Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

by Damien F. Mackey Introductory Having Lagash-Eshnunna (var. Ashnunna) re-identified now - so that instead of being places in Mesopotamia, as is generally believed, they (now it) belong(s) to Judea, as, Lachish-Ashdod (var. Ashduddu) - has necessitated that the Sumerian history that has been written around the location has since needed to be re-written, as Judean history. And I have already made a positive start on this. See e.g. my article: Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu From this research it has been learned that certain places thought to have been situated in Sumer, such as Lagash, Girsu, Puzrish-Dagān, and Umma, eventually fall off the political map. I attributed this to the fact that they (or some of them, at least) never actually belonged on the political map of Sumer, that Lagash (or Lakish) and Girsu, for instance, were, respectively, Lachish and Jerusalem, in Judea. The obscure Umma will become a focal point in this article. The Judean history that was being re-written in relation to Lagash and Girsu (supposedly in Sumer) and Eshnunna (supposedly in central Mesopotamia) seemed to revolve entirely around kings David and Solomon and the later Hezekiah of Judah. See, for example, my articles: Prince of Lagash (8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? (8) Sumerian History in Chaos: Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Thus David and Solomon were, respectively, Dadusha (Naram-Sîn) and Ibāl pî-el of Eshnunna; Solomon was also Gudea of Lagash; and Hezekiah was Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina “Uru-ka-gina, Uru-inim-gina, or Iri-ka-gina was King of the city-states of Lagash and Girsu in Mesopotamia [sic]”. While Girsu (my Jerusalem) is considered to have been the actual capital of Lagash, the region is generally designated by the name of Lagash, rather than of Girsu. According to the Wikipedia explanation, article “E-ninnu”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ninnu “Girsu was the religious centre of a state that was named Lagash after its most populous city…”. In the biblical narrative, however, it is Jerusalem that always takes centre stage. With nearly all of the main players (Dadusha/Naram-Sîn, Ibāl pî-el, Gudea and Urukagina) now having been dealt with, the only one left to be considered, I think, would be Eannatum (var. Eanatum) of Lagash. Odds are, I thought, that Eannatum would be either David or Solomon, or Hezekiah. I quickly ruled out King Solomon, considering that Eannatum was no Gudea (Solomon) type, but was a ruler whose land, Lagash, was under severe invasive threat. Nor did that particular scenario appear to fit King David’s era either, despite the fact that David was a warrior who fought many battles. No, this war was on a far more vast scale, reaching even as far, supposedly, as Mesopotamia and Elam. The era of King Hezekiah of Judah came closer to it, and I had already identified the reforming king Hezekiah with the reforming king Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu, whose land of Lagash (Lachish) had been invaded and overcome by one Lugalzagesi of Umma. In this context - a reforming king of the Lachish region (Judea), overcome by an invader - it became fairly apparent who Lugalzagesi must have been, though Umma itself continued to remain obscure, or imprecise. Lugalzagesi must be Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria. Here is some of what I wrote on the matter in the Urukagina article: Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that: https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/ “Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”. Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’” There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted. …. These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi, the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond). Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element. Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map …. Umma may either be a well-known place … under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2] Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same. Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted. Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish. And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”. Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished. Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet, and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi. Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi. Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities. Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem. Although Lugalzagesi was currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it. The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle. Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom. Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. …. The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617): n lines missing “For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him: “I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)” n lines missing Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. He went away to his city, but a second time he came ... rest of column missing The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while. Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13-17: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace. At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria. Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field. Urukagina – Hezekiah during siege of Jerusalem Eannatum – Hezekiah victorious over Assyria This is how I am beginning to see it. Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu belongs to the successful invasion of Sennacherib during the latter’s Third Campaign, when everything went right for the Assyrians. Lachish (Lagash/Lakish) was taken and the capital city of Jerusalem (Girsu) was successfully besieged: Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army}, and Urukagina exchanged blows with it with weapons. A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there, and dogs he made live there. Eannatum of Lagash was, on the other hand, the victorious King Hezekiah. His other name, Lumma, may clinch it. For I have identified King Hezekiah as the Lemuel (Lumma-el?) of Proverbs 31: 1, 4: “Lemuel” of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon (11) "Lemuel" of Proverbs could be Hezekiah rather than Solomon by | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “One inscription found on a boulder states that Eannatum was his Sumerian name, while his “Tidnu” (Amorite) name was Lumma”. So we have, rhymingly, Lumma opposed to Umma. The conventional history, which had wildly assigned Urukagina to the c. C24th BC, instead of to the c. C8th BC where he truly belongs (my view), and had made of him the world’s first reformer, goes similarly beserk with who I believe to be his alter ego, Eannatum: https://dbpedia.org/page/Eannatum “Eannatum (Sumerian: … É.AN.NA-tum2) was a Sumerian Ensi (ruler or king) of Lagash circa 2500–2400 BCE. He established one of the first verifiable empires in history: he subdued Elam and destroyed the city of Susa as well as several other Iranian cities, and extended his domain to Sumer and Akkad”. Did King Hezekiah do any of this? While I am not quite sure how some of this Sumerian-ised Judean history came about – maybe by the later Ptolemies and Seleucids, who glamourised early history and individuals - the whole thing has been grossly mis-dated by modern historians and archaeologists. Let us reconsider some of this, following the Sumerian Shakespeare, writing on whom he calls, “Eannatum, the King of Kish”: https://sumerianshakespeare.com/37601.html Eanatum … the most militarily successful ruler of the first dynasty of Lagash. He conducted many campaigns abroad, including ones against the southern cities of Ur, Uruk, and Kiutu, as well as states further afield such as Kish, Mari, Akshak, and Susa. He even reached northeastern Subartu and the eastern regions of Elam, destroying a city called Mishime. His military campaigns were so widespread that he was able to claim the title "King of Kish," a title associated with if not always actually indicating, the unity of the Mesopotamian city-states and their submission to a single ruler. Mackey’s comment: Obviously no king of Judah ever achieved such far distant conquests as these. It is probably a garbled history that drags in some of the far-reaching conquests of the neo-Assyrian kings. However, the 185,000-strong Assyrian army of Sennacherib that Israel conquered at this time, thanks to the heroic intervention of Judith, consisted of soldiery from many of these named parts. Achior, the nephew of Tobit, for instance, had commanded the Elamite (not Ammonite as in the Book of Judith) contingent. Like other Lagash rulers, Eanatum had to deal with Umma and the unsettled struggle over the Guedena. From the Enmetena cone we know he was in a strong position to dictate terms of an agreement. He divided the land with his rival Enakale and established a no-man's land along the agreed border, marking it with his own boundary stele and restoring the previously ruined stele of Mesalim, in addition to building shrines to Enlil, Ningirsu, and Ninhursag near the division. He also imposed a tax on Umma for the use of its share of the Guedena, which grew to huge proportions and in the time of his descendants resulted in another invasion by Umma into Lagash's side. To enforce the agreement he made the ruler of Umma swear an oath to the gods not to violate the borders. Mackey’s comment: Guedena is another of those geographical names that, I think, belongs to Judah, rather than to Sumer. The site of Jerusalem was originally the Garden of Eden (Guedena? Land of Eden). Though polytheistic elements (not suitable to the rule of King Hezekiah) seem to enter in here, the god Ningirsu, for instance, was simply (so I think) another name for Yahweh – Ningirsu, “Lord of Girsu” (that is, Jerusalem). King Hezekiah, after the victory that must have shaken the entire ancient world, may have been in a position to impose certain terms upon the Assyrians. Much information about Eanatum's deeds comes from the famous Stele of the Vultures, a fragmentary inscription that depicts in both verbally and graphically powerful ways the military exploits of the king of Lagash. One fragment shows the god Ningirsu holding a mace in his right hand while his left holds a net that has bagged a number of helpless enemy soldiers. Another section shows Eanatum leading a heavily armed phalanx of soldiers trampling slain enemy underneath. Yet another shows men piling up corpses into a giant heap, an image which is reflected in the text. The stele also gives testament to developments in the ideology of kingship which are promoted by later Lagash rulers. Eanatum is the first Lagash king to explicitly claim divine birth by a god, in this case Ningirsu. Inheritors of the throne would go on to do likewise, as when Eanatum's son Enanatum I [sic]¬¬¬ named the god Lugal-URU11 his father, and when Enmetena names Gatumdug his divine mother (Bauer pg. 462). Along with the divine progenitor comes a divine wet-nurse, that is, a female goddess who suckles the king to make him strong. For Eanatum this figure is the ancient goddess Ninhursag (Ean 01, IV). Other kings, down to the Neo-Assyrian period, would also make use of this motif. The stele also describes how Ningirsu visited Eanatum in a dream where he instructed him to make war on Umma. This motif surfaces again in the cylinder inscriptions of the later king Gudea, where he narrates how Ningirsu explained the plan for the (re)building of his E-ninnu temple. Mackey’s comment: The first paragraph here could well be describing the victorious Judean king, Hezekiah (Eannatum), led by Yahweh (Ningirsu), joining the rout against the Assyrian foe as begun in the north (around Shechem). Judith 15:5-7: When the Israelites heard it, with one accord they fell upon the enemy and cut them down as far as Choba. Those in Jerusalem and all the hill country also came, for they were told what had happened in the camp of the enemy. The men in Gilead and in Galilee outflanked them with great slaughter, even beyond Damascus and its borders. The rest of the people of Bethulia [Shechem] fell upon the Assyrian camp and plundered it, acquiring great riches. And the Israelites, when they returned from the slaughter, took possession of what remained. Even the villages and towns in the hill country and in the plain got a great amount of plunder, since there was a vast quantity of it. This celebrated incident is what I believe that the Stele of the Vultures may be depicting, whether the stele had been created closely contemporaneously to the event itself, or, more likely, at some later stage (and perhaps far away from Judah) given the polytheistic elements to be found in it. As for the second paragraph, the Davidide kings did regard themselves as sons of God. The “wet nurse” theme for great men is a constant throughout biblical history (Moses) and pagan legend, e.g., Hathor suckling Hatshepsut; Cyrus the Great suckled by a female dog; Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf, etc. Gudea, as King Solomon, certainly did receive a dream from Ningirsu, Yahweh, regarding the building of the temple (Temple). King Hezekiah’s oracles on behalf of Yahweh were Isaiah and, as King Josiah, Huldah, who is Judith. The conflict between Eannatum (Lumma) and Umma over water is probably a vague recollection of the fact that King Hezekiah famously secured the water of Jerusalem, so that the looming Assyrians would not benefit from it. 2 Chronicles 32:1-4: After all that Hezekiah had so faithfully done, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, thinking to conquer them for himself. When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. ‘Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?’ they said. Compare this with the following: https://classicalwisdom.com/politics/wars/a-war-for-water-the-tale-of-two-city-states/ Eannatum was the King of Lagash, a fertile town nestled between the Tigris and the Euphrates [sic]. While his domain was prosperous, Eannatum wanted more. This ambitious king, upon receiving his power, understood that Lagash’s security relied on its water supply from the Shatt al-Gharraf [sic]. Unfortunately his neighbor, the city-state of Umma, also bordered this very important channel on the western bank [sic]. The chief cause of hostility between these important cities is unknown according to some historians, and while we can never be certain, it seems obvious to us that the conflict was over water. …. Umma held this one strategic advantage over Lagash. Cutting the water supply to the city would hinder its domestic produce and trade via waterway, effectively crippling commerce in Lagash and sending prices upward on all commodities. …. Good try!

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

The Arameans from Kir

by Damien F. Mackey “‘Are you not as the sons of Ethiopia to Me, You sons of Israel?’ declares the LORD. ‘Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt, And the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?’” Amos 9:7 Where is Kir? And what were the Arameans doing there? Kir had not seemed to me like an Aramean sort of place, especially in its apparent association with Elam. For, as we read at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/kir “In Isa.22.6 soldiers from Kir are associated with others from Elam, and this may indicate the general direction in which to look for Kir”. I need to note here that the correct location of Elam, and the associated land of Chaldea, may have to be hugely reconsidered, based on Royce (Richard) Erickson’s game-changing article (2020): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | ROYCE ERICKSON - ACADEMIA.EDU A key towards solving the problem of Amos 9:7 is to realise that the Arameans did not originate from Kir, but had been exiled to there. Thus, to the valid question posed at: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/w73bv8/do_we_know_what_amos_is_referring_to_when_he/ Do we know what Amos is referring to when he talks about the Arameans being brought up from Kir? Question zanillamilla responds: There is no certain place with that name [Kir] in the ANE. Amos 9:7 should be understood in light of the reference to Kir in 1:5 as the destination where Aramaeans will be exiled. 2 Kings 16:9 indeed says that Tiglath-pileser III exiled the inhabitants of Damascus to Kir in 732 BCE, which might be a gloss drawing on Amos 1:5. The most promising identification of Kir is the city-state of Der on the border of Elam. This Sumerian name is derived from Akkadian duru "wall, border", which translates as קִיר "wall" in Hebrew. This identification is supported by Isaiah 22:6: "Elam took up the quiver with the chariots, infantry and horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield". It is also possible that Tiglath-pileser III exiled people from Der: "After overcoming the crisis years of the 11th and 10th century, when Assyria had been reduced to its core area in the course of incursions by Aramaean semi-nomads, Assyrian kings resumed the attempts of their successful predecessors of the Middle Assyrian period to enlarge the territory of their state and plunder foreign lands. Assyrian armies began again to cross into neighboring regions, including areas to the south. It was during the reign of Adad-nerari II (911–891) that the Assyrians conquered for the first time the land and the city of Der. The take-over proved to be ephemeral. Perhaps already in 831, and then definitely in 815/814, under Šamši-Adad V (823–811), Assyrian troops had to take once again military action against Der. In 815 or 814, they carried away the statues of Der’s main god, Anu rabû...A few years later, Der slipped away again from the Assyrian sphere of influence. In 795 and 794, Adad-nerari III (810–783) campaigned against the city and, in 785, he returned the divine statues taken away from Der on an earlier occasion. While it remains uncertain whether Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) truly did deport large numbers of people from Der, as his annals might indicate,9 [See the discussion in Postgate & Mattila 2004: 241, n. 16.] it is very likely that it was under the iron fist of this very king that the Assyrians eventually annexed the city" (Eckart Frahm's "Assurbanipal at Der", pp. 52-53; SEO, 2009). Compare also Ezra 4:8-10 which says that Assurbanipal later deported and settled in Samaria and the rest of Eber-Nari (which includes Aram) people from Uruk, Babylon, and Elam. So what might have happened is that as Der repeatedly fell into Assyrian hands and then fought for its independence once again, the Assyrians deported Aramaeans and inhabitants of Der multiple times, such that it could be said that some of the Aramaeans had been from Der and they could be expected to return there if deported again. …. [End of quote] The point to be taken from this is that the prophet Amos had foretold that the Syrians (Aram-eans) would be exiled to Kir (1:5): “‘The people of Aram will go into exile to Kir’, says the Lord”. And, by the time we reach Amos 9:7, they have been returned: ‘Have I not brought … the Arameans from Kir?’ The vital questions now become, where was Kir? And, to where were the Arameans brought back? Der, as suggested above by zanillamilla - wherever it may have been - may turn out not to be the best choice. To where were the Arameans brought from Kir? My suggestion would be to Samaria, given that Sargon II had brought back captives to there. Samaria is close enough to Damascus to warrant, perhaps, the Arameans considering that they had been brought back ‘home’. Dêr does not appear to figure amongst the places from which Sargon II brought exiles to re-populate Samaria (2 Kings 17:24): “The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns”. Kir would have to be one of these five sites: Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath or Sepharvaim. I would favour Babylon, which I have identified with Carchemish: Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel https://www.academia.edu/123692973/Land_of_Shinar_Nimrod_and_the_Tower_of_Babel Kir - Kar - chemish: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4027-carchemish “The Egyptians write "Karakamisha," or frequently "Ḳaraḳamisha." The Assyrians speak of "Gargamish" (earlier "Kargamish") as the principal city of northern Syria, "the Ḥatte-land".” In Isaiah 22:6 we read: “And Elam bore the quiver with chariots and horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield”. Regarding Babylon (Kir?) and shields, Wesley’s Notes tell with reference to Isaiah 21:5: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.ii.xxiv.xxii.ii.html “Princes - Of Babylon: arise from the table and run to your arms. Shield - Prepare yourselves and your arms for the approaching battle. The shield is put for all their weapons of offense and defense. They used to anoint their shields with oil, to preserve and polish them, and to make them slippery”.

Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Mighty Assyro-Chaldean kings mistaken for Hittite emperors

by Damien F. Mackey And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Responding to a Brazilian researcher concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II, I concluded that Sennacherib (who actually is my Sargon II) must instead have been writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty: Some Letters from Sennacherib (3) Some Letters from Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I then followed up this article with one on: Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar (3) Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu which enabled me to establish, for Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria, a “contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty”, namely pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’. He, the great pharaoh, would be, I believe, the only contemporary of Sennacherib (Sargon II) to whom the Assyrian king would deign to have shown such deference as to write (Letter # 029): [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed …. in such a way as could suggest a treaty had been established between the mighty pair. Now, with the mention of Ramses II and a treaty with another Great King, one must think only of the famous treaty made between Ramses II and Hattusilis so-called III. And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Obviously there is a lot that must be worked out to solidify this identification. But there appears to be a parallel scenario between (a) Hattusilis, his formidable wife, (b) Pudu-hepa and (c) Tudhaliya so-called IV, on the one hand, and – {in my revision, according to which Sennacherib was succeeded by his (non-biological) son, Esarhaddon, a Chaldean, who is my Nebuchednezzar} - (a) Sennacherib, his formidable wife, (b) Naqī’a (Zakūtu) and (c) Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar). I need to note here that I have multi-identified each (a-c) of this second set. Thus: Sargon II/Sennacherib is, all at once, Tukulti-ninurta; Shamsi-Adad [not I]; Esarhaddon is, all at once, Ashur-bel-kala; Ashurnasirpal; Ashurbanipal; Nebuchednezzar [I and II]; Nabonidus; Artaxerxes of Nehemiah; Cambyses’; Naqia/Zakutu is, all at once, Semiramis (of Tukulti-ninurta’s era); Sammu-ramat; Adad-Guppi. But how can an Assyrian king, or a Chaldean king, become confused as a Hittite? Well, perhaps we may consider a few things here. For example: No such people as the Indo-European Hittites (3) No such people as the Indo-European Hittites | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article I referenced Brock Heathcotte as follows: Brock Heathcotte has written on this in his article “Tugdamme the Hittite” (January 28, 2017): The theory espoused here is that Mursili II and Tugdamme were the same person. This does not mean that his subjects, euphemistically called the “Hittite” people in modern times were ethnic Cimmerians. They almost certainly were a people of many ethnicities including prominently Luwian, based on language. The cold hard fact that has been distorted by decades of talking about the Hittites is that there is no such people as the Hittites. The tablet people we spoke of never called themselves Hittites, and nobody else called them Hittites either at the time. This is actually not controversial. It is just obscured by convention. Academics could argue all day and night about the ethnic composition of the people who lived in Anatolia, and which of them were the rulers we know as the Hittite kings. The argument is not susceptible to resolution, especially not in the current mistaken historical context the Hittites are placed. The rulers called themselves the Great Kings of Hatti. They could be any ethnicity. We should think of “Hittite” as the same sort of location-based moniker for a people as “American.” It doesn’t make sense to say there is an American ethnicity, and it doesn’t make sense to say there is a “Hittite” ethnicity. Americans come in many different ethnicities, as did the Hittites. …. [End of quote] Moreover, some time before I wrote any of this, I had already penned this article about Ashurnasirpal, who is my Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar), a Chaldean: Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal (3) Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu These Assyro-Chaldean kings, who conquered the lands of the Hittites, could easily have assumed titles akin to King of the Hittites. Tudhaliya’s accession like that of Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, Tudhaliya, had no real prospect of succeeding to the throne. The ancient term for someone in that position, not of the royal line, was “son of nobody”. And I found this characteristic in Esarhaddon’s alter egos, having written: …. Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. …. And we read in the following Abstract that that was also the former status of Tudhaliya: https://academic.oup.com/book/36172/chapter-abstract/314550786?redirectedFrom=fulltext Abstract In his early years, the prince Tudhaliya could have had little thought that he would one day become king. But he was installed by Hattusili ‘in kingship’, that is, Tudhaliya probably now assumed the role of crown prince. This chapter examines the career path which Hattusili had mapped out for Tudhaliya in preparation for his becoming king of the Hittites, Puduhepa's effort to arrange her daughter's marriage to Tudhaliya, problems and potential crises inherited by Tudhaliya from Muwattalli as Hittite ruler, political developments in western Anatolia during Tudhaliya's reign, the impact of establishment of a pro-Hittite regime in Milawata on Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia, political problems that arose from the marriage alliance contracted between the royal families of Ugarit and Amurru, Tudhaliya's war with Assyria, possible coup instigated by Kurunta to wrest the throne from his cousin Tudhaliya, Tudhaliya's conquest of Alasiya, and the achievements of Tudhaliya IV as ruler of the Hittite kingdom. The whole thing seems to have been arranged by the formidable Queen, as was the case again with Esarhaddon and his mother Naqī’a/Zakūtu: Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis (3) Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://www.britannica.com/biography/Naqia “[Esarhaddon’s] energetic and designing mother, Zakutu (Naqia), who came from Syria or Judah [sic?], used all her influence on his behalf to override the national party of Assyria”. I would expect now to begin finding many parallels between Esarhaddon/ Nebuchednezzar, in his various guises (alter egos), and the so-called Hittite emperor, Tudhaliya.

Thursday, August 1, 2024

Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’

Part One: Setting the Campaign Scene by Damien F. Mackey The massive, all-conquering Assyrian army, led by “Holofernes”, having brought into subjection the coastal Mediterranean cities, now turns its sights upon Israel. Early in my university thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf I had anticipated that (Volume One, p. 8): “Some important geographical revisions will also be proposed in this thesis”. One of these pertained to Bethulia”: “The most significant of these will be: ‘ASHDOD’, featuring prominently in Sargon II’s records as a fort leading a western rebellion against him, usually identified with the coastal Philistine city of that name (the latter now to be now identified with the ‘Ashdudimmu’, or maritime Ashdod, of the neo-Assyrian records), will be re-identified with the mighty Judaean fortress of LACHISH. ‘CONDUIT OF THE UPPER POOL, WHICH IS ON THE HIGHWAY TO THE FULLER’S FIELD’ (cf. 2 Kings 18:17 & Isaiah 7:3; 36:2) …. ‘BETHULIA’: Judith’s home town, to be identified with the northern BETHEL, that Jeroboam II of Israel had formerly turned into a pagan cult centre (e.g. Amos 7:10-13)”. Then in Volume Two (“Identification of Bethulia”, pp. 69-71), I would embrace C. R. Conder’s identification of Bethulia with the village of Mithilia (or Mesilieh). Whilst I am still holding to only the first of these, I have had cause to re-think the location and identification of Bethulia, about which I had written (Volume Two, p. 71): “I find quite satisfying this site (Mithilia/Meselieh), which appears to fit Bethulia in regard to its location, description, name (approximately) and apparent strategic importance”. The Book of Judith is, in its present form, replete with personal and geographical name difficulties, a situation that has led scholars - particularly in more recent times - to relegate the book to the level of “pious” or “historical fiction”. As I noted in my Preface (p. x), I would try to sort things out by locating the drama to a very precise historical period: The full resolution of this complicated matter though, as I see it, will not be found until Part II, with my merging of the Book of Judith with the Books of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah for the era of Hezekiah (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). I have nowhere read where this particular historical scenario for Judith has been attempted; though, in retrospect, the C8th BC Hezekian era for the Judith drama, with Sennacherib ruling in Assyria, now seems to me to be rather obvious. Be that as it may, I know of virtually no current historians who even consider the Book of Judith to be anything other than a ‘pious fiction’, or perhaps ‘historical fiction’, with the emphasis generally on the ‘fiction’ aspect of this. Thus I feel a strong empathy for the solitary Judith in the midst of those differently-minded Assyrians (Judith 10:11-13:10). Earlier in Volume Two (p. 27), I had quoted C. Moore regarding difficulties that commentators have encountered concerning the geographical account of the Assyrian campaign: Moore tells of some of the problems associated with this particular campaign account: …. Chaps. 2 and 3 of Judith continue to offer serious errors in fact but of a different kind, namely, geographical. Holofernes’ entire army marched from Nineveh to northern Cilicia, a distance of about three hundred miles, in just three days (2:21), after which they cut their way through Put and Lud (usually identified by scholars with Libya in Africa, and Lydia in Asia Minor, respectively …), only to find themselves crossing the Euphrates River and proceeding west through Mesopotamia (2:24) before arriving at Cilicia and Japheth, facing Arabia (2:25)! Either something is now missing from the itinerary, or the author knew nothing about Mesopotamian geography …. Once Holofernes reached the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean, his itinerary becomes more believable even though a number of cities and peoples mentioned are unknown, e.g. Sur and Okina (2:28) and Geba (3:10). Just exactly what route Holofernes’ army took to get from the coastal cities of Azotus and Ascalon (2:28) to the place where they could encamp and besiege Bethulia is unknown. The LXX seems to suggest that Holofernes’ attack on Bethulia came from the north (cf. 4:6; 8:21; 11:14, 19). … According to verse 4:4: “So [the Israelites living in Judaea] sent word to every district of Samaria, and to Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, and Jericho, and to Choba and Aesora, and the valley of Salem”. Moore finds this highly problematical also: …. Starting with chap. 4, the problem shifts from the author’s errors and confusion over geographical names and locations to the reader’s ignorance and confusion as to the geographical locations of sites near Bethulia. For instance, of the eight Israelite places named in 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem. … Craven though, whose purpose will be rather a literary assessment of [the Book of Judith], has no qualms therefore in dismissing as insignificant the historical and geographical problems of [the Book of Judith] with which other commentators of the book have tried to grapple: …. “The Book of Judith simply does not yield literal or even allegorical data. Instead, its opening details seem to be a playful manipulation of both historical and geographical facts and inventions”. Charles C. Torrey will, on the other hand, in his article back in 1899, “The Site of 'Bethulia'” (JAOS 20, pp. 160-172), take far more seriously the geographical details. It is this particular article that actually prompted my re-think of Bethulia. Thus Torrey wrote, for example (p. 161): “But in the frequent descriptions with which the writer gives of the region where the principal action of the story take place, the geographical and topographical details are introduced in such number and with such consistency as to show that he is describing localities with which he was personally familiar. Nor is it difficult to determine, in general, what region he had in mind. Beyond question, the discomfiture of the ‘Assyrian’ army is represented as having taken place in the hill country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem”. Two key places for defence were, apparently, “Bethulia and Betomesthaim” facing Esdraelon (or Jezreel). For it was to these two towns that the high priest Joakim wrote from Jerusalem (thesis, Volume Two, p. 53): The High-Priest, Joakim Instead of a king to stir up the people, as Hezekiah had done at the commencement of Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chronicles 32:2-8), for his Third Campaign, [Judith] 4:6-7 introduces us to: “The high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time [who] wrote to the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, ordering them to seize the mountain passes, since by them Judaea could be invaded …”. For more on the high priest, Joakim, see e.g. my article: Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest and: https://www.academia.edu/31701911/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest._Part_Two_Eliakim_points_to_Saint_Peter Continuing on now with the “Assyrian Advance on Bethulia” (Volume Two, p. 61), I wrote: [Judith] 7:1: “The next day Holofernes ordered his whole army, and all the allies who had joined him, to break camp and to move against Bethulia, and to seize the passes up into the hill country and make war on the Israelites”. The Assyrian fighting forces, “170,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, not counting the baggage and the foot soldiers handling it” (v. 2), now numbered that fateful figure of 180,000 plus. …. “When the Israelites saw their vast numbers, they were greatly terrified and said to one another, ‘They will now strip clean the whole land; neither the high mountains nor the valleys nor the hills will bear their weight’.” (v. 4). One can now fully appreciate the appropriateness of Joel’s ‘locust’ imagery. [The Book of Judith] provides the reader with a precise location for the Assyrian army prior to its assault of the fortified towns of Israel facing Dothan. • I give firstly the Douay version of it (7:3): All these [Assyrian footmen and cavalry] prepared themselves together to fight against the children of Israel. And they came by the hillside to the top, which looketh toward Dothain [Dothan], from the place which is called Belma, unto Chelmon, which is over against Esdraelon. • Next the Greek version, which importantly mentions Bethulia (v. 3): They encamped in the valley near Bethulia, beside the spring, and they spread out in breadth over Dothan as far as Balbaim and in length from Bethulia to Cyamon, which faces Esdraelon. The combination of the well-known Dothan (var. Dothain) and Esdraelon in both versions presents no problem, and fixes the area where the Assyrian army massed. The identification of Bethulia will be discussed separately, in the next chapter (section: “Identification of Bethulia”, beginning on p. 69). The only other geographical elements named are ‘Belma’ (Douay)/ ‘Balbaim’ (Greek); and ‘Chelmon’ (Douay)/ ‘Cyamon’ (Greek). Charles has, not illogically, linked the first of these names, which he gives as ‘Belmaim’ (var. Abelmain) … with the ‘Belmaim’ listed in 4:4. …. And he tells that, in the Syrian version, this appears as ‘Abelmeholah’. …. But both this location, and “Cyamon, Syr Kadmûn, VL Chelmona”, he claims to be “unknown”. …. Leahy and Simons, on the other hand, have both ventured identifications for these two locations. And they have each in fact arrived at the same conclusion for ‘Belbaim’ (‘Belma’) … though Simons will reject the identification of ‘Cyamon’ (‘Chelmon’) that we shall now see that Leahy has favoured. Here firstly, then, is Leahy’s account of it, in which he also connects ‘Belbaim’ with the ‘Balamon’ of 8:3 (pertaining to the burial place of Judith’s husband, Manasseh): …. Holofernes had given orders to break up camp and march against Bethulia. Then, according to the Gk, the army camped in the valley near Bethulia, and spread itself in breadth in the direction over against Dothan and on to Belbaim (Balamon of Gk 8:3, Belma of Vg, Jible´am of Jos 17:11, the modern Khirbet Bel´ame), and in length from Bethulia to Kyamon (Chelmon of Vg, Jokne´am of Jos 12:22, the modern Tell Qaimun). Simons will instead prefer for ‘Cyamon’, modern el-jâmûn. …. Here is his geographical assessment of the final location of the Assyrian army as given in the Greek version: …. Judith vii 3b describes the location of BETHULIA more closely. The clause is easily understandable on the condition that two changes are made, viz. “breadthwise ‘from’ … DOTHAIM unto BELBAIM and lengthwise from ‘BELBAIM’ (LXX reads “BETHULIA”. However, the besieged city itself cannot have been at the extremity of the besieging army) unto CYAMON which is opposite (the plain of) Esdrelon” or in terms of modern geography; from tell dôtân unto hirbet bel’ameh and from hirbet bel’ameh unto el-jâmûn. The disposition of Holofernes’ army thus described is perfectly comprehensible, if BETHULIA was situated between the upright sides of a triangle, the top of which was the twice mentioned site of hirbet bel’ameh, while its base was a line from tell dôtân to el-jâmûn. According to Moore (above), “… of the eight Israelite places named in [Judith] 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem”. But we have just found that “Belmain”, for instance, may not be “totally unknown”. Moreover, there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.” “It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King James Version, that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”. http://biblehub.com/topical/s/shalem.htm The Valley of Salem deserves far closer attention (see next section), because there is a Psalm, purportedly pertaining to the time of King Hezekiah and the defeat of the Assyrians, in which there occurs a reference to “Salem”. Even, according to M. D. Goulder, “a battle at Salem”: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem” (The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III, p. 86). Salem Important “So they sent a warning to the whole region of Samaria and to the towns of Kona, Beth Horon, Belmain, Jericho, Choba, and Aesora, and to Salem Valley. They immediately occupied the mountaintops, fortified the villages on the mountains, and stored up food in preparation for war”. Judith 4:4-5 Previously I had noted that “… there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem …” …. It is certainly a remarkable fact … that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”. One really needs to take seriously what may seem at first like insignificant geographical clues. Salem or Shalem The mysterious “Salem” in the Bible inevitably gets connected with Jerusalem. For example (https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/valley-shaveh): SHAVEH, VALLEY OF (shā'vĕ, Heb. shāwēh, a plain). Also called “the king’s dale”; a place near Salem (i.e., Jerusalem, Ps.76.2), where, after rescuing his nephew Lot, Abraham met the king of Sodom (Gen.14.17). It is identified by some as the same place where Absalom erected a memorial to himself (2Sam.18.18). In the Psalm referred to here, 76 (Hebrew), or 75 (Douay), the word Shalem (שָׁלֵם) seems to be - in typical Hebrew parallelistic fashion - juxtaposed with Zion (צִיּוֹן), as if identifying the two (76:3): “In Salem also is set His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion”. But, as we have gleaned from the OT books of Genesis and Judith, there was apparently also a northern Salem. And indeed some, for example “… the list of earlier scholars … identified Melchizedek’s Salem with Shechem …” (Studies in the Pentateuch, Volume 41, edited by John Adney Emerton, p. 53). The NT also refers to a place named “Salim”, which some think may have been partly in the vicinity of Shechem (http://biblehub.com/topical/a/aenon.htm): “[Aenon] Springs, a place near Salim where John baptized (John 3:23). It was probably near the upper source of the Wady Far'ah, an open valley extending from Mount Ebal to the Jordan. It is full of springs. A place has been found called `Ainun, four miles north of the springs”. M. D. Goulder had, as noted, referred to “a battle at Salem” near Shechem, in the north, in relation to: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem”. This - whilst not according entirely with my previous acceptance of Judith’s “Bethulia” as Mithilia (much closer to Dothan) - does accord very well, however, with my firm conviction that the Battle of the Book of Judith had occurred in the north, and not in the south at Jerusalem. The Douay version of the Psalm (there numbered as 75) connects it explicitly to King Hezekiah (“Ezechias”) and “the Assyrians”, which is precisely where I have located it historically. Thus: …. God is known in his church: and exerts his power in protecting it. It alludes to the slaughter of the Assyrians, in the days of king Ezechias. [1] Unto the end, in praises, a psalm for Asaph: a canticle to the Assyrians. [2] In Judea God is known: his name is great in Israel. [3] And his place is in peace: and his abode in Sion: [4] There hath he broken the powers of bows, the shield, the sword, and the battle. [5] Thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills. [6] All the foolish of heart were troubled. They have slept their sleep; and all the men of riches have found nothing in their hands. [7] At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, they have all slumbered that mounted on horseback. [8] Thou art terrible, and who shall resist thee? from that time thy wrath. [9] Thou hast caused judgment to be heard from heaven: the earth trembled and was still, [10] When God arose in judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. [8] "From that time": From the time that thy wrath shall break out. [11] For the thought of man shall give praise to thee: and the remainders of the thought shall keep holiday to thee. [12] Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God: all you that are round about him bring presents. To him that is terrible, [13] Even to him who taketh away the spirit of princes: to the terrible with the kings of the earth. Ramses II and Salem Rohl goes even further than that, and - whilst rightly rejecting Champollion’s old identification of the 22nd dynasty’s pharaoh Shoshenq I with the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” … proceeds to identify Ramses II as “Shishak”. Given the strategic importance of “Salem” in the environs of Shechem during the massive Assyrian invasion of Syro-Palestine, as discussed in Part One with reference to Judith 4, then I must reconsider my former acceptance of the view of some that the pharaoh Ramses II, when conquering the “city of Shalem”, was actually attacking Jerusalem itself. Previously we noted that “… there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem …” …. It is certainly a remarkable fact … that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”. That Shalem was Jerusalem, though, is the view argued by, for instance, Dr. David Rohl in his book, A Test of Time. The Bible: - From Myth to History (Century, London 1995). Rohl goes even further than that, and - whilst rightly rejecting Champollion’s old identification of the 22nd dynasty’s pharaoh Shoshenq I with the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who sacked the Temple of Yahweh after the death of king Solomon - proceeds to identify Ramses II as “Shishak”. And Peter van der Veen will firmly back up Rohl on this: http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/engveen.html VII. Did Ramesses II conquer Jerusalem? In my view, the city of Shalem conquered by Ramesses II in his Year 8 cannot be identified with any other city in Palestine other than Jerusalem ('city of Shalem'). The inscription on the north pylon of the Ramesseum probably does not list the cities in geographical sequence but rather as highlights of the campaign. Ramesses did indeed take the cities of Merom, Kerep, etc, but this does not mean that he could not have taken a city in the south on his way back to Egypt or during his expedition against Moab. …. [End of quote] My own view is that pharaoh Ramses II was by no means “Shishak”, but was Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty. See e.g. my article: The Shishak Redemption (5) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, I now think that Dr. Rohl was not only wrong about his choice of pharaoh for “Shishak”, but possibly also for his identification of the “Shalem” in the Egyptian records with the city of Jerusalem. Blown into oblivion Blown away like autumn leaves, as Lord Byron had poetically written - so have the winds of time erased even the memory of the Assyrian rout. I have often marvelled at how thoroughly has the memory of the destruction of the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s massive army disappeared from the records of history. “Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown”, as Lord Byron wrote: “And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill”. And: “Hath melted like snow”. Apart from the occasional general, only, references to the fact of the incident, say in Sirach (48:21): “The Lord struck down the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out”, or I Maccabees 7:41: “There Judas prayed, ‘Lord, the Scriptures tell us that when a king sent messengers to insult you, your angel went out and killed 185,000 of his soldiers’” (cf. 2 Maccabees 15:22), we have to turn to the classical sources for any glimpse of the drama. Herodotus, for instance, pitted the event at “Pelusium” (the eastern extremity of the Nile Delta), at the time of a pharaoh “Sethos”. And he attributed the disaster to a plague of mice (2:141): “ when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."[2] The only detailed account of the incident (including the all-important geographical data) that I had ever been able to find, and it is a most substantial one, is that set out in the Book of Judith. Here we are provided with the why, the when, and the whereabouts of the disaster – all of it encompassed within a magnificently readable drama which has rightly become famous. But there are Judith echoes to be found everywhere, from BC time through to supposed AD time, as I pointed out e.g. in my article: Ancient tales inspired by Judith of Bethulia (5) Ancient tales inspired by Judith of Bethulia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu in the “Lindian Chronicle”; in parts of Homer’s The Iliad; Tomyris and Cyrus; Beta Israel’s Gudit the Semienite, c. 1000 AD (matching Judith the Simeonite): Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite (5) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Whilst I was already aware that Douay Psalm 75 was considered to refer to King Hezekiah and the Assyrian defeat, I had not picked up on – until now – that crucial “Salem” (or Shalem) connection between the Psalm and the “Salem Valley” of Judith 4:4. ‘Salem’ in the Psalm (76, Hebrew) I had considered to be a parallelism with ‘Zion’ (Jerusalem). King Sennacherib had, of course, successfully attacked Jerusalem and its environs during his Third Campaign, which could not, however, have been the ill-fated Assyrian one that had resulted in the complete rout of the Gentile army. This is quite apparent from the sequence in Isaiah 37. According to the prophecy (v. 33): ‘Therefore this is what the LORD says concerning the king of Assyria …’, all the things that Isaiah said the “king of Assyria” would not do, he had already managed to do during his highly successful Third Campaign (vv., 33-35): ‘He will not enter this city or shoot an arrow here. He will not come before it with shield or build a siege ramp against it. By the way that he came he will return; he will not enter this city’, declares the LORD. ‘I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!’ [,] this followed immediately by (v. 36): “Then the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!” Psalm 76 (Hebrew) may finally be that missing connection for which I had been searching, providing that all-important detail of the location of the battle and rout: viz., “Salem Valley”. In Byron’s poem there is, happily, no mention of a disaster in the vicinity of Jerusalem, with only “Galilee” (north) being referred to: The Destruction of Sennacherib (1815) George Gordon Byron The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen: Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed; And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still. And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide, But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride: And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf, And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf. And there lay the rider distorted and pale, With the dew on his brow and the rust on his mail; And the tents were all silent, the banners alone, The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown. And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal; And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword, Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord! Part Two: Not Mithilia (Mesilieh) but Shechem Modern Mithilia, formerly my choice for the site of Judith’s “Bethulia”, may not actually be significant - or strategically important - enough. In retrospect, I may have been swayed to some extent in my former choice of Mithilia (or Mesilieh) by the fact that Claude Reignier Conder, who had thus identified Judith’s site of Bethulia, had appeared to believe in the reality of the whole thing. For he had written: “In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more” (Judith x 10)” – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881. Those, on the other hand, who had opted for different sites for “Bethulia”, such as the strong fort of Sanur, for instance, or for Shechem, did not appear to give the impression of believing that the Book of Judith was describing a real historical incident. For instance Charles C. Torrey, who favoured Shechem for “Bethulia”, would brush off the overall story of Judith in the following dismissive fashion (“The Site of 'Bethulia'”, JAOS 20, 1899, p. 160): “The author of the story brings into it an unusual number of geographical and topographical details; names of countries, cities, and towns, of valleys and brooks. With regard to a part of these details, especially those having to do with countries or places outside of Palestine, it can be said at once that they are merely literary adornment, and are not to be taken seriously”. And, a bit further on, Torrey will continue in the same vein: “These are all just such details as we expect to see employed by a story-teller who, without being very well informed, wishes to make his tale sound like a chapter of history …”. But could the village of Mithilia, Conder’s choice, be significant enough for the original site? Admittedly, it seemed to fit some of the details of the Book of Judith. Thus Conder wrote: “?Meselieh? A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called W鈊y el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water. In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12) There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13). The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7).’The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanur – does not fulfill these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site. Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem? we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor … and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wady Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander … and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen. A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles. There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist [sic] to have encamped. …”. But, against the choice of both Mithilia (“Mithilīyeh”) and Sanur (“Ṣānūr”), C. Torrey would write rather convincingly (op. cit., pp. 162-163): “… the city which the writer of this story [Judith] had in mind lay directly in the path of Holofernes, at the head of the most important pass in the region, through which he must necessarily lead his army. There is no escape from this conclusion. This absolutely excludes the two places which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Ṣānūr and Mithilīyeh, both midway between Geba and Genin [presumably Jenin]. Ṣānūr, though a natural fortress, is perched on a hill west of the road, and “guards no pass whatsoever” (Robinson, Biblical Researches … iii. 152f.). As for Mithilīyeh, first suggested by Conder in 1876 (see Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, ii. 156f.), it is even less entitled to consideration, for it lies nearly two miles east of the caravan track, guarding no pass, and of little or no strategic importance. Evidently, the attitude, hostile or friendly, of this remote village would be a matter of indifference to a great invading army on its way to attack Jerusalem. Its inhabitants, while simply defending themselves at home, certainly could not have held the fate of Judea in their hands; nor could it have ever occurred to a writer of such a story as this to represent them as doing so”. The author reconsiders his former choice for “Bethulia”, of Mithilia, now in favour of the more well-known and strategic city of Shechem. The Jewish Encyclopedia (“Judith, Book Of”) tells of the appropriateness of Shechem for Judith city of “Bethulia”: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9073-judith-book-of “… Identity of Bethulia. As Torrey first pointed out, in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem. A great army, with its baggage-trains, breaking camp at Geba in the morning (vii. 1), would arrive in the afternoon at the springs in the broad valley (ib. 3) just under Shechem. This, moreover, is the city which occupies the all-important pass on this route, the pass by which "was the entrance into Judea" (iv. 7). Furthermore, each one of the details of topography, which the writer introduces in great number, finds its unmistakable counterpart in the surroundings of Shechem. The valley below the city is on the west side (vii. 18; comp. ib. verses 13, 20). The "fountain of water in the camp" (xii. 7) is the modern Bait al-Ma, fifteen minutes from Shechem. The ascent to the city was through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10; comp. x. 10). Whether the words "for two men at the most" (iv. 7) are an exaggeration for the sake of the story, or whether they truly describe the old fortifications of the city, it is impossible to say with certainty. At the head of this ascent, a short distance back from the brow of the hill, stood the city (xiv. 11). Rising above it and overlooking it were mountains (vii. 13, 18; xv. 3). The "fountain" from which came the water-supply of the city (vii. 12 et seq.) is the great spring Ras el-'Ain, in the valley (ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι, ib. 17) just above Shechem, "at the foot" of Mount Gerizim. The abundant water-supply of the modern city is probably due to a system of ancient underground conduits from this one spring; see Robinson, "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 247, and Guérin, "Samarie," i. 401 et seq. Further corroborative evidence is given by the account of the blockade of Bethulia in vii. 13-20. "Ekrebel" is 'Aḳrabah, three hours southeast of Shechem, on the road to the Jordan; "Chusi" is Ḳuza (so G. A. Smith and others), two hours south, on the road to Jerusalem. The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question. …”. Against this, we read in The Book of Judith: Greek Text with an English Translation, ed. Morton Scott Enslin, p. 80): “Shechem may well have been known to the author, but if he utilized it as the site of his Judean Thermopylae, he has allowed himself full liberty in his description. Bethulia is high on the mountain; Shechem was not”. Though, on the other hand, we read in Joshua 21:21: “… they gave them Shechem with her suburbs in mount Ephraim …”. And I Kings 12:25: “Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim …”. ‘O Lord, the God of my ancestor Simeon, remember how you armed Simeon with a sword to take revenge on those foreigners who seized Dinah, who was a virgin, tore off her clothes, and defiled her; they stripped her naked and shamed her; they raped her and disgraced her, even though you had forbidden this’. Judith 9:2 Since Judith here recalls an unsavoury incident that had occurred at the city of Shechem, then this would add force to the location of her town of ‘Bethulia’ as Shechem. That the rape of Dinah had occurred at Shechem is apparent from the geographical lead-in of Genesis 33:18-20: After Jacob came from Paddan Aram, he arrived safely at the city of Shechem in Canaan and camped within sight of the city. For a hundred pieces of silver, he bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, the plot of ground where he pitched his tent. There he set up an altar and called it El Elohe Israel. The pagan Canaanite, Shechem, who defiled the virgin, turns out to be somewhat more honourable than, later, David’s eldest son, Amnon, who, having raped his half-sister, Tamar, then abandons her as “a desolate woman”. See my article: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife (2) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But none of that ‘honourableness’ is about to impress the vengeful brothers Simeon and Levi. In the following Genesis 34:1-31 account of the incident one will notice a stark contrast between Jacob’s reaction to it and that of Simeon and Levi – and how different is Jacob’s estimation of Simeon (and Levi) when compared to Judith’s glowing account of her ancestor: Dinah and the Shechemites Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. And Shechem said to his father Hamor, ‘Get me this girl as my wife’. When Jacob heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he did nothing about it until they came home. Then Shechem’s father Hamor went out to talk with Jacob. Meanwhile, Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in Israel by sleeping with Jacob’s daughter—a thing that should not be done. But Hamor said to them, ‘My son Shechem has his heart set on your daughter. Please give her to him as his wife. Intermarry with us; give us your daughters and take our daughters for yourselves. You can settle among us; the land is open to you. Live in it, trade in it, and acquire property in it’. Then Shechem said to Dinah’s father and brothers, ‘Let me find favor in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask. Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring as great as you like, and I’ll pay whatever you ask me. Only give me the young woman as my wife’. Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his father Hamor. They said to them, ‘We can’t do such a thing; we can’t give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That would be a disgrace to us. We will enter into an agreement with you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We’ll settle among you and become one people with you. But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go’. Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. The young man, who was the most honored of all his father’s family, lost no time in doing what they said, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to the men of their city. ‘These men are friendly toward us’, they said. ‘Let them live in our land and trade in it; the land has plenty of room for them. We can marry their daughters and they can marry ours. But the men will agree to live with us as one people only on the condition that our males be circumcised, as they themselves are. Won’t their livestock, their property and all their other animals become ours? So let us agree to their terms, and they will settle among us’. All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised. Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, ‘You have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed’. But they replied, ‘Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?’ Later, a dying Jacob will ‘curse the anger’ of the fiery pair of brothers (49:5-7): ‘Simeon and Levi are brothers— their swords are weapons of violence. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased. Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel’. No such negative sentiment as this will arise from Judith, however. Had not God himself “armed Simeon with a sword to take revenge on those foreigners who seized Dinah …”? And now Judith will reverse the ancient crime of the pagan Shechem by personally overcoming the god-less “Holofernes” who wishes to take sexual advantage of her. She, like Simeon, will be ‘armed with a sword’ to accomplish the deed (Judith 13:14-16): Judith shouted, ‘Praise God, give him praise! Praise God, who has not held back his mercy from the people of Israel. Tonight he has used me to destroy our enemies’. She then took the head out of the food bag and showed it to the people. ‘Here’, she said, ‘is the head of Holofernes, the general of the Assyrian army, and here is the mosquito net from his bed, where he lay in a drunken stupor. The Lord used a woman to kill him. As the Lord lives, I swear that Holofernes never touched me, although my beauty deceived him and brought him to his ruin. I was not defiled or disgraced; the Lord took care of me through it all’. In this heroic action, Judith - as the faithful have long recognised - prefigures the Virgin Mary: https://icxcmary.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/esther-judith-mary/ Another Old Testament heroine is Judith. The way she prefigures Mary is somewhat different. As we know from Genesis, God put enmity between the woman and the serpent, who represent Mary and the devil, respectively, and through the power of her Son, the Woman would crush the serpent’s head. Well, Judith is an image of this mystery, for she saved her people by cutting off the head of the evil and tyrannical general, Holofernes. Judith, like Esther and like Mary, was exceedingly beautiful and devout, and was held in high honor by her people. When their faith wavered in the face of the threats and power of the enemy, she counseled them to trust in God, and not put Him to the test by placing a limit on how long they would wait for Him before they would surrender to their enemies. For God would deliver them at the proper time by the hand of a woman. After Judith had killed the enemy leader and returned victorious to her people, they sang to her (and this is used in the Latin Rite on certain feasts of Our Lady): “You are the exaltation of Jerusalem; you are the great glory of Israel; you are the great pride of our nation! You have done all this single-handedly; you have done great good to Israel, and God is well pleased with it. May the Almighty Lord bless you forever! … The Lord Almighty has foiled them by the hand of a woman!” (Jdt. 15:9-10; 16:6). Our Lady is the Woman at whose hand (or rather, under whose foot) God has foiled the designs of our evil enemy, the devil. God has chosen her to bring the Savior into the world and to stand with Him and to wield the power He has given her to protect us from evil and to neutralize its power and influence in our lives. There is much more that can be said about Old Testament prefigurings of the Mother of God, but let this suffice for now. Let us realize that just as the mystery of Christ was known in Heaven for all eternity, the mystery of his Mother was known as well—for how could there be an incarnate Son considered in isolation from the one who gave flesh to Him? So the mystery of both Mother and Son was intimated in the stories of salvation history, until their complete revelation in the fullness of time—and the ever-deepening understanding of these divine mysteries in the ongoing life of the Church, until the Lord returns in glory.

Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Prophet Isaiah had his own struggle with faith and trust

by Damien F. Mackey When we read Isaiah’s authoritative and unerring statements to King Hezekiah, we might be led to imagine that, whereas Hezekiah had to be taught, the prophet Isaiah was always in complete control of situations. That will prove very much not to have been the case. As the Oracle and mouthpiece of the Lord, the prophet Isaiah was empowered to utter profound and edifying statements. But that does not mean that he was a perfectly un-flawed human being. We read in: Isaiah berates King Hezekiah for trusting, not in God, but in weaponry and defence works (1) Isaiah berates King Hezekiah for trusting, not in God, but in weaponry and defence works | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu about King Hezekiah’s personal flaws of character, chiefly his pride. But that did not make him a bad king overall. When measured against the Gold Standard, King David, the pious reformer king, Hezekiah, comes in second out of all of the kings of Judah - presuming that one identifies Hezekiah with Josiah, as I do: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (2) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu When we read Isaiah’s authoritative and unerring statements to King Hezekiah, we might be led to imagine that, whereas Hezekiah had to be taught, the prophet Isaiah was always in complete control of situations. That will prove very much not to have been the case. Who was Isaiah? I have dealt with this question now in various articles and a university thesis (2007). Isaiah was, in fact, the son of the prophet Micah, who stretches right back to embrace the prophet Micaiah at the time of King Ahab of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah: Micaiah and Micah more than just a name match (2) Micaiah and Micah more than just a name match | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Isaiah was a Simeonite: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (2) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As a non-priest, non-Levite, Isaiah, like his father Micah (a veritable Amos redivivus), and who was also Amos, was never expected to have become a prophet (cf. Amos 7:14). Isaiah appears under various names in the Bible, some of these being compatible. In the context of King Hezekiah, Isaiah was also Hosea and “Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon” (Judith 6:15). In the context of King Josiah, Isaiah was also Asaiah (2 Kings 22:14), and Nahum, and Jonah, and the martyred Uriah (Urijah) (Jeremiah 26:20-23). The Gath-hepher from which he (as Jonah) hailed (2 Kings 14:25) could not have been a place in Galilee (cf. John 7:52), but must have been his father Micah’s home town of Moresheth (Gath) in southern Judah (Micah 1:1). Isaiah’s father, as Amos, had been commissioned by the Lord to testify at Bethel in the north, where he was unwelcome. Bethel is the “Bethulia” of the Book of Judith, which C. C. Torrey had brilliantly shown to be, geographically and topographically, Shechem: Isaiah himself, who was (as Uzziah in Judith) a prince: “… the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23: Douay), must have been amongst those “captains of war” whom King Hezekiah placed in charge of Judah’s defences (2 Chronicles 32:6). Isaiah would have well known Shechem (“Bethulia”) in the north from his father’s sojourn there, and from his own experience in the northern kingdom as the prophet Hosea. With 182,000 plus Assyrians surrounding “Bethulia” and its environs (cf. Judith 7:2 NRSV), Isaiah - as Uzziah the chief magistrate of the city - would be pressurised into a situation leading to a failure in faith and trust, over the same issue as Moses had been, water (cf. Judith 6:14-15; Numbers 20:10-12). Whereas Moses would be reprimanded on high for not upholding the holiness of God before the people, Uzziah (Isaiah) would have to face a furious Judith, no doubt his younger Simeonite relative, for placing a time limit to “bind the purpose of God”. Listen to the powerful words (Judith 8:9-27 below), a true masterpiece of theology, as uttered by the young Judith, the archetypal Joan of Arc: Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc (1) Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu When Judith heard the harsh words spoken by the people against the ruler because they were faint for lack of water, and when she heard all that Uzziah said to them and how he promised them under oath to surrender the town to the Assyrians after five days, she sent her maid in charge of all she possessed to summon Uzziah and Chabris and Charmis, the elders of her town. They came to her, and she said to them, ‘Listen to me, rulers of the people of Bethulia! What you have said to the people today is not right; you have even sworn and pronounced this oath between God and you, promising to surrender the town to our enemies unless the Lord turns and helps us within so many days. Who are you to put God to the test today and to set yourselves up in the place of God in human affairs? You are putting the Lord Almighty to the test, but you will never learn anything! You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart or understand the workings of the human mind; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought? No, my brothers, do not anger the Lord our God. For if he does not choose to help us within these five days, he has power to protect us within any time he pleases or even to destroy us in the presence of our enemies. Do not try to bind the purposes of the Lord our God, for God is not like a human being, to be threatened, or like a mere mortal, to be won over by pleading. Therefore, while we wait for his deliverance, let us call upon him to help us, and he will hear our voice, if it pleases him. For never in our generation nor in these present days has there been any tribe or family or people or town of ours that worships gods made with hands, as was done in days gone by. That was why our ancestors were handed over to the sword and to pillage, and so they suffered a great catastrophe before our enemies. But we know no other god but him, and so we hope that he will not disdain us or any of our people. For if we are captured, all Judea will fall, and our sanctuary will be plundered, and he will make us pay for its desecration with our blood. The slaughter of our kindred and the captivity of the land and the desolation of our inheritance—all this he will bring on our heads among the nations, wherever we serve as slaves, and we shall be an offense and a disgrace in the eyes of those who acquire us. For our slavery will not bring us into favor, but the Lord our God will turn it to dishonor. Therefore, my brothers, let us set an example for our kindred, for their lives depend upon us, and the sanctuary—both the temple and the altar—rests upon us. In spite of everything, let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting us to the test as he did our ancestors. Remember what he did with Abraham and how he tested Isaac and what happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia, while he was tending the sheep of Laban, his mother’s brother. For he has not tried us with fire, as he did them, to search their hearts, nor has he taken vengeance on us, but the Lord scourges those who are close to him in order to admonish them’. Perhaps, now, too, we can begin to understand what has puzzled so many commentators, Why King Josiah, upon the discovery of the Book of the Law, did not send his delegation to consult any of the outstanding male prophets of the time, but a woman, Huldah. For Judith was that woman, Huldah! Judith and Huldah (DOC) Judith and Huldah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this explains Uzziah’s reply to Judith: ‘Today is not the first time your wisdom has been shown …’ (vv. 28-31): Then Uzziah said to her, ‘All that you have said was spoken out of a true heart, and there is no one who can deny your words. Today is not the first time your wisdom has been shown, but from the beginning of your life all the people have recognized your understanding, for your heart’s disposition is right. But the people were so thirsty that they compelled us to do for them what we have promised and made us take an oath that we cannot break. Now since you are a God-fearing woman, pray for us, so that the Lord may send us rain to fill our cisterns. Then we will no longer feel faint from thirst’. As Huldah, Judith had boldly responded to King Josiah’s delegation with: ‘Tell that man …’ (2 Kings 22:15). It sounds blunt. She must have known the young king well, was reputedly his mentor. And now, again, with similar Joan of Arc like forthrightness Judith continues, seemingly brushing aside Uzziah’s comments. ‘Listen to me …’ (Judith 8:32-34): Then Judith said to them, ‘Listen to me. I am about to do something that will go down through all generations of our people. Stand at the town gate tonight so that I may go out with my maid, and within the days after which you have promised to surrender the town to our enemies, the Lord will deliver Israel by my hand. Only, do not try to find out what I am doing, for I will not tell you until I have finished what I am about to do’. Judith 8:35-36: Uzziah and the rulers said to her, ‘Go in peace, and may the Lord God go before you, to take vengeance on our enemies’. So they returned from the tent and went to their posts. What incredible, total faith and trust in God! Virtually unprecedented in human history – at least in the Old Testament. No wonder that Judith stands as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Another commentator who is amazed at Judith’s firm faith is Toni Craven, as I noted in my university thesis (2007, Volume Two, p. 68): Craven, following Dancy’s view that the theology presented in Judith’s words to the town officials rivals the theology of the Book of Job, will go on to make this comment: “Judith plays out her whole story with the kind of faith described in the Prologue of Job (esp. 1:21 and 2:9). Her faith is like that of Job after his experience of God in the whirlwind (cf. 42:1-6), yet in the story she has no special theophanic experience. We can only imagine what happened on her housetop where she was habitually a woman of regular prayer”. Isaiah (as Jonah) fails again I'm going down I'm going, down, down, down, down, down Yes, I'm going down, yes I'm going down, down, down, down, down Yes, I've got my feet in the window Got my head on the ground Albert King That just about describes the career of Jonah, “going down”. Going down to Joppa; going down to the ship; going down “below deck”; going down in the storm; going down into the depth of the sea; going down inside the big fish. By stark contrast to Judith, who was completely God-centred, His will being paramount, Jonah self-centredly did not want an opportunity of mercy afforded to the Ninevites. Had he not only recently had a front seat view of the rout of the mighty Assyrian army? Had not the Great King of Assyria, Sennacherib, only recently been assassinated by his sons? Now, with Assyria in chaos, was the time for God to strike that wicked people for good. But, no, here is God commissioning Jonah to Nineveh, as He had once sent his father Amos to Bethel. Jonah knew that God was merciful - mercy is in fact His first and greatest attribute - that He was about to offer the pagan Ninevites a chance to repent. And Jonah was having none of it. Even to the very end, with the miracle of mass conversion going on in the city, Jonah was meanly waiting in the east of Nineveh for the outcome. More concerned about shelter from the burning sun than the fate of an entire city. And that is how the Book of Jonah ends, with an angry Jonah (4:9): ‘I’m so angry I wish I were dead’. The poor man, by now of great age, will have – according to my revision – yet one more opportunity to run away, to ‘go down’ to Egypt to escape his persecutors, now as the prophet Uriah (Urijah) (Jeremiah 26:20-23). The great prophet’s misery will soon be at an end. He will be hauled back to Jerusalem by the emissaries of King Jehoiakim (= Manasseh) and slain with the sword. This is, in fact, tradition’s Martyrdom of Isaiah.

Monday, July 29, 2024

Shechem: the Bethel of Jeroboam and the “Bethulia” of Judith

by Damien F. Mackey “… Shechem was almost certainly the Bethel of Jeroboam, during the divided kingdom”. Dr. John Osgood For a long time I was of the opinion that the best candidate for Judith’s strategically important town of “Bethulia” was, following C. R. Conder, Mithilia (or Mesilieh), near Dothan. That was more due to the fact that Conder himself had been so enthusiastic about the site rather than because it was a location of the strategic importance that the Judith narrative would demand. C. R. Conder had apparently, from the following description, entertained the possible reality of the Judith account: ?Meselieh? A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called W鈊y el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water. In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12) There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13). The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7).’The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanur – does not fulfill these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site. Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem ? we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor … and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wady Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander … and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen. A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles. There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist [sic] to have encamped. In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more'”. (Judith x 10) – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881. On the other hand, the scholar who would properly identify Judith’s “Bethulia” as Shechem, C. C. Torrey, did not consider the narrative to be anything more than a mere fantasy. He did, however, believe that the Book of Judith’s description of “Bethulia” itself must have been based upon the in-put of someone who knew the geography of Shechem in very precise detail. The Site of 'Bethulia' Charles C. Torrey Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 20 (1899), pp. 160-172 (13 pages) Now, Dr. John Osgood has characteristically filled in some of the archaeology of Shechem (from Abraham to Jeroboam of Israel) in its relation to the Scriptures: Techlets - creation.com Shechem: This is no problem to the revised chronology presented here, since the passage concerning Abraham and Shechem, viz. Genesis 12:6, does not indicate that a city of any consequence was then present there. On the other hand, Jacob’s contact makes it clear that there was a significant city present later (Genesis 33 and 34), but only one which was able to be overwhelmed by a small party of Jacob’s sons who took it by surprise. I would date any evidence of civilisation at these times to the late Chalcolithic in Abraham’s case, and to EB I in Jacob’s case, the latter being the most significant. The Bible is silent about Shechem until the Israelite conquest, after which it is apparent that it developed a significant population until the destruction of the city in the days of Abimelech. If the scriptural silence is significant, then no evidence of occupation would be present after EB I until MB I and no significant building would occur until the MB IIC. Shechem was rebuilt by Jeroboam I, and continued thereafter until the Assyrian captivity. Moreover, Shechem was almost certainly the Bethel of Jeroboam, during the divided kingdom. So I would expect heavy activity during the majority of LB and all of Iron I. This is precisely the findings at Shechem, with the exception that the earliest periods have not had sufficient area excavated to give precise details about the Chalcolithic and EB I. No buildings have yet been brought to light from these periods, but these periods are clearly represented at Shechem. MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction, so almost certainly it was the city of Abimelech. The population’s allegiance to Hamor and Shechem could easily be explained by a return of descendants of the Shechem captives taken by Jacob’s son, now returned after the Exodus nostalgically to Shechem, rather than by a continuation of the population through intervening periods (see Judges 9:28, Genesis 34). For Jeroboam’s city and after, the numerous LB and Iron I strata are a sufficient testimony (see Biblical Archaeology, XX,XXVL and XXXII). …. [End of quote] This accords well with the view that the city of Jericho built during the reign of king Ahab of Israel was the Iron Age I level city. On this, see e.g. my article: Hiel's Jericho. Part One: Stratigraphical level (DOC) Hiel's Jericho. Part One: Stratigraphical level | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Judith’s Shechem (“Bethulia”) level would belong to a later phase again of the Iron Age.