King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History

by Damien F. Mackey Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries. With the inadequacies of the Sothic dating upon which the conventional Egyptian chronology has been based (and to which the other nations have been tied) now laid bare, e.g.: Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar http://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar and also The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited and the ground thus cleared for the raising of a scientific chronological model that is not based upon artificial a priori assumptions, revisionist scholars have been able to re-assess the abundant El Amarna [EA] archive to re-determine its proper historical location. One of the EA correspondents who has aroused special interest, owing to the mention of Jerusalem (Urusalim) in connection with him, is the king of that city, Abdi-Hiba (Abdi-Heba), the author of six letters (EA 285-290): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290.[9] 1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem" 2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited" 3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"' 4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect" 5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded" 6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9] Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries. As I have previously written about EA in a general fashion: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/elamarna_period.html#ere EA’s Egyptians Identifying the EA pharaohs is the easiest … challenge as it is almost universally agreed that Amenhotep III and Akhnaton are those who are referred to in the EA correspondence by their throne names, respectively, of Nimmuria (i.e. Nebmare, Nb-m3't-R') and Naphuria (i.e. Neferkheprure, Nfr-hprw-R'). These two pharaohs, having been Sothically dated to the late C15th-early C14th BC, are - from a biblical perspective - usually considered by historians to have pre-dated the arrival of the Israelites in the Promised Land - or at least to have coincided with their arrival there. Thus it is common to read that the habiru rebels who feature prominently in the EA letters were either the Hebrews of the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or perhaps the newly arrived Hebrews (Israelites) under Joshua. …. But To Which Era Do Revisionists Re-Locate EA’s Abdi-Hiba? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We ourselves, set completely free as we are from Sothic theory, are able to begin to zone in on the correct era of Abdi-Hiba, and we are going to find that it is nothing like what the conventional text books say about this king as a ruler of Jerusalem in the mid 1300’s BC, and probably, therefore, corresponding with pharaoh Amenhotep III. In terms of biblical correlation, the era of Abdi-Hiba would be considered to approximate to the Judges period, some would say to the time of Joshua (as said above). Thus: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/joshua.htm The Bible states in Joshua 10:26 that Joshua defeated these kings, captured them and killed them, including the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek. It is very likely that Abdi-Heba and Adoni-Zedek are one [and] the same man. The reason being is that “Adoni-Zedek” is a title rather [than] the actual name of the king. Adoni-Zedek means the “Lord of Zedek,” similar to the name Melchi-Zedek which means “Prince of Zedek,” who was the ruler of Salem according to Genesis 14:18. The Hebrews would have associated this title with the prince of Salem, an early name for the city of Jerusalem. So the letters written by Abdi-Heba, trying to stop the advancing Hebrews [sic], were likely written by either Adoni-Zedek, mentioned in Joshua 10:1, or Adoni-Bezek, another king mentioned in Judges 1:7 who was defeated by Joshua and buried in Jerusalem. The letters from Abdi-Heba seem to have been written to either Amenhotep II or Amenhotep III. Since one of the letters from Abdi-Heba mentions that the pharaoh, whom he was requesting help from, had conquered the land of Naharaim and the land of Cush, this would likely point to Amenhotep II who indeed had military campaigns against both these countries. [End of quote] Evidences would suggest that a Joshuan alignment with the EA Pharaohs is not sustainable. For, two such pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 that spring to mind determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). In other words, the conventional scenario, and any other that would locate the reign of Abdi-Hiba in Jerusalem to a period ante-dating kings David and Solomon, are immediately to be cancelled out as having historical validity (and that even apart from the ramifications of Sothic theory). That means that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision, in which he chronologically re-locates Abdi-Hiba - along with Nimmuria and Naphuria - to the early period of Israel’s Divided Monarchy (about half a millennium after the Joshua/Judges period), is not to be cancelled out at least by our ‘two pieces of evidence’. (i) Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s Pioneering Effort In Dr. Velikovsky’s firm opinion, Abdi-Hiba was to be identified with king Jehoshaphat of Judah. He, reflecting later upon this choice, commented: http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm “In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century)”. In this same article, Dr. Velikovsky made a most significant discovery towards re-setting his revised EA period to the approximate time of King Solomon: The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem In the el-Amarna letters No. 74 and 290 there is reference to a place read (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages in Chaos, following Knudtzon, I understood that the reference was to Assyria (House of Nineveh).(1) I was unaware of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy, printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: “The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem.”(2) From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him.(3) After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”(4) Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu. The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.”(5) It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem.(6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord”,(7) this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of. Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.” The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded. Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. …. Though I cannot locate the exact reference at present, I recall a brief article pointing out that, contrary to Dr. Velikovsky, Beth Šulmán could not properly refer to the actual Temple of Solomon, since this edifice was always referred to as the Temple of Yahweh. So, the better translation of the EA phrase is “House of Solomon”. Now, that accords with contemporary usage, in that we have at least two documented references to the “House of David” (the Tell Dan and the Mesha Moabite Inscription), see André Lemaire at: http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf For a time, this equation of Abdi-Hiba = Jehoshaphat held as the standard amongst revisionists. However, the Glasgow School, in 1978, seriously re-assessed Dr. Velikovsky’s entire EA revision – with, as I believe, some outstanding results. This included a reconsideration of Velikovsky’s corresponding opinion that king Jehoshaphat of Judah’s contemporaneous ruler of Samaria, king Ahab of Israel, was to be identified with the prolific EA correspondent Rib-Addi. (ii) The “Glasgow” School’s Modification of Velikovsky The Glasgow Conference of 1978 gave rise to important contributions by scholars such as Martin Sieff; Geoffrey Gammon; John Bimson; and Peter James. These were able at the time, with a slight modification of Dr. Velikovsky’s dates, to re-set the latter’s revised EA period so that it sat more comfortably within its new C9th BC allocation. Thus pharaoh Akhnaton (Naphuria) now became a contemporary of king Jehoram of Judah (c. 848-841 BC, conventional dating) - and, hence, of the latter’s older contemporary Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dating) - rather than of Dr. Velikovsky’s hopeful choice of Jehoshaphat (c. 870-848 BC, conventional dating) and of king Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dating). Peter James, faced with J. Day’s “Objections to the Revised Chronology” in 1975, in which he had raised this fundamental objection to Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Abdi-Hiba with Jehoshaphat (ISG Newsletter 2, 9ff): Velikovsky claims that Abdi-Hiba, king of Jerusalem, is to be equated with Jehoshaphat. Abdi-Hiba means ‘servant of Hiba’ - Hiba being the name of a Hittite goddess. Can one really believe that Jehoshaphat, whom the Old Testament praises for his loyalty to the Israelite god, could also have borne this name involving a Hittite goddess? plus James’s own growing belief that the lowering of the date of the EA letters (within a revised model) was demanded by “several chronological and other considerations ...”, arrived at his own excellent comparison of Abdi-Hiba with king Jehoram of Judah. I give only his conclusion here, with which I fully concur, whilst recommending that one reads James’s full comparisons (“The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters”, SIS Review, Vol. II, No. 3 (London, 1977/78), 84): To sum up: the disasters that befell Jehoram of Judah and Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem were identical. Both suffered revolts of their subject territories from Philistia to Edom. During the reign of both the Philistines invaded and swept right across Judah, entering Jerusalem itself, in concert with the sack of the king’s palace by “men of the land of Kaši” or men “that were near the Cushites”. These peculiar circumstances could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of five hundred years. It is clear that Velikovsky’s general placement of the el-Amarna letters in the mid-ninth century must be correct, and that the modification of his original model suggested here, that Abdi-Hiba was Jehoram rather than Jehoshaphat, is preferable. [End of quote] Rib-Addi, for his part, could not have been king Ahab of Israel, Glasgow well determined. Dr. Velikovsky had been wrong in his proposing that the Sumur mentioned in relation to Rib-Addi (though not necessarily even his city, it has since been suggested) was Samaria, when Sumur is generally regarded as referring to Simyra, north of Byblos on the Syrian coast. David Rohl’s Intriguing Angle on EA Whilst I personally fully accept the Glasgow School’s basic conclusions about Abdi-Hiba and Rib-Addi, those, generally, who had worked these out went on later to disown them completely. James would team up with David Rohl to devise a so-called New Chronology, that I find to be a kind of ‘No-Man’s-Land revision’ hovering awkwardly mid-way between convention land and real base. Rohl, in The Lost Testament, would re-locate EA back from Dr. Velikovsky’s Divided Monarchy, where (when modified) I think that it properly belongs, to the time of the Unified Monarchy of kings Saul and David. Rohl will, like Dr. Velikovsky, propose an EA identification for a king of Israel, but it will be for Saul rather than for the later king Ahab. According to Rohl, king Saul is to be identified with EA’s Labayu, generally considered to have been a local ruler in Canaan. And Rohl identifies David with the Dadua (“Tadua”) who is referred to in EA 256. For Rohl, Abdi-Hiba is now a Jebusite ruler of Jebus/Jerusalem. Dr. Rohl is extremely competent and his reconstructions are generally most interesting to read. However, his EA revision, locating Abdi-Hiba as it does as an early contemporary of David’s, who is defeated by the latter, cannot therefore discern in EA’s Beth Shulman any sort of reference to David’s son, Solomon. Moreover, Rohl’s revision may have difficulty accounting for the fact that the name Urusalim (Jerusalem) occurs in the letters of Abdi-Hiba, supposedly a Jebusite king ruling over Jebus, but apparently known to David as Jerusalem (I Chronicles 11:4). Conclusion Whilst the New Chronology is superficially impressive, it, based as it is upon rocky ground, fails to yield the abundant fruit that arises from the fertile soil of a modified Velikovskian EA. James’s erstwhile identification of EA’s Abdi-Hiba as king Jehoram of Jerusalem not only yields some impressively exact comparisons between these two, supposedly separate, historical characters, but it is also able to accommodate most comfortably (chronologically) those two EA evidences of Shulman (Solomon) and Urusalim (Jerusalem). Hence EA’s Abdi-Hiba = King Jehoram of Judah is worthy to be regarded now as a firm pillar of the revised chronology, from which fixed standpoint one is able to generate a very convincing series of further correlations between EA and the particular biblical era. Peter James has thereby provided the definitive answer to the questions that I posed earlier: Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? With whom was Abdi-hiba corresponding? Abdi-hiba “also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king”.” The question is: which “king”? The following would be a typical view of the El Amarna [EA] situation of Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem (“Urusalim”), that he was a C14th BC Canaanite king enthroned by a pharaoh: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/jerusalem-in-the-amarna-letters.aspx Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters by Christopher Rollston The Amarna Letters are a group of inscribed clay tablets discovered around 1887 at Amarna, a site in Egypt on the east bank of the Nile about 190 miles south of Cairo. The city was founded by the Egyptian king (pharaoh) Amenhotep IV, who later became known as Akhenaten. Akhenaten was known as a heretic king; he worshiped only the Egyptian god Aten, perhaps becoming history’s first monotheist, and he apparently attempted (unsuccessfully) to impose this monotheism on Egyptian religion more broadly. The tablets total almost 400 in number and are written (almost without exception) in Akkadian. Most of these letters come from vassal cities in Syria-Palestine, including Byblos, Tyre, Gezer, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Ashkelon, Megiddo, and Jerusalem, and contain diplomatic correspondence with officials in Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni (an area of northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia), Alashia (Cyprus), and Hatti (central Anatolia). They date to the 14th century B.C.E., primarily to the reigns of the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III (reigned circa 1382–1344 B.C.E.) and Amenhotep IV (reigned circa 1352–1336 B.C.E.). The letters from Jerusalem (written as “Urusalim” in the Amarna texts) are from a Canaanite ruler named Abdi-Heba. He states that he is a “soldier for the king, my lord” and requests that the Egyptian monarch send him a messenger and some military men to help resist his enemies. In multiple letters he states that he “falls at the feet of my lord the king, seven times and seven times,” a stock phrase and common ancient Near Eastern motif that conveys his faithfulness to his Egyptian suzerain. He also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king.” Here Abdi-Heba reveals that he was not the heir to the throne but given the throne of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king himself. He goes on to state that for this reason he will always be a faithful vassal of his Egyptian lord, regardless of any accusation by an enemy to the contrary. Among the enemies he refers to in his correspondence are the “Apiru” (people living on the fringes of society in the second millennium B.C.E., sometimes serving as mercenaries) and the Kashites (a Hittite people from Anatolia). The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem have attracted substantial attention because of their dialect. It is normally argued that they are quite different in terms of cuneiform signs used, orthography, and syntax from the rest of the letters from Canaanite cities¾more sophisticated in certain ways, which may indicate the scribal culture at Jerusalem was of a particularly high quality. The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem are of interest for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they come from Jerusalem a few centuries before King David would ostensibly vanquish the Canaanite (Jebusite) population of Jerusalem and make it his own capital (2 Samuel 5). Also, the correspondence with a Jerusalem ruler in the 14th century provides evidence for occupation in the city in a period (Late Bronze Age II) for which there is little archaeological evidence. Recently a fragment of an Akkadian tablet (now called “Jerusalem Tablet 1) was found in excavations at Jerusalem, and some scholars have claimed that this tablet contained some correspondence between a king of Jerusalem and a king of Egypt. But this tablet is ultimately too fragmentary to determine if it was a letter. Among the most important things that these tablets demonstrate is that there was a vibrant and sophisticated scribal apparatus in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age. This Canaanite city was certainly not a backwater, but precisely the reverse. [End of quote] In terms of the revised chronology, however, Abdi-hiba was instead a C9th BC Jewish king of Jerusalem – a name not known for the city during the C14th BC, when it was called Jebus. And, in terms of the revised chronology that I follow specifically in the case of Abdi-hiba (following an early idea of Peter James), he was a biblical king, namely, Jehoram of Judah, son of the great king Jehoshaphat. To establish who may have set Abdi-hiba on his royal throne, as indicated by him in EA 286: Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king brought me into my father’s house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord? - and one presumes from the above that it could not have been king Jehoshaphat himself - might the better be determined by an examination of who was/were the recipient/s of his letters (EA 285-290). EA Letters of Abdi-Hiba “Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba 1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem" 2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited" 3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"' 4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect" 5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded" 6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9] One is most surprised to find out, upon perusing these letters of Abdi-hiba, that - despite Rollston’s presumption that Abdi-hiba’s “the king, my lord” was an “Egyptian monarch” - no Egyptian ruler appears to be specifically named in this set of letters. Moreover, “Egypt” itself may be referred to only once in this series (EA 285): “ … Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri)”. When we include the lack of any reference to Egypt in the three letters of Lab’ayu (252-254): Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh? (8) Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and likewise in the two letters of the woman, Baalat Neše - ten letters in all - then we might be prompted to reconsider whether the extent of Egyptian involvement was as much as is generally claimed. EA 285 is as follows: To the king [my lord, thus hath spoken] Abdi-{iiba, thy servant. [At] the feet [of the king, my lord], seven times and seven times I fall. Behold, I am not a [loeal ruler] ; an officer am I to the [king, my lord]. Why has the king . . . not sent a messenger . . A Under sueh cireum- stanees Eenjiamu has sent. . . . Let the king [hearken] to Abdi-Juba, his servant! [Behold], there are no troops. Let the king, my lord, send an officer, and let him take the loeal rulers with him! The lands of the king . . . and people . . . who are . . . and Addaya, the offieer of the king, [has] their house. . . . Let the king take heed for them, and let him send a messenger quiekly When ... I die. . . . Letter from Lachish (Constantinople, W. 21 9). 2 [To the] great, thus hath spoken Pabi, at thy feet I fall. Thou must know that Shipti-Ba'al and Zimrida are eon- spiring, and that Shipti-Ba'al hath spoken to Zimrida: " My father of the eity, Yarami (?) has written to me — Give me [six] bows, and three daggers, and three swords ! If I go forth against the land of the king, and thou dost join me, I shall surely conquer. He who makes (?) this plan is Pabu. Send him before me. w Now I have sent Rapi-el. Ho will bring to the great man information about this affair (?) EA 286 is as follows: --Say [t]o the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord, the king, 7 times and 7 times. (5-15)--What have I done to the king, my lord? They denounce me : ú-ša-a-ru[2] (I am slandered) before the king, my lord,1 "Abdi-Heba has rebelled against the king, his lord." Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king2 brought me into my father's house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord? (16-21)--As truly as the king, my lord, lives,3 I say to the commissioner of the king, [my] lord, "Why do you love the 'Apiru but hate the mayors? Accordingly, I am slandered before the king, my lord. (22-31)--Because I say4 "Lost are the lands of the king, my lord," accordingly I am slandered before the king, my lord. May the king, my lord, know that (though) the king, my lord stationed a garrison (here), Enhamu has taken i[t al]l away. [ ... ] Reverse: (32-43)--[Now], O king, my lord, [there is n]o garrison, [and so] may the king provide for his land. May the king [pro]vide for his land! All the [la]nds of the king, my lord, have deserted. Ili-Milku has caused the loss of all the land of the king, and so may the king, my lord, provide for his land. For my part, I say, "I would go in to the king, my lord, and visit the king, my lord," but the war against me is severe, and so I am not able to go in to the king, my lord. (44-52)--And may it seem good in the sight of the king, [and] may he send a garrison so I may go in and visit the king, my lord. In truth,5 the king, my lord, lives: whenever the commissioners have come out, I would say (to them), "Lost are the lands of the king," but they did not listen to me. Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord. (53-60)--May the king turn his attention to the archers so that archers of the king, my lord, come forth. The king has no lands. (That) 'Apiru6 has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain. But if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king, my lord. (61-64)--[T]o the scribe of the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your [ser]vant. Present eloquent words to the king, my lord. Lost are all the lands of the king, my lord. EA 287 is as follows: Say to the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 7 times and 7 times. Consider the entire affair. Milkilu and Tagi brought troops into Qiltu against me... ...May the king know (that) all the lands are at peace (with one another), but I am at war. May the king provide for his land. Consider the lands of Gazru, Ašqaluna, and Lakisi. They have given them [my enemies] food, oil and any other requirement. So may the king provide for archers and send the archers against men that commit crimes against the king, my lord. If this year there are archers, then the lands and the hazzanu (client kings) will belong to the king, my lord. But if there are no archers, then the king will have neither lands nor hazzanu. Consider Jerusalem! This neither my father nor my mother gave to me. The strong hand (arm) of the king gave it to me. Consider the deed! This is the deed of Milkilu and the deed of the sons of Lab'ayu, who have given the land of the king to the 'Apiru. Consider, O king, my lord! I am in the right!.... EA 288 is as follows: To the king, my lord, my sun, hath spoken thus Abdi- hiba, thy servant. At the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times do I fall. Behold, the king, my lord, hath set his name upon the East and upon the West. It is a wickedness which they have wrought against me. Behold, I am not a local ruler, I am an officer 2 of the king, my lord. Behold, I am a shepherd of the king, and one who brings tribute to the king. Neither my father, nor my mother, [but] the mighty hand of the king, hath established me in my father's house . . . came to me. . . . I gave him ten slaves into his hand. When Shuta, the officer of the king, came to me, I gave him twenty-one maidservants and eighty (?) asiru . . . gave I into the hand of Shtita, as a present for the king, my lord. Let the king care for his land I The whole land of the king will be lost. They have assumed hostilities against me (?) As far as tho territory of Sheri, as far as Ginti-kirmil, it goes well with all the local rulers (?), and hostility prevails against mc. If one could see ! 3 But I do not see the eyes of tho king, my lord, because hostility is established against me. When there was a ship on the sea, and the mighty hand of the king held Najjrima and Kapasi. But now the habiru hold the cities of the king. There is no local ruler left to the king, my lord ; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu has been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet tho king docs nothing. Behold, Zimrida of Lachish, his servants havo slaughtered him . . . the Habiru, Iaptiji-Adda, has been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet the king does nothing. . . . l Let the king take care for his land, and let the king give his attention in regard to troops for the land of tribute (?) 1 For if no troops come in this year, all the lands of the king, my lord, will be destroyed and in ruins. They must not say before the king, my lord, that the land of the king, my lord, is destroyed, and all the local rulers are destroyed. If no troops arrive in this year, then let the king send an officer to take mo to thee with my brothers, and wo will die with the king, my lord. EA 289 is as follows: Lines 1-4)--[Say t]o the king, my lord: Message of 'Abdi-Heba, your servant. I f[all] at the feet of my lord, the k[ing], 7 times and 7 times. (5-10)Milkilu does not break away from the sons of Labaya and from the sons of Arsawa, as they desire the land of the king for themselves. As for a mayor who does such a deed, why does the king not (c)all him to account? (11-17)--Such was the deed that Milkilu and Tagi did: they took Rubutu. And now as for Jerusalem-(URUUru-Salimki), if this land belongs to the king, why is it ((not)) of concern1 to the king like Hazzatu? (18-24)--Ginti-kirmil belongs to Tagi, and men of Gintu are the garrison in Bitsanu.2 Are we to act like Labaya when he was giving the land of Šakmu to the Hapiru? (25-36)--Milkilu has written to Tagi and the sons ((of Labaya)), "Be the both of you a protection.3 Grant all their demands to the men of Qiltu, and let us isolate Jerusalem."4 Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri). May the king, my lord, know (that) no garrison of the king is with me. (37-44)--Accordingly, as truly as the king lives, his irpi- official,5 Pu'uru, has left me and is in Hazzatu. (May the king call (this) to mind when be arrives.)6 And so may the king send 50 men as a garrison to protect the land. The entire land of the king has deser[ted]. (45-46)--Send Ye((eh))enhamu that he may know about the land of the king, [my lord]. (47-51)--To the scribe of the king, [my lord: M]essage of 'Abdi-Heba, [your] servant, Offer eloq[uent] words to the king: I am always, utterly yours.7 I am your servant.— EA 290 is as follows: Let it be known what Milkilu and Shuwardata did to the land of the king, my lord! They sent troops of Gezer, troops of Gath . . . the land of the king went over to the ‘Apiru. But now even a town near Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi (Bethlehem) by name, a village which once belonged to the king, has fallen to the enemy . . . Let the king hear the words of your servant Abdi-Heba, and send archers to restore the imperial lands of the king! But if no archers are sent, the lands of the king will be taken by the 'Apiru people. This act was done by the hand of Milkilu and Shuwardata. Good Correspondence Between EA and Revision According to 2 Kings 8:16-17: “In the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began his reign as king of Judah. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years”. In favour of Abdi-hiba as king Jehoram of Judah, and Lab’ayu as Ahab of Israel, is the fact that Lab’ayu is appropriately dead by the time of Abdi-hiba. Thus EA 280: Say to the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Shuwardata, your servant, the dirt at your feet. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, 7 times and 7 times. The king, my lord, permitted me to wage war against Qeltu (Keilah). I waged war. It is now at peace with me; my city is restored to me. Why did Abdi-Heba write to the men of Qeltu, "Accept silver and follow me?"... Moreover, Labaya, who used to take our towns, is dead, but now another Labaya is Abdi-Heba, and he seizes our town. So, may the king take cognizance of his servant because of this deed... Interestingly, Abdi-hiba is being designated here as “another Labaya”. And (EA 287) “the sons of Lab'ayu”, are now active in place of their deceased father. Jehoram of Judah, who, according to P. Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) was both prorex and corex during the latter part of his father Jehoshapat’s reign (and had three regnal beginnings), was also a contemporary, then, of the two sons of Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram – these being, according to my revision, “the sons of Lab'ayu”.