John correct about Pool of Siloam

Taken from: The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man - Biblical Archaeology Society The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man A sacred Christian site identified by archaeologists BAS Staff July 04, 2024 …. The Siloam Pool has long been considered a sacred Christian site, even if the correct identification of the site itself was uncertain. According to the Gospel of John, it was at the Siloam Pool where Jesus healed the blind man (John 9:1–11). Traditionally, the Christian site of the Siloam Pool was the pool and church that were built by the Byzantine empress Eudocia (c. 400–460 A.D.) to commemorate the miracle recounted in the New Testament. However, the exact location of the original pool as it existed during the time of Jesus remained a mystery until June 2004. In 2004, the stepped remains of the ancient Siloam Pool, long thought to be located elsewhere, were uncovered near the City of David. According to the Gospel of John, it was at this sacred Christian site that Jesus healed the blind man. Photo: Todd Bolen/BiblePlaces.com. During construction work to repair a large water pipe south of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, at the southern end of the ridge known as the City of David, archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron identified two ancient stone steps. Further excavation revealed that they were part of a monumental pool from the Second Temple period, the period in which Jesus lived. The structure Reich and Shukron discovered was 225 feet long, with corners that are slightly greater than 90 degrees, indicating a trapezoidal shape, with the widening end oriented toward Tyropoeon valley. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ The Siloam Pool is adjacent to the area in the ancient City of David known as the King’s Garden and is just southeast of the remains of the fifth-century church and pool traditionally believed to be the sacred Christian site. Artist’s rendering of the Siloam Pool, the Biblical Christian site where Jesus healed the blind man. Image: Jason Clarke. What was the function of the Siloam Pool during Jesus’ time? Because the pool is fed by waters from the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley, the naturally flowing spring water would have qualified the pool for use as a mikveh for ritual bathing. However, it could also have been an important source of fresh water for the inhabitants on that part of the city. One scholar has even suggested that it was a Roman-style swimming pool. Whatever its original purpose, the Siloam Pool where Jesus healed the blind man is an important Christian site, and its discovery represents a watershed moment in the field of Biblical archaeology. As with many sites in the Holy Land, the origins of the Siloam Pool reach back even further in history—at least seven centuries before the time of Jesus. Judah’s King Hezekiah (late eighth century B.C.) correctly anticipated a siege against Jerusalem by the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib. ________________________________________ Learn more about Hezekiah’s Tunnel, including recent attempts to redate the water tunnel and assign its construction to King Hezekiah’s predecessor or successors, in “Hezekiah’s Tunnel Reexamined.” ________________________________________ To protect the city’s water supply during the siege, Hezekiah undertook a strategic engineering project that would be an impressive feat in any age: He ordered the digging of a 1,750-foot tunnel under the City of David to bring water from the Gihon Spring, which lay outside the city wall, inside the city to a pool on the opposite side of the ridge. In the years that followed, “Hezekiah’s Tunnel” continued to carry fresh water to this section of Jerusalem, and different pools were built here over the centuries, including the Second Temple pool that Jesus knew.

Evidences for Tenth Legion in ancient Jerusalem

“Archaeological discoveries have supplemented the writings of Josephus to provide evidence of the presence of the tenth legion in Jerusalem. In addition to the column near Jaffa Gate that we mentioned in the previous post, we here call attention to some other evidence that is readily available for anyone who wishes to see it. Here, I call attention to a Roman milestone”. Ferrell Jenkins Ferrell Jenkins tells (2014): https://ferrelljenkins.blog/2014/07/30/the-tenth-roman-legion-in-jerusalem/ …. When Titus began to position his forces around the city of Jerusalem, he called the tenth legion from Jericho to come up to the Mount of Olives and take their position there. and as these were now beginning to build, the tenth legion, who came through Jericho, was already come to the place, where a certain party of armed men had formerly lain, to guard that pass into the city, and had been taken before by Vespasian. These legions had orders to encamp at the distance of three quarters of a mile from Jerusalem, at the mount called the Mount of Olives, {c} which lies opposite the city on the east side, and is parted from it by a deep valley, interposed between them, which is named Kidron. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 5:69-70) Jesus had prophesied about forty years earlier that the Holy City would be surrounded by armies. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. (Luke 21:20 ESV) The word used for armies (stratopedon) is used in literature of the time to specify a legion or a camp (see BDAG and MM). Archaeological discoveries have supplemented the writings of Josephus to provide evidence of the presence of the tenth legion in Jerusalem. In addition to the column near Jaffa Gate that we mentioned in the previous post, we here call attention to some other evidence that is readily available for anyone who wishes to see it. Here, I call attention to a Roman milestone. Roman milestone found near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem mentions Vespasian, Titus, and the Tenth Legion. Displayed in Israel Museum. Photo by Ferrell Jenkins. The Israel Museum sign associated with the milestone reads, Near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a milestone bearing a Latin inscription was discovered. The inscription mentions both the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus, commander of the Roman army at the time of the suppression of the Great Revolt and had been deliberately effaced, seems to have mentioned the name of Flavius Silva, procurator of Judea and commander of the Tenth Legion, responsible for both the destruction of Jerusalem and the conquest of Masada. The inscription was carved by soldiers of the Tenth Legion. …. http://www.centuryone.com/Jerusalem/bathhouse.html Roman 10th Legion Encampment Larger than Previously Thought Just weeks ago, as the special “Jerusalem” issue of the March/April 2011 BAR was being put together, the Jerusalem Post reported the discovery of an ancient Roman bathhouse that was in all likelihood used by the same Roman soldiers who destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced. The surprise discovery includes a roof tile stamped with the symbol of the 10th Roman Legion: LEG X FR. Roman bathhouses were a common feature of Roman legionary fortresses, and typically located just outside the walls of the Roman fort. These bathhouse remains were found in the Jewish Quarter, close to and midpoint along the Western or “wailing” Wall. “The discovery shows that Roman encampment established to keep Israel under control was larger than previously thought,” an expert told CNN. According to Dr. Yuval Baruch, the Jerusalem District archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “What we have here is a discovery that is important for the study of Jerusalem. Despite the very extensive archaeological excavations that were carried out in the Jewish Quarter, so far not even one building has been discovered there that belonged to the Roman legion. The absence of such a find led to the conclusion that Aelia Capitolina, the Roman city which was established after the destruction of Jerusalem, was small and limited in area. The new find, together with other discoveries of recent years, shows that the city was considerably larger than what we previously estimated. Information about Aelia Capitolina is extremely valuable and can contribute greatly to research on Jerusalem because it was that city that determined the character and general appearance of ancient Jerusalem and as we know it today. The shape of the city has determined the outline of its walls and the location of the gates to this very day.” In light of the premise put forward in The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, the central location of these ruins is likewise significant, as they would be just outside the midpoint of the Roman Fortress Antonia. …. https://www.khouse.tv/temple https://www.wrmea.org/2011-august/misunderstandings-about-jerusalem-s-temple-mount.html Misunderstandings About Jerusalem’s Temple Mount By George Wesley Buchanan While it has not been widely published, it assuredly has been known for more than 40 years that the 45-acre, well-fortified place that has been mistakenly called the “Temple Mount” was really the Roman fortress—the Antonia—that Herod built. The Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque are contained within these walls. The area is called the Haram Al-Sharif in Arabic. The discovery that this area had once been the great Roman fortress came as a shock to the scholarly community, which had believed for many years that this ancient fortress was the place where the temple had been. This news was preceded by another shock, when the English archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon discovered in 1962 that the entire City of David in the past had been only that little rock ridge on the western bank of the Kidron Valley. Less than 10 years later the historian Benjamin Mazar learned that the Haram had undoubtedly been the Roman fortress. In biblical times the Haram was not a sacred place. Instead it was the place that Orthodox Jews considered defiled and the most despised place in the world. Within these walls were found no remnants of any of the earlier temples but rather an image of Mars, the Roman god of war. The 1st century Jewish Roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus said the Romans always kept a whole legion of soldiers (5,000-6,000) there, and that there were stones in its walls that were 30 feet long, 15 feet thick, and 71/2 feet high. While excavating the area, Mazar found these very stones there in the Haram—not in the temple. He and the local Muslims also discovered there three inscriptions, honoring the Roman leaders in the war of A.D. 66-72—Vespasian, Titus, and Silva—and Hadrian in the war of A.D. 132-135, for their success in defeating the Jews in the wars. Appropriate inscriptions for a Roman fortress, but impossible for a temple that had been destroyed in A.D. 70—65 years before the inscriptions had been made. Mazar shared these insights freely with other participants in the excavation, such as … Ernest Martin. Mazar also knew at once that the temple instead was stationed 600 feet farther south and 200 feet lower in altitude, on Mount Ophel, where the Spring of Siloam poured tons of water under the threshold of the temple every minute (Ezek 47:1), after which the water was distributed wherever it was needed. This marvelous little City of David was unique in having running water 3,000 years ago. Aristeas, Tacitus and 1 Enoch tell of the inexhaustible spring water system that was indescribably well developed, gushing tons of water into the temple area for sacrifices. Hezekiah's tunnel directed water under Mount Ophel to the Pool of Siloam. Herod’s fortress, on the other hand, was unequipped for sacrifices, because it had only 37 cisterns to provide water in the Haram. After two violent wars with Rome, the City of David was so completely destroyed that it could not be recognized as a city. ….

Jesus as Temple

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

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

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

Nebuchednezzar, so it seems, incarcerated his very own son

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

Moses neither a holy myth nor wholly a myth

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

Shattering the Belshazzar myth

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