Shebna: Rolled up tightly like a ball

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Go, say to this steward, to Shebna ….  

‘Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you and hurl you away, you mighty man.
He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country.
There you will die …’.”

 

Isaiah 22:15, 17-18

 

Extending Sobna-Azuri

 

Already I had, in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

identified the rebellious Azuri of “Ashdod” (of the Assyrian King Sargon II’s records) with Uriah the high priest at the time of King Ahaz of Judah, and I had identified Azuri’s brother, Akhimiti of Sargon’s records, with Eliakim, who, as I argued there, became King Hezekiah’s high priest.

But I had not then taken any further the extension of Azuri-Uriah as I have done in this series - according to which Azuri-Uriah was also the high priest Azariah, a Zadokite, during the early part of Hezekiah’s reign, and was the same as the Sobna (Shebna) who was the recipient of Divine wrath as according to the Oracles of Isaiah 22.    

This Sobna (Shebna) I had then identified as a third person governing “Ashdod”, Iatna-Iamani.

Thus (i) Azuri, (ii) Akhimiti, (iii) Iatna.

Now, whilst I am still of the view that Sobna (Shebna) was the Iatna-Iamani who rebelled against the Assyrians, I would now identify him with the similarly rebellious Azuri, meaning that only two people are actually intended: (i) Azuri/Sobna/Iatna and (ii) Akhimiti/Eliakim.

What had impressed me about Iatna as Sobna was that the former had suffered the very fate that Isaiah told would befall Sobna. The Great Inscription of Tang-I Var in Iran, discovered in 1999, tells of it. I discussed this document in my thesis (Volume One) beginning on p. 373, showing also how this particular inscription plays havoc with the conventional Nubian history:

 

“Here at last”, wrote Gardiner, with an apparent sigh of relief upon his introduction of the 25th dynasty,1090 “we are heartened by some resemblance to authentic history …”. Perhaps though, from a conventional perspective, he could not have been more wrong. The Tang-i Var inscription dated to Sargon II’s Year 15 (c. 707 BC), according to which Shebitku - not Shabaka as was long thought - was the 25th dynasty pharaoh who had dispatched the rebel Iatna-Iamani in chains to Sargon II, has brought new confusion. Here is the pertinent section of this document:1091

 

… I (… Sargon) plundered the city of Ashdod, Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and …. he fled to the region of the land of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (lit. like a thief) …. Shapataku' (Shabatka) king of … Meluhha … put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs … he had him brought captive into my presence ….

 

This means that Shebitku and Tirhakah must now be re-located upwards by at least a decade in relation to Sargon II. Perhaps nowhere does the conventional separation of Sargon II from Sennacherib show up as in this case. Yet even revisionist Rohl, as late as 2002, was ignoring the Tang-i Var evidence, dating Tirhakah’s first appearance, at the battle of Eltekeh, to 702 BC, an incredible “thirty-one years earlier” than his actual rule of 690-665 BC,1092 which is, however, about two decades too late. Thus he wrote:1093

 

For five years the new king of Napata (ruling from Kush) had reigned in cooperation with his cousin Shabataka [Shebitku], king of Egypt (son of Shabaka). Then Taharka [Tirhakah] became sole 25th Dynasty ruler of both Kush and Egypt in his sixth regnal year following the death of Shabataka in 684 BC. There were other Libyan pharaohs in Egypt (such as Shoshenk V of Tanis and Rudamun of Thebes) but they were all subservient to the Kushite king.

 

The year 684 BC is far too late for the beginning of Tirhakah’s sole rule in relation to

Shebitku and his known connection with Sargon II’s 15th year! And that is by no means the only problem with the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. In fact there appears to be a significant problem in the case of virtually each one of its major kings. Regarding its first (according to convention) major ruler, Piye, for instance, Gardiner has written:1094

 

It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn.

 

And whilst, according to Herodotus, Shabaka (his Sabacos) reigned for some 50 years,1095 he has been reduced by the Egyptologists to a mere 15-year reign.1096 Furthermore:1097 “The absence of the names of Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended their sway”. These anomalies, coupled with the surprise data from the Iranian Tang-i Var inscription (which is in fact an Assyrian reference to Shebitku), suggest that there are deep problems right the way through the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. ….

 

 

Previously, beginning on p, 156, I had given an account of Iatna-Iamani’s rebellion, following Charles Boutflower:

 

Typical Assyrian war records! Boutflower shows how they connect right through to Sargon’s Year 11, which both he and Tadmor365 date to 711 BC:366

 

The above extract forms ... the second and closing portion of the record given in the Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711 BC., the earlier portion of the record for that year being occupied with the account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum. In the Grand Inscription of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account, containing a few fresh particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also told that he fled away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into chains by the Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria.

 

.... In order to effect the deposition of the rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti on the throne, Sargon sent forth an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probability the despatch of such a force, and the successful achievement of the end in view, which were recorded in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As Isa xx.1 informs us - and the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified from contemporary sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan. Possibly this may be the reason why it was not thought worthy to be recorded in the Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712 BC. But when we come to the eleventh year, 711 BC, and the annalist very properly and suitably records the whole series of events leading up to the siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all these events could not possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and secondly, as stated above, that a force must have previously been despatched at the beginning of the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the placing of Akhimiti on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition must again have broken out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian party were able, after a longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper hand, to expel Akhimiti, and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer, Yatna-Yamani. The town was then strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat.

It is at about this stage, Year 11, that Sargon was stirred into action:367

 

Meanwhile, the news of what was going on at Ashdod appears to have reached the Great King at the beginning of his eleventh year, according to the reckoning of the annalist .... So enraged was Sargon that, without waiting to collect a large force, he started off at once with a picked body of cavalry, crossed those rivers in flood, and marched with all speed to the disaffected province. Such at least is his own account; but I shall presently adduce reasons which lead one to think that he did not reach Ashdod as speedily as we might expect from the description of his march, but stopped on his way to put down a revolt in the country of Gurgum. In thus hastening to the West Sargon tells us that he was urged on by intelligence that the whole of Southern Syria, including Judah, Edom, and Moab, as well as Philistia, was ripe for revolt, relying on ample promises of support from Pharaoh king of Egypt.

 

We find, as we switch to what I believe to be Sennacherib’s corresponding campaign (his Third Campaign) to discover how Assyria dealt with the Egyptian factor, that a

ringleader in this sedition was king Hezekiah himself:368

 

The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (Iaudai), - he kept him in confinement like an enemy, - they (lit., their heart) became afraid and called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horse of the king of Meluh-ha (Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of the city of Altakû (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hands took alive in the midst of the battle. ....

 

Boutflower was able to deduce from the record of Sargon’s Year 10 what he considered to have been the reason why the first expedition against ‘Ashdod’ was led, not by Sargon in person, but by his ‘Turtan’.

This was because “Sargon was busy over his darling scheme, the decoration of the new palace at Dur-Sargon. … It was with this object in view that Sargon remained “in the land”, i.e. at home, during the year 712, entrusting the first expedition to Ashdod to his Tartan, as stated in Isa xx.1”.369

Boutflower’s detailed chronological reconstruction of the events associated with the siege of ‘Ashdod’ seems to be right in line with Tadmor’s more recent, and more clipped, reconstruction of the same events.370

 

The Storming of Azekah, Lachish

& Other Judaean Forts

 

Upon deeper probing, following Tadmor, we find that Sargon actually took the Judaean fort of Azekah (Azaqâ) as well.

This, coupled with Sargon II’s reference to himself as ‘subduer of Judah’, is the very link that was needed to connect Sargon II’s activities in Philistia with Sennacherib’s in Judah.

Let us follow Tadmor when giving his account of what is now a heavily bracketed cuneiform sequence; a document that we had discussed earlier:371

 

In connection with Sargon’s campaign to Philistia, a small fragment 81-3-23, 131 in the British Museum, published only in transcription by Winckler some fifty years ago and not utilised since in any historical presentation, must now be considered....

 

2. [....] the second time and to the land of Ju[dah ........]

3. [.... with .... that Aššur, my lord, that province [........]

4. [....] the city of Azaqâ [Azekah], his stronghold, which is (situated) in the mid(st of the mountains ........]

5. [....] located on a mountain ridge like a pointed dagger [........]

6. [... it was made like an eagle’s] nest and rivaled the highest mountains and was inac[cessible ........]

7. [.... even for stamped ra]mps and for the approaching with battering rams, it was (too) strong....

8. [....] they had seen the [approach of my cav]alry and [they had heard] the roar of my soldiers [........]

9. [... conquered, and I carried off their spoil. ....

 

Tadmor, in explaining this passage of Sargon’s - that incidentally has descriptive parts strikingly similar to those used by Sennacherib372 - includes highly important geographical data in relation to Lachish:373

 

Our restoration of KUR Ia-[.......] in line 2 to KUR Ia[udi] and the conclusions that the fragmentary lines deal with Judah are based on the following considerations:

 

(a) The alternative reading ana mâlti-ia “to my land” at the beginning of an account does not lead to any reasonable restoration….

(b) The identification of Azaqâ with ‘Azeqah-(=Tel ez-Zakariye) in Judah is postulated, especially if we consider the fact that the campaign against Philistia

follows immediately. Accordingly, lines 4-9 refer to the Assyrian assault on that

Judaean stronghold, situated on the top of a lofty hill, facing the valley of Elah,

not far from Lachish. Lines 6-7 indicate that the terrain was so tortuous that even the usual siege technique could not be fully employed. Apparently the people of ‘Azeqah surrendered, impressed by the strength of the Assyrian army. Line 10 begins with the description of the military operation in Philistia. ....

 

Whilst there may indeed be no annalistic reference specifically to Lachish in Sennacherib’s Third Campaign account, there is abundant pictographic detail of it in his ‘Palace Without Rival’ at Nineveh. Sennacherib used the area as his base whilst in Judaea. “Recent excavations at Lachish”, Russell tells us, “show that Sennacherib

concentrated immense resources and expended tremendous energy in its capture”.374

 

Shebna, Iatna, Iamani foreign names?

 

Shebna

 

There does not appear yet to be any firm consensus about the ethnicity of the name “Shebna”.

http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/S/shebna.html “Shebna's name is thought to be Aramaic, thus pointing to a foreign descent, but G. B. Gray, "Isa," ICC, 373 ff, denies this. We can perhaps safely infer that he was a parvenu from the fact that he was hewing himself a sepulcher in Jerusalem, apparently among those of the nobility, whereas a native would have an ancestral burial-place in the land”.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13520-shebna “The name "Shebna" itself points to a non-Israelitish origin in the more northerly regions, either Phenicia or Syria; the same stem has been found by Levy in ("Siegel und Gemmen mit Aramäischen, Phönizischen, Althebräischen und Altsyrichen Inschriften," p. 40, Breslau, 1869)”. This article goes on to say that: “Probably Shebna had risen to office under King Ahaz, who favored foreign undertakings and connections”, which is right in accord with my view insofar as, at least, Shebna was the same as Ahaz’s high priest, Uriah.

As a Zadokite priest, as previously suggested, Shebna must have been of Jewish (Levite) origin.

However, it is not impossible that he may have also acquired a Mesopotamian name, owing to his master Ahaz’s alliance with the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser. Though, according to Christopher B. Hays (A Covenant with Death, p. 246, n. 198): “… the name Shebna has never been explained as a Mesopotamian one”. John Emerton has interpreted Isaiah 22:18 as indicating “Shebna’s deportation to Mesopotamia” (Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible, p, 284). It is perhaps possible then that Shebna had acquired a foreign name, for which he was remembered by biblical scribes.

 

            Iatna, Iamani

 

We saw from Boutflower above that these names are thought to pertain to the Cypriots/Greeks: “The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek”. I, considering that Iatna’s revolt was pro-Egyptian, as Sargon II himself (above) had testified, had previously argued for the Iamani part of the name, at least, to have been an Egyptian name, relating to Amun – against Winckler’s and Tadmor’s view that it was a “Palestinian” name (my thesis, Volume One, p. 380):

 

Now I should like to propose, again most tentatively, a TIP [Third Intermediate Period] Egyptian identity for Sobna, including a possible Egyptian foundation for at least the Iamani (Yamani) element of his name; this contrary to Tadmor, who had supported the view of Winckler and others (refer back to p. 160) that Iamani “was of local Palestinian origin”. Instead of Tadmor’s Imnâ or Imna  for Iamani, I should like to suggest Imn, that is Amun (Amen). Now a candidate at the approximate time, according to my reconstruction, who might just fit this scenario, would be the priest Amenhotep of overweening character during the early reign of Ramses XI, prior to the ‘Renaissance’ period. Sobna-Shebna, too, was of presumptuous character, with his grandiose tomb and his “splendid chariots” (Isaiah 22: 16, 18). Very Egyptian-like! ….

Grimal tells of the civil war and eventual exile of Amenhotep during the reign of pharaoh Ramses XI …:1115

 

… the fighting of great battles fell increasingly within the domain of the chief priests, who usurped the royal prerogatives so that they were virtually equal to the pharaohs. The chief priest Amenhotep had himself depicted at Karnak at the same scale as the king, thus demonstrating his low regard for the power of the pharaoh. It seems, however, that Amenhotep may have gone a little too far, for he was sent into exile in the first part of the reign of Ramesses XI. ….

 

Gardiner has told us a little more of this conflict and what “a porter named Ḥowentῡfe”

had called the “wrong … done to Amenḥotpe [Amenhotep] [re …] a momentous event”.1116 It would be most intriguing to have more details about this “momentous event”. Now, was Amenhotep’s exile, and Iatna-Iamani’s exile, the same event? ….

 

Whilst there is a definite parallelism between the situation of Iamani and that of Amenhotep - both proud and overweening, and overstepping their mark, and going into exile - it is a big step at this stage to say that the two scenarios can really be connected.

For one, the chronology of the TIP has not yet been properly sorted out.

What is possible, however, is that Shebna could have acquired an Egyptian name during his sojourn in Egypt-Ethiopia, before he was taken away in chains to Assyria.