The word 'obscure' is so often used in regard to Horemheb and his origins. And this uncertainty about the great man is reflected in the following words by I. Velikovsky ("Harmenhab Appointed to Administer Egypt"):

"It is regularly admitted that it is not known how and when Haremhab became king of Egypt. Some think that he was the last king of the Eighteenth Dynasty; some place him at the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasty."[010] "He was not the son of a king, nor was he the father of Ramses I, who followed him."[020] "Nothing is known of his antecedents." [030]

In this article I hope, to some extent, to lift the veil of obscurity surrounding Horemheb. What we know for certain about the mysterious Horemheb is that his long and illustrious career commenced during the reign of pharaoh Amenhotep III, and continued on through Akhnaton, reaching a high point during the reign of Tutankhamun. After that, things are somewhat less clear; but he is supposed to have succeeded Tutankhamun's successor, Ay, himself becoming pharaoh of Egypt for perhaps almost 3 decades. Since, obviously, much of Horemheb's career must have run parallel to the el-Amarna [EA] age, we should expect to find substantial mention of him in the EA letters, though not necessarily by the name of Horemheb. Now I find at least three cases of an EA official bearing the same rank or title that Horemheb held:

1. One is Yanhamu (var. Ianhama, Iaanhamu, Yankhamu, Ya-ah-en-ha-mu), who "bears an extremely important title, that of "Fan-Bearer at the king's right-hand" (musallil), a title which Mâya of Tomb 14 also bears"[040] Horemheb was also "Fanbearer of the King on His Right Hand"[050] [060]

2. The second is Tutu (or Dudu), a Semitic name, who was, like Horemheb, imy-r pr wr. And:

3. The third, perhaps, was Amanappa (Aman-hatpa).

Some of this is explained by Campbell [070]:

"It is probable that Tûtu held a uniquely important position, then, paralleled only by the rank Rib-Adda ascribes to Aman-hatpa. As Helck has shown, Tûtu held many of the offices pertaining to the position of imy-r pr wr, although he is never so designated in his tomb. He is seen to have been the "chief mouth" of the king and actually holds virtually complete sway over the land. Reliefs of Haremhab, who was imy-r pr wr under Tut¡ankhumûn, depict him receiving an Asiatic messenger who had come to the court to request help, taking the message to the king, and relaying the king's reply to the messenger."

"Tûtu apparently performed the same task; a man in such a position might even hold the power to make the decision without having to consult the king."

So Horemheb in his presumed EA guise could be any one, or all, of these three names:

Whether or not Tutu was indeed the EA personage to fit to Elisha will need futher probing at another time. What is certain is that the biblical Elisha must have been (like the Elijah he succeeded) a man of great rank, given the fact that he was commissioned to anoint Syro-Palestinian kings. Therefore, one would expect him Elisha (and indeed Elijah = Amenhotep son of Hapu?) to figure somewhere in EA.

Yanhamu, though of similar rank to Amanappa, is never connected with the latter by EA commentators. Certainly I. Velikovsky considered them to be separate entities, identifying Amanappa (i.e. Amenhotep) as the biblical Amon of Elijah's time, and Yanhamu as Naaman the Syrian captain whom the prophet Elisha healed of his leprosy. I fully accept Velikovsky's identification of Yanhamu with Naaman, and I also think that there is a reasonable case for his identification of Amanappa (Aman-hatpa) with Amon. According to 2 Chronicles 18:25, Ahab had sent the prophet Micaiah (probably Elijah himself) to "the governor of the city" (presumably Samaria), one Amon. The name Amon is of course a typically Egyptian name, an abbrevation of e.g. Amen-hotep, or Meri-amun, and the fact that Amon was the governor argues strongly for the presence of an Egyptian governor and an Israelite king residing together in Samaria: a further proof of Velikovsky's Egyptian [EA] ruled Palestine in the mid-C9th BC.

Campbell, with reference to EA 71, tells of what a powerful official this Amanappa was [080]:

"Letter 71 bears many similarities to the letters of Aziru to Tûtu, for Rib-Adda obviously feels that Amanhatpa can do a great deal to influence the king in his favour and uses flattery and abject humility to gain his ear".

Albright has, I believe, opened the door for a further development of Amanappa/Aman-hatpa (most relevant to my MFA and CACMCB) by identifying him with Haya, another contemporary Egyptian official of similar rank. Thus Campbell writes with reference to Albright [090]:

Rib-Adda writes to Amanappa in much the same way [as Aziru writes to Tutu], pleading for his intercession (73, 77, 82, 86, 87, and 93Z), and also to Haya (71). This latter name is the hypocoristicon of Amanhatpa (Amenophis), whom Albright identifies with the vizier of Lower Egypt at the close of the reign of Amenophis III.

Now here is my development following on from Albright. Haya's name appears to be identical to Aya, an accepted variation of the name Ay (whom I identified in MFA with Hazael himself). Thus I should like to propose an identification of Amanappa also with the extremely powerful Ay/Hazael.

That leaves just Yanhamu (Naaman) amongst the above selected EA officials (1-3) representing Egypt in Syria to be considered as a possible candidate for the similarly en-titled Horemheb. Part One:
Horemheb in EA

Yanhamu (Naaman)

I take up Campbell's narrative concerning this important EA official, Yanhamu [100]:

"Yanhamu began his service under Amenophis III. …."

"Yanhamu appears, then, to have held an extremely important position in Syria throughout the period of Rib-Adda's correspondence. The later letters of Rib-Adda show this prince defending Yanhamu and asking for his appointment as rabis in Sumur. One might almost imagine that Yanhamu's rebuff of Aziru described in 171 led Rib-Adda suddenly to realize that he had a true ally in Yanhamu."

The next piece from Campbell is interesting because it reveals that Yanhamu was in charge of grain supplies, even supplying these to Phoenicia in the north. And we know that Horemheb (Yanhamu's potential alter ego) likewise had supplied food to the north, for example supplying food to the Hittites during a period of famine - quite possibly the same famine that had affected Rib-Addi [110]:

"In the early group of letters from Rib-Adda, Yanhamu seems to have held a position having to do with the supplying of the vassals from a store-city of Egypt (83:27ff., 39f.; 85:23f., 48ff.; 86:15f.). This source of supply is named Yarimuta in many places in the Rib-Adda correspondence, and that Yanhamu was its chief appears clear from 85:12-35. In this passage, Rib-Adda first explains that he has had to "pawn" virtually everything of value in his city in return for grain from Yarimuta. Sons and daughters of his serfs have been sold into slavery at Yarimuta in return for grain. Grain is needed simply to keep the people alive and able to protect their city."

"…From the context it is not certain that Yanhamu is chief of Yarimuta, but everything points that way. Being the chief of the grain supply would place Yanhamu in a very powerful position."

Yanhamu's early experience as an exactor and a careful distributor of grain will become apparent again when he, as Horemheb, will in his famous Edict severely penalize those who have been guilty of extortion towards the poor in this regard.

Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, whom I have accepted as the Judaean king, Jehoram, appears to express a certain dissatisfaction with Yanhamu in EA 285:9ff. Campbell points to this, adding [120]:

"The objection of Abdi-Heba against the rule of Yanhamu is further expressed in 286, for here Yanhamu has taken away the garrison force which had been assigned to Abdi-Heba. …."

"In 289:45 Yanhamu appears again with his name spelled Ya-ah-en-ha-mu. This time Abdi-heba is requesting his intervention, because "all the land of the king has revolted …".

"Naaman Sar of Syria"

I. Velikovsky would convincingly identify Yanhamu with the biblical Naaman, captain of the Syrian army [130].

But this Naaman was also a leper.

Back to Velikovsky's account of Naaman soon. Firstly, here are the relevant details of Naaman and his story as published in a JewishEncyclopedia.com article, "Naaman" [140]:

[Naaman]: "Syrian general whose miraculous recovery from leprosy is told in II Kings v. The name, meaning "pleasantness," is held by Lagarde to represent Adonis, on the assumption that (Isaiah 17:10) means "the plantings of Adonis." Naaman was a distinguished general who had often led the Syrians to victory. Stricken with leprosy, he was advised by a captive Israelitish maiden that the prophet Elisha could cure him. Naaman accordingly asked the Syrian king's permission to go to him, but the king, misunderstanding the words of the captive maiden, gave Naaman a letter to the King of Israel requesting him to cure Naaman of his leprosy. The latter was troubled by the Syrian king's message, and Elisha advised him to send Naaman to him. Arrived at Elisha's door, Naaman received word from Elisha that if he would bathe seven times in the Jordan he would be cured. Naaman was greatly disappointed, as he had expected that the prophet would meet him in person and implore Yhwh to cure him, but his servants persuaded him to follow Elisha's behest, with the result that he was completely restored to health. He then returned with his retinue to Elisha, before whom he acknowledged Yhwh as his God and asked for two mules' burden of Israelitish earth that he might build an altar to Yhwh. Naaman also sought forgiveness of Yhwh for his involuntary adoration of the Syrian divinity Rimmon through the act of his master in leaning upon him during his devotions. …..E.6"

-In Rabbinical Literature:

"According to the Rabbis, Naaman was the archer who drew his bow at a venture and mortally wounded Ahab, King of Israel (I Kings xxii. 34). This event is alluded to in the words "because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria" (II Kings v. 1), and therefore the Syrian king, Naaman's master, was Benhadad …."

"Naaman is represented as vain and haughty, on account of which he was stricken with leprosy …." [150]

Hirsch et. al. continues:

"Naaman was a "ger toshab," that is, he was not a perfect proselyte, having accepted only some of the commandments …. W. B. M. Sel." [160]

Hirsch et. al. now discuss the chronological flow of 2 Kings:

-Critical View:

"As the object of the narrative of Naaman's sickness and restoration to health is, apparently, to form a link in the long series of miracles performed by Elisha, the redactor of II Kings did not concern himself to indicate the time when this event occurred. The rabbinical tradition that Naaman was the archer (I Kings xxii. 34) who mortally wounded Ahab seems to have been adopted by Josephus ("Ant." viii. 15, § 5). If the tradition is correct, the Syrian king whom Naaman served must have been Ben-hadad [I]; but as the interval between the death of Ahab and the curing of Naaman's leprosy is not known, it is impossible to identify the King of Israel to whom Naaman was sent with a letter. Ewald ("Gesch." iii. 552 et seq.) thinks the king referred to was Jehoahaz, while Schenkel ("Biblical Lexicon") suggests Jehu, but the general view is that it was Jehoram. The passage ("because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria," II Kings v. 1) upon which the identification of Naaman with Ahab's slayer is based by the Rabbis is referred by G. Rawlinson, however (in the "Speaker's Commentary"), to the Syrian triumph over Shalmaneser II. (comp. Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," ii. 344, 361)." [170]

Hirsch et. al. continues:

"The request of Naaman to be permitted to carry away two mules' burden of Israelitish earth for the purpose of erecting upon it an altar on which to offer sacrifices to Yhwh, reflects the belief of those days that the god of each land could be worshiped only on his own soil."

"The expression "So he departed from him a little way" (; II Kings v. 19) seems to contradict the assertion of Naaman's intention to return to Syria with the two loads of earth. …."

There is even a reference to "Naaman the Syrian" in the New Testament (Luke 4:27).

Now here are some of Velikovsky's significant comments on this famous biblical story:

"In … the [Naaman] story, two facts are somewhat strange. First, inasmuch as Ben-Hadad himself was at the head of the thirty-two captains of his army, why, in the story of the wondrous healing, is the deliverance of Syria credited to a captain Naaman? Second, the king of Israel was a lifelong rival of the king of Damascus. Why, then, did this request to cure a sick captain inspire in the king of Israel such a dread that he rent his clothes?"

Velikovsky then proposed his identification for this Naaman in the EA Letters:

"For an explanation of the real role of this captain Naaman we shall look to the contemporaneous letters. A man by whom Syria received deliverance must be identifiable in the letters. We recognize him in the person of Ianhama, called also Iaanhamu ... the pharaoh's deputy in Syria, [who] was sent to the king of Damascus with prerogatives similar to those which Aman-appa had."

Velikovsky continues, with a quote from S. Mercer [180]:

".. Naaman's title in the Scriptures - sar - is also used in the letters. He was a plenipotentiary of the king of Egypt, in charge of the army and walled cities of Amuru land (Syria), later also the overseer of stores of grain. He had great influence in all matters of Syrian administration. Judged by his name, he was of Syrian origin, as were some other dignitaries at the court of Thebes. Ianhama is a Semitic name."

"Ianhamu was a powerful Egyptian agent in Syria, where he was respected as a good and wise man, and where he proved himself to be the most faithful of the pharaoh's servants".

That a transformation of some kind had come over this Yanhamu Velikovsky inferred from Rib-Addi's revised attitude towards him; an attitude that had changed dramatically in the course of Rib-Addi's reign:

"In [Rib-Addi's] early letters ... his fear of the mighty deputy of the pharaoh is plainly expressed. In one letter he wrote to the pharaoh: "Thou must rescue me out of the hand of Iaanhamu". He asked the pharaoh to inform his deputy that he, Ianhama, would be responsible if anything should happen to [Rib-Addi's] person ...."

"Say to Ianhamu: 'Rib-Addi is even in thy hands, and all that will be done to him rests upon thee'."

But, Velikovsky continues (substituting Samaria for EA's Sumur):

Later on, when Aman-appa left Samaria ..., [Rib-Addi] ... wrote to the pharaoh asking him to appoint Ianhama governor in Samaria ...: "May it seem right to my lord to send Ianhama as his deputy. I hear from the mouth of the people that he is a wise man and all people love him".
"We recall the scriptural words about Naaman, that he was an "honourable" man."

The matter of whether Yanhamu may ever have been appointed to governor Sumur, and was this Samaria?, will be considered in Part Two. As to Naaman's apparent change of attitude, Velikovsky believed the answer was to be found in the Scriptures:

"In another letter [Rib-Addi] again asks the pharaoh to send Ianhama and in the next one he praises him in these words: "There is no servant like Ianhama, a faithful servant to the king".
... The letters do not show why the fear of [Rib-Addi] ... changed into confidence with respect to the Syrian deputy. The Scriptures provide the explanation in the story of the healing of Naaman by the prophet of Samaria. Naaman was very grateful to the prophet ... (II Kings 5:15). Elisha even declared that he would heal Naaman in order to help the king of Israel politically.
So [Ianhamu] became a friend.

Velikovsky then went on to point out "... certain other features of the role and character of Ianhama, reflected in the letters, [and] shown also in the Scriptures". For example:

"He was a generous man. This appears in the story of the healing: he gave to the servant of the prophet two talents of silver and two changes of garments, more than the servant had asked for, when the prophet refused to take ten talents of silver, six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment."
"It is of interest to find that, according to the letters, Ianhama was in charge of the pharaoh's treasury in Syria, being over "money and clothing".

"... The el-Amarna letters also speak of him as the generous patron of a Palestinian youth, who was educated in Egypt at his expense."

"The man "by whom the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria" ... was Ianhama. How this captain changed his attitude and became a supporter of the king of Samaria is recorded in the letters and is explained by the Scriptures."

It seems that Yanhamu had (like Horemheb) firstly come into prominence towards the end of the reign of Akhnaton's father, Amenhotep III. But it was not until after Aziru's own rise to prominence, well into the reign of Akhnaton, that Rib-Addi began to value the Syrian officer as a friend.

Conclusion to Part One: Character File of our Army Commander

Our character file so far for the EA/biblical character under examination can be summarised as follows:

(a) an army commander allied to the king of Syria,
(b) a charioteer and deadly archer;
(c) a determined Yahwist, though with some religious ambivalence;
(d) having a religious affiliation with the prophet Elisha;
(e) a contemporary of Ahab and the Jehorams;
(f) in a situation of tension with Jehoram of Judah;
(g) a popular commander, but
(h) excessive and bloody.

Sound familiar? All (i) - (viii) are basically applicable also to Naaman's portfolio. Are there any guesses as to who this biblical commander might be?

Well, here is my answer:

This person, a continuation of Naaman, is, I believe, the biblical JEHU, one-time general, anointed king of Israel by one of Elisha's servant, to eradicate the House of Ahab (now ruled by his son, Jehoram).

Part Two:
Horemheb in the Bible

Horemheb as Jehu (841-814 BC, conventional dating)

His Religious Reform

Now at the very time of Horemheb, revised, there occurred a sweeping reaction to the worship of Baal in the person of Commander Jehu, encouraged by the prophet Elisha. The dark era of Ahab and Jezebel, wrote P. Mauro [190] with reference to 2 Kings:

... was brought to a bloody end by a ministry of judgment executed by the hand of Jehu. He made a thorough work of it, slaying Joram (Jehoram) and his mother Jezebel (2 Kings 9:21-37), and the seventy sons of Ahab (10:1-7) and "all that remained of the house of Ahab … until he left him none remaining" (10:11).

Moreover, when Jehu came to Samaria (ibid.): "… he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the Lord which He spake to Elijah" (10:17). And finally, he executed the vengeance of God upon the priests and worshippers of Baal (10:19-27)".

Jehu even killed Ahaziah, king of Judah (9:27). And he would most certainly have done the same to Ahaziah's father, Jehoram (i.e. Abdi-Hiba of EA), had he still been alive. Recall the great tension that existed between Abdi-Hiba and Ianhamu (Jehu) as revealed by EA letters 285 & 286.

Did King Jehu Kill His Own Family? [200]

There are a few points of interest to be taken from this article, "Did King Jehu Kill His Own Family?". Schneider here is intent upon showing that Jehu, despite his having wiped out the entire House of Ahab, was nonetheless an Omride (Omri being Ahab's father) as represented by Shalmaneser III in his Black Obelisk inscription where the Assyrian king refers to a "Iaua, son of Omri".

Before looking in more detail at the points raised by Schneider in favour of Jehu's being a true Omride, I should like to highlight three compelling reasons (two of which are also included by Schneider in her discussion) that might suggest, to the contrary, that Jehu wasn't an Omride:

2.

3.

"Jehu's relationship with the Israelite palace and royalty also hints at a family connection. For example, when Jehu is proclaimed king by his troops and rides to the palace, he is recognized from afar by the way he rides (2 Kings 9:20). When riding out to greet him, Joram, about to be killed, calls Jehu by name (2 Kings 9:22). Jehu comments that he once rode behind Joram's father, Ahab, in battle (2 Kings 9:25). Even Jezebel's greeting to Jehu-she calls him a "Zimri"-may indicate he was a palace insider (2 Kings 9:31). Clearly, Jehu was no stranger to the royal family."

Whilst this situation of familiarity at the royal palace can be used, as Schneider does use it, to support her view of Jehu's being an Omride, it would also be accounted for (and perhaps even better) if Jehu were, as I am proposing here, Yanhamu/Naaman, an Egyptian-appointed official of the highest rank to the government of Syro-Palestine.

Moreover, do we not have the biblical instance of Naaman's riding up "with his horses and chariots", to Samaria, to seek a cure from Elisha? And returning again later to thank the prophet, "he and all his company"; Naaman himself certainly riding in his chariot at the time (cf. 2 Kings 5:9; 5:21). That the Syrians were expert horse handlers may be deduced from C. Aldred's view that Yuya, who had an unusual build for an Egyptian, may have been Asiatic (Syrian), since Asiatics "had the reputation of being skilled in the government of horses...". [210]

There is an important chronological note in Schneider's quote above, that Jehu was already an active charioteer in the days of Ahab, whom tradition has Naaman (here identified with Jehu) slaying in battle. In revised terms, this would also make Jehu (just as Horemheb was) an active contemporary of Amenhotep III, late in the latter's reign.

Schneider had commented on Jehu's idiosyncratic charioteering. In fact a sentinel at the time of Jehu's deadly pursuit of Jehoram of Israel had reported: "It looks like the driving of Jehu son of Nimshi; for he drives like a maniac" (v.20). Though, since it was Jehu who on this occasion had fired the arrow that killed Jehoram, the actual 'maniacal' driver of the two-man war chariot may have been Jehu's aide, Bidkar (vv. 24-25) - and who is this Bidkar anyway in the EA scheme of things? Perhaps Pihuru (the 'h' to be pronounced as the 'ch' in Scottish 'loch'), as in EA 116 and 117 where Rib-Addi requests that Yanhamu and Pihuru (Pahuru) go with their governors to take Amurru.

Shalmaneser III's Black Obelisk

Schneider's case will largely rest upon the apparent reference to Jehu by Shalmaneser III as a "son of Omri". This appears to loom as a problem for my own reconstruction, according to which the Commander in question was a Syrian, Naaman (his nationality reinforced by Luke 4:27), not an Israelite.

The questions though to be asked are:

Was this actually Jehu?

Why would Jehu be designated as an Omride?

Would Jehu have been likely to have bowed before Shalmaneser III anyway?

Schneider, who believes that this was Jehu, and that Jehu was in fact an Omride, has put together the following explanation:

"The four-sided limestone monument [Black Obelisk] is decorated with five registers of relief sculptures depicting the bringing of tribute to Shalmaneser. Each register reads around four sides, one panel to a side, portraying a particular tribute and tribute-bearers. The second register from the top shows the tribute of the Israelite king Jehu (ruled 841-814 B.C.E.). The central figure on the first panel of this register, presumably Jehu himself, prostrates himself, forehead to the ground or possibly kissing the feet of the Assyrian monarch. Some have suggested that this figure might be Jehu's emissary. But if it is Jehu, this panel offers the only extant picture of a king of ancient Israel from the First Temple period [sic].
The cuneiform caption above this register identifies the scenes as representing the tribute of Jehu and reads as follows:

`Tribute of Iaua [Jehu], son of Omri. Silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden beaker, golden goblets, pitchers of gold, tin, staves for the hand of the king, [and] javelins, I [Shalmaneser] received from him.'

… The Bible does not mention Jehu paying tribute to Shalmaneser. But obviously the Bible does not record everything that occurred in a reign that began in 841 B.C.E. and ended in 814 B.C.E."

Schneider next moves on to discuss the Omride problem in relation to Jehu:

"There is another problem, however. The inscription calls Jehu the son of Omri. This does not necessarily mean that Jehu was Omri's literal son. It could well mean he was a descendant of Omri, that is of the House, or dynasty, of Omri. But that does not solve the problem. According to conventional scholarly wisdom, Jehu was not even a descendant of Omri. On the contrary, Jehu staged a coup d'etat that supposedly brought an end to the 40-year rule of the Omride dynasty. As recounted in 2 Kings 9-10, Jehu, a commander in King Joram's army, was instructed by Elisha to murder the king, which ended the line of Omri."

"In Judah, the southern kingdom, the Davidic kings ruled continuously for 400 years, whereas murder and usurpation were common occurrences in the northern kingdom of Israel. Omri, also a general, became king of the northern kingdom in 882 B.C.E. after attacking his predecessor. Omri was succeeded by his son Ahab (ruled 871-852 B.C.E.), who in turn was succeeded first by one son, Ahaziah (ruled 852-851 B.C.E.), and then by another son, Joram (ruled 851-842 B.C.E.), whom Jehu murdered.
… The grisly paradox of the cuneiform inscription on the Black Obelisk is that it identifies Jehu as the son of Omri, the very house he is famous for destroying."

Modern scholarship assumes, based on all the information available in the Hebrew Bible, that to destroy the House of Ahab would be to destroy the House of Omri as well. But the Hebrew text never explicitly draws that conclusion: Throughout the Ahab/Jehu cycle the house that is destroyed is called the House of Ahab, while the House of Omri is never mentioned."

Schneider then asks: "Why does the Bible make this peculiar distinction between the House of Ahab and the House of Omri?" And her explanation of the 'son of Omri' conundrum is as follows:

"I propose that the Black Obelisk inscription is correct, that Jehu was indeed a "son" of Omri-that is, a descendant of Omri-but through a different line from that of Ahab, and that the House of Omri therefore did not come to an end when Jehu wiped out the House of Ahab."

"Traditional explanations for the supposed mistake on the Black Obelisk-the identification of Jehu as a son of Omri-point out that the Assyrians may have misunderstood Israelite politics or that modern interpretations of the cuneiform text may be in error. …. How much credibility should we give them? Was it a mistake to identify Jehu as a son of Omri?... why is Jehu referred to as "son of Omri"? A traditional explanation is that the Assyrians referred to a kingdom by using the name of the first ruler from that kingdom with whom they had contact. Since Assurnasirpal II campaigned in the west (though not far enough to the southwest to reach Israel), it is possible that he came into contact with Omri, who ruled Israel at that time. According to the traditional view, the Assyrians for that reason referred to Israel as the "house of Omri" until it was destroyed in 721 B.C.E. -despite the fact that Jehu represented the beginning of a new, if short-lived, dynasty."

"If that is so, however, we would not expect the first Assyrian reference to an Israelite ruler, on the Kurkh Monolith, to mention Ahab as ruling the land of sir-'i-la-a, probably Israel, though possibly Jezreel. No reference to King Omri in the Assyrian inscriptions has been discovered. Thus the standard explanation for the reference to Jehu as "son of Omri"-that Omri was the Assyrian term for Israel-is unsupported by the evidence."

Schneider now turns to the matter of Jehu's biblical lineage:

"…. A clue: In the Hebrew Bible, Jehu is called "Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi" (2 Kings 9:2,14). Jehu is the only king of Israel to have his grandfather's name listed in his patronymic. Why? Traditional explanations would suffice were it not for the Assyrian references. These explanations usually suggest that Jehu's father was not as well known in the community as his grandfather, or that Nimshi is a clan name whose meaning has been lost over the centuries."

"Another explanation is that Jehu's grandfather's name is included to show that Jehu's father was not King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehu's contemporary."

This explanation however also has its problems as indicated by the three points to which Schneider now refers:

"Although the foregoing explanations are consistent with Biblical accounts, they face some significant problems: (1) There is no other Biblical reference to a person named Nimshi, so that he was probably not all that well known; (2) the name "Nimshi" appears as a personal name on a Samarian ostracon, making it unlikely that the name referred to a clan; (3) not only are grandfathers' names never listed in the patronymics of Israelite kings, but other Israelite kings who usurped the throne, such as Zimri and Omri, have no patronymics at all!"

"On the other hand, if Jehu claimed descent from Omri, the inclusion of his grandfather's name may have been necessary to establish the genealogical link. …. I propose that Jehu was indeed a descendant of Omri. …."

"Without contradicting information provided by the Hebrew Bible, this suggestion would answer many questions. Assuming that Omri had sons from more than one wife would explain the Assyrian reference to Jehu as belonging to the House of Omri. It would also account for Jehu's unusual patronymic, why he was a commander so familiar to the royal family, and why the purge of the House of Ahab, extending to Judah, was so severe. This new way of thinking about Jehu solves problems on both the cuneiform and Biblical sides without having to make excuses for any of the texts involved."

Such an involved explanation as Schneider's I believe to be unnecessary though if Jehu is to be identified as a Syrian commander; hence the special need for a patronymic since he was a non-Israelite.

The Assyrian use of "Omri" is apparently careless by modern standards, since it was used for rulers of Samaria quite unrelated to Omri right down to the destruction of Samaria. It would thus seem to be merely a synonym for 'a ruler of Samaria'; the term 'Omri' thus being more geographically than genealogically intended.

Another possible explanation, in the case of the Black Obelisk, is that the figure from whom Shalmaneser III is exacting tribute is, not Jehu, but Jehoram of Israel, who was a true Omride. Though traditional chronology favours the view that the Black Obelisk must be referring to Jehu - and I, too, do tend to lean toward that view, and shall give some reasons why in Part Three - I have argued in MFA and elsewhere that the reign of Shalmaneser III may need some reassessment in light of the prolonged illness suffered by his father, Ashurnasirpal II, and hence necessitating a long co-regency between these two Assyrian kings.

Origins of Jehu

Who were the "Jehoshaphat" and "Nimshi", respectively the father and grandfather of Jehu (2 Kings 9:2)? And why does 1 Kings 19:16 call Jehu simply "son of Nimshi", without any mention of his presumed father Jehoshaphat? After Elijah's encounter with God on Mount Horeb, the prophet is told (1 Kings 19:15-17):

'Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael as king over Aram. Also you shall anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-me-holah as prophet in your place. Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael. Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill. …'.

These verses may be pregnant with significance from a genealogical point of view, perhaps possessing an interconnectedness that has so far gone unrecognised (and lost in the translation). Note the following:

Firstly, Hazael's father is not even named;
Secondly, Jehu's father is named differently from how he is named in 2 Kings 9:2.
Thirdly, Elisha's father is given the very name, Shaphat [i.e. Eli- or Jeho-shaphat], as was given to Jehu's father, Jehoshaphat, by 2 Kings.

All of this most certainly has a significance. But what is it?

My tentative explanation of it are these 2 points:

1. Hazael and Jehu both shared the same grandfather, Nimshi, but not the same father. This would mean that both Hazael and Jehu were Syrian descendants of Tab-Rimmon, the father of Hazael's father, Ben-hadad I (1 Kings 15:18). But Jehu was descended from a son of Tab-Rimmon's different from the latter's son, Ben-hadad, father of Hazael. In other words, Jehu and Hazael were cousins, of royal Syrian blood. Neither perhaps would have been directly in line for the throne of Damascus; but Hazael, born to one of his father's concubines, hence a "son of nobody", murdered his father and usurped the throne - with the reluctant 'blessing' of Elisha (2 Kings 8:12-13).

2. Possibly, given that the name of Elisha's father was the same as the name of Jehu's father, namely Jehoshaphat (albeit a common name at the time), Jehu and Elisha were also related: Syro-Israelites. Jehu's grandfather, Tab-rimmon (?), would have had great familiarity with the Omride Israelites, because he had actually set up his bazaars in Samaria (1 Kings 20:34). Jehu though apparently, due to career circumstances, leant more to the Syrian side of the family than did Elisha; at least until Jehu's healing and conversion (cf. 2 Kings 5:12; 5:15). Then he became a fit person to rule Israel in the name of Yahweh.

It would be strange if Jehu's relative, Hazael, had not been influenced towards Yahwism, at least to some degree, by what had marvellously befell his brother Jehu, as Naaman. Certainly, there were some very close connections between Jehu and Hazael, all of which would perhaps be better understandable if the two were related, say, as cousins.

For instance:

Both Hazael and Jehu would bring lavish gifts to Elisha (cf. 5:15, 23; 8:9).
Again, both were apparently using Egyptian-backed Syrian forces to conspire against Ahab's line. In the Tell Dan inscription it was Hazael (according to Finkelstein's and Silberman's interpretation of it, The Bible Unearthed, 2002, 129) who had claimed the victory over the House of Ahab, whereas the Bible ascribes it entirely to the action of Jehu.
Consequently, therefore, both probably also detested Ahab's religious regime, as represented by the Tyrian god Baal Melqart.

But this is all one and the same, since God had informed Elijah: 'Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael. Jehu shall kill …'. And Elisha would 'mop up' the rest. Was this some sort of dynastic-inspired purge?

EA's Sumur as Samaria

As Jehu (Ianhamu/Naaman) grew in favour with the Syro-Palestinians, who began to regard him as "a wise man and all people love him" (EA 106), then, understandably, the calls began for him to be made rabis (governor, king?) of Sumur.

Now, given biblically that the Syrian became the king of Samaria, this seems like an opportune time to reconsider Velikovsky's view (that I had previously rejected) that the important town of Sumur (var. Sumurra) in the EA correspondence was, not the coastal Phoenician town of Simyra, near Byblos, but Samaria; the Omri-founded capital of Israel. Whilst Velikovsky's view that Rib-Addi of Gubla was Ahab (of Jezreel) is, I still believe, far-fetched and incorrect, Sumur, which apparently "was not really Rib-Addi's concern at all" [220], could therefore be Samaria. It may be that the Syrian call for Yanhamu to be made the Egyptian rabis (governor) of Sumur was eventually heard. For Ianhamu, as Jehu, did indeed become king of Samaria (whatever that term 'king' connoted in EA hierarchical circumstances).

Conclusion to Part Two & Bridge to Part Three

Though I have not yet discussed Horemheb's career, achievements or personal characteristics (that shall be done in some detail in Part Three), I can give here a preview of Horemheb inasmuch as Jehu strikingly matches him. Jehu matches Horemheb (as we are going to find) in the following manifold ways(a) an Army Commander, Charioteer, apparently allied to a Syrian potentate; as

(b) likely a non-Egyptian;
(c) chronologically, in a revised context;
(d) having a name, Horemheb, that looks suspiciously like that (Jehoram) borne by contemporary kings of Israel and Judah;
(e) having reigned for 28 years;
(f) a cruel law enforcer;
(g) a fanatical religious reformer king.

Let me qualify and enlarge upon some of these points by way of preview of Horemheb:

The name Horemheb/Horam-heb looks suspiciously Hebrew, like Jehoram; a name that was in vogue at the time, being held even by contemporaneous kings of Samaria and Jerusalem. It may perhaps have been another of those Palestinian adaptations of Egyptian to a Hebrew name that I have discussed elsewhere, for example in regard to David and Solomon. It is even possible that Jehu was variously called Jehoram (/Horam-heb). The actual name 'Jehu' though arises from 'Yawheh' and 'huw', and means "Jehovah (is) He".

The reign of 28 years attributed to Horemheb by N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, "Chronology", from 1323-1295 BC) perfectly matches the biblical data that: "The time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years" (2 Kings 10:36).

Horemheb is most famous as a reformer king; his Great Edict, or code of laws, was cruel but effective. Grimal tells of Horemheb's legal reform (op. cit., 245):

Horemheb was above all the restorer of established order, as his royal titulature indicates. His Horus name is 'Powerful bull with wise decisions'. The verb employed here is seped, a technical term describing the process of putting things in order.... Horemheb's Golden Horus name was along the same lines: 'He who is satisfied with Truth and who causes the two Lands to increase'. Here again the verb herw, translated here as 'satisfy', has a precise judicial sense linked to the enforcement of law.

There are several things immediately to be noted about this famous Edict (for more detail of which, see Part Three), and about Horemheb's 'setting of things in order'.

Firstly, the Edict suggests an accountant-like/treasurer-like concern for grain and food reminiscent of Horemheb's earlier days;
Secondly, it punished severely: e.g. those who extorted farmers had their noses cut off and were sent into exile (see Part Three).
Thirdly, from whence arose Horemheb's propensity for law enforcement and cruel punishment?

Why from his Syro-Mitannian forebears of course!

His uncle Ashurnasirpal, possibly the most cruel law-enforcing king of all antiquity, boasted of the following punishment for offenders: "From some [captives who had revolted] I cut off their noses, their ears and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes" (G. Roux, Iraq, 290-291). One of Ashurnasirpal's excesses was to sit down to dine amidst the slaughter that he had created. And this is exactly what Jehu did immediately after the gory death of Jezebel. He ate and drank (2 Kings 9:33-34).

Moreover, the name of Jehu's father, Jeho-shaphat, may have the same non-theophoric element as Horemheb's titulatry term, seped (= shaphat), to put things in order.

One Concerted Religious Campaign of Reform

I shall argue in Part Three that the purge of Atonism in Egypt, and of Baalism in Israel, was one and the same thorough co-ordinated movement. There are such striking similarities too, as just outlined, between the agent of the purge in Egypt, Horemheb, and in Israel, Jehu. Moreover, there is a description of Horemheb in his tomb that could be perfectly applied to Jehu especially after his bloody massacre of Ahab's line:

… [a henchman] at the feet of his lord on the battle-field on this day of slaughtering Asiatics.

Fully compatible with the biblical descriptions of Jehu are Tyldesley's references to Horemheb as "a solid, old-fashioned Egyptian pharaoh", possessing "excessive religious zeal" (op. cit., 185). And Doherty's descriptions of Horemheb as being "an inveterate red-neck [hating] everything [the cult of Aten] stood for [and] only too ready to launch the most savage persecution against [the Aten cult]" (op. cit., 79-80). Consequently, it is thought that Horemheb was able to make a new start, being supposedly (like Jehu) untainted by the old heresy. Certainly, Tyldesley contrasts "the heretic [Atonist] regime [with] the orthodox Horemheb" (op. cit., 60).

But Horemheb, like Ay, must have had to pay at least lip service to Atonism (see Doherty, 75). Whilst how he could have justified this will be explained in Part Three, there was a certain religious ambivalence anyway in Horemheb, as Jehu. This is apparent from 2 Kings 20:31, according to which Jehu - even though he may have publicly promoted Yahweh, in his personal life - worshipped the golden calves of Jeroboam I.

And did the idolatry stop there?

Nevertheless, the Bible depicts Jehu as basically the new man for the new job, and this is perfectly reflected in Grimal's description of Horemheb the reformer (op. cit., 242. Emphasis added):

The vilification of the memory of the heretic pharaoh [Akhnaton] perhaps began as soon as the worship of Amun had been restored, but the Amarna period does not seem to have finally ended with the beginning of the reign of Ay ... his family was too closely linked with the Thutmosids for his reign to be seen as a true break with the past. A new man was needed if a new start was to be made.

As is often the case in such circumstances, it was a military man - the commander-in-chief of the army - who took charge.

Like Jehu in the case of Baal, Horemheb initially left no stone unturned - literally - in eradicating traces of the heretic religion. He turned upside down some of the stone blocks from Nefertiti's pillars in the Hwt-Benben, so as to make partial scenes. And he defaced her images (Nefertiti, 60).

[010] "It is difficult at the present day to know what position to assign him [Haremhab] in the pharaonic lists: while some regard him as the last of the XVIIIth Dynasty, others prefer to place him at the head of the XIXth." Maspero, The Struggle of Nations, p. 369; cf. A. K. Philips, "Horemheb, Founder of the XIXth Dynasty?" Orientalia, 46 (1977).
[020] E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Vol. II, pt. I, p. 247; R. Hari, Horemheb et la Reine Moutnodjemet, Geneva, 1964, p. 412.
[030] G. Martin, "Excavations at the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 1975: Preliminary Report", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 62 (1976), p. 9.
[040] E. Campbell, The Chronology of the Amarna Letters. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1964, 90.
[050] A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 248.
[060] Note: Maya, as we have just read, also bore this title of Fanbearer at the king's right-hand; but I do not intend to attempt to identify him with Horemheb since, in a companion article ("Chancellor Ay, Chancellor May, Chancellor Bay") [CACMCB] I shall be identifying Maya (May) with Ay.
[070] Ibid., 74.
[080] Ibid., 73.
[090] Op. cit., 73.
[100] Ibid., section C. "Yanhamu and the South", 93, 91.
[110] Ibid., p. 91-92).
[120] Ibid., p. 99.
[130] Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, p. 274ff.
[140] Written by Emil G. Hirsch M. Seligsohn Wilhelm Bacher.
[150] Comment: If the tradition referred to above is correct, that Naaman himself slew Ahab, then Naaman would unlikely be Amon - hence EA's Amanappa? - since Ahab had left the prophet Micaiah behind with Amon when Ahab had gone forth to the war in which he was to be killed.
[160] Comment: In this regard, Naaman may have been on a similar sort of conversion level as "Queen Sheba".
[ [170] Comment: I agree with "the general view" expressed above in this quote, that Naaman's contemporary king of Israel was Jehoram, the son of Ahab. In terms of my revision, this Jehoram was EA's Mut-Baal, son of Labayu.
[180] Mercer, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets, p. 297.
[190] P. Mauro, `The Wonders of Bible Chronology', Reiner Publications, 1933, p. 53.
[200] Tammi Schneider, `New Interpretation Reconciles Biblical Text with Famous Assyrian Inscription' in Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February, 1995.
[210] As quoted by M. Lorenz in `Queen Tiye: A Biography'.
[220] Campbell, op. cit., 85.