All posts tagged AMAIC

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).