Geography of the Book of Tobit presents a fascinating challenge

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction Upon finishing my most recent article: Search for the Median empire (8) Search for the Median empire with its radical re-location of the land of Media (based on Royce Erickson), I thought to reconsider my geography of the Book of Tobit and its troublesome “Media”, as discussed in a now old article, “A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit”. Having done that, I came to realise that I must now put aside the latter article and attempt to create a new and (hopefully) more accurate one. This one. Here, firstly, I shall recall what I wrote at the beginning of “A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit”, in which the geographical problem is plainly set out, followed by my first attempt at a solution. After that, I can proceed with a new, and hopefully more satisfactory, account of the geography of the Book of Tobit. The Problem In my “A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit” article, I began: To a good friend who wrote this about the geography of the Book of Tobit: Tobias and the Tigris. Several possibilities exist here. It is not unknown for several streams to bear the same name, nor is it impossible that the swiftest road into Media was a highway which was accessed by Tobias traveling to the real Tigris River to connect with this route. …. I would reply: What I have often argued with early Genesis, especially the Six Days and the Flood, is that a ‘surface’ reading of a biblical text may sometimes lead one to a conclusion that is far from what the original scribe(s) intended, and often far also from common sense. Such I believe to be the case, too, with standard versions of the Book of Tobit with regard to its geography. If we would believe the text as it currently stands, the angel Raphael was leading young Tobias (my prophet Job) a merry dance inasmuch as, with a starting point at Assyrian Nineveh, and with the aim of arriving at Rages near Ecbatana in Media – Ecbatana being some 185 miles east of Nineveh – the angel brings Tobias in the evening to the river Tigris, directly west of Nineveh. No wonder then that, on this basis, The Jerusalem Bible says that “the geography is inexact”, and that Fr. D. Dumm (article, “Tobit”) in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, exclaims that: “[The angel] Raphael knows the journey of life far better than the route to Media!” Unfortunately, though, Fr. Dumm just leaves it at that, without being willing, or able, to defend the accuracy of the Bible with a proper explanation of what is happening here. My previous solution But we need to go to other versions of the Book of Tobit to find the solution. [See above map for the standard locations of Nineveh, Tigris, Medes, Ecbatana] There is no geographical support in the Book of Tobit for an eastwards journey, from Nineveh to the classical Media (Ecbatana and Rhages): For one, the River Tigris is west of Nineveh; And, whilst the Median Rhages is in the plain, with Ecbatana being in the mountains, the Book of Tobit has Ecbatana in the plain and Rages in the mountains (see below); And again, Charan (Haran), in Syria, is, according to the Douay version of Tobit, ‘midway’ between Nineveh and ‘Media’; And furthermore, whereas the journey from Tobit’s Ecbatana to Rages normally took “two full days”, the almost 200-mile journey from the Median Ecbatana to Rhages would have taken significantly longer. In fact it took the army of Alexander the Great 11 days at full gallop to march from the one to the other. Rightly then does Jan Simons observe (according to a Median context) that the journey referred to in the Book of Tobit “would be a forced ‘journey of two days’ even for an express messenger”. Thankfully, however, there are versions of the Book of Tobit that set us aright, with Ecbatana becoming “Bathania” (the Roman province of Batanaea), that is, the fertile Bashan, east of the River Jordan in Palestine, and Media becoming “Midian”. Thus the angel Raphael knows exactly what he is doing. Why, did he not inform the anxious Tobit that he knew the way thoroughly (as an angel would know)? So we find that the real angel Raphael was escorting the young Tobias, not eastwards, but westwards from Nineveh, to the Tigris crossing, then to Haran, and on to Bashan (where the angel then leaves on an early flight for Damascus). I discussed all of this in Volume Two of my thesis [2007], A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973 (Chapter 2, pp. 38-40), where I had specifically claimed that “Rages”, a city in the mountains, must be the city of Damascus that dominated the province of Batanaea” (p. 39). Damascus, almost 700 m above sea level, is actually situated on a plateau. Secondly, I gave there very specific geographical details in order to identify this “Rages” in relation to “Ecbatana” (Tobit 5:6), which I had in turn identified (following the Heb. Londinii, or HL, fragment version of Tobit) with “Bathania”, or Bashan (possibly Herodotus’ Syrian Ecbatana as opposed to the better known Median Ecbatana). According to Tobit, “Rages is situated in the mountains, two days’ walk from Ecbatana which is in the plain”. Now Damascus is precisely two days’ walk from Bashan in the Hauran plain, as according to Jâkût el-Hamawi who says of Batanaea’s most central town of Nawâ …: “Between Nawa and Damascus is two days’ journey” (as quoted on p. 39). What further consolidates the fact that Tobit’s ‘Ecbatana’ was in a westerly direction, rather than an easterly one, is that his son Tobias, leaving Nineveh, arrived at the Tigris river in the evening; an impossibility were he heading for Median Ecbatana in the east. And, according to the Vulgate version of Tobit, Charan, that is, Haran, is situated “in the halfway” between Nineveh and Ecbatana. The traveller is clearly journeying towards the west. Whilst Bible scholars today tend to dismiss the whole geography of the Book of Tobit as nonsensical, a simple adjustment based on a genuine version (Heb. Londinii), makes perfect – even very precise (“two days walk”) – sense of it. …. The testimony of Jâkût el-Hamawi here was an absolute clincher for me … when trying to make sense of the geography of the Book of Tobit …. [End of quotes] Was I completely happy with this attempt to restore, in the face of criticism, the geography of a book of the Bible, depicting it as a westward, not an eastward, journey? Nineveh = Nineveh River Tigris = River Tigris Charan = Haran Media = Midian Ecbatana = Bashan Rages = Damascus Well, yes I was, basically, although there were still a few little knots and niggling points that I thought perhaps could be considered later. The time has now come to consider these knots and niggles. A new assessment The positives What is still patently clear to me is that the travelling party, Raphael and Tobias, could not possibly have been, as the commentators think they were, heading eastwards from Nineveh to the traditional land of Media because of the fact that the travellers arrived at the Tigris river in the evening, and that, later, they came to Charan (Haran/Harran). Therefore, I am completely happy with my first three of these six name identifications: Nineveh = Nineveh River Tigris = River Tigris Charan = Haran Media = Midian Ecbatana = Bashan Rages = Damascus It is quite possible (without hurting my reconstruction in the slightest) that “Nineveh” here was actually Calah (Nimrud), that is, Nineveh in the Genesis and Jonah sense of “the great city” complex (Genesis 10:11-12): “From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city”. Cf. Jonah 3:3: “So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey”. For Tobit and his wife were taken into captivity by the Assyrian king, “Shalmaneser”, who, given that the family was Naphtalian, must also have been king Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15:29): “Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria”. To where did Tiglath-pileser remove (deport and resettle) his Israelite captives? Why, to “Calah” (greater Nineveh) and, most interestingly, to “the cities of the Medes” (2 Kings 18:11): “The king of Assyria exiled the Israelites to Assyria and settled them in Halah [Calah], in Gozan by the Habor River, and in the cities of the Medes”. The negatives Here begin the knots and niggles as referred to above. Media, Ecbatana, Rages It had occurred to me that, if Tobit’s Ecbatana was actually Bashan, as I thought it was, then why were not his relatives, Raguel and family, too (presumably also Naphtalians), in captivity away from Israel? And, whilst Bashan (Bathania) was a pretty good linguistic fit for Ecbatana - and ancient writers have, indeed, testified to more than one Ecbatana - Midian was not totally convincing for the Bashan region; though it was far more fitting for there than was the traditional land of Media (and its Ecbatana). While the name Rages (Rhages Raghai) did not fit at all for Damascus (as I had identified it), the topography and distance (as according to Jâkût el-Hamawi) seemed to me to be a perfect fit. Finally, Charan (Haran/Harran) was not really midway between Nineveh and Bashan. I had taken Tobit 10:13: “And as they were returning they came to Charan, which is in the midway to Ninive …”, as being like a casual observation of a traveller, without being meant to be geographically precise. Even after reading Royce (Richard) Erickson’s mind-blowing (2020) article: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY with its own Tiglath-pileser-like ‘deportations’ of the lands of Chaldea, Elam, Media and Persia hundreds of kilometres to the NW of where they are conventionally situated, I had persisted with my article, “A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit”, without making any alterations, thinking that it was essentially correct - whilst being aware that it might eventually need to undergo some degree of tweaking. The truth is that Royce Erickson’s article makes all the difference to the geography of the Book of Tobit, showing that the angel Raphael knew perfectly well to where he was leading young Tobias, and that the book’s Media, Ecbatana and Rages do not stand in need of special interpretation. Thanks to Royce Erickson, an ancient may now do once again as the travelling party had done in the Book of Tobit, head westwards from “Nineveh” (Calah?) to the Tigris river, and on to Haran, and then on to Ecbatana and Rages in the land of Media. And Haran can once again be, as old Tobit had known it, “in the midway to Ninive”. Royce Erickson’s Figure 1 here shows his proposed identification of Ecbatana as Abadaniye in his (revised) land of Media: Funnily, the occasional map will show a land of Media much, much further westwards than would conventionally have been expected. Now, whether Royce Erickson’s version of Ecbatana, as the admittedly very like-named Abadaniye, is the correct one remains to be determined. If one is to take seriously the information in the book of Tobit, then Ecbatana, in a plain, must be within two days’ walk of a place called Rages, in the mountains. And Haran must be midway between Ecbatana and Nineveh. Regarding this last point, Abadaniye would appear to be perhaps a bit too far westwards to enable Haran to qualify as a midway point. Just a thought for further consideration.

Horrible Histories: Tropological Trojans

by Damien F. Mackey “As a result, the evidence for the Trojan War of Homer is tantalizing but equivocal. There is no single “smoking gun”.” Dr. Eric H. Cline While scholars are prepared to expend time trying to prove the historicity of Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, which are replete with gods and goddesses, and demi-gods, they would generally, I suspect, be far less interested in the biblical (Catholic) books of Judith, Job and Tobit, based on real historical people and events. The life of holy Tobit, who served the mighty Assyrian king, Shalmaneser, in highest level office: Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s ‘rab ekalli’ (3) Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser's 'rab ekalli' coursed through a succession of 3 real neo-Assyrian kings, according to Tobit 1:2-21: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”. In fact, the Book of Tobit actually corrects the conventional neo-Assyrian succession. Apart from its failing to situate a Sargon (II) between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib - and that is because Sargon II was Sennacherib - it, when forensically examined, necessitates a merging, as well, of Shalmaneser with Tiglath-pileser. While the Book of Tobit, therefore, corrects ancient history, what does Homer do with the biblical data (say, Tobit, Job and Judith)? Before answering that question, who was this Homer, anyway?: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d8c7ix/who_was_homer/ “In Greek works written hundreds of years later, we get all sorts of fanciful stories about Homer's origins, his life, his afflictions (including crippling poverty and alleged blindness), and the era in which he supposedly lived. But none of this seems to have any basis in reliable historical knowledge. With the Homeric epics so central to the education of every Greek and to the formation of Greek identity, it was only natural that their author should become an almost mythical figure about whom many wise men claimed to know things that hadn't been known before. It is fair to say that the Greeks actually knew nothing about Homer from any local tradition or historical documentation”. “… including crippling poverty and alleged blindness …”. Interesting. Old Tobit experienced crippling poverty (Tobit 1:20) and he also went blind for a time (2:9-10). What does the so-called “Homer” - or what do the Greco-Romans - do with the books of Tobit, Job and Judith? Well, they appropriate large portions of them: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit (3) Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit even introducing the goddess Athena (Athene) into their appropriations. In that article on The Odyssey, I gave these comparisons: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature [Saint] Jerome …. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This combined biblical influence upon Homer is, I think, more intelligible in light of my article: Job’s Life and Times (4) Job’s Life and Times in which I have identified Job with Tobit’s son, Tobias. Some Compelling Comparisons I need to point out right at the start that it sometimes happens that incidents attributed to the son, in the Book of Tobit, in Job, might, in The Odyssey, be attributed to the son's father, or vice versa (or even be attributed to some less important character). The same sort of mix occurs with the female characters. These are some of the parallels that I have picked up: The two chief male characters Tobit and his son, Tobias/Job, equate approximately to Odysseus and his son, Telemachus. Unlike the pious Tobit, though, Odysseus was a crafty and battle-hardened pagan, with a love of strong drink and an eye for women {goddesses}. But he nevertheless pined for his true wife, Penelope. The Suitors These unpleasant and self-serving characters are especially prominent and numerous in Homer’s The Odyssey. In the Book of Tobit, “seven” suitors in turn meet an unhappy fate in their desire for Sarah. The Sought-After Woman In The Odyssey, she is Penelope. She is Sarah in the Book of Tobit. The 'Divine' Messenger From whom the son, especially, receives help during his travels. In the Book of Tobit, this messenger is the angel Raphael (in the guise of ‘Azarias’). In The Odyssey, it is the goddess Athene (in the guise of ‘Mentes’). Satan, or Adversary (Book of Job) He is Poseidon in The Odyssey, the god who hounds down the story’s hero. He is Asmodeus in the Book of Tobit. According to the following, this Asmodeus is to be identified with the Iranian, Aeshma Daeva (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f): Bearing just as obvious a connection with non-biblical literature, I believe, is the demon Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8), who is doubtless to be identified, on purely morphological grounds, with Aeshma Daeva, a figure well known in ancient Iranian religion …. The Friends Whereas, in the Book of Tobit, the young man’s journeying takes him amongst kindred folks (e.g. Raguel and Gabael), in The Odyssey, it is to the homelands of certain Greek returnées from Troy (e.g. Nestor and Menelaus) that young Telemachus travels. The Dog Yes, even a dog, or dogs, figure in both stories. P. Reardon, commenting upon this particular parallel in The Wide World of Tobit, follows the typical pattern of thought according to which the pagan mythology has precedence over the Hebrew version: The Larger World …. The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity! [End of quote] There is space here for only a few more of the many further parallels that I have observed between Tobit/Job and The Odyssey: Further Comparisons Only Son Tobias was the only son of Tobit and Anna (cf. Tobit 1:9 and 8:17). So was Telemachus the only son of Odysseus and Penelope: '[Telemachus] ... you an only son, the apple of your mother's eye...' (II, 47). Likewise Anna referred to her son, Tobias, as 'the light of my eyes' (Tobit 10:5). And Telemachus’s uncle will use that identical phrase: 'Telemachus, light of my eyes!' (XVI, 245). Longing for Death The aged Tobit, in his utter misery of blindness, longed for death, and thus he prayed to God: 'Command that I now be released from my distress to go to the eternal abode; do not turn Thy face away from me' (Tobit 3:6). This theme is treated even more starkly, and in more prolonged fashion, in the Book of Job (esp. Ch. 3). In The Odyssey, it is said of Laërtes that "every day he prays to Zeus that death may visit his house and release the spirit from his flesh" (XV, 239). And Odysseus, after having learned from Circe about the wretched existence of the dead in Hades, said: 'This news broke my heart. I sat down on the bed and wept. I had no further use for life, no wish to see the sunshine any more' (X, 168). The Suitors "On the same day" that Tobit had prayed to be released from this life, Sarah - back home in Midian "was reproached by her father's maids, because she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmodeus had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife" (Tobit 3:7, 8). In the Vulgate version of Tobit, we are informed that these seven suitors had lustful intentions towards Sarah (6:17). The Odyssey also tells about Penelope, who is tormented by the suitors who have invaded Odysseus’s home and are squandering the family's wealth. Penelope has to resort to the ruse of weaving a winding-cloth - ostensibly intending to make the decision to marry once she has completed it. But each night she undoes the cloth, in order to keep the suitors at bay (I, 28-33; II, 38-39). The prediction early in the story, that "there'd be a quick death and a sorry wedding for ... all [the suitors]", once Odysseus returned home (I, 32), was to be fulfilled to the letter when he dealt them all a bloody end. And indeed these words, a "sorry wedding" and a "quick death", might well have been spoken of Sarah's suitors as well, once the demon Asmodeus had finished with them. This Asmodeus is eventually overcome by Tobias, with great assistance from the angel. Asmodeus then "fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him" (cf. Tobit 7:16 and 7:8:3). Even this episode might have its 'echo' at the beginning of The Odyssey, when the violent god, Poseidon (legendary father of the Athenian hero Theseus - born of two fathers: Poseidon and Aegeus, king of Athens), is found amongst "the distant Ethiopians, the farthest outposts of mankind ..." (I, 25). Ethiopia could indeed be described as "the remotest parts of Egypt". Heavenly Visitor ... she [Athene] bound under her feet her lovely sandals of untarnished gold, which carried her with the speed of the wind.... Thus she flashed down from the heights of Olympus. On reaching Ithaca she took her stand on the threshold of the court in front of Odysseus' house; and to look like a visitor she assumed the appearance of a Taphian chieftain named Mentes… (I, 27-28). The reader will quickly pick up the similarities between this text and the relevant part of the Book of Tobit if I simply quote directly from the latter: The prayer of [Tobit and Sarah] was heard in the presence of the glory of the great God. And Raphael was sent (3:16,17). Then Tobias ... found a beautiful young man, standing girded, as it were ready to walk. And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he saluted him.... 'I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias' (5:5, 6, 18). The Questioning Tobit had interrogated the angel about the latter's identity, asking: 'My brother, to what tribe and family do you belong? Tell me ...', etc., etc. (5:9-12). Raguel exhibited a similar sort of curiosity: 'Where are you from brethren? .... Do you know our brother Tobit? .... Is he in good health?' (7:3, 4). In The Odyssey, too, this pattern (but with a Greek slant - e.g. the mention of ships) is again most frequent - almost monotonous. Telemachus, for instance, asks Athene: 'However, do tell me who you are and where you come from. What is your native town? Who are your people? And since you certainly cannot have come on foot, what kind of vessel brought you here?' (I, 29). (For further examples of this pattern of interrogation in The Odyssey, see pp. 72; 118; 164; 175; 208; 220). Athene replied to Telemachus, using a phrase that I suggest may have come straight out of the Book of Tobit - where towards the end of the story Raphael says: 'I will not conceal anything from you' (12:11). Thus: 'I will tell you everything', answered the bright-eyed goddess Athene. 'My father was the wise prince, Anchialus. My own name is Mentes, and I am a chieftain of the sea-faring Taphians'. Delaying One’s Guests Another noticeable tendency in these Israelite writings, as well as in The Odyssey, is for hosts to insist on their guests staying longer than the latter had intended, or had wished. This was perhaps the customary hospitality in ancient Syro-Mesopotamia, because it is common also in Genesis (24:25-26; 29:21-31:41). And it happens in The Book of Tobit, and indeed all the way through The Odyssey as well. For example, Telemachus says to Athene (I, 29): 'Sir, .... I know you are anxious to be on your way, but I beg you to stay a little longer, so that you can bathe and refresh yourself. Then you can go, taking with you as a keepsake from myself something precious and beautiful, the sort of present that one gives to a guest who has become a friend'. 'No', said the bright-eyed goddess. 'I am eager to be on my way; please do not detain me now. As for the gift you kindly suggest, let me take it home with me on my way back. Make it the best you can find, and you won't lose by the exchange'. (Cf. IV, 80; XV, 231-232). In like manner, Tobias was impatient to leave the sanguine Raguel and return home: At that time Tobias said to Raguel. 'Send me back, for my father and mother have given up hope of ever seeing me again'. But his father-in-law said to him, 'Stay with me, and I will send messengers to your father, and they will inform him how things are with you'. 'No, send me back to my father'. So Raguel arose and gave him his wife Sarah and half of his property in slaves, cattle, and money. (10:7, 8-10). The Dog(s) (a) The Leaving "... Telemachus himself set out for the meeting-place, bronze spear in hand, escorted ... by two dogs that trotted beside him" (II, 37). Also "[Tobias and the angel] both went out and departed, and the young man's dog was with them" (Tobit 5:16). (b) The Returning When Telemachus returned home: "The dogs, usually so obstreperous, not only did not bark at the newcomer but greeted him with wagging tails"(XVI, 245). The dog in the Book of Tobit was equally excited: "Then the dog, which had been with [Tobias and the angel] along the way, ran ahead of them; and coming as if he had brought the news showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail" (Tobit 11:9). The Iliad, for its part, does some heavy lifting from the Hebrew Bible. See e.g. The Jewish Bible Quarterly (2016): LITERARY PARALLELS BETWEEN HOMER’S EPICS AND THE BIBLICAL PHILISTINES https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-issues/2016/443-july-september-2016/literary-parallels-homers-epics-biblical-philistines/ See also my articles: Joshuan Miracle of the Sun absorbed into Homer’s Iliad https://www.academia.edu/122576373/Joshuan_Miracle_of_the_Sun_absorbed_into_Homers_Iliad ‘Homeric’ borrowings from life of King Saul https://www.academia.edu/75749605/Homeric_borrowings_from_life_of_King_Saul King Ahab and Agamemnon (6) King Ahab and Agamemnon Book of Judith’s impact upon Greco-Roman and Arabic myths https://www.academia.edu/83801583/Book_of_Judith_s_impact_upon_Greco_Roman_and_Arabic_myths Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene https://www.academia.edu/24417162/Judith_the_Jewess_and_Helen_the_Hellene And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Influence of the Book of Tobit Getting back to the Book of Tobit itself, it refers to other known historical events, too: the assassination of Sennacherib (see below); the destruction of Nineveh (14:15); the Jewish return from the Babylonian Captivity; and the rebuilding of the Temple (14:5). Ahikar (Ahuqar) And the Book of Tobit also introduces us to the most influential Ahikar, who became “second-in-command” to the potent Esarhaddon in the kingdom (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and when they fled to the mountains of Ararat, his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael, over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration and accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria, so Esar-haddon appointed him as second-in-command. He was my nephew and so a close relative. In the Book of Tobit we learn of - {paralleling Judith’s Achior and “Holofernes” [Achilles and Agamemnon?]} - Ahikar’s close association with Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, called “Nadin” (Nadab) in the Book of Tobit: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (3) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith This Ahikar is a verifiable historical figure in ancient Assyria, as Aba-enlil-dari: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear” …. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” …”. The great man, and his writings, became widely influential, having a profound impact even on Islam. On this, see e.g. my articles: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân (4) Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân and: Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into [the] Islamic Golden Age (5) Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age Dr. Eric H. Cline has asked the question (2013): https://blog.oup.com/2013/05/trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/ The Trojan War: fact or fiction? The Trojan War may be well known thanks to movies, books, and plays around the world, but did the war that spurred so much fascination even occur? The excerpt below from The Trojan War: A Very Short Introduction helps answer some of the many questions about the infamous war Homer helped immortalize. By Eric Cline The story of the Trojan War has fascinated humans for centuries and has given rise to countless scholarly articles and books, extensive archaeological excavations, epic movies, television documentaries, stage plays, art and sculpture, souvenirs and collectibles. In the United States there are thirty-three states with cities or towns named Troy and ten four-year colleges and universities, besides the University of Southern California, whose sports teams are called the Trojans. Particularly captivating is the account of the Trojan Horse, the daring plan that brought the Trojan War to an end and that has also entered modern parlance by giving rise to the saying “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” and serving as a metaphor for hackers intent on wreaking havoc by inserting a “Trojan horse” into computer systems. But, is Homer’s story convincing? Certainly the heroes, from Achilles to Hector, are portrayed so credibly that it is easy to believe the story. But is it truly an account based on real events, and were the main characters actually real people? Mackey’s comment: Yes, indeed, Achilles and Hector, complete fictions in themselves, were “based on” real (generally biblical) characters. Would the ancient world’s equivalent of the entire nation of Greece really have gone to war over a single woman, however beautiful, and for ten long years at that? Mackey’s comment: No. Could Agamemnon really have been a king of kings able to muster so many men for such an expedition? Mackey’s comment: No. And, even if one believes that there once was an actual Trojan War, does that mean that the specific events, actions, and descriptions in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, supplemented by additional fragments and commentary in the Epic Cycle, are historically accurate and can be taken at face value? Is it plausible that what Homer describes actually took place and in the way that he says it did? Mackey’s comment: No. Virgil’s story of the Trojan Horse has, in its essence, been lifted out of the Book of Judith. See Part One: “Cunning Sinon deceiving the Trojans”, of my article (above): “Book of Judith’s impact upon Greco-Roman and Arabic myths”. In fact, the problem in providing definitive answers to all of these questions is not that we have too little data, but that we have too much. Mackey’s comment: Really! The Greek epics, Hittite records, Luwian poetry, and archaeological remains provide evidence not of a single Trojan war but rather of multiple wars that were fought in the area that we identify as Troy and the Troad. As a result, the evidence for the Trojan War of Homer is tantalizing but equivocal. There is no single “smoking gun.” According to the Greek literary evidence, there were at least two Trojan Wars (Heracles’ and Agamemnon’s), not simply one; in fact, there were three wars, if one counts Agamemnon’s earlier abortive attack on Teuthrania. Similarly, according to the Hittite literary evidence, there were at least four Trojan Wars, ranging from the Assuwa Rebellion in the late 15th century BCE to the overthrow of Walmu, king of Wilusa in the late 13th century BCE. And, according to the archaeological evidence, Troy/Hisarlik was destroyed twice, if not three times, between 1300 and 1000 BCE. Some of this has long been known; the rest has come to light more recently. Thus, although we cannot definitively point to a specific “Trojan War,” at least not as Homer has described it in the Iliad and the Odyssey, we have instead found several such Trojan wars and several cities at Troy, enough that we can conclude there is a historical kernel of truth — of some sort — underlying all the stories. …. In 1964, the eminent historian Moses Finley suggested that we should move the narrative of the Trojan War from the realm of history into the realm of myth and poetry until we have more evidence. …. Mackey’s comment: Hear, hear!

Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age

Part One: Ahikar, a real historical person, embellished by Damien F. Mackey “Ahikar the son of my brother Anael, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs”. Tobit 1:21 Ahikar’s contemporary the heroine Judith, whom Ahikar (as Achior) met shortly after she and her maid had carried the head of “Holofernes” in a basket back to “Bethulia”, has likewise been projected into a supposed AD time, c. 900 AD, as Gudit (or Judith): Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite (6) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu How does this happen? And, what a story Ahikar (or Ahiqar) has to tell! He (as Achior) had been left for dead by “Holofernes” for having dared to suggest that an Israel with the aid of the Lord would be irresistible. So “Holofernes” had him tied up within close proximity of Judith’s town of “Bethulia” (Shechem), there to die with the people whom he had just verbally defended. Achior was taken in by the Bethulians, whose leader at the time was the Simeonite Uzziah, the great prophet Isaiah. Then, after Judith with her maid had returned triumphantly from the Assyrian camp, she asked to see Achior (Judith 14:6-7): So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. When he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men in the assembly of the people, he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. Now tell me what you have done during these days’. This famous Israelite pair, Judith and Ahikar, who appear in the Catholic Bible for the era of c. 700 (conventional dating), have been recklessly projected into a c. 900 AD, and later, time – a shocking time warp of more than a millennium and a half! How does this happen? (See also Part Two) Seleucids/Ptolemies divinised ancient heroes The Ptolemies re-presented some famous characters of Egyptian history as ‘saints’. Ancient notables of Egyptian history, such as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, became, in the hands of the later Ptolemies, thaumaturgists and quasi-divine. Thus Dietrich Wildung wrote of this pair as ‘becoming gods’ (Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, 36, 1977). The Seleucids did the same with - to give one example - the legendary King Solomon, who became, in their hands, the temple building Sumerian notable, Gudea: Prince of Lagash (6) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Seleucids greatly embellished the talents of these, admittedly already striking, ancient celebrities. And I suspect that the same must have been done with Ahikar (Achior), already a significant person in his own right, to whom has artificially been added encyclopædic wisdom and magical skills as one might read of in a fantastic Arabian Nights legend. Hence we now find, as I have often quoted: “The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself”. Of particular interest for this study is the influence of Ahikar upon the Koran (Qur'an). Indeed, the sage Koranic character, Luqman (Lokman), is thought by some to have been taken from Ahikar himself: Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman (13) Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 1. The real Ahikar (a) Kingdom of Assyria The young Ahikar (Achior) had a stellar career in the kingdom of Assyro-Babylonia, somewhat akin to that of the prophet Daniel. According to his uncle, Tobit (1:22): “… when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal”. When the Assyrians first successfully invaded Jerusalem, Ahikar, the Rabshakeh, was King Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, he being eloquent and, apparently, multi-lingual. When King Hezekiah’s envoys implored him to speak in Aramaïc rather than Hebrew, before the walls of Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (“field commander”) refused to comply (Isaiah 36:11-21): Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall’. But the commander replied, ‘Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?’ Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, ‘Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ‘Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards. ‘Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us’. Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries have been able to save their lands from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’ But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him”. There is nothing to suggest from any of this, so far, that Ahikar was anything more than a competent military commander and loyal servant of the Great King of Assyria. But, in the Book of Tobit, we learn that Ahikar was the mentor of Nadin (or Nadab) - and his “uncle” (presumably through marriage) - who was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, and who was to become the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Judith drama. We also learn that Ahikar was kind, he having looked after Tobit during his blindness, before being commissioned to govern the land of Elam (Elymaïs) (Tobit 2:10): I [Tobit] went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais. Ahikar and Nadin were present at the wedding of Tobias (Tobiah) and Sarah after the elderly Tobit had been miraculously cured of his blindness by the angel Raphael. These were no ordinary times (Tobit 11:17-18): That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh. Ahiqar and his nephew Nadin were also on hand to rejoice with Tobit. Tobiah’s wedding feast was celebrated with joy for seven days, and many gifts were given to him. Ahikar will also intervene with king Esarhaddon, enabling for Tobit to return home after his desperate flight from the now-deceased Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esar-haddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative. From the Judith drama we learn that Ahikar, or Achior, was now leader of a foreign contingent in the Assyrian army, wrongly called “Ammonite”, but should read Elamite. This mistake is one of the main reasons why the Book of Judith has not been accepted into the Jewish canon (Deuteronomy 23:3): “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. For, as we read in Judith 14:10: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day”. Presumably Achior was, like most of his tribe in those days, neglectful of Yahwism. As Tobit recounts (1:4-6): When I lived as a young man in my own country, in the land of Israel, the entire tribe of my ancestor Naphtali broke away from the house of David, my ancestor, and from Jerusalem, the city that had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes that all Israel might offer sacrifice there. It was the place where the Temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come. All my kindred, as well as the house of Naphtali, my ancestor, used to offer sacrifice on every hilltop in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan. But I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as was prescribed for all Israel by longstanding decree. A dying Tobit will praise Ahikar to his son Tobias for Ahikar’s “almsgiving”, contrasting his nephew with the treacherous Nadin/Nadab (Tobit 14:10-11): ‘See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar, who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, he escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes and what injustice does—it brings death!’ Ahikar/Achior also appears as “Arioch” in a gloss in the Book of Judith (1:6): “… King Arioch of Elam”. The glossator had obviously failed to realise that this was Tobit’s “Ahikar [who] … went to Elymaïs [Elam]”. Now, before we proceed to consider the fantastically embellished Arabian Nights version of Ahikar, we need to add yet an extra dimension to the real person. This will have huge ramifications for the Golden Age of Islam – my focus there being on the intellectual aspect of that so-called Golden Age. (b) Kingdom of Chaldea (Babylonia) The lives of the Tobiads (Tobit, Tobias, Ahikar) passed through the tumultuous reign of Sennacherib and on into the far more benign (for the Tobiads) reign of Esarhaddon. Now, Esarhaddon, called a “son” of Sennacherib in Tobit 1:21, was not Sennacherib’s actual biological son, nor was he an Assyrian. Esarhaddon was a Chaldean, whose reign marks the beginning of the Chaldean dynasty. Esarhaddon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (12) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That makes it quite possible that Ahikar (Arioch) was the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:24-25, a high official of King Nebuchadnezzar. But far more importantly for this study is my identification of a sage official of Nebuchednezzar due to my folding, in my university thesis (2007), of Nebuchednezzar so-called I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating) with II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating). The famous official, Esagil-kinni-ubba, will become vital for explaining the intellectual Golden Age of Islam. This is what I wrote about Esagil-kinni-ubba (of various spellings) in my thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf I believed that I may have found - over and above some very compelling Babylonian-Elamite parallels - a connection between a ‘Middle’ kingdom vizier of great wisdom and a similarly celebrated ‘Neo’ kingdom sage. I wrote about this as follows, then wrongly suspecting that Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same ruler as my composite king Sargon II-Sennacherib (Volume One, pp. 185-187): A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu) Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: … “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”. Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: …. The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself. According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22). Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of [the Book of Tobit] as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’. This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith]. Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: …. “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of the Book of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar …. …. I had suggested above that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-aplaiddina…”. [End of quote] One further matter of importance regarding “The real Ahikar” is that his Assyrian name was Aba-enlil-dari “whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar [Ahiqar]”: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html This name will also become important in the context of the Islamic Golden Age. 2. The fantasy Ahikar We read of the “Ahiqar story”, “of great popularity”, at: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. The oldest form of the story of Ahiqar itself is available in the Old Aramaic fragments from the end of the fifth century BCE and were discovered in the ruins of Elephantine in Egypt. The story of Ahiqar was incorporated into Greek legendary life of Aeseop - the adventures and maxims of the Assyrian sage were transferred to his Greek counterpart. The Syriac Ahiqar book is of non-Christian character and belongs to the oldest period of Syriac literature, to the first two centuries CE. Later versions in Armanian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavonic are all closely related to the Syriac version. From the Armenian the story of Ahiqar was translated into Kipchak-Turkish and into another Turkic language, while the Romanian translation is related to the Church Slavonic text. A selection of the precepts of Ahiqar, but not his story, was included in an Arabic Christian anthology which was later translated into Ethiopic. There is another Ethiopic version which is shorter and also clearly translated into Arabic. There are references to Ahiqar in Tobit and also other quotations from his maxims in various other books of the Bible, especially in the book of Sirach. Also a set of the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) didactic books which were associated with the name Ādurbād, a historical person of the fourth century CE Zoroastrianism, reveal strong affinities with the Akkadian-Aramaic story of Ahiqar. The Admonitions of Ādurbād contains many parallels to the Ahiqar maxims in several languages. Given the great popularity of the Ahiqar story in the first centuries of the Christian era and the long symbiosis of Iranian and Aramaic civilisation, there is certainly nothing wrong with the assumption that Persian authors of the Sasanian period may have been familiar with it. [End of quote] From a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, Ahikar will be transformed through later legend into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - especially as we trace him in Part Two through his ‘Islamic’ guises. Ahikar transformed Here is the fantastic Story of Ahikar: https://sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe259.htm Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria, has 60 wives but is fated to have no son. Therefore he adopts his nephew. He crams him full of wisdom and knowledge more than of bread and water. THE story of Haiqâr [Ahiqar] the Wise, Vizier of Sennacherib the King, and of Nadan, sister's son to Haiqâr the Sage. 2 There was a Vizier in the days of King Sennacherib, son of Sarhadum [Esarhaddon?], King of Assyria and Nineveh, a wise man named Haiqâr, and he was Vizier of the king Sennacherib. 3 He had a fine, fortune and much goods, and he was skilful, wise, a philosopher, in knowledge, in opinion and in government, and he had married sixty women, and had built a castle for each of them. 4 But with it all he had no child by any. of these women, who might be his heir. 5 And he was very sad on account of this, and one day he assembled the astrologers and the learned men and the wizards and explained to them his condition and the matter of his barrenness. 6 And they said to him, 'Go, sacrifice to the gods and beseech them that perchance they may provide thee with a boy.' 7 And he did as they told him and offered sacrifices to the idols, and besought them and implored them with request, and entreaty. 8 And they answered him not one word. And he went away sorrowful and dejected, departing with a pain at his heart. 9 And he returned, and implored the Most High God, and believed, beseeching Him with a burning in his heart, saying, 'O Most High God, O Creator of the Heavens and of the earth, O Creator of all created things! 10 I beseech Thee to give me a boy, that I may be consoled by him that he may be present at my heath, that he may close my eyes, and that he may bury me.' 11 Then there came to him a voice saying, 'Inasmuch as thou hast relied first of all on graven images, and hast offered sacrifices to them, for this reason thou shalt remain childless thy life long. 12 But take Nadan thy sister's son, and make him thy child and teach him thy learning and thy good breeding, and at thy death he shall bury thee.' 13 Thereupon he took Nadan his sister's son, who was a little suckling. And he handed him over to eight wet-nurses, that they might suckle him and bring him up. 14 And they brought him up with good food and gentle training and silken clothing, and purple and crimson. And he was seated upon couches of silk. 15 And when Nadan grew big and walked, shooting up like a tall cedar, he taught him good manners and writing and science and philosophy. 16 And after many days King Sennacherib looked at Haiqâr and saw that he had grown very old, and moreover he said to him. 17 'O my honoured friend, the skilful, the trusty, the wise, the governor, my secretary, my vizier, my Chancellor and director; verily thou art grown very old and weighted with years; and thy departure from this world must be near. 18 Tell me who shall have a place in my service after thee.' And Haiqâr said to him, 'O my lord, may thy head live for ever! There is Nadan my sister's son, I have made him my child. 19 And I have brought him up and taught him my wisdom and my knowledge.' 20 And the king said to him, 'O Haiqâr! bring him to my presence, that I may see him, and if I find him suitable, put him in thy place; and thou shalt go thy way, to take a rest and to live the remainder of thy life in sweet repose.' 21 Then Haiqâr went and presented Nadan his sister's son. And he did homage and wished him power and honour. 22 And he looked at him and admired him and rejoiced in him and said to Haiqâr: 'Is this thy son, O Haiqâr? I pray that God may preserve him. And as thou hast served me and my father Sarhadum so may this boy of thine serve me and fulfil my undertakings, my needs, and my business, so that I may honour him and make him powerful for thy sake.' 23 And Haiqâr did obeisance to the king and said to him, 'May thy head live, O my lord the king, for ever! I seek from thee that thou mayst be patient with my boy Nadan and forgive his mistakes that he may serve thee as it is fitting.' 24 Then the king swore to him that he would make him the greatest of his favourites, and the most powerful of his friends, and that he should be with him in all honour and respect. And he kissed his hands and bade him farewell. 25 And he took Nadan. his sister's son with him and seated him in a parlour and set about teaching him night and day till he had crammed him with wisdom and knowledge more than with bread and water. [End of quote] There follows a list of maxims, some of which are straight out of Tobit 4. We read more about the Story of Ahikar from professor Susan Niditch at: https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-interprets-pharaohs-dreams-an-israelite-type-922-folktale …. In brief, the story tells about an Assyrian [sic] wise man named Ahiqar, who served at the courts of Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon. As Ahiqar has no son, he adopts his nephew Nadan and treats him as his own son, and asks Esarhaddon to accept Nadan as his counselor upon Ahiqar’s retirement. Nadan, however, deals treacherously with his uncle, accusing him of disloyalty to the king. Esarhaddon orders an officer by the name of Nabu-šuma-iškun to find Ahiqar and execute him, but as Ahiqar had once saved Nabu-šuma-iškun’s life in the past, he asks for reciprocity in return. Nabu-šuma-iškun agrees, kills one of his own slaves to fake Ahiqar’s death, and hides Ahiqar in a makeshift prison, where he lives as a castaway or outcast. …. News of the great wise man Ahiqar’s “death” reaches the ears of the Pharaoh of Egypt, who sees an opportunity to hurt his Assyrian rival. The Pharaoh challenges Esarhaddon with a riddle-like trial or wager: Egypt would like to build a castle in the air. If Esarhaddon can send him someone who knows how to do this, Egypt will pay three years of taxes to Assyria, but if Assyria cannot send Egypt someone with this knowhow, Assyria must pay three years’ taxes to Egypt. The story continues in a classic Type 922 fashion: Esarhaddon is furious with Nadan, since he cannot solve the riddle, and bemoans his rash decision to have Ahiqar executed. Nabu-šuma-iškun hears this, and, in a manner reminiscent of the cupbearer in the Joseph story, tells the king that he can produce Ahiqar, who will certainly know the answer. Ahiqar appears before Esarhaddon, and the king sends him to Egypt. After a long session of answering riddles, Pharaoh tells Ahiqar to build the castle in the air. Ahiqar sends two boys up on eagles, who call down to the Egyptians that they should hand them some bricks and they will start building. Pharaoh says it is impossible to get bricks to people all the way up in the sky, to which Ahiqar replies that if he can’t even get the bricks to his builders, how are they supposed to build the castle. The story ends with Pharaoh paying the tribute to Assyria, Esarhaddon reinstating Ahiqar as advisor, and Nadan dying a cruel death. …. Part Two: Polymathic scholars of Golden Age based upon Ahikar In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. As we read in Part One, Ahikar has been transformed by legend and embellishment from being a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - and a wonder worker. Islamic Golden Age polymaths In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. In the same sort of fashion has Ahikar’s c. 700 BC contemporary, the Simeonite Judith, been chronologically projected forward so as to become a supposed Ethiopian queen of c. 900 AD, Gudit (or Judith). The handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age to whom I refer are the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Razi (c. 850); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); Averroes (c. 1150); and Ibn Khaldun c. 1300). In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Now, I find in four of these six names elements of Ahikar’s Assyro-Babylonian names: Esagil-kinni-ubba and Aba-enlil-dari. Thus: Al-Kindi – Esagil-Kinni; Al-Farabi – Enlil-Dar-Ab(i); Avicenna – Ubb-kinni(a); Averroes – Aba-(d)ar(i) This now becomes a huge extension of the already over-stretched Ahikar of legend and pseudo-history, including his influence upon the Koran. If I am correct in identifying Ahikar with at least four of these famed six intellectuals of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, then this will have enormous ramifications for the history of philosophy and science, and, indeed, for the authenticity of Islam.

Prophet Job a flesh and blood reality

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction There is no doubt that the person of the prophet Job, as well as the Book of Job itself, its language, and its authorship, present huge challenges for the biblical commentator. Whilst there are available many useful commentaries to expound for us various of the intricacies of the Book of Job, sadly their usefulness does not carry over, I have found, to any satisfactory elucidation of the book’s historical locus – presuming that it is, indeed, of an historical nature. That this important aspect of the Book of Job still remains rather poorly understood can be gauged from the following statement about the book’s authorship, by F. Knight (Nile and Jordan, James Clarke and Co., Ltd., London, 1921, p. 379): The authorship, date, and place of composition of the Book of Job constitute some of the most keenly contested and most uncertain problems in Biblical Criticism. There is perhaps no book in the Canon of Scripture to which more diverse dates have been assigned. Every period of Jewish history, from BC 1400 to BC 150, has had its advocates as that to which this mysterious and magnificent poem must be relegated, and this criticism ranges over 1200 years of uncertainty. The problem of the historicity of the life of Job appears to be an age-old consideration; for we find that at least as far back as the C13th AD (by conventional reckoning) the question was being hotly debated in the Schools. St. Thomas Aquinas (In “Expositio super Job ad litteram”) was one who had insisted that Job, and those who engaged in debate with him, were genuine historical persons. In this he was opposing himself to the likes of Moses Maimonides (In “Guide of the Perplexed”, III. 22), who had expressed a contrary view. Aquinas had written in the Prologue to his “Expositio”: “Now there have been some men to whom it seemed that the Job in question was not something in the nature of things but that he was a kind of parable made up to serve as a theme for a debate over providence, the way men often invent hypothetical cases to debate over them”. Against such a view Aquinas, however, opposed the clear references to Job in the Old and New testaments, namely: Ezekiel 14:14, 20, in which God states that Jerusalem had at that time (just prior to the Babylonian Captivity) become so corrupt that even if such holy men as Noah, Daniel and Job had been living in it - though these three would have escaped with their lives - they would not have been able to have saved any others in the city from imminent destruction. James 5:11, in which the Apostle praises Job’s steadfastness. Thomas Aquinas had, in the course of his commentary, pointed to certain details of an historical nature in the text of Job itself that he believed to confirm this view; for example that very first verse of the Book of Job: “There was a man in the land of Uz by the name of Job ...” (1:1), in which Job is described with respect to his native land, and with respect to his name. These two items of information, he believed, had been provided to show that this story is not a parable but a real occurrence. (“Expositio”, Ch. 1). We encounter the same situation again later on in the Book of Job, where the young Elihu is introduced into the story as “Elihu, the son of Barachiel the Buzite, of the line of Ram” (Job 32:2). From this information we learn about the young man’s name, his origin, his native land, and his race. Elihu is in fact the only character in the Book of Job who is accorded a patronymic; for nowhere in this book are we supplied with the name of Job’s father, nor of the father(s) of his three friends. Thomas Aquinas, though his purposes were purely interpretative, had nevertheless listed the historical problems of the book as: “The time Job lived”, “his parentage” and “the authorship” of the book. As it happens, these are the very kinds of problems that concern us here. Language of the Book of Job With regard to the authorship of the Book of Job, one would need to include an explanation for what the following piece by Edward L. Greenstein has entitled: The Strange Language of the Book of Job https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-strange-language-of-the-book-of-job/ The ideas of the Book of Job have always been challenging. How can a just God not only permit but orchestrate the terrible suffering of a truly righteous person? It is hard to get one’s head around that question. But no less challenging is the language of the book. The grammar and vocabulary go far beyond what might be excused as poetic license. The language is strange — so strange that the earliest translators, into Aramaic and Greek, frequently stumbled over it, and the great medieval Bible commentator, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, suggested that the book, which is basically Hebrew, must have been translated from another language. Some scholars in modern times too have proposed that the book’s difficulties must result from having been translated from another language, such as Edomite — a barely known Canaanite language akin to Hebrew — or an early dialect of Arabic. In fact, however, in spite of its occasional foreign elements, the Book of Job is essentially a Hebrew composition. The narrative in prose that frames the book is good biblical Hebrew, albeit of the later (post-Babylonian exile) variety; and the large majority of verses in the poetic core of the book, the dialogues, are entirely Hebrew. Its language is so difficult because the author of Job was a skilled poet who knew how to employ dialect, allusion, wordplay and more to lend sophistication and flavor to his work. …. A recent denial of the historicity of Job A friend of mine, who well knows of my interest in the historicity of the Scriptures, complained to me last year (7th October, 2024) that his parish priest had denied that Job was a real person, the priest claiming that his view on this would generally be supported by Jewish scholars. I took up the matter on my friend’s behalf even though I did not know this particular priest, not had I personally heard what he had said. Here is a modified version of what I wrote about this in a newsletter: “My friend came to me with sadness in his eyes. Told me that he wanted help before his [faith expires]”. (Bangladesh, George Harrison, modified) Dear Father, You don’t know me and I don’t know you. I am writing this on behalf of a distressed person, a believer that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, who had the misfortune to hear two homilies from you in which you allegedly (I was not there) stated that the prophet Job did not exist as an historical entity, and that the multiplication of the loaves was likely symbolic. Apparently you claim to have been educated by Jesuits. …. Apparently you claimed to be right in step with the majority of Rabbis in your view that Job was not historical. The Jewish Encyclopedia tells me otherwise: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8692-job “Apart from these utterances all of the rabbis took it for granted that Job existed …”. Wise men have noted that the fact that young Elihu in the Book of Job has been provided with biographical details, patronymic, geography and race (Job 32:2): “… Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram …”, is an indication that he was a real person. …. The Book of Job clearly sets the narrative in the Chaldean era, which followed the neo- Assyrian era. The marauders were militarily organised. ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them’ (Job 1:17). …. I think that those Jesuits educators may have left you up the creek without a paddle. You not only have to cast doubt on the Old Testament by denying Job, but you must also contend with the New Testament, with Jesus’s loyal servant the Apostle James (5:11): “As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy”. According to your minimalising view there can be no “what the Lord finally brought about” resolution for the long-suffering prophet Job, because Job did not exist. Everything that Jesus Christ said and did had great meaning, often lost upon we Western schooled thinkers. With the loaves, I do not want to go into the details of how the 12 basketsful correspond to the 12 baskets of loaves that the Pharisees traditionally brought to an ordination ceremony, nor the 7 baskets of loaves that the even more strict Scribes (= Essenes) brought. It suffices to say that, even apart from the miraculous element - which you appear to question - something quite out of the ordinary was involved here. Where, Father, will your diminishing of the Scriptures end? It is a very slippery slope. Will it turn out to be like the US Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, re-writing the Bible by erasing supernatural or miraculous bits in the hope of making Jesus Christ more reasonable, but, thereby, completely losing the power of His story? …. Even after having scrutinised the Book of Job, one will end up with virtually nothing by way of biographical details for the holy man. Chaldean Era One possible clue may come early, in Job 1:17, where the Chaldeans are mentioned: “While this one was still speaking, another also came and said, ‘The Chaldeans set up three companies and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the young men with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you’.” Although the Chaldeans were an ancient people, this incident, “three companies”, sheloshah rashim (שְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים). may perhaps bespeak of a time when the Chaldeans were militarily organised. While that is admittedly very thin evidence, (i) it, coupled with (ii) the fact that the Book of Job probably most of all resembles the Book of Jeremiah, of the Chaldean era, and also, as some have suggested (iii) young Elihu’s likenesses to the prophet Ezekiel, also of the Chaldean era, may point us to - for the later phase of Job’s life - the Chaldean kingdom following that of the neo-Assyrians. Fortunately for us the prophet Job appears in the Bible under four different names (guises), the first of which will – as we are now going to find – greatly enrich our understanding about who Job was; who were his parents and ancestors; when did he live; and where did he live? Here follows the full story of the prophet Job Outline history of Job (i) As Tobias, son of Tobit Forget about Job’s being some Arabian sheikh, or Edomite king – e.g., the Jobab of Genesis 36:13. No, Job was not a Gentile, but was an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali. He was Tobias, the son of Tobit and Anna (Tobit 1:1-9). Apparently born in Naphtali, the young Tobias was taken into captivity with his parents, to Nineveh in Assyria (cf. v. 10) – taken captive there by Shalmaneser (v. 2). A note: Here, biographically, we have the very origins of the fictitious composite Mohammed, supposedly of the C7th AD, whose various associations with the city of Nineveh, which disappeared in c. 612 BC (conventional dating), are horribly anachronistic. Mohammed is clearly based upon the holy Tobias inasmuch as the names of his parents closely equate to the names of the parents of Tobias, TOBIT and ANNA. Tobit and Tobias are actually the same Hebrew name (variously spelled to avoid confusion), Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה), with the Hebrew ayin (ע) rendered in the Greek with a Tau (𝜏). This common Hebrew name means “Servant of the Lord”. Now, Mohammed’s parents are said to have been ABDULLAH and AMNA, the former being basically the Arabic equivalent of Obadiah, with the latter, Amna, being almost identical to Anna. The long life of Tobias, 99 years according to one version (Douay-Rheims), 117 years according to another (NRSV), would have spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser; the full reign of Sennacherib; the reign of Esarhaddon; and right down until the Medo-Persian era, because, as the Book of Tobit concludes (14:15): Before [Tobias] died he saw and heard of the destruction of Nineveh, and he saw its prisoners being led into Media, those whom King Cyaxares of Media had taken captive. Tobias blessed God for all he had done to the people of Nineveh and Assyria; before he died he rejoiced over Nineveh, and he blessed the Lord God forever and ever. Amen. This takes us right past the Chaldean era, for which we suspect we might have found some hints in the Book of Job. In conventional historical terms, the life of Tobias, long as it might have been, would impossibly have had to have spanned about two centuries. But my revised chronology greatly shortens this historical period, getting rid of duplicates of kings, thereby enabling for Tobias to have lived during the latter neo-Assyrian period; the entire Chaldean period; and on into the Medo-Persian period. (ii) As Job If Tobias grew from childhood to marriage from the reign of Shalmaneser (who is also Tiglath-pileser) to the reign of Sennacherib (who is also Sargon II), both Assyrian kings, then his later life (his worst trials, at least) could indeed have coincided with the long reign of the Chaldean king, Esarhaddon (who is also my Nebuchednezzar, amongst others). It is not impossible, then, that Elihu the Buzite who counselled Job was none other than the prophet Ezekiel son of Buzi (the Buzite?) (Ezekiel 1:3) of the Chaldean era. That would explain why the young Elihu was so far wiser than Job’s three friends. It would also make sense for Ezekiel twice to refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20), as already noted. He well knew Job. Hence, I think, the prophet Ezekiel may be a potential author of the Book of Job. Their Transjordanian location might also explain why the language of the Book of Job, while being Hebrew, is somewhat challenging (recall the “Shibboleth” factor: Judges 12:6). There are many parallels between Job and Tobias, not least the commonality of having seven sons, rare in the Bible. I have discussed these fascinating parallels in my article: Job’s Life and Times https://www.academia.edu/123131569/Job_s_Life_and_Times If Job was Tobias, son of Tobit, as I firmly believe him to have been, then we are now faced with three different ages for him at death: 99 and 117 from two versions of Tobit, and 140 from the Book of Job (42:18). Without wanting to be definitive here, I would simply estimate the historical span covered for him in the Book of Tobit, from birth to death, to be about 80 years. (iii) As Habakkuk Apart from Jeremiah, Job is often likened to the prophet Habakkuk. To give just one excellent example of this: https://www.amazon.com.au/Prophet-Sage-Intertextual-Connections-Habakkuk/dp/1666765813 The Prophet and the Sage: Intertextual Connections between Habakkuk and Job Paperback – 29 March 2023 by Brian M. Koning (Author) ________________________________________ …. Job and Habakkuk represent the Bible’s most focused interlocutors on the concepts of justice and theodicy. Both works center upon men chosen by God who see and suffer evil (Job 1:8, cf. Hab 1:1). Both books record the cries of these men as they wrestled to make sense of the world in which they lived (Job 3, cf. Hab 1:2–4). While they have a passing similarity, what if there is something more fundamental to their connection? What if these books are not merely two unconnected discourses on suffering, but linked in a significant way? By examining the texts themselves, this study explores the possibility that a textual relationship exists between portions of Habakkuk and Job and how the underlying transformation of Job’s theodicy shapes Habakkuk’s dialogue with God. [End of quote] Habakkuk is, I believe, simply another version of Job. The peculiar name, “Habakkuk”, is likely not Hebrew, but Akkadian: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/391/Habakkuk.pdf “The name may be rooted in the Akkadian hambakuku (a type of plant) …”. Now, where would Job have picked up an Akkadian name? In Assyrian Nineveh, of course, where he had lived the major part of his life. Just as Daniel and his three young friends had been given foreign names, so, presumably, would Tobias-Job have been in Nineveh. In the Book of Daniel (14:33-36), Habakkuk is miraculously transported by an angel to Babylon to feed Daniel in the den of lions. Was it the same angel, Raphael, who had once guided young Tobias to Ecbatana (Bashan), a place he did not know, who now carried him by the hair to Babylon, a place he did not know? And, to complete the trifecta, was the angel Raphael who accompanied Tobias, who air-lifted Habakkuk (?), the same being as Job’s ‘advocate’ in heaven (Job 16:19)?: ‘Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high’. The angel Raphael may be as a golden thread linking the three manifestations of Job. (iv) As Haggai Our prophet, who, we found, lived to see the dawn of the Medo-Persian era, would also live to see the building of the second Temple, about which his father Tobit had testified (Tobit ch. 13). As the prophet Haggai, he would, in the 2nd year of Darius the Persian, urge on the Jews to complete the work (Haggai 1:1). No doubt the Jews, who loved to use (hypocoristicon) nick-names, would have sought to shorten the awkward foreign name of Habakkuk to, just, Ha..kku (Haggai).

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.