Thursday, February 29, 2024

Assyrian contemporaries of Ramses II ‘the Great’

by Damien F. Mackey According to the typical conventional estimation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/anc-ramses-ii-reading/#:~:text=Ramses%20II%20also%20formed%20alliances,coast%20of%20Egypt's%20Nile%20Delta. …. When Seti I died in 1279 BCE, Ramses II was only about 20 years old. He succeeded his father to the throne and became Pharaoh of Egypt. During his early reign, Ramses II faced many challenges. There were rebellions in Canaan and Libya. The Hittites were also a constant threat, as they continued to try and expand their empire. In order to protect Egypt's borders, Ramses II needed to build up his army. He did this by conscripting soldiers from all over Egypt and training them to be loyal and disciplined soldiers. Ramses II also formed alliances with other countries in the region, such as Babylon and Assyria. …. [End of quote] Checking the standard Assyrian king lists, the beginning of the reign of Ramses II would fall right withing the long reign (32 years) of king Adad-nirari I (1295-1264 BC): https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/564-566-the-assyrian-king-list/ My Assyrian Revision Adad-nirari I in my revision, on the other hand, belongs to the first half of the C8th BC, approximately half a millennium after his conventional placement (above). I explained my radical revision and re-identifying of a relevant set of Assyrian kings as follows in e.g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (5) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Marc Van de Mieroop will give one perfect sequence (as I see it) of four Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era, where Van de Mieroop has these four kings listed again, but now in the wrong sequence. I refer to his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC. The following I would consider to be a perfect Assyrian sequence of kings (p. 294): Adad-nirari [I] Shalmaneser [I] Tukulti-Ninurta [I] Assur-nadin-apli [I] where Tukulti-Ninurta = Sennacherib and Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal = Esarhaddon. This sequence accords perfectly with the neo-Assyrian sequence given in Tobit 1: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. But on p. 295, the same four kings will become skewed, as follows: Adad-nirari [II] Tukulti-Ninurta [II] Ashurnasirpal [II] Shalmaneser [III] …. [End of quote] If Ramses II were a ruling contemporary of Adad-nirari (I/II) – [and I don’t believe that he was, though he came close to it] - then he would have begun to reign in the first half of the C8th BC. My Egyptian Revision This is complex. It is spelled out in articles of mine such as: The Complete Ramses II (6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ramses II and his Time, 1978) had identified Ramses II with Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. In Dr. Velikovsky’s scheme of things, Ramses II was a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon. - Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating). - Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon. - I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription. This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. Assyria encountering Egypt In approximately 720 BC (conventional dating) Sargon II, very early in his reign, chased away Egypt’s young turtan (commander), Si’be. Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be This Egyptian military commander has been enormously difficult for scholars (whether they be conventional or revisionist) to identify. Was he: Ramses III; or Psibkhenno (I had liked Dr. Rohl’s attempt here due to its close transliteration); or Shabako; or Shebitku; or the biblical “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4)? Or some, or all, of these? As I had observed in my article: Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni (3) Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Sir Alan Gardiner had looked to identify [the biblical] “So with the Sib’e, turtan of Egypt, who the annals of Sargon state to have set out from Rapihu (Raphia on the Palestinian border) together with Hanno, the King of Gaza, in order to deliver a decisive battle” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 342). That conclusion was also, as we have read, the view of Charles Boutflower. Whilst I, too, have wondered if this might be the correct interpretation, such a view would need to address why one whom the Second Book of Kings had entitled ‘King’, prior to the Fall of Samaria, had become, some half a dozen or so years later, a mere Egyptian official (turtan, general); albeit an important one. Dr. Kenneth Kitchen has confidently held that So is an abbreviated form of Osorkon (IV) of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty (The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: 1100-650 BC, 1972). Revisionist, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, had also thought to locate King So to the period of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, as one of the pharaohs Shoshenq (or Sosenk) – a good name fit in its abbreviated form (So-senk = So). Others prefer for So pharaoh Tefnakht[e] of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. …. [End of quote] As noted here, Si’be, as a military commander, is unlikely to have been a pharaoh. Sargon II will distinguish “Pharaoh (Pir’u) king of Egypt [Musri]”. Actually, all Ramses III; Psibkhenno; Shabako; Shebitku; the biblical “So king of Egypt” will be found to be very close to the mark. For only two Egyptian persons are represented amongst these names: namely (1) Ramses II and (2) his son, Khaemwaset. Thus, as argued in “The Complete Ramses II” article: Ramses II, whose son is Khaemwaset, is Ramses III, whose son is Khaemwaset; Ramses II is Psibkhenno (Psusennes) Ramses; Ramses II is Shabako (Sabacos = Psibkhenno); Ramses II is “King So [Sabacos] of Egypt”. Khaemwaset is Shebitku Khaemwaset. I, reluctant to let go of Dr. Rohl’s linguistic connection of Si’be with Psib-khenno, eventually, however, decided that, whilst the latter was a pharaoh, the former had to be a subordinate. Psibkhenno Ramses was Ramses II, and his turtan, Si’be, was his famous son, the highly talented (Shebitku) Khaemwaset. Sargon II will allude to Shebitku Khaemwaset (now as a sub-pharaoh to his father) in the Tang-I Var inscription. Here Sargon calls him, not Si’be (Sibu), but Shabataka. Dan’el Kahn writes of it in his article, “Was there a Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty?: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/85102-Artikeltext-228805-1-10-20211210.pdf …. According to the inscription, king Shebitku (=Shabatka) extradited Iamani to Sargon. The inscription can be dated quite certainly to 706 BC, not long before the death in battle [sic] of Sargon II. in the summer of 705 BC. …. Thus, the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku was already king of Kush in 706 BC. This new date is at least four years earlier than has generally been thought. Frame continued and claimed that this is a "piece of information which will require Egyptologists to revise their current chronology for Egypt's twenty-fifth Dynasty", and added: "This would raise difficulties for the current Egyptian chronology". …. Egypt’s King, Šilkanni Ann E. Killebrew, writing from a conventional point of view in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, tells of the exchange between pharaoh Šilkanni and Sargon II: "With the Assyrian army in the region, Silkanni, the king of Egypt (Osorkon IV), felt compelled to send Sargon twelve magnificent horses as a gift. These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time" (pg 240; also citing Heidorn). Since the Nineteenth Dynasty ruled Kush (Ethiopia) it would not surprise if: “These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time". But it would surprise me if Šilkanni was, as according to the conventional estimate, Osorkon. Despite the admittedly apt name comparison of Šilkanni with Osorkon, I think that the even better fit would be Psibkhenno (Psibkhanni), who is my Ramses II. To match, the names Psibkhanni and Šilkanni one need only swap the letters b and l. The Šilkanni incident would have occurred about 4 years before the Tang-I Var inscription incident when Shebitku had joined his father as a co-ruler of Egypt/ Ethiopia. Conclusion Sargon’s (Sennacherib’s) Egyptian contemporaries were: Ramses II/Shabako (Pi’ru; Šilkanni), and his son Shebitku Khaemwaset (Si’be; Shabataka). The biblical “So King of Egypt” was likewise Ramses II, but at the time of Sargon II’s predecessor, Shalmaneser. Ramses II knew two great Assyrian kings, Shalmaneser and Sargon II/Sennacherib. What of Esarhaddon? He was Chaldean, not Assyrian.

Some Letters from Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey “If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince, i.e., before 721 B.C.”. Brazilian correspondent A Brazilian researcher has written to me concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II. If this were to prove true, then it would completely shatter my thesis, as argued in various articles, that Sennacherib was Sargon II. For example: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (7) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Tobit gives the neo-Assyrian succession for this period as “Shalmaneser”, “Sennacherib”, and “Esarhaddon” (1: 15, 21), with no mention whatsoever of a Sargon. And that is the sequence that I firmly follow. Surely Tobit himself would have known the correct neo-Assyrian order. Had he not served Shalmaneser at a high official level?: Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s Rab Ekalli (11) Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser's Rab Ekalli | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And had he not been hounded from his home by a vengeful Sennacherib (Tobit 1:19-20) – but was later “allowed” to resume his normal existence by Esarhaddon (1:22)? The Brazilian researcher opened the correspondence with this e-mail (26th February, 2024): …. I was conducting research on Assyrian correspondence on the website https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa01/corpus/ and came across a series of letters from Crown Prince Sennacherib addressed to King Sargon, including mentions of Dur-Sharruken, (see letter SAA 01 039). I imagine you are already familiar with these letters and could help me understand how to interpret them. …. At the time I was researching the Tudors: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (DOC) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and my response that same day was admittedly somewhat knee-jerk and hasty, I not taking due cognizance of the mention here of “Dur-Sharruken”. I wrote back: …. These letters are like the El Amarna letters, supposedly addressed to pharaohs, but not mentioning any pharaohs - or even Egypt sometimes. They are addressed to "the king my lord", who could be Shalmaneser, or some other potentate. …. To which the correspondent sensibly replied: …. Thanks for the clarification. It's always nice to talk to you. However, one question remains. If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince, i.e., before 721 B.C. And if he was a prince, don't you think it would be too daring to build it and give it his own name, or even to build a gigantic palace? …. This time around I was a little more circumspect: .... I said, or some other potentate. How do we know that Sennacherib was then Crown Prince? And, that he was actually writing to an Assyrian monarch? …. [End of e-mail exchanges] The intriguing question (for me, at least) now arises: TO WHOM WAS SENNACHERIB WRITING? The Letters There are twelve (12) letters in this “series of letters”: They typically open with the greeting [029]: [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed. Some, though, e.g. [030] do not: "[...... I have] appointed your [major]-domo in [my] palace." Same with [040]. Some thoughts Firstly, I now think it most unlikely that Sennacherib was addressing an Assyrian king. Why then say: “[Assyri]a is well …”? Neither Shalmaneser, nor Sargon (if he were not Sennacherib), would need to be told that! Secondly, with the mention of Dur-Sharruken [-kin] [039], completed in Sargon’s Year 16/17, according to my estimation (thesis, 2007, p. 393), then - presuming that these 12 letters are basically contemporaneous - Shalmaneser becomes irrelevant. Sennacherib, though, does not, if he is (as I believe) Sargon II. My tentative conclusion: Sargon II/Sennacherib was writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s Rab Ekalli

by Damien F. Mackey Tobit, an exile, must have been a person of exceptional competence to have so risen in the kingdom of Assyria to become purveyor, or quartermaster, of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser. “King Shalmaneser” ‘… Tobit of … the tribe of Naphtali, who in the days of Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity …. The Most High gave me favor and good appearance in the sight of Shalmaneser, and I was his buyer of provisions’. Tobit 1:1, 2, 13 According to the Douay version of Tobit 1, the king of Assyria bestowed upon his captive servant Tobit a virtually free roving commission (vv. 14-15): “Shalmaneser the king gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had a mind. He therefore went to all that were in captivity, and gave them wholesome admonitions”. In this article I shall be trying to ascertain two things: WHO WAS THIS ASSYRIAN KING, “SHALMANESER”? WHAT WAS TOBIT’S OFFICIAL STATUS IN THE ASSYRIAN HIERARCHY? “Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians” There are five kings Shalmaneser (Assyrian: Shulmanu-asharedu) according to the conventional arrangement of Middle to Neo Assyrian history, namely: Shalmaneser I (1274 BC – 1245 BC or 1265 BC – 1235 BC); Shalmaneser II (1030–1019 BC); Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC); Shalmaneser IV (783–773 BC); Shalmaneser V (727-722 BC). Chronologically speaking, Shalmaneser so-called V would be the Assyrian king thought to be referred to in the above verses of the Book of Tobit. But I do not think that things are quite that straightforward. And indeed, as I wrote in my article: Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings https://www.academia.edu/14097259/Book_of_Tobit_and_the_Neo-Assyrian_Kings the sequence of Assyrian kings given in the Book of Tobit differs from that of the conventional arrangement: The relevant parts of Tobit, all occurring in chapter 1, are verses 10, 12-13, 15, 21 (GNT): Later, I was taken captive and deported to Assyria, and that is how I came to live in Nineveh. …. Since I took seriously the commands of the Most High God, he made Emperor Shalmaneser respect me, and I was placed in charge of purchasing all the emperor’s supplies. …. When Shalmaneser died, his son Sennacherib succeeded him as emperor. …. 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. …. The royal succession is here clearly given. “Shalmaneser”, who deported Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali (see Tobit 1:1), was succeeded at death by “his son Sennacherib”, who was, in turn, upon his assassination, succeeded by his “son, Esarhaddon”. No room here for a Sargon II. And Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” appears to have replaced Tiglath-pileser III as the Assyrian king who is said in 2 Kings 15:29 to have deported to Assyria the tribe of Naphtali: “… Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria”. [End of quotes] Now, in the case of Shalmaneser alone, my strong suspicion is that by the time that the revision has finished its work, there will be far fewer Assyrian kings Shalmaneser than I-V. And I have already diminished that number in my own revision by shifting Shalmaneser III, so-called, down the time scale by a full century and merging him with the composite: (Tiglath-pileser I =) Tiglath-pileser III = Shalmaneser V. See e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah https://www.academia.edu/58211649/De_coding_Jonah If this chronological shift is a move in the right direction, then it would mean that Tobit’s king, “Shalmaneser”, was, at the very least, the following composite: SHALMANESER III = TIGLATH-PILESER I = TIGLATH-PILESER III = SHALMANESER V Tobit’s Official Status ‘I [Tobit] was [king Shalmaneser’s] buyer of provisions’. Tobit 1:13 Tobit, an exile, must have been a person of exceptional competence to have so risen in the kingdom of Assyria to become purveyor, or quartermaster, of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser. That particular rank in Assyria, termed rab[i] ekalli or rab ša muḫḫi ekalli (“… in Middle Assyrian times the ša muḫḫi ekalli is used synonymously to rab ekalli”: https://www.academia.edu/7640201/2015_Food_and_drink_for_the_palace_the_manageme), may have been a very high one indeed. For, according to this following estimation of the rank: http://ancientpeoples.tumblr.com/post/30101734778/assyrian-rule-of-conquered-territory-the Directly under the king were three officers. The turtannu, or field marshal; the ummânu, vice-chancellor; and the rab ša muḫḫi ekalli, the major-domo. The latter was the most important and the only one with direct access to the king (though the king could of course require the audience of lower ranked men himself); even the field marshal and the vice-chancellor had to go through the major-domo to request a meeting. [End of quote] But Tobit was not the only person of high rank in this most talented family of his (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=d5PXD5saod4C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=tobit+was+king's+quartermaster): The family of Tobit, as we meet them in the Book of Tobit, are exceptional people. Tobit himself becomes procurator general, quartermaster for King Shalmaneser, and is sent on important purchasing expeditions to Media …). His nephew Ahiqar becomes royal cupbearer, in effect the administrator of the entire empire. Their kinsman Gabiel in Media also has an important post there. …. [End of quote] And we could add to this impressive list Tobit’s very own son, Tobias, as Job (see my: Job’s Life and Times https://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times who would, for his part, rise to highest judicial office. One has only to read e.g. Job 29:7-10: ‘When I went to the gate of the city and took my seat in the public square, the young men saw me and stepped aside and the old men rose to their feet; the chief men refrained from speaking and covered their mouths with their hands; the voices of the nobles were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths’. A Geography of Tobit Above we read that “Tobit … is sent on important purchasing expeditions to Media (Persia) ...”, and that his “kinsman Gabiel in Media also has an important post there”. The term “Media”, however, is likely, as has been previously determined, a mistake for “Midian”. See e.g. my article: A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit Tobit tells where his kinsman Gabael (Gabiel) was actually situated (1:14): ‘… 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’. Once the geography is scrutinized (as in the article), Gabael’s city of “Rages” is found to fit very well with the city of Damascus. Now we find that Damascus was indeed, at the time of Shalmaneser so-called III, a place of metalcraft supplying the king with weapons and armoury which he stored in his arsenal of Fort Shalmaneser (southern edge of the city of Kalhu, Nimrud). And we also find that king Shalmaneser’s purveyor, his rabi ekalli, was making a painstaking inventory of it all. Was this rabi ekalli Tobit himself? We read about it in Jørgen Læssøe’s People of Ancient Assyria: Their Inscriptions and Correspondence, p. 112: Heaps of armour made of bronze or of iron-plating, some of it designed to be worn by war-horses, were stored in the magazine indicated on the plan as room S.W.7; this tallies with the function of the fort as a military headquarters. Written receipts from the Assyrian quartermaster, rabi ekalli, were found acknowledging the supply, for instance, of 784 bows from the town of Arpad in Syria, or a delivery of shields from Damascus. The metalcraft of Damascus must have been even then as much renowned as the Damascus blades of more modern times. …. [End of quote]

Monday, February 26, 2024

Nabonassar also called Shalmaneser

by Damien F. Mackey “[Copernicus] seems to identify Nabonassar with the biblical Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, whom, following Eusebius, he calls Salmanassar, king of the Chaldeans”. N. M. Swerdlow, O. Neugebauer Having tradition supply an extra name for a potentate can sometimes serve to change the order of things. Thus, thanks to the Chronicle of John [of] Nikiu (supposedly C7th AD), I learned that Cambyses had the other name of Nebuchednezzar (Nebuchadnezzar), thus enabling me to associate the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses with the mad, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar. See e.g. my six-part series: Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar beginning with: (5) Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, now, the above information opens the door to the possibility that Nabonassar may have been an Assyrian king, “Shalmaneser”. This could be very helpful, because, whilst Nabonassar is now well-known by name: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/nabonassar-e815690 “(Ναβονάσσαρος; Nabonássaros). Graecised form of the Babylonian royal name Nabû-nāṣir. N.'s reign (747-734 BC) is not marked by any spectacular events. His fame is due to the fact that Claudius Ptolemaeus (Cens. 21,9) chose the beginning of the first year of N.'s reign (calculated to 26 February 747 BC) as the epoch for his astronomical calculations (‘Nabonassar Era’; in the ‘Ptolemaic Canon’, a continuous list of the kings ruling over Babylonia until Alexander [4] the Great, then continued by the rulers of Egypt …” he is otherwise quite poorly known, as is apparent from what William W. Hallo wrote (in The Nabonassar Era and other Epochs in Mesopotamian Chronology and Chronography, 1988, p. 189): The numerous innovations thus associated with Nabonassar stand in sharp contrast to the actual circumstances of his reign. Whatever high hopes he may have harbored at its outset, they were very soon dashed on the rocks of hard political reality. We have no royal inscriptions of the fourteen-year reign, and two private inscriptions of the time may be regarded as evidence of the relative strength of private dignitaries and corresponding weakness of the monarchy …. Only three years after Nabonassar’s accession in Babylonia, there occurred that of Tiglatpileser III in Assyria. He was a truly heroic figure, destined to lay the foundations of the neo-Assyrian empire. He too tampered with traditional historiographic conventions, reviving the age-old concept of the bala (in its Akkadian guise of palû) to date and count his annual campaigns, but beginning these with his accession year instead of waiting, like his predecessors, for the first full year of his reign. …. [End of quote] Some queries, and some suggestions, are immediately necessary here, I find. That so apparently innovative and substantially reigning a king, of such a well-documented era as that of the neo-Assyrians, could have left “no royal inscriptions”, can only mean that - as according to my custom - an alter ego for him needs to be identified. And the most obvious candidate for this would be the likewise innovative, and contemporaneous, king, Tiglath-pileser so-called III, who is known to have ruled Babylon - and that under a non-Assyrian name. Especially if Tiglath-pileser was also named - as Nabonassar is said to have been - “Shalmaneser”. And that I have often argued to have been the case, for instance: King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” (8) King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, it was the innovative Tiglath-pileser who had presumably, under his adopted name “Nabonassar”, as ruler of Babylon, inaugurated a new chronological era. Tiglath-pileser was multi-facetted This Tiglath-pileser was too larger-than-life a character for him not to have absorbed various alter egos, apart from Nabonassar. In I Chronicles 5:26, he is also called Pul (or Pulu) in a waw consecutive construction: So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day. And Tiglath-pileser so-called III was also Tiglath-pileser so-called I, according to my reconstructions, such as: Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria (8) Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, with the necessary folding of the Middle Assyrian era of the c. C12th BC into the Neo Assyrian era of the c. C8th BC: Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings (8) Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu as further reinforced by a repetition of Middle and Neo Elamite Shutrukid kings: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (8) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Shalmaneser so-called I must likewise be folded into Neo kings “Shalmaneser”. Was Nabonassar’s Assyrian alter ego an innovator? “Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history of the ancient Near East. He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation, political organisation and communications throughout his vast, subjugated territories. It is not by chance”. Bustanay Oded To find the historical prophet Jonah - and also to fill him out biblically (a task upon which I was able to focus without much distraction during the period of lockdown) - I had to turn upside down, and inside out, the conventional sequence of Assyro-(Babylonian) kings. See e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah (DOC) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Whilst I did not then come to the further conclusion that Nabonassar may have been a powerful Assyrian king who had ruled the city of Babylon, my Assyrian reconstruction around the prophet Jonah has important bearing upon the “Shalmaneser” of whom it was said that he was Nabonassar. Without going back here through all of the complicated details, let me simply summarise the extent of the composite king, Shalmaneser – Tiglath-pileser. My revised neo-Assyrian succession relevant to Jonah is as follows: 1. Adad-Nirari [I-III]; 2. Tiglath-pileser [I-III]/Shalmaneser [I-V]; 3. Tukulti-ninurta [I-II]/Sargon II-Sennacherib; 4. Ashurnasirpal-Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar. According to my Jonah article, the last of these kings, my enlarged king 4., was Jonah 3:6’s repentant “king of Nineveh”. Now, was this Assyrian king [no. 2 above] in any way the inaugurator of a new outlook, or a new era?’ (as would seem to befit Nabonassar) Bill Cooper, who has favoured (my potential Nabonassar) this same king 2. above - in his guise as Tiglath-pileser III - as Jonah’s Ninevite king, has written of this king as if he had indeed inaugurated a new sort of era (which Cooper himself would attribute, mistakenly, I believe, to the Jonah effect). Thus he wrote (“The Historic Jonah”, p. 112): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_105-116.pdf): …. Almost overnight, it seems, the empire underwent a total revival. Where defeat had so recently been staring them in the face, the Assyrians were now enjoying decisive victories. Where there had been economic collapse, there was now available wealth and a reasonable stability. Political turmoil and civil unrest now quietened down. In other words, the disaster-prone empire that Tiglath-pileser III had ‘inherited’ … was almost unrecognisable after the inauguration of his reign. Shortly after he took over the rule of the empire, something dramatic, almost disturbing happened to turn on its head Assyria’s forthcoming and imminent destruction. …. Be that as it may, Tiglath-pileser (so-called III) – {who would also be, in my reconstruction, the enlightened “Shalmaneser” of Tobit 1, Tobit’s royal patron} - is definitely considered by Assyriologists to have inaugurated something of “a new era”. Thus, for example, Bustanay Oded writes (“The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III: Review Article” (Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1/2 (1997), pp. 104-110): “Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history of the ancient Near East. He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation, political organisation and communications throughout his vast, subjugated territories. It is not by chance”. And again, Shigeo Yamada, “The Reign and Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, an Assyrian Empire Builder (744-727 BC)” https://journals.openedition.org/annuaire-cdf/1803 “… it has become fully apparent that [T-P III’s] reign marked the beginning of the imperial phase of Assyria, and that this period of time should be regarded as a watershed in the history of the ancient Near East”.

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Go West, young student of ancient geography!

by Damien F Mackey This article was previously a four-part series entitled: Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology But a veritable historical (chronological) and geographical revolution has occurred since that was written, challenging even the very notion of what was Mesopotamian. As I recall it: A first step was taken by Creationist writers, which was most unexpected considering their strong focus upon the Babel incident, traditionally thought to have occurred in Sumer in southern Mesopotamia – this region long considered to have been the biblical “land of Shinar” (e.g. Genesis 10:10). The thought now, however, was that Shinar was to be located, insteads, in NW Syria, with various differing geographical suggestions being brought forth. This was basically a return to the view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Shinar was to be found NW of Sumer. He believed that it was the same as the ancient kingdom of Hanna in N Syria. A second step: Kenneth Griffith and his colleague, Darrell K. White, who were amongst those favouring a re-location of Shinar, and hence of ancient Babel: An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel (6) An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel | Kenneth Griffith - Academia.edu really ‘hit the scoreboard’, I believe, when they proceeded to identify the Mountain of the Ark’s landing as Karaca Dağ (in SE Turkey): A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb (6) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu apparently the site of first (i.e., post-diluvian) human agriculture (Neolithic). Humanity’s beginnings, post-Flood, were now appropriately being set where we find the world’s oldest sites/cities: Göbekli Tepe; Urfa (Șanliurfa); and Harran. A third step: I, who had been following closely this fascinating shifting of a long-held geography far westwards and northwards, was eventually able to bring forward my own contributions. I had long held – a view also espoused by W.F. Albright – that Magan and Meluḫḫa referred to, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, and were not, as we are told, regions close to Sumer during the Akkadian and Ur III periods (though they later meant Egypt and Ethiopia). On this premise, I re-thought Akkad and Dilmun, and re-located them to the Mediterranean coast, as, respectively, Ugarit (Egyptian IKAT) and Tyre: Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad (6) Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu After that, things would become quite sensational. A fourth step: Sumer and Central Mesopotamia were now to be stripped of some of their (supposedly) most famous locations, which I found to be Judean instead: (Girsu = Jerusalem; Lagash (Lakish)/Eshnunna = Lachish/Ashduddu (Ashdod)): As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (6) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumeria’s standard history and geography now needed to be radically revised: Sumerian History in Chaos (7) Sumerian History in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? (7) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian Geography in Chaos (7) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, as if all this were not enough: A fifth step: (This one actually pre-dated my efforts, but I only learned of it this year, 2023). Royce (Richard) Erickson saw fit to shift certain countries closely associated with Sumer, Elam and Chaldea (and others), far, far to the NW. See my favourable, brief, coverage of his research in my article: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (8) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I strongly recommend for those interested, though, to read Royce Erickson’s article referenced therein. Obviously this necessary (so I think) impoverishing of southern Mesopotamia will significantly colour any future attempts on my part at: Bringing New Order to Mesopotamian History and Chronology Previously I had written: Introduction In 1985, Lester J. Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of history.[1] He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king, Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I. In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamshi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel.[2] I myself have accepted this adjustment (See B. below). Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king (and el-Amarna correspondent), Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon.[3] And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib.[4] Clapham soon decided that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged.[5] For a completely new approach to a revised Sennacherib, see my: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib Whilst all of these attempts at Mesopotamian revision appear to have certain merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Emmet Sweeney’s defence of Professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s most radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact.[6] I myself am proposing that: A. C12TH BC FOLDS INTO C8TH BC Here I want briefly to offer what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that (a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that (b) harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture.[7] And it also has the advantage – unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts – of (c) folding kings with the same name. I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I and II (also equated by Heinsohn[8]), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus J. Brinkman remarked:[9] Four kudurrus …, taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa … show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk …, assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities … cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 …). My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold. But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II. Compare: C12th BC Shutruk-Nahhunte; Kudur-Nahhunte; and Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak) with C8th BC Shutur-Nakhkhunte; Kutir-Nakhkhunte; and Hallushu (or Halutush-Insushinak). This is already too striking, I think, to be accidental, and it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision. There is also lurking within close range a powerful king Tiglath-pileser, variously I and III. Common to Tiglath-pileser I/III were: a love of building (especially in honour of Assur) and hunting, and many conquests, for example: the Aramaeans, with frequent raids across the Euphrates; the Hittites (with the possibility of a common foe, Ini-Tešub); Palestine; to the Mediterranean; the central Zagros tribes; Lake Van, Nairi and Armenia (Urartu); the conquest of Babylon. To name just a few of the many similarities. It seems to me that historians really repeat themselves when discussing these presumably “two” Assyrian “kings”. Consider this amazing case of repetition, as I see it, from Seton Lloyd:[10] The earliest Assyrian references to the Mushki [Phrygians] suggest that their eastward thrust into the Taurus and towards the Euphrates had already become a menace. In about 1100 BC Tiglath-Pileser I defeats a coalition of “five Mushkian kings” and brings back six thousand prisoners. In the ninth century the Mushki are again defeated by Ashurnasirpal II, while Shalmaneser III finds himself in conflict with Tabal …. But when, in the following century, Tiglath-pileser III once more records a confrontation with “five Tabalian kings”, the spelling of their names reveals the fact that these are no sort of Phrygians [sic], but a semiindigenous Luwian-speaking people, who must have survived the fall of the Hittite Empire. I think that we should now be on safe grounds in presuming that the “five Mushkian kings” and the “five Tabalian kings” referred to above by Seton Lloyd as having been defeated by Tiglath-pileser I/III – but presumably separated in time by more than 3 centuries – were in fact the very same five kings. Previously I had written (but must now modify): If this revised scenario is acceptable, then it would absolutely demand that the C10th BC’s two-decade plus ruler of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, be identified with the neo-Assyrian king of similar reign-length, Sennacherib, conqueror of Babylon, whom C. Jonsson claims was actually king of Babylon a year before his becoming king of Assyria.[11] Nebuchednezzar was a noted devotee of the Assyrian god, Adad[12]. It is thought that both Sargon II and Sennacherib (whom I have identified as one) had, somewhat modestly, unlike Tiglath-pileser III, not adopted the title, “King of Babylon”, but only shakkanaku (“viceroy”). We well know, however, that modesty was not an Assyrian characteristic. And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon II/Sennacherib, I believe, that historians have had to create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the Assyrian’s rôle as ‘King of Babylon’. I have since made what I think is a far more satisfactory later connection of Nebuchednezzar I with his namesake Nebuchednezzar [so-called] II, who follows closely Sennacherib in my revised chronology. [1] “A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C&AH, pp. 51-56. [2] “The Dating of Hammurabi”, pp. 13-28. [3] Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952. [4] “Hittites and Phrygians”, C&AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p. 111. [5] Ibid., Addenda, p. 113. [6] “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced”, C&CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12. [7] E.g. Lewis M. Greenberg, “The Lion Gate at Mycenae”, Pensée, IVR III, 1973, p. 28. Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, p. 273. E. Sweeney, Ramessides, Medes and Persians, p. 24. [8] As noted by Mitcham, “Support …”. Heinsohn then goes way too far and equates Merodach-baladan with Lugalzagesi of the time of Sargon of Akkad. [9] A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, p. 87, footnote 456. [10] Ancient Turkey, pp. 68-69. [11] “The Foundations of Assyro-Babylonian Chronology”, C&CR, vol. ix, 1987, p. 23, n. 24. [12] Brinkman, op. cit., p.113. B. C19TH BC FOLDS INTO C11TH BC Now, following the lines of argument as pioneered by Dean Hickman, evidence may favour that certain famous kings of the c. C19th BC need to be radically re-dated and biblically identified. Among these are: 1. Shamshi Adad I, who becomes Hadadezer, the foe of King David of Israel; 2. Ila-kabkabu, who becomes Rekhob, father of Hadadezer. 3. Zimri Lim of Mari, who becomes King Solomon’s Syrian foe Rezon; 4. Iahdunlim, who becomes Eliada, father of Rezon. 5. Yarim Lim of coastal Yamkhad, who becomes Hiram, king of Tyre. We should recognize that the ancient history of these regions is not yet based on a secure chronology. Typically, king lists contain merely names with no indications as to overlapping and time periods. In my estimate there are a few clues which allow for equating certain kings with those from Biblical history where they are known under different names. What I intend to do is bring source material together of three central figures, SHAMSHI ADAD I, ZIMRI LIM AND YARIM LIM. I shall use them as pillars to present a defensible chronology which we shall elaborate on as new information comes in. Shamshi Adad is conventionally dated to about 1815-1782 BC. His name is found in the so-called ‘Assyrian Kinglist’. Shamshi Adad's father was Ila-kabkabu, who was according to all appearances an insignificant local ruler at Assur. From Shamshi Adad we have building inscriptions written in what scholars call ‘Old Babylonian’. But first we quote from the scriptural source since many can follow along these verses in their own copy of this book. Hadadezer was the foe of King David of Israel (2 Samuel 8:1-12): "And ... David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took `Metheg-am-mah' out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. David smote also `Hadadezer', the the son of Rekhob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots: and 700 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen: and David lamed (cut the heel's sinew) all the chariot horses, but saved of them 100 chariots. But when the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians 22,000 men. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David wherever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass. When `Toi', king of Hammath, heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then `Toi' sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass: Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he had subdued; of Syria and Moab, and of all the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah." (2 Samuel 10:6-17 NIV): "When the Ammonites realized that they had become a stench in David's nostrils, they hired 20,000 Aramean soldiers from Beth Rehob and Zobah, as well as the king of Maacah with a 1,000 men, and also 12,000 men from Tob. ... Then Joab and the troops with him advanced to fight the Arameans, and they fled before him. ... After the Arameans saw that they had been routed by Israel, they regrouped. Hadadezer had Arameans brought from beyond the River (Euphrates); they went to Helam, with Shobach the commander of Hadadezer's army leading them. ... When David was told of this he gathered all Israel, crossed the Jordan and went to Helam. The Arameans formed their battle lines to meet David and fought against him. But they fled before Israel, and David killed 700 of their charioteers and 40,000 of their foot soldiers. He also struck down Shobach the commander of the army, and he died there. When all the kings who were vassals of Hadadezer saw that they had been defeated by Israel, they made peace with Israel and became subject to them. So the Arameans were afraid to help the Ammonites anymore". One significant chronological anchor is the information that Shamshi-Adad boasted that he had erected triumphal stelae in Lebanon. He was allied with the princes of upper Syria, notably Carchemish and Qatna. We know from Scripture that Hadadezer liked to set up victory monuments; David defeated him "as he went to set up his monument at the river Euphrates" (1 Chronicles 18:3). Scripture records also that the Syrian was ruler of the kings beyond the river (2 Samuel 10:16, 19), i.e. the Euphrates, as later records from Assyria confirm as well. Hickman thought that "this description resembles that of Shamshi-Adad". Some Confused History Explained Some writers have pointed out that the Biblical narrative first claims that David defeated the Syrians and, two chapters later, when David was campaigning against the Ammonites, the Syrians, he had just defeated, (the author, being a poor scholar, actually makes a defeat into a total wipe out), are now sending troops to help the Ammonites. How can that be? Well, as we learn about the Mesopotamian kings we realize they ruled off and on over a large region and would have had no problem in raising new armies. We learn from the scriptures that Assur was called Zobah in Israel and Shamshi Adad's father was called Rekhob. Shamshi Adad did seem to have controlled the three major city centres of Assur, Nineveh and Erbil. He also set up stone stelae on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. We learn that he had a significant army including siege engines and many chariots but little training to fight a war against an experienced guerrilla warfare tactician like David. His successes against the kings of the north ensured a period of peace which lasted into the time of Solomon. The defeat of Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad marked the eventual weakening of the Assur of his days. Hadadezer had another capital “Shubat-Enlil”, the ‘Residence of Enlil’, located at the source waters of the Khabur River. The ruins of Chagar-Bazar are thought to be that second capital where an administrative archive from the time of Shamshi-Adad/Hadadezer was found. Shamshi/Hadadezer had two sons, Ishme-Dagan sub-king of Ekallatum on the Tigris, and Yasmah-Adad sub-king of Mari. It appears that Yasmah was inferior in his administrative skills to his brother as letters from his father to him show. These letters reveal a father full of anxiety, parental concern sometimes alternating with an ironic approach and even humorous in some cases. Hadadezer/Shamshi was an able administrator who kept a close eye on the affairs in his realm. He castigated officers in his army who were unfair in dividing up the spoils of warfare. Reading the letters we can hear the direct voices of authentic, ancient kings. His influence reached to Carchemish and the shores of the Mediterranean. In ancient times a kingdom was often the product of its founder and largely disappeared with him. The person who took up where Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad left off was Rezon. Rezon I identify as Zimri Lim of Mari who once wrote this historically important Mari letter: "There is no king who can be mighty alone. Behind Hammurabi, the man of Babylon, march 10 to 15 kings; as many march behind Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa, Ipal-piel, the man of Eshnunna, Amut-piel, the man of Qatna, and behind `Yarim Lim', the man of Yahmad, march 20 kings." Of the palace archives of Mari 1,600 letters have been published addressed partly to the palace at Mari or copies of letters sent from the palace. Most of them cover the period from Yasmah Adad, son of Hadadezer/Shamshi Adad to Rezon/Zimri Lim. "And God stirred up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, who fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: And he gathered men unto himself, and became captain over a band, when David slew those of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria." [1 Kings 11:23-25] "To Zimri Lim communicate the following: ‘Thus says your brother Hammurabi [of Yamhad]: The king of Ugarit has written to me as follows: "Show me the palace of Zimri Lim! I wish to see it." With this same courier I am sending on his man.'" "This building is not ... the gem of the Orient, rather one palace on a par with many others." Zimri Lim was a contemporary of king Hammurabi the author of the famous Hammurabi Codex, Book of Laws – Solomonic Laws based on Moses, I believe. Being a contemporary of Solomon, Zimri Lim would thus have been one of all those "kings of the earth" who came to visit King Solomon. Zimri Lim's multi-storied palace at Mari with over 260 rooms is the source of one of the richest sources of written documents anywhere in the Middle East. Famous rooms include the shrine of Ishtar in the palace, the Court of the Palms, the King's Throne Room, the Banquet Hall, and the Royal Apartments but later excavators (Margueron) identified the use of the rooms quite differently from Perrot. In later times it was Hammurabi, the former friend, who conquered Mari and burned the palace. The palace occupied more than 6 acres which were excavated by the French archaeologist A. Perrot in 1933. He viewed the whole complex as belonging to Zimri Lim without considering its longer history. The wall-paintings in the throne room were in five registers depicting scenes from myth, religion, and secular themes. Some wall paintings of men and women represent them as wearing long, colourful robes and headdress, others wear kilt style tunics reaching to the knees or with split cutouts further up the thigh. No foot wear can be seen. Two winged lions with the head of bearded man with headdress are seen as well as a large cow behind the throne of the king. Hammurabi, besides destroying at least parts of the palace, also reconstructed it. The literary form of the Mari letters remind us of the El Amarna letters which were written just some 100 years later. Rulers of equal status address each other as “brother”, “father” and “son” even if they are overlord or vassal. Subordinates to the king call him “lord” and themselves “slaves”. From Mari also comes what has been described as the earliest mention of Canaan - but later now, of course, according to this revision. There we read simply: "Thieves and Canaanites are in Rahisum. We just face each other." C. C24TH BC AKKAD DYNASTY Ramifications for Biblical Studies What ensues from the sort of revision of history that I am pursuing is a fairly complete turnaround of the almost universal tendency by historians and biblical commentators to argue for a dependence of the biblical material upon Mesopotamian, Canaanite and Egyptian myths and influences. With Hammurabi now re-dated to the time of King Solomon, then no longer can his Laws be viewed as a Babylonian forerunner of Mosaïc Law. And, with the age of El Amarna now re-dated to c. C9th BC, no longer can pharaoh Akhnaton’s Sun Hymn, so obviously like King David’s Psalm 104, be regarded as the influence for the great King of Israel. The same comment applies to the Psalm like pieces in the monuments of Queen Hatshepsut, the biblical Queen of Sheba, whose influence was Israel. See e.g. my: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba But, just as conventional historians have wrongly assumed an all-out pagan influencing of biblical Israel, so had I assumed (based on the tendency of the revision) that the Moses-like - as to associated mythology - Sargon of Akkad, conventionally dated to c. 2300 BC, must actually have post-dated Moses. And I had accordingly looked for a much later, revised location for the Akkadian dynasty. However, that apparently futile search was finally stopped short after I had read the following scholarly article by Douglas Petrovich: Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means That would mean that the Akkadian dynasty has been dated to at least within a few centuries of its proper place. My conclusion now would be that the famous Sargon legend (I have taken this from: http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id3.html): “I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was an Enitu priestees, I did not know any father . . . . My mother conceived me and bore me in secret. She put me in a little box made of reeds, sealing its lid with pitch. She put me in the river. . . . The river carried me away and brought me to Akki the drawer of water. Akki the drawer of water adopted me and brought me up as his son. . .”[,] so like the account of Moses in Exodus 2, but thought to have been recorded as late as about the C7th BC, was based upon the biblical Exodus story that would have been recounted in Mesopotamian captivity by people like Tobit and his family, and other Israelites and Jews. So, even though Sargon of Akkad himself, and his dynasty, well pre-dated Moses, the famous written legend about the mighty king of Akkad well post-dated Moses. Taking the Middle out of ‘Middle Assyrian Era’ The so-called ‘Middle Assyrian Period’, thought to range from approximately 1400-900 BC (dates vary) can no longer stand as a separate entity of history, but must - like the so-called ‘Middle Kingdom’ of Egyptian history, partly contemporaneous with Egypt’s ‘Old Kingdom’ - be folded with another era. Assyrian history, for the era of present concern - from El Amarna [EA] to late Tiglath-pileser - is conventionally arranged like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Assyrian_kings Middle Assyrian Period Middle Assyrian Period King name Reigned[18][19][20] Notes[14][15] Eriba-Adad I c. 1380–1353 BC (short) "son of Ashur-bel-nisheshu" Ashur-uballit I c. 1353–1318 BC (short) "son of Eriba-Adad (I)" Enlil-nirari c. 1317–1308 BC (short) "son of Ashur-uballit" Arik-den-ili c. 1307–1296 BC (short) "son of Enlil-nirari" Adad-nirari I c. 1295–1264 BC (short) "son of Arik-den-ili" Shalmaneser I c. 1263–1234 BC (short) "son of Adad-nirari (I)" Tukulti-Ninurta I c. 1233–1197 BC (short) "son of Shalmaneser (I)" Ashur-nadin-apli c. 1196–1194 BC (short) "during the lifetime of Tukulti-ninurta (I), Ashur-nadin-apli, his son, seized the throne" Ashur-nirari III c. 1193–1188 BC (short) "son of Ashur-nadin-apli" Enlil-kudurri-usur c. 1187–1183 BC (short) "son of Tukulti-Ninurta (I)" Ninurta-apal-Ekur c. 1182–1180 BC (short) "son of Ila-Hadda, a descendant of Eriba-Adad (I), went to Karduniash. He came up from Karduniash (and) seized the throne." Beginning with Ashur-Dan I, dates are consistent and not subject to middle/short chronology distinctions. Ashur-Dan I c. 1179–1133 BC "son of Ashur-nadin-apli" Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur c. 1133 BC "son of Ashur-dan (I), briefly" Mutakkil-nusku c. 1133 BC "his (Ninurta-tukulti-Ashur's) brother, fought him and took him to Karduniash. Mutakkil-Nusku held the throne briefly, then died." Ashur-resh-ishi I c. 1133–1115 BC "son of Mutakkil-Nusku" Tiglath-Pileser I c. 1115–1076 BC "son of Ashur-resh-ishi (I)" Asharid-apal-Ekur c. 1076–1074 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I)" Ashur-bel-kala c. 1074–1056 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I)" Eriba-Adad II c. 1056–1054 BC "son of Ashur-bel-kala" Shamshi-Adad IV c. 1054–1050 BC "son of Tiglath-pileser (I), came up from Karduniash. He ousted Eriba-Adad (II), son of Ashur-bel-kala, (and) seized the throne" Ashur-nasir-pal I c. 1050–1031 BC "son of Shamshi-Adad (IV)" Shalmaneser II c. 1031–1019 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (I)" Ashur-nirari IV c. 1019–1013 BC "son of Shalmaneser (II)" Ashur-rabi II c. 1013–972 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (I)" Ashur-resh-ishi II c. 972–967 BC "son of Ashur-rabi (II)" Tiglath-Pileser II c. 967–935 BC "son of Ashur-resh-ishi (II)" Ashur-Dan II c. 935–912 BC "son of Tiglath-Pileser (II)" Neo-Assyrian Period Neo-Assyrian Period King name Reigned[21][22][23] Notes[14][15] Adad-nirari II 912–891 BC "son of Ashur-Dan (II)" Tukulti-Ninurta II 891–884 BC "son of Adad-nirari (II)" Ashur-nasir-pal II 884–859 BC "son of Tukulti-Ninurta (II)" Shalmaneser III 859–824 BC "son of Ashur-nasir-pal (II)" Shamshi-Adad V 824–811 BC "son of Shalmaneser (III)" Shammu-ramat, regent, 811–808 BC Adad-nirari III 811–783 BC "son of Shamshi-Adad (V)" Shalmaneser IV 783–773 BC "son of Adad-nirari (III)" Ashur-Dan III 773–755 BC "son of Shalmaneser (IV)"; solar eclipse 763 BC[7] Ashur-nirari V 755–745 BC "son of Adad-nirari (III)" Tiglath-Pileser III 745–727 BC "son of Ashur-nirari (V)" Shalmaneser V 727–722 BC "son of Tiglath-Pileser (III)" That is a lot of kings - and they supposedly span more than six centuries. But now, with the second listed king, Assuruballit, Ashur-uballit I c. 1353–1318 BC re-dated from the mid-C14th BC to the mid-C9th BC, we all of a sudden have five centuries less with which to manoeuvre. Many of these kings, though, I believe, are duplicates. And other listed names might refer to powerful officials and generals rather than actual kings. For, did not that neo-Assyrian ‘Great King’, Sennacherib, boast (Isaiah 10:8): ‘ARE NOT MY COMMANDERS [PRINCES, OFFICIALS] ALL KINGS?’? We need to discern a dynastic pattern for the above-listed Assyrian kings in order for us to be able to corral these manifold names into the much reduced time space, now, of approximately one and a half centuries. Continuing the compression of those oppressive Assyrian kings. John R. Salverda, commenting on my identification of the conventional Tiglath-pileser I with Tiglath-pileser III, in my article: Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria https://www.academia.edu/9293293/Tiglath-pileser_King_of_Assyria wrote this: “You may just as well throw in Tiglath-pileser II as well. He was the son of another Ashur-resh-ishi (II), the contemporary of another Jeroboam (I) and the father of another Ashur-Dan (II)”. According to the conventional arrangement of the Assyrian king lists, the kings Shalmaneser (I-V) span a period from approximately C13th BC-C8th BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser • Shalmaneser I King of Assyria (1274–1245 BC) • Shalmaneser II, King of Assyria (1031–1019 BC) • Shalmaneser III, King of Assyria (859–824 BC) • Shalmaneser IV, King of Assyria (783–773 BC) • Shalmaneser V, King of Assyria (727–722 BC) and Biblical conqueror of Israel whilst the kings Tiglath-pileser (I-III) span a period from approximately C12th BC-C8th BC: • Tiglath-Pileser I was a king of Assyria (1114–1076 BC) • Tiglath-Pileser II was King of Assyria (965-932 BC) • Tiglath-Pileser III was a King of Assyria (745–727 BC) However, according to my revision so far, four of these supposedly individual kings merge into just the one Assyrian king, whose reign ceases at the approximate time of the Fall of Samaria (c. 722 BC, conventional dating), when Sargon II comes to the throne. Thus I have concluded: Tiglath-pileser I = Tiglath-pileser III = Shalmaneser III = Shalmaneser V As an approximation, working backwards from 722 BC, and taking the longest reign, the 38 years for Tiglath-pileser I, we arrive at the possible span of (722 + 38 =) 760, 760-722 BC for our composite king Shalmaneser/Tiglath-pileser. That would mean that, in biblical terms, the long reign of this Assyrian monarch would have spanned back from the Fall of Samaria all the way to the late reign of king Jeroboam II of Israel (William F. Albright has dated his reign to 786–746 BC, while E. R. Thiele says he was coregent with Jehoash 793 to 782 BC and sole ruler 782 to 753 BC.[1]). If this present new arrangement is truly on the right track, then John R. Salverda’s view that Tiglath-pileser II must also be merged with our composite king is looking most likely indeed. And what of the remaining kings Shalmaneser, I, II and IV?

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

by Damien F. Mackey An Occam’s Razor approach may be needed in the case of Khaemwaset, a son of Ramses II, because the history books (e.g. N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994) give us also a Khaemwaset II, son of Ramses III. And, since Ramses III folds so seamlessly into Ramses II: Ramses II, Ramses III. Part One: Some ‘ramifying’ similarities https://www.academia.edu/37461306/Ramses_II_Ramses_III_Part_One_Some_ramifying_similarities and: New Revision for Ramses II. Part Two: Ramses III was not emulating Ramses II https://www.academia.edu/38165672/New_Revision_for_Ramses_II_Part_Two_Ramses_III_was_not_emulating_Ramses_II then Khaemwaset I must be Khaemwaset so-called II. N. Grimal, bound as he is by the conventional chronology, could have no possible thought of linking together any (or all) of these princes-(pharaoh) Khaemwaset, considering that: Ramses II is dated by him to 1279-1212 BC; Ramses III is dated by him to 1186-1154 BC; According to Grimal’s scheme of things, these three entities are too well spread, chronologically and dynastically, with, so it is thought: Khaemwaset I belonging to Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty; Khaemwaset II belonging to Egypt’s Twentieth Dynasty; My radical scheme of revision, on the other hand, makes such a seemingly impossible link-up look highly probable. Khaemwaset I and II, already connected, can also be contemporaneous with Egypt’s Twenty-Fifth (Ethiopian) Dynasty, considering my view that this dynasty was essentially the Nineteenth Dynasty, that Ramses II/III was Piankhy/Tirhakah. All in all, one mighty pharaoh with one very significant son, Khaemwaset. More Khaemwaset Not listed by Grimal in his Index, but featuring on p. 289 of his book, is yet another important Khaemwaset, “the vizier Khaemwaset, governor of Thebes” during the later phase of the Twentieth Dynasty, officiating in “the sixteenth year of Ramesses IX’s reign”. Another pharaoh Ramses, another Khaemwaset, and, one would think, another duplication. Khaemwaset, a man of culture Khaemwaset, the son of Ramses II, showed great respect for Egypt’s past. Grimal tells of this on p. 72: “The tomb of [pharaoh] Kawab, one of the earliest in the Giza necropolis … his memory was still maintained up to the time of Ramesses II, at least, for Ramesses’ son Khaemwaset is known to have restored a statue of Kawab in the temple of Memphis”. And again, on p. 80: “… northern Saqqara … Wenis funerary complex (restored by Prince Khaemwaset in the reign of Ramesses II) …”. On pp. 267-268, Grimal will even refer to Khaemwaset as “the prince-archaeologist”: … Khaemwaset, the prince-archaeologist and restorer of the Memphite monuments. The cultured Khaemwaset had been linked with the worship of Ptah since the fifteenth year of his father’s reign, first as a sem priest then as Chief Priest, and it was in this office that he celebrated the first nine jubilees of his father. Khaemwaset died in the fifty-fifth year of Ramesses’ reign. …. P. 356: “In the fifty-second year of his reign Psammetichus [I] enlarged the Serapeum at Saqqara … rediscovery of Lesser Vaults created at the time of Ramesses II by Prince Khaemwaset”. Pharaoh Shebitku, contemporary of Sargon II of Assyria, also had the name of Khaemwaset. Khaemwaset Shebitku likewise built at Memphis (p. 346), “… Memphis, Luxor and Karnak”. And he was very Ramesside like: He revived [sic] the great Ramessid themes, adopting Khaemwaset (‘Crowned in Thebes’) as his Horus name …. This apparent return to the imperial values of the Ramessid period can doubtless be explained by a renewed desire to affirm royal power both inside and outside Egypt. Could it not the better “be explained” by this was “the Ramessid period”? The Tang-i Var inscription tells of this Shebitku handing over the fugitive rebel from Ashdod (i.e., Lachish), [Iatna-] Iamani, to the Assyrian king Sargon II, this incident known to have occurred during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah. I had previously written on all of this: The Tang-i Var inscription dated to Sargon II’s Year 15 (c. 707 BC), according to which Shebitku - not Shabaka as was long thought - was the 25th dynasty pharaoh who had dispatched the rebel Iatna-Iamani in chains to Sargon II, has brought new confusion. Here is the pertinent section of this document (Wikipedia’s “Shebitku”): … I (… Sargon) plundered the city of Ashdod, Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and …. he fled to the region of the land of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (lit. like a thief) …. Shapataku’ (Shabatka) king of … Meluhha … put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs … he had him brought captive into my presence …. This means that Shebitku (and Tirhakah) must now be re-located upwards by at least a decade in relation to Sargon II. Perhaps nowhere does the conventional separation of Sargon II from Sennacherib show up as in this case. Yet even revisionist Rohl, as late as 2002, was ignoring the Tang-i Var evidence, dating Tirhakah’s first appearance, at the battle of Eltekeh, to 702 BC, an incredible “thirty-one years earlier” than his actual rule of 690-665 BC, which is, however, about two decades too late. Thus he wrote: For five years the new king of Napata (ruling from Kush) had reigned in co-operation with his cousin Shabataka [Shebitku], king of Egypt (son of Shabaka). Then Taharka [Tirhakah] became sole 25th Dynasty ruler of both Kush and Egypt in his sixth regnal year following the death of Shabataka in 684 BC. There were other Libyan pharaohs in Egypt (such as Shoshenk V of Tanis and Rudamun of Thebes) but they were all subservient to the Kushite king. The year 684 BC is far too late for the beginning of Tirhakah’s sole rule in relation to Shebitku and his known connection with Sargon II’s 15th year! And that is by no means the only problem with the current arrangement of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. In fact there appears to be a significant problem in the case of virtually each one of its major kings. Regarding its first (according to convention) major ruler, Piye, for instance, Gardiner has written: It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn. And whilst, according to Herodotus, Shabaka (his Sabacos) reigned for some 50 years, he has been reduced by the Egyptologists to a mere 15-year reign. Furthermore: “The absence of the names of Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended their sway”.