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
No comments:
Post a Comment