Where exactly in Bethlehem was the Christ Child born?

“One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth”. Joseph Lenard Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar | Truth in Scripture Taken from the book by Joseph Lenard entitled Mysteries of Jesus’ Life Revealed—His Birth, Death, Resurrection, and Ascensions. For an overview and complete chapter listing of this fascinating study, click here. Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar Where Was Jesus Born? John the Baptist exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, KJV). I believe he was making a statement which, among other things, pointed to a particular place in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. How so? As we have seen many times, bits and pieces from Scripture, taken together, often provide a road map. In this case, I believe the road map supports my position that Jesus was actually born at a place called Migdal Edar (Heb. “Tower of the Flock”) in Bethlehem. In addition to the statement by John the Baptist referring to Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” these bits and pieces of Scripture come from diverse sources, from both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I believe all of the following will ultimately be shown to point to Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus: The shepherds who – while “watching their flocks by night” – became aware of exactly where to find the newborn Messiah “in Bethlehem”. The special lambs born and raised in the fields of Bethlehem, to be used specifically as Temple sacrifices. The account of the death of Jacob’s wife Rachel, on the outskirts of Bethlehem Why is it that most of us have never heard of Migdal Edar, let alone in reference to the birth of Jesus? Once again, we have Emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena, to thank for the erroneous selection of the site of Jesus’ birth. The church was led astray in the 4th Century AD and has since steadfastly supported the traditional site of the cave under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Let’s see where key statements in the Old and New Testaments lead us in our search to confirm the actual birthplace of Jesus. I give credit to Cooper P. Abrams, III and his article Where Was the Birth Place of the Lord Jesus? for bringing together many of the details in support of the case for Migdal Edar. Old Testament Account – Micah’s Prophecy When the Magi from Persia came to Jerusalem in search of the Jewish Messiah, they called upon King Herod as a courtesy and inquired of him where the Messiah was to be born. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: Following a geographical revolution in recent years, the land of Persia had had to be significantly re-located. It is no longer “in the East”, hence the Magi could not have been from Persia. See e.g. these articles: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (4) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea The Magi and the Star that Stopped (4) The Magi and the Star that Stopped Joseph Lenard continues: The Jewish religious authorities gave their answer from an Old Testament passage from Micah: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he [Messiah; Jesus] come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2, KJV). In the Bible we find several other names for Bethlehem, including Ephratah (Micah 5:2) and Ephrath (Genesis 35:16, 19; 48:7). It should be noted that Ephrath (or Ephratah) was the ancient name for the area which later was called Bethlehem. Ephrath means “ash heap” and “place of fruitfulness,” and seems to refer to Isaiah 61:3, which mentions “beauty from ashes . . .” It is also widely known that the word “Bethlehem” means “house of bread.” This too may be a reference to Jesus, as He stated during the Seder (Last Supper) with His Disciples that He is the bread which is broken for each of us (Luke 22:19); and He had previously said that He is the true bread which came down from heaven (John 6:32–33) and that He is the bread of life (John 6:35). We know from Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But where in Bethlehem? One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth: And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom [the Messiah shall bring the Kingdom] shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem [Mary the mother of Jesus].” (Micah 4:8, KJV) This “tower of the flock” mentioned in Micah 4:8 is in Hebrew “Migdal Edar” and literally means “watch tower of the flock.” Consequently, the Old Testament tells us that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born at Migdal Edar, in Bethlehem. What about the “watch tower of the flock?” Undoubtedly, this was a military tower used to watch over the valley at the edge of Bethlehem and to provide protection to the city. These types of towers were common and are mentioned in various Old Testament books (Judges 8:17; 9:46, 51; 2 Kings 9:17, 18:8; Nehemiah 3:1). Cooper P. Abrams III states in his article regarding Migdal Edar in Jerusalem: “This watch tower from ancient times was used by the shepherds for protection from their enemies and wild beasts. It was also the place ewes were safely brought to give birth to the lambs. In this sheltered building/cave the priests would bring in the ewes which were about to lamb for protection. These special lambs came from a unique flock that was designated for sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem.” Abrams then states the following: Typically, “Migdal Edar”, (the tower of the flock) at Bethlehem is the perfect place for Christ to be born. He was born in the very birthplace of tens of thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed to prefigure Him. God promised it, pictured it, and performed it at “Migdal Edar”. It all fits together, for that’s the place where sacrificial lambs were born! Jesus was not born behind an inn, in a smelly stable where the donkeys and other animals of travelers were kept. He was born in Bethlehem, at the birthing place of the sacrificial lambs that were offered in the Temple in Jerusalem which Micah 4:8 calls the “tower of the flock.” The Sheep and Shepherds of the Fields at Migdal Edar In his classic book, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah (1883; Latest Edition, 1993), Alfred Edersheim (1825 – 1889), a Messianic Jew, had great insights regarding the birth of Jesus from a Hebrew-Christian perspective. In his work, Edersheim referenced the Jewish Mishnah (The Mishnah was the first recording of the oral law and Rabbinic Judaism. The word in Hebrew means “repetition,” which means that it was memorized material. It is the major source of the rabbinic teachings of Judaism. After the Scriptures, the Mishnah is regarded as the basic textbook of Jewish life and thought and is traditionally considered to be an integral part of the Torah, as revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.) Edersheim also referenced the Targum (The Targum is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanak), which was written during Israel’s seventy-year captivity in Babylon. Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian [ancient Babylonian and Assyrian]). Edersheim’s book was the result of a seven year effort. In it he states: “That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. This Migdal Edar was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah (Shekelim 7.4) leads to the conclusion that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds.” In summary, we can state with some certainty that the flocks which were pastured around Migdal Edar were sheep destined for Temple sacrifices, and the shepherds who tended them were special shepherds, trained to take care of these sheep from birth until the time they were delivered to the Temple. I believe that Jesus was born in this same “Tower of the Flock,” and these shepherds went to see Jesus and His mother and father in that structure. New Testament Account of the Birthplace of Jesus Luke has the most complete account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, as recorded in Chapter 2: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and linage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. (Luke 2:4–20 KJV) We see from the New Testament Scripture that Jesus was, indeed, born in Bethlehem. But the New Testament does not state the exact place in Bethlehem where Jesus was born. Nativity scenes displayed at Christmas depict the birth of Jesus in a stable surrounded by donkeys, sheep, and cows. This is due to the tradition that there was no room for Joseph and Mary in the inn, so Jesus was born in the stable behind the inn, where the animals were kept. However, all that is stated in Scripture is that Mary gave birth to Jesus, that she laid Him in a manger, and that she wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. We know that these things occurred somewhere in the city of Bethlehem. But from Micah 4:8 we now know that He was actually born at “the Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar). The Terms “Manger” and “Swaddling Clothes” The account of the birth of Jesus in Luke includes the terms “manger” and “swaddling clothes.” What specifically are these referring to? And why are these items a “sign”, given to the shepherds by the angel as they tended their flocks in the field? The Greek word which is translated “manger” in our English Bibles is Yatnh phat-ne. It is defined as a “stall” where animals are kept, and in Luke 13:15 it is translated that way. In Proverbs 14:4, in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament], the word means a “stall” or a “crib.” What, then, was the “stall” or “manger” referred to in the New Testament; and what kind of animals were fed or housed there? Is there a “logical” place where God would choose to have His Son born, one which would be described by the angel to the shepherds in the country as being “. . . a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger?” To be a “sign,” it would have to be distinctive, understandable, and unique. From the description of the “swaddling clothes” and the “manger,” the shepherds knew right where to go to find the babe. Where was that? My position is that they went to where the newborn lambs were typically wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger – in the “Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar), not far from where they were tending the sheep which birthed the lambs used for sacrifice in the Temple. The “Lamb of God,” as John the Baptist called Jesus, was born in the unique place where the other lambs used for sacrifice were born. Indeed, that was a unique “sign” to these shepherds – that this baby was, indeed, the “Savior, Christ the Lord,” the promised Messiah, as told to them by the angel which appeared to them, and as foretold by the Prophets of Israel. Note what is said of the shepherds: “And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” They did not have to go around Bethlehem searching each and every stable for this newly born baby. The impression given is that they were able to go “with haste” because they knew from the description of the “wrapped in swaddling clothes” and “lying in a manger” exactly where to go – to the “Tower of the Flock,” Migdal Edar. It was not just any stable in Bethlehem. There was no need for the angel to give the shepherds directions to the place of Jesus’ birth – they already knew exactly where to find him! Key Statement by John the Baptist The father of John the Baptist was Zacharias, a priest who served in the Temple in Jerusalem. John the Baptist was the only son of Zacharias, and he was also of the priestly line. In a sense, John the Baptist was the first of several things: First Christian, first Christian witness, first Christian preacher, first Christian prophet, and first Christian martyr. He was also the first to baptize converts, and he might have even started the first “church” as the disciples of Jesus were initially following John before they were instructed to follow Jesus (John 1:35–37; Acts 1:15–26). Before we look at the famous statement by John the Baptist upon seeing Jesus, it is helpful to first review the problem of sin, which relates to the statement of John and gives us a better understanding of the context. The Bible teaches us that mankind has a sin problem. Sin is violation of God’s Word, a rebellion against God. This is a big problem with God and, consequently, with man. God is holy and He cannot have sin in His presence. Sin came into the world through Adam in the Garden of Eden, as presented in the early chapters of Genesis. Fortunately, God had His plan of redemption through Jesus, which He had established from the very foundations of the world (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Peter 1:18–20; Revelation 13:8; John 1:29). The need for a substitutionary sacrifice and shedding of innocent blood to atone for sin is well established in Scripture, beginning in Genesis 3:21, where God made use of animal skins to cover the nakedness and shame of Adam and Eve following their disobedience. A blood sacrifice is required by God, as presented in Leviticus: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). God’s ultimate plan of redemption is further seen in the account of Abraham’s willingness to offer his son, Isaac, on an altar at God’s command (Genesis 22). Abraham’s hand was stayed, and God provided a substitute sacrifice, just as He would provide in His Son, Jesus. Lastly, God’s ultimate plan of redemption is reflected in the Feasts of the Lord, which God established as yearly rehearsals by the people of Israel, beginning with the Feast of Passover and the shedding of the blood of an innocent lamb (Leviticus 23). My first book, The Last Shofar! – What the Fall Feasts of the Lord are Telling the Church (which I co-authored with Donald Zoller and which is also presented on this website) provides an excellent description of God’s plan of redemption in Jesus, as foreshadowed in the Feasts of the Lord. This background of the problem of sin and God’s remedy through the sacrifice of His one and only son, Jesus, offers us a better understanding of John the Baptist’s statement upon seeing Jesus approaching, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the perfect lamb sacrifice, which God provided to pay for the sin debt of mankind. He is, indeed, “the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.” The lambs sacrificed daily in the Temple ceremonies – as well as the lamb sacrificed annually for the nation’s sins at Passover in the Temple – were but a foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice of God. This sacrifice was meant to be sufficient to atone for the sin-debt of all mankind. John the Baptist likened Jesus to those lambs carefully chosen for sacrifice in the Temple. Rachel and Migdal Edar What does Rachel, the wife of Jacob, have to do with the birthplace of Jesus? It involves a veiled prophecy in Genesis, and it has to do with the first mention in Scripture of the term Migdal Edar, at the time of Rachel’s death. Let’s look at two passages in Genesis (Genesis 35:5–21 and Genesis 48:7): “And they journeyed: and the terror of the God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel [Heb. literally “House of God”], he and all the people that were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-beth-el: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother [Esau]. “But Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bethel under an oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bachuth. And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply: a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give the land. And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. And Jacob set up a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. “And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. 21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar” [Heb. Migdal Edal: “Tower of the Flock”]. (Genesis 35:5–21) And the second passage: “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.” (Genesis 48:7, KJV) Reflecting on these passages in Genesis regarding to the death of Rachel, it is easy to imagine Jacob’s anguish. After Jacob buried Rachel, he traveled on “. . . and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar”. Jacob loved Rachel more than all his other wives, from the time he first laid eyes on her (Genesis 29:17–18, 30). When she died, he was heartbroken. But why would Moses record that Jacob pitched his tent at Migdal Edar at Bethlehem? What is significant about that place? We know that every word of Scripture has meaning (Deuteronomy 32:47), so there must be a reason. Although it is not known for certain, I can offer some thoughts which I believe have merit. We know now that the Tower of the Flock would be the birthplace of the Messiah, who would take away all death, heartache, and tears. Rachel and Jacob would one day weep no more, as both would share eternal life in the presence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that God intended that from the place of Jacob’s greatest sorrow, where his beloved Rachel died, would later come the Messiah, who would bring eternal life and joy for all those who trust in Him. Did Jacob fully understand all of these things? Probably not. But he did understand that God was all-powerful and that He was good, holy, and righteous. I believe that Jacob trusted in God for redemption and that he knew God would eventually make all things right, including the removal of death and heartache. I concede that the evidence related to Rachel is not definitive in supporting the case for Migdal Edar. However, the other evidence provided here is strong; and I believe the case for confirming Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus is compelling.

Ashurbanipal mirroring Esarhaddon in inscriptions, succession, maritime

by Damien F. Mackey “This arrangement was formalized by the so-called Succession Treaty, really an extended adê-oath of the kind which had been used to formalize Esarhaddon’s own succession. …. The fingerprints of Esarhaddon’s own struggle for the throne can be found all over the Succession Treaty”. Christopher W. Jones In the course of my seeking further to solidify my connection between Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, as just the one ruler of Assyro-Babylonia, I wrote: More clues in support of my view that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king https://www.academia.edu/108468804/More_clues_in_support_of_my_view_that_Esarhaddon_and_Ashurbanipal_were_one_and_the_same_king “… there is a clear parallel between the Inscription of Esarhaddon and a text of Assurbanipal [who] … says that he has brought the peoples that live in the sea and those that inhabit the high mountains under his yoke, and this reference, as we understand it, is very like Esarhaddon’s text, since it is also “a general summary”.” Arcadio Del Castillo and Julia Montenegro There, too, I coupled Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal with Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus, as carrying baskets of bricks for building, referring to my article: Composite ‘Nebuchednezzar’ carrying baskets for building (7) Composite ‘Nebuchednezzar’ carrying baskets for building | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Stone Monument of Esarhaddon …. His inscriptions also claim that he personally participated in the restoration project. The historian Michael Kerrigan comments on this, writing: Esarhaddon believed in leading from the front, taking a central role in what we nowadays call the ‘groundbreaking ceremony’ for the new Esagila. Once the damaged temple had been demolished and its site fully cleared, he says, “I poured libations of the finest oil, honey, ghee, red wine, white wine, to instil respect and fear for the power of Marduk in the people. I myself picked up the first basket of earth, raised it on to my head, and carried it” …. ASHURBANIPAL https://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/assyria/Stela-of-Ashurbanipal.html The king carrying a basket on his head The city of Babylon had been destroyed by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 BC [sic] but was rebuilt by … Esarhaddon … Ashurbanipal …. One of the duties of a Mesopotamian king was to care for the gods and restore or rebuild their temples. Much earlier, in the late third millennium BC, rulers in southern Mesopotamia depicted themselves carrying out this pious task in the form of foundation pegs, such as the copper figure of Ur-Nammu (reigned 2112-2095 BC) [sic], also in The British Museum. It is possible that similar figurines were discovered in the ruins of Babylon during Ashurbanipal's rebuilding works. For on this stela, Ashurbanipal, wearing the Assyrian king's head-dress, is shown in the pose of earlier kings, lifting up a large basket of earth for the ritual moulding of the first brick. …. NABONIDUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinders_of_Nabonidus “…. In the beginning of my everlasting reign they sent me a dream. Marduk, the great lord, and Sin, the luminary of heaven and the netherworld, stood together. Marduk spoke with me: 'Nabonidus, king of Babylon, carry bricks on your riding horse, rebuild Ehulhul and cause Sin, the great lord, to establish his residence in its midst' …”. THE LOCATION OF TARSHISH: CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS Revue Biblique, 123, 2016, pp. 239-268 https://www.academia.edu/35529906/THE_LOCATION_OF_TARSHISH_CRITICAL_CONSIDERATIONS?auto=download But what struck me when reading through this article is yet another case of, as it seems to me, a ‘historical’ duplication, Ashurbanipal claiming what Esarhaddon claimed. Writing of the neo-Assyrian sailing efforts, the authors tell as follows (pp. 252-254): … the only record we have of them sailing the Mediterranean is when Sargon II gained control of Cyprus, which was further secured by his successors, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal, 668-627 BC…. My comment: As Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, is just the one king according to my article above, so, too, with: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib …. What can of course be readily accepted, as we have said, is that there is a clear parallel between the Inscription of Esarhaddon and a text of Assurbanipal, which is inscribed on Prism B: after stating that he ruled from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea and that the kings of the rising sun and the setting sun brought him heavy tribute, Assurbanipal says that he has brought the peoples that live in the sea and those that inhabit the high mountains under his yoke … and this reference, as we understand it, is very like Esarhaddon’s text, since it is also “a general summary”. …. Now, bearing in mind my view that Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, was just one king: Christopher W. Jones writes, in “Failed Coup: The Assassination of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon’s Struggle for the Throne, 681–680 B.C” (Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2023; 10(2): 293–369): https://doi.org/10.1515/janeh-2022-0013 …. Esarhaddon avoided assassination and prevailed in the conflict which followed by leveraging his status as the designated heir to create the perception that his candidacy for the throne was endorsed by the gods and therefore his victory was inevitable. Nevertheless, the assassination and the brief civil war that followed cast a pall over Esarhaddon’s reign, shaping his own succession arrangements as well as the atmosphere of paranoia which marked his final years. …. However, succession-related crises would increasingly dominate Assyrian politics in the seventh century. This included Sennacherib’s prevarication about the succession and eventual assassination in 681, Esarhaddon’s dual appointment of Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukin over Assyria and Babylon and the subsequent civil war between them from 652–648, and the confusion following the death of Assurbanipal and the accession of Assur-etel-ilani. …. My comment: This is horrible. Sennacherib, not Esarhaddon, appointed Ashurbanipal, who was Esarhaddon! “Assur-etel-ilani” did not succeed Ashurbanipal, because “Assur-etel-ilani” was Esarhaddon (var. Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli): Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (4) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani “Šamaš-šumu-ukin” was not a brother/co-ruler with Ashurbanipal, as is thought, but was his actual son, Sin-shar-ishkun. And, with Ashurbanipal also as Nebuchednezzar: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (4) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 the ill-fated Shamash-shum-ukin (Sin-shar-ishkun) was the same as the ill-fated son of Nebuchednezzar, Belshazzar (Amēl-Marduk). The article continues: …. … Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, which was issued nine years after the struggle for the throne. While most of its stipulations contain non-specific language obliging the recipients to support the succession of Assurbanipal and inform the king about anyone who opposes it, several sections appear to respond to Esarhaddon’s own experiences during his tumultuous accession. Three sections give repeated warnings against stirring up hatred between Assurbanipal and his father, or between Assurbanipal and his brothers over the matter of succession, using some similar vocabulary to Esarhaddon’s Nineveh A inscription. My comment: Similar vocabulary for the same king. The article continues: …. Another unusually specific passage instructs those who swore the oath about how to respond to a specific situation: (If) a messenger from the palace comes to the crown prince [at the wr]ong time, whether by day or by night, saying: “Your father is summoning you, let my lord come,” you must not l[iste]n to him and you mustnot release him or let him leave, but [guard] him stronglyuntil one of you who loves his lord in your heart and is full of concern for the house of his lords goes to the palace and ascertains the well-being of the king his lord. Afterwards you may go to the palace with the crown prince your lord. The specificity of the scenario in which a false messenger is sent to the crown prince bearing an urgent summons from his father in order to lure him away suggests that this clause was also drawn from Esarhaddon’s life experiences. Did the conspirators send a messenger carrying a false summons from Sennacherib in order to lure Esarhaddon away from his secure location to a place where he could be ambushed and killed? …. Esarhaddon’s concern about his own succession culminated in a novel approach: he would appoint his younger son as king of Assyria, while he would give his older son Šamaš-šumu-ukin, who might have expected to inherit the throne, a consolation prize of the throne of the newly rebuilt Babylon.226 This arrangement was formalized by the so-called Succession Treaty, really an extended adê-oath of the kind which had been used to formalize Esarhaddon’s own succession.227 The fingerprints of Esarhaddon’s own struggle for the throne can be found all over the Succession Treaty, ACP 6: r. 34, 37 in Homes-Fredericq and Garelli (2018: 57` –58 and pl. VI), read ln. r. 34 as IGI IPAP— ra-mu LÚ.A-SIG and r. 37 as IGI INUMUN-u-ti-i LÚ.A-⸢SIG⸣ (675); from Burmarina see two broken names in No. 37: r. 4–5 in Fales et al. (2005: 646; dates to 676 BC); from the province of the rab šāqeˆ (‘chief cupbearer’) see Kiṣir-Issar in SAA 6 210: r. 7 (676). For names of all attested charioteers, including those from Esarhaddon’s later career, see Baker (2017: 53–55, 59–65, 135–39, 190–95). There is no shortage of legal texts from this decade compared to the preceding or following decades, see chart in Mattila and Harjumäki (2015: 13). 225 For arguments that the letters of Assyrian scholars to Esarhaddon represent a unique development rather than the chance survival of ancient sources, see Jones (2023) and Jones (2021: 504–60). The only scholars who recommend enthroning a substitute king or write to the king during the ritual are Adad-šumu-uṣur (SAA 10 3; 189; 209; 219–221; 314; 377); his brother Issar-šumu-ereš (SAA 10 12; 25); Marduk-šakin-šumi (SAA 10 25; 221; 240); Mar-Issar (SAA 10 350–352); Urad-Ea (SAA 10 25); Nabû-zerulišir (SAA 10 2–3); and Munnabitu(SAA 8 316: r. 1–3); note also Nabû-šumu-iddinain SAA 10 1: 3. For the use of ritual as a means of controlling access to the king, see Jones (2021: 515–28); Radner (2003: 171–76). 226 For the birth order of Šamash-šumu-ukin and Assurbanipal, as well as their sharing the same mother, see PNA 1/I: 161–62; Novotny and Singletary (2009: 167–69, 174–77). 227 For discussion of the evolution of the adeˆ-format, see Barcina (2016: 12–20, 23–36); Fales (2016: 134). from the clauses forbidding fomenting strife between the brothers or between the brothers and their father to pledges to not support any of Esarhaddon’s brothers or their sons in any attempt to claim the throne “whether those in Assyria or those who have fled to another country.” Most importantly, the Succession Treaty enjoined everyone who swore to it into constant vigilance, ordering them to immediately report all disloyal sentiments expressed against Esarhaddon or [sic] Assurbanipal. Without any mechanism to guard against false allegations, the correspondence of Esarhaddon’s final years is filled with denunciations, some anonymous and some not, which deluged the king in contradictory information. ….

Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser

Çineköy inscription of Awarikkus/Warikkas. First line reads "I am Warikkas" Ingeborg Simon - Own work by Damien F. Mackey Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. …. Wikipedia Introduction We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “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”.” In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version. In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior. His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba: Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba (2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu We know from the book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] 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”. This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians. Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5). Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 As “King Arioch of Elam” ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ Isaiah 10:8 We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam) Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). …. Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above). Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. …. He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. …. We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media): Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus …. Awarikus (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔‎) or Warikas (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎) was a king of the Syro-Hittite kingdom of Ḫiyawa in Cilicia who reigned during the mid to late 8th century BCE, from around c. 738 to 709 BCE.[2][3] Name The name of this king is attested in Anatolian hieroglyphs in the forms 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔‎‎[4][5] (Awarikkus) and 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎[6][1] (Warikkas).[7] Etymology The name Awarikkus/Warikkas is not Luwian,[8] and several etymologies have been proposed for it, including a Hurrian one and various Greek ones:[7] • one proposal is that the various forms go back to a unique form *Awarikas;[8] • another suggestion is that:[9][10] • 𔐓𔗬𔗜𔗔‎‎ was pronounced Awarkus and represented an Ancient Greek name Euarkhos (Εὔαρχος) or *Ewarkhos (*Εϝαρχος), meaning "fit for rule," • while 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎ corresponded to the Cypriot name recorded in Greek as Rhoikos (Ῥοῖκος) and in Eteocypriot as wo-ro-i-ko (𐠵𐠦𐠂𐠍), meaning "crooked" and "lame"; • yet another proposal is that the name was derived from Greek *Wrakios (*Ϝρακιος) > Rhakios (Ῥάκιος), attested in Mycenaean Greek as *Wroikiōn (Mycenaean Greek: 𐀺𐀫𐀒𐀍, romanized: wo-ro-ko-jo).[10] Other attestations …. The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊‎‎), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊‎)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎‎‎).[11] In Akkadian Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14] Identification The scholars Trevor Bryce and Max Gander consider Warikas and Awarikus to be the same individual,[15][16][17] while Zsolt Simon considers them to be different kings.[18] The scholars Stephen Durnford and Max Gander consider Awarikus/Warikas to be different from the king WRYK of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription, whom they identify as a later ruler who reigned in the 7th century BCE,[19] while Mirko Novák and Andreas Fuchs consider the king of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription to have been identical with Awarikus/Warikas.[20] Life Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔‎‎), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22] Reign Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25] Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20] Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27] Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28] In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15] According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15] Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31] At one point during his reign, Awarikus promoted a certain Azzattiwadas to a position of authority subordinate to the crown, although exact details of Azzattiwadas's exact rank have so far not survived.[32][3][7] According to Azzattiwadas's own inscriptions, he was a servant of Baʿal and the King, and he was "father and mother," that is the de facto ruler, of the whole kingdom of Hiyawa.[33] Alternatively, Azzattiwadas was the regent while Awarikus was still too young to rule.[34] Monuments An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35] Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36] Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35] As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37] Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language. Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39] Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39] The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39] Deposition The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43] This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44] Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44] The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47] Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”. Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib Alternatively, Awarikus's conspiracy with Urartu had already been uncovered sometime between 727 and 722 BCE and he was deposed and executed during the reign of Shalmaneser V itself, while his emissaries fled to the court of Midas in Phrygia and remained there in exile for some years, until they were delivered into Neo-Assyrian hands only after Midas had aligned with the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 710/709 BCE.[48] Legacy …. Following Sargon II's death, the Neo-Assyrian Empire lost control of its Anatolian territories, which descended into a state of chaos.[49] Among the territories which were destabilised in the aftermath of Sargon II's death in battle was Ḫiyawa, where Awarikus's subordinate Azzattiwadas organised a significant military force to restore authority throughout the kingdom by expelling possible Cimmerian or Phrygian invaders.[50] As part of his efforts to protect Ḫiyawa, Azzattiwadas built a series of fortifications throughout the kingdom similar to how his overlord had done, one of which was a hill-top fortified settlement named Azzattiwadaya after himself. Azzattiwadas also claimed to have expanded the territory of Ḫiyawa, to which he declared having brought prosperity, as well as filled the granaries of the city of Paḫar and replenished the grazing lands with sheep and goats.[51][52] These actions of Azzattiwadas were done in the name of the House of Muksas, which he restored to power by placing Awarikus's son on the throne of Ḫiyawa.[53] …. When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam). Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”.

King Arioch may have governed Elymaïs (Elam) from Ecbatana

by Damien F. Mackey “He was joined by all the people of the hill country and all those who lived along the Euphrates and the Tigris and the Hydaspes and in the plain where Arioch ruled the Elymeans”. Judith 1:6 In the process of re-identifying Ecbatana and Rages, now in a Cilician context, with Ecbatana as Adana (Abdadana?), and, more tentatively, with Rages as Karatepe: Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media it slowly dawned on me that the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period was one Wariku/Awariku, which is Arioch. https://www.bibleplaces.com/karatepe/?srsltid=AfmBOoqbrVR5uWGJa_Jon1b8YAI1QG0WGM4NHJRU9bQpT5TA7F3_AEiT “Karatepe is situated in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains, on the west bank of the Ceyhan River in the northeast corner of the Cilician Plain. It is a single-period, hilltop fortress that was built by a local ruler named Azatiwata at the end of the 8th century BC. He was a dependent of Wariku/Awariku, king of Que, whose capital was at Adana”. As explained in my article: Identifying King Arioch who ruled Elam (3) Identifying King Arioch who ruled Elam this King Arioch of Judith 1:6 was the same - now seemingly ubiquitous - person as Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, who went on to govern Elymaïs (Elam): …. Commenting on this text in my postgraduate university thesis (2007), I double-identified the otherwise unknown “Arioch, king of the Elymeans”, as follows (Volume Two, pp. 46-47): Verses 1:6: “Arioch, king of the Elymeans” In [Book of Judith] 1:6, which gives a description of the geographical locations from which Arphaxad’s allies came, we learn that some of these had hailed from the region of the “Hydaspes, and, on the plain, Arioch, king of the Elymeans”. I disagree with Charles that: “The name Arioch is borrowed from Gen. xiv. i, in accordance with the author’s love of archaism”. This piece of information, I am going to argue here, is actually a later gloss to the original text. And I hope to give a specific identification to this king, since, according to Leahy: “The identity of Arioch (Vg Erioch) has not been established …”. What I am going to propose is that Arioch was not actually one of those who had rallied to the cause of Arphaxad in Year 12 of Nebuchadnezzar, as a superficial reading of [Book of Judith] though might suggest, but that this was a later addition to the text for the purpose of making more precise for the reader the geographical region from whence came Arphaxad’s allies, specifically the Elamite troops. In other words, this was the very same region as that which Arioch had ruled; though at a later time, as I am going to explain. But commentators express puzzlement about him. Who was this Arioch? And if he were such an unknown, then what was the value of this gloss for the early readers? Arioch, I believe, was the very Achior who figures so prominently in the story of Judith. He was also the legendary Ahikar, a most famous character as we read in Chapter 7. Therefore he was entirely familiar to the Jews, who would have known that he had eventually governed the Assyrian province of Elam. I shall tell about this in a moment. Some later editor/translator presumably, apparently failing to realise that the person named in this gloss was the very same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story of [Book of Judith], has confused matters by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: “Achior ruled the Elymeans”. [Book of Tobit] tells us more. Some time after the destruction of Sennacherib’s armies, he who had been Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh was appointed governor (or ‘king’) of Elymaïs (Elam) (cf. 1:18, 21: 2:10). This was Tobit’s very nephew, Ahikar/Achior. But the latter ruled Elam, not in Nebuchadnezzar’s Year 12, or at about the time when he himself was a high officer in the Assyrian army, but (approximately a decade) later, during the reign of Ashurbanipal - as previously determined - when the king of Assyria sent him to Elam. From there it is an easy matter to make this comparison: “Achior ... Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) ... Elymaïs” [Tobit]. [End of quote] Much confusion has arisen also from the fact that Achior in the Book of Judith is called “the leader [king] of all the Ammonites” (5:5), when this should actually have read as the king of the Elamites. Now, since Ahikar went to govern Elam during the reign of Esarhaddon - who is Ashurbanipal (as above), who is Nebuchednezzar - then there may be a chance that this great man emerges as a high official in, say, the Book of Daniel. I have, indeed, identified Arioch there with, well, Arioch, of Daniel 2:14-15; 24-25: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (5) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? An important note: Anyone engaging in a serious study of Elam and its history, will now need to (my opinion) take well into account Royce (Richard) Erickson’s article, that has so stunningly re-located the ancient land of Elam (Elymaïs): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (2) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu So, according to the above, Arioch, who ruled Elam, was also Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, and was the Achior of the Book of Judith. And Esarhaddon was also Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. This will give us a better scope for filling out King Arioch. It needs to be noted that governors of a region for Assyria - such as Arioch was of Elam - were regarded as “kings”. Thus the boastful Sennacherib declares (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ The Historical Arioch The Vizier (Ummânu) With what I think is a necessary merging of the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, with the potent king of neo-Assyria, Esarhaddon (or Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’), we encounter 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 following taken from J. Brinkman’s A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. 1158-722 B.C. Roma (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968, pp. 114-115]: … during these years in Babylonia a notable literary revival took place …. It is likely that this burst of creative activity sprang from the desire to glorify fittingly the spectacular achievements of Nebuchednezzar I and to enshrine his memorable deeds in lasting words. These same deeds were also to provide inspiration for later poets who sang the glories of the era …. The scribes of Nebuchednezzar’s day, reasonably competent in both Akkadian and Sumerian…, produced works of an astonishing vigor, even though these may have lacked the polish of a more sophisticated society. 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.)…. To which Brinkman adds the footnote [n. 641]: “Note … that Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu also under Adad-apla-iddina and, therefore, his career extended over at least thirty-five years”. So perhaps we can consider that our vizier was, for a time, shared by both Assyria and Babylon. Those seeking the historical Ahikar tend to come up with one Aba-enlil-dari, this description of him taken from: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/database/gen_html/a0000639.php: 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. Seleucid Babylonia is, of course, much later removed in time from our sources for Ahikar. And, as famous as may have been the scribe Esagil-kini-ubba – whether or not he were also Ahikar – even better known is this Ahikar (at least by that name), a character of both legend and of (as I believe) real history. Regarding Ahikar’s tremendous popularity even down through the centuries, we read [The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 28:28]: 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 at the beginning of the 20th cent. 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 Old Testament itself. Whilst Ahikar’s fame has spread far and wide, the original Ahikar, whom I am trying to uncover in this article, has been elusive for some. Thus J. Greenfield has written: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511520662&cid=CBO9780511520662A012 The figure of Ahiqar has remained a source of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. The search for the real Ahiqar, the acclaimed wise scribe who served as chief counsellor to Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, was a scholarly preoccupation for many years. He had a sort of independent existence since he was known from a series of texts – the earliest being the Aramaic text from Elephantine, followed by the book of Tobit, known from the Apocrypha, and the later Syriac, Armenian and Arabic texts of Ahiqar. An actual royal counsellor and high court official who had been removed from his position and later returned to it remains unknown. E. Reiner found the theme of the ‘disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister’ combined with that of the ‘ungrateful nephew’ in the ‘Bilingual Proverbs’, and saw this as a sort of parallel to the Ahiqar story. She also emphasized that in Mesopotamia the ummânu was not only a learned man or craftsman but was also a high official. At the time that Reiner noted the existence of this theme in Babylonian wisdom literature, Ahiqar achieved a degree of reality with the discovery in Uruk, in the excavations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE). This tablet contains a list of antediluvian kings and their sages (apkallû) and postdiluvian kings and their scholars (ummânu). The postdiluvian kings run from Gilgamesh to Esarhaddon. …. Merging Judith’s ‘Arioch’ with Daniel’s ‘Arioch’ Arioch in Daniel Arioch is met in Daniel 2, in the highly dramatic context of king Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, in which Arioch is a high official serving the king. The erratic king has firmly determined to get rid of all of his wise men (2:13): “So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death”. And the king has entrusted the task to this Arioch, variously entitled “marshal”; “provost-marshal”; “captain of the king’s guard”; “chief of the king’s executioners” (2:14): “When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact”. This is the customary way that the wise and prudent Daniel will operate. Daniel 2 continues (v. 15): “[Daniel] asked the king’s officer [Arioch], ‘Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?’ Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel”. Our young Daniel does not lack a certain degree of “chutzpah”, firstly boldly approaching the king’s high official (the fact that Arioch does not arrest Daniel on the spot may be testimony to both the young man’s presence and also Arioch’s favouring the Jews since the Judith incident), and then (even though he was now aware of the dire decree) marching off to confront the terrible king (v. 16): “At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him”. Later, Daniel, having had revealed to him the details and interpretation of the king’s Dream, will re-acquaint himself with Arioch (v. 24): “Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, ‘Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him’.” Naturally, Arioch was quick to respond - no doubt to appease the enraged king, but perhaps also for the sake of Daniel and the wise men (v. 25): “Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, ‘I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means’.” The famous vizier of the Assyrian empire, Ahikar, will later be re-presented most unrealistically as a great sage and polymath, and he will even be reproduced as a handful of sages of encyclopaedic knowledge of the so-called Golden Age of Islam: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Historically in Elam We should also be able to find a trace of Arioch as ruler of Elam for the Assyrians. Although we appear to have little to go on, there was a somewhat obscure ‘king’ of Elam right at the appropriate time (in my revised setting), the reign of Esarhaddon/ the early reign of Ashurbanipal. And he had the appropriate name, Urtak (var. Urtaki), which - if we simply substitute the t for an i - renders for us, Uriak (Arioch). Similarly, the Greek text of Tobit has taken Tobit’s Hebrew name, Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה), and has replaced the first letter, ‘ayin (עֹ), with a tau (τ), Τωβίτ. {Obadiah is, in fact, the same as the Arabic name, Abdullah. Most interesting that Mohammed’s supposed parents, Abdullah and Amna, have the same names, respectively, as Tobit and his wife, Anna. The Nineveh connection, so fitting in the case of Tobit, becomes a complete anachronism with its re-emergence in association with Mohammed} D. T. Potts has provided this brief account of the obscure Urtak, one-time ruler of Elam (I do not necessarily accept the BC dates given here): https://e-l.unifi.it/pluginfile.php/664124/mod_resource/content/2/Testi%20in%20pdf/Potts%20DT%201999%20The%20Archaeology%20of%20Elam%209780521563581.pdf Cambridge world archaeology THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ELAM FORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF AN ANCIENT IRANIAN STATE (2016) Pp. 275-276 …. The Babylonian Chronicle relates that Humban-haltash II ‘died in his palace without becoming ill’ (iv 11–12) and was succeeded by his brother Urtak (thus contra Dietrich 1970: 37, the letter ABL 839, which speaks about a king of Elam who suffered a stroke, cannot refer to Humban-haltash II; see Brinkman 1978: 308, n. 27), whose Elamite name was probably Urtagu (Zadok 1976a: 63). This occurred in the sixth year of Esarhaddon’s reign and was soon followed by a treaty between the Assyrian and Elamite kings (Borger 1956: 19) involving the return of some plundered cult statues, for in Esarhaddon’s seventh year, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, ‘Ishtar of Agade and the gods of Agade left Elam and entered Agade . . . ’ (iv 17–18; Brinkman 1990: 88; 1991: 44). This must have taken place c. 674 BC (Gerardi 1987: 12–13). Urtak is not attested in original Elamite inscriptions. He was still in power when Esarhaddon died in 669 BC and in the early years of the reign of his son and successor, Assurbanipal, grain was sent to Elam to relieve a famine which, according to Assurbanipal (ABL 295), was so bad that ‘there wasn’t even a dog to eat’ (restoration acc. to Malbran-Labat 1982: 250). Furthermore, Elamite refugees were allowed to settle in Assyria until such time as the harvest improved in Elam (Piepkorn 1933: 54). Assurbanipal was explicit in justifying his gesture of aid as a by-product of Urtak’s treaty with his father Esarhaddon (Nassouhi 1924–5: 103). But in 664 BC Urtak attacked Babylonia (for the date see Gerardi 1987: 129), apparently at the instigation of an antiAssyrian trio including Bel-iqisha, chief of the Gambulu tribe, Nabu-shum-eresh, governor of Nippur; and Marduk-shum-ibni, an Elamite official in Urtak’s administration. After receiving news of the Elamite invasion and checking it by sending his own messenger to Babylonia, Assurbanipal says, ‘In my eighth campaign, I marched against Urtak, king of Elam, who did not heed the treaty of (my) father, my sire, who did not guard the friendship’ (Gerardi 1987: 122). Assurbanipal’s account of the events which followed is very brief, noting only that the forces of Urtak retreated from their position near Babylon, and were defeated near the border of Elam. Later, Urtak himself died and according to Edition B of Assurbanipal’s annals, ‘Assur . . . , (and) Ishtar . . . , his royal dynasty they removed. The dominion of the land they gave to another; afterwards TeUmman, image of a gallû demon, sat on the throne of Urtak’ (Gerardi 1987: 133), whereupon the remaining members of both Urtak’s family and those of his predecessor, Humban-haltash II, fled to Assyria (Gerardi 1987: 123–4; Brinkman 1991: 52). If this is the same event referred to in the Shamash-shum-ukin Chronicle, according to which ‘the Elamite prince fled [to] Assyria’ on the 12th of Tammuz in the fourth year of Shamash-shum-ukin’s regency over Babylonia, then it can be placed around June-July 664 BC (Millard 1964: 19; Gerardi 1987: 128). ….

Ecbatana and Rages in Media

Part One: Clearing away the various misconceptions by Damien F. Mackey Whereas the journey from Tobit’s Ecbatana to Rages normally took “two full days”, the almost 200-mile journey from the conventional 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 conventional context) that the journey referred to in the Book of Tobit “would be a forced ‘journey of two days’ even for an express messenger”. Introduction According to critics of the Book of Tobit, the author(s) of the book had a very poor knowledge of both history and geography. However, the Book of Tobit is an inspired book of the Bible, at least from a Catholic point of view, and it has the capacity to confound the critics and the conventional context to which they adhere. Far from the author(s) of the Book of Tobit having been historically ignorant - in this case, with regard to the kingdom of Assyria - we find on closer examination that: [The] Book of Tobit corrects the textbook history (5) Book of Tobit corrects the textbook history Read also my related article: Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings (5) Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings And, far from the author(s) of the Book of Tobit having been geographically ignorant - in this case, with regard to the location of the land of Media - we find on closer examination that it was we who have been abysmally ignorant on this score: Search for the Median empire (3) Search for the Median empire The travelling party in the Book of Tobit was always heading in the right direction: that is, westwards, from: (i) Nineveh (possibly meaning Calah here); to (ii) the Tigris River; to (iii) Charan (Haran/Harran); to (iv) Media (in Anatolia), in which country lay (v) Ecbatana; and (vi) Rages. I had been critical in articles such as: [The] Geography of the Book of Tobit presents a fascinating challenge (5) Geography of the Book of Tobit presents a fascinating challenge of exegetes such as Fr. D. Dumm, who had shown scant respect for the Book of Tobit -I having expected a Catholic priest, at least, to seek to defend, rather than to ridicule, a biblical text: … The Jerusalem Bible says that “the geography is inexact”, and … 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. But, as I confessed in my “Geography of … Tobit” article (above), I, too, was confounded - even though I was actually trying to ‘save’ the geography of the book. ‘Go West, young man’ I had it half right, having the travelling party heading westwards, unlike the critics’ eastwards, and correctly (so I think) identifying 3 of the 6 locations: Nineveh = Nineveh (Calah?) River Tigris = River Tigris Charan = Haran But I, as well, had taken for granted the conventional location of Media, Ecbatana and Rages (in the east), and so felt myself forced to seek for alternatives - wrong ones. Thus: Media = Midian Ecbatana = Bashan Rages = Damascus Even after Royce (Richard) Erickson had (in 2020) saved the geographical situation by re-locating Media to Anatolia (see above articles), I had still persisted with these last 3, faulty identifications. * * * * * The sad fact is that we, in our fallen humanity, can often be groping in the dark and in need of divine enlightenment from One who knows, when, often, we don’t. This situation was recognised by John the Baptist, who proclaimed (John 3:30-31): ‘He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all’. Part Two: A possible location for Tobit’s Ecbatana ‘Yes’, he replied, ‘I have been there many times; I am acquainted with it and know all the roads. I have often traveled to Media, and would stay with our kinsman Gabael who lives in Rages of Media. It is a journey of two days from Ecbatana to Rages; for it lies in a mountainous area, while Ecbatana is in the middle of the plain’. Tobit 5:6 In terms of the name, Royce (Richard) Erickson appears to have chosen very well for his identification of Ecbatana in Media, opting for Abadaniye (see his Figure 1 below). In his brilliant (2020) article: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Royce Erickson wrote on this: …. Introduction – A Geographic Anomaly Herodotus attempted to describe the origins of the Median and Persian nations in the 8th and 7th centuries BC while both were still intermittently subject to Assyrian domination. He described how a man named Deioces became king, unified the Medes and founded Agbatana, their first capital city: “Thus settled upon the throne, he (Deioces) further required them to build a single great city, and, disregarding the petty towns in which they had formerly dwelt, make the new capital the object of their chief attention. The Medes were again obedient, and built the city now called Agbatana (Ecbatana), the walls of which are of great size and strength, rising in circles one within the other. The plan of the place is that each of the walls should out-top the one beyond it by the battlements. The nature of the ground, which is a gentle hill, favours this arrangement in some degree, but it was mainly effected by art. The number of the circles is seven, the royal palace and the treasuries standing within the last. The circuit of the outer wall is very nearly the same with that of Athens.” (Herodotus …. Agbatana (variant version Ecbatana) no longer exists. Its ruins and location have never been positively identified. Modern scholars believe they are on a tell near Hamadan, Iran, based on the similarity of names and assumptions about the location of ancient Media. There is a small town in central Tukey north of Konya called Abadaniye, very similar phonetically to Agbatana. A little more than 100 years ago its Armenian name was Egdavama. Next to it lies a barren, gentle hill with a circumference of about 6 miles, very much like the circuit wall of classical Athens, 5.25 miles. its gentle slope would favor the arrangement of seven concentric walls rising one above the other, just as Herodotus describes the walls of Agbatana. According to Greek tradition, other Median major cities were Laodicea, Rhages ,and Apamea, all three not far from Ecbatana. These are their later classical Greek names; their original Median names are unknown. Modern scholars tentatively locate these sites near Tehran, based on the assumption that Agbatana was in Iran, but with admittedly very sparse historical or archaeological support. Strangely enough in south central Turkey very near modern Abadaniye described above, lie the modern towns of Dinar and Ladek, previously named Apamea and Laodicea by the Greeks. Thus there is strong circumstantial evidence that the core of the ancient Median Empire around 700 BC was not in Iran, but in central Turkish Anatolia, over 600 miles to the West. This could be written off as an absurd concept supported by astounding coincidence, so allow me add a few more facts to strengthen the case. Early Persians were closely intertwined with the Medes geographically and historically. Originally Median vassals, the Persians later ousted the Median king Astyages by means of a coup d’etat aided by the defection of most of the Median army, and established the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great, incorporating the entire Median Empire. The original capital of the Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus II on the site of his victory over Astyages, known to the ancients as Pasargadae. Until today its location remains unknown, but is assumed by experts to be somewhere in southwest Iran, based once again on historical deduction without strong material archaeological support, despite numerous attempts to find any. Once again, we find in central Anatolia today two towns with the modern Turkish names of Pazarkaye and Khorasi not far from Abadaniye. I propose that Pazarkaye is the modern site of ancient Persian Pasargadae, and Khorasi (pronounced Khorashi) is on the site of a proposed Persian town named after either Cyrus I or Cyrus II, Persian kings whose names were pronounced “Kurush.” Finally, detailed Neo-Assyrian military campaign records mention several other towns that they specifically connect with Persia and Media. These towns are supposed by modern scholars to be located somewhere in Iran, where they cannot be found. Their Assyrian names are Amadi, Urak, Allabria, and Bustus. The first two are associated by the Persians with Media and the second two with Persia. The names of all four of these towns are very closely matched by four modern sites in Turkish Anatolia, very close to the proposed Median and Persian town sites already discussed. …. Assyrian Name Variants Modern Turkish Name Associated With Matching Rationale Amadi Kar-Amadazi, Karamadazi Çubuklu, Konya Media Kar-Amadazi is the variant Assyrian name of Amadi. Recent previous name of Turkish Cubuklu was Karamadazi Bit-Matti Matiana Goreme, Nevsehir Media Recent previous historical name of Turkish Goreme was Matiana. Located close to Abadaniye (Agbatana) and Ladek (Laodiceia) Allabria Alabag, Konya Persia Name very similar to Turkish Alabag (-ag is a common Turkish word ending). Location in close proximity to Pazarkaya (Pasargadae) and Khorasi (Khurush). Bustus Bushtu, Push, Pusutu Pusat, Konya Persia Clear name similarity with Turkish Pusat, located close to Pazarkaya and Khorasi Table 1 - Cities with Persian and Median Names in Anatolia …. [End of quote] My problem, though, with Royce’s choice of Abadaniye, north of Konya - now that I am trying to take more seriously than hitherto the Book of Tobit’s geographical indicators - is that it could not really enable for Charan (Haran) to be, as according to Tobit 10:13: “… in the midway to Ninive …”. Though, admittedly, his Abadaniye is far better situated in this regard than was my own poor choice of Bashan (Batanaea) for Ecbatana. And I am now fully realising just how inappropriate my choice was. For Bashan, unlike the Ecbatana of the Book of Tobit, was a land, not a city. Nor was Ecbatana a plain, but lay ‘in the middle of the plain’. This is how the angel Raphael will describe the geography and topography of Median Ecbatana and Rages (Tobit 5:6): ‘Yes’, he replied, ‘I have been there many times; I am acquainted with it and know all the roads. I have often traveled to Media, and would stay with our kinsman Gabael who lives in Rages of Media. It is a journey of two days from Ecbatana to Rages; for it lies in a mountainous area, while Ecbatana is in the middle of the plain’. Adana An important city, with an Ecbatana-like name, and which does, indeed, lie in the middle of a plain, is “Adana …. Situated in the middle of the Cukurova Plain (Cilician Plain) ….”: https://www.allaboutturkey.com/adana.html And a glance at the next map will show that Adana (given there as Adanya) - rather than Royce Erickson’s Abadaniye - appears to fit rather well with regard to Charan’s (Haran’s) being “… in the midway to Ninive …”. (Map: Adanya … Harrān … Ninive) With Konya some 345 km to the NW of Adana, hence going further away from Haran, then Abadaniye to Konya’s north would be located too far westwards, I should think, for it to fit the geography of the Book of Tobit concerning its location of Ecbatana. Adana may possibly be the Abdadana of neo-Assyrian (the era of Tobit and Tobias) inscriptions: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bdadana-region-in-western-media/ “In 716 B.C. Sargon II during his eighth campaign received tribute from Bīt-Abdadāni, Namar, Sangibutu, and the country of the “mighty Medes” (see F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon, Paris, 1973, line 39)”. Adana was a city of great administrative importance and it was centrally located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana Adana … is a large city in southern Turkey. The city is situated on the Seyhan River, 35 km (22 mi) inland from the northeastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. It is the administrative seat of the Adana province, and has a population of 1,816,750 (Seyhan, Yuregir, Cukurova, Saricam) … making it the largest city in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Adana lies in the heart of Cilicia, which some say, was once one of the most important regions of the classical world. …. Home to six million people, Cilicia is an important agricultural area, owing to the large fertile plain of Çukurova. Adana is a centre for regional trade, healthcare, and public and private services. Agriculture and logistics are important parts of the economy. The city is connected to Tarsus and Mersin by TCDD train. The closest public airport is Çukurova International Airport. Etymology The name Adana (Turkish pronunciation: [aˈda.na] …; Armenian: Ադանա; Greek: Άδανα) has been used for over four millennia. …. …. History Hittite warrior in Adana Archaeological Museum Bronze Age Inhabited by Luwians and Hurrians, Kizzuwatna had an autonomous governance under Hittite protection, but they had a brief period of independence from the 1500s to 1420s BC. [sic] According to the Hittite inscription of Kava, found in Hattusa (Boğazkale), Kizzuwatna was ruling Adana, under the protection of the Hittites, by 1335 BC. With the collapse of the Hittite Empire around 1191–1189 BC, native Denyen sea peoples took control of Adana and the plain until around 900 BC. …. Iron Age Then Neo-Hittite states were founded in the region with the Quwê state centred on Adana. Quwê and other states were protected by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, though they had periods of independence too. After the Greek migration into Cilicia in the 8th century BC, the region was unified under the rule of the Mopsos dynasty … and Adana was established as the capital. …. The Assyrians took control of the regions several times before their collapse in 612 BC. …. [End of quote] Of potential significance for Adana’s (as Ecbatana) connecting to Rages in the mountains (‘… for it lies in a mountainous area, while Ecbatana is in the middle of the plain’), is this piece of information from Britannica (emphasis added): https://www.britannica.com/place/Adana-Turkey Adana, city, south-central Turkey. It is situated in the plain of Cilicia, on the Seyhan River (the ancient Sarus River). An agricultural and industrial centre and the country’s fourth largest city, it probably overlies a Hittite settlement that dates from approximately 1400 bce [sic], and its history has been profoundly influenced by its location at the foot of the Taurus Mountain passes leading to the Syrian plains. …. Part Three: A possible location for Tobit’s Rages For what need we now to be looking in relation to Tobit’s Rages? Well, if Adana is Tobit’s Ecbatana, then Rages must needs be - as according to Tobit 5:6 - two days’ distance from Adana in the plain, and Rages must be situated in the (presumably Taurus) mountains. Moreover, according to the Book of Tobit, two camels were employed on the trip (9:5): “So Raphael with the four servants and two camels went to Rages in Media and stayed with Gabael”. That potential mode of transport likely needs to be taken into account with regard to the time needed to cover the distance. I am no expert on camels - had a nervous ride on one in 1990 to the Giza pyramids. But I would estimate that Rages ought not to be much in excess of, say, 100 km from Ecbatana (Adana). Ancient conditions, topography, tracks, etc., would also need to be factored in. Perhaps some generous, informed reader will help out here. Anyway, after much consideration, I have picked out Karatepe as the best candidate for ancient Rages that I can come up with at this stage. And this, despite none of its known names having any likeness to Rages. Karatepe, like Rages, was in the mountains: https://www.bibleplaces.com/karatepe/?srsltid=AfmBOoqbrVR5uWGJa_Jon1b8YAI1QG0WGM4NHJRU9bQpT5TA7F3_AEiT “Karatepe is situated in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains, on the west bank of the Ceyhan River in the northeast corner of the Cilician Plain” It was prominent in the neo-Assyrian (Tobit’s) century: “It is a single-period, hilltop fortress that was built by a local ruler named Azatiwata at the end of the 8th century BC”. Karatepe is about 115 km distance from Adana (by car). 1 hr 26 min (115.4 km) via O-52/E90 The distance may be stretching those two camels! And it was under the rule of Adana (Ecbatana): “… a local ruler named Azatiwata … was a dependent of Wariku/Awariku, king of Que, whose capital was at Adana”. 15th August, 2025

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.