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.

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. ….

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. ….

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. ….

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.

Hiel of Bethel builds Jericho

by Damien F. Mackey Joshua 6:26: “At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: ‘Cursed before the LORD is the one who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho: At the cost of his firstborn son he will lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest he will set up its gates’.” I Kings 16:34: “In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken by Joshua son of Nun”. Stratigraphical level A clear demonstration of what I wrote in my article: Joshua’s Jericho https://www.academia.edu/31535673/Joshuas_Jericho “The popular model today, as espoused by … David Rohl … arguing instead for a Middle Bronze Jericho at the time of Joshua, ends up throwing right out of kilter the biblico-historical correspondences” [,] is apparent from Dr. Bryant Wood’s critique (“David Rohl’s Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View From Palestine”), in which Bryant points out that Rohl’s revised Jericho sequence incorrectly dates Hiel’s building level at Jericho to an apparently ‘unoccupied’ phase there: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/05/23/David-Rohls-Revised-Egyptian-Chronology-A-View-From-Palestine.aspx …. LATE BRONZE IIB Jericho Rohl dates the next phase of occupation at Jericho following the Middle Building to the LB IIB period (314). He then equates this phase to the rebuilding of Jericho by Hiel of Bethel (1 Kgs 16:34). Rohl is once again incorrect in his dating. The next occupational phase at Jericho following the Middle Building dates to the Iron I period, not LB IIB (M. and H. Weippert 1976). There is no evidence for occupation at Jericho in the LB IIB period. [End of quote] If Dr. Bryant is correct here, then the city built by the mysterious Hiel of Bethel must belong to the Iron Age “occupational phase” of Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). Who was this “Hiel of Bethel”? Hiel of Bethel who rebuilt the city of Jericho (I Kings 16:34) will be here identified as King Mesha of Moab. Does Mesha tell us straight out in his inscription that he built Jericho – and with Israelite labour? 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. …. [End of quote] Different names, Hiel, Mesha? If, as I am claiming, Hiel of Bethel was the same person as the contemporaneous King Mesha of Moab, then it becomes necessary for me to account for why the Bible would attribute to him two completely different names and geographical locations. Names To account for potentially two different names for the one person in the Old Testament, I simply refer the reader to my article: Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh according to which one actual incident involving Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah), with a powerful king (now “Pharaoh”, now “Abimelech”) - but presented from two totally different perspectives (ethnic and geographical), from two different sources - will convey the impression of being two separate incidents. This would be my explanation for why the First Book of Kings might refer to Hiel the Bethelite חִיאֵל, בֵּית הָאֱלִי Israelite name (perhaps Jehiel) and location - corresponding with the Hebrew name “Abimelech” in the case of Abraham and Sarah - whilst the Second Book of Kings might render him differently, as Mesha king of Moab מֵישַׁע מֶלֶךְ-מוֹאָב corresponding to the more foreign and remote “Pharaoh” in the case of Abram and Sarai. According to the Moabite stele: “I am Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti] …”. These names seem to be built around the name of the Moabite god, Chemosh. The biblical information that, now Hiel, now Mesha, was a sacrificer of his own son(s), coupled with the likelihood that, as we have already read, Mesha (like Hiel) built the city of Jericho (and with Israelite prisoners): “I built Qeriho [Jericho?] … with prisoners of Israel”, emboldens me to persevere in the pursuit of this previously most unexpected identification. A Servant of the Syrians? If King Mesha of Moab really had ruled the city of Jericho for a time, as Hiel, then he would have been following an ancient tradition, because another king of Moab, Eglon, had ruled over that same city roughly half a millennium earlier. Mesha of Moab and Ben-Hadad I A pattern that was determined (following Dr. John Osgood) according to my recent article: Eglon’s Jericho https://www.academia.edu/31551008/Eglons_Jericho of a King of Moab governing Jericho for a time as a servant of a powerful ruling nation, is the same basic pattern that I would suggest for my Hiel = Mesha. Eglon had, as a subordinate king of the mighty Amalekite nation, ruled over (MB IIB) Jericho “for eighteen years” (Judges 3:14). Now, much later, with Syria this time as the main power, Mesha will both build and rule over (presumably Iron Age) Jericho - for an indeterminate period of time. From a combination of information as provided by the Mesha stele and the Old Testament, we learn that Mesha was already king at the time of Omri of Israel, and that he continued on until Jehoram of Israel. During that period, Ben-Hadad I of Syria was by far the dominant king. In fact I, in my thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf (Volume One, p. 66) referred to him as “a true master-king”: … the Velikovskian equation of EA’s Abdi-ashirta as Ben-Hadad I would seriously contradict the view that the latter was a relatively minor, though problematical, king in the EA scheme of things; for Ben-Hadad I was no lesser king: “King Ben-hadad of Aram gathered all his army together; thirty-two kings were with him, along with horses and chariots” (1 Kings 20:1). Thirty-two kings! The great Hammurabi of Babylon, early in his reign, had only ten to fifteen kings following him, as did his peer kings. Even the greatest king of that day in the region, Iarim Lim of Iamkhad, had only twenty kings in train. …. But Ben-Hadad’s coalition, raised for the siege of Ahab’s capital of Samaria, could boast of thirty-two kings. Surely Ben-Hadad I was no secondary king in his day, but a ‘Great King’; the dominant king in fact in the greater Syrian region - a true master-king. [End of quote] With an extraordinary “thirty-two kings” in Ben-Hadad’s following, might it not be going too far to suggest that one of these follower-kings was the contemporaneous Mesha of Moab? If so, any incursion by king Mesha into Israelite territory (Bethel, Jericho) - and we recall that Mesha boasted of having Israelite captives - would have become possible presumably (and only?) with the assistance of Ben-Hadad I, who caused much trouble for king Ahab of Israel in the earlier part of the latter’s reign. For example (I Kings 20:1-3): Now Ben-Hadad king of Aram [Syria] mustered his entire army. Accompanied by thirty-two kings with their horses and chariots, he went up and besieged Samaria and attacked it. He sent messengers into the city to Ahab king of Israel, saying, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: ‘Your silver and gold are mine, and the best of your wives and children are mine’.” Different geography King Mesha of Moab, who I consider to have been a follower-king of the mighty Syrian master-king, Ben-Hadad I, appears to have had a chequered career in relation to the Omrides, now being subservient, now in revolt. If Mesha were Hiel, as I am saying, then it must have been during one of his upward phases - when Ben-Hadad was in the ascendant - that he was able to build at Jericho. With a proper grasp of geographical perspective, one might be able to account for this: How, for instance, the one person who had ruled over two lands, say Egypt and southern Canaan, could be written of as “Pharaoh” by someone writing from an Egyptian perspective, but by a Semitic (Hebrew) name by one writing from a Palestinian perspective. And that, too, is the gist of my reasoning as to how one represented by a Hebrew name (Hiel), and a Palestinian location (Bethel), in the First Book of Kings, could be designated by a Moabite name (Mesha) in the Second Book of Kings, and there located in the foreign land of Moab. The following article (http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a019.html), to which I shall add my comments, provides us with a comprehensive account as to: What does the Moabite Stone reveal about the Biblical revolt of Mesha? “I am Mesha, son Chemosh[it], king of Moab, the Dibonite.”[1] So begins one of the most extraordinary ancient documents ever found. (For the unusual circumstances surrounding its discovery, see Archaeology and Biblical Research, Winter 1991: 2-3). Mesha was ruler of the small kingdom of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, in the mid-ninth century BC. He was a contemporary of Jehoshaphat, king of the southern kingdom of Judah (870-848 BC), and Joram, king of the northern kingdom of Israel (852-841 BC). Everything we know about Mesha from the Bible is recorded in 2 Kings 3. But we know a lot more about him from a record he left us, referred to as the Mesha Inscription, or Moabite Stone. It was discovered in Dhiban, Jordan, in 1868 by a French Anglican medical missionary by the name of F.A. Klein. Both documents, 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription, describe the same event, the revolt of Mesha, but from entirely different perspectives. Mesha made his record of the event on a stone slab, or stela, 3 ft. high and 2 ft. wide. Unfortunately, the stone was broken into pieces by the local Bedouin before it could be acquired by the authorities. About two-thirds of the pieces were recovered and those, along with an impression made before the stela was destroyed, allowed all but the last line to be reconstructed. There are a total of 34 lines, written in Moabite, a language almost identical to Hebrew. It is the longest monumental inscription yet found in Palestine. The heartland of Moab was the territory east of the southern half of the Dead Sea, from the great Arnon Gorge in the north to the Zered River in the south. North of the Arnon River, to about the northern end of the Dead Sea, was a disputed area called the “land of Medeba” in the Mesha Inscription (line 8). Medeba was a major city in the region some 18 mi. north of the Arnon. The area was sometimes under the control of Moab, sometimes under the control of others. Mackey’s Comment: This last statement reveals the fluctuating fortunes of King Mesha as already mentioned. The article continues (I do not necessarily accept as exact the dates given in this article): At the time of the Conquest at the end of the 15th century BC, the region was occupied by the Amorites, who had earlier taken it from the Moabites (Num. 21:26). The Israelites then captured the area (Num. 21:24; Dt. 2:24, 36; 3:8, 16), with the tribe of Reuben taking possession (Jos. 13:16). The area seesawed back and forth for the next several centuries, passing to the Moabites (Jgs. 3:12), Israelites (Jgs. 3:30), Ammonites (Jgs. 11:13, 32-33), and back to Israel (Jgs. 11:32-33). In the mid-ninth century BC, Mesha was successful in throwing off the yoke of Israel and bringing the area once again under the authority of Moab (1 Kgs. 3:5; Mesha Inscription). 2 Kings 3 recounts how Joram, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom combined forces to attempt to bring Moab back under Israelite control. They attacked from the south and were successful in routing the Moabite forces and destroying many towns (2 Kgs. 3: 24-25). But when the coalition tried to dislodge Mesha from Kir Hareseth (modern Kerak), they were unsuccessful. After Mesha sacrificed his oldest son on the ramparts of the city, “the fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land” (2 Kgs. 3: 27). The campaign must have taken place between 848 and 841 BC, the only time when Joram and Jehoshaphat were both on the throne. Although the campaign met with some success, it appears that Moab retained its independence. This is confirmed by the Mesha Inscription. The Mesha Inscription gives us “the rest of the story.” It reads, in fact, like a chapter from the Old Testament. Its language, terminology and phraseology are exactly the same as what we find in the Bible. Mesha credits his successful revolt and recapture of Moabite territory, as well as other accomplishments, to Chemosh, national god of Moab. He does not, of course, record his defeat in the south at the hands of the coalition armies. Similarly, although the Bible records Mesha's revolt, it gives no details on his successes. So each record, accurate in its own way, records events from a different perspective. Chronology of the Revolt of Mesha The main problem in correlating the Mesha Inscription with the Bible has to do with synchronizing the chronology of the two sources. 2 Kings 3:5 (cf. 1:1) simply states, “But after Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.” Ahab, father of Joram, died in ca. 853 BC, so Mesha's revolt must have taken place some time after 853 BC. According to the Mesha Inscription, Omri had taken possession of the land of Medeba. And he dwelt in it in his days and half [2] the days of his son [3]: 40 years; but Chemosh restored it in my days (lines 7-9). The Mesha Inscription not only mentions Mesha, king of Moab, known in the Bible, but also Omri, one of the most powerful kings of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs. 16:21-28), who ruled 885-873 BC. Omri established a dynasty which lasted until his grandson Joram was assassinated by Jehu in 841 BC. The term “son” in the inscription simply means descendent, as we know from the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts. Adding the years of Omri (12, 1 Kgs. 16:23), the years of his son Ahab (22, 1 Kgs. 16:29), the years of Ahab's son Ahaziah (2, 1 Kgs. 22:52) and half the years of Joram, brother of Ahaziah, (6, 2 Kgs. 3:1), we obtain a span of 42 years. Some of the reigns of these kings could be common years, making the true span 40 years, or, the 40 year figure simply could be a round number. Thiele gives absolute years for the period from the beginning of the reign of Omri to the sixth year of Joram as 885 to 846 BC, or 40 years (1983: 217). Thus, it appears that Mesha revolted in the sixth year of Joram, ca. 846 BC. The Bible indicates that the retaliation by Joram recorded in 2 Kings 3 took place immediately upon Mesha's revolt (verses 5-7), or 846 BC. This date falls within the time period of 848-841 BC when both Joram and Jehoshaphat were ruling. The Gods of Israel and Moab In describing his victories over Israel, Mesha tells of defeating the town of Nebo. Among the spoils he acquired were the “altar-hearths? of Yahweh” (lines 17-18). This is the earliest mention of Yahweh, God of the Israelites, outside the Bible. The Bible records the names of many deities worshipped by the nations around Israel. One of those gods is Chemosh. He is mentioned eight times in the Old Testament (Num. 21:29; Jgs. 11:24; 1 Kgs. 11:7, 33; 2 Kgs. 23:13; Jer. 48:7, 13, 46), always (with the exception of Jgs. 11:24) as the national god of the Moabites. The Mesha Inscription verifies that this indeed was the case. Chemosh is mentioned some 11 times in the inscription: • Mesha made a high place for Chemosh, since Chemosh gave Mesha victory over his enemies (line 3) • Because Chemosh was angry with Moab, Omri oppressed Moab (line 5) • Chemosh gave Moab back her territory (line 9) • Mesha slew the people of Ataroth to satisfy Chemosh (lines 11-12) • Mesha dragged the altar-hearth(?) of Ataroth before Chemosh (lines 12-13) • Chemosh directed Mesha to attack the town of Nebo (line 14) • Mesha devoted the inhabitants of Nebo to Chemosh (line 17) • The altar-hearths(?) of Yahweh from Nebo were dragged before Chemosh (lines 17-18) • Chemosh drove the king of Israel out of Jahaz (lines 18-19) • Chemosh directed Mesha to fight against Horanaim (line 32) • Chemosh gave Mesha victory over Horanaim (line 33) The Cities of Northern Moab Most of the inscription is taken up with Mesha's success in regaining the land of Medeba, the disputed territory north of the Arnon Gorge. He claims to have added 100 towns to his territory by means of his faithful army from Dibon: [And] the men of Dibon were fitted out for war because all Dibon was obedient. And I ruled [over a] hundred of towns that I added to the land (lines 28-29). Some 12 towns in the land of Medeba are mentioned, all of them known from the Old Testament. “I am Mesha …the Dibonite” (line 1) Mackey’s Comment: The next statement is the one that I believe actually refers to the re-building of Jericho, as foretold by Joshua. The son-slaying Mesha (contemporary of Ahab) here meshes with the son-slaying Hiel (contemporary of Ahab). Thus we read: Later on in the inscription he says, I built Qeriho: 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. Mackey’s Comment: I do not believe that Mesha’s “Qeriho” was in Dibon. Dibon was captured from the Amorites by Israel (Num. 21:21-25, 31) and assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Jos. 13:17). But evidently it was reassigned to the tribe of Gad, since Gad built the city (Num. 32:34) and it was called “Dibon of Gad”; (Num. 33:45, 46). The site of Dhiban and was excavated 1950-1956 and 1965. A city wall and gateway were found, as well as a large podium which the excavators believe supported the royal quarter constructed by Mesha. In addition, a text from around the time of Mesha was found which refers to the “temple of Che[mosh],” and nearly 100 cisterns were found on the site and in the surrounding area, possibly made in response to Mesha's directive to “make yourself each a cistern in his house” (lines 24- 25). Mackey’s Comment: Jericho, too, had its own impressive cisterns. The article continues: In his prophecy against Moab, Isaiah states, “Dibon goes up to its temple, to its high places to weep” (15:2, NIV). Jeremiah predicted that the fortified cities of Dibon would be ruined (48:18; cf. 48:21-22). “And I built Baal Meon, and made a reservoir in it” (line 9) Baal Meon was allotted to the Reubenites (Jos. 13:17, where it is called Beth Baal Meon), and built by them (Num. 32:38). An eighth century BC ostracon [an inscribed potsherd] from Samaria (no. 27) contains a reference to “Baala the Baalmeonite.” Jeremiah predicted that the judgment of God would come upon the city (48:23, where it is called Beth Meon). Ezekiel said God would expose the flank of Moab, beginning with its frontier towns, including Baal Meon (25:9). It is thought to be located at Kh. Ma'in, 5 mi southwest of modern Madaba, which has not been excavated. Toward the end of the inscription, Baal Meon is mentioned again when Mesha records, “And I built… the temple of Baal Meon; and I established there […] the sheep of the land” (lines 29-31). The reference to sheep is significant, as it reflects the main occupation of the people of Moab, in agreement with the Bible. 2 Kings 3:4 tells us, Now Mesha king of Moab raised sheep, and he had to supply the king of Israel with 100,000 lambs and with the wool of 100,000 rams. “And I built Kiriathaim” (lines 9-10) Kiriathaim was another city allotted to the Reubenites and built by them (Jos. 13:19; Num. 32:37). Jeremiah predicted that the city would be disgraced and captured (48:1), and Ezekiel said God would expose the flank of Moab, beginning with its frontier towns, including Kiriathaim (25:9). It is possibly located at al Qureiye, 6 mi. northwest of Madaba. “And the men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from of old” (line 10) Mesha devoted 3 lines of his memorial to a description of his operation against Ataroth. Although mentioned only twice in the Old Testament, the city seems to have been an important place. The name means “crowns” and was said by the Reubenites and Gadites to be a good place for livestock (Num. 32:3-4). The Gadites built up Ataroth as a fortified city, and built pens there for their flocks (Num. 32:34-36). This agrees with Mesha's inscription which says that the men of Gad had lived there “from of old.” Ataroth is most likely located at Kh. 'Attarus, unexcavated, 8 mi. northwest of Dhiban. The entire section dealing with Ataroth reads as follows: And the men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from of old, and the king of Israel built Ataroth for himself, but I fought against the town and took it, and I slew all the people: the town belonged to Chemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged it before Chemosh in Kerioth/my town. And I settled in it the men of Sharon and the men of Maharath (lines 10-14). “And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged it before Chemosh in Kerioth/my town” (lines 12-13) Kerioth was judged by God (Jer. 48:24), with the town being captured and its strongholds taken (Jer. 48:41). Its location is uncertain. If “my town” is the correct reading in line 13, then the text refers to Dibon, Mesha's capital. “And Chemosh said to me: ‘Go! Take Nebo against Israel’” (line 14) Mesha's assault of Nebo is detailed in 4 lines, the most of any of the cities mentioned in the stela. Nebo is mentioned seven times in the Old Testament, being one of the cities built by the tribe of Reuben (Num. 32:38). In his prophecy against Moab, Isaiah wrote that Moab would wail over Nebo (15:2, NIV). Similarly, Jeremiah said that judgment would come upon her, and she would be laid waste (48:1, 22). Mesha's nighttime foray against Nebo is reported as follows: And Chemosh said to me: “Go! Take Nebo against Israel.” And I went by night and fought against it from break of dawn till noon. And I took it and slew all: 7,000 men, boys, women, girls, and pregnant women, because I had devoted it to Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took thence the altar-hearths of YHWH and I dragged them before Chemosh (lines 14-18). It appears that there was a worship center for Yahweh at Nebo since among the spoils were “altar hearths(?) of Yahweh.” It is perhaps for this reason that Mesha devoted the inhabitants to his god(s) Ashtar-Chemosh. The word used for “devoted” is the same as the Hebrew word harem used in the Old Testament for offering a city completely to Yahweh, such as Jericho (Jos. 6:17, 21). Nebo is most likely Kh. al Muhaiyat, northwest of Madaba and just south of Mt. Nebo. “And the king of Israel had built Jahaz” (lines 18-19) Jahaz is the town where the Israelites fought and defeated Sihon and his Amorite army as they first approached the promised land (Num. 21:21-31; Dt. 2:31-36; Jgs. 11:19-22). It was included in the Reubenite allotment (Jos. 13:18), and later transferred to the Levites (Jos. 21:36; 1 Chr. 6:78). Jeremiah predicted doom for the city as part of God's judgment against Moab (48:21, 34). Mesha goes on to say, And the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and dwelt therein while he fought against me; but Chemosh drove him out from before me, and I took from Moab 200 men, all the chiefs thereof, and I established them in Jahaz; and I took it to add it to Dibon (lines 18-21). Here, Mesha refers to a northern campaign by the king of Israel which is not recorded in the Old Testament. In order to achieve victory, Mesha had to marshal the best of his forces, 200 chiefs. Once captured, Jahaz became a daughter city of Dibon. The location of Jahaz is uncertain, although Kh. Medeineyeh 10 mi southeast of Madaba is a likely candidate. “I built Aroer, and made the highway through the Arnon” (line 26) The name Aroer means “crest of a mountain,” and that certainly describes this site. It was a border fortress located at Kh. 'Ara'ir on the northern rim of the Arnon river gorge. Three seasons of excavation were carried out there between 1964 and 1966. Remnants of the fortress constructed by the king of Israel were found, as well as a substantial new fortress constructed by Mesha over the earlier one. In addition, a reservoir to store rainwater was built on the northwest side of the fortress. Aroer marked the southern boundary of the Transjordanian territory originally captured by the Israelites (Dt. 2:36; 3:12; 4:48; Jos. 12:2; 13:9, 16, 25). It was occupied and fortified by the Gadites (Nm. 32:34). Later, the prophet Jeremiah said that the inhabitants of Aroer would witness fleeing refugees as God poured out His wrath on the cities of Moab (48:19-20). “I built Beth Bamoth, for it was destroyed” (line 27) The Beth Bamoth of the Mesha Stela is most likely the same as the Bamoth Baal of the Old Testament. It was here that God met with Balaam (Num. 22:41-23:5); the town was later given to the tribe of Reuben (Jos. 13:17). The location of the place is uncertain. “And I built Bezer, for it was in ruins” (line 27) Under the Israelites, Bezer was a Levitical city and a city of refuge (Dt. 4:43; Jos 20:8; 21:36; 1 Chr. 6:78). It may be the same as Bozrah in Jer. 48:24, a Moabite city judged by God. Its location is uncertain. “And I built [the temple of Mede]ba” (lines 29-30) The city of Medeba was conquered and occupied by Israel (Nu. 21:30; Jos. 13:9, 16). It suffered under the hand of God when He poured out His judgment on Moab (Isa. 15:2). The ancient site is located at modern Madaba, and remains unexcavated. “And I built …the temple of Diblaten” (lines 29-30) Diblaten is mentioned in Jeremiah's oracle against Moab as Beth Diblathaim (48:22) and is possibly the same as Almon Diblathaim, a stopping place for the Israelites as they approached the promised land (Num. 33:46-47). It is perhaps located at Deleitat esh-Sherqiyeh 10 mi. north-northeast of Dhiban, but that location is far from certain. 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. Notes 1. The translation used in this article is that of A. Lemaire (1994: 33). 2. In his translation, Lemaire renders the word hsy as “sum.” We have adopted the meaning “half,” from classical Hebrew, which is the meaning used by most other translators. 3. Lemaire translates bnh as “sons.” It is uncertain from the consonantal text whether it should be “son” or “sons.” We have chosen “son,” in agreement with most other translations, since it is more consistent with the historical reconstruction proposed here. References • Dearman, A., ed. 1989 Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: Scholars Press. • Lemaire, A. 1994 “House of David Restored in Moabite Inscription”. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3: 30-37. • Thiele, E.R. 1983 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan. [End of quote] No clear mention here of “Bethel”, the town with which Hiel is associated. But the location and identification of some of the places to which Mesha refers are, as according to the above, “a matter of conjecture”. Anyway, I believe that I have solved the problem of Hiel’s Bethel in e.g. my article: King Ahab gave away Shechem https://www.academia.edu/46952431/King_Ahab_gave_away_Shechem