Tuesday, October 6, 2026

The historical basis for that wonderful, nutty Heraclius

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old

Roman Republic, and, whatever feet may be left, in the Christian era.

What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum!

What a puzzle!”

  

Introduction

 

The supposed Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (610-641 AD), is a total historical mis-fit.

And an hilarious one at that!

In an exchange, today (5th October, 2026), with other interested persons, I wrote:

 

…. My big problem with the larger-than-life Jay Smith, though, and with Patricia Crone, is that they greatly complicate matters, becoming almost unreadable, unlistenable, by trying to consider Mohammed in a murky conventional C7th AD context.

Those Germans who have been radically revising what we have called AD history, and who have been removing the ‘Dark Ages’ – {many of whose conclusions I personally would not accept, I need to say} - have a much better idea of how to approach all of this. A lot of text book ‘history’ simply needs to be completely cleared out, emptied, not fossicked about in.

For there must be something seriously wrong with a C7th AD scenario that presents us with another biblical Jonah; another biblical Nehemiah; another biblical Sheshbazzar (Shahrbaraz); another biblical Nineveh; and the biblical composite ‘Mohammed’.

A scholar cannot work amongst that sort of artificiality!

But the champion of the whole fictitious circus is the ringmaster himself, the most splendid, most spectacular, Heraclius (610-641 AD), a younger contemporary of ‘Mohammed’. Most famous is this marvellous Byzantine wonder-working emperor - a veritable Don Quixote on steroids - for the “Battle of Nineveh” (627 AD), no less.

I got great fun out of writing:

 

Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

(9) Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius

 

“Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old

Roman Republic, and, whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be right), in the Christian era. What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum! What a puzzle!”

 

While Mohammed may be a far-ranging biblical composite, the emperor Heraclius is what I have called “a composite to end all composites”. Perhaps only Donald Trump has claimed more hats than were supposedly worn by Heraclius - except that the latter is hilarious fiction, Trump is neither.

 

For the beginnings of my efforts (not as yet convincingly well co-ordinated) to reform the conventional C7th AD, see my article:

 

Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

 

(1)  Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

 

His historical basis

 

Given that the presumed contemporaries of emperor Heraclius as referred to above: Jonah; Nehemiah; Shahrbaraz; Mohammed; plus the city of Nineveh; were all biblically based – {Jonah as the prophet Jonah; Nehemiah as the Tirshatha Nehemiah; Shahrbaraz as Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8); Mohammed as a biblical composite; and Nineveh as the Assyrian capital of Nineveh} – then  one might logically consider that the emperor Heraclius, too, who most certainly cannot have been a genuine historical character (see article above), was based upon some notable biblical hero.

 

If so, then who may have been that biblical person?

 

Well Heraclius is most famous for the “Battle of Nineveh” which he is supposed to have won convincingly. Thus, we could begin by considering some Old Testament notable who had success against Nineveh, and/or the Assyrians.

Someone preferably with a name compatible with Heraclius.

 

We do not have to go very far to find him.

 

The most famous victory against the Assyrians, the defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000, attested not only in various books of the Bible but also in e.g. Greco-Roman literature, occurred during the reign of King Hezekiah, whose name, with the replacement of the letter z with an r, and the removal of the added theophoric element (iah) at the end, becomes, virtually, Herac-lius. Thus:

 

He[z]ek-      iah

He[r]ac-[l]ius

 

Although I would not anticipate any really tight correspondence between the historical, well-documented reign of King Hezekiah of Judah and the deliciously crazy, fictitious, reign of the emperor Heraclius, I would nonetheless expect to be able to identify certain strange biblical afterglows in the haphazard story of the latter.  

 

Let us take a brief peek at some of what convention dishes up as the life and career of Heraclius: Heraclius - Wikipedia

 

….

Heraclius's reign was marked by wars against the Persians and the Arabs.

 

My comment: For “Persians”, read Assyrians.

 

Heraclius immediately took charge of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 upon his accession, but his leadership initially did little to stem Persian ascendency in the war; after personally losing the Battle of Antioch (613), the Persians were able to take Syria and Egypt, reducing the Empire to Asia Minor.

 

My comment: This was King Sennacherib of Assyria’s successful Third Campaign (Year 9), fused with the later, ill-fated campaign led by his son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith).

 

Heraclius, however, avoided total defeat and initiated reforms to rebuild and strengthen the military.

 

My comment: Hezekiah virtually endured total defeat with his main forts all destroyed and with Jerusalem under siege. He was, indeed, a reforming king par excellence, following on from the good example of his ancestor, David, and he did fortify Jerusalem and secure the water supply. 

 

Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh and devastating much of Mesopotamia.

 

My comment: Not quite right. After Judith’s intervention, the Jews were able to drive the Assyrians right out of the land of Israel and back to Mesopotamia, with the enemy suffering massive losses. This was the basis for Heraclius’s so-called Battle of Nineveh. Not 627 AD, but more like c. 700 BC!

 

The Persian Shah Khosrow II was overthrown and executed by his son Kavad II, who soon sued for a peace treaty, agreeing to withdraw from all occupied territory.

 

My comment: Not long after Sennacherib’s crushing defeat, he was indeed assassinated – but by two of his sons, not one.

Khosrow may be something of a title, like e.g. Pharaoh. (Or, is it a variant for Assyria?)

 

“The Persian Shah Khosrow II”, here, must stand for Sennacherib, the Great King of Assyria. Whilst the “son Kavad II” - though presumably representing Sennacherib’s murderers, Adrammelech and Sharezer (cf. 2 Kings 19:37) - equates better name-wise, however, to Sennacherib’s non-regicide successor, Esarhaddon. Thus:

 

E-sa[r]had-don

      KA        VAD

 

Unlike in the Heraclius-Khosrow II scenario, the Assyrian regicide pair can be historically identified:

 

Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

 

(3) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

 

Heraclius won the war, but his Empire was deeply strained.

 

My comment: Sadly, everything about emperor Heraclius and his supposed “Empire” is “deeply strained”.

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Was Hosea’s boy-child, Lo-Ammi, Isaiah’s famous son, Immanuel?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic”.

 

Charles Boutflower

 

 

This is controversial, because - for a start - the prophet Hosea, though a contemporary of Isaiah, is universally (I think) considered to have been a person distinct from Isaiah.

 

I, however, find Hosea and Isaiah to be so alike as needing to be merged into one.

 

The names of Isaiah, Hosea, are of very similar meaning, being basically derived from the same Hebrew root for ‘salvation’, יֵ֫שַׁע

 

- “Isaiah” (Hebrew יְשַׁעְיָהוּ , Yeshâ‘yâhû) signifies: “Yahweh (the Lord) is salvation”.

- “Hosea” (Hebrew הוֹשֵׁעַ) means practically the same: “Yahweh (the Lord) is saviour”.

 

Hosea’s/Isaiah’s Family

 

Though no doubt young, the prophet Hosea was given the strange command by God to marry an ‘unfaithful’ woman: “‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord’. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim …” (Hosea 1:2-3).

 

Biblical scholars have agonised over the type of woman this Gomer might have been: adulteress? harlot? temple-prostitute? But essentially the clue is to be found in the statement above that she was a citizen of the ‘land of great harlotry’: namely, the northern kingdom of Israel.

 

A further likeness between Isaiah and Hosea, central to this article, was the fact that ‘their’ names and those of ‘their’ children were meant to be, in their meanings, prophetic signs.

 

- The prophet Isaiah tells us: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents ...” (Isaiah 8:18).

- Similarly, the names of the children of the prophet Hosea were meant to be prophetic (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9).

 

Charles Boutflower, who had written perceptively on Isaiah’s children, had rightly noted the prophetic significance of their names and those of Hosea’s children, without, however, thinking to connect Isaiah and Hosea as one: “Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic” (The Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX, 1930, p. 49).

 

Previously, I had written about this:

 

It is most unlikely, one would have to think, to have two great prophets operating contemporaneously over such a substantial period of time, and each having three children whose names were prophetic.

 

In fact, the prophet will - like his father, Amos, who is also Micah (“Amos redivivus”) -

undergo various name changes as Divine prophetic messaging will require. While some of Isaiah’s ‘other’ names may simply be just a variation on the primary name Isaiah (e.g. Hosea, Uzziah, Asaiah), others will be quite different names.

For instance Isaiah will, when the Lord determines to Comfort Israel (cf. Isaiah 40:1-48:22; 66:12-13, etc.), become Nahum, meaning Comfort, Compassion, Consolation.

 

And, from Tobit 14:4, we know that Nahum was Jonah.

 

A common element in much of this is that the prophet belonged to the tribe of Simeon.

Prophets were usually of the Levite clan, but Isaiah’s father, Amos (Amoz) had declared that he was not your typical prophet (Amos 7:13-14): “‘Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom’. Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees’.”

 

From the necessary connection of Isaiah/Hosea with “Uzziah son of Micah of the tribe of Simeon” (Judith 6:14-15):

 

The Israelites came down from their city and found [Achior], untied him, and brought him into Bethulia. They placed him before the rulers of the city, who in those days were Uzziah, son of Micah of the tribe of Simeon, and Chabris, son of Gothoniel, and Charmis, son of Melchiel.

 

we learn that our prophet governed Bethulia, brilliantly identified by Charles C. Torrey as the strategic city of Shechem in the north (“The Site of ‘Bethulia’”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 20, 1899). Now, this Bethulia was the northern Bethel, to where Isaiah’s father had been sent by the Lord (as we read above).

 

Isaiah/Hosea will further connect with the tribe of Simeon in the person of Nahum, traditionally considered to have been of that same tribe: “According to pseudo-Epiphanius (De Vitis Proph. in Opp. 2:247), Nahum was of the tribe of Simeon”: Nahum - Biblical Cyclopedia

 

But, wait a minute, wasn’t it Hosea who was a prophet to the north, whilst Isaiah was basically a prophet of Jerusalem?

 

No, Isaiah/Hosea ranged far and wide, both northern and southern kingdom, even to Nineveh in Assyria. For the prophet was a princely character of vast influence, whose father Amos is traditionally considered to have been the brother (brother-in-law?) of King Amaziah of Judah. Thus the Douay version of Judith 8:34 informs us that the Simeonite Uzziah of Bethulia (Bethel) was “the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” – the prince of both the north and the south!

 

He was obviously a person of the greatest significance!

 

Important: Before discussing the potentially six children of the compound prophet, Isaiah-Hosea, it sorely needs to be pointed out that:

 

It is quite incorrect to take the Isaiah 7 text about Immanuel as applying solely and entirely to the Messiah Jesus Christ. Immanuel was the personal name of one of the three named sons of Isaiah and his wife.

 

The Messiah did not have the personal name of “Immanuel”, but “Jesus” (Matthew 1:21): ‘… you are to name him Jesus’. Yet, the divine Messiah was more perfectly Immanuel, “God is with us”, than any human person could hope to be. Christians can sometimes bypass, completely, the literal meaning of Isaiah’s text and totally apply it to the well-known New Testament scenario. I know this from personal experience, having been berated by Catholic colleagues for insisting that Isaiah 7 occurred in the context of a Syro-Ephraïmite civil war raging at the time of King Ahaz of Judah. Those who do not admit this “forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 129):

 

Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. 105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. 106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. 107


The children

 

Just today (14th August, 2026, St. Maximilian Kolbe), I have come to think that at least one of these children, Isaiah’s-Hosea’s, was a duplicate, that Lo-ammi was Immanuel.

 

The prophet Hosea, by having been commanded to take an unfaithful wife, will learn the hard way what the Lord has had to put up with, with his unfaithful people of Israel.

 

Consequently, Hosea will be told to identify his children by names indicating the wages of apostasy: namely, Jezreel; Lo-ruhamah (a girl); and Lo-ammi (Hosea 1:2-9):

 

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, ‘Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord’. So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Then the Lord said to Hosea, ‘Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. In that day I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel’.

Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the Lord said to Hosea, ‘Call her Lo-Ruhamah (which means “not loved”), for I will no longer show love to Israel, that I should at all forgive them. Yet I will show love to Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but I, the Lord their God, will save them’.

After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. Then the Lord said, ‘Call him Lo-Ammi (which means “not my people”), for you are not my people, and I am not your God’.

 

Later, though, the Lord will, in his great mercy, reverse this, the prophet using chiastic structure (Hosea 2:23):

Jezreel … I will plant her for myself in the land;
    I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one’.
I will say to those called ‘Not my people’, ‘You are my people’;
    and they will say, ‘You are my God.’”

 

Jezreel, which means “God scatters”, will be now be planted.

Lo-ruhamah (the girl), “not loved”, will be shown love.  

Lo-ammi, which means, not my people”, will be “my people”.

 

Here is how I would connect up the twin scenario.

 

Hosea’s first-born, Jezreel, to be re-planted in the land, becomes Isaiah’s first-born, Shear-jashub, “a remnant shall return” (Isa 7:3; cf. 8:18).

Somewhat typical of the Old Testament, the girl, Hosea’s daughter, ‘now to be loved’, is passed over – she does not appear to have any connection in Isaiah.

Hosea’s son, Lo-ammi, becomes Immanuel, when “… they will say, ‘You are my God’,” that is, “God is with us”.

Happily, Abarim publications, an expert site on Hebrew names, has listed the name Immanuel as being a name related to (Lo-) ammi:

Lo-ammi | The amazing name Lo-ammi: meaning and etymology

 

Actually, our compound prophet must have had, not three, but four children - three boys and one girl, because, after Immanuel, in Isaiah 8, we are told about a son whose long name only a mother could love (apparently it is the longest name in the Bible): Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“Spoil Speeds And Prey Hastens”).



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, August 14, 2026

Hosea prophesied to the realms of both the north and the south

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

 Isaiah’s father, Amos-Micah, also had an extremely long life and prophetic floruit. Incredibly, Micah first emerges, as the prophet Micaiah, as early as the late reign

of king Ahab of Israel. Of Micah it may be said that he was Micaiah redivivus.

  

For my account of the incredibly long life and prophetic activity of Amos (Amoz), the father of Isaiah (1:1), see e.g. my article:

 

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

 

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

 

The long career of the prophet Isaiah also figured in this article, as did that of his extraordinary relative, Judith.

 

Amos, Isaiah and Judith were considered as three luminaries in a prophetic Simeonite family.

 

Now, one of Isaiah’s multi-identifications in this article was as the prophet Hosea.

 

Isaiah as Hosea

 

All would probably agree, at least, that the long and amazingly multi-faceted career of the prophet Isaiah ranged through the reigns of the following four kings of Jerusalem (Isaiah 1:1): “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah”.

 

However, Isaiah’s prophetic Weltanschauung would, as we shall learn, find him concerned with more than just “Judah and Jerusalem”, albeit his main foci of attention.

 

Right at the beginning of his career, the prophet Isaiah, under the guise of Hosea:

 

Isaiah a truly great prophet of both the southern and northern kingdom

 

(4) Isaiah a truly great prophet of both the southern and northern kingdom

would include king Jeroboam II, and the northern kingdom of Israel, in his prophetic spectrum (Hosea 1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam … king of Israel”.

The prophet would even marry a woman, Gomer, from the apostate northern kingdom, and he would have children by her (vv. 2-9).

 

Isaiah’s paternity and origins

 

Isaiah was, as we read above, the “son of Amoz” (Amos), generally considered to have been the same as the prophet Amos.

But this Amos, like his son Isaiah – {who, as we shall learn in the course of this article, had many names} - had at least another name, Micah:

 

Prophet Micah as Amos

 

(DOC) Prophet Micah as Amos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

Micah was so much like Amos that he is considered by biblical commentators to be “Amos redivivus”.

 

Isaiah’s father, Amos-Micah, also had an extremely long life and prophetic floruit. Incredibly, Micah first emerges, as the prophet Micaiah, as early as the late reign of king Ahab of Israel.

 

Of Micah it may be said that he was Micaiah redivivus.

 

And Jewish traditions have indeed connected Micaiah with Micah, which seems biologically untenable, given that Micah was still prophesying in the early part of the reign of king Hezekiah (cf. Jeremiah 26:18). Such longevity becomes possible, however, though admittedly stretched, with my truncating of history as set out in my article:

 

De-coding Jonah

 

(4) De-coding Jonah

 

This family, which was not of prophetic origins as according to the testimony of the patriarch Amos himself (7:14): “Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees’,” was, nonetheless, princely.

 

Jewish legend has it that Amos was the brother (perhaps, preferably, brother-in-law) of King Amaziah of Judah. And Isaiah himself appears to have had seemingly easy access to successive kings of Judah: namely, Ahaz and Hezekiah.

 

Soon we shall learn that Isaiah was regarded as a prince of both Israel and Judah.

 

A Geography of Amos

 

The following map will be found to give mostly the wrong places of origin for supposedly four prophets - which ‘four’, however, I am reducing to just two, namely:

 

1. the father (Amos-Micah); and 2. the son (Hosea-Isaiah).

 

Four different locations.

 

Although we are not told from whence Amos originated, we know that his alter ego, Micah, hailed from “Moresheth” (Micah 1:1), thought to be the same as Moresheth-Gath: Moresheth-Gath (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

 

MORESHETH-GATH (Heb. מוֹרֶשֶׁת גַּת), town of the tribe of Judah in the Shephelah, between Lachish and Achzib. It is mentioned by the prophet Micah, who was born there (Micah 1:1, 14; Jer. 26:18). Later sources (Eusebius, Onom. 134:10: Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica 9:17; Jerome, In Micam 1:10) identify it with a village, which is also called Birat Satia or Kiryat Satia, in the territory of Eleutheropolis (Bet Guvrin).

 

Amos did not hail from Tekoa, as according to the map above.

Tekoa was the region to where Amos had to go for the sycamore-fig trees (Amos 7:14), which would not have found suitable terrain in his home region of Moresheth.

 

Isaiah may well have accompanied his father, Amos, when the latter was commanded by the Lord to go to the northern kingdom, where Amos seems to have set up in the important city of Bethel (7:12-13): “Then Amaziah [the priest of Bethel] said to Amos, ‘Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom’.”

 

The northern Bethel I have identified as both the “Bethulia” of the Book of Judith, and - following Charles C. Torrey - the strategically important and most ancient city of Shechem. On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Judith’s City of ‘Bethulia’

 

(4) Judith’s City of 'Bethulia'

 

Though this uprooting and moving to the north would presumably have been something of a burden for Amos, it would not have been the completely lonely exile that one might imagine.

Amos, and his family were, as we shall soon discover, of the southern tribe of Simeon. But it appears that there were also plenty of Simeonites situated in the north as well.

 

Thus I explained in my university thesis (2007):

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

(DOC) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

(Volume Two, p. 60):

 

Northern Simeonites

 

The magistrates of the town of Bethulia before whom Achior appeared are named: “…Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon, and Chabris son of Gothoniel, and Charmis son of Melchiel” (v.15). I intend to argue in the next chapter that this Uzziah (var. Ozias) was none other than Isaiah himself. In BOJ [Book of Judith] chapter 8 we shall be told that Judith too was - like Uzziah - of the tribe of Simeon. Now, with Simeon being one of the southernmost tribes of Judah, with enclaves even in the Negev (1 Chronicles 4:28), is it a peculiarity having a bastion of Simeonites situated in Ephraïm? It certainly would have been in the earliest periods of Israel’s settlement in Canaan, but it would be quite allowable from the time of king Asa of Judah (c. C9th BC) onwards; for it is recorded in 2 Chronicles 15:9 that, at the time of Asa, Simeonites were residing in the north “as aliens” amongst the Ephraïmites and Manasseh-ites. Bruns has elaborated on this in his context of trying to locate BOJ to the Persian era: ….

 

Nor ... is the most important geographical detail in the book [of Judith], namely the reference to a Jewish (Simeonite) settlement on the border of the valley of Dothan, a fabrication.

For a combination of various sources (Meg. Ta’an, for 25 Marheshvan (chap. 8); Jos., Ant. 13:275f., 379f; Wars 1:93f.; and also apparently I Macc. 5:23) shows that at the time of the return in the region of Samaria, in the neighbourhood of what was known as “the cities of Nebhrakta,” there was a Jewish-Simeonite settlement (which may in effect have existed as early as in the days of the First Temple and being of Semite origin: cf. II Chron. 34:6, 15:9; and also I Chron. 4:31) .... 

 

Thus there were Simeonites dwelling in this northern part of the land during, and beyond, the era of the Divided Kingdom. ….

[End of quotes]

 

Moreover, Amos had apparently already dwelt in the north in an earlier period, as Micaiah, no doubt situated amongst Simeonite relatives, he being well-known to (and hated by) the treacherous king Ahab of Israel (I Kings 22:8): “The king of Israel [Ahab] answered Jehoshaphat, ‘There is still one prophet through whom we can inquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah’.”

 

That would suggest that the prophetic calling referred to in Amos 7:14 was actually Amos’s second calling unto the northern region.

 

Isaiah himself was definitely in the north as the prophet Hosea, who prophesied as early as the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel, and also as Uzziah, son of Micah (= Amos), the Simeonite chief of Bethel (= “Bethulia”) (Judith 6:14-15), late in the reign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria.

In my article, “Isaiah a truly great prophet of both the southern and northern kingdom” (above), amongst others, I quoted the Douay version of Judith 8:34 and 13:23 to the effect that Uzziah the Simeonite was “the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel”.

 

He was obviously a person of great substance!

 

For more, see my article:


Prophet Hosea better understood when identified with Uzziah of the Book of Judith

 

(5) Prophet Hosea better understood when identified with Uzziah of the Book of Judith

Whilst we do not know for sure whether the prophet, as a young man, had accompanied his father northwards when Amos was commissioned to go there (presumably for the second time), it is likely that Isaiah, later, as a family man, may have had to flee away from Jerusalem to escape the wrath of king Ahaz of Judah (I am indebted to Charles Boutflower, Book of Isaiah, for this suggestion), to whom Isaiah had spoken so bluntly (Isaiah 7:13-17):

 

Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria’.

 

Isaiah often in Jerusalem

 

Isaiah was certainly in Jerusalem, on and off at least, for king Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, to have been able to consult him.

Famous are Isaiah’s various prophetic interventions during the invasion of king Sennacherib of Assyria, who laid siege to Jerusalem and deported many of its citizens.  

 

Isaiah would also effect a cure for the ailing king Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:1-11), but would excoriate the king as well for his reckless courting of the Babylonian envoys of Merodach-baladan - Isaiah thereby predicting the Babylonian Captivity (vv. 12-19).

 

Now, according to my revised merging of the era of the reforming king Hezekiah with that of king Josiah, and with Hezekiah as Josiah (see e.g. “De-coding Jonah” article), there is more substance yet to the king of Judah; to the prophet Isaiah; and to Judith, the Simeonite heroine of “Bethulia”.

 

Isaiah now emerges as “Asaiah the king’s servant” (a highly important office) of Hezekiah’s alter ego, king Josiah, when, in Josiah’s 18th regnal year, the Book of the Law was discovered (2 Kings 22:3-12).

 

The extraordinary thing here is that the king does not send to Isaiah (Asaiah), or to Jeremiah, for consultation about the extraordinary find. No, he sends the delegation, including Asaiah, to a woman, the prophetess Huldah (vv. 13-14), whom I have identified as Judith herself:

 

Judith and Huldah

 

(DOC) Judith and Huldah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

the presumably young woman whom Uzziah, when in “Bethulia”, will acclaim as having displayed wisdom from her very earliest years (Judith 8:29): ‘… from the beginning of your life all the people have recognized your understanding, for your heart’s disposition is right’.

 

This is a most extraordinary situation, to say the least!

 

The king’s most honoured delegates, including the princely prophet Isaiah (here as Asaiah), being sent by king Josiah to consult a, presumably young, woman, about a scriptural matter!

 

Although Jerusalem and its surrounds will be reduced to turmoil by Sennacherib’s Assyrian forces – now to be identified as the formerly enigmatic ‘northern foe’ of the Book of Jeremiah (1:14) – Isaiah will pick up on Sennacherib’s blasphemous words against Yahweh (Isaiah 37:23), and foretell that Jerusalem will not in future experience invasion (vv. 33-35):

 

“Therefore this is what the Lord says concerning the king of Assyria:

 

‘He will not enter this city
    or shoot an arrow here.
He will not come before it with shield
    or build a siege ramp against it.
By the way that he came he will return;
    he will not enter this city’,
declares the Lord.
I will defend this city and save it,
    for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!”

 

Sennacherib, of course, had done all of these things during his successful first invasion.

 

He will not do them again.

 

When, later, he will send his eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, with an army of 185,000 - when Isaiah (as Uzziah) was situated in “Bethulia” in the north where Judith also lived - Judith will take matters into her own hand, with Divine aid, with the consequence that the massive Assyrian army will be routed.

 

As Isaiah had predicted, Jerusalem, this time, will not be affected.

 

Isaiah and Nineveh

 

Chaos now ensues for the nation of Assyria.

Sennacherib’s eldest son had been decapitated by Judith:

 

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

 

(DOC) "Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

Assyria’s massive army has been humiliated, completely routed.

Not long afterwards, Assyria’s very king, Sennacherib, will be murdered by two of his sons.

 

Esarhaddon, who was not a direct son of Sennacherib, will have to fight civil wars to hold on to Nineveh.

 

Into all of this turmoil, fresh from his sojourn in a whale, comes forth Isaiah, as the prophet Jonah. In the guise of Isaiah, he had already written much about Assyria.

 

Isaiah-Jonah is also the prophet Nahum. See e.g. my articles:

 

Prophet Nahum and resistance to Assyria

 

(5) Prophet Nahum and resistance to Assyria

 

Tobit’s Jonah and Nahum interchange

 

(5) Tobit's Jonah and Nahum interchange

 

Now this complication, merging Isaiah with Jonah, and with Nahum, brings in new geographical complications, as we shall next have to consider.

 

Summary so far

The father of Isaiah was Amos-Micah (also Micaiah), not of the prophetic line, a Simeonite, who hailed from Moresheth-Gath in southern Judah. He tended sycamore trees in Tekoa, from whence he was called to prophesy in the north, including Bethel, during the reign of Israel’s king, Jeroboam II.

It appears that the prophet had already been involved in the north as early as the reign of king Ahab of Israel, to whom he was well-known, and hated.

 

Amos, continued on into the early reign of king Hezekiah of Judah.

 

Isaiah of Judah may, perhaps, have accompanied his father to the northern kingdom. He, as Hosea, certainly dwelt in the northern kingdom, where he married a local woman and had a family.

He, too, prophesied as early as the reign of Jeroboam II.

Later, after an encounter with king Ahaz in Judah, he may have had to flee Jerusalem with his family. He was back in Jerusalem, though, to heal an ailing king Hezekiah during the war with Assyria. And he was part of the delegation sent by the king to the prophetess Huldah when the Book of the Law was found. Later, we find him in again in the north, in “Bethulia”, where he will eye-witness the rout of the Assyrian army of 185,000, thanks to the heroic intervention of Judith (Huldah).

 

With the nation of Assyria in complete chaos, Isaiah, as Jonah, will go to Nineveh, reluctantly, to preach against the city.

 

He now merges also with Nahum.

 

A Geographical Minefield

 

According to the map above, Amos was from Tekoa and Micah from Moresheth-Gath. That, though, was simplified, with Amos, who only worked in Tekoa, becoming Micah from Moresheth-Gath.

 

We can perhaps simplify things a bit further by identifying Jonah’s father, Amittai (Jonah 1:1), with Amos (Amaziah), and Jonah’s home of “Gath-hepher” with Moresheth-Gath.

There is no way that Jonah could have hailed from a Gath-hepher in Galilee (cf. John 7:52).

 

The map also had Isaiah from Jerusalem and Hosea from further north, location unspecified. While Isaiah was frequently in Jerusalem during his lifetime, as, too, was he in the north, nowhere is it said that he actually came from Jerusalem. 

 

As Uzziah, son of Micah, we would expect our prophet to have hailed from Moresheth-Gath, tentatively identified as Jonah’s town of Gath-hepher.

 

While, after this, things get rather more complicated, there is a definite trend towards Simeonite and southern Judean.

For instance, Asaiah, one of my alter egos for Isaiah, may appropriately link up with Asaiah the Simeonite of 1 Chronicles 4:36.   

 

Nahum is called an Elcesite, or from Elkosh (Nahum 1:1), place unknown, but traditionally considered to have been in Simeonite territory in southern Judah, thereby keeping our pattern alive: Bible Query from Nahum (muslimhope.com)

Southern Judah, 58 kilometers southwest of Jerusalem in Simeonite territory. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament p. 1493 mentions different views but favors southern Judah. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.522 says a more defensible view is that it is in southern Judea near either Beth-Gabre … modern Beit-Jibrin between Jerusalem and Gaza.

 

Most recently, though, I have tentatively identified Nahum’s Elkosh as Al-Qush, near Nineveh, my proposed home for Nahum-Jonah during his brief sojourn in Assyria.

 

Book of Tobit provides template for the geography of Job-Tobias

 

(3) Book of Tobit provides template for the geography of Job-Tobias

 

Isaiah martyred

 

My final identification of Isaiah, as a martyr during the reign of king Jehoiakim (= Manasseh), is as “Uriah (var. Urijah) the son of Shemaiah of Kiriath Jearim” (Jeremiah 26:20-23).

 

This adds further complications.

 

“Shemaiah”, here, may perhaps connect with the Simeonite patriarch of the same name in close connection with Asaiah of 1 Chronicles 4:36.

 

But Kiriath Jearim is not generally thought to have been in Simeonite territory.

 

There may be two possibilities here.

Isaiah might have moved to live, now, in Kiriath Jearim upon his return south from “Bethulia”, and after the Jonah incident.

Or Kiriath Jearim may yet need to be properly identified. For instance, we read at:

Kiriath-Jearim - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - (studylight.org)

“The exact position of this important Israelite sanctuary has never been satisfactorily settled. Some of the data appear to be contradictory”.