Some Serious Anomalies with Conventional Neo-Assyrian Chronology
by
Damien F. Mackey
“There are many ‘anomalies’ in the current chronological/archeological
understanding of the synchronisms between Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria”.
Toby has written: http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1874
Hello all,
I am continuing
to review David Rice’s ‘Time and Prophecy’ in regards [to] the period of the
Kings in scripture. Inasmuch as Mr Rice’s chronology seems to mirror the
popular Thiele, many of these ‘anamolies’ apply to the general consensus.
This posting
just deals with the first 6 of the 7 anomalies I’ve come up with in regards to
synchronizing Hezekiah, King of Judah, with the Assyrian Kings. ….
Synchronizing Hezekiah with Tiglathpileser
(King of Assyria) Shalmaneser (King of Assyria and Babylon) Merodachbaladan
(King of Babylon), Sargon (King of Assyria and Babylon) and Sennacherib (King
of Assyria and Babylon).
Introduction
There are many ‘anomalies’
in the current chronological/archeological understanding of the synchronisms between
Hezekiah and various Kings of Assyria. Most of them, in this discussion have to
do with one event, that of the siege of the cities of Judah by Sennacherib
which modern chronologists [say] happened in Sennacherib, king of Babylon Year
4 which corresponds to Hezekiah, king of Judah, year 14. In my opinion, modern
chronologers fail to recognize that Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice.
Part I – the 7
anomalies
Anomaly 1
Firstly, in the [British]
Museum, there is an ‘inscription’ on a winged bull. Stafford and Jo Anne North
write this about it:
"Also in
Room 10 are two huge winged bulls, with attendant genies, from Khorsabad, the
Palace of Sargon discovered in 1843. An inscription from the stomach of this
bull says that King Hezekiah of Judah paid tribute to Sargon. While the Bible
does not mention this, it does mention that Hezekiah's father paid such tribute
and Hezekiah may have continued that early in his reign. Later, however, he
rebelled against Assyria."
However,
consider the following scripture:
2Ki 18:13, 14
Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did ---- Sennacherib---- king of
Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And
Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have
offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the
king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of
silver and thirty talents of gold.
Here it says
that Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib, while the Winged Bull in the British
Museum says that Hezekiah paid tribute to SARGON. Certainly, Hezekiah could
have paid tribute to both of them.
However, Damien
Mackey, in an internet article entitled: ‘A Revolutionary Thesis, Sargon is
Sennacherib’ … claims they are one and the same person.
[Mackey.
See up-dated: “Assyrian
King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib” https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sen]
Now, scriptures
also, in Isaiah 20, refer to Sargon. Could the scriptures refer to the same
person with different names? YES! --- such is the case with Tiglathpileser (the
Assyrian name) and PUL (the Babylonian AND Assyrian name). Tiglathpileser died
only 5 years prior to Sargon’s [accession] to the throne. I’ll cover this in
more detail later, but when you read about the next few anomalies, think about
how well this would explain the anomalies. ---IF--- you don't like my
explanation, then I suggest, you try to come up with an alternate.
I should
mention, for now, that the biggest objection to this ‘Sargon = Sennacherib’
theory, is that there is some evidence that Sargon was Sennacherib's father,
and further, that when Sargon was killed, Sennacherib ascended the throne. I
will later show, that if you trace this back to the source of the evidence, you
will see, that the rock inscriptions which supposedly make this claim, do not in
fact, even contain the name SARGON; rather, the translators of the text
inserted the name SARGON in square brackets, indicating that the name SARGON
was not in the inscription, but that they thought he should have been! Here is
one example, written in 1936, by Stephen L Caiger D B, and found at:
-----------------------------------------------
"Sargon,
however, did not long survive this triumph. He died in 705 BC, as recorded in
the Limmu List:
705 BC: ... a
soldier entered the camp of the king of Assyria [Sargon], and killed him in the
month Abib. And Sennacherib sat on the throne.
(Pinches,
op.cit., p.372.) [Sennacherib—Sin-ahe-erba.]"
-----------------------------------------------
Anomaly 2
Secondly, in
regards to the 1800 foot long tunnel which Hezekiah dug through limestone to
divert the water from the spring called Gihon, Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post
Staff Writer, on Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A03, states:
"Scholars
for years thought that Hezekiah ordered the tunnel constructed to secure
Jerusalem's water supply in anticipation of the arrival of King Sennacherib's
Assyrian armies. Sennacherib, who spent most of his career putting down revolts
by peoples conquered by his father, Sargon, besieged Jerusalem but never
entered it. Recent excavations have challenged this version of events. These show
that Gihon Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib
laid siege, so "it's not so easy to know why the tunnel was built, since
the water supply was already protected," Stager said. "Everybody
figures it had something to do with the Assyrians, but they aren't quite sure
what."
Here is what
scripture says:
2 Ch 32:1,4, 30
(1) After these things, and the establishment thereof, ----Sennacherib--- king
of Assyria came, and entered into Judah, and encamped against the fenced
cities, and thought to win them for himself. …(4) So there was gathered much
people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through
the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find
much water? …(30) This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of
Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.
The scripture
says that Hezekiah built the tunnel and walls AFTER Sennacherib encamped
against the fenced cities of Judah; however, the article says: ‘Recent
excavations have challenged this version of events. These show that Gihon
Spring already lay within Jerusalem's battlements when Sennacherib laid siege’.
Well, which
version is correct?
Well, suppose,
that Damien Mackey is correct, and that Sargon and Sennacherib are the same
person. Well, first, Sargon came to Judah and `encamped against the fenced
cities of Judah'. There were several cities in the country called Judah which
had walls:
Ezr 9:9 For we
[were] bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath
extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a
reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations
thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.
Anomaly 3
Thirdly,
according to the chronology of modern scholars, Merodach-Baladan had been dead
for at least 9 years when he visited Hezekiah!
Let me explain.
David Rice says wrote in Time and Prophecy, Appendix G, page 96:
"(5) Shalmaneser
was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by Sargon the same month he died (Tebet,
month 10), and on the throne of Babylon by Merodach-Baladan the following
Nisan, which the narrative implies began his first year. Merodach-Baladan ruled
for 12 years when he was replaced by Sargon. (Grayson 73-75) " pg 96, Time
and Prophecy.
Please note, Mr
Rice says that Sargon became King of Assyria, the same year as Merodach-Baladan
became King of Babylon, then 12 years later, Merodach-Baladan died, and Sargon,
in addition to being king of Assyria, became king of Babylon for 5 years.
Sennacherib succeeded Sargon. This means, that, in Mr Rice's chronology, Merodach-Baladan
died 5 years before Sennacherib Year 1, king of Babylon. Now, 4 years after
this (9 years after Merodach-Baladin's death), Mr Rice has Sennacherib, in his
Babylonian Year 4, invading Jerusalem on the famous Hezekiah Year 14 – the year
Hezekiah got sick. This is a problem for Isaiah, consider:
Isa 39:1 At that
time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a
present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.
Isaiah has
Merodach-Baladan visiting Hezekiah sometime after he (Hezekiah) recovered from
his sickness. Hezekiah was sick in year 14, and sometime after this, he
recovered. The problem is Merodach-Baladan, according to Mr Rice's scheme, had
been dead for at least 9 years!
Anomaly 4
All of
Sennacherib's [soldiers] were killed, yet somehow Sennacherib took 200,150
prisoners.
Damien Mackey in
‘Sargon is Sennacherib’, quoting Boutflower says that Sennacherib said this:
As for Hezekiah
of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong walled cities, as
well as the small cities in their neighbourhood, which were without number - by
levelling with battering-rams and advancing the siege engines, by attacking and
storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breaches, I besieged and captured.
200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels,
cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil.
However,
scripture says this:
2 Kings 19:25,36
(35) And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and
smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and
when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses.
(36) So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt
at Nineveh.
Sennacherib
claimed to take 200,150 Judahites captive, yet scripture claims the angel of
the Lord killed Sennacherib's 185,000 Assyrian soldiers – "they were all
dead corpses". –IF— all of Sennacherib's solders were dead, then how did
Sennacherib bring back 200,150 prisoners?
Well, a
reasonable explanation, is that Sennacherib invaded Judah twice. The first
time, he kicked butt, while his butt got kicked the second time. If the first
invasion matches the details of invasion described in the Sargon inscriptions,
which it does, then this would lend weight to the idea that Sargon is
Sennacherib!
Anomaly 5
Fifthly –
Where's the gold?
First, Hezekiah
gives Sennacherib all the gold.
2Ki 18:14 And
Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have
offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the
king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of
silver and thirty talents of gold.
2 Ki 18:15 And
Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and
in the treasures of the king's house.
2Ki 18:16 At
that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the
LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and
gave it to the king of Assyria.
Then, he shows
it to Merodachbaladan!
Isa 39:1,2, 6
(1) At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent
letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and
was recovered. (2) And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them the house of
his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious
ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures:
there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed
them not. (6) Behold, the days come, that all that [is] in thine house, and
[that] which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried
to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.
Anomaly 6
Sixthly, too
many events occurred in Hezekiah Year 14 = Sennacherib year 4.
As I stated in
the introduction, in my opinion, modern chronologers fail to recognize that
Sennacherib invaded JUDAH twice. Well, suppose they are correct. Here are some
of the events which would have had to happen in that one year.
Sennacherib,
along with 185,000 solders, claimed to come to Judah and ‘leveled’ "46 of
his strong walled cities" How long would it take to [travel] to ‘level’
one city? Well, say it took two weeks to [travel] from Ninevah to the first ‘strong
walled city’, then say it took 3 days to level it; then say, it took 2 days to
travel to the next `strong walled city' and 3 more days to level it. You would
end up with 2 weeks + 5 days/city * 46 cities = 244 days. Hmmmm… not
likely. Sometime
during this [warmongering], Sennacherib sent some messengers to Hezekiah,
asking him to surrender, which, Hezekiah politely refused, however, he stripped
the temple of gold and silver and gave Sennacherib 30 talents of gold and
several hundred talents of silver and quickly began construction of an 1800
foot long, 4 foot wide and 12 foot tall, tunnel through solid limestone. In addition,
Hezekiah started construction and repairs on the walls of Jerusalem. All this
stress made Hezekiah sick unto death, but he prayed to God, and God said he
would live 15 more years and would send a sign such that the sun's shadow would
go back 10 degrees Then, Sennacherib, his solders, and his 200,150 prisoners,
had to travel 2 weeks back to Ninevah with 200,150 prisoners, drop them off at
the local slave market, and travel 2 weeks back to Judah… 272 days. But when
they got there, drats, old Hezekiah had finished building his tunnel and put up
walls. Hmmmm…. Not likely. Then, they sieged Jerusalem, but the angel of the Lord
killed all of his solders, so he traveled two weeks back to Ninevah… i.e. 286
days!!!
In the meantime,
according to Isaiah 39, Hezekiah had recovered from his sickness, and the
Merodach-Baladan, who had been dead for over 9 years, rose from the grave and
paid Hezekiah a visit!
Whereupon,
Hezekiah somehow showed Merodach-Baladan all the gold and silver in the temple,
which somehow managed to magically reappear. ….
“As Tadmor has observed, such a statement
never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since
Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II”.
Toby has further
written:
Greetings all,
I have mentioned
several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are
indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other,
but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib … much
as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL …. I have given evidence
from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from
scripture.
But there is
more.
This part is
just a few snippets from … Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is
Sennacherib’. It is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least
a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:
What had struck me, however,
was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to
Sennacherib's first two campaigns.
Sargon: "In my twelfth
year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the
Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."
Sennacherib: "In my first
campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the
army of Elam, his ally ....".
And:
Sargon: "Talta, king of
the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ...
fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as
with a net. ... people ... I brought up."
Sennacherib: "... I
turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king,
... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed ....
Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein".
Added to this was the
possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close
in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically …. Eric
Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two
accounts:
Sargon: "Palaces of
ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper,
pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode
.... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple
I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico,
patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they
call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing
4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of
Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each
1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as
posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I
cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them
toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone,
- the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had
them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of
astonishment".
Sennacherib: "Thereon I
had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar,
cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal
abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound
with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after
a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani,
I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee,
advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the
workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar
pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to
support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great
blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards
the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of
limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them
(the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of
astonishment".
……
Conventional Theory's
Strengths
(i) Primary
I can find only two examples
of a primary nature for the conventional view.
By far the strongest support
for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what
is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents
as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in
the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted ….:
[Esarhaddon, the great king,
the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon,
king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty
king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty
king], king of Assyria ....
The first document, Prism S,
would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences
in support of my proposed merger.
The other, quasi-primary
evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of
supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that
Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as
follows ….:
For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel
(705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (=
Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the
throne.
What one notices in all of the
above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is
always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word
"(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been
square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they
presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding
Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with
the bracketted "(= Sargon)".
It was customary for the
Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather.
There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon
and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's
explanation for this omission is as follows ….:
In nearly every other Assyrian
royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the
form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of
the king. As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the
titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was
unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that
Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's
policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....
This may be, but it is
important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary,
presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of
Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the
legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a
flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard
genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as
"Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or
"who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at
all.
That there was some unusual
situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in
Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast,
Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I
am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of
Sennacherib ...".
….
Comments