King Jehoash of Israel archaeologically verified

 

 

“Jehoash was known for “his might” (2 Kings 14:15), and his kingdom expanded northward with his victory over the Aramaeans and to the south with his victory over Judah. Evidence for this expansion was discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,

a fortress that acted as a cultic site on the southern border of Judah”.

Bryan Windle

  

Bryan Windle wrote (August 13, 2021):

King Jehoash: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report

 

King Jehoash: An Archaeological Biography

 

Jehoash was the second of four kings who descended from Jehu to reign as king of Israel (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah); he ruled from ca. 798-782 BC.¹ The Bible summarizes his reign this way:

 

In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned sixteen years. He also did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. He did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin, but he walked in them. Now the rest of the acts of Joash and all that he did, and the might with which he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? So Joash slept with his fathers, and Jeroboam sat on his throne. And Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 13:10-13)

 

Jehoash was also called Joash (2 Chr 25:17), and is not to be confused with the more famous king of Judah also named Joash/Jehoash (2 Kings 12:1, 19). King Jehoash of Israel is primarily known for three events:

 

• His defeat of Amaziah, King of Judah near Beth Shemesh (2 Chr. 25:21-23)
• His interaction with the prophet Elisha, who upon his death bed, told Jehoash to strike the ground with arrows to symbolize the number of times he would defeat the king of Aram (2 Kings 13:14-19)
• And his subsequent battles against the Arameans (2 Kings 13:24-25).

 

Numerous archaeological discoveries both confirm Jehoash as king of Israel and provide the wider historical context that helps us better understand the world in which he lived.

 

Jehoash and Assyria

 

When Jehoash came to the throne, he inherited a kingdom that had been significantly weakened by the wars of his father. According to the biblical record, “There was not left to Jehoahaz an army of more than fifty horsemen and ten chariots and ten thousand footmen, for the king of Syria had destroyed them and made them like the dust at threshing.” (2 Kings 13:7).

 

Shortly after Jehoash began to reign, the Assyrian king, Adad-Nirari III invaded the western lands.² A victory stele (monument) was discovered in 1967 during excavations at Tell al-Rimah which contains a record of Adad-Nirari III’s campaign. While its date is unknown, many scholars associate it with Adad-Narari III’s expedition westward in 796 BC.³ It reads:

 

Adad-Nirari, mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, son of Šamši-Adad, the king of the universe, king of Assyria, the son of Šalmaneser, the king of the four quarters. I mustered my chariots, troops, and camps; I ordered them, to march to the land of Hatti. In a single year, I subdued the entire land of Amurru and Hatti. I imposed upon them tax and tribute forever. I received 2,000 talents of silver, 1,000 talents of copper, 2,000 talents of iron, 3,000 linen garments with multicolored trim – the tribute of Mari’ – of the land of Damascus. I received the tribute of Jehoash the Samarian, of the Tyrian ruler and of the Sidonian ruler.⁴

 

Adad-Nirari seems to have subdued and laid a heavy tribute on “Mari’ – of the land of Damascus,” likely refering to the Aramean king Hazael, or, more likely, his son Ben Hadad.⁵ Having seen Assyria’s conquest of Aram, Israel’s arch enemy, Jehoash of Israel appears to have decided to send tribute to Adad-Nirari rather than risk a similar fate.⁶

The Tell al-Rimah stele of Adad-nirari III affirms the historicity of King Jehoash, and illuminates the historical background of his reign. Assyrian’s defeat of Aram weakened Israel’s northern neighbor and enemy, a situation which Elisha encouraged Jehoash to take advantage of.

 

Jehoash and Aram

 

Jehoash’s father, Jehoahaz was a wicked king (2 Kings 13:2). As a result, God allowed the Arameans to attack Israel repeatedly (2 Kings 13:3), such that “Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (2 Kings 13:22).

 

The Zakkur Stele records the victory of Zakkur, king of Hamath over a coalition of kings led by “Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Damascus. It is currently in the Louvre Museum in France. Photo: Rama / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 20 fr

 

When the prophet Elisha was close to death, Jehoash came to mourn his soon passing. Elisha had him shoot an arrow out of the window to symbolize Israel’s impending victory over the Arameans at Aphek and then strike arrows on the floor to signify how many times he would defeat them (2 Kings 13:17-19). After Elisha’s death, “Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again from Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities that he had taken from Jehoahaz his father in war” (2 Kings 13:25). Ben-Hadad was no match for an army empowered by Israel’s God, especially after it had already been weakened by Assyrian attacks.  

 

Ben-Hadad III is attested on the Zakkur Inscription, in which Zakkur, king of Hamath, declares his victory over a confederation of 17 city-states led by “Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Damascus.”⁷

 

The site of Aphek is difficult to identify, in part because there were multiple cities named Aphek in biblical times.⁸ Some have associated Aphek of Aram with Tel En Gev and/or the nearby fortress of Tel Soreg. Both have destructions layers dating to the 9^th/8^th century BC, which have been attributed to either Adad-Nariri III of Assyria or Jehoash of Israel.⁹

 

Jehoash and Judah

 

Jehoash was originally an ally of Amaziah, king of Judah. At one point, Amaziah hired 100,000 soldiers from Israel for 100 talents of silver to assist him in battle (2 Chr. 25:6). A prophet then told Amaziah not to go to battle along side the Israelites, so he discharged them. The Israelite soldiers “became very angry with Judah and returned home in fierce anger,” raiding the cities of Judah as they went (2 Chr. 25:10, 13).

Sometime later, Amaziah sent a challenge to the king of Israel to meet him in battle.

 

Jehoash responded, “A thistle on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ and a wild beast of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thistle. You say, ‘See, I have struck down Edom,’ and your heart has lifted you up in boastfulness. But now stay at home. Why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?” (2 Chr. 25:18-19). Amaziah would not be swayed, however, and the armies of Judah and Israel met at the Battle of Beth Shemesh. The biblical account records:  

 

And Judah was defeated by Israel, and every man fled to his home. And Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem for four hundred cubits, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate. And he seized all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house, also hostages, and he returned to Samaria (2 Kings 14:12-14).

….

 

Jehoash’s Kingdom

 

Jehoash was known for “his might” (2 Kings 14:15), and his kingdom expanded northward with his victory over the Aramaeans and to the south with his victory over Judah. Evidence for this expansion was discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, a fortress that acted as a cultic site on the southern border of Judah. Despite its southerly location, it has been identified as an Israelite site, based in part on the personal names discovered there. Most of the names uncovered end with a theophoric element (a reference to a deity – in this case Yahweh) spelled “yo” as was common in Israel, rather than “yahu” as it was usually spelled in Judah.¹⁰ Moreover, there is also an inscription that references “Yahweh of Samaria.”¹¹ A painting of a seated king was discovered on plaster remains in one of the structures. Due to the dating of the site and the geo-political setting, some have suggested it is an image of King Jehoash himself.¹² There is no accompanying inscription, so such an identification is speculative ….

 

The portrait of a seated king, reconstructed from plaster remains recovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Some believe this to be an image of Jehoash, king of Israel. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0 / from Beck et. al – Pirhiya Beck (1982) The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud), Tel Aviv, 9:1, 3-68

 

Conclusion

 

Archaeological discoveries have affirmed the historicity of Jehoash, king of Israel, and implicitly support the biblical description of his military might. Further, the Assyrian records shed light on the geo-political in the 8^th century that provides the background to Jehoash’s reign. Once again we see the accuracy of the Bible in its description of historical details. ….

[End of quote]

 

An Israeli archaeologist reviews the inscription on the Jehoash... News Photo - Getty Images

 

Experts Try To Determine Authenticity Of Jehoash Tablet

 

JERUSALEM - MARCH 27: An Israeli archaeologist reviews the inscription on the Jehoash tablet in the storerooms of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) March 27, 2003 in Jerusalem. The controversial basalt stone tablet is inscribed with an ancient Hebrew inscription attributed to the biblical Jewish King Jehoash who ruled Jerusalem in the ninth century BC. The tablet has been taken from the custody of an antiquities collector as IAA experts try to determine if it is a forgery. ….

 

 

 

 

 

Syrian Kingmaker in ancient Egypt

Part One: Recalling how Akhnaton came to the throne by Damien F. Mackey Whatever may have been the actual ethnicity of Amenhotep-Ben-Hadad-Abdi-ashirta, his successor, Amenhotep (so-called IV), or Akhnaton (Akhenaten), was undoubtedly a Syrian. Based on my recent article: Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton (2) Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu pharaoh Amenhotep (so-called III) ‘the Magnificent’ was a mighty emperor, who ruled over both Syria and Egypt. ‘The Magnificent’ was the biblical king, Ben-Hadad I of the C9th BC (conventional dating), whom Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had identified with the king of Amurru (Syria), Abdi-ashirta, of the El Amarna [EA] letters. This prominent king, thought to have been a vassal of Egypt, was in fact a master-king, with 32 other kings following him. So far I have not ventured into an explanation of how a king whom the Bible connects solely with Syria and its capital, Damascus, could have been so famous a pharaoh of Egypt as well. One of Egypt’s greatest, in fact. Whatever may have been the actual ethnicity of Amenhotep-Ben-Hadad-Abdi-ashirta, his successor, Amenhotep (so-called IV), or Akhnaton (Akhenaten), was undoubtedly a Syrian. For I have identified Akhnaton biblically with Na’aman the Syrian, the leper who was cured owing to the intervention of the prophet Elisha. Due to Na’aman’s total conversion to Yahwism, the Lord would order the prophet Elijah to anoint him as “king over Aram [Syria]” (I Kings 19:15), to wipe out Baalism from the land. Na’aman, though a commoner, a “son of nobody” as the ancients called it, would thus rise to the throne of Syria as Hazael, by assassinating his master, Ben-Hadad I. This fact adds a vital new dimension to Dr. Velikovsky’s view that pharaoh Akhnaton was the model for the Greek king, Oedipus. While Velikovsky had never gone so far as to have suggested that Akhnaton killed his father, as Oedipus is famously said to have done, the fact is that he, if he really were Hazael, had actually done this. This explains how a most unlikely person, Hazael-Amenhotep-Akhnaton, had managed to come to the throne of Egypt. Apart from identifying EA’s Abdi-ashirta as Ben-Hadad I, Dr. Velikovsky had logically identified Ben-Hadad I’s regicide successor, Hazael, as Aziru, the king of Amurru (Syria) who would succeed the slain Abdi-ashirta. Velikovsky drew some compelling comparisons between Hazael and Aziru. This was a strong, tour de force, aspect of his Ages in Chaos I (1952) thesis, praised by later revisionists. It became something of a foundation for my university thesis (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (5) Thesis 2: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Had Velikovsky gone a step further, and identified Aziru (Hazael) with the similarly-named Syrian, Irsu (Arsa), of the Great Harris Papyrus [GHP], as I have done, then he would have realised that Aziru had also come to control Egypt - though not as an invader, apparently - and had wrought there a religious revolution. Though GHP presents this revolution negatively, from the traditional Egyptian point of view, it could also be likened, from a different angle, to the religious revolution of pharaoh Akhnaton, which I believe it was. Akhnaton was also found to have been the model for Manetho’s semi-legendary Osarsiph, who, interestingly – in my context of Akhnaton’s being the formerly leprous Na’aman – was associated with lepers. Part Two: As an official in Egypt before he became Akhnaton We can know something about Akhnaton’s pre-regnal years and character if he was, as I think, the Syrian Na’aman (2 Kings 5:1): “Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram [Syria]. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy”. From verses 2-3, we learn that this Na’aman had a wife, and a captive Israelite slave girl, who was desirous of her master approaching the prophet Elisha for a curing of his leprosy. Unlike the king of Syria, Ben-Hadad I, who was quite happy for his army commander to visit the prophet of Samaria, the king of Israel, presumably Ahab, an inveterate foe of the Syrians, was horrified after the king of Syria had sent him an introductory letter (v. 7): “As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, ‘Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!’” Na’aman was a generous man, and presumably wealthy (v. 5): “So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold and ten sets of clothing”. See also v. 23. He was a cavalryman (v. 9): “So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house”. Na’aman was also proud. He wanted a quick cure for which he would pay handsomely. But Elisha wanted from him a complete change of heart. Vv. 10-12: Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, ‘Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed’. But Naaman went away angry and said, ‘I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?’ So he turned and went off in a rage. Did the captive Israelite girl help to change his mind? Vv. 13-14: Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy. Humility and ‘baptism’. Na’aman was fully converted to the one God (v. 17): ‘… please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD’. That he was the king of Syria’s right-hand man, having even a liturgical role, may be gleaned from v. 18: ‘But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this’. Now, given my argument that Na’aman (who became Hazael king of Syria), would also become pharaoh Akhnaton, and that Na’aman had formerly served Ben-Hadad I, who was also pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’, then it is logical that we would expect to find amongst pharaoh Amenhotep’s officials one who mirrors - because he was - this Na’aman. Before attempting to identify Na’aman the Syrian as a high military official of pharaoh Amenhotep, though, we need to consider what were Akhnaton’s origins. Generally thought to have been the second son of pharaoh Amenhotep and his wife, Queen Tiy, Amenhotep, as Akhnaton was called, is a figure of almost complete obscurity for Egyptologists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten Egyptologists know very little about Akhenaten's life as prince Amenhotep. Donald B. Redford dates his birth before his father Amenhotep III's 25th regnal year, c. 1363–1361 BC, based on the birth of Akhenaten's first daughter, who was likely born fairly early in his own reign.[4][52] The only mention of his name, as "the King's Son Amenhotep," was found on a wine docket at Amenhotep III's Malkata palace, where some historians suggested Akhenaten was born. Others contend that he was born at Memphis, where growing up he was influenced by the worship of the sun god Ra practiced at nearby Heliopolis.[53] Redford and James K. Hoffmeier state, however, that Ra's cult was so widespread and established throughout Egypt that Akhenaten could have been influenced by solar worship even if he did not grow up around Heliopolis.[54][55] Some historians have tried to determine who was Akhenaten's tutor during his youth, and have proposed scribes Heqareshu or Meryre II, the royal tutor Amenemotep, or the vizier Aperel.[56] The only person we know for certain served the prince was Parennefer, whose tomb mentions this fact.[57] Egyptologist Cyril Aldred suggests that prince Amenhotep might have been a High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, although no evidence supporting this had been found.[58] It is known that Amenhotep's brother, crown prince Thutmose, served in this role before he died. If Amenhotep inherited all his brother's roles in preparation for his accession to the throne, he might have become a high priest in Thutmose's stead. Aldred proposes that Akhenaten's unusual artistic inclinations might have been formed during his time serving Ptah, the patron god of craftsmen, whose high priest were sometimes referred to as "The Greatest of the Directors of Craftsmanship."[59] …. Coregency with Amenhotep III[edit] There is much controversy around whether Amenhotep IV acceded to Egypt's throne on the death of his father Amenhotep III or whether there was a coregency, lasting perhaps as long as 12 years. Eric Cline, Nicholas Reeves, Peter Dorman, and other scholars argue strongly against the establishment of a long coregency between the two rulers and in favor of either no coregency or one lasting at most two years.[60] Donald B. Redford, William J. Murnane, Alan Gardiner, and Lawrence Berman contest the view of any coregency whatsoever between Akhenaten and his father.[61][62] Most recently, in 2014, archaeologists found both pharaohs' names inscribed on the wall of the Luxor tomb of vizier Amenhotep-Huy. The Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities called this "conclusive evidence" that Akhenaten shared power with his father for at least eight years, based on the dating of the tomb.[63] However, this conclusion has since been called into question by other Egyptologists, according to whom the inscription only means that construction on Amenhotep-Huy's tomb started during Amenhotep III's reign and ended under Akhenaten's, and Amenhotep-Huy thus simply wanted to pay his respects to both rulers.[64] …. This is all quite wrong, I believe. Amenhotep was not a prince, but was the pharaoh’s military commander, a commoner, with no thought of kingship. Did he not, as Hazael, say to the prophet Elisha? (2 Kings 8:13 ESV): ‘How could I possibly do a thing like that? I’m nothing but a dog. I don’t have that kind of power’. ‘Son of a nobody’. He did not live in the 1300’s BC, but about half a millennium later than this. Nor was he ever co-regent with his former master-king whom he slew. To find early Akhnaton, as Amenhotep, we must look for pharaoh Amenhotep’s mirror-image officer of king Ben-Hadad I’s Na’aman, preferably being named, like his king, Amenhotep. And we seem to find him in the amazing character Amenhotep son of Hapu, a man of legendary status: Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut (13) Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Amenhotep son of Hapu mirrors Na’aman in his titles, as a commoner who made good, a military commander, and right-hand man of the pharaoh, with a liturgical rôle. Egyptologist Joann Fletcher offers us a glimpse of his extraordinary power (Egypt’s Sun King. Amenhotep III, Duncan Baird, 2000, p. 51): In an unprecedented move, Amenhotep III gave extensive religious powers to his closest official and namesake, Amenhotep son of Hapu, not only placing the scribe’s statuary throughout Amun’s temple, but also granting his servant powers almost equal to his own: inscriptions on the statues state that Amenhotep son of Hapu would intercede with Amun himself on behalf of those who approached. The king’s chosen man, who was not a member of Amun’s clergy, could act as intermediary between the people and the gods on the king’s behalf, bypassing the priesthood altogether. …. [End of quote] In light of what we learned, however, in: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba the powers accorded by pharaoh Amenhotep to his namesake, the son of Hapu, were not “unprecedented”. All of this - and perhaps even more - had already been bestowed upon Senenmut, the ‘power behind the throne’ of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. I have identified this Senenmut as King Solomon in Egypt. Titles Amenhotep son of Hapu, likewise, had some most imposing titles (http://euler.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Amenhotep-Hapu.html): Hereditary prince, count, sole companion, fan-bearer on the king's right hand, chief of the king's works even all the great monuments which are brought, of every excellent costly stone; steward of the King's-daughter of the king's-wife, Sitamen, who liveth; overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North, chief of the prophets of Horus, lord of Athribis, festival leader of Amon. …. Several inscriptions outline his career and show how he rose through the ranks. Amenhotep started off as a king's scribe as mentioned on his statue: I was appointed to be inferior king's-scribe; I was introduced into the divine book, I beheld the excellent things of Thoth; I was equipped with their secrets; I opened all their [passages (?)]; one took counsel with me on all their matters. After distinguishing himself, Amenhotep was promoted to the position of Scribe of Recruits: ... he put all the people subject to me, and the listing of their number under my control, as superior king's-scribe over recruits. I levied the (military) classes of my lord, my pen reckoned the numbers of millions; I put them in [classes (?)] in the place of their [elders (?)]; the staff of old age as his beloved son. I taxed the houses with the numbers belonging thereto, I divided the troops (of workmen) and their houses, I filled out the subjects with the best of the captivity, which his majesty had captured on the battlefield. I appointed all their troops (Tz.t), I levied -------. I placed troops at the heads of the way(s) to turn back the foreigners in their places. Amenhotep mentions being on a campaign to Nubia. I was the chief at the head of the mighty men, to smite the Nubians [and the Asiatics (?)], the plans of my lord were a refuge behind me; [when I wandered (?)] his command surrounded me; his plans embraced all lands and all foreigners who were by his side. I reckoned up the captives of the victories of his majesty, being in charge of them. Later he was promoted to "Chief of all works", thereby overseeing the building program of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. His connections to court finally led to Amenhotep being appointed as Steward to Princess-Queen Sitamen. The career of Amenhotep son of Hapu in relation to Egypt reminds me in many ways of that of that other quasi-royal (but supposed commoner), Senenmut, or Senmut, at the time of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. Amenhotep son of Hapu is in fact so close a replica of Senenmut that I would have to think that he had modelled himself greatly on the latter. Senenmut was to pharaoh Hatshepsut also a Great Steward, and he was to princess Neferure her mentor and steward. So was Amenhotep son of Hapu to pharaoh Amenhotep III a Great Steward, and he was to princess Sitamun (Sitamen) her mentor and steward. Egyptologists are very wrong, again, in thinking that neither Senenmut (= Solomon) nor Amenhotep (= Na’aman-Akhnaton) ever married. Sir Alan Gardiner had claimed, in the Introduction to his Egyptian Grammar, that the ancient Egyptians were the least philosophical of peoples. And Dietrich Wildung (Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner ägyptologische Studien) considered that ancient Egypt had produced only two geniuses, Imhotep and Amenhotep, both of whom became revered as saints. But neither Imhotep nor Amenhotep was even a native Egyptian. Imhotep was the great Hebrew patriarch, Joseph: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (4) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty Whilst Amenhotep son of Hapu was, as I am now proposing, a Syrian.

Jehu king of Israel was not the squeamish type

by Damien F. Mackey “When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters all forty-two of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14)”. Ruth Walfish King Jehu of Israel may find his alter ego in King Zimri of Israel, as I have previously suggested: Following the pattern of kings and events that I have established in my articles revising the biblico-history of the northern kingdom of Israel, Zimri, who destroyed the House of Baasha, could only be Jehu, who wiped out the entire House of Ahab (= Baasha). This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that Queen Jezebel actually refers to Jehu as ‘Zimri’ (2 Kings 9:31): ֵהוּא, בָּא בַשָּׁעַר; וַתֹּאמֶר הֲשָׁלוֹם, זִמְרִי הֹרֵג אֲדֹנָיו Some translations of this verse go to extremes to make it clear that Jehu and Zimri are, as is generally thought, two different kings. For instance, Contemporary English Version offers this: “As he walked through the city gate, she shouted down to him, "Why did you come here, you murderer? To kill the king? You're no better than Zimri!"” The Hebrew does not appear to me to justify such a translation, “You're no better than Zimri!” Conventionally speaking, Zimri, of course, had preceded Jehu by about 45 years. However, one is left thinking that there must be more to Zimri than his impossibly short reign (I Kings 16:15): “Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days”, the shortest reign of all the kings. Consequently, articles have been written suggesting that Zimri was ‘no flash in the pan’. Are we really expected to believe that Zimri, had, in the mere space of a week, done all this? (vv. 11-13): As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu— because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols. And that he had managed to be this bad? (vv. 19-20): So he died, because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit. As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? This all sounds just like Jehu – substituting Ahab for Baasha (2 Kings 10:17): When Jehu came to Samaria, he killed all who were left there of Ahab’s family; he destroyed them, according to the word of the LORD spoken to Elijah. And vv. 28-29: So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel. However, he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit—the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan. And v. 34: As for the other events of Jehu’s reign, all he did, and all his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Saul M. Olyan has compared Jehu with Zimri, in “2 Kings 9:31. Jehu as Zimri” (The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 78, No. ½, Jan-Apr, 1985), though without his having any thought that Jehu might have been Zimri (pp. 203-204): A number of arguments have been presented by scholars who have attempted to explain the somewhat cryptic words of Jezebel to Jehu when he entered the palace gate of Jezreel: hăšālôm zimrî hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw ("Is it well [with] Zimri, murderer of his lord?" or "Is it peace ...?”). Is Jezebel trying to seduce Jehu, as S. Parker recently argued? .... Is she assuming a defiant posture and taunting him proudly? .... Or is the narrative simply too ambiguous to determine her motives? .... What is the writer’s use of the name Zimri meant to convey? Undoubtedly, Zimri in biblical Hebrew is a hypocoristicon of a fuller name like ... zamaryaw/ -yahū. “Yahweh has protected” or “Yahweh has defended”, from the root zmr ... "to be strong”. .... A Samaria Ostracon of the early eighth century BCE preserves the name, b‘lzmr, and the name zmryhw appears on a Hebrew seal. Now the historical Zimri, to whom Jezebel no doubt alludes ... was a chariot commander who killed his king, Elah the son of Baasha and all and all of Baasha's house, and ruled over Israel for only seven days. Mackey’s comment: While Saul M. Olyan will continue on here with what is the apparent sequence of events in the biblical narrative, with Omri succeeding Zimri, I personally think that the Gibbethon incident where Baasha puts an end to king Nadab (House of Jeroboam) (I Kings 15:25-28) may have been partially re-visited with Omri now supposedly besieging Gibbethon, and then succeeding Zimri – which I do not believe could actually have been the case. In reaction to Zimri's coup, the army made Omri king. Zimri perished by suicide in Tirzah soon after (1 Kgs 16:8-20). These events occurred in the twenty-seventh year of Asa's reign [sic] in Judah (ca 886) ... only about forty-five years before Jehu's own coup. The parallels are obvious and striking. Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], was a chariot commander who conspired against his lord the king, and wiped out the ruling house in the fashion of the popular northern coup (see 2 Kings 10). In light of these close parallels, the arguments of Parker, who claims that Jezebel was not taunting Jehu when she called him "Zimri," .... are less than convincing. Clearly, such an allusion to a recent, failed coup attempt by a fellow charioteer was intended as a taunt, as was the title hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw, “murderer of his lord”. Jezebel's words imply that Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], will fail: he will not last more than a week, and the people will not accept him, just as they did not accept Zimri. .... [End of quote] For Queen Jezebel as a real historical person, see e.g. my article: Queen Jezebel makes guest appearances in El Amarna https://www.academia.edu/37756175/Queen_Jezebel_makes_guest_appearances_in_El_Amarna Ruth Walfish has, in the Jewish Biblical Quarterly, drawn some helpful character likenesses between Jehu and Ishmael the rebel at the time of the prophet Jeremiah: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/491/jbq_491_walfishjehu.pdf JEHU BEN NIMSHI IN LIGHT OF ISHMAEL BEN NETHANIAH: AN INNER-BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION Pp. 31-33: …. The following are the parallels that can be drawn between the rebellion of Jehu and the uprising of Ishmael: 1. DECEIT Ishmael deceives Gedaliah by participating in the assembly of the officers who are ostensibly supporting Gedaliah (Jer. 40:7-8). Ironically, Gedaliah accuses Johanan of deceit, when the latter apprises him of Ishmael`s intention to murder him (ibid, 16). Gedaliah persists in believing in Ishmael`s innocence, and this lays the groundwork for Ishmael`s second appearance at Mizpah, where he and his men eat a festive meal with Gedaliah, as an expression of their loyalty to him. Immediately afterwards, Ishmael rises up and with the aid of his ten accomplices, murders Gedaliah, as well as all the Jews and Chaldeans who have gathered around him (ibid 41:1-3). He later meets a group of pilgrims from the north who are bringing grain offerings to the Temple (ibid 5-6), and pretends to be crying over the destruction of the homeland. …. He further pretends that Gedaliah is alive and invites them to Mizpah, thus trapping them and murdering them as well. Jehu is a master of deceit. He assassinates King Jehoram, under whom he had served as general. Jehoram, surprised by the attack upon him, warns Ahaziah, king of Judah, "Treachery, Ahaziah" (II Kings 9:23). In another instance, Jehu pretends to be a worshipper of Baal, and gathers together all the Baal priests for a grand sacrifice. As Scripture attests, "But Jehu dealt deviously (be`okba`) in order to destroy the servants of Baal (ibid 10:19). The root ekev is consistently used in the Bible as a negative term. Jehu warns the guards outside that if any Baal priest escapes, they will pay for it with their lives. Then he and his soldiers proceed to murder all the Baal worshippers (ibid 19-26). The interplay of truth/falsity characterizes both stories. 2. SLAUGHTER ALONGSIDE A PIT When Ishmael lures the pilgrims to Mizpah, he slaughtered them and flung them into the cistern (bor) (Jer. 41:7). Similarly, when Jehu happens upon the kinsmen of Ahaziah he orders that they be caught alive, and then slaughters RUTH WALFISH JEWISH BIBLE QUARTERLY 32 all forty-two of them at the pit (bor) of Beth – Eked (II Kings 10:14). In both cases the term for murder is vayishatem/vayishatum, implying a massacre. These are the only two cases in the Bible where the terms bor and shahat appear together. Both Ishmael and Jehu demonstrate an almost offhand brand of viciousness that is quite chilling. 3. MURDER OF THE INNOCENT As stated above, Ishmael murdered Gedaliah and his followers, as well as most of the pilgrims who were tricked by him into believing that Ishmael supported Gedaliah and was inviting them to meet him. The killings that Jehu carries out bear a resemblance to the latter. Although Jehu was mandated to wipe out the house of Ahab (II Kings 9:7), it is questionable whether Ahaziah, King of Judah, the son-in-law of Ahab, was to be included in this dictate. It is even less credible that Jehu was instructed to kill the brothers of Ahaziah. Just as Ishmael had not planned the murder of the pilgrims, but did so spontaneously in order to prevent word of Gedaliah`s assassination from being discovered, so Jehu had not set out to attack Ahaziah`s brothers, but rather happened upon them. The latter were on their way to visit their relatives, clearly unaware that Jehoram and Ahaziah had been killed at the hand of Jehu, just as the pilgrims were unaware of Gedaliah`s murder. Both Ishmael and Jehu took advantage of the innocence of their victims and cut them down on the spot. It is rare in the Bible to find instances of mass slaughter precipitated by a chance meeting. It is also questionable whether Jehu had to murder all the Baal worshippers in a vast slaughterhouse. As Rosenson points out, Jehu, as king, could have brought them to trial when he saw fit to do so. 4. THE REMNANT Johanan ben Kareah warns Gedaliah that Ishmael is a traitor, who will kill Gedaliah, as a result of which the remnant of Judah will perish (Jer. 40, 15). Subsequently, we read that Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people …all the people remaining at Mizpah . . . (Jer. 41:10). Similarly, And Jehu struck down all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel . . . till he left him no remnant (II Kgs. 10:11; see also verse 17). Both men are presented as callously wiping out or capturing those who are their perceived enemies. 5. THE AFTERMATH Ishmael`s uprising against Gedaliah leads to the self-imposed exile to Egypt of the remnant of Judah, this despite Jeremiah`s prediction that they will be safe in Judah but endangered in Egypt (Jer. 42:7-22). Likewise, the story of Jehu ends not with a glorious victory, as one might have expected, given his obedience to God, but rather with a somber note of defeat: But Jehu did not watch out to go by the teaching of the Lord… the Lord began to trim away Israel, and Hazael struck them down through all the borderland of Israel… (II Kgs. 10:31-32). Despite the praise that Jehu receives for wiping out the house of Ahab and the Baal worship, the final word is one of failure. ….

Wall of King Uzziah may have been found

“For years, experts believed that Hezekiah erected the walls after witnessing his neighbours, the Kingdom of Israel, get destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. But now a decade-long study has found that it was actually his great-grandfather, King Uzziah, who built the walls after a huge earthquake”. Michael Havis Experts say ancient ruin is proof bible story is real A breakthrough archeological discovery in ancient Jerusalem is proof that a bible story is real, according to experts. Michael Havis - The Sun …. May 6, 2024 - 2:19PM A breakthrough archeological discovery in ancient Jerusalem is proof that a bible story is real, according to experts. A stretch of wall in the original heart of the city was revealed to had been built by King Uzziah, as hinted at in the Bible, The Sun reports. Contrary to popular belief, Hezekiah, who ruled Judah during the 7th and 8th century BC, did not fortify the city to protect it against the invaders. For years, experts believed that Hezekiah erected the walls after witnessing his neighbours, the Kingdom of Israel, get destroyed by the Assyrian Empire. But now a decade-long study has found that it was actually his great-grandfather, King Uzziah, who built the walls after a huge earthquake. Joe Uziel of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) said: “For decades, it was assumed that this wall was built by Hezekiah, King of Judah. “But it is now becoming clear that it dates back to the days of King Uzziah, as hinted at in the Bible. “Until now, many researchers assumed that the wall was built by Hezekiah during his rebellion against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, in order to defend Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. “It is now apparent that the wall in its eastern part, in the area of the City of David, was built earlier, shortly after the great earthquake of Jerusalem, and as part of the construction of the city.” The findings echo the tails from the Old Testament which hinted that Uzziah constructed the wall. In the second Book of Chronicles, a passage described the event: “Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate and at the angle of the wall, and he fortified them.” The religious scripture also detailed the earthquake that rocked the capital 2,800 years ago - which was proven to be a true event after archaeologists unearthed “a layer of destruction” in 2021. The book of Amos reads: “And the Valley in the Hills shall be stopped up, for the Valley of the Hills shall reach only to Azal; it shall be stopped up as it was stopped up as a result of the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah.” The study, a joint project between the IAA, Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute of Science, used carbon-14 dating to determine the origin of the ancient wall. According to the IAA, this period in history was previously considered a “black hole” due to fluctuating levels of the isotope in the atmosphere at the time. However, scientists were able to trace these fluctuations year by year using ancient tree rings from Europe. …. The results have also debunked common beliefs that the city expanded westward during the reign of King Hezekiah - just over 2,700 years ago. …. Yuval Gadot of Tel Avid University said: “The conventional assumption to date has been that the city expanded due to the arrival of refugees from the Kingdom of Israel in the north, following the Assyrian exile. “However, the new findings strengthen the view that Jerusalem grew in size and spread towards Mount Zion already in the ninth century BC. “This was during the reign of King Jehoash – a hundred years before the Assyrian exile. Damien Mackey’s comment: According to my revised history of the Kings of Judah, this “King Jehoash” (Joash) was the same person as King Uzziah, thereby accounting for why Joash himself does not figure in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah https://www.academia.edu/69527823/Early_prophet_Zechariah_may_forge_a_link_with_Joash_Uzziah_of_Judah?uc-sb-sw=11301668 Michael Havis concludes: “In light of this, the new research teaches that the expansion of Jerusalem is a result of internal-Judean demographic growth and the establishment of political and economic systems.” In addition, the city might have been much bigger than experts formerly estimated. ….

Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans damaged our understanding of the past

by Damien F. Mackey “Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings”. Whitney White Following on from my articles: Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? (3) Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and (the six-part series): Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! beginning with: (3) Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (including a critique of Zahi Hawass), I came across an article by Whitney White, entitled: https://web.colby.edu/copiesfakesforgeries/files/2021/05/WHITE.pdf Desire, Expectation, and the Forging of History: A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans Introduction Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are two of the most well-known names in archaeology. Their excavations of Aegean civilizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dramatically influenced our understanding of the Bronze Age world. Though there is overwhelming evidence that at least some of their findings were faked and forged to varying degrees, tourists still flock to view their discoveries and even the most contested objects remain included in art historical canon. This continued mainstream acceptance of Schliemann’s and Evans’ findings has meant that the two are rarely considered within the context of another part of the artworld that they certainly could be associated with: that of forgers. Though the study of art forgers is relatively limited, the existing scholarship has revealed that most forgers have a consistent profile and share similar motivations—which are at odds with those of these amateur archaeologists. The question that emerges, then, is how do Schliemann and Evans fit into our understanding of forgers? In this paper, I argue that, as it stands, the current definition of forgers is far too limited. By introducing psychological understandings of desire and expectation as a new framework for considering the motivations of forgers, our understanding of forgers can be expanded to include Schliemann and Evans and our definition of forgeries can be complicated to critically reexamine the contested objects associated with these men’s excavations. …. Heinrich Schliemann was a hoaxer according to professor William Calder: Behind the Mask of Agamemnon Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999 IS THE MASK A HOAX? For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be: …. For the professor’s “nine reasons”, refer to: https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html Whitney White concludes the article with: Desire-Driven Forgers From these concise overviews, it is clear that while Schliemann and Evans intentionally altered their findings to varying degrees, neither fit the typical forger profile. How, then, can we consider them within this context? It is useful here to explore the characteristic of their excavations that united them the most: each had a strong desire to prove a certain narrative about the past, coupled with the expectation that it was there to be proven. This desire-expectation combination can be used as framework to place these men into the context of art forgers and expand our understanding of forgers in general. Though psychological studies of desire are primarily dedicated to universal, tangible desires, like food and sex, and tend to explore issues related to self-control, the desire to know the past, as suggested by David Lowenthal, is also universal and compelling (Lowenthal 325), and can thus be viewed as functioning like other desires and studied in similar ways. Strong desire, as described by Wilhelm Hofmann, often clouds our judgement and can lead us to act out of character (Hofmann 199). This is especially true when we begin to overthink, as we find ways to justify the actions, however unsavory, we need to take to fulfill our desire (Hofmann 200). As educated men set out to prove a past they felt was (or should be) true, Schliemann and Evans would likely have overthought and justified their actions: in their minds, they were actually benefiting mankind (or at least, Europeans) by proving a past that they really wanted to exist; altering evidence here and there could thus be justified as a necessary means to give the world (and themselves) what it wanted. As Lowenthal explains, “we may be fully conscious, partially and hazily aware, or wholly unconscious of what prompts us to alter the past. Many such changes are unintended; other are undertaken to make a supposed legacy credible . . . The more strenuously we build a desired past, the more we convince ourselves that things really were that way; what ought to have happened becomes what did happen” (Lowenthal 326, emphasis added). The desire to change the past, even when intentional, can bring even those responsible for the changes—the forgers—to convince themselves of their own deceptions. While this, as Lowenthal agrees (Lowenthal 331), separates the desire-driven forger from the typical, revengedriven forger, the fact remains that all forgers nonetheless damage our understanding of the past through intentional deception. It should be noted that desire in this context is also closely tied to expectation. As described by David Huron, who studies the psychology of expectation in relation to music, expectations provoke strong emotional responses. When we successfully predict something we expect to happen, we are rewarded by our brains, and when we unsuccessfully predict something, we experience mental “punishments” (Huron 362). These psychological processes developed from a survival standpoint but can be used to explain behavior in many different contexts. Since Schliemann and Evans so clearly expected to find something that they desired, they perhaps felt the need to make their prediction true even more strongly (unconsciously or not) to avoid the double mental punishment of unfilled desire and incorrect expectation. While it has been established that both Schliemann and Evans were aware of their actions in altering the past at least to some extent, considering the psychology of expectation gives them some benefit of the doubt and further separates them from the typical forger. Conclusion Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings. They thus can be tentatively classed as forgers, albeit of a different kind than are usually dealt with in the artworld. In any case, it is important to recognize that their forgeries, like all others, do indeed damage our understanding of the past. Expanding our understanding of forgers to include those who often slip under the radar because their intention to deceive, though present, is not as insidious, has a broader two-fold effect. First, it makes us more aware of the fact that forgers can exist and cause damage in multiple contexts. Sir Arthur Evans He may have been an inveterate racist, who fabricated a so-called “Minoan” civilisation. See also my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (3) Of Cretans and Phoenicians | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sir Arthur Evans, a tyrannical, dictatorial type, seems to have his like successor in the incompetent Zahi Hawass.

Mighty Assyro-Chaldean kings mistaken for Hittite emperors

by Damien F. Mackey And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Responding to a Brazilian researcher concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II, I concluded that Sennacherib (who actually is my Sargon II) must instead have been writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty: Some Letters from Sennacherib (3) Some Letters from Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I then followed up this article with one on: Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar (3) Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu which enabled me to establish, for Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria, a “contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty”, namely pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’. He, the great pharaoh, would be, I believe, the only contemporary of Sennacherib (Sargon II) to whom the Assyrian king would deign to have shown such deference as to write (Letter # 029): [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed …. in such a way as could suggest a treaty had been established between the mighty pair. Now, with the mention of Ramses II and a treaty with another Great King, one must think only of the famous treaty made between Ramses II and Hattusilis so-called III. And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Obviously there is a lot that must be worked out to solidify this identification. But there appears to be a parallel scenario between (a) Hattusilis, his formidable wife, (b) Pudu-hepa and (c) Tudhaliya so-called IV, on the one hand, and – {in my revision, according to which Sennacherib was succeeded by his (non-biological) son, Esarhaddon, a Chaldean, who is my Nebuchednezzar} - (a) Sennacherib, his formidable wife, (b) Naqī’a (Zakūtu) and (c) Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar). I need to note here that I have multi-identified each (a-c) of this second set. Thus: Sargon II/Sennacherib is, all at once, Tukulti-ninurta; Shamsi-Adad [not I]; Esarhaddon is, all at once, Ashur-bel-kala; Ashurnasirpal; Ashurbanipal; Nebuchednezzar [I and II]; Nabonidus; Artaxerxes of Nehemiah; Cambyses’; Naqia/Zakutu is, all at once, Semiramis (of Tukulti-ninurta’s era); Sammu-ramat; Adad-Guppi. But how can an Assyrian king, or a Chaldean king, become confused as a Hittite? Well, perhaps we may consider a few things here. For example: No such people as the Indo-European Hittites (3) No such people as the Indo-European Hittites | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article I referenced Brock Heathcotte as follows: Brock Heathcotte has written on this in his article “Tugdamme the Hittite” (January 28, 2017): The theory espoused here is that Mursili II and Tugdamme were the same person. This does not mean that his subjects, euphemistically called the “Hittite” people in modern times were ethnic Cimmerians. They almost certainly were a people of many ethnicities including prominently Luwian, based on language. The cold hard fact that has been distorted by decades of talking about the Hittites is that there is no such people as the Hittites. The tablet people we spoke of never called themselves Hittites, and nobody else called them Hittites either at the time. This is actually not controversial. It is just obscured by convention. Academics could argue all day and night about the ethnic composition of the people who lived in Anatolia, and which of them were the rulers we know as the Hittite kings. The argument is not susceptible to resolution, especially not in the current mistaken historical context the Hittites are placed. The rulers called themselves the Great Kings of Hatti. They could be any ethnicity. We should think of “Hittite” as the same sort of location-based moniker for a people as “American.” It doesn’t make sense to say there is an American ethnicity, and it doesn’t make sense to say there is a “Hittite” ethnicity. Americans come in many different ethnicities, as did the Hittites. …. [End of quote] Moreover, some time before I wrote any of this, I had already penned this article about Ashurnasirpal, who is my Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar), a Chaldean: Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal (3) Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu These Assyro-Chaldean kings, who conquered the lands of the Hittites, could easily have assumed titles akin to King of the Hittites. Tudhaliya’s accession like that of Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, Tudhaliya, had no real prospect of succeeding to the throne. The ancient term for someone in that position, not of the royal line, was “son of nobody”. And I found this characteristic in Esarhaddon’s alter egos, having written: …. Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. …. And we read in the following Abstract that that was also the former status of Tudhaliya: https://academic.oup.com/book/36172/chapter-abstract/314550786?redirectedFrom=fulltext Abstract In his early years, the prince Tudhaliya could have had little thought that he would one day become king. But he was installed by Hattusili ‘in kingship’, that is, Tudhaliya probably now assumed the role of crown prince. This chapter examines the career path which Hattusili had mapped out for Tudhaliya in preparation for his becoming king of the Hittites, Puduhepa's effort to arrange her daughter's marriage to Tudhaliya, problems and potential crises inherited by Tudhaliya from Muwattalli as Hittite ruler, political developments in western Anatolia during Tudhaliya's reign, the impact of establishment of a pro-Hittite regime in Milawata on Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia, political problems that arose from the marriage alliance contracted between the royal families of Ugarit and Amurru, Tudhaliya's war with Assyria, possible coup instigated by Kurunta to wrest the throne from his cousin Tudhaliya, Tudhaliya's conquest of Alasiya, and the achievements of Tudhaliya IV as ruler of the Hittite kingdom. The whole thing seems to have been arranged by the formidable Queen, as was the case again with Esarhaddon and his mother Naqī’a/Zakūtu: Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis (3) Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://www.britannica.com/biography/Naqia “[Esarhaddon’s] energetic and designing mother, Zakutu (Naqia), who came from Syria or Judah [sic?], used all her influence on his behalf to override the national party of Assyria”. I would expect now to begin finding many parallels between Esarhaddon/ Nebuchednezzar, in his various guises (alter egos), and the so-called Hittite emperor, Tudhaliya.

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.