Saturday, September 13, 2025

The Bronze Serpent

‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life’. John 3:14-15 Jake Allstaedt has written (2020): https://www.1517.org/articles/jesus-is-our-bronze-serpent Jesus Is Our Bronze Serpent Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) is a well-known verse. What isn’t so well-known is the sentence right before it: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15). That short, seemingly obscure reference is a throwback to an event in the life of God’s people, the Israelites, as they journeyed in the wilderness after having been freed from slavery in Egypt. Understanding that story will enrich our understanding of who Jesus is and what He came to do for us. So, what happened? Throughout the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness God took care of them. He gave them bread from heaven and water to drink. God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had: “And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food’” (Numbers 21:5). Oh, there was food and water. God made sure of that. This complaint exposed their selfish discontentment with what they had been given. They were ungrateful, forgetting that they had been rescued from slavery. These gracious provisions weren’t enough; they wanted something more. God gave them something more: fiery serpents. These serpents bit the people and many died. It was because of these serpents that the Israelites realized that they had sinned against God. They asked Moses to pray for them, that God might take away the snakes. Moses did as the people asked and God had mercy on them. He commanded Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on a pole so that everyone who was bitten could look at it and live. Scientifically speaking, that doesn’t even make sense. Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. God spoke. He attached His promise to that bronze serpent and the Israelites looked to it in faith—believing that God would save them through the way He provided. Let’s go back to John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” Jesus came to this world because deadly venom courses through our veins too. It’s called sin. Adam and Eve, our first parents, were “snake-bitten.” Like the Israelites in the wilderness, God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had. The ancient serpent, Satan, tempted them and they gave in, bringing sin into their lives and into creation itself. The venom of sin has passed from generation to generation. You and I have it. Our kids have it. It’s why you’ll never have to teach your children how to be bad. It’s why our hearts are filled with so much hatred, violence, abuse, racism, pride, selfishness, jealousy, adultery—it’s why we journey through the wilderness of this life often craving something more than what God has graciously provided. We have a sin problem. We’ve inherited it and we commit it. This venom is deadly and it is killing us. But God has mercy on us. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God promised a Savior who would crush the head of the serpent, undoing the deadly consequences of sin, while He himself would be bitten. This Savior, Jesus, the Son of God, was lifted up to death on the pole of the cross. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, he lifted up that which was killing the people. God, in effect, was declaring, “Look! That which is killing you is now hanging on a pole! I have put away the snake and its venom. I have put away your sin. Look to this serpent in faith and live!” Jesus is our bronze serpent—He became that which was killing us! St. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him (that is, Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus was “snake-bitten” for us. He became our sin on the cross—the sin we’ve inherited, the sins we have committed, and the sins we will commit—all of it hung on the pole of the cross in the person of Jesus. Look! The sin that is killing you is hanging on the pole of the cross! God has put away your sin. Look to Jesus in faith and live! Let’s read the words of John 3:16 one more time: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” God had mercy on Adam and Eve because He loved them. He had mercy on the Israelites because He loved them. Why does He have mercy on you? Because He loves you. One more time: Because He loves you. He loves us so much that, even though we’ve turned against Him, forgetting His goodness and craving more than He graciously provides, He sent His Son, Jesus, to become our sin and die our death to ensure that you will not perish, but have eternal life. That’s love right there. Anyone—anyone—who looks to Jesus in faith will not perish but have eternal life. 14th September, 2025 Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross

Friday, September 12, 2025

Peter as a potential descendant of the Simeonite prophet Jonah

by Damien F. Mackey Maybe Jesus called Peter “Simon son of Jonah” (Matthew 16:17) because Peter actually was a descendant of the prophet Jonah? First of all, there are several extraordinary likenesses between the stories of Peter and Jonah. James Jackson has picked up some of these at: https://jamesjackson.blog/2024/10/21/day-293-again-why-does-jesus-call-peter-simon-bar-jonah-in-matthew-16/ …. Why Does Jesus Call Peter Simon Bar-Jonah in Matthew 16? “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭4‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ________________________________________ “And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Through the Bible: Matthew 16 In Matthew 16, Jesus tells the Pharisees and Sadducees who ask Him to show them a sign that “no sign will be given to [them] except the sign of Jonah” (verse 4). This is a repeat of an earlier scene in Matthew (Matthew 12:38-42); only this time, Jesus doesn’t give the extended explanation of what He means by the sign of Jonah: For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) My question was, why repeat it at all? As I’ve said before, every word matters in the gospels. What is said, when it’s said, what is left out. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the human writers wrote exactly what God intended. So there has to be a reason. A possible answer may be that in Matthew 16:17, Jesus calls Peter “Simon Bar-Jonah” for the first and only time in Scripture. So is it a coincidence that Matthew repeats the “sign of Jonah” phrase, and calls Peter “Simon son of Jonah” just thirteen verses later? Again, in God’s inspired Word, there are no coincidences. Let’s look at the two stories: Peter has just made his great confession of Christ. It’s a great moment for him. He gets a new name. No longer is he Simon, son of Jonah, the prophet who was swallowed by a fish. Now he’s Peter, a name which means “rock.” And Jesus is going to build his church on this rock (see Day 293: What Did Jesus Mean by “Upon This Rock?”). Only, Peter doesn’t always seem very rock-like. Just a few verses later, Jesus is going to rebuke him and compare him to Satan (see Matthew 16:23). Later, Peter will sink even lower. Given a chance to speak up for Jesus, he denies him three times (see Matthew 26:69-75). Overcome with grief and shame, Peter flees the courtyard and weeps bitterly. So let’s think about Jonah. He was given a message. He didn’t want to proclaim it. So he ran, and was swallowed by a fish, where he stayed for three days. Then, the fish spits him back onto the beach, and God reinstates him as a prophet, giving him the same message he did at the beginning. (See Jonah 2:10-3:1) On the night Jesus was arrested, Peter was truly the son of Jonah. He was warming himself at a charcoal fire (John 18:18), when a servant girl asked him if he was one of Jesus’ disciples. At that moment, the Rock, who had once stood at the Gates of Hell and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, had a golden opportunity to deliver God’s message. Instead, he denied that he even knew Jesus. Then he ran away and “wept bitterly.” I would imagine he spent the next three days feeling like he had sunk about as low as a person could sink. Kind of like being in the belly of a fish. After Jesus was resurrected, John’s gospel records an amazing scene between Jesus and Peter; a scene that “just so happened” to take place on a beach. And involved fish. And a charcoal fire. “When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.” ‭‭John‬ ‭21‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ And there on the beach, Jesus reinstated Peter. He gave Peter three chances to confess his love for Jesus—one for every time Peter had denied him. Then, just as God gave Jonah the same message as He had given him at the beginning (“Go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach against it”); Jesus repeated the same words to Peter in John 21:19 as He did in Matthew 4:19: “Follow me.” Beloved, we are all going to have our share of “Sons of Jonah” moments. Times when God tells us to do something, and we let fear, or selfishness, or rebellion swallow us up. But sin has a way of chewing us up and spitting us out, leaving us empty and washed up. That’s when Jesus says, “Come have breakfast.” He lovingly restores. He extends His invitation to follow Him. And we go from being a son of Jonah to a child of the king. [End of quote] This nice little piece by James Jackson does not, however, touch upon the amazingly like situations of Jonah wallowing in the sea, drowning, and being rescued by a great fish, and Peter wallowing in the sea, drowning, and being rescued by Jesus Christ, symbolised by a fish: The great fish in the Book of Jonah, apart from symbolising the “king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6), Nebuchednezzar, who swallows Israel whole, only to spit her out (Jeremiah 51:34), more benignly symbolises Jesus Christ as Saviour. +++++ The historical reconstruction of this era has proven to be extremely complex. It is all set out in step-by-step detail in my article: De-coding Jonah (1) De-coding Jonah In short, the prophet Jonah (var. Nahum) is, among his many guises, the great Isaiah; while Jonah’s “king of Nineveh” is, as implied by Jeremiah, King Nebuchednezzar - especially in his alter ego guise as the potent king, Esarhaddon, (like Nebuchednezzar suffering a terrible, enduring sickness; re-building Babylon; and attacking Egypt). For the pervasive Simeonite element amongst some famous prophets of Israel, including Jonah (Nahum)/Isaiah, see my article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon https://www.academia.edu/69393027/God_can_raise_up_prophets_at_will_even_from_a_shepherd_of_Simeon Although the prophets of Israel were traditionally Levites (Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and so on), a Simeonite family had once been selected to play a major prophetic rôle of long duration, commencing with the patriarchal Amos, an avowed non prophet (Amos 7:14-15): “Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.’” Amos was the same as Micah, who has come to be known as “Amos redivivus”: Prophet Micah as Amos (2) Prophet Micah as Amos and we find this same Micah, a Simeonite, named in the Book of Judith as the father of Uzziah (Isaiah) who was now stationed in “Bethulia”, the sacred northern fort of Bethel (Shechem) to which Amos himself, a southerner, had been sent to minister. Judith 8:14-15: “Then the Israelites came down from their town and found [Achior]; they untied him and brought him into Bethulia and placed him before the magistrates of their town, who in those days were Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon, and Chabris son of Gothoniel, and Charmis son of Melchiel”. That Jonah, under an alternative name of his as Nahum (cf. Tobit 14:8 KJV; 14:8 GNT), was a Simeonite, is the traditionally accepted view: https://www.monasticrepublic.com/en/orthodox-synaxarion/december/prophet-nahum?srsltid=AfmBOoo5FJ1_mxfGHzITh3__sDGBVtazsizT7n9ufI4mD8xS_RHF7O0j “Nahum is interpreted as "rest" or "comfort" to all. He was from the tribe of Simeon …”. Amos (Micah) I have also identified as the prophet Zephaniah (Sophonias), who is likewise considered to have been a Simeonite: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2021/12/03/103465-prophet-zephaniah “The Prophet Zephaniah (Sophonias) was a contemporary of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Prophetess Oldama. He was from the tribe of Simeon …”. “Oldama” here is Huldah, a prophetess, who, too, was Simeonite: the heroine, Judith: Judith and Huldah (4) Judith and Huldah This long-lived prophetic trio, Amos, Isaiah (Jonah) and Judith (under all of their various names), collectively played an enormous part in the history of Israel and Judah, during some its most tumultuous times. Whereas the Patriarch, Jacob, had been furious with his sons Simeon and Levi for their bloody ruse against the Shechemites, after their sister, Dinah, had been raped (Genesis 34), Judith, for her part, who completely ignores Levi in favour of her eponymous ancestor Simeon, is full of praise for what he had done (Judith 9:2-4): ‘O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin’s clothing to defile her, and exposed her thighs to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for you said, ‘It shall not be done’—yet they did it; so you gave up their rulers to be killed, and their bed, which was ashamed of the deceit they had practiced, was stained with blood, and you struck down slaves along with princes, and princes on their thrones. You gave up their wives for booty and their daughters to captivity, and all their booty to be divided among your beloved children who burned with zeal for you and abhorred the pollution of their blood and called on you for help. O God, my God, hear me also, a widow’. And she, too, will, like Simeon, take to the sword to slay the foe, the Assyrian “Holofernes”, who was intent upon seducing her (12:12) - Judith thereby being a symbol of the inviolate Jerusalem towards which the Assyrian army was heading with brutal intent. Peter - not only a son of Jonah, hence, possibly, a descendant of the prophet Jonah, a Simeonite - likewise bore the name of the eponymous Simeon. He was Simeon bar Jonah! And he, like Simeon and Judith before him, would brandish a sword (John 18:10): “Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus)”. Even the alternative name of Peter’s father, John (cf. John 1:42 and 21:15-17), recalls, in its Greek form of Ιωάννης, the Jonah like fish-man, Oannes (Uanna), of ancient legend (see my article, “De-coding Jonah”).

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Regarding William H. Shea’s valiant attempts to identify Darius the Mede

by Damien F. Mackey “A prominent feature of this theory is that the author supposed that there was a separate Median kingdom between the rule of the Babylonians and the Persians. Evidence for this comes in particular from the figure of Darius the Mede who is taken as ruler over an independent Median kingdom. Since no such kingdom is known—and hence no such ruler, either—the book of Daniel is seen as lacking historicity, a product of a late and geographically-removed author”. Dr. William H. Shea Articles that include mention of Darius the Mede tend to occupy themselves with the question: Who was Darius the Mede?, rather than to offer any viable solution to the problem. And a problem it has proven to be. Steven D. Anderson, in Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (2014), will begin with an Introduction to the Problem, as follows: The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31[E] / 6:1[MT]; cf. Dan 11:1). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, mainstream scholarship affirms that there never was such a person as Darius the Mede. The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions. …. [End of quote] William H. Shea will do his best to identify the elusive Darius the Mede in his article, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian setting” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1991, Vol. 29, No. 3, 235-257). Let us find out what he had to say. In his Introduction, Dr. Shea will recall a former view of his, that Darius the Mede was Gubaru the governor of Babylonia, and professor Lester L. Grabbe’s criticism of this: As an introduction to proposing his own theory about the unhistorical Darius the Mede, Grabbe has reviewed the various identifications proposed for Darius by various conservative interpreters. In concluding his review of J. C. Whitcomb's theory that Darius the Mede was Gubaru/ Gobryas, the governor of Babylonia from the middle of the reign of Cyrus to the middle of the reign of Cambyses, Grabbe affirms there is no evidence for it. In his review of my own work on this subject, Grabbe has also concluded, "Once it is recognized that Gubaru (the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus) did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates." 2 Il-ester L. Grabbe, " Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede'," CBQ 50 (April 1988): 198-213. Next, Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman is brought into the picture, again as the target of Lester Grabbe: Grabbe has reserved the most unkind cut of all for D. J. Wiseman, the distinguished Assyriologist who published the chronicles of the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar. …. Wiseman advanced the theory that Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus. He based this conclusion on an epexegetical or explicative translation of the waw in Dan 6:28, "the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Let us stop right here. D.J. Wiseman was perfectly correct, I believe, in his proposing that Darius the Mede was Cyrus ‘the Great’. If in doubt, bring in a Wise Man (Wiseman). D.J. and his father P.J. have made an enormous contribution to biblical studies. See also my article: Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP (7) Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP D.J. Wiseman’s is the identification that I, myself, have embraced. See for example my article: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (7) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' and, again: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue But Darius the Mede/Cyrus was also the Neriglissar of the neo-Babylonian king lists: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (3) Why "Darius the Mede" is like a needle in a haystack And was, I further suspect, King Nebuchednezzar’s “chief of court officials”, Ashpenaz: Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede With the removal out of the way of the major complication of: Who was Darius the Mede? we can now try to sort out those other significant characters, Gubaru and Cambyses, the former of whom Dr. Shea had once touted as a potential Darius the Mede. …. When new primary historical sources appear, the time comes to examine old historical theories. With the publication of additional neo-Babylonian contract tablets in the Cuneiform Text series from the British Museum … that is now the case with the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. What those tablets have now demonstrated precisely is where the Babylonian coregency of Cambyses should be located. They have done this by providing tablets whose dates overlap the end of Nabonidus' reign and the beginning of Persian rule dated in terms of the coregent year of Cambyses. … There could be no more convincing demonstration that the one (partial) year of Cambyses' coregency belongs in the first year of Cyrus' rule over Babylonia as "king of lands," beginning in the spring of 538 B.C. In past studies I have equivocated on this point … but with this new evidence in hand, there can be no question about it: Cambyses ruled Babylon with Cyrus from 1/1, in the spring of 538 B.C., until sometime between IX/25 and X/ 1 of that same year. At this time the contract tablets drop Cambyses' name and transfer his title, "king of Babylon," to Cyrus. …. …. Six of these tablets carry titularies with datelines which refer to the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses which I have discussed previously in connection with the subject of Darius the Mede. The dates and titles in question read as follows: Text Date CT 55:731 Xl/-/l Cambyses (no title), Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:142 Cambyses, King of Lands, Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:149 11/7/1 Cambyses, King of Babylon, Cyrus, King [broken} CT 56:294 [brokenl Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:345 11/18/1 Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:369 [broken] Cyrus, King [broken], Cambyses, [broken] …. Based on this evidence, Dr. Shea will now be able to rule out Gubaru (Ugbaru) as having any possible claim to being Darius the Mede, as, say, a sub-king to Cyrus. The conclusion that Cambyses ruled Babylon as coregent with his father in 538 B.C. eliminates the possibility that Gubaru (Ugbaru), Cyrus' general who captured Babylon, might have served as king or quasi-king of Babylon at that time. A coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus might be acceptable, but a tri-regency involves too many rulers of Babylon to be historically reasonable. Since dates in Darius the Mede's first year are given twice in Daniel (9:1 and 11:1), Gubaru no longer is a reasonable candidate for that identification. His place in history has shrunk to the point that his identification with Darius in Daniel can no longer be sustained. …. But before we take this any further, I must ask who was Gubaru (Ugbaru), whose governorship of Babylon under Cyrus was apparently extremely short – far too short for him to qualify as a Darius the Mede? Well, I have identified this Gubaru (Ugbaru) with Ubāru, the long-time governor of Babylon under King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, in the latter’s guise as Esarhaddon. And this Ubāru I have identified, in turn, as Daniel himself: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (3) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru Dr. Shea now found himself free to embrace D.J. Wiseman’s insightful identification of Darius the Mede: …. With these points firmly established from the cuneiform evidence, we may now return to the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. Where does this new information leave us? It rules out both [sic] of the Gubarus as potential candidates for Darius the Mede. In that case we should examine another candidate who had previously been rejected for reasons which were not altogether sound. I would like to suggest that the one suggested by D. J. Wiseman—Cyrus himself—is the most appropriate identification to propose here as the correct one. …. As a matter of fact, I would like to suggest that once this proposal is appreciated in the way it should be, the data from the biblical text and ancient Near Eastern historical sources fit together in a manner that is harmonious and consonant to a major degree. The identification of Cyrus as Darius the Mede explains difficulties in the biblical text which had never been previously explained. If convergence of data is the test for a theory, the convergence present here offers strong support for this proposal, first put forward by Wiseman. …. (1) Darius the Mede has been identified with King Cyrus (D.J. Wiseman and Dr. Shea), and (2) Gubaru (Ugbaru) has been identified as Daniel, in his rôle as (long-term) governor of Babylon, Ubāru (Mackey), under Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar). Daniel 2:48-49: Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. It remains to identify (3) the sub-king to Cyrus, Cambyses. The key to this situation, I think, is that, just before the demise of King Belshazzar, he made Daniel third in the kingdom. Why third?: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (4) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? King Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach, had already exalted Jehoiachin of Judah to second (2 Kings 25:27-30). While Daniel would shortly pass from the scene, “Jehoiachin the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17) would be exalted again under King Cyrus (Ahasuerus), as “Haman … the Captive” [my favoured translation] (Esther 3:1-2): After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. Haman’s name was actually Egyptian (Amon): Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (6) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name So I am presuming that his Medo-Persian given name, which he must have had, was Cambyses – not to be confused with the mighty king Cambyses, who conquered Egypt.

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Comparing Ashurnasirpal so called II to Chaldean Nebuchednezzar the Great

by Damien F. Mackey Dreams, visions, superstition, megalomania, cruelty, fiery furnace, messing with the rites, building of Babylon, mysterious and enduring illness, madness, conquest of Egypt - these were some of the ‘symptoms’ exhibited by the bunch of Assyro-Babylonian (Persian) ‘kings’ whom I have lumped together as being various faces of the one historical Nebuchednezzar. Names such as: Esarhaddon who, deliberately reading the specified ritual number upside down, rebuilt Babylon, who also suffered a long, dreadful and alienating illness, and who attacked Egypt. Ashurbanipal whose 43-year reign was the same length as Nebuchednezzar’s, who apparently had a burning fiery furnace, and who absolutely smashed Egypt. Nabonidus who is regarded by some biblical commentators and historians as being the true model for the ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ of the Book of Daniel. Highly pious, superstitious, suffering from madness and foreboding dreams. Cambyses who was also quite mad, and whose other name was “Nebuchednezzar”, and who, too, conquered Egypt. Now I have some new candidates for consideration, Ashurnasirpal (especially II) and Nabopolassar (yet to be integrated), neither of whom have I found easy to place in a revised context. Ashurnasirpal has been, to date, a real headache for revisionists to place in any satisfactory way. And that same statement applies even more to his supposed son, Shalmaneser III, a great king who initially ended up straddling the mid-C9th BC right where Dr. I. Velikovsky had located the El Amarna [EA] period, prompting Velikovsky to attempt identifying Shalmaneser III with the Kassite ruler of Babylonia at the time of EA, Burnaburiash II (c. 1359 – 1333 BC, conventional dates). My suggested folding of ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyria “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death”. Following on from my identification of Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I as the neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib (a connection originally suggested by Phillip Clapham): Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti-Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib I must now consider the possibility that “Ashurnasirpal”, said to have been the son-successor of a Tukulti-Ninurta (II), was the actual successor of Sennacherib, that is, Esarhaddon, who is, in turn, in my scheme of things, Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar "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 ...”. Admittedly this is something of a long stretch in the present scheme of things. While, fittingly, the father of Tukulti-Ninurta I is said to have been a Shalmaneser – just as in my revision the father of (Sargon II =) Sennacherib was a Shalmaneser, his son is said to have been one Ashur-nadin-apli. Tukulti-Ninurta II, on the other hand, who was the father of Ashurnasirpal II, is said to have had a father named Adad-nirari (II). Tukulti-Ninurta II, though, does not even rate a mention in the index at the back of Marc Van de Mieroop’s text, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. Putting it all together, I would tentatively suggest this sequence: Shalmaneser (I, III); Tukulti-Ninurta (I, II); Ashur-nadin-apli-Ashurnasirpal (I, II) equates to, respectively: Shalmaneser (V); Sargon II-Sennacherib; Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar “In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, [Ashurnasirpal II] really was “king of the world”.” Joshua J. Mark Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Joshua J. Mark continues: Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel creature, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... [Ashurnasirpal] reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this series - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was by no means his “son”, but was his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was, in fact, very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” …. While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing, then he most certainly conquered Phoenicia, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites …. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Joshua J. Mark continues: Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he ‘possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world, the exalted shepherd, the powerful torrent that none can withstand, he who has overcome all mankind, whose hand has conquered all lands and taken all the mountain ranges” (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire”. “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayers. Faithfully look upon me and hear my supplication. Promise my forgiveness and let thy spirit be appeased. Pity! For my wretched body which is full of confusion and trouble. Pity! For my sickened heart which is full of tears and suffering. Pity! For my wretched intestines (which are full of) confusion and trouble. Pity! For my afflicted house which mourns bitterly. Pity! For my feelings which are satiated with tears and suffering. O exalted Irnini, fierce lion, let thy heart be at rest. O angry wild ox, let thy spirit be appeased. Let the favor of thine eyes be upon me. With thy bright features look faithfully upon me. Drive away the evil spells of my body (and) let me see thy bright light. How long, O my Lady, shall my adversaries be looking upon me, In lying and untruth shall they plan evil against me, Shall my pursuers and those who exult over me rage against me? How long, O my Lady, shall the crippled and weak seek me out? One has made for me long sackcloth; thus I have appeared before thee. The weak have become strong; but I am weak. I toss about like flood-water, which an evil wind makes violent. My heart is flying; it keeps fluttering like a bird of heaven. I mourn like a dove night and day. I am beaten down, and so I weep bitterly. With "Oh" and "Alas" my spirit is distressed. I - what have I done, O my god and my goddess? Like one who does not fear my god and my goddess I am treated; While sickness, headache, loss, and destruction are provided for me; So are fixed upon me terror, disdain, and fullness of wrath, Anger, choler, and indignation of gods and men. I have to expect, O my Lady, dark days, gloomy months, and years of trouble. I have to expect, O my Lady, judgment of confusion and violence. Death and trouble are bringing me to an end. Silent is my chapel; silent is my holy place; Over my house, my gate, and my fields silence is poured out. As for my god, his face is turned to the sanctuary of another. My family is scattered; my roof is broken up. (But) I have paid heed to thee, my Lady; my attention has been turned to thee. To thee have I prayed; forgive my debt. Forgive my sin, my iniquity, my shameful deeds, and my offence. Overlook my shameful deeds; accept my prayer; Loosen my fetters; secure my deliverance; Guide my steps aright; radiantly like a hero let me enter the streets with the living. ....

Monday, September 1, 2025

Jonah may have actually died in the ‘fish’ and gone to Sheol

‘I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God’. Jonah 2:6 We read at: https://www.biblebro.net/jonah-died-in-the-whale/ Jonah Died In the Whale First note that this is not a greatly supported teaching … Like most bible believers, I once believed that Jonah miraculously lived in the belly of the whale for 3 days before he was spit up onto land to warn the people of Nineveh to turn to God. The more I studied the situation and the language, the more I realized that it’s a strong possibility that Jonah died in the whale and was resurrected. Jesus & Jonah Died and Went to Sheol Jonah is a type of Christ. Here’s what Jesus said: Matthew 12:39-40 – “But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them (religious leaders), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” [Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly] – Yes, a whale’s belly, not just “a great fish” as some insist because of Jonah 1:17. [the Son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth] – Was Jesus alive in the ground? No, and neither was Jonah alive in the whale. Jesus died and went to Sheol, as did everyone who died in those days. …. Jonah 2:1-2 – “Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.” [the fish’s belly] – belly H4578 = the stomach, abdomen, inside or outside part of the belly. Note that this word is different than that used in “the belly of hell”. [the belly of hell] – belly H0990 = the belly, the womb, or of depth of Sheol (fig.). Hell H7585 = š ‘ôl; Sheol, the world of the dead, abode of the dead. In other words, Jonah’s soul was in the pits of hell. [Comment: Sheol was not exclusively hell]. The “belly” here is not describing the whale’s stomach, but Sheol. Jonah 2:6-7 – “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.” [the bottoms of the mountains] – The bottoms of the seas, which were recorded to be the lowest parts of the earth, hence the gates of Hell (Job 38:16-17). In the resurrection of the wicked dead, the seas give up their dead, and so does death and hell (Rev 20:13). Note the connection between the bottoms of the seas and Hell. [the earth with her bars was about me forever] – He was in the eternal place of Sheol where the bars, or “gates of hell” (Matt 16:18) had him locked up. “I was going to stay in hell forever [sic], but you brought my dead body back to life, up from corruption. [thou brought up my life from] – You brought me back from the dead. See Acts 2:27. [my soul fainted] – “I prayed from the whale, passed out, died, prayed from Sheol, and was resurrected.”

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Chenephres was second Oppressor Pharaoh

“Merris married Khenephres and Mousos administered the land for him and became popular with the Egyptian people”. Artapanus We read this at: https://www.bereaninsights.org/nugget/moses-and-khenephres/ Moses and Khenephres … Do we have any evidence for Moses? Eusebius wrote Evangelicae Preparationis (Preparations for the Gospel) in which he refers to a Jewish historian Artapanus whose work didn’t survive. But we have chunks of it quoted by Eusebius and Clement in his Stromata. The story of Moses’ early life was recorded in some detail by Artapanus. According to Artapanus, Palmanothes was the Pharoah who persecuted the Israelites. He built a city called Kessan and founded a temple there and at Heliopolis. Mackey’s comment: The infanticidal “new king” of Exodus 1:8, who began the persecution of Israel, has various historical guises, none of which, however, corresponds really convincingly to “Palmanothes” - a name that does not appear to me to match up very well with any pharaonic name for that matter. The name of the next king, “Khenephres” (“Chenephres”), on the other hand, does match up very well with his historical counterparts, as we shall find. And the same comment goes for the woman, “Merris”, who married him. In fact, the nice correspondence between Chenephres and Merris and their respective historical counterparts - running like golden threads through various supposed dynasties - encourages me to believe that I am in quite the right era for my location of the historical Moses. Narrowing the focus for the moment, because the overall picture is extremely complex, I have fixed the era of Israel’s Oppression in the mighty Twelfth Dynasty: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (2) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel The abundance of pharaohs Amenemes and Sesostris in this dynasty needs to be stripped down to just two, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, Amenemes, and his successor, Sesostris. While an imaginative person may be able to recognise “Palmanothes” in the name Amenemes, it is easy to square up Sesostris Neferkare with the same name, “Chenephres” (Ka-nefer-re). OK, but how does “Merris” fit into this reconstruction? Now it gets a bit more complicated. The way that ancient Egyptian history has been cobbled together, painfully stretched out in a kind of ‘Indian file’ fashion - with an Old Kingdom, First Intermediate Period, Middle Kingdom, and Second Intermediate Period - it has become impossible to recognise the real fact that this is basically just the one kingdom. Thus the so-called ‘Middle’ kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty (already met) has its counterpart(s) in Egypt’s Old Kingdom. In the case of the history of Moses, we must start, then, with the famous Pyramid Age Fourth Dynasty. The obscure founder, Khufu (Cheops), now gets properly filled out with the far better known Amenemes. Whilst the Sphinx-loving Sesostris can now be attached to his famous alter ego, the Giza Sphinx building, Khafra (Chephren) (again, “Chenephres”). This now enables us to bring in the historical “Merris”, wife of “Chenephres”, for Khafre/Chephren had married a Meresankh, which is the name Merris with an ankh. “Meresankh was married to Khafre, another son of Khufu …”: https://mused.com/stories/82/who-was-queen-meresankh-iii/ And further, as I wrote in the Twelfth Dynasty article above: We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. At this point we can return to the bereaninsights.org article, though we still have not finished with “Chenephres” who must also be considered in another historical guise. [Palmanothes] had a daughter named Merris. She adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to become Prince Mousos [Moses]. Merris married Khenephres and Mousos administered the land for him and became popular with the Egyptian people. Mousos led a military campaign to Ethiopia lasting 10 years. When he returned Khenephres became jealous of Mousos who fled to Arabia. He lived with Raguel, a priest and ruler of the region and married the daughter of one of his sons Hobab. Khenephres died and Mousos returned to Egypt to a new pharaoh. The plagues hit Egypt and Mousos led the Israelites out of Egypt. The names are difficult to equate with Egyptian names but Kessan is likely to be Kes, which is in the delta area and thus Goshen (after the Hebrew text). This equates with On or Heliopolis in association with the cities of Raamses and Pithom. Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of Hobab (also called Jethro) the son of Raguel. Who was Khenephres (Grk)? Manetho names the third ruler of the 5th Dynasty as Nepherkheres (Egypt). The Egyptian equivalent is Khaneferre. There is only one pharaoh in the whole of Egyptian history has taken this name. After the death of Neferhotep I, Sobekhotep became the 23rd ruler of the 13th Dynasty. Sobekhotep’s full name is Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV. So Moses birth coincided with the reign of one of the most powerful Egyptian pharaohs. Mackey’s comment: While I agree with the article that Khaneferre Sobekhotep is, once again, our “Chenephres” - the name Khaneferre being a perfect fit - I believe that this, now Egypt’s Thirteenth Dynasty, needs some re-organising. That, whilst Neferhotep here was certainly a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler, following the collapse of the famous Twelfth Dynasty, Khaneferre Sobekhotep actually preceded Neferhotep. Once again we find that the king list has things muddled up. See also my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences Apart from his having the ideal “Chenephres” name (Khaneferre/Neferkare), befitting our second Oppressor Pharaoh, he also had a Sobek (crocodile) name, Sobekhotep. And we know from the name of the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty, the female pharaoh, Sobekneferure, that this dynasty worshipped the Crocodile god. The succession, Amenemhet (Amenemes) and Sobekhotep, as given in the Thirteen Dynasty king list, must now be recognised as being our Twelfth Dynasty sequence of the two Oppressor Pharaohs, Amenemes and Sesostris. Back to the bereaninsights.org article, which concludes: David Rohl estimates Sobekhotep’s reign lasted 20 years from 1529 to 1510 BC. As it seems Sobekhotep married the daughter of the delta king Palmanothes. This was likely to have been a strategic alliance marriage. Colossal statues of Sobekhotep have been found in the Delta region indicating his influence in the area. He reigned long before Pi-Ramesse was founded in the 19th dynasty but other texts associated him with the city of Avaris. What about the land of Goshen and Moses’ town? Excavations in the eastern Delta north of the town of Fakus have established this to be the site of Pi-Ramesse, capital of the 19th and 20th Dynasties. An Austrian team of archaeologists, led by Manfred Bietak, have been excavating at Tel ed-Daba since 1960. They have established that the town of Tel ed-Daba sits on top of ancient Avaris, Fakis (Egypt) or Phacusa (Grk). Faiyum is the name given to the Delta basin which surrounds the inland sea. Pa-Yam, Fa-Kus, Pa-Kes all mean “the sea” cf Yam Suph / Suf – the Red or Reed Sea (Hebrew). This is the place the Septuagint names Kessan. These places are all within a stone’s throw from Avaris – Tel ed-Daba. An ancient manuscript has been found which is now kept in Arezzo in Italy which confirms much of this detail. In contrast to the claims that the story of Moses and the Exodus are pure fiction, we will see in following Nuggets the proof which debunks that view. There are still exciting revelations ahead of us. Hang on to your seat and make sure your seatbelt is fastened securely.

Friday, August 29, 2025

Exodus Israelites departing from Egypt will be replaced by the Hyksos invaders

“These earlier Asiatics are more likely to be Joseph’s relatives. The later Asiatics were very different and were not Egyptianized at all and appear to be of Hyksos descent”. Berean Insights We read this at: https://www.bereaninsights.org/nugget/the-discoveries-at-avaris/ The Discoveries at Avaris For more than two centuries archaeologists have sought evidence for the Israelites in Egypt. No Israelite settlement has ever been found in the 19th Dynasty where the Orthodox Chronology predicted it would be. I told you in the last Nugget about the Austrian team of archaeologists, led by Manfred Bietak, who have been excavating at Tel ed-Daba since 1960, more commonly called Avaris in ancient times. Bietak and his team have made many astounding discoveries. Manfred Bietak and his team have found evidence of a long period of Asiatic settlement in Avaris. Between Stratum G/1 and F there is a definite break between two distinct phases of settlement. Both Rohl and Bietak believe this line of demarcation between Stratum G/1 and F at Tel ed-Daba likely marks the break that resulted from the biblical Exodus of the Israelites from Tell ed-Daba. Around Goshen in the Second Intermediate Period there is incontrovertible evidence for a large Asiatic population. …. The majority of the tombs in the earlier strata are of Asiatic people from Palestine and Syria. Bietak says the early Asiatics were heavily Egyptianized. These people have spent considerable time in Egypt and have taken on many of the cultural practices of the Egyptians themselves. … these people have to be Israelites. The fit for the time period perfectly matches the other indications that this indeed is the correct time period for the Exodus. These earlier Asiatics are more likely to be Joseph’s relatives. The later Asiatics were very different and were not Egyptianized at all and appear to be of Hyksos descent. In the Brooklyn Papyrus there is a list of 95 names of slaves, over 50% of which are Semitic names. There are several Biblical names in the list, e.g. Menahem, Issachar, Asher and Shiphrah. The term Apiru (the equivalent of Hebrew) appears first in the Brooklyn Papyrus. William Albright recognized the language belongs to the northwest Semitic language family which includes Biblical Hebrew. There is a high proportion of female slaves. More adult women are buried here than men. 65% of all burials are children under the age of 18 months with girls out numbering boys by a ratio of 3:1. This could be explained by the massacre of Israelite boys whose bodies were then disposed of in mass unmarked burial pits. All over the city of Avaris are shallow burial pits with multiple victims. There were no careful interments as was required under Egyptian customs. The bodies were thrown one on top of another in mass graves. There is no evidence of grave goods being placed with the corpses as was the Egyptian custom. Bietak is convinced this is direct evidence of a plague or catastrophe. The large part of the remaining population abandoned their homes and left en masse. Bietak says the site was then reoccupied after an unknown interval of time by Asiatics who were not Egyptianised. Hence the break between stratum G/1 and F. There is a strange anomaly where the Asiatic folk who inhabited Stratum F lived in poor conditions yet their graves were richly endowed with precious metals and jewellery. The sources are unconnected and yet intriguingly consistent. Putting all the pieces together one can build up a consistent story which supports the Biblical account. The break in archeological stratum between G/1 and F marks the intervening years following the exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. The repopulation of Avaris sometime afterward by the Hyksos people who moved into Egypt matches the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period of the Egyptian Pharoahs. They were Asiatic people from the same region as the Israelites but not Egyptianized as Joseph and his family had been. The facts fit the period before the Exodus well. Given the disruption at the time of plagues and the magnitude of the deaths which occurred there would have been no time to bury the dead according to Egyptian customs. The predominance of females, especially among children would have been a result of the deliberate murder of the male children by the Pharoah. Where did such poor people (slaves no less) get such riches? Simple: read Ex 11:2 which says, “Tell all the Israelite men and women to ask their Egyptian neighbours for articles of silver and gold.”

Thursday, August 28, 2025

Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser

Çineköy inscription of Awarikkus/Warikkas. First line reads "I am Warikkas" Ingeborg Simon - Own work by Damien F. Mackey Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. …. Wikipedia Introduction We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.” In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version. In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior. His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba: Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba (2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu We know from the book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”. This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians. Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5). Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 As “King Arioch of Elam” ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ Isaiah 10:8 We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam) Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). …. Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above). Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. …. He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. …. We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media): Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus …. Awarikus (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔‎) or Warikas (Hieroglyphic Luwian: 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎) was a king of the Syro-Hittite kingdom of Ḫiyawa in Cilicia who reigned during the mid to late 8th century BCE, from around c. 738 to 709 BCE.[2][3] Name The name of this king is attested in Anatolian hieroglyphs in the forms 𔐓𔗬𔖱𔗜𔗔‎‎[4][5] (Awarikkus) and 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎[6][1] (Warikkas).[7] Etymology The name Awarikkus/Warikkas is not Luwian,[8] and several etymologies have been proposed for it, including a Hurrian one and various Greek ones:[7] • one proposal is that the various forms go back to a unique form *Awarikas;[8] • another suggestion is that:[9][10] • 𔐓𔗬𔗜𔗔‎‎ was pronounced Awarkus and represented an Ancient Greek name Euarkhos (Εὔαρχος) or *Ewarkhos (*Εϝαρχος), meaning "fit for rule," • while 𔗬𔖱𔓯𔗧𔗦‎ corresponded to the Cypriot name recorded in Greek as Rhoikos (Ῥοῖκος) and in Eteocypriot as wo-ro-i-ko (𐠵𐠦𐠂𐠍), meaning "crooked" and "lame"; • yet another proposal is that the name was derived from Greek *Wrakios (*Ϝρακιος) > Rhakios (Ῥάκιος), attested in Mycenaean Greek as *Wroikiōn (Mycenaean Greek: 𐀺𐀫𐀒𐀍, romanized: wo-ro-ko-jo).[10] Other attestations …. The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊‎‎), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊‎)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎‎‎).[11] In Akkadian Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14] Identification The scholars Trevor Bryce and Max Gander consider Warikas and Awarikus to be the same individual,[15][16][17] while Zsolt Simon considers them to be different kings.[18] The scholars Stephen Durnford and Max Gander consider Awarikus/Warikas to be different from the king WRYK of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription, whom they identify as a later ruler who reigned in the 7th century BCE,[19] while Mirko Novák and Andreas Fuchs consider the king of the Cebelireis Daǧı inscription to have been identical with Awarikus/Warikas.[20] Life Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔‎‎), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22] Reign Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25] Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20] Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27] Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28] In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15] According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15] Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31] At one point during his reign, Awarikus promoted a certain Azzattiwadas to a position of authority subordinate to the crown, although exact details of Azzattiwadas's exact rank have so far not survived.[32][3][7] According to Azzattiwadas's own inscriptions, he was a servant of Baʿal and the King, and he was "father and mother," that is the de facto ruler, of the whole kingdom of Hiyawa.[33] Alternatively, Azzattiwadas was the regent while Awarikus was still too young to rule.[34] Monuments An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35] Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36] Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35] As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37] Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language. Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39] Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39] The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39] Deposition The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43] This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44] Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44] The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47] Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”. Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib Alternatively, Awarikus's conspiracy with Urartu had already been uncovered sometime between 727 and 722 BCE and he was deposed and executed during the reign of Shalmaneser V itself, while his emissaries fled to the court of Midas in Phrygia and remained there in exile for some years, until they were delivered into Neo-Assyrian hands only after Midas had aligned with the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 710/709 BCE.[48] Legacy …. Following Sargon II's death, the Neo-Assyrian Empire lost control of its Anatolian territories, which descended into a state of chaos.[49] Among the territories which were destabilised in the aftermath of Sargon II's death in battle was Ḫiyawa, where Awarikus's subordinate Azzattiwadas organised a significant military force to restore authority throughout the kingdom by expelling possible Cimmerian or Phrygian invaders.[50] As part of his efforts to protect Ḫiyawa, Azzattiwadas built a series of fortifications throughout the kingdom similar to how his overlord had done, one of which was a hill-top fortified settlement named Azzattiwadaya after himself. Azzattiwadas also claimed to have expanded the territory of Ḫiyawa, to which he declared having brought prosperity, as well as filled the granaries of the city of Paḫar and replenished the grazing lands with sheep and goats.[51][52] These actions of Azzattiwadas were done in the name of the House of Muksas, which he restored to power by placing Awarikus's son on the throne of Ḫiyawa.[53] …. When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam). Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”.

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4

by Damien F. Mackey I asked the librarian if they had any books on paranoia. She whispered, ‘they’re right behind you!’ King Ashurbanipal had a mighty library. And he, too, suffered from paranoia. AI Overview Yes, Assyrian King Ashurbanipal suffered from depression, experiencing sickness, grief, discord, and exhaustion, along with feelings of being unjustly treated by his god. Royal and medical records from the time described psychological and physical symptoms of depression, and Ashurbanipal's writings and inscriptions reveal his own experiences with these conditions. Ashurbanipal is to be multi-identified (= Esarhaddon; Nebuchednezzar; Nabonidus). And his major alter egos suffered from paranoia and lengthy chronic illness. Arguably his most famous alter ego - though there were several notable ones - was the similarly long reigning (about 43 years) Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, of whose dreadful illness (the symptoms of which medical experts love to dissect) we are famously told in Daniel 4:33-34: Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird. At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. Historians, not cognizant of the full scope of this mighty Assyro-Chaldean king, think that what Daniel was describing here may actually have befallen King Nabonidus instead, and that this latter eccentric king was the one who better fits Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”: Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (4) Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar" a better fit for King Nabonidus? Well, that is fine by me, since I have identified Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus. Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus And Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-2), was Nebuchednezzar’s son, Belshazzar (Baruch 1:11, 12), was Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar: https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2022/who-wrote-the-book-of-daniel-part-3-the-prayer-of-nabonidus “… R. P. Dougherty published some ancient Babylonian documents that proved that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and ruled Babylon while his father was gone for ten years in Tema in Arabia”. King Ashurbanipal himself, of course, campaigned at length in Arabia, and this all needs to become far better known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurbanipal “Assyrian interests in the Levant and other western territories were at times challenged on account of Arab tribal groups raiding Assyrian territories or disrupting trade. On occasion, the Assyrian army intervened, deposing and replacing problematic tribal rulers.[71] Ashurbanipal oversaw two campaigns against Arab tribes, though their chronology is somewhat uncertain and his narrative of these conflicts was altered over the course of his later reign. The Arabian campaigns have received relatively little attention from modern historians but they are the conflicts with the most lengthy and detailed accounts in Ashurbanipal's own writings.[72] Ashurbanipal's first campaign against the Arabs was conducted some time before the war with Shamash-shum-ukin, primarily against the Qedarites.[71] Ashurbanipal's earliest account of his campaign against the Qedarites was created in 649 BC and describes how Yauta, son of Ḫazaʾil, king of the Qedarites, revolted against Ashurbanipal together with another Arab king, Ammuladdin, and plundered the western lands of the Assyrian Empire. According to Ashurbanipal's account, the Assyrian army, together with the army of Kamas-halta of Moab, defeated the rebel forces. Ammuladdin was captured and sent in chains to Assyria but Yauta escaped. In the place of Yauta a loyal Arabian warlord called Abiyate was granted kingship of the Qedarites. Ashurbanipal's account of this conflict is markedly different from the accounts of his other campaigns: the phrase "in my nth campaign" (otherwise always used) is missing, the defeat of the enemy is explicitly attributed to the army rather than to Ashurbanipal personally, and Yauta escapes rather than being captured and/or executed.[73] A second version of the narrative, composed a year later, also includes that Ashurbanipal defeated Adiya, a queen of the Arabs, and that Yauta fled to another chieftain, Natnu of the Nabayyate, who refused him and remained loyal to Ashurbanipal. Even later versions of the narrative also include mentions of how Yauta previously revolted against Esarhaddon, years prior. These later accounts also explicitly connect Yauta's rebellion to the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin, placing it at the same time and suggesting that the western raids by the Arabs were prompted by the instability caused by the Assyrian civil war.[74] In both accounts, the Qedarite lands were thoroughly plundered at the conclusion of the war.[71]” [End of quote] See, here, how failure to put together all of the Humpty Dumpty broken pieces, that is, Ashurbanipal as Esarhaddon, necessitates historical duplicating: “Even later versions of the narrative also include mentions of how [the Arabian] Yauta previously [sic] revolted against Esarhaddon, years prior”. Such instances of history repeating itself, which Mark Twain assures us does not happen, led me to write the following article: More clues in support of my view that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king https://www.academia.edu/108468804/More_clues_in_support_of_my_view_that_Esarhaddon_and_Ashurbanipal_were_one_and_the_same_king Getting back to the Chaldean king’s son, Belshazzar, he is also known as Amēl Marduk (Evil Merodach), son of Nebuchednezzar. He is a biblical character and is archaeologically attested as well: AI Overview Amēl-Marduk, known in the Bible as Evil-Merodach, was a Babylonian king who ruled for two years and is recorded in 2 Kings and Jeremiah for his release of Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah, from prison. The biblical account states that in the first year of his reign, Evil-Merodach allowed Jehoiachin to live in the palace and receive regular food, which may have been influenced by a Judean official in his own household. Now, the very biblical incident of King Nebuchednezzar’s lengthy absence from his kingdom (due to temporal insanity) may be found when prince Amēl-Marduk had to take charge of the kingdom for a time: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified https://www.academia.edu/119197085/Nebuchednezzars_madness_historically_identified “… 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. This whole situation, Nebuchednezzar and Amēl-Marduk, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, recurs yet again with Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin, horrendously reconstructed by historians as Ashurbanipal’s older brother in charge of Babylon. No, Shamash-shum-ukin was, in fact, his son, the Crown Prince, who had to take the reins at Babylon for the time when Ashurbanipal was incapacitated, and was: Not able to shake the hand of Bel https://www.academia.edu/119201480/Not_able_to_shake_the_hand_of_Bel 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. Shamash-shum-ukin was also the last king of Assyro-Babylonia, Sin-sharishkun, was also Belshazzar, similarly thought to have died in defence of his capital. And here comes another duplication. According to standard history, we are told that: “Aššur-etil-ilāni was succeeded by his brother Sîn-šar-iškun under uncertain, though not necessarily violent, circumstances”. While that is largely true as it reads, it urgently needs to be explained. For Aššur-etil-ilāni was, guess who?: Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (5) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani It is thus correct - but quite wrongly construed by historians - that Esarhaddon (Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli)/Ashurbanipal was succeeded by his, not “brother”, but son, Shamash-shum-ukin/Sîn-šar-iškun. Sîn-šar-iškun’s tragic end was exactly that of Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchednezzar. Here is another example of historical duplicating (Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal): https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004430761/BP000011.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOopc-ZA2OHLN-N-coa6jmAUU2vDoc71iNf-SEWS826fP05boYHwj Depression at the Royal Courts of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Greta Van Buylaere While the concept of depression as a clinical diagnosis is unknown in Meso- potamia, descriptions of the symptoms of depression in cuneiform medical records demonstrate that Assyrians and Babylonians were familiar with the phenomenon. These medical descriptions are remarkably objective: subjec- tive feelings and thoughts are absent in Mesopotamian descriptions of men- tal illness. Such subjective feelings and thoughts of a depressive nature are, however, found in letters and literary sources. For this paper, I focus on Neo- Assyrian documents from emotionally depressed men living at the royal courts of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. The kings themselves are known to have suf- fered from bouts of depression and several scholars like Adad-šumu-uṣur and his son Urdu-Gula wrote of their unhappiness and despair in letters to the kings. Their depression was triggered by illness, grief, stress, job loss, social pres- sure, etc. The vocabulary used in these “personal” documents partly overlaps with that of the medico-magical corpus, but the expression ḫīp libbi is used dif- ferently. …. Nowhere, I think, do we get a more graphic account of the Great King’s terrible illness than in the case of: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchenezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar “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 The following piece on our king’s paranoia, though not of itself a laughing matter, is quite funnily presented here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/611-ancient-dms/transcript/ …. DAVID DAMROSCH: The Assyrians, because of the way they’d set up their whole economy, were truly a militaristic state. And the state really required constant warfare to bring in more and more goods. So, they wanted to project an image of almost totalitarian power. And the text that they wrote for publication project infinite power–the infinite sagacity on the part of the king–the infinite loyalty on the part of the king’s ministers. JOE ROSENBERG: But remember, the tablets that were found also contain the private palace records. And the story they tell is quite different than the image the Assyrians were publicly projecting because, at this specific moment in history we’ve gone back to here, there’s a king named Esarhaddon. And it turns out that the all-powerful Esarhaddon was almost hilariously neurotic. ROMAN MARS: His DMs reveal a different king than what was presented out front. JOE ROSENBERG: Yeah, and that’s putting it mildly. DAVID DAMROSCH: Esarhaddon was terminally indecisive. And he was also the most powerful person in the world. But he worries about everything. JOE ROSENBERG: So, just to give you the flavor of Esarhaddon, David told me about this one letter he writes to his chief scribe where, basically, Esarhaddon was getting ready to invade yet another country but then, when he was exiting the palace, a mongoose apparently passed under his chariot. ROMAN MARS: I hate it when that happens! JOE ROSENBERG: I know, it’s the worst. And apparently this one little thing is enough to totally freak him out because he immediately starts asking his chief priest, “What could this mean? You know, I’ve heard it said that a mongoose passing under your legs is a bad omen. So, maybe we shouldn’t invade? Then again, technically, the mongoose passed under my chariot not my legs, so maybe it’s okay. I don’t know what to do now, what do you think?” And the advisor writes back, and this is from the actual tablet, “As to what my lord the king wrote to me, does the omen, if something passes between the legs of a man, apply to something that came out from underneath the chariot? It does apply.” ROMAN MARS: Oh… JOE ROSENBERG: However, he goes on to say that Esarhaddon has it all backwards and not to worry because this is actually a bad omen for his enemies. “So, should we say mercy for the Nabateans? Why? Are they not hostile kings? They will not submit beneath my lord the king’s chariot.” And this letter is basically par for the course for Esarhaddon. His whole reign was pretty much him endlessly over-interpreting omens. DAVID DAMROSCH: And Esarhaddon… If lightning strikes a distant town, Esarhaddon takes it personally. He writes a letter to one of his advisors who writes back, “As to what my lord the king wrote to me, why does the king look for trouble? Why does he look for it in a peasant’s hut? There’s no evil inside the palace. And when has the king ever visited that town?” So, the poor advisor is, you know… Nothing escapes the king’s worry. ROMAN MARS: I mean, the advisor is actually surprisingly blunt with the most powerful man in the entire known world. JOE ROSENBERG: Yeah, it’s true. And we actually know that the advisor who wrote that last one was a guy named Balasi, who clearly was one of the few people who can speak this frankly with the king. And his letters to him appear to grow more and more impatient. So, for example, at another point, there’s this minor earthquake, apparently, which sends Esarhaddon into one of his spirals. DAVID DAMROSCH: And now Balasi replies in tones of complete exasperation. “Was there no earthquake in the times of the king’s fathers and grandfathers? Did I not see earthquakes when I was small?” And you see his advisors writing to each other, saying, “Why is the king like this? What can we do? Why is he so worried about an earthquake in the south of the country? How can we stop this? How can we reassure him?” ROMAN MARS: I mean, the level of detail here is just amazing. Like, these are exchanges between people that are 2,500 years old. And you really feel like you’re getting a window into, like, an unhealthy level of neuroses and paranoia from Esarhaddon, which is, of course, bad for him but potentially devastating to everyone around him. JOE ROSENBERG: Yes. Although in his defense, like a lot of pathologically neurotic people, he’s not being totally illogical either in his case when it comes to worrying about omens because Lisa says that you have to understand that, back then, no matter what you believed, the stakes around omens were really high. LISA WILHELMI: If you live in a world where everything is influenced by the divine and there is no question as to the involvement of divinity in what happens on Earth, then the omen literature and the divination and its processes are very political. They are what drives politics. ROMAN MARS: Oh, I see. So, there wasn’t really an option to ignore omens, even if you wanted to. JOE ROSENBERG: Correct. And another part of Esarhaddon’s problem is he himself, as a boy, grew up in a time of plots and counterplots and splinter groups. You know, his own father was killed by one of his brothers in a coup. ROMAN MARS: Hmm. JOE ROSENBERG: But ultimately for Esarhaddon, all of these considerations only drive him, you know, deeper into his neuroses. And he just grows increasingly–and really illogically–suspicious of basically every person in his orbit. So, in addition to obsessing over omens, he is also commissioning multiple independent oracles and cross-checking the results so that the gods can tell him who on his staff might be betraying him. And the small print on Esarhaddon’s oracle requests? It’s just wild. So, here, I just want you to read this one. ROMAN MARS: Okay. “Shamash, great lord. Give me a definitive answer to what I ask you. Will any of the eunuchs, or the bearded officials, the king’s entourage, or any of his brothers and uncles, or junior members of the royal line, or any relative of the king whatever, or the prefects, or the recruitment officers, or his personal guard, or the king’s chariot men, or the keepers of the inner gates, or the keepers of the outer gates, or the attendants and lackeys of the stables, or the cooks, confectioners, and bakers, the entire body of craftsmen, or their brothers, or their sons, or their nephews, or their friends, or their guests, or their accomplices make an uprising and rebellion against Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and kill him? That’s a long list of people he does not trust. …. Little wonder, then, that King Ashurbanipal’s famous library was stacked with medical and related texts: AI Overview The Library of Ashurbanipal contains significant medical texts, most notably the fragmented Nineveh Medical Encyclopaedia. These 7th-century BC texts are the world's most systematised medical literature prior to Galen, comprising diagnostic descriptions, therapeutic prescriptions with drug preparation details, medical incantations, and ritualistic healing procedures. The collection offers insights into Assyrian drugs, symptomology, prognosis, and the influence of Mesopotamian medicine on later traditions.