Ancient clay seal may refer to Asaiah, official of King Josiah

by Damien F. Mackey “When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: ‘Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us’.” 2 Kings 22:11-13 It appears, now, that the person of “Asaiah, the king’s attendant, as referred to in e.g. 2 Kings 22:12 (עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ), has been archaeologically verified in a most recent find: https://www.timesofisrael.com/tiny-2600-year-old-clay-sealing-inscribed-with-biblical-name-found-in-temple-mount-soil/ Tiny 2,600-year-old clay sealing inscribed with biblical name found in Temple Mount soil Minuscule artifact discovered at the Jerusalem-based Temple Mount Sifting Project may reference an official who worked for King Josiah and who appears in II Kings and II Chronicles By Rossella Tercatin …. 30 July 2025, 5:04 pm Share A clay seal from the First Temple period bearing a Hebrew name that appears in the Bible has been uncovered by archaeologists at the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem, the organization announced on Tuesday. The tiny artifact carries an inscription in Paleo-Hebrew reading “Belonging to Yed[a‛]yah (son of) Asayahu.” “This is only the second time since the Temple Mount Sifting Project began over 20 years ago that we’ve uncovered a sealing with such a complete inscription — nearly every letter is clearly legible,” said archaeologist Zachi Dvira, who co-directs the project alongside Dr. Gabriel Barkay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAvYFZmIjhY “We usually do not go public with new finds so quickly,” he told The Times of Israel over the phone of the sealing, which was spotted this month. “However, in this case, the artifact was very recognizable, and Dr. Anat Mendel-Geberovich, who works in our lab, is one of the leading experts in ancient Hebrew script. So we decided to move forward, also because we felt it was very significant that the sealing was found just before Tisha B’Av.” Tisha B’Av, a Jewish day of mourning which this year falls on Sunday, marks the anniversary of the destruction of both the First Temple at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 BCE and the Second Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE. Based on the writing style, the researchers dated the sealing to the 7th or 6th century BCE. The name Asaya appears in the Bible several times in the context of the kingdom of Josiah, the 16th king of Judah who reigned in the second half of the 7th century BCE. “The king gave orders to Hilkiah, and Ahikam son of Shaphan, and Abdon son of Micah, and the scribe Shaphan, and Asaya, servant of the king,” reads II Chronicles 34:20. The same story appears almost exactly in II Kings 22:12, “And the king gave orders to the priest Hilkiah, and to Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Michaiah, the scribe Shaphan, and Asaya the king’s minister.” The version of the name inscribed on the sealing, “Asayahu” contains an extra letter Vav, a type of suffix that was often added to ancient Hebrew names to testify to their connection with God (Y-H-V-H). “The longer and shorter versions of the name were often used interchangeably,” Dvira said. “The name Asayahu also appears on another clay sealing with the words ‘servant to the king,’ that was identified some 20 years ago,” he added. “However, since the artifact came from the antiquity market, and not from an archaeological context, it is more difficult to be sure of its authenticity.” During the First Temple period, clay impressions, also known by their Latin name bullae, were used for the management of storehouses. Dozens of such clay sealings have been unearthed in Jerusalem, at times carrying names that also appear in the Bible. “Obviously, we are not sure that the Asayahu mentioned on the sealing is the same that appears in the Bible,” said Dvira. “However, several such artifacts found in the area of the Temple Mount carry biblical names, and it does make sense, because these were not objects used by common people.” In ancient times, the lumps of clay were pressed over the knot of a cord securing a doorknob or a vessel. The manager of a treasury would then impress his, or his superior’s, seal upon the clay to prevent others from tampering. …. Who was this Asaiah? In my article: (3) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses I identified Asaiah as the great prophet Isaiah himself: …. I. ERA OF JEREMIAH ALSO PART OF IT When professor Ebied had given me that choice back in 2000 of writing a doctoral thesis on either EOH [Era of Hezekiah] or EOJ [Era of Jeremiah], I had been of the firm opinion at that point in time that I could contribute nothing of any real worth about EOJ. However, as hinted back in I, how wrong I was. Because, as I have since come to realise (and hope to show here in II, and in III), EOJ was basically the EOH about which I believed I had much to offer. Searching for Hezekiah Something of which I had become painfully aware, during the course of writing my EOH thesis, was that, whilst various of its major characters were full dimensional (though sometimes only, perhaps, because I had overdone my penchant for alter egos), king Hezekiah himself, upon whom the thesis was supposed to be centred, always continued to remain somewhat ghostly in the background. Part of the reason for this is that the Old Testament itself will restrict its albeit fairly extensive coverage of EOH to just a few major incidents in the life of the great king: namely, his pious reform; his illness; his encounters with Assyria. Even in some of these cases, characters of lesser rank stand in for the king, seeming to overshadow Hezekiah. Thus the king’s three officials, not he, will go out to face the Rabshakeh of the invading Assyrian army; the prophet Isaiah will dominate much of the Hezekian narrative; and no Judaean king at all, only the Assyrian king, will be referred to throughout the entire BOJ. A further reason for Hezekiah’s seeming lack of dimension, I have lately come to realise, is because Hezekiah has also been sold short of a major alter ego: namely, as Josiah king of Judah. Perhaps it was better that I had not realised, in those days, that a part at least of EOJ had needed to be incorporated into EOH. That may, then, have served only the further to complicate the whole cumbersome effort – although it would also most certainly have poured some immense illumination on obscure issues. Today, writing hopefully from a far more solid base, I feel confident that I can begin to add that necessary extra dimension. Here, in II, I shall list some of the extraordinary match-ups between the supposedly two different eras (EOH and EOJ), this alone being sufficient proof for me that – despite some significant difficulties – the two eras need to be brought together as one. For a far more complete list, I urge the reader to check out Charles Pope’s “Chart 37” at: Chart 37: Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives (domainofman.com) though I do not accept all of Pope’s comparisons, and would also add some others of my own. In III, I shall briefly assess some of those difficulties. Comparisons between EOH and EOJ - King Hezekiah of Judah is king Josiah of Judah; - King Manasseh of Judah is king Jehoiakim of Judah; - Isaiah, prophet, is Asaiah, king’s minister; - Hilkiah is Hilkiah; - Eliakim son of Hilkiah is (prophet) Jeremiah son of Hilkiah; - Judith is Huldah; - Manasseh, husband of Judith is Shallum, husband of Huldah. II. RESOLVING SOME KEY DIFFICULTIES (a) Hezekiah = Josiah Naturally one would expect to encounter some formidable difficulties when trying to demonstrate that Hezekiah/Josiah – supposedly separated the one from the other by over half a century (e.g., the intervening 55-year reign of king Manasseh) – constitutes just the one biblico-historical era. The biblical difficulties and comparisons Genealogies now have to be explained. And the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) seems to witness against my reconstruction by presenting Hezekiah and Josiah as if two separate entities (Sirach 49:4-5): “Apart from David, Hezekiah and Josiah, they all [kings of Judah] heaped wrong on wrong”. This separation here of Hezekiah from Josiah could perhaps partly be accounted for by proposing a (Hebrew) waw consecutive, causing it to read “Hezekiah, even Josiah”. What this quote from Sirach does at least tell us, though, is that Hezekiah and Josiah were uniquely pious kings, the only ones to be so regarded alongside David himself. The liturgical and socio-political reforms of Hezekiah, of Josiah, may be shown to be wonderfully compatible by astute commentators, as some have already done. Reign lengths (allowing for co-regency) are very compatible as well (Hezekiah: 29; Josiah: 31). And, when we re-organise, and halve, the genealogical sequence: Hezekiah/Manasseh/Amon/Josiah/Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin (6 kings) to the streamlined Hezekiah = Josiah/ Manasseh = Jehoiakim/ Amon = Jehoiachin (3 kings) then we can really begin to make some biblico-historical progress and resolve conundrums (see next). The historical difficulties and comparisons Of similar great challenge, to that of resolving the biblical difficulties that arise from a fusion of EOH and EOJ, is the historical ‘aftershock’ that such a revised upheaval must needs generate. Hezekiah and Josiah are conventionally thought to have aligned with different Mesopotamian and Egypto-Ethiopian monarchs. Recall that in my Note in I. I had estimated that it was “not until the approximate era of king Hezekiah” that the chronological and historical ‘planets’ began properly to align. The emphasis here, though, must be on that word, “approximate”, for there is yet a searching revision required even for the reign of king Hezekiah over and above what I had undertaken in my EOH thesis – a further depth of revision of which I was then quite unaware. I refer to the effect of incorporating wholesale therein the reign of king Josiah (or EOJ). My early post-graduate research, with the era of Moses very much in mind, had been focussed upon the problem of Egyptian chronology, well explored by revisionists like Drs. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) and Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, 1952; Oedipus and Ikhnaton, 1960). It was generally assumed in their day that, whilst Egyptian chronology must be radically shortened in order to be able to accommodate itself to that of the other nations, Mesopotamian history was in far better shape. The chronology of Assyria, in particular, is considered to be highly accurate. With the passing of the years subsequent, however, it has become apparent to me, and to others, that this is far from being the case, and that Mesopotamia, too, must undergo a massive chronological renovation. Someone needs to write a thesis on it. I have tackled this problem now in many articles. Perhaps the key date in the entire Old Testament – at least in terms of specific historical worth – is the one given by the prophet Jeremiah in 25:1, 3: “… in the 4th year of Jehoiakim … 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar …. For 23 years, from the 13th year of Josiah …”. This ties precise biblical dates, and two Judaean kings, to a known Mesopotamian monarch. And, while Egypt-Ethiopia are not included, we known from 2 Kings 23:34 that pharaoh Necho was contemporaneous with Jehoiakim’s early reign. Thus: 23rd year. Prophet Jeremiah (counting from Year 13 of king Josiah) tells that this was the 4th year of king Jehoiakim of Judah and the 1st year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (during the reign of pharaoh Necho of Egypt). This is most valuable chronological information. Jeremiah’s rock-solid data here is even more helpful than is the important chronological fusion in 2 Kings 18:1-10, tying king Hoshea of Israel and king Hezekiah of Judah (specific years given) to Shalmaneser the king of Assyria at the time of the siege and destruction of Samaria, because the contemporary pharaoh “So” (17:4) has proven most difficult to identify. Unfortunately, biblical chronologists and historians (most notably, in this case, Dr. Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings) have largely abandoned this set of multiple syncretisms, with them now dating the beginning of king Hezekiah’s reign some half a dozen years after the Fall of Samaria. This is totally unacceptable, and I felt that I had to devote a large portion of my EOH thesis towards reclaiming all of those precious syncretisms. With EOH and EOJ now merged, the un-named “northern” foe of Jeremiah 1:14-19 – whose identification is hotly debated amongst commentators – is simply to be recognised as the pugnacious Assyria of king Hezekiah’s time. Hezekiah’s/Josiah’s Assyrian contemporary was Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s so-called ‘son’, Esarhaddon – actually a new dynasty – is the same as the great Nebuchednezzar himself of Jeremiah 25:1. Nebuchednezzar is also the same as the mighty king, Ashurbanipal, of identical 43-year reign. For a fuller account of this albeit radical departure from tradition, see my relevant articles. This, my reconstruction, accounts for how the era of - Manasseh king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal), and the era of - Jehoiakim king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Nebuchednezzar, may be paralleled and its history resolved. (b) Manasseh = Jehoiakim Recognising Manasseh as Jehoiakim will serve to explain why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the presumably long dead Manasseh (Jeremiah 15:4), rather than to the prophet’s wickedly idolatrous contemporary, Jehoiakim. It enables for a wonderful reconstruction of the formerly somewhat empty, long phase of king Manasseh, his conversion, and later building works. And it throws much light on the New Testament genealogies of Jesus the Messiah and of the Davidic dynasty: JESUS CHRIST THE LORD AND KING OF HISTORY. It may also solve the problem of the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, said to have occurred during the reign of king Manasseh. Only this re-arrangement, I believe, enables for a full recovery of the life of the prophet Jonah and of the associated Nineveh incident. For more on all of these topics, see my relevant articles. Moreover, though this takes us into an era just beyond EOH and EOJ, my having king Amon in parallel with Jehoiachin (var. Coniah) finally enables for a comprehensive identification of the “Haman son of Hammedatha” of the Book of Esther, whilst, further, providing a proper explanation for the origin of the foreign name, “Haman”. See, again, my relevant articles. That my revision – albeit shocking from a mainstream point of view – has, despite its flaws, been able to yield such a golden harvest of interconnections right across the board, is further encouragement to me and proof (when coupled with my parallel list at the end of II), that the whole heavily laden train is basically travelling along the right track. (c) Judith = Huldah My reconstruction of the history of BOJ in my thesis – virtually a thesis within a thesis – was warmly received for the most part, one examiner describing it as “a page turner”. BOJ is such an epic that it ought to be made the subject of countless movies. Due to the unfortunate confusion of names in our present translations of the book, though, its history and geography have proven extremely difficult to recapture. The story commences with a Year 12 campaign against the east by an Assyrian king, “Nebuchadnezzar”. This is actually Year 12 of Sargon II of Assyria against the eastern coalition of the troublesome Merodach-baladan (the “Arphaxad” of BOJ). A combination of BOJ and the Book of Tobit [BOT] could enable one to identify Sargon II with his supposed son, Sennacherib. Though my initial clue to this connection arose from a colleague pointing out the massive overlap between the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib, the overlap finally to be understood as being completely embracing. It was in this manner that I came to identify Sargon II as Sennacherib. That identification was only reinforced by a combination of the BOJ-BOT material. Without this fusion, which one examiner at least found to be quite convincing (it occupies an entire chapter {Chapter 6} in Volume One of my thesis), the overall history of BOJ is unobtainable. The main focus of the BOJ drama is Sennacherib’s campaign subsequent to his Year 12 victory, this time to the west, sending there a force of over 180,000 under the command of “Holofernes”, who is to be identified as Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of BOT (14:), who betrayed Ahikar (the Achior of BOJ). In my EOH thesis, though, I would wrongly identify this “Holofernes” as Esarhaddon. The massive Assyrian army was stopped in its tracks at “Bethulia”, which, again, I wrongly identified in my thesis as the fairly insignificant Mithilia (Mesilieh), following C. R. Conder. Judith’s “Bethulia” (the northern Bethel) has been meticulously identified as the city of Shechem by C. C. Torrey. Against all other opinions as to what happened to Sennacherib’s army (e.g., Herodotus), it was a case of Judith’s slaying of the Assyrian commander-in-chief. The soldiery panicked and fled. It was a complete rout. The next in command to “Holofernes”, “Bagoas”, unidentified in my thesis, can now plausibly be equated with Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon); Nebuchednezzar, according to Jewish tradition, having been involved in this ill-fated campaign. Such a view is shocking by conventional standards, quite chronologically impossible. It would have appeared such to me as well at the time of my writing of the thesis. Now, though, with Nebuchednezzar succeeding Sennacherib, the Jewish legend can be retained. Also untouched in my thesis – considering my failure then to collapse EOH into EOJ – is my more recent identification of the Judith who became ever more famous during her long life, as the wise and wonderful Huldah, that extraordinary prophetess during the reign of king Josiah whom the king would consult even over the great Asaiah (i.e., Isaiah). She was a female teacher-prophetess like the wise Deborah before her, in Huldah’s case, even an interpreter (exegete) of the Torah.

Noah and Jonah - not merely didactic fiction

“Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends”. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz While one is free to form one’s own opinion about Noah and Jonah, it always strikes me (Damien Mackey) as surpassing strange when a Catholic priest denies their reality. These, as followers of Jesus Christ, in whose divinity they would be expected to believe, are rejecting as real two biblical characters about whose existence Jesus had no doubts whatsoever, he even selecting the Jonah incident as the only sign that he would provide for his own Resurrection from the dead (Matthew 12:39): “He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’.” I once criticised a Dominican priest, for instance, who had claimed in a sermon that The Book of Jonah was “didactic fiction”, that is, a fictitious non-history whose intended purpose is to teach a moral or ethical lesson. * * * * * Kitty Foth-Regner here will likewise insist on the historicity of Jonah and Noah (2020): https://www.everlastingplace.com/eternal-eyes-a-blog-about-forever/were-noah-and-jonah-fictitious-what-difference-does-it-make Were Noah and Jonah fictitious? What difference does it make? …. An old friend of mine recently said she’d been taught that the Bible’s accounts of Noah and Jonah are merely parables that never happened. Is that so? And does it really matter? In a nutshell: No, and quite possibly. These are both historical accounts—real history. And yes indeed, our take on these accounts could have implications for where we each will spend eternity. So let’s take a closer look. (For a deep dive, you’ll need to do some research. Here’s a good place to start.) What does the Bible say? First of all, how does the Bible itself treat these accounts? Fact is, both are verified multiple times throughout both Old and New Testaments. For instance, check out Jesus’ confirmation of the historicity of Jonah in Matthew 12, and of Noah in Luke 17. Yes, many of us have been taught since childhood that Noah and Jonah were just stories designed to teach us--well, something or other. But were our teachers eye-witnesses to these events? Were they more reliable truth-tellers than the Bible’s writers? Than Jesus? Second, to quote virtually every unbeliever since Pontius Pilate, what is truth? I know the accounts of Noah and Jonah sound like science fiction to skeptics. But are they? Or are they simply demonstrations of the supernatural power of the God who created the universe and everything in it? Does “goo to the zoo to you” make more sense? Are supernatural explanations more fantastic than the “goo to the zoo to you” stories we’ve been spoon-fed since childhood? Think about it: We’ve been taught ad nauseam that evolution is fact. But dig into the subject even superficially, and we find that the evidence does not support this theory, that it instead points straight to the supernatural. As a starting point, think back to what we've been told about the origins of this universe, when “nothing that was something” allegedly exploded into “everything.” Where did all that “nothing that was something” come from? What caused it to explode? Where did the space it occupied come from? And how about time--where'd that come from? There is in fact no evidence that would support, via natural mechanisms, the sudden appearance of space, matter, energy and time. There are not even any credible theories being bandied about. Instead, evolutionists pull the “ignore the man behind the curtain” bait-and-switch to turn our attention to fossils (which in truth prove precisely nothing, but that's another subject entirely). Are Noah and Jonah really so outlandish? Now let’s apply our critical thinking skills to these supposedly fictitious Old Testament “stories.” Take the Genesis account of Noah and the global flood, for instance: What is so fantastic about that? We see the geological evidence of it everywhere. Look at aerial photos of the Grand Canyon, and consider what makes more sense – that the “mighty” Colorado River carved the whole thing out, or an enormous flood? (Note that the world’s real-life Chicken Littles are warning us of global catastrophe due to gas-ridden cows and plastic straws, and heads of state worldwide somehow find that perfectly reasonable. But not the Genesis flood.) Damien Mackey’s comment: Conservative biblical apologists may not be helping the situation by insisting upon a global Flood, because: Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood (10) Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood and Noah preparing an Ark full of, not only every type of animal, but dinosaurs as well! Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Or leap over to the book of Jonah. Is it really impossible for a man to be swallowed by a great fish and survive for three days? Certainly not when the Creator of the universe is in charge; Jesus Himself said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). To be sure, there are stories out there of modern-day Jonahs being swallowed by whales. I don’t know that any have been confirmed, however. Damien Mackey’s comment: February 2025: https://www.escape.com.au/destinations/south-america/horrifying-video-captures-kayaker-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile/news- Horrifying video captures kayaker being swallowed by humpback whale in Chile A kayaking trip took a shocking turn when a humpback whale swallowed a paddler, with the terrifying moment caught on camera. Watch the video. Adella Beaini A kayaker in Chilean Patagonia had a heart-stopping encounter when a humpback whale briefly swallowed him before swiftly spitting him back out. The incredible moment was captured on camera and has quickly gone viral on social media. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was paddling alongside his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a massive humpback whale suddenly surfaced. In an instant, the whale engulfed Adrián and his bright yellow kayak, holding him for a few seconds before releasing him unharmed. Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Most likely, Jonah’s experience was a one-time supernatural event. Do one-time events need subsequent repetition to be proven true? If so, then hmmmm, how come all those evolutionary scientists are still trusting in the Big Bang theory? What's the problem? The trouble is that skeptics insist on trying to assign natural causes to supernatural events. That’s simply not necessary when the miraculous is not only possible, but in evidence everywhere we look. For proof, check out your children and grandchildren. How did those eyes evolve, one step at a time? How did their circulatory systems come to be, bit by bit? How about their immune systems? Their ears? GI systems? Brains? Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Poof! …. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz has written (2022): https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/352682/noah-jonah-and-life-after-catastrophe/ Noah, Jonah, and Life After Catastrophe The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The very name “Jonah” itself suggests a link; the Hebrew word for Jonah is “Yonah,” or dove, which is the type of bird that Noah sent out of the ark to see whether the flood was over. Thematically, there are contrasts and parallels. Noah is commanded by God to take refuge in a boat, as protection from God’s wrath; Jonah defies God’s command, by fleeing in a boat from God’s mercy. There are multiple other similarities, including how characters offer sacrifices after being saved, the counting of forty days to destruction, and how gardening takes center stage at the end of the story. It is clear that the Book of Jonah is meant to be read with the story of Noah in mind. What is the meaning of these literary connections? At first glance, Jonah is the anti-Noah. Noah is devout, while Jonah flees God’s calling; Jonah is even willing to sacrifice his life to defy God. Noah saves a remnant of the world from destruction, and although Jonah does save Nineveh in the end, he makes it clear that he would prefer Nineveh to be destroyed. Noah saves a menagerie of living beings by bringing them on his ark, while Jonah endangers an entire boat with his presence; the boat is safe only after Jonah is cast into the sea. Jonah could be dismissed as a rogue prophet who has turned his back on God and man. And the Book of Jonah is merely a repetition of the story of Noah, a reminder that the way of destruction is not the way of God. This interpretation misunderstands Jonah’s motives. Jonah is actually a prophet of justice who finds inspiration in the story of the flood, when a world of wickedness was washed away. Jonah is principled in his desire to punish the evil-doers and segregate the righteous from the unworthy. The flood, he believes, is the best blueprint for a human future. But Jonah is not a reactionary who conveniently forgets the end of the flood story; he knows that after the flood God promises that “never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood,” and designates the rainbow as the symbol that “never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” However, Jonah understands this divine promise as a concession to reality, a pragmatic necessity, to prevent the world from being destroyed on a regular basis. As Don Isaac Abravanel puts it, without God’s forbearance, “it would be necessary to have a flood every year, even perhaps every month,” due to humanity’s sins. God’s covenant of the rainbow does not undermine the importance of justice. Damien Mackey’s comment: Regarding Abravanel, see my article: Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? (11) Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz continues: Jonah offers a clear answer to one of the most difficult questions in the Noah narrative: what was the purpose of the flood? God sent the flood because “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). Yet, after the flood, the Torah explains that the reason why there will never be another flood is because “every inclination of the human heart is evil” (Genesis 8:24). The identical rationale is given for why God brought the flood, and why He promises never to repeat the flood. If humanity is equally evil both before and after the flood, what exactly did the flood accomplish? Jonah would answer that the flood is a constant reminder to humanity that we are fundamentally unworthy. Even if God can’t destroy the world again, we need to recognize that this is merely a loophole, letting humanity off the hook from a punishment they actually deserve. …. This is why Jonah finds God’s command to save Nineveh both unbelievable and unpalatable. Why save the wicked from destruction? If it weren’t for technical problems, destruction would and should be the norm. It is worth noting that Nineveh is built by Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who is cursed and rejected by Noah. Jonah may be following in Noah’s footsteps by rejecting the wicked descendants of Ham, while at the same time fleeing to Tarshish, the descendent of Noah’s blessed son Jephet. Jonah can very well claim that he is carrying on Noah’s legacy, cursing the wicked while blessing the good. Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends. …. The next article was written this year, 2025: https://www.harryfreedmanbooks.com/blog/what-do-jonah-and-noah-have-in-common/ What do Jonah and Noah have in Common? There is a remarkable correspondence between the biblical story of Noah and the Book of Jonah. The clue lies in the name Jonah, meaning dove in Hebrew. The dove, of course, is the bird that Noah sends out of the ark to discover whether the flood waters have dried out. But the connections between the two tales are far greater than just this. Noah is told by God that the world is about to be destroyed in a flood. He is commanded to build an ark to save himself, his family and the animal kingdom. He obeys the command, builds the ark and spends the next year peacefully floating above the flood. He is safe from the stormy waters. Jonah is told by God that Nineveh, the greatest city in the world, is to be destroyed. Even its animals will be wiped out. He is commanded to travel there and urge its inhabitants to repent. Unlike Noah he disobeys the command, runs to Jaffa and boards a boat. Unlike Noah, his time in the boat is not peaceful. The boat is buffeted by a storm, Jonah realises it is his fault and he is ejected into the water. The motifs of destruction, water, storms, boats and God’s command in the Noah story are reversed in the Jonah narrative. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish. A rabbinic midrash (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 10) says that a pearl in the fish gives him light. Noah is told to place a tzohar, translated as a light, into his ark. Another midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11) explains it was a light emitting gem. The rabbinic commentaries seem to be drawing a parallel between the inside of the fish and the interior of the ark. According to the Midrash in Pirkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer, this is the third mission Jonah has been sent on (The first is recounted in the Second Book of Kings, 14,23). The dove in the Noah story is also sent out three times. After three days inside the fish, Jonah is spewed out onto dry land. He is about to conclude his third mission. The dove concludes its mission when it finds dry land. When Noah does reach Nineveh and delivers his message the king proclaims a public fast. Even the animals are to fast. They too will be saved, just as they are in Noah’s ark. These are just a few of the parallels and contradictions between the two stories. There are many more. The stories are also linked by common language, using the same Hebrew words in each narrative. In both stories God says that the people’s wickedness has come before me. In both the Noah and Jonah narratives God sends a ruah, a wind, to whip up the water. Noah’s rain falls for forty days. Jonah is told to proclaim to Nineveh that the city will be destroyed in forty days. God regrets making man. After the people of Nineveh repent he regrets his threat to destroy them. The question of course is why these stories seem to be connected. Did the author of Jonah want his readers to be reminded of Noah when they read the book? If so, why? Perhaps the solution lies in the plants. The dove completes its mission positively, showing Noah that the land is dry, by bringing him a leaf from an olive tree. Jonah completes his mission negatively, angry that after all his travails the city was not destroyed. He sits in the baking hot sun, hoping to die. When God makes a vine grow over him, he is glad. When the vine withers he becomes angry. God asks him why he pitied the vine but could not pity the city. The episode with the vine seems to symbolise Jonah’s petulance. Both the Noah and Jonah narratives demonstrate that the wicked will not prosper, that God has mastery over the world. Perhaps the author of the book of Jonah wants to remind his readers that the threatened destruction of Nineveh was not the only time that the wicked faced divine judgement. And uses the parables of the plants to show his readers that the humble obedience of the dove, performing his mission quietly and diligently, is preferable to the petulance of Jonah.

Sorting amongst the Old Testament prophets to find Jonah

by Damien F. Mackey “If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah”. Community ConneXions Church A: Elijah to Amos My search for the prophet Jonah has led me 'all around the mulberry bush'. Or perhaps, to be more contextual, all around the 'kikayon' (קִיקָיוֹן) bush (cf. Jonah 4:6). With 2 Kings 14:25 in mind: “He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher”, I did what other commentators tend to do, and that was to search for the Jonah incident during the time of an Assyrian ruler contemporaneous with king Jeroboam II of Israel, say, an Adad-nirari III, or a Tiglath-pileser III. Elijah But I also went even further back than that, to a possible connection of Jonah with Elijah, based on the following sorts of similarities between this pair of prophets, taken from Community ConneXions Church: http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/TheologyandPractice/tabid/87/ctl/Details/mid/494/ItemID/40 “If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah. More specific – and indeed more satirical – connections between Jonah and Elijah begin in Jonah 1:2 where Yahweh calls Jonah to, “arise, go” to Nineveh. This call to go to a foreign land is paralleled only in 1 Kings 17:9 where Yahweh commands Elijah also to “arise, go to Zarephath which is in Sidon”. Usually Yahweh’s word is the perfect performative, where to speak is to create. The God who says “Let there be light” and “it was so” (Gen. 1:3), commands Elijah to “Arise go to Zarephath” (1 Kings 17:9) and Elijah “arises and goes,” (1 Kings 17:10). Following this normal biblical pattern we expect the Jonah narrative to continue, “So Jonah got up and went ... to Nineveh.” But, instead, Jonah says nothing to Yahweh and rises to flee. It’s as though outside his door Jonah hangs a large sign with the words, “Do Not Disturb!” Jonah is certainly no Elijah!” [End of quotes] Perhaps I should have taken notice of that last hint: “Jonah is certainly no Elijah!” The prophet Elijah disappears from the scene, at least qua Elijah, during the reign of Jehoram of Judah (2 Chronicles 21:12). That was well before the time of Jeroboam II. But there is always, for me, that possibility of an extension of a biblical floruit through an alter ego. Elisha The extraordinary prophet Elisha, 'miracles on tap', also loomed for me as a possible Jonah. He, like Jonah in the case of Jeroboam II, had advised a king of Israel, Jehoash, about the extent of his military conquests (2 Kings 13:14-19). Even though Elisha died shortly after this (v. 20), I shall be having more to say about the Jehoash-Jeroboam II connection, about a shortening of Israelite history, and about the identification of the "saviour" of 2 Kings 13:5. See, for example, my article: King Jeroboam II a ‘saviour’ of Israel https://www.academia.edu/41064679/King_Jeroboam_II_a_saviour_of_Israel It needs to be said, at this stage, that I eventually came to the conclusion that the repentant “King of Nineveh” of the Book of Jonah: Putting together the pieces for Jonah 3:6’s “King of Nineveh” (8) Putting together the pieces for Jonah 3:6's "King of Nineveh" was - much later than as is generally thought - the powerful ruler, ESARHADDON (including his various guises). This most un-anticipated identification rigorously defines the parameters for this present article. Obviously, now, Elisha could not qualify for my prophet Jonah at the time of Esarhaddon. My termini a quo and ad quem for Jonah had so far been determined as, respectively, Jeroboam II and early Esarhaddon. One would think, however, that there must have been more to the ministering of the prophet Jonah than just these two, chronologically far apart, occasions. Amos A far more promising candidate for Jonah, however, began to loom in the person of Amos, whose prophetic witness commenced "when ... Jeroboam ... was king of Israel" (Amos 1:1). Amos, too, as with Elijah, can be likened to Jonah. Thus I have previously quoted from the book by Hadi Ghantous, Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel (p. 180): ... Jonah and Amos The connections between Jonah and Amos are not as clear as those with Elijah although it is more clear that the fate of nations surrounding Israel is a major concern in both Amos and Jonah (Andersen and Freedman 1989: 236). The superscription in the book of Amos (Amos 1:1) sets Amos in the days of Jeroboam II and makes Amos a contemporary of Jonah. In 2 Kings 14:23-29, Jeroboam II recovers territories from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, and restore [sic] Damascus and Hamath to Judea in Israel. Similarly, Amos 1:3-5 is an oracle against Damascus; Amos 5:27 threatens Israel with an exile beyond Damascus. In Amos 6:2, Zion and Samaria are called to compare themselves with Hamath. Amos 6:14 refers to oppression from the Entrance of Hamath to the Valley of the Arabah (Pyper 2007: 351-3). In other words, both prophets deal with Damascus, Hamath, and the region from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea/Valley of the Arabah. Amos refutes the prophetic title (Amos 7:14); Jonah is never said to be a prophet in Jonah. Amaziah warns Jonah to flee ... for his life (Amos 7:12), while Jonah almost loses his life while fleeing (Jon, 1). "Other topical similarities can be found; singing (Amos 8:3// Jon. 2), sackcloths (Amos 8:10// Jon 3:6), wandering from sea to sea (Amos 8:12// Jon. 1:3-2:10), thirst (Amos 8:13// Jon. 4:8), and sheol (Amos 9:2// Jon. 2) (Edelman 2009: 162). These similarities pose the question whether they go beyond a mere imitation of details and indicate a fundamental similarity and connection between Amos and Jonah. ...". [End of quote] Jonah is well-known as 'the reluctant prophet', and this, too, may have been a trait of Amos (7:14): 'I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet ...'. There is also a very Jonah-like note in Amos 9:3: "Even if they tried to hide from me at the bottom of the sea, from there I would command the Sea Serpent [הַנָּחָשׁ] to bite them". Don E. Jones has made this very same connection: "There is something ominous in Amos's prophecy, the first part of which [9:3] certainly applies to Jonah ...". [I no longer have the precise reference, but presume this quote came from his book, Searching for Jonah: Clues in Hebrew and Assyrian History, 19 September 2018]. While Amos qualifies chronologically as being a contemporary of Jonah's at the time of Jeroboam II, he will fall just short of early Esarhaddon (the ‘moment’ of Jonah's intervention at Nineveh). See next. Micah Amos is, according to my revision of Israel and Judah, the same as the prophet Micah, known as "Amos redivivus": Prophet Micah as Amos (8) Prophet Micah as Amos Micah (Amos) is also the Micaiah who prophesied the death of king Ahab of Israel (I Kings 22:8-28): Micaiah and Micah (2) Micaiah and Micah This highly controversial (chronology-wise) connection (Micaiah = Micah), which has the support of some Jewish tradition (see e.g., Ginzberg, Legends, 6:355, n. 20), pitches Micah back well before king Jeroboam II. Amos is also generally considered to have been the father of Isaiah, "son of Amoz" (Isaiah 1:1). I have also identified Isaiah son of Amos with the "Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon" of Judith 6:15. See e.g. m y article: A Shepherd-prophet of Israel foretells great Shepherd King (2) A Shepherd-prophet of Israel foretells great Shepherd King Uzziah must have followed his father Amos northwards to Bethel (the "Bethulia" of the Book of Judith), which is the strategically vital city of Shechem, where Uzziah later became the chief magistrate. He is also described as “the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23. Douay version), perhaps due to his father Amos's apparently royal connection with king Amaziah of Judah. "The rabbis of the Talmud declared, based upon a rabbinic tradition, that Amoz was the brother of Amaziah (אמציה), the king of Judah at that time (and, as a result, that Isaiah himself was a member of the royal family)" (article, "Amoz"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoz The prophet Micah must not have lived to have witnessed the Judith incident. He is not mentioned there (Book of Judith) as still being alive. The Book of Jeremiah tells that Micah was yet prophesying during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah (26:18): "Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus said the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest'." This prediction pertained to Sennacherib king of Assyria's earlier successful invasion of Judah and Jerusalem. Micah apparently was no longer alive, though, when Ashur-nadin-shumi (= "Holofernes"), son of Sennacherib, came to the region of "Bethulia" (Bethel-Shechem) with an army of 185,000 men. Thus, the prophet Micah cannot qualify for my Jonah early in the reign of Esarhaddon, who succeeded Sennacherib. Micah just misses out time wise. He must have been extremely old when he died. B: Hosea, Isaiah The prophet Hosea is, in fact, the only one of the prophets who - at least according to his superscription (Hosea 1:1) - spanned my requisite era from Jeroboam II unto Hezekiah. His prophetic floruit is closely matched by Isaiah's, but without (in the case of Isaiah) the inclusion of Jeroboam II (Isaiah 1:1): "The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah". The names of Hosea and Isaiah, as well, are very close in meaning, both pertaining to "Salvation". Abarim Publications lists Isaiah as a name "related" to Hosea (article, "Isaiah meaning"): https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Hosea.html#.Xp5Y6u0vPnF Previously I have written regarding the striking similarities between Isaiah and Hosea: "The names Isaiah and Hosea are indeed of very similar meaning, being basically derived from the same Hebrew root for ‘salvation’, יֵ֫שַׁע - “Isaiah” (Hebrew יְשַׁעְיָהוּ , Yeshâ‘yâhû) signifies: “Yahweh (the Lord) is salvation”. - “Hosea” (Hebrew הוֹשֵׁעַ) means practically the same: “Yahweh (the Lord) is saviour”. …. "Hosea’s/Isaiah’s Family Though no doubt young, the prophet was given the strange command by God to marry an ‘unfaithful’ woman: “‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord’. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim …” (Hosea 1:2-3). Biblical scholars have agonised over the type of woman this Gomer might have been: adulteress? harlot? temple-prostitute? But essentially the clue is to be found in the statement above that she was a citizen of the ‘land of great harlotry’: namely, the northern kingdom of Israel. .... "A further likeness between Isaiah and Hosea was the fact that ‘their names’ and those of ‘their’ children were meant to be, in their meanings, prophetic signs. …. - The prophet Isaiah tells us: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents ...” (Isaiah 8:18). - Similarly, the names of the children of the prophet Hosea were meant to be prophetic (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9). "Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters I-XXXIX, 1930), who has written perceptively on Isaiah’s children, has rightly noted the prophetic significance of their names and those of Hosea’s children, without however connecting Isaiah and Hosea as one: …. “Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic”. [End of quotes] It is most unlikely, one would have to think, to have two great prophets contemporaneously operating over such a substantial period of time, and each having three children whose names were prophetic. The fact is, I believe, that it was just the one prophet, who may possibly have had six children in all. For these, and for other reasons, I have identified Hosea and Isaiah as "just the one prophet", ministering to both Israel and Judah. That to go with my already mentioned identification of the prophet Isaiah with the princely "Uzziah" of the Book of Judith. Hosea-Isaiah is the only possible prophetic candidate, in my revised context, for Jonah son of Amittai. Jonah's otherwise unknown father, "Amittai", must then be Amaziah, that is, Amos. Jonah's (or probably his father's) home of "Gath-hepher", which cannot possibly have been the place of that name in Galilee - since, as the learned Pharisees well knew (John 7:52): '.... Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee' - must then be the southern Gath of Moresheth, the home of Micah-(Amos) (1:1): "The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth ...". "Micah is called the Morasthite, probably because he was a native of Moresheth-gath, a small town of Judea, which, according to Eusebius and Jerome, lay in a southwesterly direction from Jerusalem, not far from Eleutheropolis on the plain, near the border of the Philistine territory" ("The Twelve Minor Prophets"): https://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxiii_the_twelve_minor.htm Although "the vision ... concerning Israel" as seen by Amos will occur at "Tekoa" (Amos 1:1), I have previously written on this: "There are reasons, though, why I think that Tekoa would not have been the actual home of the prophet Amos. When confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, Amos retorted (7:14-15): ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from following the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.’ "Now, commentators such as Eugene Merrill have been quick to point out “that sycamores were abundant in the Shephelah but not around Tekoa” (The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2011, p. 431, n. 4). "So, my first point would be that Amos’s cultivating of sycamore-fig trees would be most appropriate in Moresheth, but highly unlikely in Tekoa. Moresheth, we read, “is the opposite exposure from the wilderness of Tekoa, some seventeen miles away across the watershed. As the home of Amos is bare and desert, so the home of Micah is fair and fertile” ("Micah 1", Expositor's Bible Commentary). "My second point is that Amos, apparently a herdsman (בַנֹּקְדִים) - some think a wealthy “sheepmaster”, whilst others say that he must have been poor - was, as we read above, “following the flock” מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן), meaning that, seasonally, he was a man on the move. Stationed at his home town of Moresheth in the Shephelah, I suggest, where he tended the sycamore trees, the prophet also had to move with the flock from time to time. And this is apparently where Tekoa (about 6 miles SE of Bethlehem) comes into the picture". [End of quotes] The reason why such striking similarities can be found between Amos and Jonah (as we read above in A.) is because this was a father-son prophetic combination ranging from Israel to Judah. It is the very same reason why we find some almost identical statements and actions emanating from Micah (= Amos) and from Isaiah (= Jonah). Read, for example, Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4. "But who quoted whom?", it is asked: https://abramkj.com/2012/12/11/which-came-first-isaiah-or-micah-comparing-isaiah-22-4-with-micah-41-3/ Well, Micah was the father, and Isaiah was the son. Compare also Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl", and Isaiah 20:3: "Then the LORD said, 'Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush ...'." No doubt Jonah's prediction regarding Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25): "[Jeroboam] was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher", was uttered with all due awareness of his father Amos's own considerations (cf. 6:14): "For the Lord God Almighty declares, 'I will stir up a nation against you, Israel, that will oppress you all the way from Lebo Hamath to the valley of the Arabah'.” More tellingly, from my point of view, commentators have suggested that some parts of the Book of Isaiah (my Jonah) may actually have originated with Jonah. Don E. Jones, again, writes of it: "Spurred by the reference in II Kings 14:25, scholars over the years have searched diligently in the Scriptures for the "Lost Book of Jonah". Hitzig and Renan have attributed the prophecies of Isaiah 15-23 to Jonah as being inconsistent with other parts of the book. Allusions to Moab, Egypt and Ethiopia, would certainly give Jonah a wider scope of action. He would know conditions in Tyre, Sidon and Damacus from the Assyrian venture. Sargon's reign in Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) began in 721. It was by no means impossible that Jonah could still have been alive at the time of Isaiah". [End of quote] The view of Hitzig and Renan enables us to fill out the prophet Jonah all the more. His prophetic mission beyond Israel was not just limited to Nineveh. Isaiah, like Jonah (1:3), appears to have been very familiar, too, with the "ships of Tarshish" (e.g., Isaiah 2:16; 23:1; 60:9). As to why the name of Hosea's father would be given as "Beeri", whereas Isaiah's father is given as "Amoz", the Book of Judith may provide something of a clue. Judith was, like Uzziah (my Isaiah-Hosea) of Bethulia, a Simeonite (cf. Judith 8:1; 9:2). The Bethulians were a closely knit bunch, with Judith's husband, Manasseh, belonging "to the same tribe and clan" as she (8:2). Uzziah, also a Simeonite, may well have been a relative of both Judith and her husband. Judith seems to have been immensely proud of her 'father', Merari, she singing, after her great victory over "Holofernes": 'For their mighty one did not fall by the hands of the young men, nor did the sons of the Titans strike him down, nor did tall giants set upon him; but Judith daughter of Merari with the beauty of her countenance undid him'. Hosea's father, "Beeri", could possibly be that Merari, given what C. R. Conder will refer to (I noted this in my postgraduate university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background: https://www.academia.edu/3822220/Thesis_2_A_Revised_History_of_the_Era_of_King_Hezekiah_of_Judah_and_its_Background) as the "occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature" of the substitution of M for B. Conder was hoping by this means to establish the fairly unimportant site of "Mithilia" (or Mesilieh) as Judith's "Bethulia". Somewhat coincidentally, we read in Genesis (26:34): "When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite ...". Obviously no relation, though. Consulting Abarim Publications, I find that the name "Merari" does not have Amoz (Amos) listed as a "related" name: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Merari.html#.XqER-O0vPnE Perhaps Merari could have been an ancestor, rather than a direct father, of both Hosea and Judith. A special mention is made in I Chronicles 4:33 to the Simeonites keeping "a genealogical record".

Ash Wednesday provides an ideal opportunity to repent

“In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’”.” Matthew 3:1-3 Today (5th March, 2025) is Ash Wednesday. What is Ash Wednesday? That question is asked, and answered at: https://www.dynamiccatholic.com/lent/ash-wednesday.html?srsltid=AfmBOopjUijbPKBfV2-941XYjz2QeJqG_2PqluhcTVKeS6HnSmb3DnwD What is Ash Wednesday? Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent—and a wonderful opportunity to make yourself 100% available to God! How available to God are you? 50%? 75%? 96.4%? No matter what your answer, Ash Wednesday is the perfect time to decide that you will spend this Lent increasing that number. On Ash Wednesday, you can get your forehead blessed with ashes at Mass or a prayer service. These ashes are a reminder that we need to repent. Repentance is a powerful invitation. When John the Baptist first appeared in the desert of Judea, this was his message: “Repent, prepare the way of the Lord” (Matthew 3:2). Later, when Jesus began his ministry, he led with this message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). But what does it mean for us to repent, here and now, more than two thousand years later? It means the same as it did to the people walking around the dusty pathways in their sandals, trying to inch closer to Jesus as he passed through their town or village. Repent means “to turn back to God.” We all find ourselves needing to turn back to God many times a day, in ways small and large. It is not a matter of guilt and it is not a shameful thing. It is simply that we are a better version of ourselves when we return to his side! When is Ash Wednesday 2025? This year Ash Wednesday is on March 5, 2025. The History of Ashes on Ash Wednesday You might be wondering why we get ashes on our foreheads for Ash Wednesday. Throughout history, ashes have been a powerful outward symbol of interior repentance and spiritual awareness. Here are some examples of ashes in the Bible: • "Therefore I disown what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6) • "Daughter of my people, dress in sackcloth, roll in the ashes." (Jeremiah 6:26) • "I turned to the Lord God, to seek help, in prayer and petition, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes." (Daniel 9:3) • "When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh: “By decree of the king and his nobles, no man or beast, no cattle or sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. Man and beast alike must be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; they all must turn from their evil way and from the violence of their hands." (Jonah 3: 6-8) The Early Christians used ashes to show repentance as well, but not just on Ash Wednesday! After going to confession, it was common for the priest to give the person ashes on their forehead. Catholics have been receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday since the time of St. Gregory the Great. In 1091, Pope Urban II encouraged the entire Church to use ashes on Ash Wednesday. If you want to get blessed with ashes this Ash Wednesday, be sure to check with your local parish. Most churches celebrate Mass or have a prayer service on Ash Wednesday, and all are welcome to attend and be blessed with ashes. Sign up for this year’s Is Ash Wednesday a Holy Day of Obligation? Contrary to popular belief, Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation. Even though you’re not required to attend Mass, Ash Wednesday is a wonderful opportunity to rearrange your priorities and feed your soul before one of the most important seasons of the entire year! Can you eat meat on Ash Wednesday? No. Unless you have a medical exemption, Ash Wednesday is a day of Abstinence for Catholics. Avoiding meat can be difficult, but it’s a powerful way to be disciplined about your priorities. When you make little sacrifices a part of your everyday spirituality, amazing things happen! For example, suppose you have a craving for a Coke, but you have a glass of water instead. It is the smallest thing. Nobody notices. And yet, by this simple action you strengthen your willpower and become an even better-version-of-yourself. Or, say your soup tastes a little dull. You could add salt and pepper, but you don’t. It’s a little thing. It’s nothing. But by saying no to yourself in small ways, it makes you even freer to say yes to the things that truly matter. If you want to grow in strength this Lent, there’s one simple thing you can do: Try to never leave a meal table without practicing some form of sacrifice. It is these tiny acts that will strengthen your will for the great moments of decision that are a part of each of our lives! What are the fasting rules for Ash Wednesday? The Church requires all Catholics from ages 14-59 to fast on Ash Wednesday. As long as you are in good health, this means that you should only eat one full meal, plus two smaller meals that do not equal a full meal. Ash Wednesday is also a day where Catholics avoid eating meat. There is great wisdom in the Christian practice of fasting—even though its benefits are largely forgotten! Fasting is a spiritual exercise, and as such is primarily an action of the inner life. Authentic fasting draws us nearer to God and opens our hearts to receive his many gifts. Fasting is also a sharp reminder that there are more important things in life than food. Authentic Christian fasting helps to release us from our attachments to the things of this world. It is often these worldly attachments that prevent us from becoming the-best-version-of-ourselves. Fasting also serves as a reminder that everything in this world is passing and thus encourages us to consider life beyond death. Go without food for several hours and you quickly realize how truly weak, fragile, and dependent we are. This knowledge of self strips away arrogance and fosters a loving acknowledgment of our utter dependence on God. Ash Wednesday is a powerful day to rediscover the power of fasting in your life! Make It Personal Ash Wednesday is the perfect time to decide if you want to have the kind of Lent that’s easy to forget…or the kind that changes your life. Do you want a renewed commitment to prayer? More discipline in a specific area of your life? A stronger marriage? More peace? This Ash Wednesday, set aside 15 minutes to set your intentions for the season of Lent!

Wrong to say that Ashurbanipal was the least cruel of the Mesopotamian kings

by Damien F. Mackey “His gloating knew no bounds. A relief found at his palace at Nineveh depicts Ashurbanipal leisurely dining al fresco with his wife and servants fanning them, while the severed head of an Elamite king hangs from a nearby tree”. I read a remark recently that Ashurbanipal was the least cruel of the Assyrian kings. Given my identification of Ashurbanipal with Ashurnasirpal (the names are almost identical in meaning), I thought that this statement was well wide of the mark, that Ashurbanipal, as Ashurnasirpal, was probably the most cruel of all of these kings. Ashurnasirpal is reputed to have been so, and he was happy to boast of it openly. Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together here is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” (260). While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites of south-western Iran. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he `possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world, the exalted shepherd, the powerful torrent that none can withstand, he who has overcome all mankind, whose hand has conquered all lands and taken all the mountain ranges” (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. https://allmesopotamia.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/part-iii-ashurbanipal/ Ashurbanipal’s Cruelty Ashurbanipal was a nice and patient guy with his brother, but he definitely wasn’t a nice guy to his enemies (or to lions). You could argue that no one is particularly nice to their enemies, but Ashurbanipal was really really really mean to his enemies. We’re talking excessively cruel. We’re talking excessive cruelty. Read about this relief here. His gloating knew no bounds. A relief found at his palace at Nineveh depicts Ashurbanipal leisurely dining al fresco with his wife and servants fanning them, while the severed head of an Elamite king hangs from a nearby tree. The worst part is that Teumann, to whom the head belonged, didn’t just die in battle, but committed suicide at the battle scene, after which Ashurbanipal had his head cut off and taken back with him to Nineveh, where Elamite ambassadors freaked out. So freaked out were these guys by Ashurbanipal, that one of them actually killed himself. That makes three suicides that Ashurbanipal was responsible for, including his brother’s suicide. The guy had some major mind power. … Ashurbanipal celebrates in his garden with his queen the victory over Elam, while his enemy’s head hangs from the last tree to the left (your left) by way of a ring piercing the deceased’s jaw. (Source) The parading of Teumann’s head was depicted in several reliefs, each showing the head on display in various different public places, always serving as a reminder to all who dare to cross the Assyrian king and his empire.

Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon (flourished 7th century bc) was the king of Assyria from 680–669 bc …”. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Esarhaddon “Ashur-etil-ilani was a king of Assyria ca. (631 BC - ca.627 BC)”. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/464149 Here we see that Ashur-etil-ilani supposedly came to the throne of Assyria (631 BC) almost 40 years after the death of the mighty Esarhaddon (669 BC). In between, we are told, there occurred the long reign of Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC). Assyriologists, failing to take careful notice of the fact that Esarhaddon would also be given by Sennacherib the name of Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, have, in their typically conventionalist Indian file approach, separated Esarhaddon as being a king other than the almost identically named (merely shortened) Ashur-etil-ilani. This is a rupture in Assyrian history of a full generation. Imagine how it must affect, not only Assyrian history, but all other related histories! “Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree"). The additional phrase, mukin apli, means “establisher of a legitimate heir”. According to Sidney Smith, however (see below), this lengthy Assyrian name means: “… ‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’)”. Father Jean-Vincent Scheil, in 1915, had trouble fitting into his scheme of things this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, thinking that he may have been a rival brother of Esarhaddon. What particularly interests me about the following quotation from Father Scheil is that Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli will call himself, now “son of Sennacherib”, now “son of Sargon”, just the one Assyrian king according to my scheme of things: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (2) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Father Scheil wrote, in his article, ‹Le Prisme d'Assarhaddon, Roi d'Assyrie, 681-668› (The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1915, p. 653): There is another inscription which involves a problem of historical importance. It reads: 'I am Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sargon, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria.' It tells about restorations of temples of Assyria and Babylonia. Seeing that the successor of Sennacherib was Esarhaddon, the question arises: Who was this Ashur-e-il-ilani-mukin-apli who claimed to be son and successor of Sennacherib? The author is inclined to identify him with Esarhaddon. Hugo Winckler (Altorient. Forsch., II, pp. 53-9; 183-6) has already identified Ashur-e-til-ilani-ukin(-in)-ni (III R, I6, 2. 9) and Ashur-e-til-mukin-apli (ibid., I6, 8) with the latter. But it is hard to believe in this identification. We would have to assume with Winckler that the original name of this king was Ashur-ah-iddina, who according to the will of his father was to be named when he became king Ashur-etil-mukin-apli, that, as a matter of fact, on his accession he assumed the name Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli; in official documents, however, he was called Ashur-etil-ilani-ukin-ni, and as soon as he was firmly established on his throne he assumed his original name Ashur-ah-iddina. Winckler's contention that Esarhaddon as Ashur-e-itil-ilani-ukin-ni did not bear the title 'king of the kish-shati', as this title was a special designation of the rulers of Harran which at that time was in possession of his brother, the rival king, would be disproved by our inscription, in which he is named 'king of the kishshati'. Its contents show also that it was not written at the time of this king's accession, as it enumerates restorations of temples in Assyria and Babylonia. May we assume that Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli was the name of a brother of Esarhaddon who maintained himself as rival king for a considerable time? [End of quote] Sidney Smith, writing for CAH (Vol. III, Ch. iii), had no hesitation in identifying Esarhaddon with this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli (“Sennacherib and Esarhaddon”). Commenting on Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon, Sidney Smith wrote (p. 69): https://classicalliberalarts.com/resources/CAMBRIDGE_ANCIENT_003.pdf The folk who were slaughtered had themselves probably slaughtered the pro-Assyrian party shortly before. …. For eight years there was no trouble in Babylonia. Elam remained passive under the rule of Khummakhaldash, who had succeeded Menanu in 689. It was during these eight years that Sennacherib gave his son Esarhaddon the supreme authority over the southern provinces which he had himself once exercised in the north; and Esarhaddon’s mother, the queen Nakia, was probably installed in Babylon at this time too, to guide her son, and to act as his representative in his absence. From these facts some have inferred that Nakia was herself of Babylonian birth. This act, which probably took place at the end of the reign, was, in fact, a recognition of Esarhaddon as Sennacherib’s successor; and since Esarhaddon was a younger son, as is implied by his name (‘Ashur hath given a brother’), his older brother may naturally have become desperate. The event was solemnized by a ceremony in Babylon, and Esarhaddon was renamed Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli (‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’). …. [End of quote] Turning to Ashur-Etil-Ilani, a king reigning supposedly decades later than Esarhaddon (who was Ashurbanipal) we read this typical sort of account (with my comments added): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-etil-il%C4%81ni Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree"),[7] was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC to his own death in 627 BC.[n 1] Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive. Because of this lack of sources, very little concrete information about the king and his reign can be deduced. Mackey’s comment: The reason why “Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive” is only because he has not been appropriately matched up to his more powerful alter egos, such as Esarhaddon (= Ashurbanipal/ Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus). Wikipedia continues in the same vein: It is possible that Aššur-etil-ilāni was a weak ruler as there are no records of the king ever undertaking a military campaign or going on a hunt, activities previous Assyrian kings would famously do very often; this, in turn, may have helped to entice some of Assyria's vassals, such as the Kingdom of Judah, to break free from Assyrian control and begin to act independently. Aššur-etil-ilāni was succeeded by his brother Sîn-šar-iškun under uncertain, though not necessarily violent, circumstances. Mackey’s comment: If Aššur-etil-ilāni was also Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, as I believe he was, then his successor Sîn-šar-iškun was not his brother, but his son, the ill-fated King Belshazzar (Daniel 5). The names are of compatible meaning: Sîn-šar-iškun (Sîn-šarru-iškun), "Sîn has established the king"; and Belshazzar (Bēl-šar-uṣur), “Bel, protect the king”. It is the same basic formula: [X] - [WILL] FAVOUR - THE KING. Wikipedia continues, still lamenting lack of information: There is a distinct lack of available sources in regards to the last few years of Ashurbanipal's reign and the reign of Aššur-etil-ilāni. The annals of Ashurbanipal, the primary sources for his reign, go no further than 636 BC.[8] Although Ashurbanipal's final year is often repeated as 627 BC,[9][10] this follows an inscription at Harran made by the mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus nearly a century later. The final contemporary evidence for Ashurbanipal being alive and reigning as king is a contract from the city of Nippur made in 631 BC.[4] To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors to match, most scholars agree that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC.[11] Of the three options, a death in 631 BC is the most accepted.[12] If Ashurbanipal's reign would have ended in 627 BC, the inscriptions of his successors Aššur-etil-ilāni and Sîn-šar-iškun in Babylon, covering several years, would have been impossible since the city was seized by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar in 626 BC to never again fall into Assyrian hands.[13] Mackey’s comment: The Nabopolassar who seized Babylon was, in fact, the potent Assyrian king, Sargon II=Sennacherib. Why are we so lacking in depictions of the powerful Nabopolassar? He clearly needs one or more alter egos. On this phenomenon, see e.g. my article: Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt (2) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Wikipedia continues: Ashurbanipal had named his successor as early as 660 BC, when documents referencing a crown prince were written. He had been the father of at least one son, and probably two, early on in his reign. These early sons were likely Aššur-etil-ilāni [sic] and Sîn-šar-iškun. Mackey’s comment: No, Aššur-etil-ilāni was Ashurbanipal (was Esarhaddon). Wikipedia continues: The common assumption that Aššur-etil-ilāni came to the throne at a young age is based on the phrase "my father did not rear me" ("rear" meaning to care for someone until they're fully grown), found in one of his inscriptions. However, the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal and Aššur-etil-ilāni is unlikely to have been very young as he is attested to have had male children during his reign.[14] Mackey’s comment: That “… the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal …”, is simply because Ashurbanipal was Aššur-etil-ilāni (Esarhaddon). Wikipedia continues: Aššur-etil-ilāni ascended the throne after the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC.[15] A land grant from Aššur-etil-ilāni to his rab šaqi (a general serving him since he was a young boy) Sîn-šumu-līšir suggests that Ashurbanipal died a natural death.[8] As in many other successions in Assyrian history, Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest.[15] The same land grant to Sîn-šumu-līšir references the actions of an Assyrian official called Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur who with the help of another official, Sîn-šar-ibni, attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne. Mackey’s comment: “Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest”, just as in the case of Esarhaddon. It was the very same “opposition” and the very same “unrest”. The two Assyrian officials who “attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne” were most likely the two sons who had rebelled against, and had slain, Sennacherib, Adrammelech and Sharezer, under alternative names. On the historical identification of these two regicide sons, see e.g. my article: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib (8) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Wikipedia continues: Sin-shum-lishir probably assisted the king with stopping Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur and Sîn-šar-ibni.[8] As no sources indicate the opposite, the conspiracy appears to have been crushed relatively quickly.[15] Excavations at Nineveh from the time around Ashurbanipal's death show fire damage, indicating that the plot perhaps resulted in some violence and unrest within the capital itself.[16] The spread of inscriptions by Aššur-etil-ilāni in Babylonia suggest that he exercised the same amount of control in the southern provinces as his father Ashurbanipal had, having a vassal king (Kandalanu) but exercising actual political and military power there himself. His inscriptions are known from all the major cities, including Babylon, Dilbat, Sippar and Nippur.[15] Too few inscriptions of Aššur-etil-ilāni survive to make any certain assumptions about his character. Excavations of his palace at Kalhu, one of the more important cities in the empire and a former capital, may indicate that he was less boastful than his father as it had no reliefs or statues similar to those that his predecessors had used to illustrate their strength and success.[17] The lack of such depictions may partly be because there are no records of Aššur-etil-ilāni ever conducting a military campaign or going on a hunt. …. It is frequently assumed, without any supporting evidence, that Aššur-etil-ilāni's brother [sic] Sîn-šar-iškun fought with him for the throne.[19] Although the exact circumstances of Aššur-etil-ilāni's death and the rise of his brother Sîn-šar-iškun to the throne are unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that Aššur-etil-ilāni was deposed and/or killed in a coup.[15] [End of quotes] While the actual type of death of Sîn-šar-iškun is uncertain, he is generally thought to have died in defence of his capital, perhaps by suicide. Whether he took his own life, or was assassinated, he fits perfectly as King Belshazzar, the ill-fated successor of Nebuchednezzar, whom we are studying here primarily under his name (one of many) Ashur-etil-ilani. For more of his names, see e.g. my article: The many faces of Nebuchednezzar (3) The many faces of Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

The many faces of Nebuchednezzar

by Damien F. Mackey King Nebuchednezzar, base metal: ‘… the basest of men’ (Daniel 4:17) turned into gold: ‘You are the head of gold’ (Daniel 2:38) Little did I realise at the time, when invited in the Year 2000 by professor Rifaat Ebied to choose between the era of King Hezekiah and the era of (Jeremiah) King Josiah for the subject matter of a doctoral thesis (for more on this, see e. g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (DOC) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s were in fact the very same era, that Hezekiah was Josiah. ut so radical a revision of Judah must needs be accompanied by, for instance, a similarly radical revision of whoever Assyro-Babylonian dynasts were contemporaneous with these kings of Judah. Amongst the articles that I have written on that score is the detailed: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The upshot of all of this is, in the case of the Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, that his life now comes within close range of King Hezekiah of Judah. Whilst, in conventional terms, Nebuchednezzar did not begin to reign until c. 605 BC, about 80 years after the death of Hezekiah (c. 686 BC), according to the revisions proposed in the articles above, Nebuchednezzar’s youth would have overlapped with the late reign of Hezekiah. King Esarhaddon And, if the Jewish tradition be correct, that the future king Nebuchednezzar himself had participated in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign at the time of king Hezekiah – {quite a chronological impossibility in conventional terms} - then Nebuchednezzar may even be the wrongly-named “Bagoas”, who was second-in-command to Sennacherib’s eldest son and commander-in-chief (Ashur-nadin-shumi =) “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (3) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, if Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, was “Holofernes”, the leader of the disastrous invasion of Israel by the 185,000 Assyrians, then who was – where was? – Esarhaddon in all of this, he being the prince who would most unexpectedly succeed Sennacherib? Well, if Nebuchednezzar had in fact been personally involved in this campaign, as according to Jewish tradition, then that, too, is where we must find Esarhaddon, at least if I am correct that: Esarhaddon [is] a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (3) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face”. (Karen Radner) In a multi-part “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” series, I had listed and described a number of Assyro-Babylonian (and even supposedly Persian) kings who have the earmarks of the biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar: dreams; illness-madness; interfering with rubrics; building Babylon; invasion of Egypt, megalomania; burning fiery furnace; revival and ‘conversion’: Esarhaddon, in particular, seems to me to ‘scream out’ to be identified with Nebuchednezzar. King Ashurbanipal-Nabonidus “Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus." biblehistory.net Apart from the many “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” parallels, Nabonidus, supposedly ‘centring himself upon Ashurbanipal’, has further striking likenesses to Ashurbanipal, and has striking likenesses to the biblical “Nebuchadnezzar”. On this, see my article: Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (3) Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar" a better fit for King Nabonidus? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In an intriguing article, “The Prophet Daniel”: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/the_prophet_daniel.htm we read this: Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus." The artifact, which doesn't seem to draw much attention in Biblical archaeology circles, is actually very important. First of all it is a copy of a scroll written in the language of Babylon, Aramaic, not Hebrew as in the case of the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aramaic was the language spoken in ancient Babylon. The reason this is important is because Daniel the prophet was educated in the Aramaic language of Babylon. We found this stated in Daniel 1:4 and in Daniel 2:4. …. Prayer of Nabonidus There is also evidence that the original book of Daniel from chapters 2:4 through chapters 7:28 were also written in this ancient Aramaic language known as Chaldee (the language of Babylon), the same language used in Babylonian documents of the 7th century B.C. This evidence comes from other Dead Sea Scroll fragments found of the book of Daniel. These fragments confirm the fact that the events spoken of in the book of Daniel were written down by Daniel in ancient Aramaic during the time of his captivity in Babylon. Now the text of the "Prayer of Nabonidus" is an account of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, the father of the Biblical ruler Belshazzar. In his account, Nabonidus had come down with a disease while away from Babylon at his stay at the oasis city of Teman in Saudi Arabia. He prayed to his false gods and idols of silver, gold, wood, stone and clay, but to no avail. So he sought the help from a Jew who was part of the exiles taken into captivity back to Babylon. This Jew tells Nabonidus to worship and honor the Most High God instead of his foreign gods. This Jew, referred to here, is most likely the prophet Daniel. We know from Scripture that Daniel was still alive during the reign of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Scripture also indicates that the Queen of Babylon, likely the Queen of Nabonidus, Belshazzar's mother, believed that Daniel was, in her words, "A man in the kingdom in whom dwelt the Spirit of the Holy God, . . . like the wisdom of the gods whom Nebuchadnezzar your father (grandfather) - your father the king (Nabonidus) - made him chief of the magicians. astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers." Daniel 5:11 So Daniel was considered to be the chief man to go to under both king Nebuchadnezzar and king Nabonidus when dealing with issues concerning God. Now, these fragments of the scroll give evidence outside of the Bible that Nabonidus likely called upon Daniel's advise after his prayers to his false gods had failed. Below is one English translation of the scroll fragments known as the Prayer of Nabonidus 4Q242. 1) The words of the prayer which Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was stricken 2) with an evil disease by the decree of God in Teman. I Nabonidus was stricken with an evil disease 3) for seven years, and from that time I was driven and I prayed to the Most High 4) and, as for my sin, he forgave it. A diviner – who was a Jew of the Exiles – came to me and said: 5) ‘Recount and record these things in order to give honor and greatness to the name of the God Most High.’ And thus I wrote: I 6) was stricken with an evil disease in Teman by the decree of the Most High God, and, as for me, 7) seven years I was praying to gods of silver and gold, bronze, iron, 8) wood, stone and clay, because I thought that they were gods. …. Cambyses too, apart from having some of the earmarks of “Nebuchednezzar syndrome”: madness; conquest of Egypt, had the alternative name of “Nebuchadnezzar”: Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? Part Three: ‘Sacred disease’ (read madness) of King Cambyses https://www.academia.edu/37318798/Cambyses_also_named_Nebuchadnezzar_Part_Three_Sacred_disease_read_madness_of_King_Cambyses And, perhaps further strengthening the contemporaneity of Cambyses with the neo-Assyrian era, I have suggested an identification of the important official in Egypt, Udjahorresne[t], who acted as the king’s guide and mentor there, with Ushanahuru, the son (possibly Crown Prince) of the great Tirhakah of Egypt/Ethiopia: Udjahorresne as Ushanahuru, heir of Tirhakah (4) Udjahorresne as Ushanahuru, heir of Tirhakah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg for Nebuchednezzar, as other of my articles on the subject have shown. For instance: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (DOC) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Also recommended: Nebuchednezzar’s arduous road to conversion (DOC) Nebuchednezzar’s arduous road to conversion | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But, perhaps most surprising of all, Ashurnasirpal (the Cruel) is also to be identified with Nebuchednezzar: Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ (4) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together here is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel king, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... He reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was not his “son”, but his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” (260). While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing here, then he most certainly conquered Lebanon, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites of south-western Iran. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he `possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world …”. (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire” “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayer ….