Sunday, May 10, 2026

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

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

See e.g. my article:

 

Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

(8) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

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

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

She was the great Simeonite heroine, Judith.

 

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

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

 

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

 

For what are we looking?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

            Will be deposed and go into exile

 

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

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

 

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

 

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

 

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


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

 

Iamani Explained

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[End of quote]

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Are You Acquainted With Shaphan and His Family?

 

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

 

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

 

Shaphan Supports True Worship

 

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

 

Ten years earlier, young Josiah had “started to search for the God of David his forefather.” Shaphan was evidently much older than Josiah and could therefore be a good spiritual adviser to him and a supporter of Josiah’s first campaign of restoring true worship. a2 Chronicles 34:1-8.

 

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

 

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

 

Ahikam and Gedaliah

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Gemariah and Micaiah

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Elasah and Jaazaniah

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Historicity of Shaphan and His Family

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[Footnote]

 

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

 

HuldahAn Influential Prophetess

 

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

 

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

 

[End of quote]

 

Pashhur the son of Immer

 

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

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

 

Jeremiah 20:1-6

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Eliakim Typological Argument clarified when we know who he was and what was his office

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

The Eliakim Typological Argument asserts that, when Jesus gave

“the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter, He was alluding to

and fulfilling Isaiah 22:20–24, which Catholics see as a typological

prefigurement of Peter’s role in the church”.

 

Got Questions


 

What is the Eliakim Typological Argument?

 

The question is asked at:

What is the Eliakim Typological Argument? | GotQuestions.org

 

Then:

 

Answer

 

The Eliakim Typological Argument is an apologetic defense used to support the Roman Catholic papacy—the doctrinal and administrative office of the pope. The pope holds the central organizational and leadership office of the Roman Catholic Church. His authority is believed to come from the apostle Peter, whom Catholics assert led the church before his martyrdom. Put simply, Catholics believe Jesus appointed Peter to be the first pope and that there is an unbroken line of papal succession to the present day.

 

The Eliakim Typological Argument originates from the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:13–20. In this passage, Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do you say I am?” (verse 15). In verse 16, the apostle Peter—always the outspoken one of the group—answers for all of them. He confesses that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (ESV). In a powerful and unambiguous way, Peter declares that Jesus is God’s Son and Israel’s promised Messiah. Jesus responds to Peter’s confession with these words: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17–19).

 

The Lord’s response to Peter intentionally paralleled Peter’s confession of faith. Peter confessed, “You are the Christ.” Jesus responded, “You are Peter.” Peter’s first name was originally Simon, but the Lord renamed him Peter (Petros in Greek), meaning “rock” (John 1:42). Based on Christ’s next statement, “And on this rock I will build my church,” Roman Catholics believe Jesus endowed Peter with authority to become the first pope, along with all the various roles and duties that role entails.

 

The Eliakim Typological Argument asserts that, when Jesus gave “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter, He was alluding to and fulfilling Isaiah 22:20–24, which Catholics see as a typological prefigurement of Peter’s role in the church. Isaiah’s prophecy says, “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.”

 

The Eliakim Typological Argument claims that Eliakim, who received “the key to the house of David,” is a type of Peter. Eliakim foreshadowed the eventual role that Peter would play as the founding pope. The argument also links the statements “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” with the Lord’s promise to Peter that “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

Having explained what the Eliakim Typological Argument [ETA] is, the article proceeds to criticise the traditional Catholic interpretation as “erroneous”:

 

In drawing a correlation between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, the Roman Catholic Church erroneously regards the office of the pope as biblical and confers foundational and infallible authority to whoever occupies that office.

 

The problem with the Eliakim Typological Argument is that Eliakim prefigures Christ, not Peter. In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David.” This corresponds with the description of Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “who is holy and true, who holds the key of David.”

 

Further, Isaiah 22:22 says concerning Eliakim, “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” This, too, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 3:7: “What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” The blessing of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 should be read in light of Revelation 3, not Matthew 16.

 

Scripture demonstrates unambiguously that Jesus is the authority of the church, not Peter. The Eliakim Typological Argument postulates a dubious and highly speculative interpretation of Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22. There is simply no scriptural basis for the office of the pope or the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the Eliakim Typological Argument fails to overturn that fact.

 

Others, of course, have a different viewpoint.

See, for example:

Vindicating the New Eliakim Argument for the Papacy - Daniel Vecchio & Kyle Alander

 

Due to our current chronological disjunction of the Bible and history, though, that would, for instance, cause us to separate the era of King Hezekiah of Judah and Eliakim son of Hilkiah from the era of King Josiah of Judah and the prophet Jeremiah son of Hilkiah by more than half a century, when in actual fact it was all one and the same era, we fail to grasp who and what Eliakim son of Hilkiah really was.

 

Obviously, if this is so, then we completely undermine our grasp of the ETA.

 

Whereas Eliakim, who was “over the House” (Isaiah 37:2), is considered to have been basically a political figure, King Hezekiah’s Major Domo, he was, in fact, “over the Temple [House]” the High Priest.

See e.g. my article:

 

Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest

 

(9) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest

 

This fact adds quite a vital ‘new’ dimension to the Eliakim-Saint Peter connection.

 

 

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Sargon II seeking to emulate the original Sargon, of Akkad

 


 

“The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both

came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked

on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule”.

 

Jared Krebsbach

 

 

 What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?

 

Although they were unrelated, two of the greatest leaders of the ancient Near East were named Sargon. Both rulers were builders, warriors, and cultural influencers.

 

Published: Jul 31, 2025 written by Jared KrebsbachPhD History

Krebsbach, Jared. "What Did Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria Have in Common?" TheCollector.com, July 31, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/jared-krebsbach/

 

Sargon of Akkad (ruled c. 2334-2279 BCE) and Sargon II of Assyria (ruled 721-705 BCE) were two of the greatest rulers in ancient Near Eastern history.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: The dates for Sargon of Akkad as given here are about 400 years too large. He, as Naram-Sin, was a contemporary of Abram in late Chalcolithic En-geddi; Ghassul IV; Gerzean; and Naqada (Egypt). See e.g. my article:

 

Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

 

(5) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Despite sharing the same name, the two men were from different dynasties and lived more than 1,500 years and hundreds of miles apart. With that said, both kings left an indelible mark on the ancient world through numerous military campaigns, ambitious building projects, and efforts that changed Near Eastern culture. When several kings in the same culture have the same name, it is historical tradition to name the one with the greatest accomplishments “the Great.” Sargon of Akkad is sometimes referred to as “the Great,” but a compelling case can be made for Sargon of Assyria’s greatness.

 

They Were Young Men Destined to Rule 

 

Although the primary source documents about the early lives of both Sargons are scant, there is enough to piece together a general outline.

 

An Akkadian language text mentions Sargon of Akkad’s birthplace as along the Euphrates River near the important city of Kish. Perhaps the most interesting detail of the text states: “My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not.” Definitely an inauspicious beginning for a man who would later rule most of Mesopotamia.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my greatly revised ancient geography: 

 

“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon’s less than noble origins is also probably why he took the name that he did, which means “the legitimate king.” The obvious question then is, how did this man from a questionable background become king of an empire? The answer to that question can be found in another Akkadian cuneiform text dated to the time of Sargon.

 

….

According to the text, Sargon overthrew King Lugalzagesi (ruled c. late 2300s BCE) of the Uruk Dynasty. At the time, Mesopotamia consisted of several city-states, with most of the political power and cultural influence centered in the Sumerian dominated south [sic]. The background of the battle is not related in the text, only the aftermath.

 

“Sargon, king of Agade, overseer of Ishtar, king of Kish, anointed priest of Anu, king of the country, great ensi of Enlil; he defeated Uruk and tore down its wall; in the battle with the inhabitants of Uruk he was victorious. Lugalzaggisi, king of Uruk, he captured in (this) battle, he brought him in a (dog) collar to the gate of Enlil. Sargon, king of Agade, was victorious in the battle with the inhabitants of Ur, the(ir) town he defeated and tore down its wall.”

 

How Sargon became the commander of what was likely a large and well-trained and equipped army remains a mystery. The Sumerian King List adds few details, so one must assume that Sargon was quite charismatic, intelligent, and could also probably handle weapons quite well. Sargon of Akkad likely learned his knowledge of ancient warfare hands-on in the military. The victory gave Sargon dominion over southern Mesopotamian and allowed him to start a new political dynasty.

 

Unlike Sargon of Akkad, Sargon II of Assyria was born into royalty. Sargon of Assyria was actually the second Assyrian king named Sargon. The first Sargon ruled in the late third millennium BCE, and little is known about him. [???] Therefore, Sargon II will be referred to here as “Sargon of Assyria” as he was the greater of the two Assyrian Sargons and to differentiate him from Sargon of Akkad. Sargon of Assyria was one of the sons of King Tiglath-Pileser III (ruled 744-727 BCE), and based on what is known about the family, he was probably born in the royal palace in Kalhu/Nimrud.

 

Modern historians believe that Sargon usurped the royal throne from his brother, Shalmaneser V (ruled 726-722 BC), and started a new dynasty, although the details are unclear.

Damien Mackey’s comment: Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser were one and the same:  

 

Book of Tobit a guide to neo-Assyrian succession

 

(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

The two Sargons may have had very different backgrounds, but they both came to the throne violently, one through a coup and the other by military conquest. Once each man settled into his new role as king, he also embarked on impressive building projects to legitimize his rule.

 

They Built Cities

 

Perhaps one of the more unique aspects that both Sargons shared was their construction of entirely new capital cities. There are a number of reasons why the Sargons built these new cities, with the most important and obvious being to legitimize their rules. Because Sargon of Akkad was not of the royalty and Sargon of Assyria was a usurper, a large construction project was vital.

 

The construction of the new project would placate the gods and keep the people busy, not thinking of how their new king came to power.

 

Sargon of Akkad’s new city was named Akkad, sometimes written as “Agade.”

 

Modern archaeologists have not yet located Akkad, but it is believed to have been on the Euphrates River, near Sargon’s hometown of Kish.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: For the correct location of ancient Akkad, see my “Sumer” article above.

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Not to be outdone by his namesake, Sargon of Assyria also built a new city.

 

Located north of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, high on a citadel, Sargon of Assyria built his new capital city, Dur-Sharrukin/Khorsabad, in 717 BCE. The name of the city is translated into English as “fortress of Sargon,” and archaeological work at the site has revealed how impressive it was. The city was surrounded by a nearly four-and-a-half-mile wall and encompassed 740 acres of space. Curiously, Dur Sharrukin was not located on the Tigris River as all of the other major Assyrian cities were.

 

Until Akkad is located and excavated it is impossible to determine which city was the greatest. One interesting thing that both cities had in common, though, was that they were promptly abandoned by the Sargons’ successors.

 

They Fought Wars and Ruled People

 

Sargon of Akkad unified central and southern Mesopotamia under his rule through warfare. He pushed against the conventions of the era by building a standing army and a large personal guard of 5,400 men.

 

It is believed that Sargon made the big military push late in his reign, when he had made alliances throughout Mesopotamia [sic] and had trained his army. The same historical text cited above that related Sargon’s rise to power also details part of his conquest of Mesopotamia.

 

“Sargon, king of Kish, was victorious in 34 campaigns and dismantled (all) the cities, as far as the shore of the sea… Enlil did not let anybody oppose Sargon.”

 

In order to control such a large standing army, Sargon needed to revamp Mesopotamia’s bureaucratic culture. Instead of eliminating the kings of the numerous city-states, Sargon made the kings regional governors. Although the government was unified under the rule of one king, the nature of the system prevented competing dynasties from forming. The regional governors had more land that they theoretically ruled, but they were less tied to their former cities, which was where power emanated from in ancient Mesopotamia.

 

Sargon of Assyria’s reign was also marked by several successful military campaigns. As an Assyrian, Sargon was expected to live up to the martial deeds of his father and other illustrious ancestors, and warfare also had a religious component for the Assyrians.

 

Sargon also had to keep his critics and potential usurpers at bay, so he personally led major military campaigns in every year of his rule. The Assyrian king defeated the state of Uratu and then went north to Cilicia and south to the border of Egypt. He then retook the important city of Babylon after ten years of Elamite interference. Several texts discovered in the ruins of Dur-Sharrukin detail how Sargon dealt with his enemies.

 

The people and their possessions I carried off. Those cities I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.

 

[The people] of the cities of Sukka, Bala and Abitikna, conceived a wicked plan of tearing up the roots of (their) land and with Ursâ, of Urarut (Armenia), they came to terms. Because of the sin which they had committed, I tore them away from their homes and settled them in Hatti of Amurru.”

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: I’d like to throw this in here:

 

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

 

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

 

Jared Krebsbach continues:

 

Sargon of Assyria’s most notable military campaign was against the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, as related in 2 Kings 18:9-11 of the Old Testament. The siege and destruction of Israel’s capital city of Samaria is also related in Assyrian texts. The Old Testament states that Shalmaneser led the siege, but many modern historians believe that Sargon finished the job after assassinating his brother [sic].

 

Like his much earlier namesake, Sargon of Assyria also overhauled the Assyrian state. When Sargon came to power, 25 provinces were ruled by semi-autonomous governors. Their power varied widely, with some of the governors being quite powerful and a potential threat to Sargon. So, to counter the potential of recalcitrant governors, Sargon reduced the number of provinces to just 12. The restructuring was successful because Sargon died, as most Assyrian kings would have wanted, on the battlefield and not at an assassin’s hands.

 

Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria: Two Culture Warriors 

 

It is arguable that Sargon of Akkad’s greatest legacy was the influence he had on ancient Mesopotamian culture. His very name was revered for centuries, as demonstrated by two [sic?]  Assyrian kings taking it, but his greatest impact was on the language of the region. Before Sargon, the Sumerian language was the dominant written and spoken language in Mesopotamia. After Sargon came to power, the Akkadian language began to be written in the cuneiform script, which was originally used for the Sumerian language. The Semitic Akkadian language quickly overtook Sumerian as the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and all later major dynasties used it. The 1st dynasty of Babylon, the Kassites, the Assyrians, and the Neo-Babylonians all wrote their texts exclusively in Akkadian cuneiform, although some native languages were probably still spoken.

 

Even the Hittites, who were based in Anatolia and spoke an Indo-European language, wrote Hittite-Akkadian bilingual texts. Akkadian became so widely spoken and written that by the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BC), Akkadian was the lingua franca of the entire Near East.

 

Akkadian was the default diplomatic language used in the letters of correspondence between kings of the Great Powers: Egypt, Hatti, Babylon, Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashiya. A cache of more than 300 of these letters were discovered in the Egyptian village of Amarna in 1887. In addition to the Amarna cache, Akkadian literature was discovered in other cities outside of Mesopotamia, including Hattusa, Ugarit, and Megiddo.

 

Sargon of Assyria also had an impact on the culture of the Near East, but it was not as apparent. Although, as noted earlier, Sargon was not mentioned as the Assyrian king who destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, he is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. As modern Biblical historians have corroborated the fall of Samaria/Israel with Assyrian texts, Sargon’s role in one of the most important events in the Bible has come into focus. The result is that Sargon of Assyria has become famous, or infamous, in the eyes of millions of Christians around the world.

 

It is difficult to compare any two leaders in order to gauge which one is “greater,” especially when they lived in the ancient world. When comparing Sargon of Akkad and Sargon of Assyria, it is clear they were both great in their own right. Both Sargons were warrior kings, with Sargon of Assyria even dying in battle [sic]. The two Sargons also initiated government reforms and built new cities, which were later abandoned.

 

One could argue that Sargon of Akkad had a greater impact on the culture of the ancient Near East. Yet Sargon of Assyria’s name may be better known to modern people through his impact on Biblical history. Ultimately, both Sargons were impactful leaders who could be named “the great,” so it is your choice to decide which one is the greatest.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: See also my related article:

 

Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad

 

(4) Sargon II aspiring to be the new Nimrod whom we know as Sargon I of Akkad