SENNACHERIB – Defeat Of One Opposed To God! Isaiah 36-37; 2 Chronicles 32:1-23

Taken from:

http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/John_L_Kachelman_Jr/kings-ot/sennacherib.htm

...........

1. King Sennacherib was a powerful Assyrian monarch. His name literally means “Sin has increased the brothers.” “Sin” was the moon-god of Assyrian mythology. The capitol of Assyria was the wicked Nineveh. The Assyrian Empire was famous for its barbaric society; its ruthless treatment of others. It was a vicious, evil culture. Sennacherib’s war on Judah is recorded in Scripture.
a. Is 36:1; 2 Ki 18:9-13 – The Assyrian army attacked and conquered 46 cities and strongholds of Judah. More that 200,000 prisoners were taken into captivity. Hezekiah offered tribute to Sennacherib so the Assyrian army would cease its attack (2 Ki 18:14-16).
b. Is 36:2 – The tribute did not satisfy the greedy Assyrian. Sennacherib immediately broke his promises and prepared to lay siege to Jerusalem. This was almost instantly after he accepted the tribute. From Sennacherib’s annuals he described the situation as thus: “I shut him up like a caged bird within his royal capital, Jerusalem. I put watch-posts closely around the city.”
c. The Assyrian’s demands for the full surrender of Jerusalem was made by a group of three Assyrian officials (2Ki 18:17). The duty of these three was to intimidate Hezekiah into full surrender or to provoke such unrest within the citizens of Jerusalem that they would revolt and overthrow Hezekiah. These three envoys were named:
1) TARTAN – Most likely a commander-in-chief or the field marshal of the Assyrian troops (cf Is 20:1).
2) RABSARIS – Probably the chief eunuch. His duty would have been to act as Sennacherib’s official scribe.
3) RABSHAKEH – Probably the second in command of the army. This was the one selected to speak for Sennacherib, probably because he was fluent in Hebrew. Some have suggested that this was Sennacherib’s Prime Minister.
d. NOTE: This page of Israeli history is one of the most inspiring. In this account we see Hezekiah’s faith rise and lead Judah to an absolute trust in Jehovah’s protection. Such faith resulted in the complete humbling of the mighty Assyrian army.

2. The opposition of Sennacherib presents the pattern of all who oppose God’s rule for their lives. The root of opposition to God – SELFISHNESS which engenders pride and arrogance. This selfishness prodded Sennacherib to mock and insult the Lord God Almighty. Notice how selfishness appeared in Sennacherib’s behavior. Selfishness appears as . . .
a. His character was without integrity (Is 36:2). He had told Hezekiah that if tribute was paid then the Assyrian army would leave Judah. As soon as Hezekiah paid the tribute, Sennacherib launched a siege on Jerusalem (2 Ki 18:17). He had no concern, sensitivity for anyone except himself.
b. He ridiculed those who trusted God and followed the Lord’s commands (Is 36:7). Sennacherib’s envoys sneered at Hezekiah’s faith and insinuated that the King’s actions of restoration would provoke God’s punishment.
1) Sennacherib’s taunts are similar to those heard today when brethren remain steadfast in their loyalty to God but are mocked by those seeking to “move the lines of doctrine.” Such modern-day Sennacheribs arrogantly claim, “Why are you so picky? Certainly the God of ‘love’ is not as rigid as you claim!” The cries of the modern opponents are just as strong in ridicule as those heard by King Hezekiah!
2) Sennacherib’s taunts basically said that Hezekiah’s reforms and efforts to follow God’s Law in a strict observance were impractical and would anger God. Such is also commonly heard today – “You are too rigid; too strict; to rule oriented. God certainly cannot be pleased if you maintain such rigid beliefs!” Such fail to see that they are exactly like Sennacherib – motivated by pride, prodded by arrogance. They are striving to follow SELF instead of God!
c. He was ignorant about Jehovah God! Sennacherib thought he knew what Jehovah God desired in worship (this is a hallmark of selfishness!). Selfishly Sennacherib decided what God wanted and then proceeded to offer that kind of worship totally unconcerned about what God truly wanted.
1) Sennacherib ignorance might be excused because of his paganism (but this does not excuse his sin and accountability to God –the mighty Assyrian Monarch was wrong and nothing could excuse him). From the pagan perspective Sennacherib thought that Hezekiah’s destruction of the high places and insistence on worship only in the Temple (2 Ki 18:22; 2 Chron 29:21-35; 30:15-24; 31:3) would anger God. Such a concentration of worship to one location was unknown in the heathen world. However Sennacherib’s ignorance was fatal!
2) If the Assyrian Monarch might be excused for his ignorance, there is no excuse for being ignorant of God’s will today. God’s directions for worship and commands for obedience are clear. Tragically many today do not respect these directions and they choose a “self-ignorance” that is more damning than that of Sennacherib! Many today do not worship/obey God not because they come from a pagan background but because they allow SELF to control their lives. They thus choose ways of worship/obedience that are contrary to God’s revealed will but suitable to selfish desires. In this they are not guilty of being pagan idolaters as Sennacherib but have ignorantly become “Christian idolaters”! This is truly amazing ignorance!
d. He sought to negotiate Hezekiah’s compromises (Is 36:8). How dare Sennacherib think that he could lessen the rules of God! But the Assyrian Monarch really thought that he and Hezekiah could get together and find“common ground” for mutual agreement. Where could there be “common ground”for the surrender of God’s people to the pagan Emperor?
e. He thought he could intimidate Judah into surrendering (Is 36:9). The pagan ignorantly looked at “numbers” as the deciding factor of who was “right.” The Assyrians had more troops, greater military success, unparallel domination of the world – according to Sennacherib’s thinking they HAD to be right! He could not understand how Hezekiah dared refuse the invitation. A fact to recall as this is considered – Hezekiah did show weakness in giving tribute to Sennacherib. This should not have been done. Once the pagan saw this weakness he was ready to expect more compromises! Hezekiah’s position was weakened because he had not remained firm. However Hezekiah now stands steadfast – the King of Judah would not be intimidated by “the number game.”
f. He arrogantly fashioned God’s words to suit himself 2 Ki 18:25). He said HE was doing what God commanded! An amazing claim. The Assyrians were in total violation of God’s will. Everything Sennacherib did was an insult to God. Yet the Assyrian thought he was doing God’s will! This same tragic ignorance is evident in the lives of many today who fashion God’s commands according to their own understanding – they selfishly interpret the Scriptures to support their errors! Misrepresentation, lies, and a twisting of the Truth have always been a mark of the selfish false teacher (cf 2 Pt 3:16). Those guided by SELF always have a “different understanding”of what God says.
g. He attacked the leader who was steadfastly following God (Is 36:29-32). When Sennacherib could not move Hezekiah to bargain toward compromise, he decided that perhaps a direct appeal to the people would be best. He viciously attacked Hezekiah accusing the King of every possible wrong that could turn the people against Hezekiah’s urging to follow God’s Law. There was no concern for truth. The only concern was to present Sennacherib in a more positive light than Hezekiah. Such a maneuver is typical when those who oppose God’s strict laws are governed by SELF. They have no regard for Truth. They are concerned only with presenting God’s leaders in the worst possible light.
h. He appealed for the people to by-pass their leader (Is 36:31). When the king would not negotiate for “common ground” Sennacherib appealed to the people to negotiate with him. The only way the Assyrian Monarch could compromise the people’s steadfastness was to urge them, “Do not listen to Hezekiah!” This tragic maneuver is being repeated by modern Sennacheribs who have invited compromise. The leaders refuse to meet on “common ground”so the Selfish invaders turn to the members of the congregations inviting them to reject the leadership and “make peace” with Sennacherib! Literally Sennacherib’s words are, “Enter into a connection of mutual good wishes with me.” SELF prods such to undermine, slander, and ridicule the leadership so that they will be put in a bad opinion and others will choose to “make peace” when the leadership has determined that such peace is wrong. The Assyrian’s scorn sounds similar, “How long do you think you can remain in your position? Sooner or later you will be forced to admit you have to compromise!” (Cf Is 36:9).

NOTE: The false words of Sennacherib offered a false security! If Judah had accepted the Assyrian’s invitation to meet him on “common ground,” the nation would have been destroyed!

3. The defeat of Sennacherib portrays the destiny awaiting all who oppose God’s will and are guided by selfishness.
a. The arrogant boasting found absolute destruction! (2 Ki 18:33)
“The Goliaths and Sennacheribs of the world are rarely content with silent endeavors to accomplish the ends they set before them” (1 Sa 17:44; 2 Ki 19:28). In all ages such boasters have been exposed as empty and vain. The absolute victory in which Sennacherib boasted was not found on the Assyrian side but on the side of those he had ridiculed!
b. Those targeted by Sennacherib’s invitations to compromise, refused to accept! (2 Ki 18:36)
Security and safety were gained by Jerusalem’s citizens because they were not lured into Assyria’s compromise. The citizens respected and followed the leadership example! Today the invitations to compromise will be exposed as sinful error and their refusal will convict the modern-day Sennacheribs as opposing God’s laws!
c. The prayers of the righteous were triumphant! (2 Ki 19:20)
Assyria’s confidence in her manufactured gods was betrayed. Assyria’s concept of Jehovah God was not as she imagined. All the religious profession and practices of Assyria miserably failed. The gross ignorance of Assyria’s religious knowledge led to defeat (2 Ki 19:22-23).
d. The pride of the arrogant opposition will be humbled! (2 Ki 19:32-37)
Opposition to God accomplished nothing! Sennacherib’s army did not even shoot one arrow toward Jerusalem. The city was unmolested. The arrogant words were empty and today are a laughingstock! Those opposed to God’s laws today may make great boasts and hurl bitter sarcasm, slander, and ridicule, but they will not accomplish anything. In the end they will face a humbling from the Almighty God.

4. The security of King Hezekiah, Isaiah, and citizens of Judah promise the following blessings to all who face self-centered opponents of God in our modern-day (cf 2 Chron 32:6-8).
a. Complete victory!
The steadfast Christian will face ridicule, slander, and opposition because s/he strives to follow God’s “strait” way. The Believer will face invitations to “make peace” with those who are in opposition to God. Refusal to fellowship the erring and to support the compromises result in personal attacks. Some are discouraged by this and seek to find “common ground”so the bitterness will stop. Assyria invited Judah to find this “common ground” but it would have led only to the full destruction of the city! By remaining steadfast and true, Hezekiah found complete victory over the powerful Sennacherib! The exhortation is to “be strong and very courageous!”
b. Absolute protection!
Sennacherib offered Judah “protection” and “peace.” It was a lie. The Assyrians would never be happy until their rule dominated. When they did not get their way, they waged war and destroyed all opponents. The mighty nation tried to destroy Jehovah God and was itself destroyed. Those who remained in Jerusalem, who refused the invitations to bargain away their steadfast convictions, found absolute protection by the Almighty God. God’s protection is better than any ever found on earth! When faced with those opposed to God’s clear will we are exhorted “do not fear”!
c. Full vindication!
Sennacherib’s slander may have impressed some. Some may have believed the arrogant boasting and the claims that “God” had told them to attack Jerusalem. Such verbal attacks would have discouraged some. God’s message to such is simple, “Do not be dismayed!”
d. Almighty power!
Confronted with the Assyrian military, the Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian reputation for brutality, some would have chosen surrender. They would see the Assyrian power as invincible. When confronted by those opposed to God’s laws today we find vast numbers opposing us, criticizing us, against our every effort. What shall we do? When this question is asked, listen to Hezekiah’s exhortation, “The one with us is greater than the one with him. With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles”!

5. What are the eternal lessons that arise from a study of Sennacherib’s opposition to the Almighty God?

a. GOD PROTECTS those who trust in Him!
b. GOD OVERTHROWS those who resist Him!
c. GOD HONORS those who worship Him in Truth!
d. GOD HUMBLES the boastful/arrogant!
e. GOD JUDGES the words that are spoken to hurt God’s disciples!
f. GOD CONSOLES those who are attacked!

Copyright 1999 by John L. Kachelman, Jr. may be reproducted for non-commercial purposes at no cost to others.

King Xerxes Clearly Based on King Sennacherib



 

Emmet Sweeney proves this when he writes:

...

In Ramessides, Medes and Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying Tiglath-Pileser III with Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with Darius I. The striking correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated generation for generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely that the identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch could potentially invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next “pairing” – Sennacherib with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and convincing correspondences?

 

A random search of the internet produces the following for Xerxes and Sennacherib: “Like the Persian Xerxes, he [Sennacherib] was weak and vainglorious, cowardly under reverse, and cruel and boastful in success.”

(WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html).

The writer of these words did not suspect any connection between the two kings, much less that they were the same person. Nevertheless, the similarities between them were so compelling that one apparently brought the other to mind.

The writer’s instincts, I shall argue, did not betray him. The lives and careers of Xerxes and Sennacherib were so similar that were the thesis presented in these pages not proffered, scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels between the two.

 

One of Xerxes’ first actions as king was an invasion of Egypt, which had thrown off the Persian yoke shortly after Darius’ defeat at the hands of the Greeks. This reconquest of Egypt was said to have taken place in Xerxes’ second year. Similarly, one of the first actions of Sennacherib was a campaign against Egypt and her Palestinian and Syrian allies. This war against Egypt took place in Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of Judah had rebelled and sought the assistance of the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the cavalry of the king of Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they (actually) had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.… I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1950) pp. 287-8).

Hezekiah was besieged, but not captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this campaign was a complete victory for Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the Great King:

 

Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone … all kinds of valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.

 

Hezekiah would scarcely have sent this tribute to Sennacherib had his Egyptian allies not been totally defeated, a circumstance which has made many scholars suspect that he actually entered Egypt after his defeat of its army on the plain of Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp. 308-9). This supposition is supported by the fact that Sennacherib described himself as “King of the Four Quarters,” a term which, as stated above, traditionally implied authority over Magan and Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the western-most “quarter” or edge of the world. It is also supported by both classical and Hebrew tradition. Thus Herodotus spoke of Sennacherib advancing against Egypt with a mighty army and camping at Pelusium,  near the north-eastern frontier (Herodotus, iii, 141), whilst Berossus, who wrote a history of Chaldea, said that Sennacherib had conducted an expedition against “all Asia and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, i,4). Jewish tradition goes further and tells of the conquest of Egypt by the king and of his march towards Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to stop his campaign against Hezekiah for a short time, as he had to move hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered this ‘pearl of all countries’ he returned to Judea.” (L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920) Vol. VI p. 365). Talmudic sources also relate that after conquering Egypt, Sennacherib carried away from there the throne of Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p. 160)

 

Sennacherib’s second campaign against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions, had, as is well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great King.

 

The greatest event of Xerxes’ reign was of course his momentous defeat in Greece. The story of his invasion is recorded in detail by the Greek authors, most particularly by Herodotus, and it is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome the Hellenes represented the great watershed in Achaemenid history. From that point on the Persian Empire entered a period of prolonged decline.

Strange then that of all the wars waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents who are said to have come near to defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one well-known passage Berossus tells of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the Ionians of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913) p. 487). The Greeks, he says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand struggle.

 

The most important event of Xerxes’ latter years was without doubt his defeat of yet another Babylonian rebellion. Although our sources are somewhat vague, it would appear that there were in fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time of Xerxes, the first of which occurred in his second year, and was led by Bel-shimanni, and the second some time later led by Shamash-eriba.

How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should face two major rebellions in Babylon, the first of which came within three years or so of his succession, and was led by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns, Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120). Rebellion number two came some years later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This second rebellion, one might guess, was one of the consequences of the Persian defeat in Greece, and there seems little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the Assyrian records and monuments is Shamash-eriba of  the Persian.

 

Both Xerxes and Sennacherib were relatively mild in their treatment of the Babylonians after the first rebellion. However, after the second insurrection both kings subjected the city to massive destruction. But the parallels do not end there. Xerxes’ terrible punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the Babylonians’ murder of his satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they Lived and Worked (1979) p. 46).

Similarly, Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon after the second insurrection was largely in vengeance for the Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens, destroyed its temples, and seized the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian Dicks, op cit). In the same way, Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples, massacred the people, and carried off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W. Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and Marduk were one and the same; and the name was often written Bel-Marduk. In memory of the awful destruction wrought by Sennacherib, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight years that followed as “kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such catastrophe again until the time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries later.

 

Xerxes’ despoliation of Babylon is generally believed to have been accompanied by his suppression of the Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that his famous inscription recording the outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods, in favor of Ahura Mazda, was part of the general response to the second Babylonian uprising:

And among these countries (in rebellion) there was one where, previously, daevas had been worshipped. Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed this sanctuary of daevas and proclaimed. “Let daevas  not be worshipped!” There, where daevas had been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.

How peculiar then that Sennacherib too should be accused of outlawing the Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in favor of Ashur as part of his response to a second Babylonian rebellion? “A political-theological propaganda campaign was launched to explain to the people that what had taken place [the destruction of Babylon and despoliation of Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord with the wish of most of the gods. A story was written in which Marduk, because of a transgression, was captured and brought before a tribunal. Only a part of the commentary to this botched piece of literature is extant.” (http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html). Nevertheless, it is clear that Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw” Marduk. Thus we find that, “Even the great poem of the creation of the world, the Enuma elish, was altered: the god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.” (Ibid.)

 

To summarize, then, consider the following:

SENNACHERIB	XERXES
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.	Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.	Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.	The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity.	After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.

 

The parallels between Xerxes and Sennacherib are thus among the closest between an Achaemenid and a Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished. There is yet one more striking comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison so compelling and so identical in the details that this one alone, even without the others, would be enough to demand an identification.

 

Xerxes died after a reign of 21 years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in dramatic circumstances, murdered in a palace conspiracy apparently involving at least one of his sons. Popular tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes was Artabanus, the captain of his guard, and that this man then put the blame on Darius, eldest son of the murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Artaxerxes, the crown prince, pointed the  finger at Darius, who was immediately arrested and executed. (Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia Vol. 1 (London, 1930) pp. 213-4). It is said that Artabanus then plotted to murder Artaxerxes, but that the conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No sooner had Artabanus been removed than Hystaspes, another elder brother of Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion. The young king then led his forces into Bactria and defeated the rebel in two battles. (Ibid., p. 124)

Of the above information, one feature is most unusual: the eldest son, Darius, who was not the crown prince, was accused of the murder by the crown prince Artaxerxes, who then had him hunted down and killed.

 

The death of Sennacherib compares very well with that of Xerxes. He too was murdered in a palace conspiracy involving some of his sons. But as with the death of Xerxes, there has always been much rumor and myth, though little solid fact, in evidence. The biblical Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer, two of Sennacherib’s sons, as the killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of Esarhaddon, the crown prince at the time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest brother, whom he hunted down and killed. Two other brothers are also named in complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).

 

In spite of Esarhaddon’s clear statement, there has always been much confusion about the details — so much so that some have even implicated Esarhaddon himself in the deed. In view of such a level of confusion, the detailed discussion of the question by Professor Simo Parpola, in 1980, was sorely needed and long overdue. Employing commendable reasoning, Parpola demonstrated how a little-understood Babylonian text revealed the identity of the culprit, Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI (Chicago, 1911) No. 1091). A sentence of the document reads, “Thy son Arad-Ninlil is going to kill thee.” The latter name should properly, according to Parpola, be read as Arda-Mulissi (identical to Adrammelech of 2 Kings). Motivation for the murder, said Parpola, was not difficult to find. After the capture and probable death at the hands of the Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest son and heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the “second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favourite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia … Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince.” (Prof. Simo Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk Forlag, 1980)).

 

We need hardly go beyond that for a motive. It is not clear whether Arda-Mulissi personally delivered the death blow; it seems that one of his captains was responsible.

 

Of this death then we note the same unusual feature. The king was murdered by or on the orders of his eldest son, who was not however the crown prince. The eldest son was then pursued and executed by a younger son, who was the crown prince. The parallels with the death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a second brother is named in complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In both cases too the murder was not actually carried out by the prince but by a fellow conspirator; in the case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard, and in the case of Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of Esarhaddon. And this calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the murder of Xerxes and Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been named as a suspect. Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on the throne by Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1 (15th ed.) p. 598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that Esarhaddon had a part in his father’s death.

Such striking similarities, when placed along with the multitude of other parallels between the two kings’ lives, leave little doubt that we are on the right track.

Last modified on Monday, 09 May 2011 12:16 

....

Taken from: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/58-xerxes-and-sennacherib.html

Sennacherib Made Idol of Beam of Noah's Ark



....

In Rabbinical Literature:Coin of Apamea, with Supposed Representation of Noah's Ark.(From Maspero, "Dawn of Civilization.")
One hundred and twenty years before the Deluge, Noah planted cedars from which he afterward made the Ark (Gen. R. xxx. 7; compare Christian parallels; Ginzberg, "Monatsschrift," xliii. 411). This lengthy period was requisite, partly in order to urge the sinful people to amend their ways, and partly to allow sufficient time for the erection of the Ark, which was of very large proportions. According to one view the Ark consisted of three hundred and sixty cells, each ten yards long by ten yards wide; according to another it consisted of nine hundred cells, each six yards long by six yards wide (Gen. R. xxxi. 11; compare commentaries on the passage for the exact mathematical computations). The lowest of thesestories was used as a depositary for refuse; in the second the human beings and the "clean" beasts were lodged, and the uppermost was reserved for the "unclean" beasts. A differing opinion reverses the order, so that the refuse was deposited in the third story, from which it was shoveled into the sea through a sort of trap-door (καταράκτης; Gen. R. l.c.). For purposes of illumination, Noah used precious stones, bright as the sun at noonday (Sanh. 108b; Yer. Pes. i. 27b; Gen. R. l.c.), which shone by night and were dull by day. The stones were the sole light in the Ark, since the stars and planets did not fulfil their functions during the Deluge (Gen. R. xxxiv. 11). Another miracle witnessed by the occupants of the Ark was the entrance of the animals. They were not led in by Noah, a task which would have been impossible for any human being; but God caused them, as well as the spirits of those whose bodies were yet uncreated, to gather there from all sides (Gen. R. xxxi. 13, xxxii. 8; Zeb. 116a; for Christian parallels see Ginzberg, "Monatsschrift," xliii. 414). Another Midrash says that the angels appointed over the various species of animals brought each his allotted animal with its necessary fodder (Pirḳe R. El. xxiii.). In regard to the feeding of the animals, the greater number of Haggadot say that each received suitable food at the usual time (Tan., ed. Buber, NoaḦ ii.; Gen. R. xxxi. 14); and since Noah was constantly employed in feeding them, he did not sleep for a moment during the year in the Ark. As Noah was an exception among his contemporaries, so also were the animals that were destined to be saved. They were the best of their species, and, unlike the other animals of the time, they remained true to their proper natures, without overstepping the limitations which nature had prescribed for them (TanḦuma, l.c. v.; Gen. R. xxviii. 8; Sanh. 108a). Besides the regular occupants, the Ark supported Og, king of Bashan, and the immense animal "Reëm," neither of whom, owing to their enormous size, could get into the Ark, but held fast to it, remaining alongside (Pirḳe R. El. xxiii.; Gen. R. xxxi. 13). In order that Noah on his entrance into the Ark might not be molested by the wicked people, lions and other wild animals were placed to guard it. A beam of the Ark was found by Sennacherib, and he made an idol of it (Sanh. 96a). Another beam of the Ark was used as the gallows for Haman, according to Midrash Abba Gorion, iv.; ed. Buber, 19a (see Flood in Rabbinical Literature.).

....

Taken from: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1780-ark-of-noah

Henry T. Aubin on Pharaoh Taharqa (Tirhakah)



Taharqa

Taharqa the dual Pharaoh of the 25th dynasty of Kemet and Kush Now known as Egypt and Sudan.

He is noted in the bible in 2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9 as Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, who waged war against Sennacherib during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah and drove him from his intention of destroying Jerusalem and deporting its inhabitants—a critical action that, according to Henry T. Aubin, has shaped the Western world (Aubin 2003).

 

Click here for more


References;

Henry T. Aubin, The Rescue of Jerusalem, 2nd edition, 2003, Anchor Canada.

Achior Not An ‘Enlightened Pagan’

 

 



Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)

PART ONE

Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an‘enlightened pagan’:

1.MELCHIZEDEK

2.RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.RUTH

4.ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.JOB

6.(Probably also) the Magi.

Let us consider why.

1.MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html

Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).

2.RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.

3.RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.

4.ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.

5.JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.

6.THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east”wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”.

PART TWO

Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:

-the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/

And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18^th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19^th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20^th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

To conclude

Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.

Hezekiah's Minister Eliakim was High Priest and he also points to Saint Peter



....

 

We first encounter Eliakim son of Hilkiah in Isaiah 22, in what is regarded as the prophet’s ‘second oracle’ against the official, Sobna (or Shebna). Isaiah predicted that Sobna will be replaced by Eliakim. I showed in the previous chapter that this took effect during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign invasion, since Eliakim was by then the king’s chief minister. Sobna was now only second in command.

But the vital question here is: What was Sobna’s former office, to which Eliakim had now succeeded? It is usually given as Major-domo or its equivalent; but the Douay Isaiah 22:15 translates it in terms that could only be referring to the high priesthood. Thus Isaiah is commanded: ‘Go … to him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna [Shebna] who is over the Temple ...’. The Latin Vulgate gives the words italicized here as ‘eum qui habitat in tabernaculo’.

Moreover, Isaiah describes and praises Eliakim in words that indicate, not only the man’s great authority, but that could also be taken as a description of a high priest: “He shall be as a father …, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah” (v. 21). Strong words when it is considered that Hezekiah himself ruled over the House of Judah; but an appropriate title for a high priest who was, in a sense, ruler over even the king whom he would proclaim and anoint (cf. 1 Samuel 16:13).

And in Eliakim’s case, with his having had to substitute for the king whilst Hezekiah was sick, the title, ‘father’ … would take on an even more significant meaning.

....

For more, see: http://kinghezekiahofjudah2.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/chapter-2-thesis-revised-history-of-era.html#uds-search-results

The following is taken from:
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/dont-revelation-37-and-isaiah-22-point-to-christ-not-peter-as-having-the-keys-of-davi

Don't Revelation 3:7 and Isaiah 22 point to Christ - not Peter - as having the keys of David?

---

Full Question

Revelation 3:7 proves Christ is the one who holds the key of David, not Peter. Isaiah 22 prophesies Christ's coming and his authority rather than Peter's. Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with either.

Answer

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn't mean he can't give to Peter, as his "prime minister," the keys to his heavenly kingdom.
In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king's right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the "key of the House of David."
Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king's duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.
Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the "holder of the key of David." Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.
There's a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace--the king isn't. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king's affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he's not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah's chief representative!
Although Jesus is called the "holder of the key of David" in Revelation 3:7, he doesn't hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king's palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes--without losing the authority those keys represent.
It's the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give--the keys of the kingdom of heaven--thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

The Step Dial of Ahaz: Understanding Hezekiah's sign



Taken from: http://timeisradical.blogspot.com.au/

....

Though we know little about the dial of Ahaz other than its role in Hezekiah’s miraculous sign, we can make some very useful guesses as to its design with regard to knowing the duration of the shadow of the sun going back 10 steps. For instance, we can know for certain Ahaz’ dial must have had a minimum of 10 steps per six hours (if and only if the event began at noon). This would allow Hezekiah the choice of the shadow going forward or backward 10 steps.

However, the Jews kept time in hours. The exact era this observance began may not be known, but the Egyptians also had this practice by at least 300 years prior to Hezekiah’s miracle. We can at least be sure Ahaz’ dial was not in increments of one step per hour. Two or three steps per hour would be sufficient, and four steps per hour could be argued. Designs of 5 steps per hour or more would present too much visual detail or clutter to be very practical. In fact, even four steps an hour, presenting our familiar 15, 30, 45 and 60 minute intervals, would offer little added practical value in a culture devoid of wrist watches, automobiles, telephones and other conveniences of technology. Court messages were most likely sent by a runner and other business would hardly require any better discipline than could be accomplished within intervals of 20, 40 and 60 minutes.

By science we can also know that increments of two or four steps per hour are not viable. The famous trio of lunar eclipses undergirding Ptolemy’s Canon seem precisely on schedule in 720 and 721 BC. Though they actually occurred 18 years earlier, a sun dial design of two or four steps per hour would have thrown these lunar eclipses off schedule contrary to modern calculations.

Even with a design of three steps per hour, there is some room for discussion. Hezekiah had the choice of the shadow going forward or back 10 steps. The tenth step, inclusive of the top (sunrise) step would be 9 a.m. Inclusive of the 9 a.m. step, 10 steps would carry us forward to a vertical (noon) shadow. The bottom would be counted as a step by this reckoning. But such a scenario would require that Isaiah approached Hezekiah with such a proposal perhaps minutes before 9 a.m. This presented the option of the sun going forward 10 steps. When Hezekiah opted for 10 steps backward, the shadow continued forward past the 9 a.m. step as God decelerated the earth’s rotation — we assume the shadow never reached the 9:20 a.m. step, but as rotation slowed as much as 20-30 minutes elapsed before rotation changed directions. There is no reason the shadow could not have crossed the 9:20 threshold if we also assume normal rotation resumed before the sunrise step. A similar period of deceleration would be in order at the end of the backward movement of the sun’s shadow. Since there are no secular accounts of a double sunrise in known Near East history, we might prefer to believe the shadow went past the 9:20 mark before reversing. A mid morning event seems to allow the simplest reading in which the shadow could continue forward (down) or go backward in contrast to a late morning or midday timetable. Moreover, scripture says the shadow went back the ten steps it had gone down — not nine, not eleven.

This reconstruction, though hypothetical, seems to be required by the science of eclipses in the sense that the shadow would have gone backward about 3 hours 20 minutes, and more importantly returned to its original position in about 7 hours 40 minutes. Some have claimed disastrous consequences from reverse rotation. Not so. Tides are merely caused by land masses rotating into bulges in the oceans. Direction of rotation does not matter. The earth’s fluid core did slosh about somewhat, as evidenced by comparing NASA solar eclipse data with a witnessed Assyrian eclipse (781 BC). At Hezekiah’s sign, the earth’s wobble changed (or began), so NASA’s predicted latitude of greatest eclipse is off perhaps 1° south for solar eclipses prior to 713 BC. Obviously, east-west location (longitude) also requires a 115° shift for the solar eclipse noted here.

Posted by HJK at 7:52 PM