by
Damien F. Mackey
“In the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem to the
Sasanian–Jewish alliance, the city initially descended into chaos and disorder,
although reconstruction began soon. On Khosrow’s orders, the Sasanian army
located the True Cross,
which Christians believe
was used to crucify Jesus in 30 or 33,
and moved it to Ctesiphon”.
A whole bunch of characters who seem to
have biblical origins, and who appear in the ridiculously un-historical story
of the supposed Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, re-emerge in the account of the so-called
Sassanian assault upon Jerusalem (614 AD).
Some of these characters I introduced early
in my recent article:
The historical
basis for that wonderful, nutty Heraclius
(1) The historical
basis for that wonderful, nutty Heraclius
as follows:
His historical basis
Given that the presumed
contemporaries of emperor Heraclius as referred to above: Jonah; Nehemiah;
Shahrbaraz; Mohammed; plus the city of Nineveh; were all biblically based –
{Jonah as the prophet Jonah; Nehemiah as the Tirshatha Nehemiah;
Shahrbaraz as Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8); Mohammed as a biblical composite; and
Nineveh as the Assyrian capital of Nineveh} – then one might logically consider that the emperor
Heraclius, too, who most certainly cannot have been a genuine historical
character (see article above), was based upon some notable biblical hero.
If so, then who may have
been that biblical person?
Well Heraclius is most
famous for the “Battle of Nineveh” which he is supposed to have won
convincingly. Thus, we could begin by considering some Old Testament notable
who had success against Nineveh, and/or the Assyrians.
Someone preferably with a
name compatible with Heraclius.
We do not have to go very
far to find him.
The most famous victory
against the Assyrians, the defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000, attested not only
in various books of the Bible but also in e.g. Greco-Roman literature, occurred
during the reign of King Hezekiah, whose name, with the replacement of the
letter z with an r, and the removal of the added theophoric
element (iah) at the end, becomes, virtually, Herac-lius. Thus:
He[z]ek- iah
He[r]ac-[l]ius
Although I would not
anticipate any really tight correspondence between the historical,
well-documented reign of King Hezekiah of Judah and the deliciously crazy,
fictitious, reign of the emperor Heraclius, I would nonetheless expect to be
able to identify certain strange biblical afterglows in the haphazard story of
the latter. ….
[End of quote]
Now,
compare this with this standard account of the:
|
Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem |
Sasanian conquest of
Jerusalem - Wikipedia
The Sasanian
conquest of Jerusalem in early 614 was a significant development in
the Byzantine–Sasanian War of
602–628. It was the result of a major offensive by the Sasanian Empire across the Fertile Crescent, culminating in the
annexation of Jerusalem and Palaestina Prima as a whole. The
Sasanian advance had been bolstered by the timely outbreak of the Jewish revolt against
Heraclius, owing to decades of persecution of Jews and Samaritans by the Byzantine Empire, although the Heraclian
dynasty itself had only been in power for four years.
Mackey’s comment: Here, for starters, we
encounter the non-historical Heraclius.
In
613, Sasanian king Khosrow II had appointed his army chief Shahrbaraz to lead a campaign into the Byzantines' Diocese of the East. Under Shahrbaraz's command, the Sasanian army proceeded to secure
victories at Antioch and Caesarea Maritima, which was the administrative capital of Palaestina Prima. …. By this time, the grand inner harbour had silted up
and was useless, but the city continued to be an important maritime hub after
Byzantine emperor Anastasius I Dicorus ordered the outer harbour's reconstruction.
Mackey’s comment: Shahrbaraz,
as noted above, stands for the prince of Judah, Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8), at the time of King
Cyrus of Medo-Persia (c. 500 BC).
Khosrow II must, thus, for his part, represent Cyrus
himself.
However, it is not quite that simple.
Khosrow II, a supposed Sassanian, also appears to act as
an alter ego for the ancient neo-Assyrian Great King, Sennacherib (c.
700 BC).
So Khosrow must be something of a composite character.
As I wrote about Khosrow in my article:
….
Heraclius drove the
Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them
in 627 at the Battle
of Nineveh and
devastating much of Mesopotamia.
My comment: Not quite right. After
Judith’s intervention, the Jews were able to drive the Assyrians right out of
the land of Israel and back to Mesopotamia, with the enemy suffering massive
losses. This was the basis for Heraclius’s so-called Battle of Nineveh. Not 627
AD, but more like c. 700 BC!
The Persian Shah Khosrow II was overthrown and
executed by his son Kavad
II, who
soon sued for a peace treaty, agreeing to withdraw from all occupied territory.
My comment: Not long after
Sennacherib’s crushing defeat, he was indeed assassinated – but by two of his
sons, not one.
Khosrow may be something
of a title, like e.g. Pharaoh. (Or, is it a variant for Assyria?)
“The Persian Shah Khosrow II”, here, must stand for
Sennacherib, the Great King of Assyria. Whilst the “son Kavad II” - though presumably
representing Sennacherib’s murderers, Adrammelech and Sharezer (cf. 2
Kings 19:37) - equates better name-wise, however, to Sennacherib’s non-regicide
successor, Esarhaddon. Thus:
E-sa[r]had-don
KA
VAD
Unlike in the
Heraclius-Khosrow II scenario, the Assyrian regicide pair can be historically
identified:
Adrammelech and
Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
(3) Adrammelech
and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
Heraclius won the war, but
his Empire was deeply strained.
My comment: Sadly, everything about
emperor Heraclius and his supposed “Empire” is “deeply strained”. ….
[End of quote]
Successfully capturing the city and the harbour had given
the Sasanians strategic access to the Mediterranean Sea
… and their ranks were reinforced by Nehemiah ben Hushiel … and Benjamin of Tiberias, who enlisted and armed Jewish rebels throughout Galilee, including the cities of Tiberias and Nazareth. In total, between 20,000
and 26,000 Jewish rebels joined the Sasanian army's assault on Byzantine
Jerusalem. …. By mid-614, the Sasanians had taken the city, but sources
vary on whether this occurred without resistance from the Byzantine army … or after a siege and breaching of the wall with
artillery.
Mackey’s comment: Here is another of our
biblical characters, Nehemiah.
See
my article on this – the situation is actually quite remarkable:
Supposedly
two officials ‘Nehemiah’ occupying BC time and AD time
(4) Supposedly two
officials 'Nehemiah' occupying BC time and AD time
So, in the course of the one Sassanian invasion, we find
ourselves jumping from the era of Sennacherib and Hezekiah (c. 700 BC), to the
time of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes (c. 600 BC), and then down to the time of the
Medo-Persian king, Cyrus (c. 500 BC) – all a good millennium before 614 AD!
In
the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem to the Sasanian–Jewish alliance, the
city initially descended into chaos and disorder, although reconstruction began
soon. On Khosrow's orders, the Sasanian army located the True Cross, which Christians believe was used to crucify Jesus in
30 or 33, and moved it to Ctesiphon.
Mackey’s comment: A nice pious story, but
impossibly un-historical.
The
Sasanian conquest interrupted the centuries-long Byzantine ban on Jewish entry
into Jerusalem, and Jews were able to enter the city for the first time since
the Bar Kokhba revolt in 136.
Mackey’s comment: If
we are actually somewhere in the neo-Assyrian and Medo-Persian eras of BC
history, then the revolt of Bar Kochba will not occur yet for a good half a
millennium and more.
Sources
for Christian casualties during this period vary greatly, with some placing the
number of dead and wounded in the low thousands and others in the tens of
thousands or higher. The Byzantines eventually recovered their lost territories
before being pushed out indefinitely by the Muslim conquest of the Levant in 638, whereafter the ban on Jews was lifted and Christian rule over
Jerusalem ended until the Crusades. ….
Mackey’s comment: But, on those Crusades, see
e.g. my article:
Maccabeans
and Crusaders Seleucids and Saltukids Seljuks
(4) Maccabeans and
Crusaders Seleucids and Saltukids Seljuks
No comments:
Post a Comment