Joah the recorder for Hezekiah, Joah the recorder for king Josiah

by Damien F. Mackey “They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them”. 2 Kings 18:18 “In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the Temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the Temple of the LORD his God”. 2 Chronicles 34:8 Merging, as one, “Joah” of Hezekiah and “Joah” of Josiah There is an apparent repetition of names between the above two texts, in Shebna-Shaphan and Joah-Joah, which is perfectly understandable in my revised context, according to which Hezekiah, “the king” of 2 Kings 18:18, was the very same person as king Josiah in 2 Chronicles 34:8. On this, see e. g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (8) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses But such a coinciding of names is apparently worrisome to the text book commentators - who would conventionally estimate that the two incidents occurred about 90 years apart - who may be inclined, like Thenis, to ‘pronounce these personages fictitious’, and say that “Joah the recorder [of king Josiah] seems to have been borrowed from [the Joah of king Hezekiah] 2Kings 18:18 ...”: https://biblehub.com/2_kings/22-3.htm It is an indication of the correctness of my revision of the later kings of Judah, however, that king Hezekiah, king Josiah, could have officials of (near to) identical names, holding identical positions. Thus Joah is “the recorder”, ha mazkir (הַמַּזְכִּיר) in both cases, Hezekiah and Josiah. Shebna is “the secretary” ha sopher (הַסֹּפֵר) as his counterpart, Shaphan (סֵפֶר), is found to have been upon further scrutiny (cf. 2 Kings 22:8). And, elsewhere, I have identified another parallel character in Isaiah (for Hezekiah) and Asaiah (for Josiah): thus, Isaiah = Asaiah. The “Hilkiah” referred to in 2 Kings 18:18 as the father of “Eliakim” is met again in the era of Josiah as the identically named “Hilkiah” (3 Chronicles 34:9): “They went to Hilkiah the high priest ...”. Eliakim himself, whom I have identified as high priest in my article: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest does not (I think) appear in any of the accounts of king Josiah. There may be a good reason for this. He may have replaced Shebna as commandant of the fort of Lachish (= “Ashdod”). In the Book of Judith, in which Eliakim (Douay), var. Joakim, is the high priest, we are specifically told that: (Judith 4:6): “The High Priest Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at that time, wrote to the people in the towns of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which face Jezreel Valley near Dothan”. This geographical information, “who was in Jerusalem at that time”, could well indicate that Eliakim was sometimes stationed outside Jerusalem, say, for military and defensive purposes. But Eliakim had by no means died out by the time of king Josiah, for we find him as “the high priest” even as late as Baruch (1:2): “... in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire”. Eliakim, or Joakim, is there called by the related name of “Jehoiakim”. On “related names” see e.g., https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jehoiakim.html#.Xsxq8e0vPnE and commentators (following an enlarged chronology) do not know who he was (this being especially complicated by the fact that they have failed to realise that the Eliakim of Hezekiah was a high priest). The Baruch text, which identifies Jehoiakim as “son of Hilkiah”, as we know him (as Eliakim/Joakim) to have been, reads thus (vv. 5-7): “Then they wept, and fasted, and prayed before the Lord; they collected as much money as each could give, and sent it to Jerusalem to the high priest Jehoiakim son of Hilkiah son of Shallum, and to the priests, and to all the people who were present with him in Jerusalem”. The office of “recorder” was apparently a highly significant one, some placing it as high as vizier to the king. Thus we read in Bible study tools: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/recorder/ “Recorder ... (Heb. mazkir, i.e., "the mentioner," "rememberancer"), the office first held by Jehoshaphat in the court of David ( 2 Samuel 8:16 ), also in the court of Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:3 ). The next recorder mentioned is Joah, in the reign of Hezekiah ( 2 Kings 18:18 2 Kings 18:37 ; Isaiah 36:3 Isaiah 36:22 ). In the reign of Josiah another [sic] of the name of Joah filled this office (2 Chronicles 34:8 ). The "recorder" was the chancellor or vizier of the kingdom. He brought all weighty matters under the notice of the king, "such as complaints, petitions, and wishes of subjects or foreigners. He also drew up papers for the king's guidance, and prepared drafts of the royal will for the scribes. All treaties came under his oversight; and he had the care of the national archives or records, to which, as royal historiographer, like the same state officer in Assyria and Egypt, he added the current annals of the kingdom”. [End of quote] Note that only three supposed individuals are specifically designated as “recorder” in the OT, Jehoshaphat, at the time of kings David and Solomon, and the supposedly two Joah’s - who, though, I think, need to be trimmed down to just one. One would expect, however, that there must have been a continuation of those holding the office of recorder from Joah all the way back to Jehoshaphat, who will soon become of significance with regard to the ancestry of Joah. The office of recorder may have involved, also, “herald”, or trumpet-blower, shofar (שׁוֹפָר), in the case of an emergency. Joah may have, for instance, overseen or commanded the trumpet-blowing Levites. John Strazicich has written on trumpet-blowing in the Bible, especially with reference to the Book of Joel (to be considered further on), in his book Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (1960, p. 116): The primary theological OT text for the blowing of trumpets is Num 1:1-10. The trumpets function for gathering the cultic community, for use at time of war, and at the time of sacrifice. According to Milgrom, the blowing of trumpets, whether for religious purposes or for war, serves as instruments of prayer in Num 10:9-10. .... Whether for sacrifice or deliverance at times of war, the use of trumpets for prayer has theological significance in Joel's liturgical context of the [Day of the Lord], as well as for the cultic gathering of the nation. The priestly trumpet blast noted above is an alarm which functions militarily, so that the community is be [sic] remembered before Yahweh. The cultic connection to Joel's use of the trumpets acts in concert with the prayers of all the community to plead for Yahweh's mercy (2:15-17). [End of quote] Other “instruments of prayer”, such as cymbals, may also have been part of the recorder's repertoire. Psalm 150:1-6 lists various such instruments: “Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!” Joah as the prophet Joel The Book of Joel opens with the raising of the alarm about a devastating invasion of “locusts” (Joel 1:2-4): “The word of the Lord that came to Joel son of Phatuel. ‘Hear this, you elders; listen, all who live in the land. Has anything like this ever happened in your days or in the days of your ancestors? Tell it to your children, and let your children tell it to their children, and their children to the next generation. What the locust swarm has left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten’.” This, I had argued in my post-graduate university thesis (2007) is a symbolical reference - under the form of “locusts” - to the invasion of Israel and Judah by the armies of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. It is a brilliant image of the utter destruction to the land caused by the marauding Assyrians. These were described as “locusts”, both in history, and in the Bible. For example, “Assyrian documents link armies and locusts ...”. (Pablo R. Andiñach, “The Locusts in the Message of Joel”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 4, Oct., 1992). And Judith 2:20 describes the massive invading host of “Holofernes” as: “A huge, irregular force, too many to count, like locusts, like the dust of the earth ...". “ (Cf. Amos 7:1). Joel then becomes more specific (and less symbolical) when he describes this host as both a “nation” and an “army” (1:6): “A nation has invaded my land, a mighty army without number ...”. The Douay version of Joel 2:20, referring to "the northern enemy", includes this footnote: “The northern enemy”: Some understand this of Holofernes and his army: others, of the locusts”. The correct view is, I believe, “Holofernes and his army”. The name of Joel’s “father”, or ancestor, is given as “Phatuel” (or “Pethuel”), which I now take to be a long-ranging reference back to that earlier recorder, Jehoshaphat, the two names sharing the common element “phat” as well as each having a theophoric. Joah of Hezekiah's father, ancestor, “Asaph”, may perhaps be seen, then, as part of that name, Jehoshaphat - both names sharing the “shap[h]” element. Joah of Josiah's ancestor, “Joahaz”, is not so apparent. If, as I am saying, he is to be merged with the Joah of Hezekiah, then, possibly, “Joahaz” is another reference to Jehoshaphat.

Merging a Kassite and a Hittite king

by Damien F. Mackey Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC, conventional dating) was, in my scheme of things, the same neo-Assyrian king as Sargon II-Sennacherib: Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib (3) Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib And, again in my scheme of things, Babylon was the same as Carchemish. Now, in a recent article of mine on the subject: Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish (4) Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish I drew an historical parallel between Tukulti-Ninurta’s defeat of the Kassite king, Kashtiliash, of Babylon, and Sargon II’s defeat of the Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), of Carchemish (Karkemish, Karkamis). Here is the gist of it: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS JOURNALS—In “A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish,” published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Gianni Marchesi translates a recently discovered inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon II found at the ruins of the ancient city of Karkemish. The inscription, which dates to around 713 B.C., details Sargon’s conquest, occupation, and reorganization of Karkemish, including his rebuilding the city with ritual ceremonies usually reserved for royal palaces in capital cities. The text implies that Sargon may have been planning to make Karkemish a western capital of Assyria, from which he could administer and control his empire’s western territories. The cuneiform inscription was found on fragments from three different clay cylinders in 2015 as part of the Nicolò Marchetti-led Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Karkemish. Now in ruins, the site is located on the Euphrates river on the border between present day Syria and Turkey. Marchesi analyzed and translated the total of thirty-eight lines of partially broken Akkadian text, using reference material, academic literature and other inscribed Assyrian artifacts as reference points for filling in the gaps. The lines of text ranged from two-thirds complete to much less, and no line of text was completely intact. “Even so, we can grasp much of the original text, which turns out to be very informative,” Marchesi writes. “In fact, unlike other Sargon cylinders, which contain relatively standard ‘summary’ inscriptions or annalistic accounts of the events of Sargon’s reign, the Karkemish Cylinder provides us with a completely new inscription, dealing almost exclusively with the newly conquered city on the Euphrates in a highly-elaborated, literary style.” In the inscription, Sargon tells of the “betrayal” of … [Pisiri], the Hittite King of Karkemish who exchanged hostile words about Assyria with its enemy, King Midas of Phrygia. Sargon invades Karkemish, deports Pisiri and his supporters, destroys his palace, seizes his riches as booty and incorporates Pisiri’s army into his own. He resettles the city with Assyrians. Mackey’s comment: A vital connection can be made between Carchemish and Babylon, I believe, if one first accepts my thesis that Sargon II (Sennacherib) was the same as Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I: Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib (2) Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib Tukulti-Ninurta had fought and defeated Kashtiliash so-called IV, king of Babylon. Kaštiliašu was captured, single-handed by Tukulti-Ninurta according to his account, who “trod with my feet upon his lordly neck as though it were a footstool”. And we have just read - what I would consider to be the parallel version to this - where Sargon II defeats and deports Pisiri[s], king of Carchemish. Previously, in my article: Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon (2) Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon I spelled out the striking parallels between the two scenarios:  Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing, its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Spelt out, Tukulti-ninurta/Sargon II attacks and takes the city of Babylon/ Carchemish and captures the Kassite/Hittite king, Kashtiliash/Piyasili, taking him in chains to Assyria.

Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish

by Damien F. Mackey “Because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the empire.” Gianni Marchesi I, in light of the new geographical revolution as set out by Richard (Royce) Erickson, radically moving Elam and Chaldea far to the NW: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea https://www.academia.edu/104403646/More_geographical_tsunamis_lands_of_Elam_and_Chaldea?f_ri=32226 and hence being forced to consider a new location for Babylon - known to have been situated relatively close to Elam and Chaldea - first toyed with the idea of ancient Byblos for Babylon, before settling, instead, on Carchemish for Babylon (Karduniash): Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (2) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos Carchemish (Karkemish) was, unlike Byblos, situated by “rivers” (Psalm 137:1), the Euphrates, but, most significantly, it lay not too far distant from the Khabur (Chabur) (cf. Ezekiel 1:3; 3:15): “I came to the exiles at Tel-abib, who lived by the River Chebar”. This river is unidentifiable in the conventional ‘Babylon’ of southern Iraq: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Chebar “Chebar. An unidentified stream of water “in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezek 1:3), i.e., in ancient Babylonia”. My further suggestion has been that the enigmatic name for Babylon, “Karduniash”, has been derived from “Karkemish” (with its variants). The strategic and economic importance of the site of Carchemish is clear from what we read at: https://www.britannica.com/place/Carchemish “It commanded a strategic crossing of the Euphrates River for caravans engaged in Syrian, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian trade”. No wonder, then, that the great neo-Assyrian king, Sargon II, might have eyed off Carchemish for his western capital as according to Gianni Marchesi: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/mesopotamian-king-sargon-ii-envisioned-ancient-city-karkemish-as-western-assyrian-capital/#google_vignette Mesopotamian King Sargon II envisioned ancient city Karkemish as western Assyrian capital By No Author Sat, Apr 20, 2019 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS JOURNALS—In “A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish,” published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Gianni Marchesi translates a recently discovered inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon II found at the ruins of the ancient city of Karkemish. The inscription, which dates to around 713 B.C., details Sargon’s conquest, occupation, and reorganization of Karkemish, including his rebuilding the city with ritual ceremonies usually reserved for royal palaces in capital cities. The text implies that Sargon may have been planning to make Karkemish a western capital of Assyria, from which he could administer and control his empire’s western territories. The cuneiform inscription was found on fragments from three different clay cylinders in 2015 as part of the Nicolò Marchetti-led Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Karkemish. Now in ruins, the site is located on the Euphrates river on the border between present day Syria and Turkey. Marchesi analyzed and translated the total of thirty-eight lines of partially broken Akkadian text, using reference material, academic literature and other inscribed Assyrian artifacts as reference points for filling in the gaps. The lines of text ranged from two-thirds complete to much less, and no line of text was completely intact. “Even so, we can grasp much of the original text, which turns out to be very informative,” Marchesi writes. “In fact, unlike other Sargon cylinders, which contain relatively standard ‘summary’ inscriptions or annalistic accounts of the events of Sargon’s reign, the Karkemish Cylinder provides us with a completely new inscription, dealing almost exclusively with the newly conquered city on the Euphrates in a highly-elaborated, literary style.” In the inscription, Sargon tells of the “betrayal” of Pirisi [Pisiri], the Hittite King of Karkemish who exchanged hostile words about Assyria with its enemy, King Midas of Phrygia. Sargon invades Karkemish, deports Pisiri and his supporters, destroys his palace, seizes his riches as booty and incorporates Pisiri’s army into his own. He resettles the city with Assyrians. Mackey’s comment: A vital connection can be made between Carchemish and Babylon, I believe, if one first accepts my thesis that Sargon II (Sennacherib) was the same as Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I: Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib (2) Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib Tukulti-Ninurta had fought and defeated Kashtiliash so-called IV, king of Babylon. Kaštiliašu was captured, single-handed by Tukulti-Ninurta according to his account, who “trod with my feet upon his lordly neck as though it were a footstool”. And we have just read - what I would consider to be the parallel version to this - where Sargon II defeats and deports Pisiri[s], king of Carchemish. Previously, in my article: Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon (2) Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon I spelled out the striking parallels between the two scenarios:  Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing, its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Spelt out, Tukulti-ninurta/Sargon II attacks and takes the city of Babylon/ Carchemish and captures the Kassite/Hittite king, Kashtiliash/Piyasili, taking him in chains to Assyria. Kasht ili ash Piy ash ili[s] The article continues: Having previously blocked the water supply to Karkemish, the meadows “let go fallow, like a wasteland,” Marchesi translates, he now reactivates the irrigation system, planting orchards and botanical gardens. “I made the scent of the city sweeter than the scent of a cedar forest.” He also details an inauguration ceremony where he received gifts from Assyrian provinces and sacrifices them to deities. “My lords the gods Karhuha and Kubaba, who dwell in Karkemish, I invited them into my palace,” Marchesi translates. “Strong rams of the stable, geese, ducks and flying birds of the sky I offered before them.” Marchesi was struck by the attention that Sargon paid to Karkemish, in particular the elaborate inauguration ceremony and construction of botanical gardens, both indicative not of a typical provincial capital but of a royal palace. “Because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the empire,” Marchesi writes. This vision of Karkemish was short-lived, however. Though much care was taken to detail the city’s rise in these texts, the city is not mentioned in any known inscriptions of Sargon’s successors. “The unthinkable, ominous death of Sargon on the battlefield in Tabal [sic] probably prevented this project from being accomplished, and negatively marked the destiny of Karkemish itself, which no longer attracted the interest of Assyrian kings who followed after him,” Marchesi writes. But, if Carchemish were Babylon, as I am proposing, then the city would have plenty more “destiny” under Sargon II-Sennacherib’s mighty successor, the Chaldean, Esarhaddon, who was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar the re-builder of the city of Babylon (Daniel 4:30): ‘Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?’

Great King Hezekiah, archaeologically verified, but somewhat poorly known

by Damien F. Mackey ‘I’ve never read a King Hezekiah of Judah like that before’. Professor Rifaat Ebied Such was basically the comment made by professor Rifaat Ebied of the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies (University of Sydney), upon having read the draft of my doctoral thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf However, as often occurred to me whilst writing that thesis, King Hezekiah of Judah, though presumably the focal point of the thesis, remained for the most part a largely obscure figure, unlike some of his contemporaries whom I was able to develop in far more detail. But, firstly, how did this thesis come about? Providentially, I would suggest (appropriately writing this early in the Holy Jubilee Year of 2025). In the (Holy) Year 2000 AD, professor Ebied asked me if I would like to do a doctoral thesis, and he gave me the choice of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah, or the era of King Josiah of Judah. I, having at that stage absolutely no clear-cut ideas about the era of king Josiah, jumped at the chance to write about the era of King Hezekiah. The reason for this was that I had already spent almost two decades trying to ascertain an historical locus for the Book of Judith and had finally come to, what was all along the obvious conclusion, that the Judith drama was all about the destruction of Sennacherib of Assyria’s 185,000-strong army during the reign of Hezekiah. Let us pause for a moment, though, to consider the historicity of King Hezekiah of Judah, as affirmed by archaeological finds. Bryan Windle has written on this (2019 – I do not necessarily accept his BC dates): https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/ King Hezekiah: An Archaeological Biography …. Hezekiah reigned as King of Judah from 716 to 687 BC, after having ruled for approximately 13 years in a co-regency with his father Ahaz. …. In 2 Chronicles 29:1-2 we read, “Hezekiah began to reign when he was twenty-five years old, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abijah the daughter of Zechariah. And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done.” He is, perhaps, best known for this religious reforms and for his stand against the Assyrian invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Hezekiah Bulla Multiple bullae (clay seal impressions) of King Hezekiah have been found. While most have come via the antiquities market, in 2015 Dr. Eilat Mazar announced that another Hezekiah bulla had been discovered while wet-sifting material excavated from a refuse dump in a Royal Building at the Ophel. …. The bulla is about one centimeter in diameter bears an ancient Hebrew inscription: “לחזקיהו [בן] אחז מלך יהדה” “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah” The seal impression also depicts a two-winged sun and ankh symbols. Scholars at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem explained the iconography this way: “The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in his life, when both the Royal administrative authority and the King’s personal symbols changed from the winged scarab (dung beetle)—the symbol of power and rule that had been familiar throughout the Ancient Near East, to that of the winged sun—a motif that proclaimed God’s protection, which gave the regime its legitimacy and power, also widespread throughout the Ancient Near East and used by the Assyrian Kings.”…. The Hezekiah bulla affirms not only Hezekiah’s historicity, but his lineage as well, affirming these biblical details about his life. Evidence of Religious Reforms Hezekiah was instrumental in leading the people of Judah away from idolatry and back to the worship of Yahweh. In 2 Kings 18:4 we read, “He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” Evidence of Hezekiah’s religious reforms have been discovered at Arad, Beer-Sheba, Lachish, Tell Motza, and Tell Lahif. …. For example, the famous four-horned alter at Beer-Sheba was dismantled during Hezekiah’s reign and three of its four horns were found in secondary use in a wall, indicating the structure was no longer considered sacred. At Lachish, a gate-shrine was unearthed in 2016. Two small horned alters were discovered, whose horns had been broken off, and a toilet had been placed in the shrine as a symbolic act of desecration (2 Kings 10:27). …. Hezekiah’s Tunnel and Broad Wall Perhaps the defining moment in King Hezekiah’s life occurred when Sennacherib, King of Assyria came to attack Jerusalem. Hezekiah received word prior to the impending invasion, giving him enough time to improve the city’s fortifications and build a tunnel to bring water into the city. In 2 Chron. 32:2-4, 30 we read: “When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to make war on Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. A large force of men assembled, and they blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. “Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?” they said …. It was Hezekiah who blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David.” 2 Kings 20:20 further summarizes Hezekiah’s life: “As for the other events of Hezekiah’s reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?” An ancient aqueduct, dating to the time of King Hezekiah, was discovered by Edwin Robinson in 1838. Several years later an inscription was discovered in the tunnel which recorded how it had been built. Written in ancient Paleo-Hebrew and dated to the 8th century BC, the inscription reads, And this was the way in which it was cut through: While [the quarrymen were] still […] axes, each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed [the rock], each man towards his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the heads of the quarrymen was a hundred cubits….. Within the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, archaeologists unearthed further evidence of Hezekiah’s preparation for war. The Broad Wall, as it is known today, is a 7m thick defensive fortification that still stands 3.3 m tall in some places. It was built by Hezekiah to enclose the Western Hill and it increased the defensive walls of the city five-fold. …. Sennacherib’s Attack Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13 “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” This was in response to Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian king, refusing to serve him as a vassal (2 Kings 18:7). The Bible isn’t the only ancient text that describes this attack, however; multiple copies of the Annals of Sennacerib [sic] have been unearthed. The Taylor Prism, the Oriental Institute Prism and the Jerusalem prism are three clay prisms that contain the same text describing events from the reign of Sennacherib. The Taylor Prism was discovered in 1830 by Colonol [sic] Robert Taylor while excavating the ancient Assyrian capital of Nineveh. On it, Sennacherib boasts: “As for Hezekiah the Judahite who had not submitted to my yoke, I surrounded 46 of his strong walled towns, and innumerable small places around them, and conquered them by means of earth ramps and siege engines, attack by infantrymen, mining, breaching, and scaling. 200,150 people of all ranks, men and women, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep without number I brought out and counted as spoil. He himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I put watch-posts around him, and made it impossible for anyone to go out of his city.” …. Sennacherib also states, “Now the fear of my lordly splendor overwhelmed that Hezekiah” … and he confirms that the Judahite King did indeed pay him tribute (2 Kings 18:14). It is interesting to note that Sennacherib does not boast of destroying Jerusalem, but merely shutting Hezekiah up in his royal city “like a bird in a cage.” This would be consistent with the biblical description of God’s rescue of his people and Sennacherib’s return to Assyria without conquering Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35-36). Mackey’s comment: But Sennacherib had conquered Jerusalem in this his 9th Campaign. The miraculous deliverance of the city would occur some years later, during a second Assyrian invasion. Bryan Windle concludes: Summary The account in the Bible of Hezekiah’s life, his religious reforms and his stand against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, align with what is known about him from the archaeological record. He was one of the greatest kings Judah had ever had. In Scripture, his life is summarized this way: “He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.” (2 Kings 18:5). King Hezekiah of Judah King Hezekiah, quite a formidable historical figure, whom his neo-Assyrian opponent King Sennacherib described as “the strong, proud Hezekiah” (Sennacherib’s Bull Inscriptions), and who reigned for almost three decades (2 Kings 18:2), tends to disappear from the scene of conflict after about his 14th year, the year of his sickness. Yet this was well before the confrontation with the ill-fated army of Sennacherib. More recently, though, I have managed to enlarge Hezekiah considerably, by identifying him with the similarly good and pious king of Judah, Josiah (one of professor Ebied’s two points of reference). For my arguments on this, and for my radical revision of the later kings of Judah, see e.g. my articles: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (4) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah (4) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I have also enlarged King Hezekiah scripturally by proposing that: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (3) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, too, with my most radical identification of him with two supposedly very ancient rulers of Lagash in Sumer (my Lachish in Judah): Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (6) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. and: Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (3) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Sennacherib of Assyria This notorious king of Assyria I had already enlarged in my thesis by multi-identifying him, especially in Volume One, Chapter 6. His chief alter ego, I had concluded, was the potent Sargon II. I have since written further articles on this fusion of supposedly two Assyrian mega-kings, along the lines of e.g: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib My other move on Sennacherib at that time involved the necessary (in terms of the revision) folding of so-called ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian history with ‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian history. Revised attempts at this so far do not seem to have been very successful. I thought that I had found the perfect solution with my folding of the mighty Middle Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, conventionally dated to the C12th BC - he, I then declared to have been ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II/Sennacherib. Such an identification, which seemed to have massive support from the succession of Shutrukid-Elamite kings of the time having names virtually identical to the succession of Elamite kings at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib (see Table 1 below), had the further advantage of providing Sargon II/Sennacherib with the name, “Nebuchednezzar”, just as the Assyrian king is named in the Book of Judith (“Nebuchadnezzar”). My more recent collapsing of the late neo-Assyrian era into the early neo-Babylonian era has caused me to drop the identification of Nebuchednezzar I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib. Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel (4) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu More appropriately, now, Nebuchednezzar I might be found to have been Nebuchednezzar so-called II. Fortunately though, with this tightened chronology, the impressive Shutrukid-Elamite parallels that I had established in my thesis might still remain viable. Having rejected my former folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I with Sargon II/ Sennacherib the question must be asked, ‘At what point does Middle fold with Neo?’ Hopefully, I had identified that very point of fusion in my thesis (see next). King Merodach-baladan of Babylonia Here, I shall simply reproduce part of what I wrote about the best point of folding in my thesis (Chapter 7, beginning on p. 180): So, with what ‘Middle’ Babylonian period are we to merge the ‘Neo’ Babylonian Merodach-baladan [II], in order to show that VLTF [Velikovsky’s Lowering on Timescale by 500 Years] is convincing for this part of the world as well at this particular time? Actually, there is a perfect opportunity for such a merger with one who is considered - perhaps rightly - to have been one of the last Kassite kings: namely, Merodach-baladan [I] (c. 1173-1161 BC, conventional dates). Now, as I have emphasized in the course of this thesis, identical names do not mean identical persons. However, there is more similarity between Merodach-baladan I and II than just the name I would suggest. For instance: • There is the (perhaps suspicious?) difficulty in distinguishing between the building efforts of Merodach-baladan [I] and Merodach-baladan [II]: Four kudurrus ..., taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa ... show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk ..., assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities ... cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 ...). Further: • Wiseman contends that Merodach-baladan I was in fact a king of the Second Isin Dynasty which is thought to have succeeded the Kassites. Brinkman, whilst calling this view “erroneous”, has conceded that: “The beginnings of [the Second Dynasty of Isin] ... are relatively obscure”. • There is the same approximate length of reign over Babylonia for Merodach-baladan [I] and [II]. Twelve years as king of Babylon for Merodach-baladan II, as we have already discussed. And virtually the same in the case of Merodach-baladan I: The Kassite Dynasty, then, continued relatively vigorous down through the next two reigns, including that of Merodach-baladan I, the thirty-fourth and third-last king of the dynasty, who reigned some thirteen years .... Up through this time, kudurrus show the king in control of the land in Babylonia. • Merodach-baladan I was approximately contemporaneous with the Elamite succession called Shutrukids. Whilst there is some doubt as to the actual sequence of events - Shutruk-Nahhunte is said to have been the father of Kudur-Nahhunte - the names of three of these kings are identical to those of Sargon II’s/ Sennacherib’s Elamite foes, supposedly about four centuries later. Now, consider further these striking parallels between the C12th BC and the neo-Assyrian period, to be developed below: Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC • Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. • The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. • Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC • The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. • SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. • Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence! [End of quotes] Who of Hezekiah and his contemporaries re-emerge in Judith? Interfacing the era of King Hezekiah of Judah with the drama of the Book of Judith. The historical event [in Judith 1] … is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan and his Elamite allies. About half a dozen of King Hezekiah’s contemporaries may be found, I believe, amongst the rather small cast of the drama of the Book of Judith. Four of these characters have names that are nicely compatible the one with the other, whilst the rest have ‘dud’ names in accordance with what I wrote in my article: Book of Judith: confusion of names https://www.academia.edu/36599434/Book_of_Judith_confusion_of_names The Book of Judith opens with a major war (Judith 1:1-6): While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes from his capital city of Ecbatana. Around Ecbatana King Arphaxad built a wall 105 feet high and 75 feet thick of cut stones; each stone was 4 1/2 feet thick and 9 feet long. At each gate he built a tower 150 feet high, with a foundation 90 feet thick. Each gateway was 105 feet high and 60 feet wide—wide enough for his whole army to march through, with the infantry in formation. In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite alliance. This is describing, as I have argued, an actual historical war. However, owing to the insertion of those ‘dud’ names as mentioned above, it is now extremely difficult to identify which historical event it is. The historical event that it is, is Sargon II of Assyria’s Year 12 campaign against the troublesome Merodach-baladan the Chaldean (“Chelodite” above) and his Elamite allies. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/sargon-ii-the-assyrian-king-history-essay.php After [Sargon II] secured his empire, he began his military activity against the Elamites in Babylon who were allies of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. …. in his 12th year in 710 he defeats and gets rid of Merodach-Baladan king of Babylon. For the first time ever Sargon makes himself the official king of Babylon in 710 B.C …. After the defeat of Merodach-Baladan he devotes most of 710 B.C campaigning against the Aramean tribes. The Arameans are known as the bandits to the Assyrian people and had always been their enemies. …. “Nebuchadnezzar” here is Sargon II, who is also Sennacherib. It was common in antiquity for King Sennacherib to be confused with King Nebuchednezzar (see “confusion of names” article above). “Arphaxad” here can only be Merodach-baladan, a biblical king who figures e.g. in Isaiah 39:1. The king doing the city building may actually be Sargon, not Merodach-baladan (“Arphaxad”), the Assyrian king building his fabulous new city of Dur Sharrukin, not “Ecbatana”: A Description of the Building of Sargon II's City in the Book of Judith https://www.academia.edu/3704934/A_Description_of_the_Building_of_Sargon_IIs_City_in_the_Book_of_Judith “King Arioch of Elam” here is Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, who governed Elam for the Assyrians. Judith 1:6, though, is a gloss, because Ahikar was not then governing the Elamites, but only later. See e.g. my article: “Arioch, King of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6) https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_ Later in the Book of Judith (5:1) he will be referred to as “Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites”, leading commentators naturally to conclude that Achior was an Ammonite, who converted to Yahwism, which is highly controversial in relation to Deuteronomic Law. But he was in reality a northern Israelite, as more properly described in Judith 6:2: “And who art thou, Achior, and the hirelings of Ephraim, that thou hast prophesied against us as to day …?” As “Arioch”, Achior may re-emerge in the Book of Daniel - according to my tightened chronology - as “Arioch” the high official of King Nebuchednezzar (Daniel 2:14-23). Ahikar-Achior is a most famous historical character, a revered sage down through the ages, known in the Assyrian records as Aba-enil-dari. Achior is the first of our Hezekian-Judith interface characters to bear a consistent name, he, Ahikar, actually being called “Achior” in the Vulgate version of the Book of Tobit. The other recognisable names are Eliakim (Eliachim) the high priest in the Vulgate Judith 4:5: Sacerdos etiam Eliachim scripsit ad universos qui erant contra Esdrelon, quae est contra faciem campi magni juxta Dothain …. elsewhere named as “Joakim”. He is King Hezekiah’s chief official, Eliakim: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest In Judith 6:15 we first encounter “Uzziah son of Micah”. These names represent two famous prophets of the era of King Hezekiah, namely Isaiah and his father Amos, or Micah: Prophet Micah as Amos https://www.academia.edu/27351718/Prophet_Micah_as_Amos Isaiah must have accompanied his father Amos to the northern Bethel (Amos 7:10-14) where we know Isaiah as the prophet Hosea. By the time of Judith, he, now named Uzziah, had become chief official of the town of Bethel, which was Judith’s city of Bethulia, or Shechem: Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’. Part Two (ii): Shechem https://www.academia.edu/34737759/Judiths_City_of_Bethulia._Part_Two_ii_Shechem “Holofernes” and Bagoas” “Holofernes” and “Bagoas” are further ‘dud’ names, they being non-Assyrian, that have found their way into the Book of Judith. The correct name for the Assyrian military leader, “Holofernes”, in the Book of Judith, is to be found in the Book of Tobit 14:10. It is “Nadin” (var. “Nadab”). Tobit, now near death, recalls the incident in which Nadin (“Holofernes”) had double-crossed his apparently former mentor and his uncle, Ahikar (“Achior”): ‘Remember what Nadin did to Ahikar his own uncle who had brought him up. He tried to kill Ahikar and forced him to go into hiding in a tomb. Ahikar came back into the light of day, but God sent Nadin down into everlasting darkness for what he had done. Ahikar escaped the deadly trap which Nadin had set for him, because Ahikar had given generously to the poor. But Nadin fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him. The “deadly trap” laid by “Holofernes” was this (Judith 6:7-9): ‘Now my men will take you into the mountains and leave you in one of the Israelite towns, and you will die with the people there. Why look so worried, Achior? Don't you think the town can stand against me? I [Holofernes] will carry out all my threats; you can be sure of that!’ But the heroine Judith would turn all of that on its head, so to speak, so that it would be ‘Nadin [who] fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him’. For more on this, see: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith This Nadin (“Holofernes”) was Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, known to have been slain in enemy territory – but wrongly thought to have been killed in Elam. Ben Dewar, writing of Ashur-nadin-shumi in his article: Rebellion, Sargon II's “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions of Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/36189988/Rebellion_Sargon_IIs_Punishment_and_the_Death_of_A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-n%C4%81din-%C5%A1umi_in_the_Inscriptions_of_Sennacherib will have this to say in his Abstract: …. A second instance of a death in Sennacherib’s family affecting the content of his inscriptions is also identified. His son Aššur-nādin-šumi’s death followed a pair of campaigns to the borders of Tabal, the location of Sargon’s death [sic]. Because of this it was viewed as a “punishment” for undertaking these campaigns to regions tainted by association with Sargon. After his death, Aššur-nādin-šumi is never mentioned in the same inscription as these campaigns. Although Sennacherib generally avoids mentioning rebellion, overcoming such events was an important facet of Assyrian royal ideology. Because of this, events in some ideologically or historically significant regions are explicitly stated to be rebellions in the annals. Sennacherib’s inscriptions therefore demonstrate, perhaps better than those of any other Assyrian king, the two sides of rebellion’s ideological importance as both an obstacle overcome by a heroic king, and as a punishment for a poor one. His attempts to obscure some occurrences of rebellion demonstrate a fear of the more negative ideological aspect of rebellion which is not usually present in the inscriptions of other kings. This provides new insight into the factors which influenced the composition of Sennacherib’s inscriptions. What I wrote in my university thesis on King Hezekiah of Judah (2007) about this situation was as follows: Another seemingly compelling evidence in favour of the conventional chronology, but one that has required heavy restoration work by the Assyriologists, is in regard to Sennacherib’s supposed accession. According to the usual interpretation of the eponym for Nashur(a)-bel, 705 BC, conventional dating, known as Eponym Cb6, Sargon was killed and Sennacherib then sat on the throne: “The king [against Tabal….] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [……] The king was killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken……]. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son of [Sargon took his seat on the throne]”. Tadmor informs us about this passage that: “Winckler and Delitzsch restored: [MU 16 Šarru-ki]n; ana Ta-ba-lu [illik]”. That is, these scholars took the liberty of adding Sargon’s name here. Jonsson, who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more heavily bracketted than had Tadmor: … “[Year 17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war”. On the 12th of Abu Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”. [End of quote] The incorrect (non-Assyrian) name, “Holofernes”, and also, “Bagoas”, must be late insertions into the Book of Judith, based on the very unreliable Diodorus Siculus, C1st BC (conventional dating), who told of an “Orophernes” and a “Bagoas” among the commanders of a campaign of Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ (c. 359-338 BC, conventional dating). See Ida Fröhlich, Time and Times and Half a Time (p. 118). For historical uncertainties surrounding Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ see e.g. my articles: Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith (8) Artaxerxes III and the Book of Judith and: Medo-Persian history has nor adequate archaeology (8) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology According to the above, the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith was King Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the “Nadin” of Tobit 14:10), who was - like his father, Sennacherib - a contemporary of King Hezekiah. That being the case, which Assyrian contemporary of King Hezekiah was Assyria’s second-in-command on this campaign against Israel, “Bagoas”? Well, basing myself on a Jewish tradition that the future Nebuchednezzar himself was on this ill-fated campaign, and also on my crunching of neo-Assyrian into neo-Babylonian history, I have suggested that a possible candidate for “Bagoas” was that very Nebuchednezzar (= my Esarhaddon), another son of Sennacherib. See e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (4) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon (flourished 7th century bc) was the king of Assyria from 680–669 bc …”. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Esarhaddon “Ashur-etil-ilani was a king of Assyria ca. (631 BC - ca.627 BC)”. https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/464149 Here we see that Ashur-etil-ilani supposedly came to the throne of Assyria (631 BC) almost 40 years after the death of the mighty Esarhaddon (669 BC). In between, we are told, there occurred the long reign of Ashurbanipal (669-631 BC). Assyriologists, failing to take careful notice of the fact that Esarhaddon would also be given by Sennacherib the name of Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, have, in their typically conventionalist Indian file approach, separated Esarhaddon as being a king other than the almost identically named (merely shortened) Ashur-etil-ilani. This is a rupture in Assyrian history of a full generation. Imagine how it must affect, not only Assyrian history, but all other related histories! “Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree"). The additional phrase, mukin apli, means “establisher of a legitimate heir”. According to Sidney Smith, however (see below), this lengthy Assyrian name means: “… ‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’)”. Father Jean-Vincent Scheil, in 1915, had trouble fitting into his scheme of things this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, thinking that he may have been a rival brother of Esarhaddon. What particularly interests me about the following quotation from Father Scheil is that Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli will call himself, now “son of Sennacherib”, now “son of Sargon”, just the one Assyrian king according to my scheme of things: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (2) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Father Scheil wrote, in his article, ‹Le Prisme d'Assarhaddon, Roi d'Assyrie, 681-668› (The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1915, p. 653): There is another inscription which involves a problem of historical importance. It reads: 'I am Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria, son of Sargon, king of the kishshati, king of Assyria.' It tells about restorations of temples of Assyria and Babylonia. Seeing that the successor of Sennacherib was Esarhaddon, the question arises: Who was this Ashur-e-il-ilani-mukin-apli who claimed to be son and successor of Sennacherib? The author is inclined to identify him with Esarhaddon. Hugo Winckler (Altorient. Forsch., II, pp. 53-9; 183-6) has already identified Ashur-e-til-ilani-ukin(-in)-ni (III R, I6, 2. 9) and Ashur-e-til-mukin-apli (ibid., I6, 8) with the latter. But it is hard to believe in this identification. We would have to assume with Winckler that the original name of this king was Ashur-ah-iddina, who according to the will of his father was to be named when he became king Ashur-etil-mukin-apli, that, as a matter of fact, on his accession he assumed the name Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli; in official documents, however, he was called Ashur-etil-ilani-ukin-ni, and as soon as he was firmly established on his throne he assumed his original name Ashur-ah-iddina. Winckler's contention that Esarhaddon as Ashur-e-itil-ilani-ukin-ni did not bear the title 'king of the kish-shati', as this title was a special designation of the rulers of Harran which at that time was in possession of his brother, the rival king, would be disproved by our inscription, in which he is named 'king of the kishshati'. Its contents show also that it was not written at the time of this king's accession, as it enumerates restorations of temples in Assyria and Babylonia. May we assume that Ashur-e-til-ilani-mukin-apli was the name of a brother of Esarhaddon who maintained himself as rival king for a considerable time? [End of quote] Sidney Smith, writing for CAH (Vol. III, Ch. iii), had no hesitation in identifying Esarhaddon with this Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli (“Sennacherib and Esarhaddon”). Commenting on Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon, Sidney Smith wrote (p. 69): https://classicalliberalarts.com/resources/CAMBRIDGE_ANCIENT_003.pdf The folk who were slaughtered had themselves probably slaughtered the pro-Assyrian party shortly before. …. For eight years there was no trouble in Babylonia. Elam remained passive under the rule of Khummakhaldash, who had succeeded Menanu in 689. It was during these eight years that Sennacherib gave his son Esarhaddon the supreme authority over the southern provinces which he had himself once exercised in the north; and Esarhaddon’s mother, the queen Nakia, was probably installed in Babylon at this time too, to guide her son, and to act as his representative in his absence. From these facts some have inferred that Nakia was herself of Babylonian birth. This act, which probably took place at the end of the reign, was, in fact, a recognition of Esarhaddon as Sennacherib’s successor; and since Esarhaddon was a younger son, as is implied by his name (‘Ashur hath given a brother’), his older brother may naturally have become desperate. The event was solemnized by a ceremony in Babylon, and Esarhaddon was renamed Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli (‘Ashur, the hero of the gods, who hath established the son’). …. [End of quote] Turning to Ashur-Etil-Ilani, a king reigning supposedly decades later than Esarhaddon (who was Ashurbanipal) we read this typical sort of account (with my comments added): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%A1%C5%A1ur-etil-il%C4%81ni Aššur-etil-ilāni … meaning "Ashur is the lord of the Tree"),[7] was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC to his own death in 627 BC.[n 1] Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive. Because of this lack of sources, very little concrete information about the king and his reign can be deduced. Mackey’s comment: The reason why “Aššur-etil-ilāni is an obscure figure with a brief reign from which few inscriptions survive” is only because he has not been appropriately matched up to his more powerful alter egos, such as Esarhaddon (= Ashurbanipal/ Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus). Wikipedia continues in the same vein: It is possible that Aššur-etil-ilāni was a weak ruler as there are no records of the king ever undertaking a military campaign or going on a hunt, activities previous Assyrian kings would famously do very often; this, in turn, may have helped to entice some of Assyria's vassals, such as the Kingdom of Judah, to break free from Assyrian control and begin to act independently. Aššur-etil-ilāni was succeeded by his brother Sîn-šar-iškun under uncertain, though not necessarily violent, circumstances. Mackey’s comment: If Aššur-etil-ilāni was also Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, as I believe he was, then his successor Sîn-šar-iškun was not his brother, but his son, the ill-fated King Belshazzar (Daniel 5). The names are of compatible meaning: Sîn-šar-iškun (Sîn-šarru-iškun), "Sîn has established the king"; and Belshazzar (Bēl-šar-uṣur), “Bel, protect the king”. It is the same basic formula: [X] - [WILL] FAVOUR - THE KING. Wikipedia continues, still lamenting lack of information: There is a distinct lack of available sources in regards to the last few years of Ashurbanipal's reign and the reign of Aššur-etil-ilāni. The annals of Ashurbanipal, the primary sources for his reign, go no further than 636 BC.[8] Although Ashurbanipal's final year is often repeated as 627 BC,[9][10] this follows an inscription at Harran made by the mother of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus nearly a century later. The final contemporary evidence for Ashurbanipal being alive and reigning as king is a contract from the city of Nippur made in 631 BC.[4] To get the attested lengths of the reigns of his successors to match, most scholars agree that Ashurbanipal either died, abdicated or was deposed in 631 BC.[11] Of the three options, a death in 631 BC is the most accepted.[12] If Ashurbanipal's reign would have ended in 627 BC, the inscriptions of his successors Aššur-etil-ilāni and Sîn-šar-iškun in Babylon, covering several years, would have been impossible since the city was seized by the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar in 626 BC to never again fall into Assyrian hands.[13] Mackey’s comment: The Nabopolassar who seized Babylon was, in fact, the potent Assyrian king, Sargon II=Sennacherib. Why are we so lacking in depictions of the powerful Nabopolassar? He clearly needs one or more alter egos. On this phenomenon, see e.g. my article: Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt (2) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Wikipedia continues: Ashurbanipal had named his successor as early as 660 BC, when documents referencing a crown prince were written. He had been the father of at least one son, and probably two, early on in his reign. These early sons were likely Aššur-etil-ilāni [sic] and Sîn-šar-iškun. Mackey’s comment: No, Aššur-etil-ilāni was Ashurbanipal (was Esarhaddon). Wikipedia continues: The common assumption that Aššur-etil-ilāni came to the throne at a young age is based on the phrase "my father did not rear me" ("rear" meaning to care for someone until they're fully grown), found in one of his inscriptions. However, the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal and Aššur-etil-ilāni is unlikely to have been very young as he is attested to have had male children during his reign.[14] Mackey’s comment: That “… the same phrase appears in a prayer by Ashurbanipal …”, is simply because Ashurbanipal was Aššur-etil-ilāni (Esarhaddon). Wikipedia continues: Aššur-etil-ilāni ascended the throne after the death of his father Ashurbanipal in 631 BC.[15] A land grant from Aššur-etil-ilāni to his rab šaqi (a general serving him since he was a young boy) Sîn-šumu-līšir suggests that Ashurbanipal died a natural death.[8] As in many other successions in Assyrian history, Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest.[15] The same land grant to Sîn-šumu-līšir references the actions of an Assyrian official called Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur who with the help of another official, Sîn-šar-ibni, attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne. Mackey’s comment: “Aššur-etil-ilāni's rise to the Assyrian throne was initially met with opposition and unrest”, just as in the case of Esarhaddon. It was the very same “opposition” and the very same “unrest”. The two Assyrian officials who “attempted to usurp the Assyrian throne” were most likely the two sons who had rebelled against, and had slain, Sennacherib, Adrammelech and Sharezer, under alternative names. On the historical identification of these two regicide sons, see e.g. my article: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib (8) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Wikipedia continues: Sin-shum-lishir probably assisted the king with stopping Nabu-riḫtu-uṣur and Sîn-šar-ibni.[8] As no sources indicate the opposite, the conspiracy appears to have been crushed relatively quickly.[15] Excavations at Nineveh from the time around Ashurbanipal's death show fire damage, indicating that the plot perhaps resulted in some violence and unrest within the capital itself.[16] The spread of inscriptions by Aššur-etil-ilāni in Babylonia suggest that he exercised the same amount of control in the southern provinces as his father Ashurbanipal had, having a vassal king (Kandalanu) but exercising actual political and military power there himself. His inscriptions are known from all the major cities, including Babylon, Dilbat, Sippar and Nippur.[15] Too few inscriptions of Aššur-etil-ilāni survive to make any certain assumptions about his character. Excavations of his palace at Kalhu, one of the more important cities in the empire and a former capital, may indicate that he was less boastful than his father as it had no reliefs or statues similar to those that his predecessors had used to illustrate their strength and success.[17] The lack of such depictions may partly be because there are no records of Aššur-etil-ilāni ever conducting a military campaign or going on a hunt. …. It is frequently assumed, without any supporting evidence, that Aššur-etil-ilāni's brother [sic] Sîn-šar-iškun fought with him for the throne.[19] Although the exact circumstances of Aššur-etil-ilāni's death and the rise of his brother Sîn-šar-iškun to the throne are unknown, there is no evidence to suggest that Aššur-etil-ilāni was deposed and/or killed in a coup.[15] [End of quotes] While the actual type of death of Sîn-šar-iškun is uncertain, he is generally thought to have died in defence of his capital, perhaps by suicide. Whether he took his own life, or was assassinated, he fits perfectly as King Belshazzar, the ill-fated successor of Nebuchednezzar, whom we are studying here primarily under his name (one of many) Ashur-etil-ilani. For more of his names, see e.g. my article: The many faces of Nebuchednezzar (3) The many faces of Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

King Nabonidus took a dim view of Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “With evil intentions against Babylon [Sennacherib] let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion”. King Nabonidus According to the text books, Esarhaddon, who rebuilt Babylon after his predecessor Sennacherib had utterly destroyed the city, refrained from condemning Sennacherib; whereas Nabonidus, a century later, did not hold back regarding the pivotal incident. Gordon Franz will contrast the two differing opinions in his article, “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 …. Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” [End of quotes] Esarhaddon, a most wily and complex king, utterly superstitious, vindictive and paranoid, would explain the situation diplomatically, yet cunningly: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/321907#:~:text=In%20this%20prism%2C%20Sennacherib's%20son,of%20their%20gods%20and%20rituals Following a series of revolts against Assyrian rule, the city of Babylon was sacked by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 B.C. In his inscriptions, Sennacherib claims to have destroyed the city entirely, but his successors concentrated on restoring Babylon—and with it their claim to legitimate rule of Babylonia. In this prism, Sennacherib’s son and successor Esarhaddon describes his efforts to rebuild the city. He ascribes Babylon’s destruction not to his father, but rather to the anger of Babylon’s chief deity, Marduk, provoked by the Babylonian people’s neglect of their gods and rituals. At the same time, Esarhaddon’s claim to have returned deportees and looted possessions to the city is a tacit admission of Assyrian guilt. …. [End of quote] King Nabonidus, a similarly complex and intriguing monarch, who could also be quite mad: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus https://www.academia.edu/119035506/Daniel_s_Mad_King_was_Nebuchednezzar_was_Nabonidus is, by contrast, outright condemnatory of the “evil” criminal, Sennacherib. “… Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” All together I have identified the mad king “Nebuchadnezzar” of the Book of Daniel, who was Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, as King Nabonidus as well. Owing to a significant revision of the Babylonian king-list: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (2) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Nabonidus can be shuttled back much closer in time to Esarhaddon than the approximate century gap accorded by the text books. Nabonidus, in fact, can now be identified as Esarhaddon: Nabopolassar = Sennacherib Nebuchadnezzar = Esarhaddon = Nabonidus Evil-Merodach = Belshazzar Neriglissar = Darius the Mede See, now, my article: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (2) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So it appears that the complex regal entity, Esarhaddon-Nabonidus, could be both subtle, respectful, and outright livid regarding Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon.

Sargon - Sennacherib, not Cyrus, was Isaiah 21’s destroyer of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there”. Gordon Franz Charles Boutflower, in his 1930 book, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 in Light of the Assyrian Monuments (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge), would prove most helpful in showing that Isaiah 21, often considered to prophesy the Fall of Babylon to King Cyrus, could neither refer to this relatively peaceful event nor to the initial, similarly peaceful taking of Babylon by Sargon II. I would fully agree with this, except that – with my identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (4) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sargon II’s initial peaceful entrance into Babylon would be followed up, years later, by that same king’s destruction of the mighty city. Gordon Franz has conveniently picked up this discussion of Charles Boutflower and Isaiah 21, the Assyrians and Cyrus, in his article “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21 Author: Gordon Franz MA Category: Contemporary Issues Created: 06 October 2010 …. Introduction During the First Gulf War - Operation Desert Storm - Saddam Hussein was brought to the forefront of world events. Students of Bible prophecy asked, “What, if anything, does he or Iraq have to do with prophetic events?” Passages concerning Babylon were studied to see where Saddam Hussein, or Iraq for that matter, might fit into a particular prophetic scheme. One passage which deals with the fall of Babylon is Isaiah 21. Verse 9 states, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.” I would like to re-examine this passage of Scripture and ask the question, “Was this passage fulfilled, or even partially fulfilled during Operation Desert Storm?” (as some prophecy teachers suggest), or, “Was the passage actually fulfilled in Isaiah’s day?” One of the best-selling books on the place of Babylon in prophecy during the First Gulf War was The Rise of Babylon by Dr. Charles Dyer. It is interesting that Dr. Dyer never addressed this passage in the book, nor does he address it in his follow-up book, World News and Bible Prophecy. Noah Hutching, the radio pastor for Southwest Radio Church in Oklahoma quoted Isaiah 21:9 in his book The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Final Fall of Babylon (1990: 27). Yet surprisingly, in the chapter entitled “Isaiah Against Babylon” (chapter 9), he only discusses Isaiah 13 and ignores completely chapter 21. Other popular prophecy teachers did address this chapter. J. R. Church, in his prophetic magazine Prophecy in the News, states: “While researching the prophets for their perspective on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we came across Isaiah’s prediction of doom upon the ‘desert of the sea’ (Isaiah 21). The description fits the Persian Gulf nations perfectly” (1990: 1). He goes on to identify the “lion” in verse 8 with Great Britain because the British Petroleum Company was given half of the oil rights in Kuwait (1990: 1). At the end of the article he predicted (prior to Operation Desert Storm) that “during the upcoming war with Iraq, Israel will become involved and occupy Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. When Israel destroys Damascus, Russia will retaliate. The U.S.S.R. has a 20-year defense treaty with Syria, promising to come to Syria’s aid in case of attack. The eventual Israeli invasion of Syria will precipitate Russian involvement. Ezekiel called this the Battle of Gog and Magog” (1990: 4). Apparently Rev. Church has not consulted Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s excellent work (1982) on the proper identification of Gog and Magog! And, with 20-20 hindsight, his predictions were not fulfilled. Another popular prophecy teacher, Dr. Robert Lindsted, in his book Certainty of Bible Prophecy had a little more to say about this chapter. In his chapter entitled “Saddam Hussein, The Persian Gulf, and the End Times” written just prior to Operation Desert Storm, he speculated that the “chariot of men” in verse 9 are the Israeli manufactured “Merkavah” tanks, the word meaning chariot (1990: 21-22). He goes on to quote a bit more of the verse “Babylon is fallen, is fallen” and suggested “again again, two fallings, one an ancient one under the Medes and Persians, and another which could be just around the corner” (1991: 22). Interestingly, he does not quote or comment on the last part of the verse which deals with the smashing of idols. Students of Bible prophecy have generally overlooked an important tool for understanding this chapter; mainly, the archaeologist’s spade. Archaeology has a direct bearing on this passage from two different angles. First, there are ancient inscriptions that give first hand accounts, or historical reflections, of the fall of Babylon in 689 BC. Second, there is confirmation of this destruction by the German excavation at the beginning of the 20th century. With this, let us turn our attention to Isaiah 21. The Context of Isaiah 21 This chapter falls within the “Burden against the nations” section of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 13-23). It was pronounced by Isaiah around 713 BC, just prior to the “14th year of the reign of King Hezekiah” (713/12 BC), in an attempt to influence Judean foreign policy. It seemed that a group within the “State Department” of Judah, led by Prime Minister Shebna (the royal steward), wanted to join an anti-Assyrian coalition of surrounding nations, lead by Merodah-baladan of Babylon. Isaiah tried to point out the futility of trusting in these foreign powers. He predicted that they would all soon be destroyed. He encouraged Hezekiah to trust only in the LORD for deliverance (Franz 1987: 28-30). Possibilities for Historical Fulfillment There are several candidates for the fulfillment of this passage in the history of ancient Babylon. The older commentaries stated that this was fulfilled when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC. In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates verse 2 as, “Against me are the Elamites, and the princes of the Persians are coming against me.” The “banquet” in verse 5 was seen as Belshazzar’s feast the night of the fall of Babylon. However, when Cyrus entered Babylon he did not treat the carved images the way it was described in verse 9. In fact, “on the contrary, we are expressly assured that his entrance, save for the attack on the palace in which Belshazzar was slain, was a peaceful one, and that there was no cessation whatever of the temple worship” (Bautflower 1930: 148-149). Another possibility is Sargon II’s campaign against Merodah-baladan in 710 BC. This possibility was first suggested by the Assyriologist George Smith and expanded on by Kleinert. George Adam Smith follows this idea in his commentary on Isaiah (nd: 1:201-204). More recently, John Hayes and Stuart Irvine, in their commentary on Isaiah, likewise adapted this view (1987: 271-276). This view, however, also has problems. The entrance of Sargon II into Babylon to assume the throne in 709 BC is described in the Assyrian sources as quite peaceful. Joan Oates in her book on Babylon states: “The cities of northern Babylonia are alleged to have welcomed the Assyrian king, throwing open their gates ‘with great rejoicing’” (1991: 116). Sargon II boastfully inscribed on the wall of his palace in Khorsabad: “Into Babylon, the city of the lord of the gods, joyfully I entered, in gladness of heart, and with a beaming countenance. I grasped the hand(s) of the great lord Marduk, and made pilgrimage (lit., completed the march) to the ‘House of the New Year’s Feast’” (ARAB 2:35). Hardly the way Isaiah described it! The best candidate is Sennacherib’s conquest of the city in 689 BC. When Sargon II died in battle in 705 BC [sic], his son Sennacherib ascended to the throne. In so doing, he assumed the kingship of Babylon as well. In 703 BC, Marduk-zakir-shumi II seized the throne of Babylon. Soon after, Merodah-baladan made a bid for the throne as well. Sennacherib turned his attention on him and he fled to the marshes. A Babylonian puppet, Bel-ibni, was installed as king. He lasted several years until he was replaced by Sennacherib’s son, Assur-nadin-shumi, who ruled in relative peace for about six years (699-694 BC). In 694 BC, Sennacherib launched a daring campaign against the Chaldeans on the western frontier of Elam. While Sennacherib’s forces were engaged near the Persian Gulf, some Elamites made a bold “end-run” and captured Sennacherib’s son at Sippar. The son was never heard from again, so it is assumed he was murdered by the Elamites. Mackey’s comment: No, Ashur nadin shumi was the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and was also the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Gordon Franz continues: An Elamite puppet, Nergal-ushezib, was placed on the throne of Babylon (694 BC). The Assyrians removed him on their way back to Nineveh several months later. A certain Mushezib-Marduk seized the throne with Aramaean support. This support prompted the new king and his Elamite alliance, paid for with silver, gold, and precious stones from the treasuries of the temples in Babylon, to attack Assyria. A major battle ensued at Halule on the Tigris River. The outcome of the battle depends on whose account you believe. Sennacherib boasted a victory with 150,000 of the enemy dead. The Babylonian Chronicles said the Assyrians retreated. The fact that Sennacherib did not continue the attack suggests that he suffered a reversal so he had to regroup. In 690 BC, he returned to lay siege against Babylon (Oates 1991: 116-119). The Bivian Inscription described the fall of Babylon in 689 BC in these terms. “In a second campaign of mine I advanced swiftly against Babylon, upon whose conquest I had determined. Like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose, and overwhelmed it like a hurricane. I completely invested that city, with mines and engines my hands [took the city]. The plunder ...... his powerful ..... whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places). Shuzubu, king of Babylonia, together with his family and his [nobles], I carried off alive into my land. The wealth of that city, - silver, gold, precious stones, property and goods, I doled out (counted into the hands of) to my people and they made it their own. The gods dwelling therein, - the hands of my people took them, and they smashed them. Their property and goods they seized” (ARAB 2:151-152). That is exactly what Isaiah “saw” in verse 9. In fact, A. A. Macintosh points out, “the Assyrian word used for ‘broke them in pieces’ (ushabbiruma) is ‘radically identical to the shbr of verse 9’” (1980: 72). It was as if Isaiah “saw” (prophetically) an advance copy of the “Nineveh News” with the headlines blaring “Babylonian Gods Smashed, Assyrian Army Victorious Over Babylonia” and he lifted the words right off the page and placed them in his book. You’ll pardon the pun, but this prophecy was literally fulfilled to the letter! Sennacherib goes on to describe the total destruction of Babylon in these terms: “The city and (its) houses, from the foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of bricks and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu Canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals, I flooded its site (lit., ground) with water, and the very foundations thereof (lit., the structure of its foundation) I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow” (ARAB 2:152). Is it any wonder that Isaiah predicted the destruction of Babylon in similar words? “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation ...” (13: 19-20a). He later wrote, “’for I will rise up against them,’ says the LORD of Hosts, ‘and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, and offspring and posterity,’ says the LORD. ‘I will also make it a possession for porcupine, and marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,’ says the LORD of Host” (14: 22-23). That is exactly what happened in 689 BC! Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” …. Some students of Bible prophecy might question whether this destruction was a literal fulfillment of the words of Isaiah. He said God would overthrow Babylon like Sodom and Gomorrah and it would never be inhabited again. After all, Esarhaddon rebuilt the city only eight years later. I think an archaeologist would understand this better than most. We know that when a city is destroyed by a military campaign or natural calamities it falls into ruins. When someone comes back to rebuild the city, they either fix up the previous buildings, if there is anything left, or reuse the stones that may be scattered on the surface to build an entirely new city. When Esarhaddon surveyed what used to be Babylon he found an uninhabited marshy area with some ruins of houses and palaces inhabited by wildlife. The city that he built was a completely new city on top of the previous one. So Isaiah, in truth, could say, “Babylon ... will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation.” And, “I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, and marshes of muddy water.” The city that Sennacherib destroyed was completely covered over when Esarhaddon rebuilt it so that level was never inhabited again. Esarhaddon built a completely new city on top of the marshy ruins of the old one. The words of Isaiah were literally fulfilled. I do not believe there is any need to speculate whether Saddam Hussein is in any of these passages. They were already fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. ….