by
Damien F. Mackey
If this reconstruction is correct, then it
completely puts paid to the opinion that the Torah was influenced by the famous
Law of Hammurabi. More likely, the Babylonian Code was based upon the law
practiced in David’s and Solomon's influential kingdom of Israel.
The following is a re-working of an old Christmas
2000 article of similar title.
Introduction
In
an article published in 1986, entitled "The Dating
of Hammurabi", its author Professor George Albert Hickman, Dean of
Toronto University, argued for an early C10th BC placement for King Hammurabi
of Babylon (conventionally dated to c. C19th BC); thereby making him a
contemporary of David and Solomon.
Hickman
went even further than this and provided an outline revision of Mesopotamian
history down to the mid-C9th, which, despite certain deficiencies, rendered
some very plausible synchronisms between the Mesopotamian kings and their
neighbours. Surprisingly though, as far as I am aware, Hickman's article does
not appear to have stimulated much interest or discussion amongst revisionists.
One possible reason for this may be that he, like Velikovsky, was not able to
offer a satisfactory revision of Mesopotamian history for the troublesome el
Amarna [EA] period of Pharaoh Akhnaton
(conventionally dated to c.1350 BC). The effect of Hickman's revision, in
bringing Hammurabi and his dynasty down some 800-900 years, into and beyond the
C10th, was to clutter the EA period all the more. He made no real attempt to
tie up the loose kings that he had circulating around in this period. This is
unfortunate in that EA, probably more than any other period, is in need of a
satisfactory solution as regards Mesopotamian chronology if the revision is to
be taken seriously by the experts.
Here,
though, I wish to consolidate one area only of Hickman's research: the era
of Solomon.
Now,
just as Hickman began his interesting article with mention of Zimri-Lim, king
of Mari - and certain events that occurred during his reign and that of his
father, Iahdulim - it will be this same Zimri-Lim who will become the central
character of this article. Hickman had managed to identify most of Zimri-Lim's
outstanding contemporaries with major characters of the C10 world, but he did
not actually link Zimri-Lim or his father with any particular persons. The
identification of Zimri-Lim, king of Mari,
will therefore be the special task of this article.
I
believe that a very satisfactory identification can be made between Zimri-Lim
and Rezin (or Rezon), Syrian adversary of King Solomon, and son of Eliada (I
Kings 11:23). It is wholly in keeping with the framework established by Hickman
for the era of Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim's contemporary, and may thus serve to
reinforce Hickman's thesis. Logically it must follow from this identification
that Zimri-Lim's father, Iahdulim/Yahdu-Lim, be identified with Rezin's father,
Eliada.
The
similarity in the names Iahdulim and El-iada is
actually quite striking.
Benjaminites and Davidites
Hickman
found what he believed to be the people of Saul
and David in the names "Benjamites" (Benjaminites) and "Dawidum"
(Davidum), cited in "three date formulas" of the kings of Mari.
It was customary for ancient kings to date certain years of their reigns with
reference to notable historical events that occurred within those years. Thus
the kings of Mari recorded these years:
- "The year in which Iahdulim went to Hen and laid hands on the territory of the Benjamites."
- "The year that Zimri-Lim killed the Davidum of the Benjamites."
- "The year after Zimri-Lim killed the Davidum of the Benjamites."
Hickman
was quite safe, from a linguistic point of view, in associating the "Benjamites"
of the Mari Letters [ML]
with the biblical Benjaminites. And, since Saul belonged to the tribe of
Benjamin (I Samuel 9:1-2), he was quite entitled to suggest an identification
between the "Benjamites" and the peoples ruled by Saul. André
Lemaire concurred with this view that the "Benjamites" of ML
corresponded in name precisely to the southern tribe of Israel. More
controversial, though, was Hickman's attempted revitalization of an old and not
very popular theory according to which the word "dawidum" of
the letters was thought to relate to David's name. According to Lemaire, the
word "dawidum" was actually derived from a word "dabduum"
meaning "defeat".
But
more pressing than the linguistic question were the powerful historical reasons
why, within the context of conventional reasoning, the ML could not possibly
bear any references to King David or his era. It is an undisputed fact that
Zimri-Lim was a contemporary of Hammurabi, king of Babylon. We know that
Hammurabi eventually overthrew Zimri-Lim and brought destruction upon Mari.
And, though historians may have found Hammurabi extremely difficult to date
precisely, they certainly would not question that he preceded David by more
than half a millennium. Though recently dated towards the end of the C19th,
Hammurabi's era tends to shift with variations ranging up to in excess of a
century. No wonder then that Dr. Courville felt compelled to describe this
great king of Babylon as "floating about in
a liquid chronology of Chaldea"!
Hickman,
however, not bound by the stifling strictures of conventional chronology, was
free to re-assess the earlier connection between the "dawidum"
and the name David. As regards Lemaire's "dabduum" he noted
that the use of the letter "b" instead of "w"
or "v", did "not conclusively exclude the possibility
that a word meaning 'David'" was intended in the letters; and that in
the Old Testament Hebrew "the name of David is
variously written 'Dawid' (
) and 'Dabid' b=(
/
) instead of
"w" or "v" (
)." Even though, as
he said, "current archaeological wisdom precludes it", Hickman
felt inclined nonetheless to explore the possibility that "Dawidum"
related to David and that Hammurabi belonged to the Davidic era.
) and 'Dabid' b=(/) instead of
"w" or "v" ()." Even though, as
he said, "current archaeological wisdom precludes it", Hickman
felt inclined nonetheless to explore the possibility that "Dawidum"
related to David and that Hammurabi belonged to the Davidic era.
Here
we are concerned more with historical, than philological considerations.
Shamsi-Adad's
Identity
Hickman's
first notable identification between a Mari correspondent and a C10th character
was to equate Shamsi-Adad I (c.C19th BC) with David's mighty adversary,
Hadadezer, the Syrian. Not only David, but Saul also, had to contend with the
aggressive kings of Zobah in Aram, or ancient Syria (I and II Samuel). Yet,
according to conventional opinion, the kings of Zobah (pronounced Tzobah) are not
supposed to have left any inscriptions concerning their accomplishments. In CAH,
we read that the name Zobah occurs in the Assyrian documents of the C8th and
C7th's as "Subatu, Subutu or Subiti".
Josephus called Zobah, "Sophene",
and its king, "Hadad".
Accordingly, Hickman identified Shamsi-Adad, son of Ilu-kabkabu, with biblical
Hadadezer, son of Rekhob. And he added that the ubiquitous Shamsi-Adad's best known
city of Shubat-Enlil was to be equated with Hadadezer's city of Zobah or Subatu.
Hickman also provided an interesting explanation as to why he thought that
Rekhob, the name of Hadadezer's father, bore "some
resemblance to Ilu-kabkabu", the name of Shamsi-Adad's father.
The
next task was to identify the regions wherein lay the kingdom of Shamsi-Adad
and his alter ego Hadadezer. Shamsi-Adad's kingdom is known to have
included the plain of Assyria, stretching southward through the middle
Euphrates Valley almost to the latitude of Eshnunna.
Cities
described as belonging to Hadadezer were Betakh, Berothai, Tibhath or Tebah,
and Chun (2 Samuel 8:8 and I Chronicles 18:8). In CAH, Tebah is
identified as Late Bronze Tubikhu, Chun as Late Bronze Kunu (Roman Conna), and
Berothai tentatively as Bereitan, a town south of Baalbek. Hickman added that
Berothai, thought to be north of Damascus, "is
probably the same as Berothai of Ezekiel 47:16, between Hamath and
Damascus".
In a date-
formula from Eshnunna the army of Iasmakh-Adad, the son of Shamsi-Adad, is
called "The host of Shubartu and Khana".
Hickman
suggested that Khana may possibly refer to the city of Chun in I Chronicles
18:8; and that Shubartu may be derived either "from
Zobah or from Sibraim" (Ezekiel 47:16).
Shamsi-Adad
boasted that he had erected triumphal stelae in Lebanon. He was allied
with princes of upper Syria, notably Carchemish and Qatna, and with Hammurabi
of Babylon.
We know from Scripture that Hadadezer liked to set up victory monuments; David defeated him "as he went to set up his monument at the river Euphrates" (I Chronicles 18:3). Scripture records also that the Syrian was ruler of the kings beyond the river (2 Samuel 10:16, 19), i.e. the Euphrates, as later records from Assyria confirm as well.
We know from Scripture that Hadadezer liked to set up victory monuments; David defeated him "as he went to set up his monument at the river Euphrates" (I Chronicles 18:3). Scripture records also that the Syrian was ruler of the kings beyond the river (2 Samuel 10:16, 19), i.e. the Euphrates, as later records from Assyria confirm as well.
Hickman thought
that "this description resembles that of
Shamsi-Adad".
Hadadezer
opposed David with phenomenal forces, but was defeated by the Israelite king in
two major campaigns. In the first campaign David took from the Syrian an
incredible 1000 chariots, as well as 7000 horseman, and 20,000 footmen (I
Chronicles 18:4). Hickman was interested to discover that Shamsi-Adad had
informed one of his sons, Ishme-Dagan, that he could supply him with 20,000
troops; the same number as cited in Scripture. In the second campaign,
Hadadezer allied himself with the Ammonites who had called upon him for help (II
Samuel 10:6).
Hickman
identified Shobach, "the commander of the
army of Hadadezer" (II Samuel 10:16) with Shamsi-Adad's
pleasure-loving son, Iasmakh-Adad.
The first conflict between David and Hadadezer had occurred near Hamath, when Hadadezer went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. Hickman wondered if Hamath might be the state of Yamkhad. The Mari archive has enabled us to know the greatness of the Syrian kingdoms, which previously had been overshadowed by Babylonia especially. As Dalley put it: "... we now know that Syria had cities and monarchs equal in power and civilisation to Larsa and Babylon". She added that Syria's mightiest kingdom "was centred on Aleppo, ancient Halab in the state of Yamkhad"; Halab being "the mightiest of many kingdoms in Zimri-Lim's day".
Dalley could
back up this claim simply by citing the very celebrated ML which stated that”:
There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen
kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a
like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but
twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad.
When
David had defeated Hadadezer
and his allies in the region of Hamath, a king of Hamath named To'i sent
him tribute by the hand of his son Joram (2 Samuel 8:9). Hickman identified
this Joram of Hamath with Iarim-Lim of Aleppo (Halab) in the kingdom of Yamkhad.
This Iarim-Lim
may even turn out to be the great Hiram, ally of David and Solomon.
Indeed, I have since identified Iarim-Lim
with Hiram, in:
King Hiram the Historical and Hiram Abiff
the Hysterical
The Syrian (Amorite)
world was a conglomerate of kingdoms loosely united and oftentimes prone to
fall out one kingdom with another. We read in Scripture that Hadadezer, for
instance, called upon "the Syrians of
Damascus" (II Samuel 8:5), and that the Ammonites hired "the Syrians of Beth-rehob, and the Syrians of
Zobah" (II Samuel 10:6). Then there was the Syrian kingdom of
Hamath, which may eventually have absorbed Zobah; hence "Hamath-zobah".
But, as we shall see, there could be serious conflicts amongst the Syrian
kingdoms. Thus Rezin, son of Eliada, fell out with his master Hadadezer, and
fled from him, and became leader of his own army (I Kings 11:23-24). The reason
for this enmity will become clearer in the next section as we pursue the identity
of Rezin and Eliada, with Zimri-Lim and Iahdulim of ML.
Like Hadadezer,
Shamsi-Adad employed confederate Syrian kingdoms to assist him in his
campaigns. But it seems that the aggressive Shamsi-Adad was nervous when it
came to the Benjaminites and their kinsmen. Shamsi-Adad wrote to his son, who
had seized Mari from Zimri-Lim's father:
Reference:"..the proposal to take a census of the Benjamites, about which you have written me .... The Benjamites are not well disposed to the idea of a census. If you carry it out, their kinsmen, the Ra-ab-ay-yi, who live on the other bank, of the river, will hear of it."
"They will be annoyed with them and will not return to their country. On no account should this census be taken!"
Hickman's summary of this letter was that Shamsi-Adad, characterised as "the greatest figure of his generation", who claimed control of "the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates", was wary of the Israelites. He identified the "Ra-ab-ay-yi" of Shamsi-Adad's letter, who were dwelling "on the other bank of the river", with the Reubenites (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) who dwelt east of the Jordan river along with the tribes of Gad and Manasseh. Scripture records that these Transjordanian Israelites began to expand eastwards in Saul's day, and began to engage the Hagarites (Arabs) in battle, and defeated them (I Chronicles 5 and II Chronicles 5).
Peace, which had been unknown in the time of Saul and David, came to Israel during the glorious reign of Solomon, David's son and successor. David had smashed the mighty forces of Hadadezer king of Zobah, and had put garrisons in the land of Aram around and in Damascus; and the Syrians became servants to David and brought tribute (II Samuel 8:5-6). For more than 20 years Solomon reigned in peace and prosperity, with Israel's enemies subdued on every side. It appears that Solomon absorbed both the kingdoms of Hadadezer and of the Aleppo region, because he took Hamath-zobah (II Chronicles 8:3). He built Tadmor in the wilderness - which was connected by a desert road to Mari - and he also built store cities in Hamath (8:4). Even after his 20th year of rule (II Chronicles 8:1), things were still going well for Solomon; for Scripture recalls the celebrated visit of Queen Sheba. See my:
Solomon and Sheba
Solomon had an
incredible 1400 chariots, and 12,000 horsemen with which to defend Jerusalem (I
Kings 10:26).
But the happy
situation was not to last. In the latter half of his long reign Solomon
apostatised from Yahweh worship by courting the foreign gods of his wives (I
Kings 11:4). Scripture names three adversaries who "lifted
up their hand" against Solomon in those days (I Kings 11): Hadad, the Edomite; Rezin, son of Eliada,
who had fled from his master Hadadezer king of Zobah and Jeroboam, an Ephraïmite.
It is this Rezin
upon whom our attention will be focussed for the remaining pages.
In identifying Rezin with Zimri-Lim, and his father, Eliada with Iahdulim, we are able to refine Hickman's chronological scheme somewhat. Hickman had surmised that Zimri-Lim belonged to the time of David, which meant that Iahdulim was roughly contemporaneous with Saul: "Since ... Iahdulim ... mentions only the Benjamites [in the date-formula quoted earlier] he must belong to Saul's time". Hickman thought that there was reason to suspect "That the incursion of this [Iahdulim] into Benjamite territory resulted in Saul's wars against Zobah and that Mari was associated with the Zobah kingdom".
It seems that
Hickman was correct in his last statement in that Iagit-Lim of Mari, who was
Zimri-Lim's grandfather, had once been an ally of Shamsi-Adad. But Iagit-Lim
and Shamsi-Adad quarrelled eventually, with dire consequences. Iagit-Lim's son
and successor, Iahdulim - who claimed to have strengthened the foundations of
Mari - was assassinated by his own servants. Shamsi-Adad then occupied the city
of Mari, and set up his son, Iasmakh-Adad, as ruler. Zimri-Lim, the heir to the
throne, was forced to flee for his life, spending many years in exile at Aleppo.
Zimri-Lim returned to Mari about the 16th year of Hammurabi of Babylon, and
ruled there for at least most of Hammurabi's remaining years.
Since
Shamsi-Adad's death coincided with the 12th year of Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim
apparently was returning to a less hostile environment, where he ruled for at
least 17 years. For most of that time he and Hammurabi were on quite friendly
terms with one another; but Hammurabi eventually turned against Zimri-Lim and,
in his 33rd year, he came to Mari and dismantled its walls. However, this may
not have been the end of Zimri-Lim because the number of years-names attested
for his reign would indicate that he continued to rule Mari for some years
after this event.
When we transfer
all of these events onto a revised time plane, there emerges a more precise
picture. Hadadezer (Shamsi-Adad), a one-time ally of Rezin's (Zimri-Lim's)
grandfather, king of Mari, quarrelled with the king of Mari. Later, Eliada
(Iahdulim), Rezin's father, was assassinated by his servants - presumably at
the instigation of Hadadezer - and Hadadezer's son Shobach (Iasmakh-Adad) was
established as ruler of Mari. The assassination of his father, and the
occupation of the city throne to which he was heir, explains why Rezin "fled from his master Hadadezer king of Zobah"
(I Kings 11:23).
We also now know
the city to which Rezin fled, Aleppo, or Halab, in Hamath (Yamkhad).
Scripture goes
on to record that "after the slaughter of
David" (i.e. after David had slaughtered Hadadezer's forces),
Rezin "gathered men about him and became
leader of a marauding band" (I Kings 11:24). Some of his band
may have been remnants of Hadadezer's decimated forces. We know from Scripture
that it was just after Solomon's 20th year as king of Jerusalem that
adversaries began to spring up about him. Now, since Solomon's 20th year is to
be dated at approximately 950 BC, Rezin's reign probably began shortly after
that date.
What follows is
a quotation of what Hammurabi wrote to Zimri-Lim:
"To Zimri-Lim communicate the
following: Thus says your brother Hammurabi [of Yamhad]: The king of Ugarit has
written me as follows: `Show me the palace of Zimri-Lim! I wish to see it.'
With this same courier I am sending on this man."
Now
since Zimri-Lim with whom we identify Rezin returned to Mari from exile "about
the sixteenth year of Hammurabi", Hammurabi's 16th year must
correspond closely to Solomon's 20th year. It is more accurate to say,
therefore, that Zimri-Lim was a contemporary of Hammurabi, it seems.
Shamsi-Adad had died 5 years before Zimri-Lim returned from exile; in
Hammurabi's 12th year, approximating to Solomon's 16th year. But he was already
a spent force before that.
It is obvious
then that the event of Zimri-lim's return from exile in the 16th year of
Hammurabi is a very crucial clue for organizing a chronology of this period;
especially when it is associated with Rezin's return from exile. Scripture does
not say that Rezin seized Mari on his return, but Damascus, where he was made
king (I Kings 11:24).
We cannot
determine whether he took Damascus or Mari first.
Chances are that
Rezin was, as Hickman described Shamsi-Adad: "...
continually on the move and did not really possess a capital".
A Syrian, as was
Hadadezer also, Rezin too remained a foe of the House of David. Scripture
records that Rezin "was an adversary of
Israel all the days of Solomon, doing mischief as Hadad [the Edomite] did; and
he abhorred Israel and reigned over Syria" (I Kings 11:25).
After that, Scripture has no more to say about Rezin, and we have to turn back
to ML. Actually the historical evidence matches the scriptural data very well,
if we are correct in associating Zimri-Lim's return from exile in Aleppo with
that of Rezin. In both cases the master or overlord of the Syrians was dead. We
know that Zimri-lim and Rezin ruled for close to two decades. Zimri-Lim
definitely ruled for 17 years, until Hammurabi's sack of Mari; and he may have
ruled somewhat longer, as the inscriptions indicate. Rezin saw out at least 17-20
years of Solomon's 40 year reign (I Kings 11:42); and he may have survived
partly into the next reign; though we hear no more about him.
Below is a
comparison of the two schemes, the conventional and the revised, with
historical characters of the former re-identified and re-dated according to the
new scheme being proposed here. I think the reader will agree that the
correspondences are striking.
CONVENTIONAL
|
1800's
BC
|
Shubat-Enlil
Ilu-kabkabu Shamsi-Adad Iasmakh-Adad |
Mari
Iahdulim Zimri-Lim |
Yamkhad
Iarim-Lim |
Palestine
Patriarchs |
REVISED
|
900's BC
|
Subatu/Zobah
Rekhob Hadadezer Shobach |
Syria
Eliada Rezin |
Hamath
Hiram |
Palestine
David Solomon |
