Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified

by Damien F. Mackey “… officials … bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”. British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom. For example we read this somewhat inaccurate account at: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king …. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. …. As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father. William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136): NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf …. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince" through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king. There is no doubt about Belshazzar's importance while he governed Babylonia during his father's absence, but the question remains - did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. …. Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar. And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson. For, as I wrote in my recent article: Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar (4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”. This led me to conclude - based on a strikingly parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar. I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975): Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered "bad" (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis. Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime. Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon - though not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar? See also my article: The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified (4) The 'Jonah incident' historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Bible Belting into shape Belshazzar

“This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible”. Zack Duncan I (Damien Mackey) think that, with a few tweaks, the following (2024) article by Zack Duncan can really work: https://medium.com/@zduncan/who-was-belshazzar-c82d7dc23574 Belshazzar: The Fictional Babylonian King Who Actually Lived …. Belshazzar was having a party in Babylon on the night the Achaemenid Persians assumed power from the Babylonians. He’s become a pretty popular guy in the 2,500+ years since his death in 539 BC. At least, he’s more popular than he used to be. That’s because many scholars long believed him to be a historical forgery and wrote him off. This article reviews the context surrounding Belshazzar and the more recent archeological discoveries that attest to who he was and confirm the historical accuracy of the long-maligned account in the Bible. For this to all make sense, you’ll need to mark four important Babylonian names as we go along: • Belshazzar (our protagonist) • Belteshazzar (a very similar name and a very different person) • Nabonidus (one of the reasons many doubted in a historical Belshazzar) • Nebuchadnezzar (the OG Babylonian king) So, Who Was Belshazzar? Belshazzar was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. His name meant “Baal protect the king.” For thousands of years he was only known in the Bible, where he is recorded as throwing quite the party. Here’s how it’s told in the book of Daniel: King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. 2 While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. 3 So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. [Source: Daniel 5: 1–3] Why did Belshazzar have gold and silver from Jerusalem at this party? The answer is connected to one of our other important names: Nebuchadnezzar Who was Nebuchadnezzar and What Was His Connection to the Party? Belshazzar’s ancestor, Nebuchadnezzar II, was the second emperor in the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Mackey’s comment: Nebuchednezzar so-called II was actually the first. His predecessor, Nabopolassar, was an Assyrian, Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from 605 BC until his death in 562 BC. Belshazzar was likely his grandson, through his daughter (Nitocris). [Note: Daniel 5 calls Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar, which is a generic word meaning ancestor. It’s the same word that it used in Daniel 2:23 → To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise…] Mackey’s comment: Belshazzar was Nebuchednezzar’s direct son (cf. Baruch 1:11, 12) Nebuchadnezzar, known to history as Nebuchadnezzar the Great, was renowned for his building prowess and his military campaigns. One of those military campaigns was through the home of the Jews. He defeated Judah and captured the city of Jerusalem around 600 BC. The city was destroyed and the residents forcibly deported to Babylon. This is how the beginning of the book of Daniel records the events. The treasures from the temple in Jerusalem even get a mention here. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility — 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians [Source: Daniel 1: 1–4] The Jews had been living in Babylon since that time. In the Babylonian captivity they were expected to conform to the culture of Babylon and acknowledge the gods of Babylon. It was this culture that took center stage 23 years [more like 3-4 years] after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, at Belshazzar’s party with the temple goblets. Below is Rembrandt’s famous painting depicting Belshazzar at his banquet. Rembrandt’s Painting of Belshazzar’s Feast Rembrandt painted “Belshazzar’s Feast” around 1638. His only source was the Bible, since nothing else discovered in the historical record to that point attested to his existence. The goblets make their appearance. But Belshazzar is far more focused on the wall behind him. A disembodied hand writes on the wall. We’ll come back to those words later. Belshazzar summoned one of the Jewish exiles, Daniel, who had a reputation for deciphering divine symbols and visions. The Daniel credited as the author of the book of Daniel. The same Daniel who was known as Belteshazzar in Babylon. Belteshazzar vs. Belshazzar Belshazzar (“Baal protect the king”) was the king in Babylon the night the empire fell to the Persians. Belteshazzar (“Bel protects his life”) was the Babylonian name given to the Jewish exile named Daniel. Mackey’s comment: Scholars say that Belteshazzar is not, in fact, a Bel name, more like, say, a Balatu- construct. Part of the cultural assimilation process for the captive Jews was getting a new Babylonian name. Daniel chapter 4 makes it clear that Daniel and Belteshazzar were one and the same in another account when he is called to help Nebuchadnezzar understand his dreams. 19 Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for a time, and his thoughts terrified him… [Source: Daniel 4:19] Ok, you say. These are some hard to pronounce names. The hand writing on the wall is bizarre. But the general framework of the story seems plausible. Why were the historians so hard on poor Belshazzar? Why didn’t they believe him to be real? For that, we need to introduce our fourth Babylonian name: Nabonidus. Who Was Nabonidus? According to ancient historians, it was Nabonidus — not Belshazzar — who was the last king of Babylon. Here are some of those sources: • Herodotus of Halicarnassus (480–429 BC) is known as the “Father of History.” He called Nabonidus the last king of Babylon. Of note, he called him king Labynetus, which was Greek for Nabonidus. • Another Greek historian Xenophon (430–355 BC) agrees that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. He says that he was killed when the Achaemenid Persians took Babylon. • The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus (37–100 AD) also claimed that Nabonidus to be the last king of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: The whole solution is to recognise Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar, and Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, as Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (6) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here’s Nabonidus worshipping the symbols of the sun and moon gods. He was very real and there is plenty of evidence in the archeological record to validate his existence. What does the Bible say about Nabonidus? Nothing. The Bible doesn’t mention him. Mackey’s comment: The Bible has a lot to say about Nabonidus, as Nebuchednezzar. And that seemed like a big problem for the Bible. Especially since it has a character named Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon who didn’t appear in any sources outside the Bible. Not only did Belshazzar seem like a fiction, but it followed that the book of Daniel and the Bible as a whole was just a myth. Here’s what more recent historians had to say about Daniel based on Belshazzar. Criticism of Daniel I came across the following remarks saying that Daniel has “no historical basis whatever.” Thanks to this article for compiling the quotes. There is no historical basis whatever, on which such an account can rest. The whole must be pure fiction [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850] And again, it’s called a “palpable forgery.” But a man like Belshazzar would never have received such an ominous prediction from the mouth of Daniel, and have rewarded him for it. The whole thing is a palpable forgery, got up merely to magnify Daniel. [Source, Cäsar von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 1850] It’s the presence of Belshazzar that seems to definitively prove that the “whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author.” The name Belshazzar is a mistaken one. The name of the last king was Nabonned. The writer has given us a mere figment instead of a real name. The whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them. [Source, Frederic William Farrar 1831–1903, Expositor’s Bible: The Book of Daniel.] All of history knew the last king’s name to be Nabonidus! At least, that was until the Nabonidus Cylinder was discovered in the latter half of the 19th century. The Nabonidus Cylinder J.G. Taylor made an important discovery in the ancient city of Ur, located in southwest Iraq. While exploring the foundation of a ziggurat in Ur, Taylor discovered four identical cuneiform cylinders. Historians estimate they had been deposited in the four corners of the ziggurat in 540 BC. Here’s how the inscription ends: As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son — my offspring — instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit ant cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude. [Source, livius.org] Belshazzar was redeemed! The account from the cylinders makes it clear that he was, in fact, the eldest son of Nabonidus. But that left one more problem. The Bible calls Belshazzar a king. How could that be when Nabonidus was the king? That mystery was unraveled by another discovery. A cuneiform tablet that was discovered in ancient Nineveh, by modern day Mosul, Iraq. The Verse Account of Nabonidus Years after the discovery of the Nabonidus cylinder, 45 clay tablets were discovered that detailed major events in Babylonian history. Within these Babylonian Chronicles — now located at the British Museum — was something called called the Verse Account of Nabonidus. Here’s what that says about the reign of Nabonidus: …when the third year was about to begin — he entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Tayma deep in the west. [Source, Verse account of Nabonidus, livius.org] Towards the end of his reign as king of the Babylonian empire, Nabonidus “turned to Tayma”, which … is in what it now northwest Saudi Arabia today. Nabonidus “let everything go” and “entrusted the kingship” to Belteshazzar. …. This was a highly unusual arrangement. Somehow Belshazzar, and Nabonidus, were both ruling as kings of Babylon. Nabonidus ruling from the outskirts of the empire of Babylon. Belshazzar as king of the greatest city in the empire, which was also called Babylon. So There Were Two Last Kings of Babylon? Yes. …. Belshazzar had the same royal power as his father. While not officially named as such, the Verse Account of Nabonidus makes it clear that Nabonidus gave him powers of the king. Other documents confirm the same. Belshazzar could grant royal privileges identical to those granted by kings. One preserved document, which regards the granting of the privilege to cultivate a tract of land belonging to the Eanna temple in Uruk, is virtually identical to similar privileges issued by Nabonidus, though it is specified to have been issued by Belshazzar. As he could lease out temple land, this suggests that Belshazzar, in administrative matters, could act with full royal power. [Source: Wikipedia] And since Nabonidus was away in Tayma for more than 10 years, Belshazzar had plenty of time to cement his status as the authority figure in the city of Babylon. Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that this was only a temporary situation until King Nebuchadnezzar returned to full power. Years later, after he had died, his son Belshazzar, as Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach), become sole ruler of the kingdom (cf. 2 Kings 25:27), for a few short years. A position he retained until the night of the feast. How Did Belshazzar Die? Belshazzar died the night of his big feast. Let’s now get back to that mysterious hand on the wall. Here is how the Bible orders the events in Daniel 5: • Belshazzar’s massive party is interrupted by the hand writing on the wall: 5 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. [Daniel 5: 5–6] • Belshazzar calls for someone who can read the mysterious writing. He summons Daniel and promises him great rewards if he can read the writing. And Daniel responds making it clear he’s not interested in the rewards (Belshazzar had offered to make him the 3rd highest ruler in the kingdom). 17 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. [Daniel 5:17] • And Daniel gives the meaning of the words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN 23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. And, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” (Daniel 5:30). Can the Bible Be Trusted? On the surface, this story seems like a perfect case study for why the Bible is only a collection of legends. There are claims of a king who was unknown to history. Who, in fact, the historical record seemed to completely disprove based on the existence of Nabonidus. There’s a seemingly fanciful account of a mysterious hand writing on a wall. And there’s an almost more ludicrous claim that the heavily fortified city of Babylon could fall in a single night. After all, Babylon was had incredibly thick and high walls and was considered impregnable. The Euphrates river ran through Babylon, making it almost impervious to siege. Surely, if a city like that would fall it would make months of extended warfare. Years. Mackey’s comment: The Bible tells only of the King, not the city of Babylon, falling in a single night. And yet, as the years have rolled on, the evidence has proven otherwise. As it turns out, Belshazzar did indeed exist. And he was reigning over the city of Babylon when it fell to the Medes and Persians. Somehow, he was the last king of Babylon despite Nabonidus also having claim to the same title. Mackey’s comment: No. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar. The outlandish contention that the city could fall in a single night is validated by other sources. Both Herodotus and Xenophon talk about a surprise attack, where the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates river allowing the soldiers to march into the city through the dry river bed. What better time to do that than when all the leaders of the city are getting drunk at a massive party. That just leaves the mysterious hand on the wall. Like all matters of faith, there is no objective proof. There are reasons to believe. There is evidence that the overall story is beyond the natural realm. And there is also no conclusive proof. If you don’t believe there is more to the world than what we can see, you surely cannot believe that a disembodied hand can be sent from God. You can’t believe in God at all, since He is by definition outside of natural explanation. He is supernatural. But perhaps it makes you think. Because the Bible, as it turns out, was the only source that had all the accurate information in one place. Not Herodotus. Not Xenophon. Not the Babylonian Chronicles. They all had pieces. Only the Bible had it all. It just took over two thousand years for the rest of the archeological record to catch up. It makes me think about other things the Bible says are true. Things that might seem fanciful. That could never be true. But what if they are true as well? What if everything else is just a piece of the ultimate Truth? What is real Truth is found in Jesus? What if what Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Philippi is actually going to happen one day? What if the evidence will finally all be revealed and we’ll all see that it is actually all true? …so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2: 10–11] If you’re wrestling with all of it, try asking Him. Not the Jesus of political power or the Jesus who you hope might make you rich, but the real Jesus. And see what He can do.

Daniel was the wisest of the wise

by Damien F. Mackey Whilst Daniel, qua Daniel, is not accorded a specific tribe, nor is he given a genealogy, or even a patronymic, I have concluded - following the Septuagint version of Bel and the Dragon wherein Daniel is called a priest, the son of Habal - that Daniel was a Levite, a priest. The prophet Daniel is thought to have departed the official scene, at least, early in the Medo-Persian era (c. 555 BC): “The last mention of Daniel in the Book of Daniel is in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1)”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure) “Rabbinic sources suppose that he was still alive during the reign of the Persian king Ahasuerus (better known as Artaxerxes – Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 15a, based on the Book of Esther 4, 5), when he was killed by Haman, the wicked prime minister of Ahasuerus (Targum Sheini on Esther, 4, 11)”. During the reign of Nebuchednezzar “Daniel and his friends refuse the food and wine provided by the king of Babylon to avoid becoming defiled. They receive wisdom from God and surpass "all the magicians and enchanters of the kingdom".” Whilst Daniel, qua Daniel, is not accorded a specific tribe, nor is he given a genealogy, or even a patronymic, I have concluded - following the Septuagint version of Bel and the Dragon wherein Daniel is called a priest, the son of Habal - that Daniel was a Levite, a priest. We read a standard version of Daniel’s life in the court of kings at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_(biblical_figure) The Book of Daniel begins with an introduction telling how Daniel and his companions came to be in Babylon, followed by a set of tales set in the Babylonian and Persian courts, followed in turn by a set of visions in which Daniel sees the remote future of the world and of Israel. …. …. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among the young Jewish nobility carried off to Babylon following the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. …. The four are chosen for their intellect and beauty to be trained in the Babylonian court, and are given new names. Daniel is given the Babylonian name Belteshazzar (Akkadian: … Beltu-šar-uṣur, written as NIN9.LUGAL.ŠEŠ), while his companions are given the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Daniel and his friends refuse the food and wine provided by the king of Babylon to avoid becoming defiled. They receive wisdom from God and surpass "all the magicians and enchanters of the kingdom." Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a giant statue made of four metals with feet of mingled iron and clay, smashed by a stone from heaven. Only Daniel is able to interpret it: the dream signifies four kingdoms, of which Babylon is the first, but God will destroy them and replace them with his own kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a great tree that shelters all the world and of a heavenly figure who decrees that the tree will be destroyed; again, only Daniel can interpret the dream, which concerns the sovereignty of God over the kings of the earth. When Nebuchadnezzar's son King Belshazzar uses the vessels from the Jewish temple for his feast, a hand appears and writes a mysterious message on the wall, which only Daniel can interpret; it tells the king that his kingdom will be given to the Medes and Persians, because Belshazzar, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, has not acknowledged the sovereignty of the God of Daniel. The Medes and Persians overthrow Nebuchadnezzar and the new king, Darius the Mede, appoints Daniel to high authority. Jealous rivals attempt to destroy Daniel with an accusation that he worships God instead of the king, and Daniel is thrown into a den of lions, but an angel saves him, his accusers are destroyed, and Daniel is restored to his position. [End of quote] Whilst this basically sums up the best known part of the career of Daniel (the Book of Daniel), there is significantly more now that will actually need to be added to the situation, I believe, from both a biblical and an historical perspective. First of all I should like to recall my expansion of King Nebuchednezzar to include the alter ego of that mighty neo-Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal. This enables for, inter alia, the historical identification of the strongly biblically-attested conquest of Egypt by Nebuchednezzar - but which is all but missing from the Chaldean records. King Ashurbanipal is, of course, famous for his utter devastation of Egypt, all the way down to the city of Thebes (c. 664 BC, conventional dating). Secondly, I have recently identified the prophet Daniel with the governor, Nehemiah (despite the conventional separation here of some 150 years): Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel (2) Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This now means that the “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” of the Book of Nehemiah was Nebuchednezzar of Babylon, and not a later Persian king. So, Daniel’s life during the reign of “Nebuchadnezzar” must now include, as well, the governorship of Nehemiah during years 20-32 of the reign of the king of Babylon, a phase not covered in the Book of Daniel (Nehemiah 5:14): “I was governor from the 20th year until the 32nd year that Artaxerxes was king. I was governor of Judah for twelve years”. Already, even during the mid-reign of Nebuchednezzar - and not some 150 years later in the Persian era (c. 440 BC) - the utterly destroyed city of Jerusalem had begun to be re-built, thanks to the intercession of Daniel-Nehemiah, a great favourite of the king of Babylon. Young Daniel and the Susanna Incident “As [Susanna] was being led to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel, and he cried aloud: ‘I am innocent of this woman’s blood’.” Daniel 13:45-46 Another incident that belongs to the time of Daniel’s youth, in Babylon - hence also during the reign of Nebuchednezzar - when the Jewish sage is described (in Theodotion’s version) as “a young boy [παιδαρίου] named Daniel”, is encountered in the story of Susanna. The story reads as follows (with a few of my comments added to it): http://www.usccb.org/bible/daniel/13 In Babylon there lived a man named Joakim, who married a very beautiful and God-fearing woman, Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah; her parents were righteous and had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses. Joakim was very rich and he had a garden near his house. The Jews had recourse to him often because he was the most respected of them all. Mackey’s comment: I have identified this highly “respected” Jew, Joakim, as the Mordecai of the Book of Esther, and Susanna, his wife, as Hadassah, the future Queen Esther. For, according to Jewish tradition, Mordecai was actually married to Hadassah (Esther). See e.g. my article: Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther (2) Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That year, two elders of the people were appointed judges, of whom the Lord said, “Lawlessness has come out of Babylon, that is, from the elders who were to govern the people as judges.” These men, to whom all brought their cases, frequented the house of Joakim. When the people left at noon, Susanna used to enter her husband’s garden for a walk. When the elders saw her enter every day for her walk, they began to lust for her. They perverted their thinking; they would not allow their eyes to look to heaven, and did not keep in mind just judgments. Though both were enamored of her, they did not tell each other their trouble, for they were ashamed to reveal their lustful desire to have her. Day by day they watched eagerly for her. One day they said to each other, “Let us be off for home, it is time for the noon meal.” So they went their separate ways. But both turned back and arrived at the same spot. When they asked each other the reason, they admitted their lust, and then they agreed to look for an occasion when they could find her alone. One day, while they were waiting for the right moment, she entered as usual, with two maids only, wanting to bathe in the garden, for the weather was warm. Nobody else was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her. “Bring me oil and soap,” she said to the maids, “and shut the garden gates while I bathe.” They did as she said; they shut the garden gates and left by the side gate to fetch what she had ordered, unaware that the elders were hidden inside. As soon as the maids had left, the two old men got up and ran to her. “Look,” they said, “the garden doors are shut, no one can see us, and we want you. So give in to our desire, and lie with us. If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was here with you and that is why you sent your maids away.” “I am completely trapped,” Susanna groaned. “If I yield, it will be my death; if I refuse, I cannot escape your power. Yet it is better for me not to do it and to fall into your power than to sin before the Lord.” Then Susanna screamed, and the two old men also shouted at her, as one of them ran to open the garden gates. When the people in the house heard the cries from the garden, they rushed in by the side gate to see what had happened to her. At the accusations of the old men, the servants felt very much ashamed, for never had any such thing been said about Susanna. When the people came to her husband Joakim the next day, the two wicked old men also came, full of lawless intent to put Susanna to death. Before the people they ordered: “Send for Susanna, the daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim.” When she was sent for, she came with her parents, children and all her relatives. Susanna, very delicate and beautiful, was veiled; but those transgressors of the law ordered that she be exposed so as to sate themselves with her beauty. All her companions and the onlookers were weeping. In the midst of the people the two old men rose up and laid their hands on her head. As she wept she looked up to heaven, for she trusted in the Lord wholeheartedly. The old men said, “As we were walking in the garden alone, this woman entered with two servant girls, shut the garden gates and sent the servant girls away. A young man, who was hidden there, came and lay with her. When we, in a corner of the garden, saw this lawlessness, we ran toward them. We saw them lying together, but the man we could not hold, because he was stronger than we; he opened the gates and ran off. Then we seized this one and asked who the young man was, but she refused to tell us. We testify to this.” The assembly believed them, since they were elders and judges of the people, and they condemned her to death. But Susanna cried aloud: “Eternal God, you know what is hidden and are aware of all things before they come to be: you know that they have testified falsely against me. Here I am about to die, though I have done none of the things for which these men have condemned me.” The Lord heard her prayer. As she was being led to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel, and he cried aloud: “I am innocent of this woman’s blood.” All the people turned and asked him, “What are you saying?” He stood in their midst and said, “Are you such fools, you Israelites, to condemn a daughter of Israel without investigation and without clear evidence? Return to court, for they have testified falsely against her.” Then all the people returned in haste. To Daniel the elders said, “Come, sit with us and inform us, since God has given you the prestige of old age.” But he replied, “Separate these two far from one another, and I will examine them.” After they were separated from each other, he called one of them and said: “How you have grown evil with age! Now have your past sins come to term: passing unjust sentences, condemning the innocent, and freeing the guilty, although the Lord says, ‘The innocent and the just you shall not put to death.’ Now, then, if you were a witness, tell me under what tree you saw them together.” “Under a mastic tree,”* he answered. “Your fine lie has cost you your head,” said Daniel; “for the angel of God has already received the sentence from God and shall split you in two.” Putting him to one side, he ordered the other one to be brought. “Offspring of Canaan, not of Judah,” Daniel said to him, “beauty has seduced you, lust has perverted your heart. This is how you acted with the daughters of Israel, and in their fear they yielded to you; but a daughter of Judah did not tolerate your lawlessness. Now, then, tell me under what tree you surprised them together.” “Under an oak,” he said. “Your fine lie has cost you also your head,” said Daniel; “for the angel of God waits with a sword to cut you in two so as to destroy you both.” The whole assembly cried aloud, blessing God who saves those who hope in him. They rose up against the two old men, for by their own words Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness. They condemned them to the fate they had planned for their neighbor: in accordance with the law of Moses they put them to death. Thus was innocent blood spared that day. Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, with Joakim her husband and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of any shameful deed. And from that day onward Daniel was greatly esteemed by the people. Mackey’s comment: From this case of wise judgment, and also from the famous incident of young Daniel’s properly recounting, and interpreting, King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, Daniel became a legend even when he was yet a boy/youth. That is why the prophet Ezekiel can declare ironically to the pretentious King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:3): “You are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you!” On this, see my article: Identity of the ‘Daniel’ in Ezekiel 14 and 28 https://www.academia.edu/29786004/Identity_of_the_Daniel_in_Ezekiel_14_and_28 The wicked and conspiring “two elders” of the above story of Susanna may possibly be the ill-fated pair, Ahab and Zedekiah, as mentioned in Jeremiah 29:21: “Thus said the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, which prophesy a lie to you in my name; Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall slay them before your eyes”. During the reign of Belshazzar My solution, typically, has been to shrink the conventional neo-Babylonian sequence by identifying Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, and Evil-Merodach with Belshazzar. The Book of Daniel jumps straight from the incident of the insanity of king Nebuchednezzar (chapter 4) to the termination of the reign of king Belshazzar with the famous incident of the Writing on the Wall, followed by mention of that wicked king’s death (chapter 5). Presumably there was a fair amount of time in between, because Belshazzar, as we shall see, reigned for at least 3-4 years, and Nebuchednezzar would experience a period of greater power after his bout of madness (Daniel 4:36): “At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before”. King Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor is known to have been - the albeit poorly attested - Evil-Merodach (evil by name, evil by nature), or Awel-Merodach. The name actually means “man”, or “servant, of [the god] Marduk”, nothing to do with “evil”. But, according to the Book of Daniel, Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor was “Belshazzar” (5:1), whom, the Jewish prophet reminds (5:18): ‘Your Majesty, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor’. The simple solution would be to identify Belshazzar as Evil-Merodach, considering that both were wicked and of short reign. And, historically, there was, in fact, a royal Belshazzar who post-dated Nebuchednezzar. The only trouble is, this Belshazzar was a son of king Nabonidus, whose reign is conventionally dated to c. 556-539 BC, commencing some years after the death of Nebuchednezzar. My solution, typically, has been to shrink the conventional neo-Babylonian sequence by identifying Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, and Evil-Merodach with Belshazzar. This conforms secular history to the sequence of kings in Daniel. The Jews will “pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven” (Baruch 1:11). Apart from the Writing on the Wall incident in chapter 5, we learn nothing more personally about King Belshazzar. We are told in chapter 7, though, that Daniel “had a dream, and visions” in that king’s 1st year of reign (7:1-3): In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. …”. And again, in chapter 8, Daniel experienced “a vision” in the king’s 3rd year of reign (1-4): In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. Daniel, who had been exceedingly great in Babylon during the reign of Nebuchednezzar, and who was already a legend amongst his own people, appears to have faded into the background at the time of Belshazzar. It is “the queen” who has to remind the king (5:11): “There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods”. And king Belshazzar asks Daniel who he is: ‘Are you Daniel …?’ (vv. 13-16): “So Daniel was brought before the king, and the king said to him, ‘Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom. The wise men and enchanters were brought before me to read this writing and tell me what it means, but they could not explain it. Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom’.” During the reign of Darius the Mede ‘This is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN Here is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians’. Daniel 5:25-28 The prophet Daniel spells it out clearly here. The Chaldean kingdom has now come to an end, and the Medo-Persian one will take its place. And the Book of Daniel supplies the next specific detail (5:30): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. At first it would appear that Daniel might have been destined to live under a more serene and well-ordered ruler, after the fierce and mercurial Nebuchednezzar and his ne’er do well, son, Belshazzar. For, according to Daniel 6:1-3: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Here, at last, was a mature king who appeared to know what he was doing. Unfortunately, however, the Babylonians, as we shall find, did not like their new king. And they were jealous of Daniel. What was Daniel’s status at this time? As said, Daniel appears to have faded into the background during the reign of Belshazzar - after his phase of high exaltation during Nebuchednezzar’s reign. That all changed, though, when Belshazzar had, in a state of fright, promised to make Daniel ‘the third highest ruler in the kingdom’ (5:16). That begs the question, who held the second place in the kingdom? My solution, based on my view that king Belshazzar was the same person as Evil-Merodach, is that the exiled king of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin (or ‘Coniah’), already occupied second place. I refer to this text from 2 Kings (27-30): In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived. This is most ominous. Far from Daniel now settling into a period of peace and tranquility, he has been placed third in the kingdom - despite his protest (5:17) - but playing second fiddle to Jehoiachin: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (2) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this Jehoiachin was, according to my reconstructions, e.g.: How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history (3) How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that Haman who will almost succeed in having the faithful Jews annihilated. No doubt Haman was very much to the fore when the high officials in the kingdom, faced with the possibility of Daniel’s becoming the king’s second, organised this conspiracy (6:4-5): At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, ‘We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God’. The effect was that Daniel famously ended up in the den of lions, the king being constrained to carry out the sentence owing to the rigid Medo-Persian law (vv. 6-27). In Daniel 14, there is another account of the prophet’s being consigned to the den of lions. This takes place during the reign of king Cyrus, and it is usually considered to be an incident separate to the one narrated in Daniel 6. The background is somewhat different in that it occurs after the Babylonians had become incensed with Daniel, and with Cyrus, for the destruction of their idols, Bel and the Dragon. There is no reason, however, why this situation cannot go hand in hand with the jealousy of the king’s high officials towards Daniel, as narrated in chapter 6. The account in Daniel 14 is admittedly somewhat different from that in Daniel 6. But, as we well know, the same tale when told by two different people will result in two quite distinctive accounts. And I have argued similarly in: Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh that the Book of Genesis offers to divergent accounts, emanating from two different sources, of the one tale of the abduction of Sarai (Sarah), wife of Abram (Abraham). Is it likely that the prophet Daniel had to suffer two ordeals amongst the lions? On this, see my: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? https://www.academia.edu/24308877/Was_Daniel_Twice_in_the_Lions_Den If Darius the Mede be identified with Cyrus, as I believe he must – and some expert scholars have come this conclusion as well (Wiseman, D. J. (25 November 1957). "Darius the Mede". Christianity Today: 7–10) – then something momentous will occur in the 1st year of that king’s reign, and presumably before the den of lions’ incident. Ezra tells of it, the return from captivity (1:1-4): In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing: “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the Temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them. And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem’.” Not surprisingly Daniel’s visitation by the angel Gabriel, in that same 1st year of Darius/Cyrus, pertained to the mater of “the desolation of Jerusalem” (9:1-3, 20-23): In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom— in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. …. While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, ‘Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision …’. According to Daniel 1:21: “… Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus”. The “there” presumably refers to Babylon. From there, Daniel would have removed to Susa. But, firstly, he (as Nehemiah) had to participate in the return of the captive Jews back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2-2): “Now these are the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the exiles, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken captive to Babylon (they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to their own town, in company with Zerubbabel, Joshua, Nehemiah …”. In the 3rd year of Cyrus Daniel will experience another revelation through a vision (chapter 10). This was the same regnal year, the 3rd, as we read about early in the Book of Esther - in which king Cyrus is called “Ahasuerus” - when queen Vashti will be deposed (Esther 1:3): “… in the third year of his reign [Ahasuerus] gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present”. But Daniel would be, on the occasion of his visitation by Gabriel of that same year, geographically well apart from the king enthroned “in the citadel of Susa” (Esther 1:2). For Daniel was then “standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris” (Daniel 10:4). It would be almost a decade before the Hamanic conspiracy in the 12th year of king Ahasuerus (Esther 3:7) took its full effect. Thus we find the Benjaminite Jew, Mordecai, now stepping into the breach. See also my article: Wise Daniel reduced to pagan mythic hero (2) Wise Daniel reduced to pagan mythic hero | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Origins of the Knights Templar

by Damien F. Mackey Part One: C12th AD or time of the Apostles? Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles. Whilst there can be differing versions and variants, a typical account of the beginnings of the Knights Templar will go something like what we read here in this 2016 article: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 Secrets of the Knights Templar: The Knights of John the Baptist Soon after the Knights Templar founded their order in the Holy Land in 1118 AD they assimilated into a very ancient gnostic tradition and lineage known as the Johannite Church, which had been founded by St. John the Baptist more than a thousand years previously. The ruling patriarch of this ancient tradition when the Templar Order first formed was Theoclete. The Johannites and St. John the Baptist Theoclete met the first Templar grandmaster, Hughes de Payens and then passed the mantle of his Johannite authority to him. Hughes de Payens thus became John #70 in a long line of gnostic Johannites (the “Johns”) that had begun with John the Baptist and included: Jesus, John the Apostle, and Mary Magdalene. John was not just a name, but also an honorific title meaning “He of Gnostic Power and Wisdom.” It is related to the Sanskrit Jnana (pronounced Yana), meaning “Gnosis.” …. [End of quote] This, the “Johns”, reminds me of an English taxi driver whom I encountered at the time of my arrival in Sydney (Australia) - from Hobart via the US, Canada and Britain - in the late 70’s, who had the British quirk (at least) in those days of calling every male, “John”, including me. Immediately after telling me, “John”, what a cosmopolitan and welcoming city Sydney was, he had his head out the window loudly abusing a passing driver. Speaking of loose heads, St. John the Baptist, referred to above, lost his (Matthew 14:10-11) - had to, in fact, according to some theologians, because the great holy man, John the Baptist, was “the head of the Old Testament”. Symbolically, then, it was necessary for this “head” to be removed in order to make way for the New Testament (Matthew 11:11): ‘Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’. John the Baptist, the purpose of whose whole self-effacing life was to prepare the way for ‘the One who was to come’ (Luke 7:19), would have been horrified, would have rolled in his grave, had he learned that that ‘One’ was actually subservient to himself. Once Jesus had arrived, John’s career was ‘complete’ (John 3:29): ‘The friend who attends the Bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the Bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete’. Some sects, though, e.g. the Gnostic-like Mandaeans, seem to have perpetuated a mistaken view that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the true Messiah. There appears to be much of this sort of mentality, too, in accounts of the supposedly “Johannite” Templars. Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles: While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit’. So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism’, they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus’. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. This is already very much like the first Knights Templar of tradition: a group of pious men, followers of the Baptist, who, like Hugh (Hughes) de Payens and his first band of holy men, had an encounter with a ‘Theoclete’ (= God-Holy Spirit). Might it be even more than this? Might this ‘Theoclete’ event, the encounter with the so-called Hugh de Payens, have actually occurred in the time of the Apostles, and not in a supposed 1118 AD? It is my purpose here to explore that unconventional idea. Part Two: Hugh de Payen’s historical obscurity The incident of the founding of the Knights Templar, the encounter between Theoclete and Hugh de Payens, is simply a later appropriation (a European one) of the entrustment of the Church, by Jesus Christ himself, to Saint Peter, who was formerly a follower of St. John the Baptist. In other words, Theoclete, described as the “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugh de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. Some of the words (speeches) of Hugh de Payens can be found to match those of Saint Peter. At this stage, though, I can find no relationship between their actual names. But Hugh himself is historically problematical, anyway: A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens https://www.academia.edu/101036560/A_Huge_Pain_trying_to_find_a_history_of_Hugues_de_Payens His historical obscurity reminds me of what I have found to have been the case with the so-called ‘Ionian’ (Greek) philosophers, about some of whose lives we know virtually nothing, with little or no extant writings, leading me to conclude firmly that these were non-historical beings, often biblically-based (composite) characters. See e.g. my article: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (9) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu At the site: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-real-history-behind-the-templars/3.php we read just how obscure is this character Hugh (or Hughes) de Payens (or Payns), he also being known as “Hugo de Peanz”, or “Hugo de Pedans”, or “Hugonis de Peans”, or even “Hugh de Paganis”. (My emphasis added to following): Home Post-classical history History Behind the Templars Page 3 CHAPTER TWO Hugh de Payns Amid all the different theories about the beginning of the Templars there is one constant. The founder of the order was a certain Hugh de Payns, knight. Some say he and a few comrades first approached the patriarch of Jerusalem, asking to live a monastic life in the city. Others report the men went to Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem. Still others suggest that it was Baldwin who asked Hugh and his friends to act as protectors to the many pilgrims coming from the West to Jerusalem. In all of these, the main constant is Hugh. But who was Hugh? Where is Payns? What was his background and who were his family? What could have led him to devote his life to fighting for God? Despite his importance, even in his own day, a contemporary biography of Hugh has never been found. Nor has any medieval writer even mentioned reading one. I find this interesting because it indicates to me the uneasiness people felt about the idea of warrior monks. Other men who founded orders, like Francis of Assisi or Robert of Arbrissel, had biographies written about them immediately after their deaths. The main purpose of this was to have an eyewitness account of their saintliness in case they were suggested for canonization. Of the little that was written about Hugh, nothing was negative, but there .... does not seem to have been any sense that he was in line for sainthood. So how do we find out more about this man who started it all? The first clue we have is from the chronicler William of Tyre. He says that Hugh came from the town of Payns, near Troyes in the county of Champagne. …. William also mentions Hugh’s companion, Godfrey of St. Omer, in Picardy, now Flanders. These two men seem, in William’s eyes, to be cofounders of the Templars, but it was Hugh who became the first Grand Master. This may have been through natural leadership, but it also may have been because Hugh had the right connections. Payns is a small town in France, near Troyes, the seat of the counts of Champagne. It is situated in a fertile farmland that even then had a reputation for its wine. It’s not known when Hugh was born, or who his parents were. The first mention of him in the records is from about 1085-1090, when a “Hugo de Pedano, Montiniaci dominus,” or Hugh of Payns, lord of Montigny, witnessed a charter in which Hugh, count of Champagne, donated land to the abbey of Molesme. …. In order to be a witness, our Hugh had to have been at least sixteen. So he was probably born around 1070. Over the next few years, four more charters of the count are witnessed by a “Hugo de Peanz” or “Hugo de Pedans.” Actually, the place name is spelled slightly differently each time it appears. …. It is also spelled “Hughes.” Spelling was much more of a creative art back then. However, it’s fairly certain that these are all the same man. These show that Hugh was part of the court of the count of Champagne, perhaps even related to him. The last of these charters in Champagne is from 1113. The next time we find the name Hugh de Payns, it is in 1120 in Jerusalem. …. So now we have confirmation of the story that Hugh was in Jerusalem in 1119-1120 to found the Templars outside of later histories. However, it is not until five years later that Hugh witnesses a charter in which he lists himself as “Master of the Knights Templar.” …. In between, he is witness to a donation made in 1123 by Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the abbey of Santa Maria de Josaphat. Here Hugh is listed only by the name “Hugonis de Peans.” There is no mention of the Templars and Hugh is near the end of the list of witnesses, showing that he was not one of the most important people present. …. How did Hugh get to Jerusalem? What happened in those five years between witnessing a charter as a layman and becoming Master of the Templars? We can guess, but unless more information appears, we can’t know for certain. The most likely reason for Hugh to have gone to the Holy Land was in the company of Count Hugh. The count made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his second, in 1114. …. There is no list of his companions, but it would fit that Hugh de Payns would have been in his company. Hugh was already among those at court often enough to be a witness to the count’s donations and therefore one of his liege men. But he must have been released from his obligation to his lord for, when Count Hugh returned home, Hugh de Payns remained in Jerusalem. Why? Again, Hugh hasn’t left anything to tell us. Was it as penance for his sins? Most pilgrimages were intended as a quest for divine forgiveness. Many people have insisted that knights only went to the Holy Land for wealth, either in land or goods looted from those they conquered. But in Hugh’s case, once he decided to remain in Jerusalem he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. It is even more surprising because Hugh apparently left a wife and at least one young child behind. His wife was named Elizabeth. She was probably from the family of the lords of Chappes, land quite close to Payns. …. Their son, Thibaud, became abbot of the monastery of La Colombe….. Hugh may have had two other children, Guibuin and Isabelle, but I don’t find the evidence for them completely convincing. …. However, after founding the commandery, it appears that Hugh donated nothing more to it. He returned to Jerusalem, probably around 1130, and died in 1136. May 24 is the traditional date. The records we have from the early twelfth century give no more information on Hugh de Payns. Of course, much has been lost over the years. Some of the Templar records in Europe were destroyed after the dissolution of the order at the Council of Vienne. This doesn’t seem to have been because the information was secret or heretical, simply that it was no longer needed and the parchment could be scraped and reused. The main Templar archives, which might have had more information on Hugh, were not in Europe, however, but in Jerusalem. They were moved to Acre and then Cyprus, where they were in 1312. War and conquest ensured that anything left was scattered or destroyed. Perhaps there was once a biography of sorts of Hugh de Payns. It seems to me that someone would have wanted to tell the world more about him. What we can deduce from his actions is that he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God by protecting His pilgrims and His land. Hugh used his wealth, such as it was, and his family and social connections to make this possible. Nothing more. But, before that, some background will be needed. [End of quote] What we find in this mix is that there is no known contemporary biography of Hugh de Payens. Nor did any medieval writers ever mention having read one. Both Hugh’s place of birth and his parentage are unknown. While the above would suggest that he was French, he is variously known as Ugo of Nocera de' Pagani in Campania, southern Italy. There is a lack of evidence for the supposed two children he is thought to have fathered. All records appear to have been either lost or destroyed. This all conspires to make of Hugh de Payens, in historical terms, a very shadowy figure indeed. Legends about Hugh fit well the character of Saint Peter. For example: … he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. … he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God …. Certainly, Peter bore a sword - though he was not a Knight - and he was prepared to use it (John 18:10). And so we have: “The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword”. https://br.pinterest.com/pin/753860425100347974/ The extraordinary notion that the Knights Templar arose “to save souls … by protecting pilgrims travelling the Holy Land” (https://theconversation.com/knights-templar-still-loved-by-conspiracy-theorists-900-years-on-128582), may be due to the Apostles protecting pilgrim souls in the Holy Land by showing them “the Way”, first announced by the prophet Isaiah, but pointing to, appropriately, John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3): In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the Way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’.” When Jesus came, He identified himself as this ‘Way” (John 14:6): ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’. Theoclete ‘the living Christ’ According to the traditional view: https://warsoftherosoes.blogspot.com/2017/12/johannite-order.html "At the time of Hugh de Payers, Theocletes was the living "Christ" of the Johannites. He communicated to the founders of the Temple the ideas of a sovereign priesthood of dedicated and initiated men united for the purpose of overthrowing the bishops of Rome and the establishment of universal civil liberty. The secret object of the Johannites was the restoration of the esoteric tradition and the gathering of mankind under the one eternal religion of the world. " - Orders of the Quest, The Holy Grail (Adept Series) by Manly P. Hall pg 31 This is all later legend. Returning to the 2016 article, we read: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 The acquisition of the Johannite Church by the Knights Templar was later alluded to in Isis Unveiled by the nineteenth century esotericist Madam Blavatsky. While claiming to have learned it from ancient Kabbalistic records, Blavatsky stated: “The true version of the history of Jesus and early Christianity was supposedly imparted to Hughes de Payens, by the Grand-Pontiff of the Order of the Temple [the Johannite sect], one named Theoclete, after which it was learned by some Knights in Palestine, from the higher and more intellectual members of the St. John sect, who were initiated into its mysteries. Freedom of intellectual thought and the restoration of one universal [Gnostic] religion was their secret object. Sworn to the vow of obedience, poverty, and chastity, they were at first the true Knights of John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and living on wild honey and locusts. Such is the tradition and the true Kabbalistic version.” My comment: Whilst “Theoclete”, Jesus Christ, “the Truth”, did impart the true knowledge to his ‘knights’ (his Apostles) in Palestine, who were previously followers of St. John, the gnostic religion and Johannism of the Knights Templar, with which they have become associated, was a later devolution, as some of the early Christians fell away into apostasy and wrong thinking. Blavatsky’s history was echoed by no lesser authority than Pope Pius IX, the nineteenth century pope, who made a public statement regarding the Templars and the beginning of the Johannite “heresy” in his Allocution of Pio Nono against the Free Masons: The Johannites ascribed to Saint John the foundation of their Secret Church, and the Grand Pontiffs of the Sect assumed the title of Christos, Anointed or Consecrated, and claimed to have succeeded one another from Saint John by an uninterrupted succession of pontifical powers. He who, at the period of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, claimed these imaginary prerogatives was named Theoclete; he knew Hughes de Payens, he initiated him into the Mysteries and hopes of his pretended church; he seduced him by the notions of Sovereign Priesthood and Supreme royalty, and finally designated him as his successor.” Two Doctrines The Heretical Johannite Teachings Upon receipt of the Johannite lineage, Hughes de Payens and his Knights Templar received documents and scrolls that revealed many mysteries that had been lost, hidden, or destroyed because of their heretical content. Some of the documents revealed that John the Baptist had been born within the Essene sect of the Nasoreans or Nazarenes, which was created when an ancient Gnostic sect from the East, the baptizing Mandeans, arrived in the Holy Land and united with the Essenes. Mackey’s comment: A degree of interconnection between John the Baptist and the Essenes is certain - though it would not have been favourable: The “Essenes” in the Bible (9) The “Essenes” in the Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Mandeans apparently continued the Johannine legacy, but without the requisite conversion to Jesus Christ that John the Baptist had intended for his followers. For more on the Templars, see e.g. my article: Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD (9) Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history

by Damien F. Mackey … it enabled me to reject the popular view that Haman was an Amalekite (Agagite), as some translations have it: “… Haman the Agagite …”. Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Preview The enthralling drama of which we read in the Book of Esther begins only a few years after the demise of the last Chaldean King of Babylon, Belshazzar, and continues through Year 12 of the reign of his successor, Darius the Mede (cf. Daniel 5:30-31). The Chaldean dynasty (of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar) has now passed, and we have entered into the first phase of the Medo-Persian kingdom, instigated by Darius the Mede. In terms of the Book of Daniel chapter 8, the Medo-Persian kingdom consisting of two kings is the two-horned ram that would later be shattered by “a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes [Alexander the Great who] came from the west …” (8:5). The mighty ram, for its part, is described as follows (8:3-4): I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. This revised scenario enables us immediately to identify the leading Great King of the Esther drama, Ahasuerus (var. Xerxes). He must be Darius the Mede. Compare Daniel 6:1-2 It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. and Esther 1:1 This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush …. At this stage we cannot say anything about the other leading characters of the drama: Queen Esther; Mordecai; Haman and his wife, Zeresh; and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Queen Vashti; except to note that Queen Esther must have been a wife of king Darius the Mede. A vital perspective from Judah Basing myself upon a Jewish tradition - and a most surprising one at that - that the arch-villain Haman of the Book of Esther was actually a Jew, known to Mordecai, I eventually determined that Haman must have been the exiled Jewish king, Jehoiachin (or Coniah), known as “the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17). This insight from Jewish legend became absolutely crucial. For one, it enabled me to identify the ancestor of Haman, “Hammedatha” (Esther 3:1), as (and this was another surprise) a woman, Hammutal (Hamutal) (cf. 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1). “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …” (Esther 3:1). And, secondly, it enabled me to reject the popular view that Haman was an Amalekite (Agagite), as some translations have it: “… Haman the Agagite …”. Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Confusion has apparently arisen due to the likeness between the Greek word for Amalekite (Ἀμᾱληκῑ́της), and the somewhat similar one for Captive (αἰχμᾰ́λωτος). Haman the Captive (Esther 3:1) was Jehoiachin the Captive (I Chronicles 3:17). King Ahasuerus – zoning in on him If Haman was the former King Jehoiachin of Judah, then biological factors would limit who King Ahasuerus could possibly have been. For, when Jehoiachin was released from prison in Exile Year 37 (2 Kings 25:27-30): In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived …, he must have been [18 (2 Kings 24:8) + 37] = (approximately) 55 years of age. And Jehoiachin would have been close to 60 when Darius the Mede took over, very close to the same age as the king himself (Daniel 5:31): “… and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. At the culmination of the Esther drama, in Year 12, King Darius/Ahasuerus would have been about 74. The Judean king, Jehoiachin, must have been a hugely charismatic figure. Promoted above the rest by King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Awel-Marduk (= Belshazzar), near the end of the Chaldean era, he would experience a similar sort of exaltation not long afterwards, during the reign of King Ahasuerus of Medo-Persia (Esther 3:1): “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal] … elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles”. First Conclusion We have now determined beyond much doubt who were Haman and his female ancestor, Hammedatha. They were, respectively, King Jehoiachin and Queen Hammutal. Biologically - and for other reasons - this makes it more than likely that the Great King, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), was Darius the Mede. There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Probing the Chaldean and Judah King Lists As I have argued previously, the over-extended king list known as Chaldean: Nabopolassar; Nebuchednezzar; Amēl-Marduk; Neriglissar; Labashi-Marduk; Nabonidus when revised, and aligned with the Book of Daniel, actually represents three dynasties. Thus: Assyrian Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Chaldean Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar; Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Darius the Mede is also King Cyrus ‘the Great’: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (3) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That means that King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther was, all at once, Neriglissar (who is the Nergal-sharezer of Jeremiah 39:3); Darius the Mede; and Cyrus. That also makes it highly likely, now, that Queen Esther was the favoured wife of Cyrus, Atossa, a name that resonates nicely with Hadassah/Esther. Who Queen Esther was not She was not, as is sometimes suggested, “the queen” mentioned in Nehemiah 2:6: “Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, ‘How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?’ It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time”. This was a “king of Babylon” (13:6), the king here being Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. He and his queen belonged to an era (Chaldean) earlier than that of Queen Esther (Medo-Persian). A possible reason why “the queen” of Nehemiah 2:6 would not have been a Persian queen is given in the Matthew Henry commentary over on blueletterbible.org (a great research site!), who notes evidence from the book of Esther that it seemed to be uncommon for the queen to be in the king’s presence in a Persian court. Queen Esther is also most unlikely to have been the wife of Xerxes, Amestris. Phillip G. Kayser gives some sound reasons why this would be the case: https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/Old%20Testament/Esther/Esther%20Part%201.md “Every Xerxes advocate admits that there is one point that just doesn't seem to fit. Amestris, Xerxes wife seems to be queen longer than Scripture allows Vashti to live. Some have said that Vashti/Amestris is divorced for a while and later replaces Esther. Others have said that Esther is Amestris. But not only is Amestris a debauched, cruel and sadistic woman, she is a Persian, not a Jewess, and Amestris was around before the 7th year. I think this is a major problem for Xerxes and warrants a strike”. What makes rather tricky the identification of Medo-Persian queens is the multiplication in king lists of their king’s names, such as Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Darius. And so we find that the most compelling Esther (= Hadassah) name, Atossa (Old Persian Hutaosâ), has been connected all at once to Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Cambyses, and Darius. Who Queen Esther was With Haman now firmly fixed historically as Jehoiachin the Captive, who would have been only 18 when he went into Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 24:8-12), and about 55 when Amēl-Marduk (= Belshazzar) released him from prison (25:27-30), and close to 60 when Darius the Mede (aged 62) took over the kingdom, then, biologically, his conspiracy must have occurred during the 12-year reign of Darius the Mede (= Cyrus). This would securely establish Hadassah/Esther as the historical Atossa, said to have been “the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran”, and thought to have been the daughter (read “wife”) of King Cyrus: https://www.iranchamber.com/history/atossa/atossa.php Atossa The Celestial and Terrestrial Lady of Ancient Iran By: Shirin Bayani Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, wife of two Achamenian kings, Cambyses and Darius and mother of Xerxes is the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran. Not much is known about her life, except that she has witnessed the reign of the four first Achamenian kings and that she has played a decisive role in the long period of turbulence and significance. …. [End of quote] Since, however, there were not as many as “four first Achamenian [Achaemenid] kings”, some of these names must be duplicates, as must be the Cyrus-like Artaxerxes II (c. 445-359/8 BC, conventional dating), whose reign has been estimated (wrongly) to have occurred about 85 years after the death of Cyrus (c. 530 BC, conventional dating). Because of the chaos that historians and archaeologists have enabled to gulf Medo-Persian history, the name Atossa gets stretched about amongst various Persian names. One female of this name, Atossa, for instance, was also supposed to have been married to a Cambyses, and then, to Darius the Great: https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-the-great/4-dynastic-marriages/ Darius married three times to improve his position: 1. Atossa (Old Persian *Utautha), a daughter of Cyrus. She had already been married to her half-brother Cambyses, but the couple did not have children. …. [End of quote] Previously (2016) I wrote on these matters: Esther as Atossa Name-wise, the standout historical queen for the biblical Esther is Atossa, wife of a Persian king. The similarity between the name “Atossa” and the Hebrew name of Esther, “Hadassah”, has often been noted. However, since this Atossa is considered to have been the daughter of the relevant king Cyrus, and the wife of Darius, I have not previously felt inclined to attempt to integrate her into my historical reconstructions of the Book of Esther. That there were various queens “Atossa” in the classical sources would not concern me considering the unwarranted multiplications of kings “Artaxerxes”, and the fact that (according to my revision) king Cyrus was also called “Darius”. Anyway, some potential new light on the situation may have been shed by Richard E. Tyrwhitt in his book, Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons So Named (p. 185, IV), when he writes: To this conjecture, however, regarding the true significance of the term Daughter of Cyrus, when applied to Darius’s queen Atossa, it may be supposed to be an objection, that the surname or description is applied equally to another of his wives, Artystonè by name, whom he is said to have particularly loved and to have commemorated by a golden image. But Akhshurush [Ahasuerus], that is, Darius, had two crowned wives in succession, Vaśhti and Hadassah. That the term, “king’s daughter”, is properly applicable to a spouse is suggested in Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Psalm 45:13, at: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/45-13.htm “The king’s daughter, i.e. the spouse; so called, either because she was the daughter of one king, and the wife of another; or because the spouse or wife is sometimes called the husband’s daughter; partly because she is supposed to be younger than he; and partly because of that respect and subjection which she oweth to him, and that fatherly care and affection which he oweth to her. …”. Queen Esther (“Hadassah”) was indeed “younger than” King Ahasuerus. It was quite beyond the Greek writers, such as the so-called “Father of History”, Herodotus, to sort out the complexities of Medo-Persian history, the multiple names of its protagonists – just as it was beyond their ability properly to recall the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Syro-Palestinian histories. …. Second Conclusion Queen Esther was most likely Atossa, the famous (‘daughter’) wife of King Cyrus. Origins of Esther and Mordecai Given Mordecai’s eminence in the Medo-Persian kingdom (Esther 2:21), I had anticipated that there may have been a good chance of locating him at an earlier stage in biblical history. This led me ultimately to identify Mordecai with the wealthy and influential Joakim in Babylon, at the time of Daniel (Story of Susanna, Daniel 13:1). That meant that Joakim’s beautiful wife, Susanna, would be my standout candidate for the future Queen Esther herself, formerly the wife of Mordecai (another vital clue from Jewish legend - that Esther was the actual wife of Mordecai). For a fuller development of this new thesis, see e.g. my article Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther “ (3) Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The apparent multiplication of names for the heroine as Esther, Hadassah and Susanna, could be streamlined from three to two by recognising that, as I wrote: “Queen Esther, Ishtar-udda-sha (“Ishtar is her light”) and, thereby, Hadassah (-udda-sha), had the Hebrew name of Susanna, the husband of Joakim (= Mordecai)”. Queen Vashti Some key Jewish legends Jewish legend had enabled me to identify Haman as, most unexpectedly, a Jew known to Mordecai, as Jehoiachin the Captive, the apostate king of Judah. And this has led me further to identify the Hammedatha of Esther 3:1 as the Jewish queen, Hammutal. It also opened the door to the possibility that the combination Mordecai and his wife, Esther (according to Jewish legend), was the same as the influential and revered Jew, Joakim, and his wife, Susanna. And now we might be able to take a further ride on Jewish legend according to which Queen Vashti, the disgraced wife of King Ahasuerus, was the daughter of the ill-fated King Belshazzar: Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean (3) Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article, I wrote: Was Darius (= Cyrus = ‘Ahasuerus’) actually a ‘grandson’ (בֶּן-בְּנוֹ) of Nebuchednezzar’s? In a sense, yes, he was, if Jewish tradition is right here. For the (presumably young) wife of the 60+ year old king ‘Ahasuerus’ is alleged to have been the daughter of Belshazzar. “Vashti was born to Babylonian royalty. Her grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar, who had destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and driven the Jews into exile. Her father was Belshazzar, the last in a line of great Babylonian kings whose dramatic death is described in the Book of Daniel”. …. https://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/dt/48951881.html In (quasi-)historical terms, the suggestion has been made that Vashti may have been Queen Stateira, wife of Artaxerxes so-called II (an Ahasuerus type): Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti (5) Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Zeresh As for Haman’s wife, Zeresh, I had not been able, until now, to add to her anything more of substance (beyond what we read in the Esther drama) except that tradition has her as a daughter of Tattenai, “governor of Trans-Euphrates” (Ezra 6:13). We read about this at Chabad.org: https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/2519584/jewish/Who-Was-Zeresh.htm Who Was Zeresh? Haman's Wicked and Wise Wife By Mendy Kaminker She was a crafty woman and a classic anti-Semite. Together with her husband, Haman, she plotted to annihilate the entire Jewish nation and to hang Mordecai upon a towering gallows. Thankfully, we know how well her plans worked out in the end… Every Purim, in the Shoshanat Yaakov poem, we memorialize her wickedness by gleefully singing, “Cursed be Zeresh, wife of [Haman], who terrorized me.” Who Was Zeresh? Zeresh’s name appears twice in the Book of Esther, both times as an advisor to her husband. She is the one who suggests that Haman rid himself of Mordechai by hanging him on a gallows 50 cubits tall.1 In her second appearance, she advises him that he will never be able to vanquish Mordechai, but will instead fall ignobly.2 Combing through the classic sources, we can piece together some parts of her personality. Her father was Tattenai, “the ruler of across the river,”3 who makes an appearance in the Book of Ezra when he tries (unsuccessfully) to halt the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.4 …. This Tattenai was a genuine historical figure: https://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Tattenai.htm Recently I have peeled off these three articles on Tattenai: Tattenai and Haman paralleled (10) Tattenai and Haman paralleled | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of Ezra 6 confirmed by archaeology (10) Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of Ezra 6 confirmed by archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai (10) Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, concerning Tattenai’s presumed daughter, Zeresh, I would now propose: Zeresh, artful wife of Haman, as the Jewish Queen Nehushta (10) Zeresh, artful wife of Haman, as the Jewish Queen Nehushta | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel (10) Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Third (tentative) Conclusion Queen Vashti may have been a Chaldean, as Jewish legend has her being the daughter of King Belshazzar, the Chaldean. Quasi-historically, she may have been Queen Stateira. Zeresh is traditionally said to have been the daughter of the Trans-Euphratean governor, Tattenai, whom I have identified (above articles) as Elnathan son of Achbor: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/elnathan/ljm10494 1. [Elnathan] Son of Achbor and father of Nehushta, Jehoiakim’s queen: he begged Jehoiakim not to burn the sacred roll (2 Kings 24:8; Jer. 26:22; Jer. 36:12,25). This makes it highly likely that Zeresh, the daughter of Tattenai, was the same woman as Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan. Now, as stated earlier: There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Thus: Further filling out Haman Apart from his alter ego guise as the former King Jehoiachin (Coniah), Haman (Aman) needs to be recognised as the former King Amon of Judah: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (6) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Amon is clearly an Egyptian name, and I believe that he was given that name by pharaoh Necho, who took him, as Jehoahaz (another alter ego), a captive into Egypt. According to 2 Kings 23:34: “But [pharaoh] took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died”. I would query that he died there. 2 Chronicles 36:4 says nothing about this: “But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz with him to Egypt”. A death in Egypt would completely destroy my linking of (Amon)/Jehoahaz with Haman. If King Jehoahaz was the same as Haman, then we appear to have a very good fit here in the fact that (2 Kings 23:31): “His [Jehoahaz’s] mother’s name was Hamutal [Hammutal]”, whilst Haman was, as we know, the “son of Hammedatha [Hammutal]”. Haman was, as has been well argued (not by me), the Mehuman (Memukan) of the Book of Esther: Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 (6) Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Mordecai, for his part, may have been the historical Marduka: https://biblereadingarcheology.com/2016/03/31/mordecai-in-ancient-records/

Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel

“With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem”. We read at: http://www.thywordistruth.com/Ezra/Ezra-Esther-Lesson-19.html …. There is a very subtle irony in the picture of Haman constantly running home to ask his wife how to solve his problem. Remember how this book started out? The king and his advisors were concerned that the Vashti incident would somehow undermine the male leadership in their society! Who do we see taking charge in this book? Esther and Zeresh – Xerxes’ wife and Haman’s wife! With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem. Like Haman, Ahab also seemingly had everything – and yet he wanted just one more thing to be happy. How many have run their ships aground while searching for that one more thing! The key to contentment is to give up that never ending searching for just one more thing because whatever that one thing is, there will be another “just one thing” waiting in line behind it. You will never have enough. Haggai 1:6 – “Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.” Zeresh, like Jezebel, takes the lead in pushing Haman to do his evil deed. Notice that while Zeresh is listed last in verse 10, she is listed first in verse 14. Zeresh’s advice is very bad advice – and yet Haman follows it eagerly. In a book that begin with the goal of keeping all women in their place, Haman’s downfall is caused by two women – Queen Esther and his own wife, Zeresh. Haman’s wife proposes a public humiliation for Mordecai, so Haman builds a gallows that is as tall as his own pride – 75 feet! Critics have complained that no gallows would have been this tall – about the height of a 7-story building. But it is certainly not impossible, and it is also possible that it was built on top of a hill or a building. Haman wanted everyone to see Mordecai – and he is about to get his wish! Haman’s plans are about to run headfirst into the providence of God. It is often said that Jesus can be found on every page of the Old Testament. Is that true of Esther? Notice how Chapter 5 begins – “On the third day.” Can we not think of another, infinitely greater, champion of God’s people who arose to save them from certain death on the third day? Whether the reference to the third day here as a greater significance, we don’t know, but many commentaries speculate that it does. …. Esther 6:1-3 On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king. 2 And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s chamberlains, the keepers of the door, who sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. 3 And the king said, What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this? Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him. One commentator says that Chapter 6 is “arguably the most ironically comic scene in the entire Bible” (although Chapter 7 seems funnier to me). But we should note what another commentator said: “The book of Esther may be wickedly funny at times, but it is also deadly serious.” While Haman plots Mordecai’s death on a 75 foot gallows, the king plans to honor Mordecai for his faithful service. The unsuspecting Haman enters the king’s court, thinking the king must be planning to honor him – thinking to himself, “Whom would the king delight to honor more than me?” in verse 6. “If ever there was a picture of pride going before a fall, Haman is it.” As one commentator noted, “Here the early bird is gotten by the worm!” We begin to see here the series of seeming coincidences that we discussed in the introduction as Haman’s plan spirals out of control. The king just happens to have a sleepless night (although, as we have suggested, it might have been because of Esther’s delay in answering his question). The king just happens to have the chronicles read to him, and the service of Mordecai just happens to come to his attention at the moment Haman is plotting his death. Haman just happens to show up early and be there when the king asks for an advisor, and the king just happens to ask Haman for advice without initially mentioning Mordecai by name. Those who read the book with the eye of faith cannot miss seeing God in its pages, even though he is never named. As one commentator stated, these coincidences are the author’s cipher for “divinely arranged.” We cannot fail to see the hand of divine providence in such a series of events. Asking for the chronicles to be read would be similar to asking today for the Congressional Record to be read – and each could provide a quick cure for insomnia. Another possibility is that the king may have had a nagging feeling that he had forgotten to do something important – and perhaps he was hoping these records might refresh his recollection. Perhaps Esther’s impending request had even created this nagging feeling in the king – what did she want? What had he forgotten? Perhaps it seemed to the king that by her delay she was wanting him to come up with it on his own. Had he forgotten their anniversary? It was important for a Persian king to reward those who were loyal as a way of promoting his own safety and security on the throne. Thus, the king was understandably upset to learn that Mordecai had never been honored for foiling the assassination plot against him five years earlier. Mordecai had no doubt been disappointed himself. And why did the king fail to honor Mordecai? Once again I think we see the hand of God at work. It was important for God’s plan that Mordecai be honored at the right time. Perhaps we need to look for God’s providence in our own lives when things do not operate according to our own carefully arranged time schedule. The word “honor” in verse 3 occurs throughout the text. It first appeared in 1:4 in reference to the honor of the king. In 1:20, the word was used to describe the honor that wives should give their husbands. It is the one thing that Haman craves, but so far the word has never been applied to him. Will Haman at last receive the honor he is due – or perhaps something else he is due? ….