King Cushan-Rishathaim
Damien F. Mackey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Judges 3:8: “The
anger of the Lord
burned against Israel so that He sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim
king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years”.
But do we know anything about
this king Cushan-Rishathaim as a concrete historical character, in a real
archaeological setting?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We read
of the account of the power of king Cushan-Rishathaim,
and his ultimate defeat by Othniel, in the
Book of Judges 3:7-11:
And the people of Israel did what was evil in the
sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the
Asheroth. Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he
sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia [Aram-Naharaim]. And the people of Israel served
Cushan-rishathaim eight years. But when the people of Israel cried out to the
Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel, who saved them,
Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother. The Spirit of the Lord was
upon him, and he judged Israel. He went out to war, and the Lord gave
Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand. And his hand prevailed
over Cushan-rishathaim. So the land had rest forty years. Then Othniel the son
of Kenaz died.
The Jewish Virtual Library article on this subject
questions the very historicity of the story (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04773.html):
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (Heb.
כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם), the first oppressor of Israel in the period of the
Judges (Judg. 3:8–10). Israel was subject to Cushan-Rishathaim, the king of
Aram-Naharaim, for eight years, before being rescued by the first
"judge," *Othniel son of Kenaz. The second element, Rishathaim
("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name, but
serves as a pejorative which rhymes with Naharaim. The combination
Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges, since at that
time the Arameans were not yet an important ethnic element in Mesopotamia. In
the view of some scholars, the story lacks historical basis and is the
invention of an author who wished to produce a judge from Judah, and raise the
total number of judges to twelve. ….
[End of quote]
It may not, however, be a matter of “Arameans”
here. We have found that this region of the world had already been the seat of
a very powerful empire, the Akkadians:
Tightening the
Geography and Archaeology for Early Genesis
an empire with a
highly-advanced culture:
Akkadian and
Elamite Impact on Early Egypt.
Part Two: Lost
Culture of the Akkadians
Considering the
wide-ranging influence of kings such as the Akkadians, who ruled Sumer in
southern Mesopotamia, as well as Akkad (now re-located to NE Syria), one ought
to look for strong evidence of these kings also in the land of Sumer. Hence I tentatively
posited:
Sargon of Akkad
(Nimrod) as ‘Divine’ Shulgi of Ur III
and
The same situation may well apply to the powerful king Cushan-Rishathaim, and indeed Dean Hickman and others have looked to
Sumer for evidence of this monarch. Hickman, in his extremely useful attempted
revision of Mesopotamian history (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proc. 3rd
Seminar of Catastrophism & Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, p.
13-28), has proposed for this enigmatic Cushan-rishathaim of c. C14th BC an
historical identification with the similarly rather
obscure Enshag-kushanna of the Uruk II dynasty.
Enshakushanna (or En-shag-kush-ana, Enukduanna, En-Shakansha-Ana)
was a king of Uruk in the later 3rd
millennium BC who is
named on the Sumerian
king list, which states
his reign to have been 60 years. He conquered Hamazi, Akkad, Kish, and Nippur, claiming hegemony over all of Sumer. He adopted the Sumerian title en ki-en-gi lugal kalam-ma
en ki in Sumerian means god of the Apsû,[1][2] which may be translated as “lord of Sumer and
king of all the land” (or possibly as “en of the region of Uruk and lugal of the region of Ur“[3]), and could correspond to the later title lugal
ki-en-gi ki-uri “King of Sumer and Akkad” that eventually came to signify
kingship over Babylonia as a whole. ….
[End of quote]
Apparently king Enshag-kushanna’s sway extended at least from Akkad to
Sumer.
The ‘Cushan-kushan’ element in the names is an obvious
fit. And Hickman explains how the name elements, enshag and rishathaim,
can also perhaps be correlated (op. cit.,
n. 58): “The element –rishathaim is also present in Enshag-kushanna in a
disguised form: En- may be
interpreted as Ru- (Robert L. Biggs,
BA, Spring 1980, p. 78) and -shag- or
-sag- may be “reshtum” (Alfonso Archi, BA, Fall 1980, pp. 201, 205-206) …”.
An
Archaeology for Cushan-rishathaim
The eight-years
of dominance of Syro-Palestine by a king of Aram-Naharaim ought to be a very
singular event able to be fully identified in the archaeological record – just
as was the invasion of the four kings at the time of Abram clearly
identifiable:
Bible Bending Pharaonic Egypt.
Part One: Abraham to Exodus.
And Dr.
John Osgood, who had well identified the Abramic incident, has also been able
to discover the clear archaeological traces of Cushan-Rishathaim:
The
Times of the Judges—The Archaeology:
(b) Settlement and Apostasy
http://creation.com/the-time-of-the-judges-the-archaeology-b-settlement-and-apostasy
Thus Osgood
writes:
As the nation apostasised [sic] from the worship of
God, turning to idolatry, the Scriptures tell us (Judges 3:5–11) that they were soon confronted with a northern foe, conquered and
occupied. The foe was Aram-Naharaim (or Syria-Naharaim) under its shadowy but
obviously capable ruler Chushan Rishathaim; a name unknown to this date in the
archaeological records (see Figure 3).
The Khabur basin and Chushan
Israel’s first captivity under Aram-Naharaim should be accepted as simple
history, which would leave open the possibility of verification by
archaeological evidence. Chushan-Rishathaim is here taken to be a real
historical character and the biblical narrative to be simple history.
We are told of Chushan that he ruled over Israel for eight years and
from his yoke the land was liberated by Caleb’s nephew Othniel.
Figure 2. Map showing the geographic location and distribution of Amiram’s and
Dever’s ‘family’ groupings.
Unknown are:
(1) Chushan’s method of rule over vassal Israel;
(2) Aram-Naharaim’s degree of cultural influence on Israel; and
(3) The details of the fate of Chushan after the liberation.
We are only told that:
And of the liberation:
“The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged
Israel. He went out to war, and the Lord delivered Chushan-Rishathaim king of
Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed over Chushan-Rishathaim” (Judges
3:10).
Thus we are dealing with a new phase—a total of eight years. What
archaeological confirmation do we have?
The revised chronology here espoused provides for MB I to be identified
as the wandering, conquering and settling Israelites. It follows that if our
chronology is correct, the next period archaeologically that is, MB IIA (MB I
Kenyon), should reflect consistency with the biblical narrative of
Chushan-Rishathaim.
Figure 3. Map showing the location of Syria-Naharaim and the Khabur Basin, and
the direction of Chushan-Rishathaim’s attack on Palestine.
It is therefore with some interest that I read Amiram’s earlier
conclusions about the pottery of MB IIA (especially knowing that she holds the
accepted chronology of the Holy Land, and not the chronology here espoused).
Amiram first recognises the distinctiveness of the characteristics of MB
IIA;
“A close analysis of MB IIA and B-C pottery shows many
differences between the two periods, but a definite continuity of form and
decoration can undoubtedly be observed.”10
What then are the particular differences?
“Plate 35 has been arranged with the intention of
illustrating certain features of the MB IIA pottery which can be traced back to
their origin through Byblos an Qatna to the Khabur region. The ultimate origins
of the Khabur Ware are beyond the scope of this work. This chapter follows up a
suggestion of Albright’s, made many years ago, concerning the affinity between
MB IIA pottery and the Khabur Ware.”11
Amiram then, as Albright, asserts a connection between the Khabur basin and the M IIA pottery
of Palestine—the same areas affected by the biblical narrative
of Chushan-Rishathaim. Is this imagined? Or coincidental? To be sure, this
connection has been disputed—most particularly by Jonathan Tubb.12 However, in analysing his objections, we discover
that he was criticising the hypothesis of a cultural sequence from one area to
the other, and this definitely cannot be demonstrated. In fact, it is
contradicted. Understandably Tubb then rejects such a cultural connection (see
Figure 4).
Figure 4. Diagram depicting two views on the relationship between the Khabur
ware and the MB IIA of Palestine.
What Tubb, however, does not do is pay attention to the biblical model
envisioned by the Chushan story, which describes a brief but vital contact by conquest of
Israel by the forces of Aram-Naharaim. He cannot do this meaningfully because
his absolute chronology does not allow such a connection with the Israelite
story in the days of the Judges. This also would overthrow accepted thinking
and would mean a simple recognition of the Judges accounts as valid and simple
historical records, and not just tribal narratives as the ‘documentary
hypothesis’ demands, in current thinking. That there was such contact the Bible
asserts. That there were, in Palestine, in MB IIA (MB I Kenyon), signs of
Khabur influence at the same period that Khabur Ware was in vogue in
Aram-Naharaim is confirmed by Patty Gerstenblith.
“…the appearance of both ‘Habur’ ware store jars and
‘Habur’-type decorations marks the beginning of MB I period in the Levant … we
see that the ‘Habur’ store jars appear in quantity at Chagar Bazar, just before
the end of MB I period in the Levant … That it may have been present there at
an earlier date and is only missing at those sites excavated in northern
Mesopotamia is perhaps shown by its presence in quantity at the Baghouz
cemetery, which probably corresponds more closely to the Levant MB I than do
the northern Mesopotamian sites, which seem to postdate the MB I period.”13 (emphasis ours) (Note: MB I Kenyon = MB IIA Albright)
In other words, here in Palestine in the boundaries of ancient Israel is
just the cultural influence evident which we would expect from the biblical
narrative, taken at face value. The culture of the Khabur basin (Aram-Naharaim)
is seen and at no other period. Its appearance then in Palestine first
corresponds to the initial appearance of this ware in the Khabur region.
Some would call it coincidental and feel it was not significant, but its
presence, identified by those who have no stakes in the biblical chronology
here espoused, and following the new invasive MB I culture, would seem to give
poignant testimony to, at the minimum, a sequence of events which corresponds
to the biblical sequence (MB I Albright). The MBIIA period in Palestine
testifies to a regional influence which increases the fit of the revised chronology,
here presented, to the simple scriptural narrative.
The only historical narrative which, at such an early period, can tie
Khabur influence to the geography of ancient Israel, is the biblical narrative
of Chushan-Rishathaim found in the book of Judges.
This then is suggested by the author of this paper to be the explanation
of Khabur ware in Palestine in MB IIA (MB I Kenyon): The conquest of the
apostatizing Israelite nation by the forces of Aram Naharaim under the able
leadership of Chushan Rishathaim for a period of occupation of eight years; the
Khabur wares themselves most likely being vessels brought in by the conquerors
with stores, most particularly wine, and later adopted for a long time by the
native population as a useful item of storage and perhaps trade.
Then influence of this culture would proceed until a new dominant culture arose—and this was to happen as we shall see, from a southern direction. Hence the rebuilt cities after Chushan’s influence had gone would still reflect the Khabur ware influence, perhaps for a series of levels until the new influence was felt. All these levels would be described as MB IIA. ….
Then influence of this culture would proceed until a new dominant culture arose—and this was to happen as we shall see, from a southern direction. Hence the rebuilt cities after Chushan’s influence had gone would still reflect the Khabur ware influence, perhaps for a series of levels until the new influence was felt. All these levels would be described as MB IIA. ….
Comments