Jesus and Hosea The King

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Prodigalgrandson
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:46 am

Jesus and Hosea The King

Post by Prodigalgrandson »

Hello all! Constant lurker here.

All the current discussion regarding Antigonus got me thinking. Perhaps there were others who could have been used as fodder/ inspiration for the Jesus traditions. I looked over the biblical king lists and noticed the last king of Israel: Hosea (Hoshea? Romanization is bs).

So, firstly, the obvious: Jesus = Joshua = Yahu + Hosea

This goes back to the equivalences between Joshua ben Nun and Jesus. Joshua was originally called Hosea until YHWH changed it to Joshua, adding his name (Yahu-). Hosea means "salvation." (Ironic name for the king who oversaw the end of his kingdom.) Joshua, then, means "salvation of Yahu/YHWH." Hosea was a fairly popular name in Israel, evidenced by both a king and a prophet of the name. (I'm sure there's someone thinks the two are one and the same person). This could lead one to the conclusion that Joshua was originally called only Hosea (ie - no name change), at least in the Northern Kingdom. Again, this all feels a little contrived, but the king is attested archaeologically. Hosea the Conqueror delivers Canaan up to Israel and Hosea the King delivers Israel up to the Assyrians. Bookends, if you will.

Moving past the oft-covered Joshua, the kings scant biographical data is as follows:

--According to the biblical text, Hosea be Elah, originally a simple army captain, became king by aligning with the pro-Assyrian faction in the kingdom, leading a coup against the anti-Assyrian King Pekah and assassinating him (ostensibly himself). Tiglath-Pilesar III (whom I named my son after, BTW) doesn't mention specifics, but claims to have given the throne to Hosea (and to have received a fairly large tribute). Hosea was a faithful vassal to his lord Tiglath-Pilesar III and served him until the Great King's death.
--Shalmanesar V, son of Tiglath-Pilesar III, succeeds his father on the throne. Now, the particulars of what happens next isn't clear, but what is known is that Shalmanesar (under his given name of Ululaylu) served under his father as a "vassal" before his death. Perhaps some disagreement or quarrel came between Hosea and Shalmanesar then, or maybe Hosea just thought a guy named Ululaylu couldn't be much more than a punk bitch. In any case, upon the succession, Hosea began overtures to the Egyptians, who seemed receptive, and he stopped paying tribute to Assyria. Probably the worst decision in the situation, Hosea relied on Egyptian salvation in the face of Shalmanesar's wrath, fast in coming. However, the Egyptians didn't come, and Shalmanesar's armies besieged Samaria. For three years the armies surrounded the city, finally taking it in ~725 BCE. Thus Salvation brought Destruction.
-- Hosea's fate is unknown, but he was likely executed after the city was captured. However, in a strange turn of events, Shalmanesar was then deposed by Sargon II roughly three years later in 722 BCE. This then led to another revolt in Samaria, though there was no king reigning. Sargon II then reclaimed the city and deported a portion of the population and repopulated Samaria with peoples from across the Assyrian Empire.

-Now, the Jesus-y bits!-

--His very name Hosea ben Elah, King of Samaria and Israel, is already quite intriguing. Most etymologies of Elah point to "terebinth" so we have "Salvation, son of the Turpentine Tree," (Intriguing in a staurific way) while a simple misunderstanding/ mishearing could produce "Salvation, son of the God(s)" (A more orthodox Christianism).
--The coup could be seen in light of the "Disturbance in the Temple" or maybe even the declaration to the disciples regarding them sitting on thrones alongside Jesus. Being a betrayal from within, perhaps it features as the Judas betrayal. I know some think that Judas (as Thomas) was originally venerated so perhaps this might have some bearing there?
--Some like to look at things in more political terms (meaning taking "God," "Lord," etc. to be referring to overlords/ Great Kings over Israel and Judah), so Hosea surely acknowledged Tiglath-Pilesar III as Lord, sovereign, and perhaps even as a sort of metaphorical/ political father figure. This could be remembered as "God" raising "Jesus" to the "Kingdom." (Unlikely, I know, but thinking is fun!)
-- The three year siege and the three year ministry... and the three years under Shalmanesar V and the three days in the tomb... and the revolt against Sargon II and the resurrection. It might be a little tedious and tendentious, but the numeric sequence works surprisingly well and midrashic rehashing of history in veiled form is a possibility often floated.
--Finally, his unknown fate could be anything. Assyrians were VERY creative with their captives. Burning, dismemberment, you name it. Some kings committed suicide rather than face whatever madcap murder awaited them at the hands of the Assyrians. Tiglath-Pilesar III himself had a particular way of dealing with the kings of conquered cities: Staking. “Nabû-ushabshi, their king, I hung up in front of the gate of his city on a stake." His son, Shalmanesar V, would surely have taken note of this particularly effective method of retribution and deterrence. Surely the rebellious Hosea could have met a similar fate, though it is not attested in Assyrian nor Hebrew records. Obviously, a staked (or if you prefer, crucified) King of Israel is at least of passing interest to those interested in this Jesus stuff, just like Antigonus II Mattathias. This one is even named Hosea to boot!

In closing, I feel like Samaria (and the Northern Kingdom by extension) is particularly overlooked in the study of Christian origins. Jesus is said to come from the damn Galilee (making him by extension more of an Israelite than a Judahite), so one would think understanding that culture would be integral. Second Temple Judaism can only ever take us so far, especially since we can only kinda reconstruct it any way. Yes, he's said to be "of David," but even that's in question now. The real answers lie in the folk religion of Samaria and the Galilee in the early centuries CE and perhaps may forever be lost to time. At least that's my take.

I just thought I would share my little thought experiment with everyone here and see what you all thought .
Post Reply