Advantages if Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is identified with Josiah’s son Jehoiakim

-

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim”

in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

“Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10.

  

These are my most recent articles in favour of what I now consider to be a:

 

Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

(7) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

(7) Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

One important corollary of this parallelism is that Hezekiah’s idolatrous son, Manasseh, now becomes Josiah’s idolatrous son, Jehoiakim:

 

Manasseh – Jehoiakim

 

(8) Manasseh - Jehoiakim

 

The following two texts, I submit, are describing the very same incident.

 

Manasseh

2 Chronicles 33:11: “Yahweh then brought down on them the generals of the king of Assyria's army who captured Manasseh with hooks, put him in chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Jehoiakim

2 Chronicles 36-5-6: “Jehoiakim … did what is displeasing to Yahweh his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him, loaded him with chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Note the common points: Yahweh; attack by a mighty foe; king of Judah defeated; that king loaded with chains; and taken off to Babylon.

 

Now, in my article:

De-coding Jonah

 

(6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

I had identified Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.

 

The note in The Jerusalem Bible (33 b, 2 Chr 34) follows the conventional view that Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, were separate kings: “Manasseh of Judah was a vassal of Esarhaddon (680-669) and of Assurbanipal (668-633)”.

 

Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal was just the one king, who only once captured Manasseh of Judah.

 

A few advantages of Manasseh = Jehoiakim

 

Some immediate advantages of this equation are that:

 

-         It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim” in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah. “Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10;

-         It explains why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the supposedly long dead “Manasseh”, when Jeremiah’s wicked contemporary was Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 15:4): “And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem”;

-         It may supply that supposedly missing biblical evidence for the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, traditionally at the hands of King Manasseh.

 

See my explanation of this in e.g. my article:

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(14) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse

-
Image
A query from France: Dear Damien, Do you know “The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse” by Patrick Heron (Kensington Publishing Corp., 2004).? It offers many interesting views on mythologies and Egypt. I read it because I am writing an article on “the days of Noah” (Mt24:36-38 or Lc17:26) . Transhumanism looks terribly similar, if not much worse, to the deeds of the Nephilim before and after the Flood. So I am just curious to know if you, perchance, have any opinion on this author and his theses. I wish you a holy and merry Christmas ! .... Damien Mackey replies:   .... I once went to a lecture where it was even suggested that the Egyptians may originally have come from the Moon. As I see it, the Nephilim came into being when the originally good Sethite line (the children of God) began to mingle with the corrupt Cain-ites. Their progeny were the Nephilim hybrids. This was all pre-Flood (c. 2300 BC), of course, well before the Pyramids...
Read more

Problematical Thera Dating

-
Image
     Part One: Introductory by   Damien F. Mackey       “ The problem is that the most recent pottery style found at Akrotiri was Late Minoan 1A, dated to around 1500BCE. This led most scholars to conclude that the [Thera] eruption occurred around this date and was not responsible for the Minoan collapse which occurred later, around 1450 [BC] ”.   Robyn Antanovskii     As with King Hammurabi of Babylon, the dating of the Thera (Santorini) eruption - which far exceeded in strength the notorious Krakatoa eruption in 1883 - has been most difficult to pinpoint. One might have thought that an event of such a cataclysmic magnitude would have left its very clear traces on civilisations throughout the contemporary Mediterranean world, thereby making it quite apparent to archaeologists precisely when the Thera eruption had occurred.     King Hammurabi of Babylon, for his part, had had ...
Read more

Horrible Histories: Missing Mitannians

-
Image
by Damien F. Mackey “The Mitannians are perhaps one of the most enigmatic Near Eastern Superpowers. Despite their impressive empire, we know remarkably little about them, especially compared to the Egyptians or the Hittites”. Dr Glenn Godenho Introduction Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (University of Bremen) (RIP) and Emmet Sweeney, historical revisionists, have, in recent times, arrived at some startling conclusions about ancient history - some of these warranting further critical examination, whilst other of their views appear to me to be extreme and well wide of the mark. In order to account for an apparent lack of due stratigraphy for, say, the Mitannians, or the neo-Assyrians, or the Medo-Persians, this pair (not always in perfect agreement) will attempt to merge any one of these with a far earlier kingdom - for instance, the ancient Akkadians to be merged as one with the neo-Assyrians. Lester Mitcham, however, was able to expose Emmet Sweeney’s choices for compari...
Read more