William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box’

by Damien F. Mackey Both directly and indirectly, I have found certain insights of William Foxwell Albright to have been enormously beneficial in helping to piece together the biblico-historical (archaeological) picture puzzle. In one particular case, though, I consider his proposed reconstruction to have been an unmitigated disaster. 1. The big positives (a) - (d) “W.F. Albright, in full William Foxwell Albright, (born May 24, 1891, Coquimbo, Chile—died Sept. 19, 1971, Baltimore, Md., U.S.), American biblical archaeologist and Middle Eastern scholar, noted especially for his excavations of biblical sites”. https://www.britannica.com/biography/W-F-Albright I find that professor W. F. Albright - though being a scholar working within the restricting confines of the conventional model of archaeologico-history - had the unusual ability, at times, to burst through the seams of that tight model and to produce some very insightful new observations. (a) His smashing impact on early dynastic chronology One of his (as Dr. Albright) most remarkable forays beyond the suffocating walls of convention was his important synchronisation of the first ruler of Egypt, Menes, or Min (conventionally dated to c. 3100 BC), with the latter’s conqueror, Naram-Sin (conventionally dated to c. 2250 BC), of the famous Sargonid dynasty of Akkad. On this, see my article: Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift (3) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This synchronisation by Dr. Albright involved a massive shift in time, one to the tune of about a millennium, of conventional ancient dating. That was bold, indeed! It all at once brought into synthesis, the First Dynasty of Egypt; the Akkadian Dynasty; and the era of Abram (Dr. John Osgood’s research) and everything associated with that Patriarch (all of this, though, more accurately to be dated downwards to c. 1900 BC). The importance of such a right synchronisation of this early (Patriarchal) period of biblico-history cannot be over-stated. And we must be grateful to W.F. Albright for having been prepared to make this courageous leap well out of the conventional box. However, as we are going to learn later on, in 2. (b), he, in 1922, wrongly re-set, back, also by about a millennium, later phases of the Bible such as the Joshuan Conquest and Jericho. (b) Shifting the goalposts for biblical “Shinar” W. F. Albright also was an early one to suggest a location, otherwise than southern Mesopotamia, for the biblical “land of Shinar”. This may perhaps, in part, have prompted various Creationists more recently to transfer their attention for Shinar away from that southern region. See, for example Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White’s: An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel (11) An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel | Kenneth Griffith - Academia.edu leading to their prize discovery – as I would regard it – of the Mountain of Noah’s Ark’s landing: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb (11) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu W.F. Albright had newly situated the land of Shinar to the N. Syrian kingdom of Hana: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/370017 Critical Notes SHINAR-ŠANḠAR AND ITS MONARCH AMRAPHEL Until recently no one seems to have suspected that the biblical Shinar might not have been identical with Southern Mesopotamia - using this term in its wider sense, following a classical usage which has now become all but universal. This view was only natural, since the identification of Shinar with Babylonia was practically required by the LXX translations of Is. 11:11, Zech. 5:11, to say nothing of the direct equivalence in Dan. 1:2. Until the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions most scholars associated the name with that of the classical district of Singara, modern Jebel Sinjâr, though the geographical equivalence appeared to be only approximate, since Singara is west of Assyria and considerably to the north of Babylonia. The discovery of the native Babylonian term Šumer, "Southern Babylonia," altered the situation, especially since Šumer was then believed to stand for an older *Sungir, for *Sugir, assumed to be the more correct form of Girsu, the name of a town near Lagaš (if not a quarter of the latter). Mackey’s comment: But see my re-identification of Girsu and Lagaš (Lakish) as, respectively, Jerusalem and Lachish. For example: Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu (4) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Albright continues: The combination with Singara was now given up in favor of that with Šumer, hardly anyone attempting the paradoxical identification with both. It is the writer's purpose here to point out that the old identification with Singara is not only correct so far as the name is concerned, but also geographically. In the Amarna correspondence of the king of Cyprus with the Pharaoh (EA, No. 35, 49 f.) the former warns the latter to avoid entangling alliances with the king of the Hittites and the king of Šanḫar. While most scholars have agreed with Weber's view that Šanḫar is Šincar, "Babylonia," the recent tendency has been to accept his later view (WA 1082) that it represents Mitanni. Knudtzon's suggestion (loc. cit.) that it was the district about the Sagûr river, in Northern Syria, has not found favor. In a Hittite list of countries published by Weber, after Winckler, Šanḫar is mentioned after Aššur and Bâbilu, before a gap which presumably contained the name Mitanni, since it is followed immediately by Alzîya and Papaḫḫi in Northern Mesopotamia. In the Egyptian inscriptions of the fifteenth century B.C. Sngr appears as an autonomous Mesopotamian state, along with Babylonia, Assyria, and Mitanni (Nhrn). At first sight Sngr seems rather remote from Šanḫar, but we must remember that the Egyptians often represented a š which came to them through west-Semitic channels by s, and that cuneiform ḫ often stands for ḡ. The Egyptians wrote the name of the important district of Nuḫašši in central Syria as Ngs, pointing to a pronunciation Nugaš. In the Aramaean monument of Zkr, king of Hamath and Nuḫašši the name is written Lcš, pronounced approximately Luḡáš - the old identification of Lcš with Luḫuti is hardly acceptable, though phonetically possible, since the Aramaeans often replaced š by t, on the principle of back-formation (Assûr - Atûr, etc.). From a number of other illustrations we may take the name Gilu-Hepa, written in Egyptian as Kr(l)gp, i.e., Gilu-Ǧepa. It is therefore certain that the forms Šanḫar, Sngr, and Šangar (Šincar has its i-vowel by Philippi's Law) of the Hebrews all represent the correct Šangar, the name of an important state or province in Mesopotamia, between Assyria, Babylonia, and Mitanni. What could this state have been? In a paper in the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, I, 72-4, the writer has endeavored to show that Šanḡar represents the land known to its own sovereigns as Hana, on the Middle Euphrates. The capital of Hana, was situated at Tirqa, which has been located at a mound just south of the mouth of the Hâbûr. …. [End of quote] (c) Recognising the closeness of Ugaritic to biblical Hebrew W. F. Albright even went rather close to realising that some of the El Amarna [EA] correspondents were writing in Hebrew. Here is what I wrote about it in my university thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf (Volume One, pp. 87-88): Lab’ayu’s Speech Lab’ayu is thought to have been no timid lackey of pharaoh, at least according to Albright:221 “The truculence of Labaya’s tone in writing to the court contrasts oddly with the grovelling subservience of most Palestinian chieftains”. Most grovelling of all perhaps was Abdi-Ashirta himself, who had written to pharaoh during a time of crisis: LETTER 64: To the king, my lord, say. Thus says Abdi-Ashtarti [Ashirta], the servant of the king: At the feet of my king, my lord, I have fallen seven times ... and seven times in addition, upon breast as well as back. May the king, my lord, learn that enmity is mighty against me .... Like Lab’ayu, the biblical Ahab [with whom I have identified Lab’ayu] could indeed be an outspoken person, bold in speech to both fellow kings and prophets (cf. 1 Kings 18:17; 20:11). But Lab’ayu, like all the other duplicitous Syro-Palestinian kings, instinctively knew when, and how, to grovel …. Thus, when having to protest his loyalty and readiness to pay tribute to the crown, Lab’ayu really excelled himself:222 “Further: In case the king should write for my wife, would I refuse her? In case the king should write to me: “Run a dagger of bronze into thy heart and die”, would I not, indeed, execute the command of the king?” Lab’ayu moreover may have - like Ahab - used Hebrew speech. The language of the EA letters is Akkadian, but one letter by Lab’ayu, EA 252, proved to be very difficult to translate.223 Albright,224 in 1943, published a more satisfactory translation than had hitherto been possible by discerning that its author had used a good many so-called ‘Canaanite’ words plus two Hebrew proverbs! EA 252 has a stylised introduction in the typical EA formula and in the first 15 lines utilises only two ‘Canaanite’ words. Thereafter, in the main body of the text, Albright noted (and later scholars have concurred) that Lab’ayu used only about 20% pure Akkadian, “with 40% mixed or ambiguous, and no less than 40% pure Canaanite”. Albright further identified the word nam-lu in line 16 as the Hebrew word for ‘ant’ (nemalah), נְמָלָה, …the Akkadian word being zirbabu. Lab’ayu had written: “If ants are smitten, they do not accept (the smiting) quietly, but they bite the hand of the man who smites them”. Albright recognised here a parallel with the two biblical Proverbs mentioning ants (6:6 and 30:25). Ahab likewise was inclined to use a proverbial saying as an aggressive counterpoint to a potentate. When the belligerent Ben-Hadad I sent him messengers threatening: ‘May the gods do this to me and more if there are enough handfuls of rubble in Samaria for all the people in my following [i.e. my massive army]’ (1 Kings 20:10), Ahab answered: ‘The proverb says: The man who puts on his armour is not the one who can boast, but the man who takes it off’ (v.11). “It is a pity”, wrote Rohl and Newgrosh,225 “that Albright was unable to take his reasoning process just one step further because, in almost every instance where he detected the use of what he called ‘Canaanite’ one could legitimately substitute the term ‘Hebrew’.” Lab’ayu’s son too, Mut-Baal - my tentative choice for Ahaziah of Israel (c. 853 BC) … - also displayed in one of his letters (EA 256) some so-called ‘Canaanite’ and mixed origin words. Albright noted of line 13:226 “As already recognized by the interpreters, this idiom is pure Hebrew”. Albright even went very close to admitting that the local speech was Hebrew:227 ... phonetically, morphologically, and syntactically the people then living in the district ... spoke a dialect of Hebrew (Canaanite) which was very closely akin to that of Ugarit. The differences which some scholars have listed between Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic are, in fact, nearly all chronological distinctions. But even these ‘chronological distinctions’ cease to be a real issue in the Velikovskian context, according to which both the EA letters and the Ugaritic tablets are re-located to the time of the Divided Monarchy. …. (d) Balaam as an ‘Edomite sage’ “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”. W. F. Albright In his article, “The Home of Balaam” (JAOS, Vol. 35, 1915, p. 387), W. F. Albright stated: Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage. The reading Aram in Num. 23, 7 is simply a corruption of Edom, a confusion which is common in the OT. The Koranic Iramu, or Aramu, which, according to the commentators, was situated south-east of Elath, apparently owes its existence to the same misunderstanding. The two passages in Num. 22, 5, and Deut. 23, 5, where the alleged Aramean home of Balaam is more definitely located at Pethor, represent late glosses. This localization may perhaps be due to a popular etymology of Pethor, connecting it with Heb. פִתְר֣וֹן . interpretation of dreams … which exhibits a ת in Hebrew, while in Assyrian and Aramaic we have a שׁ (pašâru, פשר). … [End of quote] Thanks to this new appreciation of the ethnicity of Balaam, I was able to progress on to identifying the conqueror, Cushan-rishathaim as, not Aramean, but, like Balaam, Edomite. Thus I wrote in my article: Cushan rishathaim was a king of Edom (3) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright) … and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor): 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם). Later I would learn that other scholars … had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan). …. [Ends of quote] At about this time I was given, in an e-mail, some rather sobering information about W. F. Albright that I shall be taking up in 2. (b): …. Hi Damien. I am just coming up to the Balaam material in my thesis-writing, so this is welcome. I have had my sympathy for Albright considerably reduced, however, to find he was among those present at the secret meeting in Jerusalem in 1922 that 'fixed' the wrong dates to the archaeological eras ... Fr Pere Vincent's initiative, but Albright was complicit. …. Continuing on with Balaam for the moment, W. F. Albright would also in his article, “The Home of Balaam”, conclude that Islam’s sage, Loqmân (Lukman), was based on the biblical Balaam. “Loqmân seems to be a translation of Balaam, as both Hebrew baláʹ and Arab. láqama mean to swallow”. W. F. Albright Regarding this I had written previously: …. We have already found that the sage Loqmân (Lukman, Lokman) of the Islamic sura is based on (at least in part) as to his wise sayings the famous sage, Ahiqar, who was the nephew of the Israelite (Naphtalian) Tobit of the Book of Tobit. Like Mohammed, Loqmân, emerging from the unreliable Qurân, would no doubt be a non-historical character, a composite, perhaps bearing likenesses to both Ahiqar and Balaam, centuries before Ahiqar. W. F. Abright, following Dérenbourg et al., linked Loqmân to Balaam in his 1915 article, “The House of Balaam” (Jstor): In 1850 Joseph Dérenbourg, in his Fables de Loqmân le Sage, following the suggestion of Ewald and Rödiger, identified the pre-Islamic prophet, Loqmân, mentioned in the thirty-first sura of the Qurân, with Balaam. …. Loqmân seems to be a translation of Balaam, as both Hebrew baláʹ and Arab. láqama mean to swallow. Translations of proper names from Hebrew are not infrequent; e. g. the modern Tell el-Qáḍî represents the ancient Dan. In the same way, the modern name of Megiddo, which means garrison, is Lejjun = Lat. Legio. …. Mohammedan commentators say that Loqmân belonged to the tribe of tribe of ‘Ad, and lived at Elath in Midian. Other reports concerning him, e. g., that he was a Nubian freedman, and was born in the tenth year of David’s reign … are late inventions. …. [End of quote] Today (30th January, 2025), Donald Keith Mills informed me, regarding my article: “Sailing to Punt in peace, but without pharaoh Hatshepsut”, based on his research, “Ophir and Punt”, that: “My one quibble is that you might have included credit to Albright for having made the association much earlier than I did”. “The American archeologist William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971) identifies Ophir with Punt in Somalia”. https://ohr.edu/8859 2. The big negatives (a) - (b) According to the New World Enyclopedia article, “William F. Albright”: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/William_F._Albright …. Despite his focus on the archaeology of the Bible, Albright was not a biblical literalist. He accepted the basic idea of the documentary hypothesis and the mainstream opinions of the preceding two centuries of biblical criticism: Namely, that many of the books of the Hebrew Bible are comprised of various literary sources, each with its own theological view and agenda. In Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, he expressed the view that the religion of the Israelites had evolved out of Canaanite polytheism into the biblical monotheism that saw God acting in history through the Jews as His "chosen people." However, unlike some other bible scholars and archaeologists, Albright held that archaeology confirmed the basic historicity of the Bible. In this, Albright's American Evangelical upbringing was clearly apparent. He insisted that "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details" (Finkelstein, 2007, 42). Similarly, he claimed that archaeology had proved the essential historicity of the book of Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua and the book of Judges. …. [End of quote] It was inevitable that W. F. Albright, as a follower of the JEDP documentary hypothesis and, as we shall learn, of the conventional (Sothic-based) chronology, would fail miserably in some areas to bring convincing evidential support to his view that the historicity of the Bible was validated by archaeology. Take, for instance, the two cases of: (a) King Hammurabi, and Pharaoh Shoshenq as the biblical “Shishak” According to the same New World Encyclopedia article: …. Although primarily a biblical archaeologist, Albright also made contributions in many other fields of Near Eastern studies. For example, his … work on the Mari letters helped established an accurate date for Hammurabi, and a paper titled, "New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and History of Israel and Judah," established that Shoshenq I—the Biblical Shishak—came to power somewhere between 945 and 940 B.C.E. His work also laid the foundation for the understanding of ancient West Semitic culture in general, including the study of Canaanite religion as distinct from biblical literature. …. [End of quote] Yet something of a pioneer, W. F. Albright can be excused for not having been able - just like so many others - to secure a right date for King Hammurabi. It would take until 1986 for Dean Hickman to establish that Hammurabi was a contemporary of King Solomon of Israel. On this, see e.g. my recent article: King Solomon looming large in a reconstructed ancient history (5) King Solomon looming large in a reconstructed ancient history Almost half a century before Hickman, in 1938, W. F. Albright dated King Hammurabi to 1800 B.C., which is about 800 years too early. Still, this was - like his synthesis of Menes and Naram-Sin - a very significant downward re-setting of King Hammurabi by some 275 years from his former place. And he fully realised it, entitling his article, “A revolution in the chronology of ancient Western Asia” (BASOR 69, Feb., 1938). W. F. Albright made another fateful choice when he embraced François Champollion’s identification of the biblical Shishak, at the time of King Rehoboam of Judah, with pharaoh Shoshenq I. This, a rare occasion when non biblically-minded historians insist upon a biblical connection with an historical person, has disastrously offset the history of the Bible against a wrong Sothically estimated date. What Dr. David Rohl had said about the EA letters: “It is a pity that Albright was unable to …” applies here as well, because Dr. Rohl has, as well as anyone else, managed to debunk the conventional (Sothic) view that Shoshenq I could have been Shishak (A Test of Time: The Bible—from Myth to History, 1996). Shoshenq I has been Sothically mis-dated and mis-identified. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky would get the identification right in Ages in Chaos I (1952), when he showed that Shishak was the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose III. For my development of this important identification, see e.g. my article: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (4) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (b) Back-dating the Joshuan Conquest by a millennium Returning to my friend’s concerned e-mail: …. Hi Damien. I am just coming up to the Balaam material in my thesis-writing, so this is welcome. I have had my sympathy for Albright considerably reduced, however, to find he was among those present at the secret meeting in Jerusalem in 1922 that 'fixed' the wrong dates to the archaeological eras ... Fr Pere Vincent's initiative, but Albright was complicit. …. Mathilde Sigalas will recount how W. F. Albright came to be in Jerusalem in 1922, there connecting with “a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent”: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-55540-5_10 Between Diplomacy and Science: British Mandate Palestine and Its International Network of Archaeological Organisations, 1918–1938 …. The collaboration was also effective in terms of archaeological methodology at the beginning of the 1920s. The Presidents of the BSAJ, John Garstang (1920–1926), and of ASOR, William F. Albright (1920–1929/1933–1936), joined by a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, reflected together on a new dating method to classify antiquities.Footnote71 This classification was designated as that of the “Three Ages”Footnote72; dating of the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Modern period was modified to adapt to recent discoveries and ethnographic information on Palestine. The three scholars submitted their method to the scientific community during meetings of the POS. Adopted in 1922, the classification was implemented in archaeological sites for antiquities registration and analysis. The political context was also a reason for the policy, in an attempt to avoid subjective interpretations in favour of a particular civilisation. This classification is an example of the effects of international collaboration within a foreign intellectual knowledge network, which developed in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1920s. The three scholars were from “the three archaeological Schools in Jerusalem”Footnote73 and two were on the Board of Directors of the Palestine Oriental Society in 1922, Albright as President and Garstang as Director. The “New Chronological Classification of Palestinian Archaeology” was published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (no. 7. October 1922) and the Revue Biblique (vol. 32. 1923) of the EBAF. This example demonstrates the openness of the scientific community based in Palestine and the shared aim of anchoring Palestinian archaeology as a scientific and formal discipline. …. [End of quote] My friend has since corrected the original description, “secret meeting in Jerusalem”, by clarifying that it was not actually “secret”. The outcome of all this, a most unfortunate marrying of the Sothic chronology of Eduard Meyer with the skewed Palestinian chronology of père Vincent, has been to set back by a millennium real historical events such as the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his forces (the Middle Bronze I people of archaeology) and the overthrowing of (Early Bronze III) Jericho. For my poor opinion of Dominican (OP) biblical research, see e.g. my article: Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange (5) Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange This was a great mistake on the part of W. F. Albright, whose correcting of conventional history by a millennium, which would work so well in the case of Menes, now backfired spectacularly on him in the case of the Fall of Jericho. Had W. F. Albright been consistent in his view about the reliability of the Bible, he would have realised that the entire history of the Book of Joshua is verified by archaeology, the Bible being the key for accurately dating the archaeology. Now we have the sad situation that it must be insisted that there was a Book of Joshua type of scenario, but occurring a millennium before Joshua, whose story must have been based upon this earlier set of archaeologically verifiable events. Madness! Critics are prepared to concede a ‘Proto-Joshua’, to ‘explain’ this, but heaven forbid that they should connect that vague entity to a real biblical Joshua.

King Solomon looming large in a reconstructed ancient history

by Damien F. Mackey “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Israel Finkelstein Historians and archaeologists have managed to make such a mess of things that now it is necessary to visit several supposed eras widely separated in time, and geographies, to locate the vital bits and pieces that go to make up the true King Solomon of Israel. The same thing can be said for pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’, except that, to find him, requires a search even more wide-ranging than in the case of Solomon - as I have observed before - a search spanning over an entire millennium of conventional history: The Complete Ramses II (1) The Complete Ramses II This is all a complete disaster - something urgently needs to be done about it. So, starting with the earliest (in conventional terms) manifestation of King Solomon, let us work our way down from there to the C10th BC king in Jerusalem, who is the one far more familiar to us. Solomon’s BC Manifestations (i) As Gudea of Lagash This will, of course, immediately seem ridiculous. How could a priest-king dated to c. 2100 BC, ruling from Lagash supposedly in Sumer, be the same person as a C10th BC king of Israel (Jerusalem)? Firstly, it needs to be noted that the dating of the enigmatic Gudea has been almost as liquid as has that of the famous Hammurabi of Babylon, who, commencing at c. 2400 BC, has since been dragged all the way down to c. 1800 BC by conventional historians - but whose correct historical era is, in fact, as a contemporary of our King Solomon, in the C10th BC: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (2) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon This re-location of Hammurabi is by now, to my way of thinking at least, very well-established revisionism (see below). Gudea, for his part, is variously dated to c. 2144-2124 BC (middle chronology), or c. 2080–2060 BC (short chronology). I am going to be locating him closer to c. 950 BC – about 1200 years lower than is the earliest conventional estimate for him. Regarding geography, something very strange has happened to have led to the building up of a fictitious land of Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, with places set there such as Lagash, Girsu and Eshnunna, that do not rightly exist in that region. Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash (Lagaš) and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to ancient historian Seth Richardson (and that is because they do not belong on this map): Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu These three locations, and various others, are actually Judean: Girsu being Jerusalem; Lagash (Lakish) being Lachish; and Eshnunna (Ashnunna) being Ashdod (again, Lachish). On this, see e.g. my article: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (3) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash Appropriately (as King Solomon), Gudea ruled Girsu (Jerusalem) as well as ‘the second most important city of Judea’, the strong fortress of Lachish (Ashdod). A possible explanation for how such a horrible hash of inharmonious history has come about is that later historians - and I am thinking chiefly of the Ptolemies/Seleucids - romantically re-cast (and re-located?) ancient history and some of its most astounding characters - especially those associated with the miraculous or wonderful, such as Imhotep, Amenhotep son of Hapu, and Ahikar (Achior) - deifying these in the process, and turning them into polymathic thaumaturgists. And this may likewise, perhaps, have been what happened in the case of the wise and miraculous King Solomon, who re-emerges as the semi-divine Gudea of Lagash and Girsu, dutifully serving the god Ninĝĩrsu, “Lord of Girsu” (read “Lord of Jerusalem”). Following this massive correction of history, chronology and geography, we can now quite confidently extract from the semi-fictitious (?) Gudea the biblical King Solomon. “Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering …”. Diane M. Sharon Having the ancient city of Lagash (var. Lakish) rudely transferred from deep in supposed Sumer, to be re-located 1300-plus km (as I estimate it) westwards, as the fort of Lachish, as I have proposed to be necessary, then it comes as no surprise - in fact, I would have expected it - to learn that Gudea’s Temple hymn has Jewish resonances. It just remains to be determined with which prominent Jewish builder, Gudea – {a name that looks like Judea, but supposedly means: “the messenger or the one called by the god, or “the receiver of revelation”, meaning “the prophet”} – may have been. Diane M. Sharon, who has dated the era of Gudea about a millennium too early, has nevertheless written most interestingly at the beginning of her 1996 article, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea”: Ezekiel’s remarkably detailed vision of the future temple as described in chapters 40–48 is unique in Biblical literature. …. However, it bears undeniable resemblance to the ancient Near Eastern genre of Sumerian temple hymns, and to one example in particular. …. This example, commonly referred to as the Gudea Cylinders, was written at about 2125 B.C.E. to commemorate the building of a temple to the god Ningirsu by Gudea, king of Lagash. …. It recounts a vision received by Gudea in a dream, in which he is shown the plan and dimensions of the temple he is to build. While in fundamental ways these texts are quite different, this paper will focus on the common features of theme, structure, and detail shared by these two documents. …. it is worthwhile noting that the structure and details of Gudea’s building program also bear great resemblance to other temple construction accounts in the Bible, specifically Solomon’s activity described in 1 Kgs. 5:1–9:9 and Hezekiah’s reconstruction and repair of the temple outlined in 2 Chronicles 29–31. While a deeper analysis must wait, a summary of the parallels might be illuminating for the reader of the present paper. Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include: … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering; feast of seven days; and divine exhortation to moral and ethical behavior by ruler and subjects. …. [End of quote] Conclusion One: Gudea was King Solomon of Israel. Somewhat more tentative and circumstantial will be my next proposed manifestation of King Solomon. (ii) As Ibal-piel [I/II] of Eshnunna The well-documented Hammurabic era, the Mari letters, should make some mention, at least, of the contemporaneous (as now determined) King Solomon. Why I had lauded above the revised placement of King Hammurabi of Babylon is because of this formidable set of pillars now able to be set in place: - Hammurabi’s older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, was King David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer (Dean Hickman); - whose father, Rekhob, was Shamsi-Adad’s father Uru-kabkabu (-rukab-) (Dean Hickman); - Solomon’s persistent foe, Rezin, was Zimri-Lim (Mackey); - whose father, Iahdulim, was Rezin’s father, Eliada (Mackey). - this leaves the most powerful king of the era, Iarim-Lim, as the biblical Hiram (Mackey). That Iarim-Lim (Yarim-Lim) was an ancient master-king is apparent from a letter from Mari which gives the pecking order at the time: 10-15 kings follow Hammurabi, the man of Babylon, Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa, Ibal-Piel, the man of Eshnunna, and Amut-Piel, the man of Katna. However, 20 kings follow Yarim-Lim, the man of Yamhad. {It is very tempting to identify Hammurabi himself as Hiram’s and Solomon’s highly-skilled artisan ally, Huram-abi} Why have I tentatively picked out Ibal-piel for King Solomon (who is known to have had various names), whom we would expect to be named as a notable king of the day? Well, this Ibal-piel: - is chronologically appropriate in a revised setting; - he belongs to Eshnunna, which was shown to have been Lachish, and which was closely associated with Girsu (Jerusalem); - and he follows, as son and successor, a David-like named king, Dadusha, of Eshnunna, who must surely have been King David himself. Ibal-piel, about whom we do not know much, comes across as somewhat idolatrous. But, for one, we ought to recall that King Solomon himself had apostatised. Of Ibal-piel we read briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibal-pi-el_II Ibal pi’el II was a king of the city kingdom of Eshnunna in ancient Mesopotamia [sic]. He reigned c. 1779–1765 BC). … [sic] He was the son of Dadusha and nephew of Naram-Suen of Eshnunna. Mackey’s comment: I suspect that Naram-Sin of Eshnunna was, again, King David, Naram-Sin apparently sent Shamsi-Adad I into exile, while David defeated Hadadezer. David means “Beloved”, and so does Naram mean “Beloved”. The Wikipedia article continues with Ibal-piel: …. He was a contemporary of Zimri-Lim of Mari, and formed powerful alliances with Yarim-Lim I … Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, Rim-Sin I of Larsa and most importantly Hammurabi of Babylon, … to appose [sic] the rise of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria (on his northern border) who himself had alliances with Charchemish, Hassum and Urshu … and Qatna. …. [End of quote] This bountiful revision - as opposed to what I had called above ‘such a horrible hash of inharmonious history’ - may thus have yielded us this galaxy of biblical characters: King David; King Hiram; Rekhob; Hadadezer; King Solomon; Huram-abi; Eliada; Rezin Conclusion Two: Ibal-piel was King Solomon. Archaeologically, for King Solomon, we are in the Late Bronze II (LB II) Age. And that is why the likes of professor Israel Finkelstein have been unable to find any trace whatsoever of him, expecting his kingdom – if such there was – to be identifiable in the early Iron II Age. Hence Finkelstein’s dismal conclusion: “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” We learn from the Scriptures that (I Kings 9:15): “King Solomon conscripted [forced labor] to build … the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer”. This building work pertains to LB II stratigraphy, as Dr. John Bimson has so well explained (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” (S.I.S. Review Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. VI Issues 1-3, 1978): …. I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) …. The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have “no evidence of any particular luxury” …. The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards …. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament …. [End of quote] For LB II Megiddo, I would strongly recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkYtYokj3Qg Discovering the Real Gate of Solomon: The David Rohl Lectures - Part 4 (iii) As Jabin of Hazor Could King Solomon also have been the contemporary ruler of the strategic Hazor, King Jabin (of the Mari letters), who has been the cause of no small amount of chaos for some of the best (Christian) revisionists. Drs. Donovan Courville, David Down and John Osgood, amongst others, earnestly striving to establish the elusive King Hammurabi of Babylon in a more reasonable historical setting, all fastened on this particular King Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, a known contemporary of Hammurabi, identifying him with the Jabin of Hazor whom Joshua defeated, and so fixing Hammurabi to c. C15th BC, about half a millennium too early. Obviously this blunder must have dire consequences for the balance of their revisions. This particular Jabin of Hazor, a contemporary of King Solomon, is actually the third ruler bearing this generic name, the previous two being Jabin at the time of Joshua, and Jabin at the time of Deborah. On this, see e.g. my article: Several Kings of Hazor used the generic name of Jabin (4) Several kings of Hazor used the generic name of Jabin To confuse these three kings Jabin must surely have disastrous ramifications. Now, and this is also tentative, if Mari’s Jabin of Hazor was contemporaneous with King Solomon, and knowing that the latter had rebuilt the strategic city, Hazor, could Solomon himself, then, have been this very Jabin king of Hazor? Previously I had written on this: Since the ‘destruction’ of Jabin of Hazor at the time of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:23-24), the site should have fallen under the jurisdiction of Israel. And that situation would have continued until, and including, the time of David and Solomon – which is the era I consider (following Dean Hickman) to synchronise with Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, and the Mari archive. So I must conclude that the only hope of salvaging Dean Hickman’s thesis is to identify Jabin (3) of Hazor with King Solomon himself. And that would not seem to be immediately promising, considering that the two predecessors of Jabin (3) of Hazor were both hostile to Israel. What would King Solomon be doing adopting a name like Jabin (Ibni), or Yabni? To my own surprise, there is a name amongst the seven legendary names of King Solomon: https://ohr.edu/8266 “Midrashic Tradition tells us that King Solomon appears in the Bible under several different names. His parents, King David and Batsheba, named him Shlomo, while the prophet Natan named him Yedidyah (see II Sam. 12:24-25). Actually, the name Shlomo was already given to him before his birth in a prophecy to King David (see I Chron. 22:9). Two of the twenty-four books in the Bible open by explicitly ascribing their authorship to Shlomo: Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) and Mishlei (Proverbs). A third book, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), ascribes itself to somebody named Kohelet, son of David, king of Jerusalem. According to tradition, Kohelet is another name for Solomon. So far, we have three names for King Solomon. The early Amora, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds another four names to this list. …” [,] that can serve to bring a completely new perspective - and in favour of Dean Hickman’s thesis - to the conventional view that Mari’s Jabin of Hazor belonged to the C18th BC, and also to Dr. Courville’s view that this Jabin was the one at the time of Joshua. Could King Solomon be the Ibni-Addu [or Jabin] king of Hazor as referred to in the Akkadian tablet ARM VI, 236? To suggest that would seem to be a very long stretch indeed, given that the Mari tablets are conventionally dated to c. 1800 BC, and given also that the kings Jabin of Hazor were Canaanite kings inimical to the Hebrews, whether of the Joshuan or the Judges eras. What, however, makes far more plausible a connection between the Solomonic era and a king referred to in the Mari tablets is Dean Hickman’s thesis - previously considered - that the Mari archives, Zimri-Lim, and king Hammurabi of Babylon, must be re-dated to the actual time of King Solomon. What makes even more possible a connection between King Solomon and the Ibni (Yabni) of Hazor, at this particular time, is the fact that King Solomon had built up the important city of Hazor (I Kings 9:15). But, if Solomon were this Ibni (Yabni), or Jabin, why would he not have been said to have been “of Jerusalem” (or Girsu)? Well, geographically the Mari tablets do not go further SW than Hazor, which is in fact “the only Canaanite site mentioned in the archive discovered in Mari …”: http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm Similarly, the foremost king of the Syro-Mesopotamian region, the Amorite king, Iarim-Lim, is connected with Aleppo. He, I have argued, was David and Solomon’s loyal friend, referred to in the Bible as “Hiram king of Tyre” (e.g. I Chronicles 14:1). It seems that these mobile ancient kings of wide-ranging geographical rule were referred to by fellow monarchs in relation to the closest of their cities. Hazor was, even as early as Joshua’s day, a city of immense importance (Joshua 11:10): “The Head of all those Kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10). At a later time: “The Mari documents clearly demonstrate the importance, wealth and far-reaching commercial ties of Hazor”: http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm There is a lot to recommend the impressive Late Bronze Age Hazor as that which Solomon rebuilt: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:142088/FULLTEXT01.pdf “Hazor’s role in an international Late Bronze Age context has long been indicated but never thoroughly investigated. This role, I believe, was more crucial than previously stressed. My assumption is based on the very large size of this flourishing city which, according to documents, possessed ancient traditions of diplomatic connections and trade with Mesopotamia in the Middle Bronze Age. Its strategic position along the most important N-S and E-W main trade routes, which connected Egypt with Syria, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea with the city and beyond, promoted contacts. Hazor was a city-state in Canaan, a province under Egyptian domination and exploitation during this period, a position that also influenced the city’s international relations. Methodologically the thesis examines areas of the earlier and the renewed excavations at Hazor, with the aim of discussing the city’s interregional relations and cultural belonging based on external influences in architectural structures (mainly temples), imported pottery and artistic expressions in small finds, supported by written evidence. Cultic influences are also considered. … A model of ‘interregional interaction networks’ describes the organization of the trade which provided certain consumers at Hazor with the Aegean and Cypriote pottery and its desirable content. The cargo of the Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya ships and documents show that luxury items were transited from afar through Canaan. Such long-distance trade / exchange require professional traders that established networks along the main trade route …”. [End of quote] King Solomon, like Ibni-Addu (Jabin) of Hazor, had great need of tin, which had become scarce in the Mediterranean at that time. Much has been written on this. For example: http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/17Archeology/InscriptionJabin.aspx#sthash.jFPTabMN.dpbs “One Akkadian tablet (ARM VI, 236, dated to the 18th century B.C.) recorded a shipment of tin to "Ibni-Addad king of Hazor." Translated from Akkadian into its West Semitic form "Ibni-Addad" becomes "Yabni-Haddad," and "Yabni" linguistically evolves into "Yabin /Jabin" in ancient Hebrew”. https://www.c4israel.org/news/did-british-israeli-tin-trade-supply-solomons-temple/ Did British-Israeli Tin Trade Supply Solomon’s Temple? Dr James E. Patrick - 28 November 2019 Scientists recently found evidence suggesting that Solomon’s Temple may have been built with bronze made from British tin. Late Bronze Age tin ingots found in Israel have been analysed and shown to have originated in the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon. The Bible records Solomon sending trading ships to Tarshish, returning along the African coast (1Kings 10:22). Jonah fled on such a ship away from Nineveh, confirming that Tarshish was far to the west of Israel (Jonah 1:1-3). Ezekiel 27:12 later tells us that the wealth of Tarshish was ‘silver, iron, tin and lead’. The mineral-rich kingdom of Tartessos did exist in south-west Spain, but the tin it traded was not indigenous, coming instead by sea from Cornwall. Britain had supplied tin for bronze-making to all of Europe for centuries, hence its prosperity during the Bronze Age. As such, Britain would have traded tin with Israel using ‘ships of Tarshish’. But that biblical detective work has now been confirmed with hard evidence. In the second-millennium BC, known as the Bronze Age, the name itself illustrates how widespread and important bronze was to societies all across Europe and the Middle East. Bronze is made from copper and tin, but tin is very rare in Europe and Asia, giving it a value and strategic importance in those times similar to oil today. …. [End of quote] Traditionally, one of King Solomon’s various names was Bin, thought to indicate: “Bin = "he who built the Temple".” A thirteenth century AD scholar (so I seem to recall) translated this Bin as Yabni, which is our Jabin. Whatever reason had prompted Solomon to take (or to have been given) this name - and it may have been simply because this had become the traditional name for a ruler of the city of Hazor - the choice of name is a most fortuitous one, for it perfectly describes the wise and discerning Solomon: The name Jabin comes from the verb בין (bin) meaning to understand or have insight: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jabin.html#.XkncEW5uKUk Jabin (Hebrew: יָבִין‎ Yāḇîn) is a Biblical name meaning 'discerner', or 'the wise'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabin Conclusion Three: King Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor may possibly have been the biblical King Solomon. Concerning my next manifestation of King Solomon, (iv), I am far more confident, as I was in the case of (i) Gudea of Lagash (Lachish). (iv) As Senenmut in Egypt “Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory”. The Lost Testament (flyleaf) Many revisionists today embrace the so-called New Chronology (NC) as promoted by Dr. David Rohl and Bernard Newgrosh. This, I think, is most unfortunate. There are two critical things I want to say about NC at this point: - Its conclusions are inferior to those of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s famed series, Ages in Chaos, which basic revision NC rejects. - I bristle at the fact that the proponents of NC, a late comer on the revisionist scene, present NC as if it is the beginning and the end of it all. And I wrote an article expressing my strong views on this: Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky (3) Distancing oneself from Velikovsky saying: .… But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were completely undermining – though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability – and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later books and publications. And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”. Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing a debt to Velikovsky. The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history – as well as the writings of “Creationists” – was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s): The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of books’. As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost. Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world – a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting. The alternative ‘New Chronology’ – first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History – created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made. Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh – set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature – combined with the archaeological record – reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David and Solomon. The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ are explained – throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world’s most treasured book. [End of quote] By rejecting Dr. Velikovsky’s important identification of pharaoh Thutmose III as “Shishak king of Egypt”, a younger contemporary of King Solomon, in favour of his (NC’s) view that Shishak was the later pharaoh, the great Ramses II, Dr. Rohl has disenabled NC of ever finding a suitable candidate for the biblical Queen of Sheba. Dr. Velikovsky had intuitively recognised her as Hatshepsut, ruler of Egypt (c. 1480 BC conventional dating). As I wrote in my critique of Dr. John Bimson, who had been commenting on Velikovsky in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) well before Dr. Rohl became a key player there: Solomon and Sheba (2) Solomon and Sheba …. Bimson suggested that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia, but van Beek … has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the hazards of a journey from there to Palestine and none of the numerous inscriptions from this southern part of Arabia refers to the famous queen. Civilisation in southern Arabia may not really have begun to flourish until some two to three centuries after Solomon's era, as Bimson himself has noted … and no 10th century BC Arabian queen has ever been named or proposed as the Queen of Sheba. If she hailed from Yemen, who was she? [End of quote] “If she hailed from Yemen, who was she?” That is the thing about constructing a radical revision of biblico-history. It is not sufficient to make an identification simply in isolation. One needs also to be able to demonstrate how this affects what precedes, and what follows, it. The NC revisionists might have their new Shishak (and, admittedly, it is well argued), but they no longer have a Queen of Sheba. In the process of writing this article for the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies CHRONOLOGY AND CATASTROPHISM REVIEW (1997:1), I had the good fortune of discovering the polymathic King Solomon in Egypt at the very time, as SENENMUT, considered to have been ‘the real power behind the throne’ of Hatshepsut. King Solomon, who had participated in, had veritably created, a Golden Age for Israel, was also involved in a Golden Age for Egypt, the Eighteenth Dynasty’s glorious era of co-rule between pharaoh Hatshepsut and the brilliant Thutmose III. The chronology is perfect. Solomon, as Senenmut, was prominent in Egypt until the co-pharaohs’ Year 16, approximately. And Thutmose III launched his First Campaign, Years 22-23, the Shishak event, a handful of years later, in the 5th year of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam: Yehem near Aruna – Thutmose III’s match on Jerusalem (3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem Conclusion Four: Senenmut was King Solomon of Israel. (v) As Qoheleth In those, his latter years, King Solomon had come to realise the futility of much of life, his life, despite all of the earlier glories. And he accordingly, as Qoheleth, wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes, as Nathan Albright well tells it: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/06/20/a-case-for-solomonic-authorship-of-ecclesiastes/ A Case For Solomonic Authorship of Ecclesiastes Posted on June 20, 2011 by nathanalbright The traditional view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes is that Solomon wrote it at the end of his life, reflecting on his life and mistakes and coming to a conclusion that obedience to God is the duty and obligation of mankind. However, there are many people who claim that Ecclesiastes was instead a second temple forgery by a scribe who wrote as if he was Solomon. This view is troublesome because the Bible has the harshest opinion of forged letters (see Paul’s comments in 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and nowhere includes a forgery among the canon of scripture. Nonetheless, in the absence of Solomonic autographs (which we do not possess and are not likely to possess) for Ecclesiastes, the best way to demonstrate the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is to examine the internal evidence of the material to see how it squares with Solomon’s perspective, and to see if we can create a sound case on internal evidence for Solomon writing Ecclesiastes. That is the point of this particular entry, to at least provide a way to square the distinctive nature of Ecclesiastes with the life of Solomon. Let us pursue three avenues of demonstrating Solomonic authorship by inference from the internal evidence. First, let us look at the distinctive name by which Solomon calls himself. The word “ecclesiastes” in Latin means “speaker before an assembly.” The title that Solomon uses for himself in the book is Qoheleth, a word that only appears in Ecclesiastes (in 1:1, 2 12; 7:27; 12:8-10) in the entire Hebrew scriptures, and which is often translated “Preacher.” Let us note, though, that the author (Solomon) is pictured as writing a book on the wisdom of kings that is spoken to an assembly. There is only one kingly assembly that we know of in the entire era of the Israelite monarchies, and that occurs in 1 Kings 12. We may therefore take Ecclesiastes as the position of Solomon at the end of his life, which would explain the mild advice given to Rehoboam by Solomon’s counselors (see 1 Kings 12:7) about serving the people rather than exploiting them. Ecclesiastes may therefore be seen as a part of the tradition of ethical and constitutional monarchy within Israel rather than the heathen and satanic model of authoritarian rule. The similarity between Ecclesiastes’ view and that of Solomon’s advisers right after his death would indicate that Ecclesiastes represents his “last words” on the subject of kingship in a specific historical context where an assembly was taking place to determine the next king. Let us also note that Solomon very well may have called this assembly specifically to ensure the continuity of the Davidic line. Second, let us note some concerns that Solomon shows about his heir that are recorded that accord very well with what the Bible has to say about the foolish Rehoboam. Ecclesiastes 2:18-21: “Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil.” Here is the “succession” problem of leaders and organizations (and nations) dealt with openly and squarely. The passage would be of special relevance to a wise father of a son whose wisdom he doubts and is concerned about (with good reason). Finally, let us note a passage that would seem to indicate Solomon’s own bitterly ironic view of his response to the warning of God, expressed in Ecclesiastes 4:13-16: “Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. For he comes out of prison to be king, although he was born poor in hi kingdom. I saw all the living who walk under the sun; they were with the second youth who stands in his place. There was no end over all the people over whom he was made king; yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind.” This is a fitting prophecy of the reign of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was “in prison” as a youth in Egypt for his rebellion against Solomon (given by the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite), and whose rule began with great popularity and the support of “all Israel” at Shechem, but whose name became a byword for sin, as all of the kings of Israel in the divided kingdom “followed in the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin” through the establishment of an official state religion with heathen golden calves and a counterfeit religious festival around the time of Halloween. The bitter tone of Ecclesiastes and the knowledge it speaks of the politics of the 10th century BC, during the time when Israel divided into two hostile and warring states, ending their brief “mini-empire” of glory that they had known under the reign of David and Solomon, reflects better the times that they describe, where the ironic references to the division of Israel are particularly powerful, rather than to centuries later when the monarchy was a distant and fading memory, and when Solomon’s greatness was being consigned to the oblivion that he feared. If Ecclesiastes really is Solomon’s last words as a king, and his parting advice to his son, one wishes that his son had not been such a fool as to give it so little respect, for Ecclesiastes is truly a wealth of wisdom, even if it is wisdom gained at the price of much weariness and sorrow. Conclusion Five: Qoheleth was King Solomon of Israel. I began this article with these words: Historians and archaeologists have managed to make such a mess of things that now it is necessary to visit several supposed eras widely separated in time, and geographies, to locate the vital bits and pieces that go to make up the true King Solomon of Israel. To locate those ‘vital bits and pieces’ for our C10th BC king, we have had to range all the way back to c. 2100 BC, and supposedly to Mesopotamia, then down to c. 1800 BC, Syro-Palestine, then all the way down to c. 1480 BC, Egypt. A staggering millennium or more, as was the case also with Ramses II ‘the Great’! All of this trouble to provide a complete portrait of King Solomon of C10th BC Israel, and to refute the naysayers.

Several kings of Hazor used the generic name of Jabin

“A text from the 18th century BC [sic] records shipments of tin from Mari to “Ibni-Addad king of Hazor.” The form of the name in this text is Accadian; the West Semitic form would be “Yabni-Haddad.” Biblical Jabin (Yabin) is simply a shortened form of this same name”. Anonymous Taken from: https://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade05-4-04 ________________________________________ BSP 5:4 (Autumn 1992) p. 122 Archaeology News And Notes Name Of Jabin Found At Hazor A fragment of a clay tablet addressed to Jabin, king of Hazor, was found this past summer in excavations at Hazor. Although the Jabin of the tablet is neither of the Jabins mentioned in the Bible, it attests to the fact that Jabin was a dynastic name at Hazor. The king of Hazor at the time of the Conquest in ca 1400 BC was named Jabin according to Joshua 11:1. In the days of Deborah and Barak, nearly 200 years later, the name of the king of Hazor was also Jabin (Jgs 4; Ps 83:9). This has been a problem to Biblical scholars. If Jabin was killed and his city burned by the Israelites at the time of the Conquest, how could Deborah and Barak battle Jabin king of Hazor nearly 200 years later? The solutions proposed by critics are numerous, but they all assume one thing: the Bible has things mixed up here and there must be a textual problem. The obvious solution is that there were two different kings with the same name. But scholars never consider that possibility; the Bible must be wrong, they assert. The carrying on of dynastic names was a common practice in antiquity and is well attested. The fact that there were 11 kings in Egypt with the name Ramesses is readily accepted by historians, but if there are two kings with the same name in the Bible, that becomes a major textual problem! Damien Mackey’s comment: But, for a reform of the Ramessides, see e.g. my article: The Complete Ramses II (1) The Complete Ramses II Thanks to the discoveries of archaeology, it is now clear that the name Jabin at Hazor was a dynastic name used over many centuries. Rather than being a problem, the Bible’s use of this name for the kings of Hazor reflects an intimate knowledge of the politics of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. The first extra-Biblical reference to a king named Jabin at Hazor was found at Mari (see G. Herbert Livingston’s article on Mari in this issue, pp. 105-108). A text from the 18th century BC [sic] records shipments of tin from Mari to “Ibni-Addad king of Hazor.” Damien Mackey’s comment: This King of Hazor is actually a C10th BC contemporary of King Solomon and a revised Hammurabi of Babylon, and does not rightly belong to “the 18th century BC”. Failure to realise this has caused several fine Christian revisionists, Drs. Donovan Courville, David Down and John Osgood, to set Hammurabi half a millennium too early, to the time of the King Jabin whom Joshua fought and conquered, with disastrous chronological ramifications. The form of the name in this text is Accadian; the West Semitic form would be “Yabni-Haddad.” Biblical Jabin (Yabin) is simply a shortened form of this same name. The tablet found at Hazor is 2x2 cm (less than 1x1 in) and represents less than half the original. Written in Old Babylonian, and thus dated to the 18th-17th centuries BC, it is addressed to Ibni-Addu, king of Hazor. Again, the name Ibni corresponds to Jabin (Yabin) in the Bible. The letter was written by an appointee of the king and concerns the transfer of a woman from one place to another. Exhibiting a high-quality style and writing, the clay tablet unquestionably was a royal document executed by a skilled scribe.

Solomonic archaeology must surely be found at the Late Bronze II level

by Damien F. Mackey “So if we assume that this is an authentic artifact from the Temple of Solomon, then how is it that the inscription is from the Iron Age II but the pomegranate itself is dated to the Late Bronze Age?” Stuart Zachary Steinberg Archaeologists really need to dig deeper. As far as the Old Testament goes, archaeologists are invariably digging in the wrong place at the wrong time. Too shallow. And that goes for Israeli archaeologists as well. Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv university, after digging interminably in the Iron Age II level for evidence of King Solomon and his wondrous realm, ignominiously declared in a National Geographic article by Robert Draper, “Kings of Controversy” (December 2010, p. 85): “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Archaeologically speaking, Israel Finkelstein had not even come near King Solomon. Daniel Lazare came up with a similar pronouncement, as we read in Dr. David Down’s article, “False history—‘Out with David and Solomon!’” (2002): https://creation.com/false-history-out-with-david-and-solomon …. Facts against the Bible? Concerning Solomon’s building activities, 1 Kings 9:17–19 says, ‘And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the lower, and Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land. And he built all the store-cities which Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.’ Also, the Bible describes Solomon’s economy as being on an enviable scale. ‘And the king made silver and gold at Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedar trees as plentiful as the sycamore trees in the valley’ (2 Chronicles 1:15). But the architectural remains from Iron Age I and early Iron Age II reveal that this was a period of pitiful poverty, few people and scant building activity. This is why the critic Lazare could write, ‘Not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed.’ …. Thanks to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s vital biblico-historical synchronism as argued in Volume I of his Ages in Chaos (1952) series, however, we can align King Solomon, as an older contemporary, with pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, as the biblical “Shishak King of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26). And, thanks to Dr. John Bimson with his important article, “Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” (S.I.S. Review Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. VI Issues 1-3, 1978), we can correlate the archaeology of Thutmose III with that of King Solomon: to Late Bronze II (LB II). Thus Dr. Bimson wrote: Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon …. I also suggested briefly that the transition to LB I B belonged in the reign of Solomon [13]. Research carried out since that article was written has led me to modify that view. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky’s chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III’s sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon’s reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B. Placing the beginning of LB II during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I – II transition as its starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age. Though KENYON has stated that the LB I – II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine [16], ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A “was definitely superior to the preceding LB I”, in terms of stability and material prosperity; it saw “a rising population that reoccupied long abandoned towns” [17]. Foreign pottery imports are a chief characteristic of the period [18]. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon’s reign brought a period of peace which saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic building programme which extended throughout the kingdom [19]. I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) [21]. The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have “no evidence of any particular luxury” [21a]. The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards [22]. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament [23]. Art treasures from these cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with Egypt and northern Mesopotamia [24]. These contacts are precisely those we would expect to find attested during Solomon’s reign, the Bible records Solomon’s trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh’s daughter [25], and says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, “an important crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates … placed strategically on a great east-west trade route” [26]. …. Further indication for an LB II location for the Solomonic realm comes from this piece by Stuart Zachary Steinberg (2024): https://medium.com/@stuartz2727/the-inscribed-ivory-from-the-temple-of-solomon-and-the-late-bronze-age-0af65e9b26da The Inscribed Pomegranate from the Temple of Solomon and the Late Bronze Age One of the only existent artifacts from the Temple of Solomon is the inscribed pomegranate. It is a small pomegranate made out of ivory with an an inscription in Hebrew of לבי ( )ה קדש כהנים The world renowned epigrapher Andre Lemaire who considers this artifact authentic proposed the following reading לבית יהוה קדש כהנים which translates as Belonging to the Temple of YHWH , holy to the priests. However some scholars have disagreed with Lemaire and the authenticity of the pomegranate. A paper was published with a number of scholars titled “ Re-examination of the inscribed Pomegranate of the Israel Museum.” They conclude in their paper that the pomegranate and its inscription is not authentic. They conclude: “The combined results of this study indicate that the ivory pomegranate is ancient, its surface covered by a naturally-formed patina. It probably dates from the Late Bronze Age. The letters of the inscription are well executed (with the exception of the problematic mem).In contrast to the antiquity of the pomegranate itself, the inscription and the patina-like material on the inscription and around it are a recent forgery.” However in 2015 the late editor of BAR Hershel Shanks brought a number of scholars to examine various artifacts that had controversy surrounding their authenticity. One of the artifacts was this inscribed pomegranate. One of the expert paleographers who examined it was Ava Yardeni. She wrote “Following my new examination of the tiny pomegranate with the microscope, I am now convinced and agree with André Lemaire that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pomegranate [inscription] … I have to admit that at my latest examination of the pomegranate under the microscope, I missed the angle at which I should have looked at the object in order that I could clearly see the crucial part of the fragmentary left stroke of taw at the break. Thanks to the guidance of Robert Deutsch, who showed me where and how I should look at the old break from the left upper angle, I was able to see clearly that the protrusion was lower than the old break … Many thanks and warmest regards.” In addition Professor Yitzhak Roman of Hebrew University in late 2008 and examined this artifact with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and he found that there were no signs that it was a forgery. The lines of the letters went into the ancient break which showed it was written before the ancient break existed. Also the patina in the letters was natural. (1) So if we assume that this is an authentic artifact from the Temple of Solomon, then how is it that the inscription is from the Iron Age II but the pomegranate itself is dated to the Late Bronze Age? One explanation as proposed by the authors of the above cited paper was that the scribe wrote on an ancient Canaanite pomegranate from the Late Bronze Age. However is it really reasonable that the scribe living in the Iron Age II would have had a pomegranate from the Late Bronze Age nearly three hundred years earlier? Also would the priests use something that had been made by Canaanites who were idol worshippers in the Holy Jerusalem Temple? Furthermore would they inscribe a religious sentence on a pomegranate which was impure from Canaanite culture and religion? Everything we know from Israelite religion and culture this seems very highly unlikely. The more reasonable explanation is that the pomegranate was made from scratch on which the scribe wrote. Also just as the pomegranate has been dated to the Late Bronze Age so should the inscription be dated to the Late Bronze Age, specifically the Late Bronze Age II. The implication is that the Temple of Solomon was contemporary with the Late Bronze Age II and not the Iron Age II where it is conventionally placed. This would require lowering the Late Bronze Age II from around 1300 BCE to around 1000–950 BCE as proposed by David Rohl and his colleagues regarding the New Chronology. (1) Biblical Archaeological Review special report, December 16, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20100115025132/http://www.bib-arch.org/news/news-ivory-pomegranate.asp

Syrian Kingmaker in ancient Egypt

Part One: Recalling how Akhnaton came to the throne by Damien F. Mackey Whatever may have been the actual ethnicity of Amenhotep-Ben-Hadad-Abdi-ashirta, his successor, Amenhotep (so-called IV), or Akhnaton (Akhenaten), was undoubtedly a Syrian. Based on my recent article: Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton (2) Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu pharaoh Amenhotep (so-called III) ‘the Magnificent’ was a mighty emperor, who ruled over both Syria and Egypt. ‘The Magnificent’ was the biblical king, Ben-Hadad I of the C9th BC (conventional dating), whom Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had identified with the king of Amurru (Syria), Abdi-ashirta, of the El Amarna [EA] letters. This prominent king, thought to have been a vassal of Egypt, was in fact a master-king, with 32 other kings following him. So far I have not ventured into an explanation of how a king whom the Bible connects solely with Syria and its capital, Damascus, could have been so famous a pharaoh of Egypt as well. One of Egypt’s greatest, in fact. Whatever may have been the actual ethnicity of Amenhotep-Ben-Hadad-Abdi-ashirta, his successor, Amenhotep (so-called IV), or Akhnaton (Akhenaten), was undoubtedly a Syrian. For I have identified Akhnaton biblically with Na’aman the Syrian, the leper who was cured owing to the intervention of the prophet Elisha. Due to Na’aman’s total conversion to Yahwism, the Lord would order the prophet Elijah to anoint him as “king over Aram [Syria]” (I Kings 19:15), to wipe out Baalism from the land. Na’aman, though a commoner, a “son of nobody” as the ancients called it, would thus rise to the throne of Syria as Hazael, by assassinating his master, Ben-Hadad I. This fact adds a vital new dimension to Dr. Velikovsky’s view that pharaoh Akhnaton was the model for the Greek king, Oedipus. While Velikovsky had never gone so far as to have suggested that Akhnaton killed his father, as Oedipus is famously said to have done, the fact is that he, if he really were Hazael, had actually done this. This explains how a most unlikely person, Hazael-Amenhotep-Akhnaton, had managed to come to the throne of Egypt. Apart from identifying EA’s Abdi-ashirta as Ben-Hadad I, Dr. Velikovsky had logically identified Ben-Hadad I’s regicide successor, Hazael, as Aziru, the king of Amurru (Syria) who would succeed the slain Abdi-ashirta. Velikovsky drew some compelling comparisons between Hazael and Aziru. This was a strong, tour de force, aspect of his Ages in Chaos I (1952) thesis, praised by later revisionists. It became something of a foundation for my university thesis (2007): 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 Had Velikovsky gone a step further, and identified Aziru (Hazael) with the similarly-named Syrian, Irsu (Arsa), of the Great Harris Papyrus [GHP], as I have done, then he would have realised that Aziru had also come to control Egypt - though not as an invader, apparently - and had wrought there a religious revolution. Though GHP presents this revolution negatively, from the traditional Egyptian point of view, it could also be likened, from a different angle, to the religious revolution of pharaoh Akhnaton, which I believe it was. Akhnaton was also found to have been the model for Manetho’s semi-legendary Osarsiph, who, interestingly – in my context of Akhnaton’s being the formerly leprous Na’aman – was associated with lepers. Part Two: As an official in Egypt before he became Akhnaton We can know something about Akhnaton’s pre-regnal years and character if he was, as I think, the Syrian Na’aman (2 Kings 5:1): “Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram [Syria]. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy”. From verses 2-3, we learn that this Na’aman had a wife, and a captive Israelite slave girl, who was desirous of her master approaching the prophet Elisha for a curing of his leprosy. Unlike the king of Syria, Ben-Hadad I, who was quite happy for his army commander to visit the prophet of Samaria, the king of Israel, presumably Ahab, an inveterate foe of the Syrians, was horrified after the king of Syria had sent him an introductory letter (v. 7): “As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, ‘Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!’” Na’aman was a generous man, and presumably wealthy (v. 5): “So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold and ten sets of clothing”. See also v. 23. He was a cavalryman (v. 9): “So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house”. Na’aman was also proud. He wanted a quick cure for which he would pay handsomely. But Elisha wanted from him a complete change of heart. Vv. 10-12: Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, ‘Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed’. But Naaman went away angry and said, ‘I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?’ So he turned and went off in a rage. Did the captive Israelite girl help to change his mind? Vv. 13-14: Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. Humility and ‘baptism’. Na’aman was fully converted to the one God (v. 17): ‘… please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD’. That he was the king of Syria’s right-hand man, having even a liturgical role, may be gleaned from v. 18: ‘But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this’. Now, given my argument that Na’aman (who became Hazael king of Syria), would also become pharaoh Akhnaton, and that Na’aman had formerly served Ben-Hadad I, who was also pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’, then it is logical that we would expect to find amongst pharaoh Amenhotep’s officials one who mirrors - because he was - this Na’aman. Before attempting to identify Na’aman the Syrian as a high military official of pharaoh Amenhotep, though, we need to consider what were Akhnaton’s origins. Generally thought to have been the second son of pharaoh Amenhotep and his wife, Queen Tiy, Amenhotep, as Akhnaton was called, is a figure of almost complete obscurity for Egyptologists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten Egyptologists know very little about Akhenaten's life as prince Amenhotep. Donald B. Redford dates his birth before his father Amenhotep III's 25th regnal year, c. 1363–1361 BC, based on the birth of Akhenaten's first daughter, who was likely born fairly early in his own reign.[4][52] The only mention of his name, as "the King's Son Amenhotep," was found on a wine docket at Amenhotep III's Malkata palace, where some historians suggested Akhenaten was born. Others contend that he was born at Memphis, where growing up he was influenced by the worship of the sun god Ra practiced at nearby Heliopolis.[53] Redford and James K. Hoffmeier state, however, that Ra's cult was so widespread and established throughout Egypt that Akhenaten could have been influenced by solar worship even if he did not grow up around Heliopolis.[54][55] Some historians have tried to determine who was Akhenaten's tutor during his youth, and have proposed scribes Heqareshu or Meryre II, the royal tutor Amenemotep, or the vizier Aperel.[56] The only person we know for certain served the prince was Parennefer, whose tomb mentions this fact.[57] Egyptologist Cyril Aldred suggests that prince Amenhotep might have been a High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, although no evidence supporting this had been found.[58] It is known that Amenhotep's brother, crown prince Thutmose, served in this role before he died. If Amenhotep inherited all his brother's roles in preparation for his accession to the throne, he might have become a high priest in Thutmose's stead. Aldred proposes that Akhenaten's unusual artistic inclinations might have been formed during his time serving Ptah, the patron god of craftsmen, whose high priest were sometimes referred to as "The Greatest of the Directors of Craftsmanship."[59] …. Coregency with Amenhotep III[edit] There is much controversy around whether Amenhotep IV acceded to Egypt's throne on the death of his father Amenhotep III or whether there was a coregency, lasting perhaps as long as 12 years. Eric Cline, Nicholas Reeves, Peter Dorman, and other scholars argue strongly against the establishment of a long coregency between the two rulers and in favor of either no coregency or one lasting at most two years.[60] Donald B. Redford, William J. Murnane, Alan Gardiner, and Lawrence Berman contest the view of any coregency whatsoever between Akhenaten and his father.[61][62] Most recently, in 2014, archaeologists found both pharaohs' names inscribed on the wall of the Luxor tomb of vizier Amenhotep-Huy. The Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities called this "conclusive evidence" that Akhenaten shared power with his father for at least eight years, based on the dating of the tomb.[63] However, this conclusion has since been called into question by other Egyptologists, according to whom the inscription only means that construction on Amenhotep-Huy's tomb started during Amenhotep III's reign and ended under Akhenaten's, and Amenhotep-Huy thus simply wanted to pay his respects to both rulers.[64] …. This is all quite wrong, I believe. Amenhotep was not a prince, but was the pharaoh’s military commander, a commoner, with no thought of kingship. Did he not, as Hazael, say to the prophet Elisha? (2 Kings 8:13 ESV): ‘How could I possibly do a thing like that? I’m nothing but a dog. I don’t have that kind of power’. ‘Son of a nobody’. He did not live in the 1300’s BC, but about half a millennium later than this. Nor was he ever co-regent with his former master-king whom he slew. To find early Akhnaton, as Amenhotep, we must look for pharaoh Amenhotep’s mirror-image officer of king Ben-Hadad I’s Na’aman, preferably being named, like his king, Amenhotep. And we seem to find him in the amazing character Amenhotep son of Hapu, a man of legendary status: Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut (13) Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Amenhotep son of Hapu mirrors Na’aman in his titles, as a commoner who made good, a military commander, and right-hand man of the pharaoh, with a liturgical rôle. Egyptologist Joann Fletcher offers us a glimpse of his extraordinary power (Egypt’s Sun King. Amenhotep III, Duncan Baird, 2000, p. 51): In an unprecedented move, Amenhotep III gave extensive religious powers to his closest official and namesake, Amenhotep son of Hapu, not only placing the scribe’s statuary throughout Amun’s temple, but also granting his servant powers almost equal to his own: inscriptions on the statues state that Amenhotep son of Hapu would intercede with Amun himself on behalf of those who approached. The king’s chosen man, who was not a member of Amun’s clergy, could act as intermediary between the people and the gods on the king’s behalf, bypassing the priesthood altogether. …. [End of quote] In light of what we learned, however, in: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba the powers accorded by pharaoh Amenhotep to his namesake, the son of Hapu, were not “unprecedented”. All of this - and perhaps even more - had already been bestowed upon Senenmut, the ‘power behind the throne’ of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. I have identified this Senenmut as King Solomon in Egypt. Titles Amenhotep son of Hapu, likewise, had some most imposing titles (http://euler.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Amenhotep-Hapu.html): Hereditary prince, count, sole companion, fan-bearer on the king's right hand, chief of the king's works even all the great monuments which are brought, of every excellent costly stone; steward of the King's-daughter of the king's-wife, Sitamen, who liveth; overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North, chief of the prophets of Horus, lord of Athribis, festival leader of Amon. …. Several inscriptions outline his career and show how he rose through the ranks. Amenhotep started off as a king's scribe as mentioned on his statue: I was appointed to be inferior king's-scribe; I was introduced into the divine book, I beheld the excellent things of Thoth; I was equipped with their secrets; I opened all their [passages (?)]; one took counsel with me on all their matters. After distinguishing himself, Amenhotep was promoted to the position of Scribe of Recruits: ... he put all the people subject to me, and the listing of their number under my control, as superior king's-scribe over recruits. I levied the (military) classes of my lord, my pen reckoned the numbers of millions; I put them in [classes (?)] in the place of their [elders (?)]; the staff of old age as his beloved son. I taxed the houses with the numbers belonging thereto, I divided the troops (of workmen) and their houses, I filled out the subjects with the best of the captivity, which his majesty had captured on the battlefield. I appointed all their troops (Tz.t), I levied -------. I placed troops at the heads of the way(s) to turn back the foreigners in their places. Amenhotep mentions being on a campaign to Nubia. I was the chief at the head of the mighty men, to smite the Nubians [and the Asiatics (?)], the plans of my lord were a refuge behind me; [when I wandered (?)] his command surrounded me; his plans embraced all lands and all foreigners who were by his side. I reckoned up the captives of the victories of his majesty, being in charge of them. Later he was promoted to "Chief of all works", thereby overseeing the building program of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. His connections to court finally led to Amenhotep being appointed as Steward to Princess-Queen Sitamen. The career of Amenhotep son of Hapu in relation to Egypt reminds me in many ways of that of that other quasi-royal (but supposed commoner), Senenmut, or Senmut, at the time of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. Amenhotep son of Hapu is in fact so close a replica of Senenmut that I would have to think that he had modelled himself greatly on the latter. Senenmut was to pharaoh Hatshepsut also a Great Steward, and he was to princess Neferure her mentor and steward. So was Amenhotep son of Hapu to pharaoh Amenhotep III a Great Steward, and he was to princess Sitamun (Sitamen) her mentor and steward. Egyptologists are very wrong, again, in thinking that neither Senenmut (= Solomon) nor Amenhotep (= Na’aman-Akhnaton) ever married. Sir Alan Gardiner had claimed, in the Introduction to his Egyptian Grammar, that the ancient Egyptians were the least philosophical of peoples. And Dietrich Wildung (Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner ägyptologische Studien) considered that ancient Egypt had produced only two geniuses, Imhotep and Amenhotep, both of whom became revered as saints. But neither Imhotep nor Amenhotep was even a native Egyptian. Imhotep was the great Hebrew patriarch, Joseph: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (4) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty Whilst Amenhotep son of Hapu was, as I am now proposing, a Syrian.

Great King Hezekiah, archaeologically verified, but somewhat poorly known

by Damien F. Mackey ‘I’ve never read a King Hezekiah of Judah like that before’. Professor Rifaat Ebied Such was basically the comment made by professor Rifaat Ebied of the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies (University of Sydney), upon having read the draft of my doctoral thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf However, as often occurred to me whilst writing that thesis, King Hezekiah of Judah, though presumably the focal point of the thesis, remained for the most part a largely obscure figure, unlike some of his contemporaries whom I was able to develop in far more detail. But, firstly, how did this thesis come about? Providentially, I would suggest (appropriately writing this early in the Holy Jubilee Year of 2025). In the (Holy) Year 2000 AD, professor Ebied asked me if I would like to do a doctoral thesis, and he gave me the choice of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah, or the era of King Josiah of Judah. I, having at that stage absolutely no clear-cut ideas about the era of king Josiah, jumped at the chance to write about the era of King Hezekiah. The reason for this was that I had already spent almost two decades trying to ascertain an historical locus for the Book of Judith and had finally come to, what was all along the obvious conclusion, that the Judith drama was all about the destruction of Sennacherib of Assyria’s 185,000-strong army during the reign of Hezekiah. Let us pause for a moment, though, to consider the historicity of King Hezekiah of Judah, as affirmed by archaeological finds. Bryan Windle has written on this (2019 – I do not necessarily accept his BC dates): https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/ King Hezekiah: An Archaeological Biography …. Hezekiah reigned as King of Judah from 716 to 687 BC, after having ruled for approximately 13 years in a co-regency with his father Ahaz. …. In 2 Chronicles 29:1-2 we read, “Hezekiah began to reign when he was twenty-five years old, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abijah the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done.” He is, perhaps, best known for this religious reforms and for his stand against the Assyrian invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Hezekiah Bulla Multiple bullae (clay seal impressions) of King Hezekiah have been found. While most have come via the antiquities market, in 2015 Dr. Eilat Mazar announced that another Hezekiah bulla had been discovered while wet-sifting material excavated from a refuse dump in a Royal Building at the Ophel. …. The bulla is about one centimeter in diameter bears an ancient Hebrew inscription: “לחזקיהו [בן] אחז מלך יהדה” “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah” The seal impression also depicts a two-winged sun and ankh symbols. Scholars at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem explained the iconography this way: “The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in his life, when both the Royal administrative authority and the King’s personal symbols changed from the winged scarab (dung beetle)—the symbol of power and rule that had been familiar throughout the Ancient Near East, to that of the winged sun—a motif that proclaimed God’s protection, which gave the regime its legitimacy and power, also widespread throughout the Ancient Near East and used by the Assyrian Kings.”…. The Hezekiah bulla affirms not only Hezekiah’s historicity, but his lineage as well, affirming these biblical details about his life. Evidence of Religious Reforms Hezekiah was instrumental in leading the people of Judah away from idolatry and back to the worship of Yahweh. In 2 Kings 18:4 we read, “He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” Evidence of Hezekiah’s religious reforms have been discovered at Arad, Beer-Sheba, Lachish, Tell Motza, and Tell Lahif. …. For example, the famous four-horned alter at Beer-Sheba was dismantled during Hezekiah’s reign and three of its four horns were found in secondary use in a wall, indicating the structure was no longer considered sacred. At Lachish, a gate-shrine was unearthed in 2016. Two small horned alters were discovered, whose horns had been broken off, and a toilet had been placed in the shrine as a symbolic act of desecration (2 Kings 10:27). …. Hezekiah’s Tunnel and Broad Wall Perhaps the defining moment in King Hezekiah’s life occurred when Sennacherib, King of Assyria came to attack Jerusalem. Hezekiah received word prior to the impending invasion, giving him enough time to improve the city’s fortifications and build a tunnel to bring water into the city. In 2 Chron. 32:2-4, 30 we read: “When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to make war on Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. A large force of men assembled, and they blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. “Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?” they said …. It was Hezekiah who blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David.” 2 Kings 20:20 further summarizes Hezekiah’s life: “As for the other events of Hezekiah’s reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?” An ancient aqueduct, dating to the time of King Hezekiah, was discovered by Edwin Robinson in 1838. Several years later an inscription was discovered in the tunnel which recorded how it had been built. Written in ancient Paleo-Hebrew and dated to the 8th century BC, the inscription reads, And this was the way in which it was cut through: While [the quarrymen were] still […] axes, each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed [the rock], each man towards his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the heads of the quarrymen was a hundred cubits….. Within the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, archaeologists unearthed further evidence of Hezekiah’s preparation for war. The Broad Wall, as it is known today, is a 7m thick defensive fortification that still stands 3.3 m tall in some places. It was built by Hezekiah to enclose the Western Hill and it increased the defensive walls of the city five-fold. …. Sennacherib’s Attack Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13 “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” This was in response to Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian king, refusing to serve him as a vassal (2 Kings 18:7). The Bible isn’t the only ancient text that describes this attack, however; multiple copies of the Annals of Sennacerib [sic] have been unearthed. The Taylor Prism, the Oriental Institute Prism and the Jerusalem prism are three clay prisms that contain the same text describing events from the reign of Sennacherib. The Taylor Prism was discovered in 1830 by Colonol [sic] Robert Taylor while excavating the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh. On it, Sennacherib boasts: “As for Hezekiah the Judahite who had not submitted to my yoke, I surrounded 46 of his strong walled towns, and innumerable small places around them, and conquered them by means of earth ramps and siege engines, attack by infantrymen, mining, breaching, and scaling. 200,150 people of all ranks, men and women, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep without number I brought out and counted as spoil. He himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I put watch-posts around him, and made it impossible for anyone to go out of his city.” …. Sennacherib also states, “Now the fear of my lordly splendor overwhelmed that Hezekiah” … and he confirms that the Judahite King did indeed pay him tribute (2 Kings 18:14). It is interesting to note that Sennacherib does not boast of destroying Jerusalem, but merely shutting Hezekiah up in his royal city “like a bird in a cage.” This would be consistent with the biblical description of God’s rescue of his people and Sennacherib’s return to Assyria without conquering Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35-36). Mackey’s comment: But Sennacherib had conquered Jerusalem in this his 9th Campaign. The miraculous deliverance of the city would occur some years later, during a second Assyrian invasion. Bryan Windle concludes: Summary The account in the Bible of Hezekiah’s life, his religious reforms and his stand against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, align with what is known about him from the archaeological record. He was one of the greatest kings Judah had ever had. In Scripture, his life is summarized this way: “He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.” (2 Kings 18:5). King Hezekiah of Judah King Hezekiah, quite a formidable historical figure, whom his neo-Assyrian opponent King Sennacherib described as “the strong, proud Hezekiah” (Sennacherib’s Bull Inscriptions), and who reigned for almost three decades (2 Kings 18:2), tends to disappear from the scene of conflict after about his 14th year, the year of his sickness. Yet this was well before the confrontation with the ill-fated army of Sennacherib. More recently, though, I have managed to enlarge Hezekiah considerably, by identifying him with the similarly good and pious king of Judah, Josiah (one of professor Ebied’s two points of reference). For my arguments on this, and for my radical revision of the later kings of Judah, see e.g. my articles: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (4) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah (4) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I have also enlarged King Hezekiah scripturally by proposing that: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (3) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, too, with my most radical identification of him with two supposedly very ancient rulers of Lagash in Sumer (my Lachish in Judah): Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (6) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. and: Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (3) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Sennacherib of Assyria This notorious king of Assyria I had already enlarged in my thesis by multi-identifying him, especially in Volume One, Chapter 6. His chief alter ego, I had concluded, was the potent Sargon II. I have since written further articles on this fusion of supposedly two Assyrian mega-kings, along the lines of e.g: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib My other move on Sennacherib at that time involved the necessary (in terms of the revision) folding of so-called ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian history with ‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian history. Revised attempts at this so far do not seem to have been very successful. I thought that I had found the perfect solution with my folding of the mighty Middle Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, conventionally dated to the C12th BC - he, I then declared to have been ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II/Sennacherib. Such an identification, which seemed to have massive support from the succession of Shutrukid-Elamite kings of the time having names virtually identical to the succession of Elamite kings at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib (see Table 1 below), had the further advantage of providing Sargon II/Sennacherib with the name, “Nebuchednezzar”, just as the Assyrian king is named in the Book of Judith (“Nebuchadnezzar”). My more recent collapsing of the late neo-Assyrian era into the early neo-Babylonian era has caused me to drop the identification of Nebuchednezzar I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib. Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel (4) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu More appropriately, now, Nebuchednezzar I might be found to have been Nebuchednezzar so-called II. Fortunately though, with this tightened chronology, the impressive Shutrukid-Elamite parallels that I had established in my thesis might still remain viable. Having rejected my former folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib the question must be asked, ‘At what point does Middle fold with Neo?’ Hopefully, I had identified that very point of fusion in my thesis (see next). King Merodach-baladan of Babylonia Here, I shall simply reproduce part of what I wrote about the best point of folding in my thesis (Chapter 7, beginning on p. 180): So, with what ‘Middle’ Babylonian period are we to merge the ‘Neo’ Babylonian Merodach-baladan [II], in order to show that VLTF [Velikovsky’s Lowering on Timescale by 500 Years] is convincing for this part of the world as well at this particular time? Actually, there is a perfect opportunity for such a merger with one who is considered - perhaps rightly - to have been one of the last Kassite kings: namely, Merodach-baladan [I] (c. 1173-1161 BC, conventional dates). Now, as I have emphasized in the course of this thesis, identical names do not mean identical persons. However, there is more similarity between Merodach-baladan I and II than just the name I would suggest. For instance: • There is the (perhaps suspicious?) difficulty in distinguishing between the building efforts of Merodach-baladan [I] and Merodach-baladan [II]: Four kudurrus ..., taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa ... show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk ..., assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities ... cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 ...). Further: • Wiseman contends that Merodach-baladan I was in fact a king of the Second Isin Dynasty which is thought to have succeeded the Kassites. Brinkman, whilst calling this view “erroneous”, has conceded that: “The beginnings of [the Second Dynasty of Isin] ... are relatively obscure”. • There is the same approximate length of reign over Babylonia for Merodach-baladan [I] and [II]. Twelve years as king of Babylon for Merodach-baladan II, as we have already discussed. And virtually the same in the case of Merodach-baladan I: The Kassite Dynasty, then, continued relatively vigorous down through the next two reigns, including that of Merodach-baladan I, the thirty-fourth and third-last king of the dynasty, who reigned some thirteen years .... Up through this time, kudurrus show the king in control of the land in Babylonia. • Merodach-baladan I was approximately contemporaneous with the Elamite succession called Shutrukids. Whilst there is some doubt as to the actual sequence of events - Shutruk-Nahhunte is said to have been the father of Kudur-Nahhunte - the names of three of these kings are identical to those of Sargon II’s/ Sennacherib’s Elamite foes, supposedly about four centuries later. 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! [End of quotes] Who of Hezekiah and his contemporaries re-emerge in Judith? Interfacing the era of King Hezekiah of Judah with the drama of the Book of Judith. The historical event [in Judith 1] … is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan and his Elamite allies. About half a dozen of King Hezekiah’s contemporaries may be found, I believe, amongst the rather small cast of the drama of the Book of Judith. Four of these characters have names that are nicely compatible the one with the other, whilst the rest have ‘dud’ names in accordance with what I wrote in my article: Book of Judith: confusion of names https://www.academia.edu/36599434/Book_of_Judith_confusion_of_names The Book of Judith opens with a major war (Judith 1:1-6): While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes from his capital city of Ecbatana. Around Ecbatana King Arphaxad built a wall 105 feet high and 75 feet thick of cut stones; each stone was 4 1/2 feet thick and 9 feet long. At each gate he built a tower 150 feet high, with a foundation 90 feet thick. Each gateway was 105 feet high and 60 feet wide—wide enough for his whole army to march through, with the infantry in formation. In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite alliance. This is describing, as I have argued, an actual historical war. However, owing to the insertion of those ‘dud’ names as mentioned above, it is now extremely difficult to identify which historical event it is. The historical event that it is, is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan the Chaldean (“Chelodite” above) and his Elamite allies. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/sargon-ii-the-assyrian-king-history-essay.php After [Sargon II] secured his empire, he began his military activity against the Elamites in Babylon who were allies of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. …. in his 12th year in 710 he defeats and gets rid of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. For the first time ever Sargon makes himself the official king of Babylon in 710 B.C …. After the defeat of Merodach-Baladan he devotes most of 710 B.C campaigning against the Aramean tribes. The Arameans are known as the bandits to the Assyrian people and had always been their enemies. …. “Nebuchadnezzar” here is Sargon II, who is also Sennacherib. It was common in antiquity for King Sennacherib to be confused with King Nebuchednezzar (see “confusion of names” article above). “Arphaxad” here can only be Merodach-baladan, a biblical king who figures e.g. in Isaiah 39:1. The king doing the city building may actually be Sargon, not Merodach-baladan (“Arphaxad”), the Assyrian king building his fabulous new city of Dur Sharrukin, not “Ecbatana”: A Description of the Building of Sargon II's City in the Book of Judith https://www.academia.edu/3704934/A_Description_of_the_Building_of_Sargon_IIs_City_in_the_Book_of_Judith “King Arioch of Elam” here is Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, who governed Elam for the Assyrians. Judith 1:6, though, is a gloss, because Ahikar was not then governing the Elamites, but only later. See e.g. my article: “Arioch, King of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6) https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_ Later in the Book of Judith (5:1) he will be referred to as “Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites”, leading commentators naturally to conclude that Achior was an Ammonite, who converted to Yahwism, which is highly controversial in relation to Deuteronomic Law. But he was in reality a northern Israelite, as more properly described in Judith 6:2: “And who art thou, Achior, and the hirelings of Ephraim, that thou hast prophesied against us as to day …?” As “Arioch”, Achior may re-emerge in the Book of Daniel - according to my tightened chronology - as “Arioch” the high official of King Nebuchednezzar (Daniel 2:14-23). Ahikar-Achior is a most famous historical character, a revered sage down through the ages, known in the Assyrian records as Aba-enil-dari. Achior is the first of our Hezekian-Judith interface characters to bear a consistent name, he, Ahikar, actually being called “Achior” in the Vulgate version of the Book of Tobit. The other recognisable names are Eliakim (Eliachim) the high priest in the Vulgate Judith 4:5: Sacerdos etiam Eliachim scripsit ad universos qui erant contra Esdrelon, quae est contra faciem campi magni juxta Dothain …. elsewhere named as “Joakim”. He is King Hezekiah’s chief official, Eliakim: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest In Judith 6:15 we first encounter “Uzziah son of Micah”. These names represent two famous prophets of the era of King Hezekiah, namely Isaiah and his father Amos, or Micah: Prophet Micah as Amos https://www.academia.edu/27351718/Prophet_Micah_as_Amos Isaiah must have accompanied his father Amos to the northern Bethel (Amos 7:10-14) where we know Isaiah as the prophet Hosea. By the time of Judith, he, now named Uzziah, had become chief official of the town of Bethel, which was Judith’s city of Bethulia, or Shechem: Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’. Part Two (ii): Shechem https://www.academia.edu/34737759/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_ii_Shechem “Holofernes” and Bagoas” “Holofernes” and “Bagoas” are further ‘dud’ names, they being non-Assyrian, that have found their way into the Book of Judith. The correct name for the Assyrian military leader, “Holofernes”, in the Book of Judith, is to be found in the Book of Tobit 14:10. It is “Nadin” (var. “Nadab”). Tobit, now near death, recalls the incident in which Nadin (“Holofernes”) had double-crossed his apparently former mentor and his uncle, Ahikar (“Achior”): ‘Remember what Nadin did to Ahikar his own uncle who had brought him up. He tried to kill Ahikar and forced him to go into hiding in a tomb. Ahikar came back into the light of day, but God sent Nadin down into everlasting darkness for what he had done. Ahikar escaped the deadly trap which Nadin had set for him, because Ahikar had given generously to the poor. But Nadin fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him. The “deadly trap” laid by “Holofernes” was this (Judith 6:7-9): ‘Now my men will take you into the mountains and leave you in one of the Israelite towns, and you will die with the people there. Why look so worried, Achior? Don't you think the town can stand against me? I [Holofernes] will carry out all my threats; you can be sure of that!’ But the heroine Judith would turn all of that on its head, so to speak, so that it would be ‘Nadin [who] fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him’. For more on this, see: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith This Nadin (“Holofernes”) was Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, known to have been slain in enemy territory – but wrongly thought to have been killed in Elam. Ben Dewar, writing of Ashur-nadin-shumi in his article: Rebellion, Sargon II's “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions of Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/36189988/Rebellion_Sargon_IIs_Punishment_and_the_Death_of_A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi_in_the_Inscriptions_of_Sennacherib will have this to say in his Abstract: …. 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 [sic]. 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. What I wrote in my university thesis on King Hezekiah of Judah (2007) about this situation was as follows: 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: “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 here. Jonsson, who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more heavily bracketted than had Tadmor: … “[Year 17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war”. On the 12th of Abu Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”. [End of quote] The incorrect (non-Assyrian) name, “Holofernes”, and also, “Bagoas”, must be late insertions into the Book of Judith, based on the very unreliable Diodorus Siculus, C1st BC (conventional dating), who told of an “Orophernes” and a “Bagoas” among the commanders of a campaign of Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ (c. 359-338 BC, conventional dating). See Ida Fröhlich, Time and Times and Half a Time (p. 118). For historical uncertainties surrounding Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ see e.g. my articles: Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith (8) Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith and: Medo-Persian history has nor adequate archaeology (8) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology According to the above, the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith was King Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the “Nadin” of Tobit 14:10), who was - like his father, Sennacherib - a contemporary of King Hezekiah. That being the case, which Assyrian contemporary of King Hezekiah was Assyria’s second-in-command on this campaign against Israel, “Bagoas”? Well, basing myself on a Jewish tradition that the future Nebuchednezzar himself was on this ill-fated campaign, and also on my crunching of neo-Assyrian into neo-Babylonian history, I have suggested that a possible candidate for “Bagoas” was that very Nebuchednezzar (= my Esarhaddon), another son of Sennacherib. See e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu