Important city Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta hidden in Mesopotamian geography

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“Modern historians judge that Tukulti-Ninurta’s sacking of Babylon

with the carrying off of Marduk’s statue must have been considered

sacrilegious by many Assyrians”.

 W. G. Lambert

 

“Turning Babylon into a lake – covering the civilized land with water,

returning the city of Marduk to the primordial chaos – was an insult to the god. Sennacherib compounded this by ordering the statue of Marduk

hauled back to Assyria”.

 

Susan Wise Bauer

 

 

I, having initially followed an intriguing suggestion of Phillip Clapham’s identifying the assassinated Tukulti-Ninurta I with the assassinated Sennacherib, wrote:

 

And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib. …. Clapham soon decided that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged.

 

That was enough for me at the time to abandon any notion that Tukulti-Ninurta I may have been Sennacherib, who is also my Sargon II:

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

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

 

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

 

https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overla

 

But I have since re-considered all of this, having been struck by the incredible similarities - that must have impressed Phillip Clapham also - between Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sennacherib (though I would now add Sargon-Sennacherib).

 

Here are some of these (I am using largely, for Tukulti-Ninurta I, Marc Van de Mieroop’s book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC):

 

(i)           Son of Shalmaneser

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-07 BC, conventional dates)

 

Son of Shalmaneser (I)

 

Sargon-Sennacherib (721-05 – 704-681 BC, conventional dates)

 

Son of Shalmaneser (V)

 

(ii)         Hittites and Anatolian revolt

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 150: “… attacked the Hittite state from the east, and vassals in the west and south-west of Anatolia rebelled”.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

“Evil Hittites without respect for the command of the gods, whisperers of treachery”—these and similar reproaches were hurled by Sargon II's scribes against the peoples of Syria and Palestine who would not submit to the Assyrian yoke, or who having submitted sought relief in rebellion. Sargon's anger marked a crisis in the long but intermittent Assyrian relationship with the Anatolian peoples of North Syria and the Taurus, loosely termed “Hittites”.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/assyrians-and-hittites/75F371933AB39A293386C806765939A1

 

(iii)       Invades Babylonia, puppet king(s) installed

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 165: “… invaded Babylonia and deposed Kashtiliashu IV … whom he took in chains to Assur. ….

After assuming Babylonian kingship for a short time, Tukulti-Ninurta appointed a series of puppet rulers, who represented Assyrian interests for a decade.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

Sennacherib likewise “placed a puppet ruler … by the name of Bel-ibni, in charge at the city of Babylon”. (Paul A. Lindberg, God's Plan of the Ages Volume 4: King Ahaz to Messiah).

 

“After consolidating his rule over the empire, Sargon was ready to reclaim the lost throne of Babylon. In 710 BC Sargon invaded Babylonia. The fractures and conflicting interests between the polities of the region became visible in the ensuing war when some cities and tribes quickly joined Assyria while others stayed loyal to Marduk-apla-iddina. Eventually, faced with this crumbling of support, the Chaldean abandoned Babylon and its citizens invited Sargon to enter the city (SAA 17 20-21).

….

 

Once again, an Assyrian king assumed the Babylonian throne. In contrast to his Assyrian predecessors, Sargon remained resident in Babylon for five years, leaving the Assyrian heartland in the hands of his crown prince [sic] Sennacherib. Sargon began the process of properly integrating Babylonia into the empire, following a very different course than his father Tiglath-pileser's laissez-faire policy. For the first time in Assyria's rule over the south, large-scale restructuring was evident. Babylonia was split into two provinces under the rule of Assyrian governors: the province of Babylon comprised the northern part of Babylonia where most of the big cities were located, the province of Gambulu consisted of the Aramaean and Chaldean tribal areas.

 

Under the two provincial governors operated individual city governors, also directly appointed by the Assyrian king, and military commanders based in the Assyrian garrisons securing the region. There was, however, little extensive militarisation.

The Assyrian administration exerted control mainly through an elaborate intelligence system comprised of local informers and Assyrian agents.

Unlike in other provinces, the hierarchical relationships in Babylonia were not clear cut, best evidenced by the fact that Sargon frequently corresponded with and intervened at all levels and various aspects of the administration.

 

Sargon took the role of king of Babylon seriously. He participated in all major Babylonian festivals, such as the New Year festival (akitu TT ), and restored the region's temples, a traditional duty and privilege of the king of Babylon. Sargon profoundly shaped Babylonian politics by appointing his favoured officials as provincial and city governors and stewards over the most important temples. Their correspondence with the king survives in many cases (SAA 17). As his special envoy to the region, Sargon appointed Bel-iddina [Sennacherib’s Bel-ibni?], a scholar from his entourage whose task in Babylonia it was to oversee the operation of cults and to report directly to the king on the officials in the region. Bel-iddina was the king's eyes and ears amongst his administrators in Babylonia and he acted as an extension of the king's authority”.

 

(iv)       Faced with a powerful Elamite-Babylonian coalition

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 165: “Elamite pressure and a successful Babylonian rebellion returned Babylon to Kassite control, but Elam’s raids eventually led to the collapse of the Kassite dynasty and deposed Kashtiliashu IV … whom he took in chains to Assur. ….

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

Sargon reacted to this provocation by marching his troops southwards and Merodach-baladan retaliated by joining forces with the king of Elam … Assyria's rival of old. Together they mustered a massive army against Sargon's forces. In 720 BC, the troops met in battle at the city of Der … in the plains east of Babylon …. Although Merodach-baladan's troops arrived too late for active combat, the Assyrian army was pushed back by his Elamite allies and he retained control of the south and the title of king of Babylon.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/kings/sargonii/

 

(v)          Literary tablets seized from Babylonia’s temples

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 169: “Tukulti-Ninurta I, for example, after sacking Babylon, took home literary tablets as booty. He may thus have laid the foundation of a royal library in Assyria filled with Babylonian manuscripts”.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

“Sargon II … or his successor [sic] Sennacherib … gave an order to a Babylonian scholar concerning … a “writing board of the temples”.

….

 

The order to prepare a list of Babylonian temples might have had administrative reasons … but it could also concern the tablets of the Babylonian temple libraries”.

 

(vi)       Following his father in deporting nations

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 172: “Under Tukulti-Ninurta this practice was extended by deporting north Syrian people to Assyria, where they were set to work on public projects and agriculture”.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

“[Sargon II] conquered Samaria and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. Sargon’s inscriptions record that he deported 27,290 Israelites from their homeland and re-settled them to regions throughout the empire from Anatolia across to the Zagros Mountains. In doing so, he was simply following Assyrian political and military procedure ….

https://www.ancient.eu/Sargon_II/

 

(vii)     Building new capital city on virgin soil

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 172: “The military successes provided the economic resources for great building activity in Assyria. The greatest project was the construction of a new capital city by Tukulti-Ninurta, named Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, opposite Assur [sic] on the Tigris river. It was built after he had defeated Babylon, the spoils of that campaign helped provide the means. The city was founded on virgin soil and covered an enormous area, some 240 hectares, if not more”.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

P. 251: “… Sargon II … decided to build an entirely new [capital city] on virgin soil, and called it Dur-Sharrukin, “Fortress of Sargon” …”.

 

“A massive wall of mud brick, 14 meters thick and 12 meters high, surrounds the rectangular site of the city, which covers nearly 300 hectares”. 

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq05-042.html

 

(viii)   New city did not last long

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I

 

P. 172: “The city’s life as a capital was short, however. After Tukulti-Ninurta was assassinated, it became a place of secondary status”.

 

Sargon-Sennacherib

 

“Sargon was killed in battle [sic], and Dur Sharrukin was quickly deserted”.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Dur-Sharrukin

 

It seems inevitable, now, that the brand new city built by the Great King of Assyria, his pride and joy, Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta/Dur Sharrukin, should be recognised as being just the one mighty capital city of Assyria.

 

The conventional site choice for Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, modern Tulul ul Aqar (Telul al-Aqr) in the Salah al-Din Governorate, Iraq, may, in fact, have been simply an associated part (extension) of the ancient city of Assur (Ashur), for example, an “administrative district” (see below):

 

Bible Map: Rehoboth-Ir (Nineveh)

“REHOBOTH-IR

…. Though the probabilities in favor of Rebit Ninua are great, it is doubtful whether a suburb could have been regarded as a foundation worthy of a primitive ruler, and that a very important city, Assur, the old capital of Assyria, would rather be expected. One of the groups expressing its name is composed of the characters Sag-uru, or, dialectically, Sab-eri, the second element being the original of the Hebrew `ir. As the "center-city," Assur may have been regarded as the city of broad spaces (rechobhoth)-its ruins are of considerable extent. The German explorers there have made many important discoveries of temples, temple-towers, palaces and streets, the most picturesque in ancient times being the twin tower-temples of Anu (the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris, about 50 miles South of Nineveh.  …”.

 

From snippets that I have taken here from Alessandra Gilibert’s article:

 

On Kār Tukultī-Ninurta: chronology and politics of a Middle Assyrian ville neuve

 

(5) On Kār Tukultī-Ninurta: chronology and politics of a Middle Assyrian ville neuve

 

one will perhaps notice that the conventional Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta appears to have been dominated by the city of Ashur, and was not so large in some of its aspects, “relatively modest size”, “a “miniature ziqqurrat”,” “the architecture of the temple in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta does not fit with the role of a great institution”, “The perimeter of the ziqqurrat measures virtually exactly half that of the Aššur temple in Aššur”, “Kār Tukultī-Ninurta had the status of pāḫutu, or “administrative district”.

 

Thus Alessandra Gilibert writes:

 

“… the location selected for Kār Tukultī-Ninurta suggests rather a choice which stresses a vicinity to Aššur, rather than a move away from it. In fact, the city is the only example of an Assyrian city planned and erected in patent proximity to Aššur.

 

The same impression is clearly conveyed in the text of the inscriptions reporting on the foundation of Kār Tukultī Ninurta. In them there is no trace of a desire to redefine the role of the capital. On the contrary, the I-narrator, that is, the fictive voice of Tukultī-Ninurta, repeatedly calls Aššur alij a, “my city”, and URU ba-it ilāni, “’desired object’ of the gods”.”

….

“Turning to the architectonic evidence, the existence of public and cultic buildings in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta is alone not enough to imply a consistent transfer of political and religious affairs from Aššur to the new foundation”.

….

“Less than one hundred metres southeast of the palace complex in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta, a temple complex of elegant architecture but relatively modest size has been found (Fig. 5). It was surrounded by a precinct and characterized by the presence of a “miniature ziqqurrat” (Lloyd 1978: 183)”.

….

“… it has been argued that the temple in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta attempted to supplant the traditional pivotal religious role of the temple of Aššur (Klengel 1961: 74; Eickhoff 1985: 49, fn. 144; Mayer 1988: 156). Yet relevant facts speak against this view. First of all, Tukultī-Ninurta had important renovation works done at the temple of Aššur in Aššur (A.0.78.1003), installing goods looted from Babylonia there (Lambert 1957-58: 45, l. 12-19). Furthermore, the architecture of the temple in Kār Tukultī-Ninurta does not fit with the role of a great institution. The perimeter of the ziqqurrat measures virtually exactly half that of the Aššur temple in Aššur,12 …”.

….

“Finally, textual evidence demonstrates that Kār Tukultī-Ninurta was administered by a bureaucratic cadre partially coterminous with that of Aššur, thus speaking against a political fracture. Kār Tukultī-Ninurta had the status of pāḫutu, or “administrative district” (Postgate 1995: 5; Jakob 2003: 14-15, 111-131)”.

 

 

 

 

Playful archangel Raphael too clever for humans and demons

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

The subtle angel may also have had modern biblical exegetes well in mind when,

in answer to the question of Tobias: ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media?

Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you;

I am familiar with the way …’. (Tobit 5:5-6).

 

The archangel Raphael appears in the form of a young man when Tobias is looking for someone to guide him to the land of Media at his father Tobit’s request (Tobit 5:3-8):

 

Then Tobit gave [Tobias] the receipt, and said to him, ‘Find a man to go with you and I will pay him wages as long as I live; and go and get the money’. So he went to look for a man; and he found Raphael, who was an angel, but Tobias did not know it. Tobias said to him, ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media? Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you; I am familiar with the way, and I have stayed with our brother Gabael’. Then Tobias said to him, ‘Wait for me, and I shall tell my father’. And he said to him, ‘Go, and do not delay’. So he went in and said to his father, ‘I have found some one to go with me’. He said, ‘Call him to me, so that I may learn to what tribe he belongs, and whether he is a reliable man to go with you’.

 

The ancient Greeks enjoyed this colourful incident so much that they absorbed it into The Odyssey, with Telemachus taking the place of Tobias and the disguised archangel, Raphael, being replaced by, not surprisingly, a Greek deity, in this case the goddess Athena disguised as the young man, Mentes.

 

Mentes (King of the Taphians) - Wikipedia

“In Book I, the Goddess Athena disguises herself as Mentes, an old family friend of Odysseus, when she goes to visit his son, Telemachus. Athena, disguised as him, tells Telemachus that he is sailing to the city of Temese with his own crew, claiming that he is in search of bronze. …. Although Mentes had hardly any appearances in Greek myths of earlier antiquity, he became a symbol of a guardian and a mentor. …”.

 

While Raphael will help Tobias get the money (silver), Mentes “is in search of bronze”.

 

Tobit, old and presently blind, will be no match for the tricky Raphael when Tobit attempts to learn the young man’s name and origins (vv. 9-15):

 

So Tobias invited him in; he entered and they greeted each other. Then Tobit said to him, ‘My brother, to what tribe and family do you belong? Tell me’. But he answered, ‘Are you looking for a tribe and a family or for a man whom you will pay to go with your son?’ And Tobit said to him, ‘I should like to know, my brother, your people and your name’. He replied, ‘I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives’. Then Tobit said to him, ‘You are welcome, my brother. Do not be angry with me because I tried to learn your tribe and family. You are a relative of mine, of a good and noble lineage. For I used to know Ananias and Jathan, the sons of the great Shemaiah, when we went together to Jerusalem to worship and offered the first-born of our flocks and the tithes of our produce. They did not go astray in the error of our brethren. My brother, you come of good stock. But tell me, what wages am I to pay you—a drachma a day, and expenses for yourself as for my son? 

 

And besides, I will add to your wages if you both return safe and sound’. So they agreed to these terms.

 

Surely, this must be the same elusive being as the mysterious one, “the man”, with whom the patriarch Jacob had wrestled and had hoped to wrest from him his identity – but to no avail (Genesis 32:24-29):

 

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak’.

But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me’.

The man asked him, ‘What is your name?’

‘Jacob’, he answered.

Then the man said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome’.

Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name’.

But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there.

 

Compare:

 

‘Please tell me your name’. (Genesis)

‘I should like to know, my brother, your people and your name’. (Tobit)

 

Jacob’s (and Tobit’s) question: ‘Please tell me your name’, like another ancient question, this time from Jacob’s father, Isaac, ‘Where is the lamb?’ (Genesis 22:7), will resound down through the centuries, until being definitively answered.

For, the angel Raphael will, late in the Book of Tobit, reveal his true identity (12:15): ‘ I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One’.

 

And Isaac’s question will be answered only upon the arrival of the Messiah whom Isaac had foreshadowed, when the Baptist declared: ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’ (John 1:29).

 

The archangel had brilliantly chosen an identity that was both accurate in its meaning, and one that lulled Tobit into thinking that he was a relative from a good family.  

 

Likewise, in The Odyssey, the goddess Athena will portray herself as a family friend. For, as we read above: “… the Goddess Athena disguises herself as Mentes, an old family friend of Odysseus, when she goes to visit his son, Telemachus”.

 

Chris Cammarata has well explained the archangel Raphael’s resorting to subterfuge:

 

In the Book of Tobit, angel Raphael pretends he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the elder. Why did the Angel lie? Isn’t it a sin to lie? – Catholic Café

 

In the Book of Tobit, angel Raphael pretends he is Azariah, the son of Hananiah the elder. Why did the Angel lie? Isn’t it a sin to lie?

 

It is a sin to lie, but the angel isn’t exactly lying. In this situation it’s more like he isn’t revealing the whole truth–at least not yet.

 

The nature of St. Raphael’s mission required that he keep his angelic identity hidden. Other angels in the Old Testament did this as well. Angels are fearful, powerful, and glorious creatures–that’s why they often begin their messages with “do not be afraid!” Masking their angelic nature serves a practical purpose–and it also emphasizes that God is the one who deserves the glory, not the angel.

 

The reason St. Raphael gives the name Azariah to Tobit in the first place is because he urges the angel to tell him where he is from.  So Raphael gets around it with a funny trick: he gives Tobit and Tobiah the name “Azariah, son of Hananiah.” The name Azariah means “God has helped” and Hananiah means “God has shown mercy.” So basically Raphael is disguising his identity while at the same time secretly hinting at it–his whole mission, as revealed at the end of the story, began because Raphael brought their family’s prayer before the Lord and so was sent to help them (see Tobit 12:11-20). He calls himself a “kinsman” and an “Israelite” as a way of showing that they belong to the same spiritual family–the people of God.

 

So you can sort of think of Azariah as the angel’s “codename” for the mission!

 

And just to clear up any confusion on lying, the Catechism notes that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional” (CCC 2488). We have to judge in particular situations whether it is the right time and circumstance to reveal the truth. Being truthful requires prudence, too. Also, “no one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it” (CCC 2489). In the case of St. Raphael, Tobit and his family didn’t have the right to know his true identity–but in the end, he reveals it to them to “declare the works of God with due honor” (Tobit 12:11).The irony in the story of Tobit is that when St. Raphael first enters Tobit’s house and greets him, he tells him: “Take courage! God’s healing is near; so take courage” (Tobit 5:10). What does the name Raphael mean? “God’s healing” (or “God heals”)!

 

More angelic tricks

 

And Raphael, having revealed his name, lets slip another secret.

He was not actually eating, as he had appeared to be, when he was Tobit’s family (12:19): “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision”.

 

Early during their trek to the land of Media, at the River Tigris, the angel will have to intervene to save Tobias from being devoured by a fish (6:1-3):

 

Now as they proceeded on their way they came at evening to the Tigris river and camped there. Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man; and the angel said to him, ‘Catch the fish’. So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land.

 

In this incident, the brilliant archangel will demonstrate his breadth of knowledge of God’s created world, of the healing properties of vital parts of a fish, of demonology and exorcism: (vv. 4-8):

 

Then the angel said to him, ‘Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely’. So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish.

And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana. 

 

Then the young man said to the angel, ‘Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?’ He replied, ‘As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured’.

 

Young Tobias was in the care of a very astute travelling guide.

 

The subtle angel may also have had modern biblical exegetes well in mind when, in answer to the question of Tobias: ‘Can you go with me to Rages in Media? Are you acquainted with that region?’ The angel replied, ‘I will go with you; I am familiar with the way …’. (5:5-6).

For, according to Fr. D. Dumm, writing on “Tobit” for The Jerome Biblical Commentary, the angel was confused about the way, leading Tobias in the wrong direction: “[The angel] Raphael knows the journey of life far better than the route to Media!” But, unlike our ignorant generation, the archangel well knew that the land of Media was situated to the west, not to the east of Nineveh - a fact that Richard Erickson has recently demonstrated (2020) quite independently of the Book of Tobit:

 

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

(5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

More angelic subtlety

 

As the travellers neared Ecbatana in Media, Raphael informs Tobias about the “beautiful and sensible” Sarah, his future wife (6:9-12):

 

When they approached Ecbatana, the angel said to the young man, ‘Brother, today we shall stay with Raguel. He is your relative, and he has an only daughter named Sarah. I will suggest that she be given to you in marriage, because you are entitled to her and to her inheritance, for you are her only eligible kinsman. The girl is also beautiful and sensible. Now listen to my plan. I will speak to her father, and as soon as we return from Rages we will celebrate the marriage. For I know that Raguel, according to the Law of Moses, cannot give her to another man without incurring the penalty of death, because you rather than any other man are entitled to the inheritance’.

 

Tobias, however, knowing that Sarah has been tormented by a demon who had already killed her previous seven husbands, is none too keen about this proposal (vv. 13-14):

 

Then the young man said to the angel, ‘Brother Azarias, I have heard that the girl has been given to seven husbands and that each died in the bridal chamber. Now I am the only son my father has, and I am afraid that if I go in I will die as those before me did, for a demon is in love with her, and he harms no one except those who approach her. So now I fear that I may die and bring the lives of my father and mother to the grave in sorrow on my account. And they have no other son to bury them’.

 

The resourceful angel, though, had already made preparations for this very situation (vv. 15-17):

 

But the angel said to him, ‘Do you not remember the words with which your father commanded you to take a wife from among your own people?

Now listen to me, brother, for she will become your wife; and do not worry about the demon, for this very night she will be given to you in marriage. When you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke. Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never again return. And when you approach her, rise up, both of you, and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you and have mercy on you. Do not be afraid, for she was destined for you from eternity. You will save her, and she will go with you, and I suppose that you will have children by her’. When Tobias heard these things, he fell in love with her and yearned deeply for her.

 

All went according to plan. Tobias and Sarah become happily married, and Asmodeus, “the worst of demons”, was bound by the archangel (8:3): “And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him”.

 

In The Odyssey, the demon is substituted by the evil god, Poseidon, who had pursued Odysseus relentlessly, and who goes off to Ethiopia, “the farthest limits of mankind”.

 

Another subtlety – the archangel’s use of the word “suppose” (Tobit 6:17): ‘You will save [Sarah], and she will go with you, and I suppose [ὑπολαμβάνω] that you will have children by her’.

Why does he say that?

Because, while he knows that Tobias and Sarah are, indeed, going to have children, many of them, he likewise knows that Tobias and Sarah, as Job and his wife, will tragically lose ten of them in one instant (Job 1:19).

 

The later Tobias-Job

 

Tobias-Job, as an old man, a prophet, still living at the time of the Medo-Persians, when the second Temple was nearing completion, and here under his Akkadian name, Habakkuk, will again be visited by he whom he had called in the Book of Job (16:19) his ‘witness … in heaven’, and his ‘advocate … on high’, surely the archangel Raphael.

 

The angel wants him to take food to Daniel, languishing in the den of lions in Babylon.

 

Once again, he who had a long time ago declared (Tobit 5:2): ‘…. I don’t know how to get to Media’, will now, as an old man, say to the angel: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’. (Daniel 14:35).

 

The resourceful angel, typically, will quickly fix that problem (14:36): “Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den”.

 

That’s what clever angels can do.