Sumur in Amarna letters of Rib-Addi

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura) …

which EA cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of,

respectively, Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified

with the coastal cities of Byblos (Gebal) and Simyra”.

What Sumur was not

Sumur cannot realistically have been Samaria, as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had hopefully argued (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). For, as I explained in my postgraduate thesis (2007, Volume One, pp. 83-87):

…. Now EA’s [El Amarna’s] Lab’ayu, whom I shall be identifying with Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dates), appropriately straddles both part of Amenhotep III’s reign and the early part of Akhnaton’s.

Velikovsky, for his part, had … looked to identify Ahab with Rib-Addi of Gubla, the most prolific Syro-Palestine correspondent to the EA pharaohs (over 50 letters in number).[1] And this was surely a big mistake. For, in order for him to ‘make’ Ahab, like Rib-Addi, a very old man at death, Velikovsky was prepared to fly in the face of the biblical data and completely re-cast the chronology of Ahab’s life. He had convinced himself that there existed a contradiction between the accounts of Ahab in Kings and Chronicles so that, as he claimed, Ahab did not die at the battle of Ramoth-gilead as is stated in 1 Kings 22 (cf. vv. 6, 29 & 37), but rather reigned on for a further 8-10 years. Thus, according to Velikovsky’s view, king Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dates), never truly existed, but was a ghost.

From a biblical point of view, the fact that Rib-Addi had been able to report the death of Abdi-Ashirta (Velikovsky’s Ben-Hadad I) meant that Velikovsky was quite wrong in identifying Rib-Addi with king Ahab; since Ahab’s death preceded that of Ben-Hadad (cf. 1 Kings 22:40 & 2 Kings 8:15). But this was Velikovsky in his favourite rôle as “the arbiter of history”,according to Sieff,[2] forcing historical data to fit a pre-conceived idea. Velikovsky called this Rib-Addi king of Gubla and Sumur (var. Sumura),[3] which EA cities he had tried to equate with Ahab’s chief cities of, respectively, Jezreel and Samaria; though they are usually identified with the coastal cities of Byblos (Gebal) and Simyra. ….

Velikovsky greatly confused the issue of Ahab of Israel for those coming after him, since Rib-Addi was chronologically and geographically unsuitable for Ahab. Revisionists have since rightly rejected this part of Velikovsky’s EA reconstruction, with Sieff suggesting instead that Rib-Addi may have been Jehoram of Israel.[4] Liel favours this view from the perspective of her linguistic name studies. She has analysed the EA name, Rib-Addi, in the context of Israel’s Divided Monarchy … and has come to the same conclusion as had Sieff, assisted by James, but in her case on name basis alone:[5]

…. problematical to the Rib-Addi = Jehoram of Israel theory though are the geographical difficulties, as Liel now admits:

Certain questions remain regarding the identification of the Rib-Yauram [Rib-Addi] of the Amarna letters and the biblical Jehoram son of Omri.

The main one is geographical; i.e., can Sumur and Gubla be identified with Samaria and Jezreel? This question will be dealt with in a forthcoming paper to be entitled “The Hebrew-Phoenician-Aramean Kingdom of North Israel.”

… whether Jehoram could feasibly have been the aged Rib-Addi is another consideration. Whether or not Rib-Addi turns out to be Jehoram of Israel, a far better EA candidate for Ahab than Rib-Addi, in my opinion, and indeed a more obvious one – and I am quite surprised that no one has yet taken it up – is Lab’ayu, known to have been a king of the Shechem region, which is very close to Samaria (only 9 km SE distant); especially given my quote earlier (p. 54) from Cook that the geopolitical situation at this time in the “(north)[was akin to that of the] Israelites of a later [sic] time”. Lab’ayu is never actually identified in the EA letters as king of either Samaria or of Shechem. Nevertheless, Aharoni has designated Lab’ayu as “King of Shechem”in his description of the geo-political situation in Palestine during the EA period (Aharoni, of course, is a conventional scholar writing of a period he thinks must have been well pre-monarchical):[6]

In the hill country there were only a few political centres, and each of these ruled over a fairly extensive area. In all the hill country of Judah and Ephraim we hear only of Jerusalem and Shechem with possible allusions to Beth-Horon and Manahath, towns within the realm of Jerusalem’s king.

… Apparently the kings of Jerusalem and Shechem dominated, to all practical purposes, the entire central hill country at that time. The territory controlled by Labayu, King of Shechem, was especially large in contrast to the small Canaanite principalities round about. Only one letter refers to Shechem itself, and we get the impression that this is not simply a royal Canaanite city but rather an extensive kingdom with Shechem as its capital.

Against all objections already discussed, this description sounds very much to me like the distinct northern and southern realms during the split kingdom era! Note, too, how the more northerly region of Galilee is missing from this description. We might recall that Ben-Hadad I and/or Tab-rimmon had taken these towns from Israel’s king Baasha.

De Vaux considered Aharoni’s identification of Shechem as the capital of Lab’ayu’s kingdom as being by no means certain:[7]

Lab’ayu was not, however, given the title of king of Shechem and it is very doubtful whether he ever was. It would seem too that he did not live at Shechem; his authority was probably exercised from elsewhere by means of an agreement made with the inhabitants.

The latter took care of the internal administration of the city and recognised Lab’ayu’s authority as a kind of protectorate….

In the light of this, the conclusion of Rohl and Newgrosh is valid:[8] “In most scholarly works Labayu is referred to as the king or ruler of Shechem and this, we feel, has been misleading”.

Neither is Lab’ayu, as I already have noted, ever specifically mentioned in EA as a ruler of Samaria.

However, given the close proximity of Shechem to Samaria – and given the apparently “extensive” rule of Lab’ayu – then he stands, in a revised context, as the ideal identification for king Ahab of Israel. I am encouraged in this by the fact that Aharoni’s description of the kingdom over which Lab’ayu reigned appears to correspond very well with the realm of Ahab as far as we know it:[9]

Lab’ayu was a serious contender with the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer. EA 250 indicates that … he even dominated the entire Sharon, having conquered Gath-padalla (Jett in the central Sharon) and Gath-rimmon (apparently the biblical town of this name …). Even in the north Lab’ayu was not content to possess only the hill country; he tried to penetrate into the Jezreel Valley, laying siege to Megiddo (EA 244) and destroying Shunem and some other towns (EA 250).

[End of quotes]

Conclusion

The city of Sumur of the EA correspondence could not have been Samaria of Israel as Dr. Velikovsky had proposed, but was, as according to the standard interpretation, the port of Simyra.

What Sumur may also have been

That the port of Sumur/Simyra lies north of Byblos (my Babylon) and south of Ullaza (my Arzawa, tentatively) is apparent from what Dr. Mahmoud Elhosary has written (2009, p. 149):

…. In his thirtieth regnal year, Thutmose [III] attacked the Lebanon coast in earnest, mounting an amphibious invasion. He left Egypt in early June and arrived in Lebanon a week later. Although the Annals do not tell us where he landed, the most logical place was the port city of Simyra, located about thirty miles by sea from the friendly port of Byblos. Lying just south of Ullaza, Simyra was the closest port to the mouth of the Eleutheros Valley. ….

Gabriel, R.A., “Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt’s Greatest Warrior King”, Potomac Books, Inc. (2009)

(3) Gabriel, R.A., “Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt’s Greatest Warrior King”, Potomac Books, Inc. (2009) | Dr-Mahmoud Elhosary – Academia.edu

Arzawa is closely associated with geographical names such as Mira and the Seha River Land. Thus, for instance:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia/The-Middle-Kingdom

Arzawa, with its satellites Mira, Kuwaliya, Hapalla, and the “Land of the River Seha …”.

The latter might just possibly refer to the Chaldean Sealand, re-located from Sumer to NW Syria by Royce (Richard) Erickson in his groundbreaking article (2020):

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

(3) Academia.edu | Search | A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

Sumur, which can also read as Ṣimirra, etc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumur_(Levant)

Sumur (Biblical Hebrew: צְמָרִי‎ [collective noun denoting the city inhabitants]; Egyptian: Smr; Akkadian: Sumuru; Assyrian: Simirra) was a Phoenician city in what is now Syria. It was a major trade center. The city has also been referred to in English publications as Simyra,^[1] Ṣimirra, Ṣumra,^[2] Sumura,^[3] Ṣimura,^[4] Zemar,^[5] and Zimyra.^[6]

could then be Mira, an abbreviation of Ṣimirra.

Thought to be situated far away in the Arzawan Lands of Anatolia,

Mira (Simyra) and the Seha River Land (Sealand?) can probably take their place, instead, as approximate neighbours of Ullaza (Arzawa) and Byblos (Babylon).

---

[1] Ages in Chaos, ch. vi.

[2] ‘Velikovsky and His Heroes’, p. 115. Velikovsky is referred to in the same article (on the very next page) as the ‘conquistador of history’,p. 116.

[3] Velikovsky had noted that: “… not only personal but even geographical names were spelled in the letters in different ways: … Biridia (in one instance he wrote his name Biridri) announced to the pharaoh that he was defending Makida; another time he wrote that he was defending Magiidda. There are many similar examples in the letters”. Urusalim also appears in the letters as Buruzilim, whilst Sumur is also given as Sumura. Ages in Chaos, p. 300.  

[4] ‘The Two Jehorams’, ibid.

[5] Op. cit, section: “The King of Sumur and Gubla”.

[6] The Land of the Bible, p. 163.

[7] The Early History of Israel, p. 801. Emphasis added.

[8] ‘The el-Amarna Letters and the New Chronology’, p. 25.

[9]  Op. cit, p. 175.

Abu Lahab, Lab’ayu, Ahab

by

Damien F. Mackey

“In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles

Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh king of ancient Israel …

son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon”.

Ercan Celik

Ercan Celik is, I feel, on the right track here, in seeking to find, in the Bible, a leading character of the early Islamic story. For the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) is, himself, a fictitious (largely) biblical composite as according to my article:

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History

(4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

With the life of Mohammed having borrowed so many of its bits and pieces from the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments), it is no wonder that Mohammed himself has been portrayed as a most remarkable kind of man (verging on a superman), having such a breathtaking career.

The real miracle is that scholars down through the ages have been able to compile a coherent life of the man. The downside of it is – apart from the religious implications – that it is historically a complete shambles.

Better to view the whole thing as a marvellous work of fiction.

1,025 × 400

Now, a Turkish writer, Ercan Celik, believes that he has traced the so-called “uncle” of Mohammed to the Old Testament:

https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/celik_abu-lahab-jezebel

Who were Abu Lahab and His Wife? A View from the Hebrew Bible

In The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, G. S. Reynolds observes that

…scholars of the Qur’an accept the basic premise of the medieval Islamic sources that the Qur’an is to be explained in light of the life of the Prophet Muhammad…

However, he proposes that critical Qur’anic scholarship not depend on prophetic biography (sīrah) or traditional Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), but rather,

… the Qur’an should be appreciated in light of its conversation with earlier literature, in particular Biblical literature… This argument necessarily involves an examination of both the relationship of Muslim exegetical literature to the Qur’an and the relationship of the Qur’an to Biblical literature.

Sūrat al-Masad (Q 111) offers a valuable example for how a Biblical perspective can augment our understanding of the Qur’anic text. The text of the sūrah names its main character Abu Lahab, and mentions that he has a wife, but does not provide any further identifying information. Only extra-Qur’anic literature can give us more details about who he was. In this blog post, I compare how he may be identified through the Islamic literary sources and through the Hebrew Bible.

Abu Lahab In Islamic Literature

Abu Lahab, meaning “the father of flame,” is identified as the uncle of the prophet Muhammad, ʿAbd al-ʿUzza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, nicknamed Abu Lahab on account of his reddish complexion. He is said to have been a rich and proud man, and he and his wife Umm Jamil, sister of Abu Sufyan, are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community.

There are many anecdotes in the Islamic literary sources about their verbal and physical attacks on the prophet. Some Qur’an commentators say that Umm Jamil used to litter Muhammad’s path with harmful thorns of twisted palm leaf fibres, and that this is the historical context for the final verse of Sūrat al-Masad: “Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre” (Q 111:5).

Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature

In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh kings of ancient Israel (r. ca. 885-874 BCE), son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon. We could read “Abu Lahab” alternatively, and without substantial change, as “Abu’l-Ahab,” father of Ahab. According to the Hebrew Bible, the father of Ahab is Omri, who is described in 1 Kings 16:25 as having acted “more wickedly than all who were before him.” His son Ahab, in his own time, “married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him . . . Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:31-33).

…. 

As for Jezebel, it is said that she ordered the killing of prophets (1 Kings 18:4). The prophet Elijah escaped her persecution and with God’s command confronted Ahab with a challenge to the priests of Baal: “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God” (18:24). The supporters of Baal called upon their god to send fire to consume their sacrifice, but nothing happened.

When Elijah called upon the name of the Lord, fire came down from heaven immediately and consumed their offering.

Eventually Ahab in killed in battle, and when Elisha, successor to the prophet Elijah, anoints Jehu king of Israel, the latter had the house of Ahab killed. Jezebel was captured by her enemies, thrown out of a window, trampled by a horse, and her flesh eaten by dogs.

A Comparison of the Qur’anic and Biblical Characters

There are some significant parallels between the qur’anic character of Abu Lahab and the biblical character of Abu’l-Ahab. To illustrate these, let us evaluate Sūrat al-Masad in light of the biblical account:

• May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. The fate of Omri’s progeny is pronounced not so much in the tafsir literature as in the biblical texts.

• His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. The Ahab of the Bible seems to have had greater wealth than the Abu Lahab of Islamic tradition; his great wealth failed to prevent his demise by God’s command.

• He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab.

• And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. The image of Jezebel carrying firewood makes more sense of this verse than that of Umm Jamil dumping thorns.

• Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. This term begs for further examination along these lines. ….

[End of quotes]

Name within a name

No one could argue with Ercan Celik’s statement that: “In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב) …”.

Why, the very element ahab appears in the name L-ahab.

From what I have read, the name Ahab is somewhat problematical, with certain scholars suggesting that it may actually have been a foreign (non-Hebrew) name. Another suggestion is that Ahab means “uncle”, which would, at least, work in well with the view that Abu Lahab was the “uncle” of Mohammed.

I have identified the biblical King Ahab with Lab’ayu (Labaya) of the El Amarna [EA] letters, an identification that I now consider to be virtually certain:

King Mesha of Moab tells that he built Jericho (Qeriho) and used “prisoners of Israel”

(4) King Mesha of Moab tells that he built Jericho (Qeriho) and used “prisoners of Israel” | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

King Ahab as El Amarna’s Lab’ayu

What absolutely clinches Ahab as Lab’ayu for me is that King Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem (Urusalim) will complain in EA # 289 that Lab’ayu had been giving away “the land of Sakmu” (Shechem) to the Habiru.

“Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving away

the land of Sakmu Shechem] to the [tent-dwelling] Hapiru?” 

Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, Amarna Letter

EA 289: 18-24

Shechem was the northern Bethel, the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, as C.C. Torrey showed beyond all doubt (even though he did not believe that Judith was historical).

The Habiru must be, in this case, the Moabites under King Mesha, who must therefore be Hiel the Bethelite (Shechemite) who built Jericho at the time of King Ahab.

Mesha tells us straight out that he built Qeriho (Jericho) using “prisoners of Israel” (Moabite Stele): “I built Qeriho [Jericho]: the wall of the parkland and the wall of the acropolis; and I built its gates, and I built its towers; and I built the king’s house … and I dug the ditches for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel”.

This adds a new dimension to our consideration of Ahab/Abu Lahab and the name.

For Lab’ayu, not entirely dissimilar to Abu Lahab, inverted (Lahab Abu), is thought to mean ‘Lion Man’.

The ‘Lion Man’ now becomes a perfect partner for Queen Jezebel, as EA’s Baalat-neše, ‘Mistress of Lions’.

This would give us three sets of significant husband-and-wife combinations, namely:

King Ahab-Queen Jezebel;

Lab’ayu-Baalet-neše;

Abu Lahab-(wife) Umm Jamil

Two of these sets are regarded as being wicked, Ahab-Jezebel, and – as we read above – the accursed Abu Lahab and his wife. 

The little that we know of EA’s Lab’ayu would tend to give the impression, again, of a somewhat devious, or duplicitous, character.  

The Mount Carmel Incident

Thanks to Ercan Celik’s piece above, I can now include Elijah and the Mount Carmel showdown with the Baalists, in the presence of King Ahab, as being yet another biblical borrowing in the biography of Mohammed. I had not noticed this one before.

And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily.

Mohammed has now assumed the rôle of the steadfast prophet Elijah against the Baalists, as represented by Abu Lahab and his wife: “… he and his wife Umm Jamil … are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community”.

The Qur’an is so derivative!

The Lord’s intended ruination of the House of Ahab, including Queen Jezebel, as conveyed by the great prophet Elijah, is echoed in Ercan Celik’s comments:

• May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. ….

• His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. ….

• He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab.

• Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. ….

Including King Baasha of Israel

There is yet a further dimension to be added to all of this.

Emmet Sweeney comes close to it when he proposes to identify Lab’ayu with Elah, the son of King Baasha of Israel (The Theban Empire: Vol. 3, Ages in Alignment Series. Second and revised edition, p. 102): “… Labayu … can only be Baasha’s son Elah …”.

Since I have, however, in various articles, identified Baasha with Ahab, then I must logically conclude that Baasha, not Elah, was EA’s Lab’ayu (= Ahab).

The name Baasha, apparently meaning “rotten”, “stinking”, may be a derogatory name applied to an evil, ill-fated king.

For more on this identification, see e.g. my article:

Baasha as Ahab

(5) Baasha as Ahab | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu

There I wrote:

Baasha and Ahab compare quite favourably

Baasha’s sudden irruption onto the scene has its later ‘justification’,

I would suggest, in the far more detailed biography of Ahab.

As to reign length, we have almost a perfect match in that Baasha reigned for 24 years (I King 15:33) and Ahab for 22 (16:29).

But that becomes quite a perfect match when we further realise that Baasha reigned for 2 years at Tirzah [which I have tentatively identified elsewhere as Shechem].

Though, in conventional terms, Samaria (at the time of Baasha) was not yet a capital city, according to my revision it would already have been. And king Ahab of Israel is said specifically to have reigned for 22 years “in Samaria”.

Putting it all together, we get Baasha’s 2 years at Tirzah, and then a further 22 years (making his total 24 years); 22 years being the length of Ahab’s reign.

In other words, Baasha-Ahab (if it is the same person) reigned for 2 years at Tirzah, and then for 22 years at Samaria, a total of 24 years of reign.

This must have been after Ahab’s presumed father, Omri, had built Samaria (16:24).

I say ‘presumed’, because I have, in my related articles, followed T. Ishida in his view that the Bible does not mention a House of Omri, but does refer to one of Ahab, thereby allowing for me to make the tentative suggestion that Ahab was probably related to Omri only though marriage.

And that would further allow now for Ahab’s direct father to be, not Omri, but – as Baasha’s father: “Ahaziah of the house of Issachar” (1 Kings 15:27).

….

Tomoo Ishida instead suggested that the narrative of dynastic instability in the Kingdom of Israel suggests an underlying rivalry between tribes for its throne.^[1] In the biblical narrative, the House of Jeroboam was from the Tribe of Ephraim, while the House of Baasha was from the Tribe of Issachar.^[1] The Omrides are connected in this narrative with the city of Jezreel, where they maintained a second palace. According to the Book of Joshua, Jezreel was controlled by the Tribe of Issachar. Ishida views the narrative as suggesting that the Omrides themselves were members of the Tribe of Issachar.^[1] ….

I would modify this, though, to say instead, not “the Omrides”, but the Ahabites “were members of the Tribe of Issachar”.