Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan rishathaim ... and the children of Israel served Chushan rishathaim eight years”.
Judges 3:8
The version of the Bible from which I recently read this verse, Judges 3:8, had Cushan rishathaim as “king of Edom”; whereas I had usually read him as being a “king of Aram Naharaim”.
There is, of course, a fair bit of distance between Edom, to the south of Israel, and Aram Naharaim, in Upper Mesopotamia.
Armed with this new piece of information, I decided to re-visit the list of Edomite kings to be found in Genesis 36, in anticipation of perhaps finding there a name like Cushan (כּוּשַׁן).
Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright):
Insights of William Foxwell Albright. Part Two (i): Albright insisted that Balaam was an ‘Edomite sage’
and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor):
1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah
2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah
3. Husham from Teman
4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith
5. Samlah from Masrekah
6. Saul from Rehoboth
7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor
8. Hadar/d from Pau
King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם).
Later I would learn that other scholars (see below) had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan).
In the following brief article, the jewishvirtuallibrary will query both long names associated with this enemy of Israel, the “Rishathaim” element and the “Naharaim” element.
“The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name”, and: “The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges”:
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. Those who see a historical basis to the story have proposed various identifications for Cushan-Rishathaim: (1) Cushan is to be sought among one of the Kassite rulers in Babylonia (17th–12th centuries; cf. Gen. 10:8). Josephus identifies Cushan with an Assyrian king. Others identify him with one of the Mitannian or Hittite kings. (2) Cushan is an Egyptian ruler from *Cush in Africa (Nubia; cf. Gen. 10:6; Isa. 11:11, et al.). (3) The head of the tribe of Cush, which led a nomadic existence along the southern border of Palestine. Such Cushite nomads are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the first quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. and in the Bible (Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom. (5) Cushan is from central or northern Syria, and is to be identified with a North Syrian ruler or with irsw, a Hurrian (from the area of Syria-Palestine) who seized power in Egypt during the anarchic period at the end of the 19th dynasty (c. 1200 B.C.E.). In his campaign from the north to Egypt, he also subjugated the Israelites. Othniel's rescue of the Israelites is to be understood against the background of the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Egypt by the pharaoh Sethnakhte [sic], the founder of the 20th dynasty.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
E. Taeubler, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 137–42; A. Malamat, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 231–42; S. Yeivin, in: Atiqot, 3 (1961), 176–80.
Point 4 above: “... (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom”, will now be viewed as the relevant one, with the addition of Husham the Temanite as the actual identification of this “Edomite king”.
Avrāhām Malāmāṭ has, I think, managed to sew it all up, following Klostermann.
The second component of the name Cushan Rishathaim is even more obscure and is undoubtedly a folkloristic distortion of the original form. ... Among the various efforts to ascertain the original name, those of Klostermann and Marquart have found the widest acceptance. Klostermann's proposal was that רִשְׁעָתַיִם originally represented [` נ] תימ ה ש[א]רֵ, “chieftain of the Temanites”, and identified כּוּשַׁן with חֻשָׁם, “(Husham) of the land of the Temanites”, who is third in the list of the kings of Edom (Gen. 36:34). .... Understandably, those who proposed that Cushan Rishathaim reigned in the south of Palestine could not believe the name Aram-Naharaim or Aram (Judg 3:10) to be the genuine form. They accepted the emendation of Aram to Edom, a proposal made as far back as Graetz. Naharaim was considered as a later gloss inserted for the sake of rhyming with Rishathaim. .... Consequently, our passage was viewed as the echo of a local struggle between the Edomites (or Midianites) and Othniel the Kenizzite, the leader of a southern clan related to the tribe of Judah. ....
Given the lack of detail associated with the oppression of Israel by Cushan, this scenario appears to make more sense than my previous notion that Cushan was a significant Mesopotamian (perhaps Assyrian) king controlling Palestine. It was more of “a local struggle”.
This now means that I must also re-consider Dr. John Osgood’s view (as previously discussed) that the Khabur culture in the north was archaeologically reflective of the period of domination by Cushan. We would need to look instead for a localised cultural dominance.
Dr. Courville, writing his important two-volume set, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (1971), was concerned about establishing an ancient history/archaeology that properly accorded with the biblical data.
He, realising that uncertainty about the proper date for Hammurabi, the famous king of Babylon, had left that monarch, as Courville wrote, “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, had set about to establish some sort of biblico-historical anchor for Hammurabi. (The great King of Babylon, gradually shifted down the centuries by historians, was then dated to the C18th BC).
Courville’s choice of an anchor for Hammurabi and his contemporary, Zimri-Lim of Mari, was one “Jabin of Hazor”, who figures in the correspondence of Zimri-Lim. Courville identified this Jabin with the King Jabin of Hazor at the time of Joshua, thereby pinning kings Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim to the C15th BC. Other revisionists have followed him in this, including the perceptive Dr. John Osgood, in his generally brilliant archaeological revision:
Whilst Dr. Osgood probably does this better than anyone else, he has unfortunately (I believe) attempted to fuse two biblico-historical eras that were, in fact, separated the one from the other by about half a millennium.
Unfortunately for both Courville and Osgood, and those who have followed them on this, the name “Jabin” was used by various rulers of Hazor down through the centuries.
We read, for instance, at (http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-ibni-addad-yabni-haddad-qishon-jabin-king-of-hazor-joshua-deborah-barak-1700bc.htm):
Five different references to Jabin of Hazor
Archeology now has uncovered a total of three different references to Jabin, in addition to the two Bible references to Jabin of Joshua (1406 BC) and Deborah (1200 BC). This proves the Bible was right all along and that "Jabin" is a dynastic name for a series of kings rather than the one time use of a single king. Two 18-17th century inscriptions have been found at Mari and Hazor with the name Jabin. A third is on the names list of Ramesses II at the Amon Temple at Karnak 1279-1212 BC.
Drs. Courville and Osgood have picked out quite the wrong Jabin of Hazor for the alignment with Zimri-Lim, and hence for the establishment of a rock-solid historical synchronism for Hammurabi.
The correct era for Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim is clearly the time of King Solomon, as eventually pioneered by Dean Hickman (1986), and now flourishing with abundant synchronisms.
See my:
This being the case, then King Hammurabi of Babylon would have reigned centuries after Cushan, who would terrorise Israel not long after the death of Joshua.
Dr. Osgood’s view that “Jabin and Zimri-Lim fit archaeologically with the time surrounding the establishment of the MB I civilisation of Palestine, here identified with the Israelite conquerors”, whilst correctly identifying the Israelites archaeologically with the MB I people, is only because the conventional historians have incorrectly dated Zimri-Lim to the C18th BC, which is wrongly identified as the MB I phase.
However, he is wise enough to add to this that “…nothing is proved …”.
Part Two:
Cushan reigned centuries before Hammurabi
Mention of “Jabin of Hazor” in one of the Mari letters has led even some astute revisionists, such as Drs. Courville and Osgood, seeking more solid ground for the Hammurabic era, to bind Hammurabi and his contemporary, Zimri-Lim, to the era of Joshua and his foe, Jabin of Hazor.
Dr. Courville, writing his important two-volume set, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (1971), was concerned about establishing an ancient history/archaeology that properly accorded with the biblical data.
He, realising that uncertainty about the proper date for Hammurabi, the famous king of Babylon, had left that monarch, as Courville wrote, “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, had set about to establish some sort of biblico-historical anchor for Hammurabi. (The great King of Babylon, gradually shifted down the centuries by historians, was then dated to the C18th BC).
Courville’s choice of an anchor for Hammurabi and his contemporary, Zimri-Lim of Mari, was one “Jabin of Hazor”, who figures in the correspondence of Zimri-Lim. Courville identified this Jabin with the King Jabin of Hazor at the time of Joshua, thereby pinning kings Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim to the C15th BC. Other revisionists have followed him in this, including the perceptive Dr. John Osgood, in his generally brilliant archaeological revision:
The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology:
(b) Settlement and Apostasy
Unfortunately for both Courville and Osgood, and those who have followed them on this, the name “Jabin” was used by various rulers of Hazor down through the centuries.
We read, for instance, at (http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-ibni-addad-yabni-haddad-qishon-jabin-king-of-hazor-joshua-deborah-barak-1700bc.htm):
Five different references to Jabin of Hazor
Archeology now has uncovered a total of three different references to Jabin, in addition to the two Bible references to Jabin of Joshua (1406 BC) and Deborah (1200 BC). This proves the Bible was right all along and that "Jabin" is a dynastic name for a series of kings rather than the one time use of a single king. Two 18-17th century inscriptions have been found at Mari and Hazor with the name Jabin. A third is on the names list of Ramesses II at the Amon Temple at Karnak 1279-1212 BC.
- The Accadian tablet from Mari reads: “Ibni-Addad king of Hazor.” (18th century BC)
- The Old Babylonian tablet letter from Hazor is actually addressed "To Ibni". (18-17th century BC)
- The Ramseese II namelist at Karnak reads: "Qishon of Jabin"
Drs. Courville and Osgood have picked out quite the wrong Jabin of Hazor for the alignment with Zimri-Lim, and hence for the establishment of a rock-solid historical synchronism for Hammurabi.
The correct era for Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim is clearly the time of King Solomon, as eventually pioneered by Dean Hickman (1986), and now flourishing with abundant synchronisms.
See my:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
Dr. Osgood’s view that “Jabin and Zimri-Lim fit archaeologically with the time surrounding the establishment of the MB I civilisation of Palestine, here identified with the Israelite conquerors”, whilst correctly identifying the Israelites archaeologically with the MB I people, is only because the conventional historians have incorrectly dated Zimri-Lim to the C18th BC, which is wrongly identified as the MB I phase.
However, he is wise enough to add to this that “…nothing is proved …”.
Comments