Where the Exodus and the Conquest belong

by Damien F. Mackey “Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan?” Robert M. Porter I fully agree with the following conclusions about the Exodus and the Conquest as arrived at by Robert M. Porter, who introduces as follows his article: Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III (2) Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III | Robert M Porter - Academia.edu …. without worrying too much about dates, what point in the archaeology of Canaan best fits a literal interpretation of the biblical Conquest story? At the end of the Early Bronze Age III period (EB III), Jericho and most of Canaan’s other walled cities were destroyed or abandoned and there then followed a period variously named as EB IV, MB I (Middle Bronze I), EB-MB or IB (Intermediate Bronze). …. The varying nomenclature reflects the strangeness of the transition – pottery styles changed although not greatly but the civilisation changed from city dwelling to villages and nomadism. Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan? …. [End of quote] Dr. Donovan Courville (in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) had arrived at a rather neat, tucked-in model whereby Egypt’s Old and Middle kingdoms were, in part, synchronous, and the succeeding First and Second intermediate periods were one and the same. Thus: Old Kingdom – Middle Kingdom First Intermediate – Second Intermediate I had embraced this neat set of equations, without, however, having really bothered to probe the supposed Intermediates. Robert M. Porter has accepted the First Intermediate Period as being a time of collapse for Egypt, despite our knowing little about the period – especially in its earliest phase: “The end of the Old Kingdom (end of Dynasty 6, typically dated c. 2200 BC) was a time of Egyptian collapse, followed by the so-called First Intermediate Period for which, in its early stages, we have little historical or archaeological information”. I. The First Intermediate Period So, what is exactly is the First Intermediate Period? Well, according to Joshua J. Mark: https://www.worldhistory.org/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The First Intermediate Period of Egypt (2181-2040 BCE) is the era which followed the Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE) and preceded the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) periods of Egyptian history. The name was given to the era by 19th-century CE Egyptologists, not by the ancient Egyptians. Stable eras of Egyptian history are referred to as 'kingdoms' while eras of political strife or instability are known as 'intermediate periods.' This period has long been labeled a 'dark age' when the central government of the Old Kingdom, which had been built on the model of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt (c. 3150-2613 BCE) collapsed and plunged the country into chaos. Recent scholarship has revised this opinion, and now the First Intermediate Period is seen as a time of change and transition, where the power and customs dictated by the monarchy at Memphis, capital of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, were disseminated throughout the country to those of traditionally lower status. Probably the best way to understand the First Intermediate Period of Egypt is to consider modern retail capitalism and mass consumerism. In the mid-19th century CE (c. 1858) the American department store Macy's in New York City boasted that they sold "Goods suitable for the millionaire at prices in reach of the millions" (14th Street Tribune, 2). Prior to the Industrial Revolution and mass consumerism, certain goods were available only to the wealthy who had the disposable income to spend on such purchases. With the rise of department stores like Macy's, following the Industrial Revolution and mass production, these kinds of goods, though of lesser quality, were available to anyone at a much-reduced cost. This is precisely what happened during Egypt's First Intermediate Period. Those who previously could not afford elaborate homes, gardens, tombs, tomb inscriptions, or their own Pyramid Texts to guide them through the afterlife now found that they could because wealth was no longer only in the hands of the upper-class nobility. Whereas once only the king was provided with tomb inscriptions in the form of the Pyramid Texts, now nobility, officials, and ordinary people were also provided with a guide book to the underworld through the Coffin Texts. This was possible because of the collapse of the central government at Memphis and the rise of individual nomarchs (governors or administrators of nomes, Egyptian districts) who finally held more power than the king of Egypt. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The First Intermediate Period, described as a 'dark period' in ancient Egyptian history,[1] spanned approximately 125 years, c. 2181–2055 BC, after the end of the Old Kingdom.[2] It comprises the Seventh (although this is mostly considered spurious by Egyptologists), Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties. The concept of a "First Intermediate Period" was coined in 1926 by Egyptologists Georg Steindorff and Henri Frankfort.[3] …. [End of quote] The First Intermediate Period therefore “comprises the Seventh … Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties”. But let us take a closer look at this. The Seventh Dynasty, for its part, is considered spurious, even non-existent: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/143lp1s/ancient_egypt_the_unknown_7th_dynasty_15th_hyksos/ “According to Manetho, the 7th dynasty contained 70 kings who ruled for a total of 70 days. Given the implausible nature of this claim, and the lack of other evidence to support the idea of the existence of the 7th dynasty, Egyptologists have traditionally viewed the 7th dynasty as being something that did not actually exist”. Not much better, we find is: The Eighth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Eighth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty VIII) is a poorly known and short-lived line of pharaohs reigning in rapid succession in the early 22nd century BC, likely with their seat of power in Memphis”. Same again for the “extremely obscure”: The Ninth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Ninth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty IX) is often combined with the 7th, 8th, 10th and early 11th Dynasties under the group title First Intermediate Period.[1] The dynasty that seems to have supplanted the Eighth Dynasty is extremely obscure”. Discounting the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, the Eighth Dynasty, I find, has a predominance of names, Neferkare, which is the prenomen of Pepi, who is my “Chenephres” (Kanefere), the foster father-in-law of Moses. Even more suspiciously, one of the supposedly Eighth Dynasty names is Neferkare Pepiseneb. And there are also Fifth Dynasty names in there, such as Neferirkare and Djedkare. With the Seventh and Eighth dynasties we may not even be in an Intermediate Period. And the same comment may well apply to the Ninth Dynasty, which swings us back, at least in part, to the time of Abram and the ruler, Nebkaure Khety, whom I have identified with Hor-Aha (Menes), right at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history: Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac (2) Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But the great name, Imhotep (the biblical Joseph), also emerges here in the Ninth. The Tenth Dynasty reproduces Neferkare and the name Khety. And, with the Eleventh Dynasty, synchronous with the Third Dynasty, we have arrived at the time of Jacob and Joseph (and Famine) in Egypt. After the most obscure Eighth Dynasty (of suspicious Neferkare names), which supposedly follows the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, we find ourselves back in the era of Abram, and then of Jacob and Joseph. Therefore the pattern of the so-called First Intermediate Period of Egypt is that it - supposedly arising out of a real dynastic kingdom, the Sixth Dynasty – ghosts its way back to the Sixth, then all the way back to Abram, then on to Jacob and Joseph. The so-called First Intermediate Period of Egyptian history cannot at all, therefore, be construed as a collapse of Egypt following on from the end of the Old Kingdom. Instead, it is a confused mixture of eras preceding any major collapse of the country. II. The Second Intermediate Period Joshua J. Mark again: https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE) is the era following the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) and preceding the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE). As with all historical designations of the eras of Egyptian history, the name was coined by 19th-century CE Egyptologists to demarcate time periods in Egypt's history; the name was not used by ancient Egyptians. This era is marked by a divided Egypt with the people known as the Hyksos holding power in the north, Egyptian rule at Thebes in the center of the country, and Nubians ruling in the south. As with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, this time is traditionally characterized as chaotic, lacking in cultural advancements, and lawless, but as with the earlier period, this claim has been discredited. The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of disunity and records of the time are confused or missing, but it was not as dark a time as later Egyptian writers claimed. This period begins as the Egyptian rulers of the 13th Dynasty move the capital from Itj-tawi (in Lower Egypt near Lisht, south of Memphis) back to Thebes, the old capital of the late 11th Dynasty in Upper Egypt, loosening their control over the north. In the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, the king Amenemhat I (1991-1962 BCE) founded the small town of Hutwaret (better known by the Greek name Avaris) in the far north, which grew into a trading center with easy access to the sea and connected by land routes to Sinai and the region of Palestine. In the course of the 13th Dynasty successful trade and immigration brought an influx of Semitic peoples to Avaris who eventually gained enough wealth and power to exert political influence in the country. These people were known to the Egyptians (and themselves) as Heqau-khasut ('Rulers of Foreign Lands') but were called 'Hyksos' by the Greek writers, the name they are known by in history. The later Egyptian writers depict the Hyksos as brutal conquerors who destroyed Egypt, ransacked the temples, and oppressed the country until it was liberated and unified under the reign of Ahmose of Thebes (c. 1570-1544 BCE). Archaeological evidence and records of the time, however, strongly suggest a very different story. The Hyksos, far from the cruel conquerors of later histories, admired Egyptian culture greatly and adopted it as their own. They lived cordially, if not exactly peacefully, with the government at Thebes until a perceived insult drove the Theban kings to declare war on them and they were driven out. Ahmose I's victory signaled the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The Second Intermediate Period dates from 1700 to 1550 BC.[1]: 123  It marks a period when ancient Egypt was divided into smaller dynasties for a second time, between the end of the Middle Kingdom and the start of the New Kingdom. The concept of a Second Intermediate Period generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties, however there is no universal agreement in Egyptology about how to define the period.[2] It is best known as the period when the Hyksos people of West Asia established the 15th Dynasty and ruled from Avaris, which, according to Manetho's Aegyptiaca, was founded by a king by the name of Salitis.[3] The settling of these people may have occurred peacefully, although later recounts of Manetho portray the Hyksos "as violent conquerors and oppressors of Egypt".[4] …. [End of quote] The Second Intermediate Period “generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties …”. More can be made of this, I think, than with the First Intermediate Period. An early view of the Second Intermediate Period may have had the Twelfth Dynasty collapsing and then, immediately following this, the emergence of the supposedly weak Thirteenth Dynasty - just as the standard view tends to have the Sixth Dynasty collapsing, immediately followed by the First Intermediate Period. But, then, researchers came to appreciate that the Thirteenth Dynasty rulers, the Sobekhoteps and Neferhoteps, who presumably followed those of the Twelfth, were rather significant kings in the own right, giving no indications of an immediate collapse of Egypt. My own solution, wrapped around the life of Moses, is that ancient Egypt did collapse almost immediately after the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty. Here is the new scenario simplified (referencing only the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties): The thoroughly Egyptianised Moses (cf. Exodus 2:19) had fled from the wrath of pharaoh Pepi Neferkare-Sesostris (“Chenephres”) after his killing of the Egyptian (2:12-15). After spending 40 years as an exile in the land of Midian, Moses was told by an angel that all those seeking his life had died (4:19). This means that the Sixth/Twelfth dynasty (that ended with the brief reign of a female) had come to an end. Now we need to bring in the Thirteenth Dynasty. The Crocodile worshipping Sobekhoteps, thought to have reigned in strength after the passing of the Twelfth Dynasty, I believe to have actually been of the Twelfth Dynasty. And that includes the female Crocodile, Sobeknefure, the female ruler: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (3) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Moses saw nothing of the now defunct Twelfth Dynasty upon his return from Midian, but only the Thirteenth Dynasty king, the hard-hearted (cf. Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4) Neferhotep, Pharaoh of the Exodus. Thus it was a very short period of time from the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty to the Exodus during the Thirteenth Dynasty, which ushered in the beginning of an Intermediate Period that would deteriorate even further, presumably, in the reign of Dudimose (“Tutimaeus” – Josephus following Manetho) when the foreigners invaded Egypt ‘after a blast from God’.

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.

Why Josiah shares so many similarities with Hezekiah

by Damien F. Mackey King Josiah of Judah appears so similar to King Hezekiah of Judah because King Josiah was King Hezekiah. Reading through Keith Lannon’s July 22nd article: https://thelonghaulwithisaiah.wordpress.com/2023/07/22/173-hezekiah-and-josiah-similarities-differences/ 172. Thoughts on Hezekiah and his similarities with Josiah and appreciating the author’s recognition of likenesses between Hezekiah and Josiah - as many commentators, indeed, have perceived - yet further confirmed me in my view (not that I actually needed it) that Josiah was Hezekiah. This radical new view affecting the historical sequence of the Kings of Judah, which must necessarily involve, as well, kings reigning before and after Hezekiah/Josiah, I have tried to spell out in various articles, perhaps the most comprehensive of these being the following one of a specially personal nature: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (3) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Such a far-reaching revision must also involve correcting Assyro-Babylonian history, and Egypt-Ethiopia, tasks that I have undertaken in articles such as: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu With all of this I mind, I shall now proceed to add whatever comments I consider necessary to what Keith Lannon has written: Hezekiah and Josiah were two of the greatest Hebrew kings on the Davidic tree. As Hezekiah was Josiah’s Great Grandfather, they never met. It may seem logical to suggest that Josiah would have been brought up being taught of the legendary Godliness of great Grandad “Hezzy”, however, it has to be added that Josiah’s father – and especially his grandfather were godless idolaters. My comment: Hezekiah, Josiah, only the one person, certainly ‘met’. Hezekiah’s ancestors were thus the same as Josiah’s ancestors. Keith Lannon continues: Josiah’s family nights around the warm, brazier recounting stories of their ancestors would have had Granddad Manasseh doing all he could to deride his own father Hezekiah’s devout lifestyle. Manasseh was a malevolent wizard of genuine black magic and evil – even though the term “black magic” is never used in scripture – but sacrificing one’s son to some evilly conceived demonic “deity” has to be as deep and dark as it is possible to achieve. The scripture tells us, “Manasseh also sacrificed his own son in the fire. He practiced sorcery and divination, and he consulted with mediums and psychics. He did much that was evil in the Lord’s sight, arousing his anger. Manasseh even made a carved image of Asherah and set it up in the Temple.” (2 Kings 21:6-7a) How’s that for conjoined criminality and devil worship? So Godly Josiah succeeded the ultra-bad Manasseh. My comment: Manasseh was all that. But he followed, not preceded, Josiah. Keith Lannon continues: According to a brief postscript to Manasseh’s narrative, Manasseh was brought in chains to the Assyrian king (nobody is sure whether it was Esarhaddon or Ashurbanipal) which, by historical deduction could have been for non-payment of tribute, or as some trivial rumour of disloyalty – such was life living under such cruel dictatorships. My comment: It was Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, who were one and the same. Keith Lannon continues: The text in chronicles goes on to inform the reader that he was later treated well and restored to his throne. It seems that the severity of Manasseh’s Assyrian imprisonment brought him to repentance towards Yahweh. Manasseh was, however, restored to the throne, and abandoned idolatry, and even started removing foreign idols and exhorting the people to worship Yahweh. Neither Kings nor Assyrian records mention this end-of-life phenomenon – only the verses in 2 Chronicles 33:11-15. My comment: Manasseh, whose long life (reign) was, I think, largely counted in Captivity, was the same as Jehoiakim (and probably also Zedekiah, as I have more lately been thinking). Keith Lannon continues: Both negative and positive influences on the outlook and philosophy of heirs to the Davidic throne while they were young must have been viciously partisan. But I highlight this account while meditating on Hezekiah’s zeal for pure Yahwehism. Just as Samuel emerged as one of the Godliest men in scripture while being nurtured amid Eli’s godless sons, so did Hezekiah emerge strong in God despite evil father Amon, and evil grandfather Manasseh. My comment: Amon, who was Haman of the Book of Esther, was, I am now thinking, a son of Josiah’s. He was also Jehoahaz, whose Egyptian name, Amon, arose from his period of captivity in Egypt, under Pharaoh Necho. Keith Lannon continues: It is generally accepted that Hezekiah died circa 687 BC, and Josiah succeeded to the Davidic throne 640 BC, circa 50 years later. The clean clear convictions and practices of Josiah were birthed despite the spiritual sewage produced in the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. As a by the way, Josiah’s father only reigned 2 years and was murdered by his own courtiers, who were themselves then all murdered by the people of Judah. Ah! Gentle days of the closing seventh century in Judah. My comment: This, I now believe to be quite the wrong sequence. Josiah, as Hezekiah, did not reign “circa 50 years later”. Keith Lannon continues: Hezekiah had been King of Judah for 4 only years when Shalmaneser, king of Assyria started besieging Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, i.e., not in Hezekiah’s realm. As far as we know Hezekiah did absolutely zilch to aid Hoshea, king of Israel in his existential struggle against Assyria. Three years later Samaria crumbled. That brings us to an iconic date in Hebrew history -722 B.C. The vast majority of the population of the northern kingdom was infamously dragged away to nations and locations generally unknown (though variably guessed at by all and sundry, leaving us with the ever-unresolved mystery of “the ten lost tribes”). My comment: Jeremiah’s ‘northern foe’ (Jeremiah 6:22-26), which was King Josiah’s foe, was the same as King Hezekiah’s Assyrian foe - Sennacherib. Keith Lannon continues: All that we know of Hezekiah’s life is described in 2 Kings, chapters 18-20. He became king of Judah at the age of twenty-five and reigned in Jerusalem for 29 years. A faithful worshipper of the true God, Hezekiah reopened the Temple of Solomon (2 Chronicles 20:3) and reigned in control throughout an amazingly traumatic period of Hebrew history. According to the Book of Kings, King Hezekiah instituted a deep furroughing reform that rid Judah and population-less Israel of anything that looked, smelt, or hinted at idolatry. He even went so far as to destroy “the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for up to those days the children of Israel burnt incense to it. It was called Nehushtan” (Bronze snake). However, 55 years of demonic witchcraft being instilled into Hebrew culture, and the popular assassination of Amon, left the young Josiah with a spiritual mountain to climb. My comment: Neither Manasseh’s demonism, nor Amon’s apostasy, had yet occurred. Keith Lannon continues: After reading countless times through Kings and Chronicles, the stories of Josiah’s contemporary Levitical priest Hilkiah finding something called “the scrolls” in a huge pile of dust, refuse and rats, and how the king tore his clothes after the book was read to him is impossible to unsee, post having read it through. The graphic image is like a cowhand burning cattle with a red-hot branding iron. In similar fashion, Josiah’s response is burnt into our imagination sustaining the deed in our understanding and in the depth of our souls. True worship is to be given to Yahweh and Yahweh alone. My comment: The priest, Hilkiah, is common to the accounts both of Hezekiah and Josiah, his son being Hezekiah’s High Priest (not Major Domo), Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was Jeremiah son of Hilkiah. Keith Lannon continues: I stand to be corrected, but Josiah and his Great Grandad are the only two Davidic kings [sic] who took God seriously enough to tear their clothes up in a display of their need for God’s assistance, and repentance for their own godlessness. Josiah’s passionate display was repentance for his ignorance of the Mosaic law, while Hezekiah’s was because of an absolutely hopeless situation with a quarter of a million bloodthirsty Assyrian soldiers surrounding Jerusalem. My comment: The Assyrian army of 185,000 never reached Jerusalem - as Isaiah had foretold it would not (Isaiah 37:33). It was stopped by the Simeonite heroine, Judith, at “Bethulia”, which is Shechem. Judith of Hezekiah is the Huldah of Josiah; Isaiah of Hezekiah (Uzziah of “Bethulia”) is the Asaiah of Josiah; Hilkiah of Hezekiah is the Hilkiah of Josiah; Eliakim of Hezekiah (the Joakim/Eliachim of Judith), the High Priest, is the Jeremiah of Josiah. Keith Lannon continues: The well preached and thoroughly dramatised picture of noble Hezekiah, tearfully and desperately spreading out the Rabshakeh’s letter from the king of Assyria, smoothing out the creases of the letter on the floor in case Yahweh couldn’t read the missive properly is, yet again, another of one of the most incredible moments of Hebrew history. Every action and deed by Hezekiah wreak meaning and significance. These two men [sic] seemed, throughout their lives, to fill any biblical consideration with impacting graphics as deeply spiritual as they are emotional. And it is with equal gravitas and pictorial clarity that Isaiah sent the message to Hezekiah with the quiet and peaceful message “not to worry – the problem was solved.” The weight is added to the prophet’s words when one realises that there must have been something like a quarter of a million Assyrian soldiers camped outside Jerusalem’s walls when he spoke the prophecy. My comment: No, not “outside Jerusalem’s walls”. This had happened on an earlier campaign of Sennacherib’s, one of great success to Assyria. The demise of the massive Assyrian army - which was a rout, not a Divine zapping - would occur well north of Jerusalem. Keith Lannon continues: And boy oh boy, was the problem solved! 185,000 men mysteriously lost their lives overnight in order to solve Jerusalem’s problem. The King James translation has that humourous line that, “When they awoke, they were dead.” Yes indeed, two great kings who knew what it meant to take all issues to Yahweh asking him to personally handle the scenario and get them out of their self-inflicted messes. My comment: If all 185,ooo Assyrians actually died, which they did not, how was Esarhaddon very soon afterwards able to be so potent a king? ….. Thank God for the lives of Hezekiah and Josiah. My comment: Or, thank God for the life of the Great Reforming King of Judah, Hezekiah/Josiah.

Joseph of Egypt’s Canal

“This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake”. William Golding An interesting observation made when walking in Egypt: http://www.ancient-egypt.info/2012/05/josephs-canal-1985-walking-through.html Joseph’s Canal, 1985 | Walking Through Egypt Joseph’s Canal, 1985 William Golding …. Then we drove south for about twenty kilometres along the side of the canal in sugar cane country. I looked at this canal until it became ordinary to me. It was a canal, that was all. Idly, I asked Alaa which canal it was and he said it was the Bahr Yusuf. I was moodily and quite illogically vexed. For Joseph’s Canal is alleged by all persons like myself who prefer a good story to literal historical accuracy (whatever that may happen to be) is, I say, alleged to be the very canal that Joseph he of the coat of many colours built for Pharaoh. They say that lot say that it isn’t Joseph’s canal but a canal built by a much later Joseph. Did you ever hear anything so silly? Before I had seen it I had already made my mind that even if it wasn’t biblical Joseph’s actual ditch, his must have lain along the same line so what’s the odds? You put a canal in the best place for it so the later one was no more than a restoration of the original. I had promised myself such a thrill at seeing it; but now I had been looking at it for twenty kilometres and made it so ordinary to myself that my promised frisson was entirely lacking. But still, it was Joseph’s Canal. It was, I think, a greater, a more impressive, a wider leap of the imagination than the pyramids. There was and is a great depression in the desert on the western side of the Nile opposite Cairo. This is the Fayoum, between twenty and thirty miles square. Right back in the earliest pharaonic days someone conceived the idea of deflecting surplus flood water from the river into that depression and then here is the leap of letting it out again into the Nile when the flood was inconveniently low. But this join between the main stream and the Fayoum could not be made down by Cairo. The main stream for obvious hydrostatic reasons had to be tapped hundreds of miles to the south so that the gradient of the canal would be so gradual the water would be controllable. So there the canal is, huge in length, vast in scope and breathtaking in the sheer imaginative size of the conception. Now here it was, a canal like any other and I found I had to screw my wits up to remember what it was I was looking at. This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake.

Nile pyramid waterway discovered

Taken from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01449-y Found at last: long-lost branch of the Nile that ran by the pyramids Geological survey reveals the remains of a major waterway that ancient Egyptian builders could have used to transport materials. By Freda Kreier Stretching beneath the ground near the Giza pyramid complex in Egypt lie the remains of an ancient branch of the Nile River that might once have helped ancient Egyptians to build their monuments. The highest concentration of pyramids in Egypt can be found in a stretch of desert between Giza and the village of Lisht. These sites are now several dozens of kilometres away from the Nile River. But Egyptologists have long suspected that the Nile might once have been closer to that stretch than it is today. Satellite images and geological data now confirm that a tributary of the Nile — which researchers have named the Ahramat Branch — used to run near many of the major sites in the region several thousand years ago. The discovery, reported on 16 May in Communications Earth and Environment1, could help to explain why ancient Egyptians chose this area to build the pyramids (See ‘Ancient river’). “The pyramids seem like pretty monumental work,” says Judith Bunbury, a geoarchaeologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. “But it’s less arduous if you can bring big stones up by boat rather than carrying them over land.” Wandering waterways For thousands of years, the Nile and its flood-plain have provided food, agriculture and water to Egypt’s inhabitants. The majority of the country’s population still lives in the Nile basin. But the river is prone to migrating, and in the past, populations have had to relocate to keep up. Over the last few hundred years, the Nile has moved several kilometres to the east, possibly owing to shifting plate tectonics. There is evidence that some of Egypt’s important archaeological sites do not have the same relationship to the river as they would have had at the time they that were built. There are remains of harbours and other such clues at sites between Giza and Lisht. But scientists have found it difficult to chart the scope or locations of these lost waterways. While looking for traces of ancient water, a team led by Eman Ghoneim, a geomorphologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, spotted what looked like a dried-up river channel several kilometres west of the Nile. The channel ran for around 60 kilometres through agricultural areas and had a similar depth and width to the modern Nile. To investigate whether the channel could be part of an ancient riverbed, the researchers collected core samples of sediment from the channel. Beneath the wet mud of the fields, they found an layer of gravel and sand consistent with that of a riverbed. Combining this sample data with satellite imagery allowed the team to map the branch’s location. They found that it would have flowed past more than 30 Old- and Middle-Kingdom pyramids dating from between 2686 to 1649 BC — thus the decision to called it the ‘Ahramat’ branch, using the Arabic word for pyramid. The Ahramat “connected all these different pyramid fields”, says Suzanne Onstine, an egyptologist at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. “Their valley temples and causeways all oriented exactly to where the water would have been.” Riverside sites Researchers have long debated the significance of the pyramids’ locations. The waterway running right past them could have been an important factor, because it would have provided a convenient way for builders to transport materials to the sites. This theory aligns with documents from the era which state that building materials were brought in by boat, says Bunbury. Eventually, the movement of the Nile and sand blowing in from the Sahara Desert would have caused the Ahramat Branch to dry up and become unnavigable. Today, only a few stray lakes and channels remain where the major branch once ran. But knowing the ancient river’s location provides a blueprint that archaeologists can use to try and uncover more ancient Egyptian settlements, says Onstine. And the finding that Egyptians were probably using boats rather than land transportation to move materials to build the pyramids hints that they were “a lot more pragmatic than perhaps we realized before”, says Bunbury. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01449-y References 1. Ghoneim, E. et al. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 233 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7

Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped to the land of Ararat. Then his son Esar-haddon became king in his place”. 2 Kings 19:37 Tobit 1:21 collaborates this, but without naming the two regicidal sons: “… two of Sennacherib's sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael's son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire”. Tobit 1:21 Adrammelech Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32). I shall come to him after a consideration of Adrammelech, who, thanks to professor Simo Parpola, appears to have been identified as one of Sennacherib’s known sons: http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/introduction/murderersennacherib.htm THE MURDERER OF SENNACHERIB The news of the murder of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, on 20 Tebet, 681, was received with mixed feelings but certainly with strong emotion all over the ancient Near East. In Israel and Babylonia, it was hailed as godsent punishment for the "godless" deeds of a hated despot; in Assyria, the reaction must have been overwhelmingly horror and resentment. Not surprisingly, then, the event is relatively well reported or referred to in contemporary and later sources, both cuneiform and non-cuneiform, and has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate as well. In spite of all this attention, however, the most central thing about the whole affair has remained an open question: the identity of the murderer. While all our sources agree that he was one of the king's own sons, his name is not known from any cuneiform text, and the names offered by the Bible and Berossus, all of them evidently textually corrupt, have not been satisfactorily explained and are accordingly looked at with understandable suspicion. A theory favored in the early days of Assyriology, according to which these names should be viewed as corruptions of Ardior Arad-Ninlil, a son of Sennacherib known from a contemporary legal document, has gradually had to give way to an entirely different interpretation, according to which the murderer (or at least the mastermind behind the murder) was none but Sennacherib's heir-designate and successor to throne himself, Esarhaddon, who would have been forced to engineer the assassination in order to avoid being replaced by one of his brothers. The weakness of this theory is that it is in disagreement not only with Esarhaddon's own account of the course of events, which puts the blame on his brothers, but also with the traditions of the Bible and Berossus; it also involves a lot of reading between the lines. For these reasons, it has not been universally accepted either, and the case is largely viewed as unsolved for lack of clear-cut, conclusive evidence. In this paper I hope to show that the available evidence is not at all so elusive as is commonly thought, and actually suffices for determining the identity of the assassin with reasonable certainty. There is a Neo-Babylonian letter, published decades ago, which explicitly states the name of the murderer, and this name is not only known to have been borne by a son of Sennacherib but it also virtually agrees with the name forms found in the Bible and at Berossus. The text in question, R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (=ABL) XI no.1091 (Chicago 1911), has escaped attention because it was completely misunderstood and mistranslated by its editor, Leroy Waterman; the name has remained unidentified because its actual pronunciation has been obscured by its misleading logographic spelling. In what follows, I shall analyse both the letter and the name in detail and finally integrate the new evidence with the previously known facts in a brief reassessment of the murder and its prehistory. The beginning of ABL 1091 is lost. The first three extant lines are fragmentary, but sufficiently much of them remains to suggest that they referred to certain “Babylonian brothers” of the writer (or writers).lu From line 4' on the text can be followed better. The persons just mentioned gain knowledge of a "treaty of rebellion", and subsequently one of them requests an audience with the king. The expression for this is "to say the king's word" which, as shown by J. N. Postgate years ago, implies that the person in question applied to the king as the supreme judge and should consequently have been sent directly to the Palace. This, however, is not what happens in the present case. Two Assyrian officials appear and question the man. Having found whom his appeal concerns, they cover his face and take him away. This, in itself. is perhaps not significant, for ordinary people were not permitted to look at the king face to face. But what follows is startling. The man is not taken to the king but to Arad-Ninlil, the very person he wanted to talk about, and (his face still covered) is ordered to speak out. Clearly under the illusion that he is speaking to the king, he subsequently declares: "Your son AradNinlil is going to kill you. " Things now take a drastic course. The face of the man is uncovered: he is interrogated by Arad-Ninlil: and after that he is put to death along with his comrades mentioned in the beginning of the letter. The remaining seven lines are too fragmentary to be properly understood. To bring home the significance of this letter, let me put together some basic facts. The first is that it was clearly the "treaty of rebellion" mentioned at the beginning of the text that induced the unfortunate man to appeal to the king; second, that his information concerned Arad-Ninlil; and third, that because of this information, he and all his comrades knowing about the "treaty of rebellion" instantly got killed. Accordingly, we may conclude that the assertion "Your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" was something Arad-Ninlil did not want to become publicly known; and since this statement was meant for the ears of the king, it is evident (1) that the person Arad-Ninlil intended to kill was the king himself and (2) that Arad-Ninlil himself was the king's own son. It follows that AradNinlil was involved in a conspiracy aiming at the murder of the king, and quite obviously was the leading figure in it. Nowhere in the letter is the name Arad-Ninlil preserved completely; the last sign LÍL is broken away or damaged in all instances. But no other Sargonid prince with a name beginning with the sign ARAD is known, so the restoration of the final element can be regarded as certain. Since Arad-Ninlil is only attested as a son of Sennacherib, the king referred to in the text can only be Sennacherib. On the other hand, it is clear that the letter itself cannot have been addressed to Sennacherib. Had the writer wanted to warn the king of a threatening assassination, he would have expressed himself differently. Hence, one must conclude that the letter was written after the murder had already taken place, and therefore probably was addressed to Esarhaddon. As this king must, from the beginning, have been reasonably well informed about his father's murder, it would be absurd to assume that the purpose of the writer was simply to inform the king about the identity of the murderer. His aim was certainly different. If we consider the text more closely, it is easy to see that the writer took the leading role of Arad-Ninlil in the conspiracy as generally known: but what he is trying to make clear is that the two officials mentioned in the letter were responsible for the death of the informer and therefore by implication also involved in the conspiracy. Both men, Nabu-sum-iskun and Sillâ, are well known as officials of Sennacherib who continued in their offices through the early years of Esarhaddon: the Kuyunjik letter archiye contains many denunciations against the latter. The present letter clearly is in the same category, and by using as an argument against Sillâ his role in silencing the informer, it actually implies that the prediction "your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" had become a fact meanwhile. Thus, the letter just discussed powerfully supports the position of the scholars who have seen in Arad-Ninlil the likeliest candidate for the murderer of Sennacherib, and in fact makes it a matter of virtual certainty. We may hence pass on to a serious reconsideration of the problem of how to satisfactorily relate the name Arad-Ninlil to the names of the murderer (Adrammelech/Adramelos/Ardumuzan) given in the Bible and the Berossus excerpts. Actually, there is hardly any problem here at all. We are now in a position to show that the traditional reading of the (logographically spelled) Assyrian name, on which the earlier comparisons were based (and which has also been used here for convenience) is incorrect and should be abolished. In particular, the theophoric element at the end of the name (d-NIN.LÍL) has to be read [Mulissu] or [Mullêsu], not *Ninlil. This reading, first tentatively suggested by E. Reiner twelve years ago and since then increasingly well documented, represents the Neo-Assyrian form of the Akkadian name of the goddess Ninlil, attested as Mulliltum in an Old-Babylonian god list. It appears to have been very wide-spread in the first millennium, and is actually attested in syllabic spellings of the very name under consideration. On the other hand, the reading of the first element (ARAD) can be determined as [arda] or [ardi] on the basis of occasional syllabic spellings in contemporary and earlier Assyrian texts. And once the reading Arda-Mulissi has been established, the names of the murderer found in the non-cuneiform sources become relatively easy to explain. The Biblical Adrammelech differs from the Assyrian name only in two respects: the metathesis or r and d, and the replacement of shin at the end of the name by kaph. The former point is negligible since r and d were virtually homographic and therefore easy to confuse in early Hebrew and Aramaic script … the second can be explained as a scribal error. It is not difficult to imagine a scribe correcting a seemingly nonsensical "meles" to "melek", a frequent final element in North-West Semitic personal names. The Berossian name forms show an even better match. The form Adramelos found in the Abydenos excerpt is virtually identical with Arda-Mulissi save for the already discussed metathesis of r and d (which may have been influenced by the familiarity of Eusebius with the Biblical form). The name Ardumuzan agrees with Arda-Mulissi up to its last syllable which can only be due to textual corruption. It is important to note that in this name, the metathesis of r and d does not take place. In sum, it can be stated that all three names can be relatively easily traced back to Arda-Mulissi; and "then one comes to think about it, it would be very hard if not impossible to find another Assyrian name "which could provide as satisfactory an explanation for them as this one does. The identification of Arad-Ninliu Arda-Mulissi as the murderer of Sennacherib can thus be considered doubly assured. But what were his motives, and how did he end up doing what he did? My reconstruction of the course of events is as follows: In 694, Sennacherib eldest son and heir-designate Assur-nãdin-sumi is captured by Babylonians and carried off to Elam; he is no more heard of. 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 favorite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia, who is not the mother of Arda-Mulissi. Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince, and all Assyria is made to swear allegiance to him. However, Arda-Mulissi enjoys considerable popularity among certain circles who would like to see him as their future king rather than sickly Esarhaddon. As years pass, the opposition to Esarhaddon grows, while at the same time Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) gain in popularity. This political development leads to a turn of events, but not to the one hoped for by Arda-Mulissi and his supporters. Foreseeing trouble, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon away from the capital to the western provinces; yet he does not revise the order of succession. In this situation, Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) soon find themselves in a stalemate. On the one hand, they are at their political zenith while their rival brother has to languish in exile; on the other hand, the latter remains the crown prince, and there is nothing his brothers can do about it since the position of Sennacherib remains unchanged and Esarhaddon himself is out of reach in the provinces. Supposing he were able to score military victories, his popularity would undoubtedly rise while that of his brothers might easily start to sink. The only way for them to make good of the situation, it seems, is to act swiftly and take over the kingship by force. A "treaty of rebellion" is concluded; and probably not much later, Sennacherib is stabbed to death by Arda-Mulissi or, perhaps, crushed alive under a winged bull colossus guarding the temple where he had been praying at the time of the murder. This reconstruction closely follows Esarhaddon's own account of the events. and similar interpretations have been presented earlier by others. Nebuchednezzar’s beginnings It all started, according to my revision, when Nebuchednezzar, a young official for the Great King of Assyria, Sargon II/Sennacherib, accompanied (according to Jewish tradition) the ill-fated army of Sennacherib (Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) to the west. In the Book of Judith, Nebuchednezzar appears, I tentatively suggest, as “Bagoas”, purportedly a “eunuch”, serving the Commander-in-chief himself, “Holofernes”. The latter is the eldest son of Sennacherib, the Crown Prince and ruler of Babylon, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin (Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Now King Sennacherib had various wives and apparently quite a few sons: https://www.worldhistory.org/Esarhaddon/ “Sennacherib had over eleven sons with his various wives and chose as heir his favorite, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest of those born of his queen Tashmetu-sharrat (d.c. 684/681 BCE) [sic]”. Two of these sons, “Adrammelek and Sharezer”, will slay their father (2 Kings 19:37): “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king”. Nisrok (Nisroch) here is a fairly unconvincing Hebrew attempt to transliterate Nusku (fire-god), the god whom Sennacherib (as, for example, Tukulti-ninurta), did, indeed, worship. Some identify this Nusku with Mercury (in its evening phase). Sharezer Previously I had written: “As far as I am aware, “Sharezer” has not yet been positively identified. Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32)”. But there is always hope! With my Middle Kingdom folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I into so-called II, then we find that this great Chaldean king had an Assyrian adversary with the name of Ashur-resha-ishi. While one would not expect Nebuchednezzar so-called II to be fighting an Assyrian king - given that the Assyrian kingdom is supposed to have come to an end (612 BC) around half a dozen years before Nebuchednezzar even came to the throne (c. 605 BC) - it works in my system, according to which Nebuchednezzar was Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal. Of Nebuchednezzar’s conflict with Ashur-resha-ishi, we read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_I …. The Synchronistic History[i 12] relates his entente cordiale with his contemporary, the Assyrian king Aššur-rēša-iši I,[i 13] and subsequently the outcome of two military campaigns against the border fortresses of Zanqi and Idi that he conducted in violation of this agreement. The first was curtailed by the arrival of Aššur-rēša-iši’s main force, causing Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur to burn his siege engines and flee, while the second resulted in a battle in which the Assyrians apparently triumphed, “slaughtered his troops (and) carried off his camp.” It even reports the capture of the Babylonian field marshal, Karaštu.[9] …. This was the same as the civil war that Esarhaddon had to fight against his parricidal brothers for him to hold the throne of Nineveh. The name Ashur-resha-ishi is, I believe, extremely well represented by the biblical transliteration, Sharezer. Thus A – SHUR RESHA – ishi: Shur[r]esha = Sharezer.

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

by Damien F. Mackey “In this paper, I look to the Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform sources as evidence in confirmation that the «Mad King» of Daniel 4 is historically based on the figure of Nabonidus, rather than the biblical Nebuchadnezzar”. Amanda M. Davis Bledsoe With reference to Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s conventional article (2012): The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources (5) The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources | Amanda Davis Bledsoe - Academia.edu which, without the benefit, or even apparent awareness, of any requisite revision, follows the usual track, which I believe is up a garden path. I wrote to her as to what I consider to be the necessary correction (14th May, 2024): Keeping it simple, the "Mad King" of Daniel 4 was so like Nabonidus because the latter WAS Nebuchednezzar 'the Great', whose son Belshazzar (Baruch 1:11, 12) was Belshazzar son of Nabonidus, was King Belshazzar of Daniel 5. The Writing is there on the Wall. Let us follow through a part of Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s article, with some comments added: The fourth chapter of the book of Daniel recounts a story of a Babylonian king who has a frightening dream, which only a Jewish exile is able to interpret for him. In his dream, and in the subsequent narrative, he is transformed into an animal-like being who lives away from human society for a period of seven years. Ultimately both his wits and his throne are restored to him and he praises the God of the Jews. The bizarre events of this passage make it one of the most puzzling in the entire Hebrew Bible. For generations, scholars have struggled to link Daniel 4 with historical evidence from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), with whom it is explicitly associated. However, with the discovery and publication of numerous cuneiform sources from the ancient Near East, many scholars have reconsidered this passage in Daniel, looking instead to the events of the reign of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (556–539 BCE). …. Mackey’s comment: Nothing to see here. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar so-called II. In this paper I show how the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition [sic], attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals. I begin by looking at the background of Daniel 4, examining descriptions of both Nebuchadnezzar’s and Nabonidus’s reigns. Next I survey the connections between the events of Daniel 4 and other sources, including a stela discovered at Harran documenting Nabonidus’s sojourn to Teima … records documenting the lineage of the Neo-Babylonian kings, various other cuneiform inscriptions relating to the reign of Nabonidus … and descriptions of Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. …. In the final section of this paper, I use these sources to illustrate the Danielic editors’ purpose in incorporating the Nabonidus tradition into the narrative of Daniel 4 and possible reasons for their attribution of this material to Nebuchadnezzar. …. Mackey’s comment: All very scholarly – but a trip right up the garden path. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: 1. Context of Daniel 4 1.1. Nebuchadnezzar According to Mesopotamian cuneiform sources, Nebuchadnezzar II was the son of Nabopolassar (626-604 BCE), who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period. Mackey’s comment: Actually just Nebuchednezzar, as Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same king. No Nebuchednezzar II. Middle Babylonia folds into Neo Babylonia: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (9) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nabopolassar was an Assyrian, Sennacherib, not a Babylonian. Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was Sennacherib’s successor but not his biological son. He was a Chaldean, and it was he, not Nabopolassar, “who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period”. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, he twice conquered Jerusalem (597 and 586 BCE), forcing a significant portion of the population to relocate to Babylon. …. In addition to external conquest, his reign was marked by substantial building activity throughout his kingdom, as more than sixty epithets have been found detailing his restoration of temples or sanctuaries. …. He is credited with specific restorations and building projects within the capital city, including work on Etemenanki (the ziggurat of Babylon, sometimes associated with the infamous Tower of Babel), the creation of five walls to enclose Babylon, and the construction of the royal gardens. …. Mackey’s comment: According to Dr. Stephanie Dalley, the ‘Hanging Gardens’ were not in Babylon, but were located in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens” (9) Chronologically 'Landscaping' King Nebuchednezzar's "Hanging Gardens" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Convention apparently headed up another (Hanging) Garden path. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: Though he is mentioned in more secondary sources (including the Hebrew Bible, Apocryphal and Rabbinic books, and the works of classical and medieval authors) than any other Neo-Babylonian king, «Nebuchadnezzar’s own contemporary cuneiform sources are largely incomplete and provide us with relatively little information about the important events of his reign». …. Mackey’s comment: Yes, that is true in the narrow, one-dimensional context in which Amanda Davis Bledsoe operates, but the historical King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ needs to be filled out with substantial alter egos, such as Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Ashurnasirpal; Ashur-bel-kala; and, of course, Nabonidus. Especially when his 43-year reign is aligned with the approximately 43-year reign of Ashurbanipal does that “relatively little information about the important events of his reign” become greatly magnified. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: Consequently, are left primarily with descriptions of the king’s deeds that likely bear no resemblance to the actual events. …. However, what the secondary sources do provide us with are a picture of a popular leader who ruled his kingdom without any significant break from tradition, maintaining his kingly and religious duties while extending the kingdom through warfare with surrounding nations. …. There is no evidence that he was ever absent from Babylon for any extended period of time, aside from that required for his numerous military conquests. Upon his death Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by numerous short-reigning kings, including his son, Amel-Marduk (562–560 BCE) … his brother-in-law Neriglissar (probably by violent means) (560–556 BCE), and Neriglissar’s minor son, Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE). …. Mackey’s comment: The received king-lists, and late documents, have it all wrong: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences https://www.academia.edu/59734684/Chaotic_King_Lists_can_conceal_some_sure_historical_sequences Keeping it all as simple as it really was, the “violent” death of Amēl-Marduk, son of Nebuchednezzar, was the same as the violent death of Labashi-Marduk, who was the same as King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, who died a violent death. Nebuchednezzar was succeeded in the Chaldean dynasty only by his son (Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar), who, in turn was succeeded by Neriglissar, the aged Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. Why complicate it? 1.2. Nabonidus Nabonidus, who was not related to the previous kings by blood or marriage … seized the throne from the weak Labashi-Marduk. Mackey’s comment: Wrong sequence. Nebuchednezzar had died several years earlier. It was Neriglissar, Darius the Mede, “who … seized the throne”. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: There are more cuneiform documents which detail the reign of Nabonidus than any other Neo-Babylonian king … though they must be viewed with a critical eye considering most were created as propaganda either in strong support of or against Nabonidus. From these texts it is clear that, like Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus completed extensive building projects throughout Babylon. …. Mackey’s comment: Very true that these documents “must be viewed with a critical eye”! King Nabonidus was the same great builder of Babylon as was Nebuchadnezzar (including Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), as was Esarhaddon. All one and the same king. Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues: However, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus was a very controversial figure. He is said to have broken from the earlier customs in every way: he disregarded his religious and festal duties; he neglected his rule in Babylon residing instead in the desert oasis of Teima; and he abandoned the capitol city to Cyrus’s approaching army. He was even said to have been so unpopular that when the Persian army invaded Babylon the city willingly opened its gates to Cyrus and fell without a battle. …. Thus, many of the ancient sources are extremely critical of Nabonidus, naming him as a betrayer of the kingship and religion of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: The composite Nebuchednezzar was as “controversial” as it gets. It is difficult to think of a more paranoid, superstitious, idolatrous, vindictive ruler.