All posts tagged AMAIC

Judith and Huldah

Published July 8, 2020 by amaic

Part One:

Era of Josiah merged with Era of Hezekiah


Damien F. Mackey

Why did king Josiah, upon the finding of the Book of the Law, send his chief ministers to consult, not the male prophets, Jeremiah and Zephaniah, but a mysterious female prophetess named Huldah (חֻלְדָּה, a Hebrew name supposedly meaning “weasel” or “mole”)? (2 Kings 22:8-20).

The situation becomes even more extraordinary in the context of my revision which merges the era of king Josiah with that of king Hezekiah, showing that the king’s servant “Asaiah” of Josiah is to be identified with the great Isaiah himself. Previously I wrote on this:

“What has king Hezekiah of Judah to do with Jeremiah? it may well be asked.

That is all explained in my most recent article:

De-coding Jonah

in which I merge the era of king Hezekiah with the era of king Josiah, Jeremiah’s era. And so we find:

Hezekiah becomes Josiah;

Hilkiah becomes Hilkiah the high priest;

Shebna the secretary becomes Shaphan the secretary;

Joah the recorder becomes Joah the recorder;

Isaiah becomes Asaiah.

And there will be more names to be added to this list”. [End of quote]

Indeed, I have since added Jeremiah as Eliakim son of Hilkiah:

Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest

Two things to be noted here.

Firstly, the prophet Isaiah (= Asaiah), to whom the king was wont to send his officials for consultation (Isaiah 37:2), is now to be found amongst those of the king’s officials consulting the woman, Huldah. And, secondly, regarding my statement “there will be more names to be added to this list”, we need a female from the era of king Hezekiah to merge with Huldah of king Josiah’s era – a female pairing to restore some balance for all of those male connections.

Can we find such an incredibly famous woman at the time of king Hezekiah?

To achieve this, which is the purpose of this present article (see Part Two), will fully serve to answer the question in my title above, “Huldah who?”

Part Two: Huldah’s identity

in reign of king Hezekiah

There is only one woman, and one woman alone, at the time of king Hezekiah of Judah, who can possibly be identified with the famous prophetess Huldah.

That is the Simeonite heroine, Judith.

Before I had realised that the era of Hezekiah had to be merged with the era of Josiah, Huldah’s era – and having already come to the conclusion that Huldah must be Judith – I had been forced, chronologically, to regard Huldah as Judith in her old age.

That interpretation, for me, accounted, perhaps, for how Huldah – traditionally a mentor of king Josiah – had been able to speak so bluntly about the pious king: ‘Tell the man …’.

2 Kings 22:15-16: “She said to them, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read’.’”

Here was an aged and famous prophetess, I had thought, bluntly speaking her mind.

{Although it may have been that Huldah was merely quoting verbatim the words that the Lord himself had directed her to speak}.

Huldah appeared to me to have had the same sort of bluntness that Judith had exhibited when addressing the elders of “Bethulia” (e.g., Judith 8:11-13):

‘… you were wrong to speak to the people as you did today. You should not have made a solemn promise before God that you would surrender the town to our enemies if the Lord did not come to our aid within a few days. What right do you have to put God to the test as you have done today? Who are you to put yourselves in God’s place in dealing with human affairs? It is the Lord Almighty that you are putting to the test! Will you never learn?’

And I had compared Judith, in this regard, with the forthright and outspoken Joan of Arc:

Judith of Bethulia and Joan of Arc

With Josiah’s era now to be merged into the era of Hezekiah, though, there must take place a major chronological reconsideration. Instead of Huldah’s statement belonging to an historical phase significantly later than the victory of the young (or young-ish) Judith over the Assyrian commander-in-chief (on this, see my):

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

the Huldah incident must now be regarded as pre-dating by some several years Judith’s victory.

This would mean that Huldah was quite young when she uttered her words, making it even more extraordinary that king Josiah had chosen to send his chief ministers, including the great Isaiah (= Asaiah), all males, to consult the gifted woman.

In this way, we might understand Isaiah’s praise of Judith when he, a fellow Simeonite, said of her, as Uzziah, that Judith’s wisdom was known ever since she was a child (Judith 8:28-29):

“Then Uzziah answered Judith,

‘Everything you have said makes good sense, and no one can argue with it. This is not the first time you have shown wisdom. Ever since you were a child, all of us have recognized the soundness and maturity of your judgment’.”

Uzziah (= Isaiah) also calls Judith here ‘a deeply religious woman’ (v. 31).

This, therefore, must go a long way towards explaining why the woman Huldah (= Judith) was consulted by king Josiah’s most eminent male officials – even over the great Isaiah himself.

So, adding to our former merger:

Hezekiah becomes Josiah;

Hilkiah becomes Hilkiah the high priest;

Shebna the secretary becomes Shaphan the secretary;

Joah the recorder becomes Joah the recorder;

Isaiah becomes Asaiah;

Eliakim son of Hilkiah becomes Jeremiah son of Hilkiah,

Judith becomes Huldah.

This last identification is not without several difficulties pertaining to genealogy and geography that will need to be addressed now in Part Three.

Part Three:

The heroine’s husband

Happily, we know something about Judith’s husband, about Huldah’s husband.

But is the former husband the same person as the latter husband?

Whereas Judith’s husband seems to have been situated in “Bethulia”, identified as Bethel-Shechem in the north, Huldah, and presumably her husband, appears to dwell in Jerusalem, in the south.

The apparent geographical problem, at least, can easily be accounted for with reference to Isaiah and his father, Amos, the father-son combination of, respectively, Uzziah and Micah, of the Book of Judith. Like Judith, these men were Simeonites, and were no doubt related to her. They spent large portions of their time in the northern Bethel, but were also often found residing in Jerusalem as advisers to a succession of kings of Judah.

Jewish legend even has Amos as the “brother” (no doubt a marriage relationship) of king Amaziah of Judah.

Judith’s husband, “Manasseh, who belonged to her tribe and family”, had died only about three years before the Assyrians invaded Israel (Judith 8:2-5):

Her husband Manasseh, who belonged to her tribe and family, had died during the barley harvest. For as he stood overseeing those who were binding sheaves in the field, he was overcome by the burning heat, and took to his bed and died in his town Bethulia.

So they buried him with his ancestors in the field between Dothan and Balamon. Judith remained as a widow for three years and four months at home where she set up a tent for herself on the roof of her house. She put sackcloth around her waist and dressed in widow’s clothing.

He had left Judith a very wealthy woman (v. 7): “Her husband Manasseh had left her gold and silver, men and women slaves, livestock, and fields; and she maintained this estate”.

And Judith never married again (16:21-24):

After this they all returned home to their own inheritances. Judith went to Bethulia, and remained on her estate. For the rest of her life she was honored throughout the whole country. Many desired to marry her, but she gave herself to no man all the days of her life after her husband Manasseh died and was gathered to his people. She became more and more famous, and grew old in her husband’s house, reaching the age of one hundred five. She set her maid free. She died in Bethulia, and they buried her in the cave of her husband Manasseh; and the house of Israel mourned her for seven days. Before she died she distributed her property to all those who were next of kin to her husband Manasseh, and to her own nearest kindred.

That is all that we learn about Manasseh.

We also need to take into account the fact that names in the Book of Judith have become confused over time. See e.g. my article:

Book of Judith: confusion of names

Thus Manasseh, for instance, may be found elsewhere in the Scriptures under a different name.

Perhaps, for example, the name “Manasseh” has been derived (in Greek) from a name like MeshelemiahMeshillemithMeshillemothMeshullamMeshullemeth, all being “related names” to Shallum, the husband of Huldah.

Shallum was renowned in Jewish legends. We read of Huldah and Shallum in the article, “Huldah”:

HULDAH (Heb. חֻלְדָּה; “weasel”), wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the “wardrobe keeper” of the king; one of the five women in the Bible referred to as nevi’ah, “female prophet”) and the only woman prophet in the book of Kings (ii Kings 22:14–20). She was consulted by *Josiah when he sent to “inquire of the Lord” concerning the Book of the Law discovered during the restoration of the Temple. She prophesied God’s ultimate judgment upon the nation. However, this judgment was to be postponed until after Josiah’s peaceful death because of the king’s acts of repentance. Inasmuch as Josiah’s death was not peaceful hers may be a genuine predictive prophecy. Most of her prophecy is molded by the authors of the Book of Kings in Deuteronomistic style. It is of interest that women prophets are well-attested in roughly contemporary Neo-Assyrian sources.

[Tikva S. Frymer /

  1. David Sperling (2nded.)]

In The Aggadah

She was one of the seven prophetesses (by rabbinic count) mentioned by name in the Bible. After Josiah found the copy of the Torah in the Temple, he consulted Huldah rather than Jeremiah, because he felt that a woman would be more compassionate and more likely to intercede with God on his behalf (Meg. 14b).

Since Jeremiah was a kinsman of the prophetess, both being descended from Joshua and Rahab, the king felt no apprehension that the prophet would resent his preference for Huldah (ibid.). While Jeremiah admonished and preached repentance to the men she did likewise to the women (pr 26:129). In addition to being a prophetess, Huldah also conducted an academy in Jerusalem (Targ., ii Kings 22:14). The “Gate of Huldah” in the Temple (Mid. 1:3) was formerly the gate leading to Huldah’s schoolhouse (Rashi, ii Kings 22:14). Huldah’s husband Shallum, the son of Tikvah, was a man of noble descent and compassionate. Daily he would go beyond the city limits carrying a pitcher of water from which he gave every traveler a drink, and it was as a reward for his good deeds that his wife became a prophetess. Huldah’s unattractive name which means “weasel” is ascribed to her arrogance when she referred to Josiah as “the man” (ii Kings 22:15) and not as king.

[Aaron Rothkoff]


Ginzberg, Legends, index. add. bibliography: M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, ii Kings (1988), 295; S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (State Archives of Assyria vol. ix; 1997), xiviii-lii”. [End of quotes]

Huldah’s husband must have been very old (article, “Shallum”, Jewish Encyclopedia):

“…. Even at the time of the prophet Elisha, Shallum was one of the most eminent men (“mi-gedole ha-dor”) in the country. Yet he did not think it beneath his dignity to lend personal aid to the poor and the needy. It was one of his daily habits to go outside the gates of the city in order that he might give water to thirsty wanderers. God rewarded him by endowing him and his wife Huldah with the gift of prophecy. Another special reward was given him for his philanthropy, for it is he who is referred to in II Kings xiii. 21, where one who was dead awoke to life after being cast into Elisha’s sepulcher and touching the prophet’s bones. A son was granted him, who became distinguished for exceeding piety—Hanameel, Jeremiah’s cousin (Jer. xxxii. 7; Pirḳe R. El. xxxiii.)”.

This brings us to a deeper problem, genealogy.

Whereas Judith’s husband, Manasseh, would appear to have been a Simeonite, as he “belonged to her tribe and family”, Shallum was clearly a Levite. He was “son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe” (2 Kings 22:14).

They, apparently, “lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter”.

Shallum’s ancestors, Tikvah and Harhas, were Kohathite Levites (I Chronicles 6:33, 37): “From the Kohathites ….  the son of Tahath [Tikvah], the son of Assir [Harhas] …”.

My tentative explanation would be that Manasseh was Shallum, a Kohathite Levite, hence related to the prophet Jeremiah, whose ancestors had set up home in the city of Shechem. “The hill country of Ephraim gave the Kohathites Shechem, which was a city of refuge …”. (Giver of Truth Biblical Commentary-Vol. 1: Old Testament, pp. 405-406). There, Shallum had married into the family of Simeon, as the Ephraimite (?) father of Samuel may have married a Levite. “It is possible that Elkanah was an Ephraimite who married Hannah, ostensibly a woman from the tribe of Levi” (Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, p. 64). Shallum, or Manasseh, may have married a daughter of Judith’s ancestor, Merari.

Judith may have been a wife of Shallum’s old age, his second wife.

Shallum, or Manasseh, “belonged to her tribe and family”, but only, I suggest, through marriage.

“Before [Judith] died she distributed her property to all those who were next of kin to her husband Manasseh, and to her own nearest kindred”.

Shallum may also have possessed a field in Anathoth (Jeremiah 32:7).



Joah recorder for Hezekiah, Joah recorder for Josiah

Published May 25, 2020 by amaic

  A Jew sounding the Shofar. The voice of the Shofar is heard by the entire village.


“They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator,

Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them”.

2 Kings 18:18


“In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, to purify the land and the temple, he sent Shaphan son of Azaliah and

Maaseiah the ruler of the city, with Joah son of Joahaz, the recorder, to repair the Temple of the LORD his God”.

2 Chronicles 34:8



Part One:

Merging as one “Joah” of Hezekiah and “Joah”  of Josiah

There is an apparent repetition of names between the above two texts, in Shebna-Shaphan and Joah-Joah, which is perfectly understandable in my revised context, according to which Hezekiah, “the king” of 2 Kings 18:18, was the very same person as king Josiah in 2 Chronicles 34:8. See e. g. my article “Jonah resurrected”:

But such a coinciding of names is apparently worrisome to the text book commentators – who would conventionally estimate that the two incidents occurred about 90 years apart – who may be inclined, like Thenis, to ‘pronounce these personages fictitious’, and say that “Joah the recorder [of king Josiah] seems to have been borrowed from [the Joah of king Hezekiah] 2Kings 18:18 …”.

It is an indication of the correctness of my revision of the later kings of Judah, however, that king Hezekiah, king Josiah, could have officials of (near to) identical names, holding identical positions.

Thus Joah is “the recorder”, ha mazkir (הַמַּזְכִּיר) in both cases, Hezekiah and Josiah. Shebna is “the secretary” ha sopher (הַסֹּפֵר) as his counterpart, Shaphan (סֵפֶר), is found to have been upon further scrutiny (2 Kings 22:8).

And in my “Jonah” article (above), I have identified another parallel character in Isaiah (for Hezekiah) and Asaiah (for Josiah): thus, Isaiah = Asaiah.

The “Hilkiah” referred to in 2 Kings 18:18 as the father of “Eliakim” is met again in the era of Josiah as the identically named “Hilkiah” (3 Chronicles 34:9): “They went to Hilkiah the high priest …”.

Eliakim himself, whom I have identified as high priest in my article:

Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest

does not (I think) appear in any of the accounts of king Josiah. There may he a good reason for this. He, as I have argued in this article, had replaced Shebna as commandant of the fort of Lachish (= “Ashdod”). In the Book of Judith, in which Eliakim (Douay), var. Joakim, is the high priest, we are specifically told that: (Judith 4:6): “The High Priest Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at that time, wrote to the people in the towns of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which face Jezreel Valley near Dothan”. This geographical information, “who was in Jerusalem at that time”, could indicate that Eliakim was sometimes stationed outside Jerusalem, say, for military and defensive purposes.

But Eliakim had by no means died out by the time of king Josiah, for we find him as “the high priest” even as late as Baruch (1:2): “… in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire”. Eliakim, or Joakim, is there called by the related name of “Jehoiakim” (on “related names” see e.g.,, and commentators (following an enlarged chronology) do not know who he was (this being especially complicated by the fact that they have failed to realise that the Eliakim of Hezekiah was a high priest). The Baruch text, which identifies Jehoiakim as “son of Hilkiah”, as we know him (as Eliakim/Joakim) to have been, reads thus (vv. 5-7): “Then they wept, and fasted, and prayed before the Lord; they collected as much money as each could give, and sent it to Jerusalem to the high priest Jehoiakim son of Hilkiah son of Shallum, and to the priests, and to all the people who were present with him in Jerusalem”.

The office of “recorder” was apparently a highly significant one, some placing it as high as vizier to the king. Thus we read in Bible study tools:


(Heb. mazkir, i.e., “the mentioner,” “rememberancer”), the office first held by Jehoshaphat in the court of David ( 2 Samuel 8:16 ), also in the court of Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:3 ). The next recorder mentioned is Joah, in the reign of Hezekiah ( 2 Kings 18:18 2 Kings 18:37 ; Isaiah 36:3 Isaiah 36:22 ). In the reign of Josiah another [sic] of the name of Joah filled this office ( 2 Chronicles 34:8 ). The “recorder” was the chancellor or vizier of the kingdom. He brought all weighty matters under the notice of the king, “such as complaints, petitions, and wishes of subjects or foreigners. He also drew up papers for the king’s guidance, and prepared drafts of the royal will for the scribes. All treaties came under his oversight; and he had the care of the national archives or records, to which, as royal historiographer, like the same state officer in Assyria and Egypt, he added the current annals of the kingdom”. [End of quote]

Note that only three supposed individuals are specifically designated as “recorder” in the OT, Jehoshaphat, at the time of kings David and Solomon, and the supposedly two Joah’s – who, though, I think, need to be trimmed down to just one. One would expect, however, that there must have been a continuation of those holding the office of recorder from Joah all the way back to Jehoshaphat, who will soon become of significance with regard to the ancestry of Joah.

The office of recorder may have involved, also, “herald”, or trumpet-blower, shofar (שׁוֹפָר), in the case of an emergency. Joah may have, for instance, overseen or commanded the trumpet-blowing Levites. John Strazicich has written on trumpet-blowing in the Bible, especially with reference to the Book of Joel (to be considered in Part Two), in his book Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (1960, p. 116):

“The primary theological OT text for the blowing of trumpets is Num 1:1-10. The trumpets function for gathering the cultic community, for use at time of war, and at the time of sacrifice. According to Milgrom, the blowing of trumpets, whether for religious purposes or for war, serves as instruments of prayer in Num 10:9-10. …. Whether for sacrifice or deliverance at times of war, the use of trumpets for prayer has theological significance in Joel’s liturgical context of the [Day of the Lord], as well as for the cultic gathering of the nation. The priestly trumpet blast noted above is an alarm which functions militarily, so that the community is be [sic] remembered before Yahweh. The cultic connection to Joel’s use of the trumpets acts in concert with the prayers of all the community to plead for Yahweh’s mercy (2:15-17)”. [End of quote]

Other “instruments of prayer”, such as cymbals, may also have been part of the recorder’s repertoire. Psalm 150:1-6 lists various such instruments: “Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!”

As this article progresses, I shall have something to say, as well, about the apparently different patronymics of my main character, Joah. For example, Joah is “son of Asaph” in the account of king Hezekiah, but he is the “son of Joahaz” in the account of king Josiah.

And now, in Part Two, we are going to acquire yet another patronymic for our Joah, one which may be compatible with the above-mentioned recorder, Jehoshaphat, who is given in 2 Samuel 8:16 and I Kings 4:3 as “son of Ahilud”.


Part Two:

Joah as the prophet Joel


The Book of Joel opens with the raising of the alarm about a devastating invasion of “locusts” (Joel 1:2-4):

“The word of the Lord that came to Joel son of Phatuel.

Hear this, you elders;
    listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
    or in the days of your ancestors?
Tell it to your children,
    and let your children tell it to their children,
    and their children to the next generation.
What the locust swarm has left
    the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
    the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
    other locusts have eaten’.”

This, I had argued in my university thesis:

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background

is a symbolical reference – under the form of “locusts” – to the invasion of Israel and Judah by the armies of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. It is a brilliant image of the utter destruction to the land caused by the marauding Assyrians. These were described as “locusts”, both in history, and in the Bible. For example, “Assyrian documents link armies and locusts …”. (Pablo R. Andiñach, “The Locusts in the Message of Joel”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 4, Oct., 1992). And Judith 2:20 describes the massive invading host of “Holofernes” as: “A huge, irregular force, too many to count, like locusts, like the dust of the earth …”. (Cf. Amos 7:1).

Joel then becomes more specific (and less symbolical) when he describes this host as both a “nation” and an “army” (1:6): “A nation has invaded my land, a mighty army without number …”. The Douay version of Joel 2:20, referring to “the northern enemy”, includes this footnote: “The northern enemy”: Some understand this of Holofernes and his army: others, of the locusts”. The corrrect view is, I believe, “Holofernes and his army”.

The name of Joel’s “father”, or ancestor, is given as “Phatuel” (or “Pethuel”), which I now take to be a long-ranging reference back to that earlier recorder, Jehoshaphat, the two names sharing the common element “phat” as well as each having a theophoric. Joah of Hezekiah’s father, ancestor, “Asaph”, may perhaps be seen, then, as part of that name, Jehoshaphat – both names sharing the “shap[h]” element.

Joah of Josiah’s ancestor, “Joahaz”, is not so apparent. If, as I am saying, he is to be merged with the Joah of Hezekiah, then presumably “Joahaz” is another reference to Jehoshaphat.


Part Three:

Joah-Joel as the prophet Zephaniah


“Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble,

for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand—”

Joel 2:1

“The great day of the Lord is near—near and coming quickly.
The cry on the day of the Lord is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry.

Zephaniah 1:14


The “Day of the Lord” [DOL] is a theme common to the prophet Joel and to Zephaniah, who, again like Joel – at least according to my reconstruction of Joel – was prophesying in the days of king Josiah (1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, during the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah”.

Joel and Zephaniah share another similarity, as we shall read below, regarding trumpet-blowing in the case of an emergency. Hence my inclusion in Part One of “herald” or trumpet-blower as relevant to the role of the recorder.

Indeed, there are so many likenesses between the messages of Joel and Zephaniah (see Comparisons below), that I am convinced that this was just the one prophet at the time of king Josiah (who is my king Hezekiah).

Some difficulties – genealogy

– Contrary to my connecting of Zephaniah to the Levite line, though, is a tradition that Zephaniah was a Simeonite.

– It is also thought by most that Zephaniah had royal connections going back to king Hezekiah as attested by his unusually long superscription back to a “Hezekiah” (Zephaniah 1:1).

Regarding the first point, the Simeonite tradition, we read in The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testament, and Apocrypha, Volume 2:

“According to Epiphanius, [Zephaniah] was of the tribe of Simeon, and of mount Sarabatha, a place not mentioned in Scripture. Dr. Gray thinks it probable, that the place of his nativity was Saraa, near Eshthaol, in the tibe of Simeon, which, by the addition of the common word beth to the name of places, would come near to Sarabatha. The Jews are of opinion, that the ancestors of Zephaniah, mentioned at the beginning of this prophecy, were all prophets themselves. Some have pretended, but without any foundation, except from the enumeration of his ancestors, that he was of an illustrious family”. [End of quote]

The tradition does not appear to have been unanimously received: “An ancient tradition declares that Zephaniah was of the tribe of Simeon, which would make it impossible for him to be of royal blood; but the origin and value of this tradition are uncertain”.

Regarding the second point, a connection back to king Hezekiah, some have expressed doubts about this: For instance, according to the Jewish virtual library: “The genealogy given in Zephaniah 1:1 traces Zephaniah’s ancestry back four generations to a certain Hezekiah, who some have identified with Hezekiah, king of Judah (715–687 B.C.E.), although this identification is sometimes doubted because Hezekiah is not referred to as king …”:

Given that Zephaniah was a contemporary of king Hezekiah, in my view, then I must reject for him any descent from king Hezekiah. Moroever, some texts replace the name “Hezekiah” with the variant readin “Hilkiah” in Zephaniah’s superscription. And I am going to show a bit further on that “Hilkiah” is in fact the correct reading.

If Zephaniah were Joah-Joel, as I am saying, then he must have had Levite ancestry. And that is what we are now going to find. Our prophet was a Merarite Levite.

A character who is obviously of the same lineage as Zephaniah emerges in the Book of Jeremiah. I refer to Jehudi, who was sent by the princes to invite Baruch to read Jeremiah’s roll to them (Jeremiah 36:14; 36:21). This Jehudi, too, has an impressive genealogy, “son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi”, which includes an ancestor of the same name as does Zephaniah’s genealogy, “Cushi”. Given that Jehudi, at the time of Baruch, was at least a close contemporary of the prophet Zephaniah, the latter’s “Cushi” could not have been his actual father, as Zephaniah 1:1 might seem to imply. Cushi was at the very least the great grandfather of Jehudi, and hence a few generations removed from Zephaniah. Remember that Eliakim (son of Hilkiah), high priest at the time of king Hezekiah, was still in office, as Jehoiakim (son of Hilkiah) in the days of Baruch, Jehudi’s contemporary.

The possibiity that Zephaniah was this same Jehudi, “the Jew”, which may be a nick-name, can now be considered as well. Was he specified a “Jew” because of his ancestor’s ethnicity, as a Cushite (“Cushi”)? T. K. Cheyne has argued for what he considers to have been a North Arabic, or “Cushite”, influence amongst the Levites (“From Isaiah to Ezra: A Study of Ethanites and Jerahmeelites”, The American Journal of Theology, 5, no. 3 (Jul., 1901): 433-444). I cannot agree with all of his assertions. But I was interested in his linking of the name Ethan with Nethaniah, for reasons that will now become apparent. Thus T. K. Cheyne writes (p. 435): “Elnathan is a variation of Nethaniah, which is an altered form (note the reflex action of n) of the ethnic Ethani”.

In I Chronicles 6 we finally seem to find our genealogical pathway.
Firstly, we are given the chronological location to the time of king David (vv. 31-32) “These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the Lord after the Ark came to rest there. They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them”. Note that these men were Levite musicians, as I have claimed our central figure prophet to have been.

Then follows the crucial name information (vv. 44-45):

“… and from their associates, the Merarites, at his left hand:

Ethan son of Kishi, the son of Abdi,

the son of Malluk, the son of Hashabiah,

the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah ….”

I see here four names from the Zephaniah-Jehudi genealogies: Ethan (= Nethaniah, as explained); Kishi (var. Kushaiah = Cushi); Amaziah (for Amariah) son of Hilkiah (not Hezekiah). Compare Zephaniah 1:1: “The word of the Lord that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hilkiah, during the reign of Josiah …”.

John Strazicich has recorded a plethora of intertextual comparisons between the books of Joel and Zephaniah – he regarding Joel as dependent upon Zephaniah – in his book, Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel (1960). I now give just some of these to seal our Joah-Joel as Zephaniah:

Pp. 91-92: “Berlin notes that the general dates given for the book [of Zephaniah] range from 630-520 B.C.E. …. Thus, the case for Joel’s dependency upon Zephaniah can be upheld”.

P. 92: “Zephaniah 3 presents a global restoration, where Zion becomes a praise in the earth. Peculiarly, Joel 3-4 particularizes the aspects of Zephaniah’s universalistic purposes (Zeph 3:9)”.

Pp. 96-97: “The motif of theophany is readily observed in Zephaniah, with the association of clouds, thick darkness and the sound of the shofar. All these elements are associated with Yahweh’s theophany on Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:16; Deut 5:22), and are transferred to the DOL.118 Joel adapts these elements for his depiction and incorporates them into the approaching metaphoric locust army of 2:1-11″.

P. 113:

“Particularly important to the task at hand, in the call to alarm, are are the passages from Zeph 1:14-16, Hos 5:8, and Jer 4:5–6 and 6:1. Joel’s call is inseparable from its attachment to the DOL. …. The only passage previous to Joel that brings together these two motifs is Zeph 1:14-16. Although Zephaniah’s formulation for the Alarmbefehl is different, the influence of this passage is undeniable. Joel’s use of this motif is made from two imperative verb forms in synonymous parallelism …. Joel has received this tradition combined with the DOL from Zeph 1:14-16 ….  The controlling motifs which Zephaniah provides are the characteristics of theophany and the call to alarm for battle. Note that Zephaniah’s DOL is a Day of an Alarmbefehl and Lārmzeichen … which is in synonymous parallelism, but minus the verb forms. … petinent references from Zeph 1 … show parallels to Joel 2:1-2 a…”.

P. 114: “Zephaniah’s influence on Joel’s account of the call can be established by its correspondences of borrowed metaphors, such as the nearness of the Day of Yahweh …. the theophanic darkness … and th call to alarm …. These ideas are evidently appropriated into Joel’s own account”.

“Zephaniah’s call to alarm functions as a spring board from which Joel takes the idea of this motif and expands it”.

P. 116:

“The trumpet blast in the book of Joel announces Yahweh’s march against Jerusalem. It is also a theme firmly connected to the theophany at Sinai in Exod 19:16. The Sinai tradition flows into the book of Joel via Zephaniah. This latter prophet connects the Sinai theophanic motifs to the DOL The trumpet blast has precise;ly the same annunciatory connotation as in Joel”.









To be continued ….

Jonah and Isaiah

Published April 30, 2020 by amaic


Damien F. Mackey

Part One:

Focus on Esarhaddon

A: Historical ‘moment’

The historical ‘window of opportunity’ that I am going to propose here as best fitting the Jonah narrative will be one that I have already suggested before.

However, due to a then imperfect appreciation of the degree of historical revision required, I had had to drop that particular model as being unworkable.

Since that first effort, however, I have streamlined the histories of Israel, Judah,  Assyria and Babylonia, and that will now make all the difference.

The historical moment that I identify as that best suiting the intervention in “the great city of Nineveh”, נִינְוֵה, הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה, by the prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:2), is the ‘moment’ when King Esarhaddon was in the throes of trying to secure Nineveh from his older brothers, two of whom had assassinated the previous Assyrian king, Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:37).

There may never have been a more dire or foreboding moment in time for the Assyrian people.

Had it not only recently been preceded by the utter rout of the proud king Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000 men. (v. 35)?

And, as we are going to find out, Esarhaddon’s crisis situation, now, was very much due to the fact that he had been personally involved in that horrendous and unprecedented humiliation of the highly-vaunted Assyrian army.

The Book of Tobit – which will actually refer to Jonah’s mission to Nineveh (Tobit 14:4) – seems to parallel Jonah’s threat (Jonah 3:4): “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown”, when it repeats that very same time period (Tobit 1:21): “But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat. A son of his, Esarhaddon, succeeded him as king”.

Sennacherib himself – who was, just prior to his demise, in the process of hunting down the honourable Tobit to kill him (Tobit 1:19) – would seem to be a least likely candidate, amongst the Assyrian kings, for Jonah’s repentant “the king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6). And I don’t think any commentator has ever put forward Sennacherib as being a possible candidate. Esarhaddon, on the other hand – {who (under the benign influence of Ahiqar) would allow for Tobit to return home (Tobit 1:22): “Then Ahiqar interceded on my behalf, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahiqar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet ring, treasury accountant, and credit accountant under Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians; and Esarhaddon appointed him as Second to himself”} – seems to have been surprisingly tolerant towards exilic Israel.

A footnote to this Jonah-Tobit connection: The non-historical, composite character, the Prophet Mohammed, whose biography tells of his various associations with “Nineveh”, all quite anachronistic of course (as Nineveh was completely lost from sight long before the supposed AD era of Mohammed), claimed that the prophet Jonah was his brother. “Muhammad asked Addas where he was from and the servant replied Nineveh. “The town of Jonah the just, son of Amittai!” Muhammad exclaimed. Addas was shocked because he knew that the pagan Arabs had no knowledge of the prophet Jonah. He then asked how Muhammad knew of this man. “We are brothers,” Muhammad replied”.” (Summarized from The Life of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham Volume 1 pp. 419–421).

And the names of Mohammed’s parents, ‘Abdullah and Amna, are virtually identical to those of Tobit’s son, Tobias, namely Tobit (= ‘Obadiah = ‘Abdiel = ‘Abdullah) and Anna (= Amna) (Tobit 1:9).

Islam also quotes from the wise sayings of Ahiqar, and even has its own Ahiqar in Luqman, “the Ahiqar of the Arabs”:

B: Esarhaddon a repenting king

And he certainly favoured the issuing of royal edicts or decrees – (“a public proclamation”, see below).

He also, early, appears to have had the solidarity-support of his people (cf. Jonah 3:5-6).

Thus Izabela Eph’al-Jaruzelska, “2016 Esarhaddon’s Claim of Legitimacy in an Hour of Crisis: Sociological Observations” (p. 126):

“The Apology mentions the oath sworn to Esarhaddon by the people of Assyria and the king’s brothers before the gods at his nomination as Sennacherib’s successor. …. This public ceremony was intended to express submission and obedience to the king in a solemn way. This oath is invoked as the basis of the loyalty manifested by the people of Assyria when they refused to join the rebellion of those who opposed Esarhaddon’s accession to the Assyrian throne. ….

“It also furnished grounds for the homage the people of Assyria paid to Esarhaddon after his victory over the rebels. …. A public proclamation of Esarhaddon as king during his struggle with the rebels also manifests the people’s consent”. [End of quote]

Cf. Jonah 3:6: “When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, wrapped himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust”.

There may be an even more relevant text, I think – which could be, in fact, the very Jonah incident – concerning when Esarhaddon went so far as to clothe the horses (or animals) in sackcloth when faced with the threat of a northern enemy. Most unfortunately, however, I cannot at present lay my hands on it – which, from memory, was quoted by D. E. Hart-Davies, Jonah: Prophet and Patriot (1925).

Cf. Jonah 3:7-8: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God”.

(Cf. Judith 4:10-14)

Perhaps a reader may be able to help me out with that missing text. It may well be tied up with the above: “A public proclamation of Esarhaddon as king during his struggle with the rebels also manifests the people’s consent”. 

Don E. Jones will write (Searching for Jonah: Clues in Hebrew and Assyrian History, 2012): “The ceremony of fasting and putting on sackcloth and ashes was not at all alien to Assyria [111] … the custom … goes back to Sumerian civilization and beyond”.

In the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, we read:

“Even the one feature which is peculiar to the mourning of Nineveh – namely, that the cattle also have to take part in the mourning – is attested by Herodotus (9:24) as an Asiatic custom.

“(Note: Herodotus relates that the Persians, when mourning for their general, Masistios, who had fallen in the battle at Platea, shaved off the hair from their horses, and adds, “Thus did the barbarians, in their way, mourn for the deceased Masistios.” Plutarch relates the same thing (Aristid. 14 fin. Compare Brissonius, de regno Pers. princip. ii. p. 206; and Periz. ad Aeliani Var. hist. vii. 8). The objection made to this by Hitzig – namely, that the mourning of the cattle in our book is not analogous to the case recorded by Herodotus, because the former was an expression of repentance – has no force whatever, for the simple reason that in all nations the outward signs of penitential mourning are the same as those of mourning for the dead.)” [End of quote]

As for fasting, we know that at least during Esarhaddon’s most terrible and enduring illness: “For days, he withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink …” (K. Radner, The Trials of Esarhaddon: the Conspiracy of 670 BC, 2003, p.169). But that might simply indicate a lack of appetite at the time, rather than signifying a penitential fast.

“Greatest to the least”, “small and great” – Compare Jonah 3:5: “The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth”, with: “The use of this general term with the addition of the idiom TUR GAL (ṣeḫer u rabi), “small and great,” simply signifies the totality of Assyrians who were involved in the oath”. 

(Izabela Eph’al-Jaruzelska, op. cit., p. 127)

C: Is Esarhaddon too late for Jonah?

It should be noted that many commentators believe that aspects of the biblical text around 2 Kings 14 are hopelessly corrupt, that v. 28, for instance, about Jeroboam II, “how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah”, “probably should be understood as referring” (for example, according to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, p. 419), “to the fact that Jeroboam II reconquered territory in Galilee and Transjordan held by Hamath and Damascus during the days of [Jeroboam’s predecessor kings of Israel]”.

In conventional terms, from the death of Jeroboam II (c. 740 BC) to the beginning of the reign of Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC), is about 60 years, meaning that Jonah at Nineveh would have to have been around 85-90 years of age.

That is a very old age for someone to have been tossed into a raging sea and swallowed by a sea monster.

The time span, at least, is easily covered by the traditional Jewish estimations of Jonah’s very long life: “[Jonah]  is said to have attained a very advanced age: over 120 years according to Seder Olam Rabbah; 130 according to Sefer Yuchasin …”.

In terms, though, of my revision of Israelite and Assyrian history (see Appendix A.), I would estimate Jonah then to have been in his early – mid seventies.

Many commentators favour for Jonah’s king, Adad-nirari III (c. 810-783 BC), a contemporary of Jeroboam II. Adad-nirari’s supposed preoccupation with the worship of Nebo is often taken as a sign of the king of Assyria’s conversion to monotheism. It has been likened to pharaoh Akhnaton’s Aten worship (actually henotheism). Adad-nirari may simply have been copying that earlier reform. However, according to Don E. Jones (op. cit.): “… as soon as Adad-Nirari could act on his own, he appears to have given the reform no support”. Adad-Nirari had been very young when he came to the throne. “… Adad-nirari III … was too young to rule. It would be left to Queen Sammu-ramat [Semiramis] to restore stability to Assyria through her regency”:

Some commentators favour the troubled reign (plague, rebellion, even a solar eclipse) of Ashur-Dan III (c. 772 to 755 BC).

Bill Cooper (see D. below) is convinced that Tiglath -pileser III (c. 745-727 BC) was that biblical king.

Despite Cooper’s enthusiasm for his choice, Tiglath-pileser was, like Adad-nirari, like Ashur-Dan III, a typical Assyrian king with nothing during his reign to indicate a phase of repentance with a corresponding edict.

Is there any biblical prophet who can meet the chronological requirements of my revised Jonah, spanning from Jeroboam II to late king Hezekiah of Judah (when Esarhaddon came to the throne)?

There is one, and only one, whose superscription, at least, covers that approximate time span. He is the prophet Hosea, according to whose superscription (Hosea 1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel”.

From Jeroboam (II) all the way down to Hezekiah – the same approximate chronological span as in my revised scenario for Jonah. (Some critics have difficulty accepting Hosea’s alleged lengthy prophetic range, and must needs ‘correct’ it,  by replacing Jeroboam (II) in Hosea 1:1 with some later king(s) of Israel).

Hosea is straightaway told, like Jonah, ‘Go …’ (לֵךְ) (cf. Jonah; Hosea 1:2). That is an immediate likeness.

An immediate unlikeness is that, whereas Jonah was “son of Amittai” (as above), Hosea was “son of Beeri”.

The question of suitable alter egos for the prophet Jonah (e.g. Hosea) will be properly discussed in Part Two.

For example, the prophetic career of Amos also commenced at the time of Jeroboam II (Amos 1:1), and did extend – at least according to my own revision of Amos – all the way down to king Hezekiah of Judah.

Can Amos be Jonah?

Or, was Hosea, Jonah?

D: Why “king of Nineveh”?

“Ever since the prophet Jonah first penned the little book that is known by his name, some two thousand six hundred years ago, the most extraordinary notions have circulated concerning both him and his ministry. Some early rabbis claimed that he was the son of the widow of Zarephath, the lad whom Elijah had restored to life. …. Others, yet again, imagined him to have been the servant whom Elisha sent to anoint King Jehu. …. Jonah is also pointed out as having two tombs! One lies at Nineveh, and the other at Jonah’s home-village of Gath-hepher, just a stone’s throw from the town of Nazareth. And so it has gone on down the ages, until today we are informed that Jonah did not even exist! The book of Jonah, we are asked to believe, is nothing more than a pious fable, a moral tale written some time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile; a story told around camp-fires that has all the historical validity of a Grimm’s fairy-tale.

“Unfortunately, and not without incalculable loss, this latest view has prevailed. Most modern Christian (and Jewish) authors will, if they mention Jonah at all, speak of him only in terms of parable and myth, usually in tones that amount to little less than an apology. Very few indeed, and I personally know of none, will attempt to speak of Jonah in a purely historical sense. …. This is very odd, to say the least, because Jonah enjoys more support from Jewish and Assyrian history than a great many other characters of the ancient world whose existence few historians would doubt. There is, indeed, something very sinister about the out-of-hand way in which Jonah is dismissed from serious discussion by modernist critics and historians. This sinister aspect has, perhaps, to do with the fact that Jesus spoke of Jonah in a historical sense, and He referred to Jonah in direct reference to His own forthcoming

resurrection from the dead. …. Could it be, perhaps, that if modernists can cast doubt upon the historicity of Jonah, then they will also have license to cast doubt upon the words and teachings of Jesus Christ and the truth of His resurrection? The two are intimately connected, and any dismissal of the historicity of Jonah should be treated with a great deal of suspicion”. [End of quote]

“A pious fable”, “a moral tale”. I have also heard a priest employ the description, “a didactic fiction”, for the Book of Jonah. These very sorts of terms are used, once again, to describe the Book of Judith, e.g., “a literary fiction”, about whose historical defence I can largely say with Bill Cooper: “Very few indeed, and I personally know of none, will attempt to speak of [Judith] in a purely historical sense”.

Commentators who do take seriously the Jonah narrative – yes there are indeed some – such as Paul Ferguson in his article, “Who Was The ‘King Of Nineveh’ In Jonah 3:6?” (Tyndale Bulletin, Issue 47.2, 1996) – will attempt to show that the title, the “king of Nineveh”, can be considered genuine historical usage. Ferguson, whose article is well worth reading as an overall commentary on the Book of Jonah, offers the following “Summary” (p. 301):

“This article seeks to show the title ‘king of Nineveh’ is not an anachronism. Comparison with Aramaic use of the north-west Semitic mlk, important in a north Israelite context, may suggest that a city or provincial official might have been under consideration. Cuneiform evidence seems to suggest that no distinction is made between city and province in designating a governor. Common custom was to give provincial capitals the same name as the province. This could explain the fact that the book of Jonah says the ‘city’ was a three day walk (3:3).

“I. The ‘King Of Nineveh’

The Hebrew phrase melek nînĕveh (‘king of Nineveh’) is found in the Old Testament only in Jonah 3:6. It never occurs in any contemporary documents. Most literature proceeds on the assumption that the author used this expression to refer to the king of the Assyrian empire. It has often been suggested that this wording indicates the author wrote centuries after the fall of this nation. ….

“1. ‘King Of Nineveh’ Vs ‘King Of Assyria’

If this be the case, then one must consider why, if the author of the book lived centuries after the ‘historical Jonah’ of 2 Kings 14:25, he would ignore the usual designation ‘king of Assyria’. This phrase is found thirty times in 2 Kings 18-20. …”. [End of quote]

Arguments such as this one by Paul Ferguson had led me, in the past, to wondering whether the Jonah incident may have occurred when Assyria did not have an actual king – say, in between the assassination of Sennacherib and the triumph of Esarhaddon – when, as I had considered, the city of Nineveh may have been represented by a stand-in high official, such as Ahiqar, who, too, presumably, would have been favourable to the message of Jonah. The king soon afterwards – but seemingly only after the people themselves had begun to repent (Jonah 3:5-6) – received the message. But there was a time delay. Perhaps, I had pondered, the future king may still have been on his way:

“Sennacherib was murdered (681) [sic] by one or more of Esarhaddon’s brothers, apparently in an attempt to seize the throne. Marching quickly from the west, Esarhaddon encountered the rebel forces in Hanigalbat (western Assyria), where most of them deserted to him, and their leaders fled. Esarhaddon continued on to Nineveh, where he claimed the throne without opposition” [sic].

(Compare instead, below, “persistent resistance by the opposition”).

It is interesting that Jesus Christ himself, who will refer specifically to “the Queen of the South”, will fail to make any mention whatsoever of the king of Nineveh, but only his subjects (Matthew 12:41-42): “The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it …”.

It can be (and is) debated as to the degree of conversion of the Ninevites – that it should not be understood that they had converted to a strict Yahwistic monotheism. Theirs was a general sort of repentance from their wicked ways of living. “The Ninevites believed God” [Elohim] (Jonah 3:5). For, when we turn to consider the parallel case of the Queen of Sheba (of the South), we find that she will refer to the God of Solomon as your, not as my, or as our, God (I Kings 10:9): ‘Blessed be the Lord thy God …’. Isaiah 7 is most instructive in this regard as the prophet begins his discussion with king Ahaz with the words (v. 11): ‘Ask the Lord your God for a sign …’, but then soon switches in disgust to this (v. 13): ‘Will you try the patience of my God also?’

Consider, too, in light of all of this, the startling case of Rudolph Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, and his dramatic return to his Catholic roots just before he was hanged: “‘It was a hard struggle’, Höss had written toward the end. ‘But I have again found my faith in my God’.” (My emphasis):

I have since dropped any former notion of an official running Nineveh at the time of Jonah’s preaching there. Esarhaddon, according to the article by Izabela Eph’al-Jaruzelska from which I have been quoting, was confronted by revolutions and hostility all over the place, forcing him even at one stage to flee for his life (op. cit. p. 133):

“According to the Babylonian Chronicle: “On the twentieth day of the month Tebet Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in a rebellion (ina sīḫi). For [twenty-four] years Sennacherib ruled Assyria. The rebellion continued in Assyria from the twentieth day of the month Tebet until the second day of the month Adar. On the twenty-eighth/ eighteenth day of the month Adar Esarhaddon, his son, ascended the throne in Assyria” (Chron. “The early royal correspondence reflects this long struggle, which lasted about two months. According to Bel-ushezib (see above, section III), Esarhaddon “evaded execution [by fleeing] to the Tower (URU.a-ši-t [i])” (SAA X 109). Likewise, Mardi, probably a Babylonian, mentions in his letter to the king how he escaped to the tower (URU.i-si-ti) together with Esarhaddon (SAA XVI 29). These two early letters corroborate Esarhaddon’s reference to his asylum (RINAP 4 1 i 39). Bel-ushezib’s emphasis that plotting the murder of Esarhaddon and his officials continued “every day” (ūmussu SAA X 109 12′) implies persistent resistance by the opposition”. [End of quote]

I therefore suggest that the author of the Book of Jonah referred to the Assyrian ruler as “the king of Nineveh” because that is all that he actually was at that particular, most critical moment in time.

Esarhaddon was under extreme duress, in part because of the great debacle that had occurred in Israel, near Shechem (= “Bethulia”, the Judith incident), which late sources wrongly refer to as a defeat by Egypt. Thus Izabela Eph’al-Jaruzelska (op. cit., p. 123): “For example, the Babylonian Chronicle yields information on Esarhaddon’s great failure in Egypt, which is known only from here (Chron. 1 iv 16)”.
And again: “The Babylonian Chronicle 
mentions the expedition of B.C. 675 [sic]but the recently translated tablet shows why it was without results. Having ordered the investment of Jerusalem and Tyre, Esarhaddon marched against Pelusium … Egypt’s chief fortress on her north-east frontier. He was overtaken by a storm. …. The number of men who perished as given in the Bible must be an exaggeration, but as the storm wrecked Esarhaddon’s plans for the year his army must have suffered severely”. [End of quote]

(E. A Wallis Budge, The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology, 1893, p. 75)

This late testimony as recalled by E. A. Wallis Budge needs a lot of tidying up.

Although the ultimate goal of king Sennacherib’s last great western campaign was Egypt (cf. Judith 1:10-12), the Assyrian king would by no means succeed in getting that far. For, as Isaiah had rightly foretold (37:33): ‘He will not enter this city [Jerusalem] or even shoot an arrow here. He will not fight against it with shields or build a ramp to attack the city walls’ – all of which Sennacherib had succeeded in doing on the earlier occasion. In that last major western campaign, this time led by Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the Nadin, or Nadab, of Tobit 14:10), and not Esarhaddon, his youngest, the Assyrian behemoth will not reach even as far as Jerusalem, having been stopped in its tracks in the north, near Shechem, by the ruse of Judith the Simeonite.

As with Herodotus, “Pelusium” in Egypt (perhaps confused with the like sounding “Jerusalem”) has irrelevantly been brought into the Babylonian Chronicle account. There was no “storm” involved. The Judith ruse would precipitate a rout, with many soldiers of the massive Assyrian army perishing. As Budge correctly observed, the Assyrian “army must have suffered severely”.

But the Bible, when properly read, does not (as Budge thought) ‘exaggerate’ this rout.

It took Esarhaddon, who succeeded Ashur-nadin-shumi (“Holofernes”), some time to get his army back to its full strength, ‘wrecking his immediate plans’. Historians wrongly attribute the demise of Ashur-nadin-shumi to, instead, an un-mentioned (though added in square brackets) “Sargon”.

I quote again from Izabela Eph’al-Jaruzelska (op. cit., p. 131):

“Another example is the tablet K.4730 (+) Sm.1876, called The Sin of Sargon, allegedly attributed in the text itself to Sennacherib, which resembles the Naram-Sin epic in style and content. This text explains that Sargon’s death on the battlefield was a result of his sin: “Was it because [he honored] the gods o[f Assyria too much, placing them] above the gods of Babylonia [ ……, and was it because] he did not [keep] the treaty of the king of gods [that Sargon my father] was killed [in the enemy country and] was not b[uried] in his house?” In light, then, of this attitude about divine support, Esarhaddon must have been highly embarrassed by his military failure in Egypt, particularly as it followed a four-year period (from the end of 677 until around 673) [sic] devoid of military achievement”. [End of quote]

Part Two:

Focus on Jonah

A: Retracing my earlier steps: Elijah to Amos

My search for the prophet Jonah has led me ‘all around the mulberry bush’. Or perhaps, to be more contextual, all around the ‘kikayon’ (קִיקָיוֹן) bush (Jonah 4:6).

With 2 Kings 14:25 in mind, I did what other commentators tend to do, and that was to search for the Jonah incident during the time of an Assyrian ruler contemporaneous with king Jeroboam II of Israel.


But I also went even further back than that, to a possible connection of Jonah with Elijah, based on the following sorts of smiliarities between this pair of prophets, taken from:

“If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah.

“More specific – and indeed more satirical – connections between Jonah and Elijah begin in Jonah 1:2 where Yahweh calls Jonah to, “arise, go” to Nineveh. This call to go to a foreign land is paralleled only in 1 Kings 17:9 where Yahweh commands Elijah also to “arise, go to Zarephath which is in Sidon.”

“Usually Yahweh’s word is the perfect performative, where to speak is to create. The God who says “Let there be light” and “it was so” (Gen. 1:3), commands Elijah to “Arise go to Zarapheth” (1 Kings 17:9) and Elijah “arises and goes,” (1 Kings 17:10). Following this normal biblical pattern we expect the Jonah narrative to continue, “So Jonah got up and went … to Nineveh.” But, instead, Jonah says nothing to Yahweh and rises to flee. It’s as though outside his door Jonah hangs a large sign with the words, “Do Not Disturb!” Jonah is certainly no Elijah!”

Perhaps I should have taken that last hint.

The prophet Elijah disappears from the scene, at least qua Elijah, during the reign of Jehoram of Judah (2 Chronicles 21:12). That was well before the time of Jeroboam II. But there is always, for me, that possibility of an extension of a biblical floruit through an alter ego.


The extraordinary prophet Elisha, ‘miracles on tap’, also loomed for me as a possible Jonah. He, like Jonah in the case of Jeroboam II, had advised a king of Israel, Jehoash, about the extent of his military conquests (2 Kings 13:14-19). Even though Elisha died shortly after this (v. 20), I shall be having more to say in Appendix A about the Jehoash-Jeroboam II connection, about a shortening of Israelite history, and about the identification of the “saviour” of 2 Kings 13:5.

Obviously, though, Elisha could not qualify for my prophet Jonah at the time of Esarhaddon.

My termini a quo and ad quem for Jonah have so far been determined as, respectively, Jeroboam II and early Esarhaddon. One would think, however, that there must have been more to the ministering of the prophet Jonah than just these two, chronologically far apart, occasions.

And we are going to find out that there was much more activity than that involving Jonah.


A far more promising candidate for Jonah, however, began to loom in the person of Amos, whose prophetic witness commenced “when … Jeroboam … was king of Israel” (Amos 1:1). Amos, too, as with Elijah, can be likened to Jonah. Thus I have previously quoted from the book by Hadi Ghantous, Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel ( p. 180):

… Jonah and Amos

The connections between Jonah and Amos are not as clear as those with Elijah although it is more clear that the fate of nations surrounding Israel is a major concern in both Amos and Jonah (Andersen and Freedman 1989: 236). The superscription in the book of Amos (Amos 1:1) sets Amos in the days of Jeroboam II and makes Amos a contemoprary of Jonah. In 2 Kings 14:23-29Jeroboam II recovers territories from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, and restore [sic] Damascus and Hamath to Judea in Israel. SimilarlyAmos 1:3-5 is an oracle against Damascus; Amos 5:27 threatens Israel with an exile beyond Damascus. In Amos 6:2, Zion and Samaria are called to compare themselves with Hamath. Amos 6:14 refers to oppression from the Entrance of Hamath to the Valley of the Arabah (Pyper 2007: 351-3). In other words, both prophets deal with Damascus, Hamath, and the region from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea/Valley of the Arabah. Amos refutes the prophetic title (Amos 7:14); Jonah is never said to be a prophet in Jonah. Amaziah warns Jonah to flee … for his life (Amos 7:12), while Jonah almost loses his life while fleeing (Jon, 1).

“Other topical similarities can be found; singing (Amos 8:3// Jon. 2), sackcloths (Amos 8:10// Jon 3:6), wandering from sea to sea (Amos 8:12// Jon. 1:3-2:10), thirst (Amos 8:13// Jon. 4:8), and sheol (Amos 9:2// Jon. 2) (Edelman 2009: 162). These similarities pose the question whether they go beyond a mere imitation of details and indicate a fundamental similarity and connection between Amos and Jonah. …”. [End of quote]

Jonah is well-known as ‘the reluctant prophet’, and this, too, may have been a trait of Amos (7:14): ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet …’.

There is also a very Jonah-like note in Amos 9:3: “Even if they tried to hide from me at the bottom of the sea, from there I would command the Sea Serpent [הַנָּחָשׁ] to bite them”. Don E. Jones (op. cit.) has made this very same connection: “There is something ominous in Amos’s prophecy, the first part of which [9:3] certainly applies to Jonah …”.

While Amos qualifies chronologically as being a contemporary of Jonah’s at the time of Jeroboam II, he will fall just short of early Esarhaddon (the ‘moment’ of Jonah’s intervention at Nineveh). See next.


Amos is, according to my revision of Israel and Judah, the same as the prophet Micah, known as “Amos redivivus”. Micah (Amos) is also the Micaiah who prophesied the death of king Ahab of Israel (I Kings 22:8-28). This controversial connection (Micaiah = Micah), which has the support of some Jewish tradition (see e.g., Ginzberg, Legends, 6:355, n. 20), pitches Micah back well before king Jeroboam II. Amos is also generally considered to have been the father of Isaiah, “son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). I have also identified Isaiah son of Amos with the “Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon” of Judith 6:15. Uzziah must have followed his father Amos northwards to Bethel (the “Bethulia” of the Book of Judith), which is the strategically vital city of Shechem, where Uzziah later became the chief magistrate. He is also described as “the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23. Douay), perhaps due to his father Amos’s apparently royal connection with king Amaziah of Judah. “The rabbis of the Talmud declared, based upon a rabbinic tradition, that Amoz was the brother of Amaziah (אמציה), the king of Judah at that time (and, as a result, that Isaiah himself was a member of the royal family)” (article, “Amoz”):

The prophet Micah must not have lived to have witnessed the Judith incident.

He is not mentioned there (Book of Judith) as still being alive.

The Book of Jeremiah tells that Micah was yet prophesying during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah (26:18): “Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus said the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest’.”

This prediction pertained to Sennacherib king of Assyria’s earlier successful invasion of Judah and Jerusalem. Micah, though, apparently was no longer alive when Ashur-nadin-shumi (“Holofernes”), son of Sennacherib, came to the region of “Bethulia” (Bethel-Shechem) with an army of 185,000 men. Thus the prophet Micah cannot qualify for my Jonah early in the reign of Esarhaddon, who succeeded Sennacherib. Micah just misses out – he must have been extremely old when he died.

B: Hosea, Isaiah

The prophet Hosea is, as determined in Part One, the only one of the prophets who – at least according to his superscription (Hosea 1:1) – spanned my requisite era from Jeroboam II unto Hezekiah. His prophetic floruit is closely matched by Isaiah’s, but without (in the case of Isaiah) the inclusion of Jeroboam II (Isaiah 1:1): “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah”.

The names of Hosea and Isaiah, as well, are very close in meaning, both pertaining to “Salvation”. Abarim Publications lists Isaiah as a name “related” to Hosea (article, “Isaiah meaning”):

Previously I have written regarding the striking similarities between Isaiah and Hosea:

“The names Isaiah and Hosea are indeed of very similar meaning, being basically derived from the same Hebrew root for ‘salvation’, יֵ֫שַׁע

– “Isaiah” (Hebrew יְשַׁעְיָהוּ , Yeshâ‘yâhû) signifies: “Yahweh (the Lord) is salvation”.

– “Hosea” (Hebrew הוֹשֵׁעַ) means practically the same: “Yahweh (the Lord) is saviour”.


“Hosea’s/Isaiah’s Family

Though no doubt young, the prophet was given the strange command by God to marry an ‘unfaithful’ woman: “‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord’. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim …” (Hosea 1:2-3). Biblical scholars have agonised over the type of woman this Gomer might have been: adulteress? harlot? temple-prostitute? But essentially the clue is to be found in the statement above that she was a citizen of the ‘land of great harlotry’: namely, the northern kingdom of Israel. ….

“A further likeness between Isaiah and Hosea was the fact that ‘their names’ and those of ‘their’ children were meant to be, in their meanings, prophetic signs. ….

– The prophet Isaiah tells us: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents …” (Isaiah 8:18).

– Similarly, the names of the children of the prophet Hosea were meant to be prophetic (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9).

“Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters I-XXXIX, 1930), who has written perceptively on Isaiah’s children, has rightly noted the prophetic significance of their names and those of Hosea’s children, without however connecting Isaiah and Hosea as one: …. “Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic”. [End of quote]

“It is most unlikely, one would have to think, to have two great prophets contemporaneously operating over such a substantial period of time, and each having three children whose names were prophetic. The fact is, I believe, that it was just the one prophet, who may possibly have had six children in all”.

[End of quotes]

For these, and for other reasons, I have identified Hosea and Isaiah as “just the one prophet”, ministering to both Israel and Judah. That to go with my already mentioned identification of the prophet Isaiah with the princely “Uzziah” of the Book of Judith.

Hosea-Isaiah is the only possible prophetic candidate, in my revised context, for Jonah son of Amittai.

Jonah’s otherwise unknown father, “Amittai”, must then be Amaziah, that is, Amos.

Jonah’s (or probably his father’s) home of “Gath-hepher”, which cannot possibly have been the place of that name in Galilee – since, as the learned Pharisees well knew (John 7:52): ‘…. Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee’ – must then be the southern Gath of Moresheth, the home of Micah-(Amos) (1:1): “The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth …”.

“Micah is called the Morasthite, probably because he was a native of Moresheth-gath, a small town of Judea, which, according to Eusebius and Jerome, lay in a southwesterly direction from Jerusalem, not far from Eleutheropolis on the plain, near the border of the Philistine territory” (“The Twelve Minor Prophets”):

Although “the vision … concerning Israel” as seen by Amos will occur at “Tekoa” (Amos 1:1), I have previously written on this:

“There are reasons, though, why I think that Tekoa would not have been the actual home of the prophet Amos. When confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, Amos retorted (7:14-15): ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees.  But the Lord took me from following the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.’

“Now, commentators such as Eugene Merrill have been quick to point out “that sycamores were abundant in the Shephelah but not around Tekoa” (The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2011, p. 431, n. 4).

“So, my first point would be that Amos’s cultivating of sycamore-fig trees would be most appropriate in Moresheth, but highly unlikely in Tekoa. Moresheth, we read, “is the opposite exposure from the wilderness of Tekoa, some seventeen miles away across the watershed. As the home of Amos is bare and desert, so the home of Micah is fair and fertile” (“Micah 1”, Expositor’s Bible Commentary).

“My second point is that Amos, apparently a herdsman (בַנֹּקְדִים) – some think a wealthy “sheepmaster”, whilst others say that he must have been poor – was, as we read above, “following the flock” מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן)), meaning that, seasonally, he was a man on the move. Stationed at his home town of Moresheth in the Shephelah, I suggest, where he trended the sycamore trees, the prophet also had to move with the flock from time to time.

And this is apparently where Tekoa (about 6 miles SE of Bethlehem) comes into the picture”.

[End of quotes]

The reason why such striking similarities can be found between Amos and Jonah (as we read above in A.) is because this was a father-son prophetic combination ranging from Israel to Judah. It is the very same reason why we find some almost identical statements and actions emanating from Micah (= Amos) and from Isaiah (= Jonah). Read, for example,  Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4.

“But who quoted whom?”, it is asked:

Well, Micah was the father, and Isaiah was the son.

Compare also Micah 1:8: “Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl”, and Isaiah 20:3: “Then the LORD said, ‘Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush …’.”

No doubt Jonah’s prediction regarding Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25): “[Jeroboam] was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher”, was uttered with all due awareness of his father Amos’s own prediction (cf. 6:14):

“For the Lord God Almighty declares,

    ‘I will stir up a nation against you, Israel,

that will oppress you all the way

    from Lebo Hamath to the valley of the Arabah’.”

More tellingly, from my point of view, commentators have suggested that some parts of the Book of Isaiah (my Jonah) may actually have originated with Jonah. Don E. Jones, again, writes of it (op. cit.):

“Spurred by the reference in II Kings 14:25, scholars over the years have searched diligently in the Scriptures for the “Lost Book of Jonah”. Hitzig and Renan have attributed the prophecies of Isaiah 15-23 to Jonah as being inconsistent with other parts of the book. Allusions to Moab, Egypt and Ethiopia, would certainly give Jonah a wider scope of action. He would know conditions in Tyre, Sidon and Damacus from the Assyrian venture. Sargon’s reign in Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) began in 721. It was by no means impossible that Jonah could still have been alive at the time of Isaiah”. [End of quote]

The view of Hitzig and Renan enables us to fill out the prophet Jonah all the more. His prophetic mission beyond Israel was not just limited to Nineveh. Isaiah, like Jonah (1:3), appears to have been very familiar, too, with the “ships of Tarshish” (e.g., 2:16; 23:1; 60:9).

As to why (we read this earlier) the name of Hosea’s father would be given as “Beeri”, whereas Isaiah’s father is given as “Amoz”, the Book of Judith may provide something of a clue. Judith was, like Uzziah (my Isaiah-Hosea) of Bethulia, a Simeonite (cf. Judith 8:1; 9:2). The Bethulians were a closely knit bunch, with Judith’s husband, Manasseh, belonging “to the same tribe and clan” as she (8:2). Uzziah, also a Simeonite, may well have been a relative of both Judith and her husband. Judith seems to have been immensely proud of her ‘father’, Merari, she singing, after her great victory over “Holofernes”:

‘For their mighty one did not fall by the hands of the young men,

    nor did the sons of the Titans strike him down,

    nor did tall giants set upon him;

but Judith daughter of Merari

    with the beauty of her countenance undid him’.

Hosea’s father, “Beeri”, could possibly be that Merari, given what C. Conder will refer to (I noted this in my postgraduate university thesis on King Hezekiah of Judah) as the “occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature” of the substitution of M for B. Conder was hoping with this to establish the fairly unimportant site of “Mithilia” (or Mesilieh) as Judith’s “Bethulia”.

Somewhat coincidentally, we read in Genesis (26:34): “When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite …”. Obviously no relation, though.

Consulting Abarim Publications, I find that the name “Merari” does not have Amoz (Amos) listed as a “related” name:

Perhaps Merari could have been an ancestor, rather than a direct father, of both Hosea and Judith.

One name “related” to Merari in Abarim is “Imrah”, which is very much like the biblically rare name, Imlah (Imla), father of Micaiah (I Kings 22:8) – hence grandfather of Hosea-Isaiah (and Judith?).

A special mention is made in I Chronicles 4:33 to the Simeonites keeping “a genealogical record”.

Part Three:

Deeper Focus on Jonah

A: A Revised life of Jonah

Here (A-B) I intend to trace in outline the life of the prophet Jonah, largely through his better known alter ego (that is, according to my revision), Isaiah (= Hosea). The historicity of the prophet Isaiah (and hence of Jonah) may perhaps be attested by a clay seal found in Jerusalem (Amanda Borschel-Dan’s, “In find of biblical proportions, seal of Prophet Isaiah said found in Jerusalem”):

“The oval-shaped bulla, however, is not intact. On its legible portion, there is an inscription with First Temple Hebrew letters that seem to spell out the name l’Yesha’yah[u] (Belonging to Isaiah). On a line below, there is the partial word nvy, which presumably spells out “prophet.” Because the bulla has been slightly damaged at the end of the word nvy, it is not known if it originally ended with the Hebrew letter aleph, which would have resulted in the Hebrew word for ‘prophet’ and would have definitively identified the seal as the signature of the prophet Isaiah,” [Dr. Eilat] Mazar said”. [End of quote]

Isaiah likely began his prophetic career as Hosea (1:1) “When the Lord began to speak though Hosea …”. As we know, this was during the reign of king Jeroboam II of Israel. Hosea, I have suggested, had followed his (= Isaiah’s) father Amos to Bethel (= Judith’s “Bethulia”), which is Shechem, in the north. There, the prophet must have made the prediction about king Jeroboam of 2 Kings 14:25 that is attributed to Jonah.

Isaiah-Hosea fluctuated between Israel and Judah. He famously recorded (Isaiah 6:1): “In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the Temple”.

And, later, in Judah, he will offer a sign to a recalcitrant King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:11).

Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, these are all historically verifiable kings. Thus, for instance, we read in Christoper Eames’ “Archaeology unearths historical fact – and proves the biblical record at the same time”:

“You’ve probably heard the names of many of Israel’s and Judah’s biblical kings. Do you know just how many have had their existence proved—independently—through archaeology?

These are the names thus far that have turned up in early, original contexts: kings DavidOmriAhabJehuJoashJeroboam iiUzziahMenahemAhazPekahHosheaHezekiah, Manasseh and Jehoiachin. The existence of these kings has been verified through scientific discovery even by the most stringent of analytical standards.

“Several years ago, the personal seal impression of King Hezekiah was found during excavations on Jerusalem’s Ophel mound. The tiny stamped clay piece reads: “Belonging to Hezekiah, [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah.” The impressive find is one of many that refer to King Hezekiah. His name also turns up in inscriptions belonging to his arch-nemesis, Assyria’s King Sennacherib”. [End of quotes]

According to Sirach 48:22-25:

“For Hezekiah did what was pleasing to the Lord,
    and he kept firmly to the ways of his ancestor David,
as he was commanded by the prophet Isaiah,
    who was great and trustworthy in his visions.

In Isaiah’s days the sun went backward,

    and he prolonged the life of the king.

By his dauntless spirit he saw the future,

    and comforted the mourners in Zion.

He revealed what was to occur to the end of time,

    and the hidden things before they happened”.

After Isaiah’s strong warnings to King Hezekiah and his subjects about the futility of turning to Egypt for help against Assyria – just he had warned Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, not to depend upon Assyria – Sennacherib will come up against Jerusalem and will successfully lay siege to the city.

Isaiah will, at that approximate time, cure King Hezekiah of a life-threatening illness, and will afterwards promise a better outcome against the Assyrians in the face of Sennacherib’s subsequent blasphemy (2 Chronicles 32:9-19).

Isaiah (as Uzziah) is back in the north, in “Bethulia”, when the ill-fated Assyrian army of 185,000 arrives at his doorstep. The great man will, in fact, be soundly reprimanded by the beautiful, and younger, Judith, for agreeing upon oath to deliver the city to the Assyrians within five days if rain does not come (Judith 8:9-27). It is Moses all over again, in a watery situation, but, in the case of Moses, the reprimand had come directly from Yahweh (Numbers 20:9-13).

As Uzziah, the prophet will receive into his household the abandoned Achior (Tobit’s nephew, Ahiqar), left by “Holofernes” to die amongst the Israelites whom he had verbally defended (Judith cf. 5:5-21; 6:10-19). This is the Nadin-Ahiqar situation of betrayal as recalled by Tobit (14:10-11):

Tobias, my son, leave Nineveh now. Do not stay here. As soon as you bury your mother beside me, leave; do not stay another night within the city limits. It is a wicked city and full of immorality; the people here have no sense of shame. Remember what Nadin [Nadab] did to Ahikar his own uncle who had brought him up. He tried to kill Ahikar and forced him to go into hiding in a tomb. Ahikar came back into the light of day, but God sent Nadin down into everlasting darkness for what he had done. Ahikar escaped the deadly trap which Nadin had set for him, because Ahikar had given generously to the poor. But Nadin fell into that fatal trap and it destroyed him. So now, my children, you see what happens to those who show their concern for others, and how death awaits those who treat others unjustly”.

Ahiqar “came back into the light of day” thanks in large part to the courageous intervention of Judith (14:6-10):

“So they called Achior [Ahiqar] from Uzziah’s house. But when he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hands of one of the men, Achior fainted and fell to the floor. When they had helped him up, Achior bowed at Judith’s feet in respect. ‘May every family in the land of Judah praise you’, he said, ‘and may every nation tremble with terror when they hear your name. Please tell me how you managed to do this’.

“While all the people were gathered around, Judith told him everything that she had done from the day she left the town until that moment. When she had finished her story, the people cheered so loudly that the whole town echoed with sounds of joy. When Achior heard all that the God of Israel had done, he became a firm believer. He was circumcised and made a member of the Israelite community, as his descendants are to the present day”.

Achior (Ahiqar), (var. Arioch) wrongly called “the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5) – when he was actually governor of the Elamites (cf. Tobit 2:10; Judith 1:6) – was ethnically an Israelite, and the nephew of the holy Tobit. Hence he already had the background for a proper conversion to Yahwism. This needs to be contrasted with the Ninevites and their king, who – though they, too, may have imbibed some good influences from Tobit and his family long dwelling in Nineveh – had only a pagan background.

Not to be outdone in praise of Judith, but before Ahiqar had thus been summoned (Judith 14:18-20):

“Then Uzziah said,

Judith, my dear, the Most High God has blessed you more than any other woman on earth. How worthy of praise is the Lord God who created heaven and earth! He guided you as you cut off the head of our deadliest enemy. Your trust in God will never be forgotten by those who tell of God’s power. May God give you everlasting honor for what you have done. May he reward you with blessings, because you remained faithful to him and did not hesitate to risk your own life to relieve the oppression of your people’.

All the people replied,

‘Amen, amen!'”

One can perhaps well imagine why our prophet – after his having been an eyewitness to the greatest military victory in the history of Israel (at least to that point in time), and over the hated Assyrians, no less – chafed at the bit when, not too long afterwards, he was thus ordered by Yahweh (Jonah 1:2): ‘Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me’. The prophet , who would no doubt have shared the sentiments of his fellow-Simeonite, Judith (16:17):

‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people!

    The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment;

he will send fire and worms into their flesh;

    they shall weep in pain forever’ [,]

knew what this, Yahweh’s new command, probably meant (Jonah 4:2-3) ‘That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live’. 

Compare Isaiah 30:18: “Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!”

B: The name “Jonah”

The Hebrew name, “Jonah” (יונה) is generally regarded as meaning “dove”.

Abarim Publications adds “vexer” (article, “Jonah meaning”):

The word “Jonah” is used in Hosea 7:1, for instance: “Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt, they go to Assyria”. And again in Isaiah, where the prophet recalls the seriously ill king Hezekiah’s use of the word (38:14): ‘I cried like a swift or thrush, I moaned like a mourning dove’.

Given that the prophet’s father had at least two names, with variations thereof, Amos (Amittai) and Micah (Micaiah), it would be expected that the son, who so faithfully (though not slavishly) imitated Amos, would likewise have had more than the one name, Isaiah (Hosea, Uzziah) and Jonah. Even more so, considering that the names of Isaiah-Hosea and his children (which may have undergone changes: cf. Hosea 1:4-11) were meant to have a symbolical significance for Israel. The prophet Isaiah, in his flight from the Lord, might later have acquired the name mindful of “a silly dove” (Hosea 7:11), that is, Jonah.

The father of the Apostle Peter is variously given as “Jona[h]” (Matthew 16:17) and as “John” (John 1:42).

There is a Babylonian tale – but written centuries after Jonah, it needs to be appreciated – that features a Jonah-like sage called Oannes, a name considered to be very close to the name, Jonah.

Bill Cooper tells of it (op. cit., pp. 110–111):

“In his book, Chaldean Genesis (1876), George Smith, the Assyriologist, cites the writings of Berosus (c.330–260 BC), a Babylonian priest who recorded many of the myths and legends of the early Mesopotamians. Among many other things, Berosus records the fascinating story of a certain ‘Oannes’.

He writes:

“At Babylonia there was (in these times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldea, and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field.” …. In the first year there appeared, from that part ofthe Erythraean Sea … which borders upon Babylonia, an animal endowed with reason, by name Oannes, whose whole body was that of a fish; and under the fish’s head he had another head, with feet also below similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish’s tail.

His voice too, and language were articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved to this day.”

“This being (Oannes) was accustomed to pass the day among men, but took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and arts of every kind. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short, he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize their lives. From that time, nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions.”  ….

“It is clear from Berosus’ own narrative that the Assyrians and Babylonians held Oannes in the highest esteem. ….

“While we cannot know for certain the Assyrian equivalent of Jonah’s name, we can at least be sure that it was not dissimilar to that of Oannes. The resemblance between the two names, even before such transposition, is remarkable. …. Unknown to the Assyrians, however, was the fact that a greater than Oannes was here. Here was no mythical figure dreamed up by an undiscerning pagan philosophy. Here was a living prophet of the Ever-Living God to Whom the Assyrians, in common with all mankind, owed their very creation and continuing existence!

“Judging by the attention that marooned sea monsters attract in our own day, it is easy to envisage the tremendous impact of such a monster disgorging a living man who then proceeded to a certain city to warn it of coming destruction. To those who had been nurtured on the story of Oannes, such an event would seem that Oannes himself had returned according to all that was laid down in the ancient legends. How else could God have achieved the effect that was so necessary to the accomplishment of His Will? The Assyrians would hardly have heeded a prophet (and a despised Israelite, at that), who rode into Nineveh on donkey, or as a passenger in a desert caravan. There was only one way, it seems, in which to startle and surprise the Assyrians into a positive response to Jonah’s message, and that was by God Himself staging what has proved be one of the most spectacular events of history.

“On its own even this, perhaps, may not have been sufficient to drive the Assyrians into a response to the message that Jonah brought them. They would also need to be in particularly distressed state of mind, driven into a corner by political, economic and military events over which they had no control, and which were pushing them inexorably further towards complete devastation. We have seen, in fact, that just such conditions prevailed at this very point in history, and thus the Assyrians may even have been importuning their gods for a teacher or deliverer of the stature and wisdom of their beloved Oannes …. Most assuredly, they were both psychologically and spiritually prepared for just such an event and message as Jonah was about to deliver”. [End of quotes]

Some of what Bill Cooper has written here makes perfect sense to me. But parts of it don’t. As already noted, the story of Oannes is a late legend, post-dating Jonah. It is typical for historians to presuppose that any pagan account that resembles a biblical one always has the chronological precedence. I have spent many articles arguing that the opposite is the case. So, when a presumed c. 300 BC writer records a tale that is, in some instances, uncannily like the much older Jonah story – as Bill Cooper has well noted – my immediate reaction to this is that the Oannes legend must have arisen from the Jonah story.

Certainly the latter resonates with Berosus’s description of the Mesopotamians who “lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field”. And, again, the two names, “Jonah” and “Oannes”, are indeed very similar. It is common to identify Oannes with the the Mesopotamian water god, of knowledge, Ea (Sumerian Enki). And the account of Berosus seems to have commingled Mesopotamian theology with a garbled recollection of the biblical Jonah incident.

Some of the geography of Berosus, however, “Euxine Sea” (Black Sea), “Erythrean Sea” (Indian Ocean?), is completely irrelevant to Jonah and is, moreover, internally contradictory.

Bill Cooper is right on the mark in describing what must have been the mental state of the Ninevites at the time of Jonah’s arrival – except that he has located all this to the era of king Tiglath-pileser III. Things were far, far worse, I have suggested, at my preferred moment in time of early Esarhaddon.

Moreover, God was never going to use a pagan ‘theology’ to reinforce his message.

The “representation of [Oannes] … preserved to this day” (Berosus) is the well-known fish man (kulullu) of which Bill Cooper has provided a photo on his p. 111 (fig. 7).

It is the prophet Jonah himself, depicted on a wall of the palace of Nimrud (Calah).

But it will be chronologically too early for Jonah in the context of the conventional system.

More of that in Appendix A.

Later, it is said, the figure came to be associated with the god, Dagan: (“Kulullu (“Fish Man”) “Dagon”):

This figure was known to the Assyrians as Kullulû, meaning “fish man.” The kullulu was a guardian figure, a dweller of the sacred Absu, the watery underground domain of the God Ea. Figures of the fish-man were often concealed in the construction of buildings to serve as protective charms.

From about the fourth century, the figure was associated (probably erroneously) with the god Dagan (meaning “grain”), most commonly known by his Hebrew name, Dagon. Dagan was a vegetation god, the father of the god Baal, the mythological creator of the plow. Dagon is mentioned several times in the Hebrew scriptures, where he is associated with the Philistines. It is to Dagon’s temple that the Ark of the Covenant is taken after being captured from the Hebrews; the next morning, they discover the statue of the god lying on the floor, sans head and hands”. [End of quote]

Another note on ‘AD’ pseudo-history. Earlier on (Part One, A.), I argued for the Nineveh-connected, and hence quite anachronistic Prophet Mohammed to have been a non-historical composite, partly based on Tobias, the son of Tobit of Nineveh. Although Mohammed would be regarded by most as being a true historical character, whilst Jonah would not, I would insist upon the very opposite.

The same comment would apply to that muddle-headed navigator, Columbus (meaning “Dove”), whose maritime epic is, for me, the story of Jonah ‘writ large’. Christopher Columbus sets sail (rather more enthusiastically than had Jonah) to convert the pagans.

Many, many centuries before Columbus, 1492 and all that, the Late Bronze Mediterraneans (Cretan Philistines and the Phoenicians) were mining tons of nearly pure copper, for their precious bronze, from far-away Lake Superior in Northern America (Gavin Menzies, The Lost Empire of Atlantis, 2001)

“Columbus” (whoever he/it may have been) did not discover America!

Not surprisingly, though, “Columbus” is supposed to have encountered “a great fish” – a description that accurately translates Jonah 2:1’s dag gadol (דָּג גָּדוֹל) (“… Columbus sees a Sea Monster”):

“From a modern English translation of [his son] Ferdinand’s biography, we read that sometime between September 1~14 in 1494, this curious event occurred to Columbus and his men:

Holding on their course, the ship’s people sighted a large fish, big as a whale, with a carapace like a turtle’s, a head the size of a barrel protruding from the water, a long tail like that of a tunny fish, and two large wings. From this and from certain other signs the Admiral knew they were in for foul weather and sought a port where they might take refuge.”

“As far as I know, no such creature exists. So what did Columbus see?

‘Did It Happen…?

“This is one of those moments where the gray zone of what is considered history and what is considered not history is fully exposed.

“History is often just stories that have been agreed upon and accepted, with no hard evidence past this agreement to support it… and in the case of most of Christopher Columbus’ voyages, this is the case. Ferdinand’s account of his father’s life is taken as authoritative on many details that no other document can confirm; yet the story above is quietly ignored, even though it has the same amount of evidence to support it as anything else in Ferdinand’s biography”. [End of quotes]

To be continued ….

Amenhotep Hapu and Horemheb

Published April 8, 2020 by amaic

See the source image

Who was the enigmatic Amenhotep Hapu?



Damien F. Mackey


Part One:

Amenhotep Hapu, named Huy, as Amenhotep Huy


Here I am using the conventional dates as given by N. Grimal in his A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994).

To presume to identify Amenhotep son of Hapu, flourishing at the time of pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’  (1390-1352 BC), with general Amenhotep Huy, at the time of Tutankhamun (1336-1327 BC) – particularly considering that Hapu is thought to have been “born during the reign of pharaoh Thutmose III” (1479-1425 BC)


– would be to make of Huy a very aged general indeed.

Somewhere in the vicinity of 95 years of age.

My revision, though, according to which Thutmose III is to be merged with Thutmose IV (cutting out about 11 years), and Amenhotep II is to be merged with Amenhotep III (cutting out some 24 years), 35 in total, enables this connection to be biologically quite reasonable.

Why do I favour connecting Amenhotep Hapu (Huy) with Amenhotep Huy?

  1. Obviously there is the perfect name correspondence.
  2. The fact that Amenhotep Hapu is known to have lived to at least 80, and had hopes of attaining the age of 110 (immortalised by Joseph = Imhotep).
  3. The common role in Nubia.
  4. The quasi-pharaonic titles. 
  5. The fact that general Huy was considered important enough to have officiated at Tutankhamun’s funeral.  

As I had noted in my university thesis, this general Huy was acting “as a virtual pharaoh”: 

General Huy, as Doherty tells it, had returned victorious from Nubia as a virtual pharaoh (if he had not been that already before he had departed): 


Huy’s tomb also gives an insight into the power structure at Thebes. He is not bashful in viewing himself as Viceroy, or even more. One scene … depicts Huy’s return almost as a Pharaoh holding the flail as well as the crook. He may pay homage to Tutankhamun but Huy’s tomb pictures also illustrate Nubian tributes being presented directly to the Viceroy … nosing the ground … in front of [him]. … The inescapable conclusion … is that Huy saw himself very much in charge. He is active while the Pharaoh is passive. He does not receive the seal of office directly from the Pharaoh but from another powerful official which can only be Ay. Tutankhamun can be depicted as a warlike chieftain in the pictures on the fan found in his tomb. He may have had body armour buried with him but, as far as Huy was concerned, Huy was the victor of Nubia and, rather than Huy basking in Pharaoh’s glory, the positions are reversed.

Amenhotep son of Hapu likewise mentions being on a campaign to Nubia:

I was the chief at the head of the mighty men, to smite the Nubians [and the Asiatics (?)], the plans of my lord were a refuge behind me; [when I wandered (?)] his command surrounded me; his plans embraced all lands and all foreigners who were by his side. I reckoned up the captives of the victories of his majesty, being in charge of them.

Further on, Doherty will recall some of the elite titles that had been bestowed upon general Huy:


Huy, who was also present at Tutankhamun’s mysterious burial, rejoiced in some of the highest titles in the land. He was not only Viceroy of Nubia but ‘Divine Father’, one of the ‘Fanbearers on the King’s Right Hand’, ‘Supervisor of the Amun’s Cattle in the land of Kush’, ‘Supervisor of the Land of Gold of the Lord of the Two Countries’ … His Majesty’s Brave in the Cavalry.

Compare Amenhotep Hapu’s similarly grand titles:

Hereditary prince, count, sole companion, fan-bearer on the king’s right hand, chief of the king’s works even all the great monuments which are brought, of every excellent costly stone; steward of the King’s-daughter of the king’s-wife, Sitamen, who liveth; overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North, chief of the prophets of Horus, lord of Athribis, festival leader of Amon.

Part Two:

Amenhotep Hapu as Horemheb


The conclusion was reached in Part One, that that extraordinary character in Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian history, Amenhotep Hapu, or Huy, was the same as the quasi-royal general serving king Tutankhamun, Amenhotep Huy.

Now, Amenhotep Huy I had previously identified with Horemheb, a future pharaoh of Egypt. There I wrote: 

It is here suggested that the powerful Horemheb may actually have been present at the lavish funeral of pharaoh Tutankhamun in the guise of General Huy.

A possible identification of Horemheb with Huy was one of my many attempts at revising ancient history through the use of alter egos in my university thesis:

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background


Beginning on p. 242 of Volume One, Chapter Ten, I presented the following section:

Horemheb as General Huy

With regard to the highly successful Nubian campaign effected during the reign of Tutankhamun, Horemheb is thought to have played a rôle only secondary to Huy. And Horemheb was entirely absent from Tutankhamun’s burial, according to Doherty … who has told of Ay’s sinister part in the entire funerary rites. …. Horemheb’s presumed absence though may be a misconception, based on what might be a one-dimensional view of this multi-dimensional official. He was I believe to the fore in both the Nubian campaign and the funeral; but not under the actual name of ‘Horemheb’. It is here I submit that … Horemheb is perhaps also the multi-titled Huy, “one of Ay’s close lieutenants” … who was at the forefront of both the Nubian campaign and Tutankhamun’s funeral.

Doherty has described the Nubian campaign, with Tutankhamun as merely a passive onlooker by contrast with the real power in Egypt at the time: ….

If Tutankhamun was not the real leader in the projected campaign against Kush then who was? General Horemheb must have played a part: paintings from his tomb at Sakkara portray the general bringing Nubian captives before Pharaoh and receiving [his] approval and approbation …. Horemheb was involved in the Nubian campaign and displayed his exploits both in his tomb at Sakkara and on the stela describing the events which led to his own coronation as Pharaoh.

Nevertheless, his nose may have been put out of joint, for the real star [sic] of Tutankhamun’s Nubian campaign was … the court official … Huy … Viceroy of Nubia and Huy unashamedly described his achievements in his own tomb paintings … These paintings place Huy very much at the heart of affairs. …

But this Huy was, I suspect, Horemheb himself. And this makes it almost certain that he was therefore the same also as Amenhotep Huy, king’s son of Kush. …. Whilst Doherty can only conclude about the Nubian campaign: …. “Very little if any mention is made of General Horemheb’s role”, the situation of course takes on a completely different aspect when Horemheb is equated with Huy. 


Doherty will discuss what he calls “three versions of the Nubian campaign”: i.e. one in the tomb of Tutankhamun, one in the tomb of Huy, and one in the tomb of Horemheb. …. But his complete separation of these last two, which I consider to belong to the one general, will necessitate from him this somewhat convoluted explanation: ….

On one level these different versions can be amusing but they do betray the tensions [sic] at Tutankhamun’s court. Huy, in his paintings, claims the credit, whilst General Horemheb presents an alternate [sic] version. There is no evidence of two Nubian campaigns. Horemheb may have gone ahead to prepare the ground for Huy or may have acted in concert with him. Nevertheless, the inescapable conclusion is that both [sic] men claimed the glory for … a victorious campaign.

Horemheb as Huy certainly also attended Tutankhamun’s funeral. Doherty again:


Huy, who was also present at Tutankhamun’s mysterious burial, rejoiced in some of the highest titles in the land. He was not only Viceroy of Nubia but ‘Divine Father’, one of the ‘Fanbearers on the King’s Right Hand’, ‘Supervisor of the Amun’s Cattle in the land of Kush’, ‘Supervisor of the Land of Gold of the Lord of the Two Countries’ … His Majesty’s Brave in the Cavalry.

…. Horemheb had … astonishing titles as well [e.g. ‘King’s Deputy in All Countries’, ‘King’s Elect’, ‘The Greatest Amongst the Favourites of the Lord of the Two Countries’, ‘The True Scribe Well Beloved of the King’]. …. Courville marvelled at the nature of Horemheb’s titles and privileges. …. That Horemheb was already at least quasi-pharaoh during the reign of Tutankhamun is quite apparent from the fact that Horemheb’s cartouche has been found together with that of Tutankhamun on commemorative stone slabs found at the base of sphinxes as part of the Avenue of Sphinxes at Karnak. ….

Horemheb, if identical to Amenhotep Huy, may have taken the name, “Amenhotep”, in honour of his great benefactor, Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’.

I had calculated Amenhotep Huy’s age to have been about 60 during the reign of Tutankhamun. That number will still require the addition of 4 years for Aye, plus the amount of time that Horemheb reigned.

I would favour a short reign, despite Horemheb’s vast building works. Much of these could have been completed during the reign of Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’.

For Amenhotep Hapu was:

“… a priest and a Scribe of Recruits (organizing the labour and supplying the manpower for the Pharaoh’s projects, both civilian and military). He was also an architect and supervised several building projects, among them Amenhotep III’s mortuary temple at western Thebes, of which only two statues remain nowadays, known as the Colossi of Memnon. He may also have been the architect of the Temple of Soleb in Nubia. …”. 

Likewise, Horemheb was a Scribe of Recruits and the Overseer of the Priests of Horus:

More recently I have written:

“The large grey granite statue of Horemheb in the pose of a scribe … is related stylistically to those of Amenhotep son of Hapu … Horemheb has the same plump, well-fed body and wears a long wig similar to that of the aged wise man …”.

Smith and W. Simpson

Amenhotep son of Hapu, Horemheb, contemporaneous, having lived during the reign of Amenhotep III. And in Part One, it was observed:

Horemheb, for one, may have been stylistically influenced by Amenhotep. For according to W. Smith and W. Simpson (The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, Yale UP, 1998, p. 195): “The large grey granite statue of Horemheb in the pose of a scribe … is related stylistically to those of Amenhotep son of Hapu … Horemheb has the same plump, well-fed body and wears a long wig similar to that of the aged wise man …”.

Using information on “Amenhotep son of Hapu” as provided by Anneke Bart:

I shall point out some comparisons between him and Horemheb (for whom I shall be drawing largely from Arianna Sacco’s article “Soldier, scribe, king: the career of Horemheb”).

Some of his titles:

Hereditary prince, count, sole companion, fan-bearer on the king’s right hand, chief of the king’s works even all the great monuments which are brought, of every excellent costly stone; steward of the King’s-daughter of the king’s-wife, Sitamen, who liveth; overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North, chief of the prophets of Horus, lord of Athribis, festival leader of Amon

Horemheb’s titles (“In this tomb, Horemheb is given 90 titles, most of which are military”):

But Horemheb progressed also in his administrative career, becoming scribe and chief registrar of recruits, as well as royal messenger to foreign lands. He was awarded the title, “Royal messenger at the front of his army to the southern and northern lands”. Other titles included: “Crown Prince, Fan-bearer on the Right Side of the King, and Chief Commander of the Army”, “Attendant of the King in his footsteps in the foreign countries of the south and the north”, “Sole Companion, he who is by the feet of his lord on the battlefield on that day of killing Asiatics”.

Family background and career:

Amenhotep called Huy, son of Hapu was a very influential noble from the time of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep was the son of Hapu (Hapi) and the Lady Itu. 

Horemheb’s origins unknown:

Early military career

The original name of Horemheb may have been Paatenemheb. His family came from Herakleopolis Magna. However, nothing is known for sure about the origins of the king.

Horemheb doesn’t speak of his parentage, which suggests that he was probably of modest origin and that he was a self-made man. One knows that his family was from Herakleopolis, close to the entry of the Fayum, whose tutelary god was Herishef, a god with the head of a ram. Nevertheless no monument of this city makes allusion to Horemheb, and it seems that he had no particular devotion for its god, no more that he erected a place of cult worship there for his family (at least nothing has been found).

Several inscriptions outline his career and show how he rose through the ranks.

Horemheb rose through the ranks:

Horemheb’s career started in the army during the reign of Akhenaten.

He may have led an attack against the Nubians, who lived in the extreme south. He managed to secure a number of military successes in Nubia. Evidence for these military victories are reflected in his titles and the representations in his tomb at Saqqara, described further down in this article.

Horemheb ascendant

During the reign of Tutankhamun (r. 1336–1327 BC), Horemheb progressed in his military career and became the commander of all the army.

Amenhotep started off as a king’s scribe as mentioned on his statue:

I was appointed to be inferior king’s-scribe; I was introduced into the divine book, I beheld the excellent things of Thoth; I was equipped with their secrets; I opened all their [passages (?)]; one took counsel with me on all their matters.

 After distinguishing himself, Amenhotep was promoted to the position of Scribe of Recruits.

… he put all the people subject to me, and the listing of their number under my control, as superior king’s-scribe over recruits. I levied the (military) classes of my lord, my pen reckoned the numbers of millions; I put them in [classes (?)] in the place of their [elders (?)]; the staff of old age as his beloved son. I taxed the houses with the numbers belonging thereto, I divided the troops (of workmen) and their houses, I filled out the subjects with the best of the captivity, which his majesty had captured on the battlefield. I appointed all their troops (Tz.t), I levied ——-. I placed troops at the heads of the way(s) to turn back the foreigners in their places.

Ample evidence above of Horemheb as king’s scribe.

Amenhotep mentions being on a campaign to Nubia.

I was the chief at the head of the mighty men, to smite the Nubians [and the Asiatics (?)], the plans of my lord were a refuge behind me; [when I wandered (?)] his command surrounded me; his plans embraced all lands and all foreigners who were by his side. I reckoned up the captives of the victories of his majesty, being in charge of them.

Horemheb campaigned in Nubia and against Asiatics:

Horemheb’s career started in the army during the reign of Akhenaten. He may have led an attack against the Nubians, who lived in the extreme south. He managed to secure a number of military successes in Nubia. Evidence for these military victories are reflected in his titles and the representations in his tomb at Saqqara, described further down in this article.

Horemheb ascendant

During the reign of Tutankhamun (r. 1336–1327 BC), Horemheb progressed in his military career and became the commander of all the army. He was responsible for campaigns into Nubia and Asia. Mostly, the Egyptian efforts were focused on Syria, where the Hittites had wrested control from the Egyptians over Amurru and Karkemish.

The goal of the Egyptian campaigns in the region was to re-establish Egyptian rule over Palestine and Lebanon. These campaigns turned into further successes for Horemheb and, as with the Nubian expeditions, the victories secured here were quickly reflected in the honorary titles bestowed on him. 

Later he was promoted to “Chief of all works”, thereby overseeing the building program of Pharaoh Amenhotep III

Horemheb was “uppermost of all works of the king and Regent to the young king”:

His connections to court finally led to Amenhotep being appointed as Steward to Princess-Queen Sitamen.

Horemheb was “Steward of the Lord of the Two Lands”. 

Mortuary temple edict

An inscription on a limestone stela records how Amenhotep son of Hapu was allowed to build a mortuary temple right next to the temple of Amenhotep III. This type of honor is exceedingly rare.

Year 31, fourth month of the first season, sixth day, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Lord of the Two Lands, Nibmare, L.P.H.; Son of Re, of his body, Lord of Diadems, Amenhotep (III), L.P.H.

On this day, one (=the king) was in the ka-chapel of the hereditary prince, count, king’s-scribe, Amenhotep. There were brought in: the governor of the city, and vizier, Amenhotep, the overseer of the treasury, Meriptah, and the king’s-scribes of the army.

One said to them in the presence of his majesty, L.P.H.: “Hear the command which is given, to furnish the ka-chapel of the hereditary prince, the royal scribe, Amenhotep, called Huy, Son of Hapu, whose excellence is [extolled (?)] in order to perpetuate his ka-chapel with slaves, male and female, forever; son to son, heir to heir; in order that none trespass upon it forever.

“[Horemheb] also usurped the mortuary temple of Ay at Medinet Habu for his own, rebuilding it on a much larger scale”:

At Luxor, he continued the work of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, usurping the latter’s monuments both there and elsewhere. Perhaps much of the work completed during the reign of Tutankhamun was actually commissioned by Horemheb for today, many of the statues and reliefs bearing Horemheb’s cartouches was actually work completed during Tutankhamun’s reign.

Amenhotep son of Hapu would go down in history as a god. He was worshipped for centuries and there are inscriptions showing Amenhotep was venerated as a healer.

“Once Ramses II was on the throne, Horemheb was deified” (Charlotte Booth, “Horemheb: The Forgotten Pharaoh”, 2012).


Part Three:

An early Horemheb


The conclusion was reached in Part One, that that extraordinary character in Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian history, Amenhotep Hapu, or Huy, was the same as the quasi-royal general serving king Tutankhamun, Amenhotep Huy.

And, in Part Two, the long-living Amenhotep Hapu was further extended to embrace Horemheb.

Now, here, in Part Three, I shall consider whether our composite character might also be the Horemheb the Scribe of Recruits, during the reign of pharaoh Thutmose (so-called IV).

We read about the quality of the tomb decoration of the early Horemheb:

The owner of the TT78 Theban tomb is called Horemheb Horemheb (Hrw-m-h3b, Hr-m-hb, Heremheb, Horemhab, Haremhab, “Horus is celebrating”), as was the well-known pharaoh, but the two characters are not contemporaries: our Horemheb lived about 80 years before the sovereign. Through its texts and images, this tomb makes an important contribution to knowledge of the Egyptian culture of the middle of the XVIIIth dynasty.

Although he has not reached the highest levels of power, Horemheb held important titles in the civil, military and religious spheres and enjoyed royal favour. Witness to this are the dimensions of his tomb, the variety of his titles, and the variety of decoration in the tomb, whose style and execution make this monument one of the jewels of the eighteenth dynasty and a summit of Egyptian funerary art. A notable historical fact is that in the chapel of Horemheb, and that of Menna TT69), there are the oldest known tomb representations of scenes of the judgment of the dead.

Our composite Amenhotep Huy-Horemheb I had estimated to have been about 60 years of age during the reign of Tutankhamun. 

To that we would need to add 4 years for the reign of Ay (Aye), plus the 14-27 years of Horemheb as  pharaoh.

Naturally favouring the shorter reign length, we arrive at the age of about 80. And this was indeed the age that we know Amenhotep Hapu reached, with a further hope of his attaining 110.

{One always has to consider a further reduction in time due to co-regencies}.

At least most of those extra (110-80 =) 30 years would be required to be added on if we were to include the early Horemheb’s service as a young scribe under Thutmose. 

{I have previously merged as one Thutmose III and IV}.  

In conventional history, Amenhotep Hapu is estimated to have been born during the reign of Thutmose III, whilst Horemheb looked back to Thutmose III with great filial respect.

The early Horemheb held many impressive titles reminiscent of Amenhotep Hapu (Amenhotep Huy) and Horemheb, such as:

“fan bearer on the right of the king”, “true scribe of th(e king, who loves him”



Court titles 

Horemheb was rewarded with twenty-two honorific titles, which give information on the rank of the holder and the esteem in which the sovereign held him. These honorary titles are always placed at the beginning of the person’s titulary: “Prince and Count”, “Familiar of the King”, “Great Confidant of the Lord of the Two Lands”, “Favorite Confident”, “Beloved of the Perfect God”, “Nearest of Horus”, “close to the Lord of the palace”, “fan bearer on the right of the king”, “true scribe of the king, who loves him”, “companion of the Lord of the two lands”, “companion of the bearer of the force”, “the eyes of the king through the land”, “one of those who bring good into the royal house and who comes out of it loved”, “beloved”, “from a beloved.”

Titles related to an office 

Horemheb held twenty-one different office titles, with five variants in writing. It can be seen that the range of all these titles covers three spheres, military, civil and religious.

  • The military titles of Horemheb are in the transverse room and date from the reign of Thutmose IV. We see that he reached the highest levels of the army: he began as “Royal Scribe”, then became “true royal scribe” and finished up as “Overseer of all the scribes of the army”.

He will reach the top, becoming “One responsible for recruiting and organizing troops”: all soldiers and active officers are then subordinate to him. This explains why, in the banquet scene, there are no less than five army commanders among the guests.

  • His office functions included the military and civil sphere, and it is he who receives the tributes of foreign countries, and who controls the populations. He is also “Overseer of Cattle”, “Overseer of Birds and Fish”, which gave him control over hunts and royal estates.
  • His offices in the temples of Karnak and in the domains of Amun (drawing Brack-049) are of the greatest importance :“Overseer of the fields of Amun”, “Overseer of the cattle of Amun”, “One in charge of the constructions of Amun”, “Chief of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt”. Their representation is confined to the long room; the latter having been decorated under Amenhotep III, these titles were therefore effective under the reign of that king.



Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus

Published April 7, 2020 by amaic


When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus – which the author himself does nothing to hide.


Here are some of them:


Pp. 190-191:


Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus.


P. x:


… Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and emulated.


P. 145:


Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided himself on his clear, bright eyes).


P. 190:


… the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus.

For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in Augustus’ honor in the Senate.


P. 191:


What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his predecessor? Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of his preeminence.


P. 192:


Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles principes, polite autocrats.  


Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit.


P. 193:


Hadrian followed Augustus’ [consulship] example to the letter – that is, once confirmed in place, he abstained.


Hadrian’s imitation of Augustus made it clear that he intended to rule in an orderly and law- abiding fashion … commitment to traditional romanitas, Romanness. It was on these foundations that he would build the achievements of his reign.

Like the first princeps, Hadrain looked back to paradigms of ancient virtue to guide modern governance. Augustus liked to see himself as a new Romulus …. Hadrian followed suit ….


P. 196:


[Juvenal] was granted … a pension and a small but adequate farmstead near Tibur ….Hadrian was, once again, modelling himself on Augustus, who was a generous patron of poets ….


P. 202:


[Hadrian] conceived a plan to visit every province in his wide dominions. Like the first princeps, he liked to see things for himself….


P. 208:


Hadrian introduced [militarily] the highest standards of discipline and kept the soldiers on continual exercises, as if war were imminent. In order to ensure consistency, he followed the example of Augustus (once again) … by publishing a manual of military regulations.


P. 255:


[Eleusis] … at one level [Hadrian] was merely treading in the footsteps of many Roman predecessors, among them Augustus.  


P. 271:


… with his tenth anniversary behind him … the emperor judged the time right to accept the title of Pater Patriae, father of his people. Like Augustus, and probably in imitation of him, he had declined the Senate’s offer for a long time ….


P. 277:


{Hadrian] was soon widely known throughout the Hellenic eastern provinces as “Hadrianos Sebastos Olumpius”, Sebastos being the Greek word for Augustus ….


P. 322:


The consecration ceremony was modeled on the obsequies of Augustus.


Part Two:


Here are some more comaprisons from the same book:


P. 31:


Augustus’ constitutional arrangements were durable and, with some refinements, were still in place a hundred years later when the young Hadrian was becoming politically aware.


P. 58:


In Augustus’ day, Virgil, the poet laureate of Roman power, had sung of an imperium sine fine. A century later he still pointed the way to an empire without end and without frontiers.


P. 130:


… [Hadrian] depended on friends to advise him. Augustus adopted this model ….


P. 168:


So far as Hadrian was concerned [the Senate] offered him the high title of pater patriae ….

He declined, taking Augustus’ view that this was one honor that had to be earned; he would defer acceptance until he had some real achievements to his credit.


P. 173:


So military and financial reality argued against further enlargement of the empire. … Augustus, who had been an out and out expansionist for most of his career ….

… the aged Augustus produced a list of the empire’s military resources very near the end of his life. …. Hadrian may well have seen a copy of, even read, the historian’s [Tacitus’] masterpiece.

P. 188:


… all the relevant tax documents were assembled and publicly burned, to make it clear that this was a decision that could not be revoked. (Hadrian may have got the idea for the incineration from Augustus, for Suetonius records that … he had “burned the records of old debts to the treasury, which were by far the most frequent source of blackmail”).


P. 198:


His aim was to create a visual connection between himself and the first princeps, between the structures that Augustus and Agrippa had left behind them and his own grand edifices …. Beginning with the burned-out Pantheon. ….

Hadrian had in mind something far more ambitious than Agrippa’s temple. …. With studied modesty he intended to retain the inscribed attribution to Agrippa, and nowhere would Hadrian’s name be mentioned. 


Mackey’s comment: Hmmmm


P. 233:


It can be no accident that the ruler [Hadrian] revered so much, Augustus, took the same line on Parthia as he did – namely, that talking is better than fighting.


P. 324:


As we have seen, until  the very end of his reign, Augustus was an uncompromising and bellicose imperialist. Dio’s prescription [“Even today the methods that he then introduced are the soldiers’ law of campaigning”] fits Hadrian much more closely, and he must surely have had this example in mind when penning these words.  


Part Three

“This is the chief thing: Do not be perturbed, for all things are according to the nature of the universal;

and in a little time you will be nobody and nowhere, like Hadrian and Augustus”.


Marcus Aurelius, Meditations


The names “Augustus” and “Hadrian” often get linked together.

For instance, for Hadrian – as we read here: “Augustus was an important role model”:


Rome’s first emperor, Augustus (reigned 27 BC–AD 14), had also suffered severe military setbacks, and took the decision to stop expanding the empire. In Hadrian’s early

reign Augustus was an important role model.

He had a portrait of him on his signet ring and kept a small bronze bust of him among the images of the household gods in his bedroom.

Like Augustus before him, Hadrian began to fix the limits of the territory that Rome could control. He withdrew his army from Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, where a serious insurgency had broken out, and abandoned the newly conquered provinces of Armenia and Assyria, as well as other parts of the empire. ….

Hadrian was even “a new Augustus” and an “Augustus redivivus”.

Thus Anthony R. Birley (Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, p. 147):

Hadrian’s presence at Tarraco in the 150th year after the first emperor was given the name Augustus (16 January 27 BC) seems to coincide with an important policy development. The imperial coinage at about this time drastically abbreviates Hadrian’s titulature. Instead of being styled ‘Imp. Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus’, he would soon be presented simply as ‘Hadrianus Augustus’. The message thereby conveyed is plain enough: he wished to be seen as a new Augustus. Such a notion had clearly been in his mind for some time. It cannot be mere chance that caused Suetonius to write in his newly published, Life of the Deified Augustus, that the first emperor had been, ‘far removed from the desire to increase the empire of for glory in war’ — an assertion which his own account appears to contradict in a later passage. Tacitus, by contrast, out of touch – and out of sympathy – with Hadrian from the start, but aware of his aspirations to be regarded as an Augustus redivivus, seems subversively to insinuate, in the Annals, that a closer parallel could be found in Tiberius. ….

“In Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, Anthony Birley, according to a review of his book, “brings together the new … story of a man who saw himself as a second Augustus and Olympian Zeus”.


Hadrian is often presented as a finisher, or a restorer, of Augustan buildings. For example:

The Pantheon is one of the few monuments to survive from the Hadrianic period, despite others in the vicinity having also been restored by him (SHA, Hadrian 19). What is unusual is that rather than replacing the dedicatory inscription with one which named him, Hadrian kept (or more likely recreated) the Agrippan inscription, reminding the populace of the original dedicator. At first this gives the impression that Hadrian was being modest, as he was not promoting himself. Contrast this with the second inscription on the façade, which commemorates the restoration of the Pantheon by Septimius Severus and Caracalla in 202 CE (CIL 6. 896). However, by reminding people of the Pantheon’s Augustan origins Hadrian was subtly associating himself with the first emperor. This helped him legitimise his position as ruler by suggesting that he was part of the natural succession of (deified) emperors. It is worth noting that Domitian had restored the Pantheon following a fire in 80 CE (Dio Cassius 66.24.2), but Hadrian chose to name the original dedicator of the temple, Agrippa, rather than linking himself with an unpopular emperor. In addition, the unique architecture of the Pantheon, with its vast dome, was a more subtle way for Hadrian to leave his signature on the building than an inscription might have been – and it would have been more easily ‘read’ by a largely illiterate population.

Thomas Pownall (Notices and Descriptions of Antiquities of the Provincia Romana of Gaul),

has Hadrian, “in Vienne”, purportedly repairing Augustan architecture (pp. 38-39):

That the several Trophaeal and other public Edifices, dedicated to the honour of the Generals of the State, were repaired by Augustus himself, or by his order, preserving to each the honour of his respective record of glory, we read in Suetonius …. And it is a fact, that the inhabitants of Vienne raised a Triumphal Arc, to grace his progress and entry into their town. The reasons why I think that this may have been afterward repaired by Hadrian are, first, that he did actually repair and restore most of the Monuments, Temples, public Edifices, and public roads, in the Province: and next that I thought, when I viewed this Arc of Orange, I could distinguish the bas-relieves and other ornaments of the central part of this edifice; I mean particularly the bas-relief of the frize, and of the attic of the center, were of an inferior and more antiquated taste of design and execution than those of the lateral parts; and that the Corinthian columns and their capitals were not of the simple style of architecture found in the Basilica, or Curia, in Vienne, which was undoubtedly erected in the time of Augustus, but exactly like those of the Maison carrée at Nimes, which was repaired by Hadrian.

La Maison Carrée de Nîmes

Edmund Thomas will go a step further, though, and tell that the Maison carrée belonged, rather, to the time of the emperor Hadrian (Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age, p. 50):

Also worth mentioning is the so-called ‘Temple of Diana’ at Nîmes. It was roofed with a barrel-vault of stone blocks, unusual for western architecture, and its interior walls, with engaged columns framing triangular and segmental pediments … resemble those of the ‘Temple of Bacchus’ at Baalbek …. It seems to have formed part of the substantial augusteum complex built around a substantial spring …. The date of the building is much disputed; but the resemblance to the architecture of Baalbek and the association of Antoninus Pius with Nemausus [Nîmes], may be indications of the Antonine date formerly suggested. …. Indeed, the famous ‘Maison Carrée’ in the same city, usually

regarded as an Augustan monument, has recently been redated to the same period, when the town was at its height, and may even be the ‘basilica of wonderful construction’ founded by Hadrian around 122 [sic] ‘in honour of Plotina the wife of Trajan’ ….

Joseph and Tamar Comparisons

Published April 6, 2020 by amaic
Chapter Joseph in Egypt-Old Testament Stories Joseph In Egypt, Bible Illustrations, Old Testament, The Bible Movie, Bible Stories, Ancient Civilizations, Statue, Closer, Artwork


Damien F. Mackey


A parent’s favourite, given a special cloak, sold out by brothers, mocked, sexually harrassed, emerging from the desert on a spices-laden camel train, imprisoned, though much admired, capable of good management, ruling in Egypt as second only to Pharaoh.

These are just some of the similarities that Tamar at the time of King David shared with Joseph.  

This article presupposes my multi-identifications of Tamar as developed in:

The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife


“Conclusion 2: Abishag, of uncertain name, the same as Tamar (her given Hebrew name), hailing from Shunem, was hence “the Shunammite” of King Solomon’s Song of Songs. Ethnically, she may have been Egypto-Canaanite, which thought will lead to the consideration … that she was also Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”.”


Some of the Comparisons


Joseph, beloved of his father (Genesis 37:3): “Now Israel [Jacob] loved Joseph more than any of his other sons …”, was hated by his brothers (v. 4): “ When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him”.


The “Shunammite” was (Song of Solomon 6:9): “… the favourite of her mother, perfect to the one who gave her birth”, but mis-treated by her brothers (1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me and made me take care of the vineyards”.


Joseph’s father “made an ornate robe for him” (Genesis 37:3).


Tamar “was wearing an ornate robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore” (2 Samuel 13:18).


The exact same Hebrew words to describe “ornate robe”, or “coat of many colours”, are used in the case of Joseph and of Tamar, ketonet passim (כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים).


Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers (Genesis 37:13): ‘As you know, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them’.

‘Very well’, he replied.


 David sent Tamar to her ‘brother’, Amnon (2 Samuel 13:7, 8): “David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him’. 

So Tamar went …”.


From “Hebron ….” (Genesis 37:14).


Six of Tamar’s ‘brothers’ were born to David at “Hebron” (I Chronicles 3:1-4).


Joseph asks a man at Shechem (Genesis 37:16): ‘I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?’


Similarly the Shunammite asks her beloved (Song of Solomon 1:7): ‘Tell me, you whom I love, where you graze your flock and where you rest your sheep at midday’.


Joseph’s brothers “plotted to kill him” (Genesis 37:18).


Tamar was a pawn in a conspiratorial plot by Absalom and his adviser to kill Amnon (see above article).


“So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the ornate robe he was wearing” (Genesis 37:23).


“Tamar … tore the ornate robe she was wearing” (2 Samuel 13:19).


Joseph’s brothers “looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead” (Genesis 37:25).


Were they “flock of goats”-like? 

(Song of Solomon 4:1): ‘Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from the hills of Gilead”.


“Their camels were loaded with spices, balm and myrrh, and they were on their way to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25).


(I Kings 10:1, 2): “… the Queen of Sheba … came … to … Jerusalem with a very great caravan—with camels carrying spices …”. 


“Judah said to his brothers, ‘… after all, he is our brother’.” (2 Genesis 37:26, 27).


“Her brother Absalom said to [Tamar], ‘…. Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother’.” (2 Samuel 13:20).


“… his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver” (Genesis 37:28).


“Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon; he let out his vineyard to tenants. Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand shekels of silver” (Song of Solomon 8:11).


“… the Ishmaelites … took [Joseph] to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28).


‘I liken you, my darling, to a mare among Pharaoh’s chariot horses’ (Song of Solomon 1:9).


“Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes. He went back to his brothers and said, ‘…. Where can I turn now?’ (Genesis 37:29, 30).


‘What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’ (2 Samuel 13:13).


“Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days. All his sons and daughters came to comfort him …” (Genesis 37:34-35).


“The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn” (2 Samuel 13:31).


Given the above similarities, it would be no accident that the narrative concerning Joseph is suddenly interrupted by Genesis 38, the account of Judah and another “Tamar” who is treated with some disrespect by Joseph’s brother, Judah.


“Joseph found favour in his eyes and became his personal attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned” (Genesis 39:4).


“Abishag … took care of the king and waited on him …” (I Kings 1:4).

“And Achitophel said to Absalom. ‘Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the palace …’ (2 Samuel 16:21).


“Now Joseph was well-built and handsome …” (Genesis 39:6).


“… Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David” (2 Samuel 13:1).

“… they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite” (I Kings 1:3).

‘O thou fairest among women …’ (Song of Solomon 1:8).

“… Hatshepsut still described herself as a beautiful woman, often as the most beautiful of women …” (


“… after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’” (Genesis 39:7).


“In the course of time, Amnon … grabbed her and said, ‘Come to bed with me’ …” (2 Samuel 13:1, 11).


{So Judah with the other Tamar ‘Come now, let me sleep with you’ (Genesis 38:16), before his having to concede: ‘She is more righteous than I …’ (v. 26) – something Amnon would fail to do in the case of the other Tamar}.


“But he refused. ‘…. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?’” (Genesis 39:8, 9).


‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing’ (2 Samuel 13:12).


‘When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house’ (Genesis 39:15).


“Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went” (2 Samuel 13:19).


“When his master heard the story his wife told him … he was furious” (Genesis 39:19).


“When King David heard all this, he was furious” (2 Samuel 13:21).


“Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined’ (Genesis 39:20).


“[Amnon] called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’.” (Genesis 39:17).

“And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman” (39:20).


“When two full years had passed …” (Genesis 41:1).


“Two years later …” (2 Samuel 13:23).



Following Isaiah

Published April 4, 2020 by amaic

The prophet Isaiah writing of Christ's birth, by Harry Anderson


Damien F. Mackey

The long-lived prophet Isaiah has a Hebrew name (ישעיה) which means:

Yah Is Salvation”, or “Salvation Of The Lord”.

He was the “son of Amos [Amoz]” (Isaiah 1:1), who is generally considered to have been the same as the prophet Amos.

Isaiah witnessed for Yahweh during the reigns of this succession of kings of Judah (1:1):

“Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah”.

Whilst these kings ruled in Jerusalem, other kings ruled contemporaneously in Israel.

Jeroboam II, for instance, being one of these as we shall see.

Probably following the footsteps of his father Amos, whom Yahweh had called from Judah to witness at Bethel, in the northern kingdom (Amos 7: 10, 15), Isaiah, at some stage, headed northwards.

We know him in this guise as the prophet Hosea, of an almost identical-meaning Hebrew name (הושע):


Hosea, as well as witnessing for Yahweh during the very same succession of Judaean kings as had Isaiah (Hosea 1:1): “Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah”, also included in his listing the above-mentioned “Jeroboam [II] … king of Israel.

The messages of Isaiah, Hosea, are very similar.

Also, the names of the children of Isaiah, of Hosea, as well as that of the father, were meant to be signs and symbols, “a sermon to the nation” according to one commentator.

The prophet was not confined to the north, of course.

He would have returned to Jerusalem at least for the great feast-days.

On one occasion he famously encountered King Ahaz of Jerusalem (Isaiah 7).

Unfortunately this stubborn king took no notice of Isaiah’s sage advice.

Isaiah was in Jerusalem again at times during the reign of the pious, reforming king, Hezekiah, whom I have identified with the pious, reforming king, Josiah.

For example, when King Hezekiah was grievously ill (2 Kings 20), the prophet predicted 15 more years of life for the king (v. 6), and prescribed an efficacious cure for his illness (v. 7).

Now Isaiah may feature in Jerusalem again – and this is the new identification I am proposing for him – as “Asaiah, the king’s attendant” (2 KIngs 22: 12), who was sent by King Josiah (my Hezekiah) as part of a delegation to that mysterious prophetess, Huldah (v. 14).

She would, like Isaiah had done, predict a good outcome for the king because he had humbled himself before Yahweh in the midst his trials.

Isaiah is back in Bethel (or “Bethulia”) – which is the key (strategic) northern city of Shechem – when Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi – the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith – invades the land with an 185,000-strong Assyrian army.

Isaiah is here called Uzziah, and he has apparently been given command of this most important of cities. For Uzziah is the chief magistrate of Bethulia.

More than that he is, according to the Douay Book of Judith, “the prince of Juda[h]”, and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23).

His royal connections may have arisen form the his father Amos’s having been (according to Jewish Talmudic legend) the brother (in marriage?) of King Amaziah of Judah, and hence a member of the royal family.

Uzziah’s father and, finally, his tribe, are given in Judith 6:15: “Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon”. That makes Micah, Amos, and so it is little wonder that the prophet Micah has been called “Amos redivivus”.

Micah hailed from Moresheth (Micah 1:1), in Judah.

These were the glory days, with Israel’s great victory over the seemingly invincible Assyrians!

Micah, who had witnessed successfully during the reign of King Hezekiah (Jeremiah 26:18), would have died before the Judith incident.

But Isaiah lived into the next reign, that of Manasseh, when legend has him martyred.

He is, I believe, referred to in the Book of Jeremiah as having been chased down into Egypt by the minions of King Jehoiakim (who is my Manasseh), and murdered. Jeremiah calls him Uriah (or Urijah).

And we finally learn where Isaiah may have resided when in Judah, Kiriath Jearim (Jeremiah 26:20-23):

(Now Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim was another man who prophesied in the name of the Lord; he prophesied the same things against this city and this land as Jeremiah did.  When King Jehoiakim and all his officers and officials heard his words, the king was determined to put him to death. But Uriah heard of it and fled in fear to Egypt. King Jehoiakim, however, sent Elnathan son of Akbor to Egypt, along with some other men. They brought Uriah out of Egypt and took him to King Jehoiakim, who had him struck down with a sword and his body thrown into the burial place of the common people.)

Here Isaiah’s “father” is called by yet another name, Shemaiah.

But this character may in fact have been an earlier important Simeonite ancestor named Shemaiah (I Chronicles 4:37).

Na’aman and Hazael  

Published March 18, 2020 by amaic
Naaman visits Elisha to be cured


Damien F. Mackey


Hazael’s being Na’aman (if that is who he was) would account for the curious fact that Yahweh had commissioned the prophet Elijah at Sinai to anoint a Syrian.

For Na’aman was a Syrian who had (in his own fashion) converted to Yahwism.



Dr. Velikovsky had put together quite a reasonable case for EA’s Ianhama to have been the biblical Na’aman the leper.


Might this Ianhama, though, have been a bit too early for the healing of Na’aman by the prophet Elisha: “Yanhamu began his service under Amenophis III” (E. Campbell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, Section C. “Yanhamu and the South”, 1964, p. 93) – the miraculous biblical incident having occurred not very long, apparently, before the assassination of Ben-Hadad I? The latter event I would estimate to have been significantly later than the time of pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’.


Another possibility for the historical identification of the haughty Syrian captain, Na’aman, I would tentatively suggest, would be Hazael himself, whom Dr. Velikovsky had wonderfully identified with Aziru of the EA series.

Hazael was, like Na’aman, a Syrian (I Kings 19:15): “The Lord said to [Elijah], ‘Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram’.”

2 Kings 5:1: “Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram”.


Na’aman, Hazael, dwelt in very close contact with king Ben-Hadad I.

Compare Na’aman’s words to Elisha (2 Kings 5:18-19):


‘But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master [אֲדֹנִי] enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this’.

‘Go in peace’, Elisha said [,]


with the fact that Hazael had close personal access to his “master” (same Hebrew word, adoni

used in both instances) (2 Kings 8:14-15):


Then Hazael left Elisha and returned to his master [אֲדֹנִי]. When Ben-Hadad asked, ‘What did Elisha say to you?’ Hazael replied, ‘He told me that you would certainly recover’.  But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king.


Hazael’s being Na’aman (if that is who he was) would account for the curious fact that Yahweh had commissioned the prophet Elijah at Sinai to anoint a Syrian. For Na’aman was a Syrian who had (in his own fashion) converted to Yahwism.


Moreover, the former Syrian captain was militarily astute, “Na’aman …. was a valiant soldier” (2 Kings 5:1), who may have begun the demise of the House of Ahab himself by fatally shooting Ahab with an arrow (Emil G. Hirsch, et al., “Naaman”):


And the Syrian captain would have considered the disposal of Ben-Hadad I as being a Divinely commissioned task, especially after this (2 Kings 8:13): “Hazael said, ‘How could your servant, a mere dog, accomplish such a feat?’ ‘The Lord has shown me that you will become king of Aram’, answered Elisha”.


Finally, as Velikovsky had found Na’aman to have been “a generous man”, as is apparent from 2 Kings 5:5: “So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold and ten sets of clothing”, so, too, was Hazael an extremely generous man (2 Kings 8:9): “Hazael went to meet Elisha, taking with him as a gift forty camel-loads of all the finest wares of Damascus”.



The Statutes of Omri

Published March 17, 2020 by amaic


Damien F. Mackey



“For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab,

and you walk in their counsels; that I should make you a desolation, and the inhabitants

thereof an hissing: therefore you shall bear the reproach of my people”.

 Micah 6:16



With the obscure King Omri (qua Omri) now expanded into Jeroboam I:


Great King Omri missing from Chronicles


then it becomes somewhat clearer what may have been “the statutes of Omri” as referred to by the prophet Micah.

They were the unorthodox religious laws and teachings of Jeroboam I.

And they had much of their inspiration from Egypt, where Jeroboam lived prior to his reign in Israel. King Jeroboam even uses the very same description of his golden calves that the MBI Israelites had used of theirs in the desert:



(Exodus 32:4): ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’.


(I Kings 12:28): ‘Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’.


Here, then, are the statutes of Omri = Jeroboam I (I Kings 12:26-33):


Jeroboam thought to himself, ‘The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord, Rehoboam king of Judah. They will kill me and return to King Rehoboam’.

After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, ‘It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’. One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.

Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made. On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings.



Micah compares, but also distinguishes between, “the statutes of Omri … and all the works of the house of Ahab”.

For, as we read in the above-mentioned article, Omri and Ahab – though universally thought to have been successive rulers of Israel – in reality belonged to separate houses, that of Jeroboam and that of Ahab.


Great King Omri missing from Chronicles

Published March 17, 2020 by amaic
Image result for samaria omri


Damien F. Mackey



“The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah are usually designated as ‘founders’ houses‘, i.e. Saul’s house, David’s house, Jeroboam’s house, Baasha’s house, and Jehu’s house.

Yet the name Omri’s house is conspicuously missing from the Bible.

Instead, the same dynasty is always called Ahab’s house, although Omri was

the dynastic founder and Ahab was his successor”.

T. Ishida




Suspecting yesterday morning (16th September, 2019), once again, that there may be some degree of duplication amongst the listings of the kings of Israel of the Divided Monarchy period, which thought prompted me later that day to write:


Bible Bashing Baasha problem king of Israel. Part One: Reprising my earlier Baasha View

and then reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, I was really surprised to find that Omri does not figure directly in Chronicles.

That I was not mistaken or deluding myself about this was confirmed when I read the following in Wilfred J. Hahn’s article “Omri: The Merger King”:


King Omri was one of the most influential kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. It would be difficult to discern this from the Bible alone without careful study. As only 13 verses (1 Kings 16:16-28) recount the history of this man, it would be easy to overlook his significance. Unusually, no direct mention is even made of his reign in the books of Chronicles, apart from referring to his son, Ahab, and grandsons Ahaziah and Joram. The only biblical indication we get of the repute of his legacy is found in Micah 6:16.


[End of quote]


Another famous name amongst the kings of Israel (Divided Kingdom) who is missing from Chronicles is Jeroboam II.

Regarding this surprising omission I have noted “that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures” … may not necessarily be entirely true. Jeroboam so-called II may figure more prominently in the Scriptures than is thought – but under an alter ego.


And now I am going to suggest the very same thing, that we may need to begin to look for the – seemingly neglected in the Scriptures, but undoubtedly famous – Omri (qua “Omri”) under the guise of Jeroboam I.

That Omri, currently designated as the sixth king of Israel (Divided Kingdom):



Jeroboam I


needs to be located significantly earlier than this is quite apparent from the fact that Omri was involved in war with Ben-Hadad I’s father, Tab-rimmon, who was, in turn (it can be estimated), a contemporary of Abijah king of Judah.

I Kings 15:18: “Asa then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the Lord’s temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon”. That this Tab-rimmon had warred with Ahab’s father, Omri, is apparent from Ben-Hadad’s statement to Ahab in I Kings 20:34: “So Ben-Hadad said to [Ahab], ‘The cities which my father took from your father I will restore; and you may set up marketplaces for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria’.”


King Omri of Israel, whose fame extended down even to the neo-Assyrian period – referred to by the Assyrian kings as “House of Omri (Bīt Humri) – did not need for the Scriptures also to mention an “Omri’s house”, because the king already had his “Jeroboam’s house”.


Thus Omri was actually the first, not the sixth, king of Israel (Divided Monarchy).