Part One:
Who he wasn’t
by
Damien F. Mackey
“At the close of the meeting, Nebuchadnezzar gave the
following command to Holofernes, who was the general in command of his armies
and second in command to the king …”.
Judith 2:4
Was “Holofernes” the Turtan?
With the Book of Judith now established historically at the time of
kings Hezekiah of Judah and Sargon II (= Sennacherib) of Assyria, e.g. my:
Sobna (Shebna) the High Priest
- {the neo-Assyrian king being referred to in the Book of Judith as “Nebuchadnezzar”}
-then one might be hopeful of identifying “Holofernes”, the commander-in-chief
of the Assyrian armies, with the Tartan
(general) sent by Sargon II against Ashdod (= Lachish). 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 …”.
The Tartan (or Turtan) of Sargon II was apparently one
Ashur-Isqa-Danin.
However I, in my university thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
gave reasons why I thought that Sargon II’s Tartan to Ashdod was probably not the same person as the “Holofernes”
of the Book of Judith. Thus I wrote (Volume Two, pp. 15-16):
Who was Assyria’s Ill-Fated Commander-in-Chief?
The
commander-in-chief named Holofernes in [Book of Judith] BOJ was most unlikely the same person as the Turtan (perhaps
Sargon’s Turtan, Ashur Isqa Danin) whom Sargon II/Sennacherib had previously sent against
‘Ashdod’, who would by now presumably, about a decade later, have been well
familiar with the various nations of the west.
The
commander-in-chief in the BOJ narrative, on the other hand, had to ask the
locals: ‘Tell me, you Canaanites, what people is this that lives in the hill
country?’ (5:3). To identify him as the very Turtan
of the successful first western campaign would also
make for a very tight chronology indeed in the context of this revision. He was
in fact higher in rank than Turtan, hence my adhering to the term, ‘commander-in-chief’. BOJ is quite specific:
“Holofernes” was “second only to [the king] himself ...”.
History
apparently knows of no such named Assyrian commander-in-chief.
I, then - buoyed by what I considered
to be the benefits of my radical shortening of neo-Assyrian history, with
Tiglath-pileser III = Shalmaneser V, and Sargon II = Sennacherib - took a
further radical step along these lines by proposing an identification of “Holofernes”
with the powerful Esarhaddon (whose 12-year reign was now to be completely encompassed
within the latter part of the reign of his father, Sennacherib). So I continued:
However,
there was a notable Assyrian blue-blood at the time of king Hezekiah who is a most
appropriate candidate for Holofernes inasmuch as he was a potent leader, who invaded even Egypt, and who died
mysteriously on campaign. And he fits exactly the description given in BOJ of
“second only to [the king] himself”. I refer to Sennacherib’s favourite son and
heir, the Viceroy, ESARHADDON. 1182
Whilst I have since had good reason to reject this particular
identification (Esarhaddon = “Holofernes”) as being a ‘bridge too far’ in
neo-Assyrian revisionism, I do not think that I was all that wide of the mark in
at least proposing that the “Holofernes” of BOJ must have been the heir apparent
of the Great King, the crown prince.
Unfortunately I had, in my thesis, just opted for the wrong blue-blooded
candidate.
‘... 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’.
Part Two:
Who he may have been
‘... 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’.
Judith 11:8
Historical Setting
The Book of Judith opens in the 12th year of the reign of an Assyrian king of Nineveh (there named ‘Nebuchadnezzar”) who takes on, and defeats, one “Arphaxad”, whom I have identified as Merodach-baladan the king of Babylon.
"Arphaxad" in Book of Judith
Judith is real history, but sometimes with wrong names interpolated.
“Nebuchadnezzar”, that is, Sennacherib, had just successfully completed his conquest of Judah and other western nations, and he was now determined to put to rest the troublesome Merodach-baladan. This was Sennacherib’s Year 12.
Then, after Sennacherib had accomplished this mission as well - as both history and the Book of Judith attest - he appointed one Bel-ibni (c. 703-700 BC, conventional dating) to replace Merodach-baladan as ruler over Babylon.
Bel-ibni ultimately proved unsatisfactory, however, so the Assyrian king replaced him, in turn, with his own eldest son, the crown prince Ashur-nadin-shumi (c. 700-694 BC, conventional dating).
According to CAH (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=OGBGauNBK8kC&pg): “… Ashur-nadin-shumi’s stewardship in Babylonia (699-694) seems to have been the most peaceful and successful interval in Sennacherib’s early dealings with that country. Six years went by with no recorded revolts or disturbances”.
The obviously competent Ashur-nadin-shumi is now my choice for the likewise competent (cf. Judith 11:8) “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith.
“Ahikar and his nephew Nadin [var. Nadab] were also present to share Tobit’s joy. With merriment they celebrated Tobias's wedding feast for seven days, and many gifts were given to him”.
Tobit 11:18
Tobit 14:10
Part Three:
Ashur-nadin-shumi as Book of Tobit’s “Nadin”
“Ahikar and his nephew Nadin [var. Nadab] were also present to share Tobit’s joy. With merriment they celebrated Tobias's wedding feast for seven days, and many gifts were given to him”.
Tobit 11:18
‘See, my son, all that Nadin did to Ahiqar, the very one who reared him. Was not Ahiqar brought down alive into the earth? Yet God made Nadin’s disgraceful crime rebound against him. Ahiqar came out again into the light, but Nadin went into the everlasting darkness, for he had tried to kill Ahiqar’.
Tobit 14:10
Introduction
Previously in this series I gave reasons as to why I must now reject, as untenable, the identification of “Holofernes” that I had proposed in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
as Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, Great King of Assyria.
And there I also stated that my currently favoured historical choice for “Holofernes” was another son of Sennacherib’s, Ashur-nadin-shumi.
I have since realised that I had already, in my thesis (in Volume One, pp. 168-169), multi-identified Esarhaddon (who was also named as heir: Ashuretil-ilani-mukin-aplu, ‘Ashur, the lord of the gods, has established an heir’), to include Ashur-nadin-shumi:
With Esarhaddon generally considered to have been a younger son of Sennacherib, the eldest being Ashur-nadin-shumi whom Sennacherib made Viceroy of Babylon during his Twelfth Year (Fourth Campaign) (711 BC, revised), the chronology I am trying to develop here would be extremely tight indeed. But Esarhaddon in fact calls himself “the oldest son of [Sennacherib ...”.396 And, whilst this would appear to be contradicted by another statement of his, that Marduk had called him “from among my older brothers”,397 it may indicate that he had become the oldest of Sennacherib’s sons in line for the throne; with his previously older brothers either dead or no longer in contention because of their revolt.
This primary piece of evidence of Esarhaddon as “the oldest son” not only assists my reconstruction, but now makes highly attractive also an identification of Esarhaddon (i.e. Ashur-akhi-iddina) with Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib’s eldest. The latter’s supposed six years of reign over Babylon (c. 700-694 BC, conventional dating) would thus correspond with Esarhaddon’s reign over that city. And I suggest it was during this early period that Esarhaddon rebuilt, probably magnified, Babylon; but while his father Sennacherib was still alive, and indeed as a servant of the latter. They would have been co-regents of Babylon, given that Sargon’s Year 16 was also his 4th year as king of Babylon (the second time around). See next chapter for a disussion of Sargon II’s/ Sennacherib’s restoration work in Babylon. According to this new scenario, Esarhaddon would have served for six years as ruler of Babylon, from Sennacherib’s Year 12 to Year 18, and his reign would have terminated prior to the end of his father’s own reign.
My proposed identification of Esarhaddon with Ashur-nadin-shumi (and I am not of course claiming a precise name identification here) would not stand up though if the latter had really suffered the fate that Roux has attributed to this Ashur-nadin-shumi:398 “… disappeared, probably murdered” in Iran after the Babylonians had handed him over to the Elamites. However, I have not yet read anywhere that Ashur-nadin-shumi’s death at this stage was more than ‘probable’. There is no certainty attached to it.
[End of quote]
Obviously I had had to engage in a bit of manoeuvring to ‘make’ Esarhaddon, an apparently younger son of Sennacherib’s, the eldest son. Though I did have at hand that seemingly crucial piece of information from D. Luckenbill’s Ancient Records of Assyria & Babylonia (# 6) according to which Esarhaddon claimed to have been “the oldest son of [Sennacherib] …”.
In my thesis I had connected the ‘rival operation’ incident in the Book of Judith - of the demise of “Holofernes” and the salvation of Achior - with Tobit’s information that Nadin (my Ashur-nadin-shumi), who had tried to kill Ahiqar (var. Ahikar = Achior), had been slain instead. More recently I have written on this (with Esarhaddon now excluded from the picture):
“Nadin went into everlasting darkness”
Tobit 14:10 (continued): ‘Because Ahiqar had given alms he escaped from the deadly trap Nadin had set for him. But Nadin fell into the deadly trap himself, and it destroyed him’.
No comments:
Post a Comment