Friday, July 20, 2018

Did governor Nehemiah die the death of Razis?


Related image


 
by


 Damien F. Mackey


 


 


“Once, or perhaps oftener, during his governorship Nehemiah returned to the king.


Nothing is known as to when or where he died”.


 
ISBE online


 


 


Introduction


 


A few ifs needed here.


 


If Nehemiah were also the scribe Ezra, as I have tentatively proposed in my article:


 


Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor


 




and if Ezra (possibly then, Nehemiah) did, as I have also surmised, die the death of Razis (as Razis) in Maccabean times.


 


Ezra 'Father of the Jews' dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section


 




 


because Razis, given his supreme importance, must surely (despite the affront to the conventional chronology) be Ezra, hence my Part Two:


 


 “Razis” of 2 Maccabees likely to be an aged Ezra


 




 


then it would follow that Nehemiah had, as Razis (= Ezra), died the death of Razis.


 


Biblical Nehemiah thrust into AD time


 


The “historical records … are poor” for the presumed Jewish leader, Nehemiah ben Hushiel, because there never was any historical C7th AD Nehemiah ben Hushiel.


The whole reconstruction is a weird projection into supposed AD time of a real history that had occurred way back in BC time, during the Persian empire.


I have shown this abundantly in my series:


 




 




 


Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Two: The Nahum Factor


 




 


Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time. Part Three (i): A Late, Fake Persian Empire


 




 


and (continued):


 




 


It therefore follows that this fake (supposedly second) “Nehemiah” could not have been the leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius”.


Not only, though, because the AD Nehemiah did not exist, but also because of some very serious historical anachronisms associated with “Heraclius”.


See e.g. my multi-part series, beginning with (Part One):


 


Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh


 




 


See also the related and extensive:


 


Ghosts of Assyria's Past Haunting 'Middle Ages'


 




 


All of this terrible, pseudo-historical mish-mash has resulted in a duplication of:


 


  1. officials Nehemiah; of
  2. Sanballats; possibly of
  3. priests Jaddua; of
  4. Sheshbazzar (the AD version of him being Shahrbarāz); of
  5. Persian-Sassanian Cyrus-Chosroes; of
  6. Persian into Parthian (Sassanian) empires.  


 


 


Mixing Persian and Maccabean eras


 


 


“Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his "council of the righteous" were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea”.


 


https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel


 


 


This episode concerning Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his “council”, albeit un-historical, seems to me to conflate the Persian era - biblically the time of Cyrus and Sheshbazzar (cf. Ezra 1:8), who here becomes (as already noted in (Part One) Shahrbaraz” - with the Maccabean era and the demise of the elder, Razis, who did indeed jump off a wall (2 Maccabees 14:43-46):


 


[Razis] … rushed to the wall and jumped off like a brave hero into the crowd below. The crowd quickly moved back, and he fell in the space they left. Still alive, and burning with courage, he got up, and with blood gushing from his wounds, he ran through the crowd and finally climbed a steep rock. Now completely drained of blood, he tore out his intestines with both hands and threw them at the crowd, and as he did so, he prayed for the Lord of life and breath to give them back to him. That was how he died.


 


Now, what makes the description of Nehemiah’s council of the righteous … [throwing] themselves off the city walls” is the fact that I have identified Razis above, from 2 Maccabees, with Ezra himself:


 


Death of Ezra the Scribe


 




 


whom, in turn, I have identified (albeit tentatively) with Nehemiah:


 


Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor


 




 


Although the Persian empire period would not actually be perfectly contemporaneous with the Maccabean and Hellenistic period, as the above mish-mash might suggest, the two periods are far closer in time (by centuries) than the conventional history would have it.


And the biblical Nehemiah may perhaps be the link:


 


Nehemiah bridges Persia and Greece


 




 


And even more so now would this apply if Nehemiah were also to be identified with the Maccabean Razis, a connection I would not want to force at this early stage.


 


However, if this connection does apply, then the conventional Persian-Greek history will need to be shrunk even more radically still.


 


 


 “No contemporary accounts”


of Nehemiah ben Hushiel


 


 


“… Nehemiah ben Hushiel was appointed governor of Jerusalem. There are reports that he was a strong young man, handsome and adorned in royal robes, but actually we know very little about his reign because no contemporary accounts have survived”.


 


Meir Loewenberg


 


 


 


 


There are “no contemporary accounts” of Nehemiah ben Hushiel because he was not a real AD personage, but was a phantom based upon the biblical Nehemiah of BC time.


 


That is why the character is variously described as “enigmatic”, as ‘poorly attested historically’, or “thought to be a historical figure”.


 


According to what we read of “Nehemiah ben Hushiel” at The Free Social Encyclopedia: https://alchetron.com/Nehemiah-ben-Hushiel


 


Nehemiah ben Hushiel is an enigmatic figure. He is thought to be a historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is best known as a figure who appears in many medieval Jewish apocalyptic writings. In these writings he is cast as the Messiah ben Joseph who is an Ephraimite.


 


Background


 


In 590-591 CE according to Karaite sources the Exilarch Haninai was put to death by Khosrau II for supporting Bahram VI


 


Mackey’s comment: I have already discussed in various articles the historical anomalies associated with Heraclius (e.g. Nineveh).


The name “Haninai” here is suspiciously like the “Hanani” and “Hananiah” connected with the biblical Nehemiah (7:2): “I put in charge of Jerusalem my brother Hanani, along with Hananiah the commander of the citadel, because he was a man of integrity and feared God more than most people do”.


 


The next Exilarch Haninais' son Bostanai would not reign until around 640 CE. Bostanai would be the first Exilarch under Arab rule. This would leave a fifty-year gap where no Exilarch would have reigned.


….


It is thought that after Haninai was put to death, Khosrau II suspended all forms of Jewish self-governance and created many difficulties for rabbinical academies. By 609 CE, both of the major academies Sura and Pumbedita are known to have been holding classes and led by a Geonim.


 


Account


 


The historical records from this period are poor. Nehemiah ben Hushiel is thought to be an historical figure and leader of the Jewish revolt against Heraclius.


Jacob Neusner guesses that Jews of the west supported Khosrau II against the Byzantines either not knowing or not caring about his persecution of the Exilarchs and suppression of Jews in the east. Frank Meir Loewenberg speculates that in order to gain Jewish support Khosrau II appointed an Exilarch of his choosing. Named Hushiel, this Exilarch had a son named Nehemiah - hence Nehemiah ben Hushiel. According to this guess Nehemiah was placed as the symbolic leader of the Jewish forces.


The Persian Sassanians, commanded by Shahrbaraz, were joined by Nehemiah


 


Mackey’s comment: As also previously discussed, this is an appropriation of the era of Ezra-Nehemiah, the ancient Persian era, with “Khosrau” replacing Cyrus; Shahrbaraz replacing Sheshbazzar; and Nehemiah ben Hushiel replacing Nehemiah ben Helcias.


 


… and the wealthy Jewish leader Benjamin of Tiberias, who had mustered a force of Tiberian Jews. The combined force captured Jerusalem in 614 CE without resistance. Nehemiah was then appointed the ruler of Jerusalem. He began the work of making arrangements for the building of the Third [sic] Temple, and sorting out genealogies to establish a new High Priesthood.


 


Mackey’s comment: Is this not basically what the biblical Nehemiah did?


 


After only a few months, a Christian revolt occurred. Nehemiah ben Hushiel and his "council of the righteous" were killed along with many other Jews, some throwing themselves off the city walls. The surviving Jews fled to Shahrbaraz’s encampment at Caesarea. The Christians were able to briefly retake the city for 19 days before the walls were breached by Shahrbaraz’s forces.


In 617 CE, the Persians reversed their policy and sided with the Christians, probably because of pressure from Mesopotamian Christians. It has been suggested that Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed then. However, it does not appear that Jews were violently expelled from Jerusalem as Sebeos thought. Instead, Modestos’ letter seems to imply that further Jewish settlers were banned from settling in or around Jerusalem. A small synagogue on the Temple Mount was also demolished.


 


Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah)


 


Another medieval Hebrew apocalypse the Otot ha-Mašiah also casts Nehemiah ben Hushiel as a Messianic leader. It gives a less detailed account but is also thought to be dated to this period.


The following texts also mention Nehemiah and they are all similar to ’Otot ha-Mašiah (Signs of the Messiah). For example, Nehemiah will confront Armilos with a Torah scroll in all of them and in some cases the text is almost identical. The texts are Tefillat (Prayer of) R. Shimon b. Yohai, ’Otot of R. Shimon b. Yohai and Ten Signs ….


 


Mackey’s comment: “Messianic”?


If I am correct with my radical revision of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, as set out in my article:


 


A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ


 




 


then the life (very long, I believe) of the biblical Nehemiah may just have overlapped with the beginnings of Jesus Christ as a child on earth.


 


Image result for child jesus

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Correcting the common perception of “Achior”

Photo
 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
“Achior is not simply a foil for the other characters in the book,
but acts as a double or alter ego of the character of Judith”.
 
A. Roitman
 
 
 
 
P. M. Venter begins with the understandable – but I think, wrong – presumption that Achior is an Ammonite, titling his article:
 
The function of the Ammonite Achior in the book of Judith
 
Whilst this is quite a reasonable conclusion to make, considering the fact that the text of the Book of Judith, as we currently have it, will refer to him as “Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5) and ‘Achior, you Ammonite mercenary’ (words of Holofernes) (6:5).
Confusingly though, a mere 3 verses before this (6:2), Holofernes will differently describe him as ‘Achior and you mercenaries of Ephraim’.
And that, I believe, is the right designation for Achior, “Ephraim”, given my identification of Achior with Ahikar, the nephew of Tobit, who was indeed a northern Israelite (Tobit 1:22): “Ahikar was my nephew and one of my family”.
Is Ahikar not even called, in the Douay version of Tobit, Achior?
 
P. M. Venter writes:
 
The character of Achior is depicted in several places in the narrative of Judith. We meet him the first time when Holofernes, the ranking commander of Nebucadnezzar [sic], king of the Assyrian, prepares for war against the Israelites of Judah. He is advised by Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, that these people living in the hill country worship the God of Heaven11. Achior suggests to Holofernes to abstain from attacking them (Jud 5:24) because their lord and god will defend them (Jud 5:1–21).
Holofernes interprets this advice as an insult and bans Achior to the Israelite town of Bethulia where he would finally be killed along with the inhabitants when Holofernes’ army ravage the city (Jud 6:1–10).
Achior is next tied up and left at the foot of the hill at Bethulia. Having been untied again and brought into the town, he reports on Holofernes’ offensive against the Israelites and his effort to discourage the Assyrians to fight against God’s people. He is then taken to the house of the magistrate Uzziah where a banquet is held and the inhabitants pray all through the night for God’s help (Jud 6:11–21).
The first time we hear of him again is after Judith decapitates Holofernes and returns to Bethulia with his head in a food sack. Judith summons Achior the Ammonite to see and recognise the one who despised Israel. Either identifying the face of Holofernes12 or witnessing the result of his former warning to the deceased, Achior faints, is picked up and throws himself at Judith’s feet and does obeisance to her. He requests her to report on what she did at [Holofernes’] … camp. He understands these events as God’s beneficial deeds to Israel. It moves him to believe in God completely. He is then circumcised and admitted to the community of Israel (Jud 14:5–10).
The narrator depicts the character of Achior by setting him in relationship to the other characters of the story13. In the conflict with Holofernes he witnesses to the God of heaven and thereby provokes his ordeal to die along with the people whom he defends. The narrator uses his character here to introduce the plot of the story and to indicate his viewpoint that nobody, not even the mighty Assyrians, are able to withstand the God of Israel. In the incident where he informs the inhabitants of Bethulia of Holofernes’ offensive, Achior acts as agent not only to prepare them for the onslaught, but he also directs them to their God for help. Again he functions as an expression of the narrator’s theological viewpoint. He gives a leading role in the events to a former pagan character [sic].
Comparing the role of secondary male characters in the stories of Judith and Jael, White (1992:10) indicates that Achior ‘is loosely modelled on the character of Barak in Judges 4 and 5’. Achior’s function in the story is the same as that of Barak. He acts as a foil for the leading female character, Judith. In both cases the male ‘characters leave the stage, only to return after the heroine has completed her action’ (White 1992:10). This technique focuses on the women as the heroin [sic], confirming ‘Yahweh’s use of a weak, marginalised member of the society in order to save it’ (White 1992:10). Although being a foil Achior plays a similar role as Judith in the narrative, both indicate persona non grata who are the heroes of the story. White (1992:14) indeed remarks that the parallels between the Judith and the Jael stories (Barak and Achior) go beyond correspondence in structure, plot and character.
In his study of the role and significance of Achior in the book of Judith, Roitman (1992:32) indicates ‘an especially intriguing structural relationship and a subtle complementarity between Achior and Judith’14. Achior is not simply a foil for the other characters in the book, but acts as a double or alter ego of the character of Judith. Thematically as well as functionally he is used in the narrative as the mirror image of Judith (cf. Roitman 1992:38)15. To study Achior and Judith’s respective functions in the narrative, Roitman (1992:33–38) divides the story into five stages. Initially Achior the Ammonite is the pagan [sic] soldier whilst Judith is the timid Judaean widow living a secluded life. Undergoing a change in their respective fundamental traits, the story ends where Achior becomes a mere citizen (as opposed to a leader) in Bethulia. He is circumcised and accepted in the society as a co-believer in God, whilst Judith changes into a military hero and commander in Israel and is hailed for her piety and role as the saviour of her people. Although coming from different walks of life both belong to the same community of faith, in the end having both contributed to the solution of the intrigue in their different ways.
His analysis brings Roitman (1992:39) to the question why the author portrayed Achior as the soldier and Ammonite as the thematic and functional counterbalance of Judith? It could have been done for more than purely literary reasons. It is possible that the story is the result of an underlying ideology of proselytism in this nationalistic book. Presumably the author wanted:
to teach us through this very sophisticated technique that a righteous pagan [sic], even one who belongs to the hateful people of Ammon, is, essentially, the parallel and complement to a complete Jew by birth, and that he is able to perfect his condition by believing in God and joining the people of Israel through conversion. (Roitman 1992:39)
Roitman (1992:39) is of the opinion that this ‘subtle ideology of proselytism’ substantiates his thesis that the traditions about Abraham were used by the author to depict the characters of both Judith and Achior. Referring to the witness of Achior in Judith 5:6–9 as ‘the Abraham section’, Roitman (1992:45, n. 51) comes to the conclusion that the book of Judith advances the doctrine that ‘the righteous pagan who converts to Judaism would also have, as the native Jew has, Abraham as his model or “father”‘ (Roitman 1992:40).
Judith 5:6–9 refers to the Israelites as the descendants of the Chaldeans who did not want to worship the gods of their ancestors in Chaldea. Abandoning the way of their ancestors they worshiped the ‘God of Heaven’. They were driven out by the Chaldeans from the presence of their gods and fled to Mesopotamia where they settled for a long time before moving to the land of Canaan. This description agrees only with the second item of the patriarchs in the Gattung of ‘historical review’ as indicated earlier in the article. As Israel is presented as a collective unit in Judith 5:6–9, Roitman’s acceptance of Abraham can be questioned. Other possibilities for the modelling of Achior should also be considered.
Moore (1985:163–164) indicates that Achior was a wise man, also in the technical sense of the word. He is depicted as an Ammonite form of Ahikar. Ahikar was a:
famous pagan wise man who was an advisor to the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and the reputed author of a wisdom book containing a number of proverbs and fables. (Moore 1985:163)
 
Mackey’s comment: Achior was indeed the wise sage Ahikar, but he was not an Ammonite.
I think that “Elamite” ought perhaps to be substituted for “Ammonite” wherever the latter occurs in the text, considering that Elam (“Elymaïs”) was where Ahikar had ruled on behalf of the neo-Assyrian kings. Cf. Tobit 2:10: “Ahikar took care of me for two years until he went to Elymais” and Judith 1:6: “Arioch, king of the Elymeans” (read “Achior governor of the Elamites”).
Venter continues:
 
The profile of this Ahikar as a good and just pagan fits the Achior of Judith. In the contemporary book of Tobit the Assyrian Ahikar has been Judaised. Moore agrees with Cazelles’ argument that Achior is an ethnic transformation [sic] of Ahikar. Roitman (1992:42) refers to this ‘Ahikar theory’ proposed by Moore and Haag, but strongly rejected by Steinman. Otzen (2002:108) doubts the theory that Achior and Ahikar can be identified with each other. His argument is based on the difference in status between the two: Ahikar is a Jew by birth, whilst Achior is a ‘genuine pagan’. Roitman (1992:32) criticises the aforementioned scholars for failing to see Achior’s ‘overall complex function and to integrate it into the structural framework of the story’16. Although it is probable that the tradition of Ahikar served as model for characterising Achior, it is necessary to rather study the narrator’s transformation of this figure in his story.
Moore (1985:167) calls Achior an ‘Ammonite “Balaam,” a Gentile who must speak only good about Israel’. The Ammonite Achior17 may have been based upon the tradition of Balaam son of Be’or (Nm 22–24)18. In the Deir Allah inscriptions he played an important role in the Ammonite literary tradition from at least 700 BCE.
Moore (1985) explains:
[J]ust as Balaam of Deir Allah brought to his people a communication from the gods, so later on another Ammonite, Achior, tried to enlighten his people about the nature and will of Israel’s God. (Moore 1985:167)
Moore correctly identifies Achior as a messenger of the gods, but does not ask the question of the role Achior plays in the Judith narrative and how his message fits into a totally different situation.
This brings us back to the question of intertextuality. Not only the probable source of the Achior character, but also the ‘stance’ and ‘filter’ (Stahlberg) is to be studied to identify the ideological purpose of the author in using the character of Achior.
 
Mackey’s comment: Achior does not compare at all well with Balaam.
Balaam was an inveterate pagan prognosticator who receives a very bad press in both the Old and New Testaments, and who comes to a sticky end.
 
Deir 'Alla inscription and the historical Balaam son of Beor
 
 
Achior was a wise Israelite, an almsgiver, who admittedly had to undergo a conversion (who doesn’t?), but who was exonerated and came out into the light.
See e.g. my article:
 
"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith