Judith - turning an Assyrian Crown Prince into a Prize Clown

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“Judith had nothing but contempt and irony in her heart when she had,

with all customary protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was assembled

with his impressive entourage (Judith 10:23)”.

 

 

Ben Dewar has written in the Abstract to his article:

Rebellion, Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššu...

 

Rebellion, Sargon II’s “Punishment” and the Death of Aššur-nādin-šumi in the Inscriptions of Sennacherib

 

• Ben Dewar 

 

Abstract

 

Despite the frequency of rebellions against the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his annals are described as such. Instead rebels are often described as having never submitted to Sennacherib before. This reluctance to write about rebellion is unusual in Assyrian inscriptions, but has not been commented upon in the previous scholarship. This study investigates the reasons for this peculiarity of Sennacherib’s inscriptions. It is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was intended to draw attention away from the connection between these events and the death of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II. A second instance of a death in Sennacherib’s family affecting the content of his inscriptions is also identified. His son Aššur-nādin-šumi’s death followed a pair of campaigns to the borders of Tabal, the location of Sargon’s death. Because of this it was viewed as a “punishment” for undertaking these campaigns to regions tainted by association with Sargon. After his death, Aššur-nādin-šumi is never mentioned in the same inscription as these campaigns. Although Sennacherib generally avoids mentioning rebellion, overcoming such events was an important facet of Assyrian royal ideology. Because of this, events in some ideologically or historically significant regions are explicitly stated to be rebellions in the annals. Sennacherib’s inscriptions therefore demonstrate, perhaps better than those of any other Assyrian king, the two sides of rebellion’s ideological importance as both an obstacle overcome by a heroic king, and as a punishment for a poor one. His attempts to obscure some occurrences of rebellion demonstrate a fear of the more negative ideological aspect of rebellion which is not usually present in the inscriptions of other kings. This provides new insight into the factors which influenced the composition of Sennacherib’s inscriptions.

 

Let us unpack this short piece in a revised context.

 

With Sennacherib qua Sennacherib, we get only a portion of his overall story.

For Sennacherib was also, according to my reconstructions, Tukulti Ninurta; Shamsi-Adad II/V; and Sargon II. See e.g. my articles:

 

Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib

 

(7) Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib

 

Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again

 

(7) Assyria’s second Shamsi-Adad was Sennacherib all over again

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

(7) Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

So the “very few events” in Ben Dewar’s opening statement: “Despite the frequency of rebellions against the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib, very few events in his annals are described as such”, might be less “few” in actuality. 

 

Now, in my context, Ben Dewar’s qualifying statement:

 

“It is argued that the description of rebels in this fashion was intended to draw attention away from the connection between these events and the death of Sennacherib’s father, Sargon II” - with Sennacherib identified by me as Sargon II - is hopelessly wide of the mark.

 

The Assyrian text upon which everything hangs was doctored by Winckler and Delitzsch to incorporate the name “Sargon”, which does not actually appear there.

Thus I wrote in my (2007) university thesis (Volume One, p. 137):

 

Another seemingly compelling evidence in favour of the conventional chronology, but one that has required heavy restoration work by the Assyriologists, is in regard to Sennacherib’s supposed accession. According to the usual interpretation of the eponym for Nashur(a)-bel, (705 BC, conventional dating), known as Eponym Cb6, Sargon was killed and Sennacherib then sat on the throne:[1]

 

The king [against Tabal....] against Ešpai the Kulummaean. [......] The king was killed. The camp of the king of Assyria [was taken......]. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son [of Sargon, took his seat on the throne].

 

Tadmor informs us about this passage that: “Winckler and Delitzsch restored: [MU 16 Šarru-ki]n; ana Ta-ba-lu [illik]”. That is, these scholars took the liberty of adding Sargon’s name.

 

Jonsson, who note has included Sargon’s name in his version of the text, gives it more heavily bracketted than had Tadmor:[2] “[Year 17] Sargon [went] against Tabal [was killed in the war. On the 12th of Abu, Sennacherib, son of Sargon, sat on the throne]”.

 

This document will become hugely significant in the context of this thesis. ….

 

The land of Tabal appears to have become the location of the death of both Sargon II – which it wasn’t – and of Sennacherib’s (that is Sargon II’s) ill-fated Crown Prince son, Ashur-nadin-shumi.

 

Now, the latter was the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and also the wretched Nadin (Nadab) of the Book of Tobit:

 

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

 

(7) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith

 

But did he meet his fate at Tabal, which is apparently in SE Anatolia?

 

No, “Holofernes” (Ashur-nadin-shumi) met his fate outside “Bethulia”, which is Shechem in the southern Levant:

 

Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’

 

(7) Judith’s City of 'Bethulia'

 

It seems that there was also a Tabal in this approximate region:

Tabal (region) - Wikipedia

“The name Tabal appears to have been a widely used one, since a location sharing this name is recorded from southern Syria, and the toponym Dabal or Tabal is recorded during the period of the Akkadian Empire …”.

 

Indeed, “Holofernes” had just marched his army down from the Damascus region (Judith 2:27).

 

One possible identification for the southern Tabal may be Jibleam (Ibleam), as the Belamon/Belameh/Belmain of Judith 4:4 is thought probably to be.

For the name Tabal (Tubal) may well be derived from Ibleam:

Ibleam | The amazing name Ibleam: meaning and etymology

“… Jabal, Jubal, Jubilee, Obil, Tubal …”. 

 

I recently wrote in my article:

 

Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc

 

Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc - Search

 

…. In the Book of Judith, all the deference and respect shown by the heroine towards a royal person is entirely faked, part of Judith’s ruse, because it is directed towards the enemy leader, Holofernes. He, somewhat like the Dauphin, was second to the Great King (of Assyria), hence not crowned. Judith in fact has nothing but contempt for Holofernes and the Assyrians (somewhat like Joan’s attitude towards the English).

 

But she will tell Holofernes, very much in Joan of Arc fashion - but with complete irony in Judith’s case - that, after his victory (Judith 11:19): ‘… I will lead you through Judea, until you come to Jerusalem; there I will set your throne. You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd, and no dog will so much as growl at you’.

 

Judith claimed before Holofernes to be a messenger from God who was now supposedly favouring the Assyrians (v. 19): ‘For this was told me to give me foreknowledge; it was announced to me and I was sent to tell you’.

 

In Joan’s case, the ruse was on the part of the Dauphin, not her. “To test her, the king had disguised himself, but she at once saluted him without hesitation amidst a group of attendants” (New Advent). Her opening words to him were direct and to the point just like Judith’s had been to Holofernes (Spoto, p. 48): ‘My most eminent lord Dauphin, I have come, sent by God, to bring help to you and to the kingdom’.

 

Donald Spoto adds: “It was as direct and unadorned a summary as the Dauphin – and anyone else before or since – could ask.

 

Help for him and for France: that was her message and her vocation”. But her reverence for the Dauphin was completely honest.

 

Judith, on the other hand, had nothing but contempt and irony in her heart when she had similarly, with all customary protocol, greeted Holofernes, who was – just like the Dauphin – assembled with his impressive entourage (Judith 10:23): “When Judith came into the presence of Holofernes and his servants, they all marvelled at the beauty of her face. She prostrated herself and did obeisance to him, but his slaves raised her up”.

 

The pressure upon the young woman at this time must have been enormous.

 

Donald Spoto says of Joan that (ibid., p. 49): “Charles was fascinated by the seventeen-year old girl who stood calmly and confidently before him … after a brief but apparently intense private conversation, he seemed to one member of his court to be “radiant””.

 

Certainly ‘fascination’ is one word that could also be used to describe Holofernes’ impression of the young Judith, though the biblical text uses “passion”, as well as “greatly pleased with her”, and it has “[being] merry” rather than being “radiant” (Judith 12:16-17, 20):

 

Holofernes’ heart was ravished with her and his passion was aroused, for he had been waiting for an opportunity to seduce her from the day he first saw her. So Holofernes said to her, ‘Have a drink and be merry with us!’

…. Holofernes was greatly pleased with her, and drank a great quantity of wine, much more than he had ever drunk in one day since he was born.

 

Joan [Jehanne], as we read, was regarded by the enemy, the English, as a “prostitute”.

 

And Holofernes likewise presumed Judith [Jehudith], in a camp full of men, to be fair game, saying to his chief eunuch, Bagoas (Judith 12:12): “… it would be a disgrace if we let such a woman go without having intercourse with her. If we do not seduce her, she will laugh at us’. This Bagoas had summoned Judith to the tent of his master, Holofernes, with the words (12:13): ‘Let this pretty girl not hesitate to come to my lord to be honoured in his presence …’ .

 

Similarly had Jean de Metz first addressed Joan (Spoto, p. 37), “M’amie [“Sweetheart” or “Honey”] …”.

 

Whilst Joan will eventually attend the coronation of Charles (New Advent): “… on Sunday, 17 July, 1429, Charles VII was solemnly crowned, the Maid standing by with her standard, for — as she explained — “as it had shared in the toil, it was just that it should share in the victory”,” Judith will not have to suffer the humiliating indignity of attending a victorious Holofernes’ being crowned in Jerusalem.

 

---

[1] H. Tadmor, ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur’, p. 97.

[2] ‘The Foundations of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology’, p. 21.

Psibkhenno may serve to anchor Ramses II in a biblico-historical era

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

Pharaoh Psibkhenno needs an alter ego, because much of his building work is thought no longer to exist.

This is typical of Egypt’s so-called Twenty-First Dynasty, which is quite archaeologically deficient.

Nicolas Grimal has written, re “The historical interpretation of Tanis”, for instance (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 317): “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I …”.

 

And again (p. 315): “At Tanis, Psusennes I built a new enclosure around the temple dedicated to the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu. If the few traces of reuse of earlier monuments are to be believed, he made many other contributions to the temple, but because of the current conditions of the site little is known concerning this work”.

 

Psibkhenno was apparently the father-in-law of Shoshenq I (N. Grimal, p. 319).

Smendes II, who I suspect must be Smendes=Shoshenq I, “sent a pair of bracelets to Psusennes …”. (p. 318).

 

Pharaoh Psibkhenno may now, at last, enable us to anchor Ramses II ‘the Great’ in a real historico-biblical phase.

 

Egypt often gets considered in complete isolation from the other nations, from Mesopotamia, for instance, and from the biblical history.

 

This is very much due to the effect of the Sothic chronology, serving to disconnect much of Egyptian history (especially in its earlier phases) from its real, contemporaneous scene; but it is also because the pharaohs were more inclined to boast about themselves to the exclusion of the other nations.

 

In this the ancient Egyptians were unlike, say, the Assyrians, who - whilst likewise being boastful - kept detailed and useful historical records, which included many handy foreign names and places.

 

With the name, Psibkhenno, we may perhaps be able to pick up a useful clue, enabling at last for a potential connection for Egypt with Mesopotamia. Thanks to David Rohl, a revisionist, we get this compelling observation of real phonetic value: “… we might find the true identity of Si’be in the 21^st Dynasty king Psibkhenno, more commonly known by the classical name of Psusennes”.

(“Comments by David Rohl”, SIS Workshop, vol. 5, no.1, 1982, p. 19).

 

I had much liked this connection as made by Dr. Rohl, and had initially embraced it – Psibkhenno, a long-reigning ‘Ramesses’, and indeed my Ramses ‘the Great’, a contemporary of the mighty neo-Assyrian king Sargon II.

In conventional terms, the Sargonic era is c. 700 BC, approximately 600 years from Ramses’ presumed beginnings in c. 1300 BC.

 

However, I have since concluded, on the basis of the Tang-i Var inscription and other evidence, that Sargon II’s Egyptian opponent, Si’be, was in fact, Shebitku Khaemwaset, co-regent with Ramses II, and indeed, the son of that great pharaoh.

On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

 

(6) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

 

And I have further extended the phonetics by concluding that Sargon II’s pharaonic tribute bringer, Shilkanni, was, not the conventional Osorkon IV of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, but was Psibkhenno:

 

Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

(6) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

What may strongly re-inforce Ramses II’s place in the neo-Assyrian era is the fact that an inscription of his at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, stands opposite one of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (c. 680-668 BC, conventional dating).

 

What to make of this?

 

-       Convention, of course, would have Esarhaddon arriving at the scene about half a millennium after Ramses II, and defacing the latter’s image. Thus, for instance:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/289-esarhaddons-nahr-al-kalb-inscription/

“To make sure that the Phoenician cities better understood that Esarhaddon was and would always be victorious, the king left an inscription at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, opposite one of the reliefs that the Egyptian king Ramesses II had once made to commemorate his Syrian campaigns. Everyone traveling along the coast from Byblos to Beirut would see Esarhaddon's relief and understand that Esarhaddon was a greater conqueror than the heroes of the past”.

 

-       Dr. Velikovsky, with his radical revision, actually located Ramses II even later than Esarhaddon;

 

-       My revision has Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon:

 

The Complete Ramses II

 

(6) The Complete Ramses II

 

Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters [1-XXXIX] in the Light of Assyrian Monuments, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London/New York, 1930, p. 126) really extended Si’be, biblically, so that ‘So’, Sibe and Shabaka were all one and the same person. He had written that: “The Hebrew characters read “So” should probably be read “Sĕvĕ”. And: “Sĕvĕ” … is to be identified with Shabaka [Shabako] the son of Kashta, who succeeded his father in 715” [sic].

 

The name ‘So’, it seems, can be variously rendered: e.g. Sĕvĕ; Sua; Soan (Josephus[1]); Soa, Soba, Segor (LXX).

 

Most interestingly, in my new context, the Lucianic recension of the LXX has ‘So’ as an “Ethiopian, living in Egypt” (one Adrammelech).

 

Psibkhenno was the elusive “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4) at the time of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. {Psibkhenno was most likely also the Shabako of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, as Boutflower had thought}.

 

This now extends the floruit of our Ramses ‘the Great’ all the way from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon.

This is also the very era of the Book of Tobit, whose chapter 1 encompasses “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; and “Esarhaddon”.

 

Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings

 

https://www.academia.edu/14097259/Book_of_Tobit_and_the_Neo_Assyrian_Kings

 

Sargon is not mentioned here in Tobit.

That is because Sargon was Sennacherib. See e.g. my article:

 

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

 

https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overlap

 

At last, Ramses II ‘the Great’ can be firmly fixed to the neo-Assyrian era, from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon, thereby solving the long-existing problem for revisionists: Where to fit in Ramses II?

 

It also solves the burning question of who was the biblical “So”. We need no longer entertain such ridiculous assertions that “So” pertains to pharaoh Tefnakht by a “process of metonymy” in relation to Tefnakht’s town of Saïs (cf. N. Grimal, p. 342).

 

With the right key now in hand, we can firmly identify Sargon II’s Egyptian contacts, namely:

 

Si’be = Shebitku;

Pharaoh of Egypt (Pirʾu of Musri) = Ramses II ‘the Great’;

Shilkanni (thought to be Osorkon IV) is clearly Psibkhenno

Shebitku of the Tang-i Var inscription = Shebitku

 

Shilkanni’s gift to Sargon II of “twelve great horses from Egypt, which are unrivalled in the whole country” (N. Grimal, p. 343) is reminiscent of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty with its love of fine chargers. Thus, as is thought (loc. cit.): “Piankhy … was buried at Napata along with two of the famous Egyptian chargers … the same horses which had aroused the admiration of Sargon II”. 

 

 

---

[1] Antiquities, 9:14:1.

Advantages if Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is identified with Josiah’s son Jehoiakim

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim”

in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

“Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10.

  

These are my most recent articles in favour of what I now consider to be a:

 

Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

(7) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

(7) Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

One important corollary of this parallelism is that Hezekiah’s idolatrous son, Manasseh, now becomes Josiah’s idolatrous son, Jehoiakim:

 

Manasseh – Jehoiakim

 

(8) Manasseh - Jehoiakim

 

The following two texts, I submit, are describing the very same incident.

 

Manasseh

2 Chronicles 33:11: “Yahweh then brought down on them the generals of the king of Assyria's army who captured Manasseh with hooks, put him in chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Jehoiakim

2 Chronicles 36-5-6: “Jehoiakim … did what is displeasing to Yahweh his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him, loaded him with chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Note the common points: Yahweh; attack by a mighty foe; king of Judah defeated; that king loaded with chains; and taken off to Babylon.

 

Now, in my article:

De-coding Jonah

 

(6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

I had identified Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.

 

The note in The Jerusalem Bible (33 b, 2 Chr 34) follows the conventional view that Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, were separate kings: “Manasseh of Judah was a vassal of Esarhaddon (680-669) and of Assurbanipal (668-633)”.

 

Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal was just the one king, who only once captured Manasseh of Judah.

 

A few advantages of Manasseh = Jehoiakim

 

Some immediate advantages of this equation are that:

 

-         It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim” in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah. “Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10;

-         It explains why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the supposedly long dead “Manasseh”, when Jeremiah’s wicked contemporary was Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 15:4): “And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem”;

-         It may supply that supposedly missing biblical evidence for the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, traditionally at the hands of King Manasseh.

 

See my explanation of this in e.g. my article:

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(14) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon