The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified

by Damien F. Mackey “[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”. 2 Kings 14:25 Introduction For would-be trackers of Jonah’s “king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6), and the Jonah incident, this biblical text (2 Kings 14:25), when taken in a conventional context, makes it biologically impossible, I would suggest, to connect the prophet Jonah, at the time of king Jeroboam II of Israel, with the Jonah incident that occurred so much later. Taking the very latter part of the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel, say, c. 750 BC, the Jonah incident, which I have already hinted belonged approximately to the time of Assyrian multi-confusion, after (i) the demise of the 185,000; and (ii) the murder of Sennacherib; when (iii) Esarhaddon was trying to hold Nineveh in the face of civil war, say, c. 680 BC (plus the age of the prophet Jonah at the time), becomes virtually irretrievable. That is why very determined researchers, such as Bill Cooper (“The Historic Jonah”, EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 105–116), look for whom they might deem to be a suitable candidate for “the king of Nineveh” amongst Assyrian kings somewhat earlier than Esarhaddon, who does not (cannot) come into their calculations. Bill Cooper’s own choice for the biblical king of Nineveh is Tiglath-pileser so-called III. Even given my crunching of neo-Assyrian kings (e.g. Tiglath-pileser as Shalmaneser), Tiglath-pileser falls short of Jonah’s “king of Nineveh” by, I believe, two decades minimum. Here I intend to demonstrate, as had Bill Cooper intended in his probing article, that the prophet Jonah's intervention in Nineveh was a true historical event. Part One: Focus on Esarhaddon A: Historical ‘moment’ The historical 'window of opportunity' that I am going to propose here as best fitting the Jonah narrative will be one that I have already suggested before. However, due to a then imperfect appreciation of the degree of historical revision required, I had had to drop that particular model as being unworkable. Since that first effort, however, I have streamlined the histories of Israel, Judah, Assyria and Babylonia, and that will now make all the difference. The historical moment that I identify as that best suiting the intervention in “the great city of Nineveh”, נִינְוֵה, הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה, by the prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:2), is the ‘moment’ when King Esarhaddon was in the throes of trying to secure Nineveh from his older brothers, two of whom had assassinated the previous Assyrian king, Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37). There may never have been a more dire or foreboding moment in time for the Assyrian people. Had it not only recently been preceded by the utter rout of the proud king Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000 men. (v. 35)? And, as might be the case, Esarhaddon’s crisis situation, now, was very much due to the fact that he had been personally involved in that horrendous and unprecedented humiliation of the highly-vaunted Assyrian army: the 185,000. The Book of Tobit - which will actually refer to Jonah’s mission to Nineveh (Tobit 14:4) - seems to echo Jonah’s threat (Jonah 3:4): “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown", when it repeats that very same time period (Tobit 1:21. NRSV): “But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat. A son of his, Esarhaddon, succeeded him as king”. {Though other ancient authorities read for Tobit 1:21 either forty-five or fifty}. Sennacherib himself - who was, just prior to his demise, in the process of hunting down the honourable Tobit to kill him (Tobit 1:19) - would seem to be a least likely candidate, amongst the Assyrian kings, for Jonah’s repentant “king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6). And I don't think any commentator has ever put forward Sennacherib as being a possible candidate. Esarhaddon, on the other hand - {who (under the benign influence of Ahiqar) would allow for Tobit to return home (Tobit 1:22): “Then Ahiqar interceded on my behalf, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahiqar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet ring, treasury accountant, and credit accountant under Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians; and Esarhaddon appointed him as Second to himself”} - seems to have been surprisingly tolerant towards exilic Israel. A footnote to this Jonah-Tobit connection: The non-historical, composite character, the Prophet Mohammed, whose biography tells of his various associations with “Nineveh”, all quite anachronistic of course (as Nineveh was completely lost from sight long before the supposed AD era of Mohammed), claimed that the prophet Jonah was his brother. “Muhammad asked Addas where he was from and the servant replied Nineveh. “The town of Jonah the just, son of Amittai!” Muhammad exclaimed. Addas was shocked because he knew that the pagan Arabs had no knowledge of the prophet Jonah. He then asked how Muhammad knew of this man. “We are brothers”, Muhammad replied”.” (Summarized from The Life of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham Volume 1 pp. 419–421). And the names of Mohammed's parents, ‘Abdullah and Amna, are virtually identical to those of Tobit’s son, Tobias, namely Tobit (= ‘Obadiah = ‘Abdiel = ‘Abdullah) and Anna (= Amna) (Tobit 1:9). Islam also quotes from the wise sayings of Ahiqar, and even has its own Ahiqar in Luqman, known as “the Ahiqar of the Arabs”: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_zvXrQ7W7PEC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=luqman+and+ahiqar B: Esarhaddon a repenting king Moreover Esarhaddon was, as we shall soon learn, a king who, like Jonah’s “king of Nineveh”, was known to have clothed himself with sackcloth as if in the guise of a sinner. And he certainly favoured the issuing of royal edicts or decrees - (see below, “a public proclamation”). He also, early, appears to have had the solidarity-support of his people (cf. Jonah 3:5-6). Thus Izabela Eph'al-Jaruzelska, “2016 Esarhaddon's Claim of Legitimacy in an Hour of Crisis: Sociological Observations” (p. 126): https://www.academia.edu/25716205/2016_Esarhaddons_Claim_of_Legitimacy_in_an_Hour_of_Crisis_Sociological_Observations/ “The Apology mentions the oath sworn to Esarhaddon by the people of Assyria and the king’s brothers before the gods at his nomination as Sennacherib’s successor. .... This public ceremony was intended to express submission and obedience to the king in a solemn way. This oath is invoked as the basis of the loyalty manifested by the people of Assyria when they refused to join the rebellion of those who opposed Esarhaddon’s accession to the Assyrian throne. .... “It also furnished grounds for the homage the people of Assyria paid to Esarhaddon after his victory over the rebels. .... A public proclamation of Esarhaddon as king during his struggle with the rebels also manifests the people’s consent”. [End of quote] Esarhaddon will turn out to be amongst the strangest and most complex kings of antiquity, possibly the most pious and superstitious of all kings, outdoing others with his cruelty and vengefulness, terrifying, at times quite mad, completely paranoid, highly literate, a phenomenal (no doubt, oftentimes, lying) propagandist, yet a king also capable of deep contrition and acknowledgement of a supreme deity. But we shall need to continue to meet him in his various powerful guises, or alter egos, which are an integral feature of my revision. It ought to be noted that, apart from his name, Esarhaddon (“Akkadian: Aššur-aḫa-iddina, meaning “Ashur has given me a brother”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esarhaddon “Esarhaddon had the further name of Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli”. http://www.attalus.org/armenian/kvan1.htm "Akkadian: Aššur-etil-ilāni ... , meaning "Ashur is the lord of the gods"," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur-etil-ilan and "mukin-apli" meaning [Ashur] "(is) establisher of a legitimate heir,”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nab%C3%BB-mukin-apli As Esarhaddon alone (qua Esarhaddon), though, we know from one of the king’s inscriptions that he humbled himself with “sackcloth”. Thus writes John H. Walton (Genesis, 2001): “The Akkadian term for sackcloth is basamu. The most relevant usage of it is in an Esarhaddon inscription in which he is said to have “wrapped his body in sackcloth befitting a penitent sinner” ....”. Cf. Jonah 3:6: “When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, wrapped himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust”. There may be an even more relevant text, which I like to think is a reference to the very Jonah incident. The quote is from professor A. H. Sayce (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, 1903), as cited by D. E. Hart-Davies in Jonah: Prophet and Patriot (1925): Already we possess proof from the cuneiform tablets that the Bible account of Nineveh’s repentance is described in a manner which exactly coincides with Assyrian custom. “It was just such a fast”, says Professor Sayce, “as was ordained by Esar-haddon when the northern foe was gathering against the Assyrian empire, and prayers were raised to the Sun-god to ‘remove the sin’ of the king and his people. ‘From this day’, runs the inscription, ‘from the third day of this month, even the month of Iyyar, to the fifteenth day of Ab of this year, for these hundred days and hundred nights the prophets have proclaimed (a period of supplication)’. The prophets of Nineveh had declared that it was needful to appease the anger of heaven, and the king accordingly issued his proclamation enjoining the solemn service of humiliation for one hundred days’. [End of quotes] This situation of anxiety, as described by professor A. H. Sayce, must almost certainly be tied up with the above: “A public proclamation of Esarhaddon as king during his struggle with the rebels also manifests the people’s consent”. Wikipedia’s article “Esarhaddon” has some highly interesting information on Esarhaddon’s paranoia, and his efforts to secure his safety during that above-mentioned “hundred days” period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esarhaddon “As a result of his tumultuous rise to the throne, Esarhaddon was distrustful of his servants, vassals and family members. He frequently sought the advice of oracles and priests on whether any of his relatives or officials wished to harm him.[10] .... .... Esarhaddon’s paranoia was also reflected by where he chose to live. One of his main residences was a palace in the city of Kalhu originally constructed as an armory by his predecessor Shalmaneser III .... Rather than occupying a central and visible spot within the cultic and administrative center of the city, this palace was located in its outskirts on a separate mound which made it well-protected. Between 676 and 672 [sic], the palace was strengthened with its gateways being modified into impregnable fortifications which could seal the entire building off completely from the city. If these entrances were sealed, the only way into the palace would be through a steep and narrow path protected by several strong doors. A similar palace, also located on a separate mound far from the city center, was built at Nineveh. …. .... ... he performed the “substitute king” ritual, an ancient Assyrian method intended to protect and shield the king from imminent danger announced by some sort of omen. Esarhaddon had performed the ritual earlier in his reign, but this time it left him unable to command his invasion of Egypt. …. The “substitute king” ritual involved the Assyrian monarch going into hiding for a hundred days, during which a substitute (preferably one with mental deficiencies) took the king’s place by sleeping in the royal bed, wearing the crown and the royal garbs and eating the king’s food. During these hundred days, the actual king remained hidden and was known only under the alias “the farmer”. The goal of the ritual was that any evil intended for the king would instead be focused on the substitute king, who was killed regardless of if anything had happened at the end of the hundred days, keeping the real monarch safe. …”. [End of quote] Don E. Jones will write (Searching for Jonah: Clues in Hebrew and Assyrian History, 2012): “The ceremony of fasting and putting on sackcloth and ashes was not at all alien to Assyria ... the custom ... goes back to Sumerian civilization and beyond”. In the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, we read: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/jonah-3.html “Even the one feature which is peculiar to the mourning of Nineveh - namely, that the cattle also have to take part in the mourning - is attested by Herodotus (9:24) as an Asiatic custom. “(Note: Herodotus relates that the Persians, when mourning for their general, Masistios, who had fallen in the battle at Platea, shaved off the hair from their horses, and adds, “Thus did the barbarians, in their way, mourn for the deceased Masistios”. Plutarch relates the same thing (Aristid. 14 fin. Compare Brissonius, de regno Pers. princip. ii. p. 206; and Periz. ad Aeliani Var. hist. vii. 8). The objection made to this by Hitzig - namely, that the mourning of the cattle in our book is not analogous to the case recorded by Herodotus, because the former was an expression of repentance - has no force whatever, for the simple reason that in all nations the outward signs of penitential mourning are the same as those of mourning for the dead). [End of quote] Cf. Jonah 3:7-8: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God”. (Cf. Judith 4:10-14). {The story of the death of Masistios could well be yet another of those countless Greek appropriations (as I have often recorded) of originally Hebrew stories, in this case, the death of “Holofernes”} “Greatest to the least”, “small and great” - Compare Jonah 3:5: “The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth”, with: “The use of this general term with the addition of the idiom TUR GAL (ṣeḫer u rabi), “small and great”, simply signifies the totality of Assyrians who were involved in the oath”. (Izabela Eph'al-Jaruzelska, op. cit., p. 127) C: Is Esarhaddon too late for Jonah? Presuming that Esarhaddon were Jonah’s repentant king, then we must be prepared for a very extensive floruit for the prophet Jonah. He had to have been prophesying already as far back as king Jeroboam II of Israel (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”. It should be noted that many commentators believe that aspects of the biblical text around 2 Kings 14 are hopelessly corrupt, that v. 28, for instance, about Jeroboam II, “how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah”, “probably should be understood as referring” (for example, according to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, p. 419), “to the fact that Jeroboam II reconquered territory in Galilee and Transjordan held by Hamath and Damascus during the days of [Jeroboam's predecessor kings of Israel]”. In conventional terms, from the death of Jeroboam II (c. 740 BC) to the beginning of the reign of Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC), is about 60 years, meaning that Jonah at Nineveh would have to have been around 85-90 years of age. That is a very old age for someone to have been tossed into a raging sea and swallowed by a sea monster. The time span, at least, is easily covered by the traditional Jewish estimations of Jonah’s very long life: “[Jonah] is said to have attained a very advanced age: over 120 years according to Seder Olam Rabbah; 130 according to Sefer Yuchasin ...”. In terms, though, of my revision of Assyrian and Israelite history, I would estimate Jonah then to have been in his early-to-mid seventies. We are going to find that Jewish tradition, which also vastly stretches the career of the prophet Jonah, from Jeroboam II to the Assyrian king, “Osnapper”, of Ezra 4:10, has come to the conclusion that there must actually have been ‘two Jonahs’. No need to go that far, I shall be suggesting. Many commentators favour for Jonah’s king, Adad-nirari III (c. 810-783 BC), a contemporary of Jeroboam II. Adad-nirari's supposed preoccupation with the worship of Nebo is often taken as a sign of the king of Assyria’s conversion to monotheism. It has been likened to pharaoh Akhnaton's Aten worship. Adad-nirari may simply have been copying that earlier reform. However, according to Don E. Jones (op. cit.): “... as soon as Adad-Nirari could act on his own, he appears to have given the reform no support”. Some commentators favour the troubled reign (plague, rebellion, even a solar eclipse) of Ashur-Dan III (c. 772 to 755 BC). Bill Cooper is convinced that Tiglath-pileser III (c. 745-727 BC) was that biblical king. Despite Cooper’s enthusiasm for his choice, Tiglath-pileser was, like Adad-nirari, like Ashur-Dan III, a typical Assyrian king with nothing during his reign to indicate a phase of serious repentance with a corresponding edict. Is there any biblical prophet who can meet the chronological requirements of my revised Jonah, spanning from Jeroboam II to late king Hezekiah of Judah (when Esarhaddon came to the throne)? There is one, and only one, whose superscription, at least, covers that approximate time span. He is the prophet Hosea, according to whose superscription (Hosea 1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel”. From Jeroboam (II) all the way down to Hezekiah - the same approximate chronological span as in my revised scenario for Jonah. {Some critics have difficulty accepting Hosea’s alleged lengthy prophetic range, and must needs ‘correct’ it, by replacing Jeroboam (II) in Hosea 1:1 with some later king(s) of Israel}. Hosea is straightaway told, like Jonah, ‘Go ...’ (לֵךְ) (cf. Jonah; Hosea 1:2). That is an immediate likeness. And we are going to discover more like this in the course of this article. An immediate unlikeness is that, whereas Jonah was “son of Amittai” (as above), Hosea was “son of Beeri”. The question of suitable alter egos for the prophet Jonah (e.g. Hosea) will be properly discussed further on. For example, the prophetic career of Amos had also been active at the time of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1), and did extend - at least according to my own revision of Amos - all the way down to king Hezekiah (= Josiah) of Judah. Can Amos be Jonah? Or, was Hosea, Jonah? D: Why “king of Nineveh”? One of the many arguments thrown up against the prospect of the Book of Jonah’s being an historical account is its supposed historically inaccurate usage of the phrase “the king of Nineveh” - which actual description the kings of Assyria are said never to have applied to themselves. I shall come back to this point. The complete rejection in modern times of the Book of Jonah as an historical document is well described by Bill Cooper in “The Historic Jonah” (p. 105): “Ever since the prophet Jonah first penned the little book that is known by his name, some two thousand six hundred years ago, the most extraordinary notions have circulated concerning both him and his ministry. Some early rabbis claimed that he was the son of the widow of Zarephath, the lad whom Elijah had restored to life. .... Others, yet again, imagined him to have been the servant whom Elisha sent to anoint King Jehu. .... Jonah is also pointed out as having two tombs! One lies at Nineveh, and the other at Jonah’s home-village of Gath-hepher, just a stone’s throw from the town of Nazareth. And so it has gone on down the ages, until today we are informed that Jonah did not even exist! The book of Jonah, we are asked to believe, is nothing more than a pious fable, a moral tale written some time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile; a story told around camp-fires that has all the historical validity of a Grimm’s fairy-tale. “Unfortunately, and not without incalculable loss, this latest view has prevailed. Most modern Christian (and Jewish) authors will, if they mention Jonah at all, speak of him only in terms of parable and myth, usually in tones that amount to little less than an apology. Very few indeed, and I personally know of none, will attempt to speak of Jonah in a purely historical sense. .... This is very odd, to say the least, because Jonah enjoys more support from Jewish and Assyrian history than a great many other characters of the ancient world whose existence few historians would doubt. There is, indeed, something very sinister about the out-of-hand way in which Jonah is dismissed from serious discussion by modernist critics and historians. This sinister aspect has, perhaps, to do with the fact that Jesus spoke of Jonah in a historical sense, and He referred to Jonah in direct reference to His own forthcoming resurrection from the dead. .... Could it be, perhaps, that if modernists can cast doubt upon the historicity of Jonah, then they will also have license to cast doubt upon the words and teachings of Jesus Christ and the truth of His resurrection? The two are intimately connected, and any dismissal of the historicity of Jonah should be treated with a great deal of suspicion". [End of quote] “A pious fable”, “a moral tale”. I have also heard a priest employ the description, “a didactic fiction”, for the Book of Jonah. These very sorts of terms are used, once again, to describe the Book of Judith, e.g., “a literary fiction”, about whose historical defence I can largely say with Bill Cooper: “Very few indeed, and I personally know of none, will attempt to speak of [Judith] in a purely historical sense”. Commentators who do take seriously the Jonah narrative - yes there are indeed some - for instance, Paul Ferguson in his article, “Who Was The ‘King Of Nineveh’ In Jonah 3:6?” (Tyndale Bulletin, Issue 47.2, 1996) - will attempt to show that the title, the “king of Nineveh”, can be considered genuine historical usage. Ferguson, whose article is well worth reading as an overall commentary on the Book of Jonah, offers the following “Summary” (p. 301): https://www.galaxie.com/article/tynbul47-2-05 “This article seeks to show the title ‘king of Nineveh’ is not an anachronism. Comparison with Aramaic use of the north-west Semitic mlk, important in a north Israelite context, may suggest that a city or provincial official might have been under consideration. Cuneiform evidence seems to suggest that no distinction is made between city and province in designating a governor. Common custom was to give provincial capitals the same name as the province. This could explain the fact that the book of Jonah says the ‘city’ was a three day walk (3:3). "I. The ‘King Of Nineveh’ The Hebrew phrase melek nînĕveh (‘king of Nineveh’) is found in the Old Testament only in Jonah 3:6. It never occurs in any contemporary documents. Most literature proceeds on the assumption that the author used this expression to refer to the king of the Assyrian empire. It has often been suggested that this wording indicates the author wrote centuries after the fall of this nation. .... "1. ‘King Of Nineveh’ Vs ‘King Of Assyria’ If this be the case, then one must consider why, if the author of the book lived centuries after the ‘historical Jonah’ of 2 Kings 14:25, he would ignore the usual designation ‘king of Assyria’. This phrase is found thirty times in 2 Kings 18-20. ...". [End of quotes] Arguments such as this one by Paul Ferguson had led me, in the past, to wondering whether the Jonah incident may have occurred when Assyria did not have an actual king - say, in between the assassination of Sennacherib and the triumph of Esarhaddon - when, as I had considered, the city of Nineveh may have been represented by a stand-in high official, such as Ahiqar, who, too, presumably, would have been favourable to the message of Jonah. The king soon afterwards - but seemingly only after the people themselves had begun to repent (Jonah 3:5-6) - received the message. But there was a time delay. Perhaps, I had pondered, the future king may still have been on his way: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Esarhaddon “Sennacherib was murdered (681) [sic] by one or more of Esarhaddon’s brothers, apparently in an attempt to seize the throne. Marching quickly from the west, Esarhaddon encountered the rebel forces in Hanigalbat (western Assyria), where most of them deserted to him, and their leaders fled. Esarhaddon continued on to Nineveh, where he claimed the throne without opposition” [sic]. (Compare instead, below, “persistent resistance by the opposition”). It is interesting that Jesus Christ himself, who will refer specifically to “the Queen of the South”, will fail to make any mention whatsoever of the king of Nineveh, but only his subjects (Matthew 12:41-42): “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it ...”. It can be (and is) debated as to the degree of conversion of the Ninevites - that it should not be understood that they had converted to a strict Yahwistic monotheism. Theirs was a general sort of repentance from their wicked ways of living. “The Ninevites believed God” [Elohim] (Jonah 3:5). Refer back to the crucial quote above from professor Sayce re “the Sun-god”. For, when we turn to consider the parallel case of the Queen of Sheba (of the South), we find that she will refer to the God of Solomon as your, not as my, or as our, God (I Kings 10:9): ‘Blessed be the Lord thy God ...’. Isaiah 7 is most instructive in this regard as the prophet begins his discussion with king Ahaz with the words (v. 11): ‘Ask the Lord your God for a sign ...’, but then soon switches in disgust to this (v. 13): ‘Will you try the patience of my God also?’ Consider, too, in light of all of this, the startling case of Rudolph Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, and his dramatic return to his Catholic roots just before he was hanged: “‘It was a hard struggle’, Höss had written toward the end. ‘But I have again found my faith in my God’.” (My emphasis): https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/divine-mercy-and-commandant-auschwitz I have since dropped any former notion of an official governing Nineveh at the time of Jonah’s preaching there - though someone like Ahikar, or even the family of Tobit, may have been partly instrumental in fostering the mass conversion subsequent to the preaching of Jonah. Tobit himself had been a witness to the Ninevites, e.g. after his cure from blindness (Tobit 11:16-17): Rejoicing and blessing God, Tobit went out to the gate of Nineveh to meet his daughter-in-law. When the people of Nineveh saw him coming, walking along briskly, with no one leading him by the hand, they were amazed. Before them all Tobit proclaimed how God had shown mercy to him and opened his eyes. When Tobit came up to Sarah, the wife of his son Tobiah, he blessed her and said: ‘Welcome, my daughter! Blessed be your God for bringing you to us, daughter! Blessed are your father and your mother. Blessed be my son Tobiah, and blessed be you, daughter! Welcome to your home with blessing and joy. Come in, daughter!’ That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh. Esarhaddon, as Izabela Eph'al-Jaruzelska makes abundantly clear, was confronted by revolutions and hostility all over the place, forcing him even at one stage to flee for his life (op. cit. p. 133): “According to the Babylonian Chronicle: “On the twentieth day of the month Tebet Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in a rebellion (ina sīḫi). For [twenty-four] years Sennacherib ruled Assyria. The rebellion continued in Assyria from the twentieth day of the month Tebet until the second day of the month Adar. On the twenty-eighth/ eighteenth day of the month Adar Esarhaddon, his son, ascended the throne in Assyria” (Chron. “The early royal correspondence reflects this long struggle, which lasted about two months. According to Bel-ushezib (see above, section III), Esarhaddon “evaded execution [by fleeing] to the Tower (URU.a-ši-t [i…])” (SAA X 109). Likewise, Mardi, probably a Babylonian, mentions in his letter to the king how he escaped to the tower (URU.i-si-ti) together with Esarhaddon (SAA XVI 29). These two early letters corroborate Esarhaddon’s reference to his asylum (RINAP 4 1 i 39). Bel-ushezib’s emphasis that plotting the murder of Esarhaddon and his officials continued “every day” (ūmussu SAA X 109 12') implies persistent resistance by the opposition”. [End of quote] I therefore suggest that the author of the Book of Jonah referred to the Assyrian ruler as “the king of Nineveh” because that is all that he actually was at that particular, most critical moment in time. Esarhaddon was under extreme duress, in part because of the great debacle that had occurred in Israel, near Shechem (= “Bethulia”, the Judith incident), which late sources wrongly refer to as a defeat by Egypt. Thus Izabela Eph'al-Jaruzelska (op. cit., p. 123): “For example, the Babylonian Chronicle yields information on Esarhaddon’s great failure in Egypt, which is known only from here (Chron. 1 iv 16)”. And again: “The Babylonian Chronicle mentions the expedition of B.C. 675 [sic], but the recently translated tablet shows why it was without results. Having ordered the investment of Jerusalem and Tyre, Esarhaddon marched against Pelusium ... Egypt’s chief fortress on her north-east frontier. He was overtaken by a storm. .... The number of men who perished as given in the Bible must be an exaggeration, but as the storm wrecked Esarhaddon's plans for the year his army must have suffered severely”. (Taken from E. A Wallis Budge’s The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology, 1893, p. 75) This late testimony as recalled by E. A. Wallis Budge needs a lot of tidying up. Although the ultimate goal of king Sennacherib’s last great western campaign was Egypt (cf. Judith 1:10-12), the Assyrian king would by no means succeed in getting that far. For, as Isaiah had rightly foretold (37:33): ‘He will not enter this city [Jerusalem] or even shoot an arrow here. He will not fight against it with shields or build a ramp to attack the city walls’ - all of which Sennacherib had succeeded in doing on the earlier occasion. In that last major western campaign, this time led by Sennacherib's eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the Nadin, or Nadab, of Tobit 14:10), and not Esarhaddon, the king’s youngest ‘son’, the Assyrian behemoth will not reach even as far as Jerusalem, having been stopped in its tracks in the north, near Shechem, by the ruse of Judith the Simeonite. As with Herodotus, “Pelusium” in Egypt (perhaps confused with the like sounding “Jerusalem”) has irrelevantly been brought into the Babylonian Chronicle account. There was no “storm” involved. No plague of mice. No cosmic zapping. The Judith ruse would precipitate a rout, with many soldiers of the massive Assyrian army perishing. As Budge correctly observed, the Assyrian “army must have suffered severely”. But the Bible, when properly read, does not (as Budge thought) ‘exaggerate’ this rout. It took Esarhaddon, who succeeded Ashur-nadin-shumi (= “Holofernes”), some time to get his army back to its full strength, ‘wrecking his immediate plans’. Historians wrongly attribute the demise of Ashur-nadin-shumi to, instead, an un-mentioned (though added in square brackets) “Sargon”. I quote again from Izabela Eph'al-Jaruzelska (op. cit., p. 131): “Another example is the tablet K.4730 (+) Sm.1876, called The Sin of Sargon, allegedly attributed in the text itself to Sennacherib, which resembles the Naram-Sin epic in style and content. This text explains that Sargon’s death on the battlefield was a result of his sin: “Was it because [he honored] the gods o[f Assyria too much, placing them] above the gods of Babylonia [ ......, and was it because] he did not [keep] the treaty of the king of gods [that Sargon my father] was killed [in the enemy country and] was not b[uried] in his house?” In light, then, of this attitude about divine support, Esarhaddon must have been highly embarrassed by his military failure in Egypt, particularly as it followed a four-year period (from the end of 677 until around 673) [sic] devoid of military achievement”. [End of quote]