Monday, August 3, 2026

Elihu prophesying on God’s behalf

 


 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

  

“Because Elihu really is providing us with truth and revelation. ….

Elihu is on the scene to resolve the dispute, chastising both prior groups

and offering the correct theological perspective”.

 

Stan Rock

  

Previously I have proposed – following others – that young Elihu of the Book of Job was both wise and prophetically inclined:

 

Young Elihu in the Book of Job corrects the ‘wisdom’ of the aged

 

(5) Young Elihu in the Book of Job corrects the ‘wisdom’ of the aged

 

and that:

 

Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

(5) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

May even, potentially, have been Ezekiel.

 

Here I take up what Stan Rock has to say about young Elihu (2014)

Christus Victor: Existentialism Faces Eternity

 

Elihu, the Forgotten Prophet of Job

 

The Book of Job is one of the most important of the entire Bible, and is a prerequisite to all discussions of Christian theology, particularly theodicy.

 

Unfortunately, two erroneous interpretations of Job’s theses are by far the most popular.

 

Job the Hero: The Sunday School Interpretation

 

In Sunday School as a child, the Book of Job was presented to me as the story of:

 

  • Satan’s challenge to God,
  • Job’s suffering as a result,
  • Job courageously refusing to curse God through the suffering,
  • and God rewarding that fortitude with recompense and a happy ending.

 

This is the story of Job in the shallow end of the Christian pool. ….

 

Bad Friends: The “No Heroes” Interpretation

The other popular “take-away” from Job is that when someone is suffering, words only make things worse, and each person who talked to Job was wrong.

 

Job’s friends Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are indeed rebuked, in the end, by God himself. And Job’s complaints against his friends would seem to serve such a thesis.

 

Ravi Zacharias wrote in his recent book, “Why Suffering? Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense”:

“[A ‘negative reality’ emerged in] the colossal failure of [Job’s] friends. They were at their best when they took time out of their own lives just to be with him, saying nothing. The moment they began to give their own observations for why Job was suffering and offer their suggestions for remedying his situation, Job’s pain intensified. To be loved and feel cared about is what someone who is hurting needs from friends.”

 

Zacharias sees the problem of Job’s friends remedied only by God’s ultimate arrival:

“So the failure we see in the story of Job is the failure of friendship. Then comes the answer of God. God’s answer was not propositional, but relational. And that is what Job most needed. He simply needed to know that God was with him through his ordeal … that God had not abandoned him.”

 

The Problems With These Interpretations

 

The former interpretation accounts for Job chapters 1, chapter 2 verses 1 through 10, and chapter 42 verses 10 through 16. As such, it is missing about 40 chapters of content.

 

The latter interpretation has completely jettisoned the most overlooked prophet in the Old Testament: Elihu.

 

An Overview of Job

 

Job’s 42 chapters contain the following:

 

  • An introduction to Job’s predicament.
  • Job arguing with friends Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad about whether Job is righteous vs. whether God is just.
  • Elihu arguing against both Job and Job’s 3 friends.
  • The Storm of God arriving and boasting of His transcendent power, wisdom, and justice.
  • The conclusion: Job repents, God rebukes Job’s 3 friends (not Elihu), and Job is given recompense (as far as it can be called that).

 

Notice how much material Elihu provides, material never thereafter rebutted, left to be punctuated by God himself. Isn’t it odd that he is so often forgotten, bundled as “just another friend” alongside Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad?

 

Elihu as Prophet

 

Elihu is not a shy character. He’s a young upstart, and makes no apologies about the wisdom he brings to the table:

“I thought, ‘Age should speak; advanced years should teach wisdom.’ But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding. It is not only the old who are wise, not only the aged who understand what is right. … My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely speak what I know. The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. … Be silent, [Job,] and I will teach you wisdom. … Hear my words, you wise men [Eliphaz, Zophar, Bildad]; listen to me, you men of learning. … So listen to me, you men of understanding. … If you have understanding, hear this; listen to what I say.”

 

All this, and God does not rebuke him like he rebukes everyone else.

 

Why?

 

Because Elihu really is providing us with truth and revelation.

He really is confronting Job, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad and correcting their bad theology.

“Bear with me a little longer and I will show you that there is more to be said on God’s behalf. I get my knowledge from afar; I will ascribe justice to my Maker. Be assured that my words are not false; one who has perfect knowledge is with you.”

 

This isn’t some joke.

 

This is prophecy.

 

Elihu is on the scene to resolve the dispute, chastising both prior groups and offering the correct theological perspective.

 

Job’s Lamentation Theology

 

The calamity that befalls Job — and for which God is superordinately responsible (he deliberately gave permission to Satan here, after all) — prompts Job to regret the day he was born. He claims personal righteousness, and thus his misfortunes must be indicative (given that superordinate responsibility) of injustice in God, given that justice means, “He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves (Job 34).”

 

Job laments the fact that he cannot approach God personally with the case for his innocence; he yearns to do so! His friends aren’t “buying” that case, but Job surmises that a person lives that could vindicate him.

 

Job doesn’t relax God’s classical attributes. He fully endorses God’s omnipotence and superordinate responsibility (Job 12), as well as his cosmic wisdom (Job 28).

 

As such, Job’s theodicean solution — his “lamentation theology” — is to indict God’s benevolence.

“There is no justice,” Job says.

 

The Karmic Folk Theology of Eliphaz, Zophar, & Bildad

 

Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad have different emphases, but repeat some similar themes, and since are all rebuked, can be treated as a group.

 

Their argument is as follows: Since God is just (“He repays everyone for what they have done”) and superordinately responsible for what happens to a person, then if something bad happens to a person, it must be in response to something that person has done. Eliphaz articulates this “common sense” karmic folk theology:

“Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.”

 

Bildad, for example, jumps to the conclusion that Job’s sons must have been sinners, too:

“Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right? When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.”

 

Every time Job insists that he’s innocent, his friends go the opposite direction: Job must be super wicked, and trying to hide it. Zophar says:

“Though evil is sweet in [a wicked man’s] mouth, and he hides it under his tongue… [it] will turn sour in his stomach [and] become the venom of serpents within him.”

 

As Job proves adamant in his own defense, his friend Bildad retreats to that classic “catch-all” of total depravity: As a human, you are so beneath God that you are a worthless maggot and deserve whatever happens to you.

“How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot; a human being, who is only a worm!”

 

Eliphaz weaves a powerful figure: A wealthy man, portly and happy, brought down to shriveling, sickly misery.

 

Elihu’s Rejection of Job’s Lamentation Theology

 

First, Elihu sees it within human capacity to discern God’s justice in the abstract, even if we don’t know how it plays out day-by-day. He rejects the idea that God’s goodness and justice are completely inscrutable, as if something without human-appreciable meaning.

“For the ear tests words as the tongue tastes food. Let us discern for ourselves what is right; let us learn together what is good.”

 

Elihu further defines justice (“He repays everyone for what they have done”) and rejects the notion that God would pervert justice.

 

So, Elihu joins Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad against Job’s claim of innocence.

“His eyes are on the ways of mortals; he sees their every step. … Should God then reward you on your terms, when you refuse to repent? … [We all agree that] Job speaks without knowledge; his words lack insight. Oh, that Job might be tested to the utmost for answering like a wicked man! To his sin he adds rebellion; scornfully he claps his hands among us and multiplies his words against God.”

 

Elihu’s Rejection of Karmic Folk Theology


But here’s where it gets interesting.

 

Elihu agrees, Job has sinned, insofar as Job arrogantly indicted God for injustice, speaking “of things [he] did not understand”; Job’s plea, laden with such “empty talk,” was brazen, reckless, and cheap.

 

But he rejects the notion that man is a “maggot” who deserves whatever befalls him.

 

The transcendence of God to man does not make man despised, but rather, makes man’s wickedness less impactful to God:

“Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? … Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself.”

 

Instead of a “despised mankind” narrative, Elihu crafts a narrative in which God has an instrumental purpose for all he does:

“God is mighty, but despises no one; he is mighty, and firm in his purpose.”

 

In this way, God’s justice is comprehensible, but the intricacies of how that justice will be made manifest are mysterious. God is not a flayer; he’s a teacher:

“Who is a teacher like him? Who has prescribed his ways for him, or said to him, ‘You have done wrong’? … How great is God — beyond our understanding!”

 

It’s less about “vengeance,” but instead about correction, forebearing as long as that purpose has hope:

“He tells [the sinner] what they have done — that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.”

 

He recrafts Eliphaz’s tale of the sickened man into a narrative of redemption:

“Someone may be chastened on a bed of pain with constant distress in their bones, so that their body finds food repulsive and their soul loathes the choicest meal. Their flesh wastes away to nothing, and their bones, once hidden, now stick out. They draw near to the pit, and their life to the place of the dead.

 

Yet if there is an angel at their side, a messenger, one out of a thousand, sent to tell them how to be upright, and he is gracious to that person and says to God, ‘Spare them from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom for them — let their flesh be renewed like a child’s; let them be restored as in the days of their youth’  — then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being. … God does all these things to a person — twice, even three times — to turn them back from the pit, that the light of life may shine on them.”

 

Christ as Victor

 

We’ve talked before about how the existential dilemma of Ecclesiastes — ultimate meaninglessness — received a practical solution in Christ as conqueror of death.

 

In Job, we see the dilemma of justice, where the wicked may enjoy the peace of death without their due repayment, and where the playing-out of God’s justice may involve the unrewarded — in life — suffering of the faithful.

 

Christ, as conqueror of death, is also the final judge. The final judgment is not for God’s edification — Elihu correctly explains that God doesn’t need to hold a tribunal — but for ours. And through that process, all “loose ends” can be wrapped-up entirely:

 

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

 

Elihu as Bridge


From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

“[Elihu’s] meaning is ‘He is my God’ [in the sense of] ‘He remains my God and does not change.’ … [His] argument is as follows: God is the educator of mankind, who punishes only until the sinner has atoned for his sin and recognizes his wrong-doing. Then God has attained His object, to ‘bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.’

Elihu, therefore, holds a middle ground, maintaining that God neither ‘takes away judgment,’ nor sends suffering merely as a punishment, but acts as the educator and teacher of mankind.”

 

Elihu is our “bridge” to Christ. His is a theological response that unites justice and mercy — not by conflating them, but by employing them as part of a single grand plan.

 

His is a rejection of pure retribution and an embrace of prospective instrumentality, an exaltation of a God who is mighty, despises no one, and is firm in his purpose.

 

Elihu, who heralds the Lord Himself:

 

“Out of the north he comes in golden splendor;

God comes in awesome majesty.

The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;

in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.”

 

Friday, July 17, 2026

Judith as Gurdi who slew the Assyrian commander



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

What I think are certainties

 

First certainty.

Whether or not one believes that the Book of Judith is a genuine historical account, what is certain, so I think (and others do, too), is that Charles C. Torrey – who did not believe that the book was meant to be considered as historical – has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the author of the Book of Judith had in mind the highly strategic city of Shechem when he told about the heroine Judith’s city of “Bethulia” (his “Betylūa”).

 

Just read his account of it in which he establishes “Bethulia”, north, south, east and west, as Shechem:

 

The Site of ‘Bethulia’

Charles C. Torrey

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 20 (1899), pp. 160-172 (13 pages)

 

The name “Bethulia” (“Betylūa”) can be accounted for as the northern Bethel of Israel’s King Jeroboam I. For, as Dr. John Osgood has explained it: Techlets · Creation.com W. Ross in Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1941), p.22–27 reasoned, I believe correctly, that the Bethel of Jeroboam must be Shechem, since it alone fills the requirements”. 

 

And the following site has accepted Charles C. Torrey’s identification of Judith’s “Bethulia” with Shechem: Bethulia Explained

“It has widely been speculated that, based on location descriptions in the book, that the most plausible historical site for Bethulia is Shechem. Shechem was a large city in the hill-country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem, lying in the path of the enemy, at the head of an important pass and is a few hours south of Geba. Both Charles Cutler Torrey and The Jewish Encyclopedia subscribe to this theory. …. the Jewish Encyclopedia claims that Shechem is the only location that meets all the requirements for Bethulia's location, further stating: "The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question". …. Torrey pointed out that the description of water being brought to the city by means of an aqueduct from a spring above the city on the south side is a trait that can only belong to Shechem. …”.

 

My second certainty is that the 182,000-plus Assyrian army that came up against “Bethulia” and its environs (Judith 7:2):

 

That same day their troops went into action, an army numbering

one hundred and seventy thousand infantry and twelve thousand cavalry,

not to mention the baggage train and the foot soldiers charged with its maintenance—an immense multitude.

 

could only have been Sennacherib’s ill-fated 185,ooo (cf. 2 Kings 19:35).

 

And this leads me to a third certainty.

 

Sennacherib must be the “King Nebuchadnezzar … ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh” of Judith 1:1.

 

In other words, the Book of Judith is set in the late neo-Assyrian era, and not the Chaldean era of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (and, a fortiori, it can have nothing to do with the Maccabean age).

 

The insertion into the text of the name “Nebuchadnezzar” is indeed unfortunate, and confusing, but has been satisfactorily explained by Dr. Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University’s Oriental Institute, author of the fascinating book, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon (2013), according to whom the ancients commonly confused Sennacherib of Nineveh with Nebuchednezzar of Babylon. 

 

My fourth certainty is that Sennacherib was the same as Sargon II, as I argued at length in my university thesis (2007), and have since done in various other articles, e.g.:

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib?sm=b&rhid=41435406210

 

And that makes me certain about another thing, too, my fifth.

 

The heavily bracketted neo-Assyrian eponym entry:

 

“The king [against Tabal....] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [......]

The king was killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken......].

On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son [of Sargon, took his seat on the throne]”.

 

Eponym Cb6

 

to which Assyriologists took the liberty of adding the name “Sargon”, is wrong in (a) separating Sargon from Sennacherib, and (b) having Sargon killed in this campaign.

 

He was not.

 

Sargon, as Sennacherib, was murdered some time after this disaster for Assyria, assassinated by two of his own sons (cf. Tobit 1:21): “But not fifty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat”. 

 

Certainty number six.

Eponym Cb6 above could only be describing the prelude to the rout of the 185,000 Assyrians, when Judith slew the Assyrian commander-in-chief, and the Assyrian “camp” was overrun. The title “king” would be applicable to the commander-in-chief, who had been appointed by Sennacherib as King of Babylon.

Isaiah 10:8: “‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ he says”.

He was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Crown Prince, the treacherous “Nadin” (Nadab) of the Book of Tobit:

 

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

 

(12) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith

 

The name “Holofernes” appears to be, like “Nebuchadnezzar”, another of those unfortunate confusing of names.   

 

Ešpai the Kulummaean

 

In my consideration of how to fit Eponym Cb6’s names, “Ešpai the Kulummaean”, into the Book of Judith’s scheme of things, as I think these, now, must inevitably be fitted, I had come to the conclusion, in my most recent article: 

 

Assyriology has Sargon II dying during Tabal campaign – except that he didn’t

 

(12) Assyriology has Sargon II dying during Tabal campaign – except that he didn’t

 

that Ešpai, or Ushpia, could only have been Israel’s prince-commander, “Uzziah”, that is, Isaiah, appointed by King Hezekiah over places such as “Bethulia” and Chelmon (hence “the Kulummaean”), where the Assyrian Wehrmacht would shudder to a halt (Judith 7:3, Douay): “All prepared themselves together to the fight against the children of Israel, and they came by the hill side unto the top, which looketh toward Dothaim, from the place which is called Belma unto Chelmon, which is against Esdrelon”.

 

It now becomes a seventh certainty that the one who killed the Assyrian commander (supposedly, but not, Sargon), Gurdi of Kulumma[n], was Judith herself – the only one who did actually slay Assyria’s commander-in-chief:

Sargon II - Wikipedia

Sargon's final campaign ended in disaster. Somewhere in Anatolia [sic], Gurdî of Kulumma, an otherwise poorly attested figure, attacked the Assyrian camp. …. Gurdî has variously been assumed to have been a local ruler … or a tribal leader of the Cimmerians [sic], during this time allied with the rebels in Tabal. …. In the ensuing battle, Sargon was killed. The Assyrian soldiers fleeing from the attack were unable to recover the king’s body. ….

 

The unexpected death of Sennacherib’s Crown Prince son (here wrongly given as Sargon himself) rocked Sennacherib to his superstitious core:

Sargon II - Wikipedia

 

Sargon forgotten

 

Sargon's legacy in ancient Assyria was severely damaged by the manner of his death; in particular, the failure to recover his body was a major psychological blow for Assyria.[16] The shock and theological implications plagued the reigns of his successors for decades.[133] The ancient Assyrians believed that unburied dead became ghosts that could come back and haunt the living.[16][108] Sargon was believed to be doomed to a miserable afterlife; his ghost would wander the Earth, eternally restless and hungry.[10][133] Soon after the news of Sargon's death reached the Assyrian heartland, the influential advisor and scribe Nabu-zuqup-kena copied Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgamesh.[16] This tablet contains a section eerily similar to Sargon's death, with the miserable implications described in detail,[e] which must have left the scribe stunned and distressed.[16] In the Levant, Sargon's hubris was mocked. It is believed that a foreign ruler chided in the Biblical Book of Isaiah is based on Sargon.[16]

 

Sennacherib was horrified by his father's death. The Assyriologist Eckart Frahm believes that Sennacherib was so deeply affected that he began suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.[118] Sennacherib was unable to acknowledge and mentally deal with what had transpired.[143] 

 

Sargon's dishonorable death in battle and his lack of a burial was seen as a sign that he must have committed some serious and unforgivable sin that made the gods completely abandon him.[144] Sennacherib concluded that Sargon had perhaps offended Babylon's gods by taking control of the city.[145]

 

Monday, July 6, 2026

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 GovernorateIraq, 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 pāutu, 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 pāutu, or “administrative district” (Postgate 1995: 5; Jakob 2003: 14-15, 111-131)”.