Reign of King Deioces stretched over 55 years

by Damien F. Mackey Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. In my postgraduate thesis (2007), Volume One, pp. 142-144, I gave the following five: …. (B) Conventional Theory’s Weaknesses Consider these categories: • Worrying Duplications and Anomalies. 1. The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan II, was: - already a political factor in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 744-727 BC). - He then, supposedly two reigns later, becomes a complete thorn in Sargon II’s side for the latter’s first, approximately, 12 years of reign (c. 721-710). - He then resurfaces at the time of Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first campaign and then, finally, in his fourth campaign (c. 704-700). Kings can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems perhaps to have overstayed his welcome. Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’ ranges through the same approximate, long neo-Assyrian period. Comment: The matter can be greatly simplified, however, if, as I also argued in this thesis, the conventional neo-Assyrian succession: Tiglath-pileser; Shalmaneser; Sargon; Sennacherib be modified to just this: Tiglath-pileser = Shalmaneser; Sargon = Sennacherib Perhaps even more telling in this regard is the case of: 2. Deioces, king of the Mannaeans and the Medes. A study of Deioces in relation to the succession of neo-Assyrian kings (Sargon II to Ashurbanipal) who I am arguing were all contemporaries of Hezekiah, would tend to support my argument that this period stands in need of a significant time reduction. Sargon II, in his Annals for c. 715 BC, refers to Daiukku as a ruler of the Mannai (the Minni of the Bible) … allies of the Medes. Most scholars consider Daiukku to be the same as the Deioces of the Greek sources, the founder of the Median empire. Daiukku followed Aza and Ullusuv as ruler of Mannai. According to Luckerman, Daiukku had a very short reign as Sargon deposed him from the throne after only a year in power and exiled him to the west. …. Herodotus, on the other hand, makes Deioces an approximate contemporary of Gyges, who made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, thought to be Sargon’s great grandson. Herodotus wrote that Alyattes, the son of Sadyattes, the son of Ardys, the son of Gyges, made war with Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, the son of Deioces. …. Luckerman, not surprisingly, has some problem with the chronology of all this: …. If this be the case, then Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. A span of 55 years (715-660 BC) for Deioces, though humanly possible, is somewhat unlikely. Thus Luckerman, in order to maintain the traditional identification between Deioces and Daiukku, feels it necessary to stretch the matter a bit: It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Daiukku, if he is correctly identified with Deioces, was only a child ruler when first overthrown by Sargon of Assyria. Later, while the successors of Sargon expended Assyria’s power in debilitating warfare, Daiukku/Deioces was able to take advantage of the situation to found a Median dynasty. And such a stretching is indeed necessary if one maintains the conventional linear succession of (i) Sargon II, (ii) Sennacherib, (iii) Esarhaddon and (iv) Ashurbanipal. According to the model being proposed here, and in Section Three, on the other hand, with Sargon II identified as Sennacherib, and with Esarhaddon’s entire reign being incorporated within his father’s reign - and with Ashurbanipal even being active in the latter part of Esarhaddon’s reign - then the conventional 55 years for Deioces can be reduced by approximately 30 years, to a more realistic 25 years. In that case Luckerman’s “child ruler” theory for Deioces need no longer be proposed. Comment: As already noted, (i) and (ii) here need to be merged into one. But I was completely wrong about (iii), whom I have since merged as one with (iv). Thus the conventional arrangement: Sargon; Sennacherib; Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal now becomes simply: Sargon = Sennacherib; Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal thereby still trimming off about three unwanted decades. 3. Sennacherib is thought, already by 713 BC, to have been the recipient, as crown prince, of the heavy tribute from Azuri of ‘Ashdod’, who was in fact Sargon’s foe. …. 4. Disturbing, too, is the following unprecedented situation at ‘Ashdod’ as viewed by Tadmor from the conventional angle: …. Ashdod was then organized [by Sargon] as an Assyrian province. Sennacherib however restored it to its former state as a tributary kingdom. .... Mitinti, the king of Ashdod, is mentioned in the Annals of Sennacherib .... There is no doubt, therefore, that at the time of the campaign of Judah (701) Ashdod had an autonomous king and not an Assyrian governor. The reorganization of Ashdod - from a province back to a vassaldom - has no precedent. .... in the time of Esarhaddon Ashdod was again turned into a province. All this topsy turvy supposedly in the space of a few decades! 5. The somewhat recently published Tang-i Var inscription (to be considered further in Chapter 12) cannot possibly accommodate the conventional links between Sargon (died 705 BC) and the 25th (Ethiopian) dynasty, since it now reveals that pharaoh Shebitku, thought not to have begun to reign until c. 702 BC, was the Cushite pharaoh who handed over to Sargon the rebel, Iatna-Iamani; an incident currently dated to c. 711 BC. …. [End of quotes] For a revised identification of pharaoh Shebitku, see e.g. my article: Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’ (1) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

Ahikar, Uriakku (Arioch) of Adana (Ecbatana), extended as Deioces (Daiukku) of Ecbatana

by Damien F. Mackey DEIOCES (Gk. Dēïókēs), name of a Median king; this Greek form, like Assyrian Da-a-a-uk-ku (i.e., Daiukku) and Elamite Da-a-(hi-)(ú-)uk-ka, Da-a-ya-u(k)-ka, and so on, reflects Iranian *Dahyu-ka-, a hypocoristic based on dahyu – “land” (cf. Schmitt). DEIOCES - Encyclopaedia Iranica Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. …. Wikipedia Introduction Much of this introductory part will be taken from my article: Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser (3) Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria's Shalmaneser in which I further extended the identity of Ahikar (Achior, Arioch), nephew of Tobit, and governor of Elam for Assyria, to include Awarikus [Uriakku, Arioch] of Adana (Ecbatana). We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.” In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version. In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior. His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba: Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba (2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This man was obviously monumental, leaving a giant historical and literary footprint. We know from the Book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”. This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians. Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5). Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 As “King Arioch of Elam” ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ Isaiah 10:8 We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam) Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). …. Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above). Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. …. He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. …. We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media): Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus …. Other attestations …. The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊‎‎), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊‎)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎‎‎).[11] In Akkadian Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14] …. Life Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔‎‎), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22] Damien Mackey’s comment: Is Mopsus a reflection back to Moses, the great Lawgiver? Ahikar, as a Naphtalian Israelite, could, in a sense, have claimed descent from Moses. Reign Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25] Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20] Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27] Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28] In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15] According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15] Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31] …. Monuments An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35] Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36] Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35] As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37] Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language. Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39] Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39] The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39] Deposition The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43] This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44] Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44] The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47] Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”. Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam). Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”. Deioces of Ecbatana The legendary Deioces, whose name Daiukku might well remind one of Uriakku (Arioch), ruler of Adana in southern Cilicia – Ecbatana in Elam – ruled over that region for a very long time, the same time as Arioch “was the king of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6). Arioch, who was Tobit’s nephew Ahikar, a kind person, who “gave alms” (Tobit 14:10), befits the wise and just, lawgiving ruler, Deioces. As K. Halk tells of him (2025): Deioces: The Legendary Founder of the Median Kingdom — Historact Platform Deioces (Ancient Greek: Δηιόκης) was the legendary founder and the first king of the Median kingdom, an ancient polity in western Asia that played a significant role in the development of the ancient Near East. Deioces is remembered for his efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government in a region marked by chaos and disunity. His leadership laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Median Empire, a precursor to the mighty Achaemenid Empire. This article explores the life, reign, and legacy of Deioces, as well as his contributions to the formation of one of the first organized states in the region. Through his story, we gain insight into the emergence of the Medes as a powerful and influential people in ancient history. The Background of the Median Kingdom The Medes were an ancient Iranian [sic] people who inhabited the region that is today known as northwestern Iran. The Median kingdom emerged during the early 1st millennium BCE, at a time when the area was dominated by various tribes and small polities. The Medes, along with other Iranian groups, began migrating into the region, where they settled and gradually assimilated with the local population. The political landscape of the region was characterized by a lack of central authority, with numerous tribes vying for power and influence. The Rise of the Medes The Medes are believed to have settled in the region sometime around the 9th century BCE. They were one of several Iranian-speaking groups that migrated southward from the steppes of Central Asia. Over time, the Medes established themselves as a distinct cultural and political entity, and by the 8th century BCE, they began to emerge as a significant power in the region. The early history of the Medes is largely obscure, with much of what is known coming from later sources, such as the writings of Herodotus. The Medes faced challenges from neighboring powers, including the Assyrian Empire, which exerted considerable influence over the region. The Assyrians were a dominant force in the Near East, and their campaigns often brought them into conflict with the Medes. Despite this, the Medes managed to maintain their independence and gradually consolidated their power under the leadership of Deioces. The Rise of Deioces Deioces is traditionally regarded as the first king of the Medes and the founder of the Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, Deioces was a wise and just man who gained the respect and admiration of the Median people. His rise to power was marked by his reputation for fairness and his ability to resolve disputes, which earned him a following among his fellow Medes. The Need for Order During the time of Deioces, the Median tribes were divided and lacked a central authority. The region was plagued by lawlessness and internal conflicts, with each tribe governed by its own leader. In this chaotic environment, Deioces distinguished himself as a man of integrity and wisdom. He became known for his ability to mediate disputes and deliver impartial judgments, which led many people to seek his counsel. Recognizing the need for stability and order, the Medes decided to unite under a single ruler. They chose Deioces as their leader, believing that his sense of justice and fairness would bring peace and unity to their people. Deioces accepted the role of king, but he set certain conditions: he demanded that the Medes build a fortified capital and establish a centralized government that would allow him to exercise authority effectively. The Establishment of Ecbatana One of Deioces’ first actions as king was the construction of a new capital city, which he named Ecbatana (modern-day Hamadan in Iran). Ecbatana was strategically located and well-fortified, serving as the political and administrative center of the newly unified Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, the city was built with a series of seven concentric walls, each painted in different colors, creating an impressive and formidable fortress. The establishment of Ecbatana as the capital was a significant step in the consolidation of Median power. It provided a central location from which Deioces could govern, and it symbolized the unity of the Median tribes under a single ruler. The construction of Ecbatana also demonstrated Deioces’ vision for a strong, centralized state that could withstand external threats and maintain internal order. The Reign of Deioces Deioces’ reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability and the establishment of a centralized government. As king, Deioces implemented a number of reforms aimed at strengthening his authority and creating a more organized and cohesive society. Centralization of Power One of Deioces’ primary goals was to centralize power and establish a strong monarchy. He sought to distance himself from the people, believing that a sense of awe and reverence was necessary to maintain authority. …. … Deioces was able to create a stable and orderly government that laid the foundation for the future expansion of the Median kingdom. Legal Reforms and Governance As a ruler known for his sense of justice, Deioces placed a strong emphasis on the development of a legal system that would ensure fairness and equality. He established a formal system of laws and appointed judges to oversee legal matters throughout the kingdom. These judges were responsible for resolving disputes and ensuring that justice was administered impartially. The establishment of a legal system helped to create a sense of order and stability within the kingdom. It also reinforced Deioces’ authority, as he was seen as the ultimate source of justice and the guarantor of the people’s rights. By creating a system of laws and governance, Deioces was able to transform the Medes from a collection of loosely connected tribes into a unified and organized state. The Legacy of Deioces …. Deioces was a visionary leader whose efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government laid the foundation for the rise of the Median kingdom and the eventual emergence of the Achaemenid Empire. His reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability, legal reforms, and the construction of a powerful and well-organized state. Although much of what is known about Deioces comes from the writings of Herodotus and may contain elements of legend, his legacy as the founder of the Median kingdom is undeniable. ….

What brought low the Assyrians – an angel, plague of mice, distemper, a rogue comet, electromagnetics?

by Damien F. Mackey Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. Let the Great King of Assyria tell it to us personally: As for Hezekiah, the Judaean, who had not submitted to my yoke, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding small towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and by applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. Himself [Hezekiah], I locked him up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. His cities which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land. I imposed upon him in addition to the former tribute, yearly payment of dues and gifts for my lordship. He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship, and he sent me after my departure to Nineveh, my royal city, his elite troops and his best soldiers, which he had brought into Jerusalem as reinforcements, with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony … countless trappings and implements of war, together with his daughters, his palace women, his male and female singers. He (also) dispatched his personal messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance. —From the annals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.E.), translated from the Rassam Prism, in Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 337–339. That doesn’t read like any sort of miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from its enemy – nor was it. Today I received, and answered, this Message in relation to my latest article: Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 (5) Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 in which Message a U.S. reader argues for “… Jerusalem being [Assyria’s] only demonstrative failure …”. …. If you read Scripture thoroughly, you will find that in addition to Hezekiah's tunnel, he also ordered all of the wells around Judea stopped up, or diverted by another spring channel under Jerusalem. It is not improbable then, that the troops, searching for water, fell victim to typhoid, or a similar dysentary which epidemic kills quickly. There were great preparations before the siege. A scorched earth type preparation. Also, as some have postulated, … the word "thousands" was mistranslated by original scribes, originally meaning "captains" or "chiefs". So 185 captains of 50s would make it 9,000 or so died. This is more likely, if true, since hundreds of thousands of army are really overkill for any battle of the time— near impossible for logistics to handle. Also, since the Assyrians, using what is called hoplite tradition, used mercenaries from their conquered nations as fodder for their forces ("meat assaults"), of which they had an endless supply; 40-something nations, we read, were overcome, with Jerusalem being their only demonstrative failure, according to the Bible and other sources. …. Damien Mackey’s response: But the Assyrians did not fail at Jerusalem. This is a mistake that many make. Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. The Rabshakeh had sarcastically offered to give the beleaguered Jews horses to ride, knowing that they could not even man them (2 Kings 18:23). Then the Assyrian betrayed the agreement and came back to take the City entirely. But he heard that Tirhakah was on his way and lifted the siege, just as Nebuchednezzar would do in the face of Necho's advance, only to return later and finish the job. About a decade later, Sennacherib sent his eldest son with the biggest army of all time, to conquer Jerusalem on the way to Egypt, the main prize. The all-conquering army devastated the north, but did not get any further south than Shechem (“Bethulia” in the Book of Judith). Judith killed the Commander-in-Chief, and the army fled with terrible losses and captives taken. Jerusalem was not affected. …. Barry Setterfield (2024) will make the same mistake about Jerusalem, adding his idiosyncratic ‘scientific’ reason for the presumed annihilation of the Assyrian army. Barry is a Creationist, though a most original one. Creationists do tend to impose modern scientific views on these ancient Semitic texts: Barry’s Beacon - Shining Biblical Light on Current Events Part 2 Written By Barry Setterfield Hezekiah, Assyria, Archaeology and Science Brief Overview: Archaeological research this month supports the Biblical narrative historically from the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The accounts of the Assyrian invasion and siege of Jerusalem and associated events in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37 are proving accurate. Additional detail can be found in 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 and Isaiah 36 and 37. Background: In June, 2024, the Journal of Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 87 (2), pages 110-120, published a research article by an independent archaeologist, Stephen Compton, whose expertise included the Neo-Assyrian Empire. That empire was a major civilization whose dominion included the lands that today are in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait. The Neo-Assyrian Empire existed from 911 BC to 609 BC and had perfected iron technology. This contrasted with many surrounding states which made their weapons and implements of the softer metal, bronze. This gave Assyria an advantage in many military campaigns. Their strategy was to dominate the trade routes across the Syrian Desert to the Mediterranean Sea, and control politically and economically the countries these routes passed through. These countries included the kingdom of Judah with its capital, Jerusalem. Hezekiah, was the king of Judah at the time of this Assyrian campaign. Outline of Assyria’s Campaign: In 705 BC, the Assyrian king, Sargon II, was killed in battle, and his son, Sennacherib, ascended the throne, making Nineveh his capital. My comment: This, I believe, is quite incorrect and will only serve to throw right out of kilter neo-Assyrian and biblical history. Sargon II was Sennacherib. Sargon’s attack on “Ashdod” (Lachish) (Isaiah 20:1) was the beginning of what will become Sennacherib’s devastating 3rd Campaign, greatly affecting Judah and Jerusalem (as we have read above). Barry Setterfield continues: Sennacherib first overcame rebellions in Asia Minor, then, in 701 BC, he turned his attention to the Levant where Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron had formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria. Sennacherib attacked the rebels, conquering Ascalon, Sidon and Ekron. After going down to Egypt [My comment: He didn’t], he came back and destroyed Libna and Lachish. Records in the Assyrian palace at Nineveh state that 46 cities were destroyed in this military campaign. That included the well-fortified frontier city of Lachish, one of the best equipped cities in Judah, which was some 40 miles south-west of Jerusalem. Finally, the Assyrian expedition ended with the siege of Jerusalem itself. This feat of overcoming so much resistance was considered to be Sennacherib’s greatest victory. This particular campaign was of interest to Compton because of the detailed records available. These records are in the form of carvings in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh (present day Mosul) in northern Iraq. In addition, a six-sided prism was found associated with the remains of the palace that turned out to be Sennacherib’s annals or dairy of the events (see images below). Finally, there are extensive details from Hezekiah’s point of view in the Bible in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37; and then 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 coupled with the prophet Isaiah, chapters 36 and 37, as Isaiah the prophet also had a hand in the outcome. The Clue From Military Camps: Because these accounts are in the Bible, many skeptical archaeologists insist on historical material entirely separate from any Biblical source before they will even begin to consider its validity. The question was whether or not Sennacherib even came down as far as Judah, let alone destroying Lachish and placing Jerusalem under siege. One scientist commented: “There has not been any archaeological evidence that the battle actually happened.” It was at this point that Stephen Compton’s research became important. He examined the details in the palace carvings. From those records, it became apparent that the Assyrian armies had an unusual style of structure for their military encampments (something that had first been queried only in January 2004, and studies are still continuing). These Assyrian camps were all of an oval shape. The Romans also had military camps throughout the Levant, but these Roman camps were always of a square or rectangular design. This contrasted with the Assyrian oval pattern recorded on the palace walls. The Clues From Old Aerial Photos: For many archaeologists, the most important discovery of them all would be to find an oval structure at Lachish and/or Jerusalem. Compton was aided in this by a 19th century archaeologist, Sir Henry Lanyard. In 1849, Sir Henry sketched the massive reliefs detailing the battle of Lachish from the palace walls in Nineveh, and placed the sketches in the British Museum. The palace record also detailed the landforms the Assyrian army was operating on, as well as the placement of the oval campsite. Compton then searched for early aerial images taken before the end of World War 2, and thus before subsequent alteration of the land. He found an aerial image taken in 1945 of the entire region around Lachish as shown on the palace record in the British Museum. He was able to match the landforms and determine the location of the oval military camp of the Assyrians. When checking on the ground in that location, he found the feature was already known as ‘Khirbet al Mudawwara,’ meaning “Ruins of the Camp of the Invading King.” Archaeological investigation at the site confirmed its identity. In a similar way, aided by the earliest aerial photograph of Jerusalem, taken in the 1930’s (held in the Library of Congress), the oval military camp of the Assyrians was located just north of Jerusalem at a place called “Ammunition Hill.” Initially it had been thought to be a Roman camp. However, examination then revealed it to be consistent with the Assyrians as, among other things, its form was oval, not rectangular. Because of its good location, the British also used it and gave it the name Ammunition Hill. Compton’s continued his research and, “In some cases, it has also been possible to use the newly discovered camps to locate the sites of ancient cities that were known to have been besieged by the Assyrians but whose locations were unknown or uncertain,” Compton wrote. Archaeological Proof – But was there a Miracle? The initial conclusion from Compton’s research is that the evidence is certainly strong that Sennacherib did invade the land of Judah, with a special emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem. One assessment expressed it this way: “While the archaeological evidence discovered by Compton does not confirm the supernatural aspects of the Biblical narrative, it does provide compelling support for the historical presence of Assyrian military forces near Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s reign.” My comment: Yes, this is evidence for the well-chronicled – and highly successful, for Assyria – 3rd campaign. The extraordinary deliverance of Israel would not occur in the environs of Jerusalem, but well north, at Shechem. Barry Setterfield continues: Additional evidence is available from the palace walls in Nineveh. The record from those walls includes a complex scene of the Assyrians storming Lachish. There is a vivid written description of what was being depicted by German archaeologist Werner Keller. After this description, Professor Keller continues: “Amid the confusion of the battle and the din around this frontier fortress of Judah, an order went out from Sennacherib: ‘And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah, along with a great host against Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17).’ That meant an attack on Jerusalem. The historians of the Assyrian king have preserved a record of what happened next. The hexagonal prism that was Sennacherib’s diary says: “And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke … him I shut up in Jerusalem his royal city like a caged bird. Earthworks I threw up against him, and anyone coming out of his city gate I made to pay for his crime. His cities which I had plundered I cut off from his hand…’. ” Professor Keller then writes: “Surely now must come the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem and the seizing of the capital. But the [palace] text continues: ‘As for Hezekiah, the splendor of my majesty overwhelmed him .. 30 gold talents … valuable treasures …. He caused to be brought after me to Nineveh. To pay his tribute and to do me homage he sent his envoys.’ Keller then comments: “This is simply a bragging account of the payment of tribute – nothing more. – just as in 2 Kings 18:14. The Assyrian texts pass on immediately from the description of the battle of Jerusalem to the payment of Hezekiah’s tribute. Just at the moment when the whole country had been subjugated and the siege of Jerusalem, the last point of resistance, was in full swing, the unexpected happened: Sennacherib broke off the attack at the very last minute. Only something quite extraordinary could have induced him to stop the fighting. What might it have been? While the Assyrian records are enveloped in a veil of silence the Bible says: “And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the LORD went out and smote the camp of the Assyrians, one hundred and eighty-five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.” (2 Kings 19:35, 36). My comment: Werner Keller wrote a disastrous book, The Bible as History (1955), tethering the Bible to an uneven conventional historical yoke. Here, he has merged into one two separate Assyrian campaigns, Sennacherib’s successful 3rd campaign, and a later disastrous one, led by his eldest son. Barry Setterfield continues: So What Actually Happened? My comment: One now suspects that Barry will not be able satisfactorily to answer his question. He turns for assistance to that most unreliable of ancient historians, Herodotus, who has Sennacherib’s army falling at, not Jerusalem, but at the near rhyming Pelusium, in northern Egypt. A combination of Herodotus and Werner Keller, as given next, is not to be desired. We learn a little more from another historical link to these events which Professor Keller brought to light. He points out that the famous traveler, historian and author of the ancient world, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, has given us some interesting clues not found in other records. In Egypt, Herodotus held conversations with the temple priests. They mentioned that Sennacherib marched against Egypt with a large armed force. They told Herodotus that “at the narrow entrances to the country, an army of field-mice swarmed over their opponents in the night … gnawed through their quivers and their bows, and the handles of their shields, so that on the following day they fled minus their arms and a great number of them fell [by the resulting plague].” For peoples of the ancient world, the mouse was the equivalent of the rat in the Middle Ages and was a symbol of plague. Archaeological Conclusion: Werner Keller concludes his assessment with the following information; “On the edge of the city of Lachish, the British archaeologist, James Lesley Starkey found shocking proof of this story in 1938: A mass grave in the rock with 2000 human skeletons, unmistakably thrown in with the utmost haste. The epidemic must have raged with frightful destruction among the Assyrian warriors. The drama of the campaign had been unfolded, and once more, Jerusalem had escaped…” My comment: But surely these were casualties of the mass devastations caused by the invading Assyrian army! But Behind the Scenes….. Our conclusion here is that, as far as it is possible for modern science to do so, it supports the Scriptural account of the Assyrian invasion of the land of Judah. Yet even this is not the end of the story scripturally. There is another whole dimension to the drama of the situation that the Bible leaves until the very end. In 2 Kings 19 we have the record of the wipe-out of the Assyrian host. However, as we go on to read 2 Kings 20:1-11 we are amazed to find that just in the middle of this crucial time, the king of Judah, Hezekiah himself, was on his bed in the palace in Jerusalem, very sick and near death. My comment: King Hezekiah was ill at some point in time near to Sennacherib’s successful campaign, as the following makes clear. Barry Setterfield continues: Indeed, we are told in 2 Kings 20:1 that the prophet Isaiah went to Hezekiah and told him to put his house in order because he was not going to live. This, just at the time when the Assyrians had Jerusalem under siege and the people needed to be encouraged by their king to stand steadfast in the face of this opposition. At that point, Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, wept, and prayed fervently. Before Isaiah had even gone as far as the middle court in the palace, God gave him a message: “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely, I will heal you. On the third day you will go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the King of Assyria, and I will defend this city for My own sake and the sake of my servant David”. When the prophet had delivered this message, king Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?” Then Isaiah said “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: “Shall the shadow [on the sundial] go forward ten degrees, or go backwards ten degrees?” And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow come back ten degrees.” So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the Lord, and He brought the shadow backwards ten degrees by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.” The incident is told in detail again in Isaiah 38. My comment: Get ready for some Creationist ‘science’. Are there Scriptural songs from these events? This miracle in itself needs an explanation, but we put that aside for the moment to concentrate on something else that is Biblically relevant. Several words in the above account give us the context with certainty; they are the word “degrees,” “sun,” “sundial” and “shadow.” Plainly what is being referred to here is the shadow cast by the sun on the sundial of Ahaz. This shadow from the sun is usually marked off in “degrees” around a circle or half-circle. There are thus 15 degrees per hour which means that 24 hours would make up a full circle of 360 degrees. In this case, 10 degrees would correspond to 40 minutes of actual time. The word translated as “degrees” is the same as the word “dial” used in the biblical accounts as “sun-dial”. It can be translated as “steps” or “stairs,” but astronomically the word “degrees” is better. Interestingly, this same word “degrees” is found as the heading for 15 Psalms. There has been a wide discussion as to what was meant in the case of these Psalms. Some have suggested they were part of a pilgrimage going up to Jerusalem for one of the three annual Feasts. However, there is nothing in any of these Psalms to indicate either a pilgrimage or a feast. Despite this, many Bible versions label these Psalms as “Songs of Ascents” on the basis of the pilgrims ascending to Jerusalem. A number of other popular explanations also fall short. However, the headings for each of those Psalms give their own clue. In each case there is the definite article before the word “degrees” (or ascents or steps). So literally each heading reads “A Song of THE Degrees.” There is only one incident in the whole Bible where the attention is specifically drawn to “the degrees” and that is on the sundial of Ahaz at the healing of Hezekiah, where the shadow went backwards 10 degrees and Hezekiah’s life was extended by 15 years. The fact is that there are precisely 15 Songs of the Degrees, and 10 of them have no named author. The other five are by David or Solomon. We also know that Hezekiah was a Psalm-writer as one of his Psalms appears in Isaiah 38 starting at verse 9 which specifically mentions his recovery from this sickness. It is thus possible that Hezekiah wrote those other 10 Psalms himself and left them unattributed. Bible scholars also suggest that he had a large part in shaping the book of Psalms into its present form just as he did for the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 25:1). A new appreciation for some songs? If this background for the ‘Songs of the Degrees’ is accepted, some of those 10 unattributed Psalms open up in a new way. For example, imagine how the people of Jerusalem felt that early morning when they looked out over the walls of Jerusalem and saw that, incredibly, the siege was over and their enemy destroyed. I believe we may have a record of just this moment. Psalm 126, which is one that Hezekiah may have written, we read, in the literal Hebrew, verses 1 to 3, as follows: “When the Lord restored Zion (the city of Jerusalem) from being a prisoner, we were like those who dream, and our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with singing. They said among the nations, The Lord has done great things for them…whereof we are glad.” Connecting the dots… The final aspect of this amazing series of events is the cause of the shadow going back 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz. Many view this as an isolated event and so miss something important. If we connect the dots by looking at the unusual behavior of the sun in the Bible, something important emerges. There is the time when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still along with the moon, with the whole story in Joshua 10:6-15. Then there was Hezekiah as we have seen above. If we move forward to the time of the Crucifixion, we read that the world turned dark around noon. However, the prophet Amos had already told us what was going to happen in Amos 8:9-10. It reads: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day: And I will turn your feast (Passover) into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.” So we have three occasions in the Bible when this occurs. If we look at the times when these events occurred, something becomes apparent. Using the dating from the most ancient text of the Bible available, the Alexandrian Septuagint (LXX), which is backed up by the chronologies of the Apostolic fathers, the approximate dates for these events are as follows: Joshua – 1450 BC +/- 100 years. Hezekiah -710 BC +/- 50 years. The Crucifixion 33 AD +/- 3 years. There seems to be a systematic progression in these dates with about 745 years between each event. If we come closer to the present by 745 years from the time of the Crucifixion, we come to about 778 AD. In August 15th that year, Emperor Charlemagne was poised to attack the forces that treacherously destroyed his closest associate, Roland, and his forces in Spain. Charlemagne asked the Lord for a sign of assurance before the battle that he had Divine approval. He recorded in his diary and in his “Song of Roland” that the Sun stood still in the heavens that day. Have you ever played with a gyroscope? If the gyroscope is mounted so it can move freely in any direction, and it is then given a push, it will swing back and forth systematically for a time - then, suddenly, it will do a figure 8 roll and then go back to its swinging back and forth. After this the process repeats with the figure of 8 roll. We know the earth behaves like a gyroscope, so that figure of 8 movement every 745 years may be explained. It would cause a ‘long day’ on one side of the earth and a ‘long night’ on the other. This is exactly what is recorded in various ancient cultures at different places around the world. One other important point is that, if the earth’s movement changed like that, there should be relevant records in the magnetic fields of the earth associated with those times. If we come another 745 years closer to the present after Charlemagne, we arrive at about 1520 AD. My comment: For my entirely different view of Charlemagne, see e.g. my article: Solomon and Charlemagne (5) Solomon and Charlemagne About that time, Thai pottery shows that there were some unusual, but temporary, changes in the earth’s magnetic field. This was reported in the University of Sydney News, vol. 16. no.4, for 6th March, 1984. The team was headed by Dr. Mike Barbetti, whose speciality was paleo-magnetism. He found that there was a change in the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field around that time. This implicates the earth’s core as being involved in what was going on. This was also true for the Hezekiah incident as there was a dramatic change in the earth’s magnetic field intensity recorded in Judean pottery with Hezekiah’s seal on them on that occasion. That leads to another data point. In 1972 an article in the journal Nature entitled “Archaeomagnetism in Iran” pointed out that there was a major change in the direction of movement of the geomagnetic pole. Again, this implies that the earth’s core was involved. The date of that change was about 2200 to 2300 BC and corresponds with the wipe-out of civilizations around the world as a result of meteorite impact. Such impacts definitely affect the earth’s core. Our analysis and the astronomical data supporting the impact in 2300 BC with an error of about 150 years is here: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Worldwide_Event.html Further discoveries about the earth’s core in 2013 and 2015 have confirmed the period of 720 to 750 years and indicates that the asteroid impact about 2300 to 2200 BC may indeed be the basic cause of the effect seen by Hezekiah that has been a puzzle for so many. My comment: Not entirely sure how c. 2000 BC vitally affects what was going on in King Hezekiah’s kingdom of the late C8th BC.

Ancient Assyrian inscription has been found in Jerusalem

Taken from: Seal bearing ancient language found in Jerusalem confirms Bible story in the Old Testament Stacy Liberatore writes: Seal bearing ancient language found in Jerusalem confirms Bible story in the Old Testament …. Archaeologists in Jerusalem have uncovered an ancient Assyrian inscription that may shed light on historical events described in the Old Testament. The discovery, a tiny 2.5-centimeter pottery shard inscribed in Akkadian cuneiform, the world's oldest written Semitic language, was uncovered near the Temple Mount and dates back approximately 2,700 years. Researchers from Bar-Ilan University deciphered the inscription, revealing what appears to be a complaint from the Assyrian empire regarding a late payment expected from the kingdom of Judah. The text specifies the first of the month of Av, the 11th month of the Hebrew calendar, as the due date for the delayed tribute, suggesting a formal communication between the Assyrian empire and the kings of Judah. Scholars noted that this could correspond to events recorded in 2 Kings 18 and 19, during the reign of King Hezekiah. These biblical passages describe Hezekiah being required to pay 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold to King Sennacherib of Assyria, a tribute meant to secure Judah from Assyrian aggression. Dating of the shard places it around the time of Hezekiah's reign, though researchers noted it could also originate from the period of his son Manasseh or even King Josiah. Damien Mackey’s comment: “Dating of the shard places it around the time of Hezekiah's reign … or even King Josiah”. King Hezekiah was King Josiah. On this, see e.g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (6) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses The article continues: Dr Peter Zilberg of Bar-Ilan University, who was part of the research team, said the fragment's small size belies its significance. …. Dr Anat Cohen-Weinberger of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which conducted the excavation, explained how the shard was traced back to Assyria rather than Jerusalem. Petrographic analysis revealed that the pottery's composition differs from local materials, with mineral content matching the geology of the Tigris Basin region, home to major Assyrian cities such as Nineveh, Ashur, and Nimrud/Kalḫu. This suggested the shard may have been part of a shipment of official Assyrian documents or correspondence to Judah. Experts say the find also highlights the complexity of ancient diplomacy, showing that even small kingdoms like Judah were engaged in detailed negotiations with one of the era's superpowers. Such correspondence would have been vital to navigating the political pressures of the time, especially when facing a powerful empire like Assyria. While the inscription does not directly cite a specific biblical passage, it provides tangible evidence of the kingdom of Judah's interactions with the Assyrian empire. 'While we cannot determine the background for this demand, whether it stemmed from a mere technical delay or carried political significance, the very existence of such an official appeal would seemingly attest to a certain point of friction between Judah and the imperial government,' the researchers said. The text specifies the first of the month of Av, the 11th month of the Hebrew calendar, as the due date for the delayed tribute, suggesting a formal communication between the Assyrian empire and the kings of Judah. Dr Peter Zilberg of Bar-Ilan University, who was part of the research team, said the fragment's small size belies its significance …. The discovery offers historians and biblical scholars a rare glimpse into the diplomacy, economics, and political pressures of the ancient Near East. It also reinforces the historical context of the Bible's accounts of Judah's tributes to Assyria, demonstrating that these stories were grounded in real-world interactions between kingdoms. As analysis continues, the tiny shard stands as a potent reminder of how much history can be preserved in even the smallest of artifacts, connecting biblical narrative with archaeological reality and enriching our understanding of life in ancient Jerusalem.

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

by Damien F. Mackey “… there are no well-known visual images like statues or large-scale reliefs of [Nabopolassar] …” AI Overview This fact ought not surprise us anymore, as we have found the number of significant rulers of antiquity who have none, to little, visual representation - under a particular name - to be growing. Thus see my article: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (5) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates Based on Nabopolassar’s presumed reign of about 21 years, and the fact that he is supposed to have preceded, as father, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself, I had come to the fairly confident conclusion that Nabopolassar must have been king Sennacherib, the Assyrian, under a Babylonian name (as conqueror of Babylon). Sennacherib would later, of course, go on to destroy Babylon. What is well known is that Esarhaddon - usually designated as a son of Sennacherib - had succeeded Sennacherib, and had promptly rebuilt Babylon. With my new identification in mind, Nabopolassar = Sennacherib, I had reinterpreted the standard Chaldean king list, for instance as set out by Marc Van de Mieroop, in his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC., pp. 292-293 (I had taken the liberty of including Belshazzar here): Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar [II] Evil-Merodach Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus [Belshazzar] … Cyrus in accordance with the sequence of kings as given in the Book of Daniel (chapter 5). This led me to the following re-shaping of the king list: Assyrian Nabopolassar (= Sennacherib) Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach = Belshazzar Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede/Cyrus But, while I still embrace the other identifications, I would no longer accept that Nabopolassar was Sennacherib, but that Nabopolassar was Nebuchednezzar himself, whom I now realise has been triplicated in the Chaldean lists (as Nabopolassar; as Nebuchednezzar; as Nabonidus). That would now mean that Nabopolassar reigned for about twice the period typically estimated for him - just as Esarhaddon and Nabonidus (other alter egos of Nebuchednezzar) must have reigned substantially longer than is generally thought. Nabopolassar has certain traits that one can find variously in Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon, Nabonidus – e.g., a Nabu name; not expecting to become king; building in Babylon with careful attention to the original layout of temples; extreme piety and superstition; mention of Zarpanitu (Zarpanitum: Esarhaddon); inspecting old foundations (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus as ‘archaeologist’); carrying baskets/bricks (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus); finding ancient royal Akkadian statue (Nabonidus). The following quotes are taken from: (5) Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Israel Museum, Jerusalem JERUSALEM 2003 NABOPOLASSAR AND THE ANTIQUITY OF BABYLON PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU …. The new Imgur-Enlil cylinder of Nabopolassar …. Of particular interest is the fourth section, which reads as follows: …. Nabopolassar, the humble one, the submissive one, the worshipper of Nabü and Marduk, the shepherd who pleases Panunanki (i.e. Zarpanitu), the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past … the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations, the one who wields the hoe of the Igigi, the one who carries the corvée basket of the Anunnaki, the builder of Imgur-Enlil for Marduk, my lord, I, in order that no future king whosoever remove my well-chosen words, (and) in order that no words are made to supersede my speech, I swore the oath of Marduk, my lord, and of my god: "(Woe on me) if my utterances are not true, but false!" At that time I found the royal statue of one of my predecessors who had (re)built that wall and, in a secure place, in the great foundations, together with my own statue, I placed (it) for eternity. Since Nabopolassar claims, just after recording his oath, to have found the royal statue of one of his predecessors "who had (re)built that wall," the conclusion follows that he had unearthed an inscribed statue of a king of Agade, very similar to those that were still in public view during the Old Babylonian period and from which scribes of that period copied inscriptions of Sargonic rulers. Thus, without directly naming any of them, Nabopolassar connects himself with the legendary kings of Agade. My comment: The same with King Nabonidus: “[Nabonidus] saw in this sacred enclosure [Ebabbar] a statue of Sargon … half of its head was missing …. Given his reverence for the gods and his respect for kingship, he … restored the head of this statue, and put back its face”. A closer look at the fourth section of the new Imgur-Enlil cylinder reveals further elements highlighting the programmatic character of the inscription. The very activities of searching for old monumental texts, of digging the city's most ancient foundations and of restoring them are claimed by the king as components of his titulary: "the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past, the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations." It is also very craftily devised as a mise en abyme, a miniature royal inscription within a royal inscription, complete with name of king, titulary, object of rebuilding, and laying of foundation deposit. The mise en abyme and direct quotation of foundation deposits of previous rulers occurs in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. In the present case, however, by depositing his own statue next to the statue of the Old Akkadian king whose inscription he quite literally appropriates, Nabopolassar performs nothing less than a mise en abyme of his royal persona. The new king is looking at his own ancient reflection as if in a reducing glass, digging deep into the ground to scrutinize his own distant image in the remotest foundations of his capital. …. The author has also noted in this article that: “Nabopolassar was, of his own avowal, a mär lä mammäna, literally a "son of a nobody …”. Ashurbanipal, likewise, had not expected to rule: https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-ashurbanipal Despite being one of Assyria's greatest kings, Ashurbanipal wasn't destined for the throne …. ‘At the command of the great gods, [my father] greatly preferred me over the assembly of my elder brothers’. Likewise, again, with Nabonidus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus “The origins of Nabonidus are obscure, with the scarce available details about him leaving much room for interpretation and speculation. In one of his inscriptions, Nabonidus states the following: …. ‘I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship’. Having established that Nabopolassar was likely the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, with his various significant alter egos, then one ought to be able to find many further correlations between the reign of Nabopolassar, of the composite Nebuchednezzar.

Search for the Median empire

by Damien F. Mackey “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 Kuhrt, H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, eds., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden, 1988, p. 212). There is an outstanding reason why the Median empire has been so hard to pinpoint, and that is because archaeologico-historians do not know the true location of Media. And that must necessarily mean, in turn, that they are unable to investigate Media archaeologically. This has led to scholars questioning the very existence of the Median empire. For, as I observed in my article: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (2) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology [Professor Gunnar] Heinsohn, in his far-reaching “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 1990, p. 264). [End of quote] I did, however, qualify my point about the apparently inadequate archaeology by going on to explain that the underlying problem was one of geography: Now, I think that there are two compelling reasons why Medo-Persian archaeology does not appear to manifest itself adequately in Mesopotamia. The first reason is huge and is hugely controversial: Medo-Persia was actually located nowhere near Mesopotamia. This is according to a recent (2020) geographical correction by retired Naval Officer, Royce (Richard) Erickson, in his ground-breaking article: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu I fully accept, at least, Royce Erickson’s radical NW re-location of Chaldea and Elam, and so would broadly agree with him that the related Medes and Persians must also be correspondingly shifted. The second reason is due to the fact (my belief, that is) that: Some of the so-called Persian Kings were semi-legendary, and composite The mighty king, Xerxes, favoured by various commentators to represent “Ahasuerus”, the Great King of the Book of Esther, is most likely a composite character, a mix of real Assyrian and Medo-Persian kings. The name ‘Xerxes’ is thought by historians to accord extremely well linguistically with “Ahasuerus”, the name of the Great King of the Book of Esther. There are several kings “Ahasuerus” in the (Catholic) Bible: in Tobit; in Esther; in Ezra; and in Daniel. As Cyrus The “Ahasuerus” in Esther I have identified as Darius the Mede/Cyrus. The names, Xerxes, Ahasuerus, Cyaxares and Cyrus are all fairly compatible. …. Some revisionist scholars have boldly embarked upon a radical type of solution to ‘save’ the Medo-Persian empire. My article continues: Professor Gunnar Heinsohn had put forward a most controversial ‘solution’ to account for the problems of Medo-Persian archaeology by attempting to identify the Persians with the Old Babylonian Dynasty of Hammurabi – Darius ‘the Great’ being Hammurabi himself. More recently (2002) Emmet Sweeney, who has been a supporter of Heinsohn, has sought to fuse the Persians with the neo-Assyrians and neo-Babylonians, so that, for instance, Cyrus the Great is to be identified with Tiglath-pileser III; Xerxes with Sennacherib; and Artaxerxes III with Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. …. Clever - but the proper solution is, I suggest - following Royce Erickson - to re-locate Medo-Persia geographically. If that be done correctly, then a flourishing new archaeology awaits the hopeful spade. A somewhat pessimistic, understandably, view of the “Medes” (2020) is given here at: https://www.livius.org/articles/people/medes/ Media poses a problem to the scholar who tries to describe this ancient empire: the evidence is unreliable. It consists of the archaeological record, several references in Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform texts, the Persian Behistun inscription, the Histories by the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the Persian history by Ctesias of Cnidus, and a couple of chapters in the Bible. The trouble is that the archaeological record is unclear, that the oriental texts offer not much information, that the Greek authors are unreliable, and that several Biblical books appear to have been influenced by Herodotus. But let's start with a description of the landscape itself. Mackey’s comment: No, the Herodotean account is far more complex than is the biblical data which can be boiled down to just the one major Median king: “Darius the Mede namely [even] Cyrus the Persian” (Daniel 6:28). Daniel in the den of lions during the reign of Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:16-23), even the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 14:31-42: Bel and the Dragon), is just the one, same incident: Was Daniel twice in the lions’ den? (3) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den The livius.org article continues, dishing up the conventional archaeology for Media which is so hopelessly misplaced. The Country Although the boundaries of Media were never completely fixed, it is more or less identical to the northwest of modern Iran. Its capital Ecbatana is modern Hamadan; its western part is dominated by the Zagros mountains and border on Assyria; to the south are Elam and Persis; in the arid east, the Caspian Gate is the boundary with Parthia; and Media is separated from the Caspian Sea and Armenia by the Elburz mountains. The country was (and is) dominated by the east-west route that was, in the Middle Ages, known as the Silk road; it connected Media to Babylonia, Assyria, Armenia, and the Mediterranean in the west, and to Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, and China in the east. Another important road connected Ecbatana with the capitals of Persis, like Persepolis and Pasargadae. Mackey’s comment: See above map (Royce Erickson’s Figure 1) for this Pasargadae newly identified with Pazarkaya: Pasargadae (5C) Pazarkaya Identical Persian and modern Turkish name. Modern site fits Assyrian list of Persian and Median towns correlated with Anatolian sites and also Greek History Persia Media controlled the east-west trade, but was also rich in agricultural products. The valleys and plains in the Zagros are fertile, and Media was well-known for clover (which is still called medicago), sheep, goats, and the horses of the Nisaean plain. The country could support a large population and boasted many villages and a few cities (Ecbatana, Rhagae, Gabae). The Greek author Polybius of Megalopolis correctly calls it the most powerful of all Asian countries, and it was generally recognized as one of the most important parts of the Seleucid and Parthian Empires. Mackey’s comment: See same map for Ecbatana newly identified with Abadaniye: Bit-Matti Matiana Goreme, Nevsehir Media Recent previous historical name of Turkish Goreme was Matiana. Located close to Abadaniye (Agbatana) and Ladek (Laodiceia) Royce Erickson has written regarding Agbatana/Ecbatana potentially as Abadaniye (I do not necessarily accept his account here of Cyrus and Persian history): …. There is a small town in central Tukey north of Konya called Abadaniye, very similar phonetically to Agbatana. A little more than 100 years ago its Armenian name was Egdavama. Next to it lies a barren, gentle hill with a circumference of about 6 miles, very much like the circuit wall of classical Athens, 5.25 miles. its gentle slope would favor the arrangement of seven concentric walls rising one above the other, just as Herodotus describes the walls of Agbatana. According to Greek tradition, other Median major cities were Laodicea, Rhages , and Apamea, all three not far from Ecbatana. These are their later classical Greek names; their original Median names are unknown. Modern scholars tentatively locate these sites near Tehran, based on the assumption that Agbatana was in Iran, but with admittedly very sparse historical or archaeological support. Strangely enough in south central Turkey very near modern Abadaniye described above, lie the modern towns of Dinar and Ladek, previously named Apamea and Laodicea by the Greeks. Thus there is strong circumstantial evidence that the core of the ancient Median Empire around 700 BC was not in Iran, but in central Turkish Anatolia, over 600 miles to the West. This could be written off as an absurd concept supported by astounding coincidence, so allow me add a few more facts to strengthen the case. Early Persians were closely intertwined with the Medes geographically and historically. Originally Median vassals, the Persians later ousted the Median king Astyages by means of a coup d’etat aided by the defection of most of the Median army, and established the Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great, incorporating the entire Median Empire. The original capital of the Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus II on the site of his victory over Astyages, known to the ancients as Pasargadae. Until today its location remains unknown, but is assumed by experts to be somewhere in southwest Iran, based once again on historical deduction without strong material archaeological support, despite numerous attempts to find any. Once again, we find in central Anatolia today two towns with the modern Turkish names of Pazarkaye and Khorasi not far from Abadaniye. I propose that Pazarkaye is the modern site of ancient Persian Pasargadae, and Khorasi (pronounced Khorashi) is on the site of a proposed Persian town named after either Cyrus I or Cyrus II, Persian kings whose names were pronounced “Kurush.” …. Early History Media is archaeologically poorly understood. Often, researchers have simply called those objects Median that were discovered under the stratum they had identified as Achaemenid. It would have been helpful if we could establish that certain types of archaeological remains (like house forms, ornaments, pottery, and burial rites) in the entire area of Media constantly recurred together, but until now this definition of a material culture has not been possible. Mackey’s comment: Recall what I have written above regarding Median geography: Still, it is reasonably clear that in the first quarter of the first millennium, nomadic cattle-herders speaking an Indo-Iranian language infiltrated the Zagros and settled among the native population. (The language of the newcomers can be reconstructed from loan words, personal names and toponyms.) The tribal warriors are mentioned for the first time in the Assyrian Annals as enemies of Šalmaneser III (858-824). KURMa-da-a ("the land of the Medes") …. and although the Assyrian kings were able to subdue several of them, they never conquered all of Media. In fact, it is likely that the Assyrians were themselves responsible for the unification of the Median tribes. …. Empire? If we are to believe Herodotus, Media was unified by a man named Deioces … the first of four kings who were to rule a true empire that included large parts of Iran and eastern Anatolia. Their names sound convincingly Iranian: a Daiaukku and a Uksatar (Deioces and Cyaxares) are mentioned in texts from the eighth century. Using the number of regnal years mentioned by the Greek researcher and counting backward from the year in which the last Median leader (who is mentioned in the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle) lost his throne, we obtain this list: Deioces 53 years 700/699 to 647/646 Phraortes 22 years 647/646 to 625/624 Cyaxares 40 years 625/624 to 585/584 Astyages 35 years 585/584 to 550/549 Unfortunately, there are several problems. In the first place, Ctesias offers another list of kings. Secondly, there is something wrong with the chronology: according to Assyrian sources, the Daiaukku and Uksatar mentioned above lived in c.715. Even worse, Daiaukku lived near Lake Urmia, not in Ecbatana. Besides, the story of Deioces looks suspiciously like a myth or saga about the origins of civilization. Finally, Herodotus' figures are suspect: (53+22) + (40+35) = 75+75 = 150 years. There is no need to doubt the existence of the two last rulers, who are also mentioned in Babylonian texts, but we may ask what kind of leaders they have been. One clue is a little list that Herodotus inserted in his Histories, in which he states that Deioces "united the Medes and was ruler of the tribes which here follow, namely, the Busae, Paretacenians, Struchates, Arizantians, Budians, and Magians". …. But was Deioces the only leader to unite several tribes? It is not a strange or novel idea to interpret the various personal names we have as an indication of a fluid, still developing central leadership. Herodotus' list can be seen as an attempt to create order in a confused oral tradition about earlier leaders; his description of Median history probably projects back aspects of the later, Achaemenid empire upon a loose tribal federation. He took the stories told by his Persian informers about the early history of Iran a bit too literally. Which does not mean that the leaders of tribal federations were not capable of exercising great political influence. Mackey’s comment: Ha, ha. The author here shows about as much confidence in the reliability of Herodotus as an historian as I do. Although an Arbaces may have united several Median tribes too, Cyaxares and Astyages are generally recognized as the two last rulers of the federation of tribes. According to the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle, Cyaxares (called Umakištar) destroyed the Assyrian religious center Aššur in the summer of 614: The Medes went along the Tigris and encamped against Aššur. They did battle against the city and destroyed it. They inflicted a terrible defeat upon a great people, plundered and sacked them. The king of Babylonia and his army, who had gone to help the Medes, did not reach the battle in time. From this moment on, Cyaxares and the Babylonian king Nabopolassar joined forces, and two years later, the Assyrian capital Nineveh was captured by the allies: The king of Babylonia and Cyaxares [...] encamped against Nineveh. From the month Simanu [May/June] until the month Âbu [July/August] -for three months- they subjected the city to a heavy siege. On the [lacuna] day of the month Abu they inflicted a major defeat upon a great people. At that time Sin-šar-iškun, king of Assyria, died. They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple and turned the city into a ruin heap. [...] On the twentieth day of the month Ulûlu [10 August 612] Cyaxares and his army went home. Mackey’s comment: Here, in my opinion, Sennacherib (“Nabopolassar”) (c. 700 BC) has become inter-mixed with a somewhat later time, when Sin-shar-ishkun, the son of Ashurbanipal, was killed (c. 612 BC, conventional dating). Aššur-etil-ilāni, the supposed brother of this Sin-shar-ishkun, was actually his father, as Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal. See my article: Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (2) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani Then, moving all of this into synch with its Chaldean parallel, Ashurbanipal’s ill-fated son, Sin-shar-ishkun, the last ruler of Assyria, re-emerges as the same king as Nebuchednezzar’s ill-fated son, Belshazzar, the last Chaldean ruler. …. Anyhow, Cyrus took over the loosely organized Median empire, including several subject countries: Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, and perhaps Aria. They were probably ruled by vassal kings called satraps. In 547, Cyrus added Lydia to his possessions, a state that had among its vassals the Greek and Carian towns in the west and southwest of what is now Turkey. Mackey’s comment: Notice the largely western geography here: Armenia; Cappadocia; Lydia; Greek and Carian towns. Royce Erickson has, in connection with his new, revolutionary geography, made the following intriguing comment on the Median and Persian languages: [Darius the Great] established a new capital at Persepolis in 515 BC and carved a monumental inscription, accompanied by numerous illustrations, on the nearby cliff of Behistunstan, describing and glorifying his victory in the civil war. The inscription was written in Persian (Iranian), Akkadian and Elamite – the three most important languages of the Empire. I would suggest that the Iranian language currently identified as Persian was actually Median and that the language currently identified as Elamite was the actual Persian language, as spoken at that time. Exactly how the geographic and ethnic transformation of Persians into Iranians occurred, before or after the founding of Persepolis, or even whether it occurred at all, is a worthy subject for study and debate. …. Whatever about that, there is no doubt that many startling discoveries (archaeological, geographical, cultural, linguistic, and so on) await us as a result of Royce Erickson’s: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (2) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea

Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age

Part One: Ahikar, a real historical person, embellished by Damien F. Mackey “Ahikar the son of my brother Anael, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs”. Tobit 1:21 Ahikar’s contemporary the heroine Judith, whom Ahikar (as Achior) met shortly after she and her maid had carried the head of “Holofernes” in a basket back to “Bethulia”, has likewise been projected into a supposed AD time, c. 900 AD, as Gudit (or Judith): Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite (6) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu How does this happen? And, what a story Ahikar (or Ahiqar) has to tell! He (as Achior) had been left for dead by “Holofernes” for having dared to suggest that an Israel with the aid of the Lord would be irresistible. So “Holofernes” had him tied up within close proximity of Judith’s town of “Bethulia” (Shechem), there to die with the people whom he had just verbally defended. Achior was taken in by the Bethulians, whose leader at the time was the Simeonite Uzziah, the great prophet Isaiah. Then, after Judith with her maid had returned triumphantly from the Assyrian camp, she asked to see Achior (Judith 14:6-7): So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. When he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men in the assembly of the people, he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. Now tell me what you have done during these days’. This famous Israelite pair, Judith and Ahikar, who appear in the Catholic Bible for the era of c. 700 (conventional dating), have been recklessly projected into a c. 900 AD, and later, time – a shocking time warp of more than a millennium and a half! How does this happen? (See also Part Two) Seleucids/Ptolemies divinised ancient heroes The Ptolemies re-presented some famous characters of Egyptian history as ‘saints’. Ancient notables of Egyptian history, such as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, became, in the hands of the later Ptolemies, thaumaturgists and quasi-divine. Thus Dietrich Wildung wrote of this pair as ‘becoming gods’ (Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, 36, 1977). The Seleucids did the same with - to give one example - the legendary King Solomon, who became, in their hands, the temple building Sumerian notable, Gudea: Prince of Lagash (6) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Seleucids greatly embellished the talents of these, admittedly already striking, ancient celebrities. And I suspect that the same must have been done with Ahikar (Achior), already a significant person in his own right, to whom has artificially been added encyclopædic wisdom and magical skills as one might read of in a fantastic Arabian Nights legend. Hence we now find, as I have often quoted: “The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself”. Of particular interest for this study is the influence of Ahikar upon the Koran (Qur'an). Indeed, the sage Koranic character, Luqman (Lokman), is thought by some to have been taken from Ahikar himself: Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman (13) Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 1. The real Ahikar (a) Kingdom of Assyria The young Ahikar (Achior) had a stellar career in the kingdom of Assyro-Babylonia, somewhat akin to that of the prophet Daniel. According to his uncle, Tobit (1:22): “… when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal”. When the Assyrians first successfully invaded Jerusalem, Ahikar, the Rabshakeh, was King Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, he being eloquent and, apparently, multi-lingual. When King Hezekiah’s envoys implored him to speak in Aramaïc rather than Hebrew, before the walls of Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (“field commander”) refused to comply (Isaiah 36:11-21): Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall’. But the commander replied, ‘Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?’ Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, ‘Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ‘Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards. ‘Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us’. Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries have been able to save their lands from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’ But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him”. There is nothing to suggest from any of this, so far, that Ahikar was anything more than a competent military commander and loyal servant of the Great King of Assyria. But, in the Book of Tobit, we learn that Ahikar was the mentor of Nadin (or Nadab) - and his “uncle” (presumably through marriage) - who was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, and who was to become the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Judith drama. We also learn that Ahikar was kind, he having looked after Tobit during his blindness, before being commissioned to govern the land of Elam (Elymaïs) (Tobit 2:10): I [Tobit] went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais. Ahikar and Nadin were present at the wedding of Tobias (Tobiah) and Sarah after the elderly Tobit had been miraculously cured of his blindness by the angel Raphael. These were no ordinary times (Tobit 11:17-18): That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh. Ahiqar and his nephew Nadin were also on hand to rejoice with Tobit. Tobiah’s wedding feast was celebrated with joy for seven days, and many gifts were given to him. Ahikar will also intervene with king Esarhaddon, enabling for Tobit to return home after his desperate flight from the now-deceased Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esar-haddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative. From the Judith drama we learn that Ahikar, or Achior, was now leader of a foreign contingent in the Assyrian army, wrongly called “Ammonite”, but should read Elamite. This mistake is one of the main reasons why the Book of Judith has not been accepted into the Jewish canon (Deuteronomy 23:3): “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. For, as we read in Judith 14:10: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day”. Presumably Achior was, like most of his tribe in those days, neglectful of Yahwism. As Tobit recounts (1:4-6): When I lived as a young man in my own country, in the land of Israel, the entire tribe of my ancestor Naphtali broke away from the house of David, my ancestor, and from Jerusalem, the city that had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes that all Israel might offer sacrifice there. It was the place where the Temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come. All my kindred, as well as the house of Naphtali, my ancestor, used to offer sacrifice on every hilltop in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan. But I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as was prescribed for all Israel by longstanding decree. A dying Tobit will praise Ahikar to his son Tobias for Ahikar’s “almsgiving”, contrasting his nephew with the treacherous Nadin/Nadab (Tobit 14:10-11): ‘See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar, who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, he escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes and what injustice does—it brings death!’ Ahikar/Achior also appears as “Arioch” in a gloss in the Book of Judith (1:6): “… King Arioch of Elam”. The glossator had obviously failed to realise that this was Tobit’s “Ahikar [who] … went to Elymaïs [Elam]”. Now, before we proceed to consider the fantastically embellished Arabian Nights version of Ahikar, we need to add yet an extra dimension to the real person. This will have huge ramifications for the Golden Age of Islam – my focus there being on the intellectual aspect of that so-called Golden Age. (b) Kingdom of Chaldea (Babylonia) The lives of the Tobiads (Tobit, Tobias, Ahikar) passed through the tumultuous reign of Sennacherib and on into the far more benign (for the Tobiads) reign of Esarhaddon. Now, Esarhaddon, called a “son” of Sennacherib in Tobit 1:21, was not Sennacherib’s actual biological son, nor was he an Assyrian. Esarhaddon was a Chaldean, whose reign marks the beginning of the Chaldean dynasty. Esarhaddon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (12) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That makes it quite possible that Ahikar (Arioch) was the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:24-25, a high official of King Nebuchadnezzar. But far more importantly for this study is my identification of a sage official of Nebuchednezzar due to my folding, in my university thesis (2007), of Nebuchednezzar so-called I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating) with II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating). The famous official, Esagil-kinni-ubba, will become vital for explaining the intellectual Golden Age of Islam. This is what I wrote about Esagil-kinni-ubba (of various spellings) in my thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf I believed that I may have found - over and above some very compelling Babylonian-Elamite parallels - a connection between a ‘Middle’ kingdom vizier of great wisdom and a similarly celebrated ‘Neo’ kingdom sage. I wrote about this as follows, then wrongly suspecting that Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same ruler as my composite king Sargon II-Sennacherib (Volume One, pp. 185-187): A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu) Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: … “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”. Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: …. The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself. According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22). Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of [the Book of Tobit] as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’. This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith]. Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: …. “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of the Book of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar …. …. I had suggested above that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-aplaiddina…”. [End of quote] One further matter of importance regarding “The real Ahikar” is that his Assyrian name was Aba-enlil-dari “whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar [Ahiqar]”: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html This name will also become important in the context of the Islamic Golden Age. 2. The fantasy Ahikar We read of the “Ahiqar story”, “of great popularity”, at: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. The oldest form of the story of Ahiqar itself is available in the Old Aramaic fragments from the end of the fifth century BCE and were discovered in the ruins of Elephantine in Egypt. The story of Ahiqar was incorporated into Greek legendary life of Aeseop - the adventures and maxims of the Assyrian sage were transferred to his Greek counterpart. The Syriac Ahiqar book is of non-Christian character and belongs to the oldest period of Syriac literature, to the first two centuries CE. Later versions in Armanian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavonic are all closely related to the Syriac version. From the Armenian the story of Ahiqar was translated into Kipchak-Turkish and into another Turkic language, while the Romanian translation is related to the Church Slavonic text. A selection of the precepts of Ahiqar, but not his story, was included in an Arabic Christian anthology which was later translated into Ethiopic. There is another Ethiopic version which is shorter and also clearly translated into Arabic. There are references to Ahiqar in Tobit and also other quotations from his maxims in various other books of the Bible, especially in the book of Sirach. Also a set of the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) didactic books which were associated with the name Ādurbād, a historical person of the fourth century CE Zoroastrianism, reveal strong affinities with the Akkadian-Aramaic story of Ahiqar. The Admonitions of Ādurbād contains many parallels to the Ahiqar maxims in several languages. Given the great popularity of the Ahiqar story in the first centuries of the Christian era and the long symbiosis of Iranian and Aramaic civilisation, there is certainly nothing wrong with the assumption that Persian authors of the Sasanian period may have been familiar with it. [End of quote] From a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, Ahikar will be transformed through later legend into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - especially as we trace him in Part Two through his ‘Islamic’ guises. Ahikar transformed Here is the fantastic Story of Ahikar: https://sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe259.htm Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria, has 60 wives but is fated to have no son. Therefore he adopts his nephew. He crams him full of wisdom and knowledge more than of bread and water. THE story of Haiqâr [Ahiqar] the Wise, Vizier of Sennacherib the King, and of Nadan, sister's son to Haiqâr the Sage. 2 There was a Vizier in the days of King Sennacherib, son of Sarhadum [Esarhaddon?], King of Assyria and Nineveh, a wise man named Haiqâr, and he was Vizier of the king Sennacherib. 3 He had a fine, fortune and much goods, and he was skilful, wise, a philosopher, in knowledge, in opinion and in government, and he had married sixty women, and had built a castle for each of them. 4 But with it all he had no child by any. of these women, who might be his heir. 5 And he was very sad on account of this, and one day he assembled the astrologers and the learned men and the wizards and explained to them his condition and the matter of his barrenness. 6 And they said to him, 'Go, sacrifice to the gods and beseech them that perchance they may provide thee with a boy.' 7 And he did as they told him and offered sacrifices to the idols, and besought them and implored them with request, and entreaty. 8 And they answered him not one word. And he went away sorrowful and dejected, departing with a pain at his heart. 9 And he returned, and implored the Most High God, and believed, beseeching Him with a burning in his heart, saying, 'O Most High God, O Creator of the Heavens and of the earth, O Creator of all created things! 10 I beseech Thee to give me a boy, that I may be consoled by him that he may be present at my heath, that he may close my eyes, and that he may bury me.' 11 Then there came to him a voice saying, 'Inasmuch as thou hast relied first of all on graven images, and hast offered sacrifices to them, for this reason thou shalt remain childless thy life long. 12 But take Nadan thy sister's son, and make him thy child and teach him thy learning and thy good breeding, and at thy death he shall bury thee.' 13 Thereupon he took Nadan his sister's son, who was a little suckling. And he handed him over to eight wet-nurses, that they might suckle him and bring him up. 14 And they brought him up with good food and gentle training and silken clothing, and purple and crimson. And he was seated upon couches of silk. 15 And when Nadan grew big and walked, shooting up like a tall cedar, he taught him good manners and writing and science and philosophy. 16 And after many days King Sennacherib looked at Haiqâr and saw that he had grown very old, and moreover he said to him. 17 'O my honoured friend, the skilful, the trusty, the wise, the governor, my secretary, my vizier, my Chancellor and director; verily thou art grown very old and weighted with years; and thy departure from this world must be near. 18 Tell me who shall have a place in my service after thee.' And Haiqâr said to him, 'O my lord, may thy head live for ever! There is Nadan my sister's son, I have made him my child. 19 And I have brought him up and taught him my wisdom and my knowledge.' 20 And the king said to him, 'O Haiqâr! bring him to my presence, that I may see him, and if I find him suitable, put him in thy place; and thou shalt go thy way, to take a rest and to live the remainder of thy life in sweet repose.' 21 Then Haiqâr went and presented Nadan his sister's son. And he did homage and wished him power and honour. 22 And he looked at him and admired him and rejoiced in him and said to Haiqâr: 'Is this thy son, O Haiqâr? I pray that God may preserve him. And as thou hast served me and my father Sarhadum so may this boy of thine serve me and fulfil my undertakings, my needs, and my business, so that I may honour him and make him powerful for thy sake.' 23 And Haiqâr did obeisance to the king and said to him, 'May thy head live, O my lord the king, for ever! I seek from thee that thou mayst be patient with my boy Nadan and forgive his mistakes that he may serve thee as it is fitting.' 24 Then the king swore to him that he would make him the greatest of his favourites, and the most powerful of his friends, and that he should be with him in all honour and respect. And he kissed his hands and bade him farewell. 25 And he took Nadan. his sister's son with him and seated him in a parlour and set about teaching him night and day till he had crammed him with wisdom and knowledge more than with bread and water. [End of quote] There follows a list of maxims, some of which are straight out of Tobit 4. We read more about the Story of Ahikar from professor Susan Niditch at: https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-interprets-pharaohs-dreams-an-israelite-type-922-folktale …. In brief, the story tells about an Assyrian [sic] wise man named Ahiqar, who served at the courts of Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon. As Ahiqar has no son, he adopts his nephew Nadan and treats him as his own son, and asks Esarhaddon to accept Nadan as his counselor upon Ahiqar’s retirement. Nadan, however, deals treacherously with his uncle, accusing him of disloyalty to the king. Esarhaddon orders an officer by the name of Nabu-šuma-iškun to find Ahiqar and execute him, but as Ahiqar had once saved Nabu-šuma-iškun’s life in the past, he asks for reciprocity in return. Nabu-šuma-iškun agrees, kills one of his own slaves to fake Ahiqar’s death, and hides Ahiqar in a makeshift prison, where he lives as a castaway or outcast. …. News of the great wise man Ahiqar’s “death” reaches the ears of the Pharaoh of Egypt, who sees an opportunity to hurt his Assyrian rival. The Pharaoh challenges Esarhaddon with a riddle-like trial or wager: Egypt would like to build a castle in the air. If Esarhaddon can send him someone who knows how to do this, Egypt will pay three years of taxes to Assyria, but if Assyria cannot send Egypt someone with this knowhow, Assyria must pay three years’ taxes to Egypt. The story continues in a classic Type 922 fashion: Esarhaddon is furious with Nadan, since he cannot solve the riddle, and bemoans his rash decision to have Ahiqar executed. Nabu-šuma-iškun hears this, and, in a manner reminiscent of the cupbearer in the Joseph story, tells the king that he can produce Ahiqar, who will certainly know the answer. Ahiqar appears before Esarhaddon, and the king sends him to Egypt. After a long session of answering riddles, Pharaoh tells Ahiqar to build the castle in the air. Ahiqar sends two boys up on eagles, who call down to the Egyptians that they should hand them some bricks and they will start building. Pharaoh says it is impossible to get bricks to people all the way up in the sky, to which Ahiqar replies that if he can’t even get the bricks to his builders, how are they supposed to build the castle. The story ends with Pharaoh paying the tribute to Assyria, Esarhaddon reinstating Ahiqar as advisor, and Nadan dying a cruel death. …. Part Two: Polymathic scholars of Golden Age based upon Ahikar In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. As we read in Part One, Ahikar has been transformed by legend and embellishment from being a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - and a wonder worker. Islamic Golden Age polymaths In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. In the same sort of fashion has Ahikar’s c. 700 BC contemporary, the Simeonite Judith, been chronologically projected forward so as to become a supposed Ethiopian queen of c. 900 AD, Gudit (or Judith). The handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age to whom I refer are the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Razi (c. 850); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); Averroes (c. 1150); and Ibn Khaldun c. 1300). In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Now, I find in four of these six names elements of Ahikar’s Assyro-Babylonian names: Esagil-kinni-ubba and Aba-enlil-dari. Thus: Al-Kindi – Esagil-Kinni; Al-Farabi – Enlil-Dar-Ab(i); Avicenna – Ubb-kinni(a); Averroes – Aba-(d)ar(i) This now becomes a huge extension of the already over-stretched Ahikar of legend and pseudo-history, including his influence upon the Koran. If I am correct in identifying Ahikar with at least four of these famed six intellectuals of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, then this will have enormous ramifications for the history of philosophy and science, and, indeed, for the authenticity of Islam.