Historical Na’aman
by
Damien F. Mackey
As Ianhama
of El Amarna
“According to the
Rabbis, Naaman was the archer who drew his bow at a venture and mortally
wounded Ahab, King of Israel (I Kings xxii. 34). This event is alluded to in
the words “because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” (II Kings
v. 1), and therefore the Syrian king, Naaman’s master, was Benhadad”.
In a revised El Amarna
Dr. I. Velikovsky seems to have scored some
hits and some misses in his attempts, in the series Ages in Chaos, to identify characters who figure in the El Amarna
[EA] correspondence (re-dated downwards by Velikovsky from the conventionally
estimated C14th, to the C9th BC) with biblical figures.
One of his promising efforts was, so it seems
to me, his proposed identification of the prominent Ianhamu of EA with the
biblical Na’aman (Hebrew: נַעֲמָן), famously
cured by the prophet Elisha of his leprosy.
Velikovsky had referred to a couple of facts in the Na’aman story
that he thought seemed “somewhat strange”:
“In … the [Naaman] story, two facts are somewhat strange. First,
inasmuch as Ben-Hadad himself was at the head of the thirty-two captains of his
army, why, in the story of the wondrous healing, is the deliverance of Syria
credited to a captain Naaman? Second, the king of Israel was a lifelong rival
of the king of Damascus. Why, then, did this request to cure a sick captain
inspire in the king of Israel such a dread that he rent his clothes?”
From this it would appear that Velikovsky considered that the King
of Israel approached by Na’aman for his cure was Ahab. Other commentators
suggest Jehoram (a favoured candidate) or Jehu.
Velikovsky next proposed his identification for this Naaman in
the EA Letters:
“For an explanation of the real role of this captain Naaman we shall
look to the contemporaneous letters. A man by whom Syria received deliverance
must be identifiable in the letters. We recognize him in the person of Ianhama,
called also Iaanhamu … the pharaoh’s deputy in Syria, [who] was sent to the
king of Damascus with prerogatives similar to those which Aman-appa had”.
Velikovsky continues, with a quote from S. Mercer (ed. Tell El-Amarna Tablets):
“… Naaman’s title in the Scriptures – sar [Hebrew: שַׂר]
– is also used in the letters. He was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt,
in charge of the army and walled cities of Amuru land (Syria), later also the
overseer of stores of grain. He had great influence in all matters of Syrian
administration. Judged by his name, he was of Syrian origin, as were some other
dignitaries at the court of Thebes. Ianhama is a Semitic name: “Ianhamu was a
powerful Egyptian agent in Syria, where he was respected as a good and wise
man, and where he proved himself to be the most faithful of the pharaoh’s
servants”.”
That a transformation of some kind had come over this Ianhama Velikovsky
had inferred from Rib-Addi’s revised attitude towards him; an attitude
that had changed dramatically in the course of Rib-Addi’s reign:
“In [Rib-Addi’s] early letters … his fear of the mighty deputy of
the pharaoh is plainly expressed. In one letter he wrote to the pharaoh: “Thou
must rescue me out of the hand of Iaanhamu”. He asked the pharaoh to inform his
deputy that he, Ianhama, would be responsible if anything should happen to
[Rib-Addi’s] person …. “Say to Ianhamu: ‘Rib-Addi is even in thy hands, and all
that will be done to him rests upon thee’.”
But, Velikovsky continued (typically - but wrongly, I believe - substituting
Samaria for EA’s Sumur):
“Later on, when Aman-appa left Samaria …, [Rib-Addi] … wrote to the
pharaoh asking him to appoint Ianhama governor in Samaria …: “May it seem right
to my lord to send Ianhama as his deputy. I hear from the mouth of the people
that he is a wise man and all people love him”.
We recall the scriptural words about Naaman, that he was an
“honourable” man”.
The reason for the official’s change in attitude, Velikovsky
suggested, was to be found in the Scriptures:
“In another letter [Rib-Addi] again asks the pharaoh to send Ianhama
and in the next one he praises him in these words: “There is no servant like
Ianhama, a faithful servant to the king”.
… The letters do not show why the fear of [Rib-Addi] … changed into
confidence with respect to the Syrian deputy. The Scriptures provide the
explanation in the story of the healing of Naaman by the prophet of Samaria.
Naaman was very grateful to the prophet … (II Kings 5:15). Elisha even declared
that he would heal Naaman in order to help the king of Israel politically.
So [Ianhamu] became a friend”.
Velikovsky then went on to point out what he called “certain other
features of the role and character of Ianhama, reflected in the letters, [and]
shown also in the Scriptures”. For example:
“He was a generous man. This appears in the story of the healing: he
gave to the servant of the prophet two talents of silver and two changes of
garments, more than the servant had asked for, when the prophet refused to take
ten talents of silver, six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.
It is of interest to find that, according to the letters, Ianhama was in charge
of the pharaoh’s treasury in Syria, being over “money and clothing”.
… The el-Amarna letters also speak of him as the generous patron of
a Palestinian youth, who was educated in Egypt at his expense. The man “by whom
the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria” … was Ianhama. How this captain
changed his attitude and became a supporter of the king of Samaria is recorded
in the letters and is explained by the Scriptures”.
Na’aman and King Ahab
Emil Hirsch et al. (“Naaman”, Jewish Encylopedia) tell of
this interesting Rabbinical tradition in regard to Na’aman: ….
“According to the Rabbis, Naaman was the archer who drew his bow at
a venture and mortally wounded Ahab, King of Israel (I Kings xxii. 34). This
event is alluded to in the words “because by him the Lord had given deliverance
unto Syria” (II Kings v. 1), and therefore the Syrian king, Naaman’s master,
was Benhadad …. Naaman is represented as vain and haughty, on account of which
he was stricken with leprosy …”.
That Na’aman, though a leper, regarded himself as being an official
of no small importance may be reflected in his initial response to the fact of
Elisha’s merely sending a messenger to advise him: ‘… I thought that for me
he would surely come out’ (5:11).
Here we have the biblical instance of Na’aman’s riding up “with his
horses and chariots”, to Samaria, to seek a cure from Elisha. Hence a further
argument for the Syrian’s familiarity with Israel and its palace. And, later,
Naaman will return to thank the prophet, “he and all his company”; Na’aman
himself certainly riding in his chariot at the time (cf. 2 Kings 5:9; 5:21).
Hirsch et al. also claim in the same article that: “Naaman
was a “ger toshab” [literally, ‘a strange-settler’; a resident alien of
different religion], that is, he was not a perfect proselyte, having accepted
only some of the commandments …”.
Na’aman had, subsequent to his cure by the prophet Elisha,
apologised in advance to the latter for his involuntary adoration of the Syrian
divinity, Rimmon, when having to escort his king into Rimmon’s temple (2 Kings
5:18).
We recall that Ben-Hadad I’s father, Tab-rimmon, had borne
the name of this Syrian god.
There is also a reference to “Naaman the Syrian” in the New
Testament (Luke 4:27): ‘And there were many in Israel with
leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was
cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian’.
But what was this Na’aman doing fluctuating between kings Ahab of
Israel and Ben-Hadad I, mortal enemies?
This must have occurred somewhat late in the reign of King Ahab,
after the two kings had declared a treaty and mutual brotherhood (I Kings
20:34).
I now take up the relevant parts of Campbell’s narrative concerning
this important EA official, Ianhama (his Yanhamu): ….
“Yanhamu began his service under Amenophis III. ….
Yanhamu appears, then, to have held an extremely important position
in Syria throughout the period of Rib-Adda’s [Rib-Addi’s] correspondence. The
later letters of Rib-Adda show this prince defending Yanhamu and asking for his
appointment as rabiṣ in Sumur. One might almost imagine that Yanhamu’s
rebuff of Aziru described in 171 led Rib-Adda suddenly to realize that he had a
true ally in Yanhamu”.
This Ianhama was, according to Campbell, in charge of grain
supplies: ….
“In the early group of letters from Rib-Adda, Yanhamu seems to have
held a position having to do with the supplying of the vassals from a
store-city of Egypt (83:27ff., 39f.; 85:23f., 48ff.; 86:15f.).
This source of supply is named Yarimuta in many places in the
Rib-Adda correspondence, and that Yanhamu was its chief appears clear from
85:12-35. In this passage, Rib-Adda first explains that he has had to “pawn”
virtually everything of value in his city in return for grain from Yarimuta.
Sons and daughters of his serfs have been sold into slavery at Yarimuta in
return for grain. Grain is needed simply to keep the people alive and able to
protect their city.
… From the context it is not certain that Yanhamu is chief of
Yarimuta, but everything points that way. Being the chief of the grain supply would
place Yanhamu in a very powerful position.
That Iaanhamu was of a high rank in relation to pharaoh is
borne out by this testimony of Campbell’s: …. “[Iaanhamu] bears an extremely
important title, that of “Fan-Bearer at the king’s right-hand” (musallil), a
title which Mâya of Tomb 14 also bears”.
According to Harry M. Orlinsky (Israel
Exploration Journal Reader, p. 164): “… ynḥm is recorded
as a Semitic name on an Egyptian ostracon of the 18th dynasty, and
as ianhamu it appears in the
El-Amarna letters. …”.
As the biblical
Bidkar?
“Jehu
said to Bidkar, his chariot officer, ‘Pick him up and throw him on the field
that belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite. Remember how you and I were riding
together in chariots behind Ahab his father when the Lord spoke this prophecy against him: ‘Yesterday I saw the blood of Naboth
and the blood of his sons, declares the Lord, and I will
surely make you pay for it on this plot of ground, declares the Lord’.’”
2
Kings 9:25-26
The possibility now arises that the otherwise
unknown Bidkar may also be Na’aman.
Conforming with Rabbinic legends that have
Na’aman as the one who had mortally wounded King Ahab of Israel with an arrow,
Bidkar, too, we learn here, had once ridden behind Ahab.
Contemporaneity between Na’aman and Bidkar would
not be a problem.
Nor would occupation, and, possibly, rank.
Na’aman, as was Bidkar, was a military
officer who rode in a chariot (cf. 2 Kings 5:9).
He was a man of great rank. “Now
Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Aram, was a great man with his
master, and held in esteem, because by him the LORD had given victory unto
Aram; he was also a mighty man of valour …” (2 Kings 5:1).
Na’aman was ish gadol (אִישׁ גָּדוֹל), a “great man”. This,
“great man”, is the very interpretation sometimes given to the Assyrian rank of
Rabshakeh.
Bidkar, a dozen or more years later when he closely witnessed this
following incident (9:24): “… Jehu drew his bow and shot Jehoram
between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his
chariot”, was ranked as a shaloshah (שָׁלִשֹׁה), which description may mean “third” in
rank.
Less obvious would be why Na’aman (perhaps
compatibly named Ianhama in EA) would
be, in 2 Kings 9, named Bidkar.
What does this name mean? What might be its
ethnic origin?
Some think that the latter part of the
name, kar, could bear some
relationship to Carite (Karite). For, at this approximate time, in Judah,
“Jehoiada the priest summoned … the Carite mercenaries …” (2 Kings 11:4).
But my own preference - based upon
Velikovsky’s view that Na’aman, in his guise of EA’s Ianhama, “was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt, in charge of the army and walled
cities of Amuru land (Syria)” - would be that the name Bidkar
was the name by which this officer was known in Egypt.
The element kar in Bidkar’s name, whilst it has prompted mention of the
Carites, could be, instead, an abbreviation of the common Egyptian combination ka re.
There was an important Chancellor in Old
Kingdom Egypt known as Nebitka (or Nebetka).
It is perhaps possible that Bidkar (בִּדְקַר) is a Hebrew attempt to write an Egyptian
name such as this, for instance, Ne[bitkar]e.
A Spiritual Lesson:
Obedience not
Sacrifice
—————————————————————————————————————-
An
important spiritual lesson can be learned from the biblical account
of
the healing of the Syrian Na’aman’s leprosy in the river Jordan.
—————————————————————————————————————-
I have previously
written of the incident of the Syrian Na’aman’s healing in my book:
The events of Fatima
in 1917, and beyond (and still being fulfilled today), and ratified by
The Great Solar Miracle: Fatima October 13,
1917
the 100th
anniversary of which occurs tomorrow (13th October 2017) can be
ignored – and sadly have largely been – at humankind’s peril, so that now we
find ourselves charging headlong into a Third World War. See, in this, my:
https://www.academia.edu/18657854/Medjugorje_and_the_Mad_Mouthings_of_the_Madonna_of_the_Antichrist_
and the consequent Fatima predicted (13th
July, 1917), “annihilation of nations”:
Catholics have shown the same kind of reluctance to embrace the
medicinal cure of the heavenly régime of the Communion of Reparation
(known as the “Five First Saturdays”) as Na’aman had exhibited when the prophet
Elisha presented him with the curative medicine of a seven times immersion in
the River Jordan.
Why?
Is it too hard? Is it too easy?
I, after having
outlined the heavenly program in my book as follows:
The
Program of the Five First Saturdays
In order to
fulfil the devotion of the Five First Saturdays, the following conditions –
listed according to the order in which Our Lady named them – are necessary:
- go to confession (reconciliation).
2.
receive
holy communion.
3.
say
five decades of the rosary; and
4.
keep
our lady company for fifteen minutes whilst meditating on the mysteries of the
rosary.
5.
all
of which are to be done with the intention of making reparation to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Although a first glance this program
appears to be quite straight-forward, some of the above points do need a bit of
explanation. In 1926 Our Divine Lord clarified a few points raised by Sr.
Lucia. For instance, Lucia had placed before Him the difficulty that certain
people might have about confessing on Saturday, and she asked if it might be
valid to go to Confession within eight days. Jesus answered her as follows: “Yes, and it could be longer still provided
that, when they receive Me, they are in a state of grace and have the intention
of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” (“Fatima
in Lucia’s Own Words”, p. 196).
Lucia then asked: “My Jesus, what about those who forget to make
this intention?”
To which Our Lord replied: “They can do it at their next Confession, taking advantage of the next opportunity to go to Confession” (ibid.).
Some Further Clarifications
Confession
For those who like to make the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary concurrently with the Nine First Fridays, the Confession of reparation during the week can count for both devotions, provided that the right intentions are there for both.
Holy Communion
Our Lady never directly referred to the
Mass as being part of the program, but mentioned only Communion. Normally,
however, one receives Holy Communion within the context of the Mass. Our Lady
was undoubtedly making an allowance here for the sick and bed-ridden, or, in
the case where a particular parish might not have Mass on a given first
Saturday, but only a Communion service. Under such unavoidable circumstances,
one’s chance of fulfilling the Five First Saturdays would not be jeopardised.
The Rosary
For the Rosary, only five decades are
required, not fifteen.
Fifteen Minutes’ Meditation
The Meditation, whilst keeping Our Lady
company, may be on one, or on several, or on all of the Mysteries of the Holy
Rosary, according to individual preference.
All done with the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
All done with the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
then proceeded to stress the importance of the obedience factor, relevant also in the case of Na’aman as I would explain here:
The Devotion Must be Done Properly
It is important that one takes pains to fulfil the devotion strictly according to what Our Lord has commanded. For He made it absolutely clear at Tuy in 1926 that He would rather one does five first Saturdays well, with the right intention, than more than five, completed in a careless fashion. It is our obedience that is being put to the test here. And so one should not quibble about certain aspects of the devotion, or try to “improve” on it. This word of caution is more necessary than one might think. Sometimes the piously inclined choose to worship God according to their own terms, rather than his. But the form of worship that really pleases God is that of obedient co-operation with his holy Will. It is this factor that will ensure that pious souls gain for themselves, and for their neighbour, the full benefit of the Five First Saturdays.
The Story of Naaman
There are so many passages throughout the Sacred
Scriptures that prove that God prefers obedience and the immolation of one’s
will, to a multitude of sacrifices offered in a spirit of self-love. In other
words, God is especially concerned about the intention that motivates our
worship of Him. Perhaps no scriptural episode is more illustrative of this
particular fact than the story of Naaman, army
commander to the king of Syria. We find the account of Naaman in the Second
Book of Kings, chapter 2.
This Naaman was a leper, who approached the
prophet Elisha for a cure. But when
Elisha laid down his God-inspired terms, namely that Naaman “go and bathe seven times in the Jordan, and
your flesh will become clean once more”, Naaman was indignant
(vv. 10-11). Elisha’s terms were not to his liking. He wanted the cure to be
effected according to his own terms. Surely, he argued, Elisha could simply
have come and waved his hand over the leprous part, and invoke the Lord God,
and he would have been cured. Or, failing that, at least the prophet could have
allowed him to bathe, not in the insignificant Jordan river, but rather in the
impressive rivers Abana and Pharpar of his own country, Syria, “better than any water in Israel!” And
he turned around contemptuously “and went off in a
rage”; and, needless to say, without a cure (vv. 11-12).
Fortunately for Naaman, however, this was not the end
of the story. We are told that his own servants reproached him for saying that,
had the prophet Elisha told him “to do something
difficult”, would he not have done it? All the more reason,
then, should he have for obeying the simple request: “bathe, and you will become clean” (v.
13).
This common sense argument of his servants had the
necessary effect of Naaman, who now went off and did exactly what Elisha had
commanded him to do, “and his flesh became once
more like the flesh of a little child” (vv. 11-14).
And so we find that God wanted Naaman to be cured more
than Naaman himself wanted it. Despite the fact that the program that God had
revealed to the Syrian through his prophet was an entirely simple one, Naaman
initially lacked the necessary disposition of humble obedience that would
enable him to fulfil it. And so Naaman was cured only when, eventually, he
renounced his own will in preference to that of God.
Now, it is exactly the same in the case of the Five First Saturdays. Heaven has made a simple request through Our Lady of the Rosary. Her program is not difficult, but is well within the reach of all Catholics, provided that they have the right disposition. And the promise associated with its proper fulfillment is one of being cleansed of spiritual leprosy and restored to perfect health in the sight of God.
Now, it is exactly the same in the case of the Five First Saturdays. Heaven has made a simple request through Our Lady of the Rosary. Her program is not difficult, but is well within the reach of all Catholics, provided that they have the right disposition. And the promise associated with its proper fulfillment is one of being cleansed of spiritual leprosy and restored to perfect health in the sight of God.
But, unfortunately, Naaman’s much more deep-seated
affliction of indignant pride, causing him to look to complicate a simple
matter when it was not to his liking, is an all-too common ailment. Many are of
the entrenched position that, if a thing is not difficult to accomplish, then
it cannot be worthwhile. It is vitally necessary therefore that the less
complicated souls, those who love obedience and who are already properly
practising the Communion of Reparation, persist (like Naaman’s wise servants)
in their efforts to persuade others to relinquish their own haughtiness and to
obey Heaven’s simple request in regard to the Five First Saturdays. God wants
our simple obedience much more than He wants great effort from us. Our Lady of
the Rosary has promised that those who wholeheartedly embrace the devotion to
her Immaculate Heart will be saved. As Naaman’s flesh became like the flesh of
a little child – but only after he had submitted to the will of God – so will
the souls of those who obediently practice the devotion of reparation become
childlike and innocent, even if previously they were not so.
The wonderful effects of such obedience will be out of all proportion to the small degree of self-sacrifice involved.
The wonderful effects of such obedience will be out of all proportion to the small degree of self-sacrifice involved.
Comments