash was, on the other hand, the victorious King Hezekiah. His other name, Lumma, may clinch it. For I have identified King Hezekiah as the Lemuel (Lumma-el?) of Proverbs 31: 1, 4: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (11) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his “Tidnu” (Amorite) name was Lumma”. So we have, rhymingly, Lumma opposed to Umma. The conventional history, which had wildly assigned Urukagina to the c. C24th BC, instead of to the c. C8th BC where he truly belongs (my view), and had made of him the world’s first reformer, goes similarly beserk with who I believe to be his alter ego, Eannatum: https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “Eannatum (Sumerian: … É.AN.NA-tum2) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash circa 2500–2400 BCE. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history: he subdued Elam and destroyed the city of Susa as well as several other Iranian cities, and extended his domain to Sumer and Akkad”. Did King Hezekiah do any of this? While I am not quite sure how some of this Sumerian-ised Judean history came about – maybe by the later Ptolemies and Seleucids, who glamourised early history and individuals - the whole thing has been grossly mis-dated by modern historians and archaeologists. Let us reconsider some of this, following the Sumerian Shakespeare, writing on whom he calls, “Eannatum, the King of Kish”: https://sumerianshakespeare.com/37601.html Eanatum … the most militarily successful ruler of the first dynasty of Lagash. He conducted many campaigns abroad, including ones against the southern cities of Ur, Uruk, and Kiutu, as well as states further afield such as Kish, Mari, Akshak, and Susa. He even reached northeastern Subartu and the eastern regions of Elam, destroying a city called Mishime. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish," a title associated with if not always actually indicating, the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission to a single ruler. Mackey’s comment: Obviously no king of Judah ever achieved such far distant conquests as these. It is probably a garbled history that drags in some of the far-reaching conquests of the neo-Assyrian kings. However, the 185,000-strong Assyrian army of Sennacherib that Israel conquered at this time, thanks to the heroic intervention of Judith, consisted of soldiery from many of these named parts. Achior, the nephew of Tobit, for instance, had commanded the Elamite (not Ammonite as in the Book of Judith) contingent. Like other Lagash rulers, Eanatum had to deal with Umma and the unsettled struggle over the Guedena. From the Enmetena cone we know he was in a strong position to dictate terms of an agreement. He divided the land with his rival Enakale and established a no-man's land along the agreed border, marking it with his own boundary stele and restoring the previously ruined stele of Mesalim, in addition to building shrines to Enlil, Ningirsu, and Ninhursag near the division. He also imposed a tax on Umma for the use of its share of the Guedena, which grew to huge proportions and in the time of his descendants resulted in another invasion by Umma into Lagash's side. To enforce the agreement he made the ruler of Umma swear an oath to the gods not to violate the borders. Mackey’s comment: Guedena is another of those geographical names that, I think, belongs to Judah, rather than to Sumer. The site of Jerusalem was originally the Garden of Eden (Guedena? Land of Eden). Though polytheistic elements (not suitable to the rule of King Hezekiah) seem to enter in here, the god Ningirsu, for instance, was simply (so I think) another name for Yahweh – Ningirsu, “Lord of Girsu” (that is, Jerusalem). King Hezekiah, after the victory that must have shaken the entire ancient world, may have been in a position to impose certain terms upon the Assyrians. Much information about Eanatum's deeds comes from the famous Stele of the Vultures, a fragmentary inscription that depicts in both verbally and graphically powerful ways the military exploits of the king of Lagash. One fragment shows the god Ningirsu holding a mace in his right hand while his left holds a net that has bagged a number of helpless enemy soldiers. Another section shows Eanatum leading a heavily armed phalanx of soldiers trampling slain enemy underneath. Yet another shows men piling up corpses into a giant heap, an image which is reflected in the text. The stele also gives testament to developments in the ideology of kingship which are promoted by later Lagash rulers. Eanatum is the first Lagash king to explicitly claim divine birth by a god, in this case Ningirsu. Inheritors of the throne would go on to do likewise, as when Eanatum's son Enanatum I [sic]¬¬¬ named the god Lugal-URU11 his father, and when Enmetena names Gatumdug his divine mother (Bauer pg. 462). Along with the divine progenitor comes a divine wet-nurse, that is, a female goddess who suckles the king to make him strong. For Eanatum this figure is the ancient goddess Ninhursag (Ean 01, IV). Other kings, down to the Neo-Assyrian period, would also make use of this motif. The stele also describes how Ningirsu visited Eanatum in a dream where he instructed him to make war on Umma. This motif surfaces again in the cylinder inscriptions of the later king Gudea, where he narrates how Ningirsu explained the plan for the (re)building of his E-ninnu temple. Mackey’s comment: The first paragraph here could well be describing the victorious Judean king, Hezekiah (Eannatum), led by Yahweh (Ningirsu), joining the rout against the Assyrian foe as begun in the north (around Shechem). Judith 15:5-7: When the Israelites heard it, with one accord they fell upon the enemy and cut them down as far as Choba. Those in Jerusalem and all the hill country also came, for they were told what had happened in the camp of the enemy. The men in Gilead and in Galilee outflanked them with great slaughter, even beyond Damascus and its borders. The rest of the people of Bethulia [Shechem] fell upon the Assyrian camp and plundered it, acquiring great riches. And the Israelites, when they returned from the slaughter, took possession of what remained. Even the villages and towns in the hill country and in the plain got a great amount of plunder, since there was a vast quantity of it. This celebrated incident is what I believe that the Stele of the Vultures may be depicting, whether the stele had been created closely contemporaneously to the event itself, or, more likely, at some later stage (and perhaps far away from Judah) given the polytheistic elements to be found in it. As for the second paragraph, the Davidide kings did regard themselves as sons of God. The “wet nurse” theme for great men is a constant throughout biblical history (Moses) and pagan legend, e.g., Hathor suckling Hatshepsut; Cyrus the Great suckled by a female dog; Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf, etc. Gudea, as King Solomon, certainly did receive a dream from Ningirsu, Yahweh, regarding the building of the temple (Temple). King Hezekiah’s oracles on behalf of Yahweh were Isaiah and, as King Josiah, Huldah, who is Judith. The conflict between Eannatum (Lumma) and Umma over water is probably a vague recollection of the fact that King Hezekiah famously secured the water of Jerusalem, so that the looming Assyrians would not benefit from it. 2 Chronicles 32:1-4: After all that Hezekiah had so faithfully done, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, thinking to conquer them for himself. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who 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. Compare this with the following: https://classicalwisdom.com/politics/wars/a-war-for-water-the-tale-of-two-city-states/ Eannatum was the King of Lagash, a fertile town nestled between the Tigris and the Euphrates [sic]. While his domain was prosperous, Eannatum wanted more. This ambitious king, upon receiving his power, understood that Lagash’s security relied on its water supply from the Shatt al-Gharraf [sic]. Unfortunately his neighbor, the city-state of Umma, also bordered this very important channel on the western bank [sic]. The chief cause of hostility between these important cities is unknown according to some historians, and while we can never be certain, it seems obvious to us that the conflict was over water. …. Umma held this one strategic advantage over Lagash. Cutting the water supply to the city would hinder its domestic produce and trade via waterway, effectively crippling commerce in Lagash and sending prices upward on all commodities. …. Good try!

Identifying King Arioch who ruled Elam

by Damien F. Mackey “In those days King Nebuchadnezzar fought against King Arphaxad in the great plain that is on the border with Ragau. And many people joined him—everyone who lived in the highlands, everyone who lived along the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Hydaspes, and on the plain of Arioch, king of the Elymeans. Many nations joined forces with the Assyrians”. Judith 1:5-6 Commenting on this text in my postgraduate university thesis (2007), I double-identified the otherwise unknown “Arioch, king of the Elymeans”, as follows (Volume Two, pp. 46-47): Verses 1:6: “Arioch, king of the Elymeans” In [Book of Judith] 1:6, which gives a description of the geographical locations from which Arphaxad’s allies came, we learn that some of these had hailed from the region of the “Hydaspes, and, on the plain, Arioch, king of the Elymeans”. I disagree with Charles that: “The name Arioch is borrowed from Gen. xiv. i, in accordance with the author’s love of archaism”. This piece of information, I am going to argue here, is actually a later gloss to the original text. And I hope to give a specific identification to this king, since, according to Leahy: “The identity of Arioch (Vg Erioch) has not been established …”. What I am going to propose is that Arioch was not actually one of those who had rallied to the cause of Arphaxad in Year 12 of Nebuchadnezzar, as a superficial reading of [Book of Judith] though might suggest, but that this was a later addition to the text for the purpose of making more precise for the reader the geographical region from whence came Arphaxad’s allies, specifically the Elamite troops. In other words, this was the very same region as that which Arioch had ruled; though at a later time, as I am going to explain. But commentators express puzzlement about him. Who was this Arioch? And if he were such an unknown, then what was the value of this gloss for the early readers? Arioch, I believe, was the very Achior who figures so prominently in the story of Judith. He was also the legendary Ahikar, a most famous character as we read in Chapter 7. Therefore he was entirely familiar to the Jews, who would have known that he had eventually governed the Assyrian province of Elam. I shall tell about this in a moment. Some later editor/translator presumably, apparently failing to realise that the person named in this gloss was the very same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story of [Book of Judith], has confused matters by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: “Achior ruled the Elymeans”. [Book of Tobit] tells us more. Some time after the destruction of Sennacherib’s armies, he who had been Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh was appointed governor (or ‘king’) of Elymaïs (Elam) (cf. 1:18, 21: 2:10). This was Tobit’s very nephew, Ahikar/Achior. But the latter ruled Elam, not in Nebuchadnezzar’s Year 12, or at about the time when he himself was a high officer in the Assyrian army, but (approximately a decade) later, during the reign of Ashurbanipal - as previously determined - when the king of Assyria sent him to Elam. From there it is an easy matter to make this comparison: “Achior ... Elymeans” [BOJudith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) ... Elymaïs” [BOTobit]. [End of quote] An important note: Anyone engaging in a serious study of Elam and its history, will now need to (my opinion) take well into account Royce (Richard) Erickson’s article, that has so stunningly re-located the ancient land of Elam (Elymaïs): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (2) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Figure 6 – Consensus Versus Proposed Route of Flight to Nagite And now for a note on historical chronology that will be vital for this present article: Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon, I have also multi-identified, as Ashurbanipal, and as Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. In Esarhaddon, we get a small, but vital, part of Ashurbanipal/Nebuchednezzar’s long 43-year reign: his re-building of Babylon; his dreadful illness; and the beginnings of his campaign against Egypt-Ethiopia: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (2) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Other alter egos for this mighty king are: Ashur-bel-kala; Ashurnasirpal; Nabonidus; Cambyses (suffers madness; conquers Egypt; also named “Nebuchednezzar”). Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal and Cambyses can all be drawn together, in fact, through the agency of their association with the one same “Crown Prince” of Egypt/Ethiopia: Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne (2) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, according to the above, Arioch, who ruled Elam, was also Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, and was the Achior of the Book of Judith. And Esarhaddon was also Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. This will give us a better scope for filling out King Arioch. It needs to be noted that governors of a region for Assyria - such as Arioch was of Elam - were regarded as “kings”. Thus the boastful Sennacherib declares (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ The Historical Arioch Arioch may well appear under that very name during the reign of King Nebuchednezzar. I wrote about this in my article: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu therein greatly enlarging the biblical character, Ahikar, as follows: The Vizier (Ummânu) With what I think is a necessary merging of the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, with the potent king of neo-Assyria, Esarhaddon (or Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’), we encounter 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 following taken from J. Brinkman’s A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. 1158-722 B.C. Roma (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968, pp. 114-115]: … during these years in Babylonia a notable literary revival took place …. It is likely that this burst of creative activity sprang from the desire to glorify fittingly the spectacular achievements of Nebuchednezzar I and to enshrine his memorable deeds in lasting words. These same deeds were also to provide inspiration for later poets who sang the glories of the era …. The scribes of Nebuchednezzar’s day, reasonably competent in both Akkadian and Sumerian…, produced works of an astonishing vigor, even though these may have lacked the polish of a more sophisticated society. 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.)…. To which Brinkman adds the footnote [n. 641]: “Note … that Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu also under Adad-apla-iddina and, therefore, his career extended over at least thirty-five years”. So perhaps we can consider that our vizier was, for a time, shared by both Assyria and Babylon. Those seeking the historical Ahikar tend to come up with one Aba-enlil-dari, this description of him taken from: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/database/gen_html/a0000639.php: The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. Seleucid Babylonia is, of course, much later removed in time from our sources for Ahikar. And, as famous as may have been the scribe Esagil-kini-ubba – whether or not he were also Ahikar – even better known is this Ahikar (at least by that name), a character of both legend and of (as I believe) real history. Regarding Ahikar’s tremendous popularity even down through the centuries, we read [The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 28:28]: 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 at the beginning of the 20th cent. 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 Old Testament itself. Whilst Ahikar’s fame has spread far and wide, the original Ahikar, whom I am trying to uncover in this article, has been elusive for some. Thus J. Greenfield has written: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511520662&cid=CBO9780511520662A012 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. 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. She 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 excavations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE). 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. …. Merging Judith’s ‘Arioch’ with Daniel’s ‘Arioch’ With my revised shunting of the neo-Assyrian era into the neo-Babylonian one, and with an important official, “Arioch”, emerging early in the Book of Daniel, early in the reign of “Nebuchednezzar”, then the possibility arises that he is the same as the “Arioch” of Judith 1:6. Previously, I multi-identified the famous Ahikar (var. Achior), nephew of Tobit, a Naphtalian Israelite, with Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh; with the Achior of the Book of Judith; and with a few other suggestions thrown in. Finally, my identification of Ahikar (Achior) also with the governor (for Assyria) of the land of Elam, named as “Arioch” in Judith 1:6, enabled me to write this very neat equation: “Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit]. Arioch in Daniel Arioch is met in Daniel 2, in the highly dramatic context of king Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, in which Arioch is a high official serving the king. The erratic king has firmly determined to get rid of all of his wise men (2:13): “So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death”. And the king has entrusted the task to this Arioch, variously entitled “marshal”; “provost-marshal”; “captain of the king’s guard”; “chief of the king’s executioners” (2:14): “When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact”. This is the customary way that the wise and prudent Daniel will operate. Daniel 2 continues (v. 15): “[Daniel] asked the king’s officer [Arioch], ‘Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?’ Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel”. Our young Daniel does not lack a certain degree of “chutzpah”, firstly boldly approaching the king’s high official (the fact that Arioch does not arrest Daniel on the spot may be testimony to both the young man’s presence and also Arioch’s favouring the Jews since the Judith incident), and then (even though he was now aware of the dire decree) marching off to confront the terrible king (v. 16): “At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him”. Later, Daniel, having had revealed to him the details and interpretation of the king’s Dream, will re-acquaint himself with Arioch (v. 24): “Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, ‘Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him’.” Naturally, Arioch was quick to respond - no doubt to appease the enraged king, but perhaps also for the sake of Daniel and the wise men (v. 25): “Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, ‘I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means’.” The famous vizier of the Assyrian empire, Ahikar, will later be re-presented most unrealistically as a great sage and polymath, and he will even be reproduced as a handful of sages of encyclopaedic knowledge of the so-called Golden Age of Islam: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Historically in Elam We should also be able to find a trace of Arioch as ruler of Elam for the Assyrians. Although we appear to have little to go on, there was a somewhat obscure ‘king’ of Elam right at the appropriate time (in my revised setting), the reign of Esarhaddon/ the early reign of Ashurbanipal. And he had the appropriate name, Urtak (var. Urtaki), which - if we simply substitute the t for an i - renders for us, Uriak (Arioch). Similarly, the Greek text of Tobit has taken Tobit’s Hebrew name, Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה), and has replaced the first letter, ‘ayin (עֹ), with a tau (τ), Τωβίτ. {Obadiah is, in fact, the same as the Arabic name, Abdullah. Most interesting that Mohammed’s supposed parents, Abdullah and Amna, have the same names, respectively, as Tobit and his wife, Anna. The Nineveh connection, so fitting in the case of Tobit, becomes a complete anachronism with its re-emergence in association with Mohammed} D. T. Potts has provided this brief account of the obscure Urtak, one-time ruler of Elam (I do not necessarily accept the BC dates given here): https://e-l.unifi.it/pluginfile.php/664124/mod_resource/content/2/Testi%20in%20pdf/Potts%20DT%201999%20The%20Archaeology%20of%20Elam%209780521563581.pdf Cambridge world archaeology THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ELAM FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF AN ANCIENT IRANIAN STATE (2016) Pp. 275-276 …. The Babylonian Chronicle relates that Humban-haltash II ‘died in his palace without becoming ill’ (iv 11–12) and was succeeded by his brother Urtak (thus contra Dietrich 1970: 37, the letter ABL 839, which speaks about a king of Elam who suffered a stroke, cannot refer to Humban-haltash II; see Brinkman 1978: 308, n. 27), whose Elamite name was probably Urtagu (Zadok 1976a: 63). This occurred in the sixth year of Esarhaddon’s reign and was soon followed by a treaty between the Assyrian and Elamite kings (Borger 1956: 19) involving the return of some plundered cult statues, for in Esarhaddon’s seventh year, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, ‘Ishtar of Agade and the gods of Agade left Elam and entered Agade . . . ’ (iv 17–18; Brinkman 1990: 88; 1991: 44). This must have taken place c. 674 BC (Gerardi 1987: 12–13). Urtak is not attested in original Elamite inscriptions. He was still in power when Esarhaddon died in 669 BC and in the early years of the reign of his son and successor,Assurbanipal, grain was sent to Elam to relieve a famine which, according to Assurbanipal (ABL 295), was so bad that ‘there wasn’t even a dog to eat’ (restoration acc. to Malbran-Labat 1982: 250). Furthermore, Elamite refugees were allowed to settle in Assyria until such time as the harvest improved in Elam (Piepkorn 1933: 54). Assurbanipal was explicit in justifying his gesture of aid as a by-product of Urtak’s treaty with his father Esarhaddon (Nassouhi 1924–5: 103). But in 664 BC Urtak attacked Babylonia (for the date see Gerardi 1987: 129), apparently at the instigation of an antiAssyrian trio including Bel-iqisha, chief of the Gambulu tribe, Nabu-shum-eresh, governor of Nippur; and Marduk-shum-ibni, an Elamite official in Urtak’s administration. After receiving news of the Elamite invasion and checking it by sending his own messenger to Babylonia, Assurbanipal says, ‘In my eighth campaign, I marched against Urtak, king of Elam, who did not heed the treaty of (my) father, my sire, who did not guard the friendship’ (Gerardi 1987: 122). Assurbanipal’s account of the events which followed is very brief, noting only that the forces of Urtak retreated from their position near Babylon, and were defeated near the border of Elam. Later, Urtak himself died and according to Edition B of Assurbanipal’s annals, ‘Assur . . . , (and) Ishtar . . . , his royal dynasty they removed. The dominion of the land they gave to another; afterwards TeUmman, image of a gallû demon, sat on the throne of Urtak’ (Gerardi 1987: 133), whereupon the remaining members of both Urtak’s family and those of his predecessor, Humban-haltash II, fled to Assyria (Gerardi 1987: 123–4; Brinkman 1991: 52). If this is the same event referred to in the Shamash-shum-ukin Chronicle, according to which ‘the Elamite prince fled [to] Assyria’ on the 12th of Tammuz in the fourth year of Shamash-shum-ukin’s regency over Babylonia, then it can be placed around June-July 664 BC (Millard 1964: 19; Gerardi 1987: 128). ….

Shechem and its Oak Tree

by Damien F. Mackey “Covenantal promises first given to Abram at Shechem, first acknowledged then fully committed to by Jacob at Shechem, guarded by Simeon and Levi at Shechem, possibly symbolized by Joseph's bones at Shechem, were twice ratified in Joshua's time, in modified form, by Israel at Shechem, where the emphasis was placed on 'fullness of faithfulness'. Shechem was also where Joshua placed the massive, covenantal 'law stones' as God had commanded”. http://www.dawntoduskpublications.com/html/oak_shechem_long.htm In the following article, “The oak tree of Shechem”, the vital covenantal importance of this ancient site is discussed with relation to the famous oak tree there: SEE, PEOPLE ARE COMING down from the center of the land, and another company is coming from the Diviners' Terebinth Tree. Judges 9:37 …. The couple from Ur Though two thousand years had passed since Adam and Eve had tended the Garden of Eden, and untold millions had been born and died, barely a handful had ever known the true God. With Abram and Sarah, the time had come for God to set in motion a process that would forever change that situation, relatively speaking, creating a people fit to be called His own. God initiated this momentous new phase with a disarmingly unrevealing act. He gave order to Abram and Sarah to get up and go, promising them great things if they obeyed: Now the LORD. said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you" (Gen. 12:1). God gave command to this faithful couple to depart from their secure, comfortable, cozy existence to venture into what was possibly the great unknown. …. Shechem and the oak tree Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth [oak] tree of Moreh (Gen. 12:6). Abram and Sarah set off on the long journey without dithering or dickering. Their route probably took them through Damascus, along the shore of the Sea of Galilee where, two thousand years later, the One to come would teach the crowds, and then on to Shechem, a very important centre in the second millennium BC. There the first stage of their journey came to an end at the great tree of Moreh. Shechem and its tree were destined to play a vital role in God's dealings with Abram and his descendants. The story of Shechem, its oak, and of incident after incident played out in their shadow exposes the vital organs of God-man covenant relationships to view, showing clearly the key to covenantal success. Shechem and its tree were destined to play a vital role in God's dealings with Abram and his descendants. Sadly, failure more than success makes the lesson. Let's now tell the fascinating tale of Shechem and its oak. Shechem, the first city in the Promised Land to be mentioned in the Bible, is located approximately 45 kilometers directly north of Jerusalem. Scholars agree the tree was almost certainly an oak. As if to send up a flare alerting us to its special significance, there, by the tree, three 'firsts' occurred: • In the past, God had only spoken to Abram (12:1); here by the oak tree He appeared to him — the first of three recorded appearances in his life. (See also 17:1 and 18:1.) Describing this event, Hamilton (1990, p. 377) says, "Here the mode of revelation shifts to a theophany, Yahweh appeared to Abram. The shift is not incidental." Such an appearance reinforces the assurance that a divine intervention of great significance has occurred. • The first declaration made in the Promised Land of history's most amazing promises occurred here. In fact, the announcement of these promises was the very purpose of God's appearance to Abram; • The first of seven altars built by the patriarchs was erected here. The urgent way the text reads gives the impression that barely had God disappeared than Abram built an altar to worship Him. The oak tree, as we will see, is special; definitely not your average, every day agglomeration of trunk, branches and tracery covered with green leafy bits. For the time being let us simply note its importance, as revealed by the meaning of 'Moreh' which, translated, means teacher. The most reputable conservative commentary available today on Genesis says that it "suggests a place where divine oracles could be obtained" (Wenham 1987, p. 279). That explanation certainly fits the facts. Were this episode the only "oak of Shechem" one, we'd quit right now. But let's continue; as the record unfolds over time, Shechem became the venue for more than its share of happenings had chance alone set the rules. Shechem next pops into the record at the return of Abram's grandson, Jacob, after many years in Mesopotamia as Laban's some-time dupe. Mackey’s comment: Judith would later recall the trials endured by Abraham and by Jacob under Laban’s trickery as if the Bethulians’ present trials under hard Assyrian siege were almost inconsequential by comparison (Judith 6:26-27): ‘Recall how [God] dealt with Abraham, and how he tested Isaac, and all that happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia while he was tending the flocks of Laban, his mother’s brother. He has not tested us with fire, as he did them, to try their hearts, nor is he taking vengeance on us. But the Lord chastises those who are close to him in order to admonish them’. Jacob returns from abroad Jacob, the original composer of "If I Were a Rich Man", forever in his parlor counting out his money, had fled from home to escape death by his brother, Esau, after deceiving his own father Isaac and thereby swindling his brother out of a special powerful blessing. That was on top of an earlier episode in which Jacob had taken advantage of Esau's hunger to snatch his birthright from him. Forty years later, at about the age of ninety, Jacob returned. His journey home from Mesopotamia was filled with dread over how his brother Esau would receive him. Jacob's relief when Esau embraced him warmly upon meeting again was palpable. After catching up on old times, they parted company again, and that's where Shechem comes into the story: Then Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram; and he pitched his tent before the city. And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money. Then he erected an altar there and called it El Elohe Israel (Gen. 33:18-20). Jacob builds an altar at Shechem next to a large oak tree and there worships God Though some argue almost persuasively (e.g. Wenham 1994, p. 300) that Shechem here is the name of the crown prince of the area rather than the name of the city to which Jacob came, we believe the evidence shows otherwise. (Wenham is wrong when he says that "nowhere else in the OT is it [salem] used in this way as an adverb qualifying a verb". It is indeed used that way in 1 Samuel 16:4. Also, a study of Joshua 24:32 shows that the land Jacob bought was by Shechem.) But even if their contention is correct, the alternative town that is spoken of (Salem, translated in NKJV as 'safely') was located only three miles from Shechem anyway, and would have come under the city of Shechem's regional control. Mackey’s comment: For the importance of Salem, see e.g. my article: Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’ (5) Judith’s City of 'Bethulia' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nobody can explain why Jacob chose to settle in Shechem upon his return after a house-building detour in Succoth. Shechem did not lie on the major route from Mesopotamia into the Promised Land, yet it was strategically placed from a trading point of view. Perhaps his reason to settle there was entirely based on mercenary considerations. What can we deduce from this account with its many salient features? One feature — the purchase of real estate — is most intriguing. Was doing so an act of honoring God by securing the spot where Abram built his altar, or was it an act of disobedience, going contrary to God's will that they live their lives as disenfranchised strangers in the land of promise, as possibly indicated in Genesis 28:4? But let's focus on those items closer to certainties. To begin with, one cannot help but note Jacob's unhesitating resolve to build an altar in the same place, probably within eyeshot, of grandfather Abram's altar. But even more eye-opening is the unheralded, untrumpeted act of naming the place el Elohe Israel. For the first time, Jacob actually calls the God of creation the God of Israel. For the first time, Jacob actually calls the God of creation the God of Israel. And guess who Israel was. Himself! He was saying that God was now his God. Don't let the significance of this fact be lost on you. Note what Wenham says, In calling the altar "El, the God of Israel," Jacob acknowledges that the creator God who had changed his name at the Yabbok to Israel was now his God. He had vowed at Bethel that if the Lord brought him back to his father's house in peace, "the Lord will be my God" (1994, p. 301). Pillar promises To getter a better grip on what's going on, we really need to fill in some detail about the Bethel deal Wenham refers to here. While fleeing Canaan with his brother Esau in hot pursuit, Jacob had a dream at Bethel in which he saw angels ascending and descending upon a ladder whose top reached up into heaven. Then God Himself appeared at the ladder's apex, and made a number of glowing promises laden with assurances of blessings unrivalled, blessings that would make the biggest prize in lottery's history blanch visibly (28:13-15). Jacob, showing no hint of remorse over his chicanery, responded with unfeigned self-concern laced with a dash of skeptical reserve: Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You (Gen. 28:20-22)". Jacob's vow that God would be his God if He brought him back safely from Mesopotamia needs to be seen in context. First, when God spoke to him from the top rung, He had promised to be with Jacob wherever he went, implying that He, God, would stand ever-watchful over Jacob and his family. On top of that, God had many years earlier made his grandfather Abram the following staggering promise: Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Gen. 17:8). We are not drawing a long bow here to suggest that Jacob, a 'descendant' of Abram, and thus one of those of whom God was declaring He would be his God, was simply not going to meekly, willy-nilly let God be his God. (Oh, how short-sighted!) He was not going to naively believe God's magnanimous, munificent, magnificent claims. In essence, he was putting God to the test, declaring that if God really wanted to be his deity, then He had better come up with some good reason for it, He had better come up with the goods; Jacob specifically reiterated God's implied promise of a peaceful (safe) return to Canaan. At the same time, Jacob obligated himself to certain good deeds in return — to build a 'house' out of the pillar he had erected at the same spot, and to commence regular tithing on all his earnings. Jacob, procrastinator extraordinaire God fulfilled all his ladder promises, even though only in germ form compared with their long-term outworking, including bringing Jacob and his family safely back to Canaan. Jacob was stuck. Unless he was mad enough to tempt God, he knew he had to fulfill his side of the deal and return to Bethel to build a state-of-the-art altar, implied by his vow to build a 'house' there, and to start tithing. …. But Jacob was Jacob. Instead of going on to Bethel to fulfill his obligations, he dragged his feet at Shechem. Perhaps, in building a ruder altar there, and accepting God as his own personal God, he thought he had divested himself of any further obligation. Though the inner workings of Jacob's mind can not be known with any certainty, subsequent events prove that his Shechem dithering and lingering did not impress God at all …. Calamity at Shechem The next episode must surely go down in history's log book of treachery as a classic. Jacob's daughter, Dinah, went gallivanting around the district with the result that someone ended up with her in the kitchen where things got a little out of hand. His name happened to be Shechem, crown prince of the district. When they heard about it, Dinah's brothers were so incensed they hatched a diabolical plot. Feigning friendship, they offered Shechem Dinah's hand in marriage on one condition — that every male in town be circumcised. Shechem agreed. On the third day after the mass operation, when all the patients were in the direst of discomfort, Dinah's two brothers Simeon and Levi strapped on their keenly-honed swords, entered town, and pierced every grown male through virtually without resistance. Jacob was flabbergasted, angry, and smitten with terror, expecting reprisals from all quarters. God took advantage of his vulnerability under such duress, ordering him to go to Bethel and fulfill his vows: Then God said to Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother" (Gen. 35:1). He went, and did it. But the Shechem story is nowhere near ended. Let us continue. If trees could talk …. So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; then let us arise and go up to Bethel, that I may make there an altar to the God who answered me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone." So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem (Gen. 35:2-4). One strongly feels that this oak tree was not just any old tree, the use of the definite article suggesting such a conclusion. What other inference does the inspired text want us to draw than that it was the same one under which Abram built his altar, probably where Jacob had also erected his own? So at the very spot where Abram had demonstrated his conviction that God would one day faithfully fulfill His covenant promises, where Jacob himself first called God his God at the dedication of his altar, Jacob buried all remnants of pagan influence among them. Now there would have been untold thousands, if not millions of oak trees in Canaan where they could have buried their household idols. But no. Now there would have been untold thousands, if not millions of oak trees in Canaan where they could have buried their household idols. It had to be the same oak as that under which Abram built his altar. At the same oak tree in Shechem where Jacob first aspired to faithfulness by a mere show of it, now he sincerely repented and turned wholeheartedly to God. Dem bones, dem bones In an easily-overlooked verse, Joseph commanded his great-great-grandsons that they ensure his wish to have his bones returned to the Promised Land be permanently perpetuated until the day of Israel's departure from Egypt, as prophesied, should come: Then Joseph took an oath from the children of Israel, saying, "God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here" (Gen. 50:25). Only one reason can be seen as lying behind Joseph's wish — the covenant promises of God that Israel would inherit the Promised Land. Joseph wished to lie in death among his own descendants. He obviously believed in God's faithfulness to those promises without reservation. Where were his bones eventually stowed when his descendants finally inherited the Promised Land? The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel had brought up out of Egypt, they buried at Shechem, in the plot of ground which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem (Josh. 24:32). One could take the stance that the only reason his bones found their final resting place in Shechem was that it lay in the territory Joseph's descendants occupied. Maybe. However, lots of other cities and towns lay in their territory. Why Shechem? One could, of course, ascribe the location to the normal human tendency to hallow places where important events had occurred, such as Shechem. Indeed, quite possible. But as we will see, the deed also fits into a matrix of deeds-events having a vital common denominator. Dem stones, dem stones Hundreds of years later, Joseph's descendants departed Egypt carrying his bones, in readiness to fulfill the promises God had made to the patriarchs. For forty years they wandered in the Sinai Peninsula. En route, Moses commanded them what they must do when finally they entered the Promised Land. The account is given in chapters 27 and 28 of Deuteronomy. The vital points are contained in 27:2-13: And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones. You shall write on them all the words of this law. Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones. and you shall whitewash them with lime. And there you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones. Take heed and listen, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the LORD your God. Therefore you shall obey the voice of the LORD your God, and observe His commandments and His statutes which I command you today." And Moses commanded the people on the same day, saying, "These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people, when you have crossed over the Jordan. and these shall stand on Mount Ebal to curse. The law of God lay at the heart of the Sinaitic covenant inasmuch as it outlined in detail the terms of the covenant the people had to observe. As becomes clear in both Deuteronomy and later in the book of Joshua where the fulfillment is spoken of (8:30-35), between Ebal and Gerizim the people ratified the covenant made with God at Sinai. An altar of huge stones with the law of God inscribed on them was erected on Ebal, Shechem's sentinel mount, as a token of that covenantal commitment. Now. Guess where Mounts Ebal and Gerizim are located. They are the hills in whose valley Shechem lay! The vibrating, thundering chorus of millions of voices shouting 'Amen' in unison to the terms of the covenant, from hill to hill, echoed powerfully in the streets of Shechem below; nothing like it has ever been seen (better, heard) again in all history. The vibrating, thundering chorus of millions of voices shouting 'Amen' in unison to the terms of the covenant, from hill to hill, echoed powerfully in the streets of Shechem below Covenant ratified — yet again At the end of his life, Joshua called for Israel to assemble again — at Shechem. The solemnity of the occasion cannot be expressed better than by its simple yet inspired biblical description: Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and called for the elders of Israel, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God (Josh. 24:1). Joshua recounted God's faithfulness from the time of Abram's calling until He gave them the Promised Land. He solemnly impressed on them the importance of keeping faithfulness with God and his covenant. The following statement captures the sum and substance of the gathering's purpose: Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! (24:14) The phrase "sincerity and truth" is translated "sincerity and faithfulness" in the RSV. The real meaning of the phrase is best expressed by NIV's "with all faithfulness". Joshua told them that they must, in observing the covenant made with God, honor it with fullness of faithfulness. The people responded, equally solemnly, that they would do so: We also will serve the LORD, for He is our God (24:18). God was their God because He had promised to be the God of Abram's seed. They ratified the covenant with shouted professions of faithfulness. Little did they realize that the charge of faithfulness they accepted would later turn into a charge against them. When all was over, Joshua, … took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD (24:26). Eight hundred years had elapsed since Abram first built an altar under the Shechem oak tree. Could this possibly be the same tree? Eight hundred years had elapsed since Abram first built an altar under the Shechem oak tree. Could this possibly be the same tree? It's doubtful, though oaks can live for many hundreds of years. But its proximity to the "sanctuary of the LORD", which was probably the altars built by Abram and Jacob, indicates it was now taken to be the official substitute. Can we not picture Joshua pointing to the altars and the tree, can we not hear him rehearsing their stories? Can we not imagine him pointing to the ground, declaring "somewhere down there are the pagan gods your father Jacob buried; do the same, bury your false gods, and serve the one true God only." The stone was to witness to their promise to be true. On that day, under Abram's tree of promise, Israel ratified her covenant with God, the covenant she had made at Sinai about one hundred years earlier. The charge against About three hundred years later, a staggering event occurred in Shechem, one which gave the lie to the people's profession made at that city in Joshua's day that they and their descendants would forever be faithful. God was king From the very outset, God was king over Israel. The clearest exposition of this truth is found in 1 Samuel 12:12: And when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, "No, but a king shall reign over us," when the LORD your God was your king. This truth received little in the way of enunciation in the Law simply because every moment of Israel's history renders it obvious. He created her as a people. He delivered them from annihilation in Egypt. Israel's covenant with God amounts to nothing less than a suzerainty treaty that finds its meaning only when made between a great king and subject peoples. His regal reign over Israel is evident in such passages as Exodus 15:18, Numbers 23:21; 24:7, Deuteronomy 17:14 and 33:5. But Israel rejected God in the days of Samuel, the last of the judges: And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them" (1 Sam. 8:7). Such treason would ipso facto amount to rejection of the Sinaitic covenant whose central stipulation entailed loyalty to God. Nevertheless, God in His mercy did not call it quits right then. He endured hundreds of years of more active rejection of His proprietary rights over Israel before He brought into play the covenant sanctions of cursing as rehearsed at Shechem. Significantly, this official rejection of God's rule was preceded hundreds of years earlier by an abortive popular uprising against God, and guess where its locus was — yes, Shechem. This earlier act of treason set the scene for the later. The key player was a man by the name of Abimelech, whose father was the well-known judge Gideon, of fleece-and-dew fame. The book of Judges recounts how the people had approached Gideon, after God had used him to save Israel from Midianite oppression, and pleaded with him to be their king. Note his response, showing faithfulness to Israel's covenant with God: Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian." But Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you" (Judg. 8:22-23). Treason A greater contrast between father and son has rarely been witnessed in history as that between Gideon and Abimelech. Shortly after his father died, Abimelech went into treachery mode. Like the consummate politician he was, he lobbied hard in his town of Shechem (yes, that's right) to gain support. Feeling he had it, he murdered all seventy of his own brothers, barring one who escaped, on one rock in one day! Immediately, … all the men of Shechem gathered together, all of Beth Millo, and they went and made Abimelech king beside the terebinth tree at the pillar that was in Shechem (Judg. 9:6). Did you catch that? If you did, it probably caught your breath. At the very spot where, under the very tree where (Hamilton, p. 377), next to the very pillar where, three hundred years earlier, all Israel had sworn faithfulness to God and His covenant, where one thousand years earlier God first made the covenantal promises to Abram, where Jacob later buried the vestiges of his false gods, the populace of Shechem declared that a mere, evil man, was now their king. God, they proclaimed, was no longer even a puppet ruler. The outcome was utter disaster, perhaps even greater than that which had occurred in the same city hundreds of years earlier when Simeon and Levi slaughtered the entire male population. The outcome was utter disaster, perhaps even greater than that which had occurred in the same city hundreds of years earlier when Simeon and Levi slaughtered the entire male population. Read the entire account for yourself in Judges 9:1-20. In short, the honeymoon between Abimelech and the Shechemites was short-lived. God set animosity between them, resulting in Abimelech's massacre of the entire population. One thousand people perished in one incident when Abimelech set fire to the temple of Baal in which they were cringing in fear. That one thousand people could fit inside testifies to its considerable size. Why did this disaster occur? Listen carefully to what Jotham, Abimelech's lone surviving brother, had to say to the citizens of Shechem days before the massacre: Now therefore, if you acted in good faith and honor when you made Abimelech king, and if you have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done to him as his deeds deserved. if you then have acted in good faith and honor with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you (Judg. 9:16-19). Twice in one short diatribe Jotham tells the people to judge themselves, whether or not they have acted in 'good faith and honor'. This phrase begs to be noted, for it is identical to that which Joshua used by the oak at Shechem in charging the people to serve God faithfully, a charge which the people accepted enthusiastically. Here, in exactly the same spot, the people cast aside their ancestors' voluble promises to serve God loyally and launched on a course of rebellion. These facts must not pass unnoticed. They provide a key to the proper understanding of biblical history, and of the meaning of covenants in particular. Interpreting the story What appears to be the three-stranded tip of a golden thread waves beckoningly around right from the beginning of the Shechem account. All three 'firsts' — a theophany, a pronouncement and an altar — share one common denominator, God's promises to Abram. One might wonder how Abram's building of an altar fits in with those promises. As soon as one starts looking for meanings to actions, the art of interpretation is called for. But Wenham doesn't blush at all in interpreting Abram's act: Abram built an altar to show that he believed the promise of the land. In building it, he symbolically demonstrated his conviction that one day it would belong to his descendants (1987, p. 280). Let us state right here the conclusion come to after studying the various clues relating to Shechem and its oak tree: Shechem serves as a mechanism for concentrating the theme of covenantal faithfulness to a sharp focal resolution. Topical connections are so strong that we can be confident God intends us to see an umbilical link between them all. At Shechem God began to unveil His special covenant with Abram and his descendants, and it was there that Abram responded with believing commitment. … it appears to have brought Jacob to genuine spiritual conversion and faithfulness to God, demonstrated by burying his household idols in the very patch of Promised Land soil where Abram first worshiped God. One could ascribe the act of Simeon and Levi in destroying Shechem as showing loyalty to the covenant promises. For if the marriage had gone ahead, it would have been the thin edge of the wedge. Israel was to preserve an unmixed blood line. Had intermarriage occurred, the very fulfillment of the promises that Abram's seed would inherit the land would be jeopardized. Thus, Simeon and Levi could well have done the "right thing". Wenham says, … the narrative hints at the multidimensional aspects of conduct, at the mixed motives that make it impossible either to condemn any of the actors absolutely or to exonerate them entirely (p. 317). Mackey’s comment: Judith will, in her magnificent prayer to God at the time of the evening offering in the Temple - and quite contrary to Jacob’s angry reaction to Simeon’s and Levi’s violent deed at Shechem (Genesis 34:30) - express nothing but admiration for what her ancestor Simeon (and Levi) had done, even using this as an incentive for her own move upon a new pagan Shechem-like offender, the Assyrian commander-in-chief “Holofernes” (Judith 9:1-10): Judith fell prostrate, put ashes upon her head, and uncovered the sackcloth she was wearing. Just as the evening incense was being offered in the temple of God in Jerusalem, Judith cried loudly to the Lord: ‘Lord, God of my father Simeon, into whose hand you put a sword to take revenge upon the foreigners … who had defiled a virgin by violating her, shaming her by uncovering her thighs, and dishonoring her by polluting her womb. You said, ‘This shall not be done!’ Yet they did it. Therefore you handed over their rulers to slaughter; and you handed over to bloodshed the bed in which they lay deceived, the same bed that had felt the shame of their own deceiving. You struck down the slaves together with their masters, and the masters upon their thrones. … Their wives you handed over to plunder, and their daughters to captivity, and all the spoils you divided among your favored children, who burned with zeal for you and in their abhorrence of the defilement of their blood called on you for help. O God, my God, hear me also, a widow. It is you who were the author of those events and of what preceded and followed them. The present and the future you have also planned. …. Whatever you devise comes into being. The things you decide come forward and say, ‘Here we are!’ All your ways are in readiness, and your judgment is made with foreknowledge. …. Here are the Assyrians, a vast force, priding themselves on horse and chariot, boasting of the power of their infantry, trusting in shield and spear, bow and sling. …. They do not know that you are the Lord who crushes wars …. Lord is your name. Shatter their strength in your might, and crush their force in your wrath. …. For they have resolved to profane your sanctuary, to defile the tent where your glorious name resides, and to break off the horns of your altar with the sword. See their pride, and send forth your fury upon their heads. Give me, a widow, a strong hand to execute my plan. By the deceit of my lips, strike down slave together with ruler, and ruler together with attendant. Crush their arrogance by the hand of a female’. Covenantal promises first given to Abram at Shechem, first acknowledged then fully committed to by Jacob at Shechem, guarded by Simeon and Levi at Shechem, possibly symbolized by Joseph's bones at Shechem, were twice ratified in Joshua's time, in modified form, by Israel at Shechem, where the emphasis was placed on 'fullness of faithfulness'. Shechem was also where Joshua placed the massive, covenantal 'law stones' as God had commanded. Hundreds of years later, the citizens of Shechem discarded every vestige of loyalty to the covenant and embarked on a course of treachery, rejecting God as king in preference for a wicked blob of Abimelech flesh. Hundreds of years later, the citizens of Shechem discarded every vestige of loyalty to the covenant and embarked on a course of treachery Jotham's discourse included a reference to 'fullness of faithfulness' that his listeners would almost certainly have taken as alluding to Joshua's warning. Adding insult to injury but strength to the thesis, Shechem was one of only six cities of refuge and of numerous Levite cities (see Joshua 21:1-3, 21), cities inhabited by that tribe set aside for special service to God. Such a city should have stood a bastion of squeaky-clean holiness to the bitter end; instead, the depth of its traitorousness is indelibly stamped on history's record in the stark shape of its large temple of Baal. Horror of horrors, the city had become a centre of Canaanite worship. Further, after the death of King Solomon, the epochal split of the one kingdom of Israel into two separate kingdoms occurred when the people turned, admittedly under provocation, against the legitimate Davidic successor and followed the upstart usurper Jeroboam (see 1 Kings 12:1-19). The event occurred at Shechem, which also became Jeroboam's first capital. All these facts underscore as plainly as can be imagined the very essence of covenantal relationships. Though the form of the covenants God made with Israel may have imitated standard ancient practice, the Bible's repeated Shechem incidents highlight the heart and core of healthy relationships between God and man — mutually-observed faithfulness — as well as its opposite, perfidious unfaithfulness. The Shechem type teaches what it is that keeps a covenant robust and healthy; the glue that holds two parties together in covenantal bliss consists of the vital attribute of faithfulness. Without faithfulness on the part of both parties, covenants are ultimately doomed. This marvellous history of Shechem typically lacks a wonderful later chapter, which is the apocalyptical Judith incident. The tale of Judith, a heroine virtually forgotten to Israel in terms of her historicity, has resonated down through the centuries in ancient pagan tales of vague reminiscence, and has even been projected into pseudo AD ‘history’. “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”. Dr. John Osgood I finally got around to accepting Shechem (rather than the far less significant Mithilia, or Mesilieh) as the strategically important city of “Bethulia”, the home of the Simeonite heroine, Judith, whose womanly intervention would lead to the rout of Sennacherib’s 185,000 strong Assyrian army. Now, was Achior of the Book of Judith taken captive to the same approximate place where Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, had long ago been buried? (Genesis 35:8) For it, too, was beneath or “below Bethulia [= Bethel]”, that is, Shechem (Judith 6:10-13): Then Holofernes ordered his slaves, who waited on him in his tent, to seize Achior and take him away to Bethulia and hand him over to the Israelites. So the slaves took him and led him out of the camp into the plain, and from the plain they went up into the hill country and came to the springs below Bethulia. When the men of the town saw them, they seized their weapons and ran out of the town to the top of the hill, and all the slingers kept them from coming up by throwing stones at them. So having taken shelter below the hill, they bound Achior and left him lying at the foot of the hill, and returned to their master. If so, the place was full of biblical significance. F. Olojede tells us all about it in “THE “FIRST DEBORAH” – GENESIS 35:8 IN THE LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/146010/135522 Deborah’s burial under the oak near Bethel not only resonates with two other burials in the chapter, but also echoes a fourth (in fact, the first) “burial” in 35:4. Jacob is said to have buried all the foreign gods and jewels that belonged to his household. Although the Hebrew word translated as “bury” (טָמןַ) in verse 4 is different from קָּבֵ֛ר in verses 8, 19, and 29, the “burial” of those gods and rings seems to be a token of the real burials that would inevitably follow. It is interesting to note that the burial in verse 4 took place near Shechem, like Deborah’s, under the terebinth. Hamilton (1995:378-379) reckons that Deborah’s burial under the oak tree is used deliberately to act as a parallel to the internment of the false gods under the terebinth (cf. Fretheim 1994:586). Whereas the burial of Deborah resulted in the naming of the oak, the burial of the gods did not (Janzen 1993:140). More importantly, the association of Deborah’s burial with Bethel echoes the reference to Bethel in verses 1-7 and 9-16. Whereas some scholars tend to regard Genesis 35:8 as an intrusion in the chapter, the reference to Bethel in the verse as in the preceding and following verses points to the contrary. Rather, it alludes to some underlying harmony between the verse and its context, at least from a literary standpoint. Coats’ (1983:238) insight in this regard is especially crucial to this discussion. He notes that, although Deborah plays no role in the narrative, the unit in which she is mentioned has contact with the rest of the narrative only on the basis of a catchword, Bethel (cf. Gomes 2006:88)! Therefore, the significance of Bethel in the unit will be explored later in the discussion. In addition, the naming of the oak in remembrance of Deborah corresponds with the setting up of the pillar over Rachel’s tomb, as Blum rightly noted. Both were to serve as monuments to these unforgettable women who both died on the way. Overall, the intratextual references in verse 8 to other portions of the chapter point to some textual unity within the chapter. ….