Monday, April 13, 2026

Zakir Stele in an historical context

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

Proposed king and setting

 

Here it will be tentatively suggested that the hitherto unknown Zakir (or Zaccur), king of Hamath and Lu'ash (Laish/Dan?), was the very last ruler of the Jehu-ide dynasty, King Zechariah (or Zachariah) of Israel (c. 750 BC, conventional dating: Thiele).

 

This scenario immediately fits in various convincing ways.

 

The name Zakir (Zaccur) is a very good match for the Hebrew Zechariah (Zachariah):

Zechariah | The amazing name Zechariah: meaning and etymology

The name Zechariah: Summary

….

Related names

• Via זכר (zakar): ZaccaiZaccheusZaccurZachariasZecherZichri ….

 

The roughly estimated date for the Zakir Stele accords tolerably well with c. 750 BC, the conventional date for King Zechariah: Stele of Zakkur - Wikipedia

“The Stele of Zakkur (or Zakir) is a royal stele of King Zakkur of Hamath and … Lu'aš … who ruled around 785 BC”.

 

The later Jehu-ide dynasty, under fierce assault from Ben-Hadad II (often given as III) of Syria, son of Hazael, had managed – in the time of Zechariah’s father, Jeroboam II – to turn things around completely and now held Hamath (2 Kings 14:25): “This Jeroboam restored the boundary of Israel from Lebo-Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word that the LORD, the God of Israel, had spoken through His servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher”.

 

King Zakir/Zechariah would be recording this fact in his Stele, he either having participated in this war with his father, or having been the one who had personally brought to completion Elisha’s prophecy that the dynasty of Jehu would strike down Syria “three times” (2 Kings 13:17-19).

 

While this prophecy of Elisha was given to King Jehoash of Israel, who is considered to have been the father of Jeroboam II, I have condensed the latter Israel kingship, believing that a 41-year reigning Jeroboam II cannot possibly be accommodated, and that Jeroboam II was, in fact, the same king as Jehoash.

 

Thus I would interpret the prediction about the Jehu-ide dynasty (2 Kings 10:30): ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in My eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation’, the same as has been done here (my emphasis):

The House of Jehu - Chabad.org

“The prophet foretold to Jehu that in recognition of his good deeds in behalf of G‑d's words he and three of his progeny would rule over Israel; but that they would eventually share the fate of the house of Jeroboam and Ahab”…

with Jehu himself to be included amongst the four.

 

I have also suggested that the supposedly last 6 kings of Israel, including Zechariah, be reduced to just 3, with Zechariah being also Pekahiah. Thus:

 

Zechariah (murdered) = Pekahiah (murdered);

Shallum (murderer murdered) = Pekah (murderer murdered);

Menahem (murderer) = Hoshea (murderer)

 

this last equation being greatly reiforced by the fact that, now Menahem, now Hoshea, gave 1000 talents of silver in tribute to Tiglath Pileser.

 

 

 

 

Sunday, April 12, 2026

King Jehoash of Israel archaeologically verified

 

 


“Jehoash was known for “his might” (2 Kings 14:15), and his kingdom expanded northward with his victory over the Aramaeans and to the south with his victory over Judah. Evidence for this expansion was discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,

a fortress that acted as a cultic site on the southern border of Judah”.

 Bryan Windle

  

Bryan Windle wrote (August 13, 2021):

King Jehoash: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report

 

King Jehoash: An Archaeological Biography

 

Jehoash was the second of four kings who descended from Jehu to reign as king of Israel (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah); he ruled from ca. 798-782 BC.1 The Bible summarizes his reign this way:

 

In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned sixteen years. He also did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. He did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin, but he walked in them. Now the rest of the acts of Joash and all that he did, and the might with which he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? So Joash slept with his fathers, and Jeroboam sat on his throne. And Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. (2 Kings 13:10-13)

 

Jehoash was also called Joash (2 Chr 25:17), and is not to be confused with the more famous king of Judah also named Joash/Jehoash (2 Kings 12:1, 19). King Jehoash of Israel is primarily known for three events:

 

  • His defeat of Amaziah, King of Judah near Beth Shemesh (2 Chr. 25:21-23)
  • His interaction with the prophet Elisha, who upon his death bed, told Jehoash to strike the ground with arrows to symbolize the number of times he would defeat the king of Aram (2 Kings 13:14-19)
  • And his subsequent battles against the Arameans (2 Kings 13:24-25).

 

Numerous archaeological discoveries both confirm Jehoash as king of Israel and provide the wider historical context that helps us better understand the world in which he lived.

 

Jehoash and Assyria

 

When Jehoash came to the throne, he inherited a kingdom that had been significantly weakened by the wars of his father. According to the biblical record, “There was not left to Jehoahaz an army of more than fifty horsemen and ten chariots and ten thousand footmen, for the king of Syria had destroyed them and made them like the dust at threshing.” (2 Kings 13:7).

 

Shortly after Jehoash began to reign, the Assyrian king, Adad-Nirari III invaded the western lands.2 A victory stele (monument) was discovered in 1967 during excavations at Tell al-Rimah which contains a record of Adad-Nirari III’s campaign. While its date is unknown, many scholars associate it with Adad-Narari III’s expedition westward in 796 BC.3 It reads:

 

Adad-Nirari, mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, son of Šamši-Adad, the king of the universe, king of Assyria, the son of Šalmaneser, the king of the four quarters. I mustered my chariots, troops, and camps; I ordered them, to march to the land of Hatti. In a single year, I subdued the entire land of Amurru and Hatti. I imposed upon them tax and tribute forever. I received 2,000 talents of silver, 1,000 talents of copper, 2,000 talents of iron, 3,000 linen garments with multicolored trim – the tribute of Mari’ – of the land of Damascus. I received the tribute of Jehoash the Samarian, of the Tyrian ruler and of the Sidonian ruler.4

 

Adad-Nirari seems to have subdued and laid a heavy tribute on “Mari’ – of the land of Damascus,” likely refering to the Aramean king Hazael, or, more likely, his son Ben Hadad.5 Having seen Assyria’s conquest of Aram, Israel’s arch enemy, Jehoash of Israel appears to have decided to send tribute to Adad-Nirari rather than risk a similar fate.6

The Tell al-Rimah stele of Adad-nirari III affirms the historicity of King Jehoash, and illuminates the historical background of his reign. Assyrian’s defeat of Aram weakened Israel’s northern neighbor and enemy, a situation which Elisha encouraged Jehoash to take advantage of.

 

Jehoash and Aram

 

Jehoash’s father, Jehoahaz was a wicked king (2 Kings 13:2). As a result, God allowed the Arameans to attack Israel repeatedly (2 Kings 13:3), such that “Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (2 Kings 13:22).

 

The Zakkur Stele records the victory of Zakkur, king of Hamath over a coalition of kings led by “Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Damascus. It is currently in the Louvre Museum in France. Photo: Rama / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 20 fr

 

When the prophet Elisha was close to death, Jehoash came to mourn his soon passing. Elisha had him shoot an arrow out of the window to symbolize Israel’s impending victory over the Arameans at Aphek and then strike arrows on the floor to signify how many times he would defeat them (2 Kings 13:17-19). After Elisha’s death, “Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again from Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities that he had taken from Jehoahaz his father in war” (2 Kings 13:25). Ben-Hadad was no match for an army empowered by Israel’s God, especially after it had already been weakened by Assyrian attacks.  

 

Ben-Hadad III is attested on the Zakkur Inscription, in which Zakkur, king of Hamath, declares his victory over a confederation of 17 city-states led by “Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Damascus.”7

 

The site of Aphek is difficult to identify, in part because there were multiple cities named Aphek in biblical times.Some have associated Aphek of Aram with Tel En Gev and/or the nearby fortress of Tel Soreg. Both have destructions layers dating to the 9th/8th century BC, which have been attributed to either Adad-Nariri III of Assyria or Jehoash of Israel.9

 

Jehoash and Judah

 

Jehoash was originally an ally of Amaziah, king of Judah. At one point, Amaziah hired 100,000 soldiers from Israel for 100 talents of silver to assist him in battle (2 Chr. 25:6). A prophet then told Amaziah not to go to battle along side the Israelites, so he discharged them. The Israelite soldiers “became very angry with Judah and returned home in fierce anger,” raiding the cities of Judah as they went (2 Chr. 25:10, 13).

Sometime later, Amaziah sent a challenge to the king of Israel to meet him in battle.

 

Jehoash responded, “A thistle on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ and a wild beast of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thistle. You say, ‘See, I have struck down Edom,’ and your heart has lifted you up in boastfulness. But now stay at home. Why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?” (2 Chr. 25:18-19). Amaziah would not be swayed, however, and the armies of Judah and Israel met at the Battle of Beth Shemesh. The biblical account records:  

 

And Judah was defeated by Israel, and every man fled to his home. And Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall of Jerusalem for four hundred cubits, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate. And he seized all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house, also hostages, and he returned to Samaria (2 Kings 14:12-14).

….

 

Jehoash’s Kingdom

 

Jehoash was known for “his might” (2 Kings 14:15), and his kingdom expanded northward with his victory over the Aramaeans and to the south with his victory over Judah. Evidence for this expansion was discovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, a fortress that acted as a cultic site on the southern border of Judah. Despite its southerly location, it has been identified as an Israelite site, based in part on the personal names discovered there. Most of the names uncovered end with a theophoric element (a reference to a deity – in this case Yahweh) spelled “yo” as was common in Israel, rather than “yahu” as it was usually spelled in Judah.10 Moreover, there is also an inscription that references “Yahweh of Samaria.”11 A painting of a seated king was discovered on plaster remains in one of the structures. Due to the dating of the site and the geo-political setting, some have suggested it is an image of King Jehoash himself.12 There is no accompanying inscription, so such an identification is speculative ….

 

The portrait of a seated king, reconstructed from plaster remains recovered at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Some believe this to be an image of Jehoash, king of Israel. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0 / from Beck et. al – Pirhiya Beck (1982) The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud), Tel Aviv, 9:1, 3-68

 

Conclusion

 

Archaeological discoveries have affirmed the historicity of Jehoash, king of Israel, and implicitly support the biblical description of his military might. Further, the Assyrian records shed light on the geo-political in the 8th century that provides the background to Jehoash’s reign. Once again we see the accuracy of the Bible in its description of historical details. ….

[End of quote]

 

An Israeli archaeologist reviews the inscription on the Jehoash... News Photo - Getty Images

 

Experts Try To Determine Authenticity Of Jehoash Tablet

 

JERUSALEM - MARCH 27: An Israeli archaeologist reviews the inscription on the Jehoash tablet in the storerooms of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) March 27, 2003 in Jerusalem. The controversial basalt stone tablet is inscribed with an ancient Hebrew inscription attributed to the biblical Jewish King Jehoash who ruled Jerusalem in the ninth century BC. The tablet has been taken from the custody of an antiquities collector as IAA experts try to determine if it is a forgery. ….

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Magdalene as Apostle to the Apostles

 


 

“God uses a woman to announce the foundational truth of Christianity”.

Pope Benedict XVI

  

Paige Furner wrote, on the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene, 22 July 2025:

St Mary Magdalene – Apostle to the Apostles and herald of the resurrection  - The Catholic Leader

 

St Mary Magdalene – Apostle to the Apostles and herald of the resurrection

By Paige Furner

 

TODAY we honour St Mary Magdalene as “Apostle to the Apostles,” remembered for her unwavering faith, her presence at both the Cross and the empty tomb and her transformative encounter with the Risen Lord. 

 

She is mentioned 12 times in the Gospels and is always portrayed as a devoted companion of Christ.  

 

Catholic News Agency says that she was “a woman who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.” 

That healing marked the beginning of her discipleship. Pope Benedict XVI captured the essence of her transformation in a 2007 general audience. 

“A disciple of Christ is one who, in the experience of human weakness, has had the humility to ask for his help, has been healed by him, and has followed him closely,” he said. 

“Mary Magdalene’s loyalty led her to remain at the foot of the Cross when most of Jesus’ followers had fled.  

 

Early on Easter morning, she went to the tomb to anoint his body. When she found the stone rolled away and the body missing, she stood outside weeping.  

“In John’s Gospel, she says to the angels, ‘They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him’.” 

 

It was then that she saw Jesus, but did not immediately recognise him. He spoke one word, her name: “Mary.”  

 

This simple, personal call opened her eyes and she became the first to witness the Resurrection and, as Pope Benedict XVI said, “returned to the disciples to announce to them the message of the Resurrection.” 

 

In that moment, Mary Magdalene was entrusted with the greatest proclamation of all time.  

 

The early Church would later call her Apostola Apostolorum – Apostle to the Apostles.  

As the Crossroads Initiative explains: “She becomes the first witness of the Resurrection and the first evangelist.” 

 

Recognising this, Pope Francis elevated her memorial to a feast day in 2016, on par with the liturgical celebrations of the apostles.  

 

Cardinal Arthur Roche, then Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, wrote that the change “seeks to reflect more deeply upon the dignity of women, on the new evangelisation and on the greatness of the mystery of God’s Mercy.” 

 

The elevation also acknowledges her theological importance.  

 

She was not simply a background figure but an active and central voice in the early Christian community.  

 

St Mary Magdalene went from being possessed by seven demons to proclaiming the risen Christ to the Apostles themselves.  

 

She stands as a sign of hope and renewal for all, especially those who feel disqualified by their past. 

 

St Thomas Aquinas reflected on her privileged role, “she was an apostle to the apostles insofar as it was her task to announce our Lord’s resurrection to the disciples.” 

 

Her witness also invites reflection on the role of women in the Church—not just historically, but today.  

In elevating her memorial, the Church “intends to underline the relevance of this woman who showed great love for Christ and was greatly loved by Christ,” as Archbishop Roche wrote. 

 

Pope Benedict XVI highlighted this importance, noting that “God uses a woman to announce the foundational truth of Christianity.”  

 

St Mary Magdalene becomes a model not only for repentance but for proclamation.

She was not silenced or sidelined but sent. 

 

On her feast day, the Church is invited to hear Christ’s voice calling each of us by name.

Like St Mary Magdalene, we are sent to carry the unwavering loyalty towards our Lord.  

 

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Recognising the historical Daniel

 



 

by

 

 Damien F. Mackey

  

 

A potential Babylonian name for Daniel’s Belteshazzar – amongst various possibilities – would be, say, Nabû-bul-li-su (Nabu-bullitsu), somewhat imperfectly transliterated as Belteshazzar. The name Nabu-bullitsu can be found listed e.g. in the Index (p. 159) of Sir W. Budge’s “Babylonian Life and History”.

 

 

Introduction

 

What are we looking for here?

 

Essentially, in the case of the historical Daniel, we would be hoping to find a governor of (the province of) Babylon, of very long floruit, at the time of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, the Chaldean (c. 600 BC).

He ought to have a Belteshazzar like name (Daniel 1:7).

 

My revision will allow for this governor to be identified amongst the various alter egos that I have proposed for King Nebuchednezzar - great identities such as Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal (and the like-named Ashurnasirpal); and Nabonidus.

 

Giving confidence to this venture is Willliam H. Shea’s marvellous identification, in the records of King Nebuchednezzar, of Daniel’s three friends, Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach) and Azariah (Abednego). See my article on this:

 

William H. Shea’s hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

 

(5) William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

 

Esarhaddon

 

In this first case, we come across a character who appears to fit well as Daniel, except that he does not have a name like Belteshazzar (as mentioned above).

However, he does have a name that could well be describing one like Daniel.

 

He is Governor Ubāru.

 

J. Brinkman refers to Ubāru as “Esarhaddon’s newly appointed governor of Babylon …”: https://www.jstor.org/stable/601858

In my revised context, this would well fit the prophet Daniel, “newly appointed” as governor of Babylon by King Nebuchednezzar.

 

Amos Mikko Luukko and Greta Van Buylaere have written about Ubāru in their article:

 

THE BABYLONIAN UBĀRU AND HIS SLAVE-SALE DOCUMENTS FROM NINEVEH[1]

 

(3) The Babylonian Ubāru and his Slave-Sale Documents from Nineveh | Greta Van Buylaere and Mikko Luukko - Academia.edu

 

….

Ubāru

 

Who is Ubāru, the protagonist of the three legal transactions found in Nineveh? As Ubāru is a typical Babylonian name in Assyrian sources (PNA 3/II, 1356) and the language and script of all these exceptional documents is Babylonian, there is hardly any doubt that the man was Babylonian by origin.[2] Unfortunately, the three documents do not specify whether the slave sales took place in Nineveh or elsewhere. However, Nineveh as the find site of these documents suggests that they were probably drawn up there or at least in Assyria.[3] Had these slave sales taken place in Babylonia, it would be much more difficult to explain the underlying Assyrian character of the documents.

Speculatively, we may identify Ubāru with the governor (or “commandant”) of Babylon who played an important role in the restoration of Babylon in Esarhaddon’s reign.[4] Even if our present knowledge is full of gaps and it is therefore uncertain whether the Ubāru of the three slave sales edited here really was the governor of Babylon, some indirect details could support such an assumption. The exceptional characteristics of these Assyrianized Babylonian documents may suggest that Ubāru was a protégé of Esarhaddon who enjoyed privileges, even if it may be worth stressing that each of the documents edited here only records the sale of a single slave (altogether two men and a woman). One may further note that the word ubāru means “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”.[5] Especially the nuance “foreign guest” fits the context of these legal documents well because they are the documents of a Babylonian guest in Assyria. Ubāru is the Babylonian form of the name, which is distinct from the Assyrian form, Ubru, widely attested in Assyrian contexts.[6]

 

A claim for favouritism may be strengthened by the importance of the early dates during Esarhaddon’s reign and the peculiar way these dates were written.

Indeed, in this respect, the dates of these documents are highly significant.[7] Two of them can be dated to Esarhaddon’s early reign with certainty: K 3790 to 680-V-26 and Rm 157 to 679-VIII-6. All this would fit perfectly with what is known about the governor Ubāru, and be entirely in line with Esarhaddon’s well-known pro-Babylonian policy.[8] Moreover, together with other textual evidence from his reign, the existence of these unusual documents may be considered further proof showing the various ways Esarhaddon initiated his proBabylonian policy already very early on in his reign. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

Note that Ubāru was, just like the Hebrew Daniel, a “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”.

 

Compare how Daniel was perceived in Babylon (Daniel 2:25): “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’.”

 

Daniel 5:13: “So Daniel was brought before the king [Belshazzar], and the king said to him, ‘Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah?’”

 

Similarly, the Hebrew Joseph in Egypt, Den, was known as the foreigner:

 

Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’

 

(2) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water'

 

His names, in fact, read like a short biography of Joseph, who supplied food and water to a Famine-starved Egypt:

 

Usaphais (Usaph-)  (Yusef) Joseph;

Khasti “foreigner”;

Den     ‘he who brings water’

 

Joseph, the foreigner, who supplies (us) with water.

 

Nebuchednezzar, Nabonidus

 

As already noted, the name Ubāru cannot, however, be identified in the Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, given to Daniel (as we read), since Ubāru is simply a descriptive name meaning “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”.

Exactly what Daniel was in Babylonian Exile.

 

So, the task still is left to us to find Daniel in the records under a Belteshazzar name.

 

Belteshazzar is not the same name as Belshazzar

It is natural for those not too familiar with Babylonian names to presume that Belteshazzar was a Bel-name, the Bel element being found in the name of the ill-fated king, Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, famous for the Writing on the Wall episode (Daniel 5):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar

Belshazzar (Babylonian cuneiform  Bēl-šar-uur … meaning "Bel, protect the king" … Hebrewבֵּלְשַׁאצַּר Bēlšaʾṣṣar) …”.

 

But, according to linguists, the Belteshazzar element (with components such as e.g. balatu, shar, usur) is lacking a theophoric, meaning it still needs to be attached to a god-name, such as Marduk, or Nabu.

 

My preference would be for Nabu (Nebo), since King Nebuchednezzar himself had said that Daniel bore the name of his god, presumably meaning Nabu (Nebo) here, since it was the theophoric element in the king’s own name (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him)”.

 

A potential Babylonian name for Daniel’s Belteshazzar – amongst various possibilities – would be, say, Nabû-bul-li-su (Nabu-bullitsu), somewhat imperfectly transliterated as Belteshazzar. The name Nabu-bullitsu can be found listed e.g. in the Index (p. 159) of Sir W. Budge’s Babylonian Life and History.

It comes close to Belteshazzar, which is, after all, a foreign transliteration of an originally Babylonian name.

 

There may be a known governor of Babylon from the early reign of Nebuchednezzar (qua Nebuchednezzar) - as I would anticipate from the Book of Daniel that there should be. Moreover, thanks to my identification of Nebuchednezzar (and Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) with (Esarhaddon and) King Nabonidus:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

(5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

then such an official comes right into view.

And he has both Nabu and bullit elements in his name. He is Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who was governor of Babylon from at least Nabonidus’s 8th year until the 3rd year of Cyrus.

 

Thus we read in the following article:

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=15087

 

From the contemporary cuneiform contract tablets, we know that Terike-sarrutsu was the governor (shakin mati) of Babylonia in Year 1 Nabunaid [Nabonidus] (555/4 BC).

 

Nabu-ahhe-bullit succeeded him as office holder by Year 8 Nabunaid (548/7 BC). This man remained in office down to Year 3 Cyrus but became a subordinate of the governor Gubaru, the appointee of Cyrus, when Babylon was captured by the army of Cyrus in 539 BC. He is not to be confused with Ugbaru.

 

[End of quote]

 

Rather than Daniel’s having at this stage become “a subordinate” of Gubaru’s, though, who he actually was (see above), he may have departed (one way or another) from the political scene.

 

By now Daniel would have been in his 60’s or 70’s.

 

The conventional history has set the career of Nabu-ahhe-bullit somewhat differently.

He emerges there as an official of Nebuchednezzar, and already with a son, in 595 BC:

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1089&context=jats

In 595 BC Nebuchadnezzar released a royal document which condemned Baba-aha-iddina son of Nabu-ahhe-bullit, one of his top officials …”.

 

And he was still active in the 15th year of Nabonidus (Nabu-na'id):

https://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/collections/search-collection/details.php?a=1913.14.1652

“[(Document concerning) [. . .] [property] of Nabu which Sin-etir, [son] of Kina rented out 9lit., gave) to Nabu-ahhe-bullit, son of Nana-aha-iddina from the fifteenth day of the month of Addaru, fourteenth year, until the fifteenth day of the month of Nisanu, fifteenth year of Nabu-na'id, king of Babylon, for a month's rent of four shekels of silver. Sin-etir was paid the four shekels of silver, the rent of his boat, by Nabu-ahhe-bullit”. ….

 

Whereas, in conventional terms, about half a century would be required to span this period from 595 BC to the 15th year of Nabonidus, c. 541 BC, in my scheme, on the other hand, with Nebuchednezzar as Nabonidus, the period is reduced to about 5 years.

 

Finally, as we read at Encyclopaedia Iranica:

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babylonia-i

Cyrus retained as governor of Babylonia a native Babylonian [sic], Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who had held the post before the Persian conquest, under Nabonidus”.

 

This site, having failed to recognise Nabu-ahhe-bullit as Ugbaru (Ubāru), will make the earlier declaration that: “Supreme administrative power in Babylonia belonged to the Persian satrap. The first governor of the city of Babylon was Cyrus’s general, Ugbaru, who in effect held power over the whole of Mesopotamia”.

 

This is how I would tentatively reconstruct the chronology of Daniel’s governorship:

 

Daniel, as Nabu-ahhe-bullit, had been appointed governor of Babylon close to the third year of Nebuchednezzar (= Nabonidus), who reigned for 43 years. That is a service of almost four decades.

 

He continued on through the 3-4 years of Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, envisaging himself in Susa (Daniel 8:1-2): “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 …”.

 

He was still in Babylon in the 1st year of Cyrus, but then moved to Susa, Cyrus’s capital, and served the king until his 3rd year.

 

Finally, now with my revised Neo-Babylonian history, we may have virtually a perfectly matching chronology for Daniel and his proposed alter ego, Nabu-ahhe-bullit.

 

We may be able to extend our Ubāru further.

 

Daniel Ubāru as Ugbaru (Gubaru)

 

An interesting note:

“… Ugbaru should really be called Ubaruš (Elamite name)”.

The name Ubaruš is obviously very much like to Ubāru. 

 

Gubaru was the governor, or ‘general’, officiating when King Cyrus conquered Babylon.

 

He has also been called “Gobryas”, of whom we read in the article of that name at Encyclopaedia Iranica: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gobryas-

 

GOBRYAS, the most widely known (Greek) form of the Old Persian name Gaub(a)ruva (q.v.). Several bearers of this name, who cannot always be kept separate from one another with complete certainty, are historical persons:

 

…. Ug-ba-ru, governor (paātu) of the land of Gutium (i.e., some part of western Media and northeastern Assyria in the Zagros mountains) [sic] and a senior officer of Cyrus II the Great. As the leader of the Medo-Persian army of Cyrus, Gobryas took Babylon without battle on 12 October 539 B.C.E. (16th day of month Tašrītu), according to the Nabonidus Chronicle 3.15 (cf. Grayson, pp. 109-10). After his triumphant entrance in the city on October 29 (3rd day of month Arasamnu) Cyrus appointed Gobryas governor of Babylon, who himself installed the district officials in Babylon (ibid., III 20, where one reads the spelling variant Gu-ba-ru); thus this man seems to have been the first Persian ruler over Babylon. He, however, died soon afterwards on the 11th day of month Arasamnu (ibid., 3.22) either in the same year (i.e., 6 November 539 B.C.E.) or, according to Shea (pp. 240-43), in the following year (i.e., 27 October 538 B.C.E.). It seems quite probable that there is some connection between this person and the “Assyrian” (i.e., Babylonian) Gobryas described in great detail and in novella form (although including some more or less reliable information) by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.1-11 and passim), who calls him an old man (4.6.1) already for the time before the fall of Babylon, as well as to the so-called “Darius the Mede,” king of Babylon in the Book of Daniel 5:31, 6:1-2 etc. (cf. especially Shea). ….

 

Note the perfect (or near perfect) fits here (in my revised context) with Daniel:

 

“… governor (paātu) of the land of Gutium” …. Daniel had served in Gutium (Susa) [?] (Nehemiah 13:6).

 

“… senior officer of Cyrus II the Great” …. Daniel was the favourite of Cyrus, as Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:3). “…. Cyrus appointed Gobryas governor of Babylon, who himself installed the district officials in Babylon …”.

 

“He, however, died soon afterwards …”. …. Daniel is last mentioned in Year 3 of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1).

 

“… Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.1-11 and passim) … calls him an old man (4.6.1) already for the time before the fall of Babylon …”. Daniel had previously served during most of the very long reign (43 years) of Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean.

 

He was, therefore, old, when Darius-Cyrus came to the throne.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] It is our pleasure to dedicate this small contribution, which discusses documents mixing Assyrian and Babylonian conventions, to Karlheinz Kessler, who always made working on the various materials of different periods and regions look easier than it is. We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Christopher Walker, who pointed out the Assyrian character of Rm 157 and Rm 162 to us, and to Heather D. Baker, Rocío Da Riva and Tuviah Kwasman, who read a draft of this article and made valuable suggestions for improvement. We also want to thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to publish these tablets.

[2] For the appearance of the name Ubāru in the contemporary Neo-Babylonian tablets, cf. Nielsen 2015: 390–91.

Already Tallqvist (1914: 214) listed a lot of Babylonians with the name Ubāru.

[3] The lack of place names may strengthen this argument (at least no place name appears in Rm 157).

[4] His title is given as šakin ṭēmi in SAA 10 169:5 (ABL 702), SAA 18 14:3 (ABL 418 sent to Esarhaddon by Ubāru) and SAA 18 70 r.11 (ABL 327). For a summary of this Ubāru, who had the honour to serve as a non-canonical eponym early in Esarhaddon’s reign, see PNA 3/II, 1356–57, no. 2, with previous bibliography, including Frame 1992: 73, 271, and especially p. 286; cf. also Frame 1982: 157–59 (n. 5) and Nielsen 2011: 133–34. On Ubāru rebuilding Babylon, see the discussion in Streck 2002: 212–14, 216, 229, 232.

[5] CAD U & W 10. In PNA 3/II, pp. 1356–57 the name Ubāru is rendered “client”, but this definition, based on an article by Parpola 2008: 31 (n.55 “client, dependent seeking shelter in a temple”), 58, is less certain than maintained and should probably be subjected to further studies. It would be interesting to investigate the role of the people named Ubru/Uburtu (fem.)-DN (passim in PNA 3/II, pp. 1358–71) in the cult: were they insiders, outsiders, or something in between?

[6] See CAD U & W 398 and PNA 3/II, pp. 1356–71.

[7] On dating Esarhaddon’s restoration of Babylon and his closely related Babylon inscriptions, see Novotny 2015, especially pp. 161–62.

[8] See, e.g., Frame 1992: 64–101; Porter 1993.