Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

by

Damien F. Mackey

“One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple

of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him

down with the sword and escaped to the land of Ararat.

Then his son Esar-haddon became king in his place”.

2 Kings 19:37

Tobit 1:21 collaborates this, but without naming the two regicidal sons:

“… two of Sennacherib’s sons assassinated him and then

escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon,

became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son,

in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire”.

Tobit 1:21

Adrammelech

Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32).

I shall come to him after a consideration of Adrammelech, who, thanks to professor Simo Parpola, appears to have been identified as one of Sennacherib’s known sons:

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/introduction/murderersennacherib.htm   

THE MURDERER OF SENNACHERIB

The news of the murder of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, on 20 Tebet, 681, was received with mixed feelings but certainly with strong emotion all over the ancient Near East. In Israel and Babylonia, it was hailed as godsent punishment for the “godless” deeds of a hated despot; in Assyria, the reaction must have been overwhelmingly horror and resentment. Not surprisingly, then, the event is relatively well reported or referred to in contemporary and later sources, both cuneiform and non-cuneiform, and has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate as well. In spite of all this attention, however, the most central thing about the whole affair has remained an open question: the identity of the murderer.   While all our sources agree that he was one of the king’s own sons, his name is not known from any cuneiform text, and the names offered by the Bible and Berossus, all of them evidently textually corrupt, have not been satisfactorily explained and are accordingly looked at with understandable suspicion. A theory favored in the early days of Assyriology, according to which these names should be viewed as corruptions of Ardior Arad-Ninlil, a son of Sennacherib known from a contemporary legal document, has gradually had to give way to an entirely different interpretation, according to which the murderer (or at least the mastermind behind the murder) was none but Sennacherib’s heir-designate and successor to throne himself, Esarhaddon, who would have been forced to engineer the assassination in order to avoid being replaced by one of his brothers. The weakness of this theory is that it is in disagreement not only with Esarhaddon’s own account of the course of events, which puts the blame on his brothers, but also with the traditions of the Bible and Berossus; it also involves a lot of reading between the lines. For these reasons, it has not been universally accepted either, and the case is largely viewed as unsolved for lack of clear-cut, conclusive evidence.   In this paper I hope to show that the available evidence is not at all so elusive as is commonly thought, and actually suffices for determining the identity of the assassin with reasonable certainty. There is a Neo-Babylonian letter, published decades ago, which explicitly states the name of the murderer, and this name is not only known to have been borne by a son of Sennacherib but it also virtually agrees with the name forms found in the Bible and at Berossus. The text in question, R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (=ABL) XI no.1091 (Chicago 1911), has escaped attention because it was completely misunderstood and mistranslated by its editor, Leroy Waterman; the name has remained unidentified because its actual pronunciation has been obscured by its misleading logographic spelling. In what follows, I shall analyse both the letter and the name in detail and finally integrate the new evidence with the previously known facts in a brief reassessment of the murder and its prehistory.       The beginning of ABL 1091 is lost. The first three extant lines are fragmentary, but sufficiently much of them remains to suggest that they referred to certain “Babylonian brothers” of the writer (or writers).lu From line 4′ on the text can be followed better. The persons just mentioned gain knowledge of a “treaty of rebellion”, and subsequently one of them requests an audience with the king. The expression for this is “to say the king’s word” which, as shown by J. N. Postgate years ago, implies that the person in question applied to the king as the supreme judge and should consequently have been sent directly to the Palace.   This, however, is not what happens in the present case. Two Assyrian officials appear and question the man. Having found whom his appeal concerns, they cover his face and take him away. This, in itself. is perhaps not significant, for ordinary people were not permitted to look at the king face to face. But what follows is startling. The man is not taken to the king but to Arad-Ninlil, the very person he wanted to talk about, and (his face still covered) is ordered to speak out. Clearly under the illusion that he is speaking to the king, he subsequently declares: “Your son AradNinlil is going to kill you. ” Things now take a drastic course.   The face of the man is uncovered: he is interrogated by Arad-Ninlil: and after that he is put to death along with his comrades mentioned in the beginning of the letter. The remaining seven lines are too fragmentary to be properly understood.   To bring home the significance of this letter, let me put together some basic facts. The first is that it was clearly the “treaty of rebellion” mentioned at the beginning of the text that induced the unfortunate man to appeal to the king; second, that his information concerned Arad-Ninlil; and third, that because of this information, he and all his comrades knowing about the “treaty of rebellion” instantly got killed. Accordingly, we may conclude that the assertion “Your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you” was something Arad-Ninlil did not want to become publicly known; and since this statement was meant for the ears of the king, it is evident (1) that the person Arad-Ninlil intended to kill was the king himself and (2) that Arad-Ninlil himself was the king’s own son. It follows that AradNinlil was involved in a conspiracy aiming at the murder of the king, and quite obviously was the leading figure in it. Nowhere in the letter is the name Arad-Ninlil preserved completely; the last sign LÍL is broken away or damaged in all instances. But no other Sargonid prince with a name beginning with the sign ARAD is known, so the restoration of the final element can be regarded as certain. Since Arad-Ninlil is only attested as a son of Sennacherib, the king referred to in the text can only be Sennacherib.   On the other hand, it is clear that the letter itself cannot have been addressed to Sennacherib. Had the writer wanted to warn the king of a threatening assassination, he would have expressed himself differently. Hence, one must conclude that the letter was written after the murder had already taken place, and therefore probably was addressed to Esarhaddon. As this king must, from the beginning, have been reasonably well informed about his father’s murder, it would be absurd to assume that the purpose of the writer was simply to inform the king about the identity of the murderer. His aim was certainly different. If we consider the text more closely, it is easy to see that the writer took the leading role of Arad-Ninlil in the conspiracy as generally known: but what he is trying to make clear is that the two officials mentioned in the letter were responsible for the death of the informer and therefore by implication also involved in the conspiracy. Both men, Nabu-sum-iskun and Sillâ, are well known as officials of Sennacherib who continued in their offices through the early years of Esarhaddon: the Kuyunjik letter archiye contains many denunciations against the latter. The present letter clearly is in the same category, and by using as an argument against Sillâ his role in silencing the informer, it actually implies that the prediction “your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you” had become a fact meanwhile.   Thus, the letter just discussed powerfully supports the position of the scholars who have seen in Arad-Ninlil the likeliest candidate for the murderer of Sennacherib, and in fact makes it a matter of virtual certainty. We may hence pass on to a serious reconsideration of the problem of how to satisfactorily relate the name Arad-Ninlil to the names of the murderer (Adrammelech/Adramelos/Ardumuzan) given in the Bible and the Berossus excerpts.   Actually, there is hardly any problem here at all. We are now in a position to show that the traditional reading of the (logographically spelled) Assyrian name, on which the earlier comparisons were based (and which has also been used here for convenience) is incorrect and should be abolished.   In particular, the theophoric element at the end of the name (d-NIN.LÍL) has to be read [Mulissu] or [Mullêsu], not *Ninlil. This reading, first tentatively suggested by E. Reiner twelve years ago and since then increasingly well documented, represents the Neo-Assyrian form of the Akkadian name of the goddess Ninlil, attested as Mulliltum in an Old-Babylonian god list. It appears to have been very wide-spread in the first millennium, and is actually attested in syllabic spellings of the very name under consideration. On the other hand, the reading of the first element (ARAD) can be determined as [arda] or [ardi] on the basis of occasional syllabic spellings in contemporary and earlier Assyrian texts. And once the reading Arda-Mulissi has been established, the names of the murderer found in the non-cuneiform sources become relatively easy to explain. The Biblical Adrammelech differs from the Assyrian name only in two respects: the metathesis or r and d, and the replacement of shin at the end of the name by kaph.   The former point is negligible since r and d were virtually homographic and therefore easy to confuse in early Hebrew and Aramaic script … the second can be explained as a scribal error. It is not difficult to imagine a scribe correcting a seemingly nonsensical “meles” to “melek”, a frequent final element in North-West Semitic personal names. The Berossian name forms show an even better match. The form Adramelos found in the Abydenos excerpt is virtually identical with Arda-Mulissi save for the already discussed metathesis of r and d (which may have been influenced by the familiarity of Eusebius with the Biblical form). The name Ardumuzan agrees with Arda-Mulissi up to its last syllable which can only be due to textual corruption. It is important to note that in this name, the metathesis of r and d does not take place.   In sum, it can be stated that all three names can be relatively easily traced back to Arda-Mulissi; and “then one comes to think about it, it would be very hard if not impossible to find another Assyrian name “which could provide as satisfactory an explanation for them as this one does. The identification of Arad-Ninliu Arda-Mulissi as the murderer of Sennacherib can thus be considered doubly assured. But what were his motives, and how did he end up doing what he did? My reconstruction of the course of events is as follows:   In 694, Sennacherib eldest son and heir-designate Assur-nãdin-sumi is captured by Babylonians and carried off to Elam; he is no more heard of. The second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favorite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia, who is not the mother of Arda-Mulissi.       Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince, and all Assyria is made to swear allegiance to him. However, Arda-Mulissi enjoys considerable popularity among certain circles who would like to see him as their future king rather than sickly Esarhaddon. As years pass, the opposition to Esarhaddon grows, while at the same time Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) gain in popularity. This political development leads to a turn of events, but not to the one hoped for by Arda-Mulissi and his supporters. Foreseeing trouble, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon away from the capital to the western provinces; yet he does not revise the order of succession. In this situation, Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) soon find themselves in a stalemate.   On the one hand, they are at their political zenith while their rival brother has to languish in exile; on the other hand, the latter remains the crown prince, and there is nothing his brothers can do about it since the position of Sennacherib remains unchanged and Esarhaddon himself is out of reach in the provinces. Supposing he were able to score military victories, his popularity would undoubtedly rise while that of his brothers might easily start to sink. The only way for them to make good of the situation, it seems, is to act swiftly and take over the kingship by force. A “treaty of rebellion” is concluded; and probably not much later, Sennacherib is stabbed to death by Arda-Mulissi or, perhaps, crushed alive under a winged bull colossus guarding the temple where he had been praying at the time of the murder. This reconstruction closely follows Esarhaddon’s own account of the events. and similar interpretations have been presented earlier by others.

Nebuchednezzar’s beginnings

It all started, according to my revision, when Nebuchednezzar, a young official for the Great King of Assyria, Sargon II/Sennacherib, accompanied (according to Jewish tradition) the ill-fated army of Sennacherib (Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) to the west. In the Book of Judith, Nebuchednezzar appears, I tentatively suggest, as “Bagoas”, purportedly a “eunuch”, serving the Commander-in-chief himself, “Holofernes”.

The latter is the eldest son of Sennacherib, the Crown Prince and ruler of Babylon, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin (Nadab) of Tobit 14:10.

Now King Sennacherib had various wives and apparently quite a few sons:

https://www.worldhistory.org/Esarhaddon/

“Sennacherib had over eleven sons with his various wives and chose as heir his favorite, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest of those born of his queen Tashmetu-sharrat (d.c. 684/681 BCE) [sic]”.

Two of these sons, “Adrammelek and Sharezer”, will slay their father (2 Kings 19:37): “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king”.

Nisrok (Nisroch) here is a fairly unconvincing Hebrew attempt to transliterate Nusku (fire-god), the god whom Sennacherib (as, for example, Tukulti-ninurta), did, indeed, worship. Some identify this Nusku with Mercury (in its evening phase).

Sharezer

Previously I had written: “As far as I am aware, “Sharezer” has not yet been positively identified. Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32)”.

But there is always hope!

With my Middle Kingdom folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I into so-called II, then we find that this great Chaldean king had an Assyrian adversary with the name of Ashur-resha-ishi. While one would not expect Nebuchednezzar so-called II to be fighting an Assyrian king – given that the Assyrian kingdom is supposed to have come to an end (612 BC) around half a dozen years before Nebuchednezzar even came to the throne (c. 605 BC) – it works in my system, according to which Nebuchednezzar was Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal.

Of Nebuchednezzar’s conflict with Ashur-resha-ishi, we read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_I

….

The Synchronistic History^{[i 12]} relates his entente cordiale with his contemporary, the Assyrian king Aššur-rēša-iši I,^{[i 13]} and subsequently the outcome of two military campaigns against the border fortresses of Zanqi and Idi that he conducted in violation of this agreement. The first was curtailed by the arrival of Aššur-rēša-iši’s main force, causing Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur to burn his siege engines and flee, while the second resulted in a battle in which the Assyrians apparently triumphed, “slaughtered his troops (and) carried off his camp.” It even reports the capture of the Babylonian field marshal, Karaštu.^[9] ….

This was the same as the civil war that Esarhaddon had to fight against his parricidal brothers for him to hold the throne of Nineveh.

The name Ashur-resha-ishi is, I believe, extremely well represented by the biblical transliteration, Sharezer. Thus A – SHUR  RESHA – ishi: Shur[r]esha = Sharezer.

Not able to shake the hand of Bel

by

Damien F. Mackey

In the case of the latter, King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify

(as an historical companion to the ‘Jonah incident’ article) a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son

Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge.

King Nebuchednezzar was likened by the prophet Jeremiah to a great Sea Monster (51:34): “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon has devoured me; he has crushed me. He has set me aside like an empty dish; he has swallowed me like a Sea Monster; he filled his belly with my delicacies; he has vomited me out”.

No doubt the prophet had well in mind in this description the Sea Monster’s devouring, then vomiting out, of the contemporaneous prophet Jonah.

Especially considering that King Nebuchednezzar was Jonah 3:6’s “King of Nineveh”.

On this, see e.g. my article:

De-coding Jonah

(6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Of relevance for this current article, I need to note that King Nebuchednezzar had, according to my revision, some important alter egos, namely:

Esarhaddon, enabling for:

The ‘Jonah incident’ [to be] historically identified

(6) The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Ashurbanipal

Nabonidus

In the case of the latter, King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify (as an historical companion to the ‘Jonah incident’ article) a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge:

Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified

(6) Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

And we know from Baruch 1: 11, 12, that Nebuchednezzar’s son was called Belshazzar.

That means that Evil-Merodach was the same person as Belshazzar.

During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon.

And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel.

Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified

by

Damien F. Mackey

“… officials … bewildered by the king’s behavior, counseled Evilmerodach

to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable

to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach”.

British Museum tablet No. BM 34113

Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom.

For example we read this somewhat inaccurate account at:

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king

…. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. …. 

As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar:

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

(4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father.

William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136):

NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE

Click to access 1982-2-05.pdf

…. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king’s eldest son when the kingship was “entrusted” to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the “crown prince” through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year’s festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus’ absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar’s name and jointly in his name and his father’s name, which fact indicates Belshazzar’s importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king.

There is no doubt about Belshazzar’s importance while he governed Babylonia during his father’s absence, but the question remains – did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. ….

Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar.

And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson.

For, as I wrote in my recent article:

 

Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar

(4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”.

This led me to conclude – based on a strikingly parallel situation – that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar.

I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975): 

Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king’s behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king’s courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered “bad” (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis.

Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from men” (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s eldest son, may have served as regent during his father’s incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.

Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon – though not the kingship – lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?

See also my article:

The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified

(4) The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Bible Belting into shape Belshazzar

“This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the

more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and

confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible”.

Zack Duncan

I (Damien Mackey) think that, with a few tweaks, the following (2024) article by

Zack Duncan

can really work:

View at Medium.com

Belshazzar: The Fictional Babylonian King Who Actually Lived

….

Belshazzar was having a party in Babylon on the night the Achaemenid Persians assumed power from the Babylonians.

He’s become a pretty popular guy in the 2,500+ years since his death in 539 BC.

At least, he’s more popular than he used to be.

That’s because many scholars long believed him to be a historical forgery and wrote him off.

This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible.

For this to all make sense, you’ll need to mark four important Babylonian names as we go along:

• Belshazzar (our protagonist)
• Belteshazzar (a very similar name and a very different person)
• Nabonidus (one of the reasons many doubted in a historical Belshazzar)
• Nebuchadnezzar (the OG Babylonian king)

So, Who Was Belshazzar?

Belshazzar was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. His name meant “Baal protect the king.”

For thousands of years he was only known in the Bible, where he is recorded as throwing quite the party.

Here’s how it’s told in the book of Daniel:

King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. 2 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them.

 3 So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. [Source: Daniel 5: 1–3]

Why did Belshazzar have gold and silver from Jerusalem at this party?

The answer is connected to one of our other important names: Nebuchadnezzar

Who was Nebuchadnezzar and What Was His Connection to the Party?

Belshazzar’s ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar II, was the second emperor in the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Mackey’s comment: Nebuchednezzar so-called II was actually the first.

His predecessor, Nabopolassar, was an Assyrian, Sennacherib.

Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from 605 BC until his death in 562 BC. Belshazzar was likely his grandson, through his daughter (Nitocris).

[Note: Daniel 5 calls Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar, which is a generic word meaning ancestor. It’s the same word that it used in Daniel 2:23 → To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise…]

Mackey’s comment: Belshazzar was Nebuchednezzar’s direct son (cf. Baruch 1:11, 12)

Nebuchadnezzar, known to history as Nebuchadnezzar the Great, was renowned for his building prowess and his military campaigns.

One of those military campaigns was through the home of the Jews.

He defeated Judah and captured the city of Jerusalem around 600 BC. The city was destroyed and the residents forcibly deported to Babylon.

This is how the beginning of the book of Daniel records the events. The treasures from the temple in Jerusalem even get a mention here.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility — 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians [Source: Daniel 1: 1–4]

The Jews had been living in Babylon since that time. In the Babylonian captivity they were expected to conform to the culture of Babylon and acknowledge the gods of Babylon.

It was this culture that took center stage 23 years [more like 3-4 years] after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, at Belshazzar’s party with the temple goblets.

Below is Rembrandt’s famous painting depicting Belshazzar at his banquet.

Rembrandt’s Painting of Belshazzar’s Feast

Rembrandt painted “Belshazzar’s Feast” around 1638. His only source was the Bible, since nothing else discovered in the historical record to that point attested to his existence.

The goblets make their appearance.

But Belshazzar is far more focused on the wall behind him. A disembodied hand writes on the wall. We’ll come back to those words later.

Belshazzar summoned one of the Jewish exiles, Daniel, who had a reputation for deciphering divine symbols and visions.

The Daniel credited as the author of the book of Daniel. The same Daniel who was known as Belteshazzar in Babylon.

Belteshazzar vs. Belshazzar

Belshazzar (“Baal protect the king”) was the king in Babylon the night the empire fell to the Persians. Belteshazzar (“Bel protects his life”) was the Babylonian name given to the Jewish exile named Daniel.

Mackey’s comment: Scholars say that Belteshazzar is not, in fact, a Bel name, more like, say, a Balatu- construct.

Part of the cultural assimilation process for the captive Jews was getting a new Babylonian name.

Daniel chapter 4 makes it clear that Daniel and Belteshazzar were one and the same in another account when he is called to help Nebuchadnezzar understand his dreams.

19 Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him… [Source: Daniel 4:19]

Ok, you say. These are some hard to pronounce names. The hand writing on the wall is bizarre. But the general framework of the story seems plausible. Why were the historians so hard on poor Belshazzar? Why didn’t they believe him to be real?

For that, we need to introduce our fourth Babylonian name: Nabonidus.

Who Was Nabonidus?

According to ancient historians, it was Nabonidus — not Belshazzar — who was the last king of Babylon. Here are some of those sources:

• Herodotus of Halicarnassus (480–429 BC) is known as the “Father of History.” He called Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. Of note, he called him king Labynetus, which was Greek for Nabonidus.
• Another Greek historian Xenophon (430–355 BC) agrees that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. He says that he was killed when the Achaemenid Persians took Babylon.
• The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 AD) also claimed that Nabonidus to be the last king of Babylon.

Mackey’s comment: The whole solution is to recognise Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar, and Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, as Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus:

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

(6) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Here’s Nabonidus worshipping the symbols of the sun and moon gods. He was very real and there is plenty of evidence in the archeological record to validate his existence.

What does the Bible say about Nabonidus?

Nothing. The Bible doesn’t mention him.

Mackey’s comment: The Bible has a lot to say about Nabonidus, as Nebuchednezzar.

And that seemed like a big problem for the Bible. Especially since it has a character named Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon who didn’t appear in any sources outside the Bible.

Not only did Belshazzar seem like a fiction, but it followed that the book of Daniel and the Bible as a whole was just a myth.

Here’s what more recent historians had to say about Daniel based on Belshazzar.

Criticism of Daniel

I came across the following remarks saying that Daniel has “no historical basis whatever.” Thanks to this article for compiling the quotes.

There is no historical basis whatever, on which such an account can rest. The whole must be pure fiction [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850]

And again, it’s called a “palpable forgery.”

But a man like Belshazzar would never have received such an ominous prediction from the mouth of Daniel, and have rewarded him for it. The whole thing is a palpable forgery, got up merely to magnify Daniel. [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850]

It’s the presence of Belshazzar that seems to definitively prove that the “whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author.”

The name Belshazzar is a mistaken one. The name of the last king was Nabonned. The writer has given us a mere figment instead of a real name. The whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them. [Source, Frederic William Farrar 1831–1903, Expositor’s Bible: The Book of Daniel.]

All of history knew the last king’s name to be Nabonidus! At least, that was until the Nabonidus Cylinder was discovered in the latter half of the 19th century.

The Nabonidus Cylinder

J.G. Taylor made an important discovery in the ancient city of Ur, located in southwest Iraq.

While exploring the foundation of a ziggurat in Ur, Taylor discovered four identical cuneiform cylinders. Historians estimate they had been deposited in the four corners of the ziggurat in 540 BC.

Here’s how the inscription ends:

As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son — my offspring — instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude. [Source, livius.org]

Belshazzar was redeemed! The account from the cylinders makes it clear that he was, in fact, the eldest son of Nabonidus.

But that left one more problem. The Bible calls Belshazzar a king. How could that be when Nabonidus was the king?

That mystery was unraveled by another discovery. A cuneiform tablet that was discovered in ancient Nineveh, by modern day Mosul, Iraq.

The Verse Account of Nabonidus

Years after the discovery of the Nabonidus cylinder, 45 clay tablets were discovered that detailed major events in Babylonian history.

Within these Babylonian Chronicles — now located at the British Museum — was something called called the Verse Account of Nabonidus.

Here’s what that says about the reign of Nabonidus:

…when the third year was about to begin — he entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Tayma deep in the west. [Source, Verse account of Nabonidus, livius.org]

Towards the end of his reign as king of the Babylonian empire, Nabonidus “turned to Tayma”, which … is in what it now northwest Saudi Arabia today. Nabonidus “let everything go” and “entrusted the kingship” to Belteshazzar.

….

This was a highly unusual arrangement.

Somehow Belshazzar, and Nabonidus, were both ruling as kings of Babylon.

Nabonidus ruling from the outskirts of the empire of Babylon. Belshazzar as king of the greatest city in the empire, which was also called Babylon.

So There Were Two Last Kings of Babylon?

Yes.

….

Belshazzar had the same royal power as his father. While not officially named as such, the Verse Account of Nabonidus makes it clear that Nabonidus gave him powers of the king.

Other documents confirm the same.

Belshazzar could grant royal privileges identical to those granted by kings. One preserved document, which regards the granting of the privilege to cultivate a tract of land belonging to the Eanna temple in Uruk, is virtually identical to similar privileges issued by Nabonidus, though it is specified to have been issued by Belshazzar. As he could lease out temple land, this suggests that Belshazzar, in administrative matters, could act with full royal power. [Source: Wikipedia]

And since Nabonidus was away in Tayma for more than 10 years, Belshazzar had plenty of time to cement his status as the authority figure in the city of Babylon.

Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that this was only a temporary situation until King Nebuchadnezzar returned to full power.

Years later, after he had died, his son Belshazzar, as Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), become sole ruler of the kingdom (cf. 2 Kings 25:27), for a few short years.

A position he retained until the night of the feast.

How Did Belshazzar Die?

Belshazzar died the night of his big feast.

Let’s now get back to that mysterious hand on the wall. Here is how the Bible orders the events in Daniel 5:

• Belshazzar’s massive party is interrupted by the hand writing on the wall:

5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. [Daniel 5: 5–6]

• Belshazzar calls for someone who can read the mysterious writing. He summons Daniel and promises him great rewards if he can read the writing. And Daniel responds making it clear he’s not interested in the rewards (Belshazzar had offered to make him the 3rd highest ruler in the kingdom).

17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. [Daniel 5:17]

• And Daniel gives the meaning of the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN

23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

And, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” (Daniel 5:30).

Can the Bible Be Trusted?

On the surface, this story seems like a perfect case study for why the Bible is only a collection of legends.

There are claims of a king who was unknown to history. Who, in fact, the historical record seemed to completely disprove based on the existence of Nabonidus.

There’s a seemingly fanciful account of a mysterious hand writing on a wall. And there’s an almost more ludicrous claim that the heavily fortified city of Babylon could fall in a single night.

After all, Babylon was had incredibly thick and high walls and was considered impregnable. The Euphrates river ran through Babylon, making it almost impervious to siege. Surely, if a city like that would fall it would make months of extended warfare. Years.

Mackey’s comment: The Bible tells only of the King, not the city of Babylon, falling in a single night.

And yet, as the years have rolled on, the evidence has proven otherwise.

As it turns out, Belshazzar did indeed exist. And he was reigning over the city of Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians.

Somehow, he was the last king of Babylon despite Nabonidus also having claim to the same title.

Mackey’s comment: No. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar.

The outlandish contention that the city could fall in a single night is validated by other sources. Both Herodotus and Xenophon talk about a surprise attack, where the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates river allowing the soldiers to march into the city through the dry river bed.

What better time to do that than when all the leaders of the city are getting drunk at a massive party.

That just leaves the mysterious hand on the wall.

Like all matters of faith, there is no objective proof. There are reasons to believe. There is evidence that the overall story is beyond the natural realm. And there is also no conclusive proof.

If you don’t believe there is more to the world than what we can see, you surely cannot believe that a disembodied hand can be sent from God. You can’t believe in God at all, since He is by definition outside of natural explanation. He is supernatural.

But perhaps it makes you think.

Because the Bible, as it turns out, was the only source that had all the accurate information in one place.

Not Herodotus. Not Xenophon. Not the Babylonian Chronicles.

They all had pieces.

Only the Bible had it all. It just took over two thousand years for the rest of the archeological record to catch up.

It makes me think about other things the Bible says are true. Things that might seem fanciful. That could never be true.

But what if they are true as well? What if everything else is just a piece of the ultimate Truth? What is real Truth is found in Jesus?

What if what Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Philippi is actually going to happen one day? What if the evidence will finally all be revealed and we’ll all see that it is actually all true?

…so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2: 10–11]

If you’re wrestling with all of it, try asking Him.

Not the Jesus of political power or the Jesus who you hope might make you rich, but the real Jesus.

And see what He can do.

Did Daniel meet Ahikar?

by

Damien F. Mackey

Tobit tells us that this Ahikar was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21, 22, CEB).

Previously I have written about this fascinating character of Bible and legend:

Ahikar’s Importance

Biblical scholars could well benefit from knowing more about AHIKAR (or Ahiqar/Akhikar), the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib, Great King of Assyria (c. 700 BC, conventional dating), and who was retained in power by Esarhaddon (Gk. Sacherdonos) (Tobit 1:22).

This Ahikar … was a vitally important eye-witness to some of the most extraordinary events of Old Testament history.

Ahikar was, at the very least …:

1.      a key link between the Book of Judith and those other books, Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah [KCI] that describe Sennacherib’s rise to prominence and highly successful first major invasion of Israel (historically his 3^rd campaign), and then

2.      Sennacherib’s second major invasion of Israel and subsequent disastrous defeat there; and he was

3.      an eyewitness, as Tobit’s own nephew, to neo-Assyrian events as narrated in the Book of Tobit.

May I, then (based on my research into historical revision), sketch Ahikar’s astounding life by knitting together the various threads about him that one may glean from KCI, Tobit, Judith, secular history and legends. I shall be using for him the better known name of Ahikar, even though I find him named in the Book of Judith (and also in the Vulgate version of Tobit) as Achior, presumably, “son of light” (and as Achiacharus in the Septuagint).

Here is Ahikar:

His Israelite Beginnings

Tobit tells us that this Ahikar was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21, 22, CEB):

Within forty days Sennacherib was killed by two of his sons, who escaped to the mountains of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon became king in his place. He hired Ahikar, my brother Hanael’s son, to be in charge of all the financial accounts of his kingdom and all the king’s treasury records.

Ahikar petitioned the king on my behalf, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahikar had been the chief officer, the keeper of the ring with the royal seal, the auditor of accounts, and the keeper of financial records under Assyria’s King Sennacherib. And Esarhaddon promoted him to be second in charge after himself. Ahikar was my nephew and one of my family.

Ahikar, nephew of Tobit, was therefore the cousin of the latter’s son, Tobias, whom I have identified, in his mature age, as the holy Job. See e.g. my article:

Job’s Life and Times

http://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times

Presumably then Ahikar had, just like Tobit and his son, Tobias, belonged to the tribe of Naphthali (cf. Tobit 1:1); though he was possibly, unlike the Tobiads, amongst the majority of his clan who had gone over to Baal worship.

Ahikar may thus initially have been a scoffer (1:4) and a blasphemer.

Tobit tells us about his tribe’s apostasy (1:4-5):

When I was young, I lived in northern Israel. All the tribes in Israel were supposed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. It was the one city that God had chosen from among all the Israelite cities as the place where his Temple was to be built for his holy and eternal home. But my entire tribe of Naphtali rejected the city of Jerusalem and the kings descended from David. Like everyone else in this tribe, my own family used to go to the city of Dan in the mountains of northern Galilee to offer sacrifices to the gold bull-calf which King Jeroboam of Israel had set up there.

This was still the unfortunate situation during the early reign of the great king Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 30: 1, 10): “And Hezekiah sent letters to all Israel and Judah … to come to Jerusalem … and keep the Passover …. So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim … but they laughed them to scorn …”.

Whilst Tobit and his family, and Ahikar’s presumably also, were taken into captivity during the reign of “King Shalmaneser” [so-called V] (Tobit 1:2), the northern kingdom of Samaria went later. Samaria, due to her apostasy, was taken captive in 722 BC (conventional dating) by Sargon II of Assyria, whom I have actually equated with Sennacherib:

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib

As Sennacherib’s Cupbearer-in-Chief (Rabshakeh)

See also my recent article:

Ahikar once a mouthpiece for the Assyrian king Sennacherib

(5) Ahikar once a mouthpiece for the Assyrian king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Ahikar’s rapid rise to high office in the kingdom of Assyria may have been due in part to the prestige that his uncle had enjoyed there; because Tobit tells us that he himself was, for the duration of the reign of “Shalmaneser … the king’s purveyor”, even entrusted with large sums of money (1:14): “And I [Tobit] went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Rages a city of Media ten talents of silver”. …. This is apparently something like $1.2 million dollars!

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1205.htm

….

Sennacherib’s description of his official, Bel-ibni, who he said had “grown up in my palace like a young puppy” [as quoted by G. Roux, Iraq, p. 321], may have been equally applicable to Ahikar.

The highly talented Ahikar, rising quickly through the ranks, attained to Rabshakeh, high military official.

Whatever the exact circumstances of Ahikar’s worldly success, the young man seems to have enjoyed a rise to power quite as speedy as that later on experienced by the prophet Daniel in Babylon; the latter trusting wholeheartedly in his God, whereas Ahikar may possibly have, at first, depended upon his own powers. {Though Tobit put in a good word for his nephew when he recalled that “Ahikar gave alms” (14:10), that being his salvation}.

Merodach-baladan, the wily survivor during the first half of Sennacherib’s reign, was the latter’s foe, Arphaxad, of the Book of Judith, defeated by Sennacherib (there called Nebuchadnezzar) – this incident occurring next, as I have argued, after Sennacherib’s successful 3^rd campaign, the one involving king Hezekiah of Judah.

Thus we read in Judith 1:1, 5-6:

While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes [sic] ….

In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite [Chaldean] alliance.

Whilst “King Arioch” mentioned here will be discussed later, I have explained the use of the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ for Sennacherib in the Book of Judith in my article:

Book of Judith: confusion of names

https://www.academia.edu/36599434/Book_of_Judith_confusion_of_names

Sennacherib’s Third campaign

Biblically, we get our first glimpse of Ahikar in action, I believe, as the very vocal Rabshakeh of KCI, the mouthpiece of Sennacherib himself when the Assyrian army mounted its first major assault upon the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 18:13): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them”.

Now, it would make perfect sense that the king of Assyria would have chosen from amongst his elite officials, to address the Jews, one of Israelite tongue (vv. 17-18):

And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field. And when they called for the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the secretary, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder.

And these are the bold words that Rabshakeh had apparently been ordered to say to the Jews (vv. 19-25):

And the Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you rest this trust of yours? Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me? Behold, you are trusting now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. But if you say to me, “We trust in the Lord our God,” is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem”? Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them.

How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants, when you trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Moreover, is it without the Lord that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it’. ….

King Hezekiah’s officials, however, who did not want the people on the walls to hear these disheartening words, pleaded with Rabshakeh as follows (v. 26): “Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall’.”

Could the fact that the Jewish officials knew that Sennacherib’s officer was conversant with the Aramaïc language indicate that Ahikar, of whom they must have known, was of northern – and perhaps Transjordanian (like Tobit and Tobias) – origin?

Now Ahikar, who as said above is named ‘Achior’ in the Vulgate version of Tobit, I have identified as the important Achior of the Book of Judith in Volume Two of my post-graduate thesis (2007). So it was rather intriguing to discover, in regard to the Rabshakeh’s famous speech, that B. Childs (Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis) had discerned some similarity between it and the speech of Achior in the Book of Judith.

I wrote on this in my thesis (Vol. 2, p. 8):

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

A legend had been born, Ahikar the Rabshakeh!

The Israelite captive had proven himself to have been a most loyal servant of Sennacherib’s during the latter’s highly successful 3^rd campaign, playing his assigned rôle to perfection.

Sennacherib then turned his sights upon the troublesome Merodach-baladan.

And it is at this point in history that the Book of Judith opens.

After the defeat of Merodach-baladan, the aforementioned ‘young puppy’, Bel-ibni, was made sub-king of Babylon in his stead.

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.

As a Ruling ‘King’ (or Governor)

The Elamite Connection

Chapter 1 of the Book of Tobit appears to be a general summary of Tobit’s experiences during the reigns of a succession of Assyrian kings: Shalmaneser, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon.

I, in my thesis and subsequent writings, may have misread some of the chronology of the life of Tobit, whose blindness, as recorded in Chapter 2, I had presumed to have occurred after the murder of Sennacherib.

I now think that it occurred well before that.

Ahikar will assist Tobit in his miserable state (“Ahikar gave alms”, 14:10), for two years, before his appointment as ruler of Elam. Here is Tobit’s account of it (2:10-11):

For four years I could see nothing. My relatives were deeply concerned about my condition, and Ahikar supported me for two years before he went to the land of Elam. After Ahikar left, my wife Anna had to go to work, so she took up weaving, like many other women.

Another thing that probably needs to be re-considered now, in light of my revised view of the chronology of Tobit, concerns the previously mentioned “King Arioch” as referred to in Judith 1:6: “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad … as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Arioch in Elam I had (rightly I think) identified in my thesis, again, as Achior (Ahikar) who went to Elam. But, due to my then mis-reading of Tobit, I had had to consider the mention of Arioch in Judith 1:6 as a post-Sennacherib gloss, added later as a geographical pointer, thinking that our hero had gone to Elam only after Sennacherib’s death. And so I wrote in my thesis (Vol. II, pp. 46-47):

I disagree with Charles [The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament] 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 [‘Judith’]: “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] 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.

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 was, I believe, the very Achior who figures so prominently in the story of Judith.

He was also the legendary Ahikar, a most famous character as we have already read.

Therefore he was entirely familiar to the Jews, who would have known that he had eventually governed the Assyrian province of Elam.

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 [Judith], has confused matters by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: “Achior ruled the Elymeans”.

From there it is an easy matter to make this comparison:

“Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit].

Suffice it to say here that this ubiquitous personage, Ahikar/Achior, would have been the eyewitness extraordinaire to the detailed plans and preparations regarding the war between the Assyrians and the Chaldean coalition as described in Judith 1.

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’.”

Ahikar and Daniel Comparisons

“There are also some curious linguistic parallels between Ahikar and Daniel”

Books and articles abound comparing Ahikar and Daniel.

For instance, there is George A. Barton’s “The Story of Aḥiḳar and the Book of Daniel” (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1900, pp 242-247):

Aḥiḳar, a vizier of Sennacherib, was possessed of wealth, wisdom, popularity, and ….

Lastly the description of Aḥiḳar with his nails grown like eagles’ talons and his hair matted like a wild beast … not only reminds one strongly of the of the description of the hair and nails of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4.30), but appears, as Harris has shown … in a more original form [sic] than in the book of Daniel. He further points out that the fact that in Aḥiḳar’s description of the wise men “Chaldeans” had not yet become a technical term for a sage, as it has in Daniel, is a further argument for the priority of Aḥiḳar.

All these points the acute critic of Aḥiḳar has admirably taken; but one wonders why he did not go on a step farther; for when we come to the more fundamental parallels between plots and methods of treatment, the story of Aḥiḳar becomes even more vitally interesting to the student of Daniel than before.

The first of these points to be noted is that Daniel was a wise man, like Aḥiḳar, excelling all others in wisdom, and, like him, vizier to his sovereign, whoever that sovereign might be. Granting the priority of Aḥiḳar, is there not a sign of dependence here?

The story of Aḥiḳar’s fall from the pinnacle of power, his unjust incarceration in a pit … his deliverance, and the imprisonment of his accuser in the same pit, is exactly the same as Daniel’s fall from like power, his imprisonment in the lions’ den, his deliverance, and the casting of his accusers to the lions ….

[End of quote]

Vol. 16, No. 4 (Jul., 1900), pp. 242-247 (6 pages) F. C. Conybeare et al. provide more such comparisons in “The Story of Ahikar”:

https://archive.org/stream/HarrisConybeareLewis1913TheStoryOfAhikar…/Harris%2C%20Conybeare%2C%20%26%20Lewis%201913_The%20Story%20of%20Ahikar…_djvu.txt

I turn now to a book which appears to belong to the same time and to the same region as Ahikar, in search of more exact coincidences.

I refer to the Book of Daniel.

First of all there are a good many expressions describing Assyrian life, which appear also in Daniel and may be a part of the stock-in-trade of an Eastern story-teller in ancient times. I mean such expressions as, ‘0 king, live for ever! 5 ‘I clad him in byssus and purple \ and a gold collar did I bind around his neck/ (Armenian, p. 25, cf. Dan. v. 16.)

More exact likeness of speech will be found in the following sentence from the Arabic version, in which Ahikar is warned by the ‘ magicians, astrologers and sooth-sayers ‘ that he will have no child. Something of the same kind occurs in the Arabic text, when the king of Egypt sends his threatening letter to the king of Assyria, and the latter gathers together his ‘ nobles, philosophers, and wise men, and astrologers/

The Slavonic drops all this and says, ‘It was revealed to me by God, no child will be born of thee/ ‘ He caused all the wise men to be gathered together/ In the Armenian it is, ‘there was a voice from the gods 5 ; ‘ he sent and mustered the satraps/ The language, however, in the Arabic recalls certain expressions in Daniel : e.g.

Dan. ii. 2. c The king sent to call the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans/

So in Dan. ii. 27 : in Dan. v. 7, ( astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers/ etc.

It will be seen that the expressions in Daniel are closely parallel to those in the Arabic Ahikar.

Again, when the king of Assyria is in perplexity as to what he shall answer to the king of Egypt, he demands advice from Nadan who has succeeded to his uncle’s place in the kingdom.

Nadan ridicules the demands of the Pharaoh. ‘Build a castle in the air! The gods themselves cannot do this, let alone men!’

We naturally compare the reply of the consulted Chaldeans in Daniel ii. 11, ‘There is no one who can answer the matter before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh/

When Ahikar is brought out of his hiding-place and presented to the king, we are told that his hair had grown very long and reached his shoulders, while his beard had grown to his breast.

‘My nails/ he says, ‘were like the claws of eagles and my body had become withered and shapeless/

We compare the account of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had been driven from amongst men (see iv. 30); 1 until his hairs were grown like eagles’ [feathers] and his nails like birds’ [claws].’

The parallelism between these passages is tolerably certain; and the text in Ahikar is better [sic] than that of Daniel. The growth of the nails must be expressed in terms of eagles’ talons, and not of the claws of little birds: and the hair ought to be compared with wild beasts, as is the case in some of the Ahikar versions.

There are also some curious linguistic parallels between Ahikar and Daniel ….

It seems, then, to be highly probable that one of the writers in question was acquainted with the other; for it is out of the question to refer all these coincidences to a later perturbation in the text of Ahikar from the influence of the Bible. Some, at least, of them must be primitive coincidences. But in referring such coincidences to the first form of Ahikar, we have lighted upon a pretty problem. For one of the formulae in question, that namely which describes the collective wisdom of the Babylonians, is held by modern critics to be one of the proofs of late date in the book of Daniel:

Accordingly Sayce says … ‘Besides the proper names [in Daniel] there is another note of late date. “The Chaldeans” are coupled with the “magicians/ … the “astrologers” and the “sorcerers/* just as they are in Horace or other classical writers of a similar age.

The Hebrew and Aramaic equivalent of the Greek or Latin “Chaldeans” is Kasdim (Kasdayin), a name the origin of which is still uncertain.

But its application in the earlier books of the Bible is well known.

It denoted the Semitic Babylonians…. After the fall of the Babylonian empire the word Chaldean gradually assumed a new meaning . . .it became the equivalent of “sorcerer” and magician.. . . In the eyes of the Assyriologist the use of the word Kasdim in the book of Daniel would alone be sufficient to indicate the date of the work with unerring certainty.’

Now it is certainly an interesting fact that in the story of Ahikar the perplexing Chaldeans are absent from the enumeration.

This confirms us in a suspicion that Ahikar has not been borrowing from Daniel, either in the first form of the legend or in later versions. For if he had been copying into his text a passage from Daniel to heighten the narrative, why should he omit the Chaldeans?

The author had not, certainly, been reading Prof. Sayce’s proof that they were an anachronism. The hypothesis is, therefore, invited that in Ahikar we have a prior document to Daniel: but we will not press the argument unduly, because we are not quite certain as to the text of the primitive Ahikar … .

See also my article:

Did Daniel meet prophet Job?

(5) Did Daniel meet prophet Job? | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

by

Damien F. Mackey

“In this paper, I look to the Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform sources

as evidence in confirmation that the «Mad King» of Daniel 4

is historically based on the figure of Nabonidus,

rather than the biblical Nebuchadnezzar”.

Amanda M. Davis Bledsoe

With reference to Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s conventional article (2012):

The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources

(5) The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources | Amanda Davis Bledsoe – Academia.edu

which, without the benefit, or even apparent awareness, of any requisite revision, follows the usual track, which I believe is up a garden path.

I wrote to her as to what I consider to be the necessary correction (14^th May, 2024):

Keeping it simple, the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 was so like Nabonidus because the latter WAS Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, whose son Belshazzar (Baruch 1:11, 12) was Belshazzar son of Nabonidus, was King Belshazzar of Daniel 5.
The Writing is there on the Wall.

Let us follow through a part of Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s article, with some comments added:

The fourth chapter of the book of Daniel recounts a story of a Babylonian king who has a frightening dream, which only a Jewish exile is able to interpret for him. In his dream, and in the subsequent narrative, he is transformed into an animal-like being who lives away from human society for a period of seven years. Ultimately both his wits and his throne are restored to him and he praises the God of the Jews. The bizarre events of this passage make it one of the most puzzling in the entire Hebrew Bible. For generations, scholars have struggled to link Daniel 4 with historical evidence from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), with whom it is explicitly associated.

However, with the discovery and publication of numerous cuneiform sources from the ancient Near East, many scholars have reconsidered this passage in Daniel, looking instead to the events of the reign of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (556–539 BCE). ….

Mackey’s comment: Nothing to see here. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar so-called II.

In this paper I show how the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition [sic], attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals. I begin by looking at the background of Daniel 4, examining descriptions of both Nebuchadnezzar’s and Nabonidus’s reigns. Next I survey the connections between the events of Daniel 4 and other sources, including a stela discovered at Harran documenting Nabonidus’s sojourn to Teima … records documenting the lineage of the Neo-Babylonian kings, various other cuneiform inscriptions relating to the reign of Nabonidus … and descriptions of Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. …. In the final section of this paper, I use these sources to illustrate the Danielic editors’ purpose in incorporating the Nabonidus tradition into the narrative of Daniel 4 and possible reasons for their attribution of this material to Nebuchadnezzar. ….

Mackey’s comment: All very scholarly – but a trip right up the garden path.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

1. Context of Daniel 4

1. Nebuchadnezzar

According to Mesopotamian cuneiform sources, Nebuchadnezzar II was the son of Nabopolassar (626-604 BCE), who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period.

Mackey’s comment: Actually just Nebuchednezzar, as Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same king. No Nebuchednezzar II.

Middle Babylonia folds into Neo Babylonia:

The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar

(9) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Nabopolassar was an Assyrian, Sennacherib, not a Babylonian.

Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was Sennacherib’s successor but not his biological son. He was a Chaldean, and it was he, not Nabopolassar, “who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period”.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, he twice conquered Jerusalem (597 and 586 BCE), forcing a significant portion of the population to relocate to Babylon. …. In addition to external conquest, his reign was marked by substantial building activity throughout his kingdom, as more than sixty epithets have been found detailing his restoration of temples or sanctuaries. ….

He is credited with specific restorations and building projects within the capital city, including work on Etemenanki (the ziggurat of Babylon, sometimes associated with the infamous Tower of Babel), the creation of five walls to enclose Babylon, and the construction of the royal gardens. ….

Mackey’s comment: According to Dr. Stephanie Dalley, the ‘Hanging Gardens’ were not in Babylon, but were located in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh:

Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens”

(9) Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens” | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Convention apparently headed up another (Hanging) Garden path.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

Though he is mentioned in more secondary sources (including the Hebrew Bible, Apocryphal and Rabbinic books, and the works of classical and medieval authors) than any other Neo-Babylonian king, «Nebuchadnezzar’s own contemporary cuneiform sources are largely incomplete and provide us with relatively little information about the important events of his reign». ….

Mackey’s comment: Yes, that is true in the narrow, one-dimensional context in which Amanda Davis Bledsoe operates, but the historical King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ needs to be filled out with substantial alter egos, such as Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Ashurnasirpal; Ashur-bel-kala; and, of course, Nabonidus.

Especially when his 43-year reign is aligned with the approximately 43-year reign of Ashurbanipal does that “relatively little information about the important events of his reign” become greatly magnified.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

Consequently, are left primarily with descriptions of the king’s deeds that likely bear no resemblance to the actual events. …. However, what the secondary sources do provide us with are a picture of a popular leader who ruled his kingdom without any significant break from tradition, maintaining his kingly and religious duties while extending the kingdom through warfare with surrounding nations. …. There is no evidence that he was ever absent from Babylon for any extended period of time, aside from that required for his numerous military conquests.

Upon his death Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by numerous short-reigning kings, including his son, Amel-Marduk (562–560 BCE) … his brother-in-law Neriglissar (probably by violent means) (560–556 BCE), and Neriglissar’s minor son, Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE). ….

Mackey’s comment: The received king-lists, and late documents, have it all wrong:

Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences

https://www.academia.edu/59734684/Chaotic_King_Lists_can_conceal_some_sure_historical_sequences

Keeping it all as simple as it really was, the “violent” death of Amēl-Marduk, son of Nebuchednezzar, was the same as the violent death of Labashi-Marduk, who was the same as King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, who died a violent death.

Nebuchednezzar was succeeded in the Chaldean dynasty only by his son (Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar), who, in turn was succeeded by Neriglissar, the aged Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”.

Why complicate it?

1. Nabonidus

Nabonidus, who was not related to the previous kings by blood or marriage … seized the throne from the weak Labashi-Marduk.

Mackey’s comment: Wrong sequence. Nebuchednezzar had died several years earlier.

It was Neriglissar, Darius the Mede, “who … seized the throne”.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

There are more cuneiform documents which detail the reign of Nabonidus than any other Neo-Babylonian king … though they must be viewed with a critical eye considering most were created as propaganda either in strong support of or against Nabonidus. From these texts it is clear that, like Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus completed extensive building projects throughout Babylon. ….

Mackey’s comment: Very true that these documents “must be viewed with a critical eye”!

King Nabonidus was the same great builder of Babylon as was Nebuchadnezzar (including Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), as was Esarhaddon.

All one and the same king.

Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:

However, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus was a very controversial figure. He is said to have broken from the earlier customs in every way: he disregarded his religious and festal duties; he neglected his rule in Babylon residing instead in the desert oasis of Teima; and he abandoned the capitol city to Cyrus’s approaching army. He was even said to have been so unpopular that when the Persian army invaded Babylon the city willingly opened its gates to Cyrus and fell without a battle. …. Thus, many of the ancient sources are extremely critical of Nabonidus, naming him as a betrayer of the kingship and religion of Babylon.

Mackey’s comment: The composite Nebuchednezzar was as “controversial” as it gets. It is difficult to think of a more paranoid, superstitious, idolatrous, vindictive ruler.

Ashur-bel-kala and the Broken Obelisk

by

Damien F. Mackey

“… the Broken Obelisk … the upper part only of an obelisk with a stepped top.

…. The text … recounts the achievements of a king who is thought to be

Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BC). ….”.

John Curtis

The following article gives my conclusion regarding a supposed ‘Middle’ Assyrian king:

Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal

(3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

While this is already extremely radical, considering that Ashur-bel-kala (c. mid-C11th BC, conventional dating) would generally be thought to pre-date Ashurbanipal (c. 669-631 BC, conventional dating) by almost four centuries, it is entirely consistent with my necessary (as I see it) folding of the Middle and Neo Assyrian kingdoms.

See e.g. my article:

Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids

(2) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

But there is now to be considered a further complication according to my scheme of things. If Ashur-bel-kala was Ashurbanipal, as I seriously believe him to have been, then he must also have been the various alter egos I have attached to Ashurbanipal: namely, Esarhaddon; Ashurnasirpal (I/II); Nebuchednezzar (I/II); Nabonidus (which may not even be the end of the matter).

See e.g. my article:

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel

(2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

The common view that the Broken Obelisk pertains to Ashur-bel-kala is disputed by Displaced Dynasties, which attributes the obelisk, instead, to Tiglath-pileser II:

http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/paper_7_-_argument_3_-_redating_the_broken_obelisk..pdf

In the conventional system, Tiglath-pileser so-called II is dated to c. 967–935 BC, which is about a century later than Ashur-bel-kala conventionally dated.

I, on the other hand, would have Tiglath-pileser (I/II/III) being situated two reigns prior to Ashur-bel-kala.

Here are some sections of the article from Displaced Dynasties, to which I shall add a few comments:

Paper #7   Arguments that the 10^th/9^th century kings of the “dynasty of E” were vassals of the Kassite kings of the 3^rd Dynasty

(Argument 3: Redating the Broken Obelisk)

In our previous paper we made reference to an Assyrian inscription popularly known as the “Broken Obelisk”, and with nary an ounce of proof we attributed the annals contained in this document to the mid-10^th century king Tiglath-pileser II (966-935).  At the time we asked the reader to simply accept this attribution, albeit tentatively, largely because the extremely lengthy proof of our claim would have unnecessarily interrupted the existing train of thought.  We promised at the time to furnish proof of our claim in the following paper.  We are here fulfilling our promise.  We begin with a few introductory remarks.

This obelisk inscription, properly interpreted, and viewed in combination with information provided in our earlier discussion of the annals of the Assyrian king Adad-Nirari II, provides compelling evidence that our interpretation of those annals is correct.  And since that interpretation involved the 18^th dynasty Egyptian, the Empire Hittite, and the Empire Mitanni timelines – thus proving that the Kassites, who are firmly linked to those timelines, are ruling Karduniash/Babylonia during the reign of Adad-nirari II – we are eager to establish a mid-10^th century date for the Obelisk inscription.

Besides, there are several tantalizing details within that inscription that demand a mid-10^th century date and one in particular that dates the Obelisk precisely in early years of Kurigalzu I.  For these reasons, and others not mentioned, we devote the whole of this monograph to re-dating the Broken Obelisk.

The inscription is not long, and can be read online in minutes.  We suggest that the reader peruse this document, whether before or after reading our interpretation.  Several excellent translations are available online, but since we will be referencing the book entitled The Annals of the Kings of Assyria [AKA] edited by E.A.  Wallis Budge and L.W. King, we suggest this as one possible source (see pages 128-149 of that book).  Alternatively, since we will be referencing Luckenbill’s opinion of the Obelisk’s authorship from page 118 of his Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume I [ARAB] we suggest reading the text itself on pages 119-125 of that volume.  Finally, we mention the most recent translation, that provided by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 99-105 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millenium BC I (1114–859 BC) [Grayson, Assyrian Rulers = RIMA 2].  

Since the Obelisk was unearthed in the British excavations in Assyria in the mid to late 19^th century it has engendered intense scholarly scrutiny.  The monument, of which only the upper portion remains, is inscribed on three of its four sides with five columns of text, two on the front on either side of a portrait of an unidentified Assyrian king, one on its right side, spanning the width, and two side by side on the back.  The left side has been left blank.  The first four columns contain the military annals of the initial years of an anonymous Assyrian king, written in the “3^rd person”, while the fifth and final column records miscellaneous building repairs of what appears to be a different king, and written in the “1^st person”.  From the time of its discovery it has been assumed by scholars that the author of the 5^th column has discovered the obelisk with its nearly four columns of text, clearly unfinished, and has added a record of his own building activities, thus preserving for posterity the annals of a predecessor, probably an ancestor, and more than likely his father or grandfather. 

Daniel David Luckenbill, one of the most competent and influential of the early 20^th century Assyrian scholars, concurred with this opinion on page 118-19 of his Ancient Records, save in one point.  He believed that the author of the 5^th column was Adad-Nirari II while the unknown ancestor was likely the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I, an extremely remote ancestor.  Luckenbill’s influence caused that latter opinion to prevail in scholarly circles for at least the several decades following his 1926 publication.  His identification of Adad-Nirari II as the author of the 5^th column text did not received sic] the same endorsement by fellow scholars of the early 20^th century, though Luckenbill himself considered the identification as “almost certain”.

Throughout the 20^th century and into the 21^st speculation has continued among Assyriologists and Babylonian scholars alike as to the identity of the 5^th column author and his mysterious ancestor.   Brinkman, in his 1968 publication The Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia [PKB] has devoted his appendix B on pages 383-86, to a discussion of this document.   The Appendix, entitled “The Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk”, begins with the following paragraph:

To historians concerned with the later years of the Second Dynasty of Isin (1155-1025), the Broken Obelisk has been and will remain a problematic and tantalizing document.  Over the years much ink has been spilled in efforts to date this important text, which does not preserve the name of its royal author.  The various monarchs proposed have ranged from Shalmaneser I (1274-1245) to Adad-nirari II (911-891).  In recent years, the most generally accepted view has been that the inscription was the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1075-1057).  (Brinkman PKB 383) (the dates cited have been added to the quoted text by the author of this paper to assist readers with little background in Assyrian or Babylonian history)

The Second Dynasty of Isin cited by Brinkman is simply an alternative name for what we have been referencing as the 4^th dynasty of the “kings of Babylon”, i.e. those kings who, according to the traditional history, initially replaced the Kassites as rulers of Babylonia, this in the  approximate year 1155 B.C..   Brinkman assumes that knowledge of the Broken Obelisk could possibly inform historians regarding the “Second Dynasty of Isin” (1155-1025) because  Ashurbel-kala (1075-1057) was a contemporary of several kings of that dynasty, and more so because, as scholarship evolved in the first half of the 20^th century, scholars came to the near unanimous opinion that the first four columns contained a summary of “the annals and hunting exploits of Tiglath-Pileser I”, a slight variation of the opinion popularized by Luckenbill as noted above.  And the lengthy reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076) overlapped a significant portion of the Isin dynasty.   

Having thus explained several details of the quote by Brinkman, we follow him as he continues in his Appendix to provide five reasons why the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala may be correct, though we should point out that the language used by Brinkman suggests that this extremely careful scholar is not entirely convinced.  We also need to mention that Brinkman is referring to the view espoused by scholars in the second half of the 20^th century, one which is currently supported by the majority of scholars worldwide, wherein all five columns of the annals attest to the activity of one king, in this case Ashur-bel-kala.  If we are to argue our thesis that the first four columns were authored by Tiglath-Pileser II, then clearly we must begin by discrediting the attribution of any part of the document to Ashur-bel-kala.  We proceed accordingly.

The initial argument by Brinkman, undoubtedly the strongest, is based on an assumed identity between an eponym which dates one of the invasions in the lengthy “ancestral” portion of the Obelisk (column 3, line 3), and an eponym supposedly found in a text belonging to Ashur-belkala, a text which actually names him as the author. The other four reasons will be dealt with when we begin to produce argument in favor of our identification.  All four of those reasons will be duplicated, word for word, and used as the basis for four arguments in favor of our thesis. 

Thus we begin our analysis of the Broken Obelisk with a criticism of the single extremely fragile reason cited in support of the Ashur-bel-kala authorship.  Assuming we are successful, and nothing remains to justify Brinkman’s (qualified) support of that viewpoint, we are free to supply more corroborative proof in defense of our claim for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II.

Arguments that Ashur-bel-kala DID NOT author the Broken Obelisk

Argument 1. 

According to Brinkman (PKB, 383) the number one reason for supporting the Ashur-bel-kala authorship of the Broken Obelisk is as stated below.

The limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and in the Broken Obelisk; (note 2150 added)

 In the footnote 2150 affixed to the stated reason Brinkman adds the references:

AfO VI (1930-31) 86, Teil IV; AKA 133 iii 3.  See also Jaritz, JSS IV (1959) 213.  Stamm

(Namengebung, p. 228 and Borger (EAK I 5 n.2) present arguments for reading the limmu name as Ashur-rim-nisheshu

And at the bottom of the same page he makes the statement:

Weidner, Jaritz, and Borger have been the chief spokesmen for dating the Broken Obelisk to the time of Ashur-bel-kala.

Before we even begin our counterargument directed specifically at the dual Ashur-ra’imnisheshu eponym references we need to note that even if absolutely correct, Brinkman’s stated reason merely allows for the possibility, not the probability, that the presence of two identical limmu names in two different inscriptions implies that both documents were authored by the same king.  Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu (or Ashur-rim-nisheshu) is not an uncommon name.  It was borne by one of the last kings of the Old Assyrian Period, Ashur-rim-nisheshu (1397-1391), the third predecessor of the famous Ashuruballit I and possibly his great-grandfather.  It is perfectly conceivable that an individual bearing this name, but serving in the reign of some king other than Ashur-bel-kala, would be selected as a limmu official.  And the reign of Tiglath-Pileser II would appear at the top of the list of possible candidates.  But in this monograph we do not need to rely on this “insurance clause”, this for a very simple reason.  It is simply not true that “the limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and on the Broken Obelisk”. 

Brinkman ought to have stated that “The name Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs as a limmu name in the Broken Obelisk and possibly as a limmu name on another document, which document may or may not have been authored by Ashur-bel-kala”.  If that weakens (or absolutely negates) the argument, so be it.  

We begin to defend our claim, emphasized in the previous paragraph, by actually looking at the document in question, i.e. by following up Brinkman’s initial footnote reference in support of his stated reason.   

Ernst F. Weidner, probably following Schroeder (OLZ XX [1917], 305), in an article entitled “Die Annalen des Konigs Assurbelkala von Assyrien”, published in the journal Archiv fur

Orientforschung [AfO VI (1930-31) Teil IV] has collated two tablet inscriptions into one text, thus creating a composite document which begins by naming the king Ashur-bel-kala and ends with an (assumed) eponym name, Ashur-rim-nisheshu. 

On the basis of this amalgam/composite text it is claimed that the identical cuneiform name, clearly identified as a limmu name and found in column III line 3 on the Broken Obelisk, identifies the annals found on the Obelisk as belonging to Ashur-bel-kala.  This opinion, largely based on the stature of the three mid-20^th century German scholars who espoused it (Borger, Jarita and WeidnerJ) has been almost universally accepted by the academic community.  But the opinion is not supported by the facts. 

….

One tablet, Assur 18265 = VAT 11240, is very small and has multiple lacunae (grossere Lucke).  Only seven severely damaged lines remain and these were translated five years prior by Luckenbill in section 341 of his Ancient Records.

Assur-bel-kala ….. the king without rival ….. viceroy, lord of lands …… whom Assur, Enlil ….. the ruler of the land of Assyria ….. the lands …… [who shatters] …..  

Lacunae both precede and follow the remains of every line on this tablet, leaving only stock phrases which occur on dozens of cuneiform documents, since the text that is visible suggests that this inscription is from the lauditory introductory section of some larger inscription, probably, but not certainly, annals.  

The reverse of this first tablet is not inscribed, either that or the damaged surface precludes reading any text.  Since no photographs are provided in the article we are left to guess. Not so on the second tablet, Assur 16308k, which has 14 lines on the obverse (see the line drawing of tablet Assur 16308k, Vs provided on page 89 in the article and duplicated in Figure 1 below)  and a single line on the reverse (see Assur 16308k, Rs in Figure 1).  The name of Ashur-bel-kala appears nowhere on this tablet, and the single line on the reverse actually consists of a single name – translated by Weidner as Ashur-rim-nisheshu.  Thus we have the name of the king Ashur-bel-kala on one tablet and the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the other.  And this of course raises the question whether or not the two tablets record parts of a single text.  It is important to emphasize here that the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the reverse of the larger tablet is not preceded by the usual signs indicating that it is an eponym.  The name stands alone.  According to Weidner the balance of the reverse of the tablet is uninscribed (rest unbeschrieben).  ….

….

There is no visible physical evidence that suggests that the two tablet fragments were once joined together, nor anything distinctive in the language employed on the two tablets that strongly suggests they should be merged into one document.  At minimum we argue that there is nothing in the fabricated composite text that could possibly justify the conclusions that have been drawn from it.  And if we understand Brinkman’s language correctly, he is not totally convinced either.  There is not a single line of text in the composite document that does not supply lengthy connecting phrases in order to make a coherent intelligible inscription.  Let the reader decide.  To assist the analysis we reproduce below the composite document as translated by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 95-96 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC.  For Grayson the composite text is his number A.0.89.4.

1-14 Assur-bel-kal[a, great king, king of the] universe, king of Assyria, unrivalled king, [king of all the four quarters], provider for Ekur, select of the god Assur, appointee of the Lord of the Lands, [who] acts [with the support of the god Assur] in laying low his enemies, [whose] deeds the gods Assur (and) Enlil […], the unconquerable attacker, [the one to whom was entrusted] dominion of Assyria, the one who disintegrates [all enemy]  lands [with the fire of] Girru (fire  god), controller [of the insubmissive], the one who breaks up [the forces of the rebellious], the one who defeats [his enemies, …] throws down, is changed [the one who … in battle] has overwhelmed all princes, [… the one who …] has conquered the [lands] of all [people from Babylon of the land Adda]d to the Upper Sea [of the land Amurru and the sea of the lands Nair]I [the one who …] … has become lord of all; Lacuna

Reverse

Lacuna

Rev. 1’) [Month of …, …th day, eponymy of] Assur-rem-nisheshu.

….

Argument 2.  

We need to add one comment to our previous analysis of the composite document created by Ernst Weidner.  In particular we want to question once again the supposed limmu name on the reverse of the larger tablet, whose purpose we failed to identify in the previous discussion.  Because this argument is a stand-alone item, we treat it separately, and we begin by returning to Brinkman’s Appendix chapter entitled “Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk” (PKB 385).  In that chapter Brinkman points out that the Broken Obelisk contains only three limmu names, “li-me Assur-[…]”, “li-me Assur-ra’im-nisheshu” and “li-me Ilu-iddina”, which serve to divide the content of the annals into four sections, each spanning a single year, or at least a portion thereof.  And Brinkman is firmly convinced that the campaigns named in the second and third columns are listed in chronological order. The limmu name Assur-ra’im-nisheshu, in line 3 of column 3, serves to introduce the multiple campaigns of the third year of the king.  We contrast this situation with the name of the assumed identical limmu official named on the reverse of the larger tablet examined by Ernst Weidner.  In this situation the name stands in isolation on the otherwise uninscribed reverse of a tablet whose obverse is not describing an event that needs to be dated to some specific year.  Limmu names are intended to date some specific action, usually military campaigns, frequently legal texts, and rarely the time of creation of a document, usually a letter from one official to another, in which case it is placed at the end of the document.  And the name is always identified with the two signs designating it as a “lime”.  In the case of Assur 16308k none of these characteristics apply.  Even if we accept as legitimate the composite document created by Weidner by dovetailing the two tablet inscriptions, the supposed limmu name is entirely out of place, dating absolutely nothing.  Not only is it not related to the 3^rd year of Ashur-bel-kala, it is located at the back of a tablet whose text would precede the first year campaigns of the king.

Argument 3.

The reign of Ashur-bel-kala began only three years after the death of his father Tiglath-Pileser I, arguably the greatest military leader in the whole of Assyrian history, whose reign ended without a single Aramean remaining on Assyrian soil, much less an entire Aramean state referred to as the “land of Arime”, situated on his norther border.  This, of course, assuming that we have correctly interpreted the “Chronicle of Tiglath-Pileser” in our previous paper.  We know that 28 times in his final years Tiglath-Pileser had led his army southward, crossing the Euphrates in order to encounter Arameans, whom he promptly dispatched.  This leads us to ask the obvious question.  How is it that three years after the death of his father, Ashur-bel-kala, who inherited his father’s vast army, is forced to launch upwards of a dozen campaigns against various cities in this “land of Arime”, each time with limited success.  That fact alone argues strongly against attributing the annals of the Broken Obelisk to this king.   

Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Ashur-bel-kala arrived on the scene somewhat later than a mere “three years after the death of” Tiglath-pileser.

Argument 4.

There are only two scenario’s possible if scholars insist that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals of the Broken Obelisk.   On the one hand, as is the case today, scholars might argue that he wrote the 5^th column as well.  To this suggestion we respond with two questions: 1) How likely is it that 3^rd person annals and 1^st person building inscriptions would be contained on a single monument, supposedly authored in its entirety by one king? and 2) If the annals were for a time left incomplete and Ashur-bel-kala had his scribes return to the document to add his building inscriptions, why did they not first complete the annals before adding the building inscriptions?  Generations of extremely competent scholars have for centuries insisted that the annals were left incomplete, including Luckenbill.  How is it that suddenly a new generation of scholars assumes otherwise?

On the other hand if scholars insist on stating that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals but left them incomplete, only to have them completed by a descendant, then we have a succession problem.  The annals end after the 4^th year of their author, thus around the year 1070 BC on the assumption that they are the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1073-1056).  What happened to cause the annals to cease so abruptly, and remain incompleted throughout his lengthy reign is one problem.  Why were they left incomplete for 160 years is a second problem, assuming that Luckenbill is correct in arguing that the building inscriptions were added by Adad-Nirari II (911-891).  All of these objections were answered in our last paper based on the premise that the Broken Obelisk annals are the work of Tiglath-Pileser II.  If the reader follows our reasoning in the previous two paragraphs, he/she must consider this item as two distinct arguments against the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, regardless of which assumption is made regarding the authorship of column 5.  

Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Adad-Nirari preceded Tiglath-pileser, and hence, a fortiori, he must have preceded Ashur-bel-kala,

Multiple other arguments against the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala could be included in this section, but because they are focused more directly on proving the case for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II than on disproving the case for authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, we include them in a separate section of this paper.  But since these two kings are really the only viable candidates for the “authorship” position, because no other king following Ashur-bel-kala even remotely qualifies as the author of the Broken Obelisk, it matters little whether we disprove the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala or prove the authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II.  They are two sides of a single coin. ….

Prophet Nahum and resistance to Assyria

by

Damien F. Mackey

“The Lord has given a command concerning you, Nineveh:

‘You will have no descendants to bear your name. I will destroy

the images and idols that are in the temple of your gods.

I will prepare your grave, for you are vile’.”

Nahum 1:14

The writings of the prophet Nahum so resemble those of Isaiah that I concluded in my postgraduate university thesis (2007) that this was one and the same mighty prophet.

Nahum as Isaiah

In my section, Books of Isaiah and Nahum (Volume Two, pp. 98-102), I painstakingly compared most of the Nahum text with Isaiah, including in the Hebrew, and found example after example of either identical, or like, passages.

My conclusion that Nahum was the Simeonite Isaiah:

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

(4) God can raise up prophets at will – even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

may be supported by the tradition (e.g. Pseudo-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum) that the prophet Nahum was a Simeonite.

Moreover the Hebrew name, Nahum (נַחוּם), from the verb to comfort, could have been applied to the prophet at a later stage of his life, for the latter part of the Book of Isaiah (beginning with Chapter 40) is all about Israel being comforted:

Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

(8) Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Assyrian Names

Isaiah, who will write abundantly on Assyria – but usually never favourably – will tend to refer to its leaders impersonally, such as “the Assyrian” (Isaiah 10:5-19):

“Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,

in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

or allegorically (14:12-27):

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!

In my thesis (Volume Two, p. 77), I wrote on this famous Oracle:

In regard to this poem’s historical basis, Boutflower is helpful when favourably recalling Sir Edward Strachey’s “belief that the king of Babylon, against whom the “parable” of Isa. xiv was hurled, was a king of Assyria” … a king of Assyria, that is, who ruled over Babylon. … Boutflower was convinced that this was Tiglath-pileser III …. Others have not been able to unravel so skillfully as did Strachey the intertwining of Babylon and Assyria in this Oracle. Thus Moriarty: … “Some think this oracle … of ch. 14, was originally applied to Assyria and only later referred to Babylon”.

Strachey’s view is, I believe, the correct one. ….

The first notable exception in Isaiah will be the famous verse, Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that the Turtan, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it …”.

Until the advent of modern archaeology in the C19th AD, this was the only known reference to Sargon (II), so no one knew who he actually was.

By Chapter 36, though, Isaiah – probably by now copying from historical records (cf. 2 Kings 18:13) – begins to name the Assyrian king by his personal name, “Sennacherib” (36:1): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”.

Chapters 36-38 are pre-occupied with this phase of crisis for the kingdom of Judah.

Nahum’s Father

With biographical and patronymical details being almost entirely absent from the Book of Nahum, we need to turn to the Book of Isaiah to find out who the father was: namely, Amos (Amoz) (1:1).

He, too, has multi-identifications, most notably as Micah (also the Simeonite prophet, Zephaniah/Sophonias).

Micah and his son, Isaiah, are a prophetical combination, going “barefoot and naked”, when Samaria is threatened (Micah 1:8), and when Sargon II sent his general against Ashdod (Isaiah 20:2).

The combination is found named again in Judith 4:14-15: “… the magistrates of their town [“Bethulia], who in those days were Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon …”. Micah (= Amos), a Simeonite, now deceased, was the father of Uzziah (Isaiah).

But what were these southern Judeans doing now in the north, in “Bethulia” (Bethel), which is Shechem?

Nahum as Hosea (Uzziah)

Simeonites had gone north as early as the days of King Asa of Judah:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/asas-religious-reforms

“Note that Simeon’s territory originally lay in the south, surrounded by Judah’s tribal allotment (Josh. 19:1–9), but for reasons not entirely known to us, many Simeonites moved north”.

This would presumably have made it more companionable for the Simeonite, Amos, to go northwards at the Lord’s command (Amos 7:14-15): “I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.” 

He is actually found, as Micaiah, prophesying during the reign of King Ahab of Israel.

At some stage, Amos’s son, Isaiah (Nahum) must have followed his father to Bethel, for we find him, too, in the north, now as the prophet Hosea:

Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet?

(9) Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet? | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

There he married, Gomer, a typically ‘adulterous’ product of the northern kingdom (Hosea 1:2-3).

Never a dull moment in the life of our composite Nahum!

Hosea is found as Uzziah in the Book of Judith, a man of great standing.

For this Uzziah was entitled both ‘the prince of Judah’ and ‘the prince of the people of Israel’ (Douay version of Book of Judith).

The rabbis of the Talmud tell that his father, Amos, was the brother of King Amaziah of Judah.

The Book of Judith, probably written by the High Priest, Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, the great prophet, “the high priest Joakim” of the book (Judith 4:6) – rather than by Isaiah – is, of course, all about the conflict with the Assyrians.

It, in fact, provides the key to what happened to Sennacherib’s army of 185,000.

And Uzziah was there front and centre (right in the front row seat) to witness it.

But he is overshadowed by that extraordinary heroine, probably a relative, Judith.

Judith the “daughter of Merari” (Judith 8:1; 16:6) may well connect patronymically with Isaiah as Hosea “son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1), whether this ancestor be another name for Amos, or a maternal ancestor, or a connection through marriage.

I have never been able to be sure about this.

Since M and B are frequently interchanged in W. Semitic, the name Beeri, I think, could easily merge into Merari.

The Book of Hosea, likewise, is full of references to Assyria, as to its hostile advances in both the northern and the southern kingdoms.

Assyrian Names

The prophet Hosea actually names the two successive kings of his early time, in hypocoristicon form, as “Shalman” (Shalmaneser) and “Yareb” (Sennacherib):

While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon

(9) While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Due, though, to the present state of the Book of Judith:

The Book of Judith: confusion of names

(8) Book of Judith: confusion of names | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

we have a mix of Chaldeo-Persian names for the King of Assyria, “Nebuchadnezzar”, who is Sargon II/Sennacherib; his Commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, who, thanks to input from Tobit (14:10), we can ascertain was Nadin/Nadab, hence Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi:  

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

 

(4) “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Finally, the Commander-in-chief’s first officer, “Bagoas”, may even have been a young Nebuchednezzar:

An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar?

(4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

Nahum as Jonah

Once again we gain benefit from the Book of Tobit (14:4), which variously gives “Jonah” or “Nahum” (NRSV), thus enabling for another unexpected connection: Nahum was Jonah.

Assyrian Names

The Book of Jonah will give us nothing personal in this regard, merely referring in 3:6 to “the king of Nineveh”.

I have determined him to be Esarhaddon, in his many guises, including as Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’:

De-coding Jonah

(4) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

The Book of Nahum is similarly impersonal in this regard, giving only phrases such as

 “a wicked counseller” (1:11) – explained as “literally, a councilor of Belial; i.e. of worthlessness”; and “King of Assyria” (3:18).

While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Now the terrors of war will rise among your people.

All your fortifications will fall, just as when Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel.

Even mothers and children were dashed to death there”.

Hosea 10:14

The prophet Hosea names two Assyrian kings, “Yareb” (5:13) and “Shalman” (10:14), whose identities Heath D. Dewrell has completely nailed, so I believe, in the Abstract to his article, “Yareb, Shalman, and the Date of the Book of Hosea” (2016):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43900899

…. This article examines two enigmatic figures mentioned in the Book of Hosea – King Yareb and Shalman. I suggest that the former is to be identified as the Assyrian king Sennacherib and the latter as Shalmaneser V. This has significant implications for the date of the core of the Book of Hoshea; it requires a date at least two decades later than the current scholarly consensus. ….

For conventional minded scholars the whole thing is a bit of a puzzle.

Thus F. C. Eiselen writes, in “Shalman”:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/shalman.html

A name of uncertain meaning, found only once in the Old Testament (Hosea 10:14), in connection with a place-name, equally obscure, “as Shalman destroyed Betharbel.” Shalman is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the name of several Assyrian kings. If this explanation is correct, the king referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV, who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in 773-772. Others have proposed Shalmaneser V, who attacked Samaria in 725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that invaded the Negeb. The identification of BETH-ARBEL (which see) is equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in question was well known and, therefore, probably one of recent date and considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient translations offer no solution; they too seem to have been in the dark.

[End of quote]

Less “in the dark” may we be if we, like Heath D. Dewrell has considered necessary, re-date the core of the Book of Hosea.

But we also need a revised Assyria, according to which the reign of Sennacherib, Yareb (erib), immediately follows that of Shalmaneser, with no extra Sargon in between, because Sargon II was Sennacherib:

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

(5) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

This conventionally shocking conclusion is reinforced, however, by the Book of Tobit, a man who actually served the great Assyrian king, Shalmaneser – so he knew what he was writing about – whose immediate successor was Sennacherib (Tobit 1:15): “When Shalmaneser died, his son Sennacherib succeeded him as emperor”.

No Sargon mentioned there either – because Sargon was Sennacherib.

We also need to multi-identify Shalmaneser, for example as the highly important Tiglath-pileser so-called III.

By so doing, it may facilitate our understanding of Hosea 10:14, connecting Shalman(eser) with the destruction of Beth-arbel, “a place-name, equally obscure”, “uncertain”.

My tentative suggestion for the “obscure” town would be Tiglath-pileser’s taking of Abel-Beth Maacah (2 Kings 15:29), with Beth-arbel as Abel-Beth (Maacah?).

Shiloh as Ta’anath Shiloh in valley east of Shechem

“Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem?

It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown”.

John Wijngaards

I (Damien Mackey), finding somewhat unsatisfying the almost universally accepted archaeological identification of the ancient shrine of Shiloh with Khirbet Seiloun, did a quick search at academia.edu for a dissenting view, and straightaway found this intriguing article by John Wijngaards:

An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh?

(1) (PDF) Alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh | John N M Wijngaards – Academia.edu

Whilst I warmly encourage those interested to read Wijngaards’ 2020 article in full, here I shall simply reproduce the final part of it (pp. 23-24):

…. In Gen 33,18 we find the following Massoretic vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shâlem °îr shekem ‘asher be’ereș kena°an. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render shalem as ‘to Salim’. Many modern versions, following the Targum, read ‘beshalôm’, meaning ‘safely, unscathed’ (RSV; JB.; Powis-Smith; De Fraine). The text would then mean: “Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem in Canaanite territory”. However, this reading does violence to the consonantal text.

Observing that Samaritanus and some other manuscripts presuppose the reading ‘shl-o-m’, I suggest the following vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shilô – m – °îr shekem. This would mean: ‘And Jacob reached Shiloh of the city of ‘Shechem’ (enclytic mem). The parallelism with Gen 12,6 is striking: ‘Abram came to the sanctuary (meqôm: status constructus) of Shechem. The text would, therefore, seem to imply that Shiloh is the sanctuary near the city of Shechem. From Gen 33,19 we learn further that, the site of Jacob’s encampment, and consequently of Shiloh, was ‘facing the city of Shechem’, probably meaning ‘East of Shechem’, and certainly implying that it was not on the Ebal or Gerazim, but rather in the valley itself, facing Shechem across the open space of the valley.

A. Alt has drawn attention to the extraordinary fact that “Shiloh the early prominence of which as centre of Jahwistic worship cannot be doubted” seems all the same devoid of vital relationships with the patriarchs. …. And yet we know that it was the ‘God of Israel’ who gave oracles at Shiloh (cf. 1 Sm 1,17; 2,30), that Yahweh’s decrees promulgated at Shiloh (cf. Ps 78,5 and 78,60) were ‘decrees for Jacob’. In other words: as amphictyonic centre Shiloh almost had to have had vital connections with Jacob. If our vocalization of Gen 33,18a is correct, Gen 3,18b-19 would provide the link between Jacob, Shiloh and Shechem.

Overall conclusion

Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown. …. Once every seven years, probably during the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25,1- 7), the tribes would gather at Transjordanian Succoth to re-live the forty years in the desert by celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. There they would be given instructions on the covenant with Yahweh and on new legislation that would form part of the covenant. To re-enact the crossing of the Red Sea and the landgiving, the Ark would then be carried, ahead of the people, across the Jordan into the valley of Shechem. After depositing the Ark in its sanctuary at Shiloh, the people would then formally renew the covenant by calling on themselves the blessings and curses of the covenant. Portions of the land would then be re-allocated, or re-affirmed, to the tribes at Shiloh before they would return to their own provinces (Josh 13,8 – 17,18).

Taking everything into consideration, it seems certainly possible, if not likely, that the ancient pre-monarchic sanctuary of Shiloh lay in the valley of Shechem.

“With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from

the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified

either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which

lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem …”.

John Wijngaards

John Wijngaards sets out on pp. 2-3 the plan of his article (as referred to above):

In this essay (1) I will first elaborate how and why topographic information about biblical sites has been lost. (2) I will spell out my reasons for doubting Shiloh’s identification with Khirbet Seiloun. (3) I will, from biblical sources, add a brief reconstruction of what Shiloh’s sanctuary must have looked like. (4) I will explain why biblical texts seem to favour a location of Samuel’s Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. (5) I will then proceed to illustrate why Ta’anath Shiloh, i.e. present-day Khirbet et-Tana or Kirbet el- Fauqain the valley of Shechem, could have been the location of early Shiloh. ….

Now, on to his pp. 23-24, where he briefly discusses his proposed new site for ancient Shiloh:

5.2  Ta’anath Shiloh in the valley of Shechem — Jos 16,6

In Jos 16,6 we learn of a place called tant šlh, vocalised by the Massoretes as ta’anathshiloh, rendered by the Septuagint as thênath sêlô.  In modern translations the place is known as ‘Ta’anath-Shiloh’.  Its location would satisfy the required conditions of Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem. ….

I am unaware of any attempt to explain the derivation of the name, but it seems, to me that a Ugaritic passage may throw light on the question. In the text Baal speaks to Anath in these words (verses 18 to 29): 

“18. I’ve a word I fain would tell thee, 19. a speech I wouId utter to thee, 20. speech of tree and whisper of stone, 21. converse of heaven with earth, 22. even of the deep with the stars. 23. Yea, a thunderbolt unknown to heaven, 24. a word not known to men, 25. nor sensed by the masses on earth. 26. Come, pray, and I will reveal it 27. in the midst of my mount Godly Zaphon, 28. in the sanctuary, mount of my portion, 29. in the pleasance, the hill I possess.”^[1]

The Ugaritic original of verse 21 reads: tant šmm °m arș. The word ‘tant’ in vs. 21 is here rendered by ‘conversation’ on account of the context.^[2] If we were to bring the word in connection with the Hebrew root tâ’ (room, parlour; cf. 3 Kgs 14,28; Ez 40,7ff.; Septuagint transliteration thê; cf. Assyrian ta’u), we might also understand it to mean ‘meeting-place’, ‘parlour’. Ancient sanctuaries were, in fact, considered to be such points of contact between heaven and earth (cf. Gen 28,10-22; 11,4).^[3] In the Ugaritic text Baal is therefore inviting Anath to come to his holy mount, his sanctuary, the meeting place of heaven and earth,^[4] where through the stone and the tree an oracle will be communicated to her. 

Is it pure chance that the sanctuary in Shechem’s valley possessed such a tree and such a stone? Should it not rather be seen as such an ancient ‘meeting-place’ between heaven and earth? This would explain why it is also called ‘the navel of the land’ and ‘the diviners’ oak’ (Jdg 9,37), why it is the scene of oracles to Abram (Gen 12,7), to Jacob (Gen 35,1) and to the Shechemites (Jdg 9,7ff.)?

Shiloh is also described as a meeting place in Psalm 78,60: “He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among people”.

Taanath Shiloh might, therefore, well fit as the holy place in the valley of Shechem, both on account of its position and on account of the implication of its name. ….

---

[1] ‘nt:III:17-28; translation by H. L. Ginsberg in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton 1955, p. 136.

[2] C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices (Analecta Orientalia), Rome 1965; Glossary no 2507. 

[3] M. Eliade, Traité de l’Histoire des Religions, Paris 1959, pp. 201ff.

[4] In same instances, notably with the construct case of bît, the preposition b is omitted. Cf. C. H. Gordon, op. cit. no 10-4, p. 95.