by
Damien F. Mackey
“Judith had nothing
but contempt and irony in her heart when she had,
with all customary
protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was assembled
with his impressive
entourage (Judith 10:23)”.
Ben Dewar has written in the Abstract to his article:
Rebellion,
Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššu...
Rebellion,
Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions
of Sennacherib
- Ben Dewar
Abstract
Despite the frequency of rebellions against the
Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his annals are described as
such. Instead rebels are often described as having never submitted to
Sennacherib before. This reluctance to write about rebellion is unusual in Assyrian
inscriptions, but has not been commented upon in the previous scholarship. This
study investigates the reasons for this peculiarity of Sennacherib’s
inscriptions. It is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was
intended to draw attention away from the connection between these events and
the death of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II. A second instance of a death in
Sennacherib’s family affecting the content of his inscriptions is also
identified. His son Aššur-nādin-šumi’s death followed a pair of campaigns to
the borders of Tabal, the location of Sargon’s death. Because of this it was
viewed as a “punishment” for undertaking these campaigns to regions tainted by
association with Sargon. After his death, Aššur-nādin-šumi is never mentioned
in the same inscription as these campaigns. Although Sennacherib generally
avoids mentioning rebellion, overcoming such events was an important facet of
Assyrian royal ideology. Because of this, events in some ideologically or
historically significant regions are explicitly stated to be rebellions in the
annals. Sennacherib’s inscriptions therefore demonstrate, perhaps better than
those of any other Assyrian king, the two sides of rebellion’s ideological
importance as both an obstacle overcome by a heroic king, and as a punishment
for a poor one. His attempts to obscure some occurrences of rebellion
demonstrate a fear of the more negative ideological aspect of rebellion which
is not usually present in the inscriptions of other kings. This provides new
insight into the factors which influenced the composition of Sennacherib’s
inscriptions.
Let us unpack this short
piece in a revised context.
With Sennacherib qua
Sennacherib, we get only a portion of his overall story.
For
Sennacherib was also, according to my reconstructions, Tukulti Ninurta;
Shamsi-Adad II/V; and Sargon II. See e.g. my articles:
Tukulti-Ninurta
I and Sargon II-Sennacherib
(7)
Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib
Assyria’s
second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again
(7) Assyria’s
second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again
Assyrian
King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
(7) Assyrian King
Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
So the “very
few events” in Ben Dewar’s opening statement: “Despite the frequency of
rebellions against the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his
annals are described as such”, might be less “few” in actuality.
Now, in my context, Ben Dewar’s
qualifying statement:
“It
is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was intended to draw
attention away from the connection between these events and the death of
Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II” - with Sennacherib identified by me as Sargon
II - is hopelessly wide of the mark.
The Assyrian text upon which
everything hangs was doctored by Winckler and Delitzsch to incorporate the name
“Sargon”, which does not actually appear there.
Thus I wrote in my (2007) university
thesis (Volume One, p. 137):
Another
seemingly compelling evidence in favour of the conventional chronology, but one
that has required heavy restoration work by the Assyriologists, is in regard to
Sennacherib’s supposed accession. According to the usual interpretation of the
eponym for Nashur(a)-bel, (705 BC, conventional dating), known as Eponym Cb6,
Sargon was killed and Sennacherib then sat on the throne:[1]
The
king [against Tabal....] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [......] The king was
killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken......]. On the 12th of Abu,
Sennacherib, son [of Sargon, took his seat on the throne].
Tadmor
informs us about this passage that: “Winckler and Delitzsch restored: [MU 16
Šarru-ki]n; ana Ta-ba-lu [illik]”. That is, these scholars took the liberty of
adding Sargon’s name.
Jonsson,
who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more
heavily bracketted than had Tadmor:[2] “[Year
17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war. On the 12th of Abu,
Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”.
This document will become hugely
significant in the context of this thesis. ….
The land of Tabal
appears to have become the location of the death of both Sargon II – which it
wasn’t – and of Sennacherib’s (that is Sargon II’s) ill-fated Crown Prince son,
Ashur-nadin-shumi.
Now, the latter was the “Holofernes”
of the Book of Judith and also the wretched Nadin (Nadab) of the Book of Tobit:
“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith
(7)
"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith
But did he meet his fate at Tabal,
which is apparently in SE Anatolia?
No, “Holofernes” (Ashur-nadin-shumi) met
his fate outside “Bethulia”, which is Shechem in the southern Levant:
Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’
(7)
Judith’s City of 'Bethulia'
It
seems that there was also a Tabal in this approximate region:
“The
name Tabal appears to have been a widely used one, since a
location sharing this name is recorded from southern Syria, and the
toponym Dabal or Tabal is recorded during the
period of the Akkadian Empire …”.
Indeed, “Holofernes” had just marched
his army down from the Damascus region (Judith 2:27).
One possible identification for the
southern Tabal may be Jibleam (Ibleam), as the Belamon/Belameh/Belmain of
Judith 4:4 is thought probably to be.
For the name Tabal (Tubal) may well be
derived from Ibleam:
Ibleam | The amazing name Ibleam: meaning
and etymology
“… Jabal, Jubal, Jubilee, Obil, Tubal …”.
I recently wrote in my article:
Judith of Bethulia and Joan of
Arc
Judith
of Bethulia and Joan of Arc - Search
…. In the Book of Judith, all the
deference and respect shown by the heroine towards a royal person is entirely
faked, part of Judith’s ruse, because it is directed towards the enemy leader,
Holofernes. He, somewhat like the Dauphin, was second to the Great King (of
Assyria), hence not crowned. Judith in fact has nothing but contempt for
Holofernes and the Assyrians (somewhat like Joan’s attitude towards the
English).
But she will tell Holofernes, very
much in Joan of Arc fashion - but with complete irony in Judith’s case - that,
after his victory (Judith 11:19): ‘… I will lead you through Judea, until you
come to Jerusalem; there I will set your throne. You will drive them like sheep
that have no shepherd, and no dog will so much as growl at you’.
Judith claimed before Holofernes to be
a messenger from God who was now supposedly favouring the Assyrians (v. 19):
‘For this was told me to give me foreknowledge; it was announced to me and I
was sent to tell you’.
In Joan’s case, the ruse was on the
part of the Dauphin, not her. “To test her, the king had disguised himself, but
she at once saluted him without hesitation amidst a group of attendants” (New
Advent). Her opening words to him were direct and to the point just like
Judith’s had been to Holofernes (Spoto, p. 48): ‘My most eminent lord Dauphin,
I have come, sent by God, to bring help to you and to the kingdom’.
Donald Spoto adds: “It was as direct
and unadorned a summary as the Dauphin – and anyone else before or since –
could ask.
Help for him and for France: that was
her message and her vocation”. But her reverence for the Dauphin was completely
honest.
Judith, on the other hand, had nothing
but contempt and irony in her heart when she had similarly, with all customary
protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was – just like the Dauphin – assembled with
his impressive entourage (Judith 10:23): “When Judith came into the presence of
Holofernes and his servants, they all marvelled at the beauty of her face. She
prostrated herself and did obeisance to him, but his slaves raised her up”.
The pressure upon the young woman at
this time must have been enormous.
Donald Spoto says of Joan that (ibid., p. 49): “Charles was fascinated
by the seventeen-year old girl who stood calmly and confidently before him …
after a brief but apparently intense private conversation, he seemed to one
member of his court to be “radiant””.
Certainly ‘fascination’ is one word
that could also be used to describe Holofernes’ impression of the young Judith,
though the biblical text uses “passion”, as well as “greatly pleased with her”,
and it has “[being] merry” rather than being “radiant” (Judith 12:16-17, 20):
Holofernes’ heart was ravished with her and his
passion was aroused, for he had been waiting for an opportunity to seduce her
from the day he first saw her. So Holofernes said to her, ‘Have a drink and be
merry with us!’
…. Holofernes was greatly pleased with her, and drank
a great quantity of wine, much more than he had ever drunk in one day since he
was born.
Joan [Jehanne], as we read, was
regarded by the enemy, the English, as a “prostitute”.
And Holofernes likewise presumed
Judith [Jehudith], in a camp full of men, to be fair game, saying to his chief
eunuch, Bagoas (Judith 12:12): “… it would be a disgrace if we let such a woman
go without having intercourse with her. If we do not seduce her, she will laugh
at us’. This Bagoas had summoned Judith to the tent of his master, Holofernes,
with the words (12:13): ‘Let this pretty girl not hesitate to come to my lord
to be honoured in his presence …’ .
Similarly had Jean de Metz first
addressed Joan (Spoto, p. 37), “M’amie [“Sweetheart” or “Honey”] …”.
Whilst Joan will eventually attend the
coronation of Charles (New Advent): “… on Sunday, 17 July, 1429, Charles VII
was solemnly crowned, the Maid standing by with her standard, for — as she
explained — “as it had shared in the toil, it was just that it should share in
the victory”,” Judith will not have to suffer the humiliating indignity of
attending a victorious Holofernes’ being crowned in Jerusalem.
