What brought low the Assyrians – an angel, plague of mice, distemper, a rogue comet, electromagnetics?

by Damien F. Mackey Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. Let the Great King of Assyria tell it to us personally: As for Hezekiah, the Judaean, who had not submitted to my yoke, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding small towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and by applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. Himself [Hezekiah], I locked him up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. His cities which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land. I imposed upon him in addition to the former tribute, yearly payment of dues and gifts for my lordship. He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship, and he sent me after my departure to Nineveh, my royal city, his elite troops and his best soldiers, which he had brought into Jerusalem as reinforcements, with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony … countless trappings and implements of war, together with his daughters, his palace women, his male and female singers. He (also) dispatched his personal messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance. —From the annals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.E.), translated from the Rassam Prism, in Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 337–339. That doesn’t read like any sort of miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from its enemy – nor was it. Today I received, and answered, this Message in relation to my latest article: Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 (5) Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 in which Message a U.S. reader argues for “… Jerusalem being [Assyria’s] only demonstrative failure …”. …. If you read Scripture thoroughly, you will find that in addition to Hezekiah's tunnel, he also ordered all of the wells around Judea stopped up, or diverted by another spring channel under Jerusalem. It is not improbable then, that the troops, searching for water, fell victim to typhoid, or a similar dysentary which epidemic kills quickly. There were great preparations before the siege. A scorched earth type preparation. Also, as some have postulated, … the word "thousands" was mistranslated by original scribes, originally meaning "captains" or "chiefs". So 185 captains of 50s would make it 9,000 or so died. This is more likely, if true, since hundreds of thousands of army are really overkill for any battle of the time— near impossible for logistics to handle. Also, since the Assyrians, using what is called hoplite tradition, used mercenaries from their conquered nations as fodder for their forces ("meat assaults"), of which they had an endless supply; 40-something nations, we read, were overcome, with Jerusalem being their only demonstrative failure, according to the Bible and other sources. …. Damien Mackey’s response: But the Assyrians did not fail at Jerusalem. This is a mistake that many make. Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. The Rabshakeh had sarcastically offered to give the beleaguered Jews horses to ride, knowing that they could not even man them (2 Kings 18:23). Then the Assyrian betrayed the agreement and came back to take the City entirely. But he heard that Tirhakah was on his way and lifted the siege, just as Nebuchednezzar would do in the face of Necho's advance, only to return later and finish the job. About a decade later, Sennacherib sent his eldest son with the biggest army of all time, to conquer Jerusalem on the way to Egypt, the main prize. The all-conquering army devastated the north, but did not get any further south than Shechem (“Bethulia” in the Book of Judith). Judith killed the Commander-in-Chief, and the army fled with terrible losses and captives taken. Jerusalem was not affected. …. Barry Setterfield (2024) will make the same mistake about Jerusalem, adding his idiosyncratic ‘scientific’ reason for the presumed annihilation of the Assyrian army. Barry is a Creationist, though a most original one. Creationists do tend to impose modern scientific views on these ancient Semitic texts: Barry’s Beacon - Shining Biblical Light on Current Events Part 2 Written By Barry Setterfield Hezekiah, Assyria, Archaeology and Science Brief Overview: Archaeological research this month supports the Biblical narrative historically from the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The accounts of the Assyrian invasion and siege of Jerusalem and associated events in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37 are proving accurate. Additional detail can be found in 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 and Isaiah 36 and 37. Background: In June, 2024, the Journal of Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 87 (2), pages 110-120, published a research article by an independent archaeologist, Stephen Compton, whose expertise included the Neo-Assyrian Empire. That empire was a major civilization whose dominion included the lands that today are in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait. The Neo-Assyrian Empire existed from 911 BC to 609 BC and had perfected iron technology. This contrasted with many surrounding states which made their weapons and implements of the softer metal, bronze. This gave Assyria an advantage in many military campaigns. Their strategy was to dominate the trade routes across the Syrian Desert to the Mediterranean Sea, and control politically and economically the countries these routes passed through. These countries included the kingdom of Judah with its capital, Jerusalem. Hezekiah, was the king of Judah at the time of this Assyrian campaign. Outline of Assyria’s Campaign: In 705 BC, the Assyrian king, Sargon II, was killed in battle, and his son, Sennacherib, ascended the throne, making Nineveh his capital. My comment: This, I believe, is quite incorrect and will only serve to throw right out of kilter neo-Assyrian and biblical history. Sargon II was Sennacherib. Sargon’s attack on “Ashdod” (Lachish) (Isaiah 20:1) was the beginning of what will become Sennacherib’s devastating 3rd Campaign, greatly affecting Judah and Jerusalem (as we have read above). Barry Setterfield continues: Sennacherib first overcame rebellions in Asia Minor, then, in 701 BC, he turned his attention to the Levant where Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron had formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria. Sennacherib attacked the rebels, conquering Ascalon, Sidon and Ekron. After going down to Egypt [My comment: He didn’t], he came back and destroyed Libna and Lachish. Records in the Assyrian palace at Nineveh state that 46 cities were destroyed in this military campaign. That included the well-fortified frontier city of Lachish, one of the best equipped cities in Judah, which was some 40 miles south-west of Jerusalem. Finally, the Assyrian expedition ended with the siege of Jerusalem itself. This feat of overcoming so much resistance was considered to be Sennacherib’s greatest victory. This particular campaign was of interest to Compton because of the detailed records available. These records are in the form of carvings in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh (present day Mosul) in northern Iraq. In addition, a six-sided prism was found associated with the remains of the palace that turned out to be Sennacherib’s annals or dairy of the events (see images below). Finally, there are extensive details from Hezekiah’s point of view in the Bible in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37; and then 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 coupled with the prophet Isaiah, chapters 36 and 37, as Isaiah the prophet also had a hand in the outcome. The Clue From Military Camps: Because these accounts are in the Bible, many skeptical archaeologists insist on historical material entirely separate from any Biblical source before they will even begin to consider its validity. The question was whether or not Sennacherib even came down as far as Judah, let alone destroying Lachish and placing Jerusalem under siege. One scientist commented: “There has not been any archaeological evidence that the battle actually happened.” It was at this point that Stephen Compton’s research became important. He examined the details in the palace carvings. From those records, it became apparent that the Assyrian armies had an unusual style of structure for their military encampments (something that had first been queried only in January 2004, and studies are still continuing). These Assyrian camps were all of an oval shape. The Romans also had military camps throughout the Levant, but these Roman camps were always of a square or rectangular design. This contrasted with the Assyrian oval pattern recorded on the palace walls. The Clues From Old Aerial Photos: For many archaeologists, the most important discovery of them all would be to find an oval structure at Lachish and/or Jerusalem. Compton was aided in this by a 19th century archaeologist, Sir Henry Lanyard. In 1849, Sir Henry sketched the massive reliefs detailing the battle of Lachish from the palace walls in Nineveh, and placed the sketches in the British Museum. The palace record also detailed the landforms the Assyrian army was operating on, as well as the placement of the oval campsite. Compton then searched for early aerial images taken before the end of World War 2, and thus before subsequent alteration of the land. He found an aerial image taken in 1945 of the entire region around Lachish as shown on the palace record in the British Museum. He was able to match the landforms and determine the location of the oval military camp of the Assyrians. When checking on the ground in that location, he found the feature was already known as ‘Khirbet al Mudawwara,’ meaning “Ruins of the Camp of the Invading King.” Archaeological investigation at the site confirmed its identity. In a similar way, aided by the earliest aerial photograph of Jerusalem, taken in the 1930’s (held in the Library of Congress), the oval military camp of the Assyrians was located just north of Jerusalem at a place called “Ammunition Hill.” Initially it had been thought to be a Roman camp. However, examination then revealed it to be consistent with the Assyrians as, among other things, its form was oval, not rectangular. Because of its good location, the British also used it and gave it the name Ammunition Hill. Compton’s continued his research and, “In some cases, it has also been possible to use the newly discovered camps to locate the sites of ancient cities that were known to have been besieged by the Assyrians but whose locations were unknown or uncertain,” Compton wrote. Archaeological Proof – But was there a Miracle? The initial conclusion from Compton’s research is that the evidence is certainly strong that Sennacherib did invade the land of Judah, with a special emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem. One assessment expressed it this way: “While the archaeological evidence discovered by Compton does not confirm the supernatural aspects of the Biblical narrative, it does provide compelling support for the historical presence of Assyrian military forces near Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s reign.” My comment: Yes, this is evidence for the well-chronicled – and highly successful, for Assyria – 3rd campaign. The extraordinary deliverance of Israel would not occur in the environs of Jerusalem, but well north, at Shechem. Barry Setterfield continues: Additional evidence is available from the palace walls in Nineveh. The record from those walls includes a complex scene of the Assyrians storming Lachish. There is a vivid written description of what was being depicted by German archaeologist Werner Keller. After this description, Professor Keller continues: “Amid the confusion of the battle and the din around this frontier fortress of Judah, an order went out from Sennacherib: ‘And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah, along with a great host against Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17).’ That meant an attack on Jerusalem. The historians of the Assyrian king have preserved a record of what happened next. The hexagonal prism that was Sennacherib’s diary says: “And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke … him I shut up in Jerusalem his royal city like a caged bird. Earthworks I threw up against him, and anyone coming out of his city gate I made to pay for his crime. His cities which I had plundered I cut off from his hand…’. ” Professor Keller then writes: “Surely now must come the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem and the seizing of the capital. But the [palace] text continues: ‘As for Hezekiah, the splendor of my majesty overwhelmed him .. 30 gold talents … valuable treasures …. He caused to be brought after me to Nineveh. To pay his tribute and to do me homage he sent his envoys.’ Keller then comments: “This is simply a bragging account of the payment of tribute – nothing more. – just as in 2 Kings 18:14. The Assyrian texts pass on immediately from the description of the battle of Jerusalem to the payment of Hezekiah’s tribute. Just at the moment when the whole country had been subjugated and the siege of Jerusalem, the last point of resistance, was in full swing, the unexpected happened: Sennacherib broke off the attack at the very last minute. Only something quite extraordinary could have induced him to stop the fighting. What might it have been? While the Assyrian records are enveloped in a veil of silence the Bible says: “And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the LORD went out and smote the camp of the Assyrians, one hundred and eighty-five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.” (2 Kings 19:35, 36). My comment: Werner Keller wrote a disastrous book, The Bible as History (1955), tethering the Bible to an uneven conventional historical yoke. Here, he has merged into one two separate Assyrian campaigns, Sennacherib’s successful 3rd campaign, and a later disastrous one, led by his eldest son. Barry Setterfield continues: So What Actually Happened? My comment: One now suspects that Barry will not be able satisfactorily to answer his question. He turns for assistance to that most unreliable of ancient historians, Herodotus, who has Sennacherib’s army falling at, not Jerusalem, but at the near rhyming Pelusium, in northern Egypt. A combination of Herodotus and Werner Keller, as given next, is not to be desired. We learn a little more from another historical link to these events which Professor Keller brought to light. He points out that the famous traveler, historian and author of the ancient world, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, has given us some interesting clues not found in other records. In Egypt, Herodotus held conversations with the temple priests. They mentioned that Sennacherib marched against Egypt with a large armed force. They told Herodotus that “at the narrow entrances to the country, an army of field-mice swarmed over their opponents in the night … gnawed through their quivers and their bows, and the handles of their shields, so that on the following day they fled minus their arms and a great number of them fell [by the resulting plague].” For peoples of the ancient world, the mouse was the equivalent of the rat in the Middle Ages and was a symbol of plague. Archaeological Conclusion: Werner Keller concludes his assessment with the following information; “On the edge of the city of Lachish, the British archaeologist, James Lesley Starkey found shocking proof of this story in 1938: A mass grave in the rock with 2000 human skeletons, unmistakably thrown in with the utmost haste. The epidemic must have raged with frightful destruction among the Assyrian warriors. The drama of the campaign had been unfolded, and once more, Jerusalem had escaped…” My comment: But surely these were casualties of the mass devastations caused by the invading Assyrian army! But Behind the Scenes….. Our conclusion here is that, as far as it is possible for modern science to do so, it supports the Scriptural account of the Assyrian invasion of the land of Judah. Yet even this is not the end of the story scripturally. There is another whole dimension to the drama of the situation that the Bible leaves until the very end. In 2 Kings 19 we have the record of the wipe-out of the Assyrian host. However, as we go on to read 2 Kings 20:1-11 we are amazed to find that just in the middle of this crucial time, the king of Judah, Hezekiah himself, was on his bed in the palace in Jerusalem, very sick and near death. My comment: King Hezekiah was ill at some point in time near to Sennacherib’s successful campaign, as the following makes clear. Barry Setterfield continues: Indeed, we are told in 2 Kings 20:1 that the prophet Isaiah went to Hezekiah and told him to put his house in order because he was not going to live. This, just at the time when the Assyrians had Jerusalem under siege and the people needed to be encouraged by their king to stand steadfast in the face of this opposition. At that point, Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, wept, and prayed fervently. Before Isaiah had even gone as far as the middle court in the palace, God gave him a message: “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely, I will heal you. On the third day you will go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the King of Assyria, and I will defend this city for My own sake and the sake of my servant David”. When the prophet had delivered this message, king Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?” Then Isaiah said “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: “Shall the shadow [on the sundial] go forward ten degrees, or go backwards ten degrees?” And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow come back ten degrees.” So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the Lord, and He brought the shadow backwards ten degrees by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.” The incident is told in detail again in Isaiah 38. My comment: Get ready for some Creationist ‘science’. Are there Scriptural songs from these events? This miracle in itself needs an explanation, but we put that aside for the moment to concentrate on something else that is Biblically relevant. Several words in the above account give us the context with certainty; they are the word “degrees,” “sun,” “sundial” and “shadow.” Plainly what is being referred to here is the shadow cast by the sun on the sundial of Ahaz. This shadow from the sun is usually marked off in “degrees” around a circle or half-circle. There are thus 15 degrees per hour which means that 24 hours would make up a full circle of 360 degrees. In this case, 10 degrees would correspond to 40 minutes of actual time. The word translated as “degrees” is the same as the word “dial” used in the biblical accounts as “sun-dial”. It can be translated as “steps” or “stairs,” but astronomically the word “degrees” is better. Interestingly, this same word “degrees” is found as the heading for 15 Psalms. There has been a wide discussion as to what was meant in the case of these Psalms. Some have suggested they were part of a pilgrimage going up to Jerusalem for one of the three annual Feasts. However, there is nothing in any of these Psalms to indicate either a pilgrimage or a feast. Despite this, many Bible versions label these Psalms as “Songs of Ascents” on the basis of the pilgrims ascending to Jerusalem. A number of other popular explanations also fall short. However, the headings for each of those Psalms give their own clue. In each case there is the definite article before the word “degrees” (or ascents or steps). So literally each heading reads “A Song of THE Degrees.” There is only one incident in the whole Bible where the attention is specifically drawn to “the degrees” and that is on the sundial of Ahaz at the healing of Hezekiah, where the shadow went backwards 10 degrees and Hezekiah’s life was extended by 15 years. The fact is that there are precisely 15 Songs of the Degrees, and 10 of them have no named author. The other five are by David or Solomon. We also know that Hezekiah was a Psalm-writer as one of his Psalms appears in Isaiah 38 starting at verse 9 which specifically mentions his recovery from this sickness. It is thus possible that Hezekiah wrote those other 10 Psalms himself and left them unattributed. Bible scholars also suggest that he had a large part in shaping the book of Psalms into its present form just as he did for the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 25:1). A new appreciation for some songs? If this background for the ‘Songs of the Degrees’ is accepted, some of those 10 unattributed Psalms open up in a new way. For example, imagine how the people of Jerusalem felt that early morning when they looked out over the walls of Jerusalem and saw that, incredibly, the siege was over and their enemy destroyed. I believe we may have a record of just this moment. Psalm 126, which is one that Hezekiah may have written, we read, in the literal Hebrew, verses 1 to 3, as follows: “When the Lord restored Zion (the city of Jerusalem) from being a prisoner, we were like those who dream, and our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with singing. They said among the nations, The Lord has done great things for them…whereof we are glad.” Connecting the dots… The final aspect of this amazing series of events is the cause of the shadow going back 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz. Many view this as an isolated event and so miss something important. If we connect the dots by looking at the unusual behavior of the sun in the Bible, something important emerges. There is the time when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still along with the moon, with the whole story in Joshua 10:6-15. Then there was Hezekiah as we have seen above. If we move forward to the time of the Crucifixion, we read that the world turned dark around noon. However, the prophet Amos had already told us what was going to happen in Amos 8:9-10. It reads: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day: And I will turn your feast (Passover) into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.” So we have three occasions in the Bible when this occurs. If we look at the times when these events occurred, something becomes apparent. Using the dating from the most ancient text of the Bible available, the Alexandrian Septuagint (LXX), which is backed up by the chronologies of the Apostolic fathers, the approximate dates for these events are as follows: Joshua – 1450 BC +/- 100 years. Hezekiah -710 BC +/- 50 years. The Crucifixion 33 AD +/- 3 years. There seems to be a systematic progression in these dates with about 745 years between each event. If we come closer to the present by 745 years from the time of the Crucifixion, we come to about 778 AD. In August 15th that year, Emperor Charlemagne was poised to attack the forces that treacherously destroyed his closest associate, Roland, and his forces in Spain. Charlemagne asked the Lord for a sign of assurance before the battle that he had Divine approval. He recorded in his diary and in his “Song of Roland” that the Sun stood still in the heavens that day. Have you ever played with a gyroscope? If the gyroscope is mounted so it can move freely in any direction, and it is then given a push, it will swing back and forth systematically for a time - then, suddenly, it will do a figure 8 roll and then go back to its swinging back and forth. After this the process repeats with the figure of 8 roll. We know the earth behaves like a gyroscope, so that figure of 8 movement every 745 years may be explained. It would cause a ‘long day’ on one side of the earth and a ‘long night’ on the other. This is exactly what is recorded in various ancient cultures at different places around the world. One other important point is that, if the earth’s movement changed like that, there should be relevant records in the magnetic fields of the earth associated with those times. If we come another 745 years closer to the present after Charlemagne, we arrive at about 1520 AD. My comment: For my entirely different view of Charlemagne, see e.g. my article: Solomon and Charlemagne (5) Solomon and Charlemagne About that time, Thai pottery shows that there were some unusual, but temporary, changes in the earth’s magnetic field. This was reported in the University of Sydney News, vol. 16. no.4, for 6th March, 1984. The team was headed by Dr. Mike Barbetti, whose speciality was paleo-magnetism. He found that there was a change in the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field around that time. This implicates the earth’s core as being involved in what was going on. This was also true for the Hezekiah incident as there was a dramatic change in the earth’s magnetic field intensity recorded in Judean pottery with Hezekiah’s seal on them on that occasion. That leads to another data point. In 1972 an article in the journal Nature entitled “Archaeomagnetism in Iran” pointed out that there was a major change in the direction of movement of the geomagnetic pole. Again, this implies that the earth’s core was involved. The date of that change was about 2200 to 2300 BC and corresponds with the wipe-out of civilizations around the world as a result of meteorite impact. Such impacts definitely affect the earth’s core. Our analysis and the astronomical data supporting the impact in 2300 BC with an error of about 150 years is here: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Worldwide_Event.html Further discoveries about the earth’s core in 2013 and 2015 have confirmed the period of 720 to 750 years and indicates that the asteroid impact about 2300 to 2200 BC may indeed be the basic cause of the effect seen by Hezekiah that has been a puzzle for so many. My comment: Not entirely sure how c. 2000 BC vitally affects what was going on in King Hezekiah’s kingdom of the late C8th BC.

Ancient Assyrian inscription has been found in Jerusalem

Taken from: Seal bearing ancient language found in Jerusalem confirms Bible story in the Old Testament Stacy Liberatore writes: Seal bearing ancient language found in Jerusalem confirms Bible story in the Old Testament …. Archaeologists in Jerusalem have uncovered an ancient Assyrian inscription that may shed light on historical events described in the Old Testament. The discovery, a tiny 2.5-centimeter pottery shard inscribed in Akkadian cuneiform, the world's oldest written Semitic language, was uncovered near the Temple Mount and dates back approximately 2,700 years. Researchers from Bar-Ilan University deciphered the inscription, revealing what appears to be a complaint from the Assyrian empire regarding a late payment expected from the kingdom of Judah. The text specifies the first of the month of Av, the 11th month of the Hebrew calendar, as the due date for the delayed tribute, suggesting a formal communication between the Assyrian empire and the kings of Judah. Scholars noted that this could correspond to events recorded in 2 Kings 18 and 19, during the reign of King Hezekiah. These biblical passages describe Hezekiah being required to pay 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold to King Sennacherib of Assyria, a tribute meant to secure Judah from Assyrian aggression. Dating of the shard places it around the time of Hezekiah's reign, though researchers noted it could also originate from the period of his son Manasseh or even King Josiah. Damien Mackey’s comment: “Dating of the shard places it around the time of Hezekiah's reign … or even King Josiah”. King Hezekiah was King Josiah. On this, see e.g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (6) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses The article continues: Dr Peter Zilberg of Bar-Ilan University, who was part of the research team, said the fragment's small size belies its significance. …. Dr Anat Cohen-Weinberger of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which conducted the excavation, explained how the shard was traced back to Assyria rather than Jerusalem. Petrographic analysis revealed that the pottery's composition differs from local materials, with mineral content matching the geology of the Tigris Basin region, home to major Assyrian cities such as Nineveh, Ashur, and Nimrud/Kalḫu. This suggested the shard may have been part of a shipment of official Assyrian documents or correspondence to Judah. Experts say the find also highlights the complexity of ancient diplomacy, showing that even small kingdoms like Judah were engaged in detailed negotiations with one of the era's superpowers. Such correspondence would have been vital to navigating the political pressures of the time, especially when facing a powerful empire like Assyria. While the inscription does not directly cite a specific biblical passage, it provides tangible evidence of the kingdom of Judah's interactions with the Assyrian empire. 'While we cannot determine the background for this demand, whether it stemmed from a mere technical delay or carried political significance, the very existence of such an official appeal would seemingly attest to a certain point of friction between Judah and the imperial government,' the researchers said. The text specifies the first of the month of Av, the 11th month of the Hebrew calendar, as the due date for the delayed tribute, suggesting a formal communication between the Assyrian empire and the kings of Judah. Dr Peter Zilberg of Bar-Ilan University, who was part of the research team, said the fragment's small size belies its significance …. The discovery offers historians and biblical scholars a rare glimpse into the diplomacy, economics, and political pressures of the ancient Near East. It also reinforces the historical context of the Bible's accounts of Judah's tributes to Assyria, demonstrating that these stories were grounded in real-world interactions between kingdoms. As analysis continues, the tiny shard stands as a potent reminder of how much history can be preserved in even the smallest of artifacts, connecting biblical narrative with archaeological reality and enriching our understanding of life in ancient Jerusalem.

Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar, carelessly projected into Islamic Golden Age

Part One: Ahikar, a real historical person, embellished by Damien F. Mackey “Ahikar the son of my brother Anael, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs”. Tobit 1:21 Ahikar’s contemporary the heroine Judith, whom Ahikar (as Achior) met shortly after she and her maid had carried the head of “Holofernes” in a basket back to “Bethulia”, has likewise been projected into a supposed AD time, c. 900 AD, as Gudit (or Judith): Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite (6) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu How does this happen? And, what a story Ahikar (or Ahiqar) has to tell! He (as Achior) had been left for dead by “Holofernes” for having dared to suggest that an Israel with the aid of the Lord would be irresistible. So “Holofernes” had him tied up within close proximity of Judith’s town of “Bethulia” (Shechem), there to die with the people whom he had just verbally defended. Achior was taken in by the Bethulians, whose leader at the time was the Simeonite Uzziah, the great prophet Isaiah. Then, after Judith with her maid had returned triumphantly from the Assyrian camp, she asked to see Achior (Judith 14:6-7): So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. When he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men in the assembly of the people, he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. Now tell me what you have done during these days’. This famous Israelite pair, Judith and Ahikar, who appear in the Catholic Bible for the era of c. 700 (conventional dating), have been recklessly projected into a c. 900 AD, and later, time – a shocking time warp of more than a millennium and a half! How does this happen? (See also Part Two) Seleucids/Ptolemies divinised ancient heroes The Ptolemies re-presented some famous characters of Egyptian history as ‘saints’. Ancient notables of Egyptian history, such as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, became, in the hands of the later Ptolemies, thaumaturgists and quasi-divine. Thus Dietrich Wildung wrote of this pair as ‘becoming gods’ (Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, 36, 1977). The Seleucids did the same with - to give one example - the legendary King Solomon, who became, in their hands, the temple building Sumerian notable, Gudea: Prince of Lagash (6) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Seleucids greatly embellished the talents of these, admittedly already striking, ancient celebrities. And I suspect that the same must have been done with Ahikar (Achior), already a significant person in his own right, to whom has artificially been added encyclopædic wisdom and magical skills as one might read of in a fantastic Arabian Nights legend. Hence we now find, as I have often quoted: “The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself”. Of particular interest for this study is the influence of Ahikar upon the Koran (Qur'an). Indeed, the sage Koranic character, Luqman (Lokman), is thought by some to have been taken from Ahikar himself: Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman (13) Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 1. The real Ahikar (a) Kingdom of Assyria The young Ahikar (Achior) had a stellar career in the kingdom of Assyro-Babylonia, somewhat akin to that of the prophet Daniel. According to his uncle, Tobit (1:22): “… when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal”. When the Assyrians first successfully invaded Jerusalem, Ahikar, the Rabshakeh, was King Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, he being eloquent and, apparently, multi-lingual. When King Hezekiah’s envoys implored him to speak in Aramaïc rather than Hebrew, before the walls of Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (“field commander”) refused to comply (Isaiah 36:11-21): Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall’. But the commander replied, ‘Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?’ Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, ‘Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ‘Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards. ‘Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us’. Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries have been able to save their lands from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’ But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him”. There is nothing to suggest from any of this, so far, that Ahikar was anything more than a competent military commander and loyal servant of the Great King of Assyria. But, in the Book of Tobit, we learn that Ahikar was the mentor of Nadin (or Nadab) - and his “uncle” (presumably through marriage) - who was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, and who was to become the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Judith drama. We also learn that Ahikar was kind, he having looked after Tobit during his blindness, before being commissioned to govern the land of Elam (Elymaïs) (Tobit 2:10): I [Tobit] went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais. Ahikar and Nadin were present at the wedding of Tobias (Tobiah) and Sarah after the elderly Tobit had been miraculously cured of his blindness by the angel Raphael. These were no ordinary times (Tobit 11:17-18): That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh. Ahiqar and his nephew Nadin were also on hand to rejoice with Tobit. Tobiah’s wedding feast was celebrated with joy for seven days, and many gifts were given to him. Ahikar will also intervene with king Esarhaddon, enabling for Tobit to return home after his desperate flight from the now-deceased Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esar-haddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative. From the Judith drama we learn that Ahikar, or Achior, was now leader of a foreign contingent in the Assyrian army, wrongly called “Ammonite”, but should read Elamite. This mistake is one of the main reasons why the Book of Judith has not been accepted into the Jewish canon (Deuteronomy 23:3): “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. For, as we read in Judith 14:10: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day”. Presumably Achior was, like most of his tribe in those days, neglectful of Yahwism. As Tobit recounts (1:4-6): When I lived as a young man in my own country, in the land of Israel, the entire tribe of my ancestor Naphtali broke away from the house of David, my ancestor, and from Jerusalem, the city that had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes that all Israel might offer sacrifice there. It was the place where the Temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come. All my kindred, as well as the house of Naphtali, my ancestor, used to offer sacrifice on every hilltop in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan. But I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as was prescribed for all Israel by longstanding decree. A dying Tobit will praise Ahikar to his son Tobias for Ahikar’s “almsgiving”, contrasting his nephew with the treacherous Nadin/Nadab (Tobit 14:10-11): ‘See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar, who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, he escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes and what injustice does—it brings death!’ Ahikar/Achior also appears as “Arioch” in a gloss in the Book of Judith (1:6): “… King Arioch of Elam”. The glossator had obviously failed to realise that this was Tobit’s “Ahikar [who] … went to Elymaïs [Elam]”. Now, before we proceed to consider the fantastically embellished Arabian Nights version of Ahikar, we need to add yet an extra dimension to the real person. This will have huge ramifications for the Golden Age of Islam – my focus there being on the intellectual aspect of that so-called Golden Age. (b) Kingdom of Chaldea (Babylonia) The lives of the Tobiads (Tobit, Tobias, Ahikar) passed through the tumultuous reign of Sennacherib and on into the far more benign (for the Tobiads) reign of Esarhaddon. Now, Esarhaddon, called a “son” of Sennacherib in Tobit 1:21, was not Sennacherib’s actual biological son, nor was he an Assyrian. Esarhaddon was a Chaldean, whose reign marks the beginning of the Chaldean dynasty. Esarhaddon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (12) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That makes it quite possible that Ahikar (Arioch) was the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:24-25, a high official of King Nebuchadnezzar. But far more importantly for this study is my identification of a sage official of Nebuchednezzar due to my folding, in my university thesis (2007), of Nebuchednezzar so-called I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating) with II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating). The famous official, Esagil-kinni-ubba, will become vital for explaining the intellectual Golden Age of Islam. This is what I wrote about Esagil-kinni-ubba (of various spellings) in my thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf I believed that I may have found - over and above some very compelling Babylonian-Elamite parallels - a connection between a ‘Middle’ kingdom vizier of great wisdom and a similarly celebrated ‘Neo’ kingdom sage. I wrote about this as follows, then wrongly suspecting that Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same ruler as my composite king Sargon II-Sennacherib (Volume One, pp. 185-187): A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu) Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: … “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”. Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: …. The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself. According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22). Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of [the Book of Tobit] as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’. This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith]. Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: …. “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of the Book of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar …. …. I had suggested above that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-aplaiddina…”. [End of quote] One further matter of importance regarding “The real Ahikar” is that his Assyrian name was Aba-enlil-dari “whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar [Ahiqar]”: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html This name will also become important in the context of the Islamic Golden Age. 2. The fantasy Ahikar We read of the “Ahiqar story”, “of great popularity”, at: http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. The oldest form of the story of Ahiqar itself is available in the Old Aramaic fragments from the end of the fifth century BCE and were discovered in the ruins of Elephantine in Egypt. The story of Ahiqar was incorporated into Greek legendary life of Aeseop - the adventures and maxims of the Assyrian sage were transferred to his Greek counterpart. The Syriac Ahiqar book is of non-Christian character and belongs to the oldest period of Syriac literature, to the first two centuries CE. Later versions in Armanian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavonic are all closely related to the Syriac version. From the Armenian the story of Ahiqar was translated into Kipchak-Turkish and into another Turkic language, while the Romanian translation is related to the Church Slavonic text. A selection of the precepts of Ahiqar, but not his story, was included in an Arabic Christian anthology which was later translated into Ethiopic. There is another Ethiopic version which is shorter and also clearly translated into Arabic. There are references to Ahiqar in Tobit and also other quotations from his maxims in various other books of the Bible, especially in the book of Sirach. Also a set of the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) didactic books which were associated with the name Ādurbād, a historical person of the fourth century CE Zoroastrianism, reveal strong affinities with the Akkadian-Aramaic story of Ahiqar. The Admonitions of Ādurbād contains many parallels to the Ahiqar maxims in several languages. Given the great popularity of the Ahiqar story in the first centuries of the Christian era and the long symbiosis of Iranian and Aramaic civilisation, there is certainly nothing wrong with the assumption that Persian authors of the Sasanian period may have been familiar with it. [End of quote] From a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, Ahikar will be transformed through later legend into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - especially as we trace him in Part Two through his ‘Islamic’ guises. Ahikar transformed Here is the fantastic Story of Ahikar: https://sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe259.htm Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria, has 60 wives but is fated to have no son. Therefore he adopts his nephew. He crams him full of wisdom and knowledge more than of bread and water. THE story of Haiqâr [Ahiqar] the Wise, Vizier of Sennacherib the King, and of Nadan, sister's son to Haiqâr the Sage. 2 There was a Vizier in the days of King Sennacherib, son of Sarhadum [Esarhaddon?], King of Assyria and Nineveh, a wise man named Haiqâr, and he was Vizier of the king Sennacherib. 3 He had a fine, fortune and much goods, and he was skilful, wise, a philosopher, in knowledge, in opinion and in government, and he had married sixty women, and had built a castle for each of them. 4 But with it all he had no child by any. of these women, who might be his heir. 5 And he was very sad on account of this, and one day he assembled the astrologers and the learned men and the wizards and explained to them his condition and the matter of his barrenness. 6 And they said to him, 'Go, sacrifice to the gods and beseech them that perchance they may provide thee with a boy.' 7 And he did as they told him and offered sacrifices to the idols, and besought them and implored them with request, and entreaty. 8 And they answered him not one word. And he went away sorrowful and dejected, departing with a pain at his heart. 9 And he returned, and implored the Most High God, and believed, beseeching Him with a burning in his heart, saying, 'O Most High God, O Creator of the Heavens and of the earth, O Creator of all created things! 10 I beseech Thee to give me a boy, that I may be consoled by him that he may be present at my heath, that he may close my eyes, and that he may bury me.' 11 Then there came to him a voice saying, 'Inasmuch as thou hast relied first of all on graven images, and hast offered sacrifices to them, for this reason thou shalt remain childless thy life long. 12 But take Nadan thy sister's son, and make him thy child and teach him thy learning and thy good breeding, and at thy death he shall bury thee.' 13 Thereupon he took Nadan his sister's son, who was a little suckling. And he handed him over to eight wet-nurses, that they might suckle him and bring him up. 14 And they brought him up with good food and gentle training and silken clothing, and purple and crimson. And he was seated upon couches of silk. 15 And when Nadan grew big and walked, shooting up like a tall cedar, he taught him good manners and writing and science and philosophy. 16 And after many days King Sennacherib looked at Haiqâr and saw that he had grown very old, and moreover he said to him. 17 'O my honoured friend, the skilful, the trusty, the wise, the governor, my secretary, my vizier, my Chancellor and director; verily thou art grown very old and weighted with years; and thy departure from this world must be near. 18 Tell me who shall have a place in my service after thee.' And Haiqâr said to him, 'O my lord, may thy head live for ever! There is Nadan my sister's son, I have made him my child. 19 And I have brought him up and taught him my wisdom and my knowledge.' 20 And the king said to him, 'O Haiqâr! bring him to my presence, that I may see him, and if I find him suitable, put him in thy place; and thou shalt go thy way, to take a rest and to live the remainder of thy life in sweet repose.' 21 Then Haiqâr went and presented Nadan his sister's son. And he did homage and wished him power and honour. 22 And he looked at him and admired him and rejoiced in him and said to Haiqâr: 'Is this thy son, O Haiqâr? I pray that God may preserve him. And as thou hast served me and my father Sarhadum so may this boy of thine serve me and fulfil my undertakings, my needs, and my business, so that I may honour him and make him powerful for thy sake.' 23 And Haiqâr did obeisance to the king and said to him, 'May thy head live, O my lord the king, for ever! I seek from thee that thou mayst be patient with my boy Nadan and forgive his mistakes that he may serve thee as it is fitting.' 24 Then the king swore to him that he would make him the greatest of his favourites, and the most powerful of his friends, and that he should be with him in all honour and respect. And he kissed his hands and bade him farewell. 25 And he took Nadan. his sister's son with him and seated him in a parlour and set about teaching him night and day till he had crammed him with wisdom and knowledge more than with bread and water. [End of quote] There follows a list of maxims, some of which are straight out of Tobit 4. We read more about the Story of Ahikar from professor Susan Niditch at: https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-interprets-pharaohs-dreams-an-israelite-type-922-folktale …. In brief, the story tells about an Assyrian [sic] wise man named Ahiqar, who served at the courts of Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon. As Ahiqar has no son, he adopts his nephew Nadan and treats him as his own son, and asks Esarhaddon to accept Nadan as his counselor upon Ahiqar’s retirement. Nadan, however, deals treacherously with his uncle, accusing him of disloyalty to the king. Esarhaddon orders an officer by the name of Nabu-šuma-iškun to find Ahiqar and execute him, but as Ahiqar had once saved Nabu-šuma-iškun’s life in the past, he asks for reciprocity in return. Nabu-šuma-iškun agrees, kills one of his own slaves to fake Ahiqar’s death, and hides Ahiqar in a makeshift prison, where he lives as a castaway or outcast. …. News of the great wise man Ahiqar’s “death” reaches the ears of the Pharaoh of Egypt, who sees an opportunity to hurt his Assyrian rival. The Pharaoh challenges Esarhaddon with a riddle-like trial or wager: Egypt would like to build a castle in the air. If Esarhaddon can send him someone who knows how to do this, Egypt will pay three years of taxes to Assyria, but if Assyria cannot send Egypt someone with this knowhow, Assyria must pay three years’ taxes to Egypt. The story continues in a classic Type 922 fashion: Esarhaddon is furious with Nadan, since he cannot solve the riddle, and bemoans his rash decision to have Ahiqar executed. Nabu-šuma-iškun hears this, and, in a manner reminiscent of the cupbearer in the Joseph story, tells the king that he can produce Ahiqar, who will certainly know the answer. Ahiqar appears before Esarhaddon, and the king sends him to Egypt. After a long session of answering riddles, Pharaoh tells Ahiqar to build the castle in the air. Ahiqar sends two boys up on eagles, who call down to the Egyptians that they should hand them some bricks and they will start building. Pharaoh says it is impossible to get bricks to people all the way up in the sky, to which Ahiqar replies that if he can’t even get the bricks to his builders, how are they supposed to build the castle. The story ends with Pharaoh paying the tribute to Assyria, Esarhaddon reinstating Ahiqar as advisor, and Nadan dying a cruel death. …. Part Two: Polymathic scholars of Golden Age based upon Ahikar In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. As we read in Part One, Ahikar has been transformed by legend and embellishment from being a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, into a sage of enyclopædic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - and a wonder worker. Islamic Golden Age polymaths In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar. In the same sort of fashion has Ahikar’s c. 700 BC contemporary, the Simeonite Judith, been chronologically projected forward so as to become a supposed Ethiopian queen of c. 900 AD, Gudit (or Judith). The handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age to whom I refer are the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Razi (c. 850); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); Averroes (c. 1150); and Ibn Khaldun c. 1300). In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Now, I find in four of these six names elements of Ahikar’s Assyro-Babylonian names: Esagil-kinni-ubba and Aba-enlil-dari. Thus: Al-Kindi – Esagil-Kinni; Al-Farabi – Enlil-Dar-Ab(i); Avicenna – Ubb-kinni(a); Averroes – Aba-(d)ar(i) This now becomes a huge extension of the already over-stretched Ahikar of legend and pseudo-history, including his influence upon the Koran. If I am correct in identifying Ahikar with at least four of these famed six intellectuals of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, then this will have enormous ramifications for the history of philosophy and science, and, indeed, for the authenticity of Islam.

Ancient clay seal may refer to Asaiah, official of King Josiah

by Damien F. Mackey “When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: ‘Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us’.” 2 Kings 22:11-13 It appears, now, that the person of “Asaiah, the king’s attendant, as referred to in e.g. 2 Kings 22:12 (עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ), has been archaeologically verified in a most recent find: https://www.timesofisrael.com/tiny-2600-year-old-clay-sealing-inscribed-with-biblical-name-found-in-temple-mount-soil/ Tiny 2,600-year-old clay sealing inscribed with biblical name found in Temple Mount soil Minuscule artifact discovered at the Jerusalem-based Temple Mount Sifting Project may reference an official who worked for King Josiah and who appears in II Kings and II Chronicles By Rossella Tercatin …. 30 July 2025, 5:04 pm Share A clay seal from the First Temple period bearing a Hebrew name that appears in the Bible has been uncovered by archaeologists at the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem, the organization announced on Tuesday. The tiny artifact carries an inscription in Paleo-Hebrew reading “Belonging to Yed[a‛]yah (son of) Asayahu.” “This is only the second time since the Temple Mount Sifting Project began over 20 years ago that we’ve uncovered a sealing with such a complete inscription — nearly every letter is clearly legible,” said archaeologist Zachi Dvira, who co-directs the project alongside Dr. Gabriel Barkay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAvYFZmIjhY “We usually do not go public with new finds so quickly,” he told The Times of Israel over the phone of the sealing, which was spotted this month. “However, in this case, the artifact was very recognizable, and Dr. Anat Mendel-Geberovich, who works in our lab, is one of the leading experts in ancient Hebrew script. So we decided to move forward, also because we felt it was very significant that the sealing was found just before Tisha B’Av.” Tisha B’Av, a Jewish day of mourning which this year falls on Sunday, marks the anniversary of the destruction of both the First Temple at the hands of the Babylonians in 586 BCE and the Second Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE. Based on the writing style, the researchers dated the sealing to the 7th or 6th century BCE. The name Asaya appears in the Bible several times in the context of the kingdom of Josiah, the 16th king of Judah who reigned in the second half of the 7th century BCE. “The king gave orders to Hilkiah, and Ahikam son of Shaphan, and Abdon son of Micah, and the scribe Shaphan, and Asaya, servant of the king,” reads II Chronicles 34:20. The same story appears almost exactly in II Kings 22:12, “And the king gave orders to the priest Hilkiah, and to Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Michaiah, the scribe Shaphan, and Asaya the king’s minister.” The version of the name inscribed on the sealing, “Asayahu” contains an extra letter Vav, a type of suffix that was often added to ancient Hebrew names to testify to their connection with God (Y-H-V-H). “The longer and shorter versions of the name were often used interchangeably,” Dvira said. “The name Asayahu also appears on another clay sealing with the words ‘servant to the king,’ that was identified some 20 years ago,” he added. “However, since the artifact came from the antiquity market, and not from an archaeological context, it is more difficult to be sure of its authenticity.” During the First Temple period, clay impressions, also known by their Latin name bullae, were used for the management of storehouses. Dozens of such clay sealings have been unearthed in Jerusalem, at times carrying names that also appear in the Bible. “Obviously, we are not sure that the Asayahu mentioned on the sealing is the same that appears in the Bible,” said Dvira. “However, several such artifacts found in the area of the Temple Mount carry biblical names, and it does make sense, because these were not objects used by common people.” In ancient times, the lumps of clay were pressed over the knot of a cord securing a doorknob or a vessel. The manager of a treasury would then impress his, or his superior’s, seal upon the clay to prevent others from tampering. …. Who was this Asaiah? In my article: (3) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses I identified Asaiah as the great prophet Isaiah himself: …. I. ERA OF JEREMIAH ALSO PART OF IT When professor Ebied had given me that choice back in 2000 of writing a doctoral thesis on either EOH [Era of Hezekiah] or EOJ [Era of Jeremiah], I had been of the firm opinion at that point in time that I could contribute nothing of any real worth about EOJ. However, as hinted back in I, how wrong I was. Because, as I have since come to realise (and hope to show here in II, and in III), EOJ was basically the EOH about which I believed I had much to offer. Searching for Hezekiah Something of which I had become painfully aware, during the course of writing my EOH thesis, was that, whilst various of its major characters were full dimensional (though sometimes only, perhaps, because I had overdone my penchant for alter egos), king Hezekiah himself, upon whom the thesis was supposed to be centred, always continued to remain somewhat ghostly in the background. Part of the reason for this is that the Old Testament itself will restrict its albeit fairly extensive coverage of EOH to just a few major incidents in the life of the great king: namely, his pious reform; his illness; his encounters with Assyria. Even in some of these cases, characters of lesser rank stand in for the king, seeming to overshadow Hezekiah. Thus the king’s three officials, not he, will go out to face the Rabshakeh of the invading Assyrian army; the prophet Isaiah will dominate much of the Hezekian narrative; and no Judaean king at all, only the Assyrian king, will be referred to throughout the entire BOJ. A further reason for Hezekiah’s seeming lack of dimension, I have lately come to realise, is because Hezekiah has also been sold short of a major alter ego: namely, as Josiah king of Judah. Perhaps it was better that I had not realised, in those days, that a part at least of EOJ had needed to be incorporated into EOH. That may, then, have served only the further to complicate the whole cumbersome effort – although it would also most certainly have poured some immense illumination on obscure issues. Today, writing hopefully from a far more solid base, I feel confident that I can begin to add that necessary extra dimension. Here, in II, I shall list some of the extraordinary match-ups between the supposedly two different eras (EOH and EOJ), this alone being sufficient proof for me that – despite some significant difficulties – the two eras need to be brought together as one. For a far more complete list, I urge the reader to check out Charles Pope’s “Chart 37” at: Chart 37: Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives (domainofman.com) though I do not accept all of Pope’s comparisons, and would also add some others of my own. In III, I shall briefly assess some of those difficulties. Comparisons between EOH and EOJ - King Hezekiah of Judah is king Josiah of Judah; - King Manasseh of Judah is king Jehoiakim of Judah; - Isaiah, prophet, is Asaiah, king’s minister; - Hilkiah is Hilkiah; - Eliakim son of Hilkiah is (prophet) Jeremiah son of Hilkiah; - Judith is Huldah; - Manasseh, husband of Judith is Shallum, husband of Huldah. II. RESOLVING SOME KEY DIFFICULTIES (a) Hezekiah = Josiah Naturally one would expect to encounter some formidable difficulties when trying to demonstrate that Hezekiah/Josiah – supposedly separated the one from the other by over half a century (e.g., the intervening 55-year reign of king Manasseh) – constitutes just the one biblico-historical era. The biblical difficulties and comparisons Genealogies now have to be explained. And the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) seems to witness against my reconstruction by presenting Hezekiah and Josiah as if two separate entities (Sirach 49:4-5): “Apart from David, Hezekiah and Josiah, they all [kings of Judah] heaped wrong on wrong”. This separation here of Hezekiah from Josiah could perhaps partly be accounted for by proposing a (Hebrew) waw consecutive, causing it to read “Hezekiah, even Josiah”. What this quote from Sirach does at least tell us, though, is that Hezekiah and Josiah were uniquely pious kings, the only ones to be so regarded alongside David himself. The liturgical and socio-political reforms of Hezekiah, of Josiah, may be shown to be wonderfully compatible by astute commentators, as some have already done. Reign lengths (allowing for co-regency) are very compatible as well (Hezekiah: 29; Josiah: 31). And, when we re-organise, and halve, the genealogical sequence: Hezekiah/Manasseh/Amon/Josiah/Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin (6 kings) to the streamlined Hezekiah = Josiah/ Manasseh = Jehoiakim/ Amon = Jehoiachin (3 kings) then we can really begin to make some biblico-historical progress and resolve conundrums (see next). The historical difficulties and comparisons Of similar great challenge, to that of resolving the biblical difficulties that arise from a fusion of EOH and EOJ, is the historical ‘aftershock’ that such a revised upheaval must needs generate. Hezekiah and Josiah are conventionally thought to have aligned with different Mesopotamian and Egypto-Ethiopian monarchs. Recall that in my Note in I. I had estimated that it was “not until the approximate era of king Hezekiah” that the chronological and historical ‘planets’ began properly to align. The emphasis here, though, must be on that word, “approximate”, for there is yet a searching revision required even for the reign of king Hezekiah over and above what I had undertaken in my EOH thesis – a further depth of revision of which I was then quite unaware. I refer to the effect of incorporating wholesale therein the reign of king Josiah (or EOJ). My early post-graduate research, with the era of Moses very much in mind, had been focussed upon the problem of Egyptian chronology, well explored by revisionists like Drs. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) and Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, 1952; Oedipus and Ikhnaton, 1960). It was generally assumed in their day that, whilst Egyptian chronology must be radically shortened in order to be able to accommodate itself to that of the other nations, Mesopotamian history was in far better shape. The chronology of Assyria, in particular, is considered to be highly accurate. With the passing of the years subsequent, however, it has become apparent to me, and to others, that this is far from being the case, and that Mesopotamia, too, must undergo a massive chronological renovation. Someone needs to write a thesis on it. I have tackled this problem now in many articles. Perhaps the key date in the entire Old Testament – at least in terms of specific historical worth – is the one given by the prophet Jeremiah in 25:1, 3: “… in the 4th year of Jehoiakim … 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar …. For 23 years, from the 13th year of Josiah …”. This ties precise biblical dates, and two Judaean kings, to a known Mesopotamian monarch. And, while Egypt-Ethiopia are not included, we known from 2 Kings 23:34 that pharaoh Necho was contemporaneous with Jehoiakim’s early reign. Thus: 23rd year. Prophet Jeremiah (counting from Year 13 of king Josiah) tells that this was the 4th year of king Jehoiakim of Judah and the 1st year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (during the reign of pharaoh Necho of Egypt). This is most valuable chronological information. Jeremiah’s rock-solid data here is even more helpful than is the important chronological fusion in 2 Kings 18:1-10, tying king Hoshea of Israel and king Hezekiah of Judah (specific years given) to Shalmaneser the king of Assyria at the time of the siege and destruction of Samaria, because the contemporary pharaoh “So” (17:4) has proven most difficult to identify. Unfortunately, biblical chronologists and historians (most notably, in this case, Dr. Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings) have largely abandoned this set of multiple syncretisms, with them now dating the beginning of king Hezekiah’s reign some half a dozen years after the Fall of Samaria. This is totally unacceptable, and I felt that I had to devote a large portion of my EOH thesis towards reclaiming all of those precious syncretisms. With EOH and EOJ now merged, the un-named “northern” foe of Jeremiah 1:14-19 – whose identification is hotly debated amongst commentators – is simply to be recognised as the pugnacious Assyria of king Hezekiah’s time. Hezekiah’s/Josiah’s Assyrian contemporary was Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s so-called ‘son’, Esarhaddon – actually a new dynasty – is the same as the great Nebuchednezzar himself of Jeremiah 25:1. Nebuchednezzar is also the same as the mighty king, Ashurbanipal, of identical 43-year reign. For a fuller account of this albeit radical departure from tradition, see my relevant articles. This, my reconstruction, accounts for how the era of - Manasseh king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal), and the era of - Jehoiakim king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Nebuchednezzar, may be paralleled and its history resolved. (b) Manasseh = Jehoiakim Recognising Manasseh as Jehoiakim will serve to explain why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the presumably long dead Manasseh (Jeremiah 15:4), rather than to the prophet’s wickedly idolatrous contemporary, Jehoiakim. It enables for a wonderful reconstruction of the formerly somewhat empty, long phase of king Manasseh, his conversion, and later building works. And it throws much light on the New Testament genealogies of Jesus the Messiah and of the Davidic dynasty: JESUS CHRIST THE LORD AND KING OF HISTORY. It may also solve the problem of the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, said to have occurred during the reign of king Manasseh. Only this re-arrangement, I believe, enables for a full recovery of the life of the prophet Jonah and of the associated Nineveh incident. For more on all of these topics, see my relevant articles. Moreover, though this takes us into an era just beyond EOH and EOJ, my having king Amon in parallel with Jehoiachin (var. Coniah) finally enables for a comprehensive identification of the “Haman son of Hammedatha” of the Book of Esther, whilst, further, providing a proper explanation for the origin of the foreign name, “Haman”. See, again, my relevant articles. That my revision – albeit shocking from a mainstream point of view – has, despite its flaws, been able to yield such a golden harvest of interconnections right across the board, is further encouragement to me and proof (when coupled with my parallel list at the end of II), that the whole heavily laden train is basically travelling along the right track. (c) Judith = Huldah My reconstruction of the history of BOJ in my thesis – virtually a thesis within a thesis – was warmly received for the most part, one examiner describing it as “a page turner”. BOJ is such an epic that it ought to be made the subject of countless movies. Due to the unfortunate confusion of names in our present translations of the book, though, its history and geography have proven extremely difficult to recapture. The story commences with a Year 12 campaign against the east by an Assyrian king, “Nebuchadnezzar”. This is actually Year 12 of Sargon II of Assyria against the eastern coalition of the troublesome Merodach-baladan (the “Arphaxad” of BOJ). A combination of BOJ and the Book of Tobit [BOT] could enable one to identify Sargon II with his supposed son, Sennacherib. Though my initial clue to this connection arose from a colleague pointing out the massive overlap between the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib, the overlap finally to be understood as being completely embracing. It was in this manner that I came to identify Sargon II as Sennacherib. That identification was only reinforced by a combination of the BOJ-BOT material. Without this fusion, which one examiner at least found to be quite convincing (it occupies an entire chapter {Chapter 6} in Volume One of my thesis), the overall history of BOJ is unobtainable. The main focus of the BOJ drama is Sennacherib’s campaign subsequent to his Year 12 victory, this time to the west, sending there a force of over 180,000 under the command of “Holofernes”, who is to be identified as Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of BOT (14:), who betrayed Ahikar (the Achior of BOJ). In my EOH thesis, though, I would wrongly identify this “Holofernes” as Esarhaddon. The massive Assyrian army was stopped in its tracks at “Bethulia”, which, again, I wrongly identified in my thesis as the fairly insignificant Mithilia (Mesilieh), following C. R. Conder. Judith’s “Bethulia” (the northern Bethel) has been meticulously identified as the city of Shechem by C. C. Torrey. Against all other opinions as to what happened to Sennacherib’s army (e.g., Herodotus), it was a case of Judith’s slaying of the Assyrian commander-in-chief. The soldiery panicked and fled. It was a complete rout. The next in command to “Holofernes”, “Bagoas”, unidentified in my thesis, can now plausibly be equated with Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon); Nebuchednezzar, according to Jewish tradition, having been involved in this ill-fated campaign. Such a view is shocking by conventional standards, quite chronologically impossible. It would have appeared such to me as well at the time of my writing of the thesis. Now, though, with Nebuchednezzar succeeding Sennacherib, the Jewish legend can be retained. Also untouched in my thesis – considering my failure then to collapse EOH into EOJ – is my more recent identification of the Judith who became ever more famous during her long life, as the wise and wonderful Huldah, that extraordinary prophetess during the reign of king Josiah whom the king would consult even over the great Asaiah (i.e., Isaiah). She was a female teacher-prophetess like the wise Deborah before her, in Huldah’s case, even an interpreter (exegete) of the Torah.

Joah the recorder for Hezekiah, Joah the recorder for king Josiah

by Damien F. Mackey “They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them”. 2 Kings 18:18 “In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the Temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the Temple of the LORD his God”. 2 Chronicles 34:8 Merging, as one, “Joah” of Hezekiah and “Joah” of Josiah There is an apparent repetition of names between the above two texts, in Shebna-Shaphan and Joah-Joah, which is perfectly understandable in my revised context, according to which Hezekiah, “the king” of 2 Kings 18:18, was the very same person as king Josiah in 2 Chronicles 34:8. On this, see e. g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (8) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses But such a coinciding of names is apparently worrisome to the text book commentators - who would conventionally estimate that the two incidents occurred about 90 years apart - who may be inclined, like Thenis, to ‘pronounce these personages fictitious’, and say that “Joah the recorder [of king Josiah] seems to have been borrowed from [the Joah of king Hezekiah] 2Kings 18:18 ...”: https://biblehub.com/2_kings/22-3.htm It is an indication of the correctness of my revision of the later kings of Judah, however, that king Hezekiah, king Josiah, could have officials of (near to) identical names, holding identical positions. Thus Joah is “the recorder”, ha mazkir (הַמַּזְכִּיר) in both cases, Hezekiah and Josiah. Shebna is “the secretary” ha sopher (הַסֹּפֵר) as his counterpart, Shaphan (סֵפֶר), is found to have been upon further scrutiny (cf. 2 Kings 22:8). And, elsewhere, I have identified another parallel character in Isaiah (for Hezekiah) and Asaiah (for Josiah): thus, Isaiah = Asaiah. The “Hilkiah” referred to in 2 Kings 18:18 as the father of “Eliakim” is met again in the era of Josiah as the identically named “Hilkiah” (3 Chronicles 34:9): “They went to Hilkiah the high priest ...”. Eliakim himself, whom I have identified as high priest in my article: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest does not (I think) appear in any of the accounts of king Josiah. There may be a good reason for this. He may have replaced Shebna as commandant of the fort of Lachish (= “Ashdod”). In the Book of Judith, in which Eliakim (Douay), var. Joakim, is the high priest, we are specifically told that: (Judith 4:6): “The High Priest Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at that time, wrote to the people in the towns of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which face Jezreel Valley near Dothan”. This geographical information, “who was in Jerusalem at that time”, could well indicate that Eliakim was sometimes stationed outside Jerusalem, say, for military and defensive purposes. But Eliakim had by no means died out by the time of king Josiah, for we find him as “the high priest” even as late as Baruch (1:2): “... in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire”. Eliakim, or Joakim, is there called by the related name of “Jehoiakim”. On “related names” see e.g., https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jehoiakim.html#.Xsxq8e0vPnE and commentators (following an enlarged chronology) do not know who he was (this being especially complicated by the fact that they have failed to realise that the Eliakim of Hezekiah was a high priest). The Baruch text, which identifies Jehoiakim as “son of Hilkiah”, as we know him (as Eliakim/Joakim) to have been, reads thus (vv. 5-7): “Then they wept, and fasted, and prayed before the Lord; they collected as much money as each could give, and sent it to Jerusalem to the high priest Jehoiakim son of Hilkiah son of Shallum, and to the priests, and to all the people who were present with him in Jerusalem”. The office of “recorder” was apparently a highly significant one, some placing it as high as vizier to the king. Thus we read in Bible study tools: https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/recorder/ “Recorder ... (Heb. mazkir, i.e., "the mentioner," "rememberancer"), the office first held by Jehoshaphat in the court of David ( 2 Samuel 8:16 ), also in the court of Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:3 ). The next recorder mentioned is Joah, in the reign of Hezekiah ( 2 Kings 18:18 2 Kings 18:37 ; Isaiah 36:3 Isaiah 36:22 ). In the reign of Josiah another [sic] of the name of Joah filled this office (2 Chronicles 34:8 ). The "recorder" was the chancellor or vizier of the kingdom. He brought all weighty matters under the notice of the king, "such as complaints, petitions, and wishes of subjects or foreigners. He also drew up papers for the king's guidance, and prepared drafts of the royal will for the scribes. All treaties came under his oversight; and he had the care of the national archives or records, to which, as royal historiographer, like the same state officer in Assyria and Egypt, he added the current annals of the kingdom”. [End of quote] Note that only three supposed individuals are specifically designated as “recorder” in the OT, Jehoshaphat, at the time of kings David and Solomon, and the supposedly two Joah’s - who, though, I think, need to be trimmed down to just one. One would expect, however, that there must have been a continuation of those holding the office of recorder from Joah all the way back to Jehoshaphat, who will soon become of significance with regard to the ancestry of Joah. The office of recorder may have involved, also, “herald”, or trumpet-blower, shofar (שׁוֹפָר), in the case of an emergency. Joah may have, for instance, overseen or commanded the trumpet-blowing Levites. John Strazicich has written on trumpet-blowing in the Bible, especially with reference to the Book of Joel (to be considered further on), in his book Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (1960, p. 116): The primary theological OT text for the blowing of trumpets is Num 1:1-10. The trumpets function for gathering the cultic community, for use at time of war, and at the time of sacrifice. According to Milgrom, the blowing of trumpets, whether for religious purposes or for war, serves as instruments of prayer in Num 10:9-10. .... Whether for sacrifice or deliverance at times of war, the use of trumpets for prayer has theological significance in Joel's liturgical context of the [Day of the Lord], as well as for the cultic gathering of the nation. The priestly trumpet blast noted above is an alarm which functions militarily, so that the community is be [sic] remembered before Yahweh. The cultic connection to Joel's use of the trumpets acts in concert with the prayers of all the community to plead for Yahweh's mercy (2:15-17). [End of quote] Other “instruments of prayer”, such as cymbals, may also have been part of the recorder's repertoire. Psalm 150:1-6 lists various such instruments: “Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!” Joah as the prophet Joel The Book of Joel opens with the raising of the alarm about a devastating invasion of “locusts” (Joel 1:2-4): “The word of the Lord that came to Joel son of Phatuel. ‘Hear this, you elders; listen, all who live in the land. Has anything like this ever happened in your days or in the days of your ancestors? Tell it to your children, and let your children tell it to their children, and their children to the next generation. What the locust swarm has left the great locusts have eaten; what the great locusts have left the young locusts have eaten; what the young locusts have left other locusts have eaten’.” This, I had argued in my post-graduate university thesis (2007) is a symbolical reference - under the form of “locusts” - to the invasion of Israel and Judah by the armies of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. It is a brilliant image of the utter destruction to the land caused by the marauding Assyrians. These were described as “locusts”, both in history, and in the Bible. For example, “Assyrian documents link armies and locusts ...”. (Pablo R. Andiñach, “The Locusts in the Message of Joel”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 4, Oct., 1992). And Judith 2:20 describes the massive invading host of “Holofernes” as: “A huge, irregular force, too many to count, like locusts, like the dust of the earth ...". “ (Cf. Amos 7:1). Joel then becomes more specific (and less symbolical) when he describes this host as both a “nation” and an “army” (1:6): “A nation has invaded my land, a mighty army without number ...”. The Douay version of Joel 2:20, referring to "the northern enemy", includes this footnote: “The northern enemy”: Some understand this of Holofernes and his army: others, of the locusts”. The correct view is, I believe, “Holofernes and his army”. The name of Joel’s “father”, or ancestor, is given as “Phatuel” (or “Pethuel”), which I now take to be a long-ranging reference back to that earlier recorder, Jehoshaphat, the two names sharing the common element “phat” as well as each having a theophoric. Joah of Hezekiah's father, ancestor, “Asaph”, may perhaps be seen, then, as part of that name, Jehoshaphat - both names sharing the “shap[h]” element. Joah of Josiah's ancestor, “Joahaz”, is not so apparent. If, as I am saying, he is to be merged with the Joah of Hezekiah, then, possibly, “Joahaz” is another reference to Jehoshaphat.

Baladan, Babylon, Balian, Ibelin

by Damien F. Mackey In the modern tale, the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem is substituted for with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Things may not always be as they seem. Royce (Richard) Erickson in December 2020, in an outrageously revolutionary article on ancient geography: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu argued most compellingly that, amongst other things, Merodach-baladan’s Chaldean kingdom needed to be shifted far westwards, from N of the Persian Gulf to NW Syria: Things may not always be as they seem. On a different, but related, note, might Merodach-baladan, and his contemporary in Jerusalem, Eliakim, the high official of King Hezekiah, have been projected into a pseudo AD ‘history’? Previously I made the suggestion that the supposedly medieval Heraclius (Eraclius) of Byzantium/Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem may have been based upon - at least in part - the neo-Assyrian era and biblical high priest of Jerusalem, Eliakim/Joakim, who, as I also claimed, figures in the Book of Judith as “The High Priest Joakim” (4:14). “There are some very strong similarities”, I had commented in relation to this, “between the successful first invasion of Sennacherib at the time of Eliakim, and the likewise successful effort of Saladin at the time of Heraclius”. But I had also noted that: “… Heraclius shape-shifts … to become King Hezekiah - in the latter’s illness at the time, and in his submission to the invader and stripping of the Temple of its gold and silver”. In the modern tale, the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem is substituted for with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. For the problematical location of this Church, anyway, see my article: Golgotha Situated near Altar of the Red Heifer https://www.academia.edu/26686122/Golgotha_Situated_near_Altar_of_the_Red_Heifer Balian and Baladan If I am correct in likening Heraclius/Eraclius to Eliakim, and even likening him sometimes to King Hezekiah of Judah, then there may be an opportunity to take this whole matter further in the case of Balian of Ibelin, who was an ally of Heraclius during Saladin’s invasion of Jerusalem, when Heraclius was ill. For King Hezekiah also had a prominent ally of very similar name when he was ill, at the time of Sennacherib’s invasion of Jerusalem: namely, Merodach-Baladan King of Babylon. As we read in a quote from Isaiah (39:1-2), the father’s name was “Baladan”: At that time Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery. Hezekiah received the envoys gladly and showed them what was in his storehouses—the silver, the gold, the spices, the fine olive oil— his entire armory and everything found among his treasures. There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them”. Isaiah 39:1-2 Now, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin the father of Balian was “Barisan”. And, considering the common interchangeability of the letters l and r, then these two names become virtually identical: Baladan and Ba[l]isan. And the very same comment applies to the son, (Merodach-) Baladan, since Balian was also known as Barisan: “In Latin his name appears variously as Balian, Barisan, Barisanus, Balianus, Balisan, and Balisanus”. One can easily imagine that Babylon could become transmuted into [B]Ibelin/Ibelin. In the modern story the original details get all sifted around, of course. Thus, whereas in the biblical accounts (also 2 Kings 20:12-15) the envoys of the Babylonian king, Merodach-baladan, come to Jerusalem and are shown all of the treasures of which its king can boast, in the case of Balian, he himself is present in Jerusalem handling the city’s wealth: “Heraclius helped Balian negotiate the surrender with Saladin, who allowed him and most of the other Christians to leave the city unharmed. He and Balian had organised, and contributed to, a collection of 30,000 bezants to ransom the poorer citizens”. And again, whilst Merodach-baladan “… sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery”, Balian of Ibelin will assist the previously ill Heraclius by leading the defence of Jerusalem against Saladin. Famous Last Stands A similarity perceived between Assyrian and Muslim sieges of Jerusalem. https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/2sqdwq/last_stands_that_were_not/ Here, a reader has observed, in relation to famous last stands: There is limited documentation of it (some brief accounts in the Bible and one mention from Assyrian documents) but the city of Jerusalem under King Hezekiah was laid under siege by the Assyrian army, the greatest and most brutal army in the world, and they outlasted the Assyrians. The sources are vague, but it's likely that either the Assyrians were defeated in battle or there was trouble at home that caused Assyrian King Sennacherib to withdraw. Mackey’s comment: This is what really happened: And the Assyrian will fall ‘by the hand of a woman’ (7) And the Assyrian will fall 'by the hand of a woman' Another is the Battle of Bunker Hill from early in the American Revolution, in which a smaller American force defended Breed's Hill near Boston from a larger attacking British force (note: I understand both sides were British …). One that is sort of in the middle was the Siege of Jerusalem in between the second and third crusades. The Muslim leader Saladin was laying siege to the city, and Balian of Ibelin held the city long enough to be able to demand terms from Saladin and secure the safe travel to Europe of many of the city's inhabitants. ….

Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

by Damien F. Mackey “Just as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind”. Nigel Bernard The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel. And I have long known that, thanks to some worthwhile comparisons made by other writers, Ezekiel has likenesses as well to young Elihu of the Book of Job. I shall point out a few of these here without, however, taking the further step of equating Ezekiel with Elihu. Ezekiel’s contemporary Elihu, who must have been - according to my reconstructions of the life of the righteous Job - a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel, is found to have “similarities” with that prophet. According to my reconstructions of the life and times of Job (as Tobias, son of Tobit) such as: Job’s Life and Times (3) Job’s Life and Times Job’s long life during the neo-Assyrian era took him at least as far as the destruction of Nineveh (c. 612 BC, conventional dating). This would mean that Elihu, a young man when Job was already old, had lived during the Chaldean era. And the Chaldean era was, of course, the very era during which the prophet Ezekiel had lived and prophesied. Did not Ezekiel twice refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)? Nigel Bernard has provided some intriguing comparisons between Elihu and Ezekiel (http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/apr2010/bernard.pdf) There are several similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel. Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting for seven days; not speaking; and rebuking elders even though they themselves were much younger. IN LAST MONTH’S article we considered Elihu and Elijah. In this second article we consider Elihu and Ezekiel. As in the previous study, a whirlwind plays an important role. Whirlwind In the opening chapter of Ezekiel we read of a whirlwind: "And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire" (v. 4). Just as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind. In Job the whirlwind provided a demonstration of power out of which God spoke. The whirlwind in Ezekiel is spoken of in more detail, and from it emerge the cherubim. Sat seven days When Job’s friends came to him (and we know that Elihu was also there) we read, "So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day" (2:13; 3:1). Likewise, Ezekiel spent a period of seven days simply sitting with a group of people, apparently saying nothing—at least, not words from God: "Then I came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar, and I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them seven days. And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came unto me, saying . . ." (Ezek. 3:15,16). In Job 21:5 Job says, "Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand upon your mouth". Ezekiel later follows in the spirit of Job’s request, being "astonished", and effectively having his hand upon his mouth. Yet, in the case of Job, all the time Elihu was indeed laying his hand upon his mouth, no doubt humble enough to be astonished too. Dumb As we read the speeches of Job and his three friends, the presence of Elihu can be felt. We know that he is there listening, but he restrains himself from speaking: "And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion" (32:6). He was voluntarily dumb, a dumbness out of respect and fear for his elders, on the basis that "Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom" (v. 7). Ezekiel was also to be silent, speaking only when God caused him to speak. But his silence, unlike Elihu’s, was miraculously enforced, for he was made dumb: "and I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover: for they are a rebellious house. But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house" (Ezek. 3:26,27). Ezekiel was made dumb because the house of Israel were rebellious. In contrast, after Elihu and God had spoken, Job showed humility towards God and repented "in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). Elders As we have seen, Elihu says to Job’s friends, "I am young, and ye are very old". This theme of a younger person rebuking elders is also echoed in Ezekiel. Assuming that it is his age which is being spoken of, Ezekiel tells us that it was in his "thirtieth year" that he saw "visions of God" (1:1). At his comparatively young age he had to deal on more than one occasion with the elders of Israel, as the following verses show: "And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD [Yahweh] fell there upon me" (8:1); "Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me" (14:1); "And it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, the tenth day of the month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to enquire of the LORD [Yahweh], and sat before me" (20:1); "Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; Are ye come to enquire of Me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh], I will not be enquired of by you" (v. 3). In the case of both the friends of Job and the elders of Judah, old age proved to be no guarantee of wisdom or obedience. Their rebuke by younger men only served to heighten their folly. Priest and ancestry [Mackey’s comment: In the following section, Bernard, whilst continuing to find similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel, will distinguish between “Ezekiel … the priest” and “Elihu … not a priest”. Whether or not Elihu was a priest has yet, I think, to be determined]. Ezekiel is described as "the priest, the son of Buzi". That he was both a priest and the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu. Malachi wrote that "the priest’s lips should keep knowledge" (2:7). Although not a priest, Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, "my lips shall utter knowledge clearly" (Job 33:3). Elihu is said to be "the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram" (32:2). That Elihu was a Buzite could mean that he was a descendant of Buz, the son of Nahor (see Gen. 22:20,21), and/or he lived in a territory called Buz. According to Strong, "Buzi" in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as "Buzite" in Job 32:2. This is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between these two men. Other links There are other significant connections between the book of Job and Ezekiel, which, although not relating directly to Elihu, form an important background to the links we have seen. For example, some aspects of the cherubim reflect the words used by God of creation in His speech to Job. God asks Job, "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). In Ezekiel it is said of the cherubim, "and out of the fire went forth lightning" (1:13). God also asks Job, "Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?" (Job 39:26). The Hebrew word for "hawk" is related to the word translated "sparkled" in Ezekiel 1:7, where it is stated that the feet of the cherubim "sparkled like the colour of burnished brass". As the hawk flew swiftly south, it did so with a flashing brilliance, sparkling against the sun. As such, as the cherubim came sparkling from the north, it was like the hawk flying toward the south. The Hebrew word Shaddai occurs forty-eight times in the Bible and is always translated ‘Almighty’. It is a key word in Job, occurring thirty-one times. It is used only four times in all of the prophets: once in Isaiah, once in Joel, and twice in Ezekiel. It is significant that a key word in Job, so rare in the prophets, should occur twice in Ezekiel. Of course, Job is actually mentioned in Ezekiel: "… though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]" (14:14). Furthermore, the phrase "these three men" is itself taken, ironically, from the book of Job, ironic because here it refers to the three friends of Job, who were delivered as a consequence of the prayer of Job: "So these three men ceased to answer Job . . ." (32:1). [Mackey’s comment: How fascinating! Bernard is perfectly correct here. The exact same Hebrew phrase (שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה), “these three men”, is found in both Ezekiel 14:14 and Job 32:1]. Conclusion As we have seen in this and the previous article, there are several connections between Elihu and the two prophets Elijah and Ezekiel. As well as helping us to understand the work of Elijah and Ezekiel, these comparisons also help us to see Elihu in a new light, supporting the view, in my opinion, that Elihu’s speech was vital for preparing the mind of Job for when God would speak to him. [End of quotes] Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries, both of whom referred to Job (Elihu addressed Job), Buzites, they experienced similar awesome theophanies, and were filled with God’s spirit. Continuing firstly with the view that Elihu, far from being a pompous young upstart, was an inspired messenger of God, let us consider what Mark Block wrote about him (4th February, 2013 – full reference no longer available), in his section, “Reasons to Accept Elihu’s Speech”: Many Bible interpreters disavow what Elihu has to say in the Book of Job. Below I will give a few reasons why I believe his speech to Job is true and is good theology. 1) God never rebukes Elihu. After God has finished speaking, He states that His wrath is upon the three other friends that gave counsel to Job. God does not include Elihu into the group of people who have not spoken rightly. (Job 42:7) 2) There is a break in the text to introduce him. The words of Elihu in Job 32:1-3 are not continuing what the other three friends have said, but stating something new. There is a break in the text that introduces something new. Elihu should not get lumped into the group of the other three friends with bad theology. 3) Six chapters are given to Elihu in the Book of Job. The writer of this Book devotes six chapters to Elihu. With much space given to Elihu, surely there is some importance to it. 4) Elihu shows how Job’s other friends are wrong. God also rebuked Job’s other three friends. 5) Elihu claims to be full of the Holy Spirit. In chapter 32 Elihu uses similar language to what Jeremiah used. He reminds me of Jeremiah saying, that the word of the Lord it is like a fire shut up in his bones. Elihu says, “For I am full of words; the spirit within me compels me. Indeed my belly is like wine that has no vent; it is ready to burst like new wine skins. I will speak, that I may find relief…” 6) Elihu signals Gods coming to speak. In 37:11-12 Elihu is describing a whirlwind and attributes the whirlwind to God. We see just a few verses later that God is answering Job out of the whirlwind. Verse one in chapter 38 states, “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind.” Notice the writer of this book did not say “A” whirlwind. But he says, “THE” That means that there must have been a whirlwind that was taking place, that had already been mentioned previously in the Book of Job. All throughout Elihu’s speech we see him referring to nature. I believe that Elihu is referring to what was actually taking place in front of Job and his three friends. He is describing what was going on while also signaling that God is coming to speak. What do you think? .... [End of quote] Well, to answer Block here, I, for my part, “think” that Elihu was definitely a Jeremiah type (though not Jeremiah himself), a prophetic messenger sent by God, wholly aflame with the spirit of God, full of eloquence yet humble and modest - Elihu was, like Jeremiah, enflamed with the Holy Spirit. It is pleasant to notice Elihu’s modesty and tact in entering the discussion with his elders. It says that his “wrath was kindled” against Job and the three friends. This is explained later when he talks about the constraining of the Spirit within him, so that he was “ready to burst. …. Jeremiah spoke of God’s word being “in his heart like a burning fire” and being “weary of holding it in. Indeed (he) could not” (Jeremiah 20:9). But, if I should have to choose a biblical alter ego for Elihu, my preference - based on what we have read above - would be for the prophet Ezekiel, rather than for Jeremiah. “Ezekiel [too] refers to this “heat of the Spirit” when the Lord had moved him to speak”. “Elihu [was the] son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2). “Ezekiel [was] the priest, the son of Buzi …” (Ezekiel 1:3). We know that Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries. They also have in common the rare name, Buzi: “According to Strong, "Buzi" in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as "Buzite" in Job 32:2. This is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between these two men”. Ezekiel 1:3: (בּוּזִי) Job 32:2: (הַבּוּזִי). They both refer to Job: Elihu says (Job 33:1): ‘But now, Job, listen to my words; pay attention to everything I say’. Ezekiel twice has God proclaim (Ezekiel 14:14, 20): ‘… even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness …’. And perhaps most strikingly in relation to this situation we learned that: “The exact same Hebrew phrase (שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה), “these three men”, is found in both Ezekiel 14:14 and Job 32:1. Then we further learned of a whole variety of parallels and links between Elihu and Ezekiel, for example: “Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting for seven days; not speaking; and rebuking elders even though they themselves were much younger”. Nigel Bernard, who had provided us with some of the best of these likenesses, did, however, distinguish “Ezekiel … "the priest, the son of Buzi". That he was both a priest and the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu. Malachi wrote that "the priest’s lips should keep knowledge" (2:7)” from Elihu: “Although not a priest, Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, "my lips shall utter knowledge clearly" (Job 33:3)”. To which I had attached this comment: “Whether or not Elihu was a priest has yet, I think, to be determined”. The prophet Ezekiel was most definitely a priest, as is clear from 1:3: “Ezekiel the priest …”. So, in order even to consider whether or not Elihu and Ezekiel could be the same person, one would need to be able to show that Elihu’s genealogy (the only one given in the Book of Job) (32:2): “… son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram”, was Levite. Given that this is the only reference in the Bible to the name Barachel, the task is a difficult one. Moreover, the phrase “of the family of Ram” (מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת-רָם), has led some to the conclusion that young Elihu was an Aram(= Ram)ite, i.e., of the Syrian race.