Thursday, February 22, 2024

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History

by Damien F. Mackey Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries. With the inadequacies of the Sothic dating upon which the conventional Egyptian chronology has been based (and to which the other nations have been tied) now laid bare, e.g.: Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar http://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar and also The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited and the ground thus cleared for the raising of a scientific chronological model that is not based upon artificial a priori assumptions, revisionist scholars have been able to re-assess the abundant El Amarna [EA] archive to re-determine its proper historical location. One of the EA correspondents who has aroused special interest, owing to the mention of Jerusalem (Urusalim) in connection with him, is the king of that city, Abdi-Hiba (Abdi-Heba), the author of six letters (EA 285-290): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290.[9] 1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem" 2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited" 3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"' 4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect" 5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded" 6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9] Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries. As I have previously written about EA in a general fashion: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/elamarna_period.html#ere EA’s Egyptians Identifying the EA pharaohs is the easiest … challenge as it is almost universally agreed that Amenhotep III and Akhnaton are those who are referred to in the EA correspondence by their throne names, respectively, of Nimmuria (i.e. Nebmare, Nb-m3't-R') and Naphuria (i.e. Neferkheprure, Nfr-hprw-R'). These two pharaohs, having been Sothically dated to the late C15th-early C14th BC, are - from a biblical perspective - usually considered by historians to have pre-dated the arrival of the Israelites in the Promised Land - or at least to have coincided with their arrival there. Thus it is common to read that the habiru rebels who feature prominently in the EA letters were either the Hebrews of the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or perhaps the newly arrived Hebrews (Israelites) under Joshua. …. But To Which Era Do Revisionists Re-Locate EA’s Abdi-Hiba? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We ourselves, set completely free as we are from Sothic theory, are able to begin to zone in on the correct era of Abdi-Hiba, and we are going to find that it is nothing like what the conventional text books say about this king as a ruler of Jerusalem in the mid 1300’s BC, and probably, therefore, corresponding with pharaoh Amenhotep III. In terms of biblical correlation, the era of Abdi-Hiba would be considered to approximate to the Judges period, some would say to the time of Joshua (as said above). Thus: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/joshua.htm The Bible states in Joshua 10:26 that Joshua defeated these kings, captured them and killed them, including the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek. It is very likely that Abdi-Heba and Adoni-Zedek are one [and] the same man. The reason being is that “Adoni-Zedek” is a title rather [than] the actual name of the king. Adoni-Zedek means the “Lord of Zedek,” similar to the name Melchi-Zedek which means “Prince of Zedek,” who was the ruler of Salem according to Genesis 14:18. The Hebrews would have associated this title with the prince of Salem, an early name for the city of Jerusalem. So the letters written by Abdi-Heba, trying to stop the advancing Hebrews [sic], were likely written by either Adoni-Zedek, mentioned in Joshua 10:1, or Adoni-Bezek, another king mentioned in Judges 1:7 who was defeated by Joshua and buried in Jerusalem. The letters from Abdi-Heba seem to have been written to either Amenhotep II or Amenhotep III. Since one of the letters from Abdi-Heba mentions that the pharaoh, whom he was requesting help from, had conquered the land of Naharaim and the land of Cush, this would likely point to Amenhotep II who indeed had military campaigns against both these countries. [End of quote] Evidences would suggest that a Joshuan alignment with the EA Pharaohs is not sustainable. For, two such pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 that spring to mind determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). In other words, the conventional scenario, and any other that would locate the reign of Abdi-Hiba in Jerusalem to a period ante-dating kings David and Solomon, are immediately to be cancelled out as having historical validity (and that even apart from the ramifications of Sothic theory). That means that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision, in which he chronologically re-locates Abdi-Hiba - along with Nimmuria and Naphuria - to the early period of Israel’s Divided Monarchy (about half a millennium after the Joshua/Judges period), is not to be cancelled out at least by our ‘two pieces of evidence’. (i) Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s Pioneering Effort In Dr. Velikovsky’s firm opinion, Abdi-Hiba was to be identified with king Jehoshaphat of Judah. He, reflecting later upon this choice, commented: http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm “In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century)”. In this same article, Dr. Velikovsky made a most significant discovery towards re-setting his revised EA period to the approximate time of King Solomon: The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem In the el-Amarna letters No. 74 and 290 there is reference to a place read (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages in Chaos, following Knudtzon, I understood that the reference was to Assyria (House of Nineveh).(1) I was unaware of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy, printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: “The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem.”(2) From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him.(3) After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”(4) Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu. The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.”(5) It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem.(6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord”,(7) this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of. Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.” The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded. Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. …. Though I cannot locate the exact reference at present, I recall a brief article pointing out that, contrary to Dr. Velikovsky, Beth Šulmán could not properly refer to the actual Temple of Solomon, since this edifice was always referred to as the Temple of Yahweh. So, the better translation of the EA phrase is “House of Solomon”. Now, that accords with contemporary usage, in that we have at least two documented references to the “House of David” (the Tell Dan and the Mesha Moabite Inscription), see André Lemaire at: http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf For a time, this equation of Abdi-Hiba = Jehoshaphat held as the standard amongst revisionists. However, the Glasgow School, in 1978, seriously re-assessed Dr. Velikovsky’s entire EA revision – with, as I believe, some outstanding results. This included a reconsideration of Velikovsky’s corresponding opinion that king Jehoshaphat of Judah’s contemporaneous ruler of Samaria, king Ahab of Israel, was to be identified with the prolific EA correspondent Rib-Addi. (ii) The “Glasgow” School’s Modification of Velikovsky The Glasgow Conference of 1978 gave rise to important contributions by scholars such as Martin Sieff; Geoffrey Gammon; John Bimson; and Peter James. These were able at the time, with a slight modification of Dr. Velikovsky’s dates, to re-set the latter’s revised EA period so that it sat more comfortably within its new C9th BC allocation. Thus pharaoh Akhnaton (Naphuria) now became a contemporary of king Jehoram of Judah (c. 848-841 BC, conventional dating) - and, hence, of the latter’s older contemporary Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dating) - rather than of Dr. Velikovsky’s hopeful choice of Jehoshaphat (c. 870-848 BC, conventional dating) and of king Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dating). Peter James, faced with J. Day’s “Objections to the Revised Chronology” in 1975, in which he had raised this fundamental objection to Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Abdi-Hiba with Jehoshaphat (ISG Newsletter 2, 9ff): Velikovsky claims that Abdi-Hiba, king of Jerusalem, is to be equated with Jehoshaphat. Abdi-Hiba means ‘servant of Hiba’ - Hiba being the name of a Hittite goddess. Can one really believe that Jehoshaphat, whom the Old Testament praises for his loyalty to the Israelite god, could also have borne this name involving a Hittite goddess? plus James’s own growing belief that the lowering of the date of the EA letters (within a revised model) was demanded by “several chronological and other considerations ...”, arrived at his own excellent comparison of Abdi-Hiba with king Jehoram of Judah. I give only his conclusion here, with which I fully concur, whilst recommending that one reads James’s full comparisons (“The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters”, SIS Review, Vol. II, No. 3 (London, 1977/78), 84): To sum up: the disasters that befell Jehoram of Judah and Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem were identical. Both suffered revolts of their subject territories from Philistia to Edom. During the reign of both the Philistines invaded and swept right across Judah, entering Jerusalem itself, in concert with the sack of the king’s palace by “men of the land of Kaši” or men “that were near the Cushites”. These peculiar circumstances could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of five hundred years. It is clear that Velikovsky’s general placement of the el-Amarna letters in the mid-ninth century must be correct, and that the modification of his original model suggested here, that Abdi-Hiba was Jehoram rather than Jehoshaphat, is preferable. [End of quote] Rib-Addi, for his part, could not have been king Ahab of Israel, Glasgow well determined. Dr. Velikovsky had been wrong in his proposing that the Sumur mentioned in relation to Rib-Addi (though not necessarily even his city, it has since been suggested) was Samaria, when Sumur is generally regarded as referring to Simyra, north of Byblos on the Syrian coast. David Rohl’s Intriguing Angle on EA Whilst I personally fully accept the Glasgow School’s basic conclusions about Abdi-Hiba and Rib-Addi, those, generally, who had worked these out went on later to disown them completely. James would team up with David Rohl to devise a so-called New Chronology, that I find to be a kind of ‘No-Man’s-Land revision’ hovering awkwardly mid-way between convention land and real base. Rohl, in The Lost Testament, would re-locate EA back from Dr. Velikovsky’s Divided Monarchy, where (when modified) I think that it properly belongs, to the time of the Unified Monarchy of kings Saul and David. Rohl will, like Dr. Velikovsky, propose an EA identification for a king of Israel, but it will be for Saul rather than for the later king Ahab. According to Rohl, king Saul is to be identified with EA’s Labayu, generally considered to have been a local ruler in Canaan. And Rohl identifies David with the Dadua (“Tadua”) who is referred to in EA 256. For Rohl, Abdi-Hiba is now a Jebusite ruler of Jebus/Jerusalem. Dr. Rohl is extremely competent and his reconstructions are generally most interesting to read. However, his EA revision, locating Abdi-Hiba as it does as an early contemporary of David’s, who is defeated by the latter, cannot therefore discern in EA’s Beth Shulman any sort of reference to David’s son, Solomon. Moreover, Rohl’s revision may have difficulty accounting for the fact that the name Urusalim (Jerusalem) occurs in the letters of Abdi-Hiba, supposedly a Jebusite king ruling over Jebus, but apparently known to David as Jerusalem (I Chronicles 11:4). Conclusion Whilst the New Chronology is superficially impressive, it, based as it is upon rocky ground, fails to yield the abundant fruit that arises from the fertile soil of a modified Velikovskian EA. James’s erstwhile identification of EA’s Abdi-Hiba as king Jehoram of Jerusalem not only yields some impressively exact comparisons between these two, supposedly separate, historical characters, but it is also able to accommodate most comfortably (chronologically) those two EA evidences of Shulman (Solomon) and Urusalim (Jerusalem). Hence EA’s Abdi-Hiba = King Jehoram of Judah is worthy to be regarded now as a firm pillar of the revised chronology, from which fixed standpoint one is able to generate a very convincing series of further correlations between EA and the particular biblical era. Peter James has thereby provided the definitive answer to the questions that I posed earlier: Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? With whom was Abdi-hiba corresponding? Abdi-hiba “also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king”.” The question is: which “king”? The following would be a typical view of the El Amarna [EA] situation of Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem (“Urusalim”), that he was a C14th BC Canaanite king enthroned by a pharaoh: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/jerusalem-in-the-amarna-letters.aspx Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters by Christopher Rollston The Amarna Letters are a group of inscribed clay tablets discovered around 1887 at Amarna, a site in Egypt on the east bank of the Nile about 190 miles south of Cairo. The city was founded by the Egyptian king (pharaoh) Amenhotep IV, who later became known as Akhenaten. Akhenaten was known as a heretic king; he worshiped only the Egyptian god Aten, perhaps becoming history’s first monotheist, and he apparently attempted (unsuccessfully) to impose this monotheism on Egyptian religion more broadly. The tablets total almost 400 in number and are written (almost without exception) in Akkadian. Most of these letters come from vassal cities in Syria-Palestine, including Byblos, Tyre, Gezer, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Ashkelon, Megiddo, and Jerusalem, and contain diplomatic correspondence with officials in Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni (an area of northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia), Alashia (Cyprus), and Hatti (central Anatolia). They date to the 14th century B.C.E., primarily to the reigns of the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III (reigned circa 1382–1344 B.C.E.) and Amenhotep IV (reigned circa 1352–1336 B.C.E.). The letters from Jerusalem (written as “Urusalim” in the Amarna texts) are from a Canaanite ruler named Abdi-Heba. He states that he is a “soldier for the king, my lord” and requests that the Egyptian monarch send him a messenger and some military men to help resist his enemies. In multiple letters he states that he “falls at the feet of my lord the king, seven times and seven times,” a stock phrase and common ancient Near Eastern motif that conveys his faithfulness to his Egyptian suzerain. He also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king.” Here Abdi-Heba reveals that he was not the heir to the throne but given the throne of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king himself. He goes on to state that for this reason he will always be a faithful vassal of his Egyptian lord, regardless of any accusation by an enemy to the contrary. Among the enemies he refers to in his correspondence are the “Apiru” (people living on the fringes of society in the second millennium B.C.E., sometimes serving as mercenaries) and the Kashites (a Hittite people from Anatolia). The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem have attracted substantial attention because of their dialect. It is normally argued that they are quite different in terms of cuneiform signs used, orthography, and syntax from the rest of the letters from Canaanite cities¾more sophisticated in certain ways, which may indicate the scribal culture at Jerusalem was of a particularly high quality. The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem are of interest for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they come from Jerusalem a few centuries before King David would ostensibly vanquish the Canaanite (Jebusite) population of Jerusalem and make it his own capital (2 Samuel 5). Also, the correspondence with a Jerusalem ruler in the 14th century provides evidence for occupation in the city in a period (Late Bronze Age II) for which there is little archaeological evidence. Recently a fragment of an Akkadian tablet (now called “Jerusalem Tablet 1) was found in excavations at Jerusalem, and some scholars have claimed that this tablet contained some correspondence between a king of Jerusalem and a king of Egypt. But this tablet is ultimately too fragmentary to determine if it was a letter. Among the most important things that these tablets demonstrate is that there was a vibrant and sophisticated scribal apparatus in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age. This Canaanite city was certainly not a backwater, but precisely the reverse. [End of quote] In terms of the revised chronology, however, Abdi-hiba was instead a C9th BC Jewish king of Jerusalem – a name not known for the city during the C14th BC, when it was called Jebus. And, in terms of the revised chronology that I follow specifically in the case of Abdi-hiba (following an early idea of Peter James), he was a biblical king, namely, Jehoram of Judah, son of the great king Jehoshaphat. To establish who may have set Abdi-hiba on his royal throne, as indicated by him in EA 286: Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king brought me into my father’s house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord? - and one presumes from the above that it could not have been king Jehoshaphat himself - might the better be determined by an examination of who was/were the recipient/s of his letters (EA 285-290). EA Letters of Abdi-Hiba “Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba 1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem" 2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited" 3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"' 4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect" 5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded" 6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9] One is most surprised to find out, upon perusing these letters of Abdi-hiba, that - despite Rollston’s presumption that Abdi-hiba’s “the king, my lord” was an “Egyptian monarch” - no Egyptian ruler appears to be specifically named in this set of letters. Moreover, “Egypt” itself may be referred to only once in this series (EA 285): “ … Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri)”. When we include the lack of any reference to Egypt in the three letters of Lab’ayu (252-254): Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh? (8) Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and likewise in the two letters of the woman, Baalat Neše - ten letters in all - then we might be prompted to reconsider whether the extent of Egyptian involvement was as much as is generally claimed. EA 285 is as follows: To the king [my lord, thus hath spoken] Abdi-{iiba, thy servant. [At] the feet [of the king, my lord], seven times and seven times I fall. Behold, I am not a [loeal ruler] ; an officer am I to the [king, my lord]. Why has the king . . . not sent a messenger . . A Under sueh cireum- stanees Eenjiamu has sent. . . . Let the king [hearken] to Abdi-Juba, his servant! [Behold], there are no troops. Let the king, my lord, send an officer, and let him take the loeal rulers with him! The lands of the king . . . and people . . . who are . . . and Addaya, the offieer of the king, [has] their house. . . . Let the king take heed for them, and let him send a messenger quiekly When ... I die. . . . Letter from Lachish (Constantinople, W. 21 9). 2 [To the] great, thus hath spoken Pabi, at thy feet I fall. Thou must know that Shipti-Ba'al and Zimrida are eon- spiring, and that Shipti-Ba'al hath spoken to Zimrida: " My father of the eity, Yarami (?) has written to me — Give me [six] bows, and three daggers, and three swords ! If I go forth against the land of the king, and thou dost join me, I shall surely conquer. He who makes (?) this plan is Pabu. Send him before me. w Now I have sent Rapi-el. Ho will bring to the great man information about this affair (?) EA 286 is as follows: --Say [t]o the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord, the king, 7 times and 7 times. (5-15)--What have I done to the king, my lord? They denounce me : ú-ša-a-ru[2] (I am slandered) before the king, my lord,1 "Abdi-Heba has rebelled against the king, his lord." Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king2 brought me into my father's house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord? (16-21)--As truly as the king, my lord, lives,3 I say to the commissioner of the king, [my] lord, "Why do you love the 'Apiru but hate the mayors? Accordingly, I am slandered before the king, my lord. (22-31)--Because I say4 "Lost are the lands of the king, my lord," accordingly I am slandered before the king, my lord. May the king, my lord, know that (though) the king, my lord stationed a garrison (here), Enhamu has taken i[t al]l away. [ ... ] Reverse: (32-43)--[Now], O king, my lord, [there is n]o garrison, [and so] may the king provide for his land. May the king [pro]vide for his land! All the [la]nds of the king, my lord, have deserted. Ili-Milku has caused the loss of all the land of the king, and so may the king, my lord, provide for his land. For my part, I say, "I would go in to the king, my lord, and visit the king, my lord," but the war against me is severe, and so I am not able to go in to the king, my lord. (44-52)--And may it seem good in the sight of the king, [and] may he send a garrison so I may go in and visit the king, my lord. In truth,5 the king, my lord, lives: whenever the commissioners have come out, I would say (to them), "Lost are the lands of the king," but they did not listen to me. Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord. (53-60)--May the king turn his attention to the archers so that archers of the king, my lord, come forth. The king has no lands. (That) 'Apiru6 has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain. But if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king, my lord. (61-64)--[T]o the scribe of the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your [ser]vant. Present eloquent words to the king, my lord. Lost are all the lands of the king, my lord. EA 287 is as follows: Say to the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 7 times and 7 times. Consider the entire affair. Milkilu and Tagi brought troops into Qiltu against me... ...May the king know (that) all the lands are at peace (with one another), but I am at war. May the king provide for his land. Consider the lands of Gazru, Ašqaluna, and Lakisi. They have given them [my enemies] food, oil and any other requirement. So may the king provide for archers and send the archers against men that commit crimes against the king, my lord. If this year there are archers, then the lands and the hazzanu (client kings) will belong to the king, my lord. But if there are no archers, then the king will have neither lands nor hazzanu. Consider Jerusalem! This neither my father nor my mother gave to me. The strong hand (arm) of the king gave it to me. Consider the deed! This is the deed of Milkilu and the deed of the sons of Lab'ayu, who have given the land of the king to the 'Apiru. Consider, O king, my lord! I am in the right!.... EA 288 is as follows: To the king, my lord, my sun, hath spoken thus Abdi- hiba, thy servant. At the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times do I fall. Behold, the king, my lord, hath set his name upon the East and upon the West. It is a wickedness which they have wrought against me. Behold, I am not a local ruler, I am an officer 2 of the king, my lord. Behold, I am a shepherd of the king, and one who brings tribute to the king. Neither my father, nor my mother, [but] the mighty hand of the king, hath established me in my father's house . . . came to me. . . . I gave him ten slaves into his hand. When Shuta, the officer of the king, came to me, I gave him twenty-one maidservants and eighty (?) asiru . . . gave I into the hand of Shtita, as a present for the king, my lord. Let the king care for his land I The whole land of the king will be lost. They have assumed hostilities against me (?) As far as tho territory of Sheri, as far as Ginti-kirmil, it goes well with all the local rulers (?), and hostility prevails against mc. If one could see ! 3 But I do not see the eyes of tho king, my lord, because hostility is established against me. When there was a ship on the sea, and the mighty hand of the king held Najjrima and Kapasi. But now the habiru hold the cities of the king. There is no local ruler left to the king, my lord ; all are lost. Behold, Turbazu has been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet tho king docs nothing. Behold, Zimrida of Lachish, his servants havo slaughtered him . . . the Habiru, Iaptiji-Adda, has been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet the king does nothing. . . . l Let the king take care for his land, and let the king give his attention in regard to troops for the land of tribute (?) 1 For if no troops come in this year, all the lands of the king, my lord, will be destroyed and in ruins. They must not say before the king, my lord, that the land of the king, my lord, is destroyed, and all the local rulers are destroyed. If no troops arrive in this year, then let the king send an officer to take mo to thee with my brothers, and wo will die with the king, my lord. EA 289 is as follows: Lines 1-4)--[Say t]o the king, my lord: Message of 'Abdi-Heba, your servant. I f[all] at the feet of my lord, the k[ing], 7 times and 7 times. (5-10)Milkilu does not break away from the sons of Labaya and from the sons of Arsawa, as they desire the land of the king for themselves. As for a mayor who does such a deed, why does the king not (c)all him to account? (11-17)--Such was the deed that Milkilu and Tagi did: they took Rubutu. And now as for Jerusalem-(URUUru-Salimki), if this land belongs to the king, why is it ((not)) of concern1 to the king like Hazzatu? (18-24)--Ginti-kirmil belongs to Tagi, and men of Gintu are the garrison in Bitsanu.2 Are we to act like Labaya when he was giving the land of Šakmu to the Hapiru? (25-36)--Milkilu has written to Tagi and the sons ((of Labaya)), "Be the both of you a protection.3 Grant all their demands to the men of Qiltu, and let us isolate Jerusalem."4 Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri). May the king, my lord, know (that) no garrison of the king is with me. (37-44)--Accordingly, as truly as the king lives, his irpi- official,5 Pu'uru, has left me and is in Hazzatu. (May the king call (this) to mind when be arrives.)6 And so may the king send 50 men as a garrison to protect the land. The entire land of the king has deser[ted]. (45-46)--Send Ye((eh))enhamu that he may know about the land of the king, [my lord]. (47-51)--To the scribe of the king, [my lord: M]essage of 'Abdi-Heba, [your] servant, Offer eloq[uent] words to the king: I am always, utterly yours.7 I am your servant.— EA 290 is as follows: Let it be known what Milkilu and Shuwardata did to the land of the king, my lord! They sent troops of Gezer, troops of Gath . . . the land of the king went over to the ‘Apiru. But now even a town near Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi (Bethlehem) by name, a village which once belonged to the king, has fallen to the enemy . . . Let the king hear the words of your servant Abdi-Heba, and send archers to restore the imperial lands of the king! But if no archers are sent, the lands of the king will be taken by the 'Apiru people. This act was done by the hand of Milkilu and Shuwardata. Good Correspondence Between EA and Revision According to 2 Kings 8:16-17: “In the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began his reign as king of Judah. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years”. In favour of Abdi-hiba as king Jehoram of Judah, and Lab’ayu as Ahab of Israel, is the fact that Lab’ayu is appropriately dead by the time of Abdi-hiba. Thus EA 280: Say to the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Shuwardata, your servant, the dirt at your feet. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, 7 times and 7 times. The king, my lord, permitted me to wage war against Qeltu (Keilah). I waged war. It is now at peace with me; my city is restored to me. Why did Abdi-Heba write to the men of Qeltu, "Accept silver and follow me?"... Moreover, Labaya, who used to take our towns, is dead, but now another Labaya is Abdi-Heba, and he seizes our town. So, may the king take cognizance of his servant because of this deed... Interestingly, Abdi-hiba is being designated here as “another Labaya”. And (EA 287) “the sons of Lab'ayu”, are now active in place of their deceased father. Jehoram of Judah, who, according to P. Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) was both prorex and corex during the latter part of his father Jehoshapat’s reign (and had three regnal beginnings), was also a contemporary, then, of the two sons of Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram – these being, according to my revision, “the sons of Lab'ayu”.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward

by Damien F. Mackey “For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”. Monsignor John McCarthy Here I am interested only in Matthew 1:7-11, referring to the Kings of Judah. Previously, while I had always been loathe to relinquish the two mighty kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah (who are not listed), I had acquiesced in the face of good scholarly arguments urging for an understanding of what Matthew himself was trying to tell us. And so I had written as follows on Matthew’s Genealogy, with deference especially to the excellent scholar Monsignor John McCarthy of Sedes Sapientiae (the Vatican): …. [Here firstly quoting Bernard Sadler, “The Structure of Matthew - The structure Saint Matthew gave his gospel” (Sydney, 2013): http://www.structureofmatthew.com/The%20Structure%20of%20Matthew.pdf Understanding the structure of the gospel and how Matthew ordered the various parts to each other and to the whole is important, because unless this structure is correctly understood what Matthew is saying is likely to be misunderstood. Understanding the gospel‘s structure will not prevent readers or commentators making errors of interpretation but misunderstanding the structure certainly will not help. The purpose of this book is threefold: to explain the basic structure Matthew used composing his gospel; to present outlines showing how this basic structure is found throughout the gospel; and to provide a gospel text laid out using those structures. Basic structure Now, contrary to modern perceptions, early Greek versions do show the structure — but not the way modern readers expect. Matthew wrote his gospel in paragraphs grouped into larger symmetrical units called chiasms. A chiasm is a passage of several paragraphs (or other units) so written that the last paragraph of the chiasm is linked to the first paragraph, the second-last paragraph is linked to the second paragraph, and so on. It is the linking of paragraphs this way that binds them together as a chiasm. A chiasm usually has a freestanding central paragraph about which the others are arrayed. Chiasm is the only structure Matthew used in his gospel. The linking of the paragraphs of a chiasm is done by parallelism. Parallelism consists in the repetition of words or phrases. A differently inflected form of a word may be used and occasionally a synonym is used; for example, Matthew uses the word treasures in 6:19 and repeats it in 7:6 as pearls. Sometimes two words are repeated in reverse order to produce what is called inverted parallelism. There are other kinds of chiasms and other uses of parallelism in Hebrew literature but here we are considering only those Matthew used to shape his gospel. …. Wise words indeed by Bernard Sadler (RIP). I next proceeded to: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ Question: What does Saint Matthew have to say about Our Lord‘s Genealogy? A merely superficial reading of this text (Matthew 1:6-17) will not suffice to unravel its profound meaning. According to Monsignor John McCarthy, in his Introduction to “The Historical Meaning of the Forty-two Generations in Matthew 1:17” (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt13.html): For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies. …. [End of quote] In my comment on this, I showed my reluctance to have certain major kings missing from this genealogy: Deep study is indeed required to grasp the logic of it all, because it appears that Matthew has, within his neat triple arrangement of “fourteen generations” (1:17): “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah” completely dumped four kings of Judah whose history is written in Kings and Chronicles. Those familiar with the sequence of the kings of Judah as recorded in Kings and Chronicles will be struck by the fact that Matthew 1 is missing these: Ahaziah; Joash (Jehoash); and Amaziah, three virtually successive kings - Matthew understandably omits the usurping Queen Athaliah before Joash - and later, Jehoiakim. Four in all! …. What is going on here? Was Saint Matthew the Evangelist mathematically deficient, somewhat like the schoolboy whose ‘sum of all fears’ is actually the fear of all sums? Even a mathematical dope, however, can probably manage to ‘doctor’ basic figures in order to arrive at a pre-determined number! Monsignor McCarthy, when discussing Fr. Raymond Brown’s attempted resolution of this textual difficulty, begins by asking the same question: Could Matthew count? Raymond Brown, reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader, does not plainly see fourteen generations in each of the three sets of names, but by using ingenuity he can "salvage Matthew's reputation as a mathematician." He cautions, for one thing, that we should not expect too much logic in Matthew's reasoning, since omissions are frequently made in tribal genealogies "for reasons that do not seem logical to the Western scientific mind" (pp. 82-84). …. [End of quotes] On the face of things - or, as Monsignor McCarthy puts it – “reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader” - what Saint Matthew may seem to have done would be like, say, a horse owner whose nag had come fourth in the Melbourne Cup, who later decided to re-write the story by completely ignoring any reference to the first three winners (trifecta), so that his horse now came in ‘first’. We however, believing the Scriptures to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, cannot simply leave it at that: a supposed problem of the sacred writer’s own making. Though this is apparently where the more liberally-minded commentators are prepared to leave matters in the case of a scriptural difficulty that it is beyond their wisdom to solve; thereby, as Monsignor McCarthy writes with reference to Fr. Brown, leaving things “in a very precarious state” (see below). … with Fr. Brown, there is a failure to attempt to “salvage” the sacred text. Rightly, therefore, does Monsignor McCarthy proceed to suggest: Brown's reasoning leaves a big problem. In the light of the deficiencies that he sees in Matthew's counting, how can one seriously believe that Matthew really shows by his 3 x 14 pattern that "God planned from the beginning and with precision the Messiah's origins" …? What kind of precision is this? And what could the number fourteen seriously mean in the message of Matthew? Brown believes that for Matthew fourteen was, indeed, "the magic number" … but he cannot surmise what that number was supposed to mean. He knows of no special symbolism attached to the number fourteen, and, therefore, he cannot grasp at all the point that Matthew is trying to make. So, rather than "salvage" Matthew's reputation as a theologian, Brown leaves Matthew's theology of 3 x 14 generations in a very precarious state. [End of quote] Monsignor McCarthy will, like Bernard Sadler above, seek to determine what Matthew himself is saying. Thus: Let us look at the plain message of the text of Mt 1:17 Contrary to what Fr. Brown had imagined: ― Matthew is not plainly saying that there were fourteen immediate biological generations in each period. In fact, when in his opening verse Matthew speaks of Jesus as "Son of David, son of Abraham," he is setting up a definition of terms which enlarges the notion of a generation. The Evangelist’s ways are not our ways - not how we might operate in a modern context. Accordingly, Monsignor McCarthy will allow Matthew to speak for himself: Just as Matthew can use the word 'son' to mean any descendant in the direct line, so can he use the word 'begot' to mean any ancestor in the direct line. Therefore, he does not err in saying in the second set of names that "Joram [Jehoram] begot Oziah [Uzziah]" (Mt 1:8), even though there were three immediate biological generations in between. Matthew is saying that there were fourteen undisqualified generations in each period of time, and his point has force as long as there is a discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations in keeping with the purpose of his writing. [End of quote] This brings us to that exceedingly interesting matter of the “discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations”. For, how to justify bundling out of a genealogical list two such mighty Judaean kings as Jehoash [Joash] and Amaziah? Between them they occupied the throne of Jerusalem for about three quarters of a century! Well, say some liberals, Matthew was using faulty king lists. No, say some conservatives, those omitted kings of Judah were very evil, and that is why Matthew had chosen to ignore them. But, can that really be the case? 2 Kings 12:2: ― “[Jehoash] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him”. 2 Kings 14:3: ― “[Amaziah] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash”. Why, then, does Matthew’s Genealogy include the likes of Jehoram (Joram), and Ahaz (Achaz), for instance, about whom Kings and Chronicles have nothing whatsoever favourable to say? 2 Chronicles 21:6 – “[Jehoram] followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as Ahab’s family had done, because his wife was Ahab’s daughter. So he did what the Lord considered evil”. 2 Kings 16:2-4 ― “Unlike David his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites”. Monsignor John McCarthy, wisely basing himself upon the [Church] Fathers, seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why these particular kings were omitted from the genealogy, and why the name of the wicked Jehoram, for instance, was genealogically preserved: Regarding the second set of "fourteen" generations, we read that "Joram begot Oziah" (Mt 1:18). But we know that Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Oziah, because Oziah is another name for Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:1; 2 Kg [4 Kg] 14:21), and in 1 Chr 3:11-12 we read: "and Joram begot Ochoziah, from whom sprang Joas[h], and his son Amasiah begot Azariah." Hence, Matthew omits the generations of Ochoziah, Joas, and Amasiah from his list, and the judgments given in the Old Testament upon these people may tell us why. St. Jerome … sees a reason in the fact that Joram married Athalia, the daughter of Jezebel of Sidon, who drew him deeper and deeper into the practices of idolatry, and that the three generations of sons succeeding him continued in the worship of idols. In the very first of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai it was stated: "Thou shalt not have foreign gods before me. ... Thou shalt not adore or serve them. I am the Lord thy God, powerful and jealous, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands to those that love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 20:3-6). Now Solomon was a sinner and an idolater (1 Kg f3 Kg] 11: 7-8), but he had a good man for his father and was therefore not punished in his own generation (1 Kg [3 Kg] 11:12). St. Augustine … points out that the same was true of Joram, who had Josaphat for his father, and therefore did not have his name removed from Matthew's genealogy (cf. 2 Chr 21:7). St. John Chrysostom … adds the further reason that the Lord had ordered the house of Ahab to be extirpated from the face of the earth (2 Kg [4 Kg] 9:8), and the three kings eliminated by Matthew were, as descendants of Athalia, of the seed of Ahab. Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, but he did not forsake the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord said to him: "Because you have diligently performed what was right and pleasing in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab in keeping with everything that was in my heart, your children shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation (2 Kg [4 Kg] 10:28-31). So it is interesting to note that while these generations of Jehu were inserted into the royal lineage of Israel, the three generations of Ahab were taken out of the genealogy of Jesus by the judgment of God through the inspired pen of St. Matthew. [End of quote] According to the revision that I have undertaken, though, there is no reason for major kings like Joash [Jehoash] and Amaziah to be dumped. (I can accept, perhaps, that the ephemeral and idolatrous Ahaziah, son of queen Athaliah, might be bypassed). Nor have Joash and Amaziah been dumped, for I find them in their alter egos, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. The King Joash, who would ultimately murder the holy prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was the same as the King Uzziah who would, for a time, come under the spiritual influence of that Zechariah, “who instructed him in the fear of God” (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22; 26:5). Similarly, the seemingly missing King Jehoiakim can be found in his alter ego, Manasseh: Manasseh - Jehoiakim (7) Manasseh - Jehoiakim | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So far, I have explained that some apparently missing kings (except for Ahaziah?) are not actually missing from Matthew’s genealogical list. But, then, another problem presents itself according to my revision. There are duplicated kings as well in Matthew’s list as we currently have it. Thus: Potentially Abijah is Asa (common mother, Maacah); Hezekiah is certainly Josiah; and Amon is certainly Jeconiah. For an explanation of each of these three sets, see e.g. my articles, respectively: Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa (5) Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (5) Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu and: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (5) King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu When this revision is brought into effect, then we do not end up with the requisite fourteen kings. How many kings does this give us? Including David, whom some don’t, we get only twelve kings: 1. David; 2. Solomon; 3. Rehoboam; 4. Asa (Abijah); 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Jehoram; 7. Uzziah (Joash); 8. Jotham (Amaziah); 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah (Josiah); 11. Manasseh (Jehoiakim); 12. Amon (Jehoiachin). Or thirteen if my Abijah = Asa is rejected. May I be so bold as to ask if verse 17: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”, which occurs only once, may be a neat mathematical gloss that was not actually part of the original text? An artificial construct, perhaps? After all, what vital significance did the number “fourteen” have in the Bible, anyway?

Re-counting Matthew 1:6-11

by Damien F. Mackey The standard king lists contain duplicates, I believe. But so, I think, does Matthew’s Genealogy in its present form. There are also some seeming omissions in Matthew’s list (viz., Ahaziah; Joash; Amaziah; Jehoahaz; Jehoiakim). Measuring Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah against the standard Judaean king lists, I find a discrepancy of almost half a dozen names of the kings from David to the Babylonian Exile (Matthew 1:6-11) – Matthew’s fourteen (David not inclusive) or fifteen (David included) compared to the standard listing of nineteen kings, or twenty (if David be included). I have not counted the usurper, Queen Athaliah, nor king Zedekiah, who follows Jehoiachin, because Matthew is apparently counting only to the beginning of the Exile. Matthew’s names are given here in bold print: DAVID SOLOMON REHOBOAM ABIJAH ASA JEHOSHAPHAT JEHORAM AHAZIAH (QUEEN ATHALIAH) JOASH AMAZIAH UZZIAH JOTHAM AHAZ HEZEKIAH MANASSEH AMON JOSIAH JEHOAHAZ JEHOIAKIM JEHOIACHIN (ZEDEKIAH) Was Matthew the Evangelist cheating in order to arrive at an apparently requisite fourteen generations? I say here ‘apparently requisite’ because of this comment I posited in my recent article: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (4) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu May I be so bold as to ask if verse 17: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”, which occurs only once, may be a neat mathematical gloss that was not actually part of the original text? An artificial construct, perhaps? After all, what vital significance did the number “fourteen” have in the Bible, anyway? Matthew 1:6-11: David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. The standard king lists contain duplicates, I believe. But so, I think, does Matthew’s Genealogy in its present form. There are also some seeming omissions in Matthew’s list (viz., Ahaziah; Joash; Amaziah; Jehoahaz; Jehoiakim). Three of these five can be accounted for using alter egos (see list below). That, though, does not explain the omission of (the admittedly insignificant) kings, Ahaziah and Jehoahaz. I intend to give these latter two further consideration in follow-up articles. Tentatively, my revised list would be as follows: DAVID SOLOMON REHOBOAM ABIJAH = ASA JEHOSHAPHAT JEHORAM = AHAZIAH (yet to be discussed) JOASH = UZZIAH AMAZIAH = JOTHAM AHAZ HEZEKIAH = JOSIAH MANASSEH = JEHOIAKIM AMON = [JEHOAHAZ – yet to be discussed] JEHOIACHIN Twelve kings. That, at least, is a big improvement on the standard nineteen, and it comes very close to the presumably requisite fourteen. Explaining those alter egos I am referring at this stage to these: ABIJAH = ASA … JOASH = UZZIAH AMAZIAH = JOTHAM … HEZEKIAH = JOSIAH … MANASSEH = JEHOIAKIM AMON = JEHOIACHIN Since I have already written multiple articles on all of these identifications, I shall keep this explanation very brief. ABIJAH = ASA Among various points in favour of this (as explained in recent articles) are: - Same mother’s name, Maacah, for Abijah, Asa; - Abijah addressing Israel in the hill country of Ephraim, which region was not however captured by Judah until Asa’s time; - Achievements, progeny, and wickedness, of Abijah, far too great to have been all accumulable in a mere 3 years of reign. This last comment is applicable also to the very short-reigning (two years, Jerusalem) King Amon, whose legendary wickedness thus needs further explanation – namely, as Jehoiachin (also the evil Haman of the Book of Esther), accumulating decades of wickedness while in Exile in Babylon and, then, Susa. JOASH = UZZIAH AMAZIAH = JOTHAM Matthew can happily exclude the highly significant Joash and Amaziah from his Genealogy because these find their alter egos in, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham, who are included in Matthew’s list. Two common factors with Joash-Uzziah are (i) a good-king-gone-bad, and (ii) the witness of the prophet Zechariah, so beneficial to Uzziah, but who, as King Joash (or Uzziah-turned-bad), will ultimately murder that holy man. HEZEKIAH = JOSIAH … MANASSEH = JEHOIAKIM AMON = JEHOIACHIN Once again, Matthew can happily exclude the highly significant Jehoiakim, because he finds his alter ego in the long-reigning Manasseh. Hezekiah is none other than the pious and reforming Josiah, whose officials almost perfectly mirror those of Hezekiah. While the Book of Sirach does appear to present Hezekiah, Josiah, as two separate kings, my explanation for this would be: either an editor following the standard king lists, or something akin to a waw consecutive (by the author who was a Jew). The prophet Jeremiah’s surprising attribution of the Babylonian Exile to the sins of Manasseh (Jeremiah 15:4), instead of to Jeremiah’s known contemporary, Jehoiakim, is nicely explained by my alter ego arrangement: Manasseh = Jehoiakim. Amon (via Jehoiachin) is a perfect candidate for Aman (Haman) of the Book of Esther. Amon (Aman) is an Egyptian name, presumably given to him by his father, Jehoiakim, when the latter was under the control of Egypt’s pharaoh Necho. The argument that Matthew had omitted King Ahaziah (i) because he was such an unworthy king falls flat in light of the Evangelist’s inclusions of, say, Ahaz and Amon, or that Ahaziah was (ii) such a short-reigning king (one year) – for Amon reigned only two years in Jerusalem.

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

Na’aman and Hazael


Naaman visits Elisha to be cured
 
by
 
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”.

Monday, November 25, 2019

King Jeroboam II a ‘saviour’ of Israel



Joash Shooting the Arrow of Deliverance, by William Dyce, 1844
 

by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
“The LORD gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians;
and the children of Israel lived in their tents as before”.
 
2 Kings 13:5
 
 
וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹשִׁיעַ, וַיֵּצְאוּ, מִתַּחַת יַד-אֲרָם; וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאָהֳלֵיהֶם, כִּתְמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם.
 
 
 
 
That “saviour” (מוֹשִׁ֔יעַ) has been variously identified by commentators and revisionist scholars as king Jehoash of Israel; Jeroboam II of Israel; Adad-nirari III of Assyria; Zakir of Hamath; and pharaoh Seti I of Egypt. Thus I wrote previously on this:
 
 
Various candidates have been suggested for the “deliverer”, or “saviour” (מוֹשִׁיעַ), of the prayers of Jehoahaz of Israel: e.g., Adad-nirari III of Assyria; Zakir of Hamath - neither of whom is named in the biblical account - Jehoash of Israel, or his son, Jeroboam II. Dr John Bimson had considered, for one, the possibility that Jehoash, amongst other candidates, may have been this “saviour”, whilst also stating the objections to this view (“Dating the Wars of Seti I”, p. 22):
 
There has been much discussion over the identity of the anonymous “saviour”. One view is that the verse refers to Joash [Jehoash], Jehoahaz’s successor, who defeated Ben-Hadad [II] three times and regained some of the lost Israelite cities (II Kings 13:24-25); or to Jeroboam II, son of Joash, who restored Israel’s Transjordanian territory and even conquered Damascus and Hamath (II Kings 14:25-28). But as J. Gray remarks: “The main objection to this view is that this relief is apparently a response to the supplication of Jehoahaz (v. 4), whereas relief did not come until the time of Joash and Jeroboam” … [Reference: I and II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd edn., 1970, p. 595, where references can be found to scholars who favour Joash and/ or Jeroboam as the deliverer]. Other scholars do not acknowledge this difficulty, pointing to II Kings 13:22 (“Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz”) as evidence that deliverance did not come until after the reign of Jehoahaz … [Reference: K. A. Kitchen in NBD, p. 58].
 
Some commentators have suggested a three-year co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash. And so it could be argued that the relief for Jehoahaz’s Israel would have begun to arise right near to the end of Jehoahaz’s reign, when there began the co-rule of the now more energetic Jehoash. However, this deliverance was only gradual and its proper effects would become manifest only after Jehoahaz had passed away.
 
Dr. Bimson’s second option for Israel’s “savior” was pharaoh Seti I, the father of Ramses II ‘the Great’, of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. Bimson had provided a useful account of the similarities between Israel’s wars against Syria at this approximate time and Seti I’s campaigns into Syro-Palestine, leading him to consider the possibility that Seti I may in fact have been the “saviour” of Israel. (It needs to be noted that Dr. Bimson himself does not stand by these views today). Here, nevertheless, is part of … Bimson’s … account of Seti’s I’s campaigns in a revised context (op. cit., pp. 20, 22):
 
In the chronology which we are testing here, the time of Jehoahaz corresponds to the time when Seti I campaigned in Palestine and Syria. It therefore seems very probable that the Aramaean [Syrian] oppression of Israel is the event of which we have … read on Seti’s Beth-Shan stelae”
 
Aram is “the wretched foe”. Several parallels confirm that we are reading about the same events in both sources. Firstly we have seen that the stelae refer, in Rowe’s words, to “an invasion by tribes from the east side of the Jordan”; the Old Testament records that in Jehu’s reign Hazael occupied all of Transjordan as far south as the Arnon; it was therefore presumably from there that he launched his further offensives into the centre of Israel in the reign of Jehoahaz.
Furthermore, we have seen that the attacking forces of Seti’s day were operating from a base called Yarumtu, or Ramoth, probably Ramoth-gilead. ….
Once west of the Jordan, the immediate objective of Seti’s opponents was apparently the capture of towns in Galilee and the Plain of Esdraelon. In the time of Jehoahaz this was part of the kingdom of Israel. II Kings 13:25 speaks of towns in Israel which Ben-Hadad “had taken from Jehoahaz … in war”. Unfortunately the captured towns are not named, but we know they lay west of the Jordan, since all the territory east of the Jordan had been lost in the previous reign.
The invaders whom Seti confronted also had objectives further afield; they were attempting “to lay waste the land of Djahi to its full length”. We have seen that Djahi probably comprised the Plain of Esdraelon and the coastal plain to the north and south, extending southwards at least as far as Ashkelon. The capture of towns such as Beth-shan was probably an attempt to gain control of the Plain of Esdraelon, which provided access from the Jordan to the coastal strip, both to the north and (via the pass at Megiddo) the south. The coastal plain to the south was certainly one of Hazael’s objectives.
….
In short, the movements and objectives of Hazael’s forces exactly parallel those of the forces opposed by Seti I, so far as they can be reconstructed. This is not to say that specific moves recorded in the Biblical and Egyptian accounts are to be precisely identified .… Seti’s two stelae from Beth-shan show that the invaders pushed westwards on more than one occasion, so it would be a mistake to envisage one invasion by the Aramaeans, repulsed by one attack by Seti. The important point is that in both sources we find the same objectives, the same direction of attack, and the probability that in both cases the enemy was operating from the same base.
 
Furthermore, commenting on the text of the smaller stela, Albright notes that since the attacking Apiru [Habiru] “are determined in the hieroglyphic text by ‘warrior and plural sign’ [not merely ‘man, plural sign’], they were not considered ordinary nomads” …. The stela is not describing mere tribal friction, as is conventionally assumed, but an attack by an organised and properly equipped military force. This would certainly fit an attack on Israel by Hazael’s troops in the late 9th century BC.
 
Bimson now proceeds to consider other of Seti I’s inscriptions:
 
Turning from the Beth-shan stelae to the other sources of Seti’s campaigns, we may now suggest that some of Seti’s larger measures, not just his forays into northern Israel, were also directed against the growing power of Damascus. “… at the close of the ninth century, Hazael and Ben-hadad had imposed Aramaean rule upon vast South-Syrian territories, including Samaria, as far as the northern boundary of Philistia and Judah”. [Reference: H. Tadmor, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8, 1961, p. 241.]. It is logical that Egypt would see this expanding power as a threat to her own security and act to curb it. Seti’s military action in Palestine’s southern coastal plain (first register of his Karnak reliefs) may well have been aimed at establishing a bulwark against southward Aramaean advances along the coastal strip. …. His campaign into Phoenicia and Lebanon may have been to protect (or reclaim?) the coastal cities of that region (important to Egypt for supplies of timber and other commodities) from the westward expansion of Hazael’s rule. ….
We have already noted Faulkner’s suggestion that the reference to a campaign by Seti into “the land of Amor”, on the damaged Kadesh relief, refers to the conquest of “an inland extension of Amorite territory into the country south of Kadesh, possibly even as far south as Damascus” [Reference: Faulkner, JEA 33, 1947, p. 37, emphasis added].
….
 
 
What this shows, I think, is that the revision of history that has the 19th Egyptian dynasty situated considerably lower than the conventional C13th BC view has a lot to recommend it. Whether or not Dr. Bimson managed to get the precise correspondence, he seems to have been, at least, not far off the mark.
 
Fine tuning of the biblical and revised Egyptian dates may still be required.
 
My own tentative suggestion at this stage for the “saviour”? Jeroboam II.
More than king Jehoash, whose efforts did not satisfy, but, rather, angered the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:19): “The man of God was angry with him and said, ‘You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times’,” Jeroboam II was a “deliverer”, a “saviour”. In fact 2 Kings 14:27 tells us straight out: “And since the Lord had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved (וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם) them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash”.
Compare here the root word וֹשִׁיעֵ (from the verb, yasha, to save/deliver) with the identical וֹשִׁיעַ in the word for “saviour: מוֹשִׁיעַ
The mighty Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25): “… 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”.
[End of quotes]
 
 
My own tentative suggestion at this stage for the “saviour”? Jeroboam II”.
Having since determined that Jeroboam II was the same king as Jehoash of Israel, I would now modify that remark to include Jehoash as well.
None of the other suggested candidates above for the ‘saviour’ is named in the Bible.
 
 
My new look late Judah, Israel and Assyria
 
Matthew’s Genealogy tells that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah, the father of Jotham. Where, then, are the long-reigning kings, Joash and Amaziah?
And how do the kings of Israel and Assyria align with this revised scenario?
 
 
My simple explanation as to why Matthew the Evangelist has ‘omitted’ Joash and Amaziah from his list of the kings of Judah, in his ‘Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah’ (Matthew 1:8-9), is that he has not actually omitted them – that Joash and Amaziah are to be found as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham: “… Jehoram the father of Uzziah … the father of Jotham …” (vv. 8-9).
 
With about seven decades now to be snatched away from the standard calculation of biblical history, due to the merging of Joash (40 years) into Uzziah, and Amaziah (29 years) into Jotham - {(40 + 29) = 69 years of excessive chronological baggage that must needs be deleted} - there must follow a radical curtailing of the associated histories of Israel and Assyria. And this, I have already taken care of, by folding the last supposedly six kings of Israel into only three:
 
 
‘Eradicating’, through revision, some of the late kings of Israel
 
 
and by my:
 
Folding [of] four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings
 
 
What we now find - and what seriously needs to be properly accounted for - is that there is no room whatsoever for the long-reigning (41 years) king Jeroboam II as a single entity.
He, too, must have - like those two kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah - a significant alter ego (as will be worked out further on).
 
According to the combined information to be found in the above articles, either one of the Jehu-ide kings, Jehoahaz (son of Jehu), or his son, Jehoash, had given tribute to the Assyrian king Adad-nirari. Of these two kings, Jehoash now appears to have been the more likely. Thus: https://watchjerusalem.co.il/665-tell-al-rimah-stele-king-jehoash-found
 
While excavating the inner chamber of a small Neo-Assyrian temple at Tell al-Rimah in 1967, British archaeologist David Oates discovered a victory stele belonging to Assyrian King Adad-nirari iii. The impressive stele proves the existence of “Jehoash the Samarian” ….
[End of quote]  
 
 
(In my revision, Adad-nirari so-called III is the same as I and II of that name)
 
 
Now, as I have determined, Adad-nirari was the penultimate Assyrian king prior to the end of the kingdom of Israel with its king Hoshea and the Fall of Samaria.
Adad-nirari was followed by Tiglath-pileser (= Shalmaneser), who actually named his father as Adad-nirari.
 
We need to do some calculations here. (Note: readers always need to check my calculations)
 
 
Taking king Jehoash of Israel - {likely as a contemporary of Adad-nirari} - as our starting point, he comes to the throne during the 37th year of Joash (Uzziah) of Judah.
In Jehoash’s 2nd year, Amaziah (Jotham) of Judah begins to reign, and the latter continues to reign 15 years after the death of Jehoash of Israel.
Leaving aside, for the time being, the troublesome Jeroboam II, those last 15 years of Amaziah/Jotham would include about two years for Zechariah/Pekahiah, and would be exhausted by about 13 years of the reign of (Shallum)/Pekah. 
That makes sense because Pekah and Rezin “first” emerged during reign of king Jotham (2 Kings 15:37): “It was while [Jotham] was king that the Lord first sent King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel to attack Judah”.
Pekah’s 20 year reign would continue into approximately the 7th year of Ahaz of Judah. That makes sense because Ahaz had dreadful trouble with the combined Rezin and Pekah during his early reign (16:5): “King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel attacked Jerusalem and besieged it …”.
Finally, the 9-10 years of Pekah’s successor, Menahem/Hoshea:
 
Menahem and Hoshea of Israel. Part One: Listing several quite compelling comparisons
 
 
and:
 
 
would conclude very early in the reign of Ahaz’s noble son, Hezekiah, which is almost perfect (2 Kings 18:1): “In the third year of the reign of Hoshea son of Elah as king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz became king of Judah …”.
 
Obviously, there is no room here to accommodate the supposed 41 years of Jeroboam II.
A different explanation for this mighty king is required.
 
 
Jeroboam II and the Jehu-ide Dynasty
 
 
… this apparently great king of Israel [Jeroboam II] has very little indeed in the way
of scriptural coverage … there must be a significant ‘alter ego’ awaiting him.
 
 
So far I have concluded that there is no room for Jeroboam II as a separate entity, reigning for 41 years, in my revised history of the late kings of Israel. As previously discussed:
 
 
this apparently great king of Israel has very little indeed in the way of scriptural coverage.
Therefore, as I concluded in that article, there must be a significant alter ego awaiting him.
 
In the case of the earlier kings of Israel, like Omri, for instance, who - just like Jeroboam II - would appear (at first glance) to have been neglected in the Scriptures:
 
 
 
alter egos need to be added, to fill them out: Jeroboam I = Omri, whose foe Tibni = Tab-rimmon with Zimri being Jehu:
 
Zimri and Jehu
 
 
 
And Jeroboam II is Jehoash
 
Jeroboam II, a most significant king of Israel, was - I must now conclude - Jehoash, Jeroboam’s supposed father.
This would mean that the ‘four generations’ of Jehu-ide kings (2 Kings 10:30): “The Lord said to Jehu, ‘Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation’,” must have included the dynastic founder, Jehu. Thus:
 
  1. Jehu
  2. Jehoahaz, father of
  3. Jehoash/Jeroboam II
  4. Zechariah.
 
Then follows another set of duplicate kings (as already determined):
 
The slain Zechariah is the slain Pekahiah;
The murderer Shallum is the murderer Pekah, and
Menahem is Hoshea, the last king of Israel.
 
Jehoash = Jeroboam II comparisons
 
“… Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, became king of Israel in Samaria” (2 Kings 13:10)
“… Jeroboam, son of Jehoash [read Jehoahaz], became king of Israel in Samaria” (14:23)
 
“[Jehoash] did what is displeasing to Yahweh, he did not give up the sin into which Jeroboam son of Nebat had led Israel …” (13:11)
“[Jeroboam] did what is displeasing to Yahweh and did not give up any of the sins into which Jeroboam son of Nebat had led Israel …” (14:24)
 
“The rest of the history of Jehoash, his entire career, his prowess, how he waged war on Amaziah king of Judah, is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?” (13:12)
“The rest of the history of Jeroboam, his entire career, his prowess, what wars he waged, how he … is not all this recorded in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?” (14:28)
 
Comment: It would be nice to know what this (Jerusalem Bible) verse went on to say about “how he …”.
 
“Then Jehoash slept with his ancestors …. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel” (13:13)
“The Jeroboam slept with his ancestors …. They buried him in Samaria with the kings of Israel …” (14:29)
 
Compare also
 
2 Kings 13:22-25:
 
Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz. But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
Hazael king of Aram died, and Ben-Hadad his son succeeded him as king. Then Jehoash son of Jehoahaz recaptured from Ben-Hadad son of Hazael the towns he had taken in battle from his father Jehoahaz. Three times Jehoash defeated him, and so he recovered the Israelite towns.
 
and
 
2 Kings 14:25-27:
 
He 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.
The Lord had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the Lord had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam ….
 
 
Jeroboam II can be a chronological nightmare
 
 
 
The interregna that Philip Mauro, following Martin Anstey, thought that the Bible
was pointing to were due to a faulty interpretation of the sequence of the kings of Israel, several or more of whom were – as we have found – duplicates.
 
 
 
For much of my university thesis:
 
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
 
 
I would follow Philip Mauro’s intendedly biblically-based chronology, which meant, in the case of Jeroboam II, the insertion of a significant interregnum after his death.
 
Thus I wrote (Volume One, Ch. 11, p. 255):
 
And though I noted in Chapter 5 that I am concerned with precise biblical dates for EOH [Era of Hezekiah] only, I also stated that the interregna, combined, were too substantial a chronological factor to be passed over.
 
I also mentioned there that standard chronologists (including Thiele) have generally not taken into account these interregna. Nor, indeed, have revisionists Courville and Gammon; though other revisionists (e.g. Hickman, Sieff) have, as I shall discuss in a moment. Here is how Mauro has calculated the 22-year interregnum for Israel:[1]
 
There was also an interregnum in Israel between the reign of Jeroboam II and that of Zechariah; for Jeroboam’s 41st year, which was his last, coincided with the 15th of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Zechariah did not succeed until the 38th of Uzziah (2 Kings 14:29; 15:8). This makes an interval of 22 years.
 
Mauro had noted a paragraph earlier that “Uzziah did not come to the throne until the 27th year of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 15:1)”. He also calculated an 8-year interregnum period for Israel between Hoshea’s slaying of Pekah and Hoshea’s becoming king of Israel.[2] ….
 
[End of quotes]
 
I now realise that it is better to align the kings of Israel with Uzziah of Judah’s alter ego, Joash, instead, as I have done in this series.
The interregna that Philip Mauro, following Martin Anstey, thought that the Bible was pointing to were necessitated due to a faulty interpretation of the sequence of the kings of Israel, several or more of whom were – as we have found – duplicates.
It is a situation akin to what has occurred as a result of the chronological over-stretching of the Egyptian dynasties, forcing artificial ‘Dark Ages’ to be inserted into ancient history. In the case of the faulty chronology of Israel as currently interpreted, it is not ‘Dark Ages’ but, I guess, the similar, interregna, whose insertion a literal interpretation of the data would seem to demand.
 
 


[1] The Wonders of Bible Chronology, p. 59. He also discusses there an 11-year interregnum for Judah.
[2] Ibid, pp. 57, 59-60.