by
Damien F. Mackey
“As we know from the correspondence left by
the roya1 physicians and exorcists …
his days were governed by spells of fever
and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea
and painful earaches. Depressions and fear
of impending death were a constant in his life.
In addition, his physical appearance was
affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his
body and especially his face”.
Karen
Radner
Introduction
As
we proceed, we shall briefly recall the biblical “Nebuchednezzar” likenesses of
three mighty kings, two of whom - Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - I have
identified as alter egos of Nebuchednezzar II, and one of whom, Cambyses, at
least remarkably shares in these likenesses.
And
I can mention, in passing, Artaxerxes (so-called) III, who has been likened to
Cambyses.
But
I now think that there is more to be said.
Esarhaddon, supposed father of Ashurbanipal (= Nebuchednezzar II),
who has taken his place in my recent revision as Nabopolassar, the father of
Nebuchednezzar II, will be found to have suffered so profoundly from this
“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” as to force me consider (see Esarhaddon section in
the latter part of this article) whether Esarhaddon needs to be merged into
Ashurbanipal as I have merged Esarhaddon’s father, Sennacherib, into Sargon II.
{My
estimated 21 years’ reign for Sennacherib now accords more comfortably with the
21 years of Nabopolassar (c. 625-605 BC, conventional dating)}.
Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses;
Artaxerxes III
Keywords: Dreams; megalomania; massive building
works; fiery furnace;
illness-madness; revival and ‘conversion’;
vindictive Egyptian campaign.
Ashurbanipal
Another
common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would
be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be
elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced
Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus
is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt
the same”.
I then continued:
…. They [Ashurbanipal
and Nabonidus] share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.
….
Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) … Nebuchednezzar II the
Great of an established 43 years of reign.
….
The great
Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told.
Ridiculous! ….
The last
35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. ….
It is
doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. …
Ashurbanipal … certainly did conquer Egypt.
….
Looking
for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it.
“Saulmagina
my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery
furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176).
….
Ashurbanipal
also apparently had a lions’ den.
For,
according to Jonathan Grey, The Forbidden Secret (p. 102):
“…. The
biblical book of Daniel also records that the Hebrew captive Daniel was tossed
into a den lions. (Daniel chapter 6)
That such
‘lion’s [sic] den’ punishment was in keeping with the times is now proven
by the discovery of that same inscription of Ashurbanipal that we just
mentioned. It continues thus:
The rest
of the people who had rebelled they threw alive among bulls and lions, as
Sennacherib my grandfather used to do. Lo, again following his footsteps, those
men I threw into the midst of them.
On one
occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy was digging amid the ruins of
Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like an like an ancient well.
After being rescued by his companions, he proceeded with the work
of identification. How astonished was he to find that the pit had been
used as a cage for wild animals! And upon the curb was this inscription:
The Place
of Execution, where men who angered the king died torn by wild animals”.
I
realise that the lions’ den episodes of the Book of Daniel pertain to the
Dream-statue phase representing the Medo-Persian era. See my article:
Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den?
but
was it not Daniel’s “King Nebuchednezzar” who had threatened to ‘tear limb from
limb’ his stalling wise men (Daniel 2:5)?
See my
article:
How did Nebuchednezzar manage to tear offenders limb from limb?
Was
Ashurbanipal a king of dreams?
He was
a typical superstitious and megalomaniacal Mesopotamian king.
George
Godspeed writes this of Ashurbanipla’s famatical devotion ot the gods:
It is not strange, therefore, that in
his finely wrought sculptures and brilliantly written inscriptions are depicted
scenes of hideous brutality. Plunder, torture, anguish, and slaughter are dwelt
upon with something of
delight by the king, who sees in them
the vengeance of the gods upon those
that have broken their faith. The
very religiousness of the royal butcher makes the shadows blacker. No
Assyrian king was ever more devoted to the gods and dependent upon them.
And
Robert Moss writes in ‘Questioning dreams in ancient Mesopotamia”:
In
Mesopotamia, as in most human cultures, dreaming was understood to be close kin
to divination. The famous Assyrian dream book in the library of King
Ashurbanipal — brought to Nineveh in 647 BCE from the house of an exorcist of
Nippur — was filed with the omen tablets, the largest category in the royal
collection. Among ordinary folk as well as in royal palaces, across most of
history, dreamwork has never been separated from other ways of reading the sign
language of life. ….
Did he
suffer an enduring illness, followed by a conversion?
Well,
this intriguing prayer was found in Ashurbanipal’s library:
….
9. My bed is the ground!
(penitential prayer alsīka ilī)
The
prayer alsīka ilī is one of the few extant examples of the group of the šigû-prayers,
individual laments addressed to a deity in which the penitent acknowledges his
sins and asks the god for absolution. ….
….
1. Incantation šigû:
I have called upon you. My god, relent!
2. Relent, my
god! Accept my supplication!
3. Harken to my
weary prayers!
4. Learn at once
the disgrace that has befallen me!
5. Keep
listening to my lament, which I have made!
6. May the night
bring you the tears which I weep!
7. Since the day
(you), my lord, punished me,
8. and (you),
the god who created me, became furious with me,
9. (since the
day) you turned my house into my prison,
10. my bed is
the ground, my sleeping place is dust,
11. I am
deprived of sleep, distressed by nightmares,
12. I am
troubled [in my ...], confused [in my ...].
B 9. I have been
enduring a punishment [that I cannot bear.]
….
Was
Ashurbanipal a vindictive type?
According
to Lori L. Rowlett (Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New
Historicist Analysis, p. 112): “’Ashurbanipal’s] treatment of his enemies
(internal and external) is particularly horrible and vindictive …”.
Nabonidus
Scholars
have noticed various “Nebuchednezzar” characteristics in King Nabonidus.
Not
least was the fact that, Nabonidus had, like “Nebuchednezzar”, a son named
“Belshazzar”.
There
was also a seeming tendency on Nabonidus’s part towards a kind of monotheism –
revering Sîn, the El of the Aramaeans – and a seeming rejection of the national
god, Marduk. Coupled with this was, not unnaturally, a discomfort with the
Babylonian clergy and wise men.
{This
tendency to ‘mess with the sacred rites’ is a further common link amongst our
name-kings of this series}
Nabonidus,
like king Nebuchednezzar II, had conquered Cilicia. We read about this at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/kue
“KUE ku’ ĭ (קְוֵ֕ה). An ancient name for E Cilicia (Rom.: Cilicia Pedias), in
SE Asia Minor. …. A document of Nebuchadnezzar II (dated between 595 and 570
b.c.), mentions the land of Hu-m-e, pronounced Khuwe or Khwe. It also occurs in
the Istanbul Stele of Nabonidus”.
One
also encounters many cases of Nabonidus’s recounting his own dreams.
I
found so many similarities beginning to loom that I eventually came to the
conclusion that Nabonidus was king Nebuchednezzar (or Nebuchedrezzar) II – that
what we have recorded of king Nabonidus simply represents the first phase of
the long reign of Nebuchednezzar II.
As is
apparent from Beaulieu, Nabonidus considered himself to be the successor of the
great Assyrian empire – a viewpoint that would have more clout perhaps if he
had ruled closer to that period (c. 605 BC) than Nabonidus is conventionally
considered to have done (c. 556 BC).
Then
there is Nabonidus’s strange disappearance to Teima (Tayma) in Arabia for ten
years. During some of this time he was ill.
It is
due to this situation that scholars think that the Book of Daniel has confused
Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus. Indeed a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment tells of a
protracted illness suffered by Nabonidus.
For
more on all this, see the following series of mine, which, I think, serves
adequately to cover the “Nabonidus” part of this present series:
https://www.academia.edu/38017881/Does_King_Nabonidus_reflect_Daniels_Nebuchednezzar_
The Book of Daniel is charged with all
sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history
rather than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that
the author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better
suited to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean)
empire.
Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case.
Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case.
“Let his heart be changed from man's, and
let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This
matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the
Holy Ones: to the intent that the living may know that The Most High ruleth in
the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it
the basest of men”. Daniel 4:16-17
The early career of the Chaldean king,
Nabonidus, may be replete with parallel likenesses to that as written about the
“Nebuchednezzar” in Daniel chapters 1-5.
Though it would be much over-stating things
to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is a definite
progression in that direction in the course of his reign.
According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "The
Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C." (1989), p. 63: “… there
is no evidence that the king [Nabonidus] tried to impost the cult of Sîn as
supreme deity in his early reign”. But, as Beaulieu will interpret it (p. 62):
“Upon his return from Arabia, Nabonidus imposed a major religious reform,
resulting in the rejection of Marduk, the undisputed supreme god of Babylon of
the past six centuries …”.
Cambyses
“The Chronicle of John of Nikiu
who wrote of Cambyses[’] exploits after his name change to Nebuchadnezzar. He
wrote of how Cambyses under his new name Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and
desolated Egypt. It becomes apparent therefore that John gave credit to
Cambyses for what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished”.
Common factors
here may include ‘divine’ madness; confounding the priests by messing with the
Babylonian rites; and the conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia.
I was then totally unaware of this name claim
about Cambyses by John of Nikiu.
… my
enlargement of the historical Nebuchednezzar II, through alter egos,
to embrace
Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - and now, too, perhaps, Cambyses
- provides a
complete ‘profile’ of the biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak.
For some time, now, I have
suspected that the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Cambyses had to be the
same as the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar II.
And now I learn that the C7th
AD Egyptian Coptic bishop, John of Nikiû (680-690 AD, conventional dating), had
told that Cambyses was also called Nebuchednezzar.
This new piece of information
has emboldened me to do - what I have wanted to - and that is to say with
confidence that Cambyses was Nebuchednezzar II.
That Nebuchednezzar II also
reigned in Susa is evidenced by (if I am right) my identification of him with
the “king Artaxerxes” of the Book of Nehemiah, who was a “king of Babylon”. See
my series: “Governor Nehemiah's master "Artaxerxes king of
Babylon",”, especially Part One:
and Part Two:
Whilst critics can argue that
the “king Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel may not necessarily be a good
match for the historico-biblical Nebuchednezzar II, but that he seems more
likely to have been based on king Nabonidus, my enlargement of the historical
Nebuchednezzar II, through alter egos, to embrace Ashurbanipal and
Nabonidus - and now, too, Cambyses - provides a complete ‘profile’ of the
biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak.
“In view of all
this, I have no doubt that Cambyses
was completely out of his mind;
it is the only
possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of,
everything
which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt”.
Herodotus
When
subjecting neo-Babylonian history to a serious revision, I had reached the
conclusion that Nebuchednezzar II needed to be folded with Nabonidus, and that
Nebuchednezzar II’s son-successor, Evil-Merodach, needed to be folded with
Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar.
That
accorded perfectly with the testimony of the Book of Daniel that
“Nebuchednezzar” was succeeded by his son, “Belshazzar”.
Cambyses
Books, articles and classics
have been written about the madness of King Cambyses, he conventionally
considered to have been the second (II) king of that name, a Persian (c.
529-522 BC), and the son/successor of Cyrus the Great.
The tradition is thought to
have begun with the C5th BC Greek historian, Herodotus, according to whom (The
Histories)
[3.29.1] When the priests led
Apis in, Cambyses–for he was all but mad–drew his dagger and, meaning to stab
the calf in the belly, stuck the thigh; then laughing he said to the priests:
[3.29.2] “Simpletons, are these your gods, creatures of flesh and blood that
can feel weapons of iron? That is a god worthy of the Egyptians. But for you,
you shall suffer for making me your laughing-stock.” So saying he bade those,
whose business it was, to scourge the priests well, and to kill any other
Egyptian whom they found holiday-making. [3.29.3] So the Egyptian festival
ended, and the priests were punished, and Apis lay in the temple and died of
the wound in the thigh. When he was dead of the wound, the priests buried him
without Cambyses’ knowledge.
[3.30.1] But Cambyses, the
Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even
before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full
brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy,
because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the
Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it.
[3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to
Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in which it seemed to him that a messenger
came from Persia and told him that Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched
heaven with his head.
[3.30.3] Fearing therefore for
himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king, he sent Prexaspes, the
most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him. Prexaspes went up to Susa
and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out hunting, others that he
brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there drowned him. ….
[End of quote]
Herodotus’ Comment on Cambyses’ Madness
[3.38] In view of all this, I have no doubt
that Cambyses
was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his
assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made
sacred in Egypt.
[End of quote]
Scholarly articles have been written in an
attempt to diagnose the illness of Cambyses, sometimes referred to – as in the
case of Julius Caesar’s epilepsy – as a ‘divine’ or ‘sacred’ disease.
For example (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11594937):
Arch Neurol. 2001
Oct; 58(10):1702-4.
The sacred disease of Cambyses II.
Abstract
Herodotus’ account of the mad
acts of the Persian king Cambyses II contains one of the two extant
pre-Hippocratic Greek references to epilepsy. This reference helps to
illuminate Greek thinking about epilepsy, and disease more generally, in the
time immediately preceding the publication of the Hippocratic treatise on
epilepsy, On the Sacred Disease. Herodotus attributed Cambyses’ erratic
behavior as ruler of Egypt to either the retribution of an aggrieved god or to
the fact that he had the sacred disease. Herodotus considered the possibility
that the sacred disease was a somatic illness, agreeing with later Hippocratic
authors that epilepsy has a natural rather than a divine cause. ….
[End of quote]
The character of Cambyses as
presented in various ancient traditions is thoroughly treated in Herb Storck’s
excellent monograph, History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic
Period (House of Nabu, 1989).
Messing with the rites
As was the case
with King Nabonidus (= Nebuchednezzar II), so did Cambyses apparently fail
properly to observe established protocol with the Babylonian rites.
Regarding the rebellious
behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the rites, I wrote previously:
Confounding the
Astrologers
Despite his superstitious
nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel – and indeed his alter
egos, Nebuchednezzar II/Nabonidus – did not hesitate at times to dictate
terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6):
The king replied to the
astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my
dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses
turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and
explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell
me the dream and interpret it for me.”
And so, in the Verse Account,
we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence
of sycophantic officials:
Yet he continues to mix up the
rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual
observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila
-representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned- he looks at the
representations and utters blasphemies.
When he saw the usar-symbol of
Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars,
he expounded to them as follows: ‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating
for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been
marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own
temple with the usar-symbol!’
And Zeriya, the šatammu who
used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who
used to have his court position near to him, do confirm the royal dictum, stand
by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we
understand this situation, after the king has explained about it!’
[End of quote]
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his
book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989),
gives another similar instance pertaining to an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening
it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129):
The scribes brought baskets
from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil to
check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not
understand what it meant.
The passage is difficult, but
its general implications are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his
mind as to the meaning of the eclipse and therefore refused to check the
astrological series, or did check them but disagreed with the scribes on their
interpretation, it seems that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of
Nabonidus] was felt to be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king
is perhaps reflected in the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar
(i.e. Nabonidus), after having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states
that the matter is settled for him (Daniel II, 3-5) ….
But this does not imply that
Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the
contrary, all the evidence suggests that he was right. However, he may have
“forced” things slightly ….
[End of quote]
According to Encyclopaedia Iranica on
Cambyses II:
A badly damaged passage in the
chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report that, in order to legitimize his
appointment, Cambyses participated in the ritual prescribed for the king at
the traditional New Year festival on 27 March 538 B.C., accepting the royal
scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the god’s temple in Babylon (III.
24-28; Grayson, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim attempted a reconstruction of the
damaged text (Survey of Persian Art XV, p. 3501); according to his
version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary Elamite attire, fully armed.
The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms, but he refused to change his
clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He then received the royal scepter.
In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately demonstrated “a deep-seated
religious conviction” hostile to this alien religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II,
p. 557).
[End of quote]
King Cambyses’ wanton
treatment of Egypt-Ethiopia
“A Jewish
document from 407 BC known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of
Cambyses
destroying all the temples of the Egyptian gods”.
Of
Nebuchednezzar II’s conquest of Egypt, well-attested in the Bible, it is
extremely difficult to find substantial account in the historical records.
Not so with the
conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia by Cambyses.
Nebuchednezzar II was, very
early in his reign, militarily involved against Egypt – with greater or lesser
success. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nebuchadnezzar.aspx
Early in 605 B.C. he met Necho,
the king of Egypt, in battle and defeated him at Carchemish. A few months later
Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar hastened home to claim his throne. He
soon returned to the west in order to secure the loyalty of Syria and Palestine
and to collect tribute; among those who submitted were the rulers of Damascus,
Tyre, Sidon, and Judah.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Conquests
In 601 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar
attempted the invasion of Egypt but was repulsed with heavy losses. Judah
rebelled, but Jerusalem fell in March 597 B.C., and the ruler, Jehoiakim, and
his court were deported to Babylon. Eight years later another Jewish rebellion
broke out; this time Jerusalem was razed and the population carried into
captivity.
[End of quote]
This article then follows with an intriguing
piece of information: “Expeditions against the Arabs in 582 B.C. and another
attempt at invading Egypt in 568 B.C. receive brief mention in Nebuchadnezzar’s
later records”.
But sceptics say that Nebuchednezzar II never
actually succeeded in conquering Egypt, hence the Bible is wrong, and that it
was Cambyses instead who conquered Egypt.
BABYLON NEVER CONQUERED
EGYPT
The Bible never says
Nebuchadnezzar the Second (hereafter Neb-2) conquered Egypt. The idea
Neb-2 conquered Egypt would never have been considered a serious historical
possibility, but for 4 facts:
1.
Jeremiah & Ezekiel both predicted that Neb-2
would conquer Egypt.
2.
Jeremiah & Ezekiel are both considered true
prophets.
3.
According to Deut. 18:22, true prophets are
never wrong about a prediction.
4.
Jesus said (Mat 5:18) “One jot or one tittle
shall in no way pass from the law until all be fulfilled.” b. Paul
said (2Tim 3:16) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” Both of these
verses are erroneously interpreted by many Christians as meaning the entire
Bible contains no errors.
If you
disagree with the preceding statement, the rest of this essay will be
irrelevant to you, because you will be judging all historical evidence by its
conformity to the Bible. This makes you literally not worth talking to
outside of the company of others who do the same. Such Christians to try
to muddy historical evidence that contradicts the Bible. e.g. One
proposed that there were two Nebuchadnezzars, the second being Cambyses: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol24/htm/xiii.ii.htm
(Actually there were two Nebs, but the first ruled Babylon
c.1124-1104BC.) This essay is based on the assumption that the historical
parts of the Bible should be judged for accuracy by the same rules as any other
ancient historical document.
….
Unlike any
supposed conquest by NEB-2, the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well
attested.
[End
of quote]
Cambyses in Egypt
The above article is correct at least in its
final statement quoted here: “… the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well
attested”.
The article goes on to tell of the various
ancient evidences for this great conquest:
EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE
We possess the autobiography of
the admiral of the Egyptian fleet, Wedjahor-Resne. It is written on a
small statue now in the Vatican Museums in Rome. After the conquest of
Egypt, Wedjahor-Resne was Cambyses’ right-hand man.
“The great king of all foreign
countries Cambyses came to Egypt, taking the foreigners of every foreign country
with him. When he had taken possession of the entire country, they settled
themselves down therein, and he was made great sovereign of Egypt and great
king of all foreign countries. His Majesty appointed me his chief
physician and caused me to stay with him in my quality of companion and
director of the palace, and ordered me to compose his titulary, his name as
king of Upper and Lower Egypt.”
In an inscription on the statue
of Udjadhorresnet, a Saite priest and doctor, as well as a former naval
officer, we learn that Cambyses II was prepared to work with and promote native
Egyptians to assist in government, and that he showed at least some respect for
Egyptian religion:
“I let His Majesty know the
greatness of Sais, that it is the seat of Neith-the-Great, mother who bore Re
and inaugurated birth when birth had not yet been…I made a petition to the
majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cambyses, about all the
foreigners who dwelled in the temple of Neith, in order to have them expelled
from it., so as to let the temple of Neith be in all its splendor, as it had
been before. His Majesty commanded to expel all the foreigners who
dwelled in the temple of Neith, to demolish all their houses and all their
unclean things that were in the temple. When they had carried all their
personal belongings outside the wall of the temple, His Majesty commanded to
cleanse the temple of Neith and to return all its personnel to it…and the
hour-priests of the temple. His Majesty commanded to give divine offerings
to Neith-the-Great, the mother of god, and to the great gods of Sais, as it had
been before. His Majesty knew the greatness of Sais, that it is a city of
all the gods, who dwell there on their seats forever.”
HERODOTUS
Herodotus (who, to my
knowledge, never mentions Nebuchadnezzar by name) describes his Hanging
Gardens, but never mentions him in relation to Egypt, though Herodotus does
talk about pharaohs Necho, Hophra, Ahmose, & Psamtik. [Necos, Apries,
Amasis, and Psammis] and of course, Cambyses.
Herodotus notes how the
Persians easily entered Egypt across the desert. They were advised by the
defecting mercenary general, Phanes of Halicarnassus, to employ the Bedouins as
guides. However, Phanes had left his two sons in Egypt. We are told
that for his treachery, as the armies of the Persians and the mercenary army of
the Egyptians met, his sons were bought out in front of the Egyptian army where
they could be seen by their father, and there throats were slit over a large
bowl. Afterwards, Herodotus tells us that water and wine were added to
the contents of the bowl and drunk by every man in the Egyptian force.
“When Cambyses had entered the
palace of Amasis, he gave command to take the corpse of Amasis out of his
burial-place. When this had been done, he ordered [his courtiers] to scourge it
and pluck out the hair and stab it, and to dishonor it in every other possible
way. When they had done this too, they were wearied out, for the corpse
was embalmed and held out against the violence and did not fall to
pieces. Cambyses gave command to consume it with fire, a thing that was
not permitted by his own religion. The Persians hold fire to be a god and
to consume corpses with fire is by no means according to the Persian or
Egyptian custom.” [Histories 3.16]
MANETHO lists the pharaohs of
the 26th dynasty, then cites the Persians as the 27th dynasty.
“Cambyses reigned over his own
kingdom, Persia, five years, and then over Egypt one year.”
PERSIAN EVIDENCE
According to king, Darius I’s
BEHISTUN INSCRIPTION, Cambyses, before going to Egypt, had secretly killed his
brother, Bardiya, whom Herodotus called Smerdis. The murdered prince was,
however, impersonated by Gaumata the Magian, who in March 522 seized the
Achaemenid throne. Cambyses, on his return from Egypt, heard of the
revolt in Syria, where he died in the summer of 522, either by his own hand or
as the result of an accident.
(10) King Darius says: The
following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus,
named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had
a brother, Smerdis by name, of the same mother and the same father as
Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses slew this Smerdis. When Cambyses slew
Smerdis, it was not known unto the people that Smerdis was slain.
Thereupon Cambyses went to Egypt. When Cambyses had departed into Egypt,
the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied in the land, even in Persia
and Media, and in the other provinces.
OTHER EVIDENCE
A Jewish document from 407 BC
known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of Cambyses destroying all the temples
of the Egyptian gods.
Greek geographer STRABO of
Amasia visited Thebes in 24 BC and saw the ruins of several temples said (by
local priests) to have been destroyed by Cambyses.
[End of quote]
Cambyses – in your
dreams
“Cambyses
has a “Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision
of a king whose
head touched heaven”.
Our neo-Babylonian king,
Nabonidus, was, true to form (as an alter ego for Daniel’s
“Nebuchednezzar”), a frequent recipient of dreams and visions.
For example, I wrote
previously:
Nabonidus was,
like “Nebuchednezzar”, an excessively pious man, and highly superstitious. The
secret knowledge of which he boasted was what he had acquired through his
dreams. Another characteristic that Nabonidus shared with “Nebuchednezzar”.
Nabonidus announced (loc. cit.): “The god Ilteri has made me see
(dreams), he has made everything kno[wn to me]. I surpass in all (kinds of)
wisdom (even the series) uskar-Anum-Enlilla, which Adap[a] composed”. ….
[End
of quote]
In Beaulieu’s book … we read further of King
Nabonidus:
“I did not stop
going to the diviner and the dream interpreter”.
And of King Nebuchednezzar II
– with whom I am equating Nabonidus – the prophet Ezekiel writes similarly of
that king’s omen seeking (21:21): “The king of Babylon now stands at the fork,
uncertain whether to attack Jerusalem or Rabbah. He calls his magicians to look
for omens. They cast lots by shaking arrows from the quiver. They inspect the
livers of animal sacrifices”.
[End of quote]
Ashurbanipal, likewise - he
being yet another alter ego - gave immense credence to dreams and used
a dream book. Ashurbanipal was, like Nabonidus, more superstitious, if I may
say it, than Nostradamus being pursued by a large black cat under a ladder - on
the thirteenth.
Karen Radner tells of Ashurbanipal’s reliance upon
dreams, in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and scholars (p. 224): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_fs_parpola_2009.pdf
In the Biblical attestations,
especially in the stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Joseph in Egypt, the ḫarṭummîm17
[wizards] figure prominently as experts in the interpretation of dreams, and it
may be this kind of expertise which the ḫarṭibē offered to the
Assyrian king; dream oracles were certainly popular with Assurbanipal who used
dreams … to legitimise his actions in his royal inscriptions … and whose
library contained the dream omen series Zaqīqu (also Ziqīqu).
….
[End of quote]
Now, what of Cambyses in this regard?
Well, according to Herodotus (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/cambyses.htm)
[3.30.1] But Cambyses, the
Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even
before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full
brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy,
because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the
Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it.
[3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in
which it seemed to him that a messenger came from Persia and told him that
Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched heaven with his head. [3.30.3]
Fearing therefore for himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king,
he sent Prexaspes, the most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him.
Prexaspes went up to Susa and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out
hunting, others that he brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there
drowned him.
[End of quote]
This is actually, as we shall
now find, quite Danielic.
Cambyses has a
“Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven.
Likewise, “Nebuchednezzar” had a dream of a “tree … which grew large and
strong, with its top touching the sky” (Daniel 4:20).
Now, given that this “tree”
symbolised “Nebuchednezzar” himself, who was also according to an earlier dream
a “head of gold (Daniel 2:38), then one might say that, as in the case of
Cambyses dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven, so did
“Nebuchednezzar” touch the sky (heaven) with his head (of gold).
Artaxerxes
III
Not only do scholars
liken Artaxerxes (so-called) III in many ways to Cambyses (see e.g. N. Grimal
in A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell),
but Artaxerxes III, as I wrote in:
Medo-Persian History
Archaeologically Light. Part Three: Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’
though
“considered to be a mighty Persian king, is heavily based upon the
Neo-Babylonian Great king, Nebuchednezzar II”.
Regarding
Nebuchednezzar II’s also being known as “Artaxerxes”, see my article:
Governor Nehemiah's master "Artaxerxes king of Babylon". Part
Two: “Artaxerxes” as king Nebuchednezzar
Esarhaddon a builder of Babylon become
strangely ill
“At that time it had become increasingly clear that
Esarhaddon's physical
condition was poorly: He was constantly struck with
illness, mostly of a rather
severe nature. For days, he withdrew to his sleeping
quarters and refused food,
drink and, most disturbingly, any human company …”.
Karen Radner
A
summary so far
According
to the findings in this series (and other related works of mine),
Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’, the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel, had,
as his alter egos, Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (whose son was, like the biblical
Nebuchednezzar, Belshazzar).
A
further alter ego of his may have been the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses.
And
Artaxerxes III - likely a composite character - appears to have been heavily
based upon Nebuchednezzar II, who bears the title “Artaxerxes” in the Book of
Nehemiah.
Recently
I have found cause to include Esarhaddon in this “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” mix.
Here
are the reasons why.
Esarhaddon
Esarhaddon,
as a builder of Babylon, who, as we are going to find, suffered a protracted,
debilitating and most mysterious type of illness, looms, from such a point of
view, as a perfect alter ego for Nebuchednezzar II.
He,
a potent Mesopotamian king, was, of course, a conqueror of Egypt.
Added
to this, it may be that the Ahikar (var. Achior) who thrived in the court of
Esarhaddon, was present, as the high official Arioch, in the court of the
“Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel.
See
my article:
Meeting of the wise –
Arioch and Daniel
Yet
there is more.
Common
to my “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” candidates is a tendency to contrariness, or
individualism, in the face of established religious or sapiential protocol.
I
have already written about this as follows:
Messing with the rites
….
Regarding the rebellious behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the
rites, I wrote …:
Confounding the Astrologers
Despite his superstitious nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of
Daniel – and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar II/Nabonidus – did
not hesitate at times to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6):
The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly
decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have
you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But
if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and
rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.”
And so, in the Verse Account, we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in
matters ritualistic in the presence of sycophantic officials:
Yet he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic
oracles. To the most important ritual observances, he orders an end; as to the
sacred representations in Esagila - representations which Eamumma himself had
fashioned - he looks at the representations and utters blasphemies.
When he saw the usar-symbol of Esagila, he makes an [insulting?]
gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars, he expounded to them as follows:
‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating for whom the temple was built? If
it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been marked with the spade. Therefore
the Moon himself has marked already his own temple with the usar-symbol!’
And Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of
him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him,
do confirm the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to
pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we understand this situation, after the king
has explained about it!’
….
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of
Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to
an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in
the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129):
The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the
series enūma Anu Enlil to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to
(what it said), he did not understand what it meant.
The passage is difficult, but its general implications are clear.
Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of the eclipse
and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did check them but
disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems that the
consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to be
uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in the
Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after
having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled
for him (Daniel II, 3-5) ….
But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his
interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that
he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly ….
Again,
in the case of Cambyses, we encounter this unconventional situation:
A badly damaged passage in the chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report
that, in order to legitimize his appointment, Cambyses participated in the
ritual prescribed for the king at the traditional New Year festival on 27 March
538 B.C., accepting the royal scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the
god’s temple in Babylon (III. 24-28; Grayson, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim
attempted a reconstruction of the damaged text (Survey of Persian Art
XV, p. 3501); according to his version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary
Elamite attire, fully armed. The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms,
but he refused to change his clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He
then received the royal scepter. In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately
demonstrated “a deep-seated religious conviction” hostile to this alien
religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 557).
Now,
Esarhaddon is found to have behaved in just the same fashion as had “Nebuchednezzar”,
as had Nabonidus, as had Cambyses. He, in order to justify and facilitate his
re-building of the city, Babylon, “turned upside down” the decreed number of 70
years, attributing his subterfuge to the intervention of Marduk: “Seventy
years as the measure of its desolation he wrote (in the Book of Fate). But the
merciful [Marduk] —his anger lasted but a moment— turned (the Book of Fate)
upside down and ordered its restoration in the eleventh year”.
Though
the reign of Esarhaddon (c. 681 - 669 BC,
conventional dating), like
that of Nabonidus, is thought to have been relatively short, at least by
comparison with that of Nebuchednezzar II, I have suggested that what we have
of Nabonidus constitutes only the early reign of Nebuchednezzar. The same may
apply to Esarhaddon.
“…
in a society that saw illness as a divine punishment,
a
king who was constantly confined to the sick bay
could
not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding”.
Here,
though, I - with Nebuchednezzar well in mind - want only to focus upon the
illness aspect of Esarhaddon, as it has been wonderfully laid bare by Karen
Radner, in “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC”. (The BC dates
are her dates not mine):
https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/3476/24522_10.pdf?sequence=1
Esarhaddon became king of Assyria
in the year 681. Despite the fact that his father and predecessor Sennacherib
(704-680) had made him crown prince two years earlier and had had the whole
country take an oath on behalf of his chosen heir, this happened against all odds:
Esarhaddon had not been Sennacherib's first choice and in order to have him
installed as crown prince, the old king first needed to dismiss another of his
sons from the office ….
Mackey’s comment: Thus Esarhaddon
had not expected to become king as we found to be the case with Ashurbanipal,
with Nabonidus.
Karen Radner continues:
This son, Urdu-Mullissi by name,
had been crown prince and heir apparent to the Assyrian empire for well over a dozen
years when he suddenly had to resign from the prominent position; the reasons
for his forced resignation are unknown, but were obviously not grave enough to
have him pay with his life. Despite the fact that Urdu-Mullissi had to swear
loyalty to his younger brother, he opposed his elevation to the office of crown
prince, conspired against Esarhaddon and tried to cause Sennacherib to take
back the appointment; the king did not comply, but the situation was clearly
very precarious, and the new heir was sent into exile for his own protection.
Sennacherib does not seem to have
realised just how dangerous his decision to back Esarhaddon's promotion was for
his own life; otherwise it is a mystery how the former crown prince
Urdu-Mullissi could be allowed to stay in his father's closest proximity where,
right under his nose, he plotted to become king. Sennacherib seems to have been
caught completely off-guard when Urdu-Mullissi and another son of his attacked him
with drawn swords in a temple of Nineveh: On the 20th day of the tenth month of 681 … Sennacherib
was killed by the hands of his own sons whose deed caused a stir all
over the Near East, best witnessed by the report found in the Old Testarnent ….
Yet the kingship that Urdu-Mullissi craved for was not to be his. The aftermath
of the murder saw fiction between him and his conspirators; his accession to
the throne was delayed and ultimately never took place at all. Assyria was in
chaos when Esarhaddon, leading a small army, entered the country from his western
exile and marched towards the heartland of the empire. He managed to drive out
the murderers of Sennacherib … and,
two months after the assassination,
he became king of Assyria ….
These bloody events shaped the new
king profoundly. It comes as no great surprise that after his accession to the
throne Esarhaddon ordered all conspirators and political enemies within reach
to be killed; yet he could not touch the leader of the conspiracy as
Urdu-Mullissi had found asylum in Urartu ….
That Assyria's northern neighbour
would harbour the murderer of Sennacherib is not at all unexpected: The two
countries had been in an almost constant state of war for the past two
centuries.
At that time, chances were that
Urdu-Mullissi still might become king and in that event, the Urartian king
could reasonably expect to gain substantial influence over Assyria. In the
meantime, Esarhaddon made an effort to ensure that his brother would not have
any powerful allies at home, should he ever try to stage a coup d'etat from his exile: Many officials
throughout the country who were suspected of entertaining sympathy for the
enemy fraction were replaced. To give but one example, the complete security
staff at the royal palaces of Nineveh and Kabu was dismissed … it is of course
understood that these men were not sent into retirement:
They will have been executed.
Henceforth, Esarhaddon met his
environs as a rule with overwhelming distrust. Routinely, he sought to
establish by means of oracular queries whether certain courtiers,
officials and even members of the
royal family wished him ill or actively tried to harm him ….
Mackey’s comment: Hence that
complete distrust of “Chaldean” sages in the Book of Daniel?
Karen Radner continues:
If he seems to have
been wary of his male relatives, he appears to have entertained less suspicions
about the women of his family. This is certainly one of reason why Esarhaddon's
mother Naqi'a, his wife Ešarra-ḫammat and his eldest daughter Šerua-eṭirat were
able to wield an amount of influence that has few parallels in Ancient Near
Eastern history …. The power of his wife was much noticed even outside palace
circles; it is quite extraordinary that her death in the year 673 is mentioned prominently
in two contemporary chronicle texts". The devoted widower had a mausoleum
erected and special rites for his wife's funerary care installed …. Even more
remarkable, he did not get married again …
Mackey’s comment: But is that
statement true only under his guise of Esarhaddon?
Karen Radner continues:
… the vacant position of the
Assyrian queen was hitherto occupied by his mother Naqi'a … who had already
played an important role in Esarhaddon's appointment as crown prince and in his
eventual taking of power: This is most obvious from a prophecy which records
the encouraging words of Ištar of Arbela to Naqi'a during the time of
Esarhaddon's exile …. That also the daughter Šerua-eṭirat occupied a prominent
position at her father's court is known from some letters that speaks of her
self-confidence …. Her far-reaching influence is apparent from the fact that in
later years she acted as a mediator in the conflict between her brothers, the
kings of Assyria and Babylon …; this is without parallel for any Near Eastern
woman of that time.
Esarhaddon's general distrust
against his environment is also mirrored by his choice of residence. He had a
palace in the city of Kalbu … adapted which his forefather Shalmaneser III
(858-824) had constructed as an armoury some two centuries earlier. This
building was situated far from the administrative and cultic centre of the
city, on top of a seperate [sic] mound that protected it well from its surroundings.
In the years between 676 and 672, Esarhaddon had the old building renovated and
enhanced, turning it into a veritable stronghold: The gateways especially were
turned into strongly fortified and impregnable towers that, if needed, could be
used to seal off the palace against the rest of the city. The only access to the
building was through a narrow entrance, leading into a long and steep hallway inside
the enclosing wall which was protected by a sequence of severa1 heavy doors and
which steeply ascended towards the palace. Esarhaddon had a similar palace erected
in Nineveh, also far removed from the acropolis proper at Kuyunjik on the separate
mound of Nebi Yunus …; however, as this is today the site of one of Mossul's
most important mosques, the building is only insufficiently explored ….
In the first years of his rule,
Esarhaddon proved himself a successful regent who, after a chaotic start, was
able to consolidate his kingship and efficiently prevented segregation and
territorial losses. Treacherous vassals, who had thought Assyria weakened and
had tried to benefit from this, had to come to the painful realisation that
Esarhaddon fully controlled his governors and his army and was able to take
revenge for treason in the same way as his predecessors had done: As a consequence,
the vassal kingdoms of Sidon and of Šubria were conquered and turned into
Assyrian provinces …. The completion of a peace treaty with Elam, Assyria's
long-standing rival in Iran, in the year 674 must be seen as a skilful political manoeuvre, and the
securing of the Eastern border provided Assyria for the first time ever with
the chance to attempt and exploit the power vacuum in Egypt to its own
advantages -
Assyria's
first invasion into Egypt, however, ended with a defeat against Taharqa the
Nubian, and a hasty retreat ….
At that time it had become
increasingly clear that Esarhaddon's physical condition was poorly: He was
constantly struck with illness, mostly of a rather severe nature. For days, he
withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink and, most
disturbingly, any human company …
Mackey’s comment: (Daniel
4:24-25): ‘It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the
king, that you shall be driven from among
men …’.
Karen Radner continues:
… the death of his beloved wife in
the year 673 may well have further damaged his already fragile health. For the
all powerful king of Assyria, this situation was bizarre. Esarhaddon's
counsellors witnessed his deterioration first with apprehension and then with
increasing objection, but were of course not in a position to actually change
the state of affairs.
It is a testament to Assyria's
sound administrative structure that the country could take the king's
continuing inability to act his part. Modern day man may well be able to muster
considerable sympathy for Esarhaddon whose symptoms were indeed rather alarming:
As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists …
his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of
vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death
were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by
the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially
his face. In one letter, the king's personal physician - certainly a
medical professional at the very top of his league - was forced to
confess his ultimate inability to help the king: ,,My lord, the king, keeps
telling me: 'Why do you not identify the nature of my disease and find a cure?'
As 1 told the king already in person, his symptoms cannot be classified."
While Esarhaddon's experts pronounced themselves incapable of identifying the
king's illness, modern day specialists have tried to use the reported symptoms
in order to come up with a diagnosis in retrospect?'. However, it is not
entirely clear whether the sickly Esarhaddon contracted one illness after the
other or, as would seem more likely, suffered from the afflictions of a chronic
disease that never left for good. Be that as it may, in a society that saw
illness as a divine punishment, a king who was constantly confined to the sick
bay could not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding. He could,
however, reasonably presume that his subjects saw his affliction at the very
least as an indication that the gods lacked goodwill towards their ruler, if
not as the fruit of divine wrath, incurred by committing some heinous crime.
Therefore, the king's condition needed to be hidden from the public by all means,
and that this was at all feasible was very much facilitated by the ancient tradition
that whoever came before the king had to be veiled and on their knee.
Because of his failing health,
Esarhaddon saw himself permanently in death's clutches; this alone made it
necessary to provide for his succession: Who would be king after him? There
were a great many possible candidates: Esarhaddon himself had fathered at least
18 children but, some of them suffered, like their father, from a frail
condition and needed permanent medical attention". It would appear that
sickly sons were, just like all the daughters, deemed unfit from the start:
After all, only a man without fault could be king of Assyria. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment