Jehu king of Israel was not the squeamish type

by Damien F. Mackey “When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters all forty-two of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14)”. Ruth Walfish King Jehu of Israel may find his alter ego in King Zimri of Israel, as I have previously suggested: Following the pattern of kings and events that I have established in my articles revising the biblico-history of the northern kingdom of Israel, Zimri, who destroyed the House of Baasha, could only be Jehu, who wiped out the entire House of Ahab (= Baasha). This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that Queen Jezebel actually refers to Jehu as ‘Zimri’ (2 Kings 9:31): ֵהוּא, בָּא בַשָּׁעַר; וַתֹּאמֶר הֲשָׁלוֹם, זִמְרִי הֹרֵג אֲדֹנָיו Some translations of this verse go to extremes to make it clear that Jehu and Zimri are, as is generally thought, two different kings. For instance, Contemporary English Version offers this: “As he walked through the city gate, she shouted down to him, "Why did you come here, you murderer? To kill the king? You're no better than Zimri!"” The Hebrew does not appear to me to justify such a translation, “You're no better than Zimri!” Conventionally speaking, Zimri, of course, had preceded Jehu by about 45 years. However, one is left thinking that there must be more to Zimri than his impossibly short reign (I Kings 16:15): “Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days”, the shortest reign of all the kings. Consequently, articles have been written suggesting that Zimri was ‘no flash in the pan’. Are we really expected to believe that Zimri, had, in the mere space of a week, done all this? (vv. 11-13): As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu— because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols. And that he had managed to be this bad? (vv. 19-20): So he died, because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit. As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? This all sounds just like Jehu – substituting Ahab for Baasha (2 Kings 10:17): When Jehu came to Samaria, he killed all who were left there of Ahab’s family; he destroyed them, according to the word of the LORD spoken to Elijah. And vv. 28-29: So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel. However, he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit—the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. And v. 34: As for the other events of Jehu’s reign, all he did, and all his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Saul M. Olyan has compared Jehu with Zimri, in “2 Kings 9:31. Jehu as Zimri” (The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 78, No. ½, Jan-Apr, 1985), though without his having any thought that Jehu might have been Zimri (pp. 203-204): A number of arguments have been presented by scholars who have attempted to explain the somewhat cryptic words of Jezebel to Jehu when he entered the palace gate of Jezreel: hăšālôm zimrî hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw ("Is it well [with] Zimri, murderer of his lord?" or "Is it peace ...?”). Is Jezebel trying to seduce Jehu, as S. Parker recently argued? .... Is she assuming a defiant posture and taunting him proudly? .... Or is the narrative simply too ambiguous to determine her motives? .... What is the writer’s use of the name Zimri meant to convey? Undoubtedly, Zimri in biblical Hebrew is a hypocoristicon of a fuller name like ... zamaryaw/ -yahū. “Yahweh has protected” or “Yahweh has defended”, from the root zmr ... "to be strong”. .... A Samaria Ostracon of the early eighth century BCE preserves the name, b‘lzmr, and the name zmryhw appears on a Hebrew seal. Now the historical Zimri, to whom Jezebel no doubt alludes ... was a chariot commander who killed his king, Elah the son of Baasha and all and all of Baasha's house, and ruled over Israel for only seven days. Mackey’s comment: While Saul M. Olyan will continue on here with what is the apparent sequence of events in the biblical narrative, with Omri succeeding Zimri, I personally think that the Gibbethon incident where Baasha puts an end to king Nadab (House of Jeroboam) (I Kings 15:25-28) may have been partially re-visited with Omri now supposedly besieging Gibbethon, and then succeeding Zimri – which I do not believe could actually have been the case. In reaction to Zimri's coup, the army made Omri king. Zimri perished by suicide in Tirzah soon after (1 Kgs 16:8-20). These events occurred in the twenty-seventh year of Asa's reign [sic] in Judah (ca 886) ... only about forty-five years before Jehu's own coup. The parallels are obvious and striking. Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], was a chariot commander who conspired against his lord the king, and wiped out the ruling house in the fashion of the popular northern coup (see 2 Kings 10). In light of these close parallels, the arguments of Parker, who claims that Jezebel was not taunting Jehu when she called him "Zimri," .... are less than convincing. Clearly, such an allusion to a recent, failed coup attempt by a fellow charioteer was intended as a taunt, as was the title hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw, “murderer of his lord”. Jezebel's words imply that Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], will fail: he will not last more than a week, and the people will not accept him, just as they did not accept Zimri. .... [End of quote] For Queen Jezebel as a real historical person, see e.g. my article: Queen Jezebel makes guest appearances in El Amarna https://www.academia.edu/37756175/Queen_Jezebel_makes_guest_appearances_in_El_Amarna Ruth Walfish has, in the Jewish Biblical Quarterly, drawn some helpful character likenesses between Jehu and Ishmael the rebel at the time of the prophet Jeremiah: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/491/jbq_491_walfishjehu.pdf JEHU BEN NIMSHI IN LIGHT OF ISHMAEL BEN NETHANIAH: AN INNER-BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION Pp. 31-33: …. The following are the parallels that can be drawn between the rebellion of Jehu and the uprising of Ishmael: 1. DECEIT Ishmael deceives Gedaliah by participating in the assembly of the officers who are ostensibly supporting Gedaliah (Jer. 40:7-8). Ironically, Gedaliah accuses Johanan of deceit, when the latter apprises him of Ishmael`s intention to murder him (ibid, 16). Gedaliah persists in believing in Ishmael`s innocence, and this lays the groundwork for Ishmael`s second appearance at Mizpah, where he and his men eat a festive meal with Gedaliah, as an expression of their loyalty to him. Immediately afterwards, Ishmael rises up and with the aid of his ten accomplices, murders Gedaliah, as well as all the Jews and Chaldeans who have gathered around him (ibid 41:1-3). He later meets a group of pilgrims from the north who are bringing grain offerings to the Temple (ibid 5-6), and pretends to be crying over the destruction of the homeland. …. He further pretends that Gedaliah is alive and invites them to Mizpah, thus trapping them and murdering them as well. Jehu is a master of deceit. He assassinates King Jehoram, under whom he had served as general. Jehoram, surprised by the attack upon him, warns Ahaziah, king of Judah, "Treachery, Ahaziah" (II Kings 9:23). In another instance, Jehu pretends to be a worshipper of Baal, and gathers together all the Baal priests for a grand sacrifice. As Scripture attests, "But Jehu dealt deviously (be`okba`) in order to destroy the servants of Baal (ibid 10:19). The root ekev is consistently used in the Bible as a negative term. Jehu warns the guards outside that if any Baal priest escapes, they will pay for it with their lives. Then he and his soldiers proceed to murder all the Baal worshippers (ibid 19-26). The interplay of truth/falsity characterizes both stories. 2. SLAUGHTER ALONGSIDE A PIT When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters RUTH WALFISH JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY 32 all forty-two of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14). In both cases the term for murder is vayishatem/vayishatum, implying a massacre. These are the only two cases in the Bible where the terms bor and shahat appear together. Both Ishmael and Jehu demonstrate an almost offhand brand of viciousness that is quite chilling. 3. MURDER OF THE INNOCENT As stated above, Ishmael murdered Gedaliah and his followers, as well as most of the pilgrims who were tricked by him into believing that Ishmael supported Gedaliah and was inviting them to meet him. The killings that Jehu carries out bear a resemblance to the latter. Although Jehu was mandated to wipe out the house of Ahab (II Kings 9:7), it is questionable whether Ahaziah, King of Judah, the son-in-law of Ahab, was to be included in this dictate. It is even less credible that Jehu was instructed to kill the brothers of Ahaziah. Just as Ishmael had not planned the murder of the pilgrims, but did so spontaneously in order to prevent word of Gedaliah`s assassination from being discovered, so Jehu had not set out to attack Ahaziah`s brothers, but rather happened upon them. The latter were on their way to visit their relatives, clearly unaware that Jehoram and Ahaziah had been killed at the hand of Jehu, just as the pilgrims were unaware of Gedaliah`s murder. Both Ishmael and Jehu took advantage of the innocence of their victims and cut them down on the spot. It is rare in the Bible to find instances of mass slaughter precipitated by a chance meeting. It is also questionable whether Jehu had to murder all the Baal worshippers in a vast slaughterhouse. As Rosenson points out, Jehu, as king, could have brought them to trial when he saw fit to do so. 4. THE REMNANT Johanan ben Kareah warns Gedaliah that Ishmael is a traitor, who will kill Gedaliah, as a result of which the remnant of Judah will perish (Jer. 40, 15). Subsequently, we read that Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people …all the people remaining at Mizpah . . . (Jer. 41:10). Similarly, And Jehu struck down all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel . . . till he left him no remnant (II Kgs. 10:11; see also verse 17). Both men are presented as callously wiping out or capturing those who are their perceived enemies. 5. THE AFTERMATH Ishmael`s uprising against Gedaliah leads to the self-imposed exile to Egypt of the remnant of Judah, this despite Jeremiah`s prediction that they will be safe in Judah but endangered in Egypt (Jer. 42:7-22). Likewise, the story of Jehu ends not with a glorious victory, as one might have expected, given his obedience to God, but rather with a somber note of defeat: But Jehu did not watch out to go by the teaching of the Lord… the Lord began to trim away Israel, and Hazael struck them down through all the borderland of Israel… (II Kgs. 10:31-32). Despite the praise that Jehu receives for wiping out the house of Ahab and the Baal worship, the final word is one of failure. ….

Sennacherib’s oldest son triplicated

by Damien F. Mackey I have detected a telling X-NADIN-SHUMI name pattern in connection with the rule of ancient Babylon: 1. Sennacherib would place his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, upon the throne of Babylon. 2. A Ninurta-nadin-shumi would precede Nebuchednezzar so-called I upon the throne of Babylon. 3. Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I’s contemporary, Enlil-nadin-shumi, would take his place upon the throne of Babylon. So what, one might say! Well, in the context of my revision, this all would be the one and the same historical situation. Allow me to explain. A. First Ramifications 1. Sennacherib, conventionally dated to c. 700 BC, placed upon the throne of Babylon his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, who later dies and is replaced by Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s youngest ‘son’. D. T. Potts writes: “For reasons which are not entirely clear, as heir presumptive following the abduction (and presumably execution) of his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib had chosen his youngest son, Esarhaddon, bypassing three older children (see the discussion in Porter 1993: 16ff.)”. (The Archaeology of Elam, p. 274) 2. Ninurta-nadin-shumi, preceding as he does in the king-lists Nebuchednezzar, known as I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating), on the throne of Babylon, is sometimes wrongly considered to have been the father of this Nebuchednezzar. However, with my identification of: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (4) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, who, in turn, was Esarhaddon (see also my): Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ninurta-nadin-shumi must merge into Ashur-nadin-shumi, now in c. 700 BC. The sequence in 1. and 2. is consistent: (Sennacherib) X-nadin-shumi Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) 3. Enlil-nadin-shumi will sit upon the throne of Babylon during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta (c. 1200 BC, conventional dating), whom I have confidently identified as Sennacherib: Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? (5) Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus, again, our sequence: Sennacherib (= Tukulti-Ninurta) X-nadin-shumi (Esarhaddon = Nebuchednezzar) C13th/C12th BC Assyro-Babylonia needs to be slid down the time scale and re-located in the C8th BC period. A perfect example of this required chronological adjustment is to be found in the succession of Shutrukid Elamite kings of the supposed C12th BC perfectly paralleling those of the C8th BC, according to what I tabulated in my university thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 180): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (5) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! B. Second Ramifications D. T. Potts (above) is not too far wrong in referring to “the abduction (and presumably execution) of [Sennacherib’s] eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi …”. For Ashur-nadin-shumi, the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of the Book of Tobit (14:10), was also the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, the Assyrian Commander-in-chief, who was indeed “executed”: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (5) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, though, we can add some more to this. “Holofernes”/Nadin was, all at once, Enlil-/Ninurta-/Ashur-nadin-shumi, the oldest son of Tukulti-Ninurta/Sennacherib. Upon his execution, this one-time ruler of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-27) was succeeded on the throne by Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar, with whom there commenced a new dynasty (Chaldean). If Esarhaddon-Nebuchednezzar is to be looked for in the Book of Judith, he can only be “Bagoas”, second to “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (5) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sennacherib’s oldest son may, in fact, have been quadruplicated in the person of the ill-fated Sin-nadin-apli, wrongly thought to have been the oldest son of Esarhaddon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ama%C5%A1-%C5%A1uma-ukin “… the crown prince Sin-nadin-apli. …. Upon the unexpected death of Sin-nadin-apli [the Judith incident?] … the Assyrian court was thrown into upheaval”.

Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “In view of the notoriety of Piankhi [Piye], as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery”. Displaced Dynasties Better not blink or you might miss it. Thus we have, to name a few, those: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the: Great King Omri missing from Chronicles https://www.academia.edu/42235075/Great_King_Omri_missing_from_Chronicles and, again: Nero’s missing architecture (6) Nero's missing architecture | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Even: Henry VIIIs palaces [are] missing (6) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, of course, there is the Missing Link, still missing and he won’t be missed either (G.K. Chesterton). Or as someone less sensibly put it, “found missing”. The above are just a few of the examples of important, presumably historical, characters, who are either poorly attested (statues, relief depictions, etc.), or not at all. “No monument within Egypt bears [Piankhi’s] name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources”. Displaced Dynasties Reading about the impressive, yet most obscure, pharaoh Piankhi (or Piye), took my mind back to when we used to be intrigued, as children in Tasmania, by the famous Disappearing House. Pauline Conolly tells about it: THE DISAPPEARING HOUSE IN TASMANIA - Pauline Conolly The Disappearing House at “The Corners” Conara Standing at the turnoff to St Marys at Conara, the so-called “Disappearing House” earned its name by the illusion of its sinking into the ground as travellers approached along the main road from Hobart to Launceston, due to the peculiar conformation of the landscape. On the old road the house would “vanish” as you descended one hill, the other seemed to rise up in front of you and the house would “disappear” behind it. Then as you ascended the next small hill, it would miraculously reappear. …. That pharaoh Piankhi qualifies for the first part of this trick, the disappearing bit, comes through most clearly in the Displaced Dynasties article, Volume 2- Piankhi the Chameleon (pp. 12-14): Piankhi: The Traditional View In view of the notoriety of Piankhi, as evidenced by the events narrated on the stela, we should expect that he was an important figure in Egyptian history. If so, we would be disappointed. As we shall see, his life and times are shrouded in mystery. When the Piankhi stela was first read by scholars it was immediately recognized that the dignitaries named therein belonged to the late 22nd and 23rd dynasties, and that the rebel Tefnakht must be the father of Bocchoris, the sole occupant of Manetho’s 24th dynasty. With confidence early Egyptologists dated the insurrection of Tefnakht and the response by Piankhi to the last quarter of the 8th century B.C. Flinders Petrie, the eminent and influential British Egyptologist, writing at the turn of the 20th century, dated the “invasion” to the year 720 B.C., with the reigns of the 25th dynasty kings Shabaka and Shabataka following closely on its heels. The whole of the 25th dynasty, including most of the reign of Taharka, is of necessity placed between the time of the Tefnakht rebellion and the conquest and occupation of Egypt by the Assyrians, the later event securely dated to the years 671-664 B.C. A century of scholarship has refined Petrie’s dates only slightly. K.A. Kitchen, the foremost living authority on the 3rd Intermediate Period, Piankhi – 618 B.C. … dates the Piankhi incident to 727 B.C. and the most recent analysis by the Egyptologist D.A. Aston … has placed Piankhi’s 21st year only a decade earlier, in the time span 740-735 B.C. If Aston is correct, the median year 738 B.C. cannot be far wrong. The slight difference of opinion on the date of the Piankhi invasion is related to a secondary question of fundamental concern to this revision. How long did Piankhi continue to rule after the rebellion was suppressed late in his 20th year? …. On this issue as well, there is some divergence of opinion. The question takes on added significance if it be admitted that he ruled over Egypt for much of this time. Who is Piankhi, this Nubian king who had, some years before the Tefnakht rebellion, conquered the southern and central portions of Egypt, if not the entire country, and who now scoffed at any challenge to his authority? If we correctly interpret the stela inscription he was a sovereign of long standing in Egypt, not a recent intruder. The stela is dated, as mentioned earlier, to the first month of his 21st year. Based on normal standards of interpretation we should glean from this fact that he had been king of Egypt, or a king within Egypt, for twenty years. That is, however, not the typical interpretation of his great stela. With few exceptions scholars believe that Piankhi had ruled central and southern Egypt for at most a few years before the rebellion, and that his control of the country was lost soon after. When they discuss his dates they are debating only his tenure as king in Nubia, not the length of his sovereignty over Egypt. The explanation for this opinion is related to considerations apart from the stela inscription itself. There is no evidence within Egypt that Piankhi ruled the country for a single year, much less for twenty years, prior to his 21st year. No monument within Egypt bears his name. No building was constructed by him. No artifacts belonging to him have been recovered; no mention of his name occurs in secondary sources. In view of his renown, as evidenced in the narrative of the great stela, this is … D.A. Aston, “Takeloth II - A King of the ‘Theban Twenty-Third Dynasty’?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989) 139-153. ….The Great Stele dateline cites the first month of the first season of the civil calendar in Piankhi’s 21st year. The rebellion is over. We assume it ended several months earlier, time for Piankhi to return to Napate and have the monument inscribed (see figure 4 on page 27). …. Piankhi 618 B.C. a particularly troublesome silence. If he lived in Thebes, wherein he based an army, he has left no evidence of the fact. If he became king in Thebes two decades before the Tefnakht rebellion the lack of inscriptional evidence is difficult, if not impossible to explain. The conclusion follows that his involvement in Egyptian affairs was brief. He came; he conquered; and for reasons unknown, he quickly departed the country. Or so we are told. When Piankhi withdrew from the delta, laden with treasure, he was the uncontested sovereign of all of Egypt. Where did he go and for how long did he continue to rule? According to scholars, if he moved south to Thebes he did not long remain there. His home was Napata and there he lived out his years. But for how long? On this issue academia is divided. The majority believe that he continued to rule for either ten or twenty additional years, a conclusion based on the most fragile of evidence. Were it not for an obscured year date on a bandage, it might be argued that his name vanishes from Egypt entirely within a few years of the rebellion. Kitchen, who believes his reign in total lasted only 30 years, provides a summary of the evidence: The one generally accepted year-date of Piankhy is Year 21 on his great stela. However, a minimum of 31 years is assignable to him on the external evidence which is outlined above (sect. 114). To these factors, a little more can be added. First, there are three documents dated by the reign of ‘Pharaoh Py, Si-Ese Meryamun’ - two papyri of his Years 21 and 22, most probably Theban, and the lesser Dakhla stela of Year 24. There is good reason to view Py as the real reading of Piankhy and to attribute all three documents to Piankhy’s reign. Second, a fragmentary bandage from Western Thebes bears an obscure date of Sneferre Piankhy. The visible traces indicate ‘Regnal Year 20', a patch and trace (the latter compatible with a ‘10'), and a shallow sign perhaps an otiose t. In other words, we here have a date higher than Year 20 of Piankhy, and very possibly Year 30 - which would fit very well with the 31 years’ minimum reign which has been already inferred on independent grounds. …. [End of quotes] This bears out what I wrote about pharaoh Piankhi in my article, quoting Sir Alan Gardiner: The Complete Ramses II (7) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Gardiner has written: It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn. No mention of Piankhi by Manetho? Obviously, then, this great pharaoh is in crying need of his being united with a major alter ego, so that he can, like the Disappearing House, re-emerge again (including in Manetho). And this is the way that Displaced Dynasties will choose to go - though with quite the wrong alter ego connection as far as I am concerned. It is also the way that I chose to go in my Ramses II article (above) in which the reader will find how I was able to fill out the Disappearing Pharaoh, Piankhi.

Sennacherib depicted facing Sargon II, or is he facing his co-regent son, Nadin?

by Damien F. Mackey “Such representations … are found in the palace of Khorsabad, where the co-regent Sennacherib is facing king Sargon”. Gerard Gertoux A history follower of long-standing from Brazil has enthusiastically embraced my Sargon II as Sennacherib thesis in the context of the drama of the Book of Judith. However, an article by Gerard Gertoux: Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah (5) Dating the Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah | Gerard GERTOUX - Academia.edu has prompted him to raise some questions with me now about the validity of my university thesis (2007) identification. Thus he has written: Dear “Professor” [sic] Mackey, I hope everything is well with you and yours. I recently read a very interesting academic article titled “Dating the Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah,” which discusses the possibility of a co-regency between Sargon and Sennacherib, following a synchronization involving other kings from the period of Hezekiah; astrological phenomena; and the analysis of inscriptions and other Assyrian reliefs. All of this adheres to a biblical dating. You might already be aware of this article. However, if it’s not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate knowing what you think about the article. Is it very or slightly plausible? Your opinion is very important to me. …. He went on to write in his next e-mail (re the Khorsabad and Lachish reliefs): …. Mr. Gertoux … some of his statements made me think: “… Some authors also noted an anomaly (underlined) on line 44 of the inscription: They counted (them) as booty, then one would expect more logically from Sargon the sentence: I have counted (them) as booty (with the co-regency anomaly disappears).” I ask you, how would you explain this anomaly differently? “… On the relief carved (below) representing the siege of Lachish, the central element is the king seated on his throne clearly identified by his tiara and scepter and facing the crown prince. The crown prince was always represented (without exception) on panels or stelae as tall as the king and wearing a diadem with two ribbons behind the head, facing the king wearing the tiara, who also bore the two ribbons behind the head: The identification of the two characters is not a problem because Assyrian art (or Babylonian) is stereotyped: gods, kings, and their subjects are prioritized based on their size, according to conventional representations. When a character next to a king is shown the same size, with a tiara, it is another king and when he is without tiara but with the regalia it is a co-regent, like King Darius (522-486) and Xerxes co-regent (496-475) behind him (below). For example, Shalmaneser III (859-824), king of Assyria, and Marduk-zakir-shumi I (855-819), king of Babylon, shake hands as a sign of alliance and mutual support. On the relief carved of Lachish, the co-regent facing the king, seated on the throne, cannot be Ardu-Mulissu, called Adrammelech in Isaiah 37:58 because the latter has been designated heir only from 698 BCE, 3 years after the new 3rd campaign of Sennacherib as king (not co-regent). Therefore, the king seated on the throne at Lachish is King Sargon facing Sennacherib. On the relief of the siege of Lachish, Sennacherib is on the left and Sargon is on the right as on the relief in the palace of Khorsabad. The epigraph of four lines over Sennacherib (in a label) confirms this identification because it is presented as co-regent (MAN) and not as king (LUGAL) and the other epigraph of three lines over the tent of Sennacherib describes him as king (afterward): The MAN sign, written with 2 nail heads << (like number “20”), later translated sharru “king” into Akkadian, literally means shanû “second”. The usual word used for “king” is not MAN but LUGAL, literally “great man” (both terms are used in Sennacherib’s inscriptions). Sennacherib could not bear the title of king during Sargon’s lifetime, because the latter was considered to be “without rival”, but only the title of viceroy (double or replica of the king). In addition, the term -ma meaning “and” connects one who sits to the one passing booty reviewed (who was King Sargon).” If the character next to Sennacherib was neither Sargon nor Adrammelech, who was it? …. Anyone who reads the entire article will notice numerous other small pieces of evidence. I am not an expert like you, but I trust you and, if possible, I would very much like to hear from you on this matter. My best regards …. My response to these e-mails, in part, was as follows: …. What is to stop him from being Crown Prince and Turtan (general)? Ramses II 'the Great', in my revision, had his talented son, Khaemwaset, as such. Khaemwaset, or Shebitku Khaemwaset, was the “Si’be tartan of Egypt” whom Sargon II chased away in 720 BC (conventional dating). His father was the long-reigning Sabacos, or Psibkhanno Ramses (Ramses II), who gave a gift of horses to Sargon. Sargon called Psibkhanno, "Shilkanni king of Egypt". Historians imagine that this Shilkanni was an Osorkon, but the name fits far better as an Assyrian transliteration of Psibkhanno. We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. This Nadin was the king's oldest son, Ashur nadin shumi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi .... After defeating uprisings in 700 BC, Sennacherib named his own son, Aššur-nādin-šumi, as the new king of Babylon. Aššur-nādin-šumi was also titled as māru rēštû, a title that could be interpreted either as the "pre-eminent son" or the "firstborn son". His appointment as King of Babylon and the new title suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was being groomed to also follow Sennacherib as the King of Assyria upon his death. Aššur-nādin-šumi being titled as the māru rēštû likely means that he was Sennacherib's crown prince; if it means "pre-eminent" such a title would be befitting only for the crown prince and if it means "firstborn", it also suggests that Aššur-nādin-šumi was the heir as the Assyrians in most cases followed the principle of primogeniture (the oldest son inherits) .... Gerard Gertoux has, in the Abstract to his article, separated certain characters who I think were the same: Abstract. The traditional date of 701 BCE for Sennacherib's campaign to Judah, with the siege of Lachish and Jerusalem and the Battle of Eltekeh, is accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, the inscription of Sargon II, found at Tang-i Var in 1968, requires to date this famous campaign during his 10th campaign, in 712 BCE, implying a coregency with Sennacherib from 714 BCE. Mackey’s comment: That is a long co-regency considering that Assyriologists do not tend to recognise any co-regency there. If Sargon II was Sennacherib, as I have suggested, then the apparently large overlap of reigns becomes irrelevant. Tangi-i Var is only a problem because of the conventional misalignment of Egyptian chronology. Gerard Gertoux continues: A thorough analysis of the annals and the reliefs of Sargon and Sennacherib shows that there was only one campaign in Judah and not two. Mackey’s comment: A thorough analysis of Isaiah shows that there were two. For, what Isaiah says Sennacherib is not going to do, henceforth (in a failed second effort), the Assyrian king had already done in spades during his 3rd campaign (Isaiah 37:33): “And this is what the LORD says about the king of Assyria: ‘His armies will not enter Jerusalem. They will not even shoot an arrow at it. They will not march outside its gates with their shields nor build banks of earth against its walls’.” Gerard Gertoux continues: The Assyrian assault involved the presence of at least six kings (or similar): 1) taking of Ashdod by the Assyrian king Sargon II in his 10th campaign, 2) taking of Lachish by Sennacherib during his 3rd campaign, 3) siege of Jerusalem dated 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah; 4) battle of Eltekeh led by Nubian co-regent Taharqa; 5) under the leadership of King Shabataka during his 1st year of reign; 6) probable disappearance of the Egyptian king Osorkon IV in his 33rd year of reign. This conclusion agrees exactly with the biblical account that states all these events occurred during the 14th year of Judean King Hezekiah dated 712 BCE (2Kings 18:13-17, 19:9; 2Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 20:1, 36:1, 37:9). Mackey’s comment: Where are we told that Taharqa was at the battle of Eltekeh? Indeed, Taharqa was co-regent with Shabataka (Shebitku), who, as Shebitku Khaemwaset, was Taharqa’s – as Ramses II – very son, Khaemwaset. Ramses II’s son, Shebitku Khaemwaset of the Tang-i Var document, had been the Turtan, Si’be, but later was co-regent with the great Pharaoh. Osorkon belongs to a later period. Gerard Gertoux will come back to the battle of Eltekeh again, about which he will write: …. the Battle of Eltekeh (Joshua 21:23) which can also be dated in 712 BCE. According to the two stelae of Kawa …after the death of Shabaka, his successor Shabataka immediately summoned an army which he placed under the command of his brother Taharqa, a young son of Piye aged 20, to repel Assyrian attack which was threatening. …. But Piye (Piankhi) was actually, again, Taharqa. For, as I noted in my thesis, 2007 (Volume One, p. 384. Emphasis added): …. Now Piye, conventionally considered to have been the first major 25th dynasty pharaoh, and whose beginning of reign (revised) must have been very close to 730 BC (given that he reigned for 31 years), and whose 21st year (Stele) fell during the reign of Tefnakht - had also adopted the name of Usermaatre. Thus Grimal: “[Piankhy] identified himself with the two great rulers who were most represented in the Nubian monuments, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and adopted each of their coronation names: Menkheperre and Usermaatra respectively”. In other words, Piye was an eclectic in regard to early Egyptian history; and this fact may provide us with a certain opportunity for manoeuvring, alter ego wise. Fortunately we do not need to guess who Piye was, because there is a scarab that tells us precisely that Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah, much to the puzzlement of Petrie. It reads: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”. …. Piye (Piankhi) Usermaatre was both Taharqa (Tirhakah) and Ramses II Usermaatre. But the mighty Piankhi seriously needs one or more alter egos: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib The one facing Sargon II-Sennacherib at Khorsabad and Lachish could be either, or both, of the two to whom I referred in my correspondence (above): We know from the Book of Judith that "Nebuchadnezzar" (= Sargon-Sennacherib) sent ahead of him his Commander-in-Chief, second only to the king himself, against the West. Sargon II did the same sort of thing at the beginning, when he sent his Turtan against Ashdod, which is Lachish (Isaiah 20:1). And we know that the king's second self who goes forth with a massive army in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes”, was “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of the Book of Tobit. And he could also be the Turtan of Sennacherib’s first major campaign against Judah (2 Kings 18:17): “And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem”. The likelihood is, I think, that, given that “Holofernes” and his military deeds were well known to the Bethulian Jews, he had been around for quite a while. For thus Judith will say to the Commander-in-Chief (Judith 11:8): ‘For we have heard of your wisdom and skill, and it is reported throughout the whole world that you alone are the best in the whole kingdom, the most informed and the most astounding in military strategy’. That would put the odds very much in favour of “Holofernes” being the Turtan of Sargon II as early as Isaiah 20:1: “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it”. And he continued on through Sennacherib’s most successful 3rd campaign, and into the later ill-fated one, when he was slain by the hand of Judith, with the consequence that 185,000 horrified Assyrians were routed. “And the Assyrian will fall by a sword not wielded by a man, And a sword not of man will devour him”. Isaiah 31:8

Israeli archaeologists can never destroy the wise King Solomon

by Damien F. Mackey “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Israel Finkelstein Reference is made in El Amarna [EA] letters 74 and 290 to a place-name that professor Julius Lewy read as Bet Shulmanu - House (or Sanctuary) of Shulman (“The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem”, Journal of Biblical Literature LIX (1940), pp. 519 ff.). EA 290 was written by the King of Urusalim, Abdi-Hiba, who had to be, according to the conventional chronology, a C14th BC pagan ruler of what we know as Jerusalem. This view of Abdi-Hiba is summed up in the Wikipedia article, “Abdi-Heba”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba Abdi-Heba (Abdi-Kheba, Abdi-Hepat, or Abdi-Hebat) was a local chieftain of Jerusalem during the Amarna period (mid-1330s BC). Abdi-Heba's name can be translated as "servant of Hebat", a Hurrian goddess. Whether Abdi-Heba was himself of Hurrian descent is unknown, as is the relationship between the general populace of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (called, several centuries later, Jebusites in the Bible) and the Hurrians. Egyptian documents have him deny he was a ḫazānu and assert he is a soldier (we'w), the implication being he was the son of a local chief sent to Egypt to receive military training there.[1] Also unknown is whether he was part of a dynasty that governed Jerusalem or whether he was put on the throne by the Egyptians. Abdi-Heba himself notes that he holds his position not through his parental lineage but by the grace of Pharaoh, but this might be flattery rather than an accurate representation of the situation. …. [End of quote] From a revisionist perspective, this is all quite incorrect. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had argued most compellingly in his Ages in Chaos, I (1952) and Oedipus and Ikhnaton (1960), that the EA era actually belonged to, not the C14th BC, but the C9th BC era of Israel’s Divided Kingdom. And it is from such a revised perspective that Dr. Velikovsky was able to make this thrilling comment about professor Lewy’s reading: [http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm] The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem …. From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him. …. After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”…. Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu. The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.” [End of quote] Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of the idolatrous Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim with the extremely pious King Jehoshaphat of Judah needed the slight modification, as provided by Peter James, that Abdi-Hiba was actually King Jehoshaphat’s evil son, Jehoram - a modification that I fully supported in my article: King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History (3) King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from that, though, the EA evidence completely favoured Velikovsky’s revision, as he himself hastened to point out (op. cit., ibid.): It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem. …. Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord” …. this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of. Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.” [End of quote] The conventional system has the habit of throwing up such “surprising” historical anomalies! Dr. Velikovsky continues here: The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded. Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. [End of quote] P. Friedman, writing for a British revisionist journal, would later insist upon another necessary modification of the Velikovskian thesis. The description, “Temple of Solomon”, he explained (in “The Temple in Jerusalem?” SIS Review III:1 (Summer 1978), pp.7-8), is in fact a modern English rendition which is never actually found in the Hebrew as used in the Old Testament. There, King Solomon’s Temple is constantly referred to as the “House of Yahweh” or, simply, the “House of the Lord”. Friedman also drew attention to the fact that, in Assyrian records, the Kingdom of Israel is called the “House of Omri” in deference to Omri’s dynasty. He therefore suggested that Bet Shulman should, in like manner, be understood to refer to the Kingdom of Judah in deference to King Solomon’s dynasty (p. 8): “‘House of Solomon’ meant not merely the capital [i.e., Jerusalem], but the whole kingdom of Judah, approaching even more closely the use of ‘House of Omri’ for the kingdom of Israel”. Another possible interpretation of the phrase Bet Shulman is, as S. Dyen would later argue, that it should be understood literally as “the House”, that is the Palace, of King Solomon (“The House of Solomon”, KRONOS VIII:2 (Winter 1983), p. 88). The apparent reference back in time to his great (x 3) grandfather, King Solomon, by Abdi-hiba/Jehoram of Urusalim/Jerusalem – [e.g., Matthew 1:7-8: Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram …], serves to vindicate the Old Testament against the reckless biblical minimizing of the likes of Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein. He, as I have previously noted: …. is quoted as saying in … a … National Geographic article, “Kings of Controversy” by Robert Draper (David and Solomon, December 2010, p. 85): “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” What Finkelstein ought to be “sorry” for, however, is not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that has caused him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon; Queen of Sheba). …. The effects of this biblical minimalising have been so complete that an Egyptian writer, Doaa El Shereef, can now write an extensive article based upon Israeli mass archaeological error: Israeli Archaeologists Admit that: There is No Temple of Solomon (3) Israeli Archaeologists Admit that: There is No Temple of Solomon | Doaa El Shereef - Academia.edu in which she effectively erases each and every major phase of Old Testament history.

Wall of King Uzziah may have been found

“For years, experts believed that Hezekiah erected the walls after witnessing his neighbours, the Kingdom of Israel, get destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. But now a decade-long study has found that it was actually his great-grandfather, King Uzziah, who built the walls after a huge earthquake”. Michael Havis Experts say ancient ruin is proof bible story is real A breakthrough archeological discovery in ancient Jerusalem is proof that a bible story is real, according to experts. Michael Havis - The Sun …. May 6, 2024 - 2:19PM A breakthrough archeological discovery in ancient Jerusalem is proof that a bible story is real, according to experts. A stretch of wall in the original heart of the city was revealed to had been built by King Uzziah, as hinted at in the Bible, The Sun reports. Contrary to popular belief, Hezekiah, who ruled Judah during the 7th and 8th century BC, did not fortify the city to protect it against the invaders. For years, experts believed that Hezekiah erected the walls after witnessing his neighbours, the Kingdom of Israel, get destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. But now a decade-long study has found that it was actually his great-grandfather, King Uzziah, who built the walls after a huge earthquake. Joe Uziel of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) said: “For decades, it was assumed that this wall was built by Hezekiah, King of Judah. “But it is now becoming clear that it dates back to the days of King Uzziah, as hinted at in the Bible. “Until now, many researchers assumed that the wall was built by Hezekiah during his rebellion against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, in order to defend Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. “It is now apparent that the wall in its eastern part, in the area of the City of David, was built earlier, shortly after the great earthquake of Jerusalem, and as part of the construction of the city.” The findings echo the tails from the Old Testament which hinted that Uzziah constructed the wall. In the second Book of Chronicles, a passage described the event: “Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate and at the angle of the wall, and he fortified them.” The religious scripture also detailed the earthquake that rocked the capital 2,800 years ago - which was proven to be a true event after archaeologists unearthed “a layer of destruction” in 2021. The book of Amos reads: “And the Valley in the Hills shall be stopped up, for the Valley of the Hills shall reach only to Azal; it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah.” The study, a joint project between the IAA, Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute of Science, used carbon-14 dating to determine the origin of the ancient wall. According to the IAA, this period in history was previously considered a “black hole” due to fluctuating levels of the isotope in the atmosphere at the time. However, scientists were able to trace these fluctuations year by year using ancient tree rings from Europe. …. The results have also debunked common beliefs that the city expanded westward during the reign of King Hezekiah - just over 2,700 years ago. …. Yuval Gadot of Tel Avid University said: “The conventional assumption to date has been that the city expanded due to the arrival of refugees from the Kingdom of Israel in the north, following the Assyrian exile. “However, the new findings strengthen the view that Jerusalem grew in size and spread towards Mount Zion already in the ninth century BC. “This was during the reign of King Jehoash – a hundred years before the Assyrian exile. Damien Mackey’s comment: According to my revised history of the Kings of Judah, this “King Jehoash” (Joash) was the same person as King Uzziah, thereby accounting for why Joash himself does not figure in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah https://www.academia.edu/69527823/Early_prophet_Zechariah_may_forge_a_link_with_Joash_Uzziah_of_Judah?uc-sb-sw=11301668 Michael Havis concludes: “In light of this, the new research teaches that the expansion of Jerusalem is a result of internal-Judean demographic growth and the establishment of political and economic systems.” In addition, the city might have been much bigger than experts formerly estimated. ….

Luciferic fall of Ninurta-nadin-shumi King of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey Isaiah 14:12-27 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’. But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?’ All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again. Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. ‘I will rise up against them’, declares the Lord Almighty. ‘I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants’, declares the Lord. ‘I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction’, declares the Lord Almighty. The Lord Almighty has sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders’. This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? If, as I have proposed in my article: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (2) (DOC) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu he, supposedly ‘the most potent monarch of the (so-called) second Isin dynasty’, was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself (conventionally known as II), then it would follow that Ninurta-nadin-shumi was not the father of Nebuchednezzar, as is generally thought, but was Ashur-nadin-shumi, Nebuchednezzar’s predecessor on the throne of Babylon. According to Marc Van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 166): “… the second Isin dynasty. Its most forceful and famous ruler was Nebuchadnezzar I (ruled 1125-04) …”. These dates will now need to be lowered on the timescale by about half a millennium. On p. 292, Van de Mieroop will give this sequence of rulers of Babylon: Tiglath-pileser III … Sennacherib … Assur-nadin-shumi … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal. But, with Nebuchednezzar (now I-II) also re-set as a ruler of Assyro-Babylonia, as Esarhaddon: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Van de Mieroop’s conventional scenario will need to be re-shaped like this: Tiglath-pileser III [= I] … Sennacherib [= Nabopolassar] … Assur-nadin-shumi [= Ninurta-nadin-shumi] … Esarhaddon … Assurbanipal [= Nebuchednezzar I and II]. Ashur-nadin-shumi (= Ninurta-nadin-shumi), now to be regarded as the oldest brother of Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar I-II), will play a massive, though ill-fated, rôle in ancient biblico-history: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith (2) (DOC) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from Ninurta-nadin-shumi, the other character connected with Nebuchednezzar supposedly of Isin, and who may have seemed right out of place in my revised chronology, is the Assyrian who fought against him, Ashur-resha-ishi. I explained about him in “The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar” article: As to Ashur-resha-ishi, he seems to create something of a problem as an Assyrian fighting against Nebuchednezzar, when the latter I have also identified as a ruler of Assyria, as Esarhaddon/Assurbanipal. I would suggest that this Ashur-resha-ishi was the Sharezer (shureshi) who was one of the two sons who murdered their father, Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37): “One day when [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon succeeded him”. Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was thus fighting, against one of Sennacherib’s remaining sons, in a life or death civil war for the control of Assyria. These names, at least, are common to the supposedly two eras: Tiglath-pileser; Merodach-baladan; (three Elamites); Ninurta-nadin-shumi/Ashur-nadin-shumi; NEBUCHEDNEZZAR; Ashur-resha-ishi/Sharezer