by
Damien F. Mackey
Mention of “Jabin of Hazor” in one of the Mari letters has led even some astute
revisionists, such as Drs. Courville and Osgood, seeking more solid ground for
the Hammurabic era, to bind Hammurabi and his contemporary, Zimri-Lim, to the
era of Joshua and his foe, Jabin of Hazor.
Introduction
Dr.
Courville, writing his important two-volume set, The Exodus Problem and its
Ramifications (1971), was concerned about establishing an ancient
history/archaeology that properly accorded with the biblical data. He, realising
that uncertainty about the proper date for Hammurabi, the famous king of
Babylon, had left that monarch, as Courville wrote, “floating about in a liquid chronology of
Chaldea”, had set about to establish some sort of biblico-historical anchor for
Hammurabi. (The great King of Babylon, gradually shifted down the centuries by
historians, was then dated to the C18th BC).
Courville’s choice of an anchor
for Hammurabi and his contemporary, Zimri-Lim of Mari, was one “Jabin of Hazor”,
who figures in the correspondence of Zimri-Lim. Courville identified this Jabin
with the King Jabin of Hazor at the time of Joshua, thereby pinning kings Hammurabi
and Zimri-Lim to the C15th BC. Other revisionists have followed him in this,
including the perceptive Dr. John Osgood, in his generally brilliant archaeological
revision:
The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology:
(b) Settlement and Apostasy
Whilst Dr. Osgood probably does
this better than anyone else, he has unfortunately (I believe) attempted to
fuse two biblico-historical eras that were, in fact, separated the one from the
other by about half a millennium.
Dr. Osgood, who will most convincingly
in this article establish a precise archaeological phase (Khabur ware period) for
the enigmatic:
King
Cushan-Rishathaim
of the early Judges period (3:8-10):
The anger of the Lord burned against Israel so that he sold
them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the
Israelites were subject for eight years. But when they
cried out to the Lord, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s
younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the Lord came on him,
so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war. The Lord gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who
overpowered him.
will, however, on the flimsiest of
evidence, date Zimri-Lim (and so Hammurabi) to “just prior to” this biblical
incident. Dr. Osgood wrote:
The
question of the Khabur ware period becomes even more intriguing when we turn to
the Mesopotamian scene ….
A Synchronism Archaeologically
Just
prior to the Khabur surge and dominance, we are in the period of Mari’s zenith
under Zimri-Lim. It was during his early reign that a letter was written
concerning the shipment of a significant quantity of tin to the Palestinian
city of Hazor (among others)—no doubt to be used for bronze, and some of that
most certainly for weapons.15
The king
named was IBNI-ADAD, or the same as JABIN-HADAD, a name that brings to mind the
king of Hazor JABIN (Joshua 11:1). He certainly would have an urgent desire for bronze
and hence tin as he heard the news of the approaching Israelite conquests.
Moreover, Jabin and Zimri-Lim fit archaeologically with the time surrounding
the establishment of the MB I civilisation of Palestine, here identified with
the Israelite conquerors. Though nothing is proved, the fit is excellent for
such an identification.
[End of quote]
Unfortunately for both Courville and Osgood, and those who have followed
them on this, the name “Jabin” was used by various rulers of Hazor down through
the centuries.
We read, for instance, at (http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-ibni-addad-yabni-haddad-qishon-jabin-king-of-hazor-joshua-deborah-barak-1700bc.htm):
Five different references to Jabin of Hazor
Archeology now has uncovered a total of three different references to
Jabin, in addition to the two Bible references to Jabin of Joshua (1406 BC) and
Deborah (1200 BC). This proves the Bible was right all along and that
"Jabin" is a dynastic name for a series of kings rather than the one
time use of a single king. Two 18-17th century inscriptions have
been found at Mari and Hazor with the name Jabin. A third is on the names list
of Ramesses II
at the Amon Temple at Karnak 1279-1212 BC.
1.
The Accadian tablet from Mari reads:
“Ibni-Addad king of Hazor.” (18th century BC)
2.
The Old Babylonian tablet letter from
Hazor is actually addressed "To Ibni". (18-17th century
BC)
3. The Ramseese II namelist at Karnak
reads: "Qishon of Jabin"
Drs. Courville and Osgood have picked out quite the wrong Jabin of Hazor
for the alignment with Zimri-Lim, and hence for the establishment of a
rock-solid historical synchronism for Hammurabi. The correct era for Hammurabi
and Zimri-Lim is clearly the time of King Solomon, as eventually pioneered by
Dean Hickman (1986), and now flourishing with abundant synchronisms. See my:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim
as Contemporaries of Solomon
Dr. Osgood’s
view that “Jabin and Zimri-Lim fit archaeologically with
the time surrounding the establishment of the MB I civilisation of Palestine,
here identified with the Israelite conquerors”, whilst correctly identifying
the Israelites archaeologically with the MB I people, is only because the
conventional historians have incorrectly dated Zimri-Lim to the C18th BC, which
is wrongly identified as the MB I phase.
However, he is wise enough
to add to this that “…nothing is proved …”.
