Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar II were ‘camera-shy’?

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”.



 



Such is the case according to the article, "Shalmaneser V and Sargon II", at: http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel302/Shalmaneser%20V%20and%20Sargon%20II.htm

.... The revolt of Israel against Assyria during the days of King Hoshea, last king of Israel, brought on a siege by the Assyrians (1 Kings 17). The siege was led by Shalmaneser V, King of Assyria (there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V). During the siege, he died. Sargon II replaced Shalmanezer V as King of Assyria, who finished the siege and sacked Samaria.

 

Whilst that may be surprising in itself, the fact is – I believe - that Shalmaneser (so-called V) was the same person as Tiglath-pileser (known as III) of whom there are plenty of depictions.

 

 

And the lack of apparent portraits of Nebuchednezzar II was part of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s reason for (rightly) seeking to find an alter ego for the Great King (though wrongly, I think, equating him with the Hittite emperor, Hattusilis). Velikovsky wrote in Ramses II and His Time, p. 184: “At Wadi Brissa in Lebanon, Nebuchadnezzar twice had his picture cut in rock; these are supposedly the only known portraits of this king”.

Similar lives, burials for Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah’s reigns are all similar”.

biblegateway

 

Thus we read at biblegateway:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles+27&version=VOICE;MSG&interface=amp

Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah’s reigns are all similar.

Each begins by following God and being rewarded with a powerful reign. Then each sins and is punished with national struggles and an unusual death.

None are [sic] honored with burials among the former kings. These three men exemplify a common theme in Chronicles: you reap what you sow. When they are faithful to God, He is faithful to them. When they abandon God, He destroys them.

[End of quote]
 

Reign (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112315/jewish/Joash-King-of-Judea.htm

“Joash started off his reign in wonderful way, but in his later years when he should have grown wiser, turned away from the right path, to the great distress of his people. But the king paid dearly for his mistakes …. The masses of the people who had risked their lives for him and had loved him, turned away from him. When he fell ill, his servants joined in a conspiracy to get rid of the king who had betrayed them”.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464016/jewish/Amaziah.htm

As soon as Amaziah felt himself secure on the throne of Judea, he slew his father's assassins. However, he abided strictly by the laws of the Torah. He punished only the guilty persons and not their children. In general Amaziah took care not to break any of the traditions and laws of the Jewish faith, although he personally was not up to the religious standards of the pious kings of the House of David.

…. through his rash campaign against Israel, Amaziah lost the prestige he had gained by his victory over Edom. Moreover, he abandoned the worship of G‑d and turned to idolatry. The disaffection among the people grew, and they formed a conspiracy against the king”.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464017/jewish/Uzziah.htm

“Uzziah himself was a pious man, and he observed religiously all the laws and commandments of the Torah, under the proper guidance of the prophets who had appeared in his time, among them, Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and others. But at the height of his successful rule, he committed one unpardonable sin which cost him his name and throne.

In a moment of self-glorification and pride, Uzziah decided to imitate Jeroboam II, and to combine in his own person the supreme political and religious offices. He wanted to be High Priest as well as king. Although the idolatrous Israelites had permitted their king to act as high priest, the pious people of Judea refused to accept this violation of the Torah. Only members of the priestly family of Aaron were permitted to hold this office in the Holy Temple. Uzziah persisted in his demand, although the leading scholars and priests tried in vain to dissuade him. Finally Uzziah forced the issue. He entered the Holy Temple and, over the protest of the High Priest Azariah, started to offer incense on the golden altar. Presently the king was smitten with the most terrible of all maladies, leprosy. He had to leave Jerusalem at once and live in seclusion. Until his death, the stricken king dwelt in a house near the cemetery”.

 

Burial (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)

 

Joash: 2 Chron. 24:25. “And when they were departed from [Joash], (for they left him in great diseases,) his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he died: and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings”.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/p86.htm

“[Amaziah’s] body was returned to Jerusalem and buried in the Royal cemetery”.

 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464017/jewish/Uzziah.htm

“Uzziah was not buried in the tomb of his ancestors, the kings of David's house for he was a leper. He was buried in the royal burial ground, however”.

 

King Ahaz of Judah’s burial followed the same non usual pattern:

2 Chronicles 28:27: “Ahaz rested with his ancestors and was buried in the city of Jerusalem, but he was not placed in the tombs of the kings of Israel”.

What to make of all this?

Given our need for chronological shrinkage, and, more importantly, given that Matthew has omitted Joash and Amaziah of Judah (under those specific names, at least) from his Genealogy of Jesus Christ (1:8-9):

….

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz ….

I have to wonder if any (or even all) of the somewhat similar kings, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah - and even, perhaps, Ahaz - may be duplicates.

Amaziah and Jotham of Judah

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

Part One:

Introductory and explanatory section 

 

King Amaziah of Judah is strangely missing from Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ.

Could Amaziah, though, be a duplicate of another king of Judah, such as Jotham?

 

 

 

Already I had, in my article:

 

'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah

 

https://www.academia.edu/37575781/Taking_aim_on_king_Amon_-_such_a_wicked_king_of_Judah

 

suggested a possible revision of a part of Matthew’s Genealogy, his 1:9-11, from this:

 

…. Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

and Josiah the father of Jeconiah …

 

six kings, now reduced to this:  

 

…. Ahaz [= Amos] the father of Hezekiah [= Josiah],

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh [= Jehoiakim],

Manasseh the father of Amon [= Jehoiachin] …

 

four kings, recognising certain kings (names) as duplicates.

And I believe that the same procedure may perhaps need to be applied as well to a part of what is known as the Divided Kingdom, with some duplicates again needing to be recognised.

This would have the advantage, too, of taking the pressure away from the biological age of:

 

Micaiah and Micah

 

https://www.academia.edu/37630315/Micaiah_and_Micah

 

For I have accepted the Jewish tradition that considers Micaiah and Micah to be the one prophet – despite the seemingly vast time separation (era of Ahab and era of Hezekiah).

See also, most relevant to this, my article:

 

Prophet Jonah's long life of service

 

https://www.academia.edu/37650393/Prophet_Jonahs_long_life_of_service

 

A clue to how a folding of the Divided Kingdom may be achieved could be found in a slightly earlier part of Matthew’s Genealogy, in 1:8-9, in which we do not find the names of kings Joash and Amaziah of Judah, which names we would expect to be interspersed between the names of Jehoram and Uzziah. This is how the New Testament text currently reads (five kings):

 

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz ….

 

whereas we would expect it to read (perhaps discounting Jehoram’s son Ahaziah as the son of a usurper) with at least seven kings:

 

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Joash,

Joash the father of Amaziah,

Amaziah the father of Uzziah,

Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz ….

Part Two:

Some comparisons of Amaziah and Jotham

  

Here I simply take a set of biblical comparisons.

 

 

From 2 Kings 14 and 15:

 

14:1 In the second year of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah began to reign.

15:32 In the second year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign.

14:2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years.

15:33 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years.

 

14:2 His mother’s name was Jehoaddan; she was from Jerusalem.

15:33 His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok.

 

14:3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash.

15:34 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done.

 

14:4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

15:35 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

 

….

 

14:20 He was … buried in Jerusalem with his ancestors, in the City of David.

15:38 Jotham rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David, the city of his father.

 

The maternal names differ, “Jehoaddan” as opposed to “Jersusha”, as do the reign lengths, “twenty-nine years” and “sixteen years”.

 

But, as I have explained in the King Amon article (refer back to Part One), a king’s “mother” can sometimes be his actual aunt, and reign lengths accredited to kings can vary due to co-regencies, which were certainly a major factor in the case of king Jotham of Judah:

 

2 Chronicles 26:21: “King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died. He lived in a separate house—leprous, and banned from the Temple of the Lord. Jotham his son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land”.

 

And in 2 Kings 15:30, twenty years are accredited to Jotham: “Then Hoshea son of Elah conspired against Pekah son of Remaliah. He attacked and assassinated him, and then succeeded him as king in the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah”.

This would make Jotham’s reign contemporaneous also with that of Ahaz according to the following estimate: 

 

(P. 84): “In 2 Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1 there is established the fact that the last year of Pekah, the first of Hoshea, the twelfth of Ahaz and the twentieth of Jotham fall together”.

Part Three:

Amaziah and Jotham and Ahaz

 

Surely we cannot add king Ahaz also to this mix? Or can we?

 

 

Introduction

 

I am not completely sure – but I think that there may be some possibility of adding Ahaz.

 

In my recent article on a revision of the later kings of Judah:

 

'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah

 

https://www.academia.edu/37575781/Taking_aim_on_king_Amon_-_such_a_wicked_king_of_Judah

 

I had toyed with a rough sort of association of the name “Ahaz” with “Amaziah” as follows:

 

This is how (our current) Matthew 1 sets out the relevant series of kings of Judah (vv. 9-11):

 

…. Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

and Josiah the father of Jeconiah …

at the time of the exile to Babylon.

 

Obviously, this is totally different from our proposed:

 

Hezekiah = Josiah;

Manasseh = Jehoiakim;

Amon = Jehoiachin ….

 

Our exit-clause suggestion: “Amon the father of Josiah” needs to be amended to read, as according to the ESV Matthew 1:10: “Amos the father of Josiah”.

“Amos” (Amoz) would then be meant to indicate - at least according to our revision - not Amon (“Amos” being a name entirely different from “Amon”), but Ahaz.

Amos (or Amoz) is a name associated with Amaziah (Abarim Publications), which name, in turn, at least resembles Ahaziah (= Ahaz).

Allowing for our duplicate kings, Matthew 1:9-11 could now read as:

 

…. Ahaz [Amos] the father of Hezekiah [= Josiah],

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh [= Jehoiakim],

Manasseh the father of Amon [= Jehoiachin]

… at the time of the exile to Babylon.

 

With the recognition of these several duplicate kings, then another problem might be solved. Early kings Joash and Amaziah, omitted entirely from Matthew’s Genealogy, and whose combined reigns amounted to some 7 decades, could now be included in Matthew’s list.

 

[End of quote]

 

Though, if Amaziah, for his part, were also Jotham, as hinted at in PART TWO of this series: https://www.academia.edu/37682718/Amaziah_and_Jotham_of_Judah._Part_Two_Some_comparisons_of_Amaziah_and_Jotham?email_work_card=view-paper

then Amaziah would already be there in Matthew’s Genealogy, but under the name of Jotham.

 

We also found in the “king Amon” article (above) that all of the kings of Judah at the time had more than the one name. Now, if Ahaz were also to be identified with king Amaziah of Judah, then this would beautifully account for (and re-inforce my view of) Ahaz also being named Amos:

 

…. Ahaz [Amos] the father of Hezekiah [= Josiah] ….

 

If so, then the king named Amaziah (“Made strong of the Lord”) would have, in the course of his eventful career - and perhaps as he began to fall from grace - come to bear also the name Ahaz (“to seize”, or “grasp”), or Ahaziah.

Whilst Ahaz aligns well with Amaziah-Jotham in some aspects,

in others he may seem to be a rather poor fit.  

  

Returning back to our comparative structure from PART TWO of this series: https://www.academia.edu/37682718/Amaziah_and_Jotham_of_Judah._Part_Two_Some_comparisons_of_Amaziah_and_Jotham?email_work_card=view-paper

we can now test to see how well king Ahaz of Judah fits into the mix.

From 2 Kings 14 and 15 (and now 16):

 

14:1 In the second year of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah began to reign.

15:32 In the second year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign.

16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah, Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.

 

My comment: “Pekah son of Remaliah” at least is a common factor with Jotham, with Ahaz.

And Pekah king of Israel would be Jehoash king of Israel if Amaziah be identified with Jotham.

Whilst in 15:37 we read about Pekah and his ally Rezin as simply a bracketted gloss: “(In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.)”, in the account of Ahaz this is much elaborated upon. For instance (16:5-6): “Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, but they could not overpower him. At that time, Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram by driving out the people of Judah”.

 

14:2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years.

15:33 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years.

16:2 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years.

 

My comment: Obviously I am not scoring well here with numbers: ages or reign lengths, except for the common “sixteen years” for Jotham, for Ahaz.

But with Jotham, at least, there was the peculiar situation of his being a virtual substitute king during the long reign of his leprous father, Uzziah. That may greatly affect the numbers.

 

14:2 His mother’s name was Jehoaddan; she was from Jerusalem.

15:33 His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok.

 

My comment: No mother is actually named in the case of Ahaz.

But that would not matter if he had Amaziah, Jotham, as his alter ego.

 

14:3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash.

15:34 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done.

16:2-4 Unlike David his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree.

 

My comment: Obviously another bad match here – at least on the surface of things.

Whilst Amaziah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”, and Jotham “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”, Ahaz “did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord”.

That, however, needs to be balanced with the fact that Amaziah, whilst initially being a worthy king of Judah, later earned the wrath of the Lord to the extent that he was told by the Lord’s prophet (2 Chronicles 25:16): ‘I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel’.

So, to give a complete picture, although it could have been said of Amaziah in the first part of his reign, that he “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”, the opposite could have been said of him at a later phase, as said of Ahaz, that he “did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord”. This was the case with various of the long-reigning kings of Judah, who, although they made a good start, eventually fell away badly.

Solomon is one classic case of this; Asa, too; and the goodly Uzziah, due to an act of pride, ended up being leprous and even had a holy prophet murdered, Zechariah, the son of the revered Jehoiada.

Amaziah followed a similar pattern, having formerly obeyed a prophet to quite an heroic degree (2 Chronicles 25:7-9), but later threatening to kill a prophet (v. 16): “While [the prophet] was still speaking, the king said to him, ‘Have we appointed you an adviser to the king? Stop! Why be struck down?’

Jotham, for his part, gets off more lightly, with about the only negative note being that, during his reign (2 Chronicles 27:2): “The people, however, continued their corrupt practices”.

But, as we read regarding Amaziah, regarding Jotham:

 

14:4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

15:35 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

 

My comment: These descriptions fit better with Ahaz than did the previous laudatory comments.

As to burial:

 

14:20 He was … buried in Jerusalem with his ancestors, in the City of David.

15:38 Jotham rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David, the city of his father.

16:20 Ahaz rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David.

 

My comment: We can also add these comparisons:

 

14:18 As for the other events of Amaziah’s reign, are they not written in the book of the Annals of the kings of Judah?

15:36 As for the other events of Jotham’s reign, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the Annals of the kings of Judah?

16:19 As for the other events of the reign of Ahaz, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the Annals of the kings of Judah?