Clarifying Nergal-sharezer in Jeremiah 39:3

 

 

 

Julius A. Bewer wrote for Union Theological Seminary, NY, in 1907:

Nergalsharezer Samgar in Jer. 39:3 on JSTOR

 

 

NERGALSHAREZER SAMGAR IN JER. 39:3

 

In the inscription of Nebuchadrezzar II, published by Eckhard Unger in the Theologische Literaturzeitung 50, No. 21 (Oct. 17, 1925), we find the name of the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan who carried the Jews into captivity in 586 B.C. (Jer. 39:9, 11, 40:1; II Kings 25:8, 10ff.) = Nabuzêriddinam with his title rab nuḫtimmu, “chief baker”, corresponding to רַב־ טַבָּחִ֛ים in the Bible at the head of the list of the high-court officials (mašennum). This is in itself an item of such historical importance that it makes the inscription very valuable for the Old Testament student.

There is, however, another name mentioned in the list which not only authenticates an Old Testament name but solves an old crux interpretum in Jer 39:3. Nergalšarriuṣur, one of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim, “the great ones of the land of Akkad”, is the same as the Nergalsharezer in Jer. 39:3 who is there described as  one of the שָׂרֵי מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל, “the princes of the king of Babylon”. After his name the Hebrew text reads סַמְגַּר-נְבוּ שַׂר-סְכִים רַב-סָרִיס. The first word סַמְגַּר has hitherto been quite unknown. Giesebrecht¹ saw that it did not belong to the following name, which is to be corrected in accordance with Jer. 39:13 to נְבוּשַׁזְבָּן, but to the preceding נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר. He assumed that there was a textual corruption in סַמְגַּר and changed it to רַב-מָג, because he regarded Nergalsharezer rab mag, who follows immediately upon Nabushazban in Jer. 39:3 (as restored) and 39:13 as a parallel reading of Nergalsharezer samgar. We now know that סַמְגַּר is quite correct, it is Sinmagir, the name of the city of Akkad of which Nergalsharezer was governor, for the Nebuchadrezzar inscription has in the list of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim as the second official: Nergal-šarri-uṣur amêlu Sinmagir. סַמְגַּר is clearly the Hebrew equivalent of Sinmagir. The vowels are, of course, to be disregarded, because the later Jews did not know how to pronounce the name ….

Are Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir and Nergalsharezer rab mag the same or different persons? Since only one Nergalsharezer is mentioned in Jer. 39:13, it seems most reasonable to assume that there was originally only one in Jer. 39:3 also, i.e., Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir, who was rab mag at this time. The original reading was then נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר סַמְגַּר to which the parallel reading intended to attach the title רַב-מָג 

….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Esther drama is not about a final showdown between Amalek and tribe of Benjamin

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Haman, formerly an apostate King of Judah, was not out to annihilate

the entire Jewish race. He was bent upon destroying only those

like his Yahwistic foe, Mordecai, who were working towards

the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

 

The standard view goes something like this:

 

Hundreds of years later, Saul nearly fulfills the command by killing all Amalekite men, women, and children. But he spares their king, who keeps his people barely alive by having a child. Many more generations later, one of his descendants, the villain Haman, goes on to develop a plot to kill all the Jews living in exile under a Persian ruler. The lesson, when read literally, is clear: Saul’s failure to kill every Amalekite posed an existential threat to the Jewish people.

 

We have just read that King Saul of Israel, defying the terrible herem (חֵרֶם cherem) command of the Lord to wipe out the Amalekite people lock, stock and barrel, had spared their King Agag, with the result that a descendants of his, “the villain Haman”, living in Persia at a much later time, conspires to wipe out the  entire Jewish race.

 

What seemingly makes this exciting take on the Book of Esther the more plausible is that the man who will oppose, and finally defeat, Haman and his minions, Mordecai, was actually of the same tribe as King Saul, a Benjaminite, sharing the same ancestor, Kish (Esther 2:5-7; cf. I Samuel 9:1-2):

 

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

 

And so we have the perfect cosmic scenario, today so heavily employed by the Zionists: The ancient enmity between Amalek and the tribe of Benjamin, unresolved in the day of King Saul, will now be fully resolved when the Benjaminite Jew, Mordecai, overcomes that terrible last vestige of the Amalekites, Haman.

 

Sorry to spoil a good story.

This is not entirely how it happened.

 

Turning to Jewish legends – not always reliable, but in this case crucial – Haman was actually, shock, horror, ‘a Jew, one known to Mordecai’ (Ginsburg).

 

But which contemporary Jew?

 

Esther 3:1 is the key to the whole thing, but the names need to be properly interpreted:

 

After these things did King Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

 

Vagueness concerning the true ethnicity of Haman has led to his being called variously an Agagite; an Amalekite: a Bougaean; and a Macedonian.

Macedonian is totally irrelevant, and Bougaean cannot be explained.

Boogeyman would be better because that is what Haman has become for the Jews.

 

The Jews customarily Boo Haman at the Feast of Purim.

 

Firstly, there is no such race specifically as Agag (Agagite).

And, secondly, the MT Greek word for Amalekite (Amalikitis Aμαληκίτης) appears to have been confused here with the Greek word for Captive (aichmálo̱tos αἰχμάλωτος).

 

Haman “the Captive” was not an Amalekite, or Agagite.

He was the Jewish king, “Jeconiah … the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17), the (grand-)son of Queen Hamutal (Hammutal), given in Esther 3:1 as Hammedatha.

 

This is the key to the historicity of the Book of Esther.

 

Haman, formerly an apostate King of Judah, was not out to annihilate the entire Jewish race. He was bent upon destroying only those like his Yahwistic foe, Mordecai, who were working towards the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

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): Zaccai, Zaccheus, Zaccur, Zacharias, Zecher, Zichri ….

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.⁸ 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 9^th/8^th 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 8^th 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.