El Amarna in Chaos
El Amarna belongs in part to the era of Ahab and Jezebel
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
Can Amenhotep II and III be merged?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Similar patterns emerge, again, with the course of the reign of Amenhotep II, III –
some early military activity followed by years of peace and prosperity,
allowing for major building projects.
This article follows on appropriately from my earlier one:
More to Thutmose III?
(4) More to Thutmose III?
As well as Thutmose III and IV needing to be merged into just the one pharaoh, as I have done, so also, do I think, the same may just apply to Amenhotep II and III.
The first (II) is rightly considered to have been the son of Thutmose III, whilst the second (III) is thought to have been the son of Thutmose IV.
Here, though, I shall be arguing that Amenhotep II = III was the son of my Thutmose III-identified-as-IV.
STRONG, A SPORTSMAN, HUNTER
Some patterns of similarity emerge also with Amenhotep II and III.
For example:
Being fathered by a predecessor “Thutmose”.
And sharing the name Aakhepeh[-erure].
Having as wife:
[Amenhotep II] “Tiaa (Tiya) "Great Royal Wife" Daughter of Yuya and Thuya”.
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn18/07amenhotep2.html
[Amenhotep III] Having a Great Royal Wife, “Tiy, daughter of Yuya and Tuya”.
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn18/09amenhotep3.html
Having as son-successors a Thutmose, and then an Amenhotep:
[Amenhotep II] “Children Thutmose IV, Amenhotep …”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II
[Amenhotep III (and Tiy)] “Their eldest son, Thutmosis … died as a child. This left the kingdom to their second son, Amenhotep … who changed his name and is better known as Akhenaten”.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/amenhotep-iii-biography-family-death.html
Well known about Amenhotep II is that he was a very physically strong sportsmen and hunter.
But so, too, was Amenhotep III:
https://681308714824908458.weebly.com/hunter.html
…. Amenhotep III's reign encompassed peace and because of this there was no real need to have a 'warrior' pharaoh to protect Egypt, so instead the role of 'Hunter' became more prominent.
Amenhotep still needed to seem strong and powerful. Skills taught to pharaohs previously to fulfil the role of being a warrior were transferrable to the role of being a hunter. Hunting was an important role as the representation of a hunter was Ma'at.
Inscriptions praised the pharaoh for his physical power as a sportsman giving emphasis on his strength, endurance, skill and also his courage. Two scarabs were also issued promoting his success as a hunter. One scarab is pictured on this page from 1380BC [sic] in the 18th Dynasty. To the Right is the bottom of the scarab presenting the hieroglyphics and below is the picture of the detailed top of the artefact with markings indicating the head, wings and scorching on its legs imitating its feathering. This scarab records that the king killed 102 lions within his first ten years of his reign. He stated that he did this with only a bow and arrow. This presents his strength and power without having to win thousands of wars.
Historian A. Gardiner wrote in 1972 a quote the relates strongly to the topic of a hunter 'with the accession of Amenhotep III, Dynasty 18 attained the zenith of its magnificence, though the celebrity of this king is not founded upon any military achievement. Indeed, It is doubtful whether he himself ever took part in a warlike campaign'.' This quote is explaining further how Amenhotep III was more involved with a warrior role than a military role. He may of [have] not had war but he managed to keep his magnificence through hunting as the skills were transferrable.
Hunting was an important role in the 18th dynasty and specifically during Amenhotep's reign as it was up to him to withhold the concept of ma'at.
It was significant as the role of being a warrior was not necessarily needed throughout his reign, so the role of a hunter arose to ensure that the pharaoh was presented as strong.
Amenhotep contributed to this role by creating the commemorative scarabs and recording any hunting successes. This provided the people with reassurance that their pharaoh could protect them and also it is significant because it provides historians and archeologists with evidence about the pharaoh and hunting.
Sometimes the strength and sporting prowess of Amenhotep II are presented as if being his main claim to fame. The following piece exemplifies the pharaoh’s outstanding sporting skills:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
Notably, Amenhotep II was well known for his athletic abilities as a young man. A number of representations of him depict his participation in successful sporting pursuits. He lived in the Memphite region where he trained horses in his father's stables, and one of his greatest athletic achievements was accomplished when he shot arrows through a copper plate while driving a chariot with the reins tied about his waist. This deed was recorded in numerous inscriptions, including a stele at Giza and depictions at Thebes. So famous was the act that it was also miniaturized on scarabs that have been found in the Levant. Sara Morris, a classical art historian, has even suggested that his target shooting success formed the basis hundreds of years later for the episode in the Iliad when Archilles is said to have shot arrows through a series of targets set up in a trench. He was also recorded as having wielded an oar of some 30 ft in length, rowing six times as fast as other crew members, though this may certainly be an exaggeration. ….
The Odyssey, which (like The Iliad, “Achilles” above) has borrowed many of its images from the Bible, no doubt picked up this one of Amenhotep II also and transferred it to its hero, Odysseus (Latin variant: Ulysses).
(Book 21):
Penelope now appears before the suitors in her glittering veil. In her hand is a stout bow left behind by Odysseus when he sailed for Troy. ‘Whoever strings this bow’, she says, ‘and sends an arrow straight through the sockets of twelve ax heads lined in a row -- that man will I marry’.
The suitors take turns trying to bend the bow to string it, but all of them lack the strength.
Odysseus asks if he might try. The suitors refuse, fearing that they'll be shamed if the beggar succeeds. But Telemachus insists and his anger distracts them into laughter.
As easily as a bard fitting a new string to his lyre, Odysseus strings the bow and sends an arrow through the ax heads. ….
Similar patterns emerge, again, with the course of the reign of Amenhotep II, III - some early military activity followed by years of peace and prosperity, allowing for major building projects.
Amenhotep II:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
Some references refer to his first expedition taking place as early as his 2nd year of rule, though others provide that it was during his 7th. Still other references indicate that he made both of these campaigns. Regardless, he fought his was across the Orontes river and claims to have subdued all before him. One city, Niy, apparently had learnt their lesson under his father, and welcomed Amenhotep II. But at Tikhsi (Takhsy, as mentioned in the Theban tomb of Amenemheb - TT85), he captured seven prices, returning with them in the autumn.
They were hung face down on the prow of his ship on the return journey, and six of them were subsequently hung on the enclosure wall of the Theban temple. The other was taken south into Nubia where his was likewise hung on the walls of Napata, "in order to cause to be seen the victorious might of His Majesty for ever and ever".
According to the Stele recording these events, this first campaign netted booty consisting of 6,800 deben of gold and 500,000 deben of copper (about 1,643 and 120,833 pounds respectively), as well as 550 mariannu captives, 210 horses and 300 chariots.
All sources agree that he once again campaigned in Syria during his ninth year of rule, but only in Palestine as for as the Sea of Galilee.
Yet these stele, erected after year nine of Amenhotep II's rule, that provide us with this information do not bear hostile references to either Mitanni or Nahrin, the general regions of the campaigns. This is probably intentional, because apparently the king had finally made peace with these former foes. In fact, an addition at the end of the Memphis stele records that the chiefs of Nahrin, Hatti and Sangar (Babylon) arrived before the king bearing gifts and requesting offering gifts (hetepu) in exchange, as well as asking for the breath of life.
Though good relations with Babylon existed during the reign of Tuthmosis III, this was the first mention of a Mitanni peace, and it is very possible that a treaty existed allowing Egypt to keep Palestine and part of the Mediterranean coast in exchange for Mitannian control of northern Syria. Underscoring this new alliance, with Nahrin, Amenhotep II had inscribed on a column between the fourth and fifth pylons at Karnak, "The chiefs (weru) of Mitanni (My-tn) come to him, their deliveries upon their backs, to request offering gifts from his majesty in quest of the breath of life". The location for this column in the Tuthmosid wadjyt, or columned hall, was significant, because the hall was venerated as the place where his father received a divine oracle proclaiming his future kingship. It is also associated with the Tuthmosid line going back to Tuthmosis I, who was the first king to campaign in Syria. Furthermore, we also learn that Amenhotep II at least asked for the hand of the Mitannian king, Artatama I, in marriage. By the end of Amenhotep II's reign, the Mitanni who had been so recently a vile enemy of Egypt, were being portrayed as a close friend.
After these initial campaigns, the remainder of Amenhotep II's long reign was characterized by peace in the Two Lands, including Nubia where his father settled matters during his reign. This allowed him to somewhat aggressively pursue a building program that left his mark at nearly all the major sites where his father had worked. Some of these projects may have even been initiated during his co-regency with his father, for at Amada in Lower Nubia dedicated to Amun and Ra-Horakhty celebrated both equally, and at Karnak, he participated in his father's elimination of any vestiges of his hated stepmother, Hatshepsut.
There was also a bark chapel built celebrating his co-regency at Tod. ….
Amenhotep III:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep3.htm
While as usual, an expedition into Nubia in year five of his reign was given grandiose attention on some reliefs, it probably amounted to nothing more than a low key police action. However, it may have pushed as for as south of the fifth cataract. It was recorded on inscriptions near Aswan and at Konosso in Nubia. There is also a stele in the British Museum recording a Nubian campaign, but it is unclear whether it references this first action, or one later in his reign.
There was also a Nubian rebellion reported at Ibhet, crushed by his son. While Amenhotep III was almost certainly not directly involved in this conflict, he records having slaughtered many within the space of a single hour. We learn from inscriptions that this campaign resulted in the capture of 150 Nubian men, 250 women, 175 children, 110 archers and 55 servants, added to the 312 right hands of the slain.
Perhaps to underscore the Kushite subjection to Egypt, he had built at Soleb, almost directly across the Nile from the Nubian capital at Kerma, a fortress known as Khaemmaat, along with a temple.
The Prosperity and International Relationships
However, by year 25 of Amenhotep III's reign, military problems seem to have been settled, and we find a long period of great building works and high art. It was also a period of lavish luxury at the royal court. The wealth needed to accomplish all of this did not come from conquests, but rather from foreign trade and an abundant supply of gold, mostly from the mines in the Wadi Hammamat and further south in Nubia.
Amenhotep III was unquestionably involved with international diplomatic efforts, which led to increased foreign trade. During his reign, we find a marked increase in Egyptian materials found on the Greek mainland. We also find many Egyptian place names, including Mycenae, Phaistos and Knossos first appearing in Egyptian inscriptions.
We also find letters written between Amenhotep III and his peers in Babylon, Mitanni and Arzawa preserved in cuneiform writing on clay tablets.From a stele in his mortuary temple, we further learn that he sent at least one expedition to punt.
It is rather clear that the nobility prospered during the reign of Amenhotep III. However, the plight of common Egyptians is less sure, and we have little evidence to suggest that they shared in Egypt's prosperity. Yet, Amenhotep III and his granary official Khaemhet boasted of the great crops of grain harvested in the kings 30th (jubilee) year. And while such evidence is hardly unbiased, the king was remembered even 1,000 years later as a fertility god, associated with agricultural success. ….
Estimated reign lengths vary somewhat, with 38 years commonly attributed to Amenhotep III, whilst figures for Amenhotep II can range from, say, 26-35 years:
https://www.crystalinks.com/Amenhotep_II.html
“The length of [Amenhotep II’s] reign is indicated by a wine jar inscribed with the king's prenomen found in Amenhotep II's funerary temple at Thebes; it is dated to this king's highest known date - his Year 26 - and lists the name of the pharaoh's vintner, Panehsy. Mortuary temples were generally not stocked until the king died or was near death; therefore, Amenhotep could not have lived much later beyond his 26th year.
There are alternate theories which attempt to assign him a reign of up to 35 years, which is the absolute maximum length he could have reigned. …”.
Complicating somewhat the matter of reign length is the possibility of co-regencies - even perhaps quite lengthy ones: (a) between Amenhotep II and his father, Thutmose III, and (b) between Amenhotep III and his son, Akhnaton.
The most extreme estimate for (a) is “twenty-five years or more” (Donald B. Redford): https://www.jstor.org/stable/3855623?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents whilst for (b): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_III#Proposed_co-regency_by_Akhenaten
“In February 2014, the Egyptian Ministry for Antiquities announced what it called "definitive evidence" that Akhenaten shared power with his father for at least 8 years …”.
Apart from Asa’s (as Abijah’s) significant war with Jeroboam I, the King of Judah would also have to deal with a massive invasion from the direction of Egypt/Ethiopia: Zerah’s invasion. Dr. I. Velikovsky had aligned this biblical incident with the era of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Amenhotep II, son of Thutmose III.
This is very close to what I think must be the right biblico-historical synchronisation.
My own historical preference for this biblical character is:
Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian
(7) Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian
According to my own estimate, with the Shishak campaign (in King Rehoboam’s Year 5) approximating to Thutmose III’s Year 25, then the 54-year reign of Thutmose III would have extended beyond Rehoboam’s reign, his Year 17 (I Kings 14:21), and would have penetrated as far as Asa’s (identified as Abijah) (54-25-12 =) Year 17.
That Year 17 occurred probably a little after Zerah’s invasion, which Raymond B. Dillard estimates to have taken place in Asa’s Year 14 (2 Chronicles, Volume 15).
Peter James and Peter Van der Veen (below) - who will include in their calculation the 3 years attributed to King Abijah (who is my Asa) - will situate “the Zerah episode in a fairly narrow window, between the years 11 and 14 of Asa”.
Now, with the distinct likelihood that Amenhotep II shared a substantial co-regency with his long-reigning father, even as much as “twenty-five years or more”, as we read above, then Dr. Velikovsky may be entirely correct in his synchronising of the Zerah invasion with the reign of Amenhotep II – to which I would add that Thutmose III was also still reigning at the time.
Once again Dr. Velikovsky had – as with his identifications of the Queen of Sheba and Shishak – the (approximately) right chronology.
But once again he would - as we are going to find out - put it together wrongly.
In this particular case, Zerah, Dr. Velikovsky would actually identify the wrong (as I see it) candidate.
In this article I have enlarged pharaoh Amenhotep II to embrace also the one known as Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’.
I have also (elsewhere) enlarged King Asa of Judah to embrace his supposed father, Abijah (Abijam):
History of Asa, King of Judah, filled out by Abijah (Abijam)
(7) Abijah's Influence on Asa's Kingship
And, as already noted, I have enlarged Thutmose III, the father of my expanded Amenhotep, to embrace Thutmose IV.
Thursday, January 16, 2025
Habakkuk’s solar imagery highly compatible with Akhnaton’s Aten
“Your glory was like the sunrise.
Rays of light flashed from your mighty hand.
Your power was hidden there”.
Habakkuk 3:4
Nili Shupak, of the University of Haifa, has detected what appears to be a definite influence from Akhnaton’s Atenism imagery upon chapter 3 of the Book of Habakkuk. I refer to Shupak’s article, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3–7”.
Before proceeding to some of Nili Shupak’s comparisons, I need to say who I (at least) consider both pharaoh Akhnaton (Akhenaten) and Habakkuk to have been.
Taking Habakkuk first, although he post-dated Akhnaton, I merely repeat my summary of the prophet, as to his alter egos, from my article:
Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers
(4) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers
….
In what follows it will become clear why I strongly favour this, albeit poorly known, tradition. But, for this to be facilitated, it is necessary for the prophet Job to be fully identified.
Firstly, Job was Tobias son of Tobit of the (Catholic) Book of Tobit. This connection imposed itself forcefully upon my mind on this very same day (1st January, Solemnity of the Mother of God) some decades ago.
Secondly Tobias (Job), who lived in neo-Assyrian captivity - and on into the Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - and who must therefore also have had a foreign name, was the prophet Habakkuk (an Akkadian name).
Thirdly, the Jews must have shortened the unfamiliar name Habakkuk to Hakkai (or Haggai).
[End of quote]
In sum: The prophet Habakkuk, abbreviated to (Hakkai) Haggai, was the famous prophet Job, as well as Tobias, son of Tobit. He was a righteous and very pure man who had received angelic visitation (cf. Job 16:19; Tobit 5:4-12:22; Daniel 14:34-36).
As for Akhnaton, he I have variously identified in e.g. my article:
Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt
(DOC) Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt
as the biblical leper, Na’aman and Hazael the Syrian, as El Amarna’s Syrian, Aziru (according to Dr. I. Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos, I), but also - most importantly for my Syrian-Egyptian connection - as the Arsa (Irsu), or Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods.
Akhnaton, prior to his becoming pharaoh, was the legendary Amenhotep son of Hapu, dutifully serving Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’, whom I have identified also as the biblical Ben-Hadad, a veritable master king.
Now, coming to consider what Nili Shupak has written, concerning the influence of Atenist imagery upon Habakkuk 3, I need firstly to recall the fact that Akhnaton was, in a properly revised (Velikovskian-based) El Amarna, influenced by King David. The pharaoh’s famous Hymn to the Aton has often been compared to David’s Psalm 104. See e.g. “Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104”:
https://projectaugustine.com/biblical-studies/ancient-near-east-studies/parallelism-between-the-hymn-to-aten-and-psalm-104/
Typically, though, but wrongly, Akhnaton is given the chronological precedence over King David.
Nili Shupak writes:
file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/janes_28_shupak_nili_the_god_from_teman_and_the_egyptian_sun_god%20(4).pdf
….
A new explanation in the Egyptian setting a. Amarna religion
The problematic verse may be resolved in light of the perceptions and beliefs prevalent in Egypt in the fourteenth century b.c.e., [sic] known as the Amarna or the Aten religion. This religion extraordinary in the history of Egypt, was introduced by Amenhotep IV, Akhenaten, who ascended the throne in 1351 and reigned until 1334. Some regard the religious reform of this king as the first attestation of monotheism in the world. But whether it was a true monotheism or not, it is clear that Amarna religion was belief in one god, the god Aten. A new iconographic symbol was given this god, a sun disc with radiating rays each terminating in human hands imparting signs of life (‘nh) and strength (w·s) to the king and his family (see figure 1). The idea expressed in this symbol, namely, the god bestowing grace upon the king, is represented both in the art of the period—i.e., in the wall decorations of buildings and tombs—and in the inscriptions of the king and his high officialdom.
For instance, in the inscription from the tomb of a courtier named Tutu, it is said:
[When you are shining] you light up (˙q.k) the two countries (i.e., Egypt) and your rays
(stwt.k) are (shining) upon your beloved son, your hands carry life (‘nh) and power (w·s).
In the boundary stelae of Amarna, the new capital built by Akhenaten, the king declares that when Aten shines in Akhetaten (Amarna) he fills it with “his fair and loving rays, which he casts upon me, consisting of life (‘nh) and dominion (w·s) forever and ever.”
The main source of our knowledge of the new religion is the Hymn to the Aten, which was probably composed by the king himself. As it appears from this hymn, one of the main features of the Amarna religion is the concept of the Aten as a universal god—no longer a national god of Egypt alone but the god who created all people and all languages, the god who bestows life and nurtures all of humankind. The Aten is the god of Egypt’s neighbors in north and south, Syria and Nubia—in the words of the hymn:
The lands of Hor and Kush
The land of Egypt,
You set every man in his place,
You supply their needs;
Everyone has his food
His lifetime is counted . . .
You made Nile (Hapy) in the netherworld You bring him when you will, To nourish the people . . .
All distant lands, you make them live,
You made a heavenly Nile (Hapy) descend to them
(The Hymn to the Aten, ll. 8–9).
Another innovation in Amarna religion is the ritual of light. The emphasis is not on worshiping the sun as a physical body that projects heat, but the adoration of the sun as a celestial luminary, the origin of light.18
Already in the very beginning of Akhenaten’s reign, when the sun god was still called by his old name, Re-Harakhti, and depicted in the traditional image of a man with a falcon’s head wearing a sun disc, it was said that he rejoices in the horizon “in his name Shu (the god of light) which is in (or from) the Aten (the sun disc)” (The Hymn to the Aten, l.1). Light is the source of life on earth: “You are indeed one, but millions of lives (are) inside you to make them life” (The Short Hymn to the Aten).19
The terminology and expressions accompanying the description of the god Aten are usually associated with the semantic field of light: to illuminate (ssp, s’˙d, psd), to shine (wbn), rays (stwt), brilliance (t˙n).20 The opposite of this light is night’s darkness (kkw), which symbolizes death: “When you set in western horizon, Earth is in darkness as if in death” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 3).21
Another element which distinguishes the new religion is the abstraction of the god’s image. The god Aten, unlike more ancient gods, is not presented as a sculpted or painted image. The concept is that the heavenly image of the god cannot be rendered as an earthly materialization (theomorphism). This concept is expressed in the following saying of the king: “(God is) the one who built himself with his own hands, and no craftsman knows him.”22 The only tangible embodiment of the god Aten, then, is on the one hand, the sun disc in the sky—“You alone, shining in your forms of Aten” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 1123)—and on the other, the king, the earthly embodiment of the celestial god:
There is no other who knows you,
Only your son, Neferkheprure, Wa-ni-Re
(The Hymn to the Aten, l. 12).24
The Aten religion, then, was essentially universal, focused on the celestial light, the sun, which exists anywhere on earth, unlinked to any particular theomorphic materialization. Therefore, it may well have been more apt for propagation among the neighboring cultures than any Egyptian religious concept that preceded it.
-
18. Cf. J. Assmann, “Die ‘Häserie’ des Echnaton. Aspekte der Amarna-Religion,” Saeculum 23 (1972), 116–18; D. B. Redford, “The Sun Disc in Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and Antecedents, I,” JARCE 13 (1976), 47–56; J. P. Allen, “The Natural Philosophy of Akhenaten,” in W. K. Simpson, ed., Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (New Haven, 1989), 89–101; E. Hornung, Echnaton, Die Religion des Lichtes (Zürich, 1995), 61–62.
19. In addition to the “Hymn to the Aten” found in the tomb of Ay, the Commander of Chariotry, theAmarna tombs also contained a shorter version of the hymn which is named here “The Short Hymn to the Aten.” Sandman, Texts, 15, lines 4–9; Lichtheim, Literature, 2.90–92; Murnane, Texts, 159.
20. The perception of the Aten (the physical sun disc) as a source of light is perhaps also reflected inthe musicians’ custom in the Amarna period of tying a white band over their eyes; L. Manniche, “Symbolic Blindness,” Cd’E 53 (1978), 13–21.
21. See n. 17 above.
22. W. Helck, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie (Berlin, 1958–71), 22.12–13.
23. See n. 17 above.
24. See n. 17 above.
b. Interpreting Hab. 3:4 on the basis of Amarna religion
Difficult terminology and expressions that are supposedly ambiguous and obscure in Hab. 3:4 may be clarified and explained in view of the Egyptian belief in the god Aten. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]÷/l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'÷hy,h}TI r/aK" hg'now is a literal description of the Egyptian god’s symbol. hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now. The primary meaning of Hg'no is “brilliance” or “brightness” deriving from light, and it is often borrowed to describe the appearance of God (see, e.g., Ezek. 1:4, 13, 27; 10:4 [in reference to God’s glory]; Ps. 18:13; 2 Sam. 22:13). r/a here means sunlight, so the meaning of hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now is that the brilliance and brightness, accompanying an epiphany of God, are like sunlight.
In the two remaining cola of the verse the Hebrew God seems to carry the image of the Egyptian sun god, the Aten.
/l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'. In /dY;mI the mem (“from”), as the prefix of the word, should be deleted, as dittography of the mem that is the suffix of the previous word µyin'r]q'.
/l should be interpreted as genitive lamed, meaning rays (are) his own hands. The difficulty in this explanation is in the repetition of the possessive indication wdy, “his hand,” and /l, “his.” It would be preferable to apply hy,h}TI in the first colon to the second colon also: wl (hyht) wdy µynrq, “his hand will be rays.” Be that as it may, the meaning of the verse is, God’s rays are his hands. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]. µv…w] indicates the hands, or the rays shaped like hands, where God’s power is hidden. hZo[U, his power, refers to the hieroglyphic sign w·s (Gr. S40), the symbol of power and dominion bestowed upon the king and his royal family by the god Aten (see figure 2).
Hence, the interpretation of the verse in light of the Egyptian parallel is: the epiphany of God resembles the rising sun, accompanied by intense light, and in his rays, which are his hands, his charismatic power lies hidden. Hab. 3:4 is therefore a literal description of the Egyptian icon. The symbol of the Egyptian sun god from the Amarna period was borrowed to describe the appearance of the Hebrew God. The advantage of this explanation is in the fact that it leaves the Masoretic text intact, except for a minor emendation, namely, omission of the mem to correct an error of dittography.
Additional Egyptian features in Hab. 3:3–7
Further support for this interpretation is provided by the following details, which appear in the first part (vv. 3–7) of Habakkuk 3, there too revealing a certain contact with Egypt.
a. On the one hand, the image of Yhwh as depicted in this part of the chapter differs from the image that follows in the second part (vv. 8ff.), but, on the other hand, it is close to the description of the god Aten in the Amarna writings.
b. The portrayal of Yhwh arriving from south (vv. 3–7) is clearly related to the biblical tradition of the Israelites’ origin being in the south, in Egypt.
c. Additional motifs in vv. 3–7 may be explained against the Egyptian background, and not necessarily—as they have generally been interpreted until now—as a product of contact with Canaanite or Mesopotamian mythology.
We shall discuss these matters in detail.
a. Yhwh is portrayed in vv. 3–7 as an abstract, ethereal image. His glory and fame, his brilliance and power, are mentioned (vv. 3–4). His revelation, we are told, shatters the forces of nature and causes dread among people (vv. 6–7). However, nothing is said about Yhwh’s emotions.
The absence of reference to this is remarkable by comparison with the second part of the hymn, where we are told about God’s “wrath” (vv. 8, 12), his “anger” (v. 8), and his “rage” (v. 12). The deity, as described in the first part of Habakkuk 3 then, is cold and calculating, devoid of emotions such as anger, mercy, and forgiveness. These characteristics are typical of the Egyptian god Aten; as Redford has put it:
But the new concept of deity that Akhenaten produces is rather cold. His disc created the cosmos and keeps it going; but he seems to show no compassion to his creatures. He produces them with life and sustenance, but in a rather perfunctory way. No text tell us he hears the cry of the poor man, or has compassion on the sick, or forgives the sinner.
This portrayal of the god Aten is quite different from the image of the Hebrew God as he is usually described in the Bible.
The latter is a deity of mercy and grace, who responds to the suffering and misfortune of the individual and the community; this is a god who repents and regrets what he has done, but also a god who can be vengeful and resentful; a god that becomes enraged, and vents his wrath upon his enemies (Gen. 6:6–7; Exod. 34:6–7; Num. 14:18–20; Deut. 32:11, 21–24, 41–43, etc.).
b. The arrival of God from the south, and his appearance, are described in
vv. 3–7:
God came from Teman, a/by; ˆm:yTEmI H"/la” the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. hl:s< ˆr;aP: rh"mE ç/dq:w]
His Glory covered the heavens, wdwh µymç hsk and the earth was full of his praise. . . . . . . ≈rah halm /tL:hIt}W
He stopped and shook the earth; he looked and made the nations tremble.
The eternal mountains were shattered. d[" yrer]h" wxx}Pøt}yw' the everlasting hills sank low . . . . . . µl:w[ t/[b}Gi wjvæ
I saw the tents of Cushan under affliction; ˆç…Wk ylEh’a: ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" the tent curtains of the land of Midian trembled (NRSV). ˆy;d]mI ≈r,a, t/[yriy] ˆWzGr]yi
The tradition concerning the arrival of God from the south recurs in three other poetic passages, usually considered among the earliest compositions in the biblical literature: Judg. 5:4–5; Ps. 68:8–9; and Deut. 33:2. These three passages, as well as the aforementioned section from Habakkuk, belong to the literary pattern of theophany, and resemble each other, in structure and content, as shown by Jeremias. The uniform structure includes the mentioning of God, a verb or verbs referring to his arrival, and a place name, preceded by the preposition min/m (from). The common content is the description of God’s arrival, the effect of his appearance on natural forces—earth, sky, mountains and hills, and the names of the places: Seir, Mount Paran (parallel to Sinai in Deuteronomy 33), Field of Edom, and Teman. Hab. 3:3– 7 describes God as he arrives from Teman and Mount Paran. He casts his wrath and dread upon mountains and hills, as well as on human beings residing in the areas near the site of the apparition, Kushan, Midian, and perhaps also On (see discussion below).
Of the three parallel passages, the closest to Habakkuk is Deut. 33:2:
The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir wml ry[çm jrzw ab ynysm òh upon them;
he shone forth from Mount Paran. With him were çdqø tbøbrm htaw ˆrap rhm [ypwh myriads of holy ones;
at his right, a host of his own (NRSV). wml tD;v‘aE wnymym
The arrival of God is indicated here by the verb jrz, meaning to rise up, to shine, associated with the sun, like µynrq in Hab. 3:4; and, perhaps, also by the word tD;v‘aE, which some scholars suggested to explain on the basis of Aramaic and Syriac, as outpouring, diffusion of light, namely an abundance of light to the right side of God.
Thus, in Deuteronomy 33, as well as in Habakkuk 3, the description of God arriving from the south is tinted with solar elements. In Habakkuk the names Teman and Mount Paran indicate the stations in God’s passage in his travel from the south. Teman is not mentioned in the parallel passages, but it appears in the Bible as a synonym or in reference to Edom and Seir, as in Judges 5 or Deuteronomy 33.36
Mount Paran, which in Hab. 3:3 stands in parallelism with Teman, is identified as a region south of Canaan, east or west of the Arabah.37 Even though these names originally indicated some specific areas, they appear to refer to the southern region in general when used in the literary pattern of theophany. Likewise, Kushan and Midian in verse 7 should not be understood as specific regions but as the general wandering area of the nomadic tribes, the Kushites and Midianites. It extends from the southern part of Transjordan in the east to the Egyptian border in the west.38
As mentioned, the tradition reflected in these passages on the arrival of God from the south is an archaic heritage, and from recent archaeological discoveries, it seems to have been well known in Israel in the First Temple period. These discoveries include inscriptions from the 9th–8th centuries b.c.e., discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai, a site which served as a stage for caravans on their way south to Elat. In these inscriptions the name YHWH Tmn appears several times, and in one of them the verb zr˙ is used to describe the appearance of God, exactly as in Deuteronomy 33: mrh nsmyw . . . la jrzbw meaning, “when God shines forth . . . the mountains melt.”39
As in the biblical passages dealing with the theophany, the phrase YHWH Tmn should also be understood here as a reference to God’s arrival from the south, and not as an indication of a local god. Travelers heading south would pray to this god to assure them a safe and sound journey.
Reigned over the Israelites,” in A. Hurvitz, E. Tov, S. Japhet, eds., Studies in Biblical Literature (Jerusalem, 1992), 191, and by Avishur, Studies, 163. This meaning is also maintained by Cassuto, “Deuteronomy Chapter XXXIII and the New Year in Ancient Israel,” Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem, 1973), 1.50.
36. Teman is the name of Esau’s grandson (Gen. 36:11) and a region of Edom (Gen. 36:34 = 1 Chron.1:53); it stands in parallelism with Edom and Seºir (Obad. 8–9, Jer. 49:7, 20).
37. For the location of Mountain Paran and its references in the Bible see Hiebert, God, 86–88.
38. The Midianites are depicted in the Bible as nomads wandering in the southern marches of Israel,which include the Sinai peninsula as far as southern Transjordan (Gen. 25:4–6; 36:35; Num. 10:29–31, etc.; Josh. 13:21; Judg. 6:3, 33, 7:12, 1 Kgs. 11:18). As to Kusan, Albright was the first to identify it with the Kusu who appear in the Egyptian sources as early as the second millennium b.c.e. (in the Execration Texts [Posener E50–51] and in the Tale of Sinuhe, l. 220). These sources show that Kusan was one of the nomadic tribes that lived in the deserts located in the south and southwest of Israel. The close relation between the Midianites and the Cushites is evident from the fact that Zipporah, Moses’ wife, is at times called a Midianite (Exod. 2:16–21) and at times a Cushite (Num. 12:1) (supposing that the two passages refer to the same woman). Scholars assume that these two tribes were blended into one national identity. See Hiebert, God, 88–89; B. Mazar, “Cushan,” Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1962), 4.70–71; idem, Canaan and Israel (Jerusalem, 1974), 17–18, n. 15 [in Hebrew].
39. The complete text is as follows:
. . . µ(Ni)nub}G' ˆKUd'yw ÷µrih: ˆSUm"yw ÷ . . . la j"rzbW hm:j:l}mI µyoB} laE µv´l} ÷hmjlm µyoB} l["B" ˚reb:l}
See S. A˙ituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 160–61 [in Hebrew]; M. Weinfeld, “Recent Publications 3: Further Remarks on the Ajrud Inscriptions,” Shnaton 6–7 (1978– 79), 238 [in Hebrew]; idem, “Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” Studie Epigrafici e Linguistici 1 (1984), 126.
The tradition of the southern origin of the Hebrew God, which recurs in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources, has an apparently historical basis. Support for this may be found in the Egyptian sources. In topographical lists from the time of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten’s father [sic], and in copies of these lists from the period of Ramesses II (13th century b.c.e.), [sic] there is a region named t· s·sw Yhw, “ land of the Shasu Yehu.”
Since this region is followed in the list by “the land of Shasu Seir” we assume that we are dealing here with a region named after Yehu, a local god who was worshiped in the land of Seir, the wandering area of the tribes of Midian and Kushan mentioned in Habakkuk 3.
Finally the difficult phrase at the beginning of verse 7 ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" has been emended to read ar;ytIw] ˆ/a tj"TE “On will fear and be frightened.” This emendation is supported by the fact that at least in one other reference in the Bible the spelling of the Egyptian town On is ˆw,a: (Ezek. 30:17; cf. Gen. 41:45, 50, etc.; and perhaps also Ps. 78:51). According to this version the city On, Iwn in the Egyptian sources, which was located in the northern part of present-day Cairo, should be added to the list of landmarks on God’s journey from the south. This detail is significant to our discussion since that city was an important center of sun worship in Egypt, from the Old Kingdom period to the late period, as attested by its Greek name Heliopolis, the sun city. Furthermore, Akhenaten was brought up and raised in On, and also served as the “First Prophet” of the local god Re-Harakhti. An additional argument seems to exist here in support of understanding Habakkuk 3 in light of the Amarna period in Egypt.
In sum, whether the city of On is connoted in Hab. 3:7 or not, there is no doubt that Hab. 3:3–7, as well as Deut. 33:2 and the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud, all reflect a tradition that uses solar elements vividly to depict God’s arrival from the south. ….
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.
Saturday, January 11, 2025
Nadav Na’aman’s worthwhile proposal that Jehu’s Nimshide dynasty originated in the Gilead
“In light of these combined data, I cautiously suggest that the central position
the Gilead held in the Aramean-Israelite relations in the time of the Nimshides
is the result of their origin from this region”.
Nadav Na’aman
“The Case for a Gileadite Origin of the Nimshide Dynasty” Gileadite_origin_of_Nimshides_BN.pdf
Nadav Na’aman will sum up his article with five points:
….
Discussion
The numerous references to Gilead in the context of the struggle between Israel and Aram during the time of the Nimshide Dynasty call for an historical explanation. Why has the Gilead’s conquest by the Arameans in the time of Hazael and its later reconquest by Joash held such a prominent place in the biblical accounts of the time of the Nimshides? In an effort to answer this question, consider the following evidence:
1. The account of Jehu’s rebellion opened when he was posted at Ramoth Gilead and gained significant support from Hazael, the ruler of a neighbouring kingdom.
2. Elisha of Abel-meholah, a town located near the region of Gilead, supported the Nimshide kings in the internal and external affairs of the kingdom.
3. The introductory accounts of the first three kings of the Nimshide dynasty systematically referred to the Gilead rather than the west-Jordanian areas.
4. Pekah might have belonged to the Nimshide dynasty and cooperated with Rezin of Aram, similar to the earlier collaboration between Jehu and Hazael.
5. The prophecy of Amos emphasizes the Aramean atrocities in the course of their conquest of the Gilead.
In light of these combined data, I cautiously suggest that the central position the Gilead held in the Aramean-Israelite relations in the time of the Nimshides is the result of their origin from this region. Hence, these texts reflect the efforts the kings of the dynasty made to regain control of their homeland. It seems that the fierce struggle over the Gilead was memorialized in the biblical literature and found expression in the different accounts passed down to us.
Admittedly, the evidence that supports my suggestion is slim and in the present state of documentation cannot be validated. Until further evidence appears, it should be treated as the most plausible solution available for the question of where the ancestral home of the Nimshide dynasty was and why it held such prominent place in the biblical account of their history.
….
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Jehu king of Israel was not the squeamish type
by
Damien F. Mackey
“When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen
of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters all forty-two
of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14)”.
Ruth Walfish
King Jehu of Israel may find his alter ego in King Zimri of Israel, as I have previously suggested:
Following the pattern of kings and events that I have established in my articles revising the biblico-history of the northern kingdom of Israel, Zimri, who destroyed the House of Baasha, could only be Jehu, who wiped out the entire House of Ahab (= Baasha).
This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that Queen Jezebel actually refers to Jehu as ‘Zimri’ (2 Kings 9:31):
ֵהוּא, בָּא בַשָּׁעַר; וַתֹּאמֶר הֲשָׁלוֹם, זִמְרִי הֹרֵג אֲדֹנָיו
Some translations of this verse go to extremes to make it clear that Jehu and Zimri are, as is generally thought, two different kings. For instance, Contemporary English Version offers this: “As he walked through the city gate, she shouted down to him, "Why did you come here, you murderer? To kill the king? You're no better than Zimri!"”
The Hebrew does not appear to me to justify such a translation, “You're no better than Zimri!”
Conventionally speaking, Zimri, of course, had preceded Jehu by about 45 years.
However, one is left thinking that there must be more to Zimri than his impossibly short reign (I Kings 16:15): “Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days”, the shortest reign of all the kings.
Consequently, articles have been written suggesting that Zimri was ‘no flash in the pan’.
Are we really expected to believe that Zimri, had, in the mere space of a week, done all this? (vv. 11-13):
As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu— because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.
And that he had managed to be this bad? (vv. 19-20):
So he died, because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit.
As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
This all sounds just like Jehu – substituting Ahab for Baasha (2 Kings 10:17):
When Jehu came to Samaria, he killed all who were left there of Ahab’s family; he destroyed them, according to the word of the LORD spoken to Elijah.
And vv. 28-29:
So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel. However, he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit—the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan.
And v. 34:
As for the other events of Jehu’s reign, all he did, and all his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?
Saul M. Olyan has compared Jehu with Zimri, in “2 Kings 9:31. Jehu as Zimri” (The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 78, No. ½, Jan-Apr, 1985), though without his having any thought that Jehu might have been Zimri (pp. 203-204):
A number of arguments have been presented by scholars who have attempted to explain the somewhat cryptic words of Jezebel to Jehu when he entered the palace gate of Jezreel: hăšālôm zimrî hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw ("Is it well [with] Zimri, murderer of his lord?" or "Is it peace ...?”).
Is Jezebel trying to seduce Jehu, as S. Parker recently argued?
.... Is she assuming a defiant posture and taunting him proudly? .... Or is the narrative simply too ambiguous to determine her motives? .... What is the writer’s use of the name Zimri meant to convey? Undoubtedly, Zimri in biblical Hebrew is a hypocoristicon of a fuller name like ... zamaryaw/ -yahū. “Yahweh has protected” or “Yahweh has defended”, from the root zmr ... "to be strong”. .... A Samaria Ostracon of the early eighth century BCE preserves the name, b‘lzmr, and the name zmryhw appears on a Hebrew seal.
Now the historical Zimri, to whom Jezebel no doubt alludes ... was a chariot commander who killed his king, Elah the son of Baasha and all and all of Baasha's house, and ruled over Israel for only seven days.
Mackey’s comment: While Saul M. Olyan will continue on here with what is the apparent sequence of events in the biblical narrative, with Omri succeeding Zimri, I personally think that the Gibbethon incident where Baasha puts an end to king Nadab (House of Jeroboam) (I Kings 15:25-28) may have been partially re-visited with Omri now supposedly besieging Gibbethon, and then succeeding Zimri – which I do not believe could actually have been the case.
In reaction to Zimri's coup, the army made Omri king. Zimri perished by suicide in Tirzah soon after (1 Kgs 16:8-20). These events occurred in the twenty-seventh year of Asa's reign [sic] in Judah (ca 886) ... only about forty-five years before Jehu's own coup. The parallels are obvious and striking. Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], was a chariot commander who conspired against his lord the king, and wiped out the ruling house in the fashion of the popular northern coup (see 2 Kings 10). In light of these close parallels, the arguments of Parker, who claims that Jezebel was not taunting Jehu when she called him "Zimri," .... are less than convincing. Clearly, such an allusion to a recent, failed coup attempt by a fellow charioteer was intended as a taunt, as was the title hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw, “murderer of his lord”. Jezebel's words imply that Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], will fail: he will not last more than a week, and the people will not accept him, just as they did not accept Zimri. ....
[End of quote]
For Queen Jezebel as a real historical person, see e.g. my article:
Queen Jezebel makes guest appearances in El Amarna
https://www.academia.edu/37756175/Queen_Jezebel_makes_guest_appearances_in_El_Amarna
Ruth Walfish has, in the Jewish Biblical Quarterly, drawn some helpful character likenesses between Jehu and Ishmael the rebel at the time of the prophet Jeremiah:
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/491/jbq_491_walfishjehu.pdf
JEHU BEN NIMSHI IN LIGHT OF ISHMAEL BEN NETHANIAH:
AN INNER-BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Pp. 31-33:
….
The following are the parallels that can be drawn between the rebellion of Jehu and the uprising of Ishmael:
1. DECEIT
Ishmael deceives Gedaliah by participating in the assembly of the officers who are ostensibly supporting Gedaliah (Jer. 40:7-8). Ironically, Gedaliah accuses Johanan of deceit, when the latter apprises him of Ishmael`s intention to murder him (ibid, 16). Gedaliah persists in believing in Ishmael`s innocence, and this lays the groundwork for Ishmael`s second appearance at Mizpah, where he and his men eat a festive meal with Gedaliah, as an expression of their loyalty to him. Immediately afterwards, Ishmael rises up and with the aid of his ten accomplices, murders Gedaliah, as well as all the Jews and Chaldeans who have gathered around him (ibid 41:1-3). He later meets a group of pilgrims from the north who are bringing grain offerings to the Temple (ibid 5-6), and pretends to be crying over the destruction of the homeland. …. He further pretends that Gedaliah is alive and invites them to Mizpah, thus trapping them and murdering them as well.
Jehu is a master of deceit. He assassinates King Jehoram, under whom he had served as general. Jehoram, surprised by the attack upon him, warns Ahaziah, king of Judah, "Treachery, Ahaziah" (II Kings 9:23). In another instance, Jehu pretends to be a worshipper of Baal, and gathers together all the Baal priests for a grand sacrifice. As Scripture attests, "But Jehu dealt deviously (be`okba`) in order to destroy the servants of Baal (ibid 10:19). The root ekev is consistently used in the Bible as a negative term. Jehu warns the guards outside that if any Baal priest escapes, they will pay for it with their lives. Then he and his soldiers proceed to murder all the Baal worshippers (ibid 19-26). The interplay of truth/falsity characterizes both stories.
2. SLAUGHTER ALONGSIDE A PIT
When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters RUTH WALFISH JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY 32 all forty-two of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14). In both cases the term for murder is vayishatem/vayishatum, implying a massacre. These are the only two cases in the Bible where the terms bor and shahat appear together. Both Ishmael and Jehu demonstrate an almost offhand brand of viciousness that is quite chilling.
3. MURDER OF THE INNOCENT
As stated above, Ishmael murdered Gedaliah and his followers, as well as most of the pilgrims who were tricked by him into believing that Ishmael supported Gedaliah and was inviting them to meet him.
The killings that Jehu carries out bear a resemblance to the latter. Although Jehu was mandated to wipe out the house of Ahab (II Kings 9:7), it is questionable whether Ahaziah, King of Judah, the son-in-law of Ahab, was to be included in this dictate. It is even less credible that Jehu was instructed to kill the brothers of Ahaziah. Just as Ishmael had not planned the murder of the pilgrims, but did so spontaneously in order to prevent word of Gedaliah`s assassination from being discovered, so Jehu had not set out to attack Ahaziah`s brothers, but rather happened upon them. The latter were on their way to visit their relatives, clearly unaware that Jehoram and Ahaziah had been killed at the hand of Jehu, just as the pilgrims were unaware of Gedaliah`s murder. Both Ishmael and Jehu took advantage of the innocence of their victims and cut them down on the spot. It is rare in the Bible to find instances of mass slaughter precipitated by a chance meeting.
It is also questionable whether Jehu had to murder all the Baal worshippers in a vast slaughterhouse. As Rosenson points out, Jehu, as king, could have brought them to trial when he saw fit to do so.
4. THE REMNANT
Johanan ben Kareah warns Gedaliah that Ishmael is a traitor, who will kill Gedaliah, as a result of which the remnant of Judah will perish (Jer. 40, 15). Subsequently, we read that Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people …all the people remaining at Mizpah . . . (Jer. 41:10). Similarly, And Jehu struck down all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel . . . till he left him no remnant (II Kgs. 10:11; see also verse 17). Both men are presented as callously wiping out or capturing those who are their perceived enemies.
5. THE AFTERMATH
Ishmael`s uprising against Gedaliah leads to the self-imposed exile to Egypt of the remnant of Judah, this despite Jeremiah`s prediction that they will be safe in Judah but endangered in Egypt (Jer. 42:7-22). Likewise, the story of Jehu ends not with a glorious victory, as one might have expected, given his obedience to God, but rather with a somber note of defeat: But Jehu did not watch out to go by the teaching of the Lord… the Lord began to trim away Israel, and Hazael struck them down through all the borderland of Israel… (II Kgs. 10:31-32). Despite the praise that Jehu receives for wiping out the house of Ahab and the Baal worship, the final word is one of failure.
….
Sunday, August 18, 2024
Having lifted and removed some major settlements of Sumer, like a keen dentist eagerly extracting teeth, is it time now to lift and remove Sumer as well?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances
- Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’,
according to Seth Richardson (and that is because they do not belong on this map).
There is yet much to be said about the recent geographical tsunami that is changing forever the face of ancient geography.
It is well exemplified, for instance, by Royce (Richard) Erickson’s shocking article (2020):
A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY
(3) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu
whose Figure 6 here tells of the dramatic geographical shift for Chaldea and Elam:
Figure 6 – Consensus Versus Proposed Route of Flight to Nagite
I, in my article:
Surreptitiously shifting sideways, southwards, some supposedly safe Sumerian sites
(1) Surreptitiously shifting sideways, southwards, some supposedly safe Sumerian sites | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
told of the re-location that I envisaged for some notable sites of Sumer and its environs.
Thus I wrote:
Geographical Revolution
When, only a few months ago, I began writing a book, History of the Fertile Crescent, I had no idea whatsoever that I would end up denuding Sumer and its environs of many of its famous, supposed sites.
I had already come to accept, though - what others, too, were realising - that Sumer could not have been the biblical Shinar.
Apart from the two names not being a good inter-fit, why had archaeologists failed to find Akkad? - whose associated sea-trading partners, Magan and Meluhha, I well knew to have been, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia (presumably ports therein), and not, say, Oman and the Indus Valley.
This led me to search for Akkad as a major city accessible by sea to Egypt and Ethiopia, and for the associated Dilmun, which, as I now began to realise, could have nothing to do with Bahrain, as is thought.
Clearly, now, Akkad (Sumerian Agade) was Ugarit, known to the Egyptians as IKAT. Dilmun, known to the Greeks as Tylos, was another most famous Mediterranean port city, now, obviously, Tyre (Tylos = Tyros).
Sargon of Akkad’s famous Inscription had to be re-interpreted:
‘The ships from Meluhha [read Ethiopia]
the ships from Magan [read Egypt]
the ships from Dilmun [read Tyre] he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad [read Ugarit]’.
I then lifted it into another gear:
It gets worse.
I then came to the shock realisation that the often associated Eshnunna and Lagash were not locations in Sumer at all - despite detailed histories being built around that notion - but were, instead, to be located in Judea, that ‘they’, in fact, represented a name-combination that I had, quite some time ago, established from the inscriptions of Sargon II of Assyria:
Ashduddu was the strong fort of Lachish;
Ashdu-dimmu was the coastal Ashdod
There were two strong cities, “Ashdod” (meaning ‘strong’), and one of these was Lachish, second only in importance to the fort of Jerusalem.
Historians and archaeologists have for long been taking Judean history - from the time of the United Monarchy (kings Saul, David and Solomon) - and writing it into a far more ancient (though fictitious) Sumerian history – just as they had done in the case of the biblical Nimrod, by Sumerian-ising his major cities, such as Akkad and Babel, instead of locating these, as they should have done, hundreds of kilometres to the NW.
This is a typical map, with all of Akkad, Eshnunna and Lagash, wrongly designated there.
In light of my new geographical perspective, the Girsu (also on the map) that is regularly associated with Lagash, as its capital city and religious (Temple)-cult centre, can only be Jerusalem itself (Girsu = Jerus-).
Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to 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
The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8.
Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year.1 Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. ….
Considering that Puzrish-Dagan and Umma likewise fall off the map, we may need now to begin critically examining these two places as well.
Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer.
Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary.
(Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed).
Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer.
Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum … and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it).
[End of quote]
With Sumer now de-nuded and gaping, like a mouth emptied of its many teeth, may it not be time to consider for it as well a new, more westerly, location?
The stand-out candidate for Sumer, I think, must be the important SUMUR, a virtually identical name, which is a Syrian city situated between Byblos and Arwad.
It is known under variant names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumur_(Levant)
“Sumur (Biblical Hebrew: צְמָרִי [collective noun denoting the city inhabitants]; Egyptian: Smr; Akkadian: Sumuru; Assyrian: Simirra) …. It was a major trade center. The city has also been referred to in English publications as Simyra,[1] Ṣimirra, Ṣumra,[2] Sumura,[3] Ṣimura,[4] Zemar,[5] and Zimyra.[6]”
Sumer, for its part, was known by the standard Babylonian name of Shumeru, a name that is linguistically very close to Sumur as, say, Ṣimura.
We continue to read of Sumur at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumur_(Levant)
Sumur (or "Sumura") appears in the Amarna letters (mid-14th century BCE); Ahribta is named as its ruler. It was under the guardianship of Rib-Addi, king of Byblos, but was conquered by Abdi-Ashirta's expanding kingdom of Amurru. Pro-Egyptian factions may have seized the city again, but Abdi-Ashirta's son, Aziru, recaptured Sumur. Sumur became the capital of Amurru. ….
It is likely, although not completely certain, that the "Sumur" of the Amarna letters is the same city later known as "Simirra."…. Simirra was claimed as part of the Assyrian empire by Tiglath-Pileser III in 738 BCE, but rebelled against Assyria in 721 at the beginning of the reign of Sargon II…..
It has been linked by Maurice Dunand and N. Salisby to the archaeological site of Tell Kazel in 1957. ….
Friday, August 2, 2024
Might Dr. Velikovsky have been right after all about Mesha of Moab?
by
Damien F. Mackey
“In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof
in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub,
according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun”.
I Kings 16:34
That Mesha king of Moab - {“... known most famously for having the Mesha Stele inscribed and erected at Dibon. In this inscription he calls himself "Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite".”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha} - biblically attested during king Ahab’s dynasty (2 Kings 3:4-27), but named otherwise, elsewhere (I Kings 16:34), as “Hiel the Bethelite”, was the conclusion that I reached in my article:
Hiel of Bethel builds Jericho
(3) Hiel of Bethel builds Jericho | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Chapter 16 of the First Book of Kings will, in the course of its introducing us to King Ahab and his no-good ways as follows (vv. 30-34):
Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him. He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him …
suddenly interrupt this description with its surprising and bloody note about Hiel the Bethelite’s building of Jericho at the cost of the lives of his two sons. A surprising thing about this insertion (apart from the horrific sacrifice of the sons) is that an otherwise unknown personage, Hiel (unknown at least under this name), is found to be building a city at a major and ancient site, Jericho (Tell es-Sultan), whilst the country is under the rulership of two most powerful kings – Ahab in the north allied to a mighty king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, in the south.
How might this strange situation concerning Hiel have come about?
Before my attempting to answer this question, I should like simply to list a few of the more obvious reasons why I am drawn to the notion that Hiel was a king of Moab, and that he was, specifically, Mesha.
We find that:
• A king of Moab, Eglon, has previously ruled over a newly-built Jericho (MB IIB);
• Hiel and Mesha were contemporaneous with King Ahab of Israel;
• Hiel and Mesha were sacrificers of their own sons (cf. I Kings 16:34 & 2 Kings 3:27).
But, far more startling than any of this is the following potential bombshell:
Does Mesha King of Moab tell us straight out in his stele inscription
that he built Jericho – and with Israelite labour?
I have only just become aware of this bell-ringing piece of information - after I had already come to the conclusion that Hiel may well have been Mesha. It is information that may be, in its specificity, beyond anything that I could have expected or hoped for.
Thus we read at: http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a019.html
Later on in the inscription he [King Mesha of Moab] says,
I built Qeriho [Jericho?]: the wall of the parkland and the wall of the acropolis; and I built its gates, and I built its towers; and I built the king's house; and I made banks for the water reservoir inside the town; and there was no cistern inside the town, in Qeriho, and I said to all the people: “Make yourself each a cistern in his house”; and I dug the ditches for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel (lines 21-26).
Since Mesha erected his stela to honor Chemosh in “this high place for Chemosh in Qeriho,” and since the stela was found at Dhiban, identified as ancient Dibon, most scholars believe that Qeriho was the name of the royal citadel at Dibon. Note that Israelite captives were used to cut the timber used to construct Qeriho. ….
Conclusion 1: Mesha of Moab was “Hiel the Bethelite” who built Jericho at about the time of king Ahab.
But why would a Moabite king named Mesha, who apparently built Jericho, have a Hebrew name, Hiel (חִיאֵ֛ל) “El lives”, and be called a ‘Bethelite’ (בֵּית הָאֱלִי)?
To answer the last question first, why was he called a ‘Bethelite’?, it would be expected that the foreign king’s incursion into Israelite territory, thereby enabling for him to build Jericho, must have required that he first have a solid base in the land, hence Bethel. Now, is there any evidence that, in the time of king Ahab, the town of Bethel was under any sort of foreign threat?
Yes, I believe that there is (see below).
As for why Mesha would have also a Hebrew name - we have found that foreign kings were thus named by the biblical writers. One example of this is Abimelech, ruler of the Philistines and, too, so I think, of Egypt. See e.g. my article:
Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh
https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh
Thutmose III, biblically named “Shishak, is probably another example of this:
The Shishak Redemption
(4) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
To find worrying indications in ancient texts that Bethel was under threat from foreign incursions we need to turn to the El Amarna letters, at the time of Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim (Jerusalem) and Lab’ayu further to the north.
And we need to put these two characters into a revised historical context, with Abdi-hiba as king Jehoram of Judah:
King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History
https://www.academia.edu/7772239/King_Abdi-Hiba_of_Jerusalem_Locked_in_as_a_Pillar_of_Revised_History
{but not certainly corresponding with an El Amarna pharaoh as is usually thought, “no Egyptian ruler appears to be specifically named in this set of letters ...”}:
https://www.academia.edu/30408905/King_Abdi-Hiba_of_Jerusalem_Locked_in_as_a_Pillar_of_Revised_History._Part_Two_With_whom_was_Abdi-hiba_corresponding
and with Lab’ayu as King Ahab himself:
King Ahab in El Amarna
(4) King Ahab in El Amarna | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Neither of these El Amarna characters can be said unequivocally to have been writing to a pharaoh.
Then, having accepted these biblical identifications of El Amarna personages, we need to embrace the view that a “Bethel” (of which there were likely more than one) was the strategically important city of Shechem. On this, see e.g. my article:
Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’
(4) Judith’s City of 'Bethulia' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Conclusion 2: El Amarna’s Lab’ayu was king Ahab of Israel, and Bethel was another name for Shechem.
Happily for us, now, Shechem was indeed under threat from foreign, or outlaw, incursion during the very time of Lab’ayu/Ahab. See next.
“… “sa-gaz”, which ideographically can also be read “habatu”, is translated “plunderers”, or “cutthroats”, or “rebellious bandits” … sometimes the text speaks of “gaz-Mesh”
as a single person … and therefore here Mesh cannot be the suffix for the plural.
I shall not translate Mesh … because it is the personal name of King Mesha …”.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
My conclusion that Mesha and his Moabites were the hapiru of EA 289 accords perfectly with Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s argument (in Ages in Chaos I: From the Exodus to King Akhnaton, pp. 232-233) that the people of king Mesha, the sa-gaz (Mesh), were the hapiru:
In the tablets written by the vassal king of Jerusalem (Urusalim) to the pharaoh, repeated mention is made of the “Habiru,” who threatened the land from east of the Jordan. In letters written from other places, there is no reference to Habiru, but an invasion of sa-gaz-mesh {sa-gaz is also read ideographically “habatu” and translated as "cutthroats", "pillagers") is mentioned over and over again. With the help of various letters it has been established that Habiru and sa-gaz (habatu) were identical. ....
[End of quote]
Previously, in my article, “King Ahab in El Amarna”, I had written (and had then completely forgotten some of this) regarding Mesha of Moab, Bethel, and the sa-gaz:
The House of David and Southern Moab
“And the house [of Da]vid dwelt in Horanaim” (line 31)
Line 31 is perhaps the most significant line in the entire inscription. In 1993, a stela was discovered at Tel Dan in northern Israel mentioning the “House of David” (Bible and Spade, Autumn 1993: 119-121). This mid-ninth century BC inscription provided the first mention of David in a contemporary text outside the Bible. The find is especially significant since in recent years several scholars have questioned the existence of David. At about the same time the Dan stela was found, French scholar Andre Lemaire was working on the Mesha Inscription and determined that the same phrase appeared there in line 31 (Bible and Spade, Summer 1995: 91-92). Lemaire was able to identify a previously indistinguishable letter as a “d” in the phrase “House of David.” This phrase is used a number of times in the Old Testament for the Davidic dynasty.
From this point on in Mesha's record it appears that he is describing victories south of the Arnon river, an area previously controlled by Judah. Although there are only three lines left in the surviving portion, Lemaire believes we only have about half of the original memorial (1994: 37). The missing half would have told how Mesha regained the southern half of Moab from Judah. The complete text regarding Horanaim reads as follows:
And the house [of Da]vid dwelt in Horanaim […] and Chemosh said to me: “Go down! Fight against Horanaim.” And I went down, and [I fought against the town, and I took it; and] Chemosh [resto]red it in my days (lines 31-33).
Horanaim is mentioned in Isaiah's prophecy against Moab (15:5). He says that fugitives would lament their destruction as they travelled the road to Horanaim. Jeremiah says much the same in 48:3, 5, and 47. The town is located south of the Arnon, but exactly where is a matter of conjecture. …”.
But the location and identification of some of the places to which Mesha refers are, as according to the above, “a matter of conjecture”.
No apparent mention here of “Bethel”, the town with which Hiel is associated. Earlier we referred to Dr. John Osgood’s view that Bethel was the same as Shechem – a town that we have found figuring importantly in the EA letters associated with Laba’yu, my Ahab.
Now, according to EA letter 289, written by Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem, Lab’ayu had actually given Shechem to the rebel hapiru: “Are we to act like Labaya when he was giving the land of Šakmu to the Hapiru?”
The cuneiform ideogram for the hapiru (or habiru) is SA GAZ which occurs in EA sometimes as Sa.Gaz.Mesh, which Velikovsky thought to relate to Mesha himself (Ages in Chaos, I, p. 275):
“… “sa-gaz”, which ideographically can also be read “habatu”, is translated “plunderers”, or “cutthroats”, or “rebellious bandits” … sometimes the text speaks of “gaz-Mesh” as a single person … and therefore here Mesh cannot be the suffix for the plural. I shall not translate Mesh … because it is the personal name of King Mesha …”.
King Mesha, unable to make any progress against Israel in the days of the powerful Omri, was able to forge deep inroads into Israelite territory later, however, when he was powerfully backed (I think) by Ben-Hadad I and the Syrians (before Ahab had defeated them).
Ahab, as EA’s Lab’ayu, was pressurised to hand over to the invading rebels (hapiru) a large slice of his territory in the important Shechem region.
Since Shechem was also Bethel, this would be how Mesha - known variously as Hiel - would be connected with the Bethel which he must have occupied.
Is Beitin the Bethel of Jeroboam?
W. Ross
Pages 22-27 | Published online: 19 Jul 2013
• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1179/peq.1941.73.1.22
This is how King Mesha of Moab was able to build his Iron Age Jericho with Israelite labour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)