Defusing the problematical Shalmaneser

by Damien F. Mackey But the fact was that Shalmaneser was nowhere to be found in the El Amarna archive, at least under that Assyrian name. Instead, the king of Assyria in El Amarna was one “Ashuruballit”. Introduction For those faithfully following the revision of history as set out by the insightful scholar, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in Ages in Chaos (I, 1952), especially back in the late 1970’s, a seemingly impenetrable obstacle loomed for them with regard to the re-location of the El-Amarna (EA) history from the c. C14th BC, where the history books situated it, to the mid-C9th BC, where Dr. Velikovsky had re-set it. The obstacle was the great Assyrian king, SHALMANESER III. For, if EA belonged to the mid-C9th BC, then one ought to encounter there the long-reigning Shalmaneser III, who straddled this era (c. 860-825 BC, conventional dating). But the fact was that Shalmaneser was nowhere to be found in the EA archive, at least under that Assyrian name. Instead, the king of Assyria in EA was one “Ashuruballit” [Assuruballit]. This quickly became recognised as a major issue for the validity of the revision, earning the title, The Assuruballit Problem (or TAP). Dr. Velikovsky, with typical ingenuity, tried to get around the problem by suggesting an identification of Shalmaneser with EA’s powerful king of Babylon (Karduniash), “Burnaburiash” [Burraburiash]. Whilst that appeared to have some potential, his other suggestion did not. He, finding the name Shalmaiati in the EA letters, thought that this must refer to Shalmaneser. But Shalmaiati has been recognised as a contemporary Egyptian princess, Meritaten. All sorts of ingenious alternative solutions were subsequently proposed by revisionists. But all of these seemed to arrive at dead ends. For a much fuller account of TAP and things associated with it, see e.g. my article: El Amarna archive’s Lab’ayu as King Ahab, Baalat-Neše as Jezebel (DOC) El Amarna archive’s Lab’ayu as King Ahab, Baalat-Neše as Jezebel * * * * * How was the seemingly impossible going to occur, to save the Velikovskian revision from the highly problematical Shalmaneser? The first really positive step in the right direction, which excited my interest, at least, was Emmet Sweeney’s proposal that EA’s Ashuruballit was the great Assyrian king, Ashurnasirpal, and that the latter’s presumed son, Shalmaneser, was to be taken out of the EA era, thereby completely erasing a major problem. Following on from this, I began working on a reconstruction which removed Shalmaneser right out of the EA era, but going even further than had Emmet Sweeney. My simple solution: Shalmaneser so-called III must be conveyed right down to the time of the Assyrian invasions of Samaria (late C8th BC) and be merged with the somewhat poorly known Shalmaneser V, who had commenced the actual siege of Samaria. This facile solution, whilst perhaps getting to the nub of TAP, by taking Shalmaneser right out of the EA era, still leaves other tricky problems in its wake: - Who, then, is Ashuruballit? - What happens to Ashurnasirpal, whom Emmet Sweeney had identified as Ashuruballit? - How can the long-reigning Shalmaneser III now become the same king as the short-reigning Shalmaneser V? - Shalmaneser III’s long reign must now also impinge on that of the great Tiglath-pileser III, presumed predecessor of Shalmaneser V. Leaving Ashuruballit aside, since I want to focus solely in this article on Shalmaneser - who I now have ruling Assyria a good century after EA and Ashuruballit - I shall endeavour to answer the last three questions posed above. Ashurnasirpal - What happens to Ashurnasirpal, whom Emmet Sweeney had identified as Ashuruballit? If Shalmaneser is to be moved down the time scale by about a century, then his predecessor, Ashurnasirpal, must likewise be moved down, and be properly fitted in. Well, my answer to this problem is as surprising and radical as was that which I have given for Shalmaneser. I do not follow the conventional history in having Shalmaneser follow on directly from Ashurnasirpal, who I have, instead, coming two reigns after Shalmaneser. In such fashion, Ashurnasirpal so called II, too, is to be taken well away from EA – even further away from there than is Shalmaneser. Here is how I explained my move right away from the conventional Assyrian listing in: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (4) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences and my justification for doing so: …. 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] So, now, in this new system of revision, Shalmaneser no longer directly follows Ashurnasirpal as his son and successor, but he, instead, precedes Ashurnasirpal with another Assyrian king in between them. This dramatic turn of events renders Ashurnasirpal - as with Ashuruballit - somewhat irrelevant for our primary focus here on Shalmaneser. But for those who may be interested to read how the mighty Ashurnasirpal is now to be fitted into a revised scheme of things, they will find it all set out in e.g. my article: Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ (4) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ Before we can proceed to answer the last two questions posed earlier, a complication has to be dealt with. For it does significantly affect Shalmaneser. Historical Folding In the brief discussion of the Assyrian king lists above I referred to “… Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era …”. The implication of identifying Shalmaneser I of the first list as Shalmaneser III of the second list is that the C13th era of Shalmaneser I (c. 1275-1245 BC) now has to be folded into the C8th BC era of Shalmaneser III (thereby cutting out any Shalmaneser II). In my university thesis (2007), I gave some compelling examples of how the two approximate eras must be folded together; none perhaps more striking than the C12th – C8th BC (Shutrukid) Elamites: C12th BC C8th BC Shutruk-Nahhunte Shutur-Nakhkhunte Kudur-Nahhunte Kutir-Nakhkhunte Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak) ‘Hallushu’ (or Halutush-Inshushinak). To have a Shalmaneser I, one needs there to be at least one other Shalmaneser. Thus in my article: Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early (4) Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria, dated some 500 years too early I went so far as to conclude: “This raises the intriguing question, was there actually a Shalmaneser I at all?, because, to be numbered as I (as some do wrongly with the current pope Francis), there has firstly to be a II of that same name, and so on”. So far we have all of I-III merged into just the one Shalmaneser. And I think that we can easily include IV here, since that king appears to have been confused with so-called V: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/all-men-bible/Shalmaneser “… Shalmaneser IV who succeeded Tiglath-pileser and who invaded Israel and carried off Hoshea and the ten tribes to Assyria (2 Kings 17:3; 18:9)”. Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V The last two questions: - How can the long-reigning Shalmaneser III now become the same king as the short-reigning Shalmaneser V? and - Shalmaneser III’s long reign must now also impinge on that of the great Tiglath-pileser III, presumed predecessor of Shalmaneser V. I have answered together, both in my thesis (2007) and in my article: Important lapse of ‘many years’ in Tobit, in Acts (4) Important lapse of 'many years' in Tobit, in Acts “But after a long time, Salmanasar [Shalamneser] the king being dead, … Sennacherib his son, who reigned in his place, had a hatred for the children of Israel”. Tobit 1:18 … This attested lapse of a long time opens up the door for a possible extension of the reign of the conventionally brief Shalmaneser [V], c. 727-722 BC, and for the conventionally brief procurator, Felix, c. 52-60 AD. The Vulgate Tobit 1:18 employs, in the case of Shalmaneser, the Latin phrase, post multum vero temporis (“after a long time”), and the Greek Acts 24:10 employs, in the case of Felix, the phrase, Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν (“for many years”). King Shalmaneser Whereas the conventional history has Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V as separate Assyrian kings, my own view, as outlined in my university thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf is that Shalmaneser was Tiglath-pileser. In Volume One, Chapter 6, I wrote the following brief section on this, in which I took a lead from the Book of Tobit regarding the neo-Assyrian succession: Shalmaneser V (c. 726-722 BC, conventional dates) Looking at the conventional date for the death of Tiglath-pileser III, c. 727 BC, we can see that it coincides with the biblically-estimated date for the first year of king Hezekiah. But, if the former is to be identified with Shalmaneser V, thought to have reigned for five years, then this date would need to be lowered by about those five years (right to the time of the fall of Samaria), bringing Tiglath-pileser III deeper into the reign of Hezekiah. Now, that Tiglath-pileser III is to be equated with Shalmaneser V would seem to be deducible from a combination of two pieces of evidence from [the Book of Tobit]: namely, 1. that it was “King Shalmaneser of the Assyrians” who took Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali into captivity (1:1, 2); a deportation generally attributed to Tiglath-pileser III on the basis of 2 Kings 15:29; and 2. that: “when Shalmaneser died … his son Sennacherib reigned in his place” (1:15). Unfortunately, very little is known of the reign of this ‘Shalmaneser’ [V] to supplement [the Book of Tobit]. According to Roux, for instance: “The short reign of … Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.) is obscure”. And Boutflower has written similarly: “The reign of Shalmaneser V (727-722) is a blank in the Assyrian records”. It seems rather strange, though, that a king who was powerful enough to have enforced a three year siege of Israel’s capital of Samaria (probably the Sha-ma-ra-in of the Babylonian Chronicle), resulting in the successful sack of that city, and to have invaded all Phoenicia and even to have besieged the mighty Tyre for five years, and to have earned a hateful reputation amongst the Sargonids, should end up “a blank” and “obscure” in the Assyrian records. The name Tiglath-pileser was a throne name, as Sargon appears to have been – that is, a name given to (or taken by) the king on his accession to the throne. In Assyrian cuneiform, his name is Tukulti-apil-ešarra, meaning: “My confidence is the son of Esharra”. This being a throne name would make it likely that the king also had a personal name - just as I have argued above that Sargon II had the personal name of Sennacherib. The personal name of Tiglath-pileser III I believe to have been Shalmaneser. A problem though with my proposed identification of Shalmaneser V with Tiglath-pileser III is that, according to Boutflower, there has been discovered “a treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal of Tyre, in which Shalmaneser is expressly styled the son of Tiglath-pileser”. Boutflower makes reference here to H. Winckler (in Eberhard Schrader’s Keilinschriften, 3rd Edn. pt. I, p. 62, note 2); Winckler being the Assyriologist, we might recall, who had with Delitzsch spirited Sargon’s name into Eponym Cb6 and whose edition of Sargon’s Annals had disappointed Luckenbill. So far, I have not been able to find any solid evidence for this document. Boutflower had surmised, on the basis of a flimsy record, that Tiglath-pileser III had died in battle and had been succeeded by Shalmaneser: “That Tiglathpileser died in battle is rendered probable by the entry in the Assyrian Chronicle for the year 727 B.C. [sic]: “Against the city of …. Shalmaneser seated himself on the throne”.” Tiglath-pileser is not even mentioned. A co-regency between Shalmaneser V and Sargon II can be proposed on the basis that the capture of Samaria is variously attributed to either king. According to my revision, that same co-regency should exist between Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon; and indeed we find that both Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon campaigned on the borders of Egypt; both defeated Hanno the king of Gaza, and established (opened) there a karu “quay”; both received tribute from Queen Tsamsi of Arabia; both had encounters with Merodach-baladan. Further, according to my revision, that proposed co-regency can be extended to accommodate Sennacherib (as Sargon). Perhaps a clear proof is that, whilst Sennacherib claimed that the Medes had not submitted to any of his predecessor kings (see p. 153), both Tiglath-pileser and Sargon claimed to have received tribute from the Medes. Interestingly, nowhere in Kings, Chronicles, or in any other of the books traditionally called ‘historical’, do we encounter the name ‘Sargon’. Yet we should expect mention of him if his armies really had made an incursion as close to Jerusalem as ‘Ashdod’ (be it in Philistia or Judah). Certainly, Sargon II claimed that Judah (Iaudi), Philistia (Piliste), Edom and Moab, had revolted against him. If the Assyrian king, Sargon II, can have two different names – as is being agued here – then so might his father. So I conclude that 2 Kings, in the space of 2 chapters, gives us three names for the one Assyrian king: - 15:19: “King Pul of Assyria came against the land ...”. - 15:29: “King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured …”. - 17:3: “King Shalmaneser of Assyria came up”. …. (iv) [Book of Tobit] [The Book of Tobit], like [the Book of Judith], was a popular and much copied document. The incidents described in [Book of Tobit] are written down as having occurred during the successive reigns of ‘Shalmaneser’, ‘Sennacherib’ and ‘Esarhaddon’. No mention at all there of Sargon, not even as father of Sennacherib. Instead, we read: “But when Shalmaneser died, and his son Sennacherib reigned in his place ...” (1:15). Moreover this ‘Shalmaneser’, given as father of Sennacherib, is also - as we saw - referred to as the Assyrian king who had taken into captivity Tobit’s tribe of Naphtali (vv. 1-2); a deed generally attributed to Tiglath-pileser III and conventionally dated about a decade before the reign of Sargon II. This would seem to strengthen my suspicion that Shalmaneser V was actually Tiglath-pileser III, despite Boutflower’s claim of a treaty document specifically styling Shalmaneser as son of Tiglath-pileser III. A Summarising and Concluding Note The neo-Assyrian chronology as it currently stands seems to be, like the Sothic chronology of Egypt - though on a far smaller scale - over-extended and thus causing a stretching of contemporaneous reigns, such as those of Merodach baladan II of Babylonia, Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’ and Deioces of Media. There are reasons nonetheless, seemingly based upon solid primary evidence, for believing that the conventional historians have got it right and that their version of the neo-Assyrian succession is basically the correct one. However, much of the primary data is broken and damaged, necessitating heavy bracketting. On at least one significant occasion, the name of a king has been added into a gap based on a preconception. Who is to say that this has not happened more than once? Esarhaddon’s history … is so meagre that recourse must be had to his Display Inscriptions, thereby leaving the door open for “errors” according to Olmstead. With the compilers of the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology having mistaken one king for two, as I am arguing to have occurred in the case of Sargon II/Sennacherib, and probably also with Tiglath-pileser III/Shalmaneser V, then one ends up with duplicated situations, seemingly unfinished scenarios, and of course anomalous or anachronistic events. Thus, great conquests are claimed for Shalmaneser V whose records are virtually a “blank”. Sargon II is found to have been involved in the affairs of a Cushite king who is well outside Sargon’s chronological range; while Sennacherib is found to be ‘interfering’ in events well within the reign of Sargon II, necessitating a truncation of Sargon’s effective reign in order to allow Sennacherib to step in early, e.g. in 714 BC, “the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah” (2 Kings 18:13; Isaiah 36:1), and in 713 BC (tribute from Azuri of ‘Ashdod’). [End of quote] If the reign of Shalmaneser so-called III did not span the mid-C9th BC as the text books say it did, then one will need to question the series of supposed biblical connections from this era with the Assyrian king: e.g. Ahab and Ben-Hadad at Qarqar, which some greatly doubt anyway (https://theopolisinstitute.com/chronologies-and-kings-part-8-ahab-and-assyria/), and Jehu of Israel in the Black Obelisk.

Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

by Damien F. Mackey “Just as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind”. Nigel Bernard The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel. And I have long known that, thanks to some worthwhile comparisons made by other writers, Ezekiel has likenesses as well to young Elihu of the Book of Job. I shall point out a few of these here without, however, taking the further step of equating Ezekiel with Elihu. Ezekiel’s contemporary Elihu, who must have been - according to my reconstructions of the life of the righteous Job - a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel, is found to have “similarities” with that prophet. According to my reconstructions of the life and times of Job (as Tobias, son of Tobit) such as: Job’s Life and Times (3) Job’s Life and Times Job’s long life during the neo-Assyrian era took him at least as far as the destruction of Nineveh (c. 612 BC, conventional dating). This would mean that Elihu, a young man when Job was already old, had lived during the Chaldean era. And the Chaldean era was, of course, the very era during which the prophet Ezekiel had lived and prophesied. Did not Ezekiel twice refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)? Nigel Bernard has provided some intriguing comparisons between Elihu and Ezekiel (http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/apr2010/bernard.pdf) There are several similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel. Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting for seven days; not speaking; and rebuking elders even though they themselves were much younger. IN LAST MONTH’S article we considered Elihu and Elijah. In this second article we consider Elihu and Ezekiel. As in the previous study, a whirlwind plays an important role. Whirlwind In the opening chapter of Ezekiel we read of a whirlwind: "And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (v. 4). Just as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind. In Job the whirlwind provided a demonstration of power out of which God spoke. The whirlwind in Ezekiel is spoken of in more detail, and from it emerge the cherubim. Sat seven days When Job’s friends came to him (and we know that Elihu was also there) we read, "So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day" (2:13; 3:1). Likewise, Ezekiel spent a period of seven days simply sitting with a group of people, apparently saying nothing—at least, not words from God: "Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar, and I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them seven days. And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came unto me, saying . . ." (Ezek. 3:15,16). In Job 21:5 Job says, "Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand upon your mouth". Ezekiel later follows in the spirit of Job’s request, being "astonished", and effectively having his hand upon his mouth. Yet, in the case of Job, all the time Elihu was indeed laying his hand upon his mouth, no doubt humble enough to be astonished too. Dumb As we read the speeches of Job and his three friends, the presence of Elihu can be felt. We know that he is there listening, but he restrains himself from speaking: "And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion" (32:6). He was voluntarily dumb, a dumbness out of respect and fear for his elders, on the basis that "Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom" (v. 7). Ezekiel was also to be silent, speaking only when God caused him to speak. But his silence, unlike Elihu’s, was miraculously enforced, for he was made dumb: "and I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover: for they are a rebellious house. But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house" (Ezek. 3:26,27). Ezekiel was made dumb because the house of Israel were rebellious. In contrast, after Elihu and God had spoken, Job showed humility towards God and repented "in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). Elders As we have seen, Elihu says to Job’s friends, "I am young, and ye are very old". This theme of a younger person rebuking elders is also echoed in Ezekiel. Assuming that it is his age which is being spoken of, Ezekiel tells us that it was in his "thirtieth year" that he saw "visions of God" (1:1). At his comparatively young age he had to deal on more than one occasion with the elders of Israel, as the following verses show: "And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD [Yahweh] fell there upon me" (8:1); "Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me" (14:1); "And it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, the tenth day of the month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to enquire of the LORD [Yahweh], and sat before me" (20:1); "Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; Are ye come to enquire of Me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh], I will not be enquired of by you" (v. 3). In the case of both the friends of Job and the elders of Judah, old age proved to be no guarantee of wisdom or obedience. Their rebuke by younger men only served to heighten their folly. Priest and ancestry [Mackey’s comment: In the following section, Bernard, whilst continuing to find similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel, will distinguish between “Ezekiel … the priest” and “Elihu … not a priest”. Whether or not Elihu was a priest has yet, I think, to be determined]. Ezekiel is described as "the priest, the son of Buzi". That he was both a priest and the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu. Malachi wrote that "the priest’s lips should keep knowledge" (2:7). Although not a priest, Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, "my lips shall utter knowledge clearly" (Job 33:3). Elihu is said to be "the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram" (32:2). That Elihu was a Buzite could mean that he was a descendant of Buz, the son of Nahor (see Gen. 22:20,21), and/or he lived in a territory called Buz. According to Strong, "Buzi" in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as "Buzite" in Job 32:2. This is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between these two men. Other links There are other significant connections between the book of Job and Ezekiel, which, although not relating directly to Elihu, form an important background to the links we have seen. For example, some aspects of the cherubim reflect the words used by God of creation in His speech to Job. God asks Job, "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). In Ezekiel it is said of the cherubim, "and out of the fire went forth lightning" (1:13). God also asks Job, "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?" (Job 39:26). The Hebrew word for "hawk" is related to the word translated "sparkled" in Ezekiel 1:7, where it is stated that the feet of the cherubim "sparkled like the colour of burnished brass". As the hawk flew swiftly south, it did so with a flashing brilliance, sparkling against the sun. As such, as the cherubim came sparkling from the north, it was like the hawk flying toward the south. The Hebrew word Shaddai occurs forty-eight times in the Bible and is always translated ‘Almighty’. It is a key word in Job, occurring thirty-one times. It is used only four times in all of the prophets: once in Isaiah, once in Joel, and twice in Ezekiel. It is significant that a key word in Job, so rare in the prophets, should occur twice in Ezekiel. Of course, Job is actually mentioned in Ezekiel: "… though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]" (14:14). Furthermore, the phrase "these three men" is itself taken, ironically, from the book of Job, ironic because here it refers to the three friends of Job, who were delivered as a consequence of the prayer of Job: "So these three men ceased to answer Job . . ." (32:1). [Mackey’s comment: How fascinating! Bernard is perfectly correct here. The exact same Hebrew phrase (שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה), “these three men”, is found in both Ezekiel 14:14 and Job 32:1]. Conclusion As we have seen in this and the previous article, there are several connections between Elihu and the two prophets Elijah and Ezekiel. As well as helping us to understand the work of Elijah and Ezekiel, these comparisons also help us to see Elihu in a new light, supporting the view, in my opinion, that Elihu’s speech was vital for preparing the mind of Job for when God would speak to him. [End of quotes] Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries, both of whom referred to Job (Elihu addressed Job), Buzites, they experienced similar awesome theophanies, and were filled with God’s spirit. Continuing firstly with the view that Elihu, far from being a pompous young upstart, was an inspired messenger of God, let us consider what Mark Block wrote about him (4th February, 2013 – full reference no longer available), in his section, “Reasons to Accept Elihu’s Speech”: Many Bible interpreters disavow what Elihu has to say in the Book of Job. Below I will give a few reasons why I believe his speech to Job is true and is good theology. 1) God never rebukes Elihu. After God has finished speaking, He states that His wrath is upon the three other friends that gave counsel to Job. God does not include Elihu into the group of people who have not spoken rightly. (Job 42:7) 2) There is a break in the text to introduce him. The words of Elihu in Job 32:1-3 are not continuing what the other three friends have said, but stating something new. There is a break in the text that introduces something new. Elihu should not get lumped into the group of the other three friends with bad theology. 3) Six chapters are given to Elihu in the Book of Job. The writer of this Book devotes six chapters to Elihu. With much space given to Elihu, surely there is some importance to it. 4) Elihu shows how Job’s other friends are wrong. God also rebuked Job’s other three friends. 5) Elihu claims to be full of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 32 Elihu uses similar language to what Jeremiah used. He reminds me of Jeremiah saying, that the word of the Lord it is like a fire shut up in his bones. Elihu says, “For I am full of words; the spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; it is ready to burst like new wine skins. I will speak, that I may find relief…” 6) Elihu signals Gods coming to speak. In 37:11-12 Elihu is describing a whirlwind and attributes the whirlwind to God. We see just a few verses later that God is answering Job out of the whirlwind. Verse one in chapter 38 states, “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind.” Notice the writer of this book did not say “A” whirlwind. But he says, “THE” That means that there must have been a whirlwind that was taking place, that had already been mentioned previously in the Book of Job. All throughout Elihu’s speech we see him referring to nature. I believe that Elihu is referring to what was actually taking place in front of Job and his three friends. He is describing what was going on while also signaling that God is coming to speak. What do you think? .... [End of quote] Well, to answer Block here, I, for my part, “think” that Elihu was definitely a Jeremiah type (though not Jeremiah himself), a prophetic messenger sent by God, wholly aflame with the spirit of God, full of eloquence yet humble and modest - Elihu was, like Jeremiah, enflamed with the Holy Spirit. It is pleasant to notice Elihu’s modesty and tact in entering the discussion with his elders. It says that his “wrath was kindled” against Job and the three friends. This is explained later when he talks about the constraining of the Spirit within him, so that he was “ready to burst. …. Jeremiah spoke of God’s word being “in his heart like a burning fire” and being “weary of holding it in. Indeed (he) could not” (Jeremiah 20:9). But, if I should have to choose a biblical alter ego for Elihu, my preference - based on what we have read above - would be for the prophet Ezekiel, rather than for Jeremiah. “Ezekiel [too] refers to this “heat of the Spirit” when the Lord had moved him to speak”. “Elihu [was the] son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2). “Ezekiel [was] the priest, the son of Buzi …” (Ezekiel 1:3). We know that Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries. They also have in common the rare name, Buzi: “According to Strong, "Buzi" in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as "Buzite" in Job 32:2. This is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between these two men”. Ezekiel 1:3: (בּוּזִי) Job 32:2: (הַבּוּזִי). They both refer to Job: Elihu says (Job 33:1): ‘But now, Job, listen to my words; pay attention to everything I say’. Ezekiel twice has God proclaim (Ezekiel 14:14, 20): ‘… even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness …’. And perhaps most strikingly in relation to this situation we learned that: “The exact same Hebrew phrase (שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה), “these three men”, is found in both Ezekiel 14:14 and Job 32:1. Then we further learned of a whole variety of parallels and links between Elihu and Ezekiel, for example: “Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting for seven days; not speaking; and rebuking elders even though they themselves were much younger”. Nigel Bernard, who had provided us with some of the best of these likenesses, did, however, distinguish “Ezekiel … "the priest, the son of Buzi". That he was both a priest and the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu. Malachi wrote that "the priest’s lips should keep knowledge" (2:7)” from Elihu: “Although not a priest, Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, "my lips shall utter knowledge clearly" (Job 33:3)”. To which I had attached this comment: “Whether or not Elihu was a priest has yet, I think, to be determined”. The prophet Ezekiel was most definitely a priest, as is clear from 1:3: “Ezekiel the priest …”. So, in order even to consider whether or not Elihu and Ezekiel could be the same person, one would need to be able to show that Elihu’s genealogy (the only one given in the Book of Job) (32:2): “… son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram”, was Levite. Given that this is the only reference in the Bible to the name Barachel, the task is a difficult one. Moreover, the phrase “of the family of Ram” (מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת-רָם), has led some to the conclusion that young Elihu was an Aram(= Ram)ite, i.e., of the Syrian race.

Habakkuk’s solar imagery highly compatible with Akhnaton’s Aten

“Your glory was like the sunrise. Rays of light flashed from your mighty hand. Your power was hidden there”. Habakkuk 3:4 Nili Shupak, of the University of Haifa, has detected what appears to be a definite influence from Akhnaton’s Atenism imagery upon chapter 3 of the Book of Habakkuk. I refer to Shupak’s article, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3–7”. Before proceeding to some of Nili Shupak’s comparisons, I need to say who I (at least) consider both pharaoh Akhnaton (Akhenaten) and Habakkuk to have been. Taking Habakkuk first, although he post-dated Akhnaton, I merely repeat my summary of the prophet, as to his alter egos, from my article: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (4) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers …. In what follows it will become clear why I strongly favour this, albeit poorly known, tradition. But, for this to be facilitated, it is necessary for the prophet Job to be fully identified. Firstly, Job was Tobias son of Tobit of the (Catholic) Book of Tobit. This connection imposed itself forcefully upon my mind on this very same day (1st January, Solemnity of the Mother of God) some decades ago. Secondly Tobias (Job), who lived in neo-Assyrian captivity - and on into the Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - and who must therefore also have had a foreign name, was the prophet Habakkuk (an Akkadian name). Thirdly, the Jews must have shortened the unfamiliar name Habakkuk to Hakkai (or Haggai). [End of quote] In sum: The prophet Habakkuk, abbreviated to (Hakkai) Haggai, was the famous prophet Job, as well as Tobias, son of Tobit. He was a righteous and very pure man who had received angelic visitation (cf. Job 16:19; Tobit 5:4-12:22; Daniel 14:34-36). As for Akhnaton, he I have variously identified in e.g. my article: Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt (DOC) Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt as the biblical leper, Na’aman and Hazael the Syrian, as El Amarna’s Syrian, Aziru (according to Dr. I. Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos, I), but also - most importantly for my Syrian-Egyptian connection - as the Arsa (Irsu), or Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods. Akhnaton, prior to his becoming pharaoh, was the legendary Amenhotep son of Hapu, dutifully serving Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’, whom I have identified also as the biblical Ben-Hadad, a veritable master king. Now, coming to consider what Nili Shupak has written, concerning the influence of Atenist imagery upon Habakkuk 3, I need firstly to recall the fact that Akhnaton was, in a properly revised (Velikovskian-based) El Amarna, influenced by King David. The pharaoh’s famous Hymn to the Aton has often been compared to David’s Psalm 104. See e.g. “Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104”: https://projectaugustine.com/biblical-studies/ancient-near-east-studies/parallelism-between-the-hymn-to-aten-and-psalm-104/ Typically, though, but wrongly, Akhnaton is given the chronological precedence over King David. Nili Shupak writes: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/janes_28_shupak_nili_the_god_from_teman_and_the_egyptian_sun_god%20(4).pdf …. A new explanation in the Egyptian setting a. Amarna religion The problematic verse may be resolved in light of the perceptions and beliefs prevalent in Egypt in the fourteenth century b.c.e., [sic] known as the Amarna or the Aten religion. This religion extraordinary in the history of Egypt, was introduced by Amenhotep IV, Akhenaten, who ascended the throne in 1351 and reigned until 1334. Some regard the religious reform of this king as the first attestation of monotheism in the world. But whether it was a true monotheism or not, it is clear that Amarna religion was belief in one god, the god Aten. A new iconographic symbol was given this god, a sun disc with radiating rays each terminating in human hands imparting signs of life (‘nh) and strength (w·s) to the king and his family (see figure 1). The idea expressed in this symbol, namely, the god bestowing grace upon the king, is represented both in the art of the period—i.e., in the wall decorations of buildings and tombs—and in the inscriptions of the king and his high officialdom. For instance, in the inscription from the tomb of a courtier named Tutu, it is said: [When you are shining] you light up (˙q.k) the two countries (i.e., Egypt) and your rays (stwt.k) are (shining) upon your beloved son, your hands carry life (‘nh) and power (w·s). In the boundary stelae of Amarna, the new capital built by Akhenaten, the king declares that when Aten shines in Akhetaten (Amarna) he fills it with “his fair and loving rays, which he casts upon me, consisting of life (‘nh) and dominion (w·s) forever and ever.” The main source of our knowledge of the new religion is the Hymn to the Aten, which was probably composed by the king himself. As it appears from this hymn, one of the main features of the Amarna religion is the concept of the Aten as a universal god—no longer a national god of Egypt alone but the god who created all people and all languages, the god who bestows life and nurtures all of humankind. The Aten is the god of Egypt’s neighbors in north and south, Syria and Nubia—in the words of the hymn: The lands of Hor and Kush The land of Egypt, You set every man in his place, You supply their needs; Everyone has his food His lifetime is counted . . . You made Nile (Hapy) in the netherworld You bring him when you will, To nourish the people . . . All distant lands, you make them live, You made a heavenly Nile (Hapy) descend to them (The Hymn to the Aten, ll. 8–9). Another innovation in Amarna religion is the ritual of light. The emphasis is not on worshiping the sun as a physical body that projects heat, but the adoration of the sun as a celestial luminary, the origin of light.18 Already in the very beginning of Akhenaten’s reign, when the sun god was still called by his old name, Re-Harakhti, and depicted in the traditional image of a man with a falcon’s head wearing a sun disc, it was said that he rejoices in the horizon “in his name Shu (the god of light) which is in (or from) the Aten (the sun disc)” (The Hymn to the Aten, l.1). Light is the source of life on earth: “You are indeed one, but millions of lives (are) inside you to make them life” (The Short Hymn to the Aten).19 The terminology and expressions accompanying the description of the god Aten are usually associated with the semantic field of light: to illuminate (ssp, s’˙d, psd), to shine (wbn), rays (stwt), brilliance (t˙n).20 The opposite of this light is night’s darkness (kkw), which symbolizes death: “When you set in western horizon, Earth is in darkness as if in death” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 3).21 Another element which distinguishes the new religion is the abstraction of the god’s image. The god Aten, unlike more ancient gods, is not presented as a sculpted or painted image. The concept is that the heavenly image of the god cannot be rendered as an earthly materialization (theomorphism). This concept is expressed in the following saying of the king: “(God is) the one who built himself with his own hands, and no craftsman knows him.”22 The only tangible embodiment of the god Aten, then, is on the one hand, the sun disc in the sky—“You alone, shining in your forms of Aten” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 1123)—and on the other, the king, the earthly embodiment of the celestial god: There is no other who knows you, Only your son, Neferkheprure, Wa-ni-Re (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 12).24 The Aten religion, then, was essentially universal, focused on the celestial light, the sun, which exists anywhere on earth, unlinked to any particular theomorphic materialization. Therefore, it may well have been more apt for propagation among the neighboring cultures than any Egyptian religious concept that preceded it. - 18. Cf. J. Assmann, “Die ‘Häserie’ des Echnaton. Aspekte der Amarna-Religion,” Saeculum 23 (1972), 116–18; D. B. Redford, “The Sun Disc in Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and Antecedents, I,” JARCE 13 (1976), 47–56; J. P. Allen, “The Natural Philosophy of Akhenaten,” in W. K. Simpson, ed., Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (New Haven, 1989), 89–101; E. Hornung, Echnaton, Die Religion des Lichtes (Zürich, 1995), 61–62. 19. In addition to the “Hymn to the Aten” found in the tomb of Ay, the Commander of Chariotry, theAmarna tombs also contained a shorter version of the hymn which is named here “The Short Hymn to the Aten.” Sandman, Texts, 15, lines 4–9; Lichtheim, Literature, 2.90–92; Murnane, Texts, 159. 20. The perception of the Aten (the physical sun disc) as a source of light is perhaps also reflected inthe musicians’ custom in the Amarna period of tying a white band over their eyes; L. Manniche, “Symbolic Blindness,” Cd’E 53 (1978), 13–21. 21. See n. 17 above. 22. W. Helck, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie (Berlin, 1958–71), 22.12–13. 23. See n. 17 above. 24. See n. 17 above. b. Interpreting Hab. 3:4 on the basis of Amarna religion Difficult terminology and expressions that are supposedly ambiguous and obscure in Hab. 3:4 may be clarified and explained in view of the Egyptian belief in the god Aten. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]÷/l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'÷hy,h}TI r/aK" hg'now is a literal description of the Egyptian god’s symbol. hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now. The primary meaning of Hg'no is “brilliance” or “brightness” deriving from light, and it is often borrowed to describe the appearance of God (see, e.g., Ezek. 1:4, 13, 27; 10:4 [in reference to God’s glory]; Ps. 18:13; 2 Sam. 22:13). r/a here means sunlight, so the meaning of hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now is that the brilliance and brightness, accompanying an epiphany of God, are like sunlight. In the two remaining cola of the verse the Hebrew God seems to carry the image of the Egyptian sun god, the Aten. /l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'. In /dY;mI the mem (“from”), as the prefix of the word, should be deleted, as dittography of the mem that is the suffix of the previous word µyin'r]q'. /l should be interpreted as genitive lamed, meaning rays (are) his own hands. The difficulty in this explanation is in the repetition of the possessive indication wdy, “his hand,” and /l, “his.” It would be preferable to apply hy,h}TI in the first colon to the second colon also: wl (hyht) wdy µynrq, “his hand will be rays.” Be that as it may, the meaning of the verse is, God’s rays are his hands. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]. µv…w] indicates the hands, or the rays shaped like hands, where God’s power is hidden. hZo[U, his power, refers to the hieroglyphic sign w·s (Gr. S40), the symbol of power and dominion bestowed upon the king and his royal family by the god Aten (see figure 2). Hence, the interpretation of the verse in light of the Egyptian parallel is: the epiphany of God resembles the rising sun, accompanied by intense light, and in his rays, which are his hands, his charismatic power lies hidden. Hab. 3:4 is therefore a literal description of the Egyptian icon. The symbol of the Egyptian sun god from the Amarna period was borrowed to describe the appearance of the Hebrew God. The advantage of this explanation is in the fact that it leaves the Masoretic text intact, except for a minor emendation, namely, omission of the mem to correct an error of dittography. Additional Egyptian features in Hab. 3:3–7 Further support for this interpretation is provided by the following details, which appear in the first part (vv. 3–7) of Habakkuk 3, there too revealing a certain contact with Egypt. a. On the one hand, the image of Yhwh as depicted in this part of the chapter differs from the image that follows in the second part (vv. 8ff.), but, on the other hand, it is close to the description of the god Aten in the Amarna writings. b. The portrayal of Yhwh arriving from south (vv. 3–7) is clearly related to the biblical tradition of the Israelites’ origin being in the south, in Egypt. c. Additional motifs in vv. 3–7 may be explained against the Egyptian background, and not necessarily—as they have generally been interpreted until now—as a product of contact with Canaanite or Mesopotamian mythology. We shall discuss these matters in detail. a. Yhwh is portrayed in vv. 3–7 as an abstract, ethereal image. His glory and fame, his brilliance and power, are mentioned (vv. 3–4). His revelation, we are told, shatters the forces of nature and causes dread among people (vv. 6–7). However, nothing is said about Yhwh’s emotions. The absence of reference to this is remarkable by comparison with the second part of the hymn, where we are told about God’s “wrath” (vv. 8, 12), his “anger” (v. 8), and his “rage” (v. 12). The deity, as described in the first part of Habakkuk 3 then, is cold and calculating, devoid of emotions such as anger, mercy, and forgiveness. These characteristics are typical of the Egyptian god Aten; as Redford has put it: But the new concept of deity that Akhenaten produces is rather cold. His disc created the cosmos and keeps it going; but he seems to show no compassion to his creatures. He produces them with life and sustenance, but in a rather perfunctory way. No text tell us he hears the cry of the poor man, or has compassion on the sick, or forgives the sinner. This portrayal of the god Aten is quite different from the image of the Hebrew God as he is usually described in the Bible. The latter is a deity of mercy and grace, who responds to the suffering and misfortune of the individual and the community; this is a god who repents and regrets what he has done, but also a god who can be vengeful and resentful; a god that becomes enraged, and vents his wrath upon his enemies (Gen. 6:6–7; Exod. 34:6–7; Num. 14:18–20; Deut. 32:11, 21–24, 41–43, etc.). b. The arrival of God from the south, and his appearance, are described in vv. 3–7: God came from Teman, a/by; ˆm:yTEmI H"/la” the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. hl:s< ˆr;aP: rh"mE ç/dq:w] His Glory covered the heavens, wdwh µymç hsk and the earth was full of his praise. . . . . . . ≈rah halm /tL:hIt}W He stopped and shook the earth; he looked and made the nations tremble. The eternal mountains were shattered. d[" yrer]h" wxx}Pøt}yw' the everlasting hills sank low . . . . . . µl:w[ t/[b}Gi wjvæ I saw the tents of Cushan under affliction; ˆç…Wk ylEh’a: ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" the tent curtains of the land of Midian trembled (NRSV). ˆy;d]mI ≈r,a, t/[yriy] ˆWzGr]yi The tradition concerning the arrival of God from the south recurs in three other poetic passages, usually considered among the earliest compositions in the biblical literature: Judg. 5:4–5; Ps. 68:8–9; and Deut. 33:2. These three passages, as well as the aforementioned section from Habakkuk, belong to the literary pattern of theophany, and resemble each other, in structure and content, as shown by Jeremias. The uniform structure includes the mentioning of God, a verb or verbs referring to his arrival, and a place name, preceded by the preposition min/m (from). The common content is the description of God’s arrival, the effect of his appearance on natural forces—earth, sky, mountains and hills, and the names of the places: Seir, Mount Paran (parallel to Sinai in Deuteronomy 33), Field of Edom, and Teman. Hab. 3:3– 7 describes God as he arrives from Teman and Mount Paran. He casts his wrath and dread upon mountains and hills, as well as on human beings residing in the areas near the site of the apparition, Kushan, Midian, and perhaps also On (see discussion below). Of the three parallel passages, the closest to Habakkuk is Deut. 33:2: The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir wml ry[çm jrzw ab ynysm òh upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran. With him were çdqø tbøbrm htaw ˆrap rhm [ypwh myriads of holy ones; at his right, a host of his own (NRSV). wml tD;v‘aE wnymym The arrival of God is indicated here by the verb jrz, meaning to rise up, to shine, associated with the sun, like µynrq in Hab. 3:4; and, perhaps, also by the word tD;v‘aE, which some scholars suggested to explain on the basis of Aramaic and Syriac, as outpouring, diffusion of light, namely an abundance of light to the right side of God. Thus, in Deuteronomy 33, as well as in Habakkuk 3, the description of God arriving from the south is tinted with solar elements. In Habakkuk the names Teman and Mount Paran indicate the stations in God’s passage in his travel from the south. Teman is not mentioned in the parallel passages, but it appears in the Bible as a synonym or in reference to Edom and Seir, as in Judges 5 or Deuteronomy 33.36 Mount Paran, which in Hab. 3:3 stands in parallelism with Teman, is identified as a region south of Canaan, east or west of the Arabah.37 Even though these names originally indicated some specific areas, they appear to refer to the southern region in general when used in the literary pattern of theophany. Likewise, Kushan and Midian in verse 7 should not be understood as specific regions but as the general wandering area of the nomadic tribes, the Kushites and Midianites. It extends from the southern part of Transjordan in the east to the Egyptian border in the west.38 As mentioned, the tradition reflected in these passages on the arrival of God from the south is an archaic heritage, and from recent archaeological discoveries, it seems to have been well known in Israel in the First Temple period. These discoveries include inscriptions from the 9th–8th centuries b.c.e., discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai, a site which served as a stage for caravans on their way south to Elat. In these inscriptions the name YHWH Tmn appears several times, and in one of them the verb zr˙ is used to describe the appearance of God, exactly as in Deuteronomy 33: mrh nsmyw . . . la jrzbw meaning, “when God shines forth . . . the mountains melt.”39 As in the biblical passages dealing with the theophany, the phrase YHWH Tmn should also be understood here as a reference to God’s arrival from the south, and not as an indication of a local god. Travelers heading south would pray to this god to assure them a safe and sound journey. Reigned over the Israelites,” in A. Hurvitz, E. Tov, S. Japhet, eds., Studies in Biblical Literature (Jerusalem, 1992), 191, and by Avishur, Studies, 163. This meaning is also maintained by Cassuto, “Deuteronomy Chapter XXXIII and the New Year in Ancient Israel,” Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem, 1973), 1.50. 36. Teman is the name of Esau’s grandson (Gen. 36:11) and a region of Edom (Gen. 36:34 = 1 Chron.1:53); it stands in parallelism with Edom and Seºir (Obad. 8–9, Jer. 49:7, 20). 37. For the location of Mountain Paran and its references in the Bible see Hiebert, God, 86–88. 38. The Midianites are depicted in the Bible as nomads wandering in the southern marches of Israel,which include the Sinai peninsula as far as southern Transjordan (Gen. 25:4–6; 36:35; Num. 10:29–31, etc.; Josh. 13:21; Judg. 6:3, 33, 7:12, 1 Kgs. 11:18). As to Kusan, Albright was the first to identify it with the Kusu who appear in the Egyptian sources as early as the second millennium b.c.e. (in the Execration Texts [Posener E50–51] and in the Tale of Sinuhe, l. 220). These sources show that Kusan was one of the nomadic tribes that lived in the deserts located in the south and southwest of Israel. The close relation between the Midianites and the Cushites is evident from the fact that Zipporah, Moses’ wife, is at times called a Midianite (Exod. 2:16–21) and at times a Cushite (Num. 12:1) (supposing that the two passages refer to the same woman). Scholars assume that these two tribes were blended into one national identity. See Hiebert, God, 88–89; B. Mazar, “Cushan,” Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1962), 4.70–71; idem, Canaan and Israel (Jerusalem, 1974), 17–18, n. 15 [in Hebrew]. 39. The complete text is as follows: . . . µ(Ni)nub}G' ˆKUd'yw ÷µrih: ˆSUm"yw ÷ . . . la j"rzbW hm:j:l}mI µyoB} laE µv´l} ÷hmjlm µyoB} l["B" ˚reb:l} See S. A˙ituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 160–61 [in Hebrew]; M. Weinfeld, “Recent Publications 3: Further Remarks on the Ajrud Inscriptions,” Shnaton 6–7 (1978– 79), 238 [in Hebrew]; idem, “Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” Studie Epigrafici e Linguistici 1 (1984), 126. The tradition of the southern origin of the Hebrew God, which recurs in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources, has an apparently historical basis. Support for this may be found in the Egyptian sources. In topographical lists from the time of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten’s father [sic], and in copies of these lists from the period of Ramesses II (13th century b.c.e.), [sic] there is a region named t· s·sw Yhw, “ land of the Shasu Yehu.” Since this region is followed in the list by “the land of Shasu Seir” we assume that we are dealing here with a region named after Yehu, a local god who was worshiped in the land of Seir, the wandering area of the tribes of Midian and Kushan mentioned in Habakkuk 3. Finally the difficult phrase at the beginning of verse 7 ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" has been emended to read ar;ytIw] ˆ/a tj"TE “On will fear and be frightened.” This emendation is supported by the fact that at least in one other reference in the Bible the spelling of the Egyptian town On is ˆw,a: (Ezek. 30:17; cf. Gen. 41:45, 50, etc.; and perhaps also Ps. 78:51). According to this version the city On, Iwn in the Egyptian sources, which was located in the northern part of present-day Cairo, should be added to the list of landmarks on God’s journey from the south. This detail is significant to our discussion since that city was an important center of sun worship in Egypt, from the Old Kingdom period to the late period, as attested by its Greek name Heliopolis, the sun city. Furthermore, Akhenaten was brought up and raised in On, and also served as the “First Prophet” of the local god Re-Harakhti. An additional argument seems to exist here in support of understanding Habakkuk 3 in light of the Amarna period in Egypt. In sum, whether the city of On is connoted in Hab. 3:7 or not, there is no doubt that Hab. 3:3–7, as well as Deut. 33:2 and the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud, all reflect a tradition that uses solar elements vividly to depict God’s arrival from the south. ….

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

by Damien F. Mackey “As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face”. Karen Radner Introduction As we proceed, we shall briefly recall the biblical “Nebuchednezzar” likenesses of three mighty kings, two of whom - Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - I have identified as alter egos of Nebuchednezzar so-called II, and one of whom, Cambyses, at least remarkably shares in these likenesses. And I can mention, in passing, Artaxerxes (so-called) III, who has been likened to Cambyses. But I now think that there is more to be said. ESARHADDON, supposed father of Ashurbanipal (= Nebuchednezzar), will be found to have suffered so profoundly from this “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” as to force me consider (see Esarhaddon section in the latter part of this article) whether Esarhaddon needs to be merged into Ashurbanipal as I have merged Esarhaddon’s father, Sennacherib, into Sargon II. Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses; Artaxerxes III Keywords: Dreams; megalomania; massive building works; fiery furnace; illness-madness; revival and ‘conversion’; vindictive Egyptian campaign. Ashurbanipal Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. I then continued: …. They [Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus] share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too. …. Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) … Nebuchednezzar … the Great of an established 43 years of reign. …. The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! …. The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. …. It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. … Ashurbanipal … certainly did conquer Egypt. …. Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it. “Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176). …. Ashurbanipal also apparently had a lions’ den. For, according to Jonathan Grey, The Forbidden Secret (p. 102): “…. The biblical book of Daniel also records that the Hebrew captive Daniel was tossed into a den lions. (Daniel chapter 6) That such ‘lion’s [sic] den’ punishment was in keeping with the times is now proven by the discovery of that same inscription of Ashurbanipal that we just mentioned. It continues thus: The rest of the people who had rebelled they threw alive among bulls and lions, as Sennacherib … used to do. Lo, again following his footsteps, those men I threw into the midst of them. On one occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy was digging amid the ruins of Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like an like an ancient well. After being rescued by his companions, he proceeded with the work of identification. How astonished was he to find that the pit had been used as a cage for wild animals! And upon the curb was this inscription: The Place of Execution, where men who angered the king died torn by wild animals”. I realise that the lions’ den episodes of the Book of Daniel pertain to the Dream-statue phase representing the Medo-Persian era. See my article: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? https://www.academia.edu/24308877/Was_Daniel_Twice_in_the_Lions_Den’ but was it not Daniel’s “King Nebuchednezzar” who had threatened to ‘tear limb from limb’ his stalling wise men (Daniel 2:5)? See my article: How did Nebuchednezzar manage to tear offenders limb from limb? https://www.academia.edu/37307963/How_did_Nebuchednezzar_manage_to_tear_offenders_limb_from_limb Was Ashurbanipal a king of dreams? He was a typical superstitious and megalomaniacal Mesopotamian king. George Godspeed writes this of Ashurbanipal’s fanatical devotion to the gods: http://history-world.org/ashurbanipal.htm It is not strange, therefore, that in his finely wrought sculptures and brilliantly written inscriptions are depicted scenes of hideous brutality. Plunder, torture, anguish, and slaughter are dwelt upon with something of delight by the king, who sees in them the vengeance of the gods upon those that have broken their faith. The very religiousness of the royal butcher makes the shadows blacker. No Assyrian king was ever more devoted to the gods and dependent upon them. And Robert Moss writes in ‘Questioning dreams in ancient Mesopotamia”: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/dreamgates/2014/07/questioning-dreams-in-ancient-mesopotamia.html#hzAzS0qrk6kGJHza.99 In Mesopotamia, as in most human cultures, dreaming was understood to be close kin to divination. The famous Assyrian dream book in the library of King Ashurbanipal — brought to Nineveh in 647 BCE [sic] from the house of an exorcist of Nippur — was filed with the omen tablets, the largest category in the royal collection. Among ordinary folk as well as in royal palaces, across most of history, dreamwork has never been separated from other ways of reading the sign language of life. …. Did he suffer an enduring illness, followed by a conversion? Well, this intriguing prayer was found in Ashurbanipal’s library: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/new-fragments-of-gilgames-and-other-literary-texts-from-kuyunjik/1F360E8054C85DAC9FBF8B1BD322D416/core-reader …. 9. My bed is the ground! (penitential prayer alsīka ilī) The prayer alsīka ilī is one of the few extant examples of the group of the šigû-prayers, individual laments addressed to a deity in which the penitent acknowledges his sins and asks the god for absolution. …. …. 1. Incantation šigû: I have called upon you. My god, relent! 2. Relent, my god! Accept my supplication! 3. Harken to my weary prayers! 4. Learn at once the disgrace that has befallen me! 5. Keep listening to my lament, which I have made! 6. May the night bring you the tears which I weep! 7. Since the day (you), my lord, punished me, 8. and (you), the god who created me, became furious with me, 9. (since the day) you turned my house into my prison, 10. my bed is the ground, my sleeping place is dust, 11. I am deprived of sleep, distressed by nightmares, 12. I am troubled [in my ...], confused [in my ...]. B 9. I have been enduring a punishment [that I cannot bear.] …. Was Ashurbanipal a vindictive type? According to Lori L. Rowlett (Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis, p. 112): “’Ashurbanipal’s] treatment of his enemies (internal and external) is particularly horrible and vindictive …”. Nabonidus Scholars have noticed various “Nebuchednezzar” characteristics in King Nabonidus. Not least was the fact that, Nabonidus had, like “Nebuchednezzar”, a son named “Belshazzar”. There was also a seeming tendency on Nabonidus’s part towards a kind of monotheism – revering Sîn, the El of the Aramaeans – and a seeming rejection of the national god, Marduk. Coupled with this was, not unnaturally, a discomfort with the Babylonian clergy and wise men. {This tendency to ‘mess with the sacred rites’ is a further common link amongst our name-kings of this series} Nabonidus, like king Nebuchednezzar, had conquered Cilicia. We read about this at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/kue “KUE ku’ ĭ (קְוֵ֕ה). An ancient name for E Cilicia (Rom.: Cilicia Pedias), in SE Asia Minor. …. A document of Nebuchadnezzar II (dated between 595 and 570 b.c.), mentions the land of Hu-m-e, pronounced Khuwe or Khwe. It also occurs in the Istanbul Stele of Nabonidus”. One also encounters many cases of Nabonidus’s recounting his own dreams. I found so many similarities beginning to loom that I eventually came to the conclusion that Nabonidus was king Nebuchednezzar (or Nebuchedrezzar) – that what we have recorded of king Nabonidus simply represents the first phase of the long reign of Nebuchednezzar. As is apparent from Beaulieu, Nabonidus considered himself to be the successor of the great Assyrian empire – a viewpoint that would have more clout perhaps if he had ruled closer to that period (c. 605 BC) than Nabonidus is conventionally considered to have done (c. 556 BC). Then there is Nabonidus’s strange disappearance to Teima (Tayma) in Arabia for ten years. During some of this time he was ill. It is due to this situation that scholars think that the Book of Daniel has confused Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus. Indeed a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment tells of a protracted illness suffered by Nabonidus. For more on all this, see the following article of mine, which, I think, serves adequately to cover the “Nabonidus” part of this present article: Daniel's “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (4) Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar" a better fit for King Nabonidus? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Daniel is charged with all sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history rather than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that the author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better suited to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean) empire. Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case. “Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones: to the intent that the living may know that The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men”. Daniel 4:16-17 The early career of the Chaldean king, Nabonidus, may be replete with parallel likenesses to that as written about the “Nebuchednezzar” in Daniel chapters 1-5. Though it would be much over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is a definite progression in that direction in the course of his reign. According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C." (1989), p. 63: “… there is no evidence that the king [Nabonidus] tried to impost the cult of Sîn as supreme deity in his early reign”. But, as Beaulieu will interpret it (p. 62): “Upon his return from Arabia, Nabonidus imposed a major religious reform, resulting in the rejection of Marduk, the undisputed supreme god of Babylon of the past six centuries …”. Cambyses “The Chronicle of John of Nikiu who wrote of Cambyses[’] exploits after his name change to Nebuchadnezzar. He wrote of how Cambyses under his new name Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and desolated Egypt. It becomes apparent therefore that John gave credit to Cambyses for what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished”. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/THIK59UKCUF68BLNL/evidence-indicating-egypts-40-year-desolation Previously I wrote, regarding likenesses I had perceived between Cambyses and my various alter egos for king Nebuchednezzar (including Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus): Common factors here may include ‘divine’ madness; confounding the priests by messing with the Babylonian rites; and the conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia. I was then totally unaware of this name claim about Cambyses by John of Nikiu. … my enlargement of the historical Nebuchednezzar, through alter egos, to embrace Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - and now, too, perhaps, Cambyses - provides a complete ‘profile’ of the biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak. For some time, now, I have suspected that the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Cambyses had to be the same as the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar. And now I learn that the C7th AD Egyptian Coptic bishop, John of Nikiû (680-690 AD, conventional dating), had told that Cambyses was also called Nebuchednezzar. This new piece of information has emboldened me to do - what I have wanted to - and that is to say with confidence that Cambyses was Nebuchednezzar. That Nebuchednezzar also reigned in Susa is evidenced by (if I am right) my identification of him with the “king Artaxerxes” of the Book of Nehemiah, who was a “king of Babylon”. Whilst critics can argue that the “king Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel may not necessarily be a good match for the historico-biblical Nebuchednezzar, but that he seems more likely to have been based on king Nabonidus, my enlargement of the historical Nebuchednezzar, through alter egos, to embrace Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - and now, too, Cambyses - provides a complete ‘profile’ of the biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak. “In view of all this, I have no doubt that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt”. Herodotus When subjecting neo-Babylonian history to a serious revision, I had reached the conclusion that Nebuchednezzar had needed to be folded with Nabonidus, and that Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor, Evil-Merodach, needed to be folded with Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar. That accorded perfectly with the testimony of the Book of Daniel that “Nebuchednezzar” was succeeded by his son, “Belshazzar”. Cambyses Books, articles and classics have been written about the madness of King Cambyses, he conventionally considered to have been the second (II) king of that name, a Persian (c. 529-522 BC), and the son/successor of Cyrus the Great. The tradition is thought to have begun with the C5th BC Greek historian, Herodotus, according to whom (The Histories) http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/cambyses.htm [3.29.1] When the priests led Apis in, Cambyses–for he was all but mad–drew his dagger and, meaning to stab the calf in the belly, stuck the thigh; then laughing he said to the priests: [3.29.2] “Simpletons, are these your gods, creatures of flesh and blood that can feel weapons of iron? That is a god worthy of the Egyptians. But for you, you shall suffer for making me your laughing-stock.” So saying he bade those, whose business it was, to scourge the priests well, and to kill any other Egyptian whom they found holiday-making. [3.29.3] So the Egyptian festival ended, and the priests were punished, and Apis lay in the temple and died of the wound in the thigh. When he was dead of the wound, the priests buried him without Cambyses’ knowledge. [3.30.1] But Cambyses, the Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy, because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it. [3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in which it seemed to him that a messenger came from Persia and told him that Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched heaven with his head. [3.30.3] Fearing therefore for himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king, he sent Prexaspes, the most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him. Prexaspes went up to Susa and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out hunting, others that he brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there drowned him. …. [End of quote] And: http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/herodotus-comment-on- Herodotus’ Comment on Cambyses’ Madness [3.38] In view of all this, I have no doubt that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt. [End of quote] Scholarly articles have been written in an attempt to diagnose the illness of Cambyses, sometimes referred to – as in the case of Julius Caesar’s epilepsy – as a ‘divine’ or ‘sacred’ disease. For example (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11594937): Arch Neurol. 2001 Oct; 58(10):1702-4. The sacred disease of Cambyses II. York GK1, Steinberg DA. Abstract Herodotus’ account of the mad acts of the Persian king Cambyses II contains one of the two extant pre-Hippocratic Greek references to epilepsy. This reference helps to illuminate Greek thinking about epilepsy, and disease more generally, in the time immediately preceding the publication of the Hippocratic treatise on epilepsy, On the Sacred Disease. Herodotus attributed Cambyses’ erratic behavior as ruler of Egypt to either the retribution of an aggrieved god or to the fact that he had the sacred disease. Herodotus considered the possibility that the sacred disease was a somatic illness, agreeing with later Hippocratic authors that epilepsy has a natural rather than a divine cause. …. [End of quote] The character of Cambyses as presented in various ancient traditions is thoroughly treated in Herb Storck’s excellent monograph, History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period (House of Nabu, 1989). Messing with the rites As was the case with King Nabonidus (= Nebuchednezzar), so did Cambyses apparently fail properly to observe established protocol with the Babylonian rites. Regarding the rebellious behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the rites, I wrote previously: Confounding the Astrologers Despite his superstitious nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel – and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus – did not hesitate at times to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6): The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.” And so, in the Verse Account, we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence of sycophantic officials: Yet he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila -representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned- he looks at the representations and utters blasphemies. When he saw the usar-symbol of Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars, he expounded to them as follows: ‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own temple with the usar-symbol!’ And Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him, do confirm the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we understand this situation, after the king has explained about it!’ [End of quote] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129): The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not understand what it meant. The passage is difficult, but its general implications are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of the eclipse and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did check them but disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled for him (Daniel II, 3-5) …. But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly …. [End of quote] According to Encyclopaedia Iranica on Cambyses II: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cambyses-opers A badly damaged passage in the chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report that, in order to legitimize his appointment, Cambyses partici¬pated in the ritual prescribed for the king at the traditional New Year festival on 27 March 538 B.C., accepting the royal scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the god’s temple in Babylon (III. 24-28; Gray¬son, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim attempted a reconstruc¬tion of the damaged text (Survey of Persian Art XV, p. 3501); according to his version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary Elamite attire, fully armed. The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms, but he refused to change his clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He then received the royal scepter. In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately demon¬strated “a deep-seated religious conviction” hostile to this alien religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 557). [End of quote] King Cambyses’ wanton treatment of Egypt-Ethiopia “A Jewish document from 407 BC known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of Cambyses destroying all the temples of the Egyptian gods”. Of Nebuchednezzar’s conquest of Egypt, well-attested in the Bible, it is extremely difficult to find substantial account in the historical records. Not so with the conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia by Cambyses. Nebuchednezzar was, very early in his reign, militarily involved against Egypt – with greater or lesser success: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nebuchadnezzar.aspx Early in 605 B.C. he met Necho, the king of Egypt, in battle and defeated him at Carchemish. A few months later Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar hastened home to claim his throne. He soon returned to the west in order to secure the loyalty of Syria and Palestine and to collect tribute; among those who submitted were the rulers of Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, and Judah. Nebuchadnezzar’s Conquests In 601 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar attempted the invasion of Egypt but was repulsed with heavy losses. Judah rebelled, but Jerusalem fell in March 597 B.C., and the ruler, Jehoiakim, and his court were deported to Babylon. Eight years later another Jewish rebellion broke out; this time Jerusalem was razed and the population carried into captivity. [End of quote] This article then follows with an intriguing piece of information: “Expeditions against the Arabs in 582 B.C. and another attempt at invading Egypt in 568 B.C. receive brief mention in Nebuchadnezzar’s later records”. But sceptics say that Nebuchednezzar never actually succeeded in conquering Egypt, hence the Bible is wrong, and that it was Cambyses instead who conquered Egypt. For instance: http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/BabEgypt.html BABYLON NEVER CONQUERED EGYPT The Bible never says Nebuchadnezzar the Second (hereafter Neb-2) conquered Egypt. The idea Neb-2 conquered Egypt would never have been considered a serious historical possibility, but for 4 facts: 1. Jeremiah & Ezekiel both predicted that Neb-2 would conquer Egypt. 2. Jeremiah & Ezekiel are both considered true prophets. 3. According to Deut. 18:22, true prophets are never wrong about a prediction. 4. Jesus said (Mat 5:18) “One jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law until all be fulfilled.” b. Paul said (2Tim 3:16) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” Both of these verses are erroneously interpreted by many Christians as meaning the entire Bible contains no errors. If you disagree with the preceding statement, the rest of this essay will be irrelevant to you, because you will be judging all historical evidence by its conformity to the Bible. This makes you literally not worth talking to outside of the company of others who do the same. Such Christians to try to muddy historical evidence that contradicts the Bible. e.g. One proposed that there were two Nebuchadnezzars, the second being Cambyses: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol24/htm/xiii.ii.htm (Actually there were two Nebs, but the first ruled Babylon c.1124-1104BC.) This essay is based on the assumption that the historical parts of the Bible should be judged for accuracy by the same rules as any other ancient historical document. …. Unlike any supposed conquest by NEB-2, the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well attested. [End of quote] Cambyses in Egypt The above article is correct at least in its final statement quoted here: “… the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well attested”. The article goes on to tell of the various ancient evidences for this great conquest: EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE We possess the autobiography of the admiral of the Egyptian fleet, Wedjahor-Resne. It is written on a small statue now in the Vatican Museums in Rome. After the conquest of Egypt, Wedjahor-Resne was Cambyses’ right-hand man. “The great king of all foreign countries Cambyses came to Egypt, taking the foreigners of every foreign country with him. When he had taken possession of the entire country, they settled themselves down therein, and he was made great sovereign of Egypt and great king of all foreign countries. His Majesty appointed me his chief physician and caused me to stay with him in my quality of companion and director of the palace, and ordered me to compose his titulary, his name as king of Upper and Lower Egypt.” In an inscription on the statue of Udjadhorresnet, a Saite priest and doctor, as well as a former naval officer, we learn that Cambyses II was prepared to work with and promote native Egyptians to assist in government, and that he showed at least some respect for Egyptian religion: “I let His Majesty know the greatness of Sais, that it is the seat of Neith-the-Great, mother who bore Re and inaugurated birth when birth had not yet been…I made a petition to the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cambyses, about all the foreigners who dwelled in the temple of Neith, in order to have them expelled from it., so as to let the temple of Neith be in all its splendor, as it had been before. His Majesty commanded to expel all the foreigners who dwelled in the temple of Neith, to demolish all their houses and all their unclean things that were in the temple. When they had carried all their personal belongings outside the wall of the temple, His Majesty commanded to cleanse the temple of Neith and to return all its personnel to it…and the hour-priests of the temple. His Majesty commanded to give divine offerings to Neith-the-Great, the mother of god, and to the great gods of Sais, as it had been before. His Majesty knew the greatness of Sais, that it is a city of all the gods, who dwell there on their seats forever.” HERODOTUS Herodotus (who, to my knowledge, never mentions Nebuchadnezzar by name) describes his Hanging Gardens, but never mentions him in relation to Egypt, though Herodotus does talk about pharaohs Necho, Hophra, Ahmose, and Psamtik. [Necos, Apries, Amasis, and Psammis] and of course, Cambyses. Herodotus notes how the Persians easily entered Egypt across the desert. They were advised by the defecting mercenary general, Phanes of Halicarnassus, to employ the Bedouins as guides. However, Phanes had left his two sons in Egypt. We are told that for his treachery, as the armies of the Persians and the mercenary army of the Egyptians met, his sons were bought out in front of the Egyptian army where they could be seen by their father, and there throats were slit over a large bowl. Afterwards, Herodotus tells us that water and wine were added to the contents of the bowl and drunk by every man in the Egyptian force. “When Cambyses had entered the palace of Amasis, he gave command to take the corpse of Amasis out of his burial-place. When this had been done, he ordered [his courtiers] to scourge it and pluck out the hair and stab it, and to dishonor it in every other possible way. When they had done this too, they were wearied out, for the corpse was embalmed and held out against the violence and did not fall to pieces. Cambyses gave command to consume it with fire, a thing that was not permitted by his own religion. The Persians hold fire to be a god and to consume corpses with fire is by no means according to the Persian or Egyptian custom.” [Histories 3.16] MANETHO lists the pharaohs of the 26th dynasty, then cites the Persians as the 27th dynasty. “Cambyses reigned over his own kingdom, Persia, five years, and then over Egypt one year.” PERSIAN EVIDENCE According to king, Darius I’s BEHISTUN INSCRIPTION, Cambyses, before going to Egypt, had secretly killed his brother, Bardiya, whom Herodotus called Smerdis. The murdered prince was, however, impersonated by Gaumata the Magian, who in March 522 seized the Achaemenid throne. Cambyses, on his return from Egypt, heard of the revolt in Syria, where he died in the summer of 522, either by his own hand or as the result of an accident. (10) King Darius says: The following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had a brother, Smerdis by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses slew this Smerdis. When Cambyses slew Smerdis, it was not known unto the people that Smerdis was slain. Thereupon Cambyses went to Egypt. When Cambyses had departed into Egypt, the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied in the land, even in Persia and Media, and in the other provinces. OTHER EVIDENCE A Jewish document from 407 BC known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of Cambyses destroying all the temples of the Egyptian gods. Greek geographer STRABO of Amasia visited Thebes in 24 BC and saw the ruins of several temples said (by local priests) to have been destroyed by Cambyses. [End of quote] Cambyses – in your dreams “Cambyses has a “Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven”. Our neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, was, true to form (as an alter ego for Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”), a frequent recipient of dreams and visions. For example, I wrote previously: Nabonidus was, like “Nebuchednezzar”, an excessively pious man, and highly superstitious. The secret knowledge of which he boasted was what he had acquired through his dreams. Another characteristic that Nabonidus shared with “Nebuchednezzar”. Nabonidus announced (loc. cit.): “The god Ilteri has made me see (dreams), he has made everything kno[wn to me]. I surpass in all (kinds of) wisdom (even the series) uskar-Anum-Enlilla, which Adap[a] composed”. …. [End of quote] In Beaulieu’s book … we read further of King Nabonidus: “I did not stop going to the diviner and the dream interpreter”. And of King Nebuchednezzar – with whom I am equating Nabonidus – the prophet Ezekiel writes similarly of that king’s omen seeking (21:21): “The king of Babylon now stands at the fork, uncertain whether to attack Jerusalem or Rabbah. He calls his magicians to look for omens. They cast lots by shaking arrows from the quiver. They inspect the livers of animal sacrifices”. [End of quote] Ashurbanipal, likewise - he being yet another alter ego - gave immense credence to dreams and used a dream book. Ashurbanipal was, like Nabonidus, more superstitious, if I may say it, than Nostradamus being pursued by a large black cat under a ladder - on the thirteenth. Karen Radner tells of Ashurbanipal’s reliance upon dreams, in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and scholars (p. 224): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_fs_parpola_2009.pdf In the Biblical attestations, especially in the stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Joseph in Egypt, the ḫarṭummîm … [wizards] figure prominently as experts in the interpretation of dreams, and it may be this kind of expertise which the ḫarṭibē offered to the Assyrian king; dream oracles were certainly popular with Assurbanipal who used dreams … to legitimise his actions in his royal inscriptions … and whose library contained the dream omen series Zaqīqu (also Ziqīqu). …. [End of quote] Now, what of Cambyses in this regard? Well, according to Herodotus (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/cambyses.htm) [3.30.1] But Cambyses, the Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy, because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it. [3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in which it seemed to him that a messenger came from Persia and told him that Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched heaven with his head. [3.30.3] Fearing therefore for himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king, he sent Prexaspes, the most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him. Prexaspes went up to Susa and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out hunting, others that he brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there drowned him. [End of quote] This is actually, as we shall now find, quite Danielic. Cambyses has a “Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven. Likewise, “Nebuchednezzar” had a dream of a “tree … which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky” (Daniel 4:20). Now, given that this “tree” symbolised “Nebuchednezzar” himself, who was also according to an earlier dream a “head of gold (Daniel 2:38), then one might say that, as in the case of Cambyses dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven, so did “Nebuchednezzar” touch the sky (heaven) with his head (of gold). Artaxerxes III Not only do scholars liken Artaxerxes (so-called) III in many ways to Cambyses (see e.g. N. Grimal in A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell), but Artaxerxes III, though “considered to be a mighty Persian king, is heavily based upon the Neo-Babylonian Great king, Nebuchednezzar”. Esarhaddon a builder of Babylon become strangely ill “At that time it had become increasingly clear that Esarhaddon's physical condition was poorly: He was constantly struck with illness, mostly of a rather severe nature. For days, he withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink and, most disturbingly, any human company …”. Karen Radner A summary so far According to the findings in this article (and other related works of mine), Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel, had, as his alter egos, Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (whose son was, like the biblical Nebuchednezzar, Belshazzar). A further alter ego of his may have been the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses. And Artaxerxes III - likely a composite character - appears to have been heavily based upon Nebuchednezzar, who bears the title “Artaxerxes” in the Book of Nehemiah. Recently I have found cause to include Esarhaddon in this “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” mix. Here are the reasons why. Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, as a builder of Babylon, who, as we are going to find, suffered a protracted, debilitating and most mysterious type of illness, looms, from such a point of view, as a perfect alter ego for Nebuchednezzar. He, a potent Mesopotamian king, was, of course, a conqueror of Egypt. Added to this, it may be that the Ahikar (var. Achior) who thrived in the court of Esarhaddon, was present, as the high official Arioch, in the court of the “Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel. See my article: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (4) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Yet there is more. Common to my “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” candidates is a tendency to contrariness, or individualism, in the face of established religious or sapiential protocol. I have already written about this as follows: Messing with the rites …. Regarding the rebellious behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the rites, I wrote …: Confounding the Astrologers Despite his superstitious nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel – and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus – did not hesitate at times to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6): The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.” And so, in the Verse Account, we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence of sycophantic officials: Yet he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila - representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned - he looks at the representations and utters blasphemies. When he saw the usar-symbol of Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars, he expounded to them as follows: ‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own temple with the usar-symbol!’ And Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him, do confirm the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we understand this situation, after the king has explained about it!’ …. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129): The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not understand what it meant. The passage is difficult, but its general implications are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of the eclipse and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did check them but disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled for him (Daniel II, 3-5) …. But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly …. Again, in the case of Cambyses, we encounter this unconventional situation: A badly damaged passage in the chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report that, in order to legitimize his appointment, Cambyses partici¬pated in the ritual prescribed for the king at the traditional New Year festival on 27 March 538 B.C., accepting the royal scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the god’s temple in Babylon (III. 24-28; Gray¬son, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim attempted a reconstruc¬tion of the damaged text (Survey of Persian Art XV, p. 3501); according to his version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary Elamite attire, fully armed. The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms, but he refused to change his clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He then received the royal scepter. In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately demon¬strated “a deep-seated religious conviction” hostile to this alien religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 557). Now, Esarhaddon is found to have behaved in just the same fashion as had “Nebuchednezzar”, as had Nabonidus, as had Cambyses. He, in order to justify and facilitate his re-building of the city, Babylon, “turned upside down” the decreed number of 70 years, attributing his subterfuge to the intervention of Marduk: “Seventy years as the measure of its desolation he wrote (in the Book of Fate). But the merciful [Marduk] —his anger lasted but a moment— turned (the Book of Fate) upside down and ordered its restoration in the eleventh year”. Though the reign of Esarhaddon (c. 681 - 669 BC, conventional dating), like that of Nabonidus, is thought to have been relatively short, at least by comparison with that of Nebuchednezzar, I have suggested that what we have of Nabonidus constitutes only the early reign of Nebuchednezzar. The same may apply to Esarhaddon. “… in a society that saw illness as a divine punishment, a king who was constantly confined to the sick bay could not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding”. Here, though, I - with Nebuchednezzar well in mind - want only to focus upon the illness aspect of Esarhaddon, as it has been wonderfully laid bare by Karen Radner, in “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC”. (The BC dates are her dates not mine): https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/3476/24522_10.pdf?sequence=1 Esarhaddon became king of Assyria in the year 681. Despite the fact that his father and predecessor Sennacherib (704-680) had made him crown prince two years earlier and had had the whole country take an oath on behalf of his chosen heir, this happened against all odds: Esarhaddon had not been Sennacherib's first choice and in order to have him installed as crown prince, the old king first needed to dismiss another of his sons from the office …. Mackey’s comment: Thus Esarhaddon had not expected to become king as we found to be the case with Ashurbanipal, with Nabonidus. Karen Radner continues: This son, Urdu-Mullissi by name, had been crown prince and heir apparent to the Assyrian empire for well over a dozen years when he suddenly had to resign from the prominent position; the reasons for his forced resignation are unknown, but were obviously not grave enough to have him pay with his life. Despite the fact that Urdu-Mullissi had to swear loyalty to his younger brother, he opposed his elevation to the office of crown prince, conspired against Esarhaddon and tried to cause Sennacherib to take back the appointment; the king did not comply, but the situation was clearly very precarious, and the new heir was sent into exile for his own protection. Sennacherib does not seem to have realised just how dangerous his decision to back Esarhaddon's promotion was for his own life; otherwise it is a mystery how the former crown prince Urdu-Mullissi could be allowed to stay in his father's closest proximity where, right under his nose, he plotted to become king. Sennacherib seems to have been caught completely off-guard when Urdu-Mullissi and another son of his attacked him with drawn swords in a temple of Nineveh: On the 20th day of the tenth month of 681 … Sennacherib was killed by the hands of his own sons whose deed caused a stir all over the Near East, best witnessed by the report found in the Old Testarnent …. Yet the kingship that Urdu-Mullissi craved for was not to be his. The aftermath of the murder saw fiction between him and his conspirators; his accession to the throne was delayed and ultimately never took place at all. Assyria was in chaos when Esarhaddon, leading a small army, entered the country from his western exile and marched towards the heartland of the empire. He managed to drive out the murderers of Sennacherib … and, two months after the assassination, he became king of Assyria …. These bloody events shaped the new king profoundly. It comes as no great surprise that after his accession to the throne Esarhaddon ordered all conspirators and political enemies within reach to be killed; yet he could not touch the leader of the conspiracy as Urdu-Mullissi had found asylum in Urartu …. That Assyria's northern neighbour would harbour the murderer of Sennacherib is not at all unexpected: The two countries had been in an almost constant state of war for the past two centuries. At that time, chances were that Urdu-Mullissi still might become king and in that event, the Urartian king could reasonably expect to gain substantial influence over Assyria. In the meantime, Esarhaddon made an effort to ensure that his brother would not have any powerful allies at home, should he ever try to stage a coup d'etat from his exile: Many officials throughout the country who were suspected of entertaining sympathy for the enemy fraction were replaced. To give but one example, the complete security staff at the royal palaces of Nineveh and Kabu was dismissed … it is of course understood that these men were not sent into retirement: They will have been executed. Henceforth, Esarhaddon met his environs as a rule with overwhelming distrust. Routinely, he sought to establish by means of oracular queries whether certain courtiers, officials and even members of the royal family wished him ill or actively tried to harm him …. Mackey’s comment: Hence that complete distrust of “Chaldean” sages in the Book of Daniel? Karen Radner continues: If he seems to have been wary of his male relatives, he appears to have entertained less suspicions about the women of his family. This is certainly one of reason why Esarhaddon's mother Naqi'a, his wife Ešarra-ḫammat and his eldest daughter Šerua-eṭirat were able to wield an amount of influence that has few parallels in Ancient Near Eastern history …. The power of his wife was much noticed even outside palace circles; it is quite extraordinary that her death in the year 673 is mentioned prominently in two contemporary chronicle texts". The devoted widower had a mausoleum erected and special rites for his wife's funerary care installed …. Even more remarkable, he did not get married again … Mackey’s comment: But is that statement true only under his guise of Esarhaddon? Karen Radner continues: … the vacant position of the Assyrian queen was hitherto occupied by his mother Naqi'a … who had already played an important role in Esarhaddon's appointment as crown prince and in his eventual taking of power: This is most obvious from a prophecy which records the encouraging words of Ištar of Arbela to Naqi'a during the time of Esarhaddon's exile …. That also the daughter Šerua-eṭirat occupied a prominent position at her father's court is known from some letters that speaks of her self-confidence …. Her far-reaching influence is apparent from the fact that in later years she acted as a mediator in the conflict between her brothers, the kings of Assyria and Babylon …; this is without parallel for any Near Eastern woman of that time. Esarhaddon's general distrust against his environment is also mirrored by his choice of residence. He had a palace in the city of Kalbu … adapted which his forefather Shalmaneser III (858-824) had constructed as an armoury some two centuries earlier. This building was situated far from the administrative and cultic centre of the city, on top of a seperate [sic] mound that protected it well from its surroundings. In the years between 676 and 672, Esarhaddon had the old building renovated and enhanced, turning it into a veritable stronghold: The gateways especially were turned into strongly fortified and impregnable towers that, if needed, could be used to seal off the palace against the rest of the city. The only access to the building was through a narrow entrance, leading into a long and steep hallway inside the enclosing wall which was protected by a sequence of severa1 heavy doors and which steeply ascended towards the palace. Esarhaddon had a similar palace erected in Nineveh, also far removed from the acropolis proper at Kuyunjik on the separate mound of Nebi Yunus …; however, as this is today the site of one of Mossul's most important mosques, the building is only insufficiently explored …. In the first years of his rule, Esarhaddon proved himself a successful regent who, after a chaotic start, was able to consolidate his kingship and efficiently prevented segregation and territorial losses. Treacherous vassals, who had thought Assyria weakened and had tried to benefit from this, had to come to the painful realisation that Esarhaddon fully controlled his governors and his army and was able to take revenge for treason in the same way as his predecessors had done: As a consequence, the vassal kingdoms of Sidon and of Šubria were conquered and turned into Assyrian provinces …. The completion of a peace treaty with Elam, Assyria's long-standing rival in Iran, in the year 674 must be seen as a skilful political manoeuvre, and the securing of the Eastern border provided Assyria for the first time ever with the chance to attempt and exploit the power vacuum in Egypt to its own advantages - Assyria's first invasion into Egypt, however, ended with a defeat against Taharqa the Nubian, and a hasty retreat …. At that time it had become increasingly clear that Esarhaddon's physical condition was poorly: He was constantly struck with illness, mostly of a rather severe nature. For days, he withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink and, most disturbingly, any human company … Mackey’s comment: (Daniel 4:24-25): ‘It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, that you shall be driven from among men …’. Karen Radner continues: … the death of his beloved wife in the year 673 may well have further damaged his already fragile health. For the all powerful king of Assyria, this situation was bizarre. Esarhaddon's counsellors witnessed his deterioration first with apprehension and then with increasing objection, but were of course not in a position to actually change the state of affairs. It is a testament to Assyria's sound administrative structure that the country could take the king's continuing inability to act his part. Modern day man may well be able to muster considerable sympathy for Esarhaddon whose symptoms were indeed rather alarming: As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face. In one letter, the king's personal physician - certainly a medical professional at the very top of his league - was forced to confess his ultimate inability to help the king: ,,My lord, the king, keeps telling me: 'Why do you not identify the nature of my disease and find a cure?' As 1 told the king already in person, his symptoms cannot be classified." While Esarhaddon's experts pronounced themselves incapable of identifying the king's illness, modern day specialists have tried to use the reported symptoms in order to come up with a diagnosis in retrospect?'. However, it is not entirely clear whether the sickly Esarhaddon contracted one illness after the other or, as would seem more likely, suffered from the afflictions of a chronic disease that never left for good. Be that as it may, in a society that saw illness as a divine punishment, a king who was constantly confined to the sick bay could not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding. He could, however, reasonably presume that his subjects saw his affliction at the very least as an indication that the gods lacked goodwill towards their ruler, if not as the fruit of divine wrath, incurred by committing some heinous crime. Therefore, the king's condition needed to be hidden from the public by all means, and that this was at all feasible was very much facilitated by the ancient tradition that whoever came before the king had to be veiled and on their knee. Because of his failing health, Esarhaddon saw himself permanently in death's clutches; this alone made it necessary to provide for his succession: Who would be king after him? There were a great many possible candidates: Esarhaddon himself had fathered at least 18 children but, some of them suffered, like their father, from a frail condition and needed permanent medical attention". It would appear that sickly sons were, just like all the daughters, deemed unfit from the start: After all, only a man without fault could be king of Assyria. …. Another writer has picked up this possible connection “Both Nebuchadnezzar and Esarhaddon were repelled in their first attempt to conquer Egypt, and in the same location”. Charles Pope Charles Pope, would-be revisionist, who can propose some of the wildest biblico-historical correlations (which he manages to do frequently), such as this one regarding Abraham (2002): http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=653 …. A similar scenario played out in the early New Kingdom when three princes named Djehuty competed for dominance. The eldest Djehuty was Abraham. The younger half-brother of Abraham was also a Djehuty, but is better known to us by the Greek form of Thutmose (I). A son of Abraham’s brother Nahor became pharaoh Thutmose II. These were the three "fathers" of yet another Thutmose, Thutmose III (Isaac). Djehuty was the legal father of Thutmose III. Thutmose II was the adoptive father of Thutmose III. Thutmose I was the biological father of Thutmose III. …. can sometimes come up with a bit of a bell-ringer. For instance, I have, in various recent articles, referred to Pope’s Chart 37: “Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives”: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.html Now, in the same 2002 article in which Pope had ridiculously tried to turn the patriarch Abraham into an Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty prince, Djehuty, Pope also ‘explores the possibility’ that Esarhaddon can be Nebuchednezzar: …. I spent all day yesterday exploring the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar is one and the same as Esar-Haddon. For some time now, it has been bugging me that the Babylonian conquest of Nebuchadnezzar is described in the Biblical narrative, but the Assyrian conquest of Esarhaddon is not. When you look at each of these conquests, they appear to be identical. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Esarhaddon were repelled in their first attempt to conquer Egypt, and in the same location. In each case, they succeeded three years later in conquering Egypt when they bypassed the Delta. In each case, there was a third assault five years after the second one. This has me quite intrigued at the moment. If it turns out to be correct, then Nebuchadnezzar was the Babylonian name of Esarhaddon. It is known that Esarhaddon became king in Babylon before succeeding Sennacherib in Assyria. Esarhaddon sacked Thebes in his 9th year. Nebuchadnezzar did the same in his 18th year. I will continue to pursue this correspondence until it is conclusive either one way or the other. Although it seems to complicate matters, in reality it will probably end up simplifying things considerably. This is like playing a game of Tetris. You just keep moving blocks around until you get rid of all the dead space! ‘The Marduk Prophecy’ “The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned to celebrate his victory”. Joshua J. Mark ‘The Marduk Prophecy’, although conventionally dated to the neo-Assyrian era (c. 700 BC), is thought to pertain originally to the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian period centuries earlier. That is what we read, for instance, at: https://www.ancient.eu/article/990/the-marduk-prophecy/ by Joshua J. Mark published on 14 December 2016 The Marduk Prophecy is an Assyrian document dating to between 713-612 BCE found in a building known as The House of the Exorcist adjacent to a temple in the city of Ashur. It relates the travels of the statue of the Babylonian god Marduk from his home city to the lands of the Hittites, Assyrians, and Elamites and prophesies its return at the hands of a strong Babylonian king. The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned to celebrate his victory. The author would have constructed the narrative to place the events in the past in order to allow for a 'prophetic vision' in which the present king would come to restore peace and order to the city by bringing home the statue of the god. This form of narrative was commonplace in the genre now known as Mesopotamian Naru Literature where historical events or individuals were treated with poetic license in order to make a point. In a work such as The Curse of Akkad, for example, the historical king Naram-Sin (2261-2224 BCE), known for his piety, is presented as impious in an effort to illustrate the proper relationship between a monarch and the gods. The point made would be that if a king as great as Naram-Sin of Akkad could fail in piety and be punished, how much more would a person of lesser stature fare. In The Marduk Prophecy, the events are placed far in the past in order for the writer to be able to 'predict' the moment when a Babylonian king would return Marduk to his rightful home. This piece, then, also deals with the responsibility a monarch has to his god. …. [End of quote] According to Takuma Sugie, this document, supposed to have been written during the reign of the Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar so-called I, who conquered Elam, was “re-interpreted” to apply prophetically to Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, who conquered Elam: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient/49/0/49_107/_pdf The Reception of the Marduk Prophecy in Seventh-Century B.C. Nineveh The Marduk Prophecy is a literary composition in the guise of prophetic speech by Marduk. It is supposed to be written to praise Nebuchadnezzar I’s triumph over Elam during his reign. However, all the three surviving exemplars of this text are from the seventh-century B.C. Assyria: two from Nineveh and another from Assur. This article discusses how the Marduk Prophecy was read and re-interpreted in Nineveh at that time. Between the Marduk Prophecy and the royal literature during the reign of Ashurbanipal, the following common themes can be recognized: (1) reconstruction of the Babylonian temples, above all Esagil; (2) conquest of Elam; and (3) fulfillment of divine prophecies. On the basis of these, the author proposes that in the seventh-century Nineveh the Marduk Prophecy was regarded as an authentic prophecy predicting the achievements of Ashurbanipal, and that this is the main reason why this text was read at his court. …. [End of quote] The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king. See e.g. my article: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (7) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment. Nebuchednezzar so-called I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashurbanipal#Nineveh.2C_Babylon_and_Ela Striking parallels with Esarhaddon “[Matthijs J. de] Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions …”. Takuma Sugie Nor is there any surprise in learning that ‘The Marduk Prophecy’ bears striking parallels with Esarhaddon’s inscriptions for the same reason (Esarhaddon is Ashurbanipal). And, according to this present series, Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal) is Nebuchednezzar. Takuma Sugie continues on, writing of the similarities that de Jong has picked up between the ‘Prophecy’ and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon: III. Were Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Interested in the Marduk Prophecy? Recently, Matthijs J. de Jong inferred that two [sic] Assyrian great monarchs in the seventh century, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, had a particular interest in the Marduk Prophecy. …. He draws parallels between the Marduk Prophecy and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon. To take the most striking similarity, the Marduk Prophecy iii 25'-30' foretells that an ideal king “will make the great king of Dēr (šarra rabâ ša urudēr) stand up from a place not his dwelling … and bring him into Dēr and eternal Ekurdimgalkalama (ana urudēr u é-kur-UD(dimx?)-gal-kalam-ma ša dā[r]âti ušerrebšu).”14 This closely resembles a phrase recurring in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, which represents this king as the one who “brought the god Great-Anu (i.e., Ištarān) into his city Dēr and his temple Edimgalkalama and had (him) sit upon eternal dais (danum rabû ana ālišu dērki u bītišu é-dim-gal-kalam-ma ušēribuma ušēšibu parakka dārâti).”15 In addition to this, de Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions: (1) ascension of the Babylonian gods to heaven;16 (2) fulfillment of the days of absence;17 (3) renovation of the Esagil temple in Babylon;18 (4) Babylon’s tax exemption;19 (5) gathering of the dispersed Babylonian people;20 and so on. Furthermore, de Jong points out a community of themes shared between the Marduk Prophecy and Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions too; Ashurbanipal continued and completed his father’s [sic] project to send back Marduk’s statue and restore Esagil. Ashurbanipal also conducted several military campaigns against Elam. In the light of these parallels, de Jong supposes that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were profoundly interested in the Marduk Prophecy, and he proposes the possibility that the Marduk Prophecy was elaborated during the reign of one of these kings. …. The Siege of the City of Tyre “But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673)”. Arnold J. Tkacik Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB) has written what I would consider to be a most helpful and enlightening commentary on the extremely complex biblical Book of Ezekiel in his article, “Ezekiel”, for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968). I refer more especially to the exegetical (or religious-spiritual) aspect of his commentary than to the historical side of it. Though, even in this latter regard - or at least as regards the chronology of the book - Fr. Tkacik has arrived at what I think are some telling conclusions. However, if this present article is correct, according to which Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ is to be enlarged and greatly filled out with the potent king, Esarhaddon, then any conventional commentary for this particular period of biblico-history must needs be somewhat one-dimensional rather than being able to present a full picture of the times. Regarding the siege of the Levantine Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel, or what Fr. Tkacik heads, THE TIDAL WAVE AGAINST TYRE (26:1-21), the author will suggest that “the method of attack” in this case is more along the lines of Esarhaddon’s modus operandi against Tyre than, as according to some, that of Alexander the Great. Thus he writes (21:60): Some authors (e.g. Holscher and Torrey) maintain that the poem describes the capture of Tyre by Alexander in 332, because it speaks of a complete destruction of the city (vv. 3-6, 14). But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673). [End of quote] The “method of attack” is described in Ezekiel 26:8-9 like this: He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. Instead of his writing “similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon ...)”, though, Fr. Tkacik could well have written “similar to that of attackers Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon”. For, unlike Alexander, the neo-Assyrian/Babylonian besiegers failed to complete their work even after years of effort. Compare the following two items (Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar): https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/E/esarhaddon.html The capture of Tyre was also attempted, but, the city being differently situated, a siege from the land was insufficient to bring about submission, as it was impossible to cut off the commerce by sea. The siege, after several years, seems to have been lifted. Although on a great monolith Esarhaddon depicts Ba`al, the king of Tyre, kneeling before him with a ring through his lips, there is nothing in the inscriptions to bear this out. http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790 Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt. In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected. It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar. After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar. Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field). Neither account above allows for the total destruction of Tyre that Alexander the Great would later manage to achieve. Previously, I also included the mighty Ashurbanipal amongst my alter egos for Nebuchednezzar. Thus I wrote: The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king. …. The necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment. Nebuchednezzar I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”. …. So what of Ashurbanipal and Tyre? If I am correct, then he should have experienced the same outcome there as had his alter egos, Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar. Well, it seems that my view is solidly supported by the following statement according to which “scholars attribute ... to Esarhaddon” what Ashurbanipal himself would claim regarding Tyre: Esarhaddon refers to an earlier period when gods, angered by insolent mortals, create a destructive flood. According to inscriptions recorded during his reign, Esarhaddon besieges Tyre, cutting off food and water. Assurbanipal's inscriptions also refer to a siege against Tyre, although scholars attribute it to Esarhaddon. And so they should if I am correct: Ashurbanipal was Esarhaddon – was Nebuchednezzar! https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/295-assurbanipal-cylinder-c/ Esarhaddon's son [sic] Aššurbanipal (r.669-631?) inherited this situation. In his third year, he tried to capture Tyre, occupied the mainland, but - like his predecessors - failed to capture the island city itself. Note the absence of tribute: it seems that a marital alliance was concluded. ... In my third campaign I marched against Ba'al, king of Tyre .... Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nebuchednezzar, tried to take Tyre but failed to take it completely even after a long siege. The king of Tyre at the time was Ba’al, or Ithobal (Ithoba’al). More recently, I have added yet another king to the list of alter egos for Esarhaddon/ Ashurbanipal/Nebuchednezzar: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (4) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu