Some Serious Anomalies with Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria”.

 

Toby has written: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874

 

Hello all,

I am continuing to review David Rice’s ‘Time and Prophecy’ in regards [to] 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. ….

 

Synchronizing Hezekiah with Tiglathpileser (King of Assyria) Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon) Merodachbaladan (King of Babylon), Sargon (King of Assyria and 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 [say] 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 [British] 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’ … claims they are one and the same person.

 

[Mackey. See up-dated: “Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib” https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sen]

 

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 [accession] 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 [soldiers] 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 [travel] to ‘level’ one city? Well, say it took two weeks to [travel] 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 [warmongering], 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. ….

“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”.

 

 

Toby has further written:

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

 

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 … much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL …. 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 … 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 …. 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 ….:

 

[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 ….:

 

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 ….:

 

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 ...".

….

 

Horrible Histories: Unreal Urartians

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Very little is known about this ancient place and the origins of its people.

Who were they? Where did they come from? The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources”.

Recurring words historians will use to describe the ancient Urartians and their kingdom of Urartu (or Ararat) are “mysterious” and “enigmatic”.

For instance: http://www.ancientpages.com/2014/06/22/mysterious-lost-kingdom-of-urartu-and-its-enigmatic-history/

Mysterious Lost Kingdom Of Urartu

And Its Enigmatic History

A. Sutherland – AncientPages.com – The lost kingdom of Urartu is shrouded in mystery because very little is known about this ancient place  and the origins of its people.

This time our journey takes us to ancient Armenia where we look for traces of the mysterious lost kingdom of Urartu as it was called by the Assyrians.

The Hebrews referred to it as Ararat and in more modern times it has been named Kingdom of Van.

Mackey’s comment: it was there, “on the mountains of Ararat”, that the Ark landed.

See e.g. my:

Mountain of landing for the Ark of Noah

https://www.academia.edu/35414295/Mountain_of_landing_for_the_Ark_of_Noah

The article, “Mysterious Lost Kingdom Of Urartu”, continues with further obscurities:

The kingdom’s beginnings are lost in the mists of pre-history, but before it was destroyed, Urartu was situated in Eastern Turkey, Iran and the modern Armenian Republic.

The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources.

Based on what we know, the people of Urartu were famous metalworkers, spoke a language that was related to Hurrian (a language that has no other known connections), and they adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for their own purposes.

….

Although it cannot be said with certainty, it appears that from the ninth century on, Urartu was ruled by a single dynasty ….

The true origin of the people of Urartu is unknown. Some historians think these people people migrated from somewhere to the west into the Armenian plateau, then for the most part known as Nairi. They called themselves Khaldians or children of the god Khaldis, just as the name of the Assyrians reflects the name of their god Assur.

….

Several attempts have been made to decipher the cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia through the present-day Armenian language.

The failure of these attempts has led some to believe that the inscriptions in question must be in some unknown, alien tongue, neither Indo-European nor Semitic.

….

Sooner or later everything must come to [an] end, and so did the existence of the Kingdom of Urartu. The fall of the Kingdom of Urartu is shrouded in darkness. The kingdom was succumbed in around 585 – 590 BCE. However, there is no written account of this event and this timescale is not undisputed.

Similarly, again, we read at: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/ancient-artifacts-shed-new-light-mysterious-kingdom-urartu/

Ancient Artifacts Shed New Light On

The Mysterious Kingdom Of Urartu

….

The mysterious kingdom of Urartu does still hold many ancient secrets. The kingdom’s beginnings are lost in the mists of pre-history, but before it was destroyed, Urartu was situated in Eastern Turkey, Iran and the modern Armenian Republic.

In ancient times the kingdom of Urartu was known under a variety of different names. The Assyrians called it Urartu and the Hebrews referred to it as Ararat, and in more modern times it has been named Kingdom of Van.

Very little is known about this ancient place and the origins of its people. Who were they? Where did they come from? The earliest documentary mention of the land of Urartu can be found in Assyrian sources.

Based on what we know, the people of Urartu were famous metalworkers, spoke a language that was related to Hurrian (a language that has no other known connections), and they adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for their own purposes.

….

Obviously people of Urartu knew their kingdom was about to vanish and made a last attempt to hide some precious objects with hope these would survive as a reminder of the kingdom’s existence.

Unfortunately, a large number of these artifacts, including most of the inscribed objects, have not been excavated. For example, many Urartian cemeteries with their hundreds of burial goods have been robbed, while only a few (such as the cemetery at Altintepe) have been properly excavated. This means that archaeologists have been deprived of a complete and contextual knowledge of the culture and precious history has been lost once again.

This brilliant era of Urartu did not last long and the kingdom disappeared rapidly from history. ….

North, south, east, or west?

http://www.catastrophism.com/amember/plugins/protect/new_rewrite/login.php?v=-any&url=/online/pubs/journals/cat-anc/vol0402/071hitt.htm

“That the Kingdom of Urartu was imperialistic can be deduced by the fortress-like citadels constructed in strategic positions, presumably harboring military garrisons. But where did they come from, we may wonder'! The barbarian north? The Semitic south? Or Anatolia? Velikovsky identified the Hittites with the Chaldeans, and the Chaldeans in turn with the Urartians … and claims that "striking similarities" occur between Hitttite and Urartian art. Khaldis (or Khaldia) was a Urartian deity recorded by Sargon II following his capture of the city of Musasir (site unknown) around 714 B.C. …. As the chief deity of the captured city its image was ritualistically removed from its shrine, signifying subjugation. Assuming Khaldis to be the ancestor god, these people may then tentatively be identified with the Armenian tribe known to the Greeks and Romans several centuries later as the "Chalybes" ...”.

Somewhat more positive about the Urartians is revisionist Robert H. Hewsen, who has written as follows (“Anatolia and Historical Concepts”): http://archive.is/t134Y#selection-83.1-83.32

According to Velikovsky's chronology the Hurrians would disappear in ca. 865, while, in ca. 860 - five years later - we first hear in Assyrian records of Aramu, king of a state first called in Assyrian Uruatri and then Urartu.²¹⁾ This state was a federation of smaller states and peoples of the Armenian Plateau welded together through the arms of the Kings of Biaina.²²⁾ The history of this Urartian federation and of its long struggle with Assyria is rather well known thanks to its conspicious inscriptions, and these enable us to determine that its language was closely akin to Hurrian. Indeed, Burney, one of the few western authorities on Urartu, states `the Urartian language was closely related to Hurrian, so much so that, whatever the reservations of some philologists, it may legitimately be described as latter-day Hurrian.²³⁾

Now using the conventional chronology, archaeology has discovered that one of those ubiquitous dark ages exists on the Armenian Plateau between the disappearance of the Hurrians and the emergence of the Urartian state, a period which Burney describes as somewhere between six to ten centuries in duration.²⁴⁾ According to Velikovsky's chronology, Burney exaggerates. The imaginary gap would be somewhere between seven and eight centuries and would not represent any dark age.

Rather, its presence would be due to the inaccuracies of the traditional chronology. Since the dates of the Hurrians and Mitannians are bound to those of the so-called Hittites, and the date of the Hittites is bound to what Velikovsky considers the erroneous chronology of Egypt, these dates, he feels have led to the unnatural separation of the Hurrians and the Urartians by perhaps as much as 700 to 800 years.

The Urartian federation would thus be nothing [more] than a new Hurrian formation which arose immediately following, and perhaps because of, the destruction of Mitanni in the ninth century BC. The traditional and incessant hostility between the Urartians and the Assyrians may well have begun as a result of the Assyrian role in the destruction of Mitanni.²⁵⁾

Now, I mentioned earlier that Velikovsky notes that the Urartians were called Khaldu and that Chaldeans were encountered by Xenophon on his march through Armenia in 401-400 BC. Actually the term Chaldean for the Urartians is an arbitrary one adopted by Lehmann-Haupt, who, since the Assyrians were called after their chief god, Ashur, patterned the name of the Urartians after their chief god, Khaldis, and who believed that the Chaldeans encountered by Xenophon 200 years after the fall of Urartu were surviving Urartians under their native name.²⁶⁾

We know now, however, that the Chaldeans of the Armenian Plateau were only one component of the Urartian federation, which actually called itself `Biainili.<sup>27)</sup> Thus, while Velikovsky errs in thinking them to have been remnants of the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean state which he identifies with the `Hittite' Empire of central Anatolia.

The chronological revisions of Velikovsky affect the lesser peoples of eastern Anatolia as well. North of the Hittites lived the warlike Kashka tribes. First cited, in the conventional chronology, in ca. 1350 BC, Velikovsky's revisions would make them actually appear in ca. 850 BC. Since the Kashka are believed to be identical to the Qulha of eighth century Urartian sources, the new chronology places them between the Kashka and the Qulha. Since the Qulha are one of the peoples who went into the blend which produced the later Georgian people of Caucasia, the exact date of their first appearance is of some import for our understanding of the formation of Colchis, the earliest Georgian political entity.²⁸⁾

Finally, there is one other people whose traditional date is bound to that of the Hittites and thus to the traditional chronology of Egypt. These are the Hayasa, a people who traditionally flourished in the fourteenth century BC but, according to Velikovsky, in the ninth. Since the Armenians call themselves Hayk' (singular Hay), it has usually been accepted that, while Herodotus (7.73) calls them simply a Phrygian colony, they were probably an amalgamation of an Indo-European-speaking Phrygian tribe with local, perhaps Hurrian-speaking, Hayasa. The only problem was the chronology. The Armenians first appear in the sixth century BC, whereas the Hayasa were thought to have flourished in the fourteenth. Velikovsky's chronology reduces this gap by over 600 years and the link between the Hayasa and the Hayk'/Armenians becomes more secure.²⁹⁾

In conclusion, let me note that none of the evidence which I have gathered in this paper can be interpreted as proof of the exactness of Velikovsky's chronological revisions. Rather, I have merely attempted to apply his thesis to a particular part of the ancient East. I have tried to demonstrate that nothing he has to say presents any undue difficulties for this field but rather tends to simplify and clarify the history of the area. While this does not make Velikovsky correct, it certainly gives us pause. I cannot but urge all specialists to address themselves without prejudice to an investigation of their own areas of interest and expertise in the light of Dr. Velikovsky's work.

If ancient history stands in need of being rewritten, so be it. It will not be the first time. Perhaps we should at least attempt to determine if it is necessary for us to begin.^{30) ….}

Missing Mitannians



by

 Damien F. Mackey

“The Mitannians are perhaps one of the most enigmatic Near Eastern Superpowers.

Despite their impressive empire, we know remarkably little about them,

especially compared to the Egyptians or the Hittites”.

Introduction

Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) and Emmet Sweeney, historical revisionists, have, in recent times, arrived at some startling conclusions about ancient history - some of these warranting further critical examination, whilst other of their views appear to me to be extreme and well wide of the mark. In order to account for an apparent lack of due stratigraphy for, say, the Mitannians, or the neo-Assyrians, or the Medo-Persians, this pair (not always in perfect agreement) will attempt to merge any one of these with a far earlier kingdom, for instance, the ancient Akkadians to be merged as one with the neo-Assyrians.

Lester Mitcham, however, was able to expose Sweeney’s choices for comparisons using firm archaeological data in his article, “Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced” (SIS Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, No 1, May 1988).

The Akkadians and the neo-Assyrians were found to be two quite distinct peoples, well-separated in time, and speaking and writing quite different languages.

Mitcham demonstrated similarly the archaeological impossibility of Heinsohn’s and Sweeney’s bold efforts to fuse the Old Babylonian Dynasty of Hammurabi with the Persians – King Hammurabi supposedly being the same as Darius the Great.

Once again, different peoples, different geographies, different times.

Heinsohn and Sweeney do have, though, some degree of support for their argument that the Persian Empire, as classically presented, is seriously lacking in due archaeological strata. For professor Heinsohn, in his far-reaching article, “The Restoration of Ancient History” (http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/heinsohn.txt), refers to the results of some conferences in the 1980’s pointing to difficulties regarding the extent of the Medo-Persian empires:

In the 1980's, a series of eight major conferences brought together the world's finest experts on the history of the Medish and Persian empires. They reached startling results. The empire of Ninos [pre-Alexander period (3)] was not even mentioned. Yet, its Medish successors were extensively dealt with-to no great avail. In 1988, one of the organizers of the eight conferences, stated the simple absence of an empire of the Medes [pre-Alexander period (2)]:  "A Median oral tradition as a source for Herodotus III is a hypothesis that solves some problems, but has otherwise little to recommend it ... This means that not even in Herodotus' Median history a real empire is safely attested.  In Assyrian and Babylonian records and in the archeological evidence no vestiges of an imperial structure can be found. The very existence of a Median empire, with the emphasis on empire, is thus questionable" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "Was there ever a Median Empire?", in A. Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden, 1988, p. 212).

Two years later came the really bewildering revelation.  Humankind's first world empire of the Persians [Pre-Alexander Period (1)] did not fare much better than the Medes.  Its imperial dimensions had dryly to be labelled "elusive" (H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, "The quest for an elusive empire?", in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History IV. Centre and Periphery, Leiden l990, p. 264). ….

Enigma of the Mitannians

In their attempt to counteract what they have perceived to be the problem of the dearth of solid historical evidence for the Mitannians, professor Heinsohn and Emmet Sweeney arrived at the conclusion that the Mitanni and Median empires were one and the same.

Admittedly, the Mitannians seem to be a people without an adequate archaeology, a series of kings without precise geographical location.

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/superpowers-near-east/0/steps/19016

“The Mitannians are perhaps one of the most enigmatic Near Eastern Superpowers. Despite their impressive empire, we know remarkably little about them, especially compared to the Egyptians or the Hittites”.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mitanni

“[Mitanni’s] heartland was the Khābūr River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located”. But: http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/66326-mitanni.html

“They established a capital at Wassukanni, the location of which remains unknown”.

http://www.worldhistory.biz/ancient-history/66326-mitanni.html

“Very little of a definite nature is known about Mitanni’s leaders, internal history, and society. It appears that Mitannian society was dominated by a chariotowning warrior class known as the mary-annu, who owned large country estates and bred horses and sheep. Some or all of the members of this class may have been Indo-Europeans, suggesting some sort of cultural or political fusion of that group and the Hurrians in Mitanni”.

Who were the Mitannians?

And, might Emmet Sweeney have - amidst all of his unlikely conclusions - paved the way for an answer to this question in one of his bold claims: namely, that the Mitannian king Parratarna was Shamshi Adad I?  

I intend further to investigate this.

Where Sennacherib’s army was conquered



 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Setting the Campaign Scene

 

 

The massive, all-conquering Assyrian army, led by “Holofernes”, having brought into subjection the coastal Mediterranean cities, now turns its sights upon Israel.

 

 

 

Early in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

I had anticipated that (Volume One, p. 8): “Some important geographical revisions will also be proposed in this thesis”.

One of these pertained to Bethulia”:

 

“The most significant of these will be:

 

‘ASHDOD’, featuring prominently in Sargon II’s records as a fort leading a western rebellion against him, usually identified with the coastal Philistine city of that name (the latter now to be now identified with the ‘Ashdudimmu’, or maritime Ashdod, of the neo-Assyrian records), will be re-identified with the mighty Judaean fortress of LACHISH.

 

‘CONDUIT OF THE UPPER POOL, WHICH IS ON THE HIGHWAY TO THE FULLER’S FIELD’ (cf. 2 Kings 18:17 & Isaiah 7:3; 36:2), now to be identified as a location situated close to the Mount of olives, rather than right at the walls of Jerusalem itself.

 

‘BETHULIA’: Judith’s home town, to be identified with the northern BETHEL, that Jeroboam II of Israel had formerly turned into a pagan cult centre (e.g. Amos 7:10-13)”.

 

Then in Volume Two (“Identification of Bethulia”, pp. 69-71), I would embrace C. Conder’s identification of Bethulia with the village of Mithilia (or Mesilieh).

Whilst I am still holding to the first two of these, I have lately had cause to re-think the location and identification of Bethulia, about which identification I had written (Volume Two, p. 71): “I find quite satisfying this site (Mithilia/Meselieh), which appears to fit Bethulia in regard to its location, description, name (approximately) and apparent strategic importance”.

 

The Book of Judith is, in its present form, replete with personal and geographical name difficulties, a situation that has led scholars - particularly in more recent times - to relegate the book to the level of “pious” or “historical fiction”. As I noted in my Preface (p. x), I would try to sort things out by locating the drama to a very precise historical period:

 

The full resolution of this complicated matter though, as I see it, will not be found until Part II, with my merging of the Book of Judith with the Books of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah for the era of Hezekiah (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). I have nowhere read where this particular historical scenario for Judith has been attempted; though, in retrospect, the C8th BC Hezekian era for the Judith drama, with Sennacherib ruling in Assyria, now seems to me to be rather obvious.

Be that as it may, I know of virtually no current historians who even consider the Book of Judith to be anything other than a ‘pious fiction’, or perhaps ‘historical fiction’, with the emphasis generally on the ‘fiction’ aspect of this. Thus I feel a strong empathy for the solitary Judith in the midst of those differently-minded Assyrians (Judith 10:11-13:10).

 

Earlier in Volume Two (p. 27), I had quoted C. Moore regarding difficulties that commentators have encountered concerning the geographical account of the Assyrian campaign:

 

Moore tells of some of the problems associated with this particular campaign account: ….

Chaps. 2 and 3 of Judith continue to offer serious errors in fact but of a different kind, namely, geographical. Holofernes’ entire army marched from Nineveh to northern Cilicia, a distance of about three hundred miles, in just three days (2:21), after which they cut their way through Put and Lud (usually identified by scholars with Libya in Africa, and Lydia in Asia Minor, respectively …), only to find themselves crossing the Euphrates River and proceeding west through Mesopotamia (2:24) before arriving at Cilicia and Japheth, facing Arabia (2:25)!

Either something is now missing from the itinerary, or the author knew nothing about Mesopotamian geography ….

Once Holofernes reached the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean, his itinerary becomes more believable even though a number of cities and peoples mentioned are unknown, e.g. Sur and Okina (2:28) and Geba (3:10). Just exactly what route Holofernes’ army took to get from the coastal cities of Azotus and Ascalon (2:28) to the place where they could encamp and besiege Bethulia is unknown. The LXX seems to suggest that Holofernes’ attack on Bethulia came from the north (cf. 4:6; 8:21; 11:14, 19). …

 

According to verse 4:4: “So [the Israelites living in Judaea] sent word to every district of Samaria, and to Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, and Jericho, and to Choba and Aesora, and

the valley of Salem”. Moore finds this highly problematical also:….

 

Starting with chap. 4, the problem shifts from the author’s errors and confusion over geographical names and locations to the reader’s ignorance and confusion as to the geographical locations of sites near Bethulia. For instance, of the eight Israelite places named in 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem. …

 

Craven though, whose purpose will be rather a literary assessment of [the Book of Judith], has no qualms therefore in dismissing as insignificant the historical and geographical problems of [the Book of Judith] with which other commentators of the book have tried to grapple: …. “The Book of Judith simply does not yield literal or even allegorical data. Instead, its opening details seem to be a playful manipulation of both historical and geographical facts and inventions”.

 

Charles C. Torrey will, on the other hand, in his article back in 1899, “The Site of 'Bethulia'” (JAOS 20, pp. 160-172), take far more seriously the geographical details. It is this particular article that actually prompted my re-think of Bethulia. Thus Torrey wrote, for example (p. 161):

 

“But in the frequent descriptions with which the writer gives of the region where the principal action of the story take place, the geographical and topographical details are introduced in such number and with such consistency as to show that he is describing localities with which he was personally familiar. Nor is it difficult to determine, in general, what region he had in mind. Beyond question, the discomfiture of the ‘Assyrian’ army is represented as having taken place in the hill country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem”.

 

 

Two key places for defence were, apparently, “Bethulia and Betomesthaim” facing Esdraelon (or Jezreel). For it was to these two towns that the high priest Joakim wrote from Jerusalem (thesis, Volume Two, p. 53):

The High-Priest, Joakim

 

Instead of a king to stir up the people, as Hezekiah had done at the commencement of Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chronicles 32:2-8), for his Third Campaign, [Judith] 4:6-7 introduces us to: “The high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time [who] wrote

to the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, ordering them to seize the mountain passes, since by them Judaea could be invaded …”.

 

For more on the high priest, Joakim, see my:

 

Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest

 

https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest

 

and:

 

https://www.academia.edu/31701911/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest._Part_Two_Eliakim_points_to_Saint_Peter

 

Continuing on now with the “Assyrian Advance on Bethulia” (Volume Two, p. 61), I wrote:

 

[Judith] 7:1: “The next day Holofernes ordered his whole army, and all the allies who had joined him, to break camp and to move against Bethulia, and to seize the passes up into the hill country and make war on the Israelites”. The Assyrian fighting forces, “170,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, not counting the baggage and the foot soldiers handling it” (v. 2), now numbered that fateful figure of 180,000 plus. …. “When the Israelites saw their vast numbers, they were greatly terrified and said to one another, ‘They will now strip clean the whole land; neither the high mountains nor the valleys nor the hills will bear their weight’.” (v. 4). One can now fully appreciate the appropriateness of Joel’s ‘locust’ imagery.

[The Book of Judith] provides the reader with a precise location for the Assyrian army prior to its assault of the fortified towns of Israel facing Dothan.

 

• I give firstly the Douay version of it (7:3):

 

All these [Assyrian footmen and cavalry] prepared themselves together to fight against the children of Israel. And they came by the hillside to the top, which looketh toward Dothain [Dothan], from the place which is called Belma, unto Chelmon, which is over against Esdraelon.

 

• Next the Greek version, which importantly mentions Bethulia (v. 3):

 

They encamped in the valley near Bethulia, beside the spring, and they spread out in breadth over Dothan as far as Balbaim and in length from Bethulia to Cyamon, which faces Esdraelon.

 

The combination of the well-known Dothan (var. Dothain) and Esdraelon in both versions presents no problem, and fixes the area where the Assyrian army massed. The identification of Bethulia will be discussed separately, in the next chapter (section: “Identification of Bethulia”, beginning on p. 69). The only other geographical elements named are ‘Belma’ (Douay)/ ‘Balbaim’ (Greek); and ‘Chelmon’ (Douay)/ ‘Cyamon’ (Greek). Charles has, not illogically, linked the first of these names, which he gives as ‘Belmaim’ (var. Abelmain) … with the ‘Belmaim’ listed in 4:4. …. And he tells that, in the Syrian version, this appears as ‘Abelmeholah’. …. But both this location, and “Cyamon, Syr Kadmûn, VL Chelmona”, he claims to be “unknown”. ….

Leahy and Simons, on the other hand, have both ventured identifications for these two locations. And they have each in fact arrived at the same conclusion for ‘Belbaim’ (‘Belma’) … though Simons will reject the identification of ‘Cyamon’ (‘Chelmon’) that we shall now see that Leahy has favoured. Here firstly, then, is Leahy’s account of it, in which he also connects ‘Belbaim’ with the ‘Balamon’ of 8:3 (pertaining to the burial place of Judith’s husband, Manasseh): ….

 

Holofernes had given orders to break up camp and march against Bethulia. Then, according to the Gk, the army camped in the valley near Bethulia, and spread itself in breadth in the direction over against Dothan and on to Belbaim (Balamon of Gk 8:3, Belma of Vg, Jible´am of Jos 17:11, the modern Khirbet Bel´ame), and in length from Bethulia to Kyamon (Chelmon of Vg, Jokne´am of Jos 12:22, the modern Tell Qaimun).

 

Simons will instead prefer for ‘Cyamon’, modern el-jâmûn. …. Here is his geographical

assessment of the final location of the Assyrian army as given in the Greek version: ….

 

Judith vii 3b describes the location of BETHULIA more closely. The clause is easily understandable on the condition that two changes are made, viz. “breadthwise ‘from’ … DOTHAIM unto BELBAIM and lengthwise from ‘BELBAIM’ (LXX reads “BETHULIA”. However, the besieged city itself cannot have been at the extremity of the besieging army) unto CYAMON which is opposite (the plain of) Esdrelon” or in terms of modern geography; from tell dôtân unto hirbet bel’ameh and from hirbet bel’ameh unto el-jâmûn. The disposition of Holofernes’ army thus described is perfectly comprehensible, if BETHULIA was situated between the upright sides of a triangle, the top of which was the twice mentioned site of hirbet bel’ameh, while its base was a line from tell dôtân to el-jâmûn.

 

According to Moore (above), “… of the eight Israelite places named in [Judith] 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem”.

 

But we have just found that “Belmain”, for instance, may not be “totally unknown”.

 

Moreover, there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.”

“It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King James Version, that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”.

http://biblehub.com/topical/s/shalem.htm

 

The Valley of Salem deserves far closer attention (see next section, ii), because there is a Psalm, purportedly pertaining to the time of King Hezekiah and the defeat of the Assyrians, in which there occurs a reference to “Salem”. Even, according to M. D. Goulder, “a battle at Salem”: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem” (The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III, p. 86).

 

 

Salem Important

 

 

“So they sent a warning to the whole region of Samaria and to the towns of Kona, Beth Horon, Belmain, Jericho, Choba, and Aesora, and to Salem Valley. They immediately occupied the mountaintops, fortified the villages on the mountains, and stored up food in preparation for war”.

 

Judith 4:4-5

 

 

Introduction

 

Previously we noted that “… there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem …” …. It is certainly a remarkable fact … that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”.

One really needs to take seriously what may seem at first like insignificant geographical clues.

Doing that very thing was what had enabled Dr. Eva Danelius to re-orient the First Campaign of pharaoh Thutmose III away from the conventional geographical interpretation of it, in the north, in the Megiddo region, to a more apt geography and topography for it in the region of Jerusalem (“ Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?”):

 

“Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt.

If it is true that "the geography of a country determines the course of its wars" (44), the frightful defile, and attempts at its crossing by conquering armies, should have been reported in books of Biblical and/or post-Biblical history. There is no mention of either. Nor has the Wadi 'Ara pass ever been considered to be secret, or dangerous”.

 

This led Dr. Danelius to a reconstruction of this famous First Campaign of the pharaoh’s in favour of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s view that it was the actual biblical event of Shishak king of Egypt’s assault on Jerusalem and its holy Temple in the 5^th year of King Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25) – but with a far more satisfactory geography for it than Velikovsky’s awkward attempt to combine the biblical details with the conventional Megiddo element.

Dr. Danelius would be able to show that the Aruna road taken by the Egyptian army fitted the conventional view neither etymologically, geographically, topologically, nor strategically.

 

Now I, in my continuous efforts over the years to make historical and geographical sense of the Book of Judith, may have taken too casually the reference in Judith 4:4 to “Salem (Valley)”. 

It may turn out to be just as crucial as was Dr. Danelius’s “Aruna” moment for the re-interpretation of Thutmose III’s First Campaign.  

 

Salem or Shalem

 

The mysterious “Salem” in the Bible inevitably gets connected with Jerusalem.

For example (https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/valley-shaveh):

 

SHAVEH, VALLEY OF (shā'vĕ, Heb. shāwēh, a plain). Also called “the king’s dale”; a place near Salem (i.e., Jerusalem, Ps.76.2), where, after rescuing his nephew Lot, Abraham met the king of Sodom (Gen.14.17). It is identified by some as the same place where Absalom erected a memorial to himself (2Sam.18.18).

 

In the Psalm referred to here, 76 (Hebrew), or 75 (Douay), the word Shalem (שָׁלֵם) seems to be - in typical Hebrew parallelistic fashion - juxtaposed with Zion (צִיּוֹן), as if identifying the two (76:3): “In Salem also is set His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion”.

 

But, as we have gleaned from the OT books of Genesis and Judith, there was apparently also a northern Salem. And indeed some, for example “… the list of earlier scholars … identified Melchizedek’s Salem with Shechem …” (Studies in the Pentateuch, Volume 41, edited by John Adney Emerton, p. 53).

 

The NT also refers to a place named “Salim”, which some think may have been partly in the vicinity of Shechem (http://biblehub.com/topical/a/aenon.htm): “[Aenon] Springs, a place near Salim where John baptized (John 3:23). It was probably near the upper source of the Wady Far'ah, an open valley extending from Mount Ebal to the Jordan. It is full of springs. A place has been found called `Ainun, four miles north of the springs”.

 

 

M. D. Goulder had, as noted in Part One (i), referred to “a battle at Salem” near Shechem, in the north, in relation to: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem”.

This - whilst not according entirely with my previous acceptance of Judith’s “Bethulia” as Mithilia (much closer to Dothan) - does accord very well, however, with my firm conviction that the Battle of the Book of Judith had occurred in the north, and not in the south at Jerusalem.

The Douay version of the Psalm (there numbered as 75) connects it explicitly to King Hezekiah (“Ezechias”) and “the Assyrians”, which is precisely where I have located it historically. Thus:

 

…. God is known in his church: and exerts his power in protecting it. It alludes to the slaughter of the Assyrians, in the days of king Ezechias.

 

[1] Unto the end, in praises, a psalm for Asaph: a canticle to the Assyrians. [2] In Judea God is known: his name is great in Israel. [3] And his place is in peace: and his abode in Sion: [4] There hath he broken the powers of bows, the shield, the sword, and the battle. [5] Thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills.

[6] All the foolish of heart were troubled. They have slept their sleep; and all the men of riches have found nothing in their hands. [7] At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, they have all slumbered that mounted on horseback. [8] Thou art terrible, and who shall resist thee? from that time thy wrath. [9] Thou hast caused judgment to be heard from heaven: the earth trembled and was still, [10] When God arose in judgment, to save all the meek of the earth.

[8] "From that time": From the time that thy wrath shall break out.

[11] For the thought of man shall give praise to thee: and the remainders of the thought shall keep holiday to thee. [12] Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God: all you that are round about him bring presents. To him that is terrible, [13] Even to him who taketh away the spirit of princes: to the terrible with the kings of the earth.

 

Blown into oblivion

 

 

Blown away like autumn leaves, as Lord Byron had poetically written -

so have the winds of time erased even the memory of the Assyrian rout.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

I have often marvelled at how thoroughly has the memory of the destruction of the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s massive army disappeared from the records of history. “Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown”, as Lord Byron wrote: “And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill”. And: “Hath melted like snow”.

Apart from the occasional general, only, references to the fact of the incident, say in Sirach (48:21): “The Lord struck down the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out”, or I Maccabees 7:41: “There Judas prayed, ^‘Lord, the Scriptures tell us that when a king sent messengers to insult you, your angel went out and killed 185,000 of his soldiers’” (cf. 2 Maccabees 15:22), we have to turn to the classical sources for any glimpse of the drama.

Herodotus, for instance, pitted the event at “Pelusium” (the eastern extremity of the Nile Delta), at the time of a pharaoh “Sethos”. And he attributed the disaster to a plague of mice (2:141):

 

“

when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."[2]

 

The only detailed account of the incident (including the all-important geographical data) that I had ever been able to find, and it is a most substantial one, is that set out in the Book of Judith.

Here we are provided with the why, the when, and the whereabouts of the disaster – all of it  encompassed within a magnificently readable drama which has rightly become famous.

 

But there are Judith echoes to be found everywhere, from BC time through to supposed AD time, as I pointed out in my article:

 

World Renowned Judith of Bethulia

 

https://www.academia.edu/12785080/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia

 

in the “Lindian Chronicle”; in parts of Homer’s The Iliad; Tomyris and Cyrus; Beta Israel’s Gudit the Semienite, c. 1000 AD (matching Judith the Simeonite).

 

Whilst I was already aware that Douay Psalm 75 was considered to refer to King Hezekiah and the Assyrian defeat, I had not picked up on – until now – that crucial “Salem” (or Shalem) connection between the Psalm and the “Salem Valley” of Judith 4:4.

‘Salem’ in the Psalm (76, Hebrew) I had considered to be a parallelism with ‘Zion’ (Jerusalem).

King Sennacherib had, of course, successfully attacked Jerusalem and its environs during his Third Campaign, which could not, however, have been the ill-fated Assyrian one that had resulted in the complete rout of the Gentile army. This is quite apparent from the sequence in Isaiah 37. According to the prophecy (v. 33): ‘Therefore this is what the Lord says concerning the king of Assyria …’, all the things that Isaiah said the “king of Assyria” would not do, he had already managed to do during his highly successful Third Campaign (vv., 33-35):

 

‘He will not enter this city

or shoot an arrow here.

He will not come before it with shield

or build a siege ramp against it.

By the way that he came he will return;

he will not enter this city’,

declares the Lord.

‘I will defend this city and save it,
    for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!’ [,]

 

this followed immediately by (v. 36): “Then the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!”

 

Psalm 76 (Hebrew) may finally be that missing connection for which I had been searching, providing that all-important detail of the location of the battle and rout: viz., “Salem Valley”.

 

In Byron’s poem there is, happily, no mention of a disaster in the vicinity of Jerusalem, with only “Galilee” (north) being referred to:

 

The Destruction of Sennacherib (1815)

George Gordon Byron

 

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

 

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

 

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still.

 

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride:
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

 

And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow and the rust on his mail;
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.

 

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

 

 

Probably not Mithilia (Mesilieh)

 

 

 

Modern Mithilia, formerly my choice for the site of Judith’s “Bethulia”,

may not actually be significant - or strategically important - enough.

 

 

 

 

In retrospect, I may have been swayed to some extent in my former choice of Mithilia (or Mesilieh) by the fact that Claude Reignier Conder, who had thus identified Judith’s site of Bethulia, had appeared to believe in the reality of the whole thing. For he had written:

 

“In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more” (Judith x 10)” – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881.

 

Those, on the other hand, who had opted for different sites for “Bethulia”, such as the strong fort of Sanur, for instance, or for Shechem, did not appear to give the impression of believing that the Book of Judith was describing a real historical incident.

For instance Charles C. Torrey, who favoured Shechem for “Bethulia”, would brush off the overall story of Judith in the following dismissive fashion (“The Site of 'Bethulia'”, JAOS 20, 1899, p. 160):

 

“The author of the story brings into it an unusual number of geographical and topographical details; names of countries, cities, and towns, of valleys and brooks. With regard to a part of these details, especially those having to do with countries or places outside of Palestine, it can be said at once that they are merely literary adornment, and are not to be taken seriously”.

 

And, a bit further on, Torrey will continue in the same vein: “These are all just such details as we expect to see employed by a story-teller who, without being very well informed, wishes to make his tale sound like a chapter of history …”.

 

But could the village of Mithilia, Conder’s choice, be significant enough for the original site?

Admittedly, it seemed to fit some of the details of the Book of Judith.

Thus Conder wrote:

 

“?Meselieh? A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called W鈊y el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water. In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12) There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13). The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7).’The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanur – does not fulfill these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site. Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem? we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor … and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wady Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander … and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen.

A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles. There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist [sic] to have encamped. …”.

 

But, against the choice of both Mithilia (“Mithilīyeh”) and Sanur (“Ṣānūr”), C. Torrey would write rather convincingly (op. cit., pp. 162-163):

 

“… the city which the writer of this story [Judith] had in mind lay directly in the path of Holofernes, at the head of the most important pass in the region, through which he must necessarily lead his army. There is no escape from this conclusion.

This absolutely excludes the two places which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Ṣānūr and Mithilīyeh, both midway between Geba and Genin [presumably Jenin]. Ṣānūr, though a natural fortress, is perched on a hill west of the road, and “guards no pass whatsoever” (Robinson, Biblical Researches … iii. 152f.). As for Mithilīyeh, first suggested by Conder in 1876 (see Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, ii. 156f.), it is even less entitled to consideration, for it lies nearly two miles east of the caravan track, guarding no pass, and of little or no strategic importance. Evidently, the attitude, hostile or friendly, of this remote village would be a matter of indifference to a great invading army on its way to attack Jerusalem. Its inhabitants, while simply defending themselves at home, certainly could not have held the fate of Judea in their hands; nor could it have ever occurred to a writer of such a story as this to represent them as doing so”.  

 

 

Shechem

 

 

The author reconsiders his former choice for “Bethulia”, of Mithilia,

now in favour of the more well-known and strategic city of Shechem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia (”Judith, Book Of”) tells of the appropriateness of Shechem for Judith city of “Bethulia”: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9073-judith-book-of

 

“…

Identity of Bethulia.

 

As Torrey first pointed out, in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem. A great army, with its baggage-trains, breaking camp at Geba in the morning (vii. 1), would arrive in the afternoon at the springs in the broad valley (ib. 3) just under Shechem. This, moreover, is the city which occupies the all-important pass on this route, the pass by which "was the entrance into Judea" (iv. 7). Furthermore, each one of the details of topography, which the writer introduces in great number, finds its unmistakable counterpart in the surroundings of Shechem. The valley below the city is on the west side (vii. 18; comp. ib. verses 13, 20). The "fountain of water in the camp" (xii. 7) is the modern Bait al-Ma, fifteen minutes from Shechem. The ascent to the city was through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10; comp. x. 10). Whether the words "for two men at the most" (iv. 7) are an exaggeration for the sake of the story, or whether they truly describe the old fortifications of the city, it is impossible to say with certainty. At the head of this ascent, a short distance back from the brow of the hill, stood the city (xiv. 11). Rising above it and overlooking it were mountains (vii. 13, 18; xv. 3). The "fountain" from which came the water-supply of the city (vii. 12 et seq.) is the great spring Ras el-'Ain, in the valley (ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι, ib. 17) just above Shechem, "at the foot" of Mount Gerizim. The abundant water-supply of the modern city is probably due to a system of ancient underground conduits from this one spring; see Robinson, "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 247, and Guérin, "Samarie," i. 401 et seq. Further corroborative evidence is given by the account of the blockade of Bethulia in vii. 13-20. "Ekrebel" is 'Aḳrabah, three hours southeast of Shechem, on the road to the Jordan; "Chusi" is Ḳuza (so G. A. Smith and others), two hours south, on the road to Jerusalem. The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question. …”.

 

Against this, we read in The Book of Judith: Greek Text with an English Translation, ed. Morton Scott Enslin, p. 80): “Shechem may well have been known to the author, but if he utilized it as the site of his Judean Thermopylae, he has allowed himself full liberty in his description. Bethulia is high on the mountain; Shechem was not”.

 

Though, on the other hand, we read in Joshua 21:21: “… they gave them Shechem with her suburbs in mount Ephraim …”.   

 

And I Kings 12:25: “Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim …”.