Review of Time and Prophecy - Hezekiah - part 4 - Sargon is Sennacherib

 

Greetings all,

I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib (the Babylonian name) much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL by the Babylonians. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture. But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from from Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. IT is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam, his ally ....".

And:

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein". Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically [2]. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts: Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment". Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

Conventional Theory's Strengths

(i) Primary

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted [6]:

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows [7]:

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's explanation for this omission is as follows [8]:

In nearly every other Assyrian royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of the king.

As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....

This may be, but it is important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary, presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or "who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at all.

That there was some unusual situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast, Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of Sennacherib ..." [9].

Taken from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893

Some Serious Anomalies with King Hezekiah and Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology

Hello all,

I am continuing to review David Rice's 'Time and Prophecy' in
regards the period of the Kings in scripture. Inasmuch as Mr Rice's
chronology seems to mirror the popular Thiele, many of
these 'anamolies' apply to the general consensus.
This posting just deals with the first 6 of the 7 anomalies I've
come up with in regards to synchronizing Hezekiah, King of Judah,
with the Assyrian Kings. The 7th anomalie is long enoug for it's own
post.
Synchronizing Hezekiah
with
Tiglathpileser (King of Assyria)
Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon)
Merodachbaladan (King of Babylon),
Sargon (King of Assyria & Babylon)
and
Sennacherib (King of Assyria and Babylon)
Introduction
There are many `anomalies' in the current
chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms
between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria. Most of them, in this
discussion have to do with one event, that of the siege of the
cities of Judah by Sennacherib which modern chronologists happened
in Sennacherib, king of Babylon Year 4 which corresponds to
Hezekiah, king of Judah, year 14. In my opinion, modern chronologers
fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice.
Part I – the 7 anomalies
Anomaly 1
Firstly, in the Brittish Museum, there is an `inscription' on a
winged bull. Stafford and Jo Anne North write this about it:
"Also in Room 10 are two huge winged bulls, with attendant genies,
from Khorsabad, the Palace of Sargon discovered in 1843. An
inscription from the stomach of this bull says that King Hezekiah of
Judah paid tribute to Sargon. While the Bible does not mention this,
it does mention that Hezekiah's father paid such tribute and
Hezekiah may have continued that early in his reign. Later, however,
he rebelled against Assyria."
--- http://www.oc.edu/faculty/stafford.north/britmus/Tour-2003.htm
However, consider the following scripture:
2Ki 18:13, 14 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did ----
Sennacherib---- king of Assyria come up against all the fenced
cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to
the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from
me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of
Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents
of silver and thirty talents of gold.
Here it says that Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib, while the
Winged Bull in the British Museum says that Hezekiah paid tribute to
SARGON. Certainly, Hezekiah could have paid tribute to both of them.
However, Damien Mackey, in an internet article entitled: `A
Revolutionary Thesis, Sargon is Sennacherib', found at:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html , claims they are one
and the same person.
Now, scriptures also, in Isaiah 20, refer to Sargon. Could the
scriptures refer to the same person with different names? YES! ---
such is the case with Tiglathpileser (the Assyrian name) and PUL
(the Babylonian AND Assyrian name). Tiglathpileser died only 5 years
prior to Sargon's accension to the throne. I'll cover this in more
detail later, but when you read about the next few anomalies, think
about how well this would explain the anomalies. ---IF--- you don't
like my explanation, then I suggest, you try to come up with an
alternate.
I should mention, for now, that the biggest objection to
this `Sargon = Sennacherib' theory, is that there is some evidence
that Sargon was Sennacherib's father, and further, that when Sargon
was killed, Sennacherib ascended the throne. I will later show, that
if you trace this back to the source of the evidence, you will see,
that the rock inscriptions which supposedly make this claim, do not
in fact, even contain the name SARGON; rather, the translators of
the text inserted the name SARGON in square brackets, indicating
that the name SARGON was not in the inscription, but that they
thought he should have been! Here is one example, written in 1936,
by Stephen L Caiger D B, and found at:
(http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChXIII.htm)
-----------------------------------------------
"Sargon, however, did not long survive this triumph. He died in 705
BC, as recorded in the Limmu List:
705 BC:
... a soldier entered the camp of the king of Assyria [Sargon],
and killed him in the month Abib.
And Sennacherib sat on the throne.
(Pinches, op.cit., p.372.) [Sennacherib—Sin-ahe-erba.]"
-----------------------------------------------
Anomaly 2
Secondly, in regards to the 1800 foot long tunnel which Hezekiah dug
through limestone to divert the water from the spring called Gihon,
Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, on Thursday, September
11, 2003; Page A03, states:
" Scholars for years thought that Hezekiah ordered the tunnel
constructed to secure Jerusalem's water supply in anticipation of
the arrival of King Sennacherib's Assyrian armies. Sennacherib, who
spent most of his career putting down revolts by peoples conquered
by his father, Sargon, besieged Jerusalem but never entered it.
Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These
show that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements
when Sennacherib laid siege, so "it's not so easy to know why the
tunnel was built, since the water supply was already protected,"
Stager said. "Everybody figures it had something to do with the
Assyrians, but they aren't quite sure what."
Here is what scripture says:
2 Ch 32:1,4, 30 (1) After these things, and the establishment
thereof, ----Sennacherib--- king of Assyria came, and entered into
Judah, and encamped against the fenced cities, and thought to win
them for himself. …(4) So there was gathered much people together,
who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the
midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and
find much water? …(30) This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper
watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side
of the city of David.
The scripture says that Hezekiah built the tunnel and walls AFTER
Sennacherib encamped against the fenced cities of Judah; however,
the article says: `Recent excavations have challenged this version
of events. These show that Gihon Spring already lay within
Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege,'
Well, which version is correct?
Well, suppose, that Damien Mackey is correct, and that Sargon and
Sennacherib are the same person. Well, first, Sargon came to Judah
and `encamped against the fenced cities of Judah'. There were
several cities in the country called Judah which had walls:
Ezr 9:9 For we [were] bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in
our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the
kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our
God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in
Judah and in Jerusalem.
Anomaly 3
Thirdly, according to the chronology of modern scholars, Merodach-
Baladan had been dead for at least 9 years when he visited Hezekiah!
Let me explain. David Rice says wrote in Time and Prophecy, Appendix
G, page 96:
"(5) Shalmaneser was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by Sargon
the same month he died (Tebet, month 10), and on the throne of
Babylon by Merodach-Baladan the following Nisan, which the narrative
implies began his first year. Merodach-Baladan ruled for 12 years
when he was replaced by Sargon. (Grayson 73-75) " pg 96, Time and
Prophecy.
Please note, Mr Rice says that Sargon became King of Assyria, the
same year as Merodach-Baladan became King of Babylon, then 12 years
later, Merodach-Baladan died, and Sargon, in addition to being king
of Assyria, became king of Babylon for 5 years. Sennacherib
succeeded Sargon. This means, that, in Mr Rice's chronology,
Merodach-Baladan died 5 years before Sennacherib Year 1, king of
Babylon. Now, 4 years after this (9 years after Merodach-Baladin's
death), Mr Rice has Sennacherib, in his Babylonian Year 4, invading
Jerusalem on the famous Hezekiah Year 14 – the year Hezekiah got
sick. This is a problem for Isaiah, consider:
Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of
Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard
that he had been sick, and was recovered.
Isaiah has Merodach-Baladan visiting Hezekiah sometime after he
(Hezekiah) recovered from his sickness. Hezekiah was sick in year
14, and sometime after this, he recovered. The problem is Merodach-
Baladan, according to Mr Rice's scheme, had been dead for at least 9
years!
Anomaly 4
All of Sennacherib's solders were killed, yet somehow Sennacherib
took 200,150 prisoners.
Damien Mackey in `Sargon is Sennacherib', quoting Boutflower says
that Sennacherib said this:
As for Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his
strong walled cities, as well as the small cities in their
neighbourhood, which were without number - by levelling with
battering-rams and advancing the siege engines, by attacking and
storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breaches, I besieged and
captured. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses,
mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought
away from them and counted as spoil.
However, scripture says this:
2 Kings 19:25,36 (35) And it came to pass that night, that the
angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians
an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in
the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses. (36) So
Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and
dwelt at Nineveh.
Sennacherib claimed to take 200,150 Judahites captive, yet scripture
claims the angel of the Lord killed Sennacherib's 185,000 Assyrian
soldiers – "they were all dead corpses". –IF— all of Sennacherib's
solders were dead, then how did Sennacherib bring back 200,150
prisoners?
Well, a reasonable explanation, is that Sennacherib invaded Judah
twice. The first time, he kicked butt, while his butt got kicked the
second time. If the first invasion matches the details of invasion
described in the Sargon inscriptions, which it does, then this would
lend weight to the idea that Sargon is Sennacherib!
Anomaly 5
Fifthly – Where's the gold?
First, Hezekiah gives Sennacherib all the gold.
2Ki 18:14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to
Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou
puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto
Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty
talents of gold.
2 Ki 18:15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in
the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
2Ki 18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the
doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which
Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of
Assyria.
Then, he shows it to Merodachbaladan!
Isa 39:1,2, 6 (1) At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan,
king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had
heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. (2) And Hezekiah
was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things,
the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment,
and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his
treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion,
that Hezekiah shewed them not. (6) Behold, the days come, that all
that [is] in thine house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up
in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall
be left, saith the LORD.
Anomaly 6
Sixthly, too many events occurred in Hezekiah Year 14 = Sennacherib
year 4.
As I stated in the introduction, in my opinion, modern chronologers
fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice. Well,
suppose they are correct. Here are some of the events which would
have had to happen in that one year.
Sennacherib, along with 185,000 solders, claimed to come to Judah
and `leveled' "46 of his strong walled cities" How long would it
take to travil to `level' one city? Well, say it took two weeks to
traval from Ninevah to the first `strong walled city', then say it
took 3 days to level it; then say, it took 2 days to travel to the
next `strong walled city' and 3 more days to level it. You would end
up with 2 weeks + 5 days/city * 46 cities = 244 days. Hmmmm… not
likely. Sometime during this warmonging, Sennacherib sent some
messengers to Hezekiah, asking him to surrender, which, Hezekiah
politely refused, however, he stripped the temple of gold and silver
and gave Sennacherib 30 talents of gold and several hundred talents
of silver and quickly began construction of an 1800 foot long, 4
foot wide and 12 foot tall, tunnel through solid limestone. In
addition, Hezekiah started construction and repairs on the walls of
Jerusalem. All this stress made Hezekiah sick unto death, but he
prayed to God, and God said he would live 15 more years and would
send a sign such that the sun's shadow would go back 10 degrees
Then, Sennacherib, his solders, and his 200,150 prisoners, had to
travel 2 weeks back to Ninevah with 200,150 prisoners, drop them off
at the local slave market, and travel 2 weeks back to Judah… 272
days. But when they got there, drats, old Hezekiah had finished
building his tunnel and put up walls. Hmmmm…. Not likely. Then, they
sieged Jerusalem, but the angel of the Lord killed all of his
solders, so he traveled two weeks back to Ninevah… i.e. 286 days!!!
In the meantime, according to Isaiah 39, Hezekiah had recovered
from his sickness, and the Merodach-Baladan, who had been dead for
over 9 years, rose from the grave and paid Hezekiah a visit!
Whereupon, Hezekiah somehow showed Merodach-Baladan all the gold and
silver in the temple, which somehow managed to magically reappear.
a lively stone,
TOby
Taken from: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874

Professor Robert Temple Could Not Be More Right About 'the Vicious Academic World'

Taken from Robert Temple’s Egyptian Dawn. Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt (Century 2010).

Pp. 399-400:

"[On the Atlantic Culture] …. Countless authors, ancient and modern, have commented upon the Atlantic cultures, but these remarks have rarely been given proper attention Perhaps the reason for this is that there is no academic discipline or academic department concerned with 'Atlantic culture'. As soon as the archaeologists of one region of the world begin to discuss it, they feel uncomfortable, because they are 'straying beyond their boundaries'. There is nothing that makes an academic more nervous than that, because it opens him up to criticism by his colleagues. The academic world is a vicious world, where no mercy is ever shown, and where the slightest slip from 'consensus behaviour' can endanger an academic's entire career. It is only people like myself, who do not depend upon the favour and approval of peers for a livelihood, who can say what they like and stray over as many boundaries as they please. With every passing year, the competition for jobs within the academic community becomes more intense, the level of fear rises and the timidity of discourse increases. One of these days, the academic world will just seize up like a sea of ice, with no movement at all, and all opinions will remain perfectly rigid. Then everybody will be safe. …".

Pp. 430:

"…. Alessandra Nibbi's ideas are so extraordinarily interesting and relevant that at one point I considered attempting an extended survey of them here, and compiling a comprehensive bibliography for her as I have done for Patrick O'Mara (whom she frequently published in her journal). If it were not for the activities of a few polite and genteel 'trouble-makers' like Nibbi and O'Mara, Egyptology would become totally petrified and incapable of ever generating a new insight. Thus, people like Nibbi and O'Mara should be encouraged enthusiastically, because they poke the corpses of the 'walking dead', the orthodox scholars who never deviate by a hair's-breadth from consensus opinions, and make them awaken from their sleepwalking and stir slightly. However, I have had to abandon my noble idea of surveying Nibbi's ideas, however important they are in terms of what I have been discussing, because the task would be too vast, and this book would never end. I shall content myself therefore with quoting only one of her many, many articles, which appeared in her own journal in 1995, as her comments are so shocking in the light of what we have been considering: ... we are given [in a book she has just quoted] a resume from the Egyptological textbooks on the 'Libvans' without considering the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty and assumption in piecing together the Egyptological material, and no clarity at all concerning the geographical background of these people, which cannot have been the desert.... We must accept the Roman use of this term which applied to all the area immediately to the west of the Nile . . . Thus the term westerner is more appropriate than Libyan for the people we are discussing. . . More recent studies of 'Libyan' people have been reluctant to separate them from the area that is Libya today and rarely attempt to identify them from any evidence. We even find references to 'ethnically Libyan pharaohs', whatever that may imply: At the seminar which formed the basis of Anthony Leahy's Libya and Egypt c. 1300)-750 B.C. (1990), no attempt was made to define 'Libyan'. Scholars depended considerably on Leahy's earlier article on the Libyan period in Egypt which attempts to identity the foreign ‘Libyan' Dynasty in Egypt as rule by men of 'Libyan extraction', even though 'the retention of their ethnic identity is obscured by the evidence’. …".