If we want harmony let us seek the Holy Spirit, not worldly substitutes

“The Spirit does not inaugurate the church by providing the community with rules and regulations, but by descending upon each of the apostles, every one of them receives particular graces and charisms". Pope Francis This year of 2024, Pentecost will be celebrated on Sunday May 19th. Last year (2023) for Pentecost Sunday pope Francis proclaimed this message: https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-pentecost-synod-journey-spirit-not-parliament Pope on Pentecost: Synod is journey in the Spirit, not 'a parliament' Celebrating Pentecost Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, Pope Francis encouraged Catholics to pray each day for the presence of the Holy Spirit and especially that the Holy Spirit would be the lead and guide of the Synod of Bishops. May 28, 2023 VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church's current Synod of Bishops should not be a "parliament for demanding rights," but a "journey in accordance with the Spirit," Pope Francis said. The synod, which seeks to gather input from all baptized Catholics on building a listening church, is not "an occasion for following wherever the wind is blowing, but the opportunity to submit to the breath of the Spirit," he said. In his homily for Pentecost Mass in St. Peter's Basilica May 28, the pope said that the Holy Spirit is "the heart of synodality and the driving force of evangelization." "Without him, the church is lifeless, faith is mere doctrine, morality only a duty" and "pastoral work mere toil," he said. "We often hear so many so-called thinkers and theologians who give us cold doctrines that seem mathematical because they lack the Spirit." Hawking radiation has a blackbody (Planck) spectrum with a temperature T given by kT=ℏg2πc=ℏc4πrs , k T = ℏ g 2 π c = ℏ c 4 π r s , where k is Boltzmann's constant, ℏ=h/(2π) ℏ = h / ( 2 π ) is Planck's constant divided by 2π , and g=GM/r2s g = G M / r s 2 is the surface gravity at the horizon, the Schwarzschild radius …. Pope Francis, seated to the side of the basilica's main altar, spoke without difficulty just two days after he had cleared his day's schedule due to a fever. Brazilian Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, was the main celebrant at the altar alongside Cardinals Giovanni Battista Re, dean of the College of Cardinals, and Leonardo Sandri, vice dean. Reflecting on St. John's account of Jesus breathing on the apostles to impart the Holy Spirit, Pope Francis urged Christians to seek harmony in the church without doing away with the differences that enrich its character. "The Spirit does not inaugurate the church by providing the community with rules and regulations, but by descending upon each of the apostles, every one of them receives particular graces and charisms," he explained. The Spirit "does not eliminate differences of cultures but harmonizes everything without reducing them to bland uniformity." Embracing difference, the pope said, is key to resisting the temptation to look back in time with nostalgia or become "caught up in our plans and projects." At Pentecost, however, "the life of the church began not from a precise and detailed plan, but from the shared experience of God's love," he said. Pope Francis asked Christians to invoke the Holy Spirit daily to create harmony where there is division in the church and beyond. "Let us think of the wars, so many conflicts, it seems incredible the evil of which we are capable. Yet fueling our hostilities is the spirit of division, the devil, whose very name means 'divider,'" he said. Conversely, the Holy Spirit "opposes the spirit of division because he is harmony, the Spirit of unity, the bringer of peace." "If the world is divided, if the church is polarized, if hearts are broken, let us not waste time in criticizing others and growing angry with one another," Pope Francis said, "instead, let us invoke the Holy Spirit." The pope encouraged Christians to reflect on their relationship with the Holy Spirit and asked them to develop a faith that is "docile in the Spirit," and not "stubbornly attached" to "so-called doctrines that are only cold expressions of life." "If we want harmony let us seek (the Spirit), not worldly substitutes," he said. At the end of Mass, Pope Francis he smiled and waved to onlookers as he was taken down the basilica's central nave while seated in a wheelchair. Reciting the "Regina Coeli" prayer with an estimated 15,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square after the Mass, Pope Francis again spoke of the synod, asking people to join special prayers planned for May 31, the end of the month traditionally dedicated to Mary. "At the conclusion of the month of May," he said, "Marian shrines around the world are planning moments of prayer to support preparations for the upcoming ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops," which is scheduled to meet in October at the Vatican. "We ask the Virgin Mary to accompany this important stage of the synod with her maternal protection." "And to her we also entrust the desire for peace of so many peoples throughout the world, especially of the tormented Ukraine," he said.

Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisroch, his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword and escaped to the land of Ararat. Then his son Esar-haddon became king in his place”. 2 Kings 19:37 Tobit 1:21 collaborates this, but without naming the two regicidal sons: “… two of Sennacherib's sons assassinated him and then escaped to the mountains of Ararat. Another son, Esarhaddon, became emperor and put Ahikar, my brother Anael's son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire”. Tobit 1:21 Adrammelech Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32). I shall come to him after a consideration of Adrammelech, who, thanks to professor Simo Parpola, appears to have been identified as one of Sennacherib’s known sons: http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/introduction/murderersennacherib.htm THE MURDERER OF SENNACHERIB The news of the murder of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, on 20 Tebet, 681, was received with mixed feelings but certainly with strong emotion all over the ancient Near East. In Israel and Babylonia, it was hailed as godsent punishment for the "godless" deeds of a hated despot; in Assyria, the reaction must have been overwhelmingly horror and resentment. Not surprisingly, then, the event is relatively well reported or referred to in contemporary and later sources, both cuneiform and non-cuneiform, and has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate as well. In spite of all this attention, however, the most central thing about the whole affair has remained an open question: the identity of the murderer. While all our sources agree that he was one of the king's own sons, his name is not known from any cuneiform text, and the names offered by the Bible and Berossus, all of them evidently textually corrupt, have not been satisfactorily explained and are accordingly looked at with understandable suspicion. A theory favored in the early days of Assyriology, according to which these names should be viewed as corruptions of Ardior Arad-Ninlil, a son of Sennacherib known from a contemporary legal document, has gradually had to give way to an entirely different interpretation, according to which the murderer (or at least the mastermind behind the murder) was none but Sennacherib's heir-designate and successor to throne himself, Esarhaddon, who would have been forced to engineer the assassination in order to avoid being replaced by one of his brothers. The weakness of this theory is that it is in disagreement not only with Esarhaddon's own account of the course of events, which puts the blame on his brothers, but also with the traditions of the Bible and Berossus; it also involves a lot of reading between the lines. For these reasons, it has not been universally accepted either, and the case is largely viewed as unsolved for lack of clear-cut, conclusive evidence. In this paper I hope to show that the available evidence is not at all so elusive as is commonly thought, and actually suffices for determining the identity of the assassin with reasonable certainty. There is a Neo-Babylonian letter, published decades ago, which explicitly states the name of the murderer, and this name is not only known to have been borne by a son of Sennacherib but it also virtually agrees with the name forms found in the Bible and at Berossus. The text in question, R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (=ABL) XI no.1091 (Chicago 1911), has escaped attention because it was completely misunderstood and mistranslated by its editor, Leroy Waterman; the name has remained unidentified because its actual pronunciation has been obscured by its misleading logographic spelling. In what follows, I shall analyse both the letter and the name in detail and finally integrate the new evidence with the previously known facts in a brief reassessment of the murder and its prehistory. The beginning of ABL 1091 is lost. The first three extant lines are fragmentary, but sufficiently much of them remains to suggest that they referred to certain “Babylonian brothers” of the writer (or writers).lu From line 4' on the text can be followed better. The persons just mentioned gain knowledge of a "treaty of rebellion", and subsequently one of them requests an audience with the king. The expression for this is "to say the king's word" which, as shown by J. N. Postgate years ago, implies that the person in question applied to the king as the supreme judge and should consequently have been sent directly to the Palace. This, however, is not what happens in the present case. Two Assyrian officials appear and question the man. Having found whom his appeal concerns, they cover his face and take him away. This, in itself. is perhaps not significant, for ordinary people were not permitted to look at the king face to face. But what follows is startling. The man is not taken to the king but to Arad-Ninlil, the very person he wanted to talk about, and (his face still covered) is ordered to speak out. Clearly under the illusion that he is speaking to the king, he subsequently declares: "Your son AradNinlil is going to kill you. " Things now take a drastic course. The face of the man is uncovered: he is interrogated by Arad-Ninlil: and after that he is put to death along with his comrades mentioned in the beginning of the letter. The remaining seven lines are too fragmentary to be properly understood. To bring home the significance of this letter, let me put together some basic facts. The first is that it was clearly the "treaty of rebellion" mentioned at the beginning of the text that induced the unfortunate man to appeal to the king; second, that his information concerned Arad-Ninlil; and third, that because of this information, he and all his comrades knowing about the "treaty of rebellion" instantly got killed. Accordingly, we may conclude that the assertion "Your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" was something Arad-Ninlil did not want to become publicly known; and since this statement was meant for the ears of the king, it is evident (1) that the person Arad-Ninlil intended to kill was the king himself and (2) that Arad-Ninlil himself was the king's own son. It follows that AradNinlil was involved in a conspiracy aiming at the murder of the king, and quite obviously was the leading figure in it. Nowhere in the letter is the name Arad-Ninlil preserved completely; the last sign LÍL is broken away or damaged in all instances. But no other Sargonid prince with a name beginning with the sign ARAD is known, so the restoration of the final element can be regarded as certain. Since Arad-Ninlil is only attested as a son of Sennacherib, the king referred to in the text can only be Sennacherib. On the other hand, it is clear that the letter itself cannot have been addressed to Sennacherib. Had the writer wanted to warn the king of a threatening assassination, he would have expressed himself differently. Hence, one must conclude that the letter was written after the murder had already taken place, and therefore probably was addressed to Esarhaddon. As this king must, from the beginning, have been reasonably well informed about his father's murder, it would be absurd to assume that the purpose of the writer was simply to inform the king about the identity of the murderer. His aim was certainly different. If we consider the text more closely, it is easy to see that the writer took the leading role of Arad-Ninlil in the conspiracy as generally known: but what he is trying to make clear is that the two officials mentioned in the letter were responsible for the death of the informer and therefore by implication also involved in the conspiracy. Both men, Nabu-sum-iskun and Sillâ, are well known as officials of Sennacherib who continued in their offices through the early years of Esarhaddon: the Kuyunjik letter archiye contains many denunciations against the latter. The present letter clearly is in the same category, and by using as an argument against Sillâ his role in silencing the informer, it actually implies that the prediction "your son Arad-Ninlil will kill you" had become a fact meanwhile. Thus, the letter just discussed powerfully supports the position of the scholars who have seen in Arad-Ninlil the likeliest candidate for the murderer of Sennacherib, and in fact makes it a matter of virtual certainty. We may hence pass on to a serious reconsideration of the problem of how to satisfactorily relate the name Arad-Ninlil to the names of the murderer (Adrammelech/Adramelos/Ardumuzan) given in the Bible and the Berossus excerpts. Actually, there is hardly any problem here at all. We are now in a position to show that the traditional reading of the (logographically spelled) Assyrian name, on which the earlier comparisons were based (and which has also been used here for convenience) is incorrect and should be abolished. In particular, the theophoric element at the end of the name (d-NIN.LÍL) has to be read [Mulissu] or [Mullêsu], not *Ninlil. This reading, first tentatively suggested by E. Reiner twelve years ago and since then increasingly well documented, represents the Neo-Assyrian form of the Akkadian name of the goddess Ninlil, attested as Mulliltum in an Old-Babylonian god list. It appears to have been very wide-spread in the first millennium, and is actually attested in syllabic spellings of the very name under consideration. On the other hand, the reading of the first element (ARAD) can be determined as [arda] or [ardi] on the basis of occasional syllabic spellings in contemporary and earlier Assyrian texts. And once the reading Arda-Mulissi has been established, the names of the murderer found in the non-cuneiform sources become relatively easy to explain. The Biblical Adrammelech differs from the Assyrian name only in two respects: the metathesis or r and d, and the replacement of shin at the end of the name by kaph. The former point is negligible since r and d were virtually homographic and therefore easy to confuse in early Hebrew and Aramaic script … the second can be explained as a scribal error. It is not difficult to imagine a scribe correcting a seemingly nonsensical "meles" to "melek", a frequent final element in North-West Semitic personal names. The Berossian name forms show an even better match. The form Adramelos found in the Abydenos excerpt is virtually identical with Arda-Mulissi save for the already discussed metathesis of r and d (which may have been influenced by the familiarity of Eusebius with the Biblical form). The name Ardumuzan agrees with Arda-Mulissi up to its last syllable which can only be due to textual corruption. It is important to note that in this name, the metathesis of r and d does not take place. In sum, it can be stated that all three names can be relatively easily traced back to Arda-Mulissi; and "then one comes to think about it, it would be very hard if not impossible to find another Assyrian name "which could provide as satisfactory an explanation for them as this one does. The identification of Arad-Ninliu Arda-Mulissi as the murderer of Sennacherib can thus be considered doubly assured. But what were his motives, and how did he end up doing what he did? My reconstruction of the course of events is as follows: In 694, Sennacherib eldest son and heir-designate Assur-nãdin-sumi is captured by Babylonians and carried off to Elam; he is no more heard of. The second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favorite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia, who is not the mother of Arda-Mulissi. Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince, and all Assyria is made to swear allegiance to him. However, Arda-Mulissi enjoys considerable popularity among certain circles who would like to see him as their future king rather than sickly Esarhaddon. As years pass, the opposition to Esarhaddon grows, while at the same time Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) gain in popularity. This political development leads to a turn of events, but not to the one hoped for by Arda-Mulissi and his supporters. Foreseeing trouble, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon away from the capital to the western provinces; yet he does not revise the order of succession. In this situation, Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) soon find themselves in a stalemate. On the one hand, they are at their political zenith while their rival brother has to languish in exile; on the other hand, the latter remains the crown prince, and there is nothing his brothers can do about it since the position of Sennacherib remains unchanged and Esarhaddon himself is out of reach in the provinces. Supposing he were able to score military victories, his popularity would undoubtedly rise while that of his brothers might easily start to sink. The only way for them to make good of the situation, it seems, is to act swiftly and take over the kingship by force. A "treaty of rebellion" is concluded; and probably not much later, Sennacherib is stabbed to death by Arda-Mulissi or, perhaps, crushed alive under a winged bull colossus guarding the temple where he had been praying at the time of the murder. This reconstruction closely follows Esarhaddon's own account of the events. and similar interpretations have been presented earlier by others. Nebuchednezzar’s beginnings It all started, according to my revision, when Nebuchednezzar, a young official for the Great King of Assyria, Sargon II/Sennacherib, accompanied (according to Jewish tradition) the ill-fated army of Sennacherib (Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) to the west. In the Book of Judith, Nebuchednezzar appears, I tentatively suggest, as “Bagoas”, purportedly a “eunuch”, serving the Commander-in-chief himself, “Holofernes”. The latter is the eldest son of Sennacherib, the Crown Prince and ruler of Babylon, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin (Nadab) of Tobit 14:10. Now King Sennacherib had various wives and apparently quite a few sons: https://www.worldhistory.org/Esarhaddon/ “Sennacherib had over eleven sons with his various wives and chose as heir his favorite, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest of those born of his queen Tashmetu-sharrat (d.c. 684/681 BCE) [sic]”. Two of these sons, “Adrammelek and Sharezer”, will slay their father (2 Kings 19:37): “One day, while [Sennacherib] was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king”. Nisrok (Nisroch) here is a fairly unconvincing Hebrew attempt to transliterate Nusku (fire-god), the god whom Sennacherib (as, for example, Tukulti-ninurta), did, indeed, worship. Some identify this Nusku with Mercury (in its evening phase). Sharezer Previously I had written: “As far as I am aware, “Sharezer” has not yet been positively identified. Emil G. Kraeling thinks that: “Sharezer was probably not a son” (“The Death of Sennacherib”, Jstor 53, No. 4, December, 1933, cf. note 32)”. But there is always hope! With my Middle Kingdom folding of Nebuchednezzar so-called I into so-called II, then we find that this great Chaldean king had an Assyrian adversary with the name of Ashur-resha-ishi. While one would not expect Nebuchednezzar so-called II to be fighting an Assyrian king - given that the Assyrian kingdom is supposed to have come to an end (612 BC) around half a dozen years before Nebuchednezzar even came to the throne (c. 605 BC) - it works in my system, according to which Nebuchednezzar was Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal. Of Nebuchednezzar’s conflict with Ashur-resha-ishi, we read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_I …. The Synchronistic History[i 12] relates his entente cordiale with his contemporary, the Assyrian king Aššur-rēša-iši I,[i 13] and subsequently the outcome of two military campaigns against the border fortresses of Zanqi and Idi that he conducted in violation of this agreement. The first was curtailed by the arrival of Aššur-rēša-iši’s main force, causing Nabû-kudurrī-uṣur to burn his siege engines and flee, while the second resulted in a battle in which the Assyrians apparently triumphed, “slaughtered his troops (and) carried off his camp.” It even reports the capture of the Babylonian field marshal, Karaštu.[9] …. This was the same as the civil war that Esarhaddon had to fight against his parricidal brothers for him to hold the throne of Nineveh. The name Ashur-resha-ishi is, I believe, extremely well represented by the biblical transliteration, Sharezer. Thus A – SHUR RESHA – ishi: Shur[r]esha = Sharezer.

Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified

by Damien F. Mackey “… 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 recent 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? See also my article: The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified (4) The 'Jonah incident' historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Bible Belting into shape Belshazzar

“This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible”. Zack Duncan I (Damien Mackey) think that, with a few tweaks, the following (2024) article by Zack Duncan can really work: https://medium.com/@zduncan/who-was-belshazzar-c82d7dc23574 Belshazzar: The Fictional Babylonian King Who Actually Lived …. Belshazzar was having a party in Babylon on the night the Achaemenid Persians assumed power from the Babylonians. He’s become a pretty popular guy in the 2,500+ years since his death in 539 BC. At least, he’s more popular than he used to be. That’s because many scholars long believed him to be a historical forgery and wrote him off. This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible. For this to all make sense, you’ll need to mark four important Babylonian names as we go along: • Belshazzar (our protagonist) • Belteshazzar (a very similar name and a very different person) • Nabonidus (one of the reasons many doubted in a historical Belshazzar) • Nebuchadnezzar (the OG Babylonian king) So, Who Was Belshazzar? Belshazzar was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. His name meant “Baal protect the king.” For thousands of years he was only known in the Bible, where he is recorded as throwing quite the party. Here’s how it’s told in the book of Daniel: King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. 2 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. 3 So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. [Source: Daniel 5: 1–3] Why did Belshazzar have gold and silver from Jerusalem at this party? The answer is connected to one of our other important names: Nebuchadnezzar Who was Nebuchadnezzar and What Was His Connection to the Party? Belshazzar’s ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar II, was the second emperor in the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Mackey’s comment: Nebuchednezzar so-called II was actually the first. His predecessor, Nabopolassar, was an Assyrian, Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from 605 BC until his death in 562 BC. Belshazzar was likely his grandson, through his daughter (Nitocris). [Note: Daniel 5 calls Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar, which is a generic word meaning ancestor. It’s the same word that it used in Daniel 2:23 → To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise…] Mackey’s comment: Belshazzar was Nebuchednezzar’s direct son (cf. Baruch 1:11, 12) Nebuchadnezzar, known to history as Nebuchadnezzar the Great, was renowned for his building prowess and his military campaigns. One of those military campaigns was through the home of the Jews. He defeated Judah and captured the city of Jerusalem around 600 BC. The city was destroyed and the residents forcibly deported to Babylon. This is how the beginning of the book of Daniel records the events. The treasures from the temple in Jerusalem even get a mention here. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility — 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians [Source: Daniel 1: 1–4] The Jews had been living in Babylon since that time. In the Babylonian captivity they were expected to conform to the culture of Babylon and acknowledge the gods of Babylon. It was this culture that took center stage 23 years [more like 3-4 years] after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, at Belshazzar’s party with the temple goblets. Below is Rembrandt’s famous painting depicting Belshazzar at his banquet. Rembrandt’s Painting of Belshazzar’s Feast Rembrandt painted “Belshazzar’s Feast” around 1638. His only source was the Bible, since nothing else discovered in the historical record to that point attested to his existence. The goblets make their appearance. But Belshazzar is far more focused on the wall behind him. A disembodied hand writes on the wall. We’ll come back to those words later. Belshazzar summoned one of the Jewish exiles, Daniel, who had a reputation for deciphering divine symbols and visions. The Daniel credited as the author of the book of Daniel. The same Daniel who was known as Belteshazzar in Babylon. Belteshazzar vs. Belshazzar Belshazzar (“Baal protect the king”) was the king in Babylon the night the empire fell to the Persians. Belteshazzar (“Bel protects his life”) was the Babylonian name given to the Jewish exile named Daniel. Mackey’s comment: Scholars say that Belteshazzar is not, in fact, a Bel name, more like, say, a Balatu- construct. Part of the cultural assimilation process for the captive Jews was getting a new Babylonian name. Daniel chapter 4 makes it clear that Daniel and Belteshazzar were one and the same in another account when he is called to help Nebuchadnezzar understand his dreams. 19 Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him… [Source: Daniel 4:19] Ok, you say. These are some hard to pronounce names. The hand writing on the wall is bizarre. But the general framework of the story seems plausible. Why were the historians so hard on poor Belshazzar? Why didn’t they believe him to be real? For that, we need to introduce our fourth Babylonian name: Nabonidus. Who Was Nabonidus? According to ancient historians, it was Nabonidus — not Belshazzar — who was the last king of Babylon. Here are some of those sources: • Herodotus of Halicarnassus (480–429 BC) is known as the “Father of History.” He called Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. Of note, he called him king Labynetus, which was Greek for Nabonidus. • Another Greek historian Xenophon (430–355 BC) agrees that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. He says that he was killed when the Achaemenid Persians took Babylon. • The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 AD) also claimed that Nabonidus to be the last king of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: The whole solution is to recognise Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar, and Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, as Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (6) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here’s Nabonidus worshipping the symbols of the sun and moon gods. He was very real and there is plenty of evidence in the archeological record to validate his existence. What does the Bible say about Nabonidus? Nothing. The Bible doesn’t mention him. Mackey’s comment: The Bible has a lot to say about Nabonidus, as Nebuchednezzar. And that seemed like a big problem for the Bible. Especially since it has a character named Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon who didn’t appear in any sources outside the Bible. Not only did Belshazzar seem like a fiction, but it followed that the book of Daniel and the Bible as a whole was just a myth. Here’s what more recent historians had to say about Daniel based on Belshazzar. Criticism of Daniel I came across the following remarks saying that Daniel has “no historical basis whatever.” Thanks to this article for compiling the quotes. There is no historical basis whatever, on which such an account can rest. The whole must be pure fiction [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850] And again, it’s called a “palpable forgery.” But a man like Belshazzar would never have received such an ominous prediction from the mouth of Daniel, and have rewarded him for it. The whole thing is a palpable forgery, got up merely to magnify Daniel. [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850] It’s the presence of Belshazzar that seems to definitively prove that the “whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author.” The name Belshazzar is a mistaken one. The name of the last king was Nabonned. The writer has given us a mere figment instead of a real name. 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. [Source, Frederic William Farrar 1831–1903, Expositor’s Bible: The Book of Daniel.] All of history knew the last king’s name to be Nabonidus! At least, that was until the Nabonidus Cylinder was discovered in the latter half of the 19th century. The Nabonidus Cylinder J.G. Taylor made an important discovery in the ancient city of Ur, located in southwest Iraq. While exploring the foundation of a ziggurat in Ur, Taylor discovered four identical cuneiform cylinders. Historians estimate they had been deposited in the four corners of the ziggurat in 540 BC. Here’s how the inscription ends: As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son — my offspring — instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude. [Source, livius.org] Belshazzar was redeemed! The account from the cylinders makes it clear that he was, in fact, the eldest son of Nabonidus. But that left one more problem. The Bible calls Belshazzar a king. How could that be when Nabonidus was the king? That mystery was unraveled by another discovery. A cuneiform tablet that was discovered in ancient Nineveh, by modern day Mosul, Iraq. The Verse Account of Nabonidus Years after the discovery of the Nabonidus cylinder, 45 clay tablets were discovered that detailed major events in Babylonian history. Within these Babylonian Chronicles — now located at the British Museum — was something called called the Verse Account of Nabonidus. Here’s what that says about the reign of Nabonidus: …when the third year was about to begin — he entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Tayma deep in the west. [Source, Verse account of Nabonidus, livius.org] Towards the end of his reign as king of the Babylonian empire, Nabonidus “turned to Tayma”, which … is in what it now northwest Saudi Arabia today. Nabonidus “let everything go” and “entrusted the kingship” to Belteshazzar. …. This was a highly unusual arrangement. Somehow Belshazzar, and Nabonidus, were both ruling as kings of Babylon. Nabonidus ruling from the outskirts of the empire of Babylon. Belshazzar as king of the greatest city in the empire, which was also called Babylon. So There Were Two Last Kings of Babylon? Yes. …. Belshazzar had the same royal power as his father. While not officially named as such, the Verse Account of Nabonidus makes it clear that Nabonidus gave him powers of the king. Other documents confirm the same. Belshazzar could grant royal privileges identical to those granted by kings. One preserved document, which regards the granting of the privilege to cultivate a tract of land belonging to the Eanna temple in Uruk, is virtually identical to similar privileges issued by Nabonidus, though it is specified to have been issued by Belshazzar. As he could lease out temple land, this suggests that Belshazzar, in administrative matters, could act with full royal power. [Source: Wikipedia] And since Nabonidus was away in Tayma for more than 10 years, Belshazzar had plenty of time to cement his status as the authority figure in the city of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that this was only a temporary situation until King Nebuchadnezzar returned to full power. Years later, after he had died, his son Belshazzar, as Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), become sole ruler of the kingdom (cf. 2 Kings 25:27), for a few short years. A position he retained until the night of the feast. How Did Belshazzar Die? Belshazzar died the night of his big feast. Let’s now get back to that mysterious hand on the wall. Here is how the Bible orders the events in Daniel 5: • Belshazzar’s massive party is interrupted by the hand writing on the wall: 5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. [Daniel 5: 5–6] • Belshazzar calls for someone who can read the mysterious writing. He summons Daniel and promises him great rewards if he can read the writing. And Daniel responds making it clear he’s not interested in the rewards (Belshazzar had offered to make him the 3rd highest ruler in the kingdom). 17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. [Daniel 5:17] • And Daniel gives the meaning of the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN 23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. And, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” (Daniel 5:30). Can the Bible Be Trusted? On the surface, this story seems like a perfect case study for why the Bible is only a collection of legends. There are claims of a king who was unknown to history. Who, in fact, the historical record seemed to completely disprove based on the existence of Nabonidus. There’s a seemingly fanciful account of a mysterious hand writing on a wall. And there’s an almost more ludicrous claim that the heavily fortified city of Babylon could fall in a single night. After all, Babylon was had incredibly thick and high walls and was considered impregnable. The Euphrates river ran through Babylon, making it almost impervious to siege. Surely, if a city like that would fall it would make months of extended warfare. Years. Mackey’s comment: The Bible tells only of the King, not the city of Babylon, falling in a single night. And yet, as the years have rolled on, the evidence has proven otherwise. As it turns out, Belshazzar did indeed exist. And he was reigning over the city of Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians. Somehow, he was the last king of Babylon despite Nabonidus also having claim to the same title. Mackey’s comment: No. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar. The outlandish contention that the city could fall in a single night is validated by other sources. Both Herodotus and Xenophon talk about a surprise attack, where the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates river allowing the soldiers to march into the city through the dry river bed. What better time to do that than when all the leaders of the city are getting drunk at a massive party. That just leaves the mysterious hand on the wall. Like all matters of faith, there is no objective proof. There are reasons to believe. There is evidence that the overall story is beyond the natural realm. And there is also no conclusive proof. If you don’t believe there is more to the world than what we can see, you surely cannot believe that a disembodied hand can be sent from God. You can’t believe in God at all, since He is by definition outside of natural explanation. He is supernatural. But perhaps it makes you think. Because the Bible, as it turns out, was the only source that had all the accurate information in one place. Not Herodotus. Not Xenophon. Not the Babylonian Chronicles. They all had pieces. Only the Bible had it all. It just took over two thousand years for the rest of the archeological record to catch up. It makes me think about other things the Bible says are true. Things that might seem fanciful. That could never be true. But what if they are true as well? What if everything else is just a piece of the ultimate Truth? What is real Truth is found in Jesus? What if what Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Philippi is actually going to happen one day? What if the evidence will finally all be revealed and we’ll all see that it is actually all true? …so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2: 10–11] If you’re wrestling with all of it, try asking Him. Not the Jesus of political power or the Jesus who you hope might make you rich, but the real Jesus. And see what He can do.

Did Daniel meet Ahikar?

by Damien F. Mackey Tobit tells us that this Ahikar was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21, 22, CEB). Previously I have written about this fascinating character of Bible and legend: Ahikar’s Importance Biblical scholars could well benefit from knowing more about AHIKAR (or Ahiqar/Akhikar), the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib, Great King of Assyria (c. 700 BC, conventional dating), and who was retained in power by Esarhaddon (Gk. Sacherdonos) (Tobit 1:22). This Ahikar … was a vitally important eye-witness to some of the most extraordinary events of Old Testament history. Ahikar was, at the very least …: 1. a key link between the Book of Judith and those other books, Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah [KCI] that describe Sennacherib’s rise to prominence and highly successful first major invasion of Israel (historically his 3rd campaign), and then 2. Sennacherib’s second major invasion of Israel and subsequent disastrous defeat there; and he was 3. an eyewitness, as Tobit’s own nephew, to neo-Assyrian events as narrated in the Book of Tobit. May I, then (based on my research into historical revision), sketch Ahikar’s astounding life by knitting together the various threads about him that one may glean from KCI, Tobit, Judith, secular history and legends. I shall be using for him the better known name of Ahikar, even though I find him named in the Book of Judith (and also in the Vulgate version of Tobit) as Achior, presumably, “son of light” (and as Achiacharus in the Septuagint). Here is Ahikar: His Israelite Beginnings Tobit tells us that this Ahikar was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21, 22, CEB): Within forty days Sennacherib was killed by two of his sons, who escaped to the mountains of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon became king in his place. He hired Ahikar, my brother Hanael’s son, to be in charge of all the financial accounts of his kingdom and all the king’s treasury records. Ahikar petitioned the king on my behalf, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahikar had been the chief officer, the keeper of the ring with the royal seal, the auditor of accounts, and the keeper of financial records under Assyria’s King Sennacherib. And Esarhaddon promoted him to be second in charge after himself. Ahikar was my nephew and one of my family. Ahikar, nephew of Tobit, was therefore the cousin of the latter’s son, Tobias, whom I have identified, in his mature age, as the holy Job. See e.g. my article: Job’s Life and Times http://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times Presumably then Ahikar had, just like Tobit and his son, Tobias, belonged to the tribe of Naphthali (cf. Tobit 1:1); though he was possibly, unlike the Tobiads, amongst the majority of his clan who had gone over to Baal worship. Ahikar may thus initially have been a scoffer (1:4) and a blasphemer. Tobit tells us about his tribe’s apostasy (1:4-5): When I was young, I lived in northern Israel. All the tribes in Israel were supposed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. It was the one city that God had chosen from among all the Israelite cities as the place where his Temple was to be built for his holy and eternal home. But my entire tribe of Naphtali rejected the city of Jerusalem and the kings descended from David. Like everyone else in this tribe, my own family used to go to the city of Dan in the mountains of northern Galilee to offer sacrifices to the gold bull-calf which King Jeroboam of Israel had set up there. This was still the unfortunate situation during the early reign of the great king Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 30: 1, 10): “And Hezekiah sent letters to all Israel and Judah … to come to Jerusalem … and keep the Passover …. So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim … but they laughed them to scorn …”. Whilst Tobit and his family, and Ahikar’s presumably also, were taken into captivity during the reign of “King Shalmaneser” [so-called V] (Tobit 1:2), the northern kingdom of Samaria went later. Samaria, due to her apostasy, was taken captive in 722 BC (conventional dating) by Sargon II of Assyria, whom I have actually equated with Sennacherib: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib As Sennacherib’s Cupbearer-in-Chief (Rabshakeh) See also my recent article: Ahikar once a mouthpiece for the Assyrian king Sennacherib (5) Ahikar once a mouthpiece for the Assyrian king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ahikar’s rapid rise to high office in the kingdom of Assyria may have been due in part to the prestige that his uncle had enjoyed there; because Tobit tells us that he himself was, for the duration of the reign of “Shalmaneser … the king’s purveyor”, even entrusted with large sums of money (1:14): “And I [Tobit] went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Rages a city of Media ten talents of silver”. …. This is apparently something like $1.2 million dollars! http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1205.htm …. Sennacherib’s description of his official, Bel-ibni, who he said had “grown up in my palace like a young puppy” [as quoted by G. Roux, Iraq, p. 321], may have been equally applicable to Ahikar. The highly talented Ahikar, rising quickly through the ranks, attained to Rabshakeh, high military official. Whatever the exact circumstances of Ahikar’s worldly success, the young man seems to have enjoyed a rise to power quite as speedy as that later on experienced by the prophet Daniel in Babylon; the latter trusting wholeheartedly in his God, whereas Ahikar may possibly have, at first, depended upon his own powers. {Though Tobit put in a good word for his nephew when he recalled that “Ahikar gave alms” (14:10), that being his salvation}. Merodach-baladan, the wily survivor during the first half of Sennacherib’s reign, was the latter’s foe, Arphaxad, of the Book of Judith, defeated by Sennacherib (there called Nebuchadnezzar) - this incident occurring next, as I have argued, after Sennacherib’s successful 3rd campaign, the one involving king Hezekiah of Judah. Thus we read in Judith 1:1, 5-6: While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes [sic] …. In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite [Chaldean] alliance. Whilst “King Arioch” mentioned here will be discussed later, I have explained the use of the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ for Sennacherib in the Book of Judith in my article: Book of Judith: confusion of names https://www.academia.edu/36599434/Book_of_Judith_confusion_of_names Sennacherib’s Third campaign Biblically, we get our first glimpse of Ahikar in action, I believe, as the very vocal Rabshakeh of KCI, the mouthpiece of Sennacherib himself when the Assyrian army mounted its first major assault upon the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 18:13): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them”. Now, it would make perfect sense that the king of Assyria would have chosen from amongst his elite officials, to address the Jews, one of Israelite tongue (vv. 17-18): And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field. And when they called for the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the secretary, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder. And these are the bold words that Rabshakeh had apparently been ordered to say to the Jews (vv. 19-25): And the Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you rest this trust of yours? Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me? Behold, you are trusting now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. But if you say to me, “We trust in the Lord our God,” is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem”? Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants, when you trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Moreover, is it without the Lord that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it’. …. King Hezekiah’s officials, however, who did not want the people on the walls to hear these disheartening words, pleaded with Rabshakeh as follows (v. 26): “Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall’.” Could the fact that the Jewish officials knew that Sennacherib’s officer was conversant with the Aramaïc language indicate that Ahikar, of whom they must have known, was of northern – and perhaps Transjordanian (like Tobit and Tobias) – origin? Now Ahikar, who as said above is named ‘Achior’ in the Vulgate version of Tobit, I have identified as the important Achior of the Book of Judith in Volume Two of my post-graduate thesis (2007). So it was rather intriguing to discover, in regard to the Rabshakeh’s famous speech, that B. Childs (Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis) had discerned some similarity between it and the speech of Achior in the Book of Judith. I wrote on this in my thesis (Vol. 2, p. 8): … Childs - who has subjected the Rabshakeh’s speech to a searching form-critical analysis, also identifying its true Near Eastern genre - has considered it as well in relation to an aspect of the speech of … Achior [to be identified with] this Rabshakeh in Chapter 2, e.g. pp. 46-47) to Holofernes (Judith 5:20f.). …. A legend had been born, Ahikar the Rabshakeh! The Israelite captive had proven himself to have been a most loyal servant of Sennacherib’s during the latter’s highly successful 3rd campaign, playing his assigned rôle to perfection. Sennacherib then turned his sights upon the troublesome Merodach-baladan. And it is at this point in history that the Book of Judith opens. After the defeat of Merodach-baladan, the aforementioned ‘young puppy’, Bel-ibni, was made sub-king of Babylon in his stead. The Vizier (Ummânu) With what I think is a necessary merging of the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar so-called I, with the potent king of neo-Assyria, Esarhaddon (or Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’), we encounter during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier [the following taken from J. Brinkman’s A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. 1158-722 B.C. Roma (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968, pp. 114-115]: … during these years in Babylonia a notable literary revival took place …. It is likely that this burst of creative activity sprang from the desire to glorify fittingly the spectacular achievements of Nebuchednezzar I and to enshrine his memorable deeds in lasting words. These same deeds were also to provide inspiration for later poets who sang the glories of the era …. The scribes of Nebuchednezzar’s day, reasonably competent in both Akkadian and Sumerian…, produced works of an astonishing vigor, even though these may have lacked the polish of a more sophisticated society. The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.)…. To which Brinkman adds the footnote [n. 641]: “Note … that Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu also under Adad-apla-iddina and, therefore, his career extended over at least thirty-five years”. So perhaps we can consider that our vizier was, for a time, shared by both Assyria and Babylon. Those seeking the historical Ahikar tend to come up with one Aba-enlil-dari, this description of him taken from: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/database/gen_html/a0000639.php: The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. Seleucid Babylonia is, of course, much later removed in time from our sources for Ahikar. And, as famous as may have been the scribe Esagil-kini-ubba – whether or not he were also Ahikar – even better known is this Ahikar (at least by that name), a character of both legend and of (as I believe) real history. Regarding Ahikar’s tremendous popularity even down through the centuries, we read [The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 28:28]: The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered at the beginning of the 20th cent. on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the Old Testament itself. Whilst Ahikar’s fame has spread far and wide, the original Ahikar, whom I am trying to uncover in this article, has been elusive for some. Thus J. Greenfield has written: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511520662&cid=CBO9780511520662A012 The figure of Ahiqar has remained a source of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. The search for the real Ahiqar, the acclaimed wise scribe who served as chief counsellor to Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, was a scholarly preoccupation for many years. He had a sort of independent existence since he was known from a series of texts – the earliest being the Aramaic text from Elephantine, followed by the book of Tobit, known from the Apocrypha, and the later Syriac, Armenian and Arabic texts of Ahiqar. An actual royal counsellor and high court official who had been removed from his position and later returned to it remains unknown. E. Reiner found the theme of the ‘disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister’ combined with that of the ‘ungrateful nephew’ in the ‘Bilingual Proverbs’, and saw this as a sort of parallel to the Ahiqar story. She also emphasized that in Mesopotamia the ummânu was not only a learned man or craftsman but was also a high official. At the time that Reiner noted the existence of this theme in Babylonian wisdom literature, Ahiqar achieved a degree of reality with the discovery in Uruk, in the excavations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE). This tablet contains a list of antediluvian kings and their sages (apkallû) and postdiluvian kings and their scholars (ummânu). The postdiluvian kings run from Gilgamesh to Esarhaddon. As a Ruling ‘King’ (or Governor) The Elamite Connection Chapter 1 of the Book of Tobit appears to be a general summary of Tobit’s experiences during the reigns of a succession of Assyrian kings: Shalmaneser, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. I, in my thesis and subsequent writings, may have misread some of the chronology of the life of Tobit, whose blindness, as recorded in Chapter 2, I had presumed to have occurred after the murder of Sennacherib. I now think that it occurred well before that. Ahikar will assist Tobit in his miserable state (“Ahikar gave alms”, 14:10), for two years, before his appointment as ruler of Elam. Here is Tobit’s account of it (2:10-11): For four years I could see nothing. My relatives were deeply concerned about my condition, and Ahikar supported me for two years before he went to the land of Elam. After Ahikar left, my wife Anna had to go to work, so she took up weaving, like many other women. Another thing that probably needs to be re-considered now, in light of my revised view of the chronology of Tobit, concerns the previously mentioned “King Arioch” as referred to in Judith 1:6: “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad … as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Arioch in Elam I had (rightly I think) identified in my thesis, again, as Achior (Ahikar) who went to Elam. But, due to my then mis-reading of Tobit, I had had to consider the mention of Arioch in Judith 1:6 as a post-Sennacherib gloss, added later as a geographical pointer, thinking that our hero had gone to Elam only after Sennacherib’s death. And so I wrote in my thesis (Vol. II, pp. 46-47): I disagree with Charles [The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament] that: “The name Arioch is borrowed from Gen. xiv. i, in accordance with the author’s love of archaism”. This piece of information, I am going to argue here, is actually a later gloss to the original text. And I hope to give a specific identification to this king, since, according to Leahy [‘Judith’]: “The identity of Arioch (Vg Erioch) has not been established …”. What I am going to propose is that Arioch was not actually one of those who had rallied to the cause of Arphaxad in Year 12 of Nebuchadnezzar, as a superficial reading of [Book of Judith] might suggest, but that this was a later addition to the text for the purpose of making more precise for the reader the geographical region from whence came Arphaxad’s allies, specifically the Elamite troops. In other words, this was the very same region as that which Arioch had ruled; though at a later time, as I am going to explain. Commentators express puzzlement about him. Who was this Arioch? And if he were such an unknown, then what was the value of this gloss for the early readers? Arioch was, I believe, the very Achior who figures so prominently in the story of Judith. He was also the legendary Ahikar, a most famous character as we have already read. Therefore he was entirely familiar to the Jews, who would have known that he had eventually governed the Assyrian province of Elam. Some later editor/translator presumably, apparently failing to realise that the person named in this gloss was the very same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story of [Judith], has confused matters by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: “Achior ruled the Elymeans”. From there it is an easy matter to make this comparison: “Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit]. Suffice it to say here that this ubiquitous personage, Ahikar/Achior, would have been the eyewitness extraordinaire to the detailed plans and preparations regarding the war between the Assyrians and the Chaldean coalition as described in Judith 1. Merging Judith’s ‘Arioch’ with Daniel’s ‘Arioch’ With my revised shunting of the neo-Assyrian era into the neo-Babylonian one, and with an important official, “Arioch”, emerging early in the Book of Daniel, early in the reign of “Nebuchednezzar”, then the possibility arises that he is the same as the “Arioch” of Judith 1:6. Previously, I multi-identified the famous Ahikar (var. Achior), nephew of Tobit, a Naphtalian Israelite, with Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh; with the Achior of the Book of Judith; and with a few other suggestions thrown in. Finally, my identification of Ahikar (Achior) also with the governor (for Assyria) of the land of Elam, named as “Arioch” in Judith 1:6, enabled me to write this very neat equation: “Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit]. Arioch in Daniel Arioch is met in Daniel 2, in the highly dramatic context of king Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, in which Arioch is a high official serving the king. The erratic king has firmly determined to get rid of all of his wise men (2:13): “So the decree was issued to put the wise men to death, and men were sent to look for Daniel and his friends to put them to death”. And the king has entrusted the task to this Arioch, variously entitled “marshal”; “provost-marshal”; “captain of the king’s guard”; “chief of the king’s executioners” (2:14): “When Arioch, the commander of the king’s guard, had gone out to put to death the wise men of Babylon, Daniel spoke to him with wisdom and tact”. This is the customary way that the wise and prudent Daniel will operate. Daniel 2 continues (v. 15): “[Daniel] asked the king’s officer [Arioch], ‘Why did the king issue such a harsh decree?’ Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel”. Our young Daniel does not lack a certain degree of “chutzpah”, firstly boldly approaching the king’s high official (the fact that Arioch does not arrest Daniel on the spot may be testimony to both the young man’s presence and also Arioch’s favouring the Jews since the Judith incident), and then (even though he was now aware of the dire decree) marching off to confront the terrible king (v. 16): “At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that he might interpret the dream for him”. Later, Daniel, having had revealed to him the details and interpretation of the king’s Dream, will re-acquaint himself with Arioch (v. 24): “Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, ‘Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him’.” Naturally, Arioch was quick to respond - no doubt to appease the enraged king, but perhaps also for the sake of Daniel and the wise men (v. 25): “Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, ‘I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means’.” Ahikar and Daniel Comparisons “There are also some curious linguistic parallels between Ahikar and Daniel” Books and articles abound comparing Ahikar and Daniel. For instance, there is George A. Barton’s “The Story of Aḥiḳar and the Book of Daniel” (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1900, pp 242-247): Aḥiḳar, a vizier of Sennacherib, was possessed of wealth, wisdom, popularity, and .... Lastly the description of Aḥiḳar with his nails grown like eagles’ talons and his hair matted like a wild beast … not only reminds one strongly of the of the description of the hair and nails of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4.30), but appears, as Harris has shown … in a more original form [sic] than in the book of Daniel. He further points out that the fact that in Aḥiḳar’s description of the wise men “Chaldeans” had not yet become a technical term for a sage, as it has in Daniel, is a further argument for the priority of Aḥiḳar. All these points the acute critic of Aḥiḳar has admirably taken; but one wonders why he did not go on a step farther; for when we come to the more fundamental parallels between plots and methods of treatment, the story of Aḥiḳar becomes even more vitally interesting to the student of Daniel than before. The first of these points to be noted is that Daniel was a wise man, like Aḥiḳar, excelling all others in wisdom, and, like him, vizier to his sovereign, whoever that sovereign might be. Granting the priority of Aḥiḳar, is there not a sign of dependence here? The story of Aḥiḳar’s fall from the pinnacle of power, his unjust incarceration in a pit … his deliverance, and the imprisonment of his accuser in the same pit, is exactly the same as Daniel’s fall from like power, his imprisonment in the lions’ den, his deliverance, and the casting of his accusers to the lions …. [End of quote] F. C. Conybeare et al. provide more such comparisons in “The Story of Ahikar”: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisConybeareLewis1913TheStoryOfAhikar.../Harris%2C%20Conybeare%2C%20%26%20Lewis%201913_The%20Story%20of%20Ahikar..._djvu.txt I turn now to a book which appears to belong to the same time and to the same region as Ahikar, in search of more exact coincidences. I refer to the Book of Daniel. First of all there are a good many expressions describing Assyrian life, which appear also in Daniel and may be a part of the stock-in-trade of an Eastern story-teller in ancient times. I mean such expressions as, '0 king, live for ever! 5 'I clad him in byssus and purple \ and a gold collar did I bind around his neck/ (Armenian, p. 25, cf. Dan. v. 16.) More exact likeness of speech will be found in the following sentence from the Arabic version, in which Ahikar is warned by the ' magicians, astrologers and sooth-sayers ' that he will have no child. Something of the same kind occurs in the Arabic text, when the king of Egypt sends his threatening letter to the king of Assyria, and the latter gathers together his ' nobles, philosophers, and wise men, and astrologers/ The Slavonic drops all this and says, 'It was revealed to me by God, no child will be born of thee/ ' He caused all the wise men to be gathered together/ In the Armenian it is, 'there was a voice from the gods 5 ; ' he sent and mustered the satraps/ The language, however, in the Arabic recalls certain expressions in Daniel : e.g. Dan. ii. 2. c The king sent to call the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans/ So in Dan. ii. 27 : in Dan. v. 7, ( astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers/ etc. It will be seen that the expressions in Daniel are closely parallel to those in the Arabic Ahikar. Again, when the king of Assyria is in perplexity as to what he shall answer to the king of Egypt, he demands advice from Nadan who has succeeded to his uncle's place in the kingdom. Nadan ridicules the demands of the Pharaoh. 'Build a castle in the air! The gods themselves cannot do this, let alone men!' We naturally compare the reply of the consulted Chaldeans in Daniel ii. 11, 'There is no one who can answer the matter before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh/ When Ahikar is brought out of his hiding-place and presented to the king, we are told that his hair had grown very long and reached his shoulders, while his beard had grown to his breast. 'My nails/ he says, 'were like the claws of eagles and my body had become withered and shapeless/ We compare the account of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had been driven from amongst men (see iv. 30); 1 until his hairs were grown like eagles' [feathers] and his nails like birds' [claws].' The parallelism between these passages is tolerably certain; and the text in Ahikar is better [sic] than that of Daniel. The growth of the nails must be expressed in terms of eagles' talons, and not of the claws of little birds: and the hair ought to be compared with wild beasts, as is the case in some of the Ahikar versions. There are also some curious linguistic parallels between Ahikar and Daniel …. It seems, then, to be highly probable that one of the writers in question was acquainted with the other; for it is out of the question to refer all these coincidences to a later perturbation in the text of Ahikar from the influence of the Bible. Some, at least, of them must be primitive coincidences. But in referring such coincidences to the first form of Ahikar, we have lighted upon a pretty problem. For one of the formulae in question, that namely which describes the collective wisdom of the Babylonians, is held by modern critics to be one of the proofs of late date in the book of Daniel: Accordingly Sayce says … 'Besides the proper names [in Daniel] there is another note of late date. "The Chaldeans" are coupled with the "magicians/ … the "astrologers'' and the "sorcerers/* just as they are in Horace or other classical writers of a similar age. The Hebrew and Aramaic equivalent of the Greek or Latin "Chaldeans" is Kasdim (Kasdayin), a name the origin of which is still uncertain. But its application in the earlier books of the Bible is well known. It denoted the Semitic Babylonians.... After the fall of the Babylonian empire the word Chaldean gradually assumed a new meaning . . .it became the equivalent of "sorcerer" and magician.. . . In the eyes of the Assyriologist the use of the word Kasdim in the book of Daniel would alone be sufficient to indicate the date of the work with unerring certainty.' Now it is certainly an interesting fact that in the story of Ahikar the perplexing Chaldeans are absent from the enumeration. This confirms us in a suspicion that Ahikar has not been borrowing from Daniel, either in the first form of the legend or in later versions. For if he had been copying into his text a passage from Daniel to heighten the narrative, why should he omit the Chaldeans? The author had not, certainly, been reading Prof. Sayce's proof that they were an anachronism. The hypothesis is, therefore, invited that in Ahikar we have a prior document to Daniel: but we will not press the argument unduly, because we are not quite certain as to the text of the primitive Ahikar … . See also my article: Did Daniel meet prophet Job? (5) Did Daniel meet prophet Job? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Daniel was the wisest of the wise

by Damien F. Mackey Whilst Daniel, qua Daniel, is not accorded a specific tribe, nor is he given a genealogy, or even a patronymic, I have concluded - following the Septuagint version of Bel and the Dragon wherein Daniel is called a priest, the son of Habal - that Daniel was a Levite, a priest. The prophet Daniel is thought to have departed the official scene, at least, early in the Medo-Persian era (c. 555 BC): “The last mention of Daniel in the Book of Daniel is in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1)”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure) “Rabbinic sources suppose that he was still alive during the reign of the Persian king Ahasuerus (better known as Artaxerxes – Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 15a, based on the Book of Esther 4, 5), when he was killed by Haman, the wicked prime minister of Ahasuerus (Targum Sheini on Esther, 4, 11)”. During the reign of Nebuchednezzar “Daniel and his friends refuse the food and wine provided by the king of Babylon to avoid becoming defiled. They receive wisdom from God and surpass "all the magicians and enchanters of the kingdom".” Whilst Daniel, qua Daniel, is not accorded a specific tribe, nor is he given a genealogy, or even a patronymic, I have concluded - following the Septuagint version of Bel and the Dragon wherein Daniel is called a priest, the son of Habal - that Daniel was a Levite, a priest. We read a standard version of Daniel’s life in the court of kings at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure) The Book of Daniel begins with an introduction telling how Daniel and his companions came to be in Babylon, followed by a set of tales set in the Babylonian and Persian courts, followed in turn by a set of visions in which Daniel sees the remote future of the world and of Israel. …. …. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the young Jewish nobility carried off to Babylon following the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. …. The four are chosen for their intellect and beauty to be trained in the Babylonian court, and are given new names. Daniel is given the Babylonian name Belteshazzar (Akkadian: … Beltu-šar-uṣur, written as NIN9.LUGAL.ŠEŠ), while his companions are given the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Daniel and his friends refuse the food and wine provided by the king of Babylon to avoid becoming defiled. They receive wisdom from God and surpass "all the magicians and enchanters of the kingdom." Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a giant statue made of four metals with feet of mingled iron and clay, smashed by a stone from heaven. Only Daniel is able to interpret it: the dream signifies four kingdoms, of which Babylon is the first, but God will destroy them and replace them with his own kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a great tree that shelters all the world and of a heavenly figure who decrees that the tree will be destroyed; again, only Daniel can interpret the dream, which concerns the sovereignty of God over the kings of the earth. When Nebuchadnezzar's son King Belshazzar uses the vessels from the Jewish temple for his feast, a hand appears and writes a mysterious message on the wall, which only Daniel can interpret; it tells the king that his kingdom will be given to the Medes and Persians, because Belshazzar, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, has not acknowledged the sovereignty of the God of Daniel. The Medes and Persians overthrow Nebuchadnezzar and the new king, Darius the Mede, appoints Daniel to high authority. Jealous rivals attempt to destroy Daniel with an accusation that he worships God instead of the king, and Daniel is thrown into a den of lions, but an angel saves him, his accusers are destroyed, and Daniel is restored to his position. [End of quote] Whilst this basically sums up the best known part of the career of Daniel (the Book of Daniel), there is significantly more now that will actually need to be added to the situation, I believe, from both a biblical and an historical perspective. First of all I should like to recall my expansion of King Nebuchednezzar to include the alter ego of that mighty neo-Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal. This enables for, inter alia, the historical identification of the strongly biblically-attested conquest of Egypt by Nebuchednezzar - but which is all but missing from the Chaldean records. King Ashurbanipal is, of course, famous for his utter devastation of Egypt, all the way down to the city of Thebes (c. 664 BC, conventional dating). Secondly, I have recently identified the prophet Daniel with the governor, Nehemiah (despite the conventional separation here of some 150 years): Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel (2) Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This now means that the “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” of the Book of Nehemiah was Nebuchednezzar of Babylon, and not a later Persian king. So, Daniel’s life during the reign of “Nebuchadnezzar” must now include, as well, the governorship of Nehemiah during years 20-32 of the reign of the king of Babylon, a phase not covered in the Book of Daniel (Nehemiah 5:14): “I was governor from the 20th year until the 32nd year that Artaxerxes was king. I was governor of Judah for twelve years”. Already, even during the mid-reign of Nebuchednezzar - and not some 150 years later in the Persian era (c. 440 BC) - the utterly destroyed city of Jerusalem had begun to be re-built, thanks to the intercession of Daniel-Nehemiah, a great favourite of the king of Babylon. Young Daniel and the Susanna Incident “As [Susanna] was being led to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel, and he cried aloud: ‘I am innocent of this woman’s blood’.” Daniel 13:45-46 Another incident that belongs to the time of Daniel’s youth, in Babylon - hence also during the reign of Nebuchednezzar - when the Jewish sage is described (in Theodotion’s version) as “a young boy [παιδαρίου] named Daniel”, is encountered in the story of Susanna. The story reads as follows (with a few of my comments added to it): http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/13 In Babylon there lived a man named Joakim, who married a very beautiful and God-fearing woman, Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah; her parents were righteous and had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses. Joakim was very rich and he had a garden near his house. The Jews had recourse to him often because he was the most respected of them all. Mackey’s comment: I have identified this highly “respected” Jew, Joakim, as the Mordecai of the Book of Esther, and Susanna, his wife, as Hadassah, the future Queen Esther. For, according to Jewish tradition, Mordecai was actually married to Hadassah (Esther). See e.g. my article: Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther (2) Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That year, two elders of the people were appointed judges, of whom the Lord said, “Lawlessness has come out of Babylon, that is, from the elders who were to govern the people as judges.” These men, to whom all brought their cases, frequented the house of Joakim. When the people left at noon, Susanna used to enter her husband’s garden for a walk. When the elders saw her enter every day for her walk, they began to lust for her. They perverted their thinking; they would not allow their eyes to look to heaven, and did not keep in mind just judgments. Though both were enamored of her, they did not tell each other their trouble, for they were ashamed to reveal their lustful desire to have her. Day by day they watched eagerly for her. One day they said to each other, “Let us be off for home, it is time for the noon meal.” So they went their separate ways. But both turned back and arrived at the same spot. When they asked each other the reason, they admitted their lust, and then they agreed to look for an occasion when they could find her alone. One day, while they were waiting for the right moment, she entered as usual, with two maids only, wanting to bathe in the garden, for the weather was warm. Nobody else was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her. “Bring me oil and soap,” she said to the maids, “and shut the garden gates while I bathe.” They did as she said; they shut the garden gates and left by the side gate to fetch what she had ordered, unaware that the elders were hidden inside. As soon as the maids had left, the two old men got up and ran to her. “Look,” they said, “the garden doors are shut, no one can see us, and we want you. So give in to our desire, and lie with us. If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was here with you and that is why you sent your maids away.” “I am completely trapped,” Susanna groaned. “If I yield, it will be my death; if I refuse, I cannot escape your power. Yet it is better for me not to do it and to fall into your power than to sin before the Lord.” Then Susanna screamed, and the two old men also shouted at her, as one of them ran to open the garden gates. When the people in the house heard the cries from the garden, they rushed in by the side gate to see what had happened to her. At the accusations of the old men, the servants felt very much ashamed, for never had any such thing been said about Susanna. When the people came to her husband Joakim the next day, the two wicked old men also came, full of lawless intent to put Susanna to death. Before the people they ordered: “Send for Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim.” When she was sent for, she came with her parents, children and all her relatives. Susanna, very delicate and beautiful, was veiled; but those transgressors of the law ordered that she be exposed so as to sate themselves with her beauty. All her companions and the onlookers were weeping. In the midst of the people the two old men rose up and laid their hands on her head. As she wept she looked up to heaven, for she trusted in the Lord wholeheartedly. The old men said, “As we were walking in the garden alone, this woman entered with two servant girls, shut the garden gates and sent the servant girls away. A young man, who was hidden there, came and lay with her. When we, in a corner of the garden, saw this lawlessness, we ran toward them. We saw them lying together, but the man we could not hold, because he was stronger than we; he opened the gates and ran off. Then we seized this one and asked who the young man was, but she refused to tell us. We testify to this.” The assembly believed them, since they were elders and judges of the people, and they condemned her to death. But Susanna cried aloud: “Eternal God, you know what is hidden and are aware of all things before they come to be: you know that they have testified falsely against me. Here I am about to die, though I have done none of the things for which these men have condemned me.” The Lord heard her prayer. As she was being led to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel, and he cried aloud: “I am innocent of this woman’s blood.” All the people turned and asked him, “What are you saying?” He stood in their midst and said, “Are you such fools, you Israelites, to condemn a daughter of Israel without investigation and without clear evidence? Return to court, for they have testified falsely against her.” Then all the people returned in haste. To Daniel the elders said, “Come, sit with us and inform us, since God has given you the prestige of old age.” But he replied, “Separate these two far from one another, and I will examine them.” After they were separated from each other, he called one of them and said: “How you have grown evil with age! Now have your past sins come to term: passing unjust sentences, condemning the innocent, and freeing the guilty, although the Lord says, ‘The innocent and the just you shall not put to death.’ Now, then, if you were a witness, tell me under what tree you saw them together.” “Under a mastic tree,”* he answered. “Your fine lie has cost you your head,” said Daniel; “for the angel of God has already received the sentence from God and shall split you in two.” Putting him to one side, he ordered the other one to be brought. “Offspring of Canaan, not of Judah,” Daniel said to him, “beauty has seduced you, lust has perverted your heart. This is how you acted with the daughters of Israel, and in their fear they yielded to you; but a daughter of Judah did not tolerate your lawlessness. Now, then, tell me under what tree you surprised them together.” “Under an oak,” he said. “Your fine lie has cost you also your head,” said Daniel; “for the angel of God waits with a sword to cut you in two so as to destroy you both.” The whole assembly cried aloud, blessing God who saves those who hope in him. They rose up against the two old men, for by their own words Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness. They condemned them to the fate they had planned for their neighbor: in accordance with the law of Moses they put them to death. Thus was innocent blood spared that day. Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, with Joakim her husband and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of any shameful deed. And from that day onward Daniel was greatly esteemed by the people. Mackey’s comment: From this case of wise judgment, and also from the famous incident of young Daniel’s properly recounting, and interpreting, King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, Daniel became a legend even when he was yet a boy/youth. That is why the prophet Ezekiel can declare ironically to the pretentious King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:3): “You are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you!” On this, see my article: Identity of the ‘Daniel’ in Ezekiel 14 and 28 https://www.academia.edu/29786004/Identity_of_the_Daniel_in_Ezekiel_14_and_28 The wicked and conspiring “two elders” of the above story of Susanna may possibly be the ill-fated pair, Ahab and Zedekiah, as mentioned in Jeremiah 29:21: “Thus said the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, which prophesy a lie to you in my name; Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall slay them before your eyes”. During the reign of Belshazzar My solution, typically, has been to shrink the conventional neo-Babylonian sequence by identifying Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, and Evil-Merodach with Belshazzar. The Book of Daniel jumps straight from the incident of the insanity of king Nebuchednezzar (chapter 4) to the termination of the reign of king Belshazzar with the famous incident of the Writing on the Wall, followed by mention of that wicked king’s death (chapter 5). Presumably there was a fair amount of time in between, because Belshazzar, as we shall see, reigned for at least 3-4 years, and Nebuchednezzar would experience a period of greater power after his bout of madness (Daniel 4:36): “At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before”. King Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor is known to have been - the albeit poorly attested - Evil-Merodach (evil by name, evil by nature), or Awel-Merodach. The name actually means “man”, or “servant, of [the god] Marduk”, nothing to do with “evil”. But, according to the Book of Daniel, Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor was “Belshazzar” (5:1), whom, the Jewish prophet reminds (5:18): ‘Your Majesty, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor’. The simple solution would be to identify Belshazzar as Evil-Merodach, considering that both were wicked and of short reign. And, historically, there was, in fact, a royal Belshazzar who post-dated Nebuchednezzar. The only trouble is, this Belshazzar was a son of king Nabonidus, whose reign is conventionally dated to c. 556-539 BC, commencing some years after the death of Nebuchednezzar. My solution, typically, has been to shrink the conventional neo-Babylonian sequence by identifying Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, and Evil-Merodach with Belshazzar. This conforms secular history to the sequence of kings in Daniel. The Jews will “pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven” (Baruch 1:11). Apart from the Writing on the Wall incident in chapter 5, we learn nothing more personally about King Belshazzar. We are told in chapter 7, though, that Daniel “had a dream, and visions” in that king’s 1st year of reign (7:1-3): In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. …”. And again, in chapter 8, Daniel experienced “a vision” in the king’s 3rd year of reign (1-4): In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. Daniel, who had been exceedingly great in Babylon during the reign of Nebuchednezzar, and who was already a legend amongst his own people, appears to have faded into the background at the time of Belshazzar. It is “the queen” who has to remind the king (5:11): “There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods”. And king Belshazzar asks Daniel who he is: ‘Are you Daniel …?’ (vv. 13-16): “So Daniel was brought before the king, and the king said to him, ‘Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom. The wise men and enchanters were brought before me to read this writing and tell me what it means, but they could not explain it. Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom’.” During the reign of Darius the Mede ‘This is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN Here is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians’. Daniel 5:25-28 The prophet Daniel spells it out clearly here. The Chaldean kingdom has now come to an end, and the Medo-Persian one will take its place. And the Book of Daniel supplies the next specific detail (5:30): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. At first it would appear that Daniel might have been destined to live under a more serene and well-ordered ruler, after the fierce and mercurial Nebuchednezzar and his ne’er do well, son, Belshazzar. For, according to Daniel 6:1-3: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Here, at last, was a mature king who appeared to know what he was doing. Unfortunately, however, the Babylonians, as we shall find, did not like their new king. And they were jealous of Daniel. What was Daniel’s status at this time? As said, Daniel appears to have faded into the background during the reign of Belshazzar - after his phase of high exaltation during Nebuchednezzar’s reign. That all changed, though, when Belshazzar had, in a state of fright, promised to make Daniel ‘the third highest ruler in the kingdom’ (5:16). That begs the question, who held the second place in the kingdom? My solution, based on my view that king Belshazzar was the same person as Evil-Merodach, is that the exiled king of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin (or ‘Coniah’), already occupied second place. I refer to this text from 2 Kings (27-30): 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. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived. This is most ominous. Far from Daniel now settling into a period of peace and tranquility, he has been placed third in the kingdom - despite his protest (5:17) - but playing second fiddle to Jehoiachin: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (2) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this Jehoiachin was, according to my reconstructions, e.g.: How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history (3) How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that Haman who will almost succeed in having the faithful Jews annihilated. No doubt Haman was very much to the fore when the high officials in the kingdom, faced with the possibility of Daniel’s becoming the king’s second, organised this conspiracy (6:4-5): At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, ‘We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God’. The effect was that Daniel famously ended up in the den of lions, the king being constrained to carry out the sentence owing to the rigid Medo-Persian law (vv. 6-27). In Daniel 14, there is another account of the prophet’s being consigned to the den of lions. This takes place during the reign of king Cyrus, and it is usually considered to be an incident separate to the one narrated in Daniel 6. The background is somewhat different in that it occurs after the Babylonians had become incensed with Daniel, and with Cyrus, for the destruction of their idols, Bel and the Dragon. There is no reason, however, why this situation cannot go hand in hand with the jealousy of the king’s high officials towards Daniel, as narrated in chapter 6. The account in Daniel 14 is admittedly somewhat different from that in Daniel 6. But, as we well know, the same tale when told by two different people will result in two quite distinctive accounts. And I have argued similarly in: Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh that the Book of Genesis offers to divergent accounts, emanating from two different sources, of the one tale of the abduction of Sarai (Sarah), wife of Abram (Abraham). Is it likely that the prophet Daniel had to suffer two ordeals amongst the lions? On this, see my: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? https://www.academia.edu/24308877/Was_Daniel_Twice_in_the_Lions_Den If Darius the Mede be identified with Cyrus, as I believe he must – and some expert scholars have come this conclusion as well (Wiseman, D. J. (25 November 1957). "Darius the Mede". Christianity Today: 7–10) – then something momentous will occur in the 1st year of that king’s reign, and presumably before the den of lions’ incident. Ezra tells of it, the return from captivity (1:1-4): In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing: “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the Temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them. And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem’.” Not surprisingly Daniel’s visitation by the angel Gabriel, in that same 1st year of Darius/Cyrus, pertained to the mater of “the desolation of Jerusalem” (9:1-3, 20-23): In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom— in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. …. While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, ‘Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision …’. According to Daniel 1:21: “… Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus”. The “there” presumably refers to Babylon. From there, Daniel would have removed to Susa. But, firstly, he (as Nehemiah) had to participate in the return of the captive Jews back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2-2): “Now these are the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the exiles, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken captive to Babylon (they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to their own town, in company with Zerubbabel, Joshua, Nehemiah …”. In the 3rd year of Cyrus Daniel will experience another revelation through a vision (chapter 10). This was the same regnal year, the 3rd, as we read about early in the Book of Esther - in which king Cyrus is called “Ahasuerus” - when queen Vashti will be deposed (Esther 1:3): “… in the third year of his reign [Ahasuerus] gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present”. But Daniel would be, on the occasion of his visitation by Gabriel of that same year, geographically well apart from the king enthroned “in the citadel of Susa” (Esther 1:2). For Daniel was then “standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris” (Daniel 10:4). It would be almost a decade before the Hamanic conspiracy in the 12th year of king Ahasuerus (Esther 3:7) took its full effect. Thus we find the Benjaminite Jew, Mordecai, now stepping into the breach. See also my article: Wise Daniel reduced to pagan mythic hero (2) Wise Daniel reduced to pagan mythic hero | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu