Monday, September 30, 2019

Zimri and Jehu

Jehu - King of Israel 


by

 

Damien F. Mackey




 

 

 

And as Jehu entered the gate, [Jezebel] asked,

‘Have you come in peace, O Zimri, murderer of your master?’

 

2 Kings 9:31

 

 

 

Following the pattern of kings and events that I have established in my articles revising the biblico-history of the northern kingdom of Israel, Zimri, who destroyed the House of Baasha, could only be Jehu, who wiped out the entire House of Ahab (= Baasha).

This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that Queen Jezebel actually refers to Jehu as ‘Zimri’ (2 Kings 9:31):

 

ְיֵהוּא, בָּא בַשָּׁעַר; וַתֹּאמֶר הֲשָׁלוֹם, זִמְרִי הֹרֵג אֲדֹנָיו

 

Some translations of this verse go to extremes to make it clear that Jehu and Zimri are, as is generally thought, two different kings. For instance, Contemporary English Version offers this: “As he walked through the city gate, she shouted down to him, "Why did you come here, you murderer? To kill the king? You're no better than Zimri!"”

The Hebrew does not appear to me to justify such a translation, “You're no better than Zimri!”

 

Conventionally speaking, Zimri, of course, had preceded Jehu by about 45 years.

However, one is left thinking that there must be more to Zimri than his impossibly short reign (I Kings 16:15): “Zimri reigned in Tirzah seven days”, the shortest reign of all the kings.

Consequently, articles have been written suggesting that Zimri was ‘no flash in the pan’.

Are we really expected to believe that Zimri, had, in the mere space of a week, done all this? (vv. 11-13):

 

As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu— because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.

 

And that he had managed to be this bad? (vv. 19-20):

 

So he died, because of the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord and following the ways of Jeroboam and committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit.

As for the other events of Zimri’s reign, and the rebellion he carried out, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?

 

This all sounds just like Jehu – substituting Ahab for Baasha (2 Kings 10:17):

 

When Jehu came to Samaria, he killed all who were left there of Ahab’s family; he destroyed them, according to the word of the Lord spoken to Elijah.

 

And vv. 28-29:

 

So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel. However, he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit—the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan.

 

And v. 34:

 

As for the other events of Jehu’s reign, all he did, and all his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?

 

Saul M. Olyan has compared Jehu with Zimri, in “2 Kings 9:31. Jehu as Zimri” (The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 78, No. ½, Jan-Apr, 1985),

Vol. 78, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Apr., 1985), pp. 203-207 (5 pages)

though without his having any thought that Jehu might have been Zimri (pp. 203-204):

 

A number of arguments have been presented by scholars who have attempted to explain the somewhat cryptic words of Jezebel to Jehu when he entered the palace gate of Jezreel: hăšālôm zimrî hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw ("Is it well [with] Zimri, murderer of his lord?" or "Is it peace ...?”).

Is Jezebel trying to seduce Jehu, as S. Parker recently argued? .... Is she assuming a defiant posture and taunting him proudly? .... Or is the narrative simply too ambiguous to determine her motives? .... What is the writer’s use of the name Zimri meant to convey? Undoubtedly, Zimri in biblical Hebrew is a hypocoristicon of a fuller name like ... zamaryaw/ -yahū. “Yahweh has protected” or “Yahweh has defended”, from the root zmr ... "to be strong”. .... A Samaria Ostracon of the early eighth century BCE preserves the name, b‘lzmr, and the name zmryhw appears on a Hebrew seal.

Now the historical Zimri, to whom Jezebel no doubt alludes ... was a chariot commander who killed his king, Elah the son of Baasha and all and all of Baasha's house, and ruled over Israel for only seven days.

 

Mackey’s comment: While Saul M. Olyan will continue on here with what is the apparent sequence of events in the biblical narrative, with Omri succeeding Zimri, I personally think that the Gibbethon incident where Baasha puts an end to king Nadab (House of Jeroboam) (I Kings 15:25-28) may have been partially re-visited with Omri now supposedly besieging Gibbethon, and then succeeding Zimri – which I do not believe could actually have been the case.

 

In reaction to Zimri's coup, the army made Omri king. Zimri perished by suicide in Tirzah soon after (1 Kgs 16:8-20). These events occurred in the twenty-seventh year of Asa's reign [sic] in Judah (ca 886) ... only about forty-five years before Jehu's own coup. The parallels are obvious and striking. Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], was a chariot commander who conspired against his lord the king, and wiped out the ruling house in the fashion of the popular northern coup (see 2 Kings 10). In light of these close parallels, the arguments of Parker, who claims that Jezebel was not taunting Jehu when she called him "Zimri," .... are less than convincing. Clearly, such an allusion to a recent, failed coup attempt by a fellow charioteer was intended as a taunt, as was the title hōrēg ̓ădōnāyw, “murderer of his lord”. Jezebel's words imply that Jehu, like Zimri before him [sic], will fail: he will not last more than a week, and the people will not accept him, just as they did not accept Zimri. ....




[End of quote]

 

For Queen Jezebel as a real historical person, see e.g. my article:


 

Queen Jezebel makes guest appearances in El Amarna

 

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Elah and Ahaziah


nadab baasha elah and zimri n.

                 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 
New revision so far of kingdom of Israel


 


Duplicates need to be identified and removed from the list of the early kings of Israel (Divided Monarchy era) in order for the chronology of that era to make sense.



Just as neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian history have been dupli-tripli-cated here and there (and likewise, of course, Egyptian history), so have the corresponding ‘histories’ of Israel and Judah. For the latter, for example, see my article:
‘Taking aim on’ king Amon – such a wicked king of Judah
https://www.academia.edu/37575781/Taking_aim_on_king_Amon_-_such_a_wicked_king_of_Judah
The conventional biblico-history of the kingdom of northern Israel presents us with about half a dozen names from the inception of the kingdom, with Jeroboam, until the presumed time of Omri, who was initially opposed by one Tibni. That list reads as follows:

Jeroboam I
Nadab
Baasha
Elah
Zimri
Omri – Tibni

This is by no means the true picture, however – at least according to my recent series of articles on the subject.
Firstly, Jeroboam so-called I has to be merged with his namesake Jeroboam so-called II, who, despite his power and successes, does not rate a mention in Chronicles:
 
Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles
 


Then that composite Jeroboam (I and II) has to be merged with Omri, who, despite his power and successes, does not rate a mention in Chronicles:

Great King Omri missing from Chronicles


Omri, as we learned, was clearly a contemporary and foe of the Syrian king, Tab-rimmon, father of Ben-Hadad I (as was Jeroboam I of Israel, who was also a contemporary of Abijah of Judah). That fact greatly supports my view that Jeroboam was Omri.
Tab-rimmon quite likely, then, becomes the Tibni with whom Omri fought.
For more on this, see my article:

Omri and Tibni



We also learned in this set, following T. Ishida, that, whilst the Bible will make references to the House of Jeroboam, and to the House of Ahab, it never refers to the House of Omri.
In my context, that would have been unnecessary anyway, because the House of Jeroboam was the House of Omri.

The Assyrian kings, on the other hand, will prefer to designate the founding dynasty of northern Israel as the “House of Omri” (Bīt Humri).

That first northern dynasty will terminate with the assassination of the rather insignificant Nadab at the hands of Baasha of Issachar (I Kings 15:25-27):

Jeroboam’s son Nadab became king over Israel during the second year of the reign of King Asa over Judah. He reigned over Israel for two years, practicing what the LORD considered to be evil, living the way his father did, committing sins, and leading Israel to sin. So Ahijah’s son Baasha from the household of Issachar conspired against him and killed Nadab ….

Baasha, who now, clearly, was Ahab:


Baasha and Ahab


cannot have been directly the son of Omri as is generally thought.
The separate House of Baasha, or House of Ahab, arose from Ahijah of Issachar, whereas the house to which Omri belonged, the House of Jeroboam, was of Ephraïmite origins.


Interesting, then, that Ahab especially favoured Jezreel in Issachar:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463992/jewish/Ahab.htm
“Many new cities sprang up during Ahab’s reign. Among them Jezreel, in the province of Issachar, which became one of the favorite royal residences”.

J. Katzenstein will, in “Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?
J. KATZENSTEIN
Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?” (IEJ, 1955, p. 194) 
Vol. 5, No. 3 (1955), pp. 194-197 (4 pages)

show that Queen Athaliah is variously the daughter of Omri and the daughter of Ahab:

In the opinion of scholars generally, Athaliah, queen of Judah, was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, king and queen of Israel. ….
The Bible, however, contains two references to Athaliah as the daughter of Omri … and two more as the daughter of Ahab …. (Josephus refers to her only as the daughter of Ahab …).
[End of quote]

I Kings 16:7

Moreover, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Jehu son of Hanani to Baasha and his house, because of all the evil he had done in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger by the things he did, and becoming like the house of Jeroboam – and also because he destroyed it.

I Kings 21:20-22

[Elijah said to Ahab] “… because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord. He says, ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will wipe out your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free. I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat …’.”


The text continues, adding here “and that of Baasha son of Ahijah”, which seems directly to contradict my view that Ahab and Baasha were the one same king.
I would take this latter phrase to be an editorial addition by a mistaken scribe who considered Ahab to be an entity separate from Baasha.



“During the reign of Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 B.C.E.), Israel runs through seven kings: Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab (ca. 910-853 B.C.E.)”.

 Robin Gallaher Branch


This, however, was not the conclusion that I reached in Part One of this series:
https://www.academia.edu/40435470/Elah_and_Ahaziah._Part_One_New_revision_so_far_of_kingdom_of_Israel according to which Baasha-Ahab was the one king, and Tibni was likely the Syrian king, and foe of Jeroboam-Omri, Tab-rimmon.

That new foundation would now lead me to conclude that Baasha’s ill-fated son of two years’ reign, Elah, was the same as Ahab’s ill-fated son of two years’ reign, Ahaziah.
Before further considering that possibility, though, I need to point out that, of the supposed “seven kings” of Israel listed above by Robin Gallaher Branch, five of these (as I count it) are not even mentioned (at least by those names) in Chronicles, these five being:
Nadab; Elah; Zimri; Tibni; Omri.

Even the highly significant king Baasha is only briefly mentioned there (2 Chronicles 16:1-6), two chapters after which (18:1) Ahab (who I believe to have been this very Baasha) emerges.
None of the supposed four kings between Baasha and Ahab (namely, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri) receives even the least mention in Chronicles.


And about Baasha’s predecessor, Nadab, we read:
https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1249
… Kings appeals to “the book of the chronicles of the kings” for further details about various matters that are not recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. For example, regarding Nadab, the second king of Israel, 1 Kings 15:31 states: “Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” However, none of Nadab’s acts are recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. (In fact, the inspired chronicler records very little activity of the kings of the northern kingdom.) ….

 
Comparing Elah and Ahaziah

Much – though not all – of the biblical information that we have about Elah of Israel can be matched satisfactorily, I think, with that pertaining to Ahaziah of Israel.
Of king Elah we read (I Kings 16:8):

During the twenty-sixth year of the reign of King Asa of Judah, Baasha’s son Elah became king over Israel and reigned at Tirzah for two years.

Appropriately, as Elah succeeded Baasha, as son, Ahaziah will succeed Baasha’s alter ego, Ahab (as I am arguing), as son. Moreover, Elah, Ahaziah, will reign for two years.
But the regnal coincidence with the kingdom of Judah does not match up.
2 Kings 22:51:

Ahaziah, son of Ahab, became king of Israel in Samaria during Jehoshaphat’s seventeenth year as king of Judah. Ahaziah ruled Israel for two years.

Whereas Elah’s beginning is said to have coincided with Asa of Judah’s Year 26, Ahaziah’s is said to have coincided with Jehoshaphat’s Year 17.
Also, Elah’s reign was “at Tirzah”, whilst Ahaziah’s reign was “in Samaria”.
But both of these locations were being used from the time of Omri, so it is possible that the two year reign embraced two separate palaces.

Appropriately, again, the brief reign of Elah, of Ahaziah, was evil (I Kings 16:13):

… all the sins that Baasha and his son Elah had committed and because of what they did to lead Israel into sin, thus provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their idolatry.

2 Kings 22:52-53

[Ahaziah] did what the Lord considered evil. He followed the example of his father and mother and of Jeroboam (Nebat’s son) who led Israel to sin. Ahaziah served Baal, worshiped him, and made the Lord God of Israel furious, as his father had done.

Death in the palace also seems to be a common denominator, though the manner of death does not.
I Kings 16:9-10:

But [Elah’s] servant Zimri, who commanded half of his chariot forces, conspired against Elah while he was drinking himself drunk in the home of Arza, who managed the household at Tirzah. Zimri went inside, attacked him, and killed him ….

2 Kings 1:16-17:

‘…. You will not get up from the bed you are lying on. Instead, you will die there’.
So Ahaziah died as the Lord had predicted through Elijah.

The prophet Elijah had attributed Ahaziah’s woes and ultimate death to his idolatrous consultation of Baal-zebub (v. 16): ‘This is what the Lord says: You sent messengers to seek advice from Baalzebub, the god of Ekron. Is this because you think there is no God in Israel whose word you can seek?’ That may explain why the king (as Elah) “was drinking himself drunk”. For, according to Marvin A. Sweeney (I & II Kings: A Commentary, p. 200), “Targum Jonathan … understands Zimri’s [surely must mean Elah’s] drunkenness as religious idolatry”.
Baal-zebub (or Baal) worship apparently involved intoxication.

If my reconstruction of the kingdom of northern Israel is correct – with my folding of several of these kings as duplicates – then the brief-reigning Elah, son of Baasha (= Ahab), becomes the most likely candidate for the brief-reigning Ahaziah, son of Ahab.
However, as I noted at the beginning of this article, “Much – though not all – of the biblical information that we have about Elah of Israel can be matched satisfactorily, I think, with that pertaining to Ahaziah of Israel”.

Monday, September 23, 2019

Siege of the City of Tyre


 


Esarhaddon a tolerable fit
for King Nebuchednezzar
 


Part Four: Siege of the City of Tyre
 


by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
“But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that
employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to
Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673)”.
 
Arnold J. Tkacik

 
 
Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB) has written what I would consider to be a most helpful and enlightening commentary on the extremely complex biblical Book of Ezekiel in his article, “Ezekiel”, for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968). I refer more especially to the exegetical (or religious-spiritual) aspect of his commentary than to the historical side of it. Though, even in this latter regard - or at least as regards the chronology of the book - Fr. Tkacik has arrived at what I think are some telling conclusions.
 
However, if this present series is correct, according to which Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ is to be enlarged and greatly filled out with the potent king, Esarhaddon, then any conventional commentary for this particular period of biblico-history must needs be somewhat one-dimensional rather than being able to present a full picture of the times.
 
Regarding the siege of the Phoenician Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel, or what Fr. Tkacik heads, The Tidal wave Against Tyre (26:1-21), the author will suggest that “the method of attack” in this case is more along the lines of Esarhaddon’s modus operandi against Tyre than, as according to some, that of Alexander the Great. Thus he writes (21:60):
 
Some authors (e.g. Holscher and Torrey) maintain that the poem describes the capture of Tyre by Alexander in 332, because it speaks of a complete destruction of the city (vv. 3-6, 14). But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673).
[End of quote]
 
The “method of attack” is described in Ezekiel 26:8-9 like this:
 
He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.
 
Instead of his writing “similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon ...)”, though, Fr. Tkacik could well have written “similar to that of attackers Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon”. For, unlike Alexander, the neo-Assyrian/Babylonian besiegers failed to complete their work even after years of effort.
 
Compare the following two items (Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar):
 
The capture of Tyre was also attempted, but, the city being differently situated, a siege from the land was insufficient to bring about submission, as it was impossible to cut off the commerce by sea. The siege, after several years, seems to have been lifted. Although on a great monolith Esarhaddon depicts Ba`al, the king of Tyre, kneeling before him with a ring through his lips, there is nothing in the inscriptions to bear this out.  
 
Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt.
In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
 
It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
 
After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.
 
Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field).
 
Neither account above allows for the total destruction of Tyre that Alexander the Great would later manage to achieve.
 
In the previous article, Part Three:
https://www.academia.edu/39725289/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Three_The_Marduk_Prophecy_ I also included the mighty Ashurbanipal amongst my alter egos for Nebuchednezzar. Thus I wrote:
 
The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king.
See e.g. my article:
 
Nebuchednezzar - mad, bad, then great
 
 
Our necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment.
Nebuchednezzar I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”.
[End of quote]
 
So what of Ashurbanipal and Tyre?
If I am correct, then he should have experienced the same outcome there as had his alter egos, Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar.
Well, it seems that my view is solidly supported by the following statement according to which “scholars attribute ... to Esarhaddon” what Ashurbanipal himself would claim regarding Tyre:
 
Esarhaddon refers to an earlier period when gods, angered by insolent insolent mortals, create a destructive flood. According to inscriptions recorded during his reign, Esarhaddon besieges Tyre, cutting off food and water.
Assurbanipal's inscriptions also refer to a siege against Tyre, although scholars attribute it to Esarhaddon.
 
And so they should if I am correct: Ashurbanipal was Esarhaddon – was Nebuchednezzar!
 
Esarhaddon's son [sic] Aššurbanipal (r.669-631?) inherited this situation. In his third year, he tried to capture Tyre, occupied the mainland, but - like his predecessors - failed to capture the island city itself. Note the absence of tribute: it seems that a marital alliance was concluded.
...
In my third campaign I marched against Ba'al, king of Tyre ....
 
 
Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nebuchednezzar, tried to take Tyre but failed to take it completely even after a long siege.
The king of Tyre at the time was Ba’al, or Ithobal (Ithoba’al).
 

Father of Judaïsm: Ezekiel, Ezra, Razis?



Ezekiel sees a vision


by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 

 
Razis was a “Father of the Jews”.
This is our first connection with Ezra, who is called, in Jewish tradition,
“Father of Judaïsm”.

 
 
 
 
Ezekiel
 
Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB), writing of the fact that the prophet Ezekiel had prophesied both a fall and then a rise of Israel (or the Jews), will proceed to comment (“Ezekiel”, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 21:2): “[Ezekiel’s] contribution to the birth of the new order is so pregnant that he has been called, rightly or wrongly, the father of Judaism”.
 
 

Sermon 59 - Ezekiel gained the title of “Father of Judaism.”

 
April 15th, 1963
Received by Dr Samuels
Washington D.C.
 
 
Ezekiel has often been called the father of Judaism. His influence on the future development of Israel's religion was, at least for several centuries, greater than that of any of the other prophets. His conception of holiness, which stands in sharp contrast to Isaiah's, became dominant in the period that followed his people's return from Babylonian exile. For Ezekiel, holiness was a quality present in both things and people. Holy objects would be profaned whenever anything common or unclean was brought into direct contact with them, a belief that led to a sharp distinction between the secular and the holy and gave new meanings to such items as the observance of dietary laws, payment of tithes, and observance of the Sabbath. Violation of any of these rules would constitute a profanation of that which was holy or sacred. This interpretation of rules and regulations pertaining only to the Israelite religion served to strengthen the spirit of nationalism and thus to increase the antagonism that already existed between Jews and non-Jews. ....
 
A Jewish site somewhat similarly designates Ezekiel as:
 

“Father” of Jewish Mysticism

 
Furthermore, Ezekiel’s strange, mystical mood, which made him see those elaborate and magnificent visions of the heavenly chariot, became the basis for Jewish mystical studies which later developed into the Kabbalah. ....
 
Apparently, then, Ezekiel is considered to have been the “Father of Judaism”.
 
Ezra
 
But this very same impressive title has been applied to Ezra the scribe:
“Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile”.
 
No man since Moses has played so important a part in the literary tradition of the Jews as Ezra the Scribe. By the newer criticism, Ezra the Scribe was the father of Judaism ....
 
I recalled this very fact in my article:
 
Death of Ezra the Scribe
 
 
in which I then proceeded to attempt a link between Ezra and a character who would conventionally be considered way too far distant in time to be a chance for Ezra’s alter ego.
I refer to the Maccabean:
 
Razis
 
In “Death of Ezra the Scribe” I asked:
 
Who was Razis?
 
And then wrote:
 
The name itself, Razis (Greek: Ραζις), does not appear (at least immediately) to offer much assistance, as we commonly read of it something along the lines of John L. Mackenzie’s: “Razis (Gk razis, Hb ?, meaning uncertain) …” (The Dictionary Of The Bible, p. 721).
 
Far more useful to us is the Maccabean account of the status of this extraordinary man, a glorious and heroic martyr in the opinion of the author(s) of the Maccabean narrative, but denounced for his act of suicide by some commentators as a madman, or proud, or a coward. For instance, we read this terse estimate of Razis as written by Forbes Winslow: “The self-destruction of Razis is full of horror, and can only be quoted as an evidence of the act of a madman”: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50907/50907-h/50907-h.htm
William Whitaker, for his part, has written: “And in 2 Macc. chap, xiv., the fortitude of Razis is commended, who laid violent hands upon himself. Yet Razis deserved no praise for his fortitude. For this was to die cowardly rather than courageously, to put himself voluntarily to death in order to escape from the hands of a tyrant” (A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, especially Bellarmine, p. 95).
 
Here is what 2 Maccabees tells us about the high status of Razis, “called Father of the Jews” (vv. 37, 38-39):
 
… Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem … a man who loved his compatriots and was very well thought of and for his goodwill was called Father of the Jews. In former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and he had most zealously risked body and life for Judaism. Nicanor … sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him ….
 
This crucial information, I believe, provides us with sufficient information to identify, in biblical terms, just who was this major character, Razis.
  
“Razis” of 2 Maccabees
likely to be an aged Ezra
  
 
“… Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given. The king had granted him everything he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was on him. …. the gracious hand of his God was on him. For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel”.
 
Ezra 7:6, 9-10

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Great King Omri missing from Chronicles








Ancient Samaria and Central Israel



by
 

Damien F. Mackey




 

“The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah are usually designated as 'founders' houses', i.e. Saul's house, David's house, Jeroboam's house, Baasha's house, and Jehu's house.

Yet the name Omri's house is conspicuously missing from the Bible.

Instead, the same dynasty is always called Ahab's house, although Omri was

the dynastic founder and Ahab was his successor”.
 

T. Ishida

 

 

Suspecting yesterday morning (16th September, 2019), once again, that there may be some degree of duplication amongst the listings of the kings of Israel of the Divided Monarchy period, which thought prompted me later that day to write:

 




 

and then reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, I was really surprised to find that Omri does not figure directly in Chronicles.

That I was not mistaken or deluding myself about this was confirmed when I read the following in Wilfred J. Hahn’s article “Omri: The Merger King”:

http://www.eternalvalue.com/adownload/MET_0408.pdf

 

King Omri was one of the most influential kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. It would be difficult to discern this from the Bible alone without careful study. As only 13 verses (1 Kings 16:16-28) recount the history of this man, it would be easy to overlook his significance. Unusually, no direct mention is even made of his reign in the books of Chronicles, apart from referring to his son, Ahab, and grandsons Ahaziah and Joram. The only biblical indication we get of the repute of his legacy is found in Micah 6:16.
 

[End of quote]

 

Another famous name amongst the kings of Israel (Divided Kingdom) who is missing from Chronicles, as we found (in a partner to this present article), is Jeroboam so-called II:

 

Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles

 
https://www.academia.edu/40362093/Great_King_Jeroboam_II_missing_from_Chronicles

 

Regarding this surprising omission I noted “that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures” ... may not necessarily be entirely true. Jeroboam so-called II may figure more prominently in the Scriptures than is thought – but under an alter ego.


A good place to begin to look for that would be, I suggest, with namesake Jeroboam I”.

 

And now I am going to suggest the very same thing, that we may need to begin to look for the - seemingly neglected in the Scriptures, but undoubtedly famous - Omri (qua “Omri”) under the guise of my now amalgamated Jeroboam I/II.

That Omri, currently designated as the sixth king of Israel (Divided Kingdom):

 

Jeroboam I
Nadab
Baasha
Elah
Zimri
Omri

 

needs to be located significantly earlier than this is quite apparent from the fact that Omri was involved in war with Ben-Hadad I’s father, Tab-rimmon, who was, in turn (it can be estimated), a contemporary of Asa’s father, Abijah.

I Kings 15:18: “Asa then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the Lord’s temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon”. That this Tab-rimmon had warred with Ahab’s father, Omri, is apparent from Ben-Hadad’s statement to Ahab in I Kings 20:34: “So Ben-Hadad said to [Ahab], ‘The cities which my father took from your father I will restore; and you may set up marketplaces for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria’.”

 

King Omri of Israel, whose fame extended down even to the neo-Assyrian period - referred to by the Assyrian kings as “House of Omri (Bīt Humri) - did not need for the Scriptures also to mention an “Omri’s house”, because the king already had his “Jeroboam’s house”.

 

Thus Omri was actually the first, not the sixth, king of Israel (Divided Monarchy).