There has to be more empire to Ben-Hadad I and his rulership

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Abdi-ashirta was an incredibly close contemporary of pharaoh Amenhotep.

 

Abdi-ashirta 1385–1344 BC – 41 years, conventional dating.

(Amenhotep 1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38 years, conventional dating)

 

 

The biblical Ben-Hadad extraordinarily had a following of 32 kings.

That is unprecedented. Here is what I wrote of it in my postgraduate thesis (2007):

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

https://sydney.academia.edu/DamienMackey/Thesis

 

(Volume 1, p. 67):

 

… the Velikovskian equation of EA’s [El Amarna’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 [El Amarna] 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. ….

 

Ben-Hadad’s empire (or imperial ambitions, at least) must, therefore, have been enormous.

The Bible confines his geography to Damascus, with frequent raids upon Israel.

 

The El Amarna (EA) letters, however, extend the king’s (as Abdi-ashirta) empire much further, to the Levantine coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rib-Hadda

“Rib-Hadda was involved in a long-standing dispute with Abdi-Ashirta, the ruler of Amurru (probably in southeastern Lebanon and southwestern Syria), who hired mercenaries from among the Habiru, Shardana, and other warlike tribes”.

 

This Rib-Hadda, or Rib-Addi, was ruler of the ancient port city of Byblos.

 

Moreover, as the prolific EA writer Rib-Addi complained in EA letter #90, all the kings were united with Abdi-shirta.

 

That sounds like Ben-Hadad, having a following of many kings.

 

This is what I wrote on it in my thesis (Volume 1, p. 73):

 

Abdi-Ashirta had been a continual threat to Rib-Addi’s region that included approximately the upper half of the modern Lebanese coastal plain, with Simyra, presumably the seat of the Egyptian rabis, at the northern boundary of his territory. And, later, Aziru’s reign would prove completely disastrous for Rib-Addi, who would even lose his city to the invader.

At an early stage the king of Damascus (presumably allied with his many kings, ‘all the major chieftains’), invaded Phoenicia. In a letter of Rib-Addi, we find this complaint:

 

Letter 90: All the majors [chieftains] are one with Abdi-Ashirta.

….

 

Rib-Addi wondered if Abdi-Ashirta even had aspirations, just like the kings of Mitanni and Kasse (Babylonia) had, to swallow up land that did not rightly belong to him. (Thesis, p. 66): “… Rib-Addi made the following famous protest about Abdi-Ashirta … (EA 76): “... is he the king of Mitanna [Mitanni] or the king of Kasse [Babylon] that he seeks to take the land of the king … himself?”

 

Yet, despite all of this, Abdi-shirta is considered to have been (as we have read) a mere vassal king of the Great Kings of EA, most particularly of the contemporaneous “Nimmuria”, the throne name (neb-maat-re) of Amenhotep pharaoh of Egypt.

 

Now, one of EA’s Great Kings, Tushratta of Mitanni ruled and invaded territories that seemed to overlap with Abdi-ashirta’s. This had led me initially - and quite confidently (with others also in agreement) - to identify the two as one, my solution to finding that necessary extension for Ben-Hadad I’s empire.

 

I have since dropped that connection, though, as I now estimate that Tushratta’s reign continued on past Ben-Hadad’s death, by assassination (2 Kings 8:15), as happened with Abdi-ashirta (EA letter #101).

 

What might be the solution to finding a necessary empire for our master-king, Ben-Hadad I?

 

Well, if Aziru, the son of Abdi-ashirta, as is generally thought -

 

(“Unfortunately for Rib-hadda, Abdi-Ashirta was succeeded by his no less talented son Aziru, who later capture, exile and likely killed Rib-hadda”: https://en.google-info.org/9602911/1/abdi-ashirta.html) -

 

was Akhnaton, as I now firmly believe:

 

El Amarna in Chaos

 

(2) El Amarna in Chaos

 

then Aziru’s father, Abdi-ashirta, must be Akhnaton’s (generally considered) father, pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’.

 

This Aziru is, of course, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) biblical king Hazael of Syria.

 

That would mean that a large part of the so-called Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (about 55 years of it, at least, in conventional terms) was Syrian (or, at least, ruling Syria):

 

Amenhotep 1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38 years, conventional dating;

Akhnaton 1350–1333 BC – 17 years, conventional dating.

 

Larger figures can be found for the reign of Akhnaton.

He as Hazael, in my view, would have spent much of his time in Damascus, though:

 

How might Hazael, elected in the Sinai Commission, have justified his murder of King Ben-Hadad?

 

(3) How might Hazael, elected in the Sinai Commission, have justified his murder of King Ben-Hadad?

 

Abdi-ashirta was an incredibly close contemporary of pharaoh Amenhotep.

 

Abdi-ashirta 1385–1344 BC – 41 years, conventional dating.

(Amenhotep 1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38 years, conventional dating)

 

Further expanding all of this would be my identifications (if valid), of Amenhotep III with Amenhotep II, and, as the father, Thutmose IV identified with Thutmose III:  

 

More to Thutmose III

 

(3) More to Thutmose III

 

Amenhotep II and III

 

Amenhotep II and III | Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD

 

Thutmose III/IV would then become also the Syrian ruling (not necessarily ethnically Syrian) Tabrimmon, father of Ben-Hadad I (I Kings 15:18).

 

Amenhotep and Ben-Hadad similarities

 

Ben-Hadad, as Abdi-ashirta, and Amenhotep were powerful and long-reigning kings and were remarkably contemporaneous in conventional terms (as noted above).

 

They were incredibly greedy for gold and silver.

 

The first time that we meet Ben-Hadad in the Bible, we find him changing sides (from his alliance with Israel, to Judah) because the ‘money’ was better (I Kings 15:18-20):

 

Asa then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the Lord’s Temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the king of Aram, who was ruling in Damascus. 

‘Let there be a treaty between me and you’, he said, ‘as there was between my father and your father. See, I am sending you a gift of silver and gold. Now break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me’.

 

Ben-Hadad agreed with King Asa and sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel. He conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maakah and all Kinnereth in addition to Naphtali. 

 

In the case of Amenhotep, we read, for example:

http://12ancient.weebly.com/essay-planning/amenhotep-iii-building-program

“The inscriptions within the Mortuary Temple it was, ‘built with fine white sandstone, wrought with gold throughout; its floor adorned with silver, all its portals with electrum” built to show off its splendour. These historical buildings serves as a clear reminder of the reign of Amenhotep III as it symbolises the prosperity that flourished throughout Egypt due to his successful reign. …”.

 

They were harem enlargers:

 

I Kings 20:5): The messengers came again and said, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: ‘I sent to demand your silver and gold, your wives and your children’.”

 

https://egyptianmuseum.org/explore/new-kingdom-rulers-amenhotep-iii

“Amenhotep III had many wives. He particularly favored his Great Royal Wife Queen Tiy”.

 

Amenhotep III had a large harem, but he particularly favoured his Great Royal Wife Queen Tiy, whom he married during the second year of his reign. 

 

Amenhotep’s reign is generally considered to have been peaceful, however: “He was a skilled military fighter and leader and probably led troops into battle and fought in his army, rather than staying safe in his palace”:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/amenhotep-iii-facts-leadership-style-accomplishments.html

 

If he were Abdi-ashirta/Ben-Hadad, as I am suggesting here, a life of peace would have been far from the situation.

 

Amenhotep must have been a very belligerent, empire-seeking ruler.

 

 

 

Ianhama of El Amarna as Na’aman the Syrian

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

That a transformation of some kind had come over this Iaanhamu

Velikovsky inferred from Rib-Addi’s revised attitude towards him;

an attitude that had changed dramatically in the course of Rib-Addi’s reign.

  

Amongst Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s intriguing match-ups of historical figures in the C14th BC El Amarna (EA) series with C9th BC biblical characters (in Ages in Chaos I, 1952), was the variously spelled Ianhama (Ianhamu, Iaanhamu, Yanhamu), identified as the leprous Syrian captain, Na’aman. 

 

In my university thesis (2007) I wrote a section on this (Volume One, pp. 103-1o8). Here is a part of it:

 

….

Velikovsky referred to a couple of facts in the Naaman story that he said seemed “somewhat strange” ….

 

In … the [Naaman] story, two facts are somewhat strange. First, inasmuch as Ben-Hadad himself was at the head of the thirty-two captains of his army, why, in the story of the wondrous healing, is the deliverance of Syria credited to a captain Naaman?

Second, the king of Israel was a lifelong rival of the king of Damascus. Why, then, did this request to cure a sick captain inspire in the king of Israel such a dread that he rent his clothes?

 

Velikovsky then proposed his identification for this Naaman in the EA Letters:

 

For an explanation of the real role of this captain Naaman we shall look to the contemporaneous letters.

A man by whom Syria received deliverance must be identifiable in the letters.

We recognize him in the person of Ianhama, called also Iaanhamu ... the pharaoh’s deputy in Syria, [who] was sent to the king of Damascus with prerogatives similar to those which Aman-appa had.

 

Velikovsky continues, with a quote from Mercer: ….

 

... Naaman’s title in the Scriptures - sar [Hebrew: שַׂר] - is also used in the letters. He was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt, in charge of the army and walled cities of Amuru land (Syria), later also the overseer of stores of grain. He had great influence in all matters of Syrian administration. Judged by his name, he was of Syrian origin, as were some other dignitaries at the court of Thebes. Ianhama is a Semitic name: “Ianhamu was a powerful Egyptian agent in Syria, where he was respected as a good and wise man, and where he proved himself to be the most faithful of the pharaoh’s servants”.

 

That a transformation of some kind had come over this Iaanhamu Velikovsky inferred from Rib-Addi’s revised attitude towards him; an attitude that had changed dramatically in the course of Rib-Addi’s reign:

 

In [Rib-Addi’s] early letters ... his fear of the mighty deputy of the pharaoh is plainly expressed. In one letter he wrote to the pharaoh: “Thou must rescue me out of the hand of Iaanhamu”. He asked the pharaoh to inform his deputy that he, Ianhama, would be responsible if anything should happen to [Rib-Addi’s] person ....

 

“Say to Ianhamu: ‘Rib-Addi is even in thy hands, and all that will be done to him rests upon thee’.”

 

But, Velikovsky continued (typically substituting Samaria for EA’s Sumur):

 

Later on, when Aman-appa left Samaria ..., [Rib-Addi] ... wrote to the pharaoh asking him to appoint Ianhama governor in Samaria ...:

“May it seem right to my lord to send Ianhama as his deputy. I hear from the mouth of the people that he is a wise man and all people love him”.

We recall the scriptural words about Naaman, that he was an “honourable” man.

 

The reason for the official’s change in attitude, Velikovsky suggested, was to be found in the Scriptures:

 

In another letter [Rib-Addi] again asks the pharaoh to send Ianhama and in the next one he praises him in these words: “There is no servant like Ianhama, a faithful servant to the king”.

... The letters do not show why the fear of [Rib-Addi] ... changed into confidence with respect to the Syrian deputy. The Scriptures provide the explanation in the story of the healing of Naaman by the prophet of Samaria. Naaman was very grateful to the prophet ... (II Kings 5:15). Elisha even declared that he would heal Naaman in order to help the king of Israel politically.

 

So [Ianhamu] became a friend.

[End of quotes]

 

….

Velikovsky then went on to point out what he called “certain other features of the role and character of Ianhama, reflected in the letters, [and] shown also in the Scriptures”.

For example:

 

He was a generous man. This appears in the story of the healing: he gave to the servant of the prophet two talents of silver and two changes of garments, more than the servant had asked for, when the prophet refused to take ten talents of silver, six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.

It is of interest to find that, according to the letters, Ianhama was in charge of the pharaoh’s treasury in Syria, being over “money and clothing”.

... The el-Amarna letters also speak of him as the generous patron of a Palestinian youth, who was educated in Egypt at his expense. The man “by whom the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” ... was Ianhama. How this captain changed his attitude and became a supporter of the king of Samaria is recorded in the letters and is explained by the Scriptures.

 

Hirsch et al. tell of this interesting Rabbinical tradition in regard to Naaman: ….

 

According to the Rabbis, Naaman was the archer who drew his bow at a venture and mortally wounded Ahab, King of Israel (I Kings xxii. 34). This event is alluded to in the words “because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” (II Kings v. 1), and therefore the Syrian king, Naaman’s master, was Benhadad …. Naaman is represented as vain and haughty, on account of which he was stricken with leprosy ….

 

That Naaman, though a leper, regarded himself as being an official of no small importance may be reflected in his initial response to the fact of Elisha’s merely sending a messenger to advise him: ‘… I thought that for me he would surely come out’ (5:11).

 

אָמַרְתִּי אֵלַי יֵצֵא יָצוֹא

 

Here we have the biblical instance of Naaman’s riding up “with his horses and chariots”, to Samaria, to seek a cure from Elisha. ….

 

And, later, Naaman will return to thank the prophet, “he and all his company”; Naaman himself certainly riding in his chariot at the time (cf. 2 Kings 5:9; 5:21).

….

 

There is also a reference to “Naaman the Syrian” in the New Testament (Luke 4:27).

….

What Velikovsky’s equation Naaman = Iaanhamu adds to all this is the further dimension of the Egyptian connection. This facet of the life of our ‘Syrian’ commander, which will become of the highest importance in Chapter 10 (pp. 219ff.), is simply ignored however by the biblical scribes (see previous comments on ‘biblical perspective’), as is Jehu’s ethnicity as a ‘Syrian’.

 

I now take up the relevant parts of Campbell’s narrative concerning this important EA official, Iaanhamu: ….

 

Yanhamu began his service under Amenophis III.

….

Yanhamu appears, then, to have held an extremely important position in Syria throughout the period of Rib-Adda’s [Rib-Addi’s] correspondence. The later letters of Rib-Adda show this prince defending Yanhamu and asking for his appointment as rabiṣ in Sumur. One might almost imagine that Yanhamu’s rebuff of Aziru described in 171 led Rib-Adda suddenly to realize that he had a true ally in Yanhamu.

 

This Iaanhamu was, according to Campbell, in charge of grain supplies: ….

 

In the early group of letters from Rib-Adda, Yanhamu seems to have held a position having to do with the supplying of the vassals from a store-city of Egypt (83:27ff., 39f.; 85:23f., 48ff.; 86:15f.). This source of supply is named Yarimuta in many places in the Rib-Adda correspondence, and that Yanhamu was its chief appears clear from 85:12-35.

 

In this passage, Rib-Adda first explains that he has had to “pawn” virtually everything of value in his city in return for grain from Yarimuta. Sons and daughters of his serfs have been sold into slavery at Yarimuta in return for grain. Grain is needed simply to keep the people alive and able to protect their city.

… From the context it is not certain that Yanhamu is chief of Yarimuta, but everything points that way. Being the chief of the grain supply would place Yanhamu in a very powerful position.

 

That Iaanhamu was of a high rank in relation to pharaoh is borne out by this testimony of Campbell’s:[1] “[Iaanhamu] bears an extremely important title, that of “Fan-Bearer at the king’s right-hand” (musallil) ….

 

Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim

 

Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, whom I shall here - following James and Sieff - be identifying with the Judaean king, Jehoram, appears to express a certain dissatisfaction with Iaanhamu in EA 285:9ff. Campbell has pointed to this, adding: ….

 

The objection of Abdi-Heba [Abdi-Hiba] against the rule of Yanhamu is further expressed in 286, for here Yanhamu has taken away the garrison force which had been assigned to Abdi-Heba. ….

---

[1] Ibid, p. 90.