by
Damien F. Mackey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rib-Addi of Gubla was the most prominent of all the El Amarna correspondents.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky argued that this Rib-Addi was the biblical King Ahab of Israel.
Let us examine some of the evidence for this most sorely tried Amarna correspondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The prolific El Amarna [EA] correspondent, Rib-Addi, gets early mention in my university thesis:
The prolific El Amarna [EA] correspondent, Rib-Addi, gets early mention in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
(Volume One, p. 52) as witness to a crucial chronological event:
A Solid Starting Point
We are now in the C9th BC, about 500 years after the well-documented EA period of the 18th dynasty pharaohs AMENHOTEP III (c. 1390-1352 BC) and AMENHOTEP IV [Akhnaton] (c. 1352-1348 BC), according to the Sothic chronology, but squarely within EA according to Velikovsky’s revision.135 Courville had accepted Velikovsky’s basic 18th dynasty scenario, without adding much to it. My starting point here will be with what competent revisionists in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s, who had followed Velikovsky, considered to have been a most convincing aspect of Velikovsky’s EA restructuring: namely, his identification of the two chief EA correspondents from Amurru, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with two successive Syrian kings of the Old Testament in the C9th BC, respectively, Ben-Hadad I (c. 880-841 BC, conventional dates) and Hazael (c. 841-806 BC, conventional dates). Thus James had written, favourably: ….
With [these] two identifications [Velikovsky] seems to be on the firmest ground, in that we have a succession of two rulers, both of whom are characterised in the letters and the Scriptures as powerful rulers who made frequent armed excursions - and conquests - in the territories to the south of their own kingdom. In the letters their domain is described as “Amurru” - a term used, as Velikovsky has pointed out ... by Shalmaneser III for Syria in general, the whole area being dominated by the two successive kings in “both” the el-Amarna period and the mid-9th century.
From Assyrian evidence it is known that Hazael succeeded to the throne between 845 and 841 BC, and thus we have a reasonably precise floruit for those el-Amarna correspondents who relate the deeds of Abdi-Ashirta and Azaru [Aziru], particularly for Rib-Addi, whose letters report the death of Abdi-Ashirta and the accession of Azaru [Aziru].
A Solid Starting Point
We are now in the C9th BC, about 500 years after the well-documented EA period of the 18th dynasty pharaohs AMENHOTEP III (c. 1390-1352 BC) and AMENHOTEP IV [Akhnaton] (c. 1352-1348 BC), according to the Sothic chronology, but squarely within EA according to Velikovsky’s revision.135 Courville had accepted Velikovsky’s basic 18th dynasty scenario, without adding much to it. My starting point here will be with what competent revisionists in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s, who had followed Velikovsky, considered to have been a most convincing aspect of Velikovsky’s EA restructuring: namely, his identification of the two chief EA correspondents from Amurru, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with two successive Syrian kings of the Old Testament in the C9th BC, respectively, Ben-Hadad I (c. 880-841 BC, conventional dates) and Hazael (c. 841-806 BC, conventional dates). Thus James had written, favourably: ….
With [these] two identifications [Velikovsky] seems to be on the firmest ground, in that we have a succession of two rulers, both of whom are characterised in the letters and the Scriptures as powerful rulers who made frequent armed excursions - and conquests - in the territories to the south of their own kingdom. In the letters their domain is described as “Amurru” - a term used, as Velikovsky has pointed out ... by Shalmaneser III for Syria in general, the whole area being dominated by the two successive kings in “both” the el-Amarna period and the mid-9th century.
From Assyrian evidence it is known that Hazael succeeded to the throne between 845 and 841 BC, and thus we have a reasonably precise floruit for those el-Amarna correspondents who relate the deeds of Abdi-Ashirta and Azaru [Aziru], particularly for Rib-Addi, whose letters report the death of Abdi-Ashirta and the accession of Azaru [Aziru].
[End of quote]
And, on the next page (p. 53), I referred to M. Sieff’s (of the perceptive “Glasgow School”) useful realignment of the great famine of Rib-Addi’s time with that at the time of the prophet Elisha:
These revisionists of the ‘Glasgow School’, as they became known, including Sieff, Gammon and others, were able, with a slight modification of Velikovsky’s dates, to re-set the EA period so that it sat more comfortably within its new C9th BC allocation. Thus
pharaoh Akhnaton, James argued, was a more exact contemporary of king Jehoram of
Judah (c. 848-841 BC, conventional dates) - and hence of the latter’s older contemporary, Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dates) - rather than of Velikovsky’s choice of king Jehoshaphat (c. 870-848 BC, conventional dates), father of Jehoram of Judah and contemporary of king Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dates). …. Correspondingly, Sieff determined that: ….
The great famine of II Kings 8:1, found by Velikovsky to be a recurrent theme in the letters of Rib-Addi … was that of the time of Jehoram. The earlier drought of King Ahab’s time lasted 3½ years rather than 7 [cf. 1 Kings 17:1; Luke 4:25] … and was associated with the activities of Elijah, and not his successor Elisha, who figures in the famine of Ahab’s son.
With this relatively slight refinement in time, then the results could be quite stunning. James, for instance, found that the king of Jerusalem (Urusalim) for EA, Abdi-hiba, an
obviously polytheistic monarch, who had not identified well with the pious king Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem, Velikovsky’s biblical choice, however, matched Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, down to the last detail.
[End of quote]
For more on Abdi-hiba as Jehoram of Judah, see my:
Rib-Addi had much to suffer from the belligerent kings of Amurru, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, two kings whom I have multi-identified. See e.g. my:
Ben-Hadad I as El Amarna’s Abdi-ashirta = Tushratta
according to which Abdi-ashirta was also Tushratta of Mitanni. Now, the latter ruler figures in the next section of my thesis, greatly affecting the peace and well-being of Rib-Addi (p. 73):
Our composite king, of immense power, who as Tushratta would campaign as far northwest as Byblos, and was threatening even Simyra (Sumur) further north, according to Rib-Addi (EA’s 85:51ff. and 86:10ff.), seems to have been playing a double game with Egypt, forever protesting his loyalty, but always looking to extend his boundaries. Campbell, astonished at the extraordinary boldness of this action, sought for “... a way to explain a Mitannian raid into upper Syria sometime during the final years of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III, carried out by Tušratta while he was maintaining loyal friendship with Egypt”. But Campbell finally had to admit to having “no satisfactory explanation”. ….
Similarly, 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:
Our composite king, of immense power, who as Tushratta would campaign as far northwest as Byblos, and was threatening even Simyra (Sumur) further north, according to Rib-Addi (EA’s 85:51ff. and 86:10ff.), seems to have been playing a double game with Egypt, forever protesting his loyalty, but always looking to extend his boundaries. Campbell, astonished at the extraordinary boldness of this action, sought for “... a way to explain a Mitannian raid into upper Syria sometime during the final years of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III, carried out by Tušratta while he was maintaining loyal friendship with Egypt”. But Campbell finally had to admit to having “no satisfactory explanation”. ….
Similarly, 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.
This invasion must have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III, not Akhnaton, because Rib-Addi would later remind the generally inactive Akhnaton of how his father
had intervened by sending archers up from Egypt. Rib-Addi repeated in several letters
that hostility against Sumur had become very great. We know from Rib-Addi’s letters that Abdi-Ashirta and his son, Aziru, did both attack his cities, and that he was wounded and nearly killed by the ‘Syrians’ (EA 81). Hence his good reason for concern.
had intervened by sending archers up from Egypt. Rib-Addi repeated in several letters
that hostility against Sumur had become very great. We know from Rib-Addi’s letters that Abdi-Ashirta and his son, Aziru, did both attack his cities, and that he was wounded and nearly killed by the ‘Syrians’ (EA 81). Hence his good reason for concern.
[End of quote]
From there I went on to consider:
Some Proposed Biblical Identifications of Rib-Addi
- Velikovsky: Rib-Addi as Ahab of Israel
I wrote (thesis, p. 83):
Now EA’s Lab’ayu, whom I shall be identifying with Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dates), appropriately straddles both part of Amenhotep III’s reign and the
early part of Akhnaton’s. Velikovsky, for his part, had, as already mentioned, looked to
identify Ahab with Rib-Addi of Gubla, the most prolific Syro-Palestine correspondent to
the EA pharaohs (over 50 letters in number). …And this was surely a big mistake. For, in order for him to ‘make’ Ahab, like Rib-Addi, a very old man at death, Velikovsky was
prepared to fly in the face of the biblical data and completely re-cast the chronology of
Ahab’s life. He had convinced himself that there existed a contradiction between the accounts of Ahab in Kings and Chronicles so that, as he claimed, Ahab did not die at the battle of Ramoth-gilead as is stated in 1 Kings 22 (cf. vv. 6, 29 & 37), but rather reigned on for a further 8-10 years. Thus, according to Velikovsky’s view, king Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dates), never truly existed, but was a ghost.
From a biblical point of view, the fact that Rib-Addi had been able to report the death of
Abdi-Ashirta (Velikovsky’s Ben-Hadad I) meant that Velikovsky was quite wrong in identifying Rib-Addi with king Ahab; since Ahab’s death preceded that of Ben-Hadad (cf. 1 Kings 22:40 & 2 Kings 8:15). But this was Velikovsky in his favourite rôle as “the arbiter of history”, according to Sieff … forcing historical data to fit a pre-conceived idea. Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura) … which EA cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of, respectively, Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified with the coastal cities of Byblos (Gebal) and
Simyra. Moreover, letters from Egypt may indicate that Sumur was not really Rib-Addi’s
concern at all. …. Velikovsky greatly confused the issue of Ahab of Israel for those coming after him, since Rib-Addi was chronologically and geographically unsuitable for
Ahab.
[End of quote]
- Sieff and Liel: Rib-Addi as Jehoram of Israel
Liel favours this view from the perspective of her linguistic name studies. She has analysed the EA name, Rib-Addi, in the context of Israel’s Divided Monarchy - I have already discussed her treatise on the Addi element in the name (ADP) - and has come to the same conclusion as had Sieff, assisted by James, but in her case on name basis alone: ….
This king, whose name is read conventionally as Rib-Addi, was identified by Velikovsky as Ahab son of Omri, king of Samaria and Jezreel. Within our framework of a biblically aligned stratigraphy, it is certain that this king reigned during the divided monarchy.
But which king of North Israel he was, assuming that he was indeed a king of North Israel, is less certain. Peter James and Martin Sieff have presented impressive arguments for identifying him as Ahab’s son Jehoram, and the late Bronson Feldman considered him to have been the usurper Jehu. For now, we will concern ourselves with the reading of this king’s name. … [Rib-Addi] the king of Sumur and Gubla, we see that his name, in a 9th century context, is best read Rib-Addu-DI, or Rib-Adduram. With “Addu” understood as a general term denoting
the local chief deity, it is perfectly legitimate to read this name as Rib-Yauram, or
Jehoram the Elder.
As described in the Jerusalem Chronology of the Israelite Monarchies (JCIM), Jehoshaphat appointed his son Jehoram coregent while he was in the North, helping Ahab to fight against Aram. But Ahab’s son Jehoram became king of North Israel before Jehoshaphat died.
In order to avoid the confusion that was bound to arise with two Jehorams ruling in the same general area, Ahab’s son signed himself as Jehoram the Elder, or Jehoram the Greater. The particle “rib” can be understood in either way, and there is actually no reason to assume that this king was older than his southern brotherin-law. Why was this necessary? After all, the Bible distinguishes these two kings by patronymic: Jehoram son of Ahab and Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat.
The answer lies in the political situation at the time. … One of the signs of a sovereign state is that it chooses its own rulers. A state which is subject to another
has its rulers chosen for it. As a matter of practice in the ancient world, this was usually limited to confirming the heir of the previous ruler. If there was a question of loyalties, the imperial power might take more active steps, such as choosing between two rival heirs or even putting an end to a ruling dynasty. This was the exception rather than the rule. But even when succession was automatically confirmed, the legality of the situation, at least from the standpoint of the imperial power, was that vassals ruled, not as their fathers’ heirs, but by appointment.
We find an illustration of this in a letter sent from the king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh (EA 286). The king of Jerusalem protests his loyalty to Egypt, proclaiming: Behold, neither my mother nor my father has put me in this place. The mighty hand of the king had led me into the house of my father. Despite the clear indication of dynastic succession (“the house of my father”), the king of Jerusalem is here proclaiming his loyalty in the clearest way possible, by acknowledging that he rules only at the whim of Pharaoh. For Jehoram son of Omri to have referred to himself as “Yauram mar Humri” would have implied that he held his throne by virtue of his birth, and would have constituted an act of rebellion against Egypt.
[End of quote]
Now, whilst Liel had optimisitically concluded, on a linguistic basis, that “the equation of Rib-Addi and Jehoram son of Ahab [was] a foregone conclusion” (thesis, p. 69):If the Amarna letters were written in the 9th century BCE, we would expect to find mostly semitic names being used. And if there are two equally valid readings for a particular name, the one which is identifiable as semitic would be preferred. Of course, if the Amarna period was in the 13th century (as in the conventional chronology) or the 11th (as in the Rohl/Newgrosh New Chronology), we would have less reason to prefer such a reading, but within our framework, the reading Addu-DI is to be preferred. The radical DI has the meaning “compassionate”, which in Akkadian is ram. Addu-DI may therefore be read Addu-Ram or Adduram, which is immediately recognizable as the biblical Adoram or Hadoram (cuneiform has no way of representing the consonant “h”, which is why the DN which appears as Hadad in the Bible is Adad in cuneiform, and which is why both the forms Adoram and Hadoram are attested).
One individual bearing this name is Hadoram son of To’i, prince of Hamath (I Chronicles 18:10), who is also called Joram (II Samuel 8:10).
At this point, we might simply point out that “Addi” is more likely to be read “Adduram,” and that we have an attested case of Hadoram and Joram being used for the same individual, which seems to make the equation of Rib-Addi and Jehoram son of Ahab a foregone conclusion [,]
there appear to be some considerable geographical difficulties against such a conclusion, as Liel herself will go on to concede (as quoted in thesis pp. 84-85):
Certain questions remain regarding the identification of the Rib-Yauram of the Amarna letters and the biblical Jehoram son of Omri. The main one is geographical; i.e., can Sumur and Gubla be identified with Samaria and Jezreel? This question will be dealt with in a forthcoming paper to be entitled “The Hebrew-Phoenician-Aramean Kingdom of North Israel.”
[End of quote]
Obviously this looms as a major difficulty, the resolution of which would be most necessary before one can claim Sieff’s (Liel’s) equation to be “a foregone conclusion”.Conclusion
Now, to answer the title question of this article, whether or not Rib-Addi of EA can be identified as a biblical character (necessarily of the Divided Kingdom era), I think that it is certain at least that King Ahab of Israel can no longer possibly be considered as an appropriate candidate.
For more on this, see:
No comments:
Post a Comment