Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah
(i): Analogies with Moses
[Continued from
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Elijah, your miracles were marvelous! No
one else can boast of such deeds! In the name of the Most
High, you brought a dead man back to life. You brought a famous king down to
sickness and death. At Sinai you heard the Lord rebuke you and declare his
determination to punish his enemies. You anointed a king to be the instrument of that
punishment, and a prophet to take your place”.
Sirach
48:4-8
In the footsteps
of Moses
Professor Emmanuel Anati has detected that
the Elijah “narrative
reveals several analogies with the story of Moses” (The Mountain of God: Har Karkom, Rizzoli,
NY, pp. 241-242):
“The only other person who, according to the
Bible, ever climbed up on the Mountain of God, even while recognizing its
identity, was the prophet Elijah. In fact, he arrived there in much the same
way as Moses had, having fled punishment after killing a man, as Moses had when
he first came into the land of Midian. Elijah also fed himself on bread-like
cakes that he found quite miraculously (which recalls the episode with the
manna during the Exodus) and he also walked across the desert for forty days in
order to reach the mountain, which was his goal (I K 19:3-8). “… he reached
Horeb, the mountain of God. There he went into the cave and spent the night in
it. Then the word of Yahweh came to him saying, ‘What are you doing here
Elijah?’ …” (I K 19:8-9). ‘Go out and stand on the mountain before Yahweh …” (I
K 19:11).
The
narrative reveals several analogies with the story of Moses when he arrived at
the “Mountain of God”. The same ingredients are used in both contexts: the
flight in the desert, the food miraculously provided by the heavens, the cave
or crevice, the presence of God on the mountain, the special characteristic of
the mountain as the place where God reveals himself, the revelation through the
voice of God and natural phenomena.
All
these elements are repeated in both stories. Elijah spent the night in the cave
on the mountaintop and was awakened by the voice of Yahweh: ‘What are you doing
here?’, that is, how could you dare to climb up this mountain?
… Elijah
seems to be repeating, in his visit to the mountain in order to communicate
with God, the experience that Moses had many centuries before”.
At the Transfiguration of
Jesus
At a
much later time, Moses and Elijah will be united together on a mountain, with
Jesus Christ, on the Mount of Transfiguration.
And they
will speak of, of all things, an ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:28-31):
“About eight days after Jesus said this,
he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As
he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as
bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and
Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure [Greek ‘exodos’: ἔξοδος],
which He was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem”.
Iron Age archaeology at Har Karkom
Professor Anati has made this observation re
Elijah’s sojourn in the region (“Har Karkom”: http://www.harkarkom.com/Discoveries.php?more=all
“Another peculiar
coincidence occurs between the biblical description of Mount Sinai and the
archaeological sequence at Har Karkom, which once again seems to correspond to
biblical accounts. According to the Bible, it was centuries after Moses left
Mount Sinai with the children of Israel that the first visitor returned to the
mountain. This was the prophet Elijah: "He arose, and did eat and drink,
and went in the strength of that meal forty days and forty nights to Horeb the
mountain of God. And he came there to a cave and lodged there" (I Kings
19:9). The archaeological survey at Har Karkom indicates a long interval
between the end of the BAC period and the first Iron Age settlement, which goes
back to the ninth century BC (site HK 173). Elijah lived during the reign of
King Ahab (876-854 BC). …”.
For a very different biblical era, professor Anati believes that he may have found the temporary burial spot of Joseph.
Joseph's temporary burial
place?
…. You can see the pile of
rocks in the panorama photo above directly in front of the two camera men, is
Joseph's temporary tomb and in the close up in the photo below. We know that
the Israelites carried Joseph's body with them from Egypt, to Mt. Sinai and on
to the promised land 40 years later. If this really was Joseph's temporary
tomb, we feel that the Israelites would certainly have remembered it and never
used the plateau for a flint workshop. There are many large plateaus on top of
Mt. Karkom in other locations where they would have set up their workshop that is
littered with broken pieces and discards. Further, it is difficult to say what
the pile of rocks were used for. It looks like a fire pit, although there is no
evidence we saw of the rocks being burnt. ....
Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah
(ii): The ‘Sinai Commission’
“The Lord said to him, ‘Go back the way
you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael
king over Aram. Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over
Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as
prophet. Jehu will put to
death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who
escape the sword of Jehu’.”
I Kings
19:15-17
Yahweh would now, at Mount Sinai, sow the
seeds for an entirely new régime to prevail throughout the region of
Syro-Palestine - one that would see the complete annihilation of the House of
Ahab and the emergence of some new, powerful and long-lived personages.
Terms and Characters of the Sinai Commission
I wrote about this in some detail in my
university thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
(Volume One,
beginning on p. 96):
Introduction
This
chapter [4] will be built largely around the terms of the Sinai commission to
the prophet
Elijah
… (1 Kings 19:15-17):
Then the Lord
said to [Elijah], ‘Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when
you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael … as king over Aram. Also you shall anoint
Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha son of
Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place. Whoever escapes from the
sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu,
Elisha shall kill …’.
Thus
Hazael, Jehu and Elisha were to form a triumvirate to wipe out the House of
Ahab and to eradicate the worship of Baal in the region. … the three were to
become … men of great fame and renown. Velikovsky had already ‘enlarged’ Hazael
by his identifying of him with EA’s Aziru, son
of Abdi-ashirta. And we saw in
significant detail in the previous chapter just how mighty and influential this
Abdi-ashirta was, particularly at the peak of
his power.
Velikovsky
had also, in his discussion of idioms that he thought were common to EA and the
Old Testament, referred to certain texts culminating in the prophet Elisha’s
weeping at the prospect of the mighty deeds – but terrible to Israel – that
Hazael would accomplish. He had observed that certain idiomatic phrases in the
EA correspondence occurred again in the Old Testament for the C9th BC. For
instance, the use of the term ‘brother’, or ‘my [thy] brother’, was, as we have
seen, very common amongst the more powerful of the EA kings. Another recurring
EA idiom was the use of the term/phrase: ‘[a] [the] dog[s]’. Velikovsky had
noted for instance in regard to Hazael of Syria’s reply to the prophet Elisha,
‘… is thy servant a dog [כִּי מָה עַבְדְּךָ
הַכֶּלֶב], that he should do this great thing?’,
when Elisha had foretold that Hazael would set on fire Israel’s strongholds (2
Kings 8:13), that:
[Hazael’s]
expression, ‘is thy servant a dog ...?’ which incidentally escaped oblivion,
was a typical figure of speech at the time of the el-Amarna letters. Many chieftains
and governors concluded their letters with the sentence: ‘Is thy servant
a dog that he
shall not hear the words of the king, the lord?’
Velikovsky
found the idiom used again by Rib-Addi of
Gubla with reference to Aziru
and his father Abdi-Ashirta:
Letter 125:
Aziru has again oppressed me …. My cities belong to Aziru, and he seeks after
me … What are the dogs, the sons of Abdi-Ashirta, that they act according to
their heart’s wish, and cause the cities of the king to go up in smoke?
Whilst
that was an encouraging find, some of these idioms - including the two just mentioned
(‘am I a dog’ and ‘[my] brother’) - were also used at the time of kings David and
Solomon (cf. 1 Samuel 17:43 & 1 Kings 9:13), and the second at least is
found again in the C6th BC Lachish letters, a fair spread of time of about half
a millennium; so these idioms apparently were not peculiar to EA. I had also
pointed out that ‘brother’ was a term used by Iarim-Lim of
Iamkhad to the prince of Dêr in
Mesopotamia; though not in a fraternal, but in a threatening, business-like
context.
Velikovsky,
as we saw earlier, had quoted another EA letter, too, in connection with the Old
Testament, in which Rib-Addi had reported
that Abdi-Ashirta had
fallen seriously ill:
Letter 95:
Abdi-Ashirta is very sick, who knows but that he will die?
About
which Velikovsky commented: “He died on his sickbed, but not from his disease; he
was killed”. Then, connecting all this with Elisha’s statement, Velikovsky was
able to make this most striking observation:
In the only
dialogue preserved in the Scriptures in which Hazael participates, there are
three turns of speech that also appear in his [EA] letters. The context of the
dialogue - the question of whether the king of Damascus would survive, and the
statement that he, Hazael, the new king, would cause the cities of Israel to go
up in smoke - is also preserved in the el-Amarna letters. It is therefore a
precious example of the authenticity of the scriptural orations and dialogues. ….
Slaughter of the Baalists
The prophet Elijah himself had already set the ball
rolling with his ordering of the destruction of the “four
hundred and fifty prophets” of Baal (1 Kings 18:22) at Mount Carmel
after his triumph over them there (18:40): “Then Elijah
commanded them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!’ They
seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and
slaughtered there”. This incident took place during the third year
of a severe famine (18:1).
It also precipitated
Elijah’s flight to Sinai, due to a threat to him from Queen Jezebel (19:1-2): “Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had
killed all the prophets with the sword. So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, ‘May the gods deal
with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your
life like that of one of them’.”
King
Hazael of Damascus who would have a
very long career of seemingly continuous warfare has left us a most important
document that - together with the celebrated Moabite Stele of king Mesha (our biblical
Hiel) also confirms the historical existence of David’s Kingdom that had, by
the time of Hazael, become involved with the House of Ahab - for which
involvement it would suffer severely at the hands of the Syrian king. We read
of it, for instance, at: https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/king-david-and-the-foundations-of-solomons-
“… some of the Biblical
minimalist historians have claimed that King David was either mythical, or if
he existed at all, then he and Solomon, were merely pastoral clan chieftains
rather than the rulers of a rich and impressive kingdom. This view was discredited
by the discovery of the Tell Dan stele in 1993 and the decipherment of part of
the inscription on the Moabite Stone by the French linguist, Andre Lemaire, in
1994. The Tell Dan stele had been put up by King Hazael of Damascus to
commemorate his victory over northern Israel. In it Hazael claims that he
defeated ”[Jeho]ram king of Israel and kill[ed Ahaz]yahu son of (gap) [I
overthr]ew the house of David”. The Moabite Stone was put up by King Mesha of
Moab to celebrate his successful rebellion against Israel’s king Ahab, during
which Mesha had sacrificed his own son to the Moabite national god, Chemosh.
The Stone was broken up into small fragments by the bedouin, who found it in
order to gain more money from European archaeologists. Studying a 19th century copy
of the text before it was smashed, Lemaire found a reference to the ‘House of
David’. Literary examination of the Biblical texts shows that much of this was
written either in David’s or Solomon’s time, and so represents a reliable
witness to the events of their reigns. …”.
Dr. Velikovsky had
historically - and correctly, I believe - identified Hazael king of Syria
(Aram) with EA’s Aziru king of Amurru.
And we have read
above how well the biblical Hazael, and Aziru,
seem to correspond (idiomatically, etc.) in respective texts.
According to
Velikovsky, Hazael, son of Ben-Hadad I was, in EA terms, the same person as Aziru, son of Abdi-ashirta.
I have fully
embraced these equations in the past. But what has worried me a bit recently is
a particular interpretation of EA 101 (and there are several), according to
which “the pirates of Amurru killed Abdi-Aširta …”.
“But”, according
to Trevor Bryce regarding Abdi-ashirta
(The
Kingdom of the Hittites, p. 170):
“… mystery
surrounds his ultimate
fate. In a letter probably written by
Rib-Hadda to Akhenaten,
we may have a reference to his death.
…. According to one interpretation, the letter
states (without giving details): 'They have killed Abdi-Ashirta. (EA 101: 29–30, trans. Moran
(1992: 174)). An alternative interpretation reads:
'They will defeat Abdi-Ashirta’. …. In either
case the precise details of the renegade's end remain unknown. Was he
assassinated by dissidents amongst
his own countrymen, … or by officers of the pharaoh acting on their own initiative? …. Did
he die of natural causes
after a serious illness? …. Or was he in fact taken to Egypt by the Egyptian
task force which reoccupied Sumur? …. The likelihood is that he did in fact overstep the limits of Egyptian patience, and that the pharaoh did finally respond to Rib-Hadda's appeals, and ordered
the reassertion of Egyptian
control over the territories occupied by Abdi-Ashirta – and the permanent
removal of Abdi-Ashirta from the scene. …”.
With Bryce’s: “Was he assassinated by dissidents amongst his own countrymen,
… or by officers of the pharaoh acting
on their own initiative?”, there is good scope for Velikovsky’s view
that Abdi-ashirta was removed in the
fashion of the biblical Ben-Hadad I, by his son-successor, Aziru-Hazael.
In the Tell Dan
inscription, Hazael the Syrian gives himself credit for some of the bloody work
done by Jehu, who personally killed
Jehoram of Israel and who also had Ahaziah of Judah slain (2 Kings 9:14-29).
Jehu also oversaw
the death of Queen Jezebel described in a passage that has all the vividness of
eye-witness detail (vv. 30-37).
He then wiped out
all of Ahab’s family (10:1-14): “He left no survivor”.
And, finally, he
wiped out all of the servants of Baal (vv. 18-28).
Jehu was a bloody
king indeed.
Despite all of
this (vv. 32-33): “In those days the Lord began to reduce the size of Israel. Hazael overpowered the
Israelites throughout their territory east of the Jordan in all the land of Gilead (the region of Gad,
Reuben and Manasseh), from Aroer by the Arnon Gorge through Gilead to Bashan”.
Some very
significant questions arise from all of this.
Jehu, who wiped
out the House of Ahab, son of Omri, is supposed to be referred to in the famous
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria, as himself a “son of Omri”.
So: Did Jehu kill his own family?
And, if Shalmaneser
III (859-824 BC, conventional dating) straddles the middle of the C9th BC,
where Velikovsky – and I, following him – have re-located El Amarna, then:
Why isn’t Shlamaneser III mentioned anywhere in EA?
Or is he?
And what of Elisha - whom did he “kill”?
For, as I wrote in
my thesis (p. 116): Finally, what about Elisha, who was
commissioned to “kill” (יָמִית) those who would manage to escape the carnage wrought by Hazael
and Jehu?
I
Kings 22:21-23
Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah
(iii): Death of King Ahab
“But someone drew his bow at random and hit
the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot
driver, ‘Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded’.”
I Kings
22:34
Who killed King Ahab?
According to Rabbinical legend it was (as we
shall read) Na’aman the Syrian.
King Ahab had, after a period of triumph when
he managed to defeat the oppressive Ben-Hadad I - and had ruthlessly acquired
the vineyard of Naboth - looked to make yet further inroads against the Syrians
in an alliance with the pious king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, to take back Ramoth-gilead.
By now, however, the prophetic word lay
heavily against King Ahab and his wife, Jezebel.
Before the prophet Micaiah had foretold to
Ahab that he would not survive Ramoth-gilead (I Kings 22:28): “Micaiah
declared, ‘If you ever return safely, the Lord
has not spoken through me’”, the prophet Elijah had announced to him the
fall of the House of Ahab owing to the Naboth incident (21:20-25):
“… the Lord … says, ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will
wipe out your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave
or free. I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of
Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have aroused my anger and have caused Israel
to sin.’
“And also concerning Jezebel the Lord says: ‘Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel. Dogs will
eat those belonging to Ahab who die in the city, and the birds will feed on
those who die in the country’.
(There was never
anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by
Jezebel his wife. He behaved in
the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel.)”
We are then surprised to read straight after
this, from the God of surprises (vv. 28-29): “Then the word of
the Lord
came to Elijah the Tishbite: ‘Have
you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled
himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his
house in the days of his son’.”
Na’aman Kills Ahab?
Dr. I. Velikovsky seems to have scored some
hits and some misses in his attempts, in the series Ages in Chaos, to identify characters who figure in the El Amarna
[EA] correspondence (re-dated downwards by Velikovsky from the conventionally
estimated C14th, to the C9th BC) with biblical figures.
One of his promising efforts was, so it seems
to me, his proposed identification of the prominent Ianhamu of EA with the
biblical Na’aman (Hebrew: נַעֲמָן), famously
cured by the prophet Elisha of his leprosy.
Velikovsky had referred
to a couple of facts in the Na’aman story that he thought seemed “somewhat
strange”:
“In … the
[Naaman] story, two facts are somewhat strange. First, inasmuch as Ben-Hadad
himself was at the head of the thirty-two captains of his army, why, in the
story of the wondrous healing, is the deliverance of Syria credited to a
captain Naaman? Second, the king of Israel was a lifelong rival of the king of
Damascus. Why, then, did this request to cure a sick captain inspire in the
king of Israel such a dread that he rent his clothes?”
From this it
would appear that Velikovsky considered that the King of Israel approached by
Na’aman for his cure was Ahab. Other commentators suggest Jehoram (a favoured
candidate) or Jehu.
Velikovsky next proposed
his identification for this Naaman in the EA Letters:
“For an
explanation of the real role of this captain Naaman we shall look to the contemporaneous
letters. A man by whom Syria received deliverance must be identifiable in the
letters. We recognize him in the person of Ianhama, called also Iaanhamu … the
pharaoh’s deputy in Syria, [who] was sent to the king of Damascus with
prerogatives similar to those which Aman-appa had”.
Velikovsky
continues, with a quote from S. Mercer (ed. Tell
El-Amarna Tablets):
“… Naaman’s
title in the Scriptures – sar [Hebrew: שַׂר] – is also used in
the letters. He was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt, in charge of the
army and walled cities of Amuru land (Syria), later also the overseer of stores
of grain. He had great influence in all matters of Syrian administration.
Judged by his name, he was of Syrian origin, as were some other dignitaries at
the court of Thebes. Ianhama is a Semitic name: “Ianhamu was a powerful
Egyptian agent in Syria, where he was respected as a good and wise man, and
where he proved himself to be the most faithful of the pharaoh’s servants”.”
That a
transformation of some kind had come over this Ianhama Velikovsky had inferred
from Rib-Addi’s revised attitude towards him; an attitude that had
changed dramatically in the course of Rib-Addi’s reign:
“In [Rib-Addi’s]
early letters … his fear of the mighty deputy of the pharaoh is plainly
expressed. In one letter he wrote to the pharaoh: “Thou must rescue me out of
the hand of Iaanhamu”. He asked the pharaoh to inform his deputy that he,
Ianhama, would be responsible if anything should happen to [Rib-Addi’s] person
…. “Say to Ianhamu: ‘Rib-Addi is even in thy hands, and all that will be done
to him rests upon thee’.”
But, Velikovsky
continued (typically - but wrongly, I believe - substituting Samaria for EA’s Sumur):
“Later on, when
Aman-appa left Samaria …, [Rib-Addi] … wrote to the pharaoh asking him to
appoint Ianhama governor in Samaria …: “May it seem right to my lord to send
Ianhama as his deputy. I hear from the mouth of the people that he is a wise
man and all people love him”.
We recall the
scriptural words about Naaman, that he was an “honourable” man”.
The reason for
the official’s change in attitude, Velikovsky suggested, was to be found in the
Scriptures:
“In another
letter [Rib-Addi] again asks the pharaoh to send Ianhama and in the next one he
praises him in these words: “There is no servant like Ianhama, a faithful
servant to the king”.
… The letters do
not show why the fear of [Rib-Addi] … changed into confidence with respect to
the Syrian deputy. The Scriptures provide the explanation in the story of the
healing of Naaman by the prophet of Samaria. Naaman was very grateful to the
prophet … (II Kings 5:15). Elisha even declared that he would heal Naaman in
order to help the king of Israel politically.
So [Ianhamu]
became a friend”.
Velikovsky then
went on to point out what he called “certain other features of the role and
character of Ianhama, reflected in the letters, [and] shown also in the
Scriptures”. For example:
“He was a
generous man. This appears in the story of the healing: he gave to the servant
of the prophet two talents of silver and two changes of garments, more than the
servant had asked for, when the prophet refused to take ten talents of silver,
six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. It is of interest to
find that, according to the letters, Ianhama was in charge of the pharaoh’s
treasury in Syria, being over “money and clothing”.
… The el-Amarna
letters also speak of him as the generous patron of a Palestinian youth, who
was educated in Egypt at his expense. The man “by whom the Lord had given
deliverance unto Syria” … was Ianhama. How this captain changed his attitude
and became a supporter of the king of Samaria is recorded in the letters and is
explained by the Scriptures”.
Emil Hirsch et
al. (“Naaman”, Jewish Encylopedia) tell of this interesting Rabbinical
tradition in regard to Na’aman: ….
“According to
the Rabbis, Naaman was the archer who drew his bow at a venture and mortally
wounded Ahab, King of Israel (I Kings xxii. 34). This event is alluded to in
the words “because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” (II Kings
v. 1), and therefore the Syrian king, Naaman’s master, was Benhadad …. Naaman
is represented as vain and haughty, on account of which he was stricken with
leprosy …”.
That Na’aman,
though a leper, regarded himself as being an official of no small importance
may be reflected in his initial response to the fact of Elisha’s merely sending
a messenger to advise him: ‘… I thought that for me he would surely
come out’ (5:11).
Here we have the
biblical instance of Na’aman’s riding up “with his horses and chariots”, to
Samaria, to seek a cure from Elisha. Hence a further argument for the Syrian’s
familiarity with Israel and its palace. And, later, Naaman will return to thank
the prophet, “he and all his company”; Na’aman himself certainly riding in his
chariot at the time (cf. 2 Kings 5:9; 5:21).
Hirsch et
al. also claim in the same article that: “Naaman was a “ger toshab”
[literally, ‘a strange-settler’; a resident alien of different religion], that
is, he was not a perfect proselyte, having accepted only some of the
commandments …”.
Na’aman had,
subsequent to his cure by the prophet Elisha, apologised in advance to the
latter for his involuntary adoration of the Syrian divinity, Rimmon, when
having to escort his king into Rimmon’s temple (2 Kings 5:18).
We recall that
Ben-Hadad I’s father, Tab-rimmon, had borne the name of this Syrian
god.
There is also a
reference to “Naaman the Syrian” in the New Testament (Luke 4:27): ‘And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the
prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian’.
But what was
this Na’aman doing fluctuating between kings Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad I,
mortal enemies?
This must have
occurred somewhat late in the reign of King Ahab, after the two kings had
declared a treaty and mutual brotherhood (I Kings 20:34).
I now take up
the relevant parts of Campbell’s narrative concerning this important EA
official, Ianhama (his Yanhamu): ….
“Yanhamu began
his service under Amenophis III. ….
Yanhamu appears,
then, to have held an extremely important position in Syria throughout the
period of Rib-Adda’s [Rib-Addi’s] correspondence. The later letters of Rib-Adda
show this prince defending Yanhamu and asking for his appointment as rabiṣ in
Sumur. One might almost imagine that Yanhamu’s rebuff of Aziru described in 171
led Rib-Adda suddenly to realize that he had a true ally in Yanhamu”.
This Ianhama
was, according to Campbell, in charge of grain supplies: ….
“In the early
group of letters from Rib-Adda, Yanhamu seems to have held a position having to
do with the supplying of the vassals from a store-city of Egypt (83:27ff.,
39f.; 85:23f., 48ff.; 86:15f.).
This source of
supply is named Yarimuta in many places in the Rib-Adda correspondence, and
that Yanhamu was its chief appears clear from 85:12-35. In this passage,
Rib-Adda first explains that he has had to “pawn” virtually everything of value
in his city in return for grain from Yarimuta. Sons and daughters of his serfs
have been sold into slavery at Yarimuta in return for grain. Grain is needed
simply to keep the people alive and able to protect their city.
… From the
context it is not certain that Yanhamu is chief of Yarimuta, but everything
points that way. Being the chief of the grain supply would place Yanhamu in a
very powerful position.
That Iaanhamu
was of a high rank in relation to pharaoh is borne out by this testimony
of Campbell’s: …. “[Iaanhamu] bears an extremely important title, that of
“Fan-Bearer at the king’s right-hand” (musallil), a title which Mâya of Tomb 14
also bears”.
According to
Harry M. Orlinsky (Israel
Exploration Journal Reader, p. 164): “… ynḥm is recorded as a Semitic
name on an Egyptian ostracon of the 18th dynasty, and as ianhamu it appears in the El-Amarna
letters. …”.
As the Biblical Bidkar?
“Jehu
said to Bidkar, his chariot officer, ‘Pick him up and throw him on the field
that belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite. Remember how you and I were riding
together in chariots behind Ahab his father when the Lord spoke this prophecy against him: ‘Yesterday I saw the blood of Naboth
and the blood of his sons, declares the Lord, and I will
surely make you pay for it on this plot of ground, declares the Lord’.’”
2 Kings 9:25-26
The possibility now arises that the otherwise
unknown Bidkar may also be Na’aman.
Conforming with Rabbinical legends that have
Na’aman as the one who had mortally wounded King Ahab of Israel with an arrow,
Bidkar, too, we learn here, had once ridden behind Ahab.
Contemporaneity between Na’aman and Bidkar
would not be a problem.
Nor would occupation, and, possibly, rank.
Na’aman, as was Bidkar, was a military
officer who rode in a chariot (cf. 2 Kings 5:9).
He was a man of great rank. “Now
Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Aram, was a great man with his
master, and held in esteem, because by him the LORD had given victory unto
Aram; he was also a mighty man of valour …” (2 Kings 5:1).
Na’aman was ish gadol (אִישׁ גָּדוֹל), a “great man”. This,
“great man”, is the very interpretation sometimes given to the Assyrian rank of
Rabshakeh.
Bidkar, a dozen or more years later when he closely witnessed this
following incident (9:24): “… Jehu drew his bow and shot Jehoram
between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his
chariot”, was ranked as a shaloshah (שָׁלִשֹׁה), which description may mean “third” in
rank.
Less obvious would be why Na’aman (perhaps
compatibly named Ianhama in EA) would
be, in 2 Kings 9, named Bidkar.
What does this name mean? What might be
its ethnic origin?
Some think that the latter part of the
name, kar, could bear some
relationship to Carite (Karite). For, at this approximate time, in Judah,
“Jehoiada the priest summoned … the Carite mercenaries …” (2 Kings 11:4).
But my own preference - based upon
Velikovsky’s view that Na’aman, in his guise of EA’s Ianhama, “was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt, in charge of the army and walled
cities of Amuru land (Syria)” - would be that the name Bidkar
was the name by which this officer was known in Egypt.
The element kar in Bidkar’s name, whilst it has prompted mention of the
Carites, could be, instead, an abbreviation of the common Egyptian combination ka re.
There was an important Chancellor in Old
Kingdom Egypt known as Nebitka (or Nebetka).
It is perhaps possible that Bidkar (בִּדְקַר) is a Hebrew attempt to write an Egyptian
name such as this, for instance, Ne[bitkar]e.
Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah
(iv): Death of King Ahab (continued)
“Finally, a spirit came forward,
stood before the Lord and said, ‘I
will entice him.’
‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
‘I will go out and be a deceiving
spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
‘You will succeed in enticing
him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do
it.’
So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the
mouths of all these prophets of yours.
The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
As has often been noted, this unusual
incident of the ‘lying spirit’ finds its Greek
correspondence - though I would prefer appropriation
(a constant theme in this series) - in Homer’s The Iliad. An excellent account of this is provided by Bruce Louden, “Agamemnon
and the Hebrew Bible”, though the author will adopt the standard view that the
Bible was indebted to the pagan (Greek) version: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1067957/FULLTEXT02.pdf
….
“Agamemnon and Ahab
Perhaps
even more intriguing are correspondences between Agamemnon and Ahab. The
latter, though a figure more supported by the historical record than David, not
involved with the Philistines, not attended by an Achilles figure, nonetheless,
his interactions with prophets, his deportment on the battlefield, and his
highly aggressive wife, all find virtually exact parallels in Agamemnon. Ahab’s
interactions with the prophets Elijah and Micaiah are even closer to
Agamemnon’s than are Saul’s with Samuel, including verbal equivalents. I thus
argue that the scribal tradition had, in Agamemnon, an established character
type they knew to be a vehicle suited to how they wished to depict Ahab.
In
Ahab’s disputes with his prophets Elijah and Micaiah, we revisit an earlier
theme, but here the parallels are even closer with Agamemnon.
Ahab’s
animosity toward Elijah is more pronounced, has undergone a longer period of
gestation than Saul’s for Samuel, and resembles Agamemnon’s toward Calchas in Iliad
1. Ahab’s first words to Elijah are contemptuous (18:17), “As soon as Ahab
saw Elijah, he said to him, ‘Is it you, you troubler of Israel?’” We cannot
imagine Saul addressing Samuel this way, but this is precisely Agamemnon’s tone
to his prophet Calchas, and to Chryses.
The
most exact, most sustained, correspondences occur in 1 Kings 22, when Micaiah
recounts his vision of the Enticing Spirit that will fool Ahab into
thinking he can now capture Ramoth-gilead. Let us first set the stage by
reviewing Agamemnon’s parallel circumstances in book 2 of the Iliad. The
night after Agamemnon’s quarrel with Achilles begins, after a divine council,
Zeus, who now supports Achilles over Agamemnon, sends a Deceptive Dream (2:6: οὖλος ὄνειρος) to Agamemnon. Zeus’ purpose in sending the Dream, is to fool
Agamemnon into thinking he can sack Troy the next day. The Dream fulfills Zeus’
purpose, leaving Agamemnon,
“believing
in his heart things that are not going to be accomplished” (2.36).
Extensive
deliberations and discussion follow over how to proceed on the basis of the
Dream. Agamemnon orders the Greeks into assembly, but first convenes his
executive council. Nestor, asserting no one would believe the dream if dreamt
by anyone else, says it must be true since Agamemnon himself dreamt it
(2.79–83). In his heated exchange with his prophet Calchas on the previous day,
when Calchas had declared Agamemnon’s abusive treatment of Apollo’s priest had
brought the god’s wrath upon them, Agamemnon replied (1.106–107),
Seer of evil: never yet have you
told me a good thing. Always the evil things are dear to your heart to prophesy
(μάντι κακῶν … αἰεί τοι τὰ κάκ' ἐστὶ φίλα φρεσὶ μαντεύεσθαι).
Agamemnon
fails to take Troy on that day, and suffers a major embarrassment before his
troops, most of whom now contemplate going home to Greece.
We
return to Ahab’s confrontation with Micaiah, with Agamemnon’s Dream in mind, as
Ahab and his forces, and King Jehoshaphat, contemplate attacking the city Ramoth-gilead.
Agreeing to join battle, Jehoshaphat suggests Ahab first consult with Yahweh.
All of Ahab’s prophets prophesy that God will give him victory. When
Jehoshaphat asks if there is another prophet to verify their prophecy, Ahab
responds in words that closely agree with Agamemnon’s rebuke of Calchas (22:8),
“‘There is one more … but I hate the man, because he never prophesies good
for me, never anything but evil. His name is Micaiah son of Imlah.’” Later
in the confrontation Ahab repeats (22:18), “‘Did I not tell you that he never prophesies
good for me, never anything but evil?’” Micaiah then recounts a vision
(22:19–22):
I saw the Lord seated on his
throne with all the host of heaven in attendance on his right and on his left.
The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and attack Ramoth-gilead?’ One
said one thing and one said another, until a spirit came forward and, standing
before the Lord, said, ‘I shall entice him.’ ‘How?’ said the Lord. ‘I shall go
out’, he answered, ‘and be a lying spirit75 in the mouths of all his prophets.’
You see, then, how the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these
prophets of yours, because he has decreed disaster for you.
Let
us review the correspondences:
1.
Each king contemplates trying to take a city. Each king leads a coalition of
forces against another coalition.
2.
Detailed deliberations and discussion precede his going into battle. Jehoshaphat
serves a similar function as Agamemnon’s Nestor.
3.
Each king receives a report of divine will ensuring a positive outcome of the
battle.
4.
Each main god converses with a lesser divine being. Zeus instructs the Dream,
but the Spirit volunteers for Yahweh, in corresponding terms: to fool the
respective kings into thinking they will sack their respective cities that day.
5.
The audience, however, knows the reports to be spurious. In the Iliad,
typical of epic conventions, the audience is itself present at Zeus’
deliberations, observing without any doubt that Agamemnon is being deceived. 1
Kings 22 maintains the Hebrew Bible’s usual conception of having the prophet as
somehow present at the divine council (cf. Isaiah 6), a monotheistic variation
on the more traditional polytheistic divine council. Micaiah relays the
corresponding information that Homeric epic gives through the principal narrator.
6.
Each king proceeds, and fails, on the basis of the false report of divine
support.
In
a key difference, Ahab’s Enticing Spirit account repeats the motif from Elijah’s
earlier confrontation with Ahab of the one true prophet defeating the many
false ones. Thus, as Cogan notes, “the issues of conflicting prophetic viewpoints
and the royal response to the word of YHWH dominate,” … whereas for Agamemnon
conflicting prophetic viewpoints is a non-issue. That the 1 Kings version
derives from another [sic] is suggested by its being a secondary narrative,
told in a tongue-in-cheek manner, and in how it retains polytheistic touches.
Several of the motifs are more at home in the Iliad than in 1 Kings.
Zeus or Athena sending a Dream is common in Homeric epic, for instance, whereas
Yahweh’s use of the Deceiving Spirit is less so. So also, as Cogan points out,
is, “The consultation with prophets rather than priests in preparation for the
attack on Ramoth-gilead comes as a surprise.” … The triumph of the one true
prophet over the many false subsumes the narrative under a Yahwist agenda, not
relevant to the
Iliad.
Cogan, on the basis of similarities between Micaiah’s fortunes and the later
Jeremiah, argues the episode “was written toward the end of the period of
classical prophecy.” … So far after the Iliad [sic], easily allows for some form of diffusion or adaptation.
Ahab’s encounter with Micaiah suggests a careful synthesis of Agamemnon’s
missteps at the opening of the Iliad.
Agamemnon
and Ahab both, in prominent scenes, are wounded, while fighting from their
chariots, and driven from battle. Agamemnon’s death, murdered by his wife
Clytemnestra and her lover Aigisthos on his return from Troy, is alluded to
several times in the Odyssey. We recall that his aristeia ends
abruptly when, wounded by a spear in Iliad 11.251–255, 265–281, he
retreats from battle in his chariot. Likened in simile to a woman suffering
birth pangs, the unusual comparison may look ahead to his being slain in the
bath, in a sense, “unmanned,” by his wife.
Though
lacking anything comparable to an aristeia, Ahab’s exit from battle is
suggestive of Agamemnon’s, and may also allude to two other prominent deaths in
the Iliad. As he and Jehoshaphat march on Ramoth-gilead, Ahab is in
disguise. In the Iliad, Patroclus, whose aristeia follows Agamemnon’s,
goes into battle in disguise, and is slain, the only Greek to die during his aristeia.
Ahab dies in disguise, and receives his mortal wound from an arrow shot at
random (1 Kgs 22:34), both compounding his un-heroic circumstances, “One man …
drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel where the breastplate joins
the plates of the armour.”
The
detail may reference the most climactic wound in all of the Iliad, when
Achilles slays Hector by aiming his spear at the space between his armor and
helmet (22.324–327). Ahab remains in battle for a while, propped up in his
chariot, blood flowing from his wound, until he dies”.
In another episode, Ahab decides to enlarge his palace complex by acquiring the adjacent vineyard owned by Naboth. However, Naboth refuses to sell— at any price. Disappointed and depressed, Ahab tells Jezebel about it. “I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite,” she tells him (1 Kings 21:7). She acts in Ahab’s name, even using the king’s seal rather than her own. She arranges for Naboth to be falsely accused, and he is stoned to death. When Jezebel learns that the deed has been done, she urges Ahab: “Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite which he refused to give you for money” (1 Kings 21:15).
MIRROR IMAGE. Because most seals were pressed into wet pottery or into small blobs of clay used to secure scrolls— serving much like a signature— symbols and letters were often carved in reverse. When stamped into the clay, the seal images and inscription would appear correctly. This photo of the Jezebel seal and its impression, or bulla, show the seal in reverse and in proper stance.
Part Twenty Four: Fiery Prophet Elijah
(v): Origins of Elijah
“Three different theories regarding Elijah's
origin are presented in the Haggadah: (1) he belonged to the tribe of Gad (Gen.
R. lxxi.); (2) he was a Benjamite from Jerusalem, identical with the Elijah
mentioned in I Chron. viii. 27; (3) he was a priest”.
JewishEncyclopedia.com
Where does one begin when looking to trace the origins of
one of the Bible’s most mysterious and elusive characters, the prophet Elijah,
who “rose like fire” (Sirach 48:1), seemingly from nowhere?
If I am correct so far in identifying Elijah with the
contemporary prophet Micaiah, then we do have the further clue of a patronymic, insofar as Micaiah was
described by King Ahab as “son of Imlah” (I Kings 22:8; 2 Chronicles 18:7).
Whilst a clue such as this is better than nothing, this
is the only biblical occurrence of the name, “Imlah”, or “Imla” יִמְלָ֑א: “There's only one Imla(h) in the Bible and we know about him because of his
famous son: the prophet Micaiah, who was brave
enough to proclaim the true but negative word of YHWH to king Ahab of Israel, while many of his colleague
prophets spoke favorable lies (1 Kings 22:9)”. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Imla.html#.We5v3-RlJ9A
Type of John the
Baptist
Perhaps we can ascertain some more about the prophet
Elijah from the fact that he was, according to the angel who appeared to his
father, Zechariah, a type of John the
Baptist – though John would later flatly deny that he was the actual Elijah (John 1:21): “They asked him, … ‘Are
you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’. …”.
What does the
angel tell us about Elijah in relation to the Baptist?
Here is the relevant passage (Luke 1:13-17):
“…
the angel said to him: ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been
heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He
will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth,
for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to
take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit
even before he is born. He will bring back many of the
people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go
on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of
the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the
righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord’.”
A key point here is that the Baptist would be as a Nazirite, abstaining from strong
drink.
Now, like the Baptist, the prophet Elijah had turned the
people back from paganism to the Lord (Sirach 48:10): “The scripture says
that you are ready to appear at the designated time, to cool God's anger before
it breaks out in fury; that you will bring parents and children together again,
and restore the tribes of Israel”.
The connection with John the Baptist might also
strengthen the Haggadic view above (3) that Elijah “was a priest”, since that
is what the Baptist was - he belonging “to the priestly
division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5): “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a
priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his
wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron”.
Descended from Moses?
The closest name to “Imlah”, or “Imla”, that I can find
in the priestly line, associated with Aaron, would be Amram, the father of
Aaron and Moses (Exodus 6:20): “Amram married his father’s sister
Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses”.
Amram
also occurs as Ambram (Αμβραμ) in the LXX; whilst Imla[h] occurs there as Iemla (Ιεμλα). In the Vulgate,
Imla[h] becomes Iembla.
We may be able to glean two further things from such a suggested ancestry.
Firstly, say that Elijah was a descendant of Amram through
Amram’s son, Moses, then this might account for why Elijah’s life was very much patterned upon that of Moses.
Secondly, in the line of Amram there was one Rechabiah, which might account for the Rechabites who avoided
alcohol. Elijah is considered to have
been, at least, Rechabite-like.
Let us commence with the Moses connection that commentators have noted.
Patterned on Moses
“Comparisons between Elijah and Moses have many
precedents in biblical research. In Talmudic literature Elijah is presented as
Moses’ disciple [Babli, Sotah, Ch. 1,
p. 12:2]”, writes Shamai Gelander (From
Two Kingdoms To One Nation - Israel and Judah, p. 27).
Professor Emmanuel Anati has detected that
the Elijah “narrative
reveals several analogies with the story of Moses” (The Mountain of God: Har Karkom, Rizzoli,
NY, pp. 241-242):
“The only other person who, according to the
Bible, ever climbed up on the Mountain of God, even while recognizing its
identity, was the prophet Elijah. In fact, he arrived there in much the same
way as Moses had, having fled punishment after killing a man, as Moses had when
he first came into the land of Midian. Elijah also fed himself on bread-like
cakes that he found quite miraculously (which recalls the episode with the
manna during the Exodus) and he also walked across the desert for forty days in
order to reach the mountain, which was his goal (I K 19:3-8). “… he reached
Horeb, the mountain of God. There he went into the cave and spent the night in
it. Then the word of Yahweh came to him saying, ‘What are you doing here
Elijah?’ …” (I K 19:8-9). ‘Go out and stand on the mountain before Yahweh …” (I
K 19:11).
The
narrative reveals several analogies with the story of Moses when he arrived at
the “Mountain of God”. The same ingredients are used in both contexts: the
flight in the desert, the food miraculously provided by the heavens, the cave
or crevice, the presence of God on the mountain, the special characteristic of
the mountain as the place where God reveals himself, the revelation through the
voice of God and natural phenomena.
All
these elements are repeated in both stories. Elijah spent the night in the cave
on the mountaintop and was awakened by the voice of Yahweh: ‘What are you doing
here?’, that is, how could you dare to climb up this mountain?
… Elijah
seems to be repeating, in his visit to the mountain in order to communicate
with God, the experience that Moses had many centuries before”.
Shamai Gelander again (op. cit.,
ibid): “Some
identify the cave in which Elijah sleeps as the one where Moses dwelled. ….
Several midrashim list ten identical
traits between the two characters; Abarbanel even finds several dozen points
they have in common. …. The comparison is an obvious one, and probably
intentional”.
At a
much later time, Moses and Elijah will be united together on a mountain, with
Jesus Christ, on the Mount of Transfiguration.
And they
will speak of, of all things, an ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:28-31):
“About eight days after Jesus said this,
he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As
he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as
bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and
Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure [Greek ‘exodos’: ἔξοδος],
which He was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem”.
Next, we consider the possible Rechabite (Nazirite) connection in the case of
Elijah.
Rechabite-like
The Rechabites are commonly associated with the Kenites,
and it needs to be noted that the offspring of Moses, his sons Gershom and Eliezer, were part
Kenite through their mother, Zipporah
“The Kenites
were a nomadic
tribe of the ancient Levant, many of whom became affiliated with the Israelites.
The Kenites are described as showing kindness to the Israelites during the
Exodus and later settling among them in the tribal areas of Judah
and Naphtali after the conquest of Canaan.
They intermarried with the Israelites and are depicted in the biblical
narratives as supporting Israel in its fight against the Canaanites
and Amalekites.
Among the
well-known Kenites were Jethro,
the "priest of Midian," and his daughter Zipporah, who became the wife
of Moses
and mother of his two sons. The biblical heroine Jael, who slew the Canaanite
general Sisera after the battle of Mount
Tabor, was the wife of Heber the Kenite.
Modern
scholars believe the Kenites were shepherds and metalworkers, who may have
shared some of their vital technological knowledge with the Israelites. For the
most part, they seem to have assimilated into the Israelite population,
although the Rechabites, a Kenite clan, maintained a distinct nomadic lifestyle
until at least the time of Jeremiah”.
Now, in the line of Moses’s son, Eliezer, who was
part-Kenite, we encounter a Rehabiah (or Rechabiah) (רְחַבְיָה)
whose “sons … were very numerous” (I Chronicles 23:12-17):
“The sons of Kohath:
Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel—four in all.
The sons of Amram:
Aaron and Moses.
Aaron was set apart, he and his descendants forever, to consecrate the
most holy things, to offer sacrifices before the Lord, to minister before him and to pronounce blessings in
his name forever. The sons of Moses the man of God were counted as part of the
tribe of Levi.
The sons of Moses:
Gershom and Eliezer.
The descendants of Gershom:
Shubael was the first.
The descendants of Eliezer:
Rehabiah was the first.
Eliezer
had no other sons, but the sons of Rehabiah were very numerous”.
Ignoring the geography for the moment (for Kohathites did
not dwell in Gilead where Elijah was),
we would now have for Elijah, according to my tentative
reconstruction:
- a priestly descent from Moses;
- a Kenite-Rechabite background, to connect with the Baptist’s being a Nazirite;
- a connection to a large (Rechabian) clan.
On this last point, although Elijah may come across as -
like the Baptist - a lone figure, the prophet of fire actually belonged to,
according to the view of Joseph Blenkinsopp, a “prophetic
coenobia” (A History of
Prophecy in Israel, pp. 60-61):
“These traditions, of
varying historical, religious,
and ethical value, tend to give the
impression of a figure who emerges abruptly from nowhere in particular and, after a stormy career, disappears in a flaming chariot into
the sky. We have the impression, above all, of a solitary figure. The impression may, however, be misleading. Both
he and his disciple Elisha are addressed as "father" (2 Kings 2:12;
13:14), the title implying leadership of the prophetic coenobia that Elijah visited for the last time shortly before his
mysterious disappearance from the scene (2 Kings 2:2-12). In this respect, therefore, he resembles Samuel presiding over an ecstatic group in
Ramah (1 Sam. 19:18-24), a function
that did not preclude operations outside the group context, including
interventions in political and military affairs”.
Joseph Blenkinsopp next
proceeds to liken this prophetic community to - and possibly even to connect it
with - the “Nazirites and Rechabites”.
“We would like to know more
about the way of life of these small prophetic
communities known as "sons of the prophets” or simply "prophets" (ne-bî-ʼîm).
We have seen that they were of
low socioeconomic status. Like certain
peripheral groups in our day, they expressed their rejection of the
dominant urban culture by a distinctive attire (cf. 2 Kings 1:8), simple diet, and physical segregation
from the amenities of city life. In these
respects they were comparable to, and perhaps in some ways associated
with, both Nazirites and Rechabites,
especially in their fanatical
dedication to religious warfare. Nazirites
abstained from alcohol and let their hair grow long (Judges 13-16) …. Rechabites, led by Jonadab, supporter of Jehu's coup and subsequent purge,
lived in tents, avoided agriculture,
and also eschewed intoxicants. …. These "primitives" remind us that prophecy can consist
not just in a commission to speak
but in the adoption of a
certain style of living that dramatizes the rejection of what passes for
reality in the society as a whole”.
Dwelling “in Gilead”
The fiery prophet is
introduced as “Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead
…” (I Kings 17:1).
“The precise location of Tishbe is unknown …” (NIV
Study Bible, eBook, Red Letter Edition, by Zondervan).
Some
have hopefully looked to identify it with Thisbe, the home of Tobit in Naphtali
(Tobit 1:2). The problem is, if Elijah truly were a descendant of Kohath son of
Levi, through Moses, then what was he doing in Gilead in Transjordania?
None
of the dwelling places assigned to the non-Aaronite Kohathites was to be found in
Gilead (Joshua 21:20-26):
“The rest
of the Kohathite clans of the Levites were allotted towns from the tribe of
Ephraim:
In the
hill country of Ephraim they were given Shechem (a city of refuge for one
accused of murder) and Gezer, Kibzaim and Beth Horon, together with their pasturelands—four
towns.
Also from
the tribe of Dan they received Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Aijalon and Gath Rimmon,
together with their pasturelands—four towns.
From half
the tribe of Manasseh they received Taanach and Gath Rimmon, together with
their pasturelands—two towns.
All these ten towns and their
pasturelands were given to the rest of the Kohathite clans”.
To complicate matters,
according to The Stories of Elijah and
Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship (p. 20): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jMgUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA
“… the one single brief
reference to the origin of Elijah … is not without ambiguity. The Massoretic
text reads, “Elijah the Tishbite of the inhabitants of Gilead …”.”
More hopefully, the next
sentence here reads: “This suggests that while he resided in Gilead his
birthplace was elsewhere”. That would suit my view that Elijah belonged to the
Kohathite line of priests, for these did not originate in Gilead.
Some commentators have
suggested that the crucial I Kings 17:1 would better read, ‘Elijah the
Jabeshite of the settlers (מִתֹּשָׁבֵ֣י) in Gilead’, the tō-šā-ḇê
here
not meant to be taken as indicating a place name, but meaning “settlers”. These
“settlers” had presumably taken the lace of the original inhabitants of
Jabesh-gilead, who had all been slain.
Judges 21:8-11
tells of it:
“Then they asked, ‘Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to
assemble before the Lord at Mizpah?’ They discovered
that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people
of Jabesh Gilead were there.
So
the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to
Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and
children.
‘This is what you are to do’, they said. ‘Kill every male and
every woman who is not a virgin’.”
These would be the
“settlers” in Jabesh Gilead amongst whom, I suggest, the prophet Elijah was
also to be found. We read more about this extraordinary group pf peoples in 1
Chronicles 2:54-55: “The sons of Salma: Beth-lehem, and the
Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites. And
the families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez [Jabesh]: the Tirathites, the
Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the
father of the house of Rechab”.
“Hammath” here is
obscure. Some think that it may be a personal name, others a place, Hamath.
The Adam Clarke Commentary on this text is
intriguing and somewhat in line with my
"The families of the
Rechabites, the sons of Eliezer the son of Misco, the disciple of Jabez; he was
Othniel, the son of Kenaz. And he was called Jabez, because in his council he
instituted a school of disciples; they were called Tirathim, because in their
hymns their voice was like trumpets; and Shimathim, because in hearing they lifted
up their faces, i.e., in prayer; and Suchathim, because they were overshadowed
by the Spirit of prophecy. These Salmaei were the children of Zipporah, who
were numbered among the Levites who came from the stock of Moses, the master of
Israel, whose righteousness profited them more than chariots and horses."
That the prophet Elijah was
educated and could write may be gleaned e.g. from 2 Chronicles 21:12: “[King] Jehoram
received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said: ‘This is what the
LORD, the God of your father David, says: 'You have not followed the ways of
your father Jehoshaphat or of Asa king of Judah’.’”
At the beginning of this
article we read that Elijah was potentially, according to the Haggadah, either of
the tribe of Gad; a Benjaminite from Jerusalem; or a priest.
I would conclude that he
was most definitely a priest. And that he lived in the territory of Gad. But,
had he been instead a Benjaminite from Jerusalem, then the pious king
Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem would presumably have been more aware of him (as Micaiah)
- though Jehoshaphat must no doubt have heard tales of the deeds of this extraordinary
prophet in Israel.
Part Twenty Five: Was Jehu an
Omride?
(i) Introductory Setting
“I received tribute
from Iaua, son of Omri: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden tureen,
golden pails, tin, the staffs 'of the king's hand' and a spear”.
King Shalmaneser [III]. The Black Obelisk
This
statement by the great Assyrian king, Shalmaneser (supposedly III) is generally
considered to be referring to Jehu king of Israel – and he, as an Omride.
And with
good reason - or so it may seem - has Jehu been dated to the time of
Shalmaneser III, for - as we shall read in a later article in this series -
there appears to be a sequence of rock-solid biblico-historical connections
between the king of Assyria and OT personages, from Ben-Hadad I and Ahab down
to Hazael and Jehu.
However,
such an historical correspondence between the biblical king, Jehu, and
Shalmaneser III, gives rise to some serious queries. These I have already listed.
With the
death of King Ahab of Israel occurring - in relation to the Eighteenth Egyptian
dynasty - at approximately the 10th year of reign of pharaoh
Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’, then Jehu’s becoming King of Israel about 12
years later (here following P. Mauro’s time spacings), would belong to about the
22nd year of that pharaoh’s 38-year reign.
This
would be right in the midst of the El Amarna [EA] era.
So, why
do we not read in the EA letters about a king “Shalmaneser” of Assyria, since
he is supposed to have straddled the era from Ben-Hadad I and Ahab, and on to
Jehu?
I think
that we can forget about Dr. I. Velikovsky’s unconvincing attempt to ‘solve’
the problem by identifying Shalmaneser III as the Kassite EA correspondent, Burnaburiash (or Burraburiash) of Babylon (or Karduniash).
Shalmaneser
III was a Great King of Assyria.
The only “king
of Assyria” mentioned in the EA correspondence, and later than Amenhotep III,
is one Assuruballit. I shall be considering
him in some detail later.
Even less
impressive was Velikovsky’s linguistically naïve suggestion that Shalmaneser
III was referred to as (according to Velikovsky’s interpretation) Shalmaiati, in EA letter 155 written by king Abimilki of Tyre. The phrase found
therein apparently means “Servant of Mayati”, which is generally considered to
be a hypocoristicon reference to an Egyptian princess, to Meritaten, a daughter
of pharaoh Akhnaton.
Comments: In line 41 (Mercer,
line 44 others) the cuneiform transliteration is given as "ù àš-šù
mârti-ka mimma i-ia-[a-n]u ki-i eš-mu-ù". The form in red is also given as
"ma-i-ia-[(a)-ti]mi" which Albright translated as Mayati to be read
as Meritaten, daughter of Akhnaton, and Velikovsky as `Shalmaiati' to mean
`Shalmaneser III'.
Pharaoh Amenhotep
III is thought to have married the influential Queen Tiy in about his second
year of reign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_III “Amenhotep appears to have been crowned while still a
child, perhaps between the ages of 6 and 12. It is likely that a regent acted for him if he was
made pharaoh at that early age. He married Tiye two years later …”.
At this
same time, Ahab was yet reigning in Israel and Jehoshaphat in Judah. It may not
be surprising to find, then, that King Ahab’s wife, Queen Jezebel, had a seal
that displays features reminiscent of her contemporary, Queen Tiy[e] (“Especially
the Egyptian queen Tiye seems to have functioned as a model for … queens”): https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/fit-for-a-queen-jezebels-royal-seal/
Fit for a Queen: Jezebel’s Royal Seal
Scholars Debate “Jezebel” Seal
Reviewed by Marjo C.A. Korpel • 05/01/2008
….
Belonging to a queen? Elaborately decorated with symbols and letters, this stone seal undoubtedly belonged to a member of the upper class. The seal was part of a private collection that was donated to the Israel Department of Antiquities in the early 1960s. Its unusually large size (it is 1.25 inches long), and common Egypto-Phoenician symbols of royalty and divinity strongly suggest that it belonged to a king or queen.
Belonging to a queen? Elaborately decorated with symbols and letters, this stone seal undoubtedly belonged to a member of the upper class. The seal was part of a private collection that was donated to the Israel Department of Antiquities in the early 1960s. Its unusually large size (it is 1.25 inches long), and common Egypto-Phoenician symbols of royalty and divinity strongly suggest that it belonged to a king or queen.
Thousands
and thousands of seals and seal impressions (bullae) from the ancient Near East
have been found, including Hebrew exemplars in Israel. Documents would be tied
up with string and a blob of clay placed over the string; a seal would then be
impressed into the clay to identify the sender and assure the security of the
document. Or a seal would be impressed into the handle of a jar to identify the
owner— for example, the so-called l’melekh
handles (“[belonging] to the king”), of which there are several thousand. Or a
seal could be used to prevent unauthorized entry to a storehouse. Deuteronomy
32:34 speaks of the Lord’s attributes “sealed up in My treasuries.”
Of
all the thousands of exemplars with Hebrew inscriptions, however, only about 35
belong to women. This paucity nevertheless demonstrates two things. First, some
women did indeed possess and use personal seals. Second, this was true of only
very few women. Ancient Israel, like its neighbors, was a patriarchal society.
Women possessing seals clearly belonged to the upper classes.
On
two seals the female owner is described as a “daughter of the king.” Set off
against 24 attestations of a “son of the king,” this once again demonstrates
that women had a harder time attaining a position of influence than men, even
if they were princesses.
The seal
bears four letters (YZBL) interspersed around the images. Although scholars
have long recognized the similarity of the inscription to the name Jezebel,
they have usually refrained from making a connection to the infamous Queen
Jezebel, Phoenician wife of the Israelite king Ahab. With the reconstruction of
two additional letters (L’) in the damaged area at the top, however, author
Marjo Korpel argues that the inscription originally read L’YZBL, or
“(belonging) to Jezebel” and was in fact the personal seal of the Biblical
queen.
One
of the most famous queens of ancient Israel is Jezebel, the daughter of the
Phoenician king Ethbaal, wife of Israelite King Ahab (872–851 B.C.E.) and
archetype of the wicked woman. I believe that she had a seal and that it has
been recovered, although until now not confidently identified.
Jezebel,
though a woman, plays a major role— but backstage. Her influence on her
husband, King Ahab, was enormous. As the Biblical text puts it: “There was none
who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord like Ahab, whom
Jezebel his wife incited” (1 Kings 21:25). She never gave up her Phoenician
religion, nor her devotion to Baal. Ahab sinned not only by taking a worshiper
of Baal for his wife, but, at her urging he, too worshiped Baal (1 Kings
16:31). No doubt this strong Biblical criticism is colored by later
Deuteronomistic theology, but it stands to reason that Jezebel did deserve her
reputation somehow.
Jezebel
went even further. She began killing off the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings
18:4). Apparently a hundred were saved when they were hidden in two caves by
Obadiah. At that point the prophet Elijah confronts the king, who responds to
Elijah with the famous line “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?” (1 Kings
18:17).
Elijah
then sets up a contest on Mount Carmel: 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets
of Asherah who sup at Jezebel’s table (1 Kings 18:19) face Elijah alone. A bull
is placed on Baal’s altar, but try as they may, even gashing themselves with
knives, the prophets of Baal can produce no fire. Then Elijah orders water to
be poured on his meal offering to the Lord. Elijah beseeches the Lord and fire
descends from heaven consuming the meal offering and even the water (1 Kings
18:23–38).
In another episode, Ahab decides to enlarge his palace complex by acquiring the adjacent vineyard owned by Naboth. However, Naboth refuses to sell— at any price. Disappointed and depressed, Ahab tells Jezebel about it. “I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite,” she tells him (1 Kings 21:7). She acts in Ahab’s name, even using the king’s seal rather than her own. She arranges for Naboth to be falsely accused, and he is stoned to death. When Jezebel learns that the deed has been done, she urges Ahab: “Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite which he refused to give you for money” (1 Kings 21:15).
Elijah
passes judgment in the name of the Lord: As with Ahab, whose blood dogs will
lap up, so with Jezebel: Dogs will devour her in Jezreel (1Kings 21:19–23).
Jezebel’s
life indeed ends badly. When Elisha (Elijah’s successor) anoints Jehu as Ahab’s
successor, Jehu is instructed to wipe out Ahab’s line: “That I may avenge on
Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets” (2 Kings 9:7).
When
Jehu arrives in Jezreel, where Ahab has a royal residence, Jezebel prepares to
greet him. She “paints her eyes with kohl and dresses her hair” and appears at
an upper window, apparently hoping to seduce Jehu (2 Kings 9:30). Instead,
Jezebel is thrown down from the window. “Her blood splattered on the wall and
on the horses, and they trampled on her” (2 Kings 9:33).
Jehu
orders her to be buried. “So they went to bury her; but all they found of her
were her skull, the feet and the hands. They came back and reported to [Jehu].
And he said, ‘It is just as the Lord spoke through his servant Elijah the
Tishbite: The dogs shall devour the flesh of Jezebel in the field of Jezreel;
and the carcass of Jezebel shall be like dung on the ground'” (2 Kings
9:35–37).
The
seal I want to deal with here comes from a private collection, and we don’t
know where or when it was found. In some American and Israeli circles, this
alone would condemn it to oblivion. Indeed, these critics would ban publication
of such an item. This, in my view, is nonsense. Yes, we must be cautious in
assessing the authenticity of unprovenanced finds, but we cannot condemn the
whole lot simply because they are unprovenanced. As Professor Othmar Keel
recently pointed out, even in the highly praised Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals published by Nahman
Avigad and Benjamin Sass (Jerusalem, 1997), only 10 percent of the seals
discussed come from professional excavations.
….
“SET ME AS A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART.” Thousands of ancient seals have been found throughout Israel and the Near East. They are usually carved out of limestone or semi-precious stone, but some are made of bone, glass, bronze or silver. Many seals were set in signet rings. Usually inscribed with the owner’s name, seals were used in the ancient world to identify, authenticate and protect the contents of documents and vessels.
“SET ME AS A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART.” Thousands of ancient seals have been found throughout Israel and the Near East. They are usually carved out of limestone or semi-precious stone, but some are made of bone, glass, bronze or silver. Many seals were set in signet rings. Usually inscribed with the owner’s name, seals were used in the ancient world to identify, authenticate and protect the contents of documents and vessels.
The
small number of female names on these seals indicates that very few women owned
seals, and those women were probably royalty or of a high social status. In the
photo, the Jezebel seal appears prominently at the center of this collection of
seals from the Israel Museum.
When
what I believe to be the seal of Queen Jezebel came to scholarly attention in
the early 1960s, it was donated to the Israel Department of Antiquities and
gratefully accepted. Another day and another time! In 1964, it was published in
the Israel Exploration Journal
by Israel’s then-leading paleographer, Nahman Avigad.1
Despite
the fact that the seal bears an inscription YZBL (יזבל), which spells Jezebel
in Hebrew, as Avigad recognized, he nevertheless concluded that there was “no
basis for identifying the owner of our seal with this famous lady [Queen
Jezebel], although,” as Avigad recognized, “they may have been contemporaries, and
the seal seems worthy of a queen. Moreover, Jezebel is a rare Phoenician name.
Later,
the reading “Jezebel” and the possible identification of the seal as Queen
Jezebel’s was rejected because the spelling of the name on the seal is
different from the spelling of the name in the Bible. On the seal, as noted, it
is spelled YZBL; in the Bible, it is spelled ‘YZBL (‘יזבל),b
where ‘ represents, by scholarly convention, the Hebrew letter aleph (א), a guttural with a
throat-clearing sound.2
I
believe I have an answer to this problem.
As
Avigad notes, this is a very fancy seal. It is large, as these things go (1.25
inches from top to bottom). It is filled with the common Egyptian symbols that
were often used in Phoenicia at this time.c
At the top is a crouching winged sphinx with a woman’s face and (part of) a
female Isis/Hathor crown. The body of the sphinx is a lioness (cf. Ezekiel 19),
clearly appropriate for the seal of a queen. To the left is an Egyptian ankh, the sign of life. A
line then divides these symbols from a lower register. Below the line is a
winged disk (which, incidentally, also appears on many Hebrew l’melekh handles). Below
this is an Egyptian-style falcon. On either side of the falcon is a uraeus, the cobra most
commonly seen on the headdresses of Egyptian royalty and divinities. Each of
these snakes faces outward. The serpent-like symbol beneath the falcon is
actually a lotus, which refers to regeneration but also is a typical female
symbol generally connected to women, but especially royal women. The densely
filled space reflects the horror
vacui (“fear” of empty space) that is typical.
One
other thing that may at first seem peculiar: The four letters of the
inscription appear to be scattered in the interstices of the symbols that
almost fill the space. Two letters (Y and Z) are just below the sun disk.
Tucked into the lower left is the B. Tucked into the lower right is the L.
Actually,
this is not as peculiar as it might seem at first. We have many seals where the
lettering identifying the owner is distributed around an elaborate decoration
in a way that matches the Jezebel seal perfectly.
But
what about the critical missing aleph
at the beginning of the spelling of the name Jezebel in Hebrew? Actually, there
are two letters that we would expect to find in a seal like this. In addition
to the aleph, we
would expect an L, or lamed,
preceding the name, as, for example, in the l’melekh handles. The lamed means “to” and is often translated “(belonging)
to.” In short, the lamed
indicates ownership and appears on almost all seals before a name.
So
we should expect two additional letters before the four letters that actually
appear on this seal— a lamed
and then an aleph.
Though theoretically any letter of the alphabet could fill the space of the
second letter, only an aleph
produces an acceptable name for such an elaborate seal.
There
is one damaged part of this seal— at the very top. It is just large enough for
the two missing letters: lamed
and aleph. In my
view, the broken-off part of the seal originally contained these two letters.3
In
short, the name Jezebel appears exactly as it should: L’YZBL, or “Belonging to
Jezebel.”
There
are additional reasons to believe that this Jezebel is the queen who figures so
prominently in the Bible.
Of
course, the seal does not contain her father’s name or the addition “queen.”
The unusually large size alone, however, suggests a very wealthy, influential
person. The winged sphinx, winged sun disk and especially the falcon are well-known
symbols of royalty in Egypt. The female Isis/Hathor crown on the winged sphinx
(symbol for the king) suggests the owner to be female. The graceful
Egypto-Phoenician style points to someone who apparently loved this type of
art, a circumstance tallying with the fact that Jezebel was a Phoenician
princess (1 Kings 16:31).
© The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
MIRROR IMAGE. Because most seals were pressed into wet pottery or into small blobs of clay used to secure scrolls— serving much like a signature— symbols and letters were often carved in reverse. When stamped into the clay, the seal images and inscription would appear correctly. This photo of the Jezebel seal and its impression, or bulla, show the seal in reverse and in proper stance.
The
double uraeus
(cobra) at the bottom is a typical symbol of queens with prominent roles in
religion and politics from the 18th Egyptian dynasty onward. Especially the
Egyptian queen Tiye seems to have functioned as a model for later queens. Often
she is represented wearing the Isis/Hathor crown or the crown with double uraei. So, independent of
the name of the owner, the iconography definitely suggests a queen. Although
other individuals used the same symbols to indicate their closeness to the
throne, no other seal uses them all.
Another,
slightly more complex argument suggests that this is Queen Jezebel’s seal: Her
name is a quote from the Baal myth. Jezebel means “Where is his Highness
(=Baal)?” The name of Jezebel was suitable for a princess like the daughter of
the Phoenician king Ethbaal because it identified her with the goddess ‘Anat
(the Canaanite parallel of the Egyptian goddess Isis/Hathor), the beloved of
Baal. It is this goddess who is addressed by the highest god, Ilu, in the above
quote from the Baal myth. As Avigad recognized, the name Jezebel was rare in
Phoenicia. It is probable that only princesses (who would eventually become
queens) were named Jezebel.
In
the Ugaritic Baal ritual, the queen represented ‘Anat, who had to revive her
beloved husband Baal. Similarly the pharaoh at his death was identified with
Osiris, and it was Isis who had to restore him to life with the help of her
sister Nephtys. These two goddesses were often represented as uraei. By including the two
cobras, the ankh
symbol and the horned sundisk on her seal, Jezebel wanted to characterize
herself as the revitalizing force behind the throne.
From
her Phoenician point of view, she had every right to aspire to such a
(semi-)divine status. Similar ideas are found in Phoenician inscriptions. The
Phoenician king is called “consort of Astarte,” ‘Anat’s twin-sister. In an
Aramaic inscription, a queen describes herself as the wife of the god Bel
(Baal). According to Ezekiel 28:2, 9 the king of Tyre imagined himself a god.
It is well known that in Israel, too, the divine nature of kingship was
sometimes recognized (e.g., Psalm 2:6f., 45:7 [Hebrew verse 8], 110).
The
seal attests to her aspiration for a divine status, and this may well have been
what sparked the ire of the Biblical descriptions of her.
Finally,
the form of the letters on the signet, especially the Y, is Phoenician or
imitates Phoenician writing.4
The L also appears to be ancient Phoenician.
In
short, I believe it is very likely that we have here the seal of the famous
Queen Jezebel”.
If
Akhnaton had shared a substantial co-regency with Amenhotep III, as some
scholars insist, then the reign of Akhnaton would early have overlapped with
that of Jehu in Israel. Regarding such a possible co-regency of EA pharaohs, we
read at: http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/29044
“Proof found of Amenhotep III-Akhenaten co-regency
There has long been a debate among historians and Egyptologists over
whether Amenhotep III and his son, the future Akhenaten shared a co-regency
towards the end of the father’s reign, with some experts positing a power
sharing arrangement lasting as long as 12 years or as short as two years. Much
of the recent scholarship on the controversy has argued against the co-regency
theory altogether. There has been no solid archaeological evidence to resolve
the debate, but on Thursday Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim, Egypt’s Minister of
Antiquities, announced that inscriptions found in the Luxor tomb of Vizier
Amenhotep-Huy provide conclusive evidence that Amenhotep III shared power with Akhenaten for at least
eight years in the waning days of the elder’s reign.
The inscriptions were carved onto architectural remains, collapsed
walls and columns, in tomb number 28 in the El Asasif area of Luxor. Some of
the inscriptions depict scenes of father and son together in the same space as
one follows the other. There are also cartouches — the prenomen or
throne name of a pharaoh surrounded by a protective oval — of both pharaohs
next to each other. Traditionally, viziers’ tombs always bear the cartouche of
the pharaoh they served under.
As if that weren’t bonanza enough, the inscriptions date to a very
specific time: the first Heb-Sed of Amenhotep III. The Heb-Sed was a feast like
a royal jubilee celebrated by a pharaoh 30 years into his reign and then every
three years after that. Since Amenhotep ruled for approximately 38 years
(1388–1351 B.C. or 1391–1353 B.C.). Records survive referring to his 38th
regnal year and some historians believe he may have begun his 39th but died
very soon into it. That means father and son were co-regents for at least eight
years. …”.
[Of
course, one would need to lower the above BC dates for EA by some 500 years. It
also looks like I must now, on chronological grounds, drop my former - and
somewhat popular - identification of Queen Jezebel with Queen Nefertiti, who apparently
emerges later than Jezebel].
Following
the death of King Ahab around Amenhotep III’s 10th year, his son
Ahaziah (= EA’s Mut-Balu, I have
suggested) ascends the throne of Israel and, in the very same year, according
to P. Mauro, “Jehoram reigns with Jehoshaphat”.
If that last
be so, and if Jehoram of Judah were EA’s Abdi-hiba,
as already argued, then it would show that Velikovsky was very close to the
mark chronologically, at least, in
his choice of identification of Abdi-hiba
with King Jehoshaphat of Judah.
There may
have been some irregularity here for Jehoram to have reigned for Jehoshaphat. Perhaps the king of
Judah gives an explanation when he (Jehoram), as Abdi-hiba, will write that his parents did not put him on the
throne (https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/jerusalem-in-the-amarna-letters): “… ruler named Abdi-Heba
… states that he is a “soldier for the king, my lord” …. 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”.
Though, we have
already noted that Abdi-hiba nowhere
specifically refers to any Egyptian ruler.
Why did not the prophet
Elijah also anoint the pious king Jehoshaphat along with the “Sinai Commission”
triumvirate of Elisha, Hazael and Jehu?
After all, he was
highly favoured by the Lord as we read here (2 Chronicles 17:3-10):
“The Lord was with Jehoshaphat because he
followed the ways of his father David before him. He did not consult the Baals
but sought the God of his father and followed his commands rather than the
practices of Israel. The Lord
established the kingdom under his control; and all Judah brought gifts to
Jehoshaphat, so that he had great wealth and honor. His heart was devoted to
the ways of the Lord; furthermore,
he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah. In the third year
of his reign he sent his officials Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel and
Micaiah to teach in the towns of Judah. With them were certain Levites—Shemaiah,
Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah and
Tob-Adonijah—and the priests Elishama and Jehoram. They taught throughout
Judah, taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord; they went around to all the towns of Judah and taught
the people.
The fear of
the Lord fell on all the kingdoms
of the lands surrounding Judah, so that they did not go to war against
Jehoshaphat”.
Jehoshaphat
was a good king, but with a very bad choice of allies: namely, Ahab and his two
sons.
He
firstly, willingly, entered into an
alliance with King Ahab to fight the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead (2 Chronicles
18:3).
Next, he
joined Ahab’s son, Ahaziah, in a disastrous fleet-building enterprise, with the
ships being wrecked (20:35-37).
And,
finally, he allied himself with Jehoram of Israel against the rebellious King Mesha
of Moab (2 Kings 3:1-27).
In these three
instances, we find holy prophets (Jehu, Eliezer, Elisha) – whilst showing utter
contempt for the House of Ahab – generally paying some respect to King Jehoshaphat
himself, though sometimes with an admonishment for his unwise choice of alliance.
In the first case, we read (2 Chronicles 19:1-3): “When
Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem, Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to
the king, ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is on you.
There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land
of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God’.”
In the second case, we read (20:35-37): “Later,
Jehoshaphat king of Judah made an alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel, whose
ways were wicked. He agreed with him to
construct a fleet of trading ships. After these were built at Ezion
Geber, Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied
against Jehoshaphat, saying, ‘Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah,
the Lord will destroy what you have made’. The ships were wrecked and were
not able to set sail to trade”.
In the third case, we read (2 Kings 3:14): “Elisha
said, ‘As surely as the Lord
Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of
Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not pay any attention to you [Jehoram]’.”
In these instances, King Jehoshaphat
was making the same mistake as had his father Asa of Judah, who had formed an alliance
with Ben-Hadad I of Syria, instead of depending upon Yahweh as he had formerly
been wont to do.
St. Paul (echoing Jehu son of
Hanani) would at a later time warn against this type of “partnership” (2
Corinthians 6:14): “Do not be unequally yoked with
unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what
fellowship has light with darkness?”
Part Twenty Five: Was Jehu an
Omride?
(ii) ‘Did Jehu kill his own family?’
“The [Black Obelisk] inscription calls Jehu the son of Omri.
This does not
necessarily mean that Jehu was Omri’s literal son. It could well
mean he was a
descendant of Omri, that is of the House, or dynasty, of Omri.
But that does not
solve the problem”.
Tammi Schneider
When I had
discussed Tammi Schneider’s handling of the problem of Jehu in my university thesis:
A
Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its
Background
(Volume One, “Origins of Jehu”, beginning on p.
98), I myself had some wrong notions about Jehu’s actual origins. So here I
shall take only the parts of my discussion that I now deem to be relevant:
Origins of Jehu
That very question: ‘Did King Jehu Kill His Own
Family?’ has been pondered by Schneider who has given this as the title to her
article on this intriguing matter. Schneider here is intent upon showing that
Jehu, despite his having wiped out the entire House of Ahab, was nonetheless an
Omride as thought to be represented by Shalmaneser III in his Black Obelisk
inscription. Schneider, in support of her thesis, has noted, quite correctly, that
Jehu was a familiar figure at the royal palace of Israel: ….
Jehu’s relationship with the Israelite palace and royalty also hints at
a family connection. Several Biblical passages clearly indicate that Jehu is no
stranger to the king or palace. For example, when Jehu is proclaimed king by
his troops and rides to the palace, he is recognized from afar by the way he
rides (2 Kings 9:20). When riding out to greet him, Joram [Jehoram], about to
be killed, calls Jehu by name (2 Kings 9:22). Jehu comments that he once rode
behind Joram’s father, Ahab, in battle (2 Kings 9:25). Even Jezebel’s greeting
to Jehu—she calls him a “Zimri”—may indicate he was a palace insider (2 Kings
9:31). Clearly, Jehu was no stranger to the royal family.
….
Now, there is an important chronological note in
Schneider’s quote, that Jehu was already
serving as a charioteer in the days of Ahab. In
revised terms, this would make Jehu, too,
an active contemporary of Amenhotep III …. Schneider
had commented on Jehu’s idiosyncratic charioteering. In fact a sentinel at the
time of Jehu’s deadly pursuit of Jehoram of Israel had reported: “It looks like
the driving of Jehu son of Nimshi; for he drives like a maniac” (v. 20). ….
Shalmaneser III’s Black Obelisk
Schneider’s case will rest largely upon the apparent
reference to Jehu by Shalmaneser III as a ‘son of Omri’. She, having accepted
that this was indeed Jehu, and that Jehu was in fact an Omride, has put
together the following explanation: ….
The four-sided limestone monument [Black Obelisk] is decorated with five
registers of relief sculptures depicting the bringing of tribute to
Shalmaneser. Each register reads around four sides, one panel to a side,
portraying a particular tribute and tribute-bearers. The second register from
the top shows the tribute of the Israelite king Jehu (ruled 841-814 B.C.E.). The
central figure on the first panel of this register, presumably Jehu himself, prostrates
himself, forehead to the ground or possibly kissing the feet of the Assyrian
monarch. Some have suggested that this figure might be Jehu’s emissary. But if
it is Jehu, this panel offers the only extant picture of a king of ancient
Israel from the First Temple period [sic].
The cuneiform caption above this register identifies the scenes as
representing the tribute of Jehu and reads as follows:
“Tribute of Iaua [Jehu], son of Omri. Silver, gold, a golden bowl, a
golden beaker, golden goblets, pitchers of gold, tin, staves for the hand of
the king, [and] javelins, I [Shalmaneser] received from him.”
… The Bible does not mention Jehu paying tribute to Shalmaneser. But obviously
the Bible does not record everything that occurred in a reign that began in 841
B.C.E. and ended in 814 B.C.E.
….
Schneider next moves on to discuss the Omride problem
in relation to Jehu: ….
There is another problem, however. The inscription calls Jehu the son of
Omri.
This does not necessarily mean that Jehu was Omri’s literal son. It
could well
mean he was a descendant of Omri, that is of the House, or dynasty, of
Omri. But that does not solve the problem.
According to conventional scholarly wisdom, Jehu was not even a
descendant of Omri. On the contrary, Jehu staged a coup d’etat that supposedly
brought an end to the 40-year rule of the Omride dynasty.
As recounted in 2 Kings 9-10, Jehu, a commander in King Joram’s
[Jehoram’s]
army, was instructed by Elisha to murder the king, which ended the line
of Omri.
In Judah, the southern kingdom, the Davidic kings ruled continuously for
400 years, whereas murder and usurpation were common occurrences in the
northern kingdom of Israel. Omri, also a general, became king of the northern
kingdom in 882 B.C.E. after attacking his predecessor. Omri was succeeded by
his son Ahab (ruled 871-852 B.C.E.), who in turn was succeeded first by one
son, Ahaziah (ruled 852-851 B.C.E.), and then by another son, Joram (ruled
851-842 B.C.E.), whom Jehu murdered. … The grisly paradox of the cuneiform
inscription on the Black Obelisk is that it identifies Jehu as the son of Omri,
the very house he is famous for destroying. Modern scholarship assumes, based
on all the information available in the Hebrew Bible, that to destroy the House
of Ahab would be to destroy the House of Omri as well. But the Hebrew text
never explicitly draws that conclusion. Throughout the Ahab/ Jehu cycle the
house that is destroyed is called the House of Ahab, while the House of Omri is
never mentioned.
Schneider then asks: “Why does the Bible make this
peculiar distinction between the House of Ahab and the House of Omri?” And her
explanation of the ‘son of Omri’ conundrum is as follows: ….
I propose that the Black Obelisk inscription is correct, that Jehu was
indeed a “son” of Omri—that is, a descendant of Omri—but through a different
line from
that of Ahab, and that the House of Omri therefore did not come to an
end when
Jehu wiped out the House of Ahab. Traditional explanations for the
supposed mistake on the Black Obelisk—the identification of Jehu as a son of
Omri— point out that the Assyrians may have misunderstood Israelite politics or
that modern interpretations of the cuneiform text may be in error. …. How much
credibility should we give them? Was it a mistake to identify Jehu as a son of
Omri? ... why is Jehu referred to as “son of Omri”? A traditional explanation
is that the Assyrians referred to a kingdom by using the name of the first
ruler from that kingdom with whom they had contact. Since Assurnasirpal II
campaigned in the west (though not far enough to the southwest to reach Israel)
[sic], it is possible that he came into contact with Omri, who ruled Israel at
that time.
According to the traditional view, the Assyrians for that reason
referred to Israel as the “house of Omri” until it was destroyed in 721 B.C.E.
—despite the fact that Jehu represented the beginning of a new, if short-lived,
dynasty.
Thiele will thus comment, in relation to the Black
Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, that: …. “It is interesting to note that this
Assyrian record applied to the nation of Jehu the name of the king [i.e. Omri]
whose dynasty he had destroyed”.
….
Schneider, herself unconvinced by the standard
interpretation, continues: ….
If that is so, however, we would not expect the first Assyrian reference
to an Israelite ruler, on the Kurkh Monolith, to mention Ahab as ruling the
land of sir-
‘i-la-a, probably Israel, though possibly Jezreel. No reference to King
Omri in the Assyrian inscriptions has been discovered. Thus the standard
explanation for the reference to Jehu as “son of Omri”—that Omri was the
Assyrian term for Israel—is unsupported by the evidence.
…. Schneider now turns to the matter of Jehu’s
biblical lineage: ….
…. A clue: In the Hebrew Bible, Jehu is called “Jehu son of Jehoshaphat
son of Nimshi” (2 Kings 9:2, 14). Jehu is the only king of Israel to have his
grandfather’s name listed in his patronymic. Why? Traditional explanations
would suffice were it not for the Assyrian references. These explanations
usually suggest that Jehu’s father was not as well known in the community as
his grandfather, or that Nimshi is a clan name whose meaning has been lost over
the centuries.
Another explanation is that Jehu’s grandfather’s name is included to
show that
Jehu’s father was not King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehu’s contemporary.
Whether Schneider is right in her assertion that “Jehu
is the only king of Israel to have his grandfather’s name listed in his
patronymic” has probably yet to be fully determined in the light of a revised
history of Israel. Moreover, that her explanation above has its problems is
indicated by the three points that she will now outline:
Although the foregoing explanations are consistent with Biblical
accounts, they face some significant problems: (1) There is no other Biblical
reference to a person named Nimshi, so that he was probably not all that well
known; (2) the name “Nimshi” appears as a personal name on a Samarian ostracon,
making it unlikely that the name referred to a clan; (3) not only are
grandfathers’ names
never listed in the patronymics of Israelite kings, but other Israelite
kings who usurped the throne, such as Zimri and Omri, have no patronymics at
all …!
On the other hand, if Jehu claimed descent from Omri, the inclusion of
his grandfather’s name may have been necessary to establish the genealogical
link.
…. I propose that Jehu was indeed a descendant of Omri.
…. Without contradicting information provided by the Hebrew Bible, this suggestion
would answer many questions. Assuming that Omri had sons from
more than one wife would explain the Assyrian reference to Jehu as
belonging to the House of Omri. It would also account for Jehu’s unusual
patronymic, why he was a commander so familiar to the royal family, and why the
purge of the House of Ahab, extending to Judah, was so severe.
This new way of thinking about Jehu solves problems on both the
cuneiform and Biblical sides without having to make excuses for any of the
texts involved.
Whilst Schneider’s
is a valiant attempt to sort out an intricate problem, I think it falls flat because
the significant Assyrian king, Shalmaneser
III, does not really belong in the EA era, which is, however, the time of
King Jehu of Israel.
The
problem is a deep-seated chronological one, caused by the mis-alignment of the
Sothic-based chronologies of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Dr. I. Velikovsky
did not manage convincingly to identify Shalmaneser III in any of the EA correspondence
for the simple reason that the Assyrian king does not actually date to this
time. If he had, a king of such importance and so long reigning as he would presumably
have figured there quite prominently. Failure to realise this (quite
understandable) has led the first of the major problems of the Velikovskian
reconstruction, known as “The Assuruballit Problem” [TAP].
Why is it
that the only Assyrian king in EA called “Assuruballit” and not “Shalmaneser”?
Our
next step will be to solve this problem of TAP.
To
do this, we are going to take Shalmaneser III right out of the C9th BC, the
proper EA era.
And
we are going to take King Jehu of Israel right out of Shalmaneser III’s Black
Obelisk, and right out of any Omride connections.
Continued at next blog:
https://amaic1.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/the-golden-sword-of-marian-apocalypse_19.html
https://amaic1.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/the-golden-sword-of-marian-apocalypse_19.html
No comments:
Post a Comment