by
Damien F. Mackey
Abdi-ashirta was an incredibly close contemporary of
pharaoh Amenhotep.
Abdi-ashirta 1385–1344 BC – 41 years,
conventional dating.
(Amenhotep
1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38 years, conventional dating)
The biblical Ben-Hadad extraordinarily had a following of
32 kings.
That is unprecedented. Here is what I wrote of it in my
postgraduate thesis (2007):
A Revised History of the Era of King
Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
https://sydney.academia.edu/DamienMackey/Thesis
(Volume 1, p. 67):
… the Velikovskian equation of EA’s [El Amarna’s] Abdi-ashirta as Ben-Hadad I would
seriously contradict the view that the latter was a relatively minor, though
problematical, king in the EA [El Amarna] scheme of things; for Ben-Hadad I was
no lesser king: “King Ben-hadad of Aram gathered all his army together; thirty-two
kings were with him, along with horses and chariots” (1 Kings 20:1). Thirty-two
kings!
The great Hammurabi of Babylon, early in his reign,
had only ten to fifteen kings following him, as did his peer kings.
Even the greatest king of that day in the region, Iarim Lim of Iamkhad, had only twenty kings in train. ….
But Ben-Hadad’s coalition, raised for the siege of
Ahab’s capital of Samaria, could boast of thirty-two kings. Surely Ben-Hadad I
was no secondary king in his day, but a ‘Great King’; the dominant king in fact in the greater Syrian region - a true
master-king. ….
Ben-Hadad’s empire (or imperial ambitions, at least)
must, therefore, have been enormous.
The Bible confines his geography to Damascus, with
frequent raids upon Israel.
The El Amarna (EA) letters, however, extend the king’s
(as Abdi-ashirta) empire much further, to the Levantine coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rib-Hadda
“Rib-Hadda was involved in a
long-standing dispute with Abdi-Ashirta, the ruler of Amurru (probably in southeastern Lebanon and southwestern Syria), who hired mercenaries from among the Habiru, Shardana, and other warlike tribes”.
This Rib-Hadda, or Rib-Addi, was ruler of the ancient
port city of Byblos.
Moreover, as the prolific EA writer Rib-Addi complained
in EA letter #90, all the kings were united with Abdi-shirta.
That sounds like Ben-Hadad, having a following of many
kings.
This is what I wrote on it in my thesis (Volume 1, p. 73):
Abdi-Ashirta had been a continual threat to Rib-Addi’s region that included approximately the upper half of the
modern Lebanese coastal plain, with Simyra, presumably the seat of the Egyptian
rabis, at the northern boundary of his territory. And, later, Aziru’s reign would prove completely
disastrous for Rib-Addi, who would
even lose his city to the invader.
At an early stage the king of Damascus (presumably
allied with his many kings, ‘all the major chieftains’), invaded Phoenicia. In
a letter of Rib-Addi, we find this
complaint:
Letter 90: All the majors [chieftains] are one with
Abdi-Ashirta.
….
Rib-Addi wondered if Abdi-Ashirta even had aspirations, just like the kings of Mitanni and Kasse
(Babylonia) had, to swallow up land that did not rightly belong to him.
(Thesis, p. 66): “… Rib-Addi made the following famous protest about Abdi-Ashirta
… (EA 76): “... is he the king of Mitanna [Mitanni] or the king of Kasse
[Babylon] that he seeks to take the land of the king … himself?”
Yet, despite all of this, Abdi-shirta is considered to
have been (as we have read) a mere vassal king of the Great Kings of EA, most
particularly of the contemporaneous “Nimmuria”, the throne name (neb-maat-re)
of Amenhotep pharaoh of Egypt.
Now, one of EA’s Great Kings, Tushratta of Mitanni ruled
and invaded territories that seemed to overlap with Abdi-ashirta’s. This had
led me initially - and quite confidently (with others also in agreement) - to
identify the two as one, my solution to finding that necessary extension for
Ben-Hadad I’s empire.
I have since dropped that connection, though, as I now
estimate that Tushratta’s reign continued on past Ben-Hadad’s death, by
assassination (2 Kings 8:15), as happened with Abdi-ashirta (EA letter #101).
What might be the solution to finding a necessary empire
for our master-king, Ben-Hadad I?
Well, if Aziru, the son of Abdi-ashirta, as is generally
thought -
(“Unfortunately for
Rib-hadda, Abdi-Ashirta was succeeded by his no less talented son Aziru, who
later capture, exile and likely killed Rib-hadda”: https://en.google-info.org/9602911/1/abdi-ashirta.html) -
was Akhnaton, as I now firmly believe:
El Amarna in Chaos
then Aziru’s father, Abdi-ashirta, must be Akhnaton’s
(generally considered) father, pharaoh Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’.
This Aziru is, of course, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s (Ages
in Chaos, I, 1952) biblical king Hazael of Syria.
That would mean that a large part of the so-called Eighteenth
Dynasty of Egypt (about 55 years of it, at least, in conventional terms) was
Syrian (or, at least, ruling Syria):
Amenhotep 1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38
years, conventional dating;
Akhnaton 1350–1333 BC – 17 years,
conventional dating.
Larger figures can be found for the reign of Akhnaton.
He as Hazael, in my view, would have spent much of his
time in Damascus, though:
How might Hazael, elected in the Sinai Commission,
have justified his murder of King Ben-Hadad?
(3) How might
Hazael, elected in the Sinai Commission, have justified his murder of King
Ben-Hadad?
Abdi-ashirta was an incredibly close contemporary of
pharaoh Amenhotep.
Abdi-ashirta 1385–1344 BC – 41 years,
conventional dating.
(Amenhotep
1388 BC - 1351 BC/1350 BC – 38 years, conventional dating)
Further expanding all of this would be my identifications
(if valid), of Amenhotep III with Amenhotep II, and, as the father, Thutmose IV
identified with Thutmose III:
More to Thutmose III
Amenhotep II and III
Amenhotep
II and III | Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD
Thutmose III/IV would then
become also the Syrian ruling (not necessarily ethnically Syrian) Tabrimmon,
father of Ben-Hadad I (I Kings 15:18).
Amenhotep and Ben-Hadad similarities
Ben-Hadad, as Abdi-ashirta, and Amenhotep were powerful
and long-reigning kings and were remarkably contemporaneous in conventional
terms (as noted above).
They were incredibly greedy for gold and silver.
The first time that we meet Ben-Hadad in the Bible, we
find him changing sides (from his alliance with Israel, to Judah) because the
‘money’ was better (I Kings 15:18-20):
Asa then took all the
silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the Lord’s Temple and of his own
palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to
Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the king of Aram, who was
ruling in Damascus.
‘Let there be a
treaty between me and you’, he said, ‘as there was between my father and
your father. See, I am sending you a gift of silver and gold. Now break your
treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me’.
Ben-Hadad agreed with
King Asa and sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel. He
conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maakah and all Kinnereth in addition to
Naphtali.
In the case of
Amenhotep, we read, for example:
http://12ancient.weebly.com/essay-planning/amenhotep-iii-building-program
“The
inscriptions within the Mortuary Temple it was, ‘built with fine white
sandstone, wrought with gold throughout; its floor adorned with silver, all its
portals with electrum” built to show off its splendour. These historical
buildings serves as a clear reminder of the reign of Amenhotep III as it
symbolises the prosperity that flourished throughout Egypt due to his
successful reign. …”.
They were harem enlargers:
I Kings 20:5): The messengers came again and said, “This is what Ben-Hadad
says: ‘I sent to demand your silver and gold, your wives and your children’.”
https://egyptianmuseum.org/explore/new-kingdom-rulers-amenhotep-iii
“Amenhotep III had many wives. He particularly favored his Great Royal
Wife Queen Tiy”.
Amenhotep III had a large harem, but he particularly favoured his
Great Royal Wife Queen Tiy, whom he married during the second year of his
reign.
Amenhotep’s reign
is generally considered to have been peaceful, however: “He was a skilled
military fighter and leader and probably led troops into battle and fought in
his army, rather than staying safe in his palace”:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/amenhotep-iii-facts-leadership-style-accomplishments.html
If he were Abdi-ashirta/Ben-Hadad,
as I am suggesting here, a life of peace would have been far from the
situation.
Amenhotep must
have been a very belligerent, empire-seeking ruler.
