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
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
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
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 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
(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 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. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment