by
Damien F. Mackey
What
was Sobna’s former office, to which Eliakim had now succeeded?
It is usually given as Major-domo or its equivalent; but the
Douay Isaiah 22:15 translates it in terms that could only be referring to the
high priesthood.
Thus Isaiah is
commanded: ‘Go … to him that dwelleth
in the tabernacle,
to Sobna [Shebna] who
is over the Temple ...’.
Was Eliakim the High Priest?
There
may be far more to King Hezekiah of Judah’s chief official, “Eliakim son of
Hilkiah” (cf. 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:20, 36:3), than at first
meets the eye.
Isaiah’s
Oracle re Eliakim
We
encounter Eliakim son of Hilkiah in, for example, Isaiah 22, in what is regarded as the prophet’s
‘second oracle’ against the official, Sobna (or Shebna). Isaiah
predicted that Sobna would be replaced by Eliakim. This must have taken effect at the
time of King Sennacherib of Assyria’s Third Campaign invasion of Judah,
since Eliakim was by then King Hezekiah’s chief minister.
Sobna
was now second to Eliakim.
But
the vital question is: What was Sobna’s former office, to which Eliakim had
now succeeded? It is usually given as Major-domo or its equivalent;
but the Douay Isaiah 22:15 translates it in terms that could only be referring
to the high priesthood.
Thus
Isaiah was commanded by the Lord: ‘Go … to him that dwelleth in the
tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the Temple ...’. The Latin Vulgate
gives the words italicized here as ‘eum qui habitat in tabernaculo … praepositum templi …’.
Moreover,
Isaiah describes and praises Eliakim son of Hilkiah in words that indicate, not
only the man’s great authority, but that could be taken also as a description
of a high priest (vv. 21, 24):
‘He shall be as a father to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem
and to the House of Judah …. All the glory of
his family will hang on him:
its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser
vessels, from the bowls to all the jars’.
‘Vessels
… bowls … jars’.
‘Father’:
a strong word when it is considered that King Hezekiah himself was ruler over
the House of Judah; but an appropriate title for a high priest, perhaps, who
was in a sense ruler over even the king whom he would proclaim and anoint (cf.
1 Samuel 16:13). And in Eliakim’s case, with his having had to substitute for
the king whilst Hezekiah himself was gravely ill (2 Kings 20:1), then the
title, “father”, would take on an even more significant meaning.
Sobna,
therefore, must formerly have been the high priest.
Eliakim
in the Book of Judith
Whilst
the Book of Judith is pure history, it now, in its present form, takes a lot of
decoding:
Book of Judith: confusion of names
(DOC)
Book of Judith: confusion of names | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
We
are still in the reigns of kings Hezekiah of Judah and Sennacherib of Assyria,
but at a later phase. The King of Assyria is rightly said to be ‘ruling over
the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh’ (Judith 1:1), but, confusingly,
he is named “Nebuchadnezzar”.
This
has prompted some would-be interpreters of the Book of Judith to try fitting
the incidents described therein during the reign of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’
of Babylon - which is about the worst possible choice of era for a massive
victory by the Jews over an invading enemy!
Dr. Stephanie Dalley of Oxford
University’s Oriental Institute and author of the fascinating book, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon,
has explained that the ancients commonly confused Sennacherib of Nineveh with
Nebuchednezzar of Babylon.
And
she has expertly argued that the famed ‘Hanging Gardens’ of antiquity were
situated in Nineveh, and not in Babylon.
Moreover,
Dr. Dalley has been able to demonstrate (actually in situ) that the screw pump, famously attributed to Archimedes
(C3rd BC), was already being used by the Assyrians about half a millennium
earlier, at the time of Sennacherib.
Even
more puzzlingly in the Book of Judith, neither King Hezekiah, nor any other
king of Judah, is mentioned therein.
Little
wonder, then, that some commentators have looked to locate the Judith incident
at a time when Judah was kingless (e.g. the Maccabean era).
Understandably,
Eliakim had stood in for King Hezekiah during the latter’s 14th year
of reign, when he was ill. Not so easily explained, though, is why Hezekiah
will not figure during the second invasion, which, admittedly, did not
penetrate beyond northern Israel (Judith’s town of “Bethulia”/Shechem). This
latter incident, most terrifying for Israel, would occur about a decade later
than the first successful invasion by the Assyrians. We begin to read about the
second invasion in chapter 2 of the Book of Judith. The King of Assyria will
now send his commander-in-chief (here called “Holofernes”) to crush the western
nations that had failed to assist him in a war of Assyria’s fought against
“Arphaxad”.
As
it turns out, though, not Israel, but the head of “Holofernes”, is what (like
Satan) gets ‘crushed’.
The
truth of the matter is that “Holofernes” had already ‘lost his head’ over the
beautiful Judith some time before he would physically lose his head into her
maid’s food basket (Judith 13:8-10).
The high priest (as now interpreted), Eliakim, will re-emerge in
biblical history in Judith chapter 4. We meet him there as: “The high priest, Joakim”.
The name Joakim is linguistically interchangeable with Eliakim.
And, in case we may have any doubts, Joakim
the high
priest is otherwise named Eliakim in the Douay version of the Book of
Judith (Eliachim in the Latin).
And this Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, was none other than Jeremiah, son of
Hilkiah:
Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest
(9) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest
Instead of a king to stir up the people, as Hezekiah had done at the
commencement of Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chronicles 32:2-8) for his Third
Campaign, Judith 4:6-7
introduces us to:
“The
high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time [who] wrote
to the people of Bethulia and
Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, ordering
them to seize the mountain passes,
since by them Judaea could be invaded
…”.
Our Eliakim/Joakim, the high priest, is now fully
realising the prediction of him by Isaiah, that he would “be as a father to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem and to the House of Judah”.
Cf.
Jeremiah 1:5, 9-10.
Joakim
even acts as Jerusalem’s defence organiser.
---------------
St. Peter the High Priest
‘And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon
earth,
it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose upon earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven’.
Matthew 16:18-19
The
commonly accepted connection of Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 must surely become
all the more significant if the prophet’s Oracle concerning “Eliakim son of
Hilkiah” is understood to have been proclaimed in reference to a person who,
not only of priestly descent, will rise to become the Divinely appointed High Priest
of Jerusalem.
Saint
Peter, too, was divinely appointed, by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, to be the
new High Priest.
And,
just as Eliakim was designated “father” (Hebrew, av: אָב), so do we Catholics refer to Peter and
his successors as “pope”, from the Latin papa
which means “father”.
Eliakim
would be exalted over his predecessor, Sobna (about whom I am going to say
more), who had been found to be unworthy and most presumptuous (Isaiah
22:15-19).
In
like manner, Saint Peter was to replace the old Jewish high priesthood which
had degenerated into whitewashed hypocrisy (Matthew 23:27), and which had
orchestrated the murder of the Messiah.
---------------
Sobna and Eliakim in
the Assyrian Records?
If,
as already claimed, Sobna had once been the high priest, then we should be able
to identify him.
{What
follows here is highly tentative}
Sobna
as biblical high priest
Prior
to the 14th year of King Hezekiah of Judah, when we find Eliakim at
the helm - and as high priest as already argued - the king’s high priest was
one “Azariah the chief priest, from the family of Zadok” (2
Chronicles 31:10).
Presumably this Azariah, being of the
“family of Zadok”, hence an Aaronite (cf. Ezra 7:1-5), had been legitimately
appointed.
Moreover,
King Hezekiah was, at this particular time, fully involved in his great work of
reform. So we might imagine that the high priest Azariah was thus a loyal
Yahwist, and hence unsuitable to be the same as the unworthy Sobna (or Shebna).
But
wait a minute.
King
Hezekiah’s wicked father, Ahaz - whose works of apostasy his son Hezekiah was
now busily undoing - had a high priest named Uriah, who was apparently involved
right up to his neck in Ahaz’s Assyrian-inspired works of idolatry (2 Kings
16:10-11):
Then
King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He saw an
altar in Damascus and sent to Uriah the priest a sketch of the altar, with
detailed plans for its construction. So Uriah the priest built an altar in
accordance with all the plans that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus and
finished it before King Ahaz returned.
Vv.
12-15 continue with the narrative of the co-operation between Ahaz and his
faithful lackey, before we read (v. 16): “And Uriah the priest
did just as King Ahaz had ordered”.
Now, this “Uriah the priest” is precisely
the sort of man who could be Sobna (Isaiah 22:18): ‘You shame of your master's house’. And the
name, “Uriah”, is compatible with “Azariah” (Hezekiah’s high priest) as we
shall see (next section) from the compound form of it: Azuri.
This
tricky high priest - if we are correct in connecting Uriah-Azariah-Sobna - must
have been chameleon-like in his ability to satisfy the idolatrous King Ahaz,
but then survive to assist during the Yahwistic reform of King Hezekiah.
However,
Sobna was to be ‘called out’ by the great prophet Isaiah who was not easily
fooled, who could read men’s hearts.
One
reason for Sobna’s survival as high priest during King Hezekiah’s reform (which
great work may have been heavily influenced by Isaiah himself, anyway) may have
been due to the political mindset of
Hezekiah and the high priest’s adaptability to it.
It
is thought that Uriah, as high priest to King Ahaz, may have made offerings on
an altar dedicated to the Assyrian god, Assur.
Ahaz
was politically, as we have read, pro-Assyrian.
But
Hezekiah was, unlike his father, pro-Egyptian.
And
this was anathema to Yahweh speaking through Isaiah (30:1-3):
‘Oh, rebellious children’, says the Lord,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who make an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin;
who set out to go down to Egypt
without asking for my counsel,
to take refuge in the protection of
Pharaoh,
and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt;
Therefore the protection of Pharaoh shall
become your shame,
and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt your
humiliation’.
For
I am now going to suggest that Sobna the high priest of King Hezekiah would
attempt to throw off the Assyrian yoke established during the reign of
Tiglath-pileser, and rebel against the mighty neo-Assyrian successor king,
Sargon II.
Sobna
as Azuri of “Ashdod”
“In the year that the supreme commander,
sent by Sargon king of Assyria,
came to Ashdod and attacked and captured
it”
Isaiah 20:1
Sobna
was now getting way too big for his boots, proud of his “chariots” (Isaiah
22:18) and cutting out for himself an elaborate tomb (v. 16): ‘What are you doing here and who gave you permission to cut out a
grave for yourself here, hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your
resting place in the rock?’
This is thought to be Sobna’s actual tomb
inscription.
It supposedly
reads: “This is [the tomb of Shebna]yahu who is over the house. There is no
silver and gold here, only [his bones] and the bones of his maidservant with
him. Cursed be the man who opens this.”
(The wording in brackets is missing on the inscription and has been
supplied.)
Instead
of Shebna-yahu, however, I wonder if the
original might have read Azri-yahu
(i.e., Azariah).
Most
interestingly, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser boasted of having received
tribute from “Azriyahu of
Yaudi”, generally thought by historians to refer
to (but the chronology would be over-stretched) the great King Azariah (=
Uzziah) of Judah.
Could it actually be an historical
reference to our man, the high priest Azariah of Judah?
Isaiah 20:1 was the only reference known
to King Sargon of Assyria down through the centuries, until the C19th AD advent
of archaeology. In
1842, Emil Botta discovered the ruins of Sargon’s palace, in Khorsabad, on the
north edge of Nineveh, with treasures and inscriptions showing him to have been
one of Assyria’s greatest kings.
King Sargon was compelled to send his
general (or Tartan) against the
powerful Judean fort of Ashdod due to its revolt - a revolt instigated by the
pro-Egyptian Jews against Assyria.
And guess by whom this revolt was led?
By Azuri.
According to Sargon: “Azuri, king of Ashdod, plotted in his heart not to pay tribute. In
my anger I marched against Ashdod … I conquered Ashdod, and Gath. I took their
treasures and their people. My Tartan I set over them as governor”.
That was only a temporary appointment,
because the Assyrians would place Azuri’s
brother, Akhimiti, over Ashdod.
Notice those two names, Azuri, Akhimiti, and compare them with,
respectively, Uriah/Azariah (Sobna?) and Eli-akim (Akhim-iti).
If this tentative reconstruction is on
the right track, then the high priestly brothers, Zadokites, were in charge of
the fort of “Ashdod”, which is the mighty stronghold of Lachish. (The coastal
Ashdod is distinguished by Sargon as Asdudimmu, i.e., ‘Ashdod-by-the-Sea’).
That would
explain why Judith 4:6 specifically notes that: “The High Priest Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at that time”, perhaps
meaning that Jerusalem was not his usual abode. Sobna rebelled against Assyria
and was replaced (as Isaiah had foretold) by Eliakim – who was apparently this
Sobna’s brother, or relative.
“Azriyahu of Yaudi”
“However
Na'aman (1974) showed that one of the inscriptions that connected this Azriyahu to a land called Yaudi was
actually attributed to Tiglath-pileser III erroneously, and was actually a part of an
inscription
by Sennacherib describing his campaign to Yaudi/Judah in 701, long after
the death of [King] Azariah”.
Concerning
what is thought to be the rock inscription of Sobna (Shebna), I had surmised above:
Instead of Shebna-yahu,
I wonder if the original might have read Azri-yahu
(i.e., Azariah). Most interestingly, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser boasted
of having received tribute from “Azriyahu of Yaudi”, generally thought by historians to refer
to (but the chronology would be over-stretched) the great King Azariah (=
Uzziah) of Judah.
Then I followed this with the question:
“Could it actually be an historical reference to our man, the high priest
Azariah of Judah?”
It will be recalled that Sobna (Shebna)
was tentatively identified with the high priest Azariah of the time of King
Hezekiah, and with the high priest Uriah of the time of King Ahaz – and further
identified as the rebellious Azuri of
Ashdod of the Assyrian records of King Sargon II.
Though there is nothing to suggest that
our composite character had rebelled during the reign of the Assyrian king,
Tiglath-pileser [III] - {he, the high priest, then being an obedient lackey of
the idolatrous Ahaz who was pro-Assyrian} - there is now to be considered that
intriguing view of Nadav Na’aman, above (taken from Yigael Levin’s The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah:
that the Assyrian reference to Azriyahu of Yaudi properly belongs to the time of Sennacherib’s assault on
Jerusalem (701 BC being a conventional date) – the approximate time when the
high priest Azariah was indeed revolting.
This, then, would make it highly likely
that Azriyahu of Yaudi was the rebellious Azuri
of Ashdod (= Lachish) of Sargon II’s records, and it would further strengthen
my view of the:
Assyrian King Sargon II,
Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib
Rolled up tightly like a ball
“Go, say to this steward, to Shebna ….
‘Beware, the Lord is about
to take firm hold of you and hurl you away,
you mighty man. He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you
into a large country. There you will die …’.”
Isaiah 22:15, 17-18
Extending Sobna-Azuri
Already
I had, in my university thesis (2007:
A Revised History of the Era of King
Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
identified
the rebellious Azuri of “Ashdod” (of
the Assyrian King Sargon II’s records) with Uriah the high priest at the time
of King Ahaz of Judah, and I had identified Azuri’s
brother, Akhimiti of Sargon’s
records, with Eliakim, who, as I argued there, became King Hezekiah’s high
priest.
But
I had not then taken any further the extension of Azuri-Uriah as I have done in this article - according to which Azuri-Uriah was also the high priest
Azariah, a Zadokite, during the early part of Hezekiah’s reign, and was the
same as the Sobna (Shebna) who was the recipient of Divine wrath as according
to the Oracles of Isaiah 22.
This
Sobna (Shebna) I had then identified as a third person governing “Ashdod”, Iatna-Iamani.
Thus
(i) Azuri, (ii) Akhimiti, (iii) Iatna.
{What
follows here is tentative}
Now,
whilst I am still leaning to the view that Sobna (Shebna) was the Iatna-Iamani who rebelled against the
Assyrians, I would now identify him with the similarly rebellious Azuri, meaning that only two people are
actually intended: (i) Azuri/Sobna/Iatna and (ii) Akhimiti/Eliakim.
What
had impressed me about Iatna as Sobna
was that the former had suffered the very fate that Isaiah told would befall
Sobna. The Great Inscription of Tang-I Var in Iran, discovered in 1999, tells
of it.
I discussed this document in my thesis (Volume One)
beginning on p. 373, showing also how this particular inscription plays havoc
with the conventional Nubian history:
“Here at last”, wrote
Gardiner, with an apparent sigh of relief upon his introduction of the 25th
dynasty,1090 “we are heartened by some resemblance to
authentic history …”. Perhaps though, from a
conventional perspective, he could not have been more wrong. The Tang-i Var
inscription dated to Sargon II’s Year 15 (c. 707 BC), according to which
Shebitku - not Shabaka as was long thought - was the 25th dynasty pharaoh who
had dispatched the rebel Iatna-Iamani in
chains to Sargon II, has brought new confusion. Here is the pertinent section
of this document:1091
… I (… Sargon) plundered the city of Ashdod,
Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and …. he fled to the region of the land
of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (lit. like a thief) …. Shapataku'
(Shabatka) king of … Meluhha … put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs … he had
him brought captive into my presence ….
This means that Shebitku and Tirhakah must
now be re-located upwards by at least a decade in relation to Sargon II.
Perhaps nowhere does the conventional
separation of Sargon II from Sennacherib show up as in this case. Yet even
revisionist Rohl, as late as 2002, was ignoring the Tang-i Var evidence, dating
Tirhakah’s first appearance, at the battle of Eltekeh, to 702 BC, an incredible
“thirty-one years earlier” than his
actual rule of 690-665 BC,1092 which is, however, about two decades too late.
Thus he wrote: ….
For five years the new king of Napata (ruling
from Kush) had reigned in cooperation with his cousin Shabataka [Shebitku],
king of Egypt (son of Shabaka). Then Taharka [Tirhakah] became sole 25th
Dynasty ruler of both Kush and Egypt in his sixth regnal year following the
death of Shabataka in 684 BC. There were other Libyan pharaohs in Egypt (such
as Shoshenk V of Tanis and Rudamun of Thebes) but they were all subservient to
the Kushite king.
The year 684 BC is far too late for the
beginning of Tirhakah’s sole rule in relation to Shebitku and his known
connection with Sargon II’s 15th year! And that is by no means the only problem
with the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty.
In fact there appears to be a significant
problem in the case of virtually each one of its major kings. Regarding its
first (according to convention) major ruler, Piye, for instance, Gardiner has
written: ….
It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention
of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly
altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta
… and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under
the name Sabacōn.
And whilst, according to Herodotus, Shabaka
(his Sabacos) reigned
for some 50 years … he has been reduced by the Egyptologists to a mere 15-year
reign. …. Furthermore: …. “The absence of the names of
Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable
than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended
their sway”.
These anomalies, coupled with the surprise
data from the Iranian Tang-i Var inscription (which is in fact an Assyrian
reference to Shebitku), suggest that there are deep problems right the way
through the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. ….
My new comment:
I have since identified Shebitku Khaemwaset as the son, and co-regent, of
Ramses II (Tirhakah):
Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’
(9) Khaemwaset,
son of Ramses 'the Great'
Previously,
beginning on p, 156 (of my thesis), I had given an account of Iatna-Iamani’s rebellion, following
Charles Boutflower:
Typical Assyrian war records! Boutflower
shows how they connect right through to Sargon’s Year 11, which both he and
Tadmor365 date to 711 BC: ….
The above extract forms ... the second and
closing portion of the record given in the Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711
BC., the earlier portion of the record for that year being occupied with the
account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum. In the Grand Inscription
of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account, containing a few fresh
particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani,
“the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also told that he fled
away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into chains by the
Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria.
.... In order to effect the deposition of the
rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti on the throne, Sargon sent forth
an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probability the despatch of such a
force, and the successful achievement of the end in view, which were recorded
in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As Isa xx.1 informs us - and
the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified from contemporary
sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan.
Possibly this may be the reason why it was
not thought worthy to be recorded in the Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712
BC. But when we come to the eleventh year, 711 BC, and the annalist very
properly and suitably records the whole series of events leading up to the
siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all these events could not
possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and secondly, as stated
above, that a force must have previously been despatched at the beginning of
the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the placing of Akhimiti
on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition must again have broken
out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian party were able, after a
longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper hand, to expel Akhimiti,
and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer, Yatna-Yamani. The town was then
strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat.
It is at about this stage, Year 11, that
Sargon was stirred into action: ….
Meanwhile, the news of what was going on at
Ashdod appears to have reached the Great King at the beginning of his eleventh
year, according to the reckoning of the annalist .... So enraged was Sargon
that, without waiting to collect a large force, he started off at once with a
picked body of cavalry, crossed those rivers in flood, and marched with all
speed to the disaffected province. Such at least is his own account; but I
shall presently adduce reasons which lead one to think that he did not reach
Ashdod as speedily as we might expect from the description of his march, but
stopped on his way to put down a revolt in the country of Gurgum. In thus
hastening to the West Sargon tells us that he was urged on by intelligence that
the whole of Southern Syria, including Judah, Edom, and Moab, as well as
Philistia, was ripe for revolt, relying on ample promises of support from
Pharaoh king of Egypt.
We find, as we switch to what I believe to be
Sennacherib’s corresponding campaign (his Third
Campaign) to discover how Assyria dealt with the
Egyptian factor, that a ringleader in this sedition was king Hezekiah himself:
….
The officials, nobles and people of Ekron,
who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of
iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (Iaudai), - he kept him in
confinement like an enemy, - they (lit., their heart) became afraid and called
upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horse of the king of Meluh-ha
(Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood
of the city of Altakû (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered
battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought
about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the
charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hands took alive in the midst of the
battle. ....
Boutflower was able to deduce from the record
of Sargon’s Year 10 what he considered to have been the reason why the first
expedition against ‘Ashdod’ was led, not by Sargon in person, but by his
‘Turtan’.
This was because “Sargon was busy over his
darling scheme, the decoration of the new palace at Dur-Sargon. … It was with
this object in view that Sargon remained “in the land”, i.e. at home, during
the year 712, entrusting the first expedition to Ashdod to his Tartan, as
stated in Isa xx.1”. ….
Boutflower’s detailed chronological
reconstruction of the events associated with the siege of ‘Ashdod’ seems to be
right in line with Tadmor’s more recent, and more clipped, reconstruction of
the same events. ….
The Storming of Azekah, Lachish
And Other Judaean Forts
Upon deeper probing, following Tadmor, we
find that Sargon actually took the Judaean fort of Azekah (Azaqâ) as well.
This, coupled with Sargon II’s reference to
himself as ‘subduer of Judah’, is the very link that was needed to connect
Sargon II’s activities in Philistia with Sennacherib’s in Judah.
Let us follow Tadmor when giving his account
of what is now a heavily bracketed cuneiform sequence; a document that we had
discussed earlier: ….
In connection with Sargon’s campaign to
Philistia, a small fragment 81-3-23, 131 in the British Museum, published only
in transcription by Winckler some fifty years ago and not utilised since in any
historical presentation, must now be considered....
2. [....] the second time and to the land of
Ju[dah ........]
3. [.... with .... that Aššur, my lord, that
province [........]
4. [....] the city of Azaqâ [Azekah], his
stronghold, which is (situated) in the mid(st of the mountains ........]
5. [....] located on a mountain ridge like a
pointed dagger [........]
6. [... it was made like an eagle’s] nest and
rivaled the highest mountains and was inac[cessible ........]
7. [.... even for stamped ra]mps and for the
approaching with battering rams, it was (too) strong....
8. [....] they had seen the [approach of my
cav]alry and [they had heard] the roar of my soldiers [........]
9. [... conquered, and I carried off their
spoil. ....
Tadmor, in explaining this passage of
Sargon’s - that incidentally has descriptive parts strikingly similar to those
used by Sennacherib … - includes highly important geographical data in relation
to Lachish: ….
Our restoration of KUR Ia-[.......] in line 2
to KUR Ia[udi] and the conclusions that the fragmentary lines deal with Judah
are based on the following considerations:
(a) The
alternative reading ana mâlti-ia “to
my land” at the beginning of an account does not lead to any reasonable
restoration….
(b) The
identification of Azaqâ with ‘Azeqah-(=Tel ez-Zakariye) in Judah is postulated,
especially if we consider the fact that the campaign against Philistia follows
immediately. Accordingly, lines 4-9 refer to the Assyrian assault on that Judaean
stronghold, situated on the top of a lofty hill, facing the valley of Elah, not
far from Lachish. Lines 6-7 indicate that the terrain was so tortuous that even
the usual siege technique could not be fully employed. Apparently the people of
‘Azeqah surrendered, impressed by the strength of the Assyrian army. Line 10
begins with the description of the military operation in Philistia. ....
Whilst there may indeed be no annalistic
reference specifically to Lachish in Sennacherib’s Third
Campaign account, there is abundant pictographic
detail of it in his ‘Palace Without Rival’ at Nineveh. Sennacherib used the
area as his base whilst in Judaea. “Recent excavations at Lachish”, Russell
tells us, “show that Sennacherib concentrated immense resources and expended
tremendous energy in its capture”. ….
Shebna, Iatna, Iamani foreign names?
Shebna
There
does not appear yet to be any firm consensus about the ethnicity of the name
“Shebna”: http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/shebna.html
“Shebna's name
is thought to be Aramaic, thus pointing to a foreign descent, but G. B. Gray,
"Isa," ICC, 373 ff, denies this. We can perhaps safely infer that he
was a parvenu from the fact that he was hewing himself a sepulcher in
Jerusalem, apparently among those of the nobility, whereas a native would have
an ancestral burial-place in the land”.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13520-shebna
“The
name "Shebna" itself points to a non-Israelitish origin in the more
northerly regions, either Phenicia or Syria; the same stem has been found by
Levy in 
("Siegel
und Gemmen mit Aramäischen, Phönizischen, Althebräischen und Altsyrichen
Inschriften," p. 40, Breslau, 1869)”. This article goes on to say that:
“Probably Shebna had risen to office under King Ahaz, who favored foreign
undertakings and connections”, which is right in accord with my view insofar
as, at least, Shebna was the same as Ahaz’s high priest, Uriah.
As
a Zadokite priest, as previously suggested, Shebna must have been of Jewish
(Levite) origin.
However,
it is not impossible that he may have also acquired a Mesopotamian name, owing
to his master Ahaz’s alliance with the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser. Though,
according to Christopher B. Hays (A
Covenant with Death, p. 246, n. 198): “… the name Shebna has never been
explained as a Mesopotamian one”.
John
Emerton has interpreted Isaiah 22:18 as indicating “Shebna’s deportation to
Mesopotamia” (Studies on the Language and
Literature of the Bible, p, 284). It is perhaps possible then that Shebna
had acquired a foreign name, for which he was remembered by biblical scribes.
Iatna,
Iamani
We
saw from Charles Boutflower above that these names are thought to pertain to
the Cypriots/Greeks: “The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the
Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek”.
‘The peg will be sheared
off …’.
‘In
that day’, declares the Lord Almighty,
‘the
peg driven into the firm place will give way;
it
will be sheared off and will fall,
and
the load hanging on it will be cut down’.
The
Lord has spoken.
Isaiah 22:25
Some
commentators take this verse as referring to the demise of the formerly-lauded
Eliakim.
Thus,
according to Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers which can be found at: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/isaiah/22.htm
…. Shall the nail that is fastened in a sure place be removed . . . There
is, the prophet says, a judgment for the misuse of power portrayed in the
previous verse. The “nail” that seems so firmly fixed should be removed, i.e., Eliakim should cease to hold his high office, and with
his fall should come that of all his kindred and dependents. Here, as in the
case of Shebna, we have no record of the fulfilment of the prediction, but it
is a natural inference, from its remaining in the collected prophecies of Isaiah,
either that it was fulfilled, or that it did its work as a warning, and that
the penalty was averted by a timely reformation.
[End
of quote]
And,
likewise, we read at:
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/tbi/isaiah/22.html#25
the
following two comments (Delitzsch’s and Smith’s) regarding a supposed fall of
Eliakim:
Nepotism
Eliakim comes to ruin in the exorcise [sic] of the plenary power
attaching to his office by giving way to nepotism. His family makes a wrong use
of him, and with an unwarrantable amount of good nature he makes a wrong use of
his official position for their benefit. He therefore comes down headlong, and
with him all the heavy burden which the peg sustains, i.e., all his
relations, who, by being far too eager to make the most of their good fortune,
have brought him to ruin. (F. Delitzsch.)
Eliakim and
Shebna: a couple of tragedies
We
have not one, but a couple of tragedies. Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, follows
Shebna, the son of Nobody [sic]. The fate of the overburdened nail is as
grievous as that of the rolling stone.
It is easy
to pass this prophecy over as a trivial incident; but when we have carefully
analysed each verse, restored to the words their exact shade of signification,
and set them in their proper contrasts, we perceive the outlines of two social
dramas, which it requires very little imagination to invest with engrossing
moral interest.
(Prof.
G. A. Smith, D. D.)
Far
more reasonable, I think, is the view of those commentators who would regard
Isaiah 22:25 as being a continuation of the oracular condemnation of Sobna
(Shebna) (the high priest), and thus having no direct reference whatsoever to
his goodly successor, Eliakim. For instance:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide_Isa/Isa_22.cfm
…. The peg that is fastened: If Eliakim is yet
to be promoted to the place of honor and responsibility pictured by the peg (I will fasten him as a peg, Isaiah 22:23), then Shebna is the peg that is fastened at the moment.
Therefore,
before Eliakim can be put in his rightful place, Shebna must be removed and be cut down and fall.
…. The LORD [gave]
Shebna a place of honor and authority, but he didn't hold it as a servant of
the LORD. So, the LORD took the place of honor and authority away from Shebna.
Even so, the great authority Jesus gave to His disciples was neither unlimited,
nor unattached from Jesus' direction. Even though Jesus gave the promise of the
keys to Peter (Matthew 16:19), Peter did not
have unlimited authority. Instead, Peter was rightly challenged and rebuked by
another apostle, Paul, when he was out of line (Galatians 2:11-21).
…. And the burden that was on it will be cut off: When Shebna
was removed, all those who "hung" on him were also cut off. We have
to make sure that we are "hung" on the right "peg"!
And
similarly again (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-22-25.html):
In that day,
saith the Lord of hosts
That Shebna is deposed, and Eliakim
put in his place:
shall the nail
that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and
be cut down, and fall;
meaning, not Eliakim before spoken
of, who really was a nail fastened in a sure place, and not to be removed; but
Shebna, who thought himself to be as a nail in a sure place, being put into it
by the king, and supported by his authority, and courted by his friends and
flatterers; for to him the whole preceding prophecy is directed, which is
carried down to this verse; for all that is said of the glory and usefulness of
his successor Eliakim was to be told to him, which would make it still the more
grievous to him, to be degraded and disgraced as he would be, signified by his
being removed, cast down, and falling ….
[End
of quotes]
As
we have learned, Sobna (Shebna), a high priest of king-like status - certainly,
at least, from the point of view of his own ambitious pretensions - had
revolted against the neo-Assyrian king, Sargon II, and was eventually captured,
manacled, and sent into exile in Assyria.
Isaiah’s
Oracle about Sobna will foretell all of this dire outcome for him.
But
we know nothing about any such demise of Eliakim.
According
to my reconstruction, Eliakim was still flourishing more than a decade later,
when the Jews triumphed over the huge Assyrian army (185,000) of Sennacherib -
through the agency of the Simeonite heroine, Judith. And he, Eliakim -
variously called Eliakim and Joakim in different versions of the Book of Judith
- would come to visit Judith and to celebrate her great victory over the
Assyrians (Judith 15:8-13):
The High Priest Joakim and the Council of Israel came from Jerusalem to
see for themselves what great things the Lord had done for his people and to
meet Judith and congratulate her. When they arrived, they all praised her, ‘You
are Jerusalem's crowning glory, the heroine of Israel, the pride and joy of our
people!
You have won this great victory for Israel by yourself. God, the
Almighty, is pleased with what you have done. May he bless you as long as you
live’.
All the people responded, ‘Amen’.
It took the
people thirty days to finish looting the camp of the Assyrians. Judith was
given Holofernes' tent, all his silver, his bowls, his couches, and all his
furniture. She took them and loaded as much as she could on her mule; then she
brought her wagons and loaded them too. All the Israelite women came to see
her; they sang her praises and danced in her honor. On this joyful occasion
Judith and the other women waved ivy-covered branches and wore wreaths of olive
leaves on their heads. Judith took her place at the head of the procession to
lead the women as they danced. All the men of Israel followed, wearing wreaths
of flowers on their heads, carrying their weapons, and singing songs of praise.
Eliakim/Joakim,
far from fulfilling Isaiah 22:25, departs from the biblical scene on a high
note, he having been a participant in one of Israel’s most victorious moments.
Footnote: There is yet more to this great prophet-priest,
however.
He is also the otherwise entirely unknown high
priest, Jehoiakim, of Baruch 1:7:
They sent the
proceeds of this collection to Jerusalem, to the high priest Jehoiakim, son of
Hilkiah, son of Shallum, and to the priests and all the people who were with
him in Jerusalem.
No comments:
Post a Comment