Similar lives, burials for Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

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

biblegateway

 

 

Thus we read at biblegateway:

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

 

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

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

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

[End of quote]

 

Reign (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Burial (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

What to make of all this?

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

….

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz ….

 

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

 

 

 

 

King Nabonidus like an Assyrian monarch

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Nabonidus is an Assyrian king.

He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having

the Assyrian kings as his “royal ancestors”.

 

 

 

This is what I wrote some years ago now to Johnny Zwick, sysop of the California Institute for Ancient Studies (then www.specialtyinterests.net/), regarding my projected realignment of late Judah with neo Assyro-Babylonia:

 

My connecting of Hezekiah of Judah with Josiah went down like a lead balloon amongst the few to whom I sent it. (See Pope’s valuable effort at: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.html)

 

[Comment: I have since re-done this properly in my article:

 

‘Taking aim on’ king Amon – such a wicked king of Judah

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

So here is the next phase. I would not actually call it a bombshell.

More like a Third World War.

Nabonidus is an Assyrian king. He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having the Assyrian kings as his “royal ancestors”. There is nothing particularly strange about his supposed long stay in Teima in Arabia. This was a typical campaign region adopted by the neo-Assyrian kings. There is nothing particularly remarkable about his desire to restore the Ehulhul temple of Sin in Harran.

Ashurbanipal did that.

 

Nabonidus is said to have had two major goals, to restore that Sin temple and to establish the empire of Babylon along the lines of the neo-Assyrians. Once again, Ashurbanipal is particularly mentioned as being his inspiration.

 

Nabonidus was not singular in not taking the hand of Bel in Babylon for many years, due to what he calls the impiety of the Babylonians. Ashurbanipal (and now you will notice that he keeps turning up) could not shake the hand of Bel after his brother Shamash-shum-ukin had revolted against him, barring Babylon, Borsippa, etc. to him. He tells us this explicitly.

 

Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same.

So, basically Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal during his early reign. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.

 

Now, if Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal (and I am now pretty much convinced that he must be), then Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) can only be Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.

Nebuchednezzar is the Babylonian face, while Ashurbanipal is the Assyrian face.

The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! Add to this paltry number all of the depictions of Ashurbanipal.

 

The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. Add Ashurbanipal (whose lack also in places is supplemented in turn by Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus).

 

It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. Just add Ashurbanipal who certainly did conquer Egypt.

 

The many queries about whether an inscription belongs to Nebuchednezzar or Nabonidus now dissolves.

 

It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchednezzar, they say, who built the famous palace in Babylon.

Nabonidus’s well known madness (perhaps the Teima phase) is Nebuchednezzar’s madness.

Nabonidus calls Sin “the God of gods” (ilani sa ilani), the exact phrase used by Nebuchednezzar in Daniel 2:47 of Daniel’s God (“the God of gods”).

 

Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it.

“Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176).

….

 

Merenptah completes Seti

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

  “Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions,

not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears

to have been blocked up by Seti?”

 Keith Hamilton

 

 

The somewhat poorly known pharaoh Merenptah – generally thought to have been the son and successor of Ramses II – needs, it seems, to be filled out with his supposed grandfather, Seti (the father of Ramses II), whom I have multi-identified in e.g. my series:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah

 

See especially:

 

Seti I and Seti II Merenptah. Part Three: Seti I and II Merenptah and Merenptah

https://www.academia.edu/39120467/Seti_I_and_Seti_II_Merenptah._Part_Three_Seti_I_and_II_Merenptah_and_Merenptah

Merenptah’s relative obscurity (qua Merenptah) is apparent from the following quotes:

 

http://www.ancientpages.com/2018/04/17/pharaoh-merneptah-his-giant-sarcophagus-and-unique-victory-stele/

“Greatly overshadowed by his dominant and long-lived father, Merneptah never had a chance to become a famous pharaoh and he was almost unknown for most of his life”.

 

Note, in the next quote, the sequence: “probably”, “likely”, “presumed”, “possibly”.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

“Merneptah was probably the fourth child of Isetnofret I, the second wife of Ramesses II, and he was married to Queen Isetnofret II, his royal wife, who was likely his full sister bearing the name of their mother. It is presumed that Merneptah was also married to Queen Takhat and one of their sons would succeed him as Seti II. They also were the parents of Prince Merenptah and possibly the usurper, Amenmesse, and Queen Twosret, wife of Seti II and later pharaoh in her own right”.

 

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Merneptah

“He left few monuments, but in his conduct of Egypt’s defense and diplomacy he was at least the equal of his father”.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10208b.htm

“His original works are comparatively few and insignificant. His name is constantly found on the monuments of his father …”.

 

Merenptah is thought to have “decorated” (in some cases, “largely”) monuments of Seti, even though he is considered to have been separated from Seti by the almost seven decades of reign of Ramses II.

 

https://therolesandcontributionsofsetii.weebly.com/builder.html

“The Osireion is located behind the Abydos temple and may have been intended to be a ‘cenotaph’ (empty tomb.) The architecture of the Osireion is particularly unusual: a rectangular ‘island’ surrounded by a channel of water was constructed in the middle of the hall on which large pillars were built. This design may have represented the primeval waters and mound which began all of creation. Although the structure was built by Seti I it was largely decorated by his grandson, Merenptah with scenes from ‘The Book of Gates’, images of the journey to the underworld, texts relating to astronomy and depictions of gods and goddesses”.

 

Click to access The-Osireion-A-Laymans-Guide.pdf

“When Murray discovered and excavated the two chambers at the end of the entrance passage, she found them decorated with texts; she states,

 

“The cartouche of Merenptah appeared in every place where it could be inserted, and we therefore had to consider the possibility of its being his tomb.”24

 

It seems clear therefore, that a lot of the preliminary laying out of the texts was accomplished by Seti, and that these texts were utilised by Merenptah, who only had to sculpt the walls and replace Seti’s name with his own; though his workers appeared to have missed Seti’s name on two occasions.

 

There are indications that Ramesses II did likewise in the adjacent temple, when he completed Seti’s work; though there is no evidence that Ramesses did any work on the Osireion.

 

Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions, not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears to have been blocked up by Seti? Frankfort makes no comment on it, other than to question Strabo’s access; he states, Ingress could not be obtained by the arch at the north end of the entrance passage, because we found it still bricked up with Seti’s bricks,..”25

 

But if this logic is good for Strabo, what about Merenptah? Merenptah was Seti’s grandson and he ruled after his long lived father Ramesses II, who ruled about 66 years: Merenptah would not be so fortunate and his reign is believed to be a more modest 10 years. It would seem therefore, that Merenptah took an unusual interest in the subterranean Osireion some 66 years after Seti bricked up the arch. If Merenptah had used this entrance, might not he have used bricks with his own name on it? So how did he gain access? ….

 

http://www.historyembalmed.org/egyptian-pharaohs/merneptah.htm

“Children:  Little information about his children but it is believed that his son Seti-Merneptah became Pharaoh Seti II”.

 

 

Can Sargon II’s Si’be be tied up with the biblical pharaoh ‘So’?

Part One: Tying up, all together, So, Si’be and Shabaka

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

Others, though, claim that Si’be equates to Shabaka of the 25^th Ethiopian dynasty ….

Boutflower had in fact looked to tie up, all together, ‘So’, Sibe and Shabaka ….

 

 

The 25^th so-called ‘Ethiopian’ dynasty (c. 745 – 655 BC, conventional dating) is part of the nightmare that is Egypt’s so-called Third Intermediate Period (TIP). And though certain Egyptologists have breathed a sigh of relief when they arrived at discussion of the 25^th dynasty, even that dynasty, as I attempted to explain in my article:

 

Piankhi same as Bible’s Tirhakah? Part Two: 25th (Ethiopian) Dynasty not clear cut

 

https://www.academia.edu/37479175/Piankhi_same_as_Bibles_Tirhakah_Part_Two_25th_Ethiopian_Dynasty_not_clear_cut

 

is “not clear cut”.

The whole thing is, however (I suspect), a nightmare more of the making of the Egyptologists than of the actual reality. It is most unlikely, for instance, that Piankhi (Piye) was running about as early as c. 745 BC where convention has so early placed him.

If I am correct (following Sir Flinders Petrie), then:

 

Piankhi [is the] same as Bible’s Tirhakah

 

https://www.academia.edu/37451966/Piankhi_same_as_Bibles_Tirhakah

 

It would certainly be nice if we could get some sort of co-ordinating perspective on such things.

Well perhaps, if we take notice of Charles Boutflower and Sir Alan Gardiner, we may be able to tie up, all at once (i) a 25^th dynasty pharaoh, (ii) an Egyptian encountered by neo-Assyria, and (iii) a biblical king.

This is what I wrote about such an intriguing possible situation (or era) in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

(Volume One, pp. 377-378):

 

When next Assyria encounters Egypt, in c. 720 BC in the reign of Sargon II, no pharaoh is initially referred to, but Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be.[1] Gardiner had in fact identified the latter with ‘So’, claiming that scholars are in agreement with this[2] (see next page). Whilst chronologically I might be able to accept this conclusion, it would not explain why a ‘King So’ has all of a sudden become a mere Turtan (Si’be). Kitchen, however, had argued that Si’be should instead read Re-e (in the Akkadian) and Ria’a (in the Egyptian).[3] Clapham has seized upon this as being an opportunity to identify the Turtan of the Egyptian armies with a Ramesside (‘Ramses’ = Ria’a) – late 19^th dynasty as applicable to his own revision.[4]

Others, though, claim that Si’be equates to Shabaka of the 25^th Ethiopian dynasty.[5] Boutflower had in fact looked to tie up, all together, ‘So’, Sibe and Shabaka.[6]

According to Gardiner, however, a connection between Si’be and Shabaka is unlikely:[7]

 

Scholars are agreed to identify this So with Sib’e, turtan of Egypt, whom the annals of Sargon state to have set out from Rapihu (Raphia …) together with Hanno … of Gaza …. Sargon tells us that Sib’e, ‘like a shepherd whose flock has been stolen, fled alone and disappeared …’. For phonetic and probably also chronological [sic] reasons So and Sib’e cannot be … Shabako, so that these names are supposed to have been those of a general. This seems the more probable since the Assyrian text goes on to say “I received the tribute from Pir’u of Musru …” which can hardly mean anything but ‘from the Pharaoh of Egypt’.

 

Finally, Rohl has made the suggestion that would appear to have at least real phonetic value, that “we might find the true identity of Si’be in the 21^st Dynasty king Psibkhenno, more commonly known by the classical name of Psusennes”.[8]

 

[End of quotes]

 

For my revised view of Psusennes, see my article:

 

Smendes and Shoshenq I. Part Three: May Psusennes I and II be the actual same person?

 

https://www.academia.edu/39036650/Smendes_and_Shoshenq_I._Part_Three_May_Psusennes_I_and_II_be_the_actual_same_person

 

Now, what if we could tie up, all together, So and Si’be with pharaonic names from two supposed TIP dynasties: Psibkhenno/Psusennes and Shabaka?

 

That would give us even more chronological space in which to manoeuvre.

 

 

 

 

[1] D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. II, # 5. Luckenbill gives the name here as Sib’u.

[2] Op. cit, p. 342.

[3] Op. cit, p. 373.

[4] Op. cit, p. 3.

[5] E.g. K. LeFlem, ‘Amenophis, Osarsiph and Arzu’, p. 15.

[6] Op. cit, p. 126.

[7] Op. cit, ibid.

[8] ‘Comments by David Rohl’, p. 19.