Jesus as Temple

by Damien F. Mackey "And the Word became flesh and Tabernacled among us". John 1:14 Introduction Some non-Christians, such as the Moslem scholar Dr Ali Ataie (Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron), are emphasising that the Christian Zionists are going against the New Testament by hoping to hasten the end times and the Final Coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, by re-building the (third) Temple in Jerusalem. For, as these non-Christians rightly say, Jesus had claimed of the old Temple that “not one stone here will be left on another” (Mark 13:2), and that He himself was now the Temple. In this way, such non-Christians have read the New Testament far more accurately than have the Christian Zionists, who are succeeding only in emptying the Scriptures of their true meaning. A completely new age had been ushered in with the return of Jesus, as He said, to bring fiery Justice upon the evil and adulterous generation that had crucified Him (cf. Malachi 3:5: “I will come to you in judgment ....”). The land of Israel was ravaged and burned, its capital city of Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was totally eradicated, and those thousands of Jews who were not killed were taken away into captivity. That physically severed forever the ancient Abrahamic connection between the Jews and the Holy Land. The far more important spiritual connection with Abraham, based on Faith, a pre-requisite for the possession of the Holy Land, had already been shattered. So much so that Jesus, when the Jews boasted of having Abraham for their father, insisted that the Devil, not Abraham, was the father of the prophet-slaying Jews. 'You belong to your father the Devil' (John 8:44). Saint Paul in Galatians makes it quite clear that the connection with Abraham is only through Jesus Christ, the “seed” of Abraham (3:29): “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise”. The straw that broke the camel's back would be the rejection of, and murder of, the Prophet of Prophets himself, Jesus the Christ. It is sad and quite frustrating to see pious Jews now reverencing a large Roman wall situated well away from where the Jerusalem Temples had stood, and hopefully expecting the Messiah to arrive in Jerusalem in the not too distant future. Nor is it any good that Zionists - including the Christian version of these - a very powerful and wealthy lobby, have that same goal of re-building the stone Temple (in the wrong place, it must be said), to welcome the Messiah, or Jesus (depending on whether one is Jewish or Christian). Pope Pius X and Zionism Does Zionism have a place? Not according to the reaction of pope Saint Pius X, who replied to Theodor Herzl in a meeting in 1904: https://catholicism.org/the-zionist-and-the-saint.html …. The pope was Saint Pius X. According to Herzl’s diaries, when asked to support a Jewish settlement in Palestine, the saint “answered in a stern and categorical manner: ‘We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.’ That is not to say that the popes are anti-semitic, a separate issue. Pope Pius XI would remind Catholics (via a group of Belgian pilgrims) back in 1938, in the face of tyrannical pressure being exerted upon the Jews, 'We are spiritually Semites'. And the Church favourably included the Jews (and Muslims) in the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate. {I have difficulty with the restriction of the term, Semitic, to merely the culturally Jewish people. Plenty of others are of Semitic origins. Added to that, we no longer know, since c. 70 AD, who of those claiming to be Jews, and who are culturally Jewish, are actually ethnically Jewish}. ‘Destroy this Temple’ The pivotal biblical association of Jesus with the Temple was, of course, the incident of his cleansing of the sacred place from the money-changers. This led to his assertion: ‘Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days’ (John 2:19). And, though it had taken 46 years to build the last stone Temple (2:20), the Word is timeless. The Apostles realised that Jesus was speaking of the Temple of his very body (John 2:21-22). Jesus is the new Temple, a spiritual Temple that neither Gog and Magog, the Babylonians, the Romans, nor renegade Jewish zealots, would be able to quench. So, even if the modern Zionists do achieve their aim of building a temple complete with priests and animal sacrifices, again completely against the New Testament that has Jesus as the true High Priest (Hebrews 4:14) making the one and only sacrifice - and which temple will be situated in quite the wrong place anyway, and so not geographically legitimate - it will all be completely futile and irrelevant in the great cosmic scheme of things. And it will not succeed in luring the true Messiah. “Tabernacled Among Us” No wonder that Jesus was wont to go all the way back to Moses to explain himself (Luke 24:27). His human existence, moving amongst his people, had been foreshadowed back in the time of Moses, in the Pentateuch, by the moveable Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle. Exodus 33:7-11: Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. Jesus, too, was often on the move among the people. Saint John picks this up in his Gospel by likening the Word's human existence, dwelling on earth, to being Tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν). That is the literal meaning of the text, and it is meant to recall the Tent of Meeting which contained the glorious Ark of the Covenant with its mercy seat, the Menorah, and the shew bread. Centuries before (cf. I Kings 6:1) King Solomon would successfully build the fixed Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, the Lord's dwelling amongst the people of Israel was to be, for centuries, this moveable Tent. “Glory of the Lord” “God was at the centre. Surrounding the Tent were the Levites. And around the Levites were the 12 tribes of Israel” (cf. Numbers 2:2). Wherever nomadic Israel was, encamped around the Tent to which were aligned the twelve tribes of Israel, there was to be seen the shining Pillar of Fire, the Kavod Yahweh, “Glory of the Lord”. The shining Cloud is popularly (but not biblically) known as the Shekinah. When King Solomon built the Temple of Yahweh, the Glory Cloud came and rested upon the Temple as a sign to Israel that this was where God dwelt upon earth (2 Chronicles 7:1-2): “When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the Temple. The priests could not enter the Temple of the LORD because the glory of the LORD filled it”. But, centuries later, after Israel had malevolently apostatised, and just prior to the first destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, the prophet Ezekiel saw the Glory Cloud (the Lord) depart from the Temple (Ezekiel 10:18): "Then the Glory of the Lord departed from over the threshold of the Temple ...". Israel was now on its own. It appears that the Kavod Yahweh did not return even after the exiles from Babylon had rebuilt the second Temple, goaded on by Haggai and Zechariah. Those old enough to remember the former Temple wept (Ezra 3:12; cf. Tobit 14:5). But the prophet Haggai - who, as I need to point out for what will follow, was Tobias (= Job) the son of Tobit, Tobias having been given the Akkadian name, Habakkuk (shortened by the Jews to Haggai) - seemed confident that Kavod Yahweh would eventually return and that the Temple in Jerusalem would be even greater than before (Haggai 2:6-7). But this outlook has Messianic ramifications (cf. Malachi 3:1). The alignment of the twelve tribes of Israel to the ancient Tent of Meeting, and to the later Temple built by King Solomon, anticipated Jesus and his twelve Apostles, upon whom the New Jerusalem was to be built (Revelation 21:19). Nativity and the “Glory of the Lord” Biblical scholars wonder: Why does Luke refer to the Shepherds but not the Magi, and Matthew, to the Magi but not the Shepherds? Some have even tried to tie together all in one the Shepherds-as-the-Magi - a thesis that had really grabbed my interest for a while. The connecting link between Luke and Matthew here is the Kavod Yahweh. The Magi knew that what they had seen was His star because it was the Kavod Yahweh returning to Jerusalem, as their ancestors had foretold, with the birth of the King of the Jews. What the Magi saw was the same glorious manifestation of light that the Shepherds likewise had seen at the Nativity. The Magi possibly delayed their trip significantly to allow for the Christ Child to grow and so take his rightful place seated in Jerusalem. (They would well have known from Micah 5:2, however, that the Nativity was to occur in Bethlehem). That is why the Magi eventually headed for Jerusalem not led by the Star, which they saw again only after they had left King Herod. It led them to “the house”” (no longer the stable) (Matthew 2:9). So, just as the Kavod Yahweh would lead the Israelites through the wilderness, and would stop wherever they needed to halt, so did the same Kavod Yahweh now lead the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and stop. This can be no regular star because it stopped. It was a guiding Cloud of Light, the Glory of the Lord. One could say, it follows the Lamb wherever He goes. It was still associated with the infant Jesus when He appeared to Sister Lucia on a shining cloud at Pontevedra (Spain) in 1925, to request the Communion of Reparation (the Five First Saturdays), whose 100th anniversary we will be celebrating next year, 2025, the Jubilee Year of Hope. The Fatima seer, Sister Lucia, described the resplendent apparition which we need to heed now as a matter of great urgency: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” Blood and water flows from the Temple The Passover ritual that was occurring at the Temple while Jesus, the Lamb of God, was being crucified, facing the Temple, was being enacted in his very flesh. The slaughter of the sacrificial lambs, for instance. The rending of the huge curtain of the Holy of Holies. Even the priests sprinkling the floor with blood was imaged when Judas (was he a priest?) threw the blood money across the floor in front of the priests. (Dr. Ernest L. Martin, RIP, brillianty picked up this one). But, most significantly, the blood and water that gushed out from the side of the Temple when the priests opened a side door, at the same time that blood and water was flowing from the pierced side of Jesus on the Cross (as noted by Dr Ali Ataie, Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron).

The extraordinary life of Coniah the Captive – exiled, exalted, and finally executed

by Damien F. Mackey “The descendants of Jehoiachin the Captive: Shealtiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah”. I Chronicles 3:17-18 Introductory The other notable biblical character in chronological range of King Jehoiachin (Jechoniah) of Judah who bore the epithet, “the Captive”, was Haman son of Hammedatha of the Book of Esther (3:1). Unfortunately, though, the original meaning, the Captive (or Prisoner), has been confused with the strikingly similar Greek word for Amalekite, so that Esther 3:1 is now translated as “Haman the Amalekite (or Agagite)”. He was nothing of the sort. I explained the linguistic confusion in e.g. my article: Haman’s nationality a complete surprise https://www.academia.edu/43437539/Haman_s_nationality_a_complete_surprise as follows: …. My view now is that the word (of various interpretations) that has been taken as indicating Haman’s nationality (Agagite, Amalekite, etc.), was originally, instead, an epithet, not a term of ethnic description. In the case of king Jehoiachin, the epithet used for him in 1 Chronicles 3:17 was: (“And the sons of Jeconiah), the captive”. In Hebrew, the word is Assir, “captive” or “prisoner”. Jeconiah the Captive! Now, in Greek, captive is aichmálotos, which is very much like the word for “Amalekite”, Amalikítis. …. Haman was, as by now determined – following Jewish legend – a Jew. He was the Jewish king, Jehoiachin (Coniah), the Captive. This sets him firmly in biblical history. But King Jehoiachin is also firmly established archaeologically as an historical figure, he with some of his sons: And we can easily, now, further unravel Esther 3:1 by identifying Hammedatha, whose son Haman is said to have been: “After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the [Captive], and advanced him and set his seat above all the princes who were with him”. This Hammedatha was a she, the biblical Queen, “Hamutal (Hammutal) daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah” (2 Kings 23:31; cf. 24:18). In these two texts, Hamutal is named as being the mother, now of King Jehoahaz, and now of King Zedekiah. She is not specifically called the mother of Jehoiachin, who is given as (24:8): “… Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem”. But I think this must be a mistake, that Nehushta was not the mother of the Captive, but his wife, Zeresh (Esther 5:10-14; 6:13): Calling together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles and officials. The name Zeresh is not entirely unlike a shortened version of Nehush(-ta). This now opens the door for Queen Hamutal to have been the mother of Jehoiachin. As for the name, Haman (or Aman), which I had initially imagined to have been the Captive’s Medo-Persian name, e.g. Achaemenes (Hakhamanish), I now accept it to be the Egyptian name, Amon, for reasons to be explained. Adding Jehoahaz and Amon Jehoiachin/Haman, the Captive, has so far been established, more or less, as an exiled Jewish king, a descendant (“son”) of Queen Hamutal, and married to Nehushta/ Zeresh. We know from the Scriptures that he was exiled to Babylon during the reign of the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar (2 Kings 24:15): “Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the prominent people of the land”. And we know that he was later released from prison by King Nebuchednezar’s son, Awel-Marduk (25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month”. But this was not, I now think, the young king’s first experience of exile. As Jehoahaz Pharaoh Necho would take into Egyptian captivity a young king of Judah named Jehoahaz, son of the great Josiah (23:30). And Jehoahaz had a mother, like Haman’s Hammedatha, called Hamutal (23:31-35): Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as his predecessors had done. Pharaoh Necho put him in chains at Riblah in the land of Hamath so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and he imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died. Jehoiakim paid Pharaoh Necho the silver and gold he demanded. In order to do so, he taxed the land and exacted the silver and gold from the people of the land according to their assessments. If this Jehoahaz were to be another version of Jehoiachin, young and wicked, then some changes will need to be made. Instead of being a son of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:6), he must have been his brother; both sons of King Josiah. And, although he would have died in captivity, as Haman, he did not die in Egypt as 23:34 would suggest, but in Susa. 2 Chronicles tells nothing of the death of Jehoahaz, but simply reads: “But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt” (36:4). My reasons for identifying Jehoahaz as Jehoiachin/Haman the Captive would be descent from King Josiah, a mother named Hamutal, wickedness, dying in captivity (he was doubly a Captive), and the fact that King Jehoahaz of Judah (qua Jehoahaz) is completely missing from Matthew’s Genealogy. If Jehoahaz were Jehoiachin, then he was not missing from this NT Genealogy. It must have been during his first exile, in Egypt, that Jehoahaz/Jehoiachin acquired the Egyptian name, Amon (Aman), that is, Haman. As Amon And do we not have a wicked king of Judah called Amon? He, who does figure in Matthew’s Genealogy, wrongly, though (so I think), as the father of Josiah (Matthew 1:10), I have already identified as Haman: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) https://www.academia.edu/115131376/King_Amon_s_descent_into_Aman_Haman_ There is a fair bit of doubling up in the extraordinary life of Jehoiachin the Captive: He was twice exiled (Egypt, Babylon). He ‘died’ twice (in Egypt, in Susa). He was twice highly exalted (by Awel-Marduk, and later by King Ahasuerus).

Nebuchednezzar, so it seems, incarcerated his very own son

by Damien F. Mackey With the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar, we arrive at the first of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. What is a Babylonian king doing fighting against an obviously powerful Assyrian king, Ashur-resha-ishi? Two outstanding problems in particular have confronted me in the course of my complex revision and multi-identifications of the king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (so-called II). Before recalling both of these, let me re-state who else I think King Nebuchednezzar was. Obviously he was the all-powerful king, “Nebuchednezzar” (Nebuchadnezzar), of the Book of Daniel. Or, was he? Some biblical scholars claim that King Nabonidus, rather than King Nebuchednezzar, more accurately fits the character, “Nebuchednezzar”, who is prominent in the first part of the Book of Daniel: Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (2) Rethinking Daniel's Nebuchadnezzar as Nabonidus? That is no problem for me, however, as I have tied up, all at once, Nebuchednezzar-as- Nabonidus-as-Daniel’s-“Nebuchednezzar”. For example: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (3) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Conclusion 1: King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ was both the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel and was King Nabonidus. Now, with the ‘folding’ of ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian history into ‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian history, as indicated as being most necessary by many revisionists, and as deemed a certainty by articles of mine such as: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (3) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nebuchednezzar so-called I can be ‘folded’ into his namesake, Nebuchednezzar so-called II: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (3) Harmonizing Nebuchednezzar I with Later Contemporaries If this identification of mine is correct, it means that one can no longer talk about a Nebuchednezzar I, or II, since a II pre-supposes a I (thus, e.g., pope Francis cannot yet be referred to as Francis I). With the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar, we arrive at the first of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. What is a Babylonian king doing fighting against an obviously powerful Assyrian king, Ashur-resha-ishi? Assyria as a nation is supposed to have been non-existent by the time of the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. It took me some time to come to grips with this apparent anomaly. One may start to question the validity of one’s revision in the face of a conundrum such as this. My problem was not so much with having a strong and aggressive Assyria at the time of King Nebuchednezzar, for I had confidently identified Nebuchednezzar with the potent king, Esarhaddon, who had definitely ruled Assyria: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was more a case of who was this Ashur-resha-ishi with whom Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) was engaged in such dire conflict? Obviously - though it took me some time to arrive at this obvious in the context of my revision - Ashur-resha-ishi was one of the two brothers, patricides, with whom Esarhaddon was engaged in civil war. Obviously Ashur-resha-ishi was “Sharezer”: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib (5) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from this vital correspondence, Esarhaddon marvellously fits Nebuchednezzar in, e.g., his paranoia and protracted illness, his potency, as a builder of great Babylon, and in his assault upon Egypt. Conclusion 2: King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ was Nebuchednezzar so-called I, and was also Esarhaddon, who ruled Assyria and who built Babylon. Finally, with Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus) also identified as Ashurbanipal, we arrive at the second of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. Who is the Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon, sometimes most troublesome for Assyria, who is prominent during a substantial phase of the reign of Ashurbanipal, and who is thought to have been the brother of Ashurbanipal? Only recently have I finally come up with a solution to this tricky matter. Shamash-shum-ukin, thought to have been the brother of Ashurbanipal, was actually his son, just as Sin-shar-ishkun, thought to have been the brother of Ashur-Etil-Ilani, was actually his son. It was the same father: Esarhaddon-Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli/Ashurbanipal/Ashur-Etil-Ilani: Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (6) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the same son: Sin-shar-ishkun/Shamash-shum-ukin: Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme (7) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Again, this was King Nebuchednezzar and his son, Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar. Ashurbanipal fits very well as Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus in such ways as described in my articles: Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar (7) Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (7) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar (= Sin-shar-ishkun/Shamash-shum-ukin), was able to wield significant power (though not actual kingship) while his father was cruelly incapacitated during his protracted illness. He must have over-reached himself somewhere along the line, because we learn that he was, as Amēl-Marduk (or Nabu-shum-ukin – rings a bell? Shamash-shum-ukin), imprisoned for an unknown period of time. On this troublesome son of Nebuchednezzar, we read as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amel-Marduk Amēl-Marduk was the successor of his father, Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 BC).[1] It seems that the succession to Nebuchadnezzar was troublesome and that the king's last years were prone to political instability.[3] In one of the inscriptions written very late in his reign, after Nebuchadnezzar had already ruled for forty years, the king affirms that he had been chosen for kingship by the gods before he had even been born. Stressing divine legitimacy in such a fashion was usually only done by usurpers or if there were political problems with his intended successor. Given that Nebuchadnezzar had been king for several decades, and had been the legitimate heir of his predecessor, the first option seems unlikely.[4] Amēl-Marduk was chosen as heir during his father's reign[5] and is attested as crown prince in 566 BC.[6] Amel-Marduk was not Nebuchadnezzar's oldest son—another of Nebuchadnezzar's sons, Marduk-nadin-ahi, is attested in Nebuchadnezzar's third year as king (602/601 BC) as an adult in charge of his own lands.[7] Given that Amel-Marduk is attested considerably later, it is probable that Marduk-nadin-ahi was Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son and legitimate heir,[7] making the reason for the selection of Amēl-Marduk mainly since Marduk-nadin-ahi is attested as living until as late as 563 BC.[8] Additionally, evidence of altercations between Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-Marduk makes his selection as heir seem even more improbable.[5] In one text, Nebuchadnezzar and Amēl-Marduk are both implicated in some conspiracy, with one of the two accused of bad conduct against the temples and people:[5] Concerning [Nebu]chadnezzar they thought [. . .] his life were not treasured [by them . . . the people of] Babylon to Amēl-Marduk spoke, not [. . .] . . . "concerning the treasure of [the Esagila] and Babylon [. . ."] they mentioned the cities of the great gods [. . .] his heart over son and daughter will not let [. . .] family and tribe are [not . . .] in his heart. All that is full [. . .] his thoughts were not about the well-being of [the Esagila and Babylon . . .], with attentive ears he went to the holy gates [. . .] prayed to the Lord of lords [. . .] he cried bitterly to Marduk, the gods [..w]ent his prayer to [. . .].[9] The inscription contains accusations, though it is unclear to whom they are directed, concerning the desecration of holy places and the exploitation of the populace—failures in the two main responsibilities of the king of Babylon. The accused is afterwards stated to have cried and prayed to Marduk, Babylon's national deity.[10] Another text from late in Nebuchadnezzar's reign contains a prayer by an imprisoned son of Nebuchadnezzar named Nabu-shum-ukin ( Nabû-šum-ukīn), who states that he was imprisoned because of a conspiracy against him.[10] According to the Leviticus Rabbah, a 5th–7th-century AD Midrashic text, Amel-Marduk was imprisoned by his father alongside the captured Judean king Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) because some of the Babylonian officials had proclaimed him king while Nebuchadnezzar was away.[1] The Assyriologist Irving Finkel argued in 1999 that Nabu-shum-ukin was the same person as Amel-Marduk, who changed his name to "man of Marduk" once he was released as reverence towards the god to whom he had prayed.[10][1] Finkel's conclusions have been accepted as convincing by other scholars,[10][1] and would also explain the previous text, perhaps relating to the same incidents.[10] The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, a Hebrew work on history possibly written in the 12th century, erroneously states that Amēl-Marduk was Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, but that his father sidelined him in favour of his brother, 'Nebuchadnezzar the Younger' (a fictional figure not attested in any other source), and was thus imprisoned together with Jeconiah until the death of Nebuchadnezzar the Younger, after which Amel-Marduk was made king.[11] Considering the available evidence, it is possible that Nebuchadnezzar saw Amēl-Marduk as an unworthy heir and sought to replace him with another son. Why Amēl-Marduk nevertheless became king is not clear.[3] Regardless, Amel-Marduk's administrative duties probably began before he became king, during the last few weeks or months of his father's reign when Nebuchadnezzar was ill and dying.[1] The last known tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, from Uruk, is dated to the same day, 7 October, as the first known tablet of Amel-Marduk, from Sippar.[12] [End of quote] King Nebuchednezzar’s son, once imprisoned (as Amēl-Marduk/Nabu-shum-ukin), ultimately, now as sole King, died a violent death no matter what name we give to him. As BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar … was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. As AMĒL-MARDUK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amel-Marduk “Amēl-Marduk's reign abruptly ended in August 560 BC [sic] … after barely two years as king … when he was deposed and murdered by Neriglissar, his brother-in-law [who was Darius the Mede], who then claimed the throne”. As SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/ashurbanipal “… Shamash-shum-ukin committed suicide in his burning palace”. https://dbpedia.org/page/Shamash-shum-ukin “Shamash-shum-ukin died, though the exact circumstances of his death are unclear. After his defeat and death there is evidence of a large-scale damnatio memoriae campaign, with images of the king being mutilated, erasing his face”. As SIN-SHAR-ISHKUN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinsharishkun “… Sîn-šar-iškun's fate is unknown but it is assumed that he died in the defense of his capital”. https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/introducing-assyrians “… Sin-shar-ishkun, perished in the flames”.

Moses neither a holy myth nor wholly a myth

by Damien F. Mackey “There is no archeological evidence of millions of people living in the narrow strip of the Sinai Desert for 40 years”. Michael R. Burch Michael R. Burch, writing a piece on Moses for QUORA, has stuck himself out on a limb, sawing in the wrong place, with many of his uninformed statements on the topic. Or, as I once said of Fr. Axe, for similar reasons, he “can’t see the wood for the trees”. The very foundation of biblico-history/archaeology for the Old Testament era is the presence of the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic people, bearing artifacts from Egypt. This people follows the same path as did the Exodus Israelites, crossing the Jordan and conquering the peoples in the region (e.g. the destruction of the Bab-edh Dhra complex), before proceeding on into the land of Canaan via Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). The destruction of Jericho, its walls collapsing, and of many other Early Bronze III (EB III) forts and settlements, is exactly what one would expect from the biblical accounts. All of this is brilliantly re-captured by Dr. John Osgood (“The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest”: https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-the-archaeology-from-exodus-to-conquest), whose maps of the MBI settlements and of the estimated Israelite places of occupation are so close to exact as to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. I take a piece here from Dr. Osgood’s brilliant article, which, however, is well worth reading in full: …. The Distribution of MB I The distribution of MB I culture (here used as a term to include all that was once referred to as MB I, namely EB IV to MB I) occupies geographically exactly the area that the ancient nation of Israel conquered, plus the area of ancient Moab, plus the area of the Sinai and the Negev consistent with wandering of the Children of Israel (see Figure 4 and compare it with Figures 5 and 6). The MB I people (including EB IV) occupied only that area mentioned above (see Prag 2) but modification must be made to the distribution characteristics as suggested by Rudolf Cohen who has shown that there was a definite geographical gap between the MB I culture in the Negev and the MB I culture in southern Judah. This is totally consistent with the biblical model of Israel’s wanderings. The Artifacts MB I culture was a pottery culture. It was also a metal–making culture, as witnessed by the copper pins, copper ingots and copper daggers that have been found. It was a culture that used mortars and pestles of one sort or another.10 It was a culture that had contact with Egypt.7 It was a culture that did build some temporary stone structures, as witnessed by the beehive shaped stone rings in the Sinai. It also appears to have been a culture that lacked icons and tomb offerings.11 All this is consistent with ancient Israel. An Invasive Culture From the moment of its discovery, the MB I people have been accepted as an invasive people. This has come under some criticism of recent years, but the largest weight of evidence holds true to the suggestion that they were an invasive people. A New People Amiram 3 emphasises both the cultural break between MB I and the previous culture, and the on going development from there until the end of Iron II at least. Again this has come under some attack in recent years, but the evidence of a new culture is strong. The above characteristics are all consistent with the biblical picture of the nation of Israel in its wanderings in the wilderness and its subsequent conquest of Palestine. …. [End of quote] It needs to be said that, whilst the conventional dates for the MBI period are c. 2000-1800 BC, too early for Moses, the Exodus, and Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan, these dates are quite artificial, having been confected from the unwieldy Sothic theory of Egyptian chronology to which the biblical scenario has been hopelessly hog-tied. I completely exposed the Sothic theory in my postgraduate university thesis (1993): Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar https://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar a much simplified version of which can be read at: https://creation.com/fall-of-the-sothic-theory-egyptian-chronology-revisited Turning now to some of the points raised by Michael R. Burch, beginning with those more of a chronological and archaeological nature, I think that what I have written so far accounts for much of it. I have added comments to some of his points: HOLY MOSES OR WHOLLY MYTH? by Michael R. Burch Moses is thought to have lived during the 14th or 13th century BCE. Some of the more popular dates include: • Rabbinical Judaism: 1391-1271 BCE • St. Jerome: Moses was born 1592 BCE and because the bible says he died at age 120, that would make his lifespan 1592-1472 BCE. • James Ussher: Moses was born 1571 BCE, making his lifespan 1571-1451 BCE. • Biblical Archaeology Review: 13th century BCE. • Modern Historians: 1550-1200 BCE. • Consensus: Moses lived sometime between 1592-1200 BCE. • The “Golden Mean”: circa 1400 BCE. Mackey’s comment: Until the later history of the Medo-Persians and Greco-Romans has been properly sorted out, these dates will be only estimations, probably well off the mark. • My personal theory: Moses died in 1492 BCE, after having seen the Promised Land of milk and honey. In 1492 AD, after Ferdinand and Isabella evicted the Jews from Spain, thanks to their money Columbus discovered a new Promised Land that would prove a safe haven to Jews and many other victims of religious persecution. It’s as good a story as any, I believe. Mackey’s comment: But see my cautionary article on Columbus: Book of Jonah elements in the story of Columbus (3) Book of Jonah elements in the story of Columbus However, most scholars believe Moses was mythical, not a real historical figure. Why? Mackey’s comment: For one, they almost universally follow a chronologically misaligned archaeological model that cannot possibly be tied to a realistic history. These same scholars probably embrace quite uncritically a Medo-Persian/Greco-Roman text book ‘history’ that, for much part, has no vitally relevant archaeology in support of it as does the MBI = Exodus Israelites scenario. …. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of any large-scale enslavement of Israelites in Egypt. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of a mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt. Mackey’s comment: I greatly beg to differ. This is a statement of ignorance from someone desperately clinging to a (biblically) minimalized limb. With Joseph and the Famine era now set firmly in the (1st) 3rd and 11th Egyptian dynasties, Joseph being the genius Imhotep: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (4) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Moses can be found, nicely symmetrically, in the 4th and 12th Egyptian dynasties. He is Weni/Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge of Egypt. ‘Who made you ruler (Vizier) and (Chief) judge over us?’ (Exodus 2:14) With the 12th dynasty dying out while Moses was exiled in Midian (Exodus 4:19), he will confront the 13th dynasty Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep so-called I, during whose reign the workers up and left Egypt, abandoning their tools. This was the Exodus. • The biblical book of Exodus quite suspiciously doesn't name the Egyptian pharaoh in question although it names lots of other kings. Also the first direct correlation between the bible and extra-biblical sources doesn't occur until much later, with the Tel Dan Stele, which has been dated to the 9th century BCE. Mackey’s comment: Egyptologists have shown this to have been standard Egyptian practice before the advent of the New Kingdom. Even when a king of Egypt is named, “Shishak” (I Kings 14:25-28), this is not likely an Egyptian but the name by which he was well-known to the Israelites (cf. I Kings 4:3). The MBI invasion and large-scale assault on EB III Canaan and EB IV Transjordan is a massive biblico-historical correlation a good half century before the Tel Dan Stele. • There is no archeological evidence of millions of people living in the narrow strip of the Sinai Desert for 40 years. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of a military takeover Canaan at the time of Moses, Joshua and Caleb. • The fabled walls of Jericho fell long before the time of Moses, Joshua and Caleb. Mackey’s comment: These points have already been answered. As to the “millions of people”, this is a ridiculously inflated translation (as “thousands”) of the tricky Hebrew word elef (אלף), a stumbling block for many. The word has various meanings and needs to be respected according to context and common sense. • The story of Moses being set afloat as a baby in a reed basket and being found and adopted by a royal family was rather obviously “borrowed” from the far more ancient myth of King Sargon the Great of Akkad. Mackey’s comment: The popular and ancient story of the baby Moses has given rise to many myths: e.g., Akkadian (Sargon); Hindu (Karna); Greek (Osiris), and so on. Sargon of Akkad, as an historical entity, is the one case here who clearly pre-dates Moses. However, the legend about him does not. The earliest copy of this Sargon story we have is from the 600s BC found in the Library of Ashurbanipal.

Shattering the Belshazzar myth

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them”.” Bryan Windle Today (4th December, 2024), at Mass, the Marist priest - a former sheep farmer who is now a shepherd of souls - asked for prayers for a deceased fellow priest, Fr. Bell, confiding to the congregation that he was known amongst his confrères as Ding Dong. I sat bolt upright because I had been preparing this present article on King Belshazzar and was hoping to hit on a title that was a little bit engaging. Maybe, this was a kind of providential prompt. Try as I may, however, I could not think of a juxtaposition of Ding Dong and Bel-shazzar that was anything other than ridiculous. Perhaps a clever reader may be able to suggest something snappy, for future reference. What the Marist priest’s Ding Dong recollection does enable me to do, at least, is to segué here into wishing readers a very happy and a blessed Christmas: Ding Dong! merrily on high In heav’n the bells are ringing Ding, dong! verily the sky Is riv’n with angel singing Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis The Belshazzar Problem This is spelled out in Bryan Windle’s (2024) article, “Belshazzar: An Archaeological Biography”, where he writes: For many years Belshazzar was unknown to history, as ancient writers like Berossus (ca. 250 BC), seem to name Nabonidus as the final king of Babylon. …. This caused some 19th-century critics to doubt the veracity of the account of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel. For example, Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them.” His summary was based on three factors: the last king of Babylon was not named Belshazzar, he was not a son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was not slain on the night Babylon fell to the Persians. …. Other scholars who accepted the historicity of Daniel’s account generally assumed that Belshazzar was an alternate name for another Babylonian king: Josephus equated him with Nabonidus … while Zöckler thought he was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk). …. [End of quote] Before we consider Otto Zöckler’s view, that Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), who was the known son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, let us read what is Bryan Windle’s own proposed solution to the Belshazzar problem. He writes towards the end of his article: …. How then do we make sense of Daniel’s statement to Belshazzar that “the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty” (Dn 5:18) since Nabonidus was not a descendent of Nebuchadnezzar? Some have pointed out that in the ancient Near East, the terms father and son could be used in a broader way to mean predecessor/ successor, even when there is not direct family link. …. For example, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian king records that he received the tribute of “Jehu, son of Omri” … even though Jehu was not related to Omri and had actually destroyed the Omride line. Daniel could be using the phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” in the sense that he was Belshazzar’s predecessor. Other scholars believe Belshazzar was related to Nebuchadnezzar through his mother. According to Herodotus, Nabonidus (called Labynetus in the Greek text) … had a wife named Nitocris. …. Dougherty has presented an extensive list of plausible circumstantial evidence suggesting that Nitocris was likely the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar by an Egyptian wife (the name Nitocris is of Egyptian origin). …. If this is the case, Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter was Belshazzar’s mother and Daniel’s phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” was used in a familial sense. If Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, one might expect him to have been given an important role in the Babylonian courts when he came of age. Indeed, there is a Babylonian text from ca. 560 BC that names a “Belshazzar, the chief officer of the king.” …. His plausible relation to Nebuchadnezzar may also explain why Belshazzar’s ascension as co-regent in Nabonidus’ third year seems to have been readily supported by those in Babylon. …. [End of quotes] The reference to Jehu here is irrelevant, I believe, since I do not think that Jehu was the King of Israel to whom Shalmaneser of Assyria was referring in the Black Obelisk. Apart from that, Bryan Windle’s argument is quite valid at least regarding the broader use in the ancient Near East of terms such as father and son. However, I think that there is a solution far better to the Belshazzar problem than that presented here by Bryan Windle, whose effort I applaud, nonetheless, and that it pertains to the notion of Otto Zöckler, that ‘Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk)’. The Biblical scenario The Chaldean to Median succession is clearly given in Daniel 5-6, and spelled out by the prophet Daniel himself. It was simply this: Nebuchednezzar followed by his son, Belshazzar, followed by Darius the Mede This sequence is, I have pointed out in other articles, such as: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu incompatible with the dupli- tripli-cated ancient king lists. For example: https://bible-history.com/old-testament/babylonian-kings List of Babylonian Kings from 625 BC to 542 BC King of Babylon Period of Reign (Approx) Nabopolassar 625-605 BC Nabu-kudurri-usur II (Nebuchadnezzar) 605-562 BC Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) 561-560 BC Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissar) 559-556 BC Labashi-Marduk 556-556 BC Nabu-naid (Nabonidus) 555-539 BC Bel-sharra-usur (Belshazzar) 552-542 BC which needs to be stripped down to this, perfectly in conformity with the Bible: Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Evil-merodach = (Labashi-Marduk) = Belshazzar Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Seven royal persons reduced to four. Any attempt by scholars to square off the biblical sequence with the standard list of Babylonian kings as tabled above will not work. Yet it seems that they all attempt this - Bryan Windle, for instance. And even Otto Zöckler, who took a big step closer to reality by identifying Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, will hang on to Nabonidus as an individual separate from Nebuchednezzar. Consequently, he is forced to distinguish between a King Belshazzar, who is Evil-Merodach, and the non-king (as he thought) Belshazzar, known to have been the son of Nabonidus. At least, this is the impression that I get from a quick scanning through read of his 1901 book on the subject, The book of the prophet Daniel. The Solution There is just enough archaeological evidence to verify the little known Evil-Merodach (qua Evil-Merodach) as being an historical ruler of Babylon. And it is from this genuine (in the historical sense) king, in his relationship to his father, Nebuchednezzar, that we are able to find a situation that parallels the unusual relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus. Otto Zöckler, whilst correctly identifying Belshazzar as Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), but, because he had not also identified Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, did not have in mind the latter’s son, Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach. So, what looked at first glance like a promising step in the right direction, turned out to be no solution at all to the Belshazzar problem. Paralleling Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar I wrote about this vitally important connection in my article: Not able to shake the hand of Bel (1) Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Historical Parallel to Nebuchadnezzar There I wrote: …. In the case of … King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify … a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (6) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And we know from Baruch 1: 11, 12, that Nebuchednezzar’s son was called Belshazzar. That means that Evil-Merodach was the same person as Belshazzar. During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon. And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel. …. And, more relevantly, I wrote in my article: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (4) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “… officials … bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”. British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom. For example we read this somewhat inaccurate account at: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king …. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. …. As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father. William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136): NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf …. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince" through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king. There is no doubt about Belshazzar's importance while he governed Babylonia during his father's absence, but the question remains - did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. …. Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar. And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson. For, as I wrote in my article: Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar (4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”. This led me to conclude - based on a strikingly parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar. I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975): Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered "bad" (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis. Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime. Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon - though not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?

The many faces of Nebuchednezzar

by Damien F. Mackey King Nebuchednezzar, base metal: ‘… the basest of men’ (Daniel 4:17) turned into gold: ‘You are the head of gold’ (Daniel 2:38) Little did I realise at the time, when invited in the Year 2000 by professor Rifaat Ebied to choose between the era of King Hezekiah and the era of (Jeremiah) King Josiah for the subject matter of a doctoral thesis (for more on this, see e. g. my article: Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses (DOC) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s were in fact the very same era, that Hezekiah was Josiah. ut so radical a revision of Judah must needs be accompanied by, for instance, a similarly radical revision of whoever Assyro-Babylonian dynasts were contemporaneous with these kings of Judah. Amongst the articles that I have written on that score is the detailed: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The upshot of all of this is, in the case of the Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, that his life now comes within close range of King Hezekiah of Judah. Whilst, in conventional terms, Nebuchednezzar did not begin to reign until c. 605 BC, about 80 years after the death of Hezekiah (c. 686 BC), according to the revisions proposed in the articles above, Nebuchednezzar’s youth would have overlapped with the late reign of Hezekiah. King Esarhaddon And, if the Jewish tradition be correct, that the future king Nebuchednezzar himself had participated in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign at the time of king Hezekiah – {quite a chronological impossibility in conventional terms} - then Nebuchednezzar may even be the wrongly-named “Bagoas”, who was second-in-command to Sennacherib’s eldest son and commander-in-chief (Ashur-nadin-shumi =) “Holofernes” himself. On this, see e.g. my article: An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? (3) An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, if Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, was “Holofernes”, the leader of the disastrous invasion of Israel by the 185,000 Assyrians, then who was – where was? – Esarhaddon in all of this, he being the prince who would most unexpectedly succeed Sennacherib? Well, if Nebuchednezzar had in fact been personally involved in this campaign, as according to Jewish tradition, then that, too, is where we must find Esarhaddon, at least if I am correct that: Esarhaddon [is] a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (3) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face”. (Karen Radner) In a multi-part “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” series, I had listed and described a number of Assyro-Babylonian (and even supposedly Persian) kings who have the earmarks of the biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar: dreams; illness-madness; interfering with rubrics; building Babylon; invasion of Egypt, megalomania; burning fiery furnace; revival and ‘conversion’: Esarhaddon, in particular, seems to me to ‘scream out’ to be identified with Nebuchednezzar. King Ashurbanipal-Nabonidus “Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus." biblehistory.net Apart from the many “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” parallels, Nabonidus, supposedly ‘centring himself upon Ashurbanipal’, has further striking likenesses to Ashurbanipal, and has striking likenesses to the biblical “Nebuchadnezzar”. On this, see my article: Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (3) Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar" a better fit for King Nabonidus? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In an intriguing article, “The Prophet Daniel”: http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/the_prophet_daniel.htm we read this: Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus." The artifact, which doesn't seem to draw much attention in Biblical archaeology circles, is actually very important. First of all it is a copy of a scroll written in the language of Babylon, Aramaic, not Hebrew as in the case of the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aramaic was the language spoken in ancient Babylon. The reason this is important is because Daniel the prophet was educated in the Aramaic language of Babylon. We found this stated in Daniel 1:4 and in Daniel 2:4. …. Prayer of Nabonidus There is also evidence that the original book of Daniel from chapters 2:4 through chapters 7:28 were also written in this ancient Aramaic language known as Chaldee (the language of Babylon), the same language used in Babylonian documents of the 7th century B.C. This evidence comes from other Dead Sea Scroll fragments found of the book of Daniel. These fragments confirm the fact that the events spoken of in the book of Daniel were written down by Daniel in ancient Aramaic during the time of his captivity in Babylon. Now the text of the "Prayer of Nabonidus" is an account of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, the father of the Biblical ruler Belshazzar. In his account, Nabonidus had come down with a disease while away from Babylon at his stay at the oasis city of Teman in Saudi Arabia. He prayed to his false gods and idols of silver, gold, wood, stone and clay, but to no avail. So he sought the help from a Jew who was part of the exiles taken into captivity back to Babylon. This Jew tells Nabonidus to worship and honor the Most High God instead of his foreign gods. This Jew, referred to here, is most likely the prophet Daniel. We know from Scripture that Daniel was still alive during the reign of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Scripture also indicates that the Queen of Babylon, likely the Queen of Nabonidus, Belshazzar's mother, believed that Daniel was, in her words, "A man in the kingdom in whom dwelt the Spirit of the Holy God, . . . like the wisdom of the gods whom Nebuchadnezzar your father (grandfather) - your father the king (Nabonidus) - made him chief of the magicians. astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers." Daniel 5:11 So Daniel was considered to be the chief man to go to under both king Nebuchadnezzar and king Nabonidus when dealing with issues concerning God. Now, these fragments of the scroll give evidence outside of the Bible that Nabonidus likely called upon Daniel's advise after his prayers to his false gods had failed. Below is one English translation of the scroll fragments known as the Prayer of Nabonidus 4Q242. 1) The words of the prayer which Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was stricken 2) with an evil disease by the decree of God in Teman. I Nabonidus was stricken with an evil disease 3) for seven years, and from that time I was driven and I prayed to the Most High 4) and, as for my sin, he forgave it. A diviner – who was a Jew of the Exiles – came to me and said: 5) ‘Recount and record these things in order to give honor and greatness to the name of the God Most High.’ And thus I wrote: I 6) was stricken with an evil disease in Teman by the decree of the Most High God, and, as for me, 7) seven years I was praying to gods of silver and gold, bronze, iron, 8) wood, stone and clay, because I thought that they were gods. …. Cambyses too, apart from having some of the earmarks of “Nebuchednezzar syndrome”: madness; conquest of Egypt, had the alternative name of “Nebuchadnezzar”: Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? Part Three: ‘Sacred disease’ (read madness) of King Cambyses https://www.academia.edu/37318798/Cambyses_also_named_Nebuchadnezzar_Part_Three_Sacred_disease_read_madness_of_King_Cambyses And, perhaps further strengthening the contemporaneity of Cambyses with the neo-Assyrian era, I have suggested an identification of the important official in Egypt, Udjahorresne[t], who acted as the king’s guide and mentor there, with Ushanahuru, the son (possibly Crown Prince) of the great Tirhakah of Egypt/Ethiopia: Udjahorresne as Ushanahuru, heir of Tirhakah (4) Udjahorresne as Ushanahuru, heir of Tirhakah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg for Nebuchednezzar, as other of my articles on the subject have shown. For instance: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (DOC) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (3) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Also recommended: Nebuchednezzar’s arduous road to conversion (DOC) Nebuchednezzar’s arduous road to conversion | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But, perhaps most surprising of all, Ashurnasirpal (the Cruel) is also to be identified with Nebuchednezzar: Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ (4) Ashurnasirpal ‘King of the World’ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together here is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel king, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... He reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was not his “son”, but his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” (260). While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles, Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing here, then he most certainly conquered Lebanon, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites of south-western Iran. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he `possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world …”. (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire” “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayer ….

Sargon - Sennacherib, not Cyrus, was Isaiah 21’s destroyer of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there”. Gordon Franz Charles Boutflower, in his 1930 book, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 in Light of the Assyrian Monuments (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge), would prove most helpful in showing that Isaiah 21, often considered to prophesy the Fall of Babylon to King Cyrus, could neither refer to this relatively peaceful event nor to the initial, similarly peaceful taking of Babylon by Sargon II. I would fully agree with this, except that – with my identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (4) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sargon II’s initial peaceful entrance into Babylon would be followed up, years later, by that same king’s destruction of the mighty city. Gordon Franz has conveniently picked up this discussion of Charles Boutflower and Isaiah 21, the Assyrians and Cyrus, in his article “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21 Author: Gordon Franz MA Category: Contemporary Issues Created: 06 October 2010 …. Introduction During the First Gulf War - Operation Desert Storm - Saddam Hussein was brought to the forefront of world events. Students of Bible prophecy asked, “What, if anything, does he or Iraq have to do with prophetic events?” Passages concerning Babylon were studied to see where Saddam Hussein, or Iraq for that matter, might fit into a particular prophetic scheme. One passage which deals with the fall of Babylon is Isaiah 21. Verse 9 states, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.” I would like to re-examine this passage of Scripture and ask the question, “Was this passage fulfilled, or even partially fulfilled during Operation Desert Storm?” (as some prophecy teachers suggest), or, “Was the passage actually fulfilled in Isaiah’s day?” One of the best-selling books on the place of Babylon in prophecy during the First Gulf War was The Rise of Babylon by Dr. Charles Dyer. It is interesting that Dr. Dyer never addressed this passage in the book, nor does he address it in his follow-up book, World News and Bible Prophecy. Noah Hutching, the radio pastor for Southwest Radio Church in Oklahoma quoted Isaiah 21:9 in his book The Persian Gulf Crisis and the Final Fall of Babylon (1990: 27). Yet surprisingly, in the chapter entitled “Isaiah Against Babylon” (chapter 9), he only discusses Isaiah 13 and ignores completely chapter 21. Other popular prophecy teachers did address this chapter. J. R. Church, in his prophetic magazine Prophecy in the News, states: “While researching the prophets for their perspective on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we came across Isaiah’s prediction of doom upon the ‘desert of the sea’ (Isaiah 21). The description fits the Persian Gulf nations perfectly” (1990: 1). He goes on to identify the “lion” in verse 8 with Great Britain because the British Petroleum Company was given half of the oil rights in Kuwait (1990: 1). At the end of the article he predicted (prior to Operation Desert Storm) that “during the upcoming war with Iraq, Israel will become involved and occupy Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. When Israel destroys Damascus, Russia will retaliate. The U.S.S.R. has a 20-year defense treaty with Syria, promising to come to Syria’s aid in case of attack. The eventual Israeli invasion of Syria will precipitate Russian involvement. Ezekiel called this the Battle of Gog and Magog” (1990: 4). Apparently Rev. Church has not consulted Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s excellent work (1982) on the proper identification of Gog and Magog! And, with 20-20 hindsight, his predictions were not fulfilled. Another popular prophecy teacher, Dr. Robert Lindsted, in his book Certainty of Bible Prophecy had a little more to say about this chapter. In his chapter entitled “Saddam Hussein, The Persian Gulf, and the End Times” written just prior to Operation Desert Storm, he speculated that the “chariot of men” in verse 9 are the Israeli manufactured “Merkavah” tanks, the word meaning chariot (1990: 21-22). He goes on to quote a bit more of the verse “Babylon is fallen, is fallen” and suggested “again again, two fallings, one an ancient one under the Medes and Persians, and another which could be just around the corner” (1991: 22). Interestingly, he does not quote or comment on the last part of the verse which deals with the smashing of idols. Students of Bible prophecy have generally overlooked an important tool for understanding this chapter; mainly, the archaeologist’s spade. Archaeology has a direct bearing on this passage from two different angles. First, there are ancient inscriptions that give first hand accounts, or historical reflections, of the fall of Babylon in 689 BC. Second, there is confirmation of this destruction by the German excavation at the beginning of the 20th century. With this, let us turn our attention to Isaiah 21. The Context of Isaiah 21 This chapter falls within the “Burden against the nations” section of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 13-23). It was pronounced by Isaiah around 713 BC, just prior to the “14th year of the reign of King Hezekiah” (713/12 BC), in an attempt to influence Judean foreign policy. It seemed that a group within the “State Department” of Judah, led by Prime Minister Shebna (the royal steward), wanted to join an anti-Assyrian coalition of surrounding nations, lead by Merodah-baladan of Babylon. Isaiah tried to point out the futility of trusting in these foreign powers. He predicted that they would all soon be destroyed. He encouraged Hezekiah to trust only in the LORD for deliverance (Franz 1987: 28-30). Possibilities for Historical Fulfillment There are several candidates for the fulfillment of this passage in the history of ancient Babylon. The older commentaries stated that this was fulfilled when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC. In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates verse 2 as, “Against me are the Elamites, and the princes of the Persians are coming against me.” The “banquet” in verse 5 was seen as Belshazzar’s feast the night of the fall of Babylon. However, when Cyrus entered Babylon he did not treat the carved images the way it was described in verse 9. In fact, “on the contrary, we are expressly assured that his entrance, save for the attack on the palace in which Belshazzar was slain, was a peaceful one, and that there was no cessation whatever of the temple worship” (Bautflower 1930: 148-149). Another possibility is Sargon II’s campaign against Merodah-baladan in 710 BC. This possibility was first suggested by the Assyriologist George Smith and expanded on by Kleinert. George Adam Smith follows this idea in his commentary on Isaiah (nd: 1:201-204). More recently, John Hayes and Stuart Irvine, in their commentary on Isaiah, likewise adapted this view (1987: 271-276). This view, however, also has problems. The entrance of Sargon II into Babylon to assume the throne in 709 BC is described in the Assyrian sources as quite peaceful. Joan Oates in her book on Babylon states: “The cities of northern Babylonia are alleged to have welcomed the Assyrian king, throwing open their gates ‘with great rejoicing’” (1991: 116). Sargon II boastfully inscribed on the wall of his palace in Khorsabad: “Into Babylon, the city of the lord of the gods, joyfully I entered, in gladness of heart, and with a beaming countenance. I grasped the hand(s) of the great lord Marduk, and made pilgrimage (lit., completed the march) to the ‘House of the New Year’s Feast’” (ARAB 2:35). Hardly the way Isaiah described it! The best candidate is Sennacherib’s conquest of the city in 689 BC. When Sargon II died in battle in 705 BC [sic], his son Sennacherib ascended to the throne. In so doing, he assumed the kingship of Babylon as well. In 703 BC, Marduk-zakir-shumi II seized the throne of Babylon. Soon after, Merodah-baladan made a bid for the throne as well. Sennacherib turned his attention on him and he fled to the marshes. A Babylonian puppet, Bel-ibni, was installed as king. He lasted several years until he was replaced by Sennacherib’s son, Assur-nadin-shumi, who ruled in relative peace for about six years (699-694 BC). In 694 BC, Sennacherib launched a daring campaign against the Chaldeans on the western frontier of Elam. While Sennacherib’s forces were engaged near the Persian Gulf, some Elamites made a bold “end-run” and captured Sennacherib’s son at Sippar. The son was never heard from again, so it is assumed he was murdered by the Elamites. Mackey’s comment: No, Ashur nadin shumi was the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith and was also the treacherous Nadin (or Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Gordon Franz continues: An Elamite puppet, Nergal-ushezib, was placed on the throne of Babylon (694 BC). The Assyrians removed him on their way back to Nineveh several months later. A certain Mushezib-Marduk seized the throne with Aramaean support. This support prompted the new king and his Elamite alliance, paid for with silver, gold, and precious stones from the treasuries of the temples in Babylon, to attack Assyria. A major battle ensued at Halule on the Tigris River. The outcome of the battle depends on whose account you believe. Sennacherib boasted a victory with 150,000 of the enemy dead. The Babylonian Chronicles said the Assyrians retreated. The fact that Sennacherib did not continue the attack suggests that he suffered a reversal so he had to regroup. In 690 BC, he returned to lay siege against Babylon (Oates 1991: 116-119). The Bivian Inscription described the fall of Babylon in 689 BC in these terms. “In a second campaign of mine I advanced swiftly against Babylon, upon whose conquest I had determined. Like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose, and overwhelmed it like a hurricane. I completely invested that city, with mines and engines my hands [took the city]. The plunder ...... his powerful ..... whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places). Shuzubu, king of Babylonia, together with his family and his [nobles], I carried off alive into my land. The wealth of that city, - silver, gold, precious stones, property and goods, I doled out (counted into the hands of) to my people and they made it their own. The gods dwelling therein, - the hands of my people took them, and they smashed them. Their property and goods they seized” (ARAB 2:151-152). That is exactly what Isaiah “saw” in verse 9. In fact, A. A. Macintosh points out, “the Assyrian word used for ‘broke them in pieces’ (ushabbiruma) is ‘radically identical to the shbr of verse 9’” (1980: 72). It was as if Isaiah “saw” (prophetically) an advance copy of the “Nineveh News” with the headlines blaring “Babylonian Gods Smashed, Assyrian Army Victorious Over Babylonia” and he lifted the words right off the page and placed them in his book. You’ll pardon the pun, but this prophecy was literally fulfilled to the letter! Sennacherib goes on to describe the total destruction of Babylon in these terms: “The city and (its) houses, from the foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of bricks and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu Canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals, I flooded its site (lit., ground) with water, and the very foundations thereof (lit., the structure of its foundation) I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow” (ARAB 2:152). Is it any wonder that Isaiah predicted the destruction of Babylon in similar words? “And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation ...” (13: 19-20a). He later wrote, “’for I will rise up against them,’ says the LORD of Hosts, ‘and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, and offspring and posterity,’ says the LORD. ‘I will also make it a possession for porcupine, and marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,’ says the LORD of Host” (14: 22-23). That is exactly what happened in 689 BC! Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” …. Some students of Bible prophecy might question whether this destruction was a literal fulfillment of the words of Isaiah. He said God would overthrow Babylon like Sodom and Gomorrah and it would never be inhabited again. After all, Esarhaddon rebuilt the city only eight years later. I think an archaeologist would understand this better than most. We know that when a city is destroyed by a military campaign or natural calamities it falls into ruins. When someone comes back to rebuild the city, they either fix up the previous buildings, if there is anything left, or reuse the stones that may be scattered on the surface to build an entirely new city. When Esarhaddon surveyed what used to be Babylon he found an uninhabited marshy area with some ruins of houses and palaces inhabited by wildlife. The city that he built was a completely new city on top of the previous one. So Isaiah, in truth, could say, “Babylon ... will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation.” And, “I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, and marshes of muddy water.” The city that Sennacherib destroyed was completely covered over when Esarhaddon rebuilt it so that level was never inhabited again. Esarhaddon built a completely new city on top of the marshy ruins of the old one. The words of Isaiah were literally fulfilled. I do not believe there is any need to speculate whether Saddam Hussein is in any of these passages. They were already fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. ….