Old Kingdom of Egypt fearfully devastated with blood and fire

by Damien F. Mackey “There is blood everywhere …. Lo the river is blood”. o “Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments”. “All is ruin!” “The land is without light”. Ipuwer Papyrus Have you ever heard of the Ipuwer Papyrus? It is an ancient document. Many believe it to be a recollection of the Ten Plagues, perhaps even by an eyewitness. Turning water to blood was one of the miraculous powers with which the Lord had invested his servant, Moses, in order to prompt his people, and even the Egyptians, to believe. The other miraculous abilities were the rod of Moses turning into a serpent, and the hand becoming leprous, but then restored to health. The water to blood phenomenon would be the last chance before Egypt would feel the full force of the Ten Plagues (Exodus 4:8-9): Then the Lord said, ‘If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground’. Amazingly, even this late - and in the face of the Lord’s powerful words about delivering his people “with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment” (Exodus 6:6) - we find Moses still reluctant to co-operate, to face Pharaoh, owing to his perceived lack of eloquence: ‘I speak with faltering lips’ (Exodus 6:1-12): Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country’. God also said to Moses, ‘I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself fully known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant. “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord’.” Moses reported this to the Israelites, but they did not listen to him because of their discouragement and harsh labor. Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Go, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt to let the Israelites go out of his country’. But Moses said to the Lord, ‘If the Israelites will not listen to me, why would Pharaoh listen to me, since I speak with faltering lips?’ A half century or more ago, now, this great man, Moses, had himself actually ruled Egypt as Pharaoh - as Djedefre (Djedefptah)/Niuserre Ini/Userkare. But, after a short time, he had abdicated. He was, too, a sage and a scholar, as Ptahhotep (as Kagemni), a writer of Instructions. But Moses was also Chief Vizier and Judge in Egypt. “This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush” (Acts 7:35). In this official guise, as Weni (Mentuhotep), Moses would lead the armies of Egypt, against Ethiopia (Cush), and against the Bedouin. A military genius, he was also known as General Nysumontu (a Moses-like name, Nysu, like Sinuhe, and Niuserre Ini, which latter element also connects nicely with Weni/Uni). On this, see my article: Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses (DOC) Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses Yet, despite all of that, Moses was most reluctant to confront pharaoh Neferhotep. How to explain this? Perhaps because (Numbers 12:3): “… Moses was a very humble man, more so than any man on the face of the earth”. He seemed to lack the self-assurance of his predecessor, Joseph, the Man of Dreams. Had pharaoh Neferhotep even heard of Moses? That this king had apparently no personal vendetta against Moses can be assumed from Exodus 4:19: ‘Go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead who sought thy life’. Egypt’s so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom (which was effectively still the Old Kingdom, hence the title of this article) was now rapidly coming to its end. Egyptian Magicians emulate miracles How so? A possible explanation for this is given here at: How were Pharaoh’s magicians able to perform miracles? | GotQuestions.org How were Pharaoh’s magicians able to perform miracles? Answer The story of Pharaoh’s magicians can be found in Exodus 7–8, when Moses and Aaron confront the Pharaoh in Egypt, demanding that he free God’s people, the Israelites, from slavery. Moses and Aaron performed miracles to confirm their message, and on three occasions Pharaoh’s magicians were able to duplicate the miracles. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush and charged him to speak to Pharaoh on His behalf (Exodus 3). During that commissioning, God granted Moses the ability to perform miracles (Exodus 4:21). Knowing that Pharaoh would demand a sign, God instructed Moses and Aaron to throw down Aaron’s staff upon their first meeting with the ruler. Aaron did so, and his staff turned into a snake. Pharaoh immediately summoned his magicians, who were able to turn their own staffs into snakes. In what must have been an ominous sign for Pharaoh’s court, Aaron’s snake devoured the magicians’ snakes (see Exodus 7:8–13). Twice more, Pharaoh’s magicians were able to perform miracles to match the signs of Moses and Aaron. The first plague that Moses called down upon the Egyptians was a plague of blood. The magicians were also able to turn water to blood as Moses had done to the Nile River (Exodus 7:14–22). The second plague was a horde of frogs sent among the Egyptian people, and the magicians summoned their own frogs as well—adding to the problem rather than alleviating it (Exodus 8:1–7). After this, however, the magicians’ power stopped, as they were unable to replicate any further plagues, and they acknowledged they were witnessing “the finger of God” in Moses’ signs (verse 19). But how were the magicians of Egypt able to perform the miracles in the first place? There are two possible answers to this question. The first is that the magicians received their power from Satan. Although not as powerful as God, Satan, formerly one of God’s highest angels, has the power to deceive, emulate miracles, and even tell the future with a certain degree of accuracy (see Luke 4; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Acts 16:16–18). Satan may have given Pharaoh’s magicians the power to duplicate some of the signs God performed through Moses and Aaron. The second option, and the more probable, is that the magicians simply created illusions. Through sleight-of-hand and conjurer’s tricks, they deceived their audience into believing that they were performing the same miracles as Moses and Aaron. The first illusion, that of turning the staffs into snakes, may have been performed by snake charming, which was widely practiced in ancient Egypt (and even some today). There was a way in which snake charmers could cause a snake to stiffen like a staff and relax on command. Since the magicians were summoned after Aaron threw down his own staff, they would have had time to prepare the trick in advance. As for turning the Nile to blood, only dye is needed to make water run red. The frogs may be a more complicated illusion, but, just as modern illusionists can pull rabbits out of hats, Pharaoh’s magicians could have summoned frogs. Whether they were creating illusions or performing actual miracles, the Egyptian magicians were eventually stymied by God’s power. They were unable to summon gnats (Exodus 8:16–19), turn the sky dark (Exodus 10:21–23), call down hailstones (Exodus 9:22–26), or duplicate any of the other plagues. God’s power is great enough to defeat both man’s conniving and Satan’s power with ease. Did the Lord also use natural phenomena? So far, we have read of the Burning Bush episode and of Moses (and Aaron) being empowered to work certain miracles to generate belief among the Israelites – and, presumably, for any Egyptians of good will. The Burning Bush; the ability to turn one’s staff into a serpent; to cure a leprous hand; and to turn Nile water to blood; these are all purely miraculous manifestations. But what about the pillar of cloud, later, and the pillar of fire? (To be considered elsewhere). Many have argued that the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus event were the result of natural catastrophism, volcanoes and/or earthquakes. There does appear to be a fair amount of tectonic activity going on during the Exodus and the sojourn in the desert. A favourite idea is that the unprecedented cataclysmic eruption of Thera (Santorini) in the Mediterranean Sea provides the explanation for the Plagues, for the pillars of cloud and fire, and for the parting of the Sea of Reeds. A tsunami engendered by that awesome hecatomb can then be proposed to explain the drowning of the Egyptian army. A possible association of Thera and the Exodus is mentioned, for instance, at Britannica.com eruption of Thera, devastating Bronze Age eruption of a long-dormant volcano on the Aegean island of Thera, about 70 miles (110 km) north of Crete. Earthquakes, perhaps contemporaneous with the eruption, shattered Knossos and damaged other settlements in northern Crete. The Thera eruption is thought to have occurred about 1500 bce, although, on the basis of evidence obtained during the 1980s from a Greenland ice-core and from tree-ring and radiocarbon dating, some scholars believe that it occurred earlier, possibly during the 1620s bce. Ash and pumice from the eruption have been found as far away as Egypt and Israel, and there has been speculation that the eruption was the source of the legend of Atlantis and of stories in the Old Testament book of Exodus. [End of quote] The truth is, though, that Thera could have had nothing to do with it! While one of the dates given in this piece above, “1500 bce”, is, as an approximation, roughly compatible with the era of Moses, this date, when properly revised downwards on the timeline, must be re-cast closer to c. 1000 BC, which is chronologically well out of range of the Exodus event. The Thera catastrophe may have occurred just a bit before the reign of King Solomon (I Kings 6:1): “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the Temple of the LORD”. That is about half a millennium after the Exodus. Moreover, while the Thera cataclysm must have occurred close to the Late Bronze Age, the Exodus Israelites, the Middle Bronze I nomads, on the other hand, would become conquerors of Early Bronze Age civilisations. Finally, there is very little evidence for Thera, as massive as it was, impacting as far away as Egypt (some pumice finds, for instance): How Did the Eruption of Thera Affect the Egyptians? - GreekReporter.com The eruption of Thera in Egyptian chronology The exact date of the eruption of Thera is something that scholars continue to debate. This is due to conflicting evidence from radiocarbon dating and ice core evidence. Nevertheless, its relative date within Egyptian chronology is absolutely secure. The reason we can say this is that archaeologists have found various items made of pumice (rock formed from volcanic material) in Egypt from one specific time period. This is the reign of Ahmose I. The pumice in question matches that found on Thera itself, showing that it came from the Minoan eruption. Therefore, we can be absolutely sure that the eruption of Thera occurred in the reign of Ahmose I of Egypt, regardless of when the actual date really was. However, the weight of evidence places it in the 16th century BCE. [End of quote] Why I have wondered about the possibility of natural phenomena also being included amongst the miraculous in the Book of Exodus is because, after having read an account of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens in Washington State, in 198o, I was amazed how closely various of its effects seemed to parallel those of the Plagues of Egypt – though not necessarily in the same order. I read about this in Graham Phillips’ terrific book, Act of God (1998). This book also served to enlighten me mightily as to the nature of the enigmatic pharaoh, Akhnaton. According to the Old Testament account in the book of Exodus, when the pharaoh refused Moses’ demands to let the Israelite slaves leave Egypt, God inflicted the Egyptians with a series of what the Bible calls plagues, which included darkness over the land, the Nile turning to blood, fiery hail storms, cattle deaths and a plague of boils. In Act of God, Graham presents compelling evidence that these biblical plagues were real historical events - the result of a volcanic eruption so colossal that it also gave rise to the legend of Atlantis. {My own opinion about the highly popular subject of Atlantis would be that the legend about it was a composite mix of ancient catastrophes, including the Great Flood, the Thera eruption, and the Fall of Tyre}. The following is taken from The Graham Phillips Website: Act of God 1 …. There are various types of volcanic eruption: some spew forth rivers of molten lava, others produce searing mud slides, but by far the most devastating is when the pressure of the magma causes the volcano to literally blow its top. One of the largest eruptions in recent years was the Mount Saint Helens eruption in Washington State USA in 1980, when the explosion blasted away the mountainside with the power of a fifty megaton bomb. On the morning of 18 May 1980, a mass of searing volcanic material blasted outwards, killing almost every living thing or miles around. Thousands of acres of forest were flattened and molten debris covered everywhere like the surface of the moon. Within a few hours a cloud of ash thousands of feet high, containing billions of tons of volcanic material, had rolled east across three states - Washington, Idaho and Montana – where the massive volcanic cloud covered the sky and day was turned to night. Throughout the whole area ash fell like rain, clogging motor engines, halting trains and blocking roads. Thousands of square miles of lush farmland now looked like a grey desert and millions of dollars worth of crops were destroyed. Hundreds of people, as far away as Billings in Montana, over 500 miles from the volcano, were taken to hospital with sore eyes and skin rashes caused by exposure to the acidic fallout ash. For weeks afterwards fish in thousands of miles of rivers were found floating on the surface, killed by chemical pollutants in the water. Something very similar seems to have affected Egypt some three and a half thousand years ago when the Exodus story appears to be set. The Plagues of Egypt First of all there is the plague of darkness. This might have been the result of a massive cloud of fallout ash. After the Mount Saint Helens eruption the sun was obscured for hours over 500 miles from the volcano. According to Exodus 10: 21-23: And there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days. In Exodus 9:23-26 we are told that Egypt is afflicted by … another plague – a terrible fiery hailstorm: And the Lord sent thunder and hail… So there was hail and fire mingled with the hail… And the hail smote all throughout the land of Egypt, all that was in the field, both man and beast, and brake every tree in the field. This would be an accurate description of the dreadful ordeal suffered by people in the shadow of the Mount Saint Helens fallout cloud in 1980 - pellet-sized volcanic debris falling like hail; fiery pumice setting fires on the ground and destroying trees and houses; lightning flashing around, generated by the tremendous turbulence inside the volcanic cloud. For days volcanic debris fell like hailstones, flattening crops for miles around. The Exodus account of another of the plagues could easily be a report given by someone living in the states of Washington, Idaho and Montana, over which the volcanic fallout cloud was blown after the Mount Saint Helens eruption of 1980: And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast... (Exodus 9:9.) Fine dust causing boils and blains! Hundreds of people were taken to hospital with skin sores and rashes after the Mount Saint Helens eruption due to exposure to the acidic fallout ash, and livestock perished or had to be destroyed due to prolonged inhalation of the volcanic dust. According to Exodus 9:6: And all the cattle of Egypt died. After the Mount Saint Helens eruption fish also died and were found floating on the surface of hundreds of miles of waterways. The pungent odor of pumice permeated everything and water supplies had to be cut off until the impurities could be filtered from reservoirs. According to Exodus 7:21: And the fish that was in the river died: and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the river, and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. As well as the grey pumice ash volcanoes blast skywards, many volcanoes have another, more corrosive toxin in their bedrock - iron oxide. (This is the same red material that covers the surface of Mars.) After the Mount Saint Helens eruption thousands of tons of iron oxide were discharged into the rivers killing fish for miles around. It would certainly explain the Exodus reference to the Nile turning to blood, as iron oxide would turn the river red: And all the waters that were in the river turned to blood. (Exodus 7:20). Over the years various scholars have individually attributed these plagues to different natural phenomena. The darkness could have been due to a violent sandstorm; the hail the result of freak weather conditions; the boils caused by an epidemic; and the bloodied river may have been the result of seismic activity to the south, near the Nile’s source. However, the likelihood of them all happening at the same time seems just too remote. A volcanic eruption, however, would account for them all. …. [End of quote] The most that I could say, at this stage, is that, whilst much of what happened involving Moses and Aaron was purely miraculous, the Lord could also have allowed a natural catastrophe to trigger a series of plagues. The material and the timing, however, was all His. The Exodus account needs to be supplemented by King Solomon’s vivid description of the Plagues in the Book of Wisdom. For instance: Wisdom of Solomon 16 – God’s Justice in the Plagues: Plagues as lessons for the nations. - Pope Kirillos …. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 16 presents a profound meditation on God’s Justice and Mercy as revealed through the plagues visited upon the Egyptians and the corresponding blessings bestowed upon the Israelites. The chapter explores how God used these plagues not merely as instruments of punishment, but as pedagogical tools designed to teach both the Egyptians and the Israelites about His power, justice, and ultimately, His mercy. The plagues targeted the Egyptians’ objects of worship, demonstrating their futility. Simultaneously, the Israelites experienced miraculous deliverances, fostering faith and dependence on God. This chapter highlights the duality of God’s actions: judgment tempered with mercy, designed for both correction and salvation. We will delve into each verse, drawing from Patristic insights and Coptic Orthodox tradition, to uncover the deep spiritual truths embedded within this powerful narrative. …. War on the gods of Egypt Just prior to the last devastating Plague, the death of Egypt’s firstborn, the Lord declares his intention to smite the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12): ‘For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord’. This would almost certainly include Pharaoh himself (and his firstborn son), who was considered by the Egyptians to be the Divine Son of Ra (the Sun God). There have also been some excellent articles written on the Lord’s use of the Plagues to undermine the various gods of Egypt. For example, Joe LoMusio’s: “Against the Gods of Egypt” - Identifying the Ten Plagues (7) "Against the Gods of Egypt" - Identifying the Ten Plagues and Timothy Sliedrecht’s: Against All Gods: Purpose of the Ten Plagues (7) Against All Gods: Purpose of the Ten Plagues Christopher Eames has also written well on this subject (2021): ‘Against All the Gods of Egypt’ God used the 10 plagues to send a powerful message to Egypt and the Israelites—and to us. The 10 plagues of Egypt constitute one of the strangest collections of miracles in the Bible. Water turned to blood, legions of frogs, dust turned to lice, boils—nowhere else in the Bible do we see such a peculiar display of divine judgment. Have you ever wondered why God sent such an eclectic mix of plagues? And why He sent 10? He could have easily crushed Egypt and freed the Israelites through just one plague. Why didn’t God just intensify plague number seven—the hail—and be done with it? There is a fascinating reason why God performed so many powerful and peculiar miracles. He didn’t send the 10 plagues to merely free the Israelites or to punish Egypt’s Pharaoh and his people. In Exodus 12:12, God says, “[A]gainst all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.” Egypt at the time was the world’s dominant power, and it possessed one of the most widespread, complex and ancient religions on Earth. God used the plagues to warn and punish an entire religious and political system—and to free an entire civilization from slavery to false religion! The One True God …. Through the 10 plagues, God was making Himself known to the Egyptians and to the Israelites. The Israelites actually experienced the first three plagues because they needed to learn who God was! Some experts believe that Egypt had a pantheon of as many as 2,000 pagan gods and goddesses. Through the plagues, God proved that He was the one and only all-powerful, divine Being of the universe. “And God said unto Moses: ‘I am that I am’” (Exodus 3:14). …. First Blood: Snake Gods It is notable that the first words Pharaoh uttered to Moses and Aaron concerned the identity of their God. “And Pharaoh said: ‘Who is the Lord, that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, and moreover I will not let Israel go’” (Exodus 5:2). To Pharaoh, Moses’s God was just another deity. But then Moses performed a miracle that showed God’s identity in relation to Pharaoh, his magicians and the Egyptian gods: “… Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their secret arts. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods” (Exodus 7:10-12). There is more to this event than meets the eye. To the ancient Egyptians, a snake swallowing other snakes was a known religious refrain. In Egyptian mythology, the powerful primordial snake god Nehebkau is considered the “original snake.” His image was depicted as a protective deity on ivory rods. Worship of him was especially popular at this time in Egypt’s history (middle second millennium b.c.e.). According to the Coffin Text Spells (ancient Egyptian mythological accounts inscribed around 2100 b.c.e.), Nehebkau swallowed seven cobras, giving him power against harm from any magic. The Hebrew snake swallowing the Egyptian snakes, in the name of the “God of Israel,” would have been a startling display of supremacy. …. 1. Water to Blood With the first plague, God struck Egypt’s most important resource: the Nile River. “[A]nd he [Aaron] lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood” (Exodus 7:20). The Nile provided Egypt with a constant source of fresh water. Its nutrient-rich floodplains were Egypt’s breadbasket. Turning the Nile to blood was another targeted attack on one of Egypt’s most important gods: Osiris, the god of fertility, vegetation and agriculture. The Egyptians considered the Nile River to be the “bloodstream” of Osiris. As the chief god of the Nile, Osiris gave life to the Egyptian empire. When God turned the Nile to literal blood, the river (and its god) became the source of widespread death and suffering. This miracle attacked other gods as well: Khnum, god of the source of the Nile; Hapi, the god who presided over annual flooding; Sopdet, goddess of fertility-brought-to-soil-by-Nile-floodwater. It also insulted other Egyptian deities, including Nu, Naunet, Tefnut, Nehet-Weret and the fish-goddess Hatmehit. …. Although Pharaoh’s magicians successfully replicated this plague, they couldn’t make it stop (verse 22). Deities such as Taweret—the pot-bellied, hippo-headed, crocodile-tailed “Mistress of Pure Water”—were not able to cleanse the Nile or all the other water that had likewise miraculously turned to blood (verse 19). God’s onslaught on the gods of the Nile River continued for one week. But Pharaoh still refused to obey God’s command. So Moses and Aaron returned to the royal court. 2. Frogs “Thus saith the Lord: Let My people go …. And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs. And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into thy house, and into thy bed-chamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy kneading-troughs” (Exodus 7:26-28). Besides being gross, this plague would have had a dramatic impact on the Egyptian mind. The best-known Egyptian frog deity is the goddess Heqet. Heqet, and frogs in general, symbolized childbirth and midwifery, as well as resurrection. These motifs are closely tied to the Israelite story in Egypt. To stop the immense population growth of the Israelites, Pharaoh had previously ordered that all newborn males be drowned by the midwives in the Nile (Exodus 1:15-22). Now, with the second plague, Pharaoh was inundated with these symbols of childbirth, midwifery and resurrection literally pouring back out of the Nile! Surely the symbolism was not lost on Pharaoh. …. [Etc., etc.]

King David’s Hymnody impacted ancient world

by Damien F. Mackey “Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten”. Facts About Religion There is an abundance of articles, and some YouTube videos, too, drawing parallels between the incredibly alike Psalm 104 of King David of Israel and pharaoh Akhnaton’s (Akhenaten’s) Hymn to the Aton (Aten). The following example neatly tabulates comparisons between these ancient texts: https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/psalm-104-is-almost-a-duplicate-of-the-egyptian-hymn-to-aten/ Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. What is really strange is that the Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336) who lived in an era when everyone believed in many gods, chose to believe in only one, Aten. In fact, many scholars have argued that Pharaoh Akhenaten is the earliest documented example of a monotheist in history, though others argue that he was a henotheist (thought many gods existed, but chose to worship only one.) What’s really curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible as a song of praise to the creator, though written hundreds of years before. Biblical scholars and historians disagree as to whether these two hymns are actually related by way of influencing one another, or whether both were independently written. In any case, the similarities are fascinating. A logical conclusion could be that King David (c. 1000 BC) was indebted to Akhnaton, more than three centuries before David, for the inspiration to compose his Psalm 104. Some would put it more bluntly. It was a case of plagiarism on the part of the Bible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDI3cMDzqEY Biblical Plagariasm? | Akhenaten’s Hymn to Aten Vs. Psalm 104 | Audiobook And so we must suppose it must have been - that is, until Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky turned things upside down and inside out in his Ages in Chaos (1952) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960) reconstructions of ancient history, demonstrating that pharaoh Akhnaton actually belonged to the C9th BC, rather than to the C14th - necessitating now that King David could not possibly have known about Akhnaton and his Hymn, whose advents were still some centuries in the future. From this superior chronological base, Dr. Velikovsky was able most convincingly to identify a succession of Syrian (Amurru) kings approximately contemporaneous with Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) age, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad and his successor Hazael – two mighty Syrian kings well known from the Old Testament. This was an aspect of Dr. Velikovsky’s challenging revision that was very well received. Already, his new revision (written far earlier than today’s so-called New Chronology), was proving itself to be fruitful. See my recent article: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (5) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And it doesn’t stop there. I, building on this far preferable chronology for Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) period, have been able to show that Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru/Hazael composite was the same ruler as the Syrian ‘condottiere’, Arsa (Irsu)/Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, who invaded Egypt and who overthrew the gods there. AI Overview “The "Arsa (Irsu)" or Aziru mentioned in the Great Harris Papyrus is a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods …”. Dr. Velikovsky had really missed a trick here. From there, it not such a great step to identify the foreign invader, Aziru/Hazael/Arsa, as pharaoh Akhnaton himself who so greatly undermined the national Egyptian gods. And, as one will find upon reading my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (5) Akhnaton's Theophany the new chronology cuts even deeper yet, into the Bible, fully accounting for Akhnaton’s celebrated monotheism – for monotheism (not henotheism, or something else) indeed it was. With EA re-located now to the C9th BC, then the United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon, c. 1000 BC) could be estimated by Dr. Velikovsky to have corresponded in time with the rise of the magnificent Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (c. C16th BC, conventional dating) – in whose later stages we encounter Akhnaton. Relevant for this article is Dr. Velikovsky’s establishing of twin pillars of revision: Hatshepsut as the biblical “Queen Sheba” and pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem shortly after King Solomon had passed away. These twin identifications have had to undergo a rocky ground-breaking of trial and error, however, before they could be securely established as pillars of revision. For Dr. Velikovsky, an intuitive genius who could arrive at right identifications, often took quite wrong paths, adopting spurious methodologies and archaeologies, to get there. Quite the opposite of some of his critics, who, fussing over and analysing minute details, and belabouring the reader with endless charts and numbers, hardly ever seem to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. For my same conclusions as Dr. Velikovsky in these two instances, but with significantly different arguments, see e.g., for “Sheba”: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife (8) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife and: The Queen of Beer(sheba) (8) The Queen of Beer(sheba) While, for “Shishak”, see: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (8) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem That background sets us up, now, to consider Davidic (Solomonic) and biblical influence in the inscriptions of Hatshepsut, who had grown up as a princess in Israel. In my article: Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba I gave the following examples in which biblical wisdom can be glimpsed amidst the stiff and formulaïc Egyptian inscriptions: …. Scriptural Influence (i) An Image from Genesis After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ …. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie … noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation. Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's ‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ …. with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) …. (ii) An Image from the Psalms When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that …: ‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’. In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues, ‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’. Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer: ‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah. ‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’ (iii) An Image from Proverbs In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom …: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’. Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal … says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10. (iv) Images from the Song of Songs In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts ….: ‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5). [Hyam] Maccoby … went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby …: l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian. 2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman. 3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10). 4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native reli¬gion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome politi-cal and religious implications. 5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her. What has been presented here probably represents only a very small portion of Israel’s wisdom influence upon the ancient nations. The only other theme that I shall touch on here, most relevant to King David of Israel, is the notion of the king as shepherd. I have already written something about this in my article: Shepherd King contemporaries of King David (10) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). CONTEMPORARY SHEPHERD KINGS One could describe David’s life during his service to King Saul, as, ‘never a dull moment’. King Saul was indeed a mercurial character, totally unpredictable. Naturally, Samuel had been nervous about visiting Jesse of Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing one of his sons to the kingship (I Samuel 16:1-2): The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king’. But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me’. Even the wise Samuel had been inclined to judge by appearances (“height”) the worth of Jesse’s sons (v. 6): “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD’.” But, in an interesting glimpse into the Lord’s thinking, we then read (v. 7): “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” Had not Saul himself, who would so miserably fail as king, been a man of the most striking height and appearance (I Samuel 9:2): “Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else”? David, the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, was not even present (v. 11): “‘There is still the youngest’, Jesse answered. ‘He is tending the sheep’.” It is this characteristic that would mark David’s kingship, ‘tending his sheep’. He was, like Jesus Christ, a true “Shepherd King”, modelling himself upon “the Lord [who was his] Shepherd” (Psalm 22, Douay). Kings at this time (revised) came to describe themselves from this time onwards as Shepherds. For example (Hammurabi Stele): I, Hammurabi, the shepherd, have gathered abundance and plenty, have stormed the four quarters of the world, have magnified the fame of Babylon, and have elated the mind of Marduk my lord. And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, was an older contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. According to Timothy S. Laniak (Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, p. 63): “By the beginning of the second millennium BC [sic] Akkadian and Amorite kings were using conventional shepherd language to describe themselves”. When David - young, but mature beyond his years - indignant at the mockery being publicly and loudly uttered by the Gath-ite champion, Goliath - ‘defying the armies of the living God’ - was told by King Saul that he was not experienced enough to fight against the Philistine, he will apprise the king of the extreme dangers that he had already faced as a shepherd: ‘When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it …’. Here follows David’s exchange on this occasion with King Saul (I Samuel 17:32-37): David said to Saul, ‘Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him’. Saul replied, ‘You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth’. But David said to Saul, ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine’. Saul said to David, ‘Go, and the LORD be with you’. Young David had been taking supplies from his father Jesse back to his three oldest brothers, and then returning “to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (vv. 14-19). Now these were the very three sons, the “firstborn was Eliab; the second, Abinadab; and the third, Shammah”, whom Samuel had first considered for the anointing (I Samuel 16:6-9). Yet here they were frozen almost to a standstill in the face of the angry Goliath (“all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified”), while David, the youngest of them, was aflame with indignation. It is a famous story (17:1-11): Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, ‘Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us’. Then the Philistine said, ‘This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other’. On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. Eliab, the oldest of Jesse’s boys, the one upon whom Samuel had first fastened, would severely reprimand his youngest brother for intruding into the army’s affairs, also implying that David may have been neglecting their father’s sheep. But we had already been told that David, who was only obeying his father’s instructions, anyway, had “left the flock in the care of a shepherd”. Here follows the feisty David’s exchanges with the Israelite soldiers and with Eliab (vv. 20-31): Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, ‘Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel’. David asked the men standing near him, ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’ They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, ‘This is what will be done for the man who kills him’. When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, ‘Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle’. ‘Now what have I done?’ said David. ‘Can’t I even speak?’ He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him. It has been said: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. King Saul’s armour, which the huge Benjaminite wore easily, was nothing but cumbersome to the smaller man, David. To use another saying, it fell ‘all over him like a cheap suit’. Vv. 38-39: Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. ‘I cannot go in these’, he said to Saul, ‘because I am not used to them’ So he took them off”. Then, it is back to his shepherding experience (v. 40): “Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”. Christians can regard David’s “five smooth stones”, symbolically, as the five wounds of Christ, and again, with the “sling”, as the five-decade Rosary. Thus Frits Albers introduced his book, “… five smooth stones …” (1998).

Regarding William H. Shea’s valiant attempts to identify Darius the Mede

by Damien F. Mackey “A prominent feature of this theory is that the author supposed that there was a separate Median kingdom between the rule of the Babylonians and the Persians. Evidence for this comes in particular from the figure of Darius the Mede who is taken as ruler over an independent Median kingdom. Since no such kingdom is known—and hence no such ruler, either—the book of Daniel is seen as lacking historicity, a product of a late and geographically-removed author”. Dr. William H. Shea Articles that include mention of Darius the Mede tend to occupy themselves with the question: Who was Darius the Mede?, rather than to offer any viable solution to the problem. And a problem it has proven to be. Steven D. Anderson, in Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (2014), will begin with an Introduction to the Problem, as follows: The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31[E] / 6:1[MT]; cf. Dan 11:1). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, mainstream scholarship affirms that there never was such a person as Darius the Mede. The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions. …. [End of quote] William H. Shea will do his best to identify the elusive Darius the Mede in his article, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian setting” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1991, Vol. 29, No. 3, 235-257). Let us find out what he had to say. In his Introduction, Dr. Shea will recall a former view of his, that Darius the Mede was Gubaru the governor of Babylonia, and professor Lester L. Grabbe’s criticism of this: As an introduction to proposing his own theory about the unhistorical Darius the Mede, Grabbe has reviewed the various identifications proposed for Darius by various conservative interpreters. In concluding his review of J. C. Whitcomb's theory that Darius the Mede was Gubaru/ Gobryas, the governor of Babylonia from the middle of the reign of Cyrus to the middle of the reign of Cambyses, Grabbe affirms there is no evidence for it. In his review of my own work on this subject, Grabbe has also concluded, "Once it is recognized that Gubaru (the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus) did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates." 2 Il-ester L. Grabbe, " Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede'," CBQ 50 (April 1988): 198-213. Next, Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman is brought into the picture, again as the target of Lester Grabbe: Grabbe has reserved the most unkind cut of all for D. J. Wiseman, the distinguished Assyriologist who published the chronicles of the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar. …. Wiseman advanced the theory that Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus. He based this conclusion on an epexegetical or explicative translation of the waw in Dan 6:28, "the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Let us stop right here. D.J. Wiseman was perfectly correct, I believe, in his proposing that Darius the Mede was Cyrus ‘the Great’. If in doubt, bring in a Wise Man (Wiseman). D.J. and his father P.J. have made an enormous contribution to biblical studies. See also my article: Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP (7) Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP D.J. Wiseman’s is the identification that I, myself, have embraced. See for example my article: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (7) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' and, again: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue But Darius the Mede/Cyrus was also the Neriglissar of the neo-Babylonian king lists: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (3) Why "Darius the Mede" is like a needle in a haystack And was, I further suspect, King Nebuchednezzar’s “chief of court officials”, Ashpenaz: Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede With the removal out of the way of the major complication of: Who was Darius the Mede? we can now try to sort out those other significant characters, Gubaru and Cambyses, the former of whom Dr. Shea had once touted as a potential Darius the Mede. …. When new primary historical sources appear, the time comes to examine old historical theories. With the publication of additional neo-Babylonian contract tablets in the Cuneiform Text series from the British Museum … that is now the case with the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. What those tablets have now demonstrated precisely is where the Babylonian coregency of Cambyses should be located. They have done this by providing tablets whose dates overlap the end of Nabonidus' reign and the beginning of Persian rule dated in terms of the coregent year of Cambyses. … There could be no more convincing demonstration that the one (partial) year of Cambyses' coregency belongs in the first year of Cyrus' rule over Babylonia as "king of lands," beginning in the spring of 538 B.C. In past studies I have equivocated on this point … but with this new evidence in hand, there can be no question about it: Cambyses ruled Babylon with Cyrus from 1/1, in the spring of 538 B.C., until sometime between IX/25 and X/ 1 of that same year. At this time the contract tablets drop Cambyses' name and transfer his title, "king of Babylon," to Cyrus. …. …. Six of these tablets carry titularies with datelines which refer to the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses which I have discussed previously in connection with the subject of Darius the Mede. The dates and titles in question read as follows: Text Date CT 55:731 Xl/-/l Cambyses (no title), Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:142 Cambyses, King of Lands, Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:149 11/7/1 Cambyses, King of Babylon, Cyrus, King [broken} CT 56:294 [brokenl Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:345 11/18/1 Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:369 [broken] Cyrus, King [broken], Cambyses, [broken] …. Based on this evidence, Dr. Shea will now be able to rule out Gubaru (Ugbaru) as having any possible claim to being Darius the Mede, as, say, a sub-king to Cyrus. The conclusion that Cambyses ruled Babylon as coregent with his father in 538 B.C. eliminates the possibility that Gubaru (Ugbaru), Cyrus' general who captured Babylon, might have served as king or quasi-king of Babylon at that time. A coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus might be acceptable, but a tri-regency involves too many rulers of Babylon to be historically reasonable. Since dates in Darius the Mede's first year are given twice in Daniel (9:1 and 11:1), Gubaru no longer is a reasonable candidate for that identification. His place in history has shrunk to the point that his identification with Darius in Daniel can no longer be sustained. …. But before we take this any further, I must ask who was Gubaru (Ugbaru), whose governorship of Babylon under Cyrus was apparently extremely short – far too short for him to qualify as a Darius the Mede? Well, I have identified this Gubaru (Ugbaru) with Ubāru, the long-time governor of Babylon under King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, in the latter’s guise as Esarhaddon. And this Ubāru I have identified, in turn, as Daniel himself: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (3) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru Dr. Shea now found himself free to embrace D.J. Wiseman’s insightful identification of Darius the Mede: …. With these points firmly established from the cuneiform evidence, we may now return to the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. Where does this new information leave us? It rules out both [sic] of the Gubarus as potential candidates for Darius the Mede. In that case we should examine another candidate who had previously been rejected for reasons which were not altogether sound. I would like to suggest that the one suggested by D. J. Wiseman—Cyrus himself—is the most appropriate identification to propose here as the correct one. …. As a matter of fact, I would like to suggest that once this proposal is appreciated in the way it should be, the data from the biblical text and ancient Near Eastern historical sources fit together in a manner that is harmonious and consonant to a major degree. The identification of Cyrus as Darius the Mede explains difficulties in the biblical text which had never been previously explained. If convergence of data is the test for a theory, the convergence present here offers strong support for this proposal, first put forward by Wiseman. …. (1) Darius the Mede has been identified with King Cyrus (D.J. Wiseman and Dr. Shea), and (2) Gubaru (Ugbaru) has been identified as Daniel, in his rôle as (long-term) governor of Babylon, Ubāru (Mackey), under Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar). Daniel 2:48-49: Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. It remains to identify (3) the sub-king to Cyrus, Cambyses. The key to this situation, I think, is that, just before the demise of King Belshazzar, he made Daniel third in the kingdom. Why third?: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (4) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? King Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach, had already exalted Jehoiachin of Judah to second (2 Kings 25:27-30). While Daniel would shortly pass from the scene, “Jehoiachin the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17) would be exalted again under King Cyrus (Ahasuerus), as “Haman … the Captive” [my favoured translation] (Esther 3:1-2): After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. Haman’s name was actually Egyptian (Amon): Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (6) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name So I am presuming that his Medo-Persian given name, which he must have had, was Cambyses – not to be confused with the mighty king Cambyses, who conquered Egypt.

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

by Damien F. Mackey “… there are no well-known visual images like statues or large-scale reliefs of [Nabopolassar] …” AI Overview This fact ought not surprise us anymore, as we have found the number of significant rulers of antiquity who have none, to little, visual representation - under a particular name - to be growing. Thus see my article: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (5) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates Based on Nabopolassar’s presumed reign of about 21 years, and the fact that he is supposed to have preceded, as father, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself, I had come to the fairly confident conclusion that Nabopolassar must have been king Sennacherib, the Assyrian, under a Babylonian name (as conqueror of Babylon). Sennacherib would later, of course, go on to destroy Babylon. What is well known is that Esarhaddon - usually designated as a son of Sennacherib - had succeeded Sennacherib, and had promptly rebuilt Babylon. With my new identification in mind, Nabopolassar = Sennacherib, I had reinterpreted the standard Chaldean king list, for instance as set out by Marc Van de Mieroop, in his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC., pp. 292-293 (I had taken the liberty of including Belshazzar here): Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar [II] Evil-Merodach Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus [Belshazzar] … Cyrus in accordance with the sequence of kings as given in the Book of Daniel (chapter 5). This led me to the following re-shaping of the king list: Assyrian Nabopolassar (= Sennacherib) Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach = Belshazzar Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede/Cyrus But, while I still embrace the other identifications, I would no longer accept that Nabopolassar was Sennacherib, but that Nabopolassar was Nebuchednezzar himself, whom I now realise has been triplicated in the Chaldean lists (as Nabopolassar; as Nebuchednezzar; as Nabonidus). That would now mean that Nabopolassar reigned for about twice the period typically estimated for him - just as Esarhaddon and Nabonidus (other alter egos of Nebuchednezzar) must have reigned substantially longer than is generally thought. Nabopolassar has certain traits that one can find variously in Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon, Nabonidus – e.g., a Nabu name; not expecting to become king; building in Babylon with careful attention to the original layout of temples; extreme piety and superstition; mention of Zarpanitu (Zarpanitum: Esarhaddon); inspecting old foundations (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus as ‘archaeologist’); carrying baskets/bricks (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus); finding ancient royal Akkadian statue (Nabonidus). The following quotes are taken from: (5) Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Israel Museum, Jerusalem JERUSALEM 2003 NABOPOLASSAR AND THE ANTIQUITY OF BABYLON PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU …. The new Imgur-Enlil cylinder of Nabopolassar …. Of particular interest is the fourth section, which reads as follows: …. Nabopolassar, the humble one, the submissive one, the worshipper of Nabü and Marduk, the shepherd who pleases Panunanki (i.e. Zarpanitu), the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past … the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations, the one who wields the hoe of the Igigi, the one who carries the corvée basket of the Anunnaki, the builder of Imgur-Enlil for Marduk, my lord, I, in order that no future king whosoever remove my well-chosen words, (and) in order that no words are made to supersede my speech, I swore the oath of Marduk, my lord, and of my god: "(Woe on me) if my utterances are not true, but false!" At that time I found the royal statue of one of my predecessors who had (re)built that wall and, in a secure place, in the great foundations, together with my own statue, I placed (it) for eternity. Since Nabopolassar claims, just after recording his oath, to have found the royal statue of one of his predecessors "who had (re)built that wall," the conclusion follows that he had unearthed an inscribed statue of a king of Agade, very similar to those that were still in public view during the Old Babylonian period and from which scribes of that period copied inscriptions of Sargonic rulers. Thus, without directly naming any of them, Nabopolassar connects himself with the legendary kings of Agade. My comment: The same with King Nabonidus: “[Nabonidus] saw in this sacred enclosure [Ebabbar] a statue of Sargon … half of its head was missing …. Given his reverence for the gods and his respect for kingship, he … restored the head of this statue, and put back its face”. A closer look at the fourth section of the new Imgur-Enlil cylinder reveals further elements highlighting the programmatic character of the inscription. The very activities of searching for old monumental texts, of digging the city's most ancient foundations and of restoring them are claimed by the king as components of his titulary: "the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past, the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations." It is also very craftily devised as a mise en abyme, a miniature royal inscription within a royal inscription, complete with name of king, titulary, object of rebuilding, and laying of foundation deposit. The mise en abyme and direct quotation of foundation deposits of previous rulers occurs in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. In the present case, however, by depositing his own statue next to the statue of the Old Akkadian king whose inscription he quite literally appropriates, Nabopolassar performs nothing less than a mise en abyme of his royal persona. The new king is looking at his own ancient reflection as if in a reducing glass, digging deep into the ground to scrutinize his own distant image in the remotest foundations of his capital. …. The author has also noted in this article that: “Nabopolassar was, of his own avowal, a mär lä mammäna, literally a "son of a nobody …”. Ashurbanipal, likewise, had not expected to rule: https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-ashurbanipal Despite being one of Assyria's greatest kings, Ashurbanipal wasn't destined for the throne …. ‘At the command of the great gods, [my father] greatly preferred me over the assembly of my elder brothers’. Likewise, again, with Nabonidus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus “The origins of Nabonidus are obscure, with the scarce available details about him leaving much room for interpretation and speculation. In one of his inscriptions, Nabonidus states the following: …. ‘I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship’. Having established that Nabopolassar was likely the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, with his various significant alter egos, then one ought to be able to find many further correlations between the reign of Nabopolassar, of the composite Nebuchednezzar.

Comparing Ashurnasirpal so called II to Chaldean Nebuchednezzar the Great

by Damien F. Mackey Dreams, visions, superstition, megalomania, cruelty, fiery furnace, messing with the rites, building of Babylon, mysterious and enduring illness, madness, conquest of Egypt - these were some of the ‘symptoms’ exhibited by the bunch of Assyro-Babylonian (Persian) ‘kings’ whom I have lumped together as being various faces of the one historical Nebuchednezzar. Names such as: Esarhaddon who, deliberately reading the specified ritual number upside down, rebuilt Babylon, who also suffered a long, dreadful and alienating illness, and who attacked Egypt. Ashurbanipal whose 43-year reign was the same length as Nebuchednezzar’s, who apparently had a burning fiery furnace, and who absolutely smashed Egypt. Nabonidus who is regarded by some biblical commentators and historians as being the true model for the ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ of the Book of Daniel. Highly pious, superstitious, suffering from madness and foreboding dreams. Cambyses who was also quite mad, and whose other name was “Nebuchednezzar”, and who, too, conquered Egypt. Now I have some new candidates for consideration, Ashurnasirpal (especially II) and Nabopolassar (yet to be integrated), neither of whom have I found easy to place in a revised context. Ashurnasirpal has been, to date, a real headache for revisionists to place in any satisfactory way. And that same statement applies even more to his supposed son, Shalmaneser III, a great king who initially ended up straddling the mid-C9th BC right where Dr. I. Velikovsky had located the El Amarna [EA] period, prompting Velikovsky to attempt identifying Shalmaneser III with the Kassite ruler of Babylonia at the time of EA, Burnaburiash II (c. 1359 – 1333 BC, conventional dates). My suggested folding of ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyria “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death”. Following on from my identification of Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I as the neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib (a connection originally suggested by Phillip Clapham): Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti-Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib I must now consider the possibility that “Ashurnasirpal”, said to have been the son-successor of a Tukulti-Ninurta (II), was the actual successor of Sennacherib, that is, Esarhaddon, who is, in turn, in my scheme of things, Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar "As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death ...”. Admittedly this is something of a long stretch in the present scheme of things. While, fittingly, the father of Tukulti-Ninurta I is said to have been a Shalmaneser – just as in my revision the father of (Sargon II =) Sennacherib was a Shalmaneser, his son is said to have been one Ashur-nadin-apli. Tukulti-Ninurta II, on the other hand, who was the father of Ashurnasirpal II, is said to have had a father named Adad-nirari (II). Tukulti-Ninurta II, though, does not even rate a mention in the index at the back of Marc Van de Mieroop’s text, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. Putting it all together, I would tentatively suggest this sequence: Shalmaneser (I, III); Tukulti-Ninurta (I, II); Ashur-nadin-apli-Ashurnasirpal (I, II) equates to, respectively: Shalmaneser (V); Sargon II-Sennacherib; Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar “In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, [Ashurnasirpal II] really was “king of the world”.” Joshua J. Mark Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Joshua J. Mark continues: Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel creature, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... [Ashurnasirpal] reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this series - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was by no means his “son”, but was his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was, in fact, very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” …. While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing, then he most certainly conquered Phoenicia, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites …. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Joshua J. Mark continues: Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he ‘possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world, the exalted shepherd, the powerful torrent that none can withstand, he who has overcome all mankind, whose hand has conquered all lands and taken all the mountain ranges” (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire”. “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayers. Faithfully look upon me and hear my supplication. Promise my forgiveness and let thy spirit be appeased. Pity! For my wretched body which is full of confusion and trouble. Pity! For my sickened heart which is full of tears and suffering. Pity! For my wretched intestines (which are full of) confusion and trouble. Pity! For my afflicted house which mourns bitterly. Pity! For my feelings which are satiated with tears and suffering. O exalted Irnini, fierce lion, let thy heart be at rest. O angry wild ox, let thy spirit be appeased. Let the favor of thine eyes be upon me. With thy bright features look faithfully upon me. Drive away the evil spells of my body (and) let me see thy bright light. How long, O my Lady, shall my adversaries be looking upon me, In lying and untruth shall they plan evil against me, Shall my pursuers and those who exult over me rage against me? How long, O my Lady, shall the crippled and weak seek me out? One has made for me long sackcloth; thus I have appeared before thee. The weak have become strong; but I am weak. I toss about like flood-water, which an evil wind makes violent. My heart is flying; it keeps fluttering like a bird of heaven. I mourn like a dove night and day. I am beaten down, and so I weep bitterly. With "Oh" and "Alas" my spirit is distressed. I - what have I done, O my god and my goddess? Like one who does not fear my god and my goddess I am treated; While sickness, headache, loss, and destruction are provided for me; So are fixed upon me terror, disdain, and fullness of wrath, Anger, choler, and indignation of gods and men. I have to expect, O my Lady, dark days, gloomy months, and years of trouble. I have to expect, O my Lady, judgment of confusion and violence. Death and trouble are bringing me to an end. Silent is my chapel; silent is my holy place; Over my house, my gate, and my fields silence is poured out. As for my god, his face is turned to the sanctuary of another. My family is scattered; my roof is broken up. (But) I have paid heed to thee, my Lady; my attention has been turned to thee. To thee have I prayed; forgive my debt. Forgive my sin, my iniquity, my shameful deeds, and my offence. Overlook my shameful deeds; accept my prayer; Loosen my fetters; secure my deliverance; Guide my steps aright; radiantly like a hero let me enter the streets with the living. ....