Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Has Velikovsky Correctly Placed the Ice Age?


 

From: Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, SIS, May 1988 Number 1, p. 41
 
….

Many times in Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval Dr Velikovsky equates the beginning of the Pleistocene or ice age with the time of the Exodus, circa 1450 BC. On pages 114-126 of Earth in Upheaval he gives a graphic description of what he thinks happened when the ice age began. The description however sounds more like the Noachian Deluge than the Exodus. We can therefore expect Velikovsky to run into problems with his placement of the Noah/Saturn Flood and the events of that time. Presumably Velikovsky must place the Deluge in the era prior to the Pleistocene (Glacial Age). A check of the chart on p.l84 of Earth in Upheaval will show this period is known as the Tertiary or “Age of Mammals”. Under the conventional time scale it is allocated 70 million years and is followed by one million years of the ice age and then followed by 30,000 years of the Recent or Holocene Age. This system is greatly overstretched, Velikovsky claims, and does not allow for any great catastrophes.
In order to show that Velikovsky’s placement of the ice age is incorrect we must show that the conventional scheme is also wrong and also have some idea of the time-span Velikovsky allows for the period from the Deluge to the Exodus. The only clue he gives us is found on p.55 of his article “Seismology, Catastrophe and Chronology” (Kronos VIII:4). Here he notes that Dr Schaeffer has discerned that in the 4th millennium BC the ancient Near East went through great paroxysms before the time of another disaster in the Early Bronze Age (3rd millennium). Velikovsky comments “Schaeffer like myself … arrived at the same number of disturbances … and the same relative dating”. Assuming from this that the disaster before the Early Bronze Age was the Deluge, and placing it in the 4th millennium at 3450 BC then we obtain a figure of 2000 years for the time Velikovsky would have placed between the Deluge and the Exodus.
Pick up a copy of Kummel’s History of the Earth and glance at pp.447-455 and you will see the fallacy of this time-gap. The maps on these pages clearly show that during the Tertiary Age Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor were in a state of complete ruin, being mostly under water. Note in particular the Great Tethys or Central Sea which stretches 9000 miles from Spain to India and is up to 2000 miles wide. On p.453 the map for the Oligocene subdivision of the Tertiary shows that the sea invasion of Europe plainly stops at the boundary of the area covered by the ice age in Scandinavia. This is curious because under the conventional scheme the ice age does not occur for another 23 million years. During the Eocene subdivision of the Tertiary the sea covered the south of England up to a point where the later ice age reached, supposedly 38 million years later. During the whole period of these disastrous sea invasions and large scale fresh water floodings the northern part of the British Isles along with Scandinavia was not touched. In North America it is a similar story for the Canadian Shield. While the rest of the continent was subject to sea incursions, rain storm flooding in the mid-west and volcanic eruptions in the Rockies and Central America all was tranquil in north-east Canada.
It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped. There can only be one solution, i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge. Conventional geologists have therefore reconstructed the ages of the past incorrectly by placing too much time between the end of the Tertiary and the ice age. If either follows immediately or happens at the same time as the subdivisions of the Tertiary i.e. the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods are all contemporary with one another). Failing to grasp this, Velikovsky while at least cutting the time period down from millions of years to about 2000, has accordingly overrated the scale of the Exodus catastrophe.
There is a slim possibility that Velikovsky might place the Flood at the time of the dinosaurs. This can easily be discounted. Stone Age Man could not possibly have survived in a world of flesh-eating dinosaurs like the 18 foot tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. Besides, in Kummel’s book on p.37 we find a chart that clearly shows the dinosaurs drowned because of massive invasions of shallow seas upon the continents. The actual figures are 75% sea water drownings and 25% continental rain water and river delta drownings. For the Age of Mammals the figures are reversed: 20% are drowned by shallow sea invasions and 80% by lowland continental andupland fresh water. The book of Genesis makes it clear that the Deluge drownings were caused by forty days and nights of rainstorms. Once more this favours the Cenozoic era and not the Mesozoic or Dinosaurian era.
 
A possible new sequence of the geological ages might be:
 
Cenozoic
Holocene - Neolithic. Bronze, Iron
Pleistocene. Tertiary – Noachian Deluge – many giant forms of today’s mammals become extinct (cf. Genesis 6:4)
Palaeocene – period of change between dinosaurs and mammals
Mesozoic. Palaeozoic – Land and sea creatures of the Dinosaurian era. They are contemporary and not separated by hundreds of millions of years as
under the conventional scheme. Mostly destroyed by sea wave invasions caused by comet strikes in the oceans.
 
 
Terry Lawrence. Auckland~ New Zealand

Monday, October 20, 2014

The Stone Ages and Unreliable Dating Techniques


By A.J.M. Osgood

The accepted model of man’s origin and development is evolutionary. It assumes a long period of time for man’s development from a primitive origin to a civilized state. Textbooks assume this model. Our popular literature is full of pictures of developing man and cave man, allowing the artist to exercise his imagination fully. The modern media bombards us with the idea of man’s evolutionary origin, and constant assumptions of long ages of time for man’s presence on this earth backed by questionable dating methods.
Indeed, most writers on this particular subject assume that the case is closed, that the essential framework of man’s development in what is known as the stone age is a ‘fait accompli’ which has no right to be questioned, and all that is now needed is to fill in the details of the exact timing and the steps involved.
Such assumptions, however, are questioned here. The framework will here be reasoned to be faulty and a different model will be advanced to explain all the artifacts available to archaeologists, yet this better model does not require the huge amounts of time the evolutionary chronology demands, and will satisfy every reasonable argument for a reasonable history of mankind. Its basic framework is the historical framework of the Bible, particularly in its earlier chapters. Its basic assumption is that the Bible is reasonable history, and so the biblical model should, therefore, be able to explain the history of mankind.

The evolutionary model

The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior to the end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.
The evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date with which the majority would agree, although some dissent could be registered. This begins the Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic:-
 
Lower Paleolithic 2,000,000 – 80,000 B.C.
Middle Paleolithic 80,000 – 30,000 B.C.
Upper Paleolithic 30,000 – 10,000 B.C.
 
Next comes the Mesolithic for which varying terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the Mesolithic occupies the time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for the Neolithic period which extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In the Levant, the Neolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At 5,000 B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the Chalcolithic or the copper stone age, with its sub-divisions varying according to the regions.

These details can all be seen in Figure 1.
….
Figure 1. Table summarizing ‘Stone Age’ evolutionary chronology in the middle east.
 
The stone age chronology is clearly evolutionary, and occupying a period of approximately 2,000,000 years, telescopes down as we get closer to the present. It begins, by definition, where our supposed ancestors finally developed into Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus occupies a large portion of the Lower Paleolithic until the theoretical development of Homo Sapiens or modern man, from which time cultural evolution is prominent.
These supposed time cultures have to be defined and this is done by means of artifacts. The following indicates how:
    1. Paleolithic. Usually defined on the basis of stone implements alone.
    2. Mesolithic. Defined in terms of stone implements and some evidence of building, usually with either rock or clay materials.
Both these time cultures are defined as hunting-gathering cultures.
  1. Neolithic. Defined in terms of
    1. stone tools,
    2. some bone tools,
    3. early pottery development,
    4. evidence of early farming communities, and
    5. evidence of buildings and town structures.
  2. Chalcolithic. Defined in terms of stone and metal tools, bone tools and other artifacts, pottery, town and village communities and farming communities, but particularly the introduction of metal (mostly copper) used in weapons and other implements.
The essential ingredients in putting together such a chronology as the above are:
  1. the assumption of a developmental history of mankind anatomically and culturally; in other words, an evolutionary framework as a first base assumption; and
  2. the acceptance of various dating techniques for absolute values in dating human habitation.Let us now look at the second of these two assumptions, the dating methods.

    Dating Techniques

    The scientific method can only work in the present, for it only has its artifacts in the present with which to experiment and to investigate. Reasonable scientific conclusions can be reached about those artifacts in the framework in which we find them, whether these be tools or cities or fossils. However, as we extrapolate the observations into the past we immediately step out of the scientific method and into the area of historical assumption. This is not science but mere reasoned conclusions, however acceptable they may be to one’s reason.
    It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true. Let us look at the methods available.
    There are many methods now available for dating. We will mention the more obvious, all of which are used to obtain an absolute date (we are not here referring to the primary chronological arrangement or relative dating). The discussion will not be concerned with a lengthy treatise on the subject matter as this can be found in a number of other places.
    1. Fossil dating.

      This is largely irrelevant in this context as it is used for much greater periods of time. However, it is used to some extent in the Lower Paleolithic strata as here defined. Fossil dating assumes that the fossil can be dated by the rock in which it is found, and dating of the rock in which it is found assumes that it can be dated by the fossil which is found in it. This is, of course, circular reasoning and is frankly invalid.
    2. Radiometric dating.

      Radiometric methods assume that we can estimate the amount of radio active substance with which we began the time clock, a doubtful proposition, since that was a past event. It usually assumes a constant decay rate whereas of recent years some doubt has crept into this assumption, and in most cases it assumes no outside interference that has altered the system.
    3. Carbon-14 dating.

      Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.
    4. Dendrochronology, or tree-ring dating.

      This method is assumed by many to be able to ‘correct’ the carbon-14 clock from its drift of measurements. However, it assumes a number of things. Firstly, it begins its estimation with a carbon-14 date!1 This introduces circular reasoning again. It assumes also that a tree grows a single ring every year. This is simply not always the case, for some trees have been found to put on multiple rings each year, while other trees have been known to put on no rings in a particular year or for several years, particularly in dry times. It also assumes that conditions over small areas are the same as far as climate and soil conditions are concerned, but most gardeners can tell you that the growth potential for any tree can vary across very small distances in any one place. This is rarely taken into account in dendrochronology. Dendrochronology, in fact, is so shot through with assumptions that it is surprising that anyone dared to present it as a scientific test.1
    5. The written word including coins.

      This assumes that the author is reliable or that the details are not inaccurately copied and can be verified.
    A quick perusal of the above list will show very quickly that none of these methods qualify as a scientific test for dating the past, for all of them rest upon assumptions. Furthermore, these principles can be extended to other tests and all will be shown to be based on assumptions.
    What then can we say of dating the past? Simply this – the past, as far as its historical narrative is concerned, must begin with some form of assumption and that assumption will be determined by the particular bias or world view held. A person’s bias totally includes his religious view, which shapes his thinking about the universe in which he lives and in which his ancestors lived, so that we see that history is built upon three things:-
    1. artifacts that have come down from the past,
    2. assumptions to extrapolate those facts into the past, and
    3. personal bias held by every historical interpreter.
    These biases will be as varied as human kind.
    Discussion of the supposed ape-like ancestors of man will not be dealt with here. They have been very adequately discussed by Bowden.
    2
    The problem with the evolutionary chronology of the ancient world presented above is the following:
    1. There is a rival claim to the history of the ancient world found within the pages of Scripture, and
    2. That particular rival view of history forms the historical framework of a legal claim which affects the hope of the world, the faith of nations and the eternal well-being of the human race.
    So the discussion of the ancient world is taken out of the realm of merely the purely academic into the realm of every man. It becomes relevant to every human being upon the face of the earth. Whether the biblical creation model of origins stands the test, as opposed to evolutionary theory, will determine the hopes and dreams of mankind down through the ages and right throughout the vast world today. It is for that reason that the true model of the ancient world must be determined to see which faith can claim our allegiance, and which faith, if any, determines our destiny. Let us then look at the second model, that is, the biblical model.
….

For complete article, go to: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

Friday, October 17, 2014

Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor


Ezra


by
 
Damien F. Mackey


 
 



The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, combined with information from the Maccabees,
may necessitate a profound revision of Persian (and Greek) history.

 


 


Tracing His Career

 

Ezra 1-2
 


When Cyrus king of Persia issued his famous proclamation in his first year of rule (Ezra 1:1) - {in c. 539 BC, according to conventional dating} - then more than 42,000 exiles returned to Jerusalem (2:64), led by “Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah … Mordecai … (2:2).


No mention here of Ezra (qua Ezra).


Now, according to my biblico-historical revision series so far of the era of this king Cyrus:


 


Belshazzar’s Feast in the Book of Esther?


 




 


Is the Book of Esther a Real History?


 




 




 




 


The Wicked Haman Un-Masked?


 




 


this Great King was also the “King Ahasuerus” (var. “Artaxerxes”) of the Book of Esther, whom Esther (“Hadassah”) married, and the “Darius the Mede” of the Book of Daniel. Moreover “Mordecai”, also named in Ezra 2:2, was Daniel himself.


{For further consideration: Nehemiah may be the “Mehuman” of Esther 1:10}.


 


Ezra 3


 


“The altar was set up on its old site” (v. 3).


And, afterwards, the foundations of the Temple of Yahweh were laid (v. 10).


 


Ezra 4


 


This chapter 4 provide us with an historical overview of the work, and the interruptions to it, from the reign of Cyrus until the Temple’s completion in the reign of Darius king of Persia.


The “Xerxes” referred to in v. 6 can still be Cyrus, as “Ahasuerus”, since the latter name is thought to equate very well with the name “Xerxes”. In “The Hadassah File”, Herb Storck has written regarding this (pp. 1-2):


  


The question as to which king is meant by the name Ahasuerus has been met with an impressive list of candidates over the centuries. Every King from Cyaxares I, ca. 600 B.C., to Artaxerxes III, ca. 350 B.C., has been advanced in solution to this dilemma. … [An assessment of these views can be found by L. B. Paton in the International Critical Commentary (ICC) “Esther”, p. 51-54].


The modern identification has fallen upon Xerxes, king of Persia from 486-465 B.C., this contention having been linguistically established. The name Ahasuerus has been demonstrated to be the equivalent of Xerxes …. [For a discussion in this connection I refer you to William H. Shea, “Esther and History”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 14 (1976) p. 227-46 and C. Moore, “Archaeology and the Book of Esther”, Biblical Archaeologist 38 (1975) p. 70]. …


[End of quote]


 


Some versions actually replace “Xerxes” with “Ahasuerus” in v. 6: “At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes [Ahasuerus], they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and Jerusalem”.


Moreover, since the “Ahasuerus” of the Esther story is also referred to as “Artaxerxes”, so the same king may still possibly be the “Artaxerxes” of vv. 7-8:


 


And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the text of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic. Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows--…


 


Rehum and his colleagues denounce the allegedly “rebellious” Jews to King Artaxerxes in terms highly reminiscent of Haman’s denunciation (decree) in Esther 3:3-15, which may be a contemporaneous action. Consequently, by order of the Great King, the work was “stopped … by force of arms” (v. 23).


 


Ezra 5-6


 


Now in the reign of Darius the Persian, the work resumes, and is finally brought to its completion. (6:15-16): “This Temple was finished on the twenty-third day of the month of Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of king Darius”.


 


Ezra 7


 


It is only now, in this chapter 7, that we are introduce to Ezra qua Ezra. It is (v. 8) “the seventh year of the reign of king Artaxerxes”.


Storck has argued forcibly that this particular “Artaxerxes” was Darius the Persian, and that the seventh year occurred directly after the completion of the Temple in the sixth year (History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period, House of Nabu, 1989, p. 15):


 


This historical scenario seems to be fully appreciated by the author of Ezra chapter vii. There is an extraordinary preoccupation with continuity with the First Temple, and a connection with Aaron and Moses. This chapter is placed immediately after the completion of the Temple where it is both historically and logically expected. It moves from the sixth year of Darius to the seventh year of Artaxerxes without blinking. Everything is carried out with majesty, a sense of urgency and historical dynamism so reminiscent of the reign of Darius the Great. Yet the events are chronicled under a king called Artaxerxes. How is this to be explained? The best explanation is that Artaxerxes is a title for Darius ….


[End of quote]


 


In conventional history, of course, Ezra’s Artaxerxes is well separated from Darius the Great (c. 522-486 BC) if the former is Artaxerxes I (c. 464-424 BC) - or by considerably more years if he is Artaxerxes II (c. 404-358 BC). The uncertainty about Ezra is noted in the following




 


When Ezra went to Jerusalem is the subject of great controversy. …. Ezra might have gone to Jerusalem about 458 BC, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, or he might have gone about 398 BC, during the reign of Artaxerxes II.


No such controversy exists for dating Nehemiah … there is enough information in the text to make it clear that it was during the reign of Artaxerxes I that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem -- therefore Nehemiah was appointed governor in 445 BC.


 


[End of quote],


 


Biblical scholar, A. van Hoonacker, had strongly argued for Nehemiah’s having actually preceded Ezra, as we learn in the following quotation from Fr. North again (op. cit., 24:82):


 


In his lectures at Louvain from 1880, and especially in a series of publications since 1890 (RB 33 [1924] 33-64), A. van Hoonacker dropped a bombshell into the staid fixity of exegetical preconceptions by claiming that Ezra first appeared under Artaxerxes II in 398. His arguments are reduced to eight points: 1) The wall for which Nehemiah is chiefly renowned already exists when Ezra reaches Jerusalem (9:9; qãdêr). 2) Ezra (10:1) finds Jerusalem already repopulated (by Nehemiah, 11:1). 3) Nehemiah is put before Ezra in Nehemiah 12:26; 8:1. 4) Eliashib, contemporary of Nehemiah (13:4), is (grand-?)father of Jehohanan, Ezra’s contemporary (Ezr 10:6 = Neh 12:23?). 5) The silence of Nehemiah’s memoir about Ezra’s allegedly earlier Torah promulgation is inexplicable. 6) Nehemiah (11:3) enumerates repatriates led by Sheshbazzar and/or Zerubbabel, but not those led by Ezra (8:2). 7) Ezra (8:33) makes use of a committee of four resembling that instituted by Nehemiah (13:13). 8) Nehemiah’s handling of mixed marriages, delayed until his second tour of duty (13:23), could not suppose Ezra (9:14) to have preceded.


[End of quote]


 


However, if Ezra were Nehemiah as I am suggesting, then the matter of precedence becomes a non issue.


Ezra is grandly introduced in chapter 7 as follows (vv. 1-6):


 


… during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given.


 


We go on to read of this most learned man as highly favoured by the Great King, whose support he had won owing to the grace of God. It is very reminiscent of what Tobit 1:13-14 had recorded about himself in relation to king Shalmaneser of Assyria. Thus Ezra (v. 6): “The king had granted him everything he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was on him” (cf. v. 25, 27-28).


In most similarly terms will Nehemiah record (Nehemiah 2:8): “And because the gracious hand of my God was on me, the king granted my requests”.   


 


So, at this point, we can now begin our task of merging Ezra with Nehemiah.


 


Name


 


(Nehemiah 1:1): “The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah”.


Whilst Nehemiah is a Hebrew name, I have already suggested that Nehemiah may appear in Esther as “Mehuman”. That would leave open the possibility that, if Nehemiah were Ezra, then the name “Nehemiah” may have been a Hebraïsed version of his Persian name. In Ezra 7:14 we read of “the king and his seven counsellors”, which may be another connection with the Book of Esther in which the king’s seven are actually named (Esther 1:14): “ … Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, Memucan, seven heads of Persia and Media seeing the face of the king, who are sitting first in the kingdom”.


Again, “the queen” referred to in Nehemiah 2:6: “Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him …”, may be - as some have surmised - Queen Esther herself.


“Hacaliah” and other versions of the name of Nehemiah’s father’s name (e.g. “Helcias”) are, as we read in The Jerome Biblical Commentary’s article on “Nehemiah”, highly problematical. Fr. R. North tells of the situation in “Nehemiah” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 24:101):


 


Both Hacaliah (MT) and Halakiah [var. Helcias] (supposed by LXX) defy known Hebr. patterns. The MT reading is defended by H. Gotthard (Text des Buches Nehemia [Wiesbaden, 1958] 1, 19) along with the eunuch hypothesis. H. Ginsberg (BASOR 80 [1940] 12) doubts that Hakal-yâ is the correct reading of the Lachish letter 20. I.


 


[End of quote]


 


In my revised context, “Hacaliah” would find its resolution in “[Ezra … ] son of Hilkiah”.


 


Administration


 


Ezra, like Nehemiah, will administer, command and appoint, by command of the Great King, in the province of Trans-Euphrates (vv. 21-26):


 


And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily, Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much.


Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?


Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.


And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river [var. “the province of Trans-Euphrates”], all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.


And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.


 


Likewise, when we turn to 2 Maccabees, we learn that Nehemiah was in charge of the priests (1:20-21, 30):


 


But after many years had passed, when it pleased God, Nehemiah, having been commissioned by the king of Persia, sent the descendants of the priests who had hidden the fire to get it. And when they reported to us that they had not found fire but only a thick liquid, he ordered them to dip it out and bring it. When the materials for the sacrifices were presented, Nehemiah ordered the priests to sprinkle the liquid on the wood and on the things laid upon it.


…. Then the priests sang the hymns.


 


Ezra 8


 


Continuing in this same vein, of priestly and liturgical administration, Ezra tells (vv. 15-17):


 


When I checked among the people and the priests, I found no Levites there. So I summoned Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan, Jarib, Elnathan, Nathan, Zechariah and Meshullam, who were leaders, and Joiarib and Elnathan, who were men of learning, and I ordered them to go to Iddo, the leader in Kasiphia. I told them what to say to Iddo and his fellow Levites, the temple servants in Kasiphia, so that they might bring attendants to us for the house of our God.


 


Some thirteen years later, now in the 20th year of this same Persian king (Nehemiah 1:1), Nehemiah (my Ezra) will again take royal instructions to the governors of Trans-Euphrates. But, whereas he formerly (as Ezra) had not been accompanied by any of the king’s cavalry (Ezra 8:21-22):


 


Then, there at the Ahava River, I proclaimed a fast; so that we could humble ourselves before our God and ask a safe journey of him for ourselves, our little ones and all our possessions. For I would have been ashamed to ask the king for a detachment of soldiers and horsemen to protect us from enemies along the road, since we had said to the king, "The hand of our God is on all who seek him, for good; but his power and fury is against all who abandon him.",


 


he now, as Nehemiah, did have a military escort (Nehemiah 2:9): “So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me”.


 


Fasting


 


And, just as Ezra had proclaimed a fast at the outset “before our God” (above), so would Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:4): “For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven”. (Cf. Nehemiah 9:1)


 


Three days


 


Upon their arrival at Jerusalem, Ezra and his party (v. 32) “rested for three days”.


Likewise Nehemiah (2:11) “went to Jerusalem, and after staying there three days …”.


 


Everything Recorded


 


Ezra (8:33, 34): “… we weighed out the silver and gold and the sacred articles …. Everything was accounted for by number and weight, and the entire weight was recorded at that time”.


 


Nehemiah 10 is a detailed record of the promises made by the community. And it, in turn, reflects Ezra 10.


 


Ezra 9


 


Ezra, shamefaced and overcome at the news that the people had been marrying foreign wives (vv. 1-7):


 


… the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”


When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice.


Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the Lord my God and prayed:


 


“I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. …”.


 


He, as Nehemiah, will later “in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon” (13:6) face the same problem again. And this time he - still calling it ‘sin’ - will react most angrily (13:23-27):


 


… in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: “You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?”


 


Part of Ezra’s prayer on the above occasion, Ezra 9:6-15, mirrors both that of Nehemiah 9 and that which is attributed to Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:24-30:


 


And the prayer was after this manner; O Lord, Lord God, Creator of all things, who art fearful and strong, and righteous, and merciful, and the only and gracious King,


The only giver of all things, the only just, almighty, and everlasting, thou that deliverest Israel from all trouble, and didst choose the fathers, and sanctify them:


Receive the sacrifice for thy whole people Israel, and preserve thine own portion, and sanctify it.


Gather those together that are scattered from us, deliver them that serve among the heathen, look upon them that are despised and abhorred, and let the heathen know that thou art our God.


Punish them that oppress us, and with pride do us wrong.


Plant thy people again in thy holy place, as Moses hath spoken.


And the priests sang psalms of thanksgiving.


 


Nehemiah and Ezra Named Separately?


 


In Nehemiah 8:9, one reads a verse that could distinguish Ezra from Nehemiah. The NIV renders it as: “Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites …”. However, in The Jerusalem Bible that I have been chiefly following in this case because it had seemed to present a coherent overview, the reference to Nehemiah is given in brackets, as follows: “Then (Nehemiah – His Excellency – and) Ezra, priest and scribe … said to all the people …”. With the brackets removed, this becomes: “Then Ezra, priest and scribe … said …”.


Given the Hebrew use of waw consecutive, with “and” to be replaced by “even” in translation, then the sense of Nehemiah 8:9 might actually be: “Then Nehemiah … even Ezra …”.


The same comment may apply to Nehemiah 12:26: “They served … in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest, the teacher of the Law”.      


 


Concluding Note


 


My argument for Ezra and Nehemiah as just the one person, if legitimate, would add weight to the early view that the two separate books, Ezra and Nehemiah, were actually a unity.


 


Postscript


 


My revision of Ezra and Nehemiah re-locates the terminus ad quem for these events in the 32nd year of Darius the Great (in c. 490 BC conventional dating). The problem is that, according to 2 Maccabees, Nehemiah appears to have been communicating with priests who were actually contemporaneous with the Maccabean period. Thus 1:20:


 


Years later, when it pleased God, the Persian emperor sent Nehemiah back to Jerusalem, and Nehemiah told the descendants of those priests to find the fire. They reported to us that they had found no fire but only some oily liquid. Nehemiah then told them to scoop some up and bring it to him.  


 


In conventional terms, 2 Maccabees is supposed to begin in c. 180 BC. That is a long, long way from 490 BC! What, then, is the extent of the revision required for properly co-ordinating the Persian period and the early Greek (Macedonian) period?

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Prophet Nahum as Tobias-Job Comforted



by

 Damien F. Mackey


 

A further possible extension of holy Job, now as the prophet Nahum.



 

This article pre-supposes my:
 

 

 

in which I had identified the prophet Job with Tobias, the son of Tobit.

The possibility of a connection between the prophet Job and the obscure prophet Nahum occurred to me only as late as 8th May, 2014.

Nahum is similarly, like Job (qua Job), quite lacking in genealogical details – though I believe that we learn a lot more about Job from the biographical information supplied in Tobit 1.

For Nahum, as for Job (qua Job), we do not have even the usual patronymic; and nor is any tribe ascribed to Nahum (to Job).

So, with all of these negatives, what might be the points for comparison?

 

The Prophet’s Name

 

The Book of Nahum contains the “vision of Nahum” (1:1), “whose name”, we find (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nahum/) “means “comfort” … Nineveh’s fall, which is Nahum’s theme, would bring comfort to Judah.)”. So far so good, but then this same article goes on to deliver the bad news that: “Nothing is known about [Nahum] except his hometown (Elkosh), and even its general location is uncertain”.

It is highly conceivable that Tobit’s son, Tobias, whose name I think pertains to ‘Abdias, Hebrew ‘Obadiah, “Servant of Yahweh”, a common name for an official, might have been re-named Nahum/Nehemiah, “The Lord comforts”, at the end of his trials, as Job, when he was, as we read, “comforted and consoled” (42:10-11):

 

After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before. All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

 

The Prophet’s Location

 

According to a tradition, Elkosh was in Simeonite territory and so Nahum would have belonged to this tribe; a view that I had pursued, but to no great ultimate effect in hindsight, in my thesis:


A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background
 

 

even to the extent of my having painstakingly compared, in Hebrew, the entire Book of Nahum to what I considered to be like passages in the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah himself I do believe to have been a Simeonite).

Far more promising, I now believe, is the opinion that Nahum’s “Elkosh” stands for Al Qosh (Qush), a town situated in northern Iraq, about 25 miles north of modern day Mosul, a city that is across the Tigris River from Nineveh. Thus, suiting my new theory, the prophet Nahum would have been a descendant of the northern exiles taken to Assyria in 722 B.C. (conventional dating). His tomb has in fact long been honoured at that very site of Al Qosh (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Jewish_Holidays/Shavuot). {I shall say more on the tomb later}. A location for Nahum in Assyrian Mesopotamia would give added emphasis, too, to the prophet’s preoccupation with Assyria and Nineveh.

 

The Prophet’s Era

 

Whilst commentators are generally unable to locate the proper era for Job, there is far greater certainty attached to that of Nahum, who recorded the destruction of Thebes, or “No-Amon”, known to have occurred at the hands of king Ashurbanipal of Assyria, in c. 663 BC (conventional dating). Nahum 3:8: “Are you [Nineveh] better than No-Amon, which was situated by the waters of the Nile, with water surrounding her, whose rampart was the sea, whose wall consisted of the sea?” Despite the fact that Thebes was not actually by the Sea, Nahum’s description can be properly understood with reference to the Book of Job, for (http://biblehub.com/topical/n/no-amon.htm): “The description of No-amon in Nahum 3:8 seems to be that of a delta city, but yam, "sea" in that passage is used poetically for the Nile, as in Job 41:31 …”.

That is perfectly applicable to the topography of Thebes, situated on both banks of the Nile. Now, in a terrific article, it has been shown that the Book of Nahum intertwines marvellously for the most part with the reign of king Ashurbanipal of Assyria (c. 668 BC – c. 627 BC,   conventional dating) (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/05/28/nahum2c-nineveh-and-those-nasty-assyrians.aspx#Article):

 

Nahum, Nineveh and Those Nasty Assyrians

….

 

The Date of the Book of Nahum

 

Scholars have long debated the date of the book of Nahum. A wide range of dates has been suggested, from the eighth century BC (Feinberg 1951:126, 148) to the Maccabean period, early second century BC (Haupt 1907). Yet, the book gives us internal chronological parameters to date the book. Nahum describes the conquest of Thebes (No-Amon) by Ashurbanipal II in 663 BC as a past event, thus the book could not have been written before that date. The entire book is a prediction of the fall of the city of Nineveh in 612 BC. Thus, the book was written somewhere between 663 and 612 BC.

A case can be made for the proclamation of the message, and writing of the book, about 650 BC. If this is the correct date, the Spirit of God used this book to put King Manasseh into a position where he could come to faith and bring Judah back to the LORD. Up until this point in the reign of King Manasseh, the kingdom, led by the king, was “more evil than the nations whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel” (2 Chr 33:9). The LORD sent seers (prophets) to speak to the nation, but the nation would not listen to the Word of God (33:10, 18). While not named, one of the seers was probably Nahum.

 

The aged Tobit had also talked of “prophets” having been sent, but in this case regarding “Nineveh and Assyria”. And Tobit, too, supposedly mentions “Nahum”, though I myself would favour here the version of the Book of Tobit that gives, instead of Nahum, “Jonah” (Tobit 14:3-4):

 

But just before Tobit died, he sent for his son Tobias and told him, ‘My son, take your children and go at once to Media. I believe that God's judgment which his prophet Nahum [read Jonah] announced against Nineveh is about to take place. Everything that God's prophets told Israel about Nineveh and Assyria will happen. It will all come true, every word of it, when the right time comes. I am absolutely convinced that everything God has said is sure to come true. God does not break his promises. It will be safer for you in Media than in Assyria or Babylon’.

 

P. Reardon, who accepts the “Jonah” version, interestingly (in my context) points to the likeness between the Book of Tobit and the Book of Jonah, on the one hand, and also the Book of Job (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz3):

 

…. The world of Tobit is, first of all, the world of biblical literature and history. Not only does the book provide an elaborate description of the religious deterioration of the Northern Kingdom in the eighth century, and then the deportation and consequent social conditions of those tribes after 722, but it explicitly … makes reference (14:4) to the preaching of Jonah at Nineveh…. Tobit thus presupposes the history narrated in Kings, Chronicles, and the eighth-century prophets.

 

Tobit’s explicit reference to Jonah is of considerable interest in the light of certain affinities between the two books. First and second, both stories take place about the same time … and both in Mesopotamia. Third, both accounts involve a journey. Fourth, the distressed Tobit, like Jonah, prays to die. Fifth and most strikingly, his son Tobias encounters a fish that attempts—with less success than Jonah’s fish—to swallow him! Finally, in each book the fish serves as a special instrument of Divine Providence.

 

Besides Jonah, Tobit shows several remarkable affinities to the Book of Job, some of which were noted rather early in Christian exegesis. For example, the title characters of both works shared a zeal for purity of life, almsgiving, and other deeds of charity (Job 1 and 31; Tobit 1–2), patient endurance of trials sent by God … a deep weariness of life itself (Job 7:15; Tobit 3:6), a final vindication by the Lord at the end of each book, and perhaps even a common hope of the resurrection…. As early as Cyprian in the third century, it was also noted that both men were similarly mocked by wives unable to appreciate their virtue and faith in God. ….

 

Now, returning to the article, “Nahum, Nineveh and Those Nasty Assyrians”:

 

[Nahum’s] vision concerning the total destruction of Nineveh would be seen by the Assyrian overlords as fomenting rebellion and insurrection, and possibly seen as support for Shamash-shum-ukin, the king of Babylon, in his current civil war with his brother Ashurbanipal II. If a copy of the book of Nahum fell into the hands of the Assyrian intelligence community stationed at the Assyrian administrative centers of Samaria, Dor, Megiddo or Hazor, King Manasseh would have had to give account for this book. The Biblical record states, the LORD brought upon them [Judah] the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon (2 Chr 33:11).

 

This event would have transpired in 648 BC, the year that Ashurbanipal II temporarily ruled Babylon after he eliminated his brother as a result of the four-year civil war (Rainey 1993:160).

Dragging someone off with hooks in their nose would be in keeping with Ashurbanipal’s character. In the excavations of Sam’al (Zincirli, in southern Turkey) a stela was found depicting Esarhaddon holding two leashes attached to the nose-rings of Baal of Tyre and Usanahuru, a crown prince of Egypt (see front cover). Flanking the stela, watching intently, is Esarhaddon’s son Ashurbanipal on the left and his brother Samas-sumu-ukin on the right. Ashurbanipal observed his father’s brutality and followed his example (Parpola and Watanabe 1988:20, 21).

During Manasseh’s interrogation by Ashurbanipal II (and it must have been a brutal one—the text used the word “afflicted”).

 

He implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God (2 Chr 33:12–13).

 

What we find is that this King Manasseh of Judah, upon his return from Babylon, embarked upon restorative building works, including an “outer wall of the City of David, west of the Gihon spring in the valley, as far as the entrance of the Fish Gate and encircling the hill of Ophel; he also made it much higher” (2 Chronicles 33:14). And, according to the Nahum article: “This activity was in accord with what Nahum had challenged the people to do”:

 

Upon his return to Jerusalem, Manasseh began building projects in the city as well as elsewhere in Judah and removed the idols and altars he had placed in the Temple (2 Chr 33:14–15).

He also repaired the altar of the LORD, sacrificed peace offerings and thanks offerings on it, and commanded Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel (33:16).

This activity was in accord with what Nahum had challenged the people to do.

Behold, on the mountains, the feet of him who brings good tidings, who proclaims peace! O Judah, keep your appointed feast, perform your vows. For the wicked one shall no more pass through; he is utterly cut off (1:15).

The challenge was for Judeans to renew their pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the thrice-yearly feasts of Pesach (Passover), Shav’uot (Pentecost) and Succoth (Tabernacles) (Ex 23:14–17; 34:22–24; Dt 16:16, 17). There was also a command for the remnant that faithfully prayed to the LORD desiring to bring the nation back to Biblical worship and to bring the king to the LORD. They were to perform the vow they had made to the LORD. The Bible records a half-hearted attempt to return to Biblical worship, “Nevertheless, the people still sacrificed on the high places, but only to the LORD their God” (2 Chr 33:17). The only true place of worship was the Temple in Jerusalem, not the high places.

 

But is not this belief in Jerusalem’s Temple as “only true place of worship” pure Tobit, who recalls (1:4-9; cf. ch. 13)?:

 

In my young days, when I was still at home in the land of Israel, the whole tribe of Naphtali my ancestor broke away from the House of David and from Jerusalem, though this was the city chosen out of all the tribes of Israel for their sacrifices; here, the Temple -- God's dwelling-place -- had been built and hollowed for all generations to come.

All my brothers and the House of Naphtali sacrificed on every hill-top in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam king of Israel had made at Dan.

Often I was quite alone in making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, fulfilling the Law that binds all Israel perpetually. I would hurry to Jerusalem with the first yield of fruits and beasts, the tithe of cattle and the sheep's first shearings.

I would give these to the priests, the sons of Aaron, for the altar. To the Levites ministering at Jerusalem I would give my tithe of wine and corn, olives, pomegranates and other fruits. Six years in succession I took the second tithe in money and went and paid it annually at Jerusalem.

I gave the third to orphans and widows and to the strangers who live among the Israelites; I brought it them as a gift every three years. When we ate, we obeyed both the ordinances of the law of Moses and the exhortations of Deborah the mother of our ancestor Ananiel; for my father had died and left me an orphan. ….

 

Getting back again to the Nahum article, reasons are now given as to why some scholars would locate the prophet to Al Qosh (Qush) near Nineveh:

 

Nahum prophesied the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the sole superpower, at the zenith of Assyria’s power and glory. He boldly proclaimed a message that was not popular, nor “politically correct.” In fact, most Judeans would think his prediction of the downfall of Nineveh impossible.

….

Nahum was from Elkosh (Na 1:1). Some scholars have suggested [Elkosh] was located at the village of Al-Qush … across the Tigris River from Nineveh. These scholars take this position because: (1) the names are similar, (2) the local Christian tradition holds that Nahum was from there and his tomb was there, and (3) Nahum’s writings show his familiarity with the city of Nineveh. Some speculate that Nahum was an Israelite captive who lived in the area and was an eyewitness to the city.

There is, however, the possibility that Elkosh was in southern Judah and Nahum was part of the Judean emissary that brought the yearly tribute from King Manasseh to Nineveh.

[End of quote]

 

Whilst I would entirely accept for Nahum’s home the Al Qush in Iraq, rather than some vague Judaean location, I should not, however, rule out the possibility also that the prophet Nahum (as Tobias/Job) may have had something of a roving commission on behalf of the king of Assyria, in the same way that his father Tobit apparently had once had, when serving the earlier Assyrian king, “Shalmaneser” (Tobit 1:12-14):

 

And because I had kept faith with my God with my whole heart, the Most High granted me the favour of Shalmaneser, and I became the king's purveyor. Until his death I used to travel to Media, where I transacted business on his behalf, and I deposited sacks of silver worth ten talents with Gabael the brother of Gabrias at Rhages in Media.

 

{Tobit’s “Media” was, according to my Job article, “Midian”, or the Bashan area}.

The Douay version of Tobit 1:14 seems to represent King Shalmaneser (“Salmanasar”) as having allowed Tobit virtually total discretionary freedom: “And [Shalmaneser] gave [Tobit] leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had a mind”.

That Tobias had himself been highly respected in Nineveh even in his youth, at least among the captives, may perhaps be gauged from the account of his and Sarah’s wedding there (11:17-18): “On this day joy came to all the Jews who were in Nineveh. Ahikar and Nadab, Tobit's nephews, were also there, rejoicing with Tobit. And Tobias' wedding feast was celebrated joyfully for seven days”.

The Nahum article continues:

 

While in Nineveh, [Nahum] would have observed the broad roads (Na 2:4), walls (2:5), gates (2:6), temples and idols (1:14), and its vast wealth (2:9). I’m sure the minister of propaganda would have shown him the wall reliefs in Ashurbanipal’s residence! These reliefs were intended “as propaganda to impress, intimidate and instigate by representing the might of Assyrian power and the harsh punishment of rebels” (Comelius 1989:56). Or, as Esarhaddon would say, “For the gaze of all my foes, to the end of days, I set it [stela] up” (Luckenbill 1989:2:227).

 Let us examine the reliefs from the British Museum that were found on the walls of Ashurbanipal’s palace and see how they illustrate the word-pictures used by Nahum in his book.

 

Blasphemy against Assur (Na 1:14)

In 650 BC, Nahum would have seen the newly opened Room 33 in the Southwest Palace of Nineveh (Sennacherib’s “palace without rival”) with the reliefs depicting the campaign against Teumman of Elam and Dunanu of Gambula in 633 BC. One Particular relief would have caught his attention. On it, Elamite captives are shown being tortured. The caption above stated, “Mr. (blank) and Mr. (blank) spoke great insults against Assur, the god, my creator. Their tongues I tore out, their skins I flayed” (Russell 1999:180; Gerardi 1988:31). These two individuals are identified in Ashurbanipal’s annals as Mannu-ki-ahhe and Nabuusalli (Russell 1999:163).

 

The prophet Job too, man of vast experience as he was, had witnessed such things (Job 13:1): “My eyes have seen all this …”. All what things? “All this” (Job 12:17-25):

 

[God] leads rulers away stripped and makes fools of judges. He takes off the shackles put on by kings and ties a loincloth around their waist. He leads priests away stripped and overthrows officials long established. He silences the lips of trusted advisers and takes away the discernment of elders. He pours contempt on nobles and disarms the mighty. He reveals the deep things of darkness and brings utter darkness into the light. He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them. He deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason; he makes them wander in a trackless waste. They grope in darkness with no light; he makes them stagger like drunkards.

 

Whilst the Nahum article would have the prophet, in his first chapter, boldly proclaiming destruction to Assyria around c. 650 BC, at the time of king Ashurbanipal, some of Nahum’s invective may well have been directed towards an earlier period, when the blasphemous king of Assyria, Sennacherib, sent his Commander-in-Chief against the west (including Israel). Nahum 1:15: “Belial shall no longer pass through thee; he is utterly cut off”.

For a reconstruction of this campaign, see my Achior articles:

 
Ahikar Part One: As a Young Officer for Assyria.


 

and
 
Ahikar Part Two: As a Convert to Yahwism.

 


 
and
 

“Nadin went into everlasting darkness”.

 


 

Tobias/Job (= Nahum), as a cousin of the Ahikar (Achior of the Book of Judith) who had played such an important part in the whole episode, would thus himself have been fully aware of the famous historical incident that had culminated in Judith’s victory.

The Nahum article continues:

 

It was with great boldness that Nahum proclaimed,

 

The LORD has given a command concerning you [the king of Assyria]: “Your name shall be perpetuated no longer. Out of the house of your gods I will cut off the carved image and molded image. I will dig your grave, for you are vile” (1:14).

 

These words were a direct attack on Assur and the rest of the Assyrian deities, as well as the king. Yet Nahum boldly proclaimed the message God gave him, in spite of the potential threat to his life!

 

Similarly, Tobit’s charitable zeal had led to his having had to flee for his very life from the wrath of Sennacherib (Tobit 1:18-20).

 

The Fall of Nineveh

 

What would incline me to prefer my combined Nahum as Tobias/Job, rather than Nahum as Job’s cousin, Ahikar/Achior, is the fact that Nahum had apparently lived to witness the Fall of Nineveh (conventionally dated to 612 BC), an event that had occurred late during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (c. 641-609 BC).

Why?

Because we learn from the Book of Tobit that Tobias (my Nahum) himself had lived long enough to have witnessed it. This fact is narrated in the last chapter of the book, just after we learn about Tobit’s own death and burial. Note here, firstly, how old Tobit berates wicked Nineveh in terms that would be right at home in the Book of Nahum (Tobit 14:9-10, 11-15): 

 

'So then, my son, leave Nineveh, do not stay here. As soon as you have buried your mother next to me, go the same day, whenever it may be, and do not linger in this country where I see wickedness and perfidy unashamedly triumphant. …’.

They laid him back on his bed; he died and was buried with honour. When his mother died, Tobias buried her beside his father.

Then he left for Media with his wife and children. He lived in Ecbatana with Raguel, his father-in-law. He treated the ageing parents of his wife with every care and respect, and later buried them in Ecbatana in Media. Tobias inherited the patrimony of Raguel besides that of his father Tobit.

Much honoured, he lived to the age of a hundred and seventeen years.

Before he died he witnessed the ruin of Nineveh. He saw the Ninevites taken prisoner and deported to Media by Cyaxares king of Media. He blessed God for everything he inflicted on the Ninevites and Assyrians. Before his death he had the opportunity of rejoicing over the fate of Nineveh, and he blessed the Lord God for ever and ever. Amen.

 

This is where Tobias, having fled Nineveh with his family for “Media”, that is (Midian) Bashan (“land of Uz”), morphs into the Job who will there be so sorely tried. And from where he will, as an aged man, reminisce upon his glorious former career perhaps as a high official for Assyria. Not that every one of Job’s trials must needs have occurred in that same Palestinian location, however. For, though the text of Job as it is typically translated thrice reads, in the space of three verses (1:16, 17 and 18): “While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said …”, as if Job’s calamities had befallen the poor man all at once, that does not happen in real life (though people can admittedly experience a sudden run of misfortune). As I have noted in previous articles, the Hebrew here can be rendered along the lines of, “while this was still fresh in human memory”.

Actual years may have elapsed between at least some of these calamities.

 

Another point that needs comment is the discrepancy between the figure of 117 for the age of Tobias at death, as given in the quote above, and the age given for him as the prophet Job (42:16): “After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation”. But that the figures are uncertain in both cases is apparent from the fact that, for Tobias, it varies from this 117 (Good News), to 127 (King James), whilst Job’s 140 years is rendered in the LXX as Job living 170 years after his misfortune, for a total life span of 240 years.

What appears certain is that our composite prophet had lived for well over 100 years.

 

The Nahum article proceeds to describe the Fall of Nineveh:

 

Chariots, Not Volkswagens! (Na 2:3, 4)

The second chapter of Nahum describes the fall of the city of Nineveh to the Babylonians and Medes in 612 BC. He describes in detail the shields, chariots and spears of the Assyrian foes. While we do not have any contemporary Babylonian reliefs of their chariots, there are Assyrian reliefs of Assyrian chariots riding furiously. These chariots are depicted on the reliefs of the Assyrians attacking the Arabs.

Nahum mentions the broad roads of Nineveh. Ashurbanipal’s grandfather, Sennacherib, was the one who improved the streets of Nineveh. In the “Bellino cylinder” he boasts,

 

I [Sennacherib] widened its [Nineveh’s] squares, made bright the avenues and streets and caused them to shine like the day (1:61).

 

In the context of the book, Nahum sees a vision of chariots in the streets of Nineveh, not Volkswagens, as some prophecy teachers have speculated!

 

Take the Booty and Run! (Na 2:9, 10)

Nineveh was the Fort Knox of mid-seventh century BC Mesopotamia. On every Assyrian campaign they removed the silver, gold and precious stones and other items from the cities they sacked. When they bragged about the booty that was taken, silver and gold always topped the list. As an example, after the fall of No-Amon (Thebes), Ashurbanipal bragged that he took:

 

Silver, gold, precious stones, the goods of his palace, all there was, brightly colored and linen garments, great horses, the people, male and female, two tall obelisks...I removed from their positions and carried them off to Assyria. Heavy plunder, and countless, I carried away from Ni’ [Thebes] (Luckenbill 1989, 2:296, ¶778).

 

There are also reliefs of Assyrian scribes writing down the booty that was taken from other cities.

 

In Nahum’s vision he heard someone say,

 

Take spoil of silver! Take spoil of gold! These is no end of treasure, or wealth of every desirable prize. She is empty, desolate and waste! (2:9, 10a).

 

….

 

The Lion Hunt (Na 2:11–13)

David Dorsey, in his outstanding book, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament (1999:301–305), places the lion’s den verses (2:11–13) at the center of the book’s chiastic structure. In commenting on the pattern of the structure he says,

 

This progression underscores the certainty of Nineveh’s fall: Yahweh’s prophet not only believes that it will happen; he composes dirges as though it has already happened. The placement of the eulogy over the “lion’s den” in the book’s highlighted central position reinforces this sense of certainty (1999:304, italics added).

Nahum used the lion and lion hunt motifs that both the Judeans and Assyrians would have been well familiar with. The Assyrians had a long history of depicting their king and warriors as mighty lions or great lion hunters (Johnston 2001:296–301). The Bible also depicts the Assyrian warriors as roaring lions (Is 5:29) and Yahweh as a lion who will tear up His prey and carry it off to His lair (Hos 5:14, 15; 13:7, 8; Johnston 2001:294, 295).

 

…. Ashurbanipal II, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, took charge of the lion hunts in order to control the lion population (Luckenbill 1989, 2:392, ¶ 1025).

Ashurbanipal also engaged in lion hunting as a sport. Apparently lions were captured alive and put in cages in the king’s garden in Nineveh and used for staged lion hunts (Weissert 1997:339–58). One relief that was found in Ashurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh, apparently from a second floor, had three panels depicting a lion hunt. On the top panel, a lion is released from a cage and Ashurbanipal is shooting him with arrows. The central panel is interesting because it shows the bravery of the king. On the right side of the panel, soldiers are distracting a lion. On the left side, Ashurbanipal sneaks up and grabs the lion by the tail as he rears to his hind legs. The inscription above says,

 

I, Ashurbanipal, king of the universe, king of Assyria, in my lordly sport, I seized a lion of the plain by his tail and at the command of Urta, Nergal, the gods, my allies, I smashed his skull with the club of my hand (Luckenbill 1989, 2:391, ¶ 1023).

The king attributes his bravery to the deities. Dr. J. E. Reade, one of the keepers of the Western Asiatic Antiquities at the British Museum, has observed,

 

It is notable that much of the lion’s tail has been chipped away, so that the lion had been, as it were, set loose; this defacement was probably the action, at once humorous and symbolic, of some enemy soldier busy ransacking the palace in 612 B.C. (Curtis and Reade 1995:87).

On the lower panel, Ashurbanipal is pouring out a wine libation over the carcasses of four lions. In the inscription above, the king boasts of his power by saying,

 

I, Ashurbanipal, king of the universe, king of Assyria, whom Assur and Ninlil have endowed with surpassing might. The lions which I slew, the terrible bow of Ishtar, lady of battle, I aimed at them. I brought an offering, I poured out wine over them (Luckenbill 1989, 2:392, ¶ 1021).

Once again the king attributes his mighty power to the gods, in this case Assur and Ninlil.

In contrast, Ashurbanipal boasts that kings and lions are powerless before him. At the beginning of one of his annals (Cylinder F) he states,

 

Among men, kings, and among the beasts, lions (?) were powerless before my bow, I know (the art) of waging battle and combat...A valiant hero, beloved of Assur and Ishtar, of royal lineage, am I (Luckenbill 1989, 2:347, ¶ 896).

Ashurbanipal has tied his lion hunting and military conquests together in one statement.

In the vision of Nahum concerning Nineveh, Nahum asks a rhetorical question,

 

Where is the dwelling of the lions, and the feeding place of the young lions, where the lion walked, the lioness and lion’s cub, and no one made them afraid? (2:11).

He sees Nineveh as a lions’ den that has been destroyed and the lions are gone. The “prey” in verse 12 is apparently the booty that the Assyrians have taken from all the cities they conquered in recent memory.

In verse 13, the LORD states directly,

 

Behold, I am against you. I will burn your chariots in smoke, and the sword shall devour your young lions; I will cut off your prey from the earth, and the voice of your messenger shall be heard no more.

 

God also refers to “lions” in his challenge to Job (38:39-40; cf. 28:8): “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket?”

The Nahum article continues:

 

The phrase “the sword shall devour your young lions” draws our attention to another relief showing Ashurbanipal thrusting a sword through a lion. The inscription associated with this relief says,

 

I, Ashurbanipal, king of the universe, king of Assyria, in my lordly sport, they let a fierce lion of the plain out of the cage and on foot...I stabbed him later with my iron girdle dagger and he died (Luckenbill 1989, 2:392, ¶ 1024).

The book of Nahum sets forth an ironic reversal of the Assyrian usage of the lion motif. Gordon Johnston has observed.

 

The extended lion metaphor in Nahum 2:11–13 includes the two major varieties of the Neo-Assyrian lion motif: the depiction of the Assyrian king and his warriors as mighty lions, and the royal lion hunt theme. While the Assyrians kept these two motifs separate, Nahum dovetailed the two, but in doing so he also reversed their original significance. While the Assyrian warriors loved to depict themselves as mighty lions hunting their prey, Nahum pictured them as lions that would be hunted down. The Assyrian kings also boasted that they were mighty hunters in royal lion hunts; Nahum pictured them as the lions being hunted in the lion hunt. By these reversals Nahum created an unexpected twist on Assyrian usage. According to Nahum the Assyrians were like lions, to be sure; however, not in the way that they depicted themselves; rather than being like lions on the prowl for prey, the hunters would become the hunted! (2001:304).

 

The Nahum article then proceeds to a consideration of Nahum’s final chapter, on Nineveh:

 

Nineveh, a Bloody City (Na 3:1)

Nahum pronounces: “woe to the bloody city (of Nineveh)” (3:1). The city and the Assyrian Empire had a well-earned reputation for being bloody. Just a casual glance at the reliefs from the palaces of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal shows the “gory and bloodcurdling history as we know it” (Bleibtreu. 1991:52). There are reliefs with people being impaled, decapitated, flayed, and tongues pulled out. Other reliefs show the Assyrians making people grind the bones of their dead ancestors, and even vultures plucking out the eyes of the dead!

One panel graphically shows their disrespect for human life. On it, a commander is presenting a bracelet to an Assyrian soldier who had decapitated the five or six heads at his feet. There are two scribes behind him recording the event. This bracelet, perhaps a medal of valor, is worth five or six lives! In Assyrian thinking, life was cheap.

Countless Corpses (Na 3:3)

There is an old adage that says, “What goes around, comes around.” The Bible would use an agricultural metaphor, “You reap what you sow” (cf. Gal 6:7). This is true in the geo-political realm as well as the personal realm. The Assyrians, over their long history, were brutal and barbaric people. Yet there came a point in history where God said, “Enough is enough,” and He removed the offending party (Na 2:13; 3:4).

Nineveh fell in 612 BC, yet it wasn’t until the 1989 and 1990 seasons of the University of California, Berkeley excavations in the Halzi Gate that graphic evidence of the final battle of Nineveh was revealed. Upwards of 16 bodies were excavated in the gate, all slain (Stronach and Lumsden 1992:227–33; Stronach 1997:315–19). Archaeological excavations have vividly confirmed the words of the Biblical text.

 

Horsemen charge with bright sword and glittering spear. There is a multitude of slain, a great number of bodies, countless corpses—they stumble over the corpses (Na 3:3).

 

[End of quotes]

 

Conclusion

 

My reconstructed Job, as Tobias son of Tobit, whose life began in the neo-Assyrian era approximately during the early reign of Sennacherib, and who must have (given his long life) continued down to at least the reign of King Josiah of Judah - when the sorely afflicted Job encountered the young Jeremiah, as Elihu (I believe):

 

Does the Prophet Jeremiah Figure in the Book of Job?

 


 

and

 

A Case for Multi-identifying the Prophet Jeremiah

 


 

 - and downwards even further, to very late in the reign of this same Josiah, when Nineveh fell (c. 612 BC, conventional dating), was a contemporary of the prophet Nahum, whose writings we have determined spanned the approximate period from Ashurbanipal’s destruction of Thebes (c. 663 BC) to the Fall of Nineveh (c. 612 BC).