Jews annihilate the Galatians

by Damien F. Mackey “And of the battle that they had fought against the Galatians, in Babylonia; how they, being in all but six thousand, when it came to the point, and the Macedonians, their companions, were at a stand, slew a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help they had from heaven, and for this they received many favours”. 2 Maccabees 8:20 Judas Maccabeus was wont to stir up courage in his troops before a battle by recalling heroic past deeds by the likes of fellow-Israelites, David, Jonathan, Saul, and so on (e.g. I Maccabees 4:30). His father, Mattathias, had employed the very same tactic (2 Maccabees 2:51-64). Now Judas, just prior to an encounter with his nemesis, Nicanor, recalled two mighty victories by outnumbered Jews. The first (8:19) “when, under Sennacherib, 185,000 men had perished” at the hands of their Jewish “forbears”. Whilst that incident is a most famous one, the details of it have become completely obscured over time. Hopefully I have managed to recover them in my articles, such as: And the Assyrian will fall ‘by the hand of a woman’ https://www.academia.edu/44521678/And_the_Assyrian_will_fall_by_the_hand_of_a_woman The second military incident to which Judas will refer immediately after this first one has completely baffled historians – myself included. It is this (8:20): And of the battle that they had fought against the Galatians, in Babylonia; how they, being in all but six thousand, when it came to the point, and the Macedonians, their companions, were at a stand, slew a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help they had from heaven, and for this they received many favours. A typical reaction to this is the one to be found in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, as given by Fr. Neil J. McEleney (C.S.P), writing on “2 Maccabees” (27:74 (B): “In the battle with the Galatians: This incident of Jewish mercenaries in support of Macedonian troops is otherwise unknown”. Sadly, no attempt at all here to come to grips with the text. I had previously thought that what Judas was referring to could only be a garbled version of the historical event at the climax of the Book of Esther: “… in Babylonia”. The Esther incident took place in Persia, but it had involved the whole Persian empire. “Galatians”, “Macedonians”. Haman of Esther is variously, but wrongly, called a “Macedonian” in some versions of Esther 8:12. The hard-pressed Jews in Esther received from Persia “reinforcements” (8:30). 9:5: “So the Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, with resulting slaughter and destruction, and worked their will on their opponents”. With a bit of tinkering, I had thought, this could be the second incident to which Judas Maccabeus was referring. However, whereas the Book of Esther specifically states, twice Esther (9:15): “But they [the Jews] took no plunder” - and 9:17 - the Jews, in the account by Judas Maccabeus, are said, quite contrary to this, to have “won incalculable gains”. The true incident to which Judas refers I now believe to be found in the story of Judas’s brother, Jonathan, in I Maccabees 11. Coming as it does in the narrative a couple of chapters after the death of Judas (9:18), it would appear to be anachronistic in the exhortation of Judas to his men. But 1-2 Maccabees can be like that, with sometimes overlapping chronologies. I suggest that the incident might have occurred (certainly while Judas was still alive) when Judas had formed a friendship with his erstwhile foe, Nicanor, with Judas then settling down and marrying (2 Maccabees 14:24-25). King Demetrius, who will figure in the incident, is now on the scene (I Maccabees 11:19), and is residing “at “Antioch” (11:44). Jonathan, who usually accompanied Judas, could well have been taking care of business with Judas newly married. So here is the said incident. But it does not take place at all “in Babylonia”. I Maccabees 11:38-51: When King Demetrius saw that the land was peaceful under his rule and there was no further resistance, he disbanded his whole army and sent everyone home, except the soldiers he had hired from the Greek islands. This made all the soldiers who had served under his predecessors hate him because they had lost their source of income. One of Alexander's former supporters, Trypho, saw that all the soldiers were complaining about Demetrius, so he went to Imalkue, the Arab who was responsible for bringing up Alexander's young son Antiochus. Trypho stayed there for a long time and kept urging Imalkue to hand the boy over to him, so that he could make him king in place of his father. He also told Imalkue about the decrees of Demetrius and how the soldiers hated him. Jonathan sent a message to King Demetrius asking him to remove his troops from the fort in Jerusalem and from the fortresses in Judea, since they kept harassing the Jews. Demetrius replied: I will do what you request, and when the opportunity presents itself, I will bestow upon you and your nation the highest honors. But now you can help me by sending soldiers to fight for me, because all of my troops have revolted. So Jonathan sent 3,000 trained soldiers to Antioch. The king was delighted when they arrived, because a mob of 120,000 had gathered in the city determined to kill him. But he escaped to the palace while the mob took control of the streets and began to riot. Then the king called on the Jewish soldiers for help, and they all rushed to his aid. They went through the whole city and killed at least 100,000 people. They saved the king's life, but they plundered and burned the city. When the people saw that the Jews had complete control of the city, they lost courage and appealed to the king, requesting him to arrange a truce and stop the Jewish attack. The rebels threw down their arms and surrendered. The king and everyone in his kingdom now had great respect for the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem with a great deal of loot. Unlike in the Mordecai incident, when the Jews took no plunder, Jonathan’s men “returned to Jerusalem with a great deal of loot” (v. 51). This text is surely the right mix for the incident described by Judas Maccabeus, especially if “Antioch” here is taken to have been the so-called Pisidian Antioch in Galatia, rather than Antioch in Syria: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Antioch-Pisidia Lying strictly in Phrygia beyond the limits of Pisidia, which, as Acts 14:24 correctly implies, comes between it and Pamphylia, Antioch is, nevertheless, in a controlling position “near” Pisidia (so Strabo, xii 577). To distinguish it from the other Antioch in Phrygia it is popularly said to be “of” Pisidia, or, as in the reading of the oldest codices of Acts 13:14, “Pisidian.” A great wedge of mountain ranges, based to the W on Lycia and to the E on Cilicia Tracheia, embraces Pamphylia, and converges in Pisidia to its N. E-W traffic is here ruled out by the terrain, but routes, such as that followed by Paul, run N into the interior up the river valleys. Where they emerge into the lake-studded plateau that marks the limit of Pisidia, stands Antioch, astride the southernmost of the great E-W highways of Asia Minor, that was to carry Paul on to Lycaonia (Acts 14:6). Immediately to the N again is the range now known as Sultan Dag, which in antiquity gave to its “slopes” on either side the name of Phrygia Paroreios. This tract, which centers on Antioch, was incorporated in the new Rom. province of Galatia in 25 b.c. Thus, on the “South Galatian” theory, Antioch is one of the places to which the epistle to the Galatians was addressed. A detachment of Jews fighting in Galatia on behalf of the harrassed Macedonians, and winning a great victory over 120,000, killing some 100,000 of them.

Might the Jews have construed Hadrian as being a King of Tyre?

by Damien F. Mackey “While in Tyre, Hadrian probably spent time with the public. He was a very popular Emperor and was usually embraced by the majority of the people”. A. R. Birley It is most important for what follows that emperor Hadrian, the Grecophile, be recognised as being the very same evil entity as the Seleucid, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (“God Manifest”), as according to e.g. my series: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image” (4) Hadrian's Reflection on Antiochus IV Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus” (4) Hadrian as a Second Antiochus Epiphanes Like Hadrian, Antiochus had significant association with the important city of Tyre. In the case of king Antiochus, for instance, we read: 2 Maccabees 4:18-20: When the quadrennial games were being held at Tyre and the king [Antiochus] was present, the vile Jason sent envoys, chosen as being Antiochian citizens from Jerusalem, to carry three hundred silver drachmas for the sacrifice to Hercules. Those who carried the money, however, thought best not to use it for sacrifice, because that was inappropriate, but to expend it for another purpose. So this money was intended by the sender for the sacrifice to Hercules, but by the decision of its carriers it was applied to the construction of triremes. And: 2 Maccabees 4:44-49: When the king [Antiochus] came to Tyre, three men sent by the senate presented the case before him. But Menelaus, already as good as beaten, promised a substantial bribe to Ptolemy son of Dorymenes to win over the king. Therefore Ptolemy, taking the king aside into a colonnade as if for refreshment, induced the king to change his mind. Menelaus, the cause of all the evil, he acquitted of the charges against him, while he sentenced to death those unfortunate men, who would have been freed uncondemned if they had pleaded even before Scythians. And so those who had spoken for the city and the villages and the holy vessels quickly suffered the unjust penalty. Therefore even the Tyrians, showing their hatred of the crime, provided magnificently for their funeral. That the well-travelled Hadrian was heavily invested in Tyre is apparent from the following article (2023) [I totally reject the dates as being about 300 years too late]: https://bibliotecanatalie.com/f/following-hadrian-to-tyre?blogcategory=Ancient Following Hadrian To Tyre HADRIAN'S TRAVELS In 128 CE, Hadrian set off from Rome reaching Ephesus. The following year, he traveled to Antioch. Hadrian reached Syria in 130 CE and went to Palmyra. From there, he roamed Syria Palaestina, Arabia, and Egypt (Aegyptus). On his way back to Ephesus, sometime between 130 and 131 CE, Hadrian went to Tyre (Tyrus or Sur in modern-day Lebanon). Hadrian might have been in the city around January, celebrating his 54th birthday! The Emperor was accompanied by a long entourage representing the Roman government. This probably included his wife and her staff, imperial secretaries, personal friends and advisors, officials, servants, guards, architects, craftsmen, and also men of letters. Documentary sources reveal that extensive preparations were required many months in advance. A papyrus attests that a large supply of food, including 372 suckling pigs and 2,000 sheep, as well as dates, barley, olives, and olive oil, were ordered for Hadrian's travel in 130 CE. AL-BASS SITE IN LEBANON The triumphal arch in the Al Bass site of Tyre (Arabic: sour) was erected to honor Hadrian's arrival. The monument is twenty-one meters high with a core made of sandstone. Originally, it was covered with plaster. A small fragment proves that the arch was once painted in various colors. It was one of the formal gateways to the city. The Al-Bass archaeological area consists of an extensive necropolis, a three-bay monumental arch, and one of the largest Roman hippodromes ever found. They have different dates from the 2nd century to the 6th century AD. On both sides of Hadrian's arch are smaller gates for pedestrians. Back in those days, a wall above these small arches was used. This was high and probably had niches for statues. The two sides had large guard rooms. The southern room was paved with normal stones. In the northern room, mosaic remains are still visible. The presence of these guard rooms suggests that the large arch was placed at Tyre's outer border. Two levels of the road that lead to the Tower of Pagan King Hiram in Tyre's center are still visible. These were paved later in the Byzantine period. The Roman road at the west of Hadrian's Arch has an upper layer with remains of the Byzantine era. It is paved with large limestone blocks. Traces of the chariot wheels are still visible on the road. Various Greek games and chariot racing (the Actia Heraclia and the Olympia) took place every four years in the nearby hippodrome of Tyre. Cf. 2 Maccabees 4:19: When the quadrennial games were being held at Tyre and the king [Antiochus] was present …. …. This Roman road is bordered on each side by a Doric colonnade. It has a convex shape with two smaller channels for collecting rainwater set on both sides. Another paving belongs to a Byzantine Pedestrian road. This gives access to several shops in the southern part of the site. The remains of these shops were discovered under the arches of the aqueduct. The Byzantine road runs along a distance of more than 300 meters and is paved with well-preserved limestone slabs and a necropolis on both sides. It reaches the foot of Hadrian's arch. …. HADRIAN IN TYRE While in Tyre, Hadrian probably spent time with the public. He was a very popular Emperor and was usually embraced by the majority of the people. Hadrian concerned himself with all aspects of people's lives. He was particularly devoted to his arm and would, many times, eat and sleep with the soldiers. He was famous for the commission of several projects when he visited cities and supervised their buildings. Hadrian was one of the highly cultured Roman [sic] Emperors. He was interested in literature, and Egyptian mysticism. He even wrote his own poetry. Not many details are known about his visit to Tyre, but the archeology suggests that Hadrian might have worked on raising the city's triumphal arch, improving roads, and strengthening the infrastructure. Perhaps Hadrian spent his leisure time enjoying the Tyrian games at the Hippodrome, placed south of the Triumphal Arch. The horseshoe-shaped structure accommodated around 30,000 spectators who gathered to watch the death-defying sport of chariot racing. Tyre's Hippodrome is considered the second-largest in the ancient world. The preserved seats give an idea of the huge stadium that was once lively. The spina of the Hippodrome has a red granite obelisk at the center. Hadrian would have enjoyed the various types of sports and events that took place.

The cruel wages of apotheosis

by Damien F. Mackey Daedalus and Icarus Father and son kept looking at the skies Full of clouds and aviary of every kind. They had a sparkle deep in their eyes Human flight kept fueling their minds. If birds can fly then humans can too We'll build wings of wax and glue, Feathers from the hawk, the osprey And tack them and tuck them tightly. So he built wings with a ten foot span Tied them to his son soon to be a man But he warned him not to get them wet In waters from the seas or he'd have regret. And to his son he said stay away from high Don't get too close to the sun when you fly, So he took him to an Aegean stone cliff Pushed him off as the wind gave him lift. Slowly Icarus was lifted on the cool air As he gained altitude his dad did beware He flapped his man made contraption And headed up to the suns location, Soon the heat started melting the wax As high flight the solar god would tax They came apart in mid air both wings May the gods save him as to hope he would cling. But young Icarus fell like an eagle of lead And fell in the blue ocean waters dead. Poor Daedalus his son he would mourn Not one man at the time was meant to fly was born. In Athens Heracles went searching the waves Brought back young Icarus his body did save. Never try to challenge that god called sun Cause death is the reward to a man each one. Rick Fernandez Sr. For those who would fly close to the Sun, who would seek to manifest themselves as gods, the ending is never pretty. The fall is invariably quick and shattering, the stench often putrid. And this is especially the case with those who have risen as tyrants over the people of God. The wages of their folly are ‘fire and worms’. The Israelite (Simeonite) heroine, Judith, who had been the courageous agent of the fall of the seemingly invincible “Holofernes”, had then proclaimed what would happen to such as would rise in tyranny against the people of God (Judith 16:17): ‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever’. Not that “Holofernes” may have actually thought of himself as a god. That was not the typical Assyrian way, and nor was he even the king of Assyria. “Holofernes” was the eldest son (the Crown Prince) of king Sargon II/Sennacherib. He was Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Assyrian King of Babylon. But, according to the prophet Isaiah, his father did thus aspire, Icarus-like, to “ascend to the heavens”, even to become god-like: ‘I will make myself like the Most High’. Isaiah 14:12-21, which can also be taken allegorically as the fall of Satan, of Adam, literally, however, bespeaks of disaster for the aggressive Assyrians: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’. But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?’ All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb. But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again. Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. And then, Isaiah, turning his attention to the defeat of Sennacherib’s eldest son in Israel, ‘I will crush the Assyrian in my land’, concludes triumphantly (vv. 24-27): The Lord Almighty has sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen. I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders’. This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? I’d like to look at two of biblico-history’s starkest examples of a tyrant, a would-be god, who ultimately came crashing down to earth with a thud, filled with worms and putrid decay. The first one is, famously: 1. Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ Epiphanes (Ἐπιφανής), “God Manifest”. Here is the vivid Maccabean account of how this accursed tyrant for the Jews was struck down in an instant and died a most disgusting death (2 Maccabees 9:1-18, 28): About that time it so happened that Antiochus was leading an ignominious retreat from the region of Persia. He had entered the city called Persepolis and attempted to plunder the temple and gain control of the city. However, the people immediately rose up in armed defense and repulsed Antiochus and his men, with the result that Antiochus was put to flight by the inhabitants and forced into a humiliating retreat. On his arrival in Ecbatana, he learned what had happened to Nicanor and to the forces of Timothy. Bursting with anger, he devised a plan to make the Jews suffer for the injury inflicted by those who had put him to flight. Therefore, he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he completed his journey. However, the judgment of Heaven rode with him, since in his arrogance he declared, ‘Once I arrive in Jerusalem, I will turn it into a mass graveyard for Jews’. And so the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an unseen but incurable blow. Hardly had he spoken those words when he was seized with excruciating pains in his bowels and acute internal torment— an entirely suitable punishment for one who had inflicted many barbarous torments on the bowels of others. Nevertheless, he did not in the least diminish his insolent behavior. More arrogant than ever and breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a result, he was hurled from the lurching chariot, and the fall was so violent that every part of his body was racked with pain. Thus he who only a short time before had in his superhuman arrogance believed that he could command the waves of the sea, and who imagined that he could weigh high mountains on a scale, was thrown down to the ground and had to be carried in a litter, clearly manifesting to all the power of God. The body of this ungodly man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive suffering agonizing torments, his flesh rotted away, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his decay. Only a short time before, he had thought that he could touch the stars of heaven. Now no one could even bring himself to transport the man because of his intolerable stench. Ultimately, broken in spirit, he began to lose his excessive arrogance and to come to his senses under the scourge of God, for he was racked with incessant pain. When he no longer could endure his own stench, he exclaimed: ‘It is right to be subject to God. Mere mortals should never believe that they are equal to God’. Then this vile wretch made a vow to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him, that he would publicly declare to be free the holy city toward which he had been hurrying to level it to the ground and transform it into a mass graveyard; that the Jews, whom he had not deemed to be worthy of burial but fit only to be thrown out with their children and eaten by wild animals and birds, would all be granted equality with the citizens of Athens; that the holy Temple that he had previously plundered, he would now adorn with the finest offerings, replace all the sacred vessels many times over, and provide from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices. In addition to all this, he would become a Jew himself and would visit every inhabited place to proclaim the glory of God. However, when his sufferings did not abate in any way, inasmuch as the judgment of God had already justly befallen him, he lost all hope for himself …. And so this murderer and blasphemer, after enduring agonizing sufferings to match those he had inflicted on others, died a wretched death in the mountains of a foreign land. Thus died the would-be Epiphanes (Ἐπιφανής), “God Manifest”, whom his Jewish detractors had re-named Epimanes, “the Madman”. 2. Herod Antipas In my article: Let us not over multiply the Herods and Agrippas (5) Revising the Herodian Narrative in Context I wrote this on a revised Herod Antipas: …. With Agrippa I and II taken out of a late context, and connected with Herod ‘the Great’ (Part One), then the “King Herod” of Acts 12 can only be (so I think) Herod Antipas, also known as “Herod the Tetrarch” (cf. Matthew 14:1). The Great Persecutor He was the confused king who gave permission for the beheading of John the Baptist. By so doing, Herod Antipas was symbolically (though unwittingly) removing the head of the Old Testament, and thereby enabling for the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Herod, whom Jesus had earlier called ‘that fox’ (some insist, ‘vixen’) (Luke 13:32), and who had warned his disciples to ‘Beware of … the leaven of Herod’ (Mark 8:15), would, with his soldiers, mock the captive Jesus (Luke 23:11). Not much later, after the martyrdom of Stephen, he had the Apostle James beheaded. Acts 12:1-2: “It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword”. Uncannily like Henry VIII, Herod Antipas first beheaded a John (Fisher) and then, afterwards, a ‘James the Greater’ (Thomas More). Am I missing something? Henry VIII certainly is: Henry VIII’s palaces missing (3) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Goaded on by a rising popularity, Herod Antipas then had the Apostle Peter arrested (Acts 12:3-11): When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him. The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals’. And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me’, the angel told him. Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him. Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’. … Todd Bolen (July 2010) tells of the extraordinary death of King Herod, whom he identifies (wrongly, I believe) as Herod Agrippa I: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/agrippa357926 The death of Herod Agrippa I is one of the few events that is reported by both the book of Acts and Josephus. Bible readers recall that Agrippa was struck down by an angel of the Lord while delivering a public address in Caesarea (Acts 12:19-23). The account is brief, but the immediate cause of his illness is clearly given in the text: the crowd hailed Herod as a god and the king passively accepted their praise. Despite the miraculous elements, most scholars believe that the account in Acts is generally accurate because of a parallel record in Josephus (Ant. 19.8.2 §§343-50). Most scholars believe that the two reports had independent sources, and though they agree in several respects, Josephus’s longer account contains more details, including the incident’s occasion, location, and aftermath. …. Acts records that Herod gave the address in Caesarea, and Josephus places it in the theater of Caesarea. Acts does not say anything about the time of day, but Josephus writes that it occurred early in the morning. Acts connects the episode with the resolution of a quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon, but says of the public address itself only that it occurred “on the appointed day.” Josephus relates that Agrippa appeared to the crowd on the second day of a festival intended to honor Caesar. Both sources speak of Herod’s clothing, but whereas Acts says simply that he was “wearing his royal robes,” Josephus describes the garments as made “wholly of silver” and when “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays . . . was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him.” Josephus indicates that the crowd hailed Agrippa as a god because of his radiant clothing, but Luke’s brief account may imply that they did so in response to the sound of Agrippa’s voice. Both agree that Agrippa accepted the crowd’s enthusiastic praise and consequently died shortly thereafter. Excavations at Caesarea are helpful in reconstructing this event. It is likely that as successor to most of the vast holdings of his grandfather King Herod, Agrippa I took up residence in the promontory palace on the south side of the city. …. About a decade later, Agrippa’s successor, the Roman governor Felix, occupied the same palace (Acts 24:35). Presumably, then, on the morning in which he was struck down, Agrippa left this palace and proceeded to his appointed place in order to address the crowd. According to Josephus, Agrippa came to the theater (θέατρον) where he so inspired the gathered populace that he was hailed as a god. On this basis, tourists today usually visit the Herodian theater and envision the event occurring in this semi-circular entertainment venue. I believe, however, that Josephus’s designation of the location was inaccurate. Analysis of his account indicates that the amphitheater, rather than the theater, was the setting for Herod’s public address. …. The first clue that Josephus gives is the time of day. He says that it occurred at “the beginning of the day” (ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας). Dressed in a garment made “wholly of silver,” Agrippa dazzled the crowd when his robes were “illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it.” The theater, however, faces west. If the king was positioned on the stage, the sun would not have reached over the multi-storied seating area before mid-morning. And if he was speaking from the seating area, the sun would not have reflected off his clothes until even later. The amphitheater, by contrast, is wide, and the twelve rows of seating would not have blocked the sun. Agrippa could have been addressing the crowd from the western side of the amphitheater where the sun would be able to reflect off his clothes early in the morning. The second indication that Agrippa was struck down in the amphitheater is the occasion of his death. Acts says only that it occurred “on the appointed day” (τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ), but Josephus describes the event occurring on the second day of a festival in honor of Caesar in which a great multitude was assembled. …. These games included combats and horse races (Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 §§136-141), and were conducted in the amphitheater, not in the theater which was designed for dramatic performances. The emperor’s birthday was also celebrated with sports, and thus a setting in the amphitheater is most likely for this event as well.’ A third piece of supporting evidence can be adduced from Josephus’s report of an encounter between Pilate and a large crowd about a decade earlier (War 2.9.3 §§172). When the Roman governor sent standards with Caesar’s image into Jerusalem, a large delegation traveled to Caesarea to entreat Pilate to remove these offensive placards. Josephus writes that “on the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal [βήμα] in the great stadium [μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ].” …. The word for stadium more naturally refers to the amphitheater, particularly with the modifier “great.” …. It is reasonable that the bema was located in the same place in Agrippa’s day, and that he addressed the crowd from the customary place. Finally, it should be noted that Josephus’s use of terms designating buildings of entertainment is known to be imprecise. In Jerusalem he states at one point that Herod built a theater and an amphitheater (Ant. 15.8.1 §268), and elsewhere he mentions a hippodrome (War 2.3.1 §44; Ant 17.10.2§255). None of these buildings have been located in Jerusalem today, and most scholars conclude that only one, or at most two, existed, and that Josephus referred to a single building by multiple terms. The model at the Israel Museum (formerly located at the Holyland Hotel), for instance, reconstructs only a theater and a hippodrome in the city. …. In other words, if Josephus could refer to an amphitheater as a hippodrome in Jerusalem, he certainly could have identified an amphitheater as a theater in Caesarea. He appears to have made precisely this mistake in describing sporting events and horse races as occurring in the theater of Jerusalem (Ant. 15.8.1-4 §§269-85). …. The lines of evidence thus converge to locate the amphitheater of Caesarea as the place where Agrippa addressed the people and contracted his fatal illness. It was here that the Roman governor’s bema was located, and it was here where the crowds gathered to hear Agrippa’s address in advance of the day’s games. Unlike the theater, the design of the amphitheater best suits illumination of Agrippa’s garments by the rays of the early morning sun. One other aspect is elucidated by an understanding of the event’s location. Immediately adjacent to the northern end of the amphitheater was the imperial temple, the center of worship of the emperor and the goddess Roma. …. The crowds that hailed Agrippa that day were very familiar with the practice of honoring the emperor as a god. Only a few years earlier, Agrippa’s close friend, Emperor Caligula, demanded that he be revered as a god. One way that Caligula signaled his desire for worship was by the clothing he wore, oftentimes dressing himself in the attire of one of the deities. …. Unfortunately for Agrippa, the God of Israel was less willing to overlook such blasphemy in a king with Jewish heritage ruling in the Promised Land. The king who called himself “the great” recognized that his punishment was just—the intense pain apparently brought moral clarity—for he declared with irony that “I, who was called immortal by you, am now under sentence of death” (Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 §347). …. [End of quotes] ‘The Lord Almighty … will send fire and worms into their flesh …’. [Judith 16:17]

Emperor Hadrian considered Tyre to be a Mother City

by Damien F. Mackey “The emperor Hadrian also awarded Tyre the title of metropolis, "mother city". The gesture is significant, because it meant that by now, Tyre's official independence had become a dead letter”. Livius.org Taken from (202o): https://www.livius.org/articles/place/tyre/tyre-3/ Tyre (Phoenician צר, ṣūr, "rock"; Greek Τύρος; Latin Tyrus): port in Phoenicia and one of the main cities in the eastern Mediterranean. …. The Hellenistic Age Alexander died in 323, and civil war broke out between his successors, the "Diadochi". During a conference in Babylon, Phoenicia was first awarded to one Laomedon. The first round of civil wars was between Perdiccas, the champion of the unity of Alexander's empire, and Ptolemy, who aimed at independence, ruling from Alexandria in Egypt. In the spring of 320, it became clear that Perdiccas' ambitions were unrealistic, and after he had been killed, his admiral Attalus seized Tyre. …. In the late summer, during the Triparadisus Conference (perhaps at Baalbek), it became inevitable that the Empire would be divided. Immediately, Ptolemy seized the Phoenician towns. Together with Cyprus and the Cyrenaica, they were a protective belt around his main possession, Egypt. This was, however, a violation of the Triparadisus agreement, and it was obvious that another general, Antigonus the One-Eyed, would one day try to seize the important port for himself. In the Second Diadoch War (318-316) he got rid of some of his main opponents, and in 315, he attacked Ptolemy's possessions in Asia. In the early summer of 315, the siege of Tyre started; it fell after a long siege …. Still, Ptolemy continued to claim the city. In 301, Antigonus lost his life during the battle of Ipsus. The victors awarded Phoenicia to Seleucus I Nicator, but Antigonus' son Demetrius managed to keep Sidon and Tyre. …. In the end, it was Ptolemy who recaptured the city in 290. Tyre was still an important town, but it had, in the meantime, lost territory. More importantly, it was now a Greek city, with magistrates, a council, and a people's assembly. Similar institutions must have existed in the Phoenician period, but we no longer hear about the city's king. The city was also redesigned as a Greek city, with a colonnaded street and the "square building" (which may or may not have been used as assembly hall for the magistrates or council). The descendants of Ptolemy and the descendants of Seleucus, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, continued to quarrel about the Ptolemaic possessions in Asia ("Coele Syria"). At first, the Ptolemies were most successful, and the Zeno Papyri prove that Tyre was part of the Ptolemaic economic system, but in the Fifth Syrian War (202-195), the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great expelled the Ptolemies and converted Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine into Seleucid provinces. One remarkable result was that Hannibal, when he was forced to leave Carthage and decided to go to Carthage's mother-city Tyre, arrived in the Seleucid Empire. …. During his last years, he would use the Tyrian fleet to fight for Antiochus III. …. Tyre was now one of the main Seleucid centers, with a large trade network, which included Greek towns like Delphi, Delos, and Teos. This was the city of the poets Antipater and Meleager and the Stoic philosophers Antipater and Apollonius. Every five years, there was an official festival, coins were minted in Tyre, and when king Antiochus IV Epiphanes decreed the persecution of the Jews, the Tyrians were enthusiastic. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: We need to stop right here. According to my radically revised history, this Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the same person as the Grecophile emperor Hadrian. See e.g. my series: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image” (3) Hadrian's Reflection on Antiochus IV Hadrian, I believe, was a Seleucid Greek, not a Roman, emperor. We follow Livius.org now to Hadrian …. From a casual remark in the Acts of the Apostles … we learn that Tyre depended on Galilee for its food supply, and that in 44 CE, Tyre, still an independent city, was almost at war with the Jewish king Herod Agrippa. The connections between the Phoenician city and the Jews were close: Herod … built several monuments in Tyre. It comes as no surprise that there were Jews living in Tyre, and that Jesus visited the place … and it may have been the place where he cured a woman. …. Later, Paul visited the Christian community of Tyre. …. On the other hand, we learn about pogroms at the beginning of the Jewish War of 66, which prove that the relations between Jews and Tyrians could take a turn for the worse. Tyre was a center of Greek learning. Among its sons were the stoic philosopher Euphrates, the geographer Marinus, the orator Paul, and bishop Cassius, who played a role in the debate about the Easter date. …. Tyre was also the home town of the most famous sophists of Antiquity, Hadrian. He was called to occupy the imperial chair of oratory in Athens, where he started his inaugural address with the modest remark that once again, letters had come from Phoenicia. …. Marcus Aurelius promoted him to the chair of Greek oratory in Rome, where even people who did not understand Greek, visited the odeon to visit Hadrian's speeches. …. This was also the age of the great building projects. The Hippodrome, the City Baths, the Palaestra, an honorific arch dedicated to the emperor Hadrian, the pavement of the Mosaic Road, all these monuments can be dated to the second century. The emperor Hadrian also awarded Tyre the title of metropolis, "mother city". …. [End of quote] From Maccabees we learn that Antiochus Epiphanes (Hadrian) was indeed in Tyre: 2 Maccabees 4:18 “When the quadrennial games were being held at Tyre and the king was present …”. 2 Maccabees 4:44 “When the king came to Tyre, three men sent by the senate presented the case before him”. What is the point in all of this? Could emperor Antiochus-Hadrian (Epiphanes: ‘God Manifest’) have anything to do with Ezekiel 28’s ‘divine’, but ill-fated, King of Tyre?

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)”. Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB) Except that Esarhaddon’s attack on Tyre was Nebuchednezzar’s attack on Tyre, because of the fact that this was one and the same potent king: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon and Nebuchednezzar's Parallels For more alter egos for the mighty Esarhaddon, see e.g. my article: Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (5) Esarhaddon and Ashur-Etil-Ilani Confusion 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 article is correct, according to which King 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 Levantine 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): https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/E/esarhaddon.html 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. http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790 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. Ashurbanipal Previously, I have also included the mighty Ashurbanipal amongst my alter egos for Esarhaddon/Nebuchednezzar (so-called I): “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 and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king” See e.g. my article: Nebuchednezzar – mad, bad, then great https://www.academia.edu/39013559/Nebuchednezzar_-_mad_bad_then_great The 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 so-called 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”. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashurbanipal#Nineveh.2C_Babylon_and_Ela [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 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: For Ashurbanipal was Esarhaddon – was Nebuchednezzar! https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/295-assurbanipal-cylinder-c/ 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). And the same goes for another major alter ego for Esarhaddon/Nebuchednezar: Ashurnasirpal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurnasirpal_II “Ashurnasirpal II did not destroy the Phoenician/Canaanite cities he conquered. He was unsuccessful in his siege of Tyre, which under Ittobaal settled Kition in Cyprus and opened up trade routes throughout the Aegean, at Rhodes and Miletus. Through tribute they became sources for the raw materials of his armies and his building programs. Iron was needed for weapons, Lebanese cedar for construction and gold and silver for the payment of troops”.

Deuteronomy 28 influenced Esarhaddon’s Vassal Treaty

by Damien F. Mackey “… the Assyrian text inverts the common sequence of heaven and earth to ground and sky. The Hebrew scribe changed the sequence to heaven and earth, but kept the comparison of sky with bronze and ground with iron”. H. U. Steymans Introduction The following comparisons between the Hebrew texts and the Assyrian ones are taken from Hans U. Steymans “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat” (Verbum et Ecclesia 34(2), Art. #870, 13 pages): https://verbumetecclesia.org.za/index.php/ve/article/view/870/1867 Regarding the conventional BC dates that Steymans employs, these would now be greatly affected by my radical revision of late neo-Assyrian history, as outlined in e.g.: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel (6) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel Moreover, by no means can I accept Steymans’ suggestion of very late authorship of the Deuteronomic texts, “… these Hebrew verses came to existence between 672 BC and 622 BC, the year in which a Torah scroll was found in the temple of Jerusalem, causing Josiah to swear a loyalty oath in the presence of Yhwh”. On this, see e.g. my series: Toledôt of Genesis beginning with: https://www.academia.edu/28730863/Toled%C3%B4t_of_Genesis_Introductory My own suggestion would be that the laws of the ancient Book of Deuteronomy became accessible to king Esarhaddon through the influence of his skilled ummanu, or Vizier, the biblical Ahikar (or Achior). On this, see e.g. my article: Correcting the common perception of “Achior” (6) Achior as Judith's Alter Ego Steymans writes: …. The discovery of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST) at Tell Tayinat confirms the Assyrian application of this text on western vassals and suggests that the oath tablet was given to Manasseh of Judah in 672 BC, the year in which the king of Assyria had all his empire and vassals swear an oath or treaty promising to adhere to the regulations set for his succession, and that this cuneiform tablet was set up for formal display somewhere inside the temple of Jerusalem. The finding of the Tell Tayinat tablet and its elaborate curses of §§ 53–55 that invoke deities from Palestine, back up the claim of the 1995 doctoral thesis of the author of this article that the impressive similarities between Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and curses from § 56 of the EST are due to direct borrowing from the EST. This implies that these Hebrew verses came to existence between 672 BC and 622 BC, the year in which a Torah scroll was found in the temple of Jerusalem, causing Josiah to swear a loyalty oath in the presence of Yhwh. This article aimed to highlight the similarities between EST § 56 and Deuteronomy 28 as regards syntax and vocabulary, interpret the previously unknown curses that astoundingly invoke deities from Palestine, and conclude with a hypothesis of the composition of the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaties § 56 This section highlights the parallels between Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, the curse of the great gods. Although lists comparing curse motifs in extra biblical texts with Deuteronomy 28 present a lot of motif parallels, a careful look at such lists shows that the paralleling of motifs destroys the sequence of elements in one text in order to fit it to the sequence of the other (eds. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012:244, Dt 1–32 being number 83 in their counting of ANE treaties). In Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, however, the sequence of motifs is identical. In only two cases does a topic appear at a slightly different position, and in both these cases one can explain the difference as a deliberate scribal arrangement. Apart from the identical sequence of topics in both curses, there is an astounding parallel regarding the syntax. Curses invoking Yhwh or the gods as subjects causing calamity, alternate with curses in which natural forces are the subjects, or sentences that just describe the result of the preceding curse. In Deuteronomy 28:20–44 and EST § 56, these alternations occur at parallel positions. There is still another syntactical parallel between the Assyrian and the Hebrew text. The curses invoking the divinity are optative sentences. In Assyrian, precative verbal forms mark the optative. In Hebrew, yiqtol-x formations mark the optative. Although most English translations render Deuteronomy 28:20–44 as indicative, the Hebrew text alternates between invocations of Yhwh that concede to him the option of punishing in optative yiqtol-x, and sections in the indicative dealing with the consequences of Yhwh’s punishments or the harmful effect of natural forces. The following translation will indicate an optative sentence by using ‘may’. A similar comparison has previously been published (Steymans 1995). The comparison presented here has been amended to highlight vocabulary and syntactical features common to both texts. There is not much need for the diachronic separation in Deuteronomy 28:20–44. Three verses show elements of later elaboration. Deuteronomy 28:20c Deuteronomy 28: 20c: ‘[because of your evildoing] in forsaking Me’. This ending of the first curse reads in Hebrew: mippenê rōac macalelê-kā ’ašer cazabtā-nî. The three words at the beginning do not appear elsewhere in Deuteronomy, however, they appear in Jeremiah three times (Jr 4:4; 21:12; 44:22). Since the curse section following in Deuteronomy 28:45–62 has a lot of links to Jeremiah, it is safe to suggest that the scribe who added the curses after verse 45 also added mippenê rōac macalelê-kā in order to point to the prophetic language (cf. Is 1:16; Hs 9:15) right at the beginning and prepare for the following links with Jeremiah. Nowhere else does the relative clause ’ašer cazabtā-nî follow rōac macalelê-kā in the Hebrew Bible. There is ’ašer cazābû-nî in Jeremiah 1:16 and ka’ašer cazabtem ’ôtî in Jeremiah 5:19. The relative clause in Jeremiah expressing that the people leave (forsake) Yhwh differs from the one in Deuteronomy 28:20. In addition, it does not occur in context with mippenê rōac macalelê-kā in Jeremiah. In Deuteronomy, the verb c.z.b is linked to the Levites in Deuteronomy 12:19 and 14:27. Deuteronomy 29:25 quotes the statements of people passing by giving the reason for the disaster that befell Israel: ‘Because they forsook the covenant of Yhwh, the God of their fathers’ (cal ’ašer cāzebû ’et berît Yhwh ’ælōhê ’abōtām). Deuteronomy 31 quotes the words of God, predicting that his people: … will begin to prostitute themselves to the foreign gods in their midst, the gods of the land into which they are going; they will forsake me [wa-cazāba-nî], and break my covenant, which I have made with them. (Dt 31:16) It is important to notice that Deuteronomy 28:20 is the first occurrence in Deuteronomy where the verb c.z.b means ‘leaving or forsaking Yhwh’, and that this meaning is taken up in Deuteronomy 29 and 31. Further use of the verb c.z.b speaks about Yhwh leaving or abandoning his people (Dt 31:6, 8, 16, 17; 32:26). Hence, c.z.b only means leaving Yhwh as a form of disobedience in Deuteronomy 28:20, the first verse of the curse section, and then in two quotations, namely in the words of other people (Dt 29:25) and of Yhwh (Dt 31:16). Prophetic language uses the verb in a similar sense, however, never in the context of rōac macalelê-kā. The verb ezābu, the Assyrian equivalent of Hebrew c.z.b, occurs in line 479 of § 56 with food and water as subjects. The only other occurrence of the verb in the EST is in line 172 of § 14, a stipulation closely linked to the whole treaty’s ‘first commandment’ in § 4 through the word repetition of a.šà ‘field’ (l. 49, l. 165), naṣāru ‘protect’ (l. 50, l. 168), uru ‘city’ (l. 49, l. 166), gammurtu ‘totality’ (l. 53, l. 169), libbu ‘heart’ (l. 51, 53, l. 169). The treaty’s addressees must protect Assurbanipal in country (field) and town (city), and advise him in total truth of their heart according to § 4. Then § 14, demanding them to protect Assurbanibal, repeats this order in case of a rebellion. The stipulation ends: ‘You shall Assurbanibal […] let escape [leave]’ [the dangerous situation tušezabā-ni-ni, ezābu-causative Š-stem]. Without claiming to be able to prove it, the verb c.z.b in verse 20c may have been inspired by the EST. The verb is rare in Deuteronomy and the EST, but it is existent in § 56 and the important stipulation of § 14 – and in Deuteronomy 28, it may be the relict of the conditional clause that opened the curse section in the Judean loyalty oath. The Judean scribe reversed the main offence against the overlord, using the same verb. As regards Assurbanibal, the main offence is not to let him leave (= rescue him from) any dangerous situation. As regards Yhwh, the main offence is to leave (= forsake) him in disobedience. Thus, the curse section of the Judean loyalty oath might have begun with something like: ‘If you leave [forsake] him [kî tacazbennû; cf. Dt 14:27], Yhwh may send on you curse’, picking up the conjunction kî of most conditional laws in Deuteronomy. When DtrL, a pre-exilic scribe (Braulik 2011; Lohfink 1997, 2000), added the blessing of Deuteronomy 28 to his account of a covenant in Moab and the conquest of the land – starting with the bārûk-formulas (Dt 28:3–5) together with the corresponding ’ārûr-formulas (Dt 28:16–19) and the alternative introductions of blessing and curse in Deuteronomy 28:1f. and 15 – the conditional clause kî tacazbennû was transferred to the end of verse 20 and the verb changed into perfect kî cazabtô (cf. Dt 13:11; 22:2, i.e. the taw moved from the front of the verbal form to its end and the nun energicum was deleted). A later scribe inserted the allusion to Jeremiah mippenê rōac macalelê-kā and replaced kî by ’ašer. The first person pronoun present in the Masoretic text today may be a technical mistake made by one scribe during the transmission process confusing waw with nun, letters that look similar in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet as they do in the Hebrew ‘square script’, because he knew Deuteronomy by heart and was influenced by the first person pronouns in Deuteronomy 29:15 and 31:16. One Septuagint manuscript has the third person pronoun, and Old Latin has ‘because you have forsaken the Lord’. Deuteronomy 28:21a Deuteronomy 28:21aI: ‘until he has put an end to you [on the soil, 21aR you are entering to possess]’. The phrase mēcal hā-’adāmâ ’ašer ’attâ bā’ šāmmâ le-rišt-āh appears similarly in Deuteronomy 12:1, 21:1, 30:18, 31:13 and 32:47. However, it appears absolutely identically in Deuteronomy 28:63. Verse 63 starts with a small poem later inserted in the curse section (Steymans 1995). The scribe who added the poem also added the phrase in verse 21 in order to bracket his addition in Deuteronomy 28:63–65 with the section Deuteronomy 28:20–44. Since a previous scribe already added to verse 20, the first verse of the oldest part of the curse section, this later scribe added to the second verse of this section, namely verse 21. Deuteronomy 28:36b Deuteronomy 28:36b: ‘There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. [37a] You will become a horror, a proverb and a byword among all the peoples, [aR] where the Lord will drive you’. Verses 36b and 37 assess worshipping of other gods as punishment, and not as sin. The same idea is present in Deuteronomy 4:28, 28:64 and 29:17. Thus, this passage may be an addition by the same scribe who added his poem in Deuteronomy 28:63–65. Italics mark the common vocabulary and syntactical parallels in Deuteronomy 28 and the EST. The Assyrian and Hebrew language only sometimes use common Semitic roots in exactly the same meaning. Identical or semantically corresponding Semitic roots are put in parentheses. Every sentence starts a new line. The Bible text indicates main and subordinate clauses according to Richter (1991): ‘I’ meaning infinitive and ‘R’ meaning relative clause. The Assyrian text follows Parpola and Watanabe (1988). Since both texts are rather long, they are divided into sections for convenience. The texts are arranged in tables (Tables 2–9) with three columns. Two columns parallel Deuteronomy 28: 20–44 with EST § 56, model for the sequential arrangement of topics. The third column gives the text of other inserted curse paragraphs, because the scribe composing Deuteronomy 28:20–44 considered their topic fitting to the topic indicated by § 56. Both curse sequences begin with the divinity as subject of the clause and the keyword curse taken from the Semitic root ’.r.r. (Table 2). The predicate of line 474 maḫāṣu [to strike] may have been the inspiration for the series of curses using the predicate n.k.h-Hiphil [to strike] in Deuteronomy 28:22, 27, 28 and 35 (Table 4, 7f.). TABLE 2: Divine curse using the semitic root ’.r.r. The divinities are the subject of the syntax of the curse. The ending of life is the common topic, in Hebrew it is expressed with an infinitive of k.l.h, and in Akkadian with the Mesopotamian vegetable metaphor of ‘rooting out’ (Table 3). TABLE 3: The deity brings existance to a termination. TABLE 4: Natural forces chase the cursed humans. Pestilence is the concluding illness in EST, line 480 of the following section of § 56 (Table 5). This section is marked in line 479 by a shift of the subject from divinity to natural entities. The Hebrew scribe transferred the topic of pestilence to verse 21, as the beginning of a series of illnesses unfolded in verse 22 (Table 4). Thus, he makes pestilence a heading, whereas it was a conclusion in the Assyrian text. The Hebrew scribe did not adopt the Mesopotamian concern for the ghost of the dead in accordance to the general reluctance of the Hebrew Bible in dealing with the afterlife. TABLE 5: Lack of food due to the impossibility of agriculture. The Judean scribe took up the verb ‘to strike’ from the first curse of § 56 together with the divine subject. Then he followed the shift from divine subject to natural entity by making the diseases the actors of the chasing, as are shade and daylight in § 56 (Table 4). The headwords ‘food’ and ‘water’, as well as ‘want’, ‘famine’ and ‘hunger’ in § 56 provide the topic for this section. The Assyrian curse of § 56 starts with entities (food and water) as subject of the sentence. The Judean scribe follows this by making sky and ground the subjects of the Hebrew sentences. He elaborates on the topic by inserting a curse from § 63. His attention was called to this curse whilst reading the EST through the co-occurrence of ‘ground’ and ‘sky’ together with ‘the great gods […] who are mentioned by name in this tablet’, which is similar to the beginning of § 56. The word kaqquru [ground, earth] is written in syllables in § 63, indicating the Assyrian pronunciation of the logogram ki.tim in § 56 (Parpola and Watanabe 1988:92, sub kaqquru). Hence, when read aloud there is a link (Table 5). Only one exemplar from Calhu has a dividing line between lines 529 and 530, thus counting a § 63 and a § 64, as do the modern editions. All other manuscripts from Calhu, as well as the tablet from Tell Tayinat, present lines 526–533 (= § 63 + 64) as one single paragraph (Lauinger 2012:120). It is one single curse and the Judean scribe was right in taking it up completely. However, he changed the sequence of the similes. The EST lists the metals in a sequence of decreasing hardness – from iron to lead – in the following § 65. By doing so, the Assyrian text inverts the common sequence of heaven and earth to ground and sky. The Hebrew scribe changed the sequence to heaven and earth, but kept the comparison of sky with bronze and ground with iron. Both curses change their subjects. EST § 63 starts with the gods who turn the ground into iron. The subjects of the next sentence are natural entities, namely rain, dew and burning coals. Mixing both Assyrian syntactical structures, the one with divine subject in lines 526–529 and those with natural elements as subject in line 530 (§ 63) and lines 479 and 480 (§ 56), the Hebrew text starts with sky and ground as subjects, following the vocabulary of lines 526–529 and the syntax of lines 479 and 480. Then Yhwh is the subject causing harmful rain, following the syntax of lines 526–529, where the gods are the subject. Military defeat is the topic of § 65, a curse using the simile of lead in order to denote military weakness. The sons and daughters taken by the hand by their fleeing parents link this paragraph to the young women and young men of § 56, whose bodies are mutilated in the squares of Assur before the eyes of their parents, relatives and neighbours. EST § 56 does not describe military defeat, however, the scene of line 481f. presupposes deportation because the mutilation of bodies takes place in the city of Assur. This might be the finale of a triumphal procession in which captives of rebellious countries were carried through the streets of Assur. Thus, the topic of military defeat only alluded to in § 56 and the topic of corpses being food for animals then expressed in § 56, probably has lead the eye of the Judean scribe to § 41: the curse invoking Ninurta, which clearly speaks of defeat. He conflated § 41 and § 56 in order to create verse 25f. He began his curse by invoking Yhwh instead of Ninurta and expressing defeat. He kept the Semitic root ’.k.l present as verbal form in the Š-stem in § 41 (feed) in form of the noun expressing the effect of the curse in verse 26a (food). In addition, he changed the subject. The addressees of the curse are the subject of verse 26, as are the addressees’ young women and men in § 56. The Hebrew curse continues to have the corpses being the subject of verse 26, whereas the Assyrian one of § 56 has the earth as subject. Both curses share the topic of refused burial. Both curses have an international flavour by becoming a horror to foreign kingdoms, as well as a spectacle in the capital of the multi-ethnic Assyrian empire. The combination of birds and beasts in verse 26 conflates the birds (eagle and vulture) of § 41 and the beasts (dog and pig) of § 56 (Table 6). TABLE 6: The results of military defeat using the semitic root ’.k.l. It has long been noticed that Deuteronomy 28:27–29 parallel the Sin and Shamash curses of Assyrian treaties. However, being aware of the topic indicated by § 56 line 485, one realises that the Judean scribe rearranged the complete sequence of Anu-Venus curses, that is §§ 38A–42, in order to elaborate on the topics he found in § 56. The headwords ‘sighing’ and ‘sleeplessness’ link § 56 with the Anu-curse in § 38A, and the skin disease rendered ‘leprosy’ links the Sin-curse § 39 with the skin disease translated ‘scurvy’ in Deuteronomy 28:27. Loss of eyesight (blindness), as well as darkness, link Deuteronomy 28:29 with § 56 and the Shamash-curse in § 40 (Table 7). TABLE 7: The curse motifs of Anu, Sin, and Šamaš. The subjects change. Verse 27 starts with the divinity as subject, as do §§ 38A–40. Verse 29 shifts to the addressees as subject, as do the Sin-curse (roam in the desert) and the Shamash-curse (walk about). Both the biblical and the Assyrian curses focus on the desperate way the people move (grope about). Having elaborated on the topic of military defeat by using imagery of § 41 to create Deuteronomy 28:25, the Judean scribe now elaborates on § 42. This curse invokes Venus, a manifestation of Ishtar, and offers the headwords ‘eyes’ taken up in verses 32 and 34, ‘lying’ as a metaphor for sexual intercourse and rape taken up in verse 30, ‘sons’ taken up in verse 32, and ‘enemy’ taken up in verse 31. The loss of possession to spoiling soldiers is the common topic. The metaphor of an irresistible flood in § 56 also denotes military defeat. The Biblical text is enriched by futility curses that add the topics house and vineyard, as well as curses that focus on cattle. It is not before Deuteronomy 28:31e and 32a that the Assyrian headwords are taken up again. The Venus curse focuses on the impossibility of transferring property as a heritage to the next generation. There is no deportation from the land. However, the enemy is in the land and takes all goods. The biblical curse goes one step further in making the sons themselves a chattel to be taken by the spoiling army. Their parents remain in their land, consumed by the yearning for their children (Table 8). TABLE 8: The motif of plundering enemies followed by baleful wishes. The return to illness in Deuteronomy 28:34 and 35 is inspired by the term ‘ill’ in § 56. The Tell Fekhariye inscription reveals that the rendering of curses that are mere invocations in Assyrian as futility curses in a West-Semitic text is not uncommon (Steymans 1995:156–161, 181–185). There is no curse in EST that deals with deportation. Deportation, however, is the topic of § 25, an admonition that the oath-takers must enounce. Thus, Judeans who were bound by the EST had to say this to their children. Any Judean scribe must have been aware of this admonition. The headword ‘son’ links it to the topic of several curses of the EST. The most striking correspondence between Deuteronomy 28:36 and EST § 25 is the combination of setting a king over oneself and deportation (Table 9). TABLE 9: Deportation and appointment of a king. After the topic ‘lack of food’ in verse 26 in correspondence to line 479, the fact that the topic reappears with the root ’.k.l ‘to eat’ in verse 39 and line 490 is a further indication of the common structure of both curse sections. Another identical root connects both texts, namely c.l.h [to come up, rise]. In § 56, the root occurs in line 489 with the metaphor of a flood that symbolises enemies. In Deuteronomy 28, the root occurs three times in verse 43, turning the stranger (a person to be cared for according to the biblical law) into an enemy. The Judean scribe elaborated on the topics given in § 56 by creating futility curses. He kept the sequence of food, drink, and then ointment. However, he discarded clothing and repeated deportation of sons and daughters instead. The last line of § 56 lists three types of spirits that haunt the dwelling places. The Assyrian verb ḫīaru means ‘to choose, to select’, and exists also in the noun ḫā’iru/ḫāmiru/ḫāwiru [spouse]. The verb can mean ‘to marry’. The spirits are not evil per se – they may even have protective power (Wiggermann 1992:69, 96, 218f., 221). The point being made in both the Assyrian and the biblical curse is that entities that are not harmful in general and must be protected (as the stranger in the Bible) or may be protecting forces (as the spirits in ANE belief) turn out to be harmful and threaten the intimate space where one dwells (‘in your midst, your houses’) (Table 10). ….

Who Ezekiel’s ill-fated ruler of Tyre was not

by Damien F. Mackey “In these chapters [Ezekiel 27, 28], we have the most vivid picture of an ancient civilization painted by an historian of antiquity”. Arnold J. Tkacik O.S.B. Here Fr. J. Tkacik, writing his commentary on “Ezekiel” for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968, 21:60), is citing A. Parrot, in Babylon and the Old Testament (NY, 1958, p. 129). Before - hopefully in a forthcoming article - proceeding to explain to whom, as I think, the prophet Ezekiel’s “ruler of Tyre”, or “prince of Tyre” (נְגִיד צֹר), might be referring, I want to clear aside three possible candidates who have frequently been proposed for this “ruler of Tyre”, but whom I (as have various others) would reject as not properly matching Ezekiel’s description. These three candidates are the quite mixed bag of: (i) SATAN; (ii) ADAM; and (iii) QUEEN ATHALIAH. (i) Satan (“Lucifer”) An argument for Satan as the ruler of Tyre will go something like this: https://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to refer to a human king. The city of Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1– 28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9, 10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the king of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed. However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable. Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10). Like Satan, the human king of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and … eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17–21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great. [End of quote] Whether or not “the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan”, an argument could be made that the prophet Ezekiel may have had in mind the rise and fall of Satan, when describing an actual ruler of Tyre – but only in an allegorical, not literal sense. Satan, though indeed once “full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty” (Ezekiel 28:12), like the ruler of Tyre, was not, however, like the ruler of Tyre, a “man”. Nor was Satan ever a king or ruler of Tyre. Nor was Satan ever glorified in Eden (vv. 13-15), but had there insinuated his fallen self in the form of a serpent (Genesis 3). Satan had already been “cast down to the ground” (v. 17), but not from “the mountain of God”, in Eden (v. 16), but from ‘heaven” (Luke 10:18): “I [Jesus] saw Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning”. (ii) Adam Adam fits better than Satan insofar as he was indeed great in the Garden of Eden, a true king, but then fell from his position of splendour and was expelled from the Garden. Moreover Adam was, like Ezekiel’s ruler of Tyre, a man - Ezekiel uses the word adam here - and was “full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty”. Ezekiel seems to have had Adam well in mind here – but, once again, only allegorically speaking, not literally. For Adam could by no means be called a King of Tyre, which city was then non-existent. (iii) Queen Athaliah Fr. J. Tkacik, again, has written (op. cit., 21:63), with reference to Ezekiel 28: “The anointed cherub drove you out” refers to the high priest, Jehoiada, who cast out Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel (2 Kgs 11:13-16), from the Temple, which ended the long and friendly association between Judah and Tyre. As interesting as this hopeful identification may seem to be, Queen Athaliah does not fit the narrative on various counts: Firstly, she did not rule over Tyre, but over Jerusalem. Secondly, her background (if) as a daughter of Jezebel, was, not Tyrian, but Sidonian (I Kings 16:31): “… Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians …”. Thirdly, Queen Athaliah was obviously not a “man” (אָדָ֛ם) (Ezekiel 28:9). Fourthly, she lived centuries before Ezekiel was writing. So – if not Satan, Adam or Queen Athaliah - who was Ezekiel’s “ruler of Tyre”? And, was Ezekiel referring in his chapters 27 and 28 to just one prominent Tyrian, or to several?

Many textual likenesses between Ezekiel and Zechariah suggest this to have been the one prophet

by Damien F. Mackey “Interpreter's Bible speaks of Ezekiel's "young admirer, Zechariah". Fairbairn, commenting on Ezek. 21: 26, "Remove the mitre", says that Zechariah in his attitude to the high priest Joshua "took up the matter, as it were, where Ezekiel had left it". …”. Cameron Mackay That Zechariah may have been the same priest-prophet as Ezekiel was what I vaguely hinted at in the very beginning of my article: Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel (4) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel “The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”. In that article I confidently identified Ezekiel “the son of Buzi” (Ezekiel 1:3) with young Elihu “son of Barakel the Buzite”, of the Book of Job (32:2). Then, in my next article: Some rabbinic literature has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah (4) Some rabbinic literature has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah in which I further (but only tentatively) identified Ezekiel/Elihu with the Rechabite, “Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah” (Jeremiah 35:3), I was somewhat more forceful about a possible connection of this holy man (Ezekiel) with Zechariah: In that article I also note that: “The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”. The textual likenesses are so numerous, in fact, that one feels much inclined to factor in the priest-prophet Zechariah as being, too, the priest-prophet Ezekiel. And, if Ezekiel is also Elihu, then we may have a patronymic connection between Elihu’s ancestor, Barachel, and Zechariah’s Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1). and: If Zechariah were also Ezekiel/Elihu (Jaazaniah), as I suspect, then he, as the final martyr in Jerusalem before Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:35), really did fulfil Jeremiah 35:19: ‘… shall never lack a man to stand before me’. What I want to focus on entirely in this present article are the textual similarities between Ezekiel and Zechariah, as many have already noted. The incredible similarities between virtually the entire Book of Nahum with various parts of Isaiah were enough to convince me, in my university thesis (2007), that Nahum (Jonah) was also the great prophet Isaiah. See also my article: Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted (5) Comparing Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah Styles The usual view of things, as evidenced in Cameron Mackay’s quote above, would be to consider Zechariah, a supposed minor prophet, as simply an “admirer” of the prophet Ezekiel from a good half century later. But I have the prophetic life of Ezekiel covering the Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - when Zechariah taught - and potentially beyond that, into the early Maccabean times. Let us read some of Cameron Mackay’s comparisons (1968), taken from: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1968-4_197.pdf ZECHARIAH IN RELATION TO EZEKIEL 40-48 by CAMERON MACKAY MR. MACKAY'S studies in the book of Ezekiel are always fresh and fascinating. Here the earliest "commentary" on the book (especially on chapters 40.-48) is found in the prophecies of Zechariah. EZEKIEL and Zechariah share century, priestly stock, and Babylonian background, but the 50 years which separate their activities make personal contact unlikely. On the orthodox view that the differences between Zech. 1-8 and 9-14 are accounted for by supposing those sections the work respectively of the young and old Zechariah, his birth would have been around 550 B.C.. when Ezekiel had been silent 20 years-a not very probable dormancy if he were still alive. What the circumstances suggest is that the minor prophet grew up in the shadow of the major's repute, and that between the Return of 538 B.C. and his mission in 520 B.C. the repatriated scion of priests studied his fellow-exile's prospectus with built-in interest in the temple, the desire of his eyes (Ezek. 24: 21) in the land of desire (Zech. 7: 14). In fact echoes of Ezekiel found by Zechariah's commentators run into three figures. In the 18 verses from 7: 9 to 8: 12 Driver in Century Bible notes "execute judgment of truth" (Ezek. 18: 8), "hearts as an adamant stone" (3: 9; 11: 19). "they shall cry, and I will not hear" (8: 18), "no man passed through nor returned" (35: 7). "I will dwell in the midst" (43: 9), "they shall be my people,' and I will be their God" (11: 20 al.)’, "the earth shall yield her increase" (34: 27). Study of the mysterious "seven eyes" (Zech. 3: 9; 4: 10) must begin with Ezekiel's eye-spangled Chariot and seven angels (9: 2; cf. Rev. 5: 6), study of the flying roll (5 : 1) with 'Ezekiel's roll of a book (2: 9). Interpreter's Bible speaks of Ezekiel's "young admirer, Zechariah". Fairbairn, commenting on Ezek. 21: 26, "Remove the mitre", says that Zechariah in his attitude to the high priest Joshua "took up the matter, as it were. where Ezekiel had left it". Mitchell in I.C.C. regards Zech. 2: 8, "After glory he sent me", as a condensed claim of mandate corresponding to Ezekiel's, who after his inaugural vision of the Glory received the commission, "I send thee", and adds that in v. 10 "the prophet is looking forward to the fulfilment of . . . 43: 111,", while v. 13 requires that "men should greet with awful attention ... the return of Yahweh to his sanctuary, as Ezekiel describes it". The critical disinclination to allow chaps. 9-14 to the contemporary of Haggai leaves unaffected their Ezekielian background, now indeed even more marked-not surprisingly as the concern shifts from the day of small things (4: 10) to that of the King of all the earth (14: 9). The oracles against Phoenicia (9: 2-4), Egypt (10: 11), goodly cedars (11: If.), shepherds (11: 15-17), and professional prophets (B: 2-4), the symbolism of the two sticks (11: 7-14), the going forth of Jehovah with earthquake to fight against the nations (12: 9; 14: 3ff.) are immediately reminiscent of the earlier seer. The seemingly superfluous note that the Mount of Olives "is before Jerusalem on the east" (14: 4) is a reminder that there the departing Glory lingered (Ezek. 11: 23) and from the east it would return (43: 2). The emphasis on David's house (12: 7-13: 1) recalls the focusing of Ezekiel's hopes on "David", and the associated introduction of Levites their position in the oblation of 40-48. The fountain for sin (13: 1) and the living waters summer and winter (14: 8) are generally regarded as dependent on the "clean water" of 'Ezek. 36: 25 plus the sanctuary river of 47, while 13: 2, according to I.C.C., is, once again, "simply summarising Ezekiel". For chaps. 9-14, on which the New Testament imprimatur is so marked, the date question may here be left aside, particularly in face of a recent finding that no definite dating can be achieved and that it is more useful to concentrate on the contents. …. Our present interest is in the relation of Ezek 40-48 to the book of Zechariah as it stands, wherein the first part encourages the immediately practicable work as prelude to the vista enlarged on in the second part. The repatriates had rebuilt the altar on Moriah without, it is clear from Ezra 3, idea of acting on Ezekiel's directions: they followed the laws of 'Moses, including sons of Ithamar, i.e. non-Zadokites, in the priesthood (8: 2), retaining evening sacrifice (et. 46: 13-15) and all the set feasts. But adversaries. foreigners deported to Samaria, halted the work on the temple. Then Darius in his second year authorized its restart, but the Jews were now murmuring. "The time is not come for the Lord's house to be built" (Hag. 1: 2). Among 'the causes of their discouragement commentators point to the contrast of their plight with the glowing promises of Second Isaiah. But Zechariah's contemporaries would have thought more generally of "the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets" (7: 12). and the evidence detailed above suggests that Ezekiel as much as, or more than, Isaiah provided the disheartening contrast. Zechariah's task was to encourage his community to go ahead as they had 'begun, both with construction plans and sacerdotal …. Right away, connection with the temple-vision is made in the reappearance of a distinctive feature characteristic of Zechariah's visions, the intermediary angel who acts as instructor and guide …. In 1: 16 the angel conveys assurance that God's house shall be built in Jerusalem and a measuring line stretched over that city. Yet when a young man goes out with line to measure Jerusalem he is rebuked for setting his sights too low (2: 1-5). …. The repatriated community may well have been a microcosm of the various views later held about the plan, and the young enthusiast as a supporter of the cubit theory could have been investigating the possibilities of a city 11 miles square with the sanctuary portion transposed so that temple might adjoin city. Reminiscence of the earlier seer is apparent both in the angel's words and in the attached oracle (vv. 6-13) which we have seen interpreted by Mitchell as continuing Ezekiel's mandate and looking to the fulfilment of 43: Iff. Driver here notes as echoes "villages without walls" (38: 11). "I will be the glory in the midst of her" (43: 2-5), "1 have spread you abroad" (17: 21). ''they shall be a spoil to those that served them" (39: 10), and his, "I will dwell in the midst of thee" (43: 9). …. In consonance the final chapter repeats in "Jerusalem shall dwell securely" (v. 11) a favourite Ezekielian phrase used of those dwelling in unwalled villages on the mountains of Israel (3S: S. 11). In reeds Ezekiel's oblation is some 50 miles square-a city, like Greater Nineveh with its much cattle, of three days' journey (Jonah 3: 3; 4: Il) …. Such emulation is indicated in Zech. 12: 6f. and 14: 10, where Jerusalem is to "dwell in her place" or "be inhabited 0n her site", curiously specified in the former passage as "in Jerusalem". The tautology is explicable if the prophet is envisaging an enlarged Jerusalem wherein the historical city is to retain its pre-eminence. …. [End of quotes] And there are many more such comparisons to be read as Cameron Mackay’s article continues. But he is by no means the only one to have observed such likenesses between the text of Ezekiel and that of the Book of Zechariah. See also, for example: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85605 An abundance of living waters: The intertextual relationship between Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 M D Terblanche (UFS) ABSTRACT Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 have more in common than an allusion to a common stock of images. Consequently our understanding of Zechariah 14:8 can be fruitfully informed by the perspectives of the study of intertextuality. This paper considers the question whether the author of Zechariah 14:8 wanted to replace Ezekiel 47:1-12. He seemingly assumes that the reader is acquainted with the latter text. Although one cannot speak of the displacement of Ezekiel 47:1-12, Zechariah 14:1-15 seems to be a commentary on the former text. The author of Zechariah 14:1-15 deems the transformation of the known natural order vital for the fulfilment of the expectations raised by Ezekiel 47:1-12. …. https://www.prophecyproof.org/ezekiel-7-vs-zechariah-122-end-times/ Ezekiel 7 vs Zechariah 12:2: End Times Comparison (5) ZECHARIAH'S SPIES AND EZEKIEL'S CHERUBIM ZECHARIAH'S SPIES AND EZEKIEL'S CHERUBIM By Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer 1. Introduction There are many literary links between Zechariah’s vision report (Zech 1:7–6:8) and the book of Ezekiel. This study focuses on but one of these links, namely the similarity between the various descriptions of the cherubim in the book of Ezekiel and the description of the horses and the riders in Zechariah’s vision report. As this study will show, the overall similarity, both graphic and conceptual, between these descriptions suggests that Ezekiel’s portrayal of the cherubim influenced the literary representations of the horses in Zechariah’s vision report. I shall begin by determining the likelihood that the author of Zechariah’s vision report was familiar with the book of Ezekiel. Thereafter, I shall address two general parallels between Ezekiel’s cherubim and Zechariah’s horses and riders: (1) the shared setting of both groups, that is, the heavenly court and the divine council, and (2) the shared task of both groups, namely, to function as God’s military servants who execute his commands. Turning then to the more specific aspects of comparison, I shall first discuss three visual and conceptual points of contact between the description of Ezekiel’s cherubim and that of Zechariah’s patrols: The concept of God’s spirit/wind, The concept of chariots, The word “eyes.” Secondly, using the book of Job as a third element of comparison, we shall look at the shared theme of God’s rebelling scout: The satan of Job, the patrols of Zechariah, and the cherubim of Ezekiel are all patrolling forces who report their findings to the heavenly council. All three texts contain either the outright idea of a “fallen” member of the heavenly council (the cherub in Ezek 28:14) or the seed to such a thought (the satan in Job 1–2 and Zech 3:1–2). Lastly, we shall compare the attitude towards the high priest found in Ezek 28:11–19 and Zech 3.

House of Solomon

by Damien F. Mackey “‘House of Solomon’ meant not merely the capital [i.e., Jerusalem], but the whole kingdom of Judah, approaching even more closely the use of ‘House of Omri’ for the kingdom of Israel”. P. Friedman A broad range of surprising characters was presented for the historical King Solomon in my recent article: King Solomon looming large in a reconstructed ancient history (4) Reconstructing King Solomon's Ancient History These proposed alter egos for King Solomon were: (i) Gudea of Lagash (Lakish), or Lachish; (ii) Ibal-piel of Eshnunna (Ashnunna), or Ashduddu/Ashdod, again, Lachish; (iii) Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, Mari letters era; (iv) Senenmut, in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt; (v) Qoheleth, Old Testament Book title. Of these five, (iii) Jabin is only a tentative suggestion. Now, I would like to add here the striking archaeological evidence for King Solomon that the intuitive Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was able to uncover within the context of his revision, according to which Abdi-hiba (-heba), King of Urusalim (Jerusalem) in the El Amarna (EA) letters, belonged to the mid C9th BC. This was already a huge step (half a millennium, in fact) away from conventional ancient history which dates EA to the c. 14th BC. What we find is on a par with the famous Tel Dan evidence, telling of the House of David, the father of King Solomon. Reference is made in EA letters 74 and 290 to a place that professor Julius Lewy read as Bet Shulmanu - House (or Sanctuary) of Shulman (“The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem”, Journal of Biblical Literature LIX (1940), pp. 519 ff.). EA 290 was written by the King of Urusalim, Abdi-Hiba, who had to be, according to the conventional chronology, a C14th BC pagan ruler of what we know as Jerusalem. This standard view of Abdi-Hiba is summed up by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba: Abdi-Heba (Abdi-Kheba, Abdi-Hepat, or Abdi-Hebat) was a local chieftain of Jerusalem during the Amarna period (mid-1330s BC). Abdi-Heba's name can be translated as "servant of Hebat", a Hurrian goddess. Whether Abdi-Heba was himself of Hurrian descent is unknown, as is the relationship between the general populace of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (called, several centuries later, Jebusites in the Bible) and the Hurrians. Egyptian documents have him deny he was a ḫazānu and assert he is a soldier (we'w), the implication being he was the son of a local chief sent to Egypt to receive military training there. …. Also unknown is whether he was part of a dynasty that governed Jerusalem or whether he was put on the throne by the Egyptians. Abdi-Heba himself notes that he holds his position not through his parental lineage but by the grace of Pharaoh, but this might be flattery rather than an accurate representation of the situation. …. [End of quote] From a revisionist point of view, this is all quite incorrect. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was able to show in his Ages in Chaos, I (1952), that the EA era actually belonged to, not to the C14th BC, but the C9th BC era of Israel’s Divided Kingdom. And it is from such a revised perspective that Dr. Velikovsky was able to make this epochal comment about professor Lewy’s reading: [http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm] The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem …. From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him. …. After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”…. Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu. The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.”…. [End of quote] Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of the idolatrous Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim with the extremely pious King Jehoshaphat of Judah needed the slight modification, as provided by P. James, that Abdi-Hiba was actually King Jehoshaphat’s evil son, Jehoram - a modification that I fully supported in my article: King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History (1) King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History Apart from that, though, the EA evidence completely favoured Dr. Velikovsky’s revision, as he himself hastened to point out (op. cit., ibid.): It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem…. Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord” … this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of. Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.” [End of quote] The conventional system has the habit of throwing up such “surprising” historical anomalies! On this, see my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (4) Solomon and Middle Bronze in Archaeology Dr. Velikovsky continues here: The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded. Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. [End of quote] P. Friedman, however, writing for a British revisionist journal, soon insisted upon another necessary modification of the Velikovskian thesis. The description, “Temple of Solomon”, he explained (in “The Temple in Jerusalem?” SIS Review III:1 (Summer 1978), pp.7-8), is in fact a modern English rendition which is never actually found in the Hebrew as used in the Old Testament. There, King Solomon’s Temple is constantly referred to as the “House of Yahweh” or, simply, the “House of the Lord”. Friedman also drew attention to the fact that, in Assyrian records, the Kingdom of Israel is called the “House of Omri” in deference to Omri’s dynasty. He therefore suggested that Bet Shulman should, in like manner, be understood to refer to the Kingdom of Judah in deference to King Solomon’s dynasty (p. 8): “‘House of Solomon’ meant not merely the capital [i.e., Jerusalem], but the whole kingdom of Judah, approaching even more closely the use of ‘House of Omri’ for the kingdom of Israel”. Another possible interpretation of the phrase Bet Shulman is, as S. Dyen would later argue, that it should be understood literally as “the House”, that is the Palace, of King Solomon (“The House of Solomon”, KRONOS VIII:2 (Winter 1983), p. 88). This, I think, is a reasonable possibility. The apparent reference back to his great (x 3) grandfather, King Solomon, by Abdi-hiba/ Jehoram of Urusalim/Jerusalem – [e.g., Matthew 1:7-8: Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram …], serves to vindicate the Old Testament against the reckless biblical minimizing of the likes of Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein. (First written) Easter 2015