by
Damien F. Mackey
“The LORD gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians;
and the children of Israel lived in their tents as before”.
2 Kings 13:5
וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹשִׁיעַ, וַיֵּצְאוּ, מִתַּחַת יַד-אֲרָם; וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאָהֳלֵיהֶם, כִּתְמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם.
That “saviour” (מוֹשִׁ֔יעַ) has been variously identified by commentators and revisionist scholars as king Jehoash of Israel; Jeroboam II of Israel; Adad-nirari III of Assyria; Zakir of Hamath; and pharaoh Seti I of Egypt. Thus I wrote previously on this:
Various candidates have been suggested for the “deliverer”, or “saviour” (מוֹשִׁיעַ), of the prayers of Jehoahaz of Israel: e.g., Adad-nirari III of Assyria; Zakir of Hamath - neither of whom is named in the biblical account - Jehoash of Israel, or his son, Jeroboam II. Dr John Bimson had considered, for one, the possibility that Jehoash, amongst other candidates, may have been this “saviour”, whilst also stating the objections to this view (“Dating the Wars of Seti I”, p. 22):
There has been much discussion over the identity of the anonymous “saviour”. One view is that the verse refers to Joash [Jehoash], Jehoahaz’s successor, who defeated Ben-Hadad [II] three times and regained some of the lost Israelite cities (II Kings 13:24-25); or to Jeroboam II, son of Joash, who restored Israel’s Transjordanian territory and even conquered Damascus and Hamath (II Kings 14:25-28). But as J. Gray remarks: “The main objection to this view is that this relief is apparently a response to the supplication of Jehoahaz (v. 4), whereas relief did not come until the time of Joash and Jeroboam” … [Reference: I and II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd edn., 1970, p. 595, where references can be found to scholars who favour Joash and/ or Jeroboam as the deliverer]. Other scholars do not acknowledge this difficulty, pointing to II Kings 13:22 (“Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz”) as evidence that deliverance did not come until after the reign of Jehoahaz … [Reference: K. A. Kitchen in NBD, p. 58].
Some commentators have suggested a three-year co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash. And so it could be argued that the relief for Jehoahaz’s Israel would have begun to arise right near to the end of Jehoahaz’s reign, when there began the co-rule of the now more energetic Jehoash. However, this deliverance was only gradual and its proper effects would become manifest only after Jehoahaz had passed away.
Dr. Bimson’s second option for Israel’s “savior” was pharaoh Seti I, the father of Ramses II ‘the Great’, of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. Bimson had provided a useful account of the similarities between Israel’s wars against Syria at this approximate time and Seti I’s campaigns into Syro-Palestine, leading him to consider the possibility that Seti I may in fact have been the “saviour” of Israel. (It needs to be noted that Dr. Bimson himself does not stand by these views today). Here, nevertheless, is part of … Bimson’s … account of Seti’s I’s campaigns in a revised context (op. cit., pp. 20, 22):
In the chronology which we are testing here, the time of Jehoahaz corresponds to the time when Seti I campaigned in Palestine and Syria. It therefore seems very probable that the Aramaean [Syrian] oppression of Israel is the event of which we have … read on Seti’s Beth-Shan stelae”
… Aram is “the wretched foe”. Several parallels confirm that we are reading about the same events in both sources. Firstly we have seen that the stelae refer, in Rowe’s words, to “an invasion by tribes from the east side of the Jordan”; the Old Testament records that in Jehu’s reign Hazael occupied all of Transjordan as far south as the Arnon; it was therefore presumably from there that he launched his further offensives into the centre of Israel in the reign of Jehoahaz.
Furthermore, we have seen that the attacking forces of Seti’s day were operating from a base called Yarumtu, or Ramoth, probably Ramoth-gilead. ….
Once west of the Jordan, the immediate objective of Seti’s opponents was apparently the capture of towns in Galilee and the Plain of Esdraelon. In the time of Jehoahaz this was part of the kingdom of Israel. II Kings 13:25 speaks of towns in Israel which Ben-Hadad “had taken from Jehoahaz … in war”. Unfortunately the captured towns are not named, but we know they lay west of the Jordan, since all the territory east of the Jordan had been lost in the previous reign.
The invaders whom Seti confronted also had objectives further afield; they were attempting “to lay waste the land of Djahi to its full length”. We have seen that Djahi probably comprised the Plain of Esdraelon and the coastal plain to the north and south, extending southwards at least as far as Ashkelon. The capture of towns such as Beth-shan was probably an attempt to gain control of the Plain of Esdraelon, which provided access from the Jordan to the coastal strip, both to the north and (via the pass at Megiddo) the south. The coastal plain to the south was certainly one of Hazael’s objectives.
….
In short, the movements and objectives of Hazael’s forces exactly parallel those of the forces opposed by Seti I, so far as they can be reconstructed. This is not to say that specific moves recorded in the Biblical and Egyptian accounts are to be precisely identified .… Seti’s two stelae from Beth-shan show that the invaders pushed westwards on more than one occasion, so it would be a mistake to envisage one invasion by the Aramaeans, repulsed by one attack by Seti. The important point is that in both sources we find the same objectives, the same direction of attack, and the probability that in both cases the enemy was operating from the same base.
Furthermore, commenting on the text of the smaller stela, Albright notes that since the attacking Apiru [Habiru] “are determined in the hieroglyphic text by ‘warrior and plural sign’ [not merely ‘man, plural sign’], they were not considered ordinary nomads” …. The stela is not describing mere tribal friction, as is conventionally assumed, but an attack by an organised and properly equipped military force. This would certainly fit an attack on Israel by Hazael’s troops in the late 9th century BC.
Bimson now proceeds to consider other of Seti I’s inscriptions:
Turning from the Beth-shan stelae to the other sources of Seti’s campaigns, we may now suggest that some of Seti’s larger measures, not just his forays into northern Israel, were also directed against the growing power of Damascus. “… at the close of the ninth century, Hazael and Ben-hadad had imposed Aramaean rule upon vast South-Syrian territories, including Samaria, as far as the northern boundary of Philistia and Judah”. [Reference: H. Tadmor, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8, 1961, p. 241.]. It is logical that Egypt would see this expanding power as a threat to her own security and act to curb it. Seti’s military action in Palestine’s southern coastal plain (first register of his Karnak reliefs) may well have been aimed at establishing a bulwark against southward Aramaean advances along the coastal strip. …. His campaign into Phoenicia and Lebanon may have been to protect (or reclaim?) the coastal cities of that region (important to Egypt for supplies of timber and other commodities) from the westward expansion of Hazael’s rule. ….
We have already noted Faulkner’s suggestion that the reference to a campaign by Seti into “the land of Amor”, on the damaged Kadesh relief, refers to the conquest of “an inland extension of Amorite territory into the country south of Kadesh, possibly even as far south as Damascus” [Reference: Faulkner, JEA 33, 1947, p. 37, emphasis added].
….
What this shows, I think, is that the revision of history that has the 19th Egyptian dynasty situated considerably lower than the conventional C13th BC view has a lot to recommend it. Whether or not Dr. Bimson managed to get the precise correspondence, he seems to have been, at least, not far off the mark.
Fine tuning of the biblical and revised Egyptian dates may still be required.
My own tentative suggestion at this stage for the “saviour”? Jeroboam II.
More than king Jehoash, whose efforts did not satisfy, but, rather, angered the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:19): “The man of God was angry with him and said, ‘You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times’,” Jeroboam II was a “deliverer”, a “saviour”. In fact 2 Kings 14:27 tells us straight out: “And since the Lord had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved (וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם) them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash”.
Compare here the root word וֹשִׁיעֵ (from the verb, yasha, to save/deliver) with the identical וֹשִׁיעַ in the word for “saviour: מוֹשִׁיעַ
The mighty Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25): “… was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher”.
[End of quotes]
“My own tentative suggestion at this stage for the “saviour”? Jeroboam II”.
Having since determined that Jeroboam II was the same king as Jehoash of Israel, I would now modify that remark to include Jehoash as well.
None of the other suggested candidates above for the ‘saviour’ is named in the Bible.
My new look late Judah, Israel and Assyria
Matthew’s Genealogy tells that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah, the father of Jotham. Where, then, are the long-reigning kings, Joash and Amaziah?
And how do the kings of Israel and Assyria align with this revised scenario?
My simple explanation as to why Matthew the Evangelist has ‘omitted’ Joash and Amaziah from his list of the kings of Judah, in his ‘Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah’ (Matthew 1:8-9), is that he has not actually omitted them – that Joash and Amaziah are to be found as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham: “… Jehoram the father of Uzziah … the father of Jotham …” (vv. 8-9).
With about seven decades now to be snatched away from the standard calculation of biblical history, due to the merging of Joash (40 years) into Uzziah, and Amaziah (29 years) into Jotham - {(40 + 29) = 69 years of excessive chronological baggage that must needs be deleted} - there must follow a radical curtailing of the associated histories of Israel and Assyria. And this, I have already taken care of, by folding the last supposedly six kings of Israel into only three:
‘Eradicating’, through revision, some of the late kings of Israel
and by my:
Folding [of] four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings
What we now find - and what seriously needs to be properly accounted for - is that there is no room whatsoever for the long-reigning (41 years) king Jeroboam II as a single entity.
He, too, must have - like those two kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah - a significant alter ego (as will be worked out further on).
According to the combined information to be found in the above articles, either one of the Jehu-ide kings, Jehoahaz (son of Jehu), or his son, Jehoash, had given tribute to the Assyrian king Adad-nirari. Of these two kings, Jehoash now appears to have been the more likely. Thus: https://watchjerusalem.co.il/665-tell-al-rimah-stele-king-jehoash-found
“While excavating the inner chamber of a small Neo-Assyrian temple at Tell al-Rimah in 1967, British archaeologist David Oates discovered a victory stele belonging to Assyrian King Adad-nirari iii. The impressive stele proves the existence of “Jehoash the Samarian” ….
[End of quote]
(In my revision, Adad-nirari so-called III is the same as I and II of that name)
Now, as I have determined, Adad-nirari was the penultimate Assyrian king prior to the end of the kingdom of Israel with its king Hoshea and the Fall of Samaria.
Adad-nirari was followed by Tiglath-pileser (= Shalmaneser), who actually named his father as Adad-nirari.
We need to do some calculations here. (Note: readers always need to check my calculations)
Taking king Jehoash of Israel - {likely as a contemporary of Adad-nirari} - as our starting point, he comes to the throne during the 37th year of Joash (Uzziah) of Judah.
In Jehoash’s 2nd year, Amaziah (Jotham) of Judah begins to reign, and the latter continues to reign 15 years after the death of Jehoash of Israel.
Leaving aside, for the time being, the troublesome Jeroboam II, those last 15 years of Amaziah/Jotham would include about two years for Zechariah/Pekahiah, and would be exhausted by about 13 years of the reign of (Shallum)/Pekah.
That makes sense because Pekah and Rezin “first” emerged during reign of king Jotham (2 Kings 15:37): “It was while [Jotham] was king that the Lord first sent King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel to attack Judah”.
Pekah’s 20 year reign would continue into approximately the 7th year of Ahaz of Judah. That makes sense because Ahaz had dreadful trouble with the combined Rezin and Pekah during his early reign (16:5): “King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel attacked Jerusalem and besieged it …”.
Finally, the 9-10 years of Pekah’s successor, Menahem/Hoshea:
Menahem and Hoshea of Israel. Part One: Listing several quite compelling comparisons
and:
would conclude very early in the reign of Ahaz’s noble son, Hezekiah, which is almost perfect (2 Kings 18:1): “In the third year of the reign of Hoshea son of Elah as king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz became king of Judah …”.
Obviously, there is no room here to accommodate the supposed 41 years of Jeroboam II.
A different explanation for this mighty king is required.
Jeroboam II and the Jehu-ide Dynasty
… this apparently great king of Israel [Jeroboam II] has very little indeed in the way
of scriptural coverage … there must be a significant ‘alter ego’ awaiting him.
So far I have concluded that there is no room for Jeroboam II as a separate entity, reigning for 41 years, in my revised history of the late kings of Israel. As previously discussed:
this apparently great king of Israel has very little indeed in the way of scriptural coverage.
Therefore, as I concluded in that article, there must be a significant alter ego awaiting him.
In the case of the earlier kings of Israel, like Omri, for instance, who - just like Jeroboam II - would appear (at first glance) to have been neglected in the Scriptures:
alter egos need to be added, to fill them out: Jeroboam I = Omri, whose foe Tibni = Tab-rimmon with Zimri being Jehu:
Zimri and Jehu
And Jeroboam II is Jehoash
Jeroboam II, a most significant king of Israel, was - I must now conclude - Jehoash, Jeroboam’s supposed father.
This would mean that the ‘four generations’ of Jehu-ide kings (2 Kings 10:30): “The Lord said to Jehu, ‘Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation’,” must have included the dynastic founder, Jehu. Thus:
- Jehu
- Jehoahaz, father of
- Jehoash/Jeroboam II
- Zechariah.
Then follows another set of duplicate kings (as already determined):
The slain Zechariah is the slain Pekahiah;
The murderer Shallum is the murderer Pekah, and
Menahem is Hoshea, the last king of Israel.
Jehoash = Jeroboam II comparisons
“… Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, became king of Israel in Samaria” (2 Kings 13:10)
“… Jeroboam, son of Jehoash [read Jehoahaz], became king of Israel in Samaria” (14:23)
“[Jehoash] did what is displeasing to Yahweh, he did not give up the sin into which Jeroboam son of Nebat had led Israel …” (13:11)
“[Jeroboam] did what is displeasing to Yahweh and did not give up any of the sins into which Jeroboam son of Nebat had led Israel …” (14:24)
“The rest of the history of Jehoash, his entire career, his prowess, how he waged war on Amaziah king of Judah, is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?” (13:12)
“The rest of the history of Jeroboam, his entire career, his prowess, what wars he waged, how he … is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?” (14:28)
Comment: It would be nice to know what this (Jerusalem Bible) verse went on to say about “how he …”.
“Then Jehoash slept with his ancestors …. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel” (13:13)
“The Jeroboam slept with his ancestors …. They buried him in Samaria with the kings of Israel …” (14:29)
Compare also
2 Kings 13:22-25:
Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz. But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
Hazael king of Aram died, and Ben-Hadad his son succeeded him as king. Then Jehoash son of Jehoahaz recaptured from Ben-Hadad son of Hazael the towns he had taken in battle from his father Jehoahaz. Three times Jehoash defeated him, and so he recovered the Israelite towns.
and
2 Kings 14:25-27:
He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher.
The Lord had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the Lord had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam ….
Jeroboam II can be a chronological nightmare
The interregna that Philip Mauro, following Martin Anstey, thought that the Bible
was pointing to were due to a faulty interpretation of the sequence of the kings of Israel, several or more of whom were – as we have found – duplicates.
For much of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
I would follow Philip Mauro’s intendedly biblically-based chronology, which meant, in the case of Jeroboam II, the insertion of a significant interregnum after his death.
Thus I wrote (Volume One, Ch. 11, p. 255):
And though I noted in Chapter 5 that I am concerned with precise biblical dates for EOH [Era of Hezekiah] only, I also stated that the interregna, combined, were too substantial a chronological factor to be passed over.
I also mentioned there that standard chronologists (including Thiele) have generally not taken into account these interregna. Nor, indeed, have revisionists Courville and Gammon; though other revisionists (e.g. Hickman, Sieff) have, as I shall discuss in a moment. Here is how Mauro has calculated the 22-year interregnum for Israel:[1]
There was also an interregnum in Israel between the reign of Jeroboam II and that of Zechariah; for Jeroboam’s 41st year, which was his last, coincided with the 15th of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Zechariah did not succeed until the 38th of Uzziah (2 Kings 14:29; 15:8). This makes an interval of 22 years.
Mauro had noted a paragraph earlier that “Uzziah did not come to the throne until the 27th year of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 15:1)”. He also calculated an 8-year interregnum period for Israel between Hoshea’s slaying of Pekah and Hoshea’s becoming king of Israel.[2] ….
[End of quotes]
I now realise that it is better to align the kings of Israel with Uzziah of Judah’s alter ego, Joash, instead, as I have done in this series.
The interregna that Philip Mauro, following Martin Anstey, thought that the Bible was pointing to were necessitated due to a faulty interpretation of the sequence of the kings of Israel, several or more of whom were – as we have found – duplicates.
It is a situation akin to what has occurred as a result of the chronological over-stretching of the Egyptian dynasties, forcing artificial ‘Dark Ages’ to be inserted into ancient history. In the case of the faulty chronology of Israel as currently interpreted, it is not ‘Dark Ages’ but, I guess, the similar, interregna, whose insertion a literal interpretation of the data would seem to demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment