Ahiqar and Aba-enlil-dari

 

Part One:

Ahiqar as a figure of real history

 

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“… the listing of Ahiqar in a Late Babylonian tablet testifies to the fact that the

role of Ahiqar, as known from the Aramaic version found at Elephantine, the book of Tobit, and the later Ahiqar sources, was firmly entrenched in Babylonian tradition”.

 

John Day et al.

 

 

John Day, Robert P. Gordon, Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson write about the important sage, Ahiqar, in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, pp. 43-44:

 

The figure of Ahiqar has remained a source of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. The search for the real Ahiqar, the acclaimed wise scribe who served as chief counsellor to Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, was a scholarly preoccupation for many years. …. He had a sort of independent existence since he was known from a series of texts – the earliest being the Aramaic text from Elephantine, followed by the book of Tobit, known from the Apocrypha and the later Syriac, Armenian and Arabic texts of Ahiqar. …. An actual royal counsellor and high court official who had been removed from his position and later returned to it remains unknown.

 

Mackey’s comment: I have also identified this Ahiqar (var. Achior, Vulgate Book of Tobit) as the “Achior” (and also the “Arioch”) of the Book of Judith; and as the “Arioch” of the Book of Daniel. See e.g.:

 

Meeting of the wise – Arioch and Daniel

 

https://www.academia.edu/37485637/Meeting_of_the_wise_Arioch_and_Daniel

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. E. Reiner found the theme of the 'disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister' combined with that of the ‘ungrateful nephew’ in the 'Bilingual Proverbs’, and saw this as a sort of parallel to the Ahiqar story.

 

Mackey’s comment: For my identification of the ‘ungrateful nephew’, Nadin (var. Nadab), see my article:

 

"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith

 

https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judi

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. She [Reiner] also emphasized that in Mesopotamia the ummânu was not only a learned man or craftsman but was also a high official.

 

At the time that Reiner noted the existence of this theme in Babylonian wisdom literature, Ahiqar achieved a degree of reality with the discovery in Uruk, in the investigations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE).

 

Mackey’s comment: For my proposed radical revision of this Seleucid era, see my article:

 

A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ

 

https://www.academia.edu/36672214/A_New_Timetable_for_the_Nativity_of_Jesus_Chri

 

Day et al. continue:

 

…. This tablet contains a list of antediluvian kings and their sages (apkallû) and postdiluvian kings and their scholars (ummânu). The postdiluvian kings run from Gilgamesh to Esarhaddon. This text informs us (p. 45, lines 19-20) that in the time of King Aššur-aḫ-iddina, one A-ba-^dninnu-da-ri (= Aba-enlil-dari), (whom) the Aḫlamu (i.e., Arameans) call Aḫ-'u-qa-ri (= Aḫuqar), was the ummânu. As was immediately noted, Aḫuqar was the equivalent of Aḥiqar. ….

The names of the ummânē of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon are known to us from a variety of sources, but Ahiqar's name does not appear in any contemporary source. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: But what is actually “contemporary” may now need to be seriously reconsidered if there is any weight to my series:

 

Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330231/Aligning_Neo_Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_One_Shortening_the_Chaldean_Dynasty

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

Day et al. continue:

 

Indeed, it has been recently claimed that the passage from the Uruk document 'is clearly fictitious and of no historical value’, for A-ba-^dninnu-da-ri was the name of a scholar known from the Middle Babylonian period.

 

Mackey’s comment: That is exactly what I would expect to find, the sage ummânu existing in both the so-called Middle and the neo Assyro-Babylonian periods, due to a necessary as demanded by revision) folding of the Middle into the later period.

Day et al. continue:

 

…. Yet, the listing of Ahiqar in a Late Babylonian tablet testifies to the fact that the role of Ahiqar, as known from the Aramaic version found at Elephantine, the book of Tobit, and the later Ahiqar sources, was firmly entrenched in Babylonian tradition.

 

 

He may also be Esagil-kini-ubba

 

 

“The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it

has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several

different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish”.

 

R. Murphy

 

 

 

Looking further to identify the Israelite sage and proverb-writer, Ahiqar (Ahikar) - a most famous ummânu in the neo Assyrian court - with a similarly famous Middle Babylonian ummânu, Esagil-kini-ubba, I wrote in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

(Volume One, pp. 185-186)

 

A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu)

 

Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib ….

 

My comment: At that stage I had considered Nebuchednezzar I to be what I had described as ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II (my Sennacherib).

But now, with my further crunching of neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian history:

 

Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330231/Aligning_Neo_Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_One_Shortening_the_Chaldean_Dynasty

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

I would be more inclined to identify Nebuchednezzar I as Nebuchednezzar II.

Continuing with my thesis:

 

… is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier.

I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: …. “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”.

Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: ….

 

The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself.

 

According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22).

Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of BOT as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21). Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’.

 

This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the

same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith].

 

Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: … “There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar ….

….

I had suggested … that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II. I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-apla-iddina…”.

 

Babylonia, a cunning, ‘crooked serpent’ diplomatically, has also been a tortuous riddle for historians to try to unravel. ….

 

Albright insisted that Balaam was an ‘Edomite sage’

        

Insights of William Foxwell Albright

 

Part Two (i):

Albright insisted that Balaam was an ‘Edomite sage’

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”.

 

W. F. Albright

 

 

 

Interestingly, though, Albright does not proceed on in this article (“The Home of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915) to connect “Balaam son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31).

James B. Jordan is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including the prophet job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King? (Part 2)”, 2000).

Job very much was not!

According to my version of the prophet:

 

Job's Life and Times

 

https://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times

 

Job was Israelite, not Edomite, and Job would have lived almost a millennium after Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan hopes to identify Job.

Jordan has written on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/

 

Was Job Jobab?

 

To begin with. Genesis 36:33 tells us that the second named king of Edom was "Jobab, son of Zerah, from Bozrah." There are two differences between this man’s name and that of Job. Dropping the vowel marks because they are not part of the original text, in Hebrew they are spelled ywvv and ‘ywv. Job’s name begins with an aleph (‘), and the Edomite king’s name does not, but has an extra beth (v) at the end.

 

There is a second problem. The name Job pretty clearly means "Persecuted," but the meaning of Jobab is unknown.

 

Yet, the problem may not be as great as it seems to us. First of all, we have the ancient testimony, which indicates that people familiar with the Hebrew and Semitic languages could readily think that these were variants of the same name. Second, the aleph that begins the name of Job is sometimes placed there simply to make the vowel sound more forcefully, and thus is not always a necessary part of the word when it comes at the beginning. The Edomite king’s name is pronounced "Yovav" while Job’s name is pronounced "Eeyov," both bisyllabic words. Moreover, converting the name "Yovav" to "Persecuted" ("Eeyov") is easy, and fits the purpose of the author of Job.

 

All the same, if all we have to go on is the names there is not enough evidence to form any hypothesis. Still, since Job was an Edomite ruler, and since the names are similar, it is easy to understand why the ancient Jews made this association.

 

We can perhaps tease out from the text a bit more information that will help place Job in time, and strengthen the Job-Jobab hypothesis a wee bit (but only a wee bit). Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an eighth.

 

1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah

 

1. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah
    
2. Husham from Teman

 

1. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith

 

1. Samlah from Masrekah

 

1. Saul from Rehoboth

 

1. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor

 

1. Hadar/d from Pau

 

The eight[h] is Hadar or Hadad (spelled this way in many versions; the Hebrew D and R are written almost exactly alike). This person is almost certainly the Hadad who fled to Egypt as a child when David conquered Edom, and who then liberated Edom from Solomon later on (1 Kings 11:14-22). Hadad married the sister of Pharaoh’s wife, but her name is not given – just as Solomon had married a daughter of Pharaoh. In Genesis 36:39, Hadad’s wife is named, and her lineage.

 

Mackey’s comment: I have also concluded somewhere that 8. Hadad is the same as the Hadad of 1 Kings 11:14-25.

Jordan continues:

 

The wives of the preceding seven Edomite kings are not named. We notice that in the Kingdom Era, the wives of the kings of Judah are given (as the name of the mother of the next king; cp. 1 Kings 11:20), while the wives of the judges in the preceding Sinaitic Era are not.

 

Putting Genesis 36 together with 1 Kings 11, we see Edom as having a week of kings, and then undergoing death and resurrection, followed by a new line of kings. The earlier kings were not a dynasty, but were elected from various cities and locations; while the later kings were descended from Hadad (I Kings 11:20, by implication). Parallel to this, there were seven elected judges in the book of Judges (Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson), followed by a death of Israel when the Tabernacle was taken apart in the days of Samuel, followed by a resurrection with David, who began a dynasty, and whose son put the Tabernacle back together as the Temple. But the seven judges of Israel are not called kings, while their contemporaries in Edom are called kings, according to the rule that the wicked get their inheritance first and then lose it, while the righteous get theirs last and keep it (Genesis 36:31). (See the Note 1 at the end of this essay.)

 

What is the chronology of the first seven Edomite kings? We cannot know for certain, but there are clues that enable us to sketch out the most likely possibility. To begin at the end, the last king before Hadad was Baal-Hanan. We can assume that he was the king conquered by David. His predecessor was named Saul (spelled Shaul in many Bibles, but identical in Hebrew). We shall assume that the Edomite Saul was a contemporary with the wicked Saul who ruled Israel.

 

The fifth king was Samlah, and the fourth was Hadad ben Bedad. This Hadad "smote Midian in the field of Moab" (Genesis 36:35). Now, in Judges we read that Gideon liberated Israel from Midian (Judges 6-8). It seems very likely that these events are linked somehow. It is typical of the Edomites to fall upon a defeated nation and despoil it. The Amalekite Edomites were on their way to take over Egypt as the "Shepherd Kings" when they met Israel coming out of Egypt (Exodus 17). We find the same pattern in Obadiah 10-14 and Psalm 137. Thus, it seems likely that after Gideon defeated and drove out the Midianites, the Edomites under Hadad ben Bedad fell upon them and conquered them.

 

The third Edomite king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor. I suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5). We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother.

 

The name Bela is written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable, while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater." Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.) The lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a body politic, as part of his body. (See Note 2 at the end of this essay.)

 

Whether Bela and Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor, the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries.

 

Now, the king list of Edom is clearly not complete. There was already a king over Edom in the days of Moses, and we have suggested that he was Bela son of Beor. Eight kings are not enough to cover the entire 480 or so years between the end of the wilderness wanderings and the latter part of Solomon’s reign. Some kings are not included in the list so that we have a "complete" list of seven kings.

 

But if Bela was king is Moses’ day, and Jobab came soon after him, or immediately after him, Jobab would be king in the days of Joshua. Jobab would have had opportunity to encounter Moses and God’s priestly nation in the wilderness, and might have been converted at that time. Moses’ command in Deuteronomy 23:7-8 indicates that some Edomites were indeed seeking to join Israel during this period.

 

If this Jobab were the same Edomite ruler as Job, then such an encounter would explain two things. First, it would explain how Jobab and others in his area came to a knowledge of the true religion. Second, it would explain how the Israelites came to know the story of Job.

 

We can advance our hypothesis one further step. Jobab was son of Zerah, and the only Zerah mentioned in Genesis 36 is the son of Reuel, son of Esau (36:13). This Zerah may or may not have been Jobab’s father. Esau married Reuel’s mother, the daughter of Ishmael, a generation after he married his first two wives (Genesis 26:34; 28:8-9). If Reuel was born many years later, we can put his birth at about the time Israel descended into Egypt, or shortly earlier. Remembering that Moses’ mother Jochebed was born to Levi after that son of Jacob had moved to Egypt (Numbers 26:59), Reuel’s son Zerah might be a younger contemporary of Jochebed, and thus Jobab might be a younger contemporary of Moses.

 

Now, assume that Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). At that point, then, Jobab the son of Zerah would have become king of Edom.

 

Of course, it must be granted immediately that (a) this hypothetical chronology might not be correct; (b) even if it is correct, Jobab might not have succeeded Bela immediately; (c) Jobab might not be Job; and (d) the experiences of Job might have become known to the Israelites at any time during the period of the Judges. Hard and fast proof of my suggested reconstruction is not available.

[End of quote]

 

Having Balaam as an Edomite, which ethnicity for Balaam I also prefer, does lead one into some rather tricky geographical considerations. 

 

I shall be considering all of that next. 

Balaam was not in Edom

when Balak of Moab summoned him

 

If “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, as according to W. F. Albright,

then why does king Balak of Moab send for Balaam in Syrian Mesopotamia?

 

 

Numbers 22:4-5: “So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land”.

וּבָלָק בֶּן-צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב, בָּעֵת הַהִוא

וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעֹר, פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ

 

According to various commentators, this “Pethor, near the Euphrates River” was the same as Pitru near Carchemish. E.g.:

https://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-location-of-pethor/

 

“According to Shalm[a]neser III [king of Assyria], Pethor, or Pitru was located at the confluence of the Sajur and the Euphrates, just east of present-day Aamârné, Syria, some 11 miles S of Carchemish (around  36°40’4″N,  38° 5’23″E)”.

 

In Numbers 23:7, Balaam says specifically: ‘Balak brought me from Aram …’.

 

Commenting on this, Albright writes (“The Home of Balaam”): “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage. The reading Aram in Num. 23, 7 is simply a corruption of Edom, a confusion which is common in the OT”.

 

However, just because Balaam was to be found in the northern Syrian region of Carchemish (if indeed he was) at the time of king Balak’s need does not necessitate that this was the region from where Balaam actually hailed – unless if, as above, אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ is to be translated as “in his native land” (and near the Euphrates River).

No more was Amos – {who, before he was found prophesying at Bethel (Amos 7:13), was “among the herd[s]men of Tekoa”,הָיָה בַנֹּקְדִים מִתְּקוֹעַ} - actually from Tekoa. He could not have been because he was “a dresser of sycamore-trees” which did not flourish in Tekoa. Amos, whom I have identified as the prophet Micah (“Amos redivivus”), from Moresheth-Gath (a region favourable to sycamores):

 

Prophet Micah as Amos

 

http://www.academia.edu/27351718/Prophet_Micah_as_Amos

 

constantly moved around, following sheep herds.

And Balaam, too, a venal prophet for hire, moved around to wherever he found the best offer.

The venality of Balaam is attested in both 2 Peter 2:15 and in Jude 1:11 wherein Balaam figures as an example of a false prophet motivated by greed or avarice.

The cosmopolitan aspect of Balaam is attested by his naming of far-flung peoples/places in his famous prophecy in Numbers 24: “Amalek” (v. 20); “Kenites” (v. 21); “Ashur” (v. 22); “Cyprus” [?] (v. 24); “Eber” (v. 24).

 

In favour of a northern location of Balaam at the time of his call by king Balak of Moab, rather than an Edomite location, are:

 

• mention of “the River” הַנָּהָר (Numbers 22:5), unqualified, which fits well with the Euphrates, but no river in arid Edom (e.g. Wadi Zered) would likely be presented in an unqualified fashion;
• the fact that Balaam meets the king of Moab on the king’s northern border (22:36): “And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto Ir-moab, which is on the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost part of the border”, would indicate that the prophet was coming from a northerly direction, not from Edom to the south.

 

As to the seemingly problematical (for my theory) אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ if to be translated as “in his native land” (and near the Euphrates River), Timothy R. Ashley refers to the great professor A. S. Yahuda’s interpretation of this bene ‘ammo as apparently pertaining to a northern location (The Book of Numbers, p. 446): “Others concur with A. S. Yahuda in pointing the Hebrew consonants 'mw as 'amû or 'amaw, which is a place-name, located by Yahuda in northern Mesopotomia …. A fifteenth-century BC [sic] inscription from Alalakh refers to Amau as a territory between Aleppo and Carchemish”.