Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped to the land of Ararat. Then his son Esar-haddon became king in his place”. 2 Kings 19:37 Tobit 1:21 collaborates this, but without naming the two regicidal sons: “… two of Sennacherib's sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael's son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire”. Tobit 1:21 Adrammelech Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32). I shall come to him after a consideration of Adrammelech, who, thanks to professor Simo Parpola, appears to have been identified as one of Sennacherib’s known sons: http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/introduction/murderersennacherib.htm THE MURDERER OF SENNACHERIB The news of the murder of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, on 20 Tebet, 681, was received with mixed feelings but certainly with strong emotion all over the ancient Near East. In Israel and Babylonia, it was hailed as godsent punishment for the "godless" deeds of a hated despot; in Assyria, the reaction must have been overwhelmingly horror and resentment. Not surprisingly, then, the event is relatively well reported or referred to in contemporary and later sources, both cuneiform and non-cuneiform, and has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate as well. In spite of all this attention, however, the most central thing about the whole affair has remained an open question: the identity of the murderer. While all our sources agree that he was one of the king's own sons, his name is not known from any cuneiform text, and the names offered by the Bible and Berossus, all of them evidently textually corrupt, have not been satisfactorily explained and are accordingly looked at with understandable suspicion. A theory favored in the early days of Assyriology, according to which these names should be viewed as corruptions of Ardior Arad-Ninlil, a son of Sennacherib known from a contemporary legal document, has gradually had to give way to an entirely different interpretation, according to which the murderer (or at least the mastermind behind the murder) was none but Sennacherib's heir-designate and successor to throne himself, Esarhaddon, who would have been forced to engineer the assassination in order to avoid being replaced by one of his brothers. The weakness of this theory is that it is in disagreement not only with Esarhaddon's own account of the course of events, which puts the blame on his brothers, but also with the traditions of the Bible and Berossus; it also involves a lot of reading between the lines. For these reasons, it has not been universally accepted either, and the case is largely viewed as unsolved for lack of clear-cut, conclusive evidence. In this paper I hope to show that the available evidence is not at all so elusive as is commonly thought, and actually suffices for determining the identity of the assassin with reasonable certainty. There is a Neo-Babylonian letter, published decades ago, which explicitly states the name of the murderer, and this name is not only known to have been borne by a son of Sennacherib but it also virtually agrees with the name forms found in the Bible and at Berossus. The text in question, R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (=ABL) XI no.1091 (Chicago 1911), has escaped attention because it was completely misunderstood and mistranslated by its editor, Leroy Waterman; the name has remained unidentified because its actual pronunciation has been obscured by its misleading logographic spelling. In what follows, I shall analyse both the letter and the name in detail and finally integrate the new evidence with the previously known facts in a brief reassessment of the murder and its prehistory. The beginning of ABL 1091 is lost. The first three extant lines are fragmentary, but sufficiently much of them remains to suggest that they referred to certain “Babylonian brothers” of the writer (or writers).lu From line 4' on the text can be followed better. The persons just mentioned gain knowledge of a "treaty of rebellion", and subsequently one of them requests an audience with the king. The expression for this is "to say the king's word" which, as shown by J. N. Postgate years ago, implies that the person in question applied to the king as the supreme judge and should consequently have been sent directly to the Palace. This, however, is not what happens in the present case. Two Assyrian officials appear and question the man. Having found whom his appeal concerns, they cover his face and take him away. This, in itself. is perhaps not significant, for ordinary people were not permitted to look at the king face to face. But what follows is startling. The man is not taken to the king but to Arad-Ninlil, the very person he wanted to talk about, and (his face still covered) is ordered to speak out. Clearly under the illusion that he is speaking to the king, he subsequently declares: "Your son AradNinlil is going to kill you. " Things now take a drastic course. The face of the man is uncovered: he is interrogated by Arad-Ninlil: and after that he is put to death along with his comrades mentioned in the beginning of the letter. The remaining seven lines are too fragmentary to be properly understood. To bring home the significance of this letter, let me put together some basic facts. The first is that it was clearly the "treaty of rebellion" mentioned at the beginning of the text that induced the unfortunate man to appeal to the king; second, that his information concerned Arad-Ninlil; and third, that because of this information, he and all his comrades knowing about the "treaty of rebellion" instantly got killed. Accordingly, we may conclude that the assertion "Your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" was something Arad-Ninlil did not want to become publicly known; and since this statement was meant for the ears of the king, it is evident (1) that the person Arad-Ninlil intended to kill was the king himself and (2) that Arad-Ninlil himself was the king's own son. It follows that AradNinlil was involved in a conspiracy aiming at the murder of the king, and quite obviously was the leading figure in it. Nowhere in the letter is the name Arad-Ninlil preserved completely; the last sign LÍL is broken away or damaged in all instances. But no other Sargonid prince with a name beginning with the sign ARAD is known, so the restoration of the final element can be regarded as certain. Since Arad-Ninlil is only attested as a son of Sennacherib, the king referred to in the text can only be Sennacherib. On the other hand, it is clear that the letter itself cannot have been addressed to Sennacherib. Had the writer wanted to warn the king of a threatening assassination, he would have expressed himself differently. Hence, one must conclude that the letter was written after the murder had already taken place, and therefore probably was addressed to Esarhaddon. As this king must, from the beginning, have been reasonably well informed about his father's murder, it would be absurd to assume that the purpose of the writer was simply to inform the king about the identity of the murderer. His aim was certainly different. If we consider the text more closely, it is easy to see that the writer took the leading role of Arad-Ninlil in the conspiracy as generally known: but what he is trying to make clear is that the two officials mentioned in the letter were responsible for the death of the informer and therefore by implication also involved in the conspiracy. Both men, Nabu-sum-iskun and Sillâ, are well known as officials of Sennacherib who continued in their offices through the early years of Esarhaddon: the Kuyunjik letter archiye contains many denunciations against the latter. The present letter clearly is in the same category, and by using as an argument against Sillâ his role in silencing the informer, it actually implies that the prediction "your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" had become a fact meanwhile. Thus, the letter just discussed powerfully supports the position of the scholars who have seen in Arad-Ninlil the likeliest candidate for the murderer of Sennacherib, and in fact makes it a matter of virtual certainty. We may hence pass on to a serious reconsideration of the problem of how to satisfactorily relate the name Arad-Ninlil to the names of the murderer (Adrammelech/Adramelos/Ardumuzan) given in the Bible and the Berossus excerpts. Actually, there is hardly any problem here at all. We are now in a position to show that the traditional reading of the (logographically spelled) Assyrian name, on which the earlier comparisons were based (and which has also been used here for convenience) is incorrect and should be abolished. In particular, the theophoric element at the end of the name (d-NIN.LÍL) has to be read [Mulissu] or [Mullêsu], not *Ninlil. This reading, first tentatively suggested by E. Reiner twelve years ago and since then increasingly well documented, represents the Neo-Assyrian form of the Akkadian name of the goddess Ninlil, attested as Mulliltum in an Old-Babylonian god list. It appears to have been very wide-spread in the first millennium, and is actually attested in syllabic spellings of the very name under consideration. On the other hand, the reading of the first element (ARAD) can be determined as [arda] or [ardi] on the basis of occasional syllabic spellings in contemporary and earlier Assyrian texts. And once the reading Arda-Mulissi has been established, the names of the murderer found in the non-cuneiform sources become relatively easy to explain. The Biblical Adrammelech differs from the Assyrian name only in two respects: the metathesis or r and d, and the replacement of shin at the end of the name by kaph. The former point is negligible since r and d were virtually homographic and therefore easy to confuse in early Hebrew and Aramaic script … the second can be explained as a scribal error. It is not difficult to imagine a scribe correcting a seemingly nonsensical "meles" to "melek", a frequent final element in North-West Semitic personal names. The Berossian name forms show an even better match. The form Adramelos found in the Abydenos excerpt is virtually identical with Arda-Mulissi save for the already discussed metathesis of r and d (which may have been influenced by the familiarity of Eusebius with the Biblical form). The name Ardumuzan agrees with Arda-Mulissi up to its last syllable which can only be due to textual corruption. It is important to note that in this name, the metathesis of r and d does not take place. In sum, it can be stated that all three names can be relatively easily traced back to Arda-Mulissi; and "then one comes to think about it, it would be very hard if not impossible to find another Assyrian name "which could provide as satisfactory an explanation for them as this one does. The identification of Arad-Ninliu Arda-Mulissi as the murderer of Sennacherib can thus be considered doubly assured. But what were his motives, and how did he end up doing what he did? My reconstruction of the course of events is as follows: In 694, Sennacherib eldest son and heir-designate Assur-nãdin-sumi is captured by Babylonians and carried off to Elam; he is no more heard of. The second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favorite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia, who is not the mother of Arda-Mulissi. Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince, and all Assyria is made to swear allegiance to him. However, Arda-Mulissi enjoys considerable popularity among certain circles who would like to see him as their future king rather than sickly Esarhaddon. As years pass, the opposition to Esarhaddon grows, while at the same time Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) gain in popularity. This political development leads to a turn of events, but not to the one hoped for by Arda-Mulissi and his supporters. Foreseeing trouble, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon away from the capital to the western provinces; yet he does not revise the order of succession. In this situation, Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) soon find themselves in a stalemate. On the one hand, they are at their political zenith while their rival brother has to languish in exile; on the other hand, the latter remains the crown prince, and there is nothing his brothers can do about it since the position of Sennacherib remains unchanged and Esarhaddon himself is out of reach in the provinces. Supposing he were able to score military victories, his popularity would undoubtedly rise while that of his brothers might easily start to sink. The only way for them to make good of the situation, it seems, is to act swiftly and take over the kingship by force. A "treaty of rebellion" is concluded; and probably not much later, Sennacherib is stabbed to death by Arda-Mulissi or, perhaps, crushed alive under a winged bull colossus guarding the temple where he had been praying at the time of the murder. This reconstruction closely follows Esarhaddon's own account of the events. and similar interpretations have been presented earlier by others. Nebuchednezzar’s beginnings It all started, according to my revision, when Nebuchednezzar, a young official for the Great King of Assyria, Sargon II/Sennacherib, accompanied (according to Jewish tradition) the ill-fated army of Sennacherib (Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) to the west. In the Book of Judith, Nebuchednezzar appears, I tentatively suggest, as “Bagoas”, purportedly a “eunuch”, serving the Commander-in-chief himself, “Holofernes”. The latter is the eldest son of Sennacherib, the Crown Prince and ruler of Babylon, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin (Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Now King Sennacherib had various wives and apparently quite a few sons: https://www.worldhistory.org/Esarhaddon/ “Sennacherib had over eleven sons with his various wives and chose as heir his favorite, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest of those born of his queen Tashmetu-sharrat (d.c. 684/681 BCE) [sic]”. Two of these sons, “Adrammelek and Sharezer”, will slay their father (2 Kings 19:37): “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king”. Nisrok (Nisroch) here is a fairly unconvincing Hebrew attempt to transliterate Nusku (fire-god), the god whom Sennacherib (as, for example, Tukulti-ninurta), did, indeed, worship. Some identify this Nusku with Mercury (in its evening phase). Sharezer Previously I had written: “As far as I am aware, “Sharezer” has not yet been positively identified. Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32)”. But there is always hope! With my Middle Kingdom folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I into so-called II, then we find that this great Chaldean king had an Assyrian adversary with the name of Ashur-resha-ishi. While one would not expect Nebuchednezzar so-called II to be fighting an Assyrian king - given that the Assyrian kingdom is supposed to have come to an end (612 BC) around half a dozen years before Nebuchednezzar even came to the throne (c. 605 BC) - it works in my system, according to which Nebuchednezzar was Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal. Of Nebuchednezzar’s conflict with Ashur-resha-ishi, we read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_I …. The Synchronistic History[i 12] relates his entente cordiale with his contemporary, the Assyrian king Aššur-rēša-iši I,[i 13] and subsequently the outcome of two military campaigns against the border fortresses of Zanqi and Idi that he conducted in violation of this agreement. The first was curtailed by the arrival of Aššur-rēša-iši’s main force, causing Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur to burn his siege engines and flee, while the second resulted in a battle in which the Assyrians apparently triumphed, “slaughtered his troops (and) carried off his camp.” It even reports the capture of the Babylonian field marshal, Karaštu.[9] …. This was the same as the civil war that Esarhaddon had to fight against his parricidal brothers for him to hold the throne of Nineveh. The name Ashur-resha-ishi is, I believe, extremely well represented by the biblical transliteration, Sharezer. Thus A – SHUR RESHA – ishi: Shur[r]esha = Sharezer.

Not able to shake the hand of Bel

by Damien F. Mackey In the case of the latter, King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify (as an historical companion to the ‘Jonah incident’ article) a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge. King Nebuchednezzar was likened by the prophet Jeremiah to a great Sea Monster (51:34): “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon has devoured me; he has crushed me. He has set me aside like an empty dish; he has swallowed me like a Sea Monster; he filled his belly with my delicacies; he has vomited me out”. No doubt the prophet had well in mind in this description the Sea Monster’s devouring, then vomiting out, of the contemporaneous prophet Jonah. Especially considering that King Nebuchednezzar was Jonah 3:6’s “King of Nineveh”. On this, see e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah (6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Of relevance for this current article, I need to note that King Nebuchednezzar had, according to my revision, some important alter egos, namely: Esarhaddon, enabling for: The ‘Jonah incident’ [to be] historically identified (6) The 'Jonah incident' historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ashurbanipal Nabonidus In the case of the latter, King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify (as an historical companion to the ‘Jonah incident’ article) a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (6) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And we know from Baruch 1: 11, 12, that Nebuchednezzar’s son was called Belshazzar. That means that Evil-Merodach was the same person as Belshazzar. During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon. And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel.

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

by Damien F. Mackey “In this paper, I look to the Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform sources as evidence in confirmation that the «Mad King» of Daniel 4 is historically based on the figure of Nabonidus, rather than the biblical Nebuchadnezzar”. Amanda M. Davis Bledsoe With reference to Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s conventional article (2012): The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources (5) The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources | Amanda Davis Bledsoe - Academia.edu which, without the benefit, or even apparent awareness, of any requisite revision, follows the usual track, which I believe is up a garden path. I wrote to her as to what I consider to be the necessary correction (14th May, 2024): Keeping it simple, the "Mad King" of Daniel 4 was so like Nabonidus because the latter WAS Nebuchednezzar 'the Great', whose son Belshazzar (Baruch 1:11, 12) was Belshazzar son of Nabonidus, was King Belshazzar of Daniel 5. The Writing is there on the Wall. Let us follow through a part of Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s article, with some comments added: The fourth chapter of the book of Daniel recounts a story of a Babylonian king who has a frightening dream, which only a Jewish exile is able to interpret for him. In his dream, and in the subsequent narrative, he is transformed into an animal-like being who lives away from human society for a period of seven years. Ultimately both his wits and his throne are restored to him and he praises the God of the Jews. The bizarre events of this passage make it one of the most puzzling in the entire Hebrew Bible. For generations, scholars have struggled to link Daniel 4 with historical evidence from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), with whom it is explicitly associated. However, with the discovery and publication of numerous cuneiform sources from the ancient Near East, many scholars have reconsidered this passage in Daniel, looking instead to the events of the reign of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (556–539 BCE). …. Mackey’s comment: Nothing to see here. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar so-called II. In this paper I show how the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition [sic], attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals. I begin by looking at the background of Daniel 4, examining descriptions of both Nebuchadnezzar’s and Nabonidus’s reigns. Next I survey the connections between the events of Daniel 4 and other sources, including a stela discovered at Harran documenting Nabonidus’s sojourn to Teima … records documenting the lineage of the Neo-Babylonian kings, various other cuneiform inscriptions relating to the reign of Nabonidus … and descriptions of Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. …. In the final section of this paper, I use these sources to illustrate the Danielic editors’ purpose in incorporating the Nabonidus tradition into the narrative of Daniel 4 and possible reasons for their attribution of this material to Nebuchadnezzar. …. Mackey’s comment: All very scholarly – but a trip right up the garden path. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: 1. Context of Daniel 4 1.1. Nebuchadnezzar According to Mesopotamian cuneiform sources, Nebuchadnezzar II was the son of Nabopolassar (626-604 BCE), who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period. Mackey’s comment: Actually just Nebuchednezzar, as Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same king. No Nebuchednezzar II. Middle Babylonia folds into Neo Babylonia: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (9) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nabopolassar was an Assyrian, Sennacherib, not a Babylonian. Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was Sennacherib’s successor but not his biological son. He was a Chaldean, and it was he, not Nabopolassar, “who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period”. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, he twice conquered Jerusalem (597 and 586 BCE), forcing a significant portion of the population to relocate to Babylon. …. In addition to external conquest, his reign was marked by substantial building activity throughout his kingdom, as more than sixty epithets have been found detailing his restoration of temples or sanctuaries. …. He is credited with specific restorations and building projects within the capital city, including work on Etemenanki (the ziggurat of Babylon, sometimes associated with the infamous Tower of Babel), the creation of five walls to enclose Babylon, and the construction of the royal gardens. …. Mackey’s comment: According to Dr. Stephanie Dalley, the ‘Hanging Gardens’ were not in Babylon, but were located in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens” (9) Chronologically 'Landscaping' King Nebuchednezzar's "Hanging Gardens" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Convention apparently headed up another (Hanging) Garden path. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: Though he is mentioned in more secondary sources (including the Hebrew Bible, Apocryphal and Rabbinic books, and the works of classical and medieval authors) than any other Neo-Babylonian king, «Nebuchadnezzar’s own contemporary cuneiform sources are largely incomplete and provide us with relatively little information about the important events of his reign». …. Mackey’s comment: Yes, that is true in the narrow, one-dimensional context in which Amanda Davis Bledsoe operates, but the historical King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ needs to be filled out with substantial alter egos, such as Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Ashurnasirpal; Ashur-bel-kala; and, of course, Nabonidus. Especially when his 43-year reign is aligned with the approximately 43-year reign of Ashurbanipal does that “relatively little information about the important events of his reign” become greatly magnified. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: Consequently, are left primarily with descriptions of the king’s deeds that likely bear no resemblance to the actual events. …. However, what the secondary sources do provide us with are a picture of a popular leader who ruled his kingdom without any significant break from tradition, maintaining his kingly and religious duties while extending the kingdom through warfare with surrounding nations. …. There is no evidence that he was ever absent from Babylon for any extended period of time, aside from that required for his numerous military conquests. Upon his death Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by numerous short-reigning kings, including his son, Amel-Marduk (562–560 BCE) … his brother-in-law Neriglissar (probably by violent means) (560–556 BCE), and Neriglissar’s minor son, Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE). …. Mackey’s comment: The received king-lists, and late documents, have it all wrong: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences https://www.academia.edu/59734684/Chaotic_King_Lists_can_conceal_some_sure_historical_sequences Keeping it all as simple as it really was, the “violent” death of Amēl-Marduk, son of Nebuchednezzar, was the same as the violent death of Labashi-Marduk, who was the same as King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, who died a violent death. Nebuchednezzar was succeeded in the Chaldean dynasty only by his son (Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar), who, in turn was succeeded by Neriglissar, the aged Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. Why complicate it? 1.2. Nabonidus Nabonidus, who was not related to the previous kings by blood or marriage … seized the throne from the weak Labashi-Marduk. Mackey’s comment: Wrong sequence. Nebuchednezzar had died several years earlier. It was Neriglissar, Darius the Mede, “who … seized the throne”. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: There are more cuneiform documents which detail the reign of Nabonidus than any other Neo-Babylonian king … though they must be viewed with a critical eye considering most were created as propaganda either in strong support of or against Nabonidus. From these texts it is clear that, like Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus completed extensive building projects throughout Babylon. …. Mackey’s comment: Very true that these documents “must be viewed with a critical eye”! King Nabonidus was the same great builder of Babylon as was Nebuchadnezzar (including Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), as was Esarhaddon. All one and the same king. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: However, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus was a very controversial figure. He is said to have broken from the earlier customs in every way: he disregarded his religious and festal duties; he neglected his rule in Babylon residing instead in the desert oasis of Teima; and he abandoned the capitol city to Cyrus’s approaching army. He was even said to have been so unpopular that when the Persian army invaded Babylon the city willingly opened its gates to Cyrus and fell without a battle. …. Thus, many of the ancient sources are extremely critical of Nabonidus, naming him as a betrayer of the kingship and religion of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: The composite Nebuchednezzar was as “controversial” as it gets. It is difficult to think of a more paranoid, superstitious, idolatrous, vindictive ruler.

Ashur-bel-kala and the Broken Obelisk

by Damien F. Mackey “… the Broken Obelisk … the upper part only of an obelisk with a stepped top. …. The text … recounts the achievements of a king who is thought to be Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BC). ….”. John Curtis The following article gives my conclusion regarding a supposed ‘Middle’ Assyrian king: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu While this is already extremely radical, considering that Ashur-bel-kala (c. mid-C11th BC, conventional dating) would generally be thought to pre-date Ashurbanipal (c. 669-631 BC, conventional dating) by almost four centuries, it is entirely consistent with my necessary (as I see it) folding of the Middle and Neo Assyrian kingdoms. See e.g. my article: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (2) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But there is now to be considered a further complication according to my scheme of things. If Ashur-bel-kala was Ashurbanipal, as I seriously believe him to have been, then he must also have been the various alter egos I have attached to Ashurbanipal: namely, Esarhaddon; Ashurnasirpal (I/II); Nebuchednezzar (I/II); Nabonidus (which may not even be the end of the matter). See e.g. my article: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel (2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The common view that the Broken Obelisk pertains to Ashur-bel-kala is disputed by Displaced Dynasties, which attributes the obelisk, instead, to Tiglath-pileser II: http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/paper_7_-_argument_3_-_redating_the_broken_obelisk..pdf In the conventional system, Tiglath-pileser so-called II is dated to c. 967–935 BC, which is about a century later than Ashur-bel-kala conventionally dated. I, on the other hand, would have Tiglath-pileser (I/II/III) being situated two reigns prior to Ashur-bel-kala. Here are some sections of the article from Displaced Dynasties, to which I shall add a few comments: Paper #7 Arguments that the 10th/9th century kings of the “dynasty of E” were vassals of the Kassite kings of the 3rd Dynasty (Argument 3: Redating the Broken Obelisk) In our previous paper we made reference to an Assyrian inscription popularly known as the “Broken Obelisk”, and with nary an ounce of proof we attributed the annals contained in this document to the mid-10th century king Tiglath-pileser II (966-935). At the time we asked the reader to simply accept this attribution, albeit tentatively, largely because the extremely lengthy proof of our claim would have unnecessarily interrupted the existing train of thought. We promised at the time to furnish proof of our claim in the following paper. We are here fulfilling our promise. We begin with a few introductory remarks. This obelisk inscription, properly interpreted, and viewed in combination with information provided in our earlier discussion of the annals of the Assyrian king Adad-Nirari II, provides compelling evidence that our interpretation of those annals is correct. And since that interpretation involved the 18th dynasty Egyptian, the Empire Hittite, and the Empire Mitanni timelines - thus proving that the Kassites, who are firmly linked to those timelines, are ruling Karduniash/Babylonia during the reign of Adad-nirari II - we are eager to establish a mid-10th century date for the Obelisk inscription. Besides, there are several tantalizing details within that inscription that demand a mid-10th century date and one in particular that dates the Obelisk precisely in early years of Kurigalzu I. For these reasons, and others not mentioned, we devote the whole of this monograph to re-dating the Broken Obelisk. The inscription is not long, and can be read online in minutes. We suggest that the reader peruse this document, whether before or after reading our interpretation. Several excellent translations are available online, but since we will be referencing the book entitled The Annals of the Kings of Assyria [AKA] edited by E.A. Wallis Budge and L.W. King, we suggest this as one possible source (see pages 128-149 of that book). Alternatively, since we will be referencing Luckenbill’s opinion of the Obelisk’s authorship from page 118 of his Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume I [ARAB] we suggest reading the text itself on pages 119-125 of that volume. Finally, we mention the most recent translation, that provided by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 99-105 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millenium BC I (1114-859 BC) [Grayson, Assyrian Rulers = RIMA 2]. Since the Obelisk was unearthed in the British excavations in Assyria in the mid to late 19th century it has engendered intense scholarly scrutiny. The monument, of which only the upper portion remains, is inscribed on three of its four sides with five columns of text, two on the front on either side of a portrait of an unidentified Assyrian king, one on its right side, spanning the width, and two side by side on the back. The left side has been left blank. The first four columns contain the military annals of the initial years of an anonymous Assyrian king, written in the “3rd person”, while the fifth and final column records miscellaneous building repairs of what appears to be a different king, and written in the “1st person”. From the time of its discovery it has been assumed by scholars that the author of the 5th column has discovered the obelisk with its nearly four columns of text, clearly unfinished, and has added a record of his own building activities, thus preserving for posterity the annals of a predecessor, probably an ancestor, and more than likely his father or grandfather. Daniel David Luckenbill, one of the most competent and influential of the early 20th century Assyrian scholars, concurred with this opinion on page 118-19 of his Ancient Records, save in one point. He believed that the author of the 5th column was Adad-Nirari II while the unknown ancestor was likely the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I, an extremely remote ancestor. Luckenbill’s influence caused that latter opinion to prevail in scholarly circles for at least the several decades following his 1926 publication. His identification of Adad-Nirari II as the author of the 5th column text did not received sic] the same endorsement by fellow scholars of the early 20th century, though Luckenbill himself considered the identification as “almost certain”. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st speculation has continued among Assyriologists and Babylonian scholars alike as to the identity of the 5th column author and his mysterious ancestor. Brinkman, in his 1968 publication The Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia [PKB] has devoted his appendix B on pages 383-86, to a discussion of this document. The Appendix, entitled “The Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk”, begins with the following paragraph: To historians concerned with the later years of the Second Dynasty of Isin (1155-1025), the Broken Obelisk has been and will remain a problematic and tantalizing document. Over the years much ink has been spilled in efforts to date this important text, which does not preserve the name of its royal author. The various monarchs proposed have ranged from Shalmaneser I (1274-1245) to Adad-nirari II (911-891). In recent years, the most generally accepted view has been that the inscription was the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1075-1057). (Brinkman PKB 383) (the dates cited have been added to the quoted text by the author of this paper to assist readers with little background in Assyrian or Babylonian history) The Second Dynasty of Isin cited by Brinkman is simply an alternative name for what we have been referencing as the 4th dynasty of the “kings of Babylon”, i.e. those kings who, according to the traditional history, initially replaced the Kassites as rulers of Babylonia, this in the approximate year 1155 B.C.. Brinkman assumes that knowledge of the Broken Obelisk could possibly inform historians regarding the “Second Dynasty of Isin” (1155-1025) because Ashurbel-kala (1075-1057) was a contemporary of several kings of that dynasty, and more so because, as scholarship evolved in the first half of the 20th century, scholars came to the near unanimous opinion that the first four columns contained a summary of “the annals and hunting exploits of Tiglath-Pileser I”, a slight variation of the opinion popularized by Luckenbill as noted above. And the lengthy reign of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076) overlapped a significant portion of the Isin dynasty. Having thus explained several details of the quote by Brinkman, we follow him as he continues in his Appendix to provide five reasons why the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala may be correct, though we should point out that the language used by Brinkman suggests that this extremely careful scholar is not entirely convinced. We also need to mention that Brinkman is referring to the view espoused by scholars in the second half of the 20th century, one which is currently supported by the majority of scholars worldwide, wherein all five columns of the annals attest to the activity of one king, in this case Ashur-bel-kala. If we are to argue our thesis that the first four columns were authored by Tiglath-Pileser II, then clearly we must begin by discrediting the attribution of any part of the document to Ashur-bel-kala. We proceed accordingly. The initial argument by Brinkman, undoubtedly the strongest, is based on an assumed identity between an eponym which dates one of the invasions in the lengthy “ancestral” portion of the Obelisk (column 3, line 3), and an eponym supposedly found in a text belonging to Ashur-belkala, a text which actually names him as the author. The other four reasons will be dealt with when we begin to produce argument in favor of our identification. All four of those reasons will be duplicated, word for word, and used as the basis for four arguments in favor of our thesis. Thus we begin our analysis of the Broken Obelisk with a criticism of the single extremely fragile reason cited in support of the Ashur-bel-kala authorship. Assuming we are successful, and nothing remains to justify Brinkman’s (qualified) support of that viewpoint, we are free to supply more corroborative proof in defense of our claim for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II. Arguments that Ashur-bel-kala DID NOT author the Broken Obelisk Argument 1. According to Brinkman (PKB, 383) the number one reason for supporting the Ashur-bel-kala authorship of the Broken Obelisk is as stated below. The limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and in the Broken Obelisk; (note 2150 added) In the footnote 2150 affixed to the stated reason Brinkman adds the references: AfO VI (1930-31) 86, Teil IV; AKA 133 iii 3. See also Jaritz, JSS IV (1959) 213. Stamm (Namengebung, p. 228 and Borger (EAK I 5 n.2) present arguments for reading the limmu name as Ashur-rim-nisheshu And at the bottom of the same page he makes the statement: Weidner, Jaritz, and Borger have been the chief spokesmen for dating the Broken Obelisk to the time of Ashur-bel-kala. Before we even begin our counterargument directed specifically at the dual Ashur-ra’imnisheshu eponym references we need to note that even if absolutely correct, Brinkman’s stated reason merely allows for the possibility, not the probability, that the presence of two identical limmu names in two different inscriptions implies that both documents were authored by the same king. Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu (or Ashur-rim-nisheshu) is not an uncommon name. It was borne by one of the last kings of the Old Assyrian Period, Ashur-rim-nisheshu (1397-1391), the third predecessor of the famous Ashuruballit I and possibly his great-grandfather. It is perfectly conceivable that an individual bearing this name, but serving in the reign of some king other than Ashur-bel-kala, would be selected as a limmu official. And the reign of Tiglath-Pileser II would appear at the top of the list of possible candidates. But in this monograph we do not need to rely on this “insurance clause”, this for a very simple reason. It is simply not true that “the limmu of Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs both in the annals of Ashur-bel-kala and on the Broken Obelisk”. Brinkman ought to have stated that “The name Ashur-ra’im-nisheshu occurs as a limmu name in the Broken Obelisk and possibly as a limmu name on another document, which document may or may not have been authored by Ashur-bel-kala”. If that weakens (or absolutely negates) the argument, so be it. We begin to defend our claim, emphasized in the previous paragraph, by actually looking at the document in question, i.e. by following up Brinkman’s initial footnote reference in support of his stated reason. Ernst F. Weidner, probably following Schroeder (OLZ XX [1917], 305), in an article entitled “Die Annalen des Konigs Assurbelkala von Assyrien”, published in the journal Archiv fur Orientforschung [AfO VI (1930-31) Teil IV] has collated two tablet inscriptions into one text, thus creating a composite document which begins by naming the king Ashur-bel-kala and ends with an (assumed) eponym name, Ashur-rim-nisheshu. On the basis of this amalgam/composite text it is claimed that the identical cuneiform name, clearly identified as a limmu name and found in column III line 3 on the Broken Obelisk, identifies the annals found on the Obelisk as belonging to Ashur-bel-kala. This opinion, largely based on the stature of the three mid-20th century German scholars who espoused it (Borger, Jarita and WeidnerJ) has been almost universally accepted by the academic community. But the opinion is not supported by the facts. …. One tablet, Assur 18265 = VAT 11240, is very small and has multiple lacunae (grossere Lucke). Only seven severely damaged lines remain and these were translated five years prior by Luckenbill in section 341 of his Ancient Records. Assur-bel-kala ….. the king without rival ….. viceroy, lord of lands …… whom Assur, Enlil ….. the ruler of the land of Assyria ….. the lands …… [who shatters] ….. Lacunae both precede and follow the remains of every line on this tablet, leaving only stock phrases which occur on dozens of cuneiform documents, since the text that is visible suggests that this inscription is from the lauditory introductory section of some larger inscription, probably, but not certainly, annals. The reverse of this first tablet is not inscribed, either that or the damaged surface precludes reading any text. Since no photographs are provided in the article we are left to guess. Not so on the second tablet, Assur 16308k, which has 14 lines on the obverse (see the line drawing of tablet Assur 16308k, Vs provided on page 89 in the article and duplicated in Figure 1 below) and a single line on the reverse (see Assur 16308k, Rs in Figure 1). The name of Ashur-bel-kala appears nowhere on this tablet, and the single line on the reverse actually consists of a single name – translated by Weidner as Ashur-rim-nisheshu. Thus we have the name of the king Ashur-bel-kala on one tablet and the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the other. And this of course raises the question whether or not the two tablets record parts of a single text. It is important to emphasize here that the name Ashur-rim-nisheshu on the reverse of the larger tablet is not preceded by the usual signs indicating that it is an eponym. The name stands alone. According to Weidner the balance of the reverse of the tablet is uninscribed (rest unbeschrieben). …. …. There is no visible physical evidence that suggests that the two tablet fragments were once joined together, nor anything distinctive in the language employed on the two tablets that strongly suggests they should be merged into one document. At minimum we argue that there is nothing in the fabricated composite text that could possibly justify the conclusions that have been drawn from it. And if we understand Brinkman’s language correctly, he is not totally convinced either. There is not a single line of text in the composite document that does not supply lengthy connecting phrases in order to make a coherent intelligible inscription. Let the reader decide. To assist the analysis we reproduce below the composite document as translated by A. Kirk Grayson on pages 95-96 of his Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC. For Grayson the composite text is his number A.0.89.4. 1-14 Assur-bel-kal[a, great king, king of the] universe, king of Assyria, unrivalled king, [king of all the four quarters], provider for Ekur, select of the god Assur, appointee of the Lord of the Lands, [who] acts [with the support of the god Assur] in laying low his enemies, [whose] deeds the gods Assur (and) Enlil […], the unconquerable attacker, [the one to whom was entrusted] dominion of Assyria, the one who disintegrates [all enemy] lands [with the fire of] Girru (fire god), controller [of the insubmissive], the one who breaks up [the forces of the rebellious], the one who defeats [his enemies, …] throws down, is changed [the one who … in battle] has overwhelmed all princes, [… the one who …] has conquered the [lands] of all [people from Babylon of the land Adda]d to the Upper Sea [of the land Amurru and the sea of the lands Nair]I [the one who …] … has become lord of all; Lacuna Reverse Lacuna Rev. 1’) [Month of …, …th day, eponymy of] Assur-rem-nisheshu. …. Argument 2. We need to add one comment to our previous analysis of the composite document created by Ernst Weidner. In particular we want to question once again the supposed limmu name on the reverse of the larger tablet, whose purpose we failed to identify in the previous discussion. Because this argument is a stand-alone item, we treat it separately, and we begin by returning to Brinkman’s Appendix chapter entitled “Internal Chronology of the Broken Obelisk” (PKB 385). In that chapter Brinkman points out that the Broken Obelisk contains only three limmu names, “li-me Assur-[…]”, “li-me Assur-ra’im-nisheshu” and “li-me Ilu-iddina”, which serve to divide the content of the annals into four sections, each spanning a single year, or at least a portion thereof. And Brinkman is firmly convinced that the campaigns named in the second and third columns are listed in chronological order. The limmu name Assur-ra’im-nisheshu, in line 3 of column 3, serves to introduce the multiple campaigns of the third year of the king. We contrast this situation with the name of the assumed identical limmu official named on the reverse of the larger tablet examined by Ernst Weidner. In this situation the name stands in isolation on the otherwise uninscribed reverse of a tablet whose obverse is not describing an event that needs to be dated to some specific year. Limmu names are intended to date some specific action, usually military campaigns, frequently legal texts, and rarely the time of creation of a document, usually a letter from one official to another, in which case it is placed at the end of the document. And the name is always identified with the two signs designating it as a “lime”. In the case of Assur 16308k none of these characteristics apply. Even if we accept as legitimate the composite document created by Weidner by dovetailing the two tablet inscriptions, the supposed limmu name is entirely out of place, dating absolutely nothing. Not only is it not related to the 3rd year of Ashur-bel-kala, it is located at the back of a tablet whose text would precede the first year campaigns of the king. Argument 3. The reign of Ashur-bel-kala began only three years after the death of his father Tiglath-Pileser I, arguably the greatest military leader in the whole of Assyrian history, whose reign ended without a single Aramean remaining on Assyrian soil, much less an entire Aramean state referred to as the “land of Arime”, situated on his norther border. This, of course, assuming that we have correctly interpreted the “Chronicle of Tiglath-Pileser” in our previous paper. We know that 28 times in his final years Tiglath-Pileser had led his army southward, crossing the Euphrates in order to encounter Arameans, whom he promptly dispatched. This leads us to ask the obvious question. How is it that three years after the death of his father, Ashur-bel-kala, who inherited his father’s vast army, is forced to launch upwards of a dozen campaigns against various cities in this “land of Arime”, each time with limited success. That fact alone argues strongly against attributing the annals of the Broken Obelisk to this king. Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Ashur-bel-kala arrived on the scene somewhat later than a mere “three years after the death of” Tiglath-pileser. Argument 4. There are only two scenario’s possible if scholars insist that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals of the Broken Obelisk. On the one hand, as is the case today, scholars might argue that he wrote the 5th column as well. To this suggestion we respond with two questions: 1) How likely is it that 3rd person annals and 1st person building inscriptions would be contained on a single monument, supposedly authored in its entirety by one king? and 2) If the annals were for a time left incomplete and Ashur-bel-kala had his scribes return to the document to add his building inscriptions, why did they not first complete the annals before adding the building inscriptions? Generations of extremely competent scholars have for centuries insisted that the annals were left incomplete, including Luckenbill. How is it that suddenly a new generation of scholars assumes otherwise? On the other hand if scholars insist on stating that Ashur-bel-kala wrote the annals but left them incomplete, only to have them completed by a descendant, then we have a succession problem. The annals end after the 4th year of their author, thus around the year 1070 BC on the assumption that they are the work of Ashur-bel-kala (1073-1056). What happened to cause the annals to cease so abruptly, and remain incompleted throughout his lengthy reign is one problem. Why were they left incomplete for 160 years is a second problem, assuming that Luckenbill is correct in arguing that the building inscriptions were added by Adad-Nirari II (911-891). All of these objections were answered in our last paper based on the premise that the Broken Obelisk annals are the work of Tiglath-Pileser II. If the reader follows our reasoning in the previous two paragraphs, he/she must consider this item as two distinct arguments against the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, regardless of which assumption is made regarding the authorship of column 5. Mackey’s comment: In my scheme, Adad-Nirari preceded Tiglath-pileser, and hence, a fortiori, he must have preceded Ashur-bel-kala, Multiple other arguments against the assumed authorship by Ashur-bel-kala could be included in this section, but because they are focused more directly on proving the case for authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II than on disproving the case for authorship by Ashur-bel-kala, we include them in a separate section of this paper. But since these two kings are really the only viable candidates for the “authorship” position, because no other king following Ashur-bel-kala even remotely qualifies as the author of the Broken Obelisk, it matters little whether we disprove the authorship by Ashur-bel-kala or prove the authorship by Tiglath-Pileser II. They are two sides of a single coin. ….

Prophet Nahum and resistance to Assyria

by Damien F. Mackey “The LORD has given a command concerning you, Nineveh: ‘You will have no descendants to bear your name. I will destroy the images and idols that are in the temple of your gods. I will prepare your grave, for you are vile’.” Nahum 1:14 The writings of the prophet Nahum so resemble those of Isaiah that I concluded in my postgraduate university thesis (2007) that this was one and the same mighty prophet. Nahum as Isaiah In my section, Books of Isaiah and Nahum (Volume Two, pp. 98-102), I painstakingly compared most of the Nahum text with Isaiah, including in the Hebrew, and found example after example of either identical, or like, passages. My conclusion that Nahum was the Simeonite Isaiah: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (4) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu may be supported by the tradition (e.g. Pseudo-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum) that the prophet Nahum was a Simeonite. Moreover the Hebrew name, Nahum (נַחוּם), from the verb to comfort, could have been applied to the prophet at a later stage of his life, for the latter part of the Book of Isaiah (beginning with Chapter 40) is all about Israel being comforted: Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted (8) Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Assyrian Names Isaiah, who will write abundantly on Assyria – but usually never favourably – will tend to refer to its leaders impersonally, such as “the Assyrian” (Isaiah 10:5-19): “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! or allegorically (14:12-27): How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! In my thesis (Volume Two, p. 77), I wrote on this famous Oracle: In regard to this poem’s historical basis, Boutflower is helpful when favourably recalling Sir Edward Strachey’s “belief that the king of Babylon, against whom the “parable” of Isa. xiv was hurled, was a king of Assyria” … a king of Assyria, that is, who ruled over Babylon. … Boutflower was convinced that this was Tiglath-pileser III …. Others have not been able to unravel so skillfully as did Strachey the intertwining of Babylon and Assyria in this Oracle. Thus Moriarty: … “Some think this oracle … of ch. 14, was originally applied to Assyria and only later referred to Babylon”. Strachey’s view is, I believe, the correct one. …. The first notable exception in Isaiah will be the famous verse, Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that the Turtan, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it …”. Until the advent of modern archaeology in the C19th AD, this was the only known reference to Sargon (II), so no one knew who he actually was. By Chapter 36, though, Isaiah - probably by now copying from historical records (cf. 2 Kings 18:13) - begins to name the Assyrian king by his personal name, “Sennacherib” (36:1): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”. Chapters 36-38 are pre-occupied with this phase of crisis for the kingdom of Judah. Nahum’s Father With biographical and patronymical details being almost entirely absent from the Book of Nahum, we need to turn to the Book of Isaiah to find out who the father was: namely, Amos (Amoz) (1:1). He, too, has multi-identifications, most notably as Micah (also the Simeonite prophet, Zephaniah/Sophonias). Micah and his son, Isaiah, are a prophetical combination, going “barefoot and naked”, when Samaria is threatened (Micah 1:8), and when Sargon II sent his general against Ashdod (Isaiah 20:2). The combination is found named again in Judith 4:14-15: “… the magistrates of their town [“Bethulia], who in those days were Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon …”. Micah (= Amos), a Simeonite, now deceased, was the father of Uzziah (Isaiah). But what were these southern Judeans doing now in the north, in “Bethulia” (Bethel), which is Shechem? Nahum as Hosea (Uzziah) Simeonites had gone north as early as the days of King Asa of Judah: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/asas-religious-reforms “Note that Simeon’s territory originally lay in the south, surrounded by Judah’s tribal allotment (Josh. 19:1–9), but for reasons not entirely known to us, many Simeonites moved north”. This would presumably have made it more companionable for the Simeonite, Amos, to go northwards at the Lord’s command (Amos 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 tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.” He is actually found, as Micaiah, prophesying during the reign of King Ahab of Israel. At some stage, Amos’s son, Isaiah (Nahum) must have followed his father to Bethel, for we find him, too, in the north, now as the prophet Hosea: Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet? (9) Did Isaiah and Hosea ever meet? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There he married, Gomer, a typically ‘adulterous’ product of the northern kingdom (Hosea 1:2-3). Never a dull moment in the life of our composite Nahum! Hosea is found as Uzziah in the Book of Judith, a man of great standing. For this Uzziah was entitled both ‘the prince of Judah’ and ‘the prince of the people of Israel’ (Douay version of Book of Judith). The rabbis of the Talmud tell that his father, Amos, was the brother of King Amaziah of Judah. The Book of Judith, probably written by the High Priest, Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, the great prophet, “the high priest Joakim” of the book (Judith 4:6) - rather than by Isaiah - is, of course, all about the conflict with the Assyrians. It, in fact, provides the key to what happened to Sennacherib’s army of 185,000. And Uzziah was there front and centre (right in the front row seat) to witness it. But he is overshadowed by that extraordinary heroine, probably a relative, Judith. Judith the “daughter of Merari” (Judith 8:1; 16:6) may well connect patronymically with Isaiah as Hosea “son of Beeri” (Hosea 1:1), whether this ancestor be another name for Amos, or a maternal ancestor, or a connection through marriage. I have never been able to be sure about this. Since M and B are frequently interchanged in W. Semitic, the name Beeri, I think, could easily merge into Merari. The Book of Hosea, likewise, is full of references to Assyria, as to its hostile advances in both the northern and the southern kingdoms. Assyrian Names The prophet Hosea actually names the two successive kings of his early time, in hypocoristicon form, as “Shalman” (Shalmaneser) and “Yareb” (Sennacherib): While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon (9) While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Due, though, to the present state of the Book of Judith: The Book of Judith: confusion of names (8) Book of Judith: confusion of names | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu we have a mix of Chaldeo-Persian names for the King of Assyria, “Nebuchadnezzar”, who is Sargon II/Sennacherib; his Commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, who, thanks to input from Tobit (14:10), we can ascertain was Nadin/Nadab, hence Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (4) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Finally, the Commander-in-chief’s first officer, “Bagoas”, may even have been a young Nebuchednezzar: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nahum as Jonah Once again we gain benefit from the Book of Tobit (14:4), which variously gives “Jonah” or “Nahum” (NRSV), thus enabling for another unexpected connection: Nahum was Jonah. Assyrian Names The Book of Jonah will give us nothing personal in this regard, merely referring in 3:6 to “the king of Nineveh”. I have determined him to be Esarhaddon, in his many guises, including as Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: De-coding Jonah (4) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Nahum is similarly impersonal in this regard, giving only phrases such as “a wicked counseller” (1:11) – explained as “literally, a councilor of Belial; i.e. of worthlessness”; and “King of Assyria” (3:18).