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

Elijah a master of the taunt

“‘The Elijah Stories’ remember Elijah as a performer - an artist whose words and gestures riveted themselves into Israel’s memory. His words are not the familiar oracle or verdict so often associated with the prophet, but rather taunt”. Don. C. Benjamin Taken from: (5) Stories of Elijah | Don C Benjamin - Academia.edu The Eijah Stories Don C. Benjamin WHEN CHRISTIAN HERMITS BEGAN TO SETTLE AT THE SPRING OF ELIJAH IN Wadi ’ein es-Siah, they inherited not just the real estate of Carmel but the legacy of the twin prophets, Elijah and Elisha, as well. ‘The Elijah Stories’ reveal a fascinating tradition in which Camel is not just a beautiful place, but like Eden, and Jericho, for that matter, a place where human life began. Furthermore, Elijah and Elisha are not just fanatic Israelite fundamentalists, who yank the sun from the sky and call bears out of the forest. They are people primeval, who, like Adam and Eve, set the tone for a new world. The New Testament communities told the story of Jesus by retelling the stories of these prophets of ancient Israel, and these Carmelites would tell their own story by retelling ‘The Elijah Stories’ as well. …. …. ‘The Elijah Stories’ remember Elijah as a performer - an artist whose words and gestures riveted themselves into Israel’s memory. His words are not the familiar oracle or verdict so often associated with the prophet, but rather taunt. His gestures are neither those of the magician, nor the miracle worker but rather those of the mime! Taunt and mime are part of the prophet’s repertoire in the promotion of social reform. …. 1 Kings 18: A creation story …. However, it is more likely that, right from the start, I Kings 18 was a creation story pitting Ba’al Hadad, the Great Canaanite Rain-Giver, against Yahweh, the God of Israel. Rain imagery can certainly be implied in 18.20-4O, even though it is not expressed, and a famous observer of climate and culture in Syria-Palestine claims to have observed lightning in a cIoudless sky as much as a full day before rains came! …. But whether Ahab represents Ba’al-Carmel, the God of Carmel, Ba’al-Melqart, the God of Tyre … or Ba’al-Hadad, the Rain-Giver of All Canaan, 1 Kings 18 was eventuaIly told as a classic Creation story describing the ancient struggle between the Creator and the Conspirator for controI of the cosmos. …. The writer of the stories of EIijah and Elisha was well acquainted with the myths circulating about Baal, which attributed to him numerous and varied powers. The Canaanites believed that Baal was the storm and fertility god, who bestowed upon man and land the blessing of fecundity. He sent forth lightning, fire, and rain. He gave corn, oil and wine. He could revive the dead, heal the sick and bestow the bIessing of progeny. The author of these stories wished to liberate the people from these beliefs by showing through the agency of concrete examples and incidents that all the power attributed by Ugaritic mythology to Baal, are really the attributes only of the one God, the Lord of Israel. …. In l Kings 18.1-46, Elijah plays the role of the Messiah, similar to the roles of Marduk in Mesopotamia’s `Enuma Elish Story’ and of Ba’al in Ugarit’s ` Ba’al vs Mot Story’. Typically in ancient near eastern creation stories, the creators are represented by their messiahs. Therefore, just as Elijah represents Yahweh, Jezebel, Ahab and the prophets represent Ba’al. In l Kings 18.1-46, Jezebel’s role is comparable to that of Tiamat in the `Enuma Elish Story’, Ahab, to the role of Kingu, Tiamat’s commander-in-chief; and the prophets of Ba’al to the monsters which Tiamat as Mother Huber creates to be her allies in the great battle with Marduk. In the ` Ba’al vs Mot Story,’ the Ba’al character is the protagonist and Mot is the antagonist. However, in l Kings 16.29-19. 18 Elijah is the protagonist and Ba’al is the antagonist! In 18.16-18, Ahab and Elijah argue about who will play the role of the Conspirator or `disturber’ (NAB). It is also important to keep in mind that in Ugaritic literature the Ba’al character is heroic, whereas in Israelite literature he is demonic. Tellers have consciously exaggerated the protagonist and the antagonist in ‘The Elijah Stories’. As a result, the Elijah character is a paragon of virtue, whereas the Ahab character is despicable. The only attempt which tellers make to soften the character of Ahab is at the expense of JezebeI, who is indicted as a pagan queen who dominated her husband. …. The issue: With whom to dance? Carmel – a range of hills jutting north-west into the Mediterranean sea, created a natural barrier across the coastal plain. Military and commercial traffic on its way north from Egypt along the Coast Highway either detoured inland through the Megiddo Pass or negotiated the narrow beach between the promontory of Carmel and the Mediterranean. …. Like Mount Zaphon, the northern mountain on which El, the Canaanite creator, made his home, Camel, too, is the Vineyard of God. …. Carmel carries the same connotations in the literature of ancient Israel as Megiddo, Jericho, Jerusalem and Eden - it is the site of creation and re-creation! Carmel was also an important intersection for the cultures of Israel and Canaan. The territory itself not just the people who inhabited it, seesawed back and forth between Canaanite and Israelite jurisdictions (1 K 18.21). The promontory of Carmel was significant to seafarers from the Canaanite cities of Tyre and Sidon, who dedicated it to Ba’al. …. David (10OO 975 BCE) may or may not have named Carmel for Israel (2 San 5.11; 1 Chr 14.1). If he did, Solomon (1075-926 BCE) seems to have returned it to Hiram of Tyre (970-926 BCE) as payment for help in building the royal compound in Jerusalem (1 K 9.11-13). …. Then Itto Ba’al of Sidon may have included Carmel in Jezebel’s dowry when she married Ahab, once again putting it under Israelite jurisdiction (1 K 18. 19). …. The geographical location and altitude of Carmel - critical in determining the amount of rainfall in Syria-Palestine - blessed it with good annual rains (Am l.2). Carmel receives as much as thirty-five inches of rain a year. Two periods of rainfall are critical to the economy of Syria-Palestine. It must rain at the end of the long hot summer to soften the soil enough for famers to pIow and pIant, and it must rain near the end of the growing season to bring the crops to fruit. To prevent crop failure these rains must come at the right time and in the right quantity. Rain is the primary motif in l Kings 18, not fire. Fire is an ancient symbol. In the Hebrew Bible, fire signals the presence of Yahweh (Ex 3.2), who protects (Zc 2.5), and purifies (Ma1 3.2), and punishes (Lv 2O.14). The fire which consumes Elijahs offering is the flash of lightning which announces the rain (Jg 6.21; 13.2O; Ez l.13; Jb l.16; 2 K l.10 14). …. Lightning was not something to fear, but a reminder that Yahweh was present to protect his peopIe and punish their enemies. By referring to the lightning as fire of God (Hebrew: es Elohim) and Elijah as man of God (Hebrew: ’is elohim) tellers achieve a masterful play on words. For them the prophet is a fire (Hebrew: es) man (Hebrew: ’is) – a person both human and divine, whose special relationship to God entitles him to use God’s own lightning! …. Carmel was a fitting location to tell a story like l Kings 18 which asks `Who ruIes?’; ‘Who is Lord?’; ‘Who makes it rain?’ The innovative language in l Kings 18.21 with which Elijah issues this challenge is lost in translations like the New International Version or the New American Bible. `How Iong will you waver or limp (Hebrew: pasah) between two opinions?’ conveys the image of a traveler lost at an intersection or a bird hopping through a tree from one branch to the other. However, the most appropriate transIation for l Kings 18.21, 26 is: `How long are you going to dance the Canaanite trilogy for Ba’al Marqad, `Lord of the Dance?’ …. In traditional societies dancing is an important religious expression (Ps 26.6). They consider the Creator a dance master or a musician, whose blueprint for creation is a melody to which humans must dance. EIijah wants Israel to decide with whom to dance! Elijah’s taunt (I Kings 18.27) Taunts were a common military strategy in the ancient Near East and in ancient Israel. Verbal combat always precedes physical combat. In Mesopotamia’s ‘Enuma Elish Story’, Tiamat taunts Marduk as he approaches (EE 4:63-74). Gilgamesh taunts ISHTAR In Assyria’s ‘Story of Gilgamesh’ (6:31-78). In Ugarit’s ‘Story of Aqhat’ (AQHT A 6:35-49) and ‘Story of Ba’al’, Aqhat and Anat taunt each other, and Yam or Anat taunt Ba’al repeatedly. Although the word taunt (Hebrew: seninah) appears only four times (Dt 28.37; I K 9.7; 2 Ch 7.20; Jer 24.9), taunting is widely used in the Hebrew Bible. Jacob taunts Laban (Gn 31.36-44), Gaal taunts Abimelech (Jg 8.28-9), Ahab taunts Benhadad (1 K 20.11), Jezebel taunts Jehu (2 K 9.31-2), Rabshakeh taunts Hezekiah (2 K 18.19-37), and the Jebusites taunt David at Jerusalem: ‘Who is David...’ they taunted, ‘that the blind should march through the gates of Jerusalem? Who is David … that the blind and lame cannot see to him?’ (2 Sam 5.6) On at least two other occasions besides the BattIe of Jerusalem, David is taunted by the enemies he will eventually defeat. Goliath taunts David at Soco (1 Sm 17.8-10), and Nabal taunts David at Carmel (1 Sm 25.2-43). Taunts are surgically focussed insults. Elijah is a master of the art. There are two taunts in l Kings 18. The first is in 18.17-18, where Ahab and Elijah meet … the second more powerful 18.27. In the standard taunt, who (Hebrew: mi) introduces the first line and that (Hebrew: ki) introduces the second. For example, ‘Who (Hebrew: mi) is David the son of Jesse that (Hebrew: we) I should feed his renegades with my wine, my bread, my meat...’ (1 Sm 25.10) catches the sense, if not the precise grammar, of the genre. …. Taunts are notoriously difficult to translate because of their subtlety; however, ‘Call louder for he is a god …’ (1 K 18.27 - NAB) Iacks both the style and the content which a taunt requires. It would make better sense if `Call louder!’ (Hebrew: qire’u) like ‘Come here!’ (1 K 18.30) and ‘Seize the prophets of Ba’al’ (1 K 18.40) were addressed to the people, not the prophets. Elijah is teaching the audience a taunt. He wants them to use it to out-shout the singing and dancing and slashing prophets of Ba’al’. To bring l Kings 18.27 into formal correspondence with the first line of the genre, it must Parallel Psalm 24.10: ‘Who is this king of glory?’ (Ps 24.10). And when the Sun was directly overhead, Elijah dared the people: Shout at the top of your voices: ‘Who (Hebrew: ki) is this (Hebrew: hu’) god, that so many prophets should be necessary to load him onto ships, to help him tend to his business, to haul him overland in wagons, to put him to bed, to get him up? Elijah’s taunt does not explain why Ba’al is not answering his prophets, although this is the connotation of most contemporary translations. On the contrary, the taunt argues that any god who needs four hundred and fifty prophets (1 K 18.19) and needs to be loaded onto ships to cross the Mediterranean (Hebrew: siah … sig), hauled overland in wagons (Hebrew: derek lo), and die and be raised from the dead (Hebrew: yasen … weyiqas) by all this dancing, singing and self-laceration is no god at all. In contrast, Yahweh needs only one prophet to do the same (1 K 18.22). Elijah’s taunt is brimming with doubIe entendre. On the surface the language of Elijah’s taunt simply echoes the liturgical language of Ba’al theology being chanted by the prophets. Merchants meticulously transported their sacred statues from one end of the Mediterranean to the other as they worked the trade networks for which their cities became famous. …. If a statue of Ba’al did not board every Canaanite freighter (Hebrew: siαh) and accompany every merchant (Hebrew: siag), the commercial world of Tyre and Sidon would collapse. …. Likewise, at the onset of the dry season, statues of Ba’al would be taken (Hebrew: derek lo) to the border, where farms end and dry wasteland begins, to do battle with the heat of summer. …. The heat of the long, hot summer would drive the life-sustaining moisture of Ba’al to sleep, deep in the earth, only to be reawakened when the planting rains began in the fall. However, with only subtle changes in spelling, accent or meaning, Elijah’s taunt conjures up the image of Ba’al as an impotent old fool (2 K 2.23-5). The deeper and most offensive connotations in Eijah’s taunt describe Ba’al as unable to perform the routines of daily living such as getting in or out of bed and using the toilet without assistance! Simply by shifting the pronunciation of a single letter, the taunt converts the liturgical expression: siah (with a sin) … sig, meaning to travel on business, to the vulgar expression: siah (with a shin) … sig, meaning to go out into a field to relieve oneself (Gn 24.63). …. Read also my (Damien F. Mackey’s) brief piece regarding Leah Bronner’s excellent book, The stories of Elijah and Elisha as polemics against Baal worship (Pretoria Oriental Series VI. Leiden, 1968): Impressive book about Elijah and Elisha ridiculing the Baal legends https://www.academia.edu/106236845/Impressive_book_about_Elijah_and_Elisha_ridiculing_the_Baal_legends

Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel

“With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem”. We read at: http://www.thywordistruth.com/Ezra/Ezra-Esther-Lesson-19.html …. There is a very subtle irony in the picture of Haman constantly running home to ask his wife how to solve his problem. Remember how this book started out? The king and his advisors were concerned that the Vashti incident would somehow undermine the male leadership in their society! Who do we see taking charge in this book? Esther and Zeresh – Xerxes’ wife and Haman’s wife! With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem. Like Haman, Ahab also seemingly had everything – and yet he wanted just one more thing to be happy. How many have run their ships aground while searching for that one more thing! The key to contentment is to give up that never ending searching for just one more thing because whatever that one thing is, there will be another “just one thing” waiting in line behind it. You will never have enough. Haggai 1:6 – “Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.” Zeresh, like Jezebel, takes the lead in pushing Haman to do his evil deed. Notice that while Zeresh is listed last in verse 10, she is listed first in verse 14. Zeresh’s advice is very bad advice – and yet Haman follows it eagerly. In a book that begin with the goal of keeping all women in their place, Haman’s downfall is caused by two women – Queen Esther and his own wife, Zeresh. Haman’s wife proposes a public humiliation for Mordecai, so Haman builds a gallows that is as tall as his own pride – 75 feet! Critics have complained that no gallows would have been this tall – about the height of a 7-story building. But it is certainly not impossible, and it is also possible that it was built on top of a hill or a building. Haman wanted everyone to see Mordecai – and he is about to get his wish! Haman’s plans are about to run headfirst into the providence of God. It is often said that Jesus can be found on every page of the Old Testament. Is that true of Esther? Notice how Chapter 5 begins – “On the third day.” Can we not think of another, infinitely greater, champion of God’s people who arose to save them from certain death on the third day? Whether the reference to the third day here as a greater significance, we don’t know, but many commentaries speculate that it does. …. Esther 6:1-3 On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king. 2 And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s chamberlains, the keepers of the door, who sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. 3 And the king said, What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this? Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him. One commentator says that Chapter 6 is “arguably the most ironically comic scene in the entire Bible” (although Chapter 7 seems funnier to me). But we should note what another commentator said: “The book of Esther may be wickedly funny at times, but it is also deadly serious.” While Haman plots Mordecai’s death on a 75 foot gallows, the king plans to honor Mordecai for his faithful service. The unsuspecting Haman enters the king’s court, thinking the king must be planning to honor him – thinking to himself, “Whom would the king delight to honor more than me?” in verse 6. “If ever there was a picture of pride going before a fall, Haman is it.” As one commentator noted, “Here the early bird is gotten by the worm!” We begin to see here the series of seeming coincidences that we discussed in the introduction as Haman’s plan spirals out of control. The king just happens to have a sleepless night (although, as we have suggested, it might have been because of Esther’s delay in answering his question). The king just happens to have the chronicles read to him, and the service of Mordecai just happens to come to his attention at the moment Haman is plotting his death. Haman just happens to show up early and be there when the king asks for an advisor, and the king just happens to ask Haman for advice without initially mentioning Mordecai by name. Those who read the book with the eye of faith cannot miss seeing God in its pages, even though he is never named. As one commentator stated, these coincidences are the author’s cipher for “divinely arranged.” We cannot fail to see the hand of divine providence in such a series of events. Asking for the chronicles to be read would be similar to asking today for the Congressional Record to be read – and each could provide a quick cure for insomnia. Another possibility is that the king may have had a nagging feeling that he had forgotten to do something important – and perhaps he was hoping these records might refresh his recollection. Perhaps Esther’s impending request had even created this nagging feeling in the king – what did she want? What had he forgotten? Perhaps it seemed to the king that by her delay she was wanting him to come up with it on his own. Had he forgotten their anniversary? It was important for a Persian king to reward those who were loyal as a way of promoting his own safety and security on the throne. Thus, the king was understandably upset to learn that Mordecai had never been honored for foiling the assassination plot against him five years earlier. Mordecai had no doubt been disappointed himself. And why did the king fail to honor Mordecai? Once again I think we see the hand of God at work. It was important for God’s plan that Mordecai be honored at the right time. Perhaps we need to look for God’s providence in our own lives when things do not operate according to our own carefully arranged time schedule. The word “honor” in verse 3 occurs throughout the text. It first appeared in 1:4 in reference to the honor of the king. In 1:20, the word was used to describe the honor that wives should give their husbands. It is the one thing that Haman craves, but so far the word has never been applied to him. Will Haman at last receive the honor he is due – or perhaps something else he is due? ….

Sumur in Amarna letters of Rib-Addi

by Damien F. Mackey “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”. What Sumur was not Sumur cannot realistically have been Samaria, as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had hopefully argued (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). For, as I explained in my postgraduate thesis (2007, Volume One, pp. 83-87): …. Now EA’s [El Amarna’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 … 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. …. Velikovsky greatly confused the issue of Ahab of Israel for those coming after him, since Rib-Addi was chronologically and geographically unsuitable for Ahab. Revisionists have since rightly rejected this part of Velikovsky’s EA reconstruction, with Sieff suggesting instead that Rib-Addi may have been 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 … and has come to the same conclusion as had Sieff, assisted by James, but in her case on name basis alone: …. problematical to the Rib-Addi = Jehoram of Israel theory though are the geographical difficulties, as Liel now admits: Certain questions remain regarding the identification of the Rib-Yauram [Rib-Addi] 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.” … whether Jehoram could feasibly have been the aged Rib-Addi is another consideration. Whether or not Rib-Addi turns out to be Jehoram of Israel, a far better EA candidate for Ahab than Rib-Addi, in my opinion, and indeed a more obvious one – and I am quite surprised that no one has yet taken it up – is Lab’ayu, known to have been a king of the Shechem region, which is very close to Samaria (only 9 km SE distant); especially given my quote earlier (p. 54) from Cook that the geopolitical situation at this time in the “(north) [was akin to that of the] Israelites of a later [sic] time”. Lab’ayu is never actually identified in the EA letters as king of either Samaria or of Shechem. Nevertheless, Aharoni has designated Lab’ayu as “King of Shechem” in his description of the geo-political situation in Palestine during the EA period (Aharoni, of course, is a conventional scholar writing of a period he thinks must have been well pre-monarchical): In the hill country there were only a few political centres, and each of these ruled over a fairly extensive area. In all the hill country of Judah and Ephraim we hear only of Jerusalem and Shechem with possible allusions to Beth-Horon and Manahath, towns within the realm of Jerusalem’s king. ... Apparently the kings of Jerusalem and Shechem dominated, to all practical purposes, the entire central hill country at that time. The territory controlled by Labayu, King of Shechem, was especially large in contrast to the small Canaanite principalities round about. Only one letter refers to Shechem itself, and we get the impression that this is not simply a royal Canaanite city but rather an extensive kingdom with Shechem as its capital. Against all objections already discussed, this description sounds very much to me like the distinct northern and southern realms during the split kingdom era! Note, too, how the more northerly region of Galilee is missing from this description. We might recall that Ben-Hadad I and/or Tab-rimmon had taken these towns from Israel’s king Baasha. De Vaux considered Aharoni’s identification of Shechem as the capital of Lab’ayu’s kingdom as being by no means certain: Lab’ayu was not, however, given the title of king of Shechem and it is very doubtful whether he ever was. It would seem too that he did not live at Shechem; his authority was probably exercised from elsewhere by means of an agreement made with the inhabitants. The latter took care of the internal administration of the city and recognised Lab’ayu’s authority as a kind of protectorate…. In the light of this, the conclusion of Rohl and Newgrosh is valid: “In most scholarly works Labayu is referred to as the king or ruler of Shechem and this, we feel, has been misleading”. Neither is Lab’ayu, as I already have noted, ever specifically mentioned in EA as a ruler of Samaria. However, given the close proximity of Shechem to Samaria - and given the apparently “extensive” rule of Lab’ayu - then he stands, in a revised context, as the ideal identification for king Ahab of Israel. I am encouraged in this by the fact that Aharoni’s description of the kingdom over which Lab’ayu reigned appears to correspond very well with the realm of Ahab as far as we know it: Lab’ayu was a serious contender with the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer. EA 250 indicates that ... he even dominated the entire Sharon, having conquered Gath-padalla (Jett in the central Sharon) and Gath-rimmon (apparently the biblical town of this name ...). Even in the north Lab’ayu was not content to possess only the hill country; he tried to penetrate into the Jezreel Valley, laying siege to Megiddo (EA 244) and destroying Shunem and some other towns (EA 250). [End of quotes] Conclusion The city of Sumur of the EA correspondence could not have been Samaria of Israel as Dr. Velikovsky had proposed, but was, as according to the standard interpretation, the port of Simyra. What Sumur may also have been That the port of Sumur/Simyra lies north of Byblos (my Babylon) and south of Ullaza (my Arzawa, tentatively) is apparent from what Dr. Mahmoud Elhosary has written (2009, p. 149): …. In his thirtieth regnal year, Thutmose [III] attacked the Lebanon coast in earnest, mounting an amphibious invasion. He left Egypt in early June and arrived in Lebanon a week later. Although the Annals do not tell us where he landed, the most logical place was the port city of Simyra, located about thirty miles by sea from the friendly port of Byblos. Lying just south of Ullaza, Simyra was the closest port to the mouth of the Eleutheros Valley. …. Gabriel, R.A., “Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt's Greatest Warrior King”, Potomac Books, Inc. (2009) (3) Gabriel, R.A., "Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt's Greatest Warrior King", Potomac Books, Inc. (2009) | Dr-Mahmoud Elhosary - Academia.edu Arzawa is closely associated with geographical names such as Mira and the Seha River Land. Thus, for instance: https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia/The-Middle-Kingdom Arzawa, with its satellites Mira, Kuwaliya, Hapalla, and the “Land of the River Seha …”. The latter might just possibly refer to the Chaldean Sealand, re-located from Sumer to NW Syria by Royce (Richard) Erickson in his groundbreaking article (2020): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) Academia.edu | Search | A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY Sumur, which can also read as Ṣimirra, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumur_(Levant) Sumur (Biblical Hebrew: צְמָרִי‎ [collective noun denoting the city inhabitants]; Egyptian: Smr; Akkadian: Sumuru; Assyrian: Simirra) was a Phoenician city in what is now Syria. 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] could then be Mira, an abbreviation of Ṣimirra. Thought to be situated far away in the Arzawan Lands of Anatolia, Mira (Simyra) and the Seha River Land (Sealand?) can probably take their place, instead, as approximate neighbours of Ullaza (Arzawa) and Byblos (Babylon).

Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans damaged our understanding of the past

by Damien F. Mackey “Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings”. Whitney White Following on from my articles: Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? (3) Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and (the six-part series): Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! beginning with: (3) Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (including a critique of Zahi Hawass), I came across an article by Whitney White, entitled: https://web.colby.edu/copiesfakesforgeries/files/2021/05/WHITE.pdf Desire, Expectation, and the Forging of History: A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans Introduction Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are two of the most well-known names in archaeology. Their excavations of Aegean civilizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dramatically influenced our understanding of the Bronze Age world. Though there is overwhelming evidence that at least some of their findings were faked and forged to varying degrees, tourists still flock to view their discoveries and even the most contested objects remain included in art historical canon. This continued mainstream acceptance of Schliemann’s and Evans’ findings has meant that the two are rarely considered within the context of another part of the artworld that they certainly could be associated with: that of forgers. Though the study of art forgers is relatively limited, the existing scholarship has revealed that most forgers have a consistent profile and share similar motivations—which are at odds with those of these amateur archaeologists. The question that emerges, then, is how do Schliemann and Evans fit into our understanding of forgers? In this paper, I argue that, as it stands, the current definition of forgers is far too limited. By introducing psychological understandings of desire and expectation as a new framework for considering the motivations of forgers, our understanding of forgers can be expanded to include Schliemann and Evans and our definition of forgeries can be complicated to critically reexamine the contested objects associated with these men’s excavations. …. Heinrich Schliemann was a hoaxer according to professor William Calder: Behind the Mask of Agamemnon Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999 IS THE MASK A HOAX? For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be: …. For the professor’s “nine reasons”, refer to: https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html Whitney White concludes the article with: Desire-Driven Forgers From these concise overviews, it is clear that while Schliemann and Evans intentionally altered their findings to varying degrees, neither fit the typical forger profile. How, then, can we consider them within this context? It is useful here to explore the characteristic of their excavations that united them the most: each had a strong desire to prove a certain narrative about the past, coupled with the expectation that it was there to be proven. This desire-expectation combination can be used as framework to place these men into the context of art forgers and expand our understanding of forgers in general. Though psychological studies of desire are primarily dedicated to universal, tangible desires, like food and sex, and tend to explore issues related to self-control, the desire to know the past, as suggested by David Lowenthal, is also universal and compelling (Lowenthal 325), and can thus be viewed as functioning like other desires and studied in similar ways. Strong desire, as described by Wilhelm Hofmann, often clouds our judgement and can lead us to act out of character (Hofmann 199). This is especially true when we begin to overthink, as we find ways to justify the actions, however unsavory, we need to take to fulfill our desire (Hofmann 200). As educated men set out to prove a past they felt was (or should be) true, Schliemann and Evans would likely have overthought and justified their actions: in their minds, they were actually benefiting mankind (or at least, Europeans) by proving a past that they really wanted to exist; altering evidence here and there could thus be justified as a necessary means to give the world (and themselves) what it wanted. As Lowenthal explains, “we may be fully conscious, partially and hazily aware, or wholly unconscious of what prompts us to alter the past. Many such changes are unintended; other are undertaken to make a supposed legacy credible . . . The more strenuously we build a desired past, the more we convince ourselves that things really were that way; what ought to have happened becomes what did happen” (Lowenthal 326, emphasis added). The desire to change the past, even when intentional, can bring even those responsible for the changes—the forgers—to convince themselves of their own deceptions. While this, as Lowenthal agrees (Lowenthal 331), separates the desire-driven forger from the typical, revengedriven forger, the fact remains that all forgers nonetheless damage our understanding of the past through intentional deception. It should be noted that desire in this context is also closely tied to expectation. As described by David Huron, who studies the psychology of expectation in relation to music, expectations provoke strong emotional responses. When we successfully predict something we expect to happen, we are rewarded by our brains, and when we unsuccessfully predict something, we experience mental “punishments” (Huron 362). These psychological processes developed from a survival standpoint but can be used to explain behavior in many different contexts. Since Schliemann and Evans so clearly expected to find something that they desired, they perhaps felt the need to make their prediction true even more strongly (unconsciously or not) to avoid the double mental punishment of unfilled desire and incorrect expectation. While it has been established that both Schliemann and Evans were aware of their actions in altering the past at least to some extent, considering the psychology of expectation gives them some benefit of the doubt and further separates them from the typical forger. Conclusion Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings. They thus can be tentatively classed as forgers, albeit of a different kind than are usually dealt with in the artworld. In any case, it is important to recognize that their forgeries, like all others, do indeed damage our understanding of the past. Expanding our understanding of forgers to include those who often slip under the radar because their intention to deceive, though present, is not as insidious, has a broader two-fold effect. First, it makes us more aware of the fact that forgers can exist and cause damage in multiple contexts. Sir Arthur Evans He may have been an inveterate racist, who fabricated a so-called “Minoan” civilisation. See also my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (3) Of Cretans and Phoenicians | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sir Arthur Evans, a tyrannical, dictatorial type, seems to have his like successor in the incompetent Zahi Hawass.

Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate

by Damien F. Mackey “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” Gunnar Heinsohn The major Caliphates of Islam are listed as these five (1-5): • 1 Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) • 2 Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) • 3 Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) • 4 Mamluk Abbasid dynasty (1261–1517) • 5 Ottoman Caliphate (1517–1924) It will be my purpose here - abstracting from the immense problems already associated with the Qur’an (Koran) itself (e.g.): Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry (2) Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Islam according to Jay Smith (6) Islam according to Jay Smith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Durie’s verdict on Prophet Mohammed (DOC) Durie's verdict on Prophet Mohammed | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sven Kalisch out to expose true nature of Islam (6) Sven Kalisch out to expose true nature of Islam | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu - to show that virtually none (if any at all) of this presumed history of the successive Caliphates is properly historical, and, hence, underpinned by a reliable archaeology. Abbasid Caliphate Aiming right at the centre, the middle one (No. 3 above), the famed Abbasid Caliphate: “The Abbasid caliphs established the city of Baghdad in 762 CE. It became a center of learning and the hub of what is known as the Golden Age of Islam”: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/cross-cultural-diffusion-of-knowledge/a/the-golden-age-of-islam I have already disposed of this supposedly the most glorious age of Islam by arguing that early Baghdad (not the modern city of that name), known as Madinat-al-Salam, “City of Peace”, was actually Jerusalem, meaning just that, “City of Peace”: Original Baghdad was Jerusalem (6) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In the same article I noted that the imagined early Baghdad had, unsurprisingly, left no discernible archaeological trace. There I wrote: The first thing to notice about ancient Baghdad is that it has left “no tangible traces”: “Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today”. “While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Baghdad “The Round City was partially ruined during the siege of 812–813, when Caliph al-Amin was killed by his brother,[a] who then became the new caliph. It never recovered;[b] its walls were destroyed by 912,[c] nothing of them remains,[d][6] there is no agreement as to where it was located.[7]” [End of quotes] And just as I have shown, time and time again, that the Prophet Mohammed was a fictitious, largely biblical, composite, so, too, basically, I believe, were the luminaries of the so-called Abbasid Golden Age. Thus, for instance, the fairytale (Arabian Nights), Hārūn al-Rashīd, who is said to have built the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, is an appropriation of the great king, Hiram, ally of Solomon, who helped the wise king of Israel build the Temple of Yahweh and Solomon’s Palace in Jerusalem, “City of Peace”. And in the names of a handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age, the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); and Averroes (c. 1150), I found what I would consider to be elements of Ahikar’s (Tobit’s nephew) Assyro-Babylonian names: respectively, Aba-enlil-dari and Esagil-kinni-ubba. Thus: AL-KINDI – ESAGIL-KINNI; AL-FARABI – ENLIL-DAR-AB(I); AVICENNA – UBB-KINNI(A); AVERROES – ABA-(D)AR(I) In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (8) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If the glorious and lengthy Abbasid Caliphate can be thus expunged from history, and the very originator of Islam, Mohammed, found to have been an artificial construct - not to mention Loqmân and Abu Lahab (see below) - then we appear to have no firm archaeological foundations upon which to erect a plausible history of the Caliphate. And things, apparently, do not get much better. Rashidun Caliphate Let us go back for a moment to Mohammed and his presumed era, more than a century before the so-called Abbasids. Not only has Mohammed been shown to have been a non-historical entity, a fictitious composite based upon real historical (biblical) characters: Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ (3) Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu but the historicity of some of Mohammed’s supposed contemporaries, too, is highly suspect. Mohammed’s very uncle, Abu Lahab, for instance, has been found to have had suspiciously (biblical) Ahab-like traits, as, correspondingly, does Abu-Lahab’s unbelieving wife, Umm Jamīl, somewhat resemble Queen Jezebel: Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab (8) Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mohammed’s supposed contemporary, Nehemiah ben Hushiel, would seem to be a direct pinch from the biblical Nehemiah: Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time (3) Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And their (Mohammed and Nehemiah’s) contemporary, the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, is a most bizarre character, somewhat like a frog in a blender, whom I have described as being “a composite of all composites”: Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh (3) Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Again, there is the Islamic sage Loqmân (Luqman) of the Qur’an (31st sura), who quotes from the wisdom of Ahikar, an Israelite nephew of the biblical Tobit: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân (2) Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu Ahikar’s influence, as we read above, also permeates the Abbasids. But Loqmân has been compared as well with the venal biblical seer, Balaam, more than half a millennium before Ahikar: Islam’s Loqmân based on biblical Balaam (3) Islam’s Loqmân based on biblical Balaam | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Oh yes, of course, the story of Mohammed also has (like Balaam) a talking donkey: A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca (2) A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu With so insecure an archaeologico-historical base, beginning with Mohammed himself, the entire Caliphate period, from, say, 650-1250 AD (Rashidun to Abbasid), must needs be looking very shaky indeed. At this stage I have not analysed the four caliphs closely associated with Mohammed (the Rashidun Caliphate), Abū Bakr (reigned 632–634), ʿUmar (reigned 634–644), ʿUthmān (reigned 644–656), and ʿAlī (reigned 656–661). But, based on the cases of Mohammed and Abu Lahab, I would strongly suspect that these four, too, can be identifiable with one or more biblical characters ranging from, say, Moses to Tobit (possibly also embracing the New Testament). Let us switch now to the Umayyads (661-750 AD). Umayyad Caliphate As with the 1 Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), so, too, in the case of the 2 Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), I have not yet analysed the various caliphs with an eye to biblical comparisons. But the great shock about the Umayyads came at the very beginning of this article, with archaeologist Moshe Hartal’s observation that the Umayyads existed on the same stratigraphical level as the Romans of the period approximating to Jesus Christ. How shattering! According to professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s interpretation of the Umayyads, these were none other than the Nabataeans (era of Maccabees and Jesus Christ): https://heinsohn-gunnar.eu/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/arab-coinage-hiatus-between-nabataean-1st-c-and-jewish-style-of-umayyad-8th-c-heinsohn-21-august-2021.pdf Professor Heinsohn is followed in this by The First Millennium Revisionist (2021) https://stolenhistory.net/threads/revision-in-islamic-chronology-and-geography-unz-review.5581/ I do not necessarily agree with every detail (e.g. date) of the following. …. “Archeologists have no way of distinguishing Roman and Byzantium buildings from Umayyad buildings, because “8th-10th Cent. Umayyads built in 2nd Cent. technology” and followed Roman models”. The First Millennium Revisionist In Heinsohn’s SC chronology, the rise of Christianity in the first three centuries AD and the rise of Islam from the 7th to the 10th century are roughly contemporary. Their six-century chasm is a fiction resulting from the fact that the rise of Christianity is dated in Imperial Antiquity while the rise of Islam is dated in the Early Middle Ages, two time-blocks that are in reality contemporary. The resynchronizing of Imperial Antiquity and Early Middle Ages provides a solution to some troublesome archeological anomalies. One of them concerns the Nabataeans. During Imperial Antiquity, the Nabataean Arabs dominated long distance trade. Their city of Petra was a major center of trade for silk, spice and other goods on the caravan routes that linked China, India and southern Arabia with Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome. In 106 AD, the Nabataean Kingdom was officially annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan (whose father had been governor of Syria) and became the province of Arabia Petraea. Hadrian visited Petra around 130 AD and gave it the name of Hadriane Petra Metropolis, imprinted on his coins. Petra reached its urban flowering in the Severan period (190s-230s AD).[18] Mackey’s comment: I actually date the Trajan-Hadrian period to the Maccabean age, not c. 106 AD: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (5) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And yet, incredibly, these Arab long-distance merchants “are supposed to have forgotten the issuing of coins and the art of writing (Aramaic) after the 1st century AD and only learned it again in the 7th/8th century AD (Umayyad Muslims). ” …. It is assumed that Arabs fell out of civilization after Hadrian, and only emerged back into it under Islam, with an incomprehensible scientific advancement. The extreme primitivism in which pre-Islamic Arabs are supposed to have wallowed, with no writing and no money of they own, “stands in stark contrast to the Islamic Arabs who thrive from the 8th century, [whose] coins are not only found in Poland but from Norway all the way to India and beyond at a time when the rest of the known world was trying to crawl out of the darkness of the Early Middle Ages.”…. Moreover, Arab coins dated to the 8th and 9th centuries are found in the same layers as imperial Roman coins. “The coin finds of Raqqa, for example, which stratigraphically belong to the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century), also contain imperial Roman coins from Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) and Late Antiquity (4th-7th century).” …. “Thus, we have an impressive trove of post-7th c. Arab coins lumped together with pre-7th c. Roman coins of pre-7th c. Roman times. But we have no pre-7th c. Arab coins from the centuries of their close alliance with Rome in the pre-7th c. periods.” …. The first Islamic Umayyad coins, issued in Jerusalem, “continue supposedly 700 years earlier Nabataean coins.” …. Often displaying Jewish menorahs with Arabic lettering, they differ very little from Jewish coins dated seven centuries earlier; we are dealing here with an evolution “requiring only years or decades, but not seven centuries.” …. Architecture raises similar problems. Archeologists have no way of distinguishing Roman and Byzantium buildings from Umayyad buildings, because “8th-10th Cent. Umayyads built in 2nd Cent. technology” and followed Roman models. …. “How could the Umayyads in the 8th c. AD perfectly imitate late Hellenistic styles,” Heinsohn asks, “when there were no specialists left to teach them such sophisticated skills?” …. Moreover, “Umayyad structures were built right on top of Late-Hellenistic structures of the 1st c. BCE/CE.” …. One example is “the second most famous Umayyad building, their mosque in Damascus. The octagonal structure of the so-called Dome of the Treasury stands on perfect Roman columns of the 1st/2nd century. They are supposed to be spolia, but . . . there are no known razed buildings from which they could have been taken. Even more puzzling are the enormous monolithic columns inside the building from the 8th/9th c. AD, which also belong to the 1st/2nd century. No one knows the massive structure that would have had to be demolished to obtain them.” …. Far from rejecting the Umayyads’ servile “imitation” of Roman Antiquity, their Abbasid enemies resumed it: “8th-10th c. Abbasids bewilder historians for copying, right down to the chemical fingerprint, Roman glass.” Heinsohn quotes from The David Collection: Islamic Art / Glass, 2014: The millefiori technique, which takes its name from the Italian word meaning “thousand flowers”, reached a culmination in the Roman period. . . . The technique seems to have been rediscovered by Islamic glassmakers in the 9th century, since examples of millefiori glass, including tiles, have been excavated in the Abbasid capital of Samarra. …. I included in “How Long Was the First Millennium?” one of Heinsohn’s illustrations of identical millefiori glass bowls ascribed respectively to the 1st-2nd century Romans and to the 8th-9th century Abbasids. Here is another puzzling comparison: …. Heinsohn concludes that, “the culture of the Umayyads is as Roman as the culture of early medieval Franks. Their 9th/10th century architecture is a direct continuation of the 2nd c. AD. The 700 years in between do not exist in reality.” …. “The Arabs did not walk in ignorance without coinage and writing for some 700 years. Those 700 years represent phantom centuries. Thus, it is not true that Arabs were backward in comparison with their immediate Roman and Greek neighbours who, interestingly enough, are not on record for having ever claimed any Arab backwardness. . . . the caliphs now dated from the 690s to the 930s are actually the caliphs of the period from Augustus to the 230s.” …. This explains why archeologists often find themselves puzzled by the stratigraphy. For example, Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded.’” …. Heinsohn argues that the Umayyads of the Early Middle Ages are not only identical with the Nabataeans of Imperial Antiquity, but are also documented in the intermediate time-block of Late Antiquity under the name of the Ghassanids. “Nabataeans and Umayyads not only shared the same art, the same metropolis Damascus, and the same stratigraphy, but also a common territory that was home to yet another famous Arab ethnicity that also held Damascus: the Ghassanids. They served as Christian allies of the Byzantines during Late Antiquity (3rd/4th to 6th c. AD). Yet, they were already active during Imperial Antiquity (1st to 3rd c. AD). Diodorus Siculus (90-30 BC) knew them as Gasandoi, Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD) as Casani, and Claudius Ptolemy (100-170 AD) as Kassanitai.” …. In the Byzantine period, the Ghassanid caliphs had “the same reputation for anti-trinitarian monotheism as the Abbasid Caliphs now dated to 8th /9th centuries.” …. They also, like the Islamic Arabs, preserved some Bedouin customs such as polygamy. …. [End of quotes] In a most interesting twist, Taycan Sapmaz identifies: THE NABATAEANS AND LYCIANS (6) THE NABATAEANS AND LYCIANS | taycan sapmaz - Academia.edu Who could argue against the Nabataeans and Lycians at least sharing commonalities? Ottoman Caliphate For further apparent anachronisms, this time with the early (only) Ottoman Caliphate, I simply refer the reader to my article: King Solomon and Suleiman (6) King Solomon and Suleiman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with more, hopefully, to be written on this subject in the future. Conclusions The Prophet Mohammed is clearly a non-historical, composite entity based on a bunch of real historical figures from a vast range of eras. Mohammed’s relatives, contemporaries, likewise are biblico-historically-based, e.g. uncle Lahab as Ahab; Nehemiah ben Hushiel as the biblical Nehemiah; emperor Heraclius as possibly literature’s most composite of composites. This necessitates that the closely associated Rashidun Caliphate could have no real historical reality in AD time. This view being totally reinforced by the next Caliphate, The Umayyad as belonging archaeologically to a Roman period, some six centuries prior to the supposed era of Mohammed. This being totally reinforced by the next Caliphate, The Abbasid, as having no archaeological trace for its epicentre, ancient Baghdad, Madinat al-Salam, which is really ancient Jerusalem.