Review of Time & Prophecy - Hezekiah - part 4 - Sargon is Sennacherib

Greetings all,

 

I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib (the Babylonian name) much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL by the Babylonians. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture. But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from from Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. IT is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam, his ally ....".

And:

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein". Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically [2]. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts: Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment". Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

Conventional Theory's Strengths

(i) Primary

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted [6]:

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows [7]:

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's explanation for this omission is as follows [8]:

In nearly every other Assyrian royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of the king.

As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....

This may be, but it is important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary, presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or "who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at all.

That there was some unusual situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast, Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of Sennacherib ..." [9].

Taken from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893

Some Serious Anomalies with the Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology

Hello all,

I am continuing to review David Rice's 'Time and Prophecy' in
regards the period of the Kings in scripture. Inasmuch as Mr Rice's
chronology seems to mirror the popular Thiele, many of
these 'anamolies' apply to the general consensus.

This posting just deals with the first 6 of the 7 anomalies I've
come up with in regards to synchronizing Hezekiah, King of Judah,
with the Assyrian Kings. The 7th anomalie is long enoug for it's own
post.

Synchronizing Hezekiah
with
Tiglathpileser (King of Assyria)
Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon)
Merodachbaladan (King of Babylon),
Sargon (King of Assyria & Babylon)
and
Sennacherib (King of Assyria and Babylon)

Introduction

There are many `anomalies' in the current
chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms
between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria. Most of them, in this
discussion have to do with one event, that of the siege of the
cities of Judah by Sennacherib which modern chronologists happened
in Sennacherib, king of Babylon Year 4 which corresponds to
Hezekiah, king of Judah, year 14. In my opinion, modern chronologers
fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice.

Part I – the 7 anomalies

Anomaly 1

Firstly, in the Brittish Museum, there is an `inscription' on a
winged bull. Stafford and Jo Anne North write this about it:

"Also in Room 10 are two huge winged bulls, with attendant genies,
from Khorsabad, the Palace of Sargon discovered in 1843. An
inscription from the stomach of this bull says that King Hezekiah of
Judah paid tribute to Sargon. While the Bible does not mention this,
it does mention that Hezekiah's father paid such tribute and
Hezekiah may have continued that early in his reign. Later, however,
he rebelled against Assyria."
--- http://www.oc.edu/faculty/stafford.north/britmus/Tour-2003.htm

However, consider the following scripture:

2Ki 18:13, 14 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did ----
Sennacherib---- king of Assyria come up against all the fenced
cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to
the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from
me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of
Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents
of silver and thirty talents of gold.

Here it says that Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib, while the
Winged Bull in the British Museum says that Hezekiah paid tribute to
SARGON. Certainly, Hezekiah could have paid tribute to both of them.
However, Damien Mackey, in an internet article entitled: `A
Revolutionary Thesis, Sargon is Sennacherib', found at:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html , claims they are one
and the same person.

Now, scriptures also, in Isaiah 20, refer to Sargon. Could the
scriptures refer to the same person with different names? YES! ---
such is the case with Tiglathpileser (the Assyrian name) and PUL
(the Babylonian AND Assyrian name). Tiglathpileser died only 5 years
prior to Sargon's accension to the throne. I'll cover this in more
detail later, but when you read about the next few anomalies, think
about how well this would explain the anomalies. ---IF--- you don't
like my explanation, then I suggest, you try to come up with an
alternate.

I should mention, for now, that the biggest objection to
this `Sargon = Sennacherib' theory, is that there is some evidence
that Sargon was Sennacherib's father, and further, that when Sargon
was killed, Sennacherib ascended the throne. I will later show, that
if you trace this back to the source of the evidence, you will see,
that the rock inscriptions which supposedly make this claim, do not
in fact, even contain the name SARGON; rather, the translators of
the text inserted the name SARGON in square brackets, indicating
that the name SARGON was not in the inscription, but that they
thought he should have been! Here is one example, written in 1936,
by Stephen L Caiger D B, and found at:
(http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXIII.htm)
-----------------------------------------------
"Sargon, however, did not long survive this triumph. He died in 705
BC, as recorded in the Limmu List:
705 BC:
... a soldier entered the camp of the king of Assyria [Sargon],
and killed him in the month Abib.
And Sennacherib sat on the throne.
(Pinches, op.cit., p.372.) [Sennacherib—Sin-ahe-erba.]"
-----------------------------------------------


Anomaly 2

Secondly, in regards to the 1800 foot long tunnel which Hezekiah dug
through limestone to divert the water from the spring called Gihon,
Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, on Thursday, September
11, 2003; Page A03, states:

" Scholars for years thought that Hezekiah ordered the tunnel
constructed to secure Jerusalem's water supply in anticipation of
the arrival of King Sennacherib's Assyrian armies. Sennacherib, who
spent most of his career putting down revolts by peoples conquered
by his father, Sargon, besieged Jerusalem but never entered it.
Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These
show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements
when Sennacherib laid siege, so "it's not so easy to know why the
tunnel was built, since the water supply was already protected,"
Stager said. "Everybody figures it had something to do with the
Assyrians, but they aren't quite sure what."

Here is what scripture says:
2 Ch 32:1,4, 30 (1) After these things, and the establishment
thereof, ----Sennacherib--- king of Assyria came, and entered into
Judah, and encamped against the fenced cities, and thought to win
them for himself. …(4) So there was gathered much people together,
who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the
midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and
find much water? …(30) This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper
watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side
of the city of David.

The scripture says that Hezekiah built the tunnel and walls AFTER
Sennacherib encamped against the fenced cities of Judah; however,
the article says: `Recent excavations have challenged this version
of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within
Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege,'

Well, which version is correct?

Well, suppose, that Damien Mackey is correct, and that Sargon and
Sennacherib are the same person. Well, first, Sargon came to Judah
and `encamped against the fenced cities of Judah'. There were
several cities in the country called Judah which had walls:

Ezr 9:9 For we [were] bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in
our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the
kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our
God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in
Judah and in Jerusalem.

Anomaly 3

Thirdly, according to the chronology of modern scholars, Merodach-
Baladan had been dead for at least 9 years when he visited Hezekiah!
Let me explain. David Rice says wrote in Time and Prophecy, Appendix
G, page 96:

"(5) Shalmaneser was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by Sargon
the same month he died (Tebet, month 10), and on the throne of
Babylon by Merodach-Baladan the following Nisan, which the narrative
implies began his first year. Merodach-Baladan ruled for 12 years
when he was replaced by Sargon. (Grayson 73-75) " pg 96, Time and
Prophecy.

Please note, Mr Rice says that Sargon became King of Assyria, the
same year as Merodach-Baladan became King of Babylon, then 12 years
later, Merodach-Baladan died, and Sargon, in addition to being king
of Assyria, became king of Babylon for 5 years. Sennacherib
succeeded Sargon. This means, that, in Mr Rice's chronology,
Merodach-Baladan died 5 years before Sennacherib Year 1, king of
Babylon. Now, 4 years after this (9 years after Merodach-Baladin's
death), Mr Rice has Sennacherib, in his Babylonian Year 4, invading
Jerusalem on the famous Hezekiah Year 14 – the year Hezekiah got
sick. This is a problem for Isaiah, consider:

Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of
Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard
that he had been sick, and was recovered.

Isaiah has Merodach-Baladan visiting Hezekiah sometime after he
(Hezekiah) recovered from his sickness. Hezekiah was sick in year
14, and sometime after this, he recovered. The problem is Merodach-
Baladan, according to Mr Rice's scheme, had been dead for at least 9
years!

Anomaly 4

All of Sennacherib's solders were killed, yet somehow Sennacherib
took 200,150 prisoners.

Damien Mackey in `Sargon is Sennacherib', quoting Boutflower says
that Sennacherib said this:

As for Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his
strong walled cities, as well as the small cities in their
neighbourhood, which were without number - by levelling with
battering-rams and advancing the siege engines, by attacking and
storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breaches, I besieged and
captured. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses,
mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought
away from them and counted as spoil.

However, scripture says this:

2 Kings 19:25,36 (35) And it came to pass that night, that the
angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in
the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. (36) So
Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and
dwelt at Nineveh.

Sennacherib claimed to take 200,150 Judahites captive, yet scripture
claims the angel of the Lord killed Sennacherib's 185,000 Assyrian
soldiers – "they were all dead corpses". –IF— all of Sennacherib's
solders were dead, then how did Sennacherib bring back 200,150
prisoners?

Well, a reasonable explanation, is that Sennacherib invaded Judah
twice. The first time, he kicked butt, while his butt got kicked the
second time. If the first invasion matches the details of invasion
described in the Sargon inscriptions, which it does, then this would
lend weight to the idea that Sargon is Sennacherib!

Anomaly 5

Fifthly – Where's the gold?

First, Hezekiah gives Sennacherib all the gold.

2Ki 18:14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to
Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou
puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto
Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty
talents of gold.
2 Ki 18:15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in
the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
2Ki 18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the
doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which
Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of
Assyria.

Then, he shows it to Merodachbaladan!

Isa 39:1,2, 6 (1) At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan,
king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had
heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. (2) And Hezekiah
was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things,
the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment,
and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his
treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion,
that Hezekiah shewed them not. (6) Behold, the days come, that all
that [is] in thine house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up
in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall
be left, saith the LORD.

Anomaly 6

Sixthly, too many events occurred in Hezekiah Year 14 = Sennacherib
year 4.

As I stated in the introduction, in my opinion, modern chronologers
fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice. Well,
suppose they are correct. Here are some of the events which would
have had to happen in that one year.

Sennacherib, along with 185,000 solders, claimed to come to Judah
and `leveled' "46 of his strong walled cities" How long would it
take to travil to `level' one city? Well, say it took two weeks to
traval from Ninevah to the first `strong walled city', then say it
took 3 days to level it; then say, it took 2 days to travel to the
next `strong walled city' and 3 more days to level it. You would end
up with 2 weeks + 5 days/city * 46 cities = 244 days. Hmmmm… not
likely. Sometime during this warmonging, Sennacherib sent some
messengers to Hezekiah, asking him to surrender, which, Hezekiah
politely refused, however, he stripped the temple of gold and silver
and gave Sennacherib 30 talents of gold and several hundred talents
of silver and quickly began construction of an 1800 foot long, 4
foot wide and 12 foot tall, tunnel through solid limestone. In
addition, Hezekiah started construction and repairs on the walls of
Jerusalem. All this stress made Hezekiah sick unto death, but he
prayed to God, and God said he would live 15 more years and would
send a sign such that the sun's shadow would go back 10 degrees

Then, Sennacherib, his solders, and his 200,150 prisoners, had to
travel 2 weeks back to Ninevah with 200,150 prisoners, drop them off
at the local slave market, and travel 2 weeks back to Judah… 272
days. But when they got there, drats, old Hezekiah had finished
building his tunnel and put up walls. Hmmmm…. Not likely. Then, they
sieged Jerusalem, but the angel of the Lord killed all of his
solders, so he traveled two weeks back to Ninevah… i.e. 286 days!!!

In the meantime, according to Isaiah 39, Hezekiah had recovered
from his sickness, and the Merodach-Baladan, who had been dead for
over 9 years, rose from the grave and paid Hezekiah a visit!
Whereupon, Hezekiah somehow showed Merodach-Baladan all the gold and
silver in the temple, which somehow managed to magically reappear.

a lively stone,
TOby

Taken from: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874

"Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish ..."

Rasputin said...

 

To Damien:

Your thesis on the Revised History of Hezekiah was brilliantly argued and should have resulted in a PHD so that your gift in complicated historical revisionism could have been more further developed. In this thesis, you covered an incredible amount of data but unfortunately one examiner has prevented you from achieving your full academic potential. The university will be poorer for not having awarded you a well deserved PHD for I surmise that you would have made hundreds of other connections in ancient history that would have shed more light in a field that is strewn with a great deal of confusion. Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish and out of the mists will arise a new historical chronology that will again dramatically shorten the length of Egyptian chronology. I think the works of Velikovsky, Courville and Mackey and others will eventually unseat the modern Pharisees and Sadduccees who hold sway over the old orthodoxy which is dying as the revisionists get their ideas out in the internet. I hope that you are actively engaged in further research and I suspect you realize that the Hebrew Chronology which influenced three of the major religions in history is more critical than the Egyptian documents that are carved in stone as almost nothing in the Egyptian Chronology matches that of the Hebrews. Keep up the great research.

August 16, 2011 3:04 PM

Damien Mackey's response:

Great post, Rasputin.I am sure that your prophetic words will one day become a reality:

"Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish and out of the mists will arise a new historical chronology that will again dramatically shorten the length of Egyptian chronology".

For much more of this kind of thinking, going way beyond Egypt, see "Other AMAIC sites" as listed in right hand column at: http://amaic1.blog.com/

August 25, 2011 5:36 PM

My thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background can be accessed at the University of Sydney site: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

My earlier MA thesis, The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar can be accessed at the University of Sydney site: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1632

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background was passed for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (a doctorate award) by 2 of the 3 examiners.

The essential parts of their lengthy comments were:

Examiner 1

Overall, this is a most impressive piece of work. Employing a true multidisciplinary approach, Mr. Mackey has amassed abundant evidence from the fields of history, art history, archaeology, geography, topography, biblical studies, and linguistics to support his chronological thesis. At times, his dissertation reads like a page­-turning detective story.

Having said all that, this work should be regarded as primarily seminal in nature; it certainly cannot be construed as the final word on a subject that has confounded and occupied innumerable scholars over the past one hundred years. Yet, Mr. Mackey is to be applauded for a truly Herculean synthesizing effort that should keep a host of special­ists busy for years to come - assuming their willingness to analyze, dissect, and evaluate his doctoral thesis fairly and objectively.

…. Mr Mackey’s historical and chronological construct is a solid endeavor and challenge that unquestionably needs to be taken seriously. One can only hope that this will be the case.

The sheer range and scope alone of Mackey's dissertation, right­ or wrong, is sufficiently worthy of scholarly attention and discussion. I unhesitatingly recommend that the doctoral candidate - Damien Mackey - be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ….

Examiner 2

This two-volume revised thesis is a considerable improvement on the 2005 submission.

Much effort has been expended in this reworking to produce a substantially more sustainable piece of work.

Mackay [sic] states in the Preface that his thesis is an "in-depth chronological analysis and realignment of the era of Hezekiah and its background with a special focus upon trying to determine, in a revised context, who were the Judaean king's major contemporaries and what were their origins". To do so, he has based his arguments on the chronological revisions of the Sothic calender [sic] thus following the footsteps of Velikovsky and Courville. However, he has not been reticent to apply his critical ability, assessing and (where necessary) re-adjusting their datum.

To fulfill its stated brief in the Introduction, the thesis' subject-matter covered an enormous expanse from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Here Mackay has evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly. I see a major advance in the application of his critical abilities, over and above the previous attempt. Whilst his conclusions are sometimes tentative - and could not be otherwise - he has fulfilled the scholar's brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion. I particularly appreciated his usage of archaeological data to support his arguments.

The study of the Book of Judith [Volume Two of thesis], in particular, showed promise. I appreciated the discussion of the book's placement (or non-placement) in the Jewish versus the Catholic canon. The accompanying commentary also was a good piece of work. I would recommend that, with judicious editing and some reworking, this part of the thesis be suitable for publication. Re the argument of historicity v. 'pious fiction', it might be worthwhile to consider the questions of 'intent and audience'.

The thesis still does show a tendency "to tie up loose ends", but the application was much more restrained and the accompanying argument highlighted the complexity of the problems that Mackay was attempting to unravel. These were generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis.

… In conclusion, the thesis fulfills the stated criteria necessary to achieve the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts. ….

Yet Examiner 3 could apparently find virtually nothing worthwhile (“only one minor strength”) in this 500+ pages (two-volume) effort:

….

This thesis sought to present 'a more acceptable alternative' to the conventional dating system for the era of Hezekiah. The thesis, however, fell far short of achieving its aim. There was a failure to assess both primary and secondary sources in a rigorous, critical and objective way. This meant that the conclusions reached were not merely non-conventional (this in itself should not disqualify anyone from an award), but extremely tenuous and very far-fetched. As such, the thesis failed to achieve its aim.

….

The thesis suffered from the same flaws as Velikovsky's approach, which exerted considerable influence over the argument, including lending it a starting point. In particular, the whole notion of 'alter egos' was simply not justified and, in fact, beggars the imagination. There was no attempt to explain why so many singular persons (many of them monarchs) could each possess so many distinctly different personas. I suspect the reason is because the entire notion of 'alter egos' has no real basis in history and, therefore, cannot be adequately explained. If there was a real notion of 'alter egos' in history, then it is odd that there has been no real overt reference in historical sources to explain it. …. The whole 'alter-ego' system overlooked all the cultural and religious distinctions apparent in the Ancient Near East, and defied credibility. Under the conventional system, these difficulties are easily overcome by the sensible and credible proposition that each name represents a distinct person. Indeed, the conventional system is also able to take in all the sources, including the ones ignored in this thesis. Therefore, the thesis did not give 'a more acceptable alternative' to the conventional dating system.

….

There was one minor strength in the thesis, though with some reservation:

1. The suggestion that the reigns of some of the Ramessides may have been concurrent was plausible, even though it ultimately cannot be confirmed. The chronological links made with other points of Ancient Near Eastern history on the basis of this surmise, however, appeared premature, speculative, and tenuous. Furthermore, this minor strength in no way provides an opening to salvage the thesis.

In light of this analysis, I cannot in good conscience recommend that the degree of PhD be awarded. The thesis was unfortunately ill-conceived and ultimately fatally flawed in its methods and conclusions.

Examiner 4

Though the Faculty of Arts apparently told my supervisor (Professor Rifaat Ebied) that the doctorate would be awarded, the university’s highest committee (Post-Graduate Matters Committee) then stepped in to say that a 4^th examiner would be required.

This final arbitrator/examiner, completely ignoring the favourable Examiner’s 1 and 2, based his/her (I think) decision entirely on the unfavourable Examiner 3:

The thesis does not meet the necessary standards of an academic research. The methodology utilized is flawed through and through, the information dated and irrelevant to current research. The author is not aware of up-to-date bibliography and has ignored major basic studies in the field. His treatment of ancient texts - both biblical and non-biblical - is literal and naïve. He does not utilize tools such as dictionaries, nor does he show proficiency in basic biblical analysis. The thesis does not regard or address questions of possible sources, genres, accepted basic conceptions regarding the authors or ideological biases of the texts, or variants in different versions. His arguments are irrational and the conclusions he has reached are unsubstantiated and fanciful.

I fully agree with the detailed comments of the third examiner who has laid out the main weaknesses of the thesis, and they should be consulted for more detail on my position.

Damien F. Mackey's Defence of Post-Graduate Thesis Against 3rd Examiner's Criticisms

Appendix: Exposing the Inadequacies of the 3rd Examiner’s Points in the Context of my Proposed ‘More Acceptable Alternative’ Model The 3rd examiner, unlike the Assessor, does make some points that are specifically relevant to the thesis, though he/she, just like the Assessor, never exhibits having come to terms at all with the overall complexity of the thesis, as had the 1st and 2nd examiners. Many of the 3rd examiner’s key points of criticism ignore some of the most fundamental aspects of my PhD thesis. Nor is there the least admittance by either the 3rd or the 4th examiner that the conventional system has its serious flaws. The chronologico-historical and art-historical anomalies that have been addressed in this thesis - and that are acknowledged by many competent scholars from different fields (see e.g. p. 18 of my thesis) - are genuine problems. This will become further evident from the following pages. The 3rd examiner’s 15 paragraphs can be broken down basically into alleged “weaknesses” relating to: (i) methodology, four paragraphs (1-4); (ii) primary and secondary sources, three paragraphs (5-6, 12); (iii) ‘alter egos’, vague similarities or similar equations for place names, five paragraphs (7-11, also 5 again); (iv) ‘dark age’, one paragraph (13); and (v) footnotes/aesthetics, two paragraphs (14-15). Then there follows that ‘favourable’ final paragraph (1) pointing to “one minor strength”: “The suggestion that the reigns of some of the Ramessides may have been concurrent was plausible …”. My comment: As if any work that may throw light on the important Ramesside era could be regarded as “minor”! [Moreover, a revision of the history of the Ramessides in relation to king Hezekiah constituted a major part of my thesis, namely Volume One, Part III (pp. 188-372)]. The 1st examiner seems to have appreciated this, when commenting: “pp. 339-340 – admirable attempt to recast the latter part of the 20th Dynasty [Ramesside] which has always appeared as a somewhat gray area” Let us consider the 3rd examiner’s five areas of criticism in turn. (i) Methodology (paragraphs 1-4) Regarding methodology, a major criticism offered by the 3rd examiner was that “tentative” points “were used as significant foundations for further conclusions”. The 2nd examiner had also used the word “tentative”, but with some proper understanding. Thus: “Whilst [Mackey’s] conclusions are somewhat tentative – and could not be otherwise – he has fulfilled the scholar’s brief …”. This 2nd examiner had, like the 1st examiner, fully appreciated that a completely new model of history must be of a tentative nature. The 3rd examiner though gives the impression that the whole thesis was basically a castle built in the air. “The vast majority of the argument was premised on a series of unproved ‘if’ statements”. “… numerous tentative points were effectively treated as … pivotal …”. My comment: My entire thesis was in fact built upon the most solid of foundations, even if the superstructure atop this may be subject to some future alteration. As I have been at pains to demonstrate, my PhD thesis was built upon: 1. A successful MA thesis that showed the inadequacies of the conventional chronological scheme, and with an examiner pointing to the opportunity now for an ‘alternative’ model to be undertaken. [My Abstract justifies my blazing of this new trail based on comments made by an examiner of my 1993 MA. Then, on p. 8, I argue my new thesis as being a logical development of my MA. This is repeated on p. 10 of Chapter 1. To reinforce all of this, I give a summary of my MA, beginning on p. 11. Pp. 16-21 make clear how much chronology and archaeology currently hang on Sothic dating. I summarise my efforts on this in my Conclusion, pp. 103-106]. Moreover: 2. My thesis was built upon a credible archaeological/stratigraphical foundation, as the 2nd examiner also happily noted: “I particularly appreciated [Mackey’s] usage of archaeological data to support his argument”. The 3rd examiner seems to have completely overlooked the solid foundations of this extensive work. Next: 3. As the thesis progressed into (as it must) the “alternative” model realm, my higher level foundation (for the background to king Hezekiah’s era) - still anchored though securely on 1. and 2. - became the now quite vast body of revisionist publications, based initially on the research of Drs. I. Velikovsky and D. Courville. As the 2nd examiner could clearly see: “[Mackey] has based his arguments on the chronological revisions of the Sothic calender [sic] thus following the footsteps of Velikovsky and Courville”. But not in a slavish fashion: “However, he has not been reticent to apply his critical ability, assessing and (where necessary) re-adjusting their datum”. Continuing on now right into the era of king Hezekiah of Judah, my foundations (still dependent on 1-3) were: 4. Five interlocking biblical (cf. 2 Kings 18:10)/neo-Assyrian correspondences, coinciding with the Fall of Samaria (c. 722/21 BC), namely: (a) Fall of Samaria; (b) beginning of Sargon II of Assyria’s rule; (c) sixth year of Hezekiah of Judah; (d) ninth year of Hoshea of Israel; (e) year one of Merodach-baladan II as king of Babylon, according to Sargon’s testimony: “In my twelfth year of reign, (Merodach-baladan) .... For 12 years, against the will (heart) of the gods, he held sway over Babylon ...”. [I discussed points (a)-(e) in detail in Chapter 1, pp. 21-28, returning to this in similar detail in Chapter 5, pp. 125-129, and then fully supplementing it in Chapter 12, pp. 349-350, and finally summarising it all on p. 372, Summary of Volume One]. Thus, I set out a clear foundational progression (1-4), whilst the ‘alter ego’ methodology was firmly established at the outset of my PhD thesis as being a key method to be used therein. [See also Chapter 3, pp. 52-53, for the beginning of my explanation of my ‘multi-identifications’ methodology, based on a very solid Velikovskian connection; this then being taken further in Chapter 4, pp. 111-115. (See also pp. 7-8 below of this Appendix)]. Yet, typically, the 3rd examiner will write: “… the whole notion of ‘alter egos’ was simply not justified …”. Other criticisms of a methodological nature made by the 3rd examiner were: “The argument itself did not flow. It often changed subject suddenly …”. But no examples/references are given. By contrast, the 2nd examiner – once again appreciating the difficulty of the task, and the context – wrote that “the accompanying argument highlighted the complexity of the problems that [Mackey] was attempting to unravel. These were generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis”. 3rd examiner again: “The thesis did not engage adequately with more conventional scholars which was necessary in order to achieve the stated goal of providing ‘a more acceptable alternative’ to their widely accepted theories.” But, according to the 2nd examiner, I have indeed in my wide-ranging thesis “evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly”. Moreover: “[Mackey] has fulfilled the scholar’s brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion”. [On p. 5 of my Introduction I told of my indebtedness to conventional scholars/archaeologists of the past. In Chapter 11, p. 276, I praised “Bierbrier’s painstaking and laudable attempts to establish a clear chronological framework for Egyptian officials and workmen for the most difficult phase” of the Third Intermediate Period [TIP]. Moreover, I make it quite clear, in my treatment of the Ramessides and the difficult TIP that I did not intend to be “dogmatic”, but “tentative”, and that “I would be highly presumptuous” were I to presume that I could fully master the situation, Chapter 11, p. 258. See also Volume Two, p. 106]. 3rd examiner again: “Problems with conventional dating were exaggerated and often not considered in full, especially in terms of the solutions proposed by scholars advocating more conventional dating (e.g., Thiele). This also revealed a failure to deal with the purpose and literary-theological devices inherent in biblical chronologies”. My comments: For one of my key historical re-identifications, concerning Esarhaddon in relation to the neo-Assyrian succession, in Chapter 6, I actually gave detailed points, headed, “Conventional Theory’s Strengths” (pp. 135-142) as to why - although I was going to propose reasons for considering a departure from the conventional view - I nevertheless appreciated why the conventional view had a firm claim to being right. I revisited this in summary fashion also on pp. 150-151. And I returned to this point again in my final thesis Conclusion at the end of Volume Two (pp. 104-105). Moreover, I actually discussed Edwin Thiele at great length, first introducing him into the discussion on pp. 14-15 of Chapter 1, then considering him in more detail on pp. 22-27; an analysis that I continued in Chapter 5, pp. 125-129, and also in Chapter 12, p. 349. Though critical of the fact that Thiele had, following a faulty neo-Assyrian chronology, completely eradicated those five interlocking biblical/neo-Assyrian and Babylonian correspondences [(a)-(e) in point 4. on pp. 2-3 above], I did however (on pp. 126-129) consider the merits of Thiele’s overall system, acknowledging the problems that he faced. Indeed I recognised the validity of Thiele’s points in regard to the difficulties of a chronological correspondence between kings Hoshea and Hezekiah. And I coupled this with Assyriologist H. Tadmor’s related arguments, as noted by Thiele (Chapter 1, p. 22; Chapter 5, pp. 127-128; and Chapter 12, p. 354). At the same time I pointed to the inadequacies of Velikovsky’s revision, p. 25, his “sometimes … embarrassing gaffes”, indicating also that I would significantly modify his reconstruction of the el-Amarna period in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 9 and Chapter 10. Thiele’s chronological problems with king Hezekiah though turn out to be artificial. Thiele is the one with the faulty methodology. Thanks to Thiele, Hezekiah has now become one of most vexed problems in biblical history, pp. 126, 129. Thiele, despite his “good intentions” (p. 129), ended up doing exactly what he intended not to do, when he had endeavoured to establish “a sound chronology for Old Testament times”, fitting it “into the events of the Near Eastern world” (p. 126). Consider what Thiele has now lost for us, pp. 23-24; also pp. 125-129. The 3rd examiner does not once allude to the fact that Thiele has completely eradicated an ancient multi-syncretism (a)-(e); one that the facts of modern archaeology have actually begun to support and further augment. I say (p. 128) that I shall attempt to enlarge this (a)-(e) correspondence even further by including, in Chapter 12, the Egyptian (f) and Ethiopian (g) contemporaries of the Fall of Samaria (a). Re biblical genre and purpose, I had definitely considered these throughout my thesis: e.g. Chapter 2, p. 33, where I had argued that the Bible was “didactic, not political science”; and p. 54 my explanation of el-Amarna’s geopolitical situation in relation to the Old Testament; and p. 55, on biblical perspective; and also pp. 72-73 on the Bible’s non-sophisticated attitude to geography. Then in Volume Two (pp. 89-91), I engaged in an in-depth textual analysis of the Isaian Denkschrift. (See also p. 6 of this Appendix). In conclusion, the 3rd examiner has completely failed to appreciate and understand the firm foundations upon which this thesis was built. This is in contrast to the 1st and 2nd examiners, who did not consider that my methodology was shallow. On the contrary, according to the 1st examiner: Mr. Mackey is very good at weighing alternatives … I … do not feel that he is “forcing a square peg into a roundhole”. His overall analyses and discussions are in depth and quite plausible. …. He has taken on a vast amount of material … and has dealt with it in considerable depth. If specialists and scholars with an open mind will approach his work dispassionately, [Mackey] has left a great deal to be studied and reconsidered. This is a seminal work – as it should be – and a door opened wide for further exploration. Whilst the 2nd examiner, impressed by my use of the archaeological data, also believes: … [Mackey] has evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly. … the thesis … makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts. (ii) Primary and secondary sources (paragraphs 5-6, 12) 3rd examiner: “There was a failure to incorporate some key primary sources into the evidence, most notably the Babylonian Chronicles, the Assyrian King List, and Esarhaddon’s Vassal Treaty with Baal of Tyre”. By contrast, the 2nd examiner thought, regarding my “Bibliography. This was satisfactory – a testament to [Mackey’s] copious reading – and no changes are required”. And (3rd examiner): “The primary sources which featured in the thesis were never appraised or weighed in terms of genre, accuracy, reliability, purpose, and bias …. This was acutely apparent in the use of Assyrian annals, the canonical biblical literature, and the deutero-canonical books of Judith and Tobit”. My comment: I frequently in fact made use of the Babylonian Chronicles (e.g. Chapter 3, p. 78, Chapter 6, pp. 136-137, 147, 169), though being careful to note that this document is in fact a late source. I did indeed use the Assyrian King List (e.g. p. 131), but most notably in my discussion of “The Assuruballit Problem” [TAP], an Excursus dedicated to this very issue (pp. 230-253). I also used, extensively, the Taylor Prism, e.g. Chapter 6 (pp. 151-165); the Eponym Chronicle (pp. 144-145); the Assyrian Chronicle (e.g. p. 148); the Limmu Lists (p. 132); the ND4301 and ND4305 Nimrud fragments published by Wiseman (pp. 347-349). Moreover, the 3rd examiner here actually refers to my “use of Assyrian annals”. I also made extensive use of H. Tadmor and D. Luckenbill (Sargon II’s Khorsabad texts), with reference to the primary sources, especially throughout Chapter 6. In fact I went even deeper than merely using primary sources and had, following Tadmor, serious cause to criticize (in relation to the document that Tadmor called “Eponym Cb6”) the fact that Assyriologists, Winckler and Delitzsch, had presumed to add the name “Sargon” where it may not originally have been, pp. 137-138. Further to what I have already said above re my attention to genre, and to biblical perspective, much of my Chapter 1, in Volume Two (e.g., pp. 17-37), involved a discussion of the debate regarding the genre of the apocryphal Book of Judith, which I headed “A History and Critical Evaluation of [the Book of Judith]. A. Versions, Genre …”. See also my Chapter 3 (pp. 74-75) regarding how history has viewed this, and how history’s view of it has changed according to the different fashions or moral values of different epochs. In this I was notably successful, according to the 2nd examiner who wrote: The study of the Book of Judith, in particular, showed promise. I appreciated the discussion of the book’s placement (or non-placement) in the Jewish versus the Catholic canon. The accompanying commentary also was a good piece of work. I would recommend that, with judicious editing and some reworking, this part of the thesis be suitable for publication. Re the argument of history v. ‘pious fiction’, it might be worthwhile to consider the questions of ‘intent’ and ‘audience’. A significant amount of my Volume Two thus constituted a discussion of the textual nature of the Book of Judith, in which I concluded - following some millennia and a half of Judaeo-Christian tradition, I might add - that the book was in fact an ancient account of an actual history, and not just some sort of ‘pious parable/fiction’ (genre). My primary contribution was to show that this history was situated entirely within the era of Hezekiah. (iii) “‘alter egos’,” “equations of a similar nature for geographic place names”, and “vague similarities” or (paragraphs 7-11, also 5); Firstly ‘alter egos’ According to the 3rd examiner (a part of this we have already read): “The thesis suffered from the same flaws as Velikovsky’s approach, which exerted considerable influence over the argument, including lending it a starting point. In particular, the whole notion of ‘alter egos’ was simply not justified, and, in fact, beggars the imagination”. And: “… there was a distinct failure to look thoroughly at the linguistic problems associated with the various equations of names being proposed by the ‘alter-ego’ model. This led to some rather fanciful and improbable equations which are simply not credible linguistically, let alone historically …”. And: “… the thesis criticizes other scholars for failing to explain name correspondences (e.g., So = Saïs, p. 189) when it fails to do this many times over. This unfortunately reveals a scholarly double standard”. My comments: If one has, as I have, embarked upon a revision of ancient history based upon the view that Egyptian history has been grossly over-extended, thereby affecting the chronologies of the nations tied to it, then one has to determine upon a methodology that is appropriate towards rectifying this situation. This must of necessity involve a shortening of chronology. But it must not go against the evidence. As the 2nd examiner has noted, my approach was archaeologically-based, hence a sound foundation underpinned it all. This is in contrast, I believe, to the latter part of Velikovsky’s revision, where - in order to merge the entire neo-Hittite empire with the Babylonian (Nebuchednezzar II’s), and make the 19th Egyptian dynasty (that is concurrent with the Hittites) the same as the 26th Egyptian dynasty, concurrent with the Babylonian empire - Velikovsky had ruptured the true and well-established archaeological sequence which indicates that the 19th dynasty must follow on directly from the 18th. This bold plan of Velikovsky’s, to accommodate his chronological shrinkage, would have been wonderful had it been workable. But it was in fact doomed to failure right from the start because it went ruthlessly against the established archaeological evidence. Now the method of ‘alter egos’, and the merging of certain dynasties, is the one that revisionist scholars have tended to adopt to support the necessary chronological shrinkage. It makes good sense (where it does not violate the established evidence). And some very striking correspondences have already been made. I have built upon what I consider to have been the best of these, and have also significantly added to them, according to the 2nd examiner’s recognising that I have “discovered new facts”. In other words, the model that I have proposed seems to be fruitful and productive, not barren. But does not the 3rd examiner completely miss the point again by asserting, without qualification, that my equations are “simply not credible … historically …”, given that what I have produced is in fact quite a new model of history; one that according to both the 1st and 2nd examiners was convincing according to its context (e.g., 2nd examiner: “… problems [were] generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis”)? Some of my linguistic equations might indeed be controversial, with even the 2nd examiner saying, “occasionally I felt he rather stretched linguistic arguments”. I could have though, for instance, in my proposed equation of Jonah with Nahum (partly based on Tobit 14:4, versions of which variously give ‘Jonah’ and ‘Nahum’) ‘stretched’ the NAH element in both names (Jo-NAH-um) as part of my evidence for identifying Jonah with Nahum. However, I resisted this temptation, due to the fact that, as I would write (Volume Two p. 94), there is “only a superficial similarity between the names”, with ‘Jonah’ containing the letter h (Hebrew he), whilst ‘Nahum’ contains the letter ch (Hebrew het). Now, regarding name linguistics, the 1st examiner thought at least: On pp. 60ff., I found this to be a valiant effort to identify the EA correspondents and I especially like the linguistic equation of Abdi-ashirta with Dushratta [i.e., through Ab-DU-aSHRATTA, p. 67]. It is quite wrong for the 3rd examiner to claim that “there was a distinct failure to look thoroughly at the linguistic problems associated with the various equations of names being proposed by the ‘alter-ego’ model”. I especially justified my ‘alter ego’ connection for kings with the ADP (see Acronyms) or ‘Addu-principle’ (Chapter 3, pp. 68-71), according to which a king might use a different theophoric (‘god’ name) in a different region (e.g. Baal in Phoenicia; Hadad in Syria; Ashur in Assyria). This e.g. accounted for why the one king might have had dissimilar names. Another factor I suggested was the well-attested religious syncretism at the time (p. 91), with the likelihood of a Yahweh and a Baal name being used together. With ADP, el-Amarna names (presumably C14th BC) now appear abundantly in C9th texts (p. 71). Also: [On pp. 68 I gave an explanation of possible Semitic use of Indo European names. Also on p. 174 I made it clear that, whilst certain equations may connect the same name, my identification was not based on name similarity alone; though it is nice when that happens. On pp. 208-209 I applied the ADP to Tushratta]. There were many further arguments in favour of my ‘alter ego’ comparisons, e.g: [P. 65 Boutflower has shown the name Tabeel to have been comparable with Tab rimmon. P. 146, Tiglath-pileser III was also ‘Pul[u]’, both in history and the Bible. We know that Assyrians took different names as rulers of Babylon, p. 184. P. 179-180 my folding of the Middle Bronze I & II Ages also involved name folding. P. 138, explanation of Sargon II’s name as a throne name; Sennacherib, as a personal name. P. 139, Tobit clearly says who Sennacherib’s father was, “Shalmaneser”, not Sargon (p. 184, the name Sargon, meaning “true King”, is suspicious – he may well have been a usurper). P. 147 Tiglath-pileser is a throne name, not a personal name. P. 169 Esarhaddon was known to have had two different names. The biblical Hadoram is also Joram, p. 69, and the name Adda-danu = Balu shipti, p. 70]. In light of all this, one has to wonder if the 3rd examiner has properly read the thesis! And to make me question this even further there is the 3rd examiner’s mistaken comment re “So = Saïs, p. 189”; this being, incidentally, the only occasion in all of sixteen paragraphs where the 3rd examiner cites a specific page (let alone Chapter, or Volume) of my thesis. By the time we have come to this p. 189 (re “So = Saïs …”), I had already given pages (see above) of linguistic arguments and principles in support of my thesis, and these would continue on, including into Volume Two, Part II (pp. 37-46) and in the Excursus, pp. 87-102. So I cannot justifiably be flatly accused of ‘failing to explain name correspondences’. My particular criticism of the So = Saïs equation was that “So” was a biblical king of Egypt, whereas Saïs is well known to have been a city in the W. Egyptian Delta. However unconvincing scholars may find some of my own equations, be they of people or places, at least I cannot be accused of ever having attempted to force an identification of one designated as a person with a known place (city), as some conventional historians have proposed in the case of So = Saïs. That strange ‘osmosis’ (a person becoming a place) is the point of my argument here. As I claim, my ‘alternative’ historical model is not a barren one. At least the 2nd examiner, as we read, did not think so (“new facts”). Nor did the 1st examiner, who liked e.g. the following comparisons: p. 82 - good attempt to identify the enigmatic Kassites (who remain a real problem). pp. 88ff. – excellent point regarding use of Hebrew in [el-Amarna] correspondence. pp. 90ff. – a provocative and detailed discussion of the [el-Amarna] correspondence in order to identify the correspondents. pp. 133ff. –The Sargon II-Sennacherib equation is provocative, comprehensive and near compelling. It stands as a major challenge to traditional specialists in Mesopotamian history and archaeology. p. 180 – a tantalizing comparison between 12th and 8th century BC individuals. pp. 180ff. – good discussion of Kassite/Assyro-Babylonian similarities. pp. 300ff. – very good discussion of the meaning of the Israel Stele. pp. 316ff. – good attempt to unravel the relationship between the 21st and 22nd [Egyptian] dynasties; pp. 322-327 – drives home the point about objects identified as “heirlooms” owing to a misplaced chronology. This same 1st examiner, too, had fully appreciated the degree of difficulty involved with certain aspects of my thesis, particularly in relation to Egypt’s most troublesome Third Intermediate Period, or TIP [i.e., Dynasties 21-26]: pp. 358ff. – an interesting attempt to sort out “who was who” in the 21st & 22nd Dynasties. This seems to be one of the most confusing periods in Ancient Egyptian history (pace Kitchen) and may never be straightened out. Mackey is to be commended for his effort. [Indeed, the great Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner had despaired of this historical period’s ever being properly resolved. See quote on p. 338 of thesis]. My thesis in fact, as I made clear (Chapter 3, p. 51), would tackle head on the three most vexed problems for the Velikovskian based revision (none of which is problem free in the conventional system), namely: ‘The Assuruballit Problem’ [henceforth TAP]; where to locate Ramses II (in the new scheme); and the resolution of the complex TIP. And, whilst I thought ultimately (thesis Conclusion, pp. 103-106) that I had managed to propose a positive solution to (i) and (ii), I did not claim to have done more than to provide “at least the outline of a solution - rather than a comprehensive revision - for (iii)”. Generally, as I have said, my ‘alternative’ historical model can be fruitful, having the potential to solve some glaring, unresolved problems that have persisted in - even bedevilled - the conventional system. Some of these, which are a bit technical in full detail, I shall now illustrate in brief: One of the most glaring problems is the lack of archaeology for a supposed 400 years of Kassite history (see section ‘dark age’ for more detail on this), completely resolved in my chronological shrinkage and identification of the Kassites with Assyro-Babylonian kings. See also the 1st examiner’s favourable comments above on my treatment of the Kassites. The conventional system cannot explain why, whereas Assuruballit of Assyria’s father - as given in the el-Amarna letters - was called Assur-nadin-ahe, his father is named in the Assyrian King List as Eriba-Adad, not Assur-nadin-ahe. Yet so much is based on this supposed connection, as we read in Centuries of Darkness: “Thus the much vaunted synchronism between Akhenaten and Assuruballit I, the main linch-pin between Egyptian and Assyrian Late Bronze Age chronologies, is flawed and must be treated with caution” (cited on p. 231 of thesis). My multi-identification of Tushratta enabled for me to explain how this Mitannian king had been in a position to send the statue of Ishtar of Nineveh (Assyria) to pharaoh Amenhotep III in Egypt, in the hope of curing the latter’s illness. For Tushratta was also, according to my reconstruction, Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria, pp. 73, 76-81. [See also p. 80, art evidence for Ashurnasirpal II as a contemporary of Egypt’s Late Kingdom]. *** My equation, Tushratta = Abdi-ashirta (the 2nd examiner, as we saw, liked the linguistic connection here), serves to answer my persistent question (e.g. pp. 65-67, 73) as to why two contemporary kings, Tushratta and Abdi-ashirta, ruling the same regions, and with the same ambitions and aspirations (e.g. to consolidate rule over Mitanni), never clashed, nor do their names ever appear together in the el-Amarna correspondence. The mention in 2 Chronicles 21:16-17 of “the Arabians, who were near the Cushites [Ethiopians]”, who sacked king Jehoram’s palace in Jerusalem has bewildered biblical scholars (see my discussion in Chapter 4, pp. 112-114). E.g: “This curious verse can hardly signify that the Arabians took and plundered Jerusalem” (quote on p. 114). But it is perfectly explainable in a revised context. In fact we often meet with cases in which the conventional scenario leads to such statements of bewilderment or astonishment, e.g: p. 73, where Campbell had sought for “... a way to explain a Mitannian raid into upper Syria sometime during the final years of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III, carried out by Tušratta [Tushratta] while he was maintaining loyal friendship with Egypt”. But Campbell finally had to admit to having “no satisfactory explanation”. [See also Roux, p. 14 below, on Kassite archaeology]. The fairly recently published Tang-i Var inscription (see Chapter 6, p. 144, Chapter 12, pp. 350-351, 364) has thrown into complete and unexpected confusion the conventional syncretisms between Sargon II of Assyria and the 25th Ethiopian dynasty; a problem that does not exist in my renovation of neo-Assyrian history and the TIP. And, with Sargon II to be merged with Sennacherib, as I have argued, then Thiele’s problems with harmonizing the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah against the neo-Assyrian rule are no longer relevant. As the 1st examiner notes, this (Sargon II = Sennacherib) was “provocative, comprehensive and near compelling”. [For more on this, see p. 13 below of this Appendix)]. Art-historical problems of similarities between C12th BC (‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian) and C8th BC (‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian) art (pp. 80-81, also pp. 250-251) do not exist in my model, which provides a chronological folding of the ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ eras. [See also p. 250, for art of Horemheb, Egypt’s Late Kingdom, like that found in neo-Assyria; p. 251, for art depicting the ‘Sea Peoples’, again Late Kingdom, like that of Shalmaneser III of a supposedly later period]. Secondly, “equations of a similar nature for geographic place names” There were actually rather few such geographical “equations” proposed in the thesis, and the 3rd examiner mentions only two of these, namely: “… Lachish = Ashdod; Rages = Damascus”. Regarding the first, Lachish = Ashdod, I noted Chapter 6 (p. 154) that Sargon II had, in his Annals, actually referred simultaneously to two Ashdods: “Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu [Ashdod-by-the-Sea], I besieged and captured”. The conventional historians do not explain why. My thesis does. They are two separate locations, with ‘Ashdod-by-the-Sea’ being the conventional Ashdod; whereas ‘Ashdod’, unqualified, is Lachish. This identification solves a host of problems, including why Sargon II, who actually took the fort of Azekah in Judah (pp. 158-159) would have studiously ignored Azekah’s neighbour fort (p. 140), the mighty Lachish. Sargon II claims to have subdued Judah (as noted on p. 154). For other resolutions, and arguments in favour of this equation, Ashdod = Lachish, see pp. 151, 160-162. As regards the equation Rages = Damascus, the 3rd examiner has made the comment: “… simply contradictory … Rages, situated in a mountainous terrain, was equated with Damascus which was correctly noted as being located in a plain …”. Now this, the only occasion when the 3rd examiner has credited me with being ‘correct’, in fact mis-states what I had actually written. I discussed all this in Volume Two, Chapter 2, pp. 38-40, where I had specifically claimed that “Rages”, a city in the mountains, must be the city of Damascus that dominated the province of Batanaea” (p. 39). Damascus, almost 700 m above sea level, is actually situated on a plateau. Secondly, I gave there very specific geographical details in order to identify this “Rages” in relation to “Ecbatana” (Tobit 5:6), which I had in turn identified (following the Heb. Londinii, or HL, fragment version of Tobit) with “Bathania”, or Bashan (possibly Herodotus’ Syrian Ecbatana as opposed to the better known Median Ecbatana). According to Tobit, “Rages is situated in the mountains, two days’ walk from Ecbatana which is in the plain”. Now Damascus is precisely two days’ walk from Bashan in the Hauran plain, as according to Jâkût el-Hamawi who says of Batanaea’s most central town of Nawâ …: “Between Nawa and Damascus is two days’ journey” (as quoted on p. 39). What further consolidates the fact that Tobit’s ‘Ecbatana’ was in a westerly direction, rather than an easterly one, is that his son Tobias, leaving Nineveh, arrived at the Tigris river in the evening; an impossibility were he heading for Median Ecbatana in the east. And, according to the Vulgate version of Tobit, Charan, that is, Haran, is situated “in the halfway” between Nineveh and Ecbatana. The traveller is clearly journeying towards the west. Whilst Bible scholars today tend to dismiss the whole geography of the Book of Tobit as nonsensical, a simple adjustment based on a genuine version (Heb. Londinii), makes perfect - even very precise (“two days walk”) - sense of it. Thirdly, “vague similarities” 3rd examiner: “Vague similarities were used as a means of drawing identical equations. Thus, for example, the use of kohl was found to be a similarity between Jezebel (conventionally dated to 9th century BC) and Nefertiti (conventionally dated to 14th century BC), which was subsequently used to suggest that they were probably the same person. This appeared to make the evidence fit the desired outcome”. My comment: I hardly hung my reconstruction on this small point of the kohl. As part of my primary foundations, 1-3, I had re-located the el-Amarna period (Nefertiti’s age) from the C14th BC to the C9th BC. The 1st examiner, according to whom: “pp. 210-222 – While the equation of Nefertiti with Jezebel is intriguing, I don’t buy it”, had conceded that: “It is a better argument for their contemporaneity rather than identity”. Note here that the 1st examiner was fully aware that my reconstruction of Nefertiti far exceeds (“pp. 210-222”) the mere mention of “kohl” (p. 221). “Kohl” is an element that the seemingly “eye witness” (P. Ellis quote, p. 221) account of Jezebel’s death has included, and it is certainly a notable feature of Nefertiti’s cosmetic make-up. But I intended it merely as just one small piece in a large jigsaw puzzle, or possible Identikit. Now this is a typical ploy of the 3rd examiner, to minimize the evidence I used for a particular reconstruction. Indeed the very same procedure can be found in the following two instances of criticism: (3rd examiner): “Thus, for example, to propose that two Assyrian monarchs, Sargon II and Sennacherib … were not only one and the same person, but also identical with the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar I, is a simply stunning claim. One needs far more than chronological concurrence (which itself was not convincingly argued for) to make this claim, yet no further convincing grounds were given”. My comments: Apart from the fact that I had previously addressed the ‘dark age’ problem in ‘Middle Assyrian’ history Chapter 6, pp. 130-131, then applying this to Babylonia, Chapter 7, pp. 174-176, I had then begun to bridge the gap between ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyrian history. I did this particularly by synchronizing the circumstances of Tukulti-Ninurta I and III, and then making a detailed comparison between Tiglath-pileser I and III, Chapter 7, pp. 181-184, accompanied also by comparisons between the Babylonian Merodach-baladan I and II (whose building works even archaeologists cannot clearly distinguish, p. 179). I also showed that a succession of supposedly C12th BC Elamite kings (known as the ‘Shutrukids’), encountered by Nebuchednezzar I, had virtually the same names as a succession of Elamite kings encountered by Sennacherib. Thus (my Table 1, p. 180): 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!”, I had remarked. The 1st examiner, as we read, appreciated this. [I also gave art-historical support for this ‘folding’ of eras (p. 181). And I identified, as the same person, a legendary Vizier common to both eras (p. 185-187). On pp. 184-186, I entered into a discussion of Sennacherib as Nebuchednezzar I]. Moreover, my explanation (Sennacherib = Nebuchednezzar I, pp. 184-186) solved the conundrum for the conventional history as to why the proud Sargon II, or Sennacherib, did not - like previous Assyrian conquerors of Babylon - adopt the title: “King of Babylon”, “preferring to use the older shakkanaku (‘viceroy’)” (p. 185). “That modesty however was not an Assyrian characteristic we have already seen abundantly”, I wrote. “And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon in fact, I believe, that historians have had to create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the Assyrian’s rôle as ‘King of Babylon’.” My point here is again that this construction was built on far more than, according to the 3rd examiner, “chronological concurrence”. Moreover, I was not averse to pointing to certain defects in my own reconstruction (e.g. p. 185, a major problem). And for the actual equation, Sargon II = Sennacherib, a matter of extreme controversy, no doubt, and one therefore requiring detailed attention, I had painstakingly throughout Chapter 6 (1st examiner used the word, “comprehensive”) gone through the successive regnal year events of Sargon II, comparing these with the successive campaign records of Sennacherib, showing that they compared remarkably well: too well, indeed, I thought, to have been mere coincidence. Here is my summary and comment on this (from p. 166): A Question By Way of Summary What are the chances of two successive kings having, in such perfect chronological sequence - over a span of some two decades - the same campaigns against the same enemies? Merodach-baladan (Sargon). Merodach-baladan (Sennacherib). 2. Ellipi, Medes and Tumunu (Sargon). Ellipi, Medes and Tumunu (Sennacherib). 3. Egypt-backed Judah/Philistia (Sargon). Egypt-backed Judah/Philistia (Sennacherib) 4. Merodach-baladan and Elam (Sargon). Merodach-baladan and Elam (Sennacherib). 5. (Not fully preserved) (Sargon). (Not fully preserved) (Sennacherib). 6. Babylon, Elam and Bit-Iakin (Sargon). Babylon, Elam and Bit-Iakin (Sennacherib). 7. Elam (Sargon). Elam (Sennacherib). [End of quote]. (iv) ‘Dark Age’ (paragraph 13); At the beginning of Chapter 6, I resorted to the testimony of Assyriologists re some crucial phases of Dark Age in Assyrian history. I drew some of this information from the book, Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James and other scholars from different fields. Though James is a revisionist, this book (which has a Foreword by Professor/Lord Colin Renshaw, archaeologist) is now being quoted favourably in text books, e.g. by N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1992), p. 440. I continued this discussion of Dark Age into Chapter 7, as noted above, and also returned to it in detail when analyzing the TIP in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12. Here I would like just to take a section out of my Chapter 7, p. 175, re the Kassite archaeology, or lack thereof, to show clearly that there is something seriously wrong with the present structure: It is not I think too much to say that the Kassites are an enigma for the over-extended conventional scheme. Roux has given the standard estimate for the duration of Kassite rule of Babylonia: “… a long line of Kassite monarchs was to govern Mesopotamia or, as they called it, Kar-Duniash for no less than four hundred and thirty-eight years (1595-1157 B.C.)”. This is a substantial period of time; yet archaeology has surprisingly little to show for it. Roux again: Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets (letters and economic texts), less than 10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1. [Seton] Lloyd, in his book dedicated to the study of Mesopotamian archaeology [The Archaeology of Mesopotamia] can give only a mere 4 pages [i.e., pp. 172-175] (including pictures) to the Kassites, without even bothering to list them in the book’s Index at the back. [End of quote]. (v) footnotes/aesthetics (paragraphs 14-15) 3rd examiner: “… consistently incorrect use of such terms as ibid. and op. cit.” [para 14], and “consistently redundant use of ellipsis (…) in quotations” [para 15]. My comment: These are matters that can easily be tidied up before the thesis is bound. All three examiners had some comment to make regarding footnotes. Though I can see no other alternative than to using ellipsis - as I have continued to do in this Appendix – when employing only selected parts of a quote.

Hezekiah's Assyrian King Foe

Taken from: http://creationwiki.org/Hezekiah

....

Identity of the Assyrian King

The name of the king of Assyria with whom Hezekiah ultimately fought a war is in dispute. James Ussher^[1] states that Shalmaneser V, the conqueror of the Kingdom of Israel, died in 717 BC, four years after his successful conquest. His authority for this appears to be the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Secular scholars, using modern archaeological evidence, state that Shalmaneser died in 723 BC, which is why Thiele insists that the Fall of Samaria took place in that year). Sargon II succeeded him, and he completed the conquest of Samaria. He died in 705 BC and Sennacherib acceded to the throne in that year, and this is why Thiele insists that Hezekiah's suspension of the annual tribute took place in that year, and the siege of Jerusalem then took place in 701 BC.

Mackey^[21] presents an excellent analysis providing independent support of Ussher's claim^[1] that Sargon was the same man as Sennacherib, the immediate successor to Shalmaneser. Mackey's basis is the appearance of identical sequences of six different wars in both men's inscriptions. Although Mackey still assumes that Shalmaneser died before completing the capture of Samaria, Mackey's most important and relevant contribution in this context is showing that Sargon and Sennacherib are one and the same man.

Jones^[2] finds no grounds to dispute the placement of Sargon between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, or the traditional dates of accession of Sargon and Sennacherib. He cites Isaiah (Isaiah 20:1 ) for proof that Sargon existed independently of Shalmaneser. Then he suggests that Sennacherib was Sargon's chief-of-staff, or "Tartan," when he first invaded Judah, (2_Kings 18:13 ) and had become viceroy of Assyria under his father Sargon when he besieged Jerusalem five years later. (Isaiah 36-37 )

....

In Search of ‘Alternative’ Historical Anchor Points for the Era of King Hezekiah [EOH]

Taken (modified) from:

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

….

Having discussed the problems, and having proposed the need for a lowering of early Egyptian chronology, and of those nations chronologically tied to Egypt, I shall now focus upon my blueprint for an ‘alternative’ model. More specifically, I shall propose in outline here an ‘alternative’ set of chronological anchor points that are relevant to EOH and that, as far as possible, combine Egypt/Ethiopia, Israel and Mesopotamia.

65 Op. cit, Appendix, p. 392. D. Brewer, as late as 2005, gives Sothic-based dates for Egypt’s dynasties, e.g. 1782 for the end of the 12th dynasty. Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilization, Table 1.1, pp. 9-11.

66 Histoire de la Civilisation Égyptienne, my translation, pp. 26, 27.

67 But revisionists disagree as to the degree of lowering required: some following Velikovsky and Courville in favouring the 500 year downward shift; others, like James and Rohl, now preferring to go about halfway between the early revision and the conventional scheme.

68 Op. cit, p. 272.

These points I shall elaborate upon in subsequent chapters.

My starting point and foundation will be:

1. THE FALL OF SAMARIA

This famous event has traditionally been dated to c. 722/21 BC69 and, according to the statement in 2 Kings, it occurred “in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of King Hoshea of Israel” (18:10). While all this seems straightforward enough, more recent versions of biblical chronology, basing themselves on the research of the highly regarded Professor Thiele,70 have made impossible the retention of such a promising syncretism between king Hoshea and king Hezekiah by dating the beginning of the latter’s reign to 716/715 BC, about six years after the fall of Samaria. Moreover, there is disagreement over whether Samaria fell once or twice (in quick succession) to the Assyrians (e.g. to Shalmaneser V in 722 BC, and then again to Sargon II in 720 BC); with Assyriologist Tadmor, whom Thiele has followed, claiming a ‘reconquest’ of Samaria by Sargon II.71 Let us briefly touch upon these objections here, to be discussed and analysed in more detail in Chapter 5 (p. 127) and Chapter 12 (3.).

Firstly, regarding the Hezekian chronology in its relationship to the fall of Samaria, one of the reasons for Thiele’s having arrived at, and settled upon, 716/715 BC as the date for the commencement of reign of the Judaean king was due to the following undeniable problem that arises from a biblical chronology that takes as its point of reference the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology. I set out the ‘problem’ here in standard terms.

If Samaria fell in the 6th year of Hezekiah, as the Old Testament tells it, then Hezekiah’s reign must have begun about 728/727 B.C. If so, his 14th year, the year in which Sennacherib threatened Jerusalem, must have been about 714 B.C. But this last is, according to the conventional scheme, about ten years before Sennacherib became king and about thirteen years before his campaign against Jerusalem which is currently dated to 701 B.C. On the other hand, if Hezekiah’s reign began fourteen years before Sennacherib’s campaign, that is in 715 B.C, it began about twelve to thirteen years too late for Hezekiah to have been king for six years before the fall of Samaria. In short, the problem as seen by chronologists is whether the starting point of Hezekiah’s reign should be dated in relationship to the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C, or to the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.

A second reason for Thiele’s divergence from the traditional dating for Hezekiah, to be more fully discussed in Chapter 5, is that Thiele, following others such as Zöckler,72 had found no evidence whatsoever for any contact between king Hezekiah and king Hoshea.

69 E. Thiele dates it to 723/722 BC. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 162.

70 Ibid, ch. 9: “The Chronology of the Kings of Judah (715-561 BC)”.

71 H. Tadmor, ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur’, p. 94. Tadmor here refers to Sargon’s “reconquest of Samaria”. For Thiele’s discussion of what he calls Tadmor’s “masterly analysis”, see Thiele, op. cit, e.g. pp. 167-168.

72 Ibid, p. 169, with reference to O. Zöckler et al. in n. 20.

Not even when Hezekiah had, in his first year, sent his invitations throughout Hoshea’s territory for the great Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30). Thus Thiele could not accept that these two kings had reigned concurrently.

In regard to the first point, the true date of commencement of the reign of king Hezekiah, I should simply like to make the general comment here that this is in fact an artificial ‘problem’. The situation has arisen, as we shall find, from Thiele’s heavy reliance upon the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology, which, as I shall be arguing in Chapter 6, has been significantly over-stretched, thereby doubling the activities of the one Assyrian king: Sargon II/Sennacherib.73 Failure to recognize this - and a too confident reliance upon the conventional scheme in general - has caused Thiele, and those who have followed him, to turn the reign of Hezekiah of Judah into one of the most vexed problems of Old Testament chronology.

And, despite the undoubted merits of Thiele’s own chronological scheme, his treatment of the chronology of king Hezekiah, specifically, is perhaps the least satisfactory part of his entire work.

With Sennacherib found (as will be the case in Chapter 6, e.g. p. 146) to have been at work in connection with both the fall of Samaria and, of course, the campaign in Hezekiah’s 14th year, then it becomes necessary to date the Judaean king’s reign in relationship to both, and not merely to one, of these significant Assyrian campaigns.

Thiele’s other point, about the lack of evidence for contemporaneity of reigns between Hoshea and Hezekiah, is indeed a legitimate one, as is also Tadmor’s argument – in connection with the neo-Assyrian evidence - in favour of two actual conquests of Samaria by the Assyrians. I shall be returning to these two matters, to discuss them, in Part II and Part III; Thiele’s point in Chapter 5 (pp. 126-127) and Tadmor’s in Chapter 5 (pp. 127-128) and Chapter 12 (3.).

The biblical dating of the fall of Samaria in relation to Hezekiah, which I shall be defending - after having endeavoured properly to co-ordinate all of the relevant syncretisms - will turn out to be almost perfect for my multi-chronological purposes; though unfortunately lacking any unequivocal link with Ethiopia/Egypt. However, in my next ‘anchor’ point below, 2. ‘King So of Egypt’, I shall be proposing such a connection between the fall of Samaria and Egypt; one to be more fully developed in Part III, Chapter 8 and Chapter 12 (1.). But even without any reference to Ethiopia/Egypt, this famous incident - when properly co-ordinated - connects:

(i) a regnal year of a king of Judah and

(ii) a regnal year of a king of Israel, with

(iii) an Assyrian reference to the incident, biblically reinforced (see Chapter 5, p. 127), and

(iv) a chronological connection with Babylonia via the Assyrian records (see Chapter 5, p. 128). Moreover,

(v) it belongs within EOH.

73 See e.g. Thiele’s acceptance of the conventionally determined “701 [BC as] a precise date from which

we may go forward or backward on the basis of the regnal data to all other dates in our pattern”. Ibid, p.

174.

My entire thesis will in fact be built around this conventional date of c. 722 BC – though now in need of restoration - and the perspective that this incident offers in its relation to the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah.74 The fall of Samaria in c. 722 BC will enable me to develop a most satisfactory chronology for the 29-year reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:2); for, if the king’s sixth year fell in c. 722 BC, then I do not think that I shall err too far mathematically if I set down 727-699 BC as the period for king Hezekiah’s reign, from his accession year to death. (See Table 7, p. 393).

This is quite different of course from Thiele’s proposed chronology for king Hezekiah, which has sacrificed those vital biblical syncretisms.

Now, to the related incident concerning:

2. ‘KING SO OF EGYPT’

But the king of Assyria found treachery in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to King So of Egypt … and offered no tribute to the king of Assyria as he had done year by year; therefore the king of Assyria confined him and imprisoned him. (2 Kings 17:4)

I need firstly here to introduce Velikovsky’s own proposed resolution to the identity of ‘King So of Egypt’, involving as it does the dismantling of one of the key ‘pillars’ of conventional Egyptian chronology, namely that Sosenk (Shoshenq) I = ‘Shishak’, and the establishment of an entirely new one, Sosenk (Shoshenq) = ‘So’; this last being of the utmost relevance to this thesis.

We saw that Breasted, in thrall to the mathematical bonds of the Sothic theory, had astronomically fixed, to the C15th BC, two incidents in the first campaign of the warrior pharaoh, Thutmose III. Velikovsky however, unfettered by the tyrannical ties of ‘Sothicism’, was free to reconsider the place of Thutmose III in history. In Velikovsky’s re-setting of the 18th dynasty - with Egypt’s resurgent New Kingdom after the Hyksos era chronologically paralleling the emergence of Israel’s monarchy after the oppressive period of the Judges - Thutmose III newly emerged as a younger contemporary of king Solomon of Israel and a contemporary of the latter’s son, Rehoboam. In Velikovsky’s revised location this most potent of pharaohs, Thutmose III, whom Breasted had eulogized as a “genius which ... reminds us of an Alexander or a Napoleon ...”,75 had inevitably displaced the unlikely Sosenk (Shoshenq) I as the biblical ‘Shishak’.76

74 The actual numerical date 722, though, is a figure that I shall retain only for convenience’s sake as I do not consider it to be an entirely accurate mathematical figure that will stand the test of a full BC revision. To perfect the date for the fall of Samaria would require a complete revision of the final 7 centuries of the BC period, a task obviously well beyond the scope of this thesis.

75 As cited by E. Danelius, ‘Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?’, p. 68.

76 Ages in Chaos, ch. 4.

It remained to be shown that Thutmose III had ‘Shishak’-like features, apart from his obvious military brilliance. Velikovsky was, as I see it, partly stunningly successful in his demonstrating of this, and partly rather inadequate.

On the positive side, Velikovsky had importantly created ‘a context’ for Thutmose III in his Theses and in his Ages in Chaos I, by his re-setting of the entire 18th dynasty, from its founder Ahmose (time of Saul), through Queen Hatshepsut (biblical ‘Queen Sheba’), Thutmose III (‘Shishak’),77 and on into the el-Amarna [hereafter EA] period of Amenhotep III and IV (Akhnaton); the latter being a richly documented era that Velikovsky had painstakingly integrated with the mid-C9th BC scene in Palestine and Mesopotamia; sometimes with brilliant results, sometimes with embarrassing gaffes. See my own detailed discussions of EA, in a significantly modified Velikovskian-based context, in Part I, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 and Part III, Chapter 9 and Chapter 10.

And Velikovsky had a trump card in his revisionist pack. For he was able to show, from a detailed comparison of the luxurious items that Thutmose III and his military officers had carried back to Egypt from the first campaign into Palestine, with items that the Bible attributes to the Temple of Yahweh built by Solomon, and to Solomon’s palace, that Thutmose III had indeed plundered Jerusalem of its fabulous Solomonic wealth.78

Less convincing though were Velikovsky’s attempts to link any name of Thutmose III with ‘Shishak’, or to reconstruct a geography for the pharaoh’s first campaign that showed Thutmose III had actually come unto Jerusalem. But these matters may have since, I think, been largely rectified by Velikovskian modifiers79.

Thus Velikovsky had, with some later astute help from colleagues, whether acceptable to him or otherwise,80 sent crashing to the ground one of the main chronological ‘pillars’ of the text book Egyptian history: namely, that Shoshenq I = ‘Shishak’. At the same time, Velikovsky had been careful to replace what he had snatched away. For not only had he established Thutmose III (= ‘Shishak’) as a resplendent new ‘pillar’ of biblico-historical chronology, and one that I think will stand the test of time, but he also took the pharaoh whom he had knocked down from his pedestal, Shoshenq I, and set him up, too, as a new

‘pillar’, likewise Bible-based, as ‘King So’.

Or at least Velikovsky took a pharaoh ‘Shoshenq’, though he appears to have identified him in his Theses preferably with Shoshenq IV, whom he nonetheless connected with Shoshenq I:81 “Pharaoh So who received gifts from Hoshea was Sosenk IV, and his bas-relief scene pictures this tribute. Sosenk regularly placed as I (first) was IV (last)”.

77 This colourful phase of Velikovsky’s revision has since been greatly modified and developed by revisionists, including E. Metzler’s ‘Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt’, and my own ‘Solomon and Sheba’.

78 Ages in Chaos, pp. 148-154. Courville fully endorsed Velikovsky’s reconstruction in this regard. Op. cit, I, pp. 271-272.

79 E.g. (a) geographically, by Danelius, op. cit; and (b) the name factor, by K. Birch, who proposed that the name ‘Shishak’ may have been taken from one of Thutmose III’s other names, Tcheser-kau, or Sheser-kau,

‘Shishak Mystery?’, p. 35.

80 It should be noted for instance that Velikovsky himself, as much as he claimed to have admired the research of Dr. Danelius, did not actually accept her geographical modification of his thesis. ‘A Response to Eva Danelius’, p. 80.

81 Velikovsky, as quoted by A. Dirkzwager, ‘Pharaoh So and the Libyan Dynasty’, p. 19.

King Hoshea of Israel’s decision to woo Egypt would turn out to be a most fateful one for the northern kingdom. The narrative of 2 Kings continues on to tell of what followed subsequent to Hoshea’s imprisonment by the Assyrians:

Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria; for three years he besieged it. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria; he carried the Israelites away to Assyria. He placed them in Halah, on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. (vv. 5-6)

One can easily see from the course of this narrative that the involvement of pharaoh ‘So’ in the affairs of Israel, and the consequent siege of Samaria by the king of the Assyrians, were closely related events and could not therefore have been far apart in time. In other words, Hoshea’s turning to ‘So’ must have coincided very closely to c. 725 BC, the generally estimated date for the commencement of Assyria’s siege of Samaria. Hoshea would have sent his ambassadors to pharaoh ‘So’ not long prior to that date; hence, very close to c. 727 BC, our estimated year of commencement for the reign of Hezekiah.

Possibly there may even have been a connection between Hoshea’s revolt against Assyria and Hezekiah’s far-reaching first-year reform; a reform that would go counter to his father Ahaz’s policies (2 Chronicles 29:3-31-21) - perhaps including the latter’s pro-Assyrian stance, since Hezekiah’s own reform was immediately followed by Sennacherib’s invasion (32:1).

Thus there is an undeniably close connection between ‘anchor’ points 1. and 2, with the latter now likely providing us with our hitherto lacking Egyptian contemporary for the fall of Samaria. I shall look to identify and consolidate this candidate in Chapter 12.

The next anchor point that I shall propose for EOH belongs to a most climactic year midway through the reign of king Hezekiah.

It is:

3. HEZEKIAH’S FOURTEENTH YEAR

This Hezekiah-linked date is spelled out in grand terms, in almost exactly the same words in fact, in 2 Kings 18:13 and Isaiah 36:1: “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them”.

….

We are going to find also that this was the year that Merodach-baladan [II] of Babylonia sent presents to Hezekiah, making this a year that links up Judah, Assyria and Babylon.

Once again Ethiopia/Egypt is missing from the scenario. But this is such a key incident in the reign of king Hezekiah, and one that is dated, that it cannot be left out. By biblical reckoning, taking c. 722 BC to be Hezekiah’s sixth year, then his “fourteenth year” when Sennacherib invaded Judah must have been c. 714 BC.

But what do we find in the conventional history? And indeed in Thiele’s chronology?

Certainly not Sennacherib, whose reign is estimated to have commenced at 704 BC, but Sargon II, who is supposed to have reigned until 705 BC,82 almost a decade after Hezekiah’s fourteenth year! No wonder that Thiele had found himself stranded between two non-harmonious points of reference for Hezekiah!

A similar sort of anachronism arising from the conventional estimation of Sargon II’s reign has emerged in the past few years with the publicising of the Iranian Kurdistan insckription of Tang-i Var, showing neo-Assyrian history to be significantly out of harmony with the 25th Ethiopian (or Cushite) dynasty of Egypt. (See Chapter 6, p. 144, and Chapter 12, 2, for further consideration of this important text). The Tang-i Var inscription pertains to the revolt against Assyria of one Iamani of ‘Ashdod’ (who figures also in anchor no. 4. below), and I suspect that its contents will require Egyptologists to revise their current absolute chronology for Egypt’s 25th dynasty.

Thus there appears to be both biblical and non-biblical support for the view that neo-Assyrian chronology (like the Egyptian chronology) has not been properly constructed.

My fourth anchor point for EOH will be:

4. SARGON II’S ‘ASHDOD’ CAMPAIGN

Redford has actually called this campaign, that he dates to 712 BC, “an anchor date”. Here is his account (my dating of these events will be slightly different from his):83 Thanks to a variety of studies over the last 25 years, the year 712 B.C. has emerged as an anchor date in the history of the Late Period in Egypt. The general course of events leading up to and culminating in the Assyrian campaign against Ashdod in that year is now fairly sure, and may be sketched as follows. Sometime early in 713 B.C. the Assyrians deposed Aziri [Azuri], king of Ashdod on suspicion of lese-majeste, and appointed one Ahimetti [Akhi-miti] to replace him. Very shortly thereafter, however, and probably still in 713, a spontaneous uprising of the Ashdod populace removed this Assyrian puppet in favor of a usurper Yamani [Iamani].

82 These dates are the ones given for instance by M. van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 292, and by G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, ‘Chronological Tables, vii: Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods (744-539 BC)’.

83 ‘A Note on the Chronology of Dynasty 25 and the Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var’, pp. 6-7.

Throughout the fall and winter of 713 Yamani contacted the other Philistine cities and the inland states of Judah, Moab, and Edom in an effort to organize an anti-Assyrian coalition, and sent to “Pharaoh (Pir’u) king of Egypt” for aid.

In the spring of 712, however, Sargon dispatched the tartan [Turtan] with a detachment of troops against Ashdod, and Yamani fled in haste to Egypt. Unable to find a safe haven in Egypt, Yamani passed clean through the land ana ite Musri sa pat Meluhha, “to the frontier of Egypt which is (contiguous) to the territory of Kush.” At this point he fell into the hands of the king of Kush who, at an unspecified later date, extradited him to Assyria.

The incident discussed here will become a crucial one in this thesis (see Chapter 12, 2, 5.), serving a truly multi-chronological purpose for EOH, with Assyria, Palestine, Egypt and Ethiopia (‘Kush’) all being involved here.

My final anchor point for EOH will be:

5. THE DEFEAT OF SENNACHERIB’S ARMY

This is really still a work-in-progress at this stage, since this most famous incident has not yet been established, but still needs to be found, and securely dated. To achieve this end will be one of the primary tasks of this thesis (culminating in VOLUME TWO), as this event would have to be considered as being the pinnacle of Hezekiah’s entire reign. The defeat of Sennacherib’s army, the when, how and why of it, will be the climax of the tense drama that will be found to emerge from VOLUME TWO, Part II of this thesis.

To give the reader a date preview, though, I shall be dating the defeat of Sennacherib’s army of 185,000 troops, in correlation with my previous dates for king Hezekiah, to approximately 703 BC.

Now, arranging these five anchor points for EOH into their proper chronological order, we find that they range very nicely through almost the entire (revised) reign of king Hezekiah of Judah (c. 727-699 BC):

727 BC. KING SO (HEZEKIAH YEAR 1).

722 BC. FALL OF SAMARIA (HEZEKIAH YEAR 6).

714 BC. SENNACHERIB INVADES JUDAH (HEZEKIAH YEAR 14).

712 BC. SARGON II’S ‘ASHDOD’ CAMPAIGN (HEZEKIAH YEAR 16).

703 BC. SENNACHERIB’S ARMY DEFEATED IN PALESTINE (HEZEKIAH YEAR