Monday, September 30, 2024

‘Plato’ much indebted to Jewish prophet Daniel

by Damien F. Mackey The view of certain of the Fathers of the Church, that much of Greek philosophy was borrowed from the Hebrews, has led me - with the benefit of a revised history - to be able to propose that sages who are traditionally regarded as Ionian and mainland Greek (and Italian) philosophers may have been, in their original guise, Hebrews (Israelites, Jews). Introduction From the details given in the Book of Daniel it may be argued that Daniel’s floruit as the governor of Babylon extended from early in the reign of Nebuchednezzar until the early reign of Cyrus. In conventional terms, this would be, in round figures, from 600 BC to 540 BC – approximately 60 years. King “Nebuchednezzar”, totally in awe of Daniel’s wisdom after the Jewish sage had recalled and interpreted the king’s dream, had made Daniel the ruler of Babylon (Daniel 2:48): “Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men”. V. 21: “And Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus”. The last date that the Book of Daniel gives us for its hero is the third year of King Cyrus (10:1): “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision”. Considering Daniel’s significance to Babylon and Medo-Persia, it should be possible to find in the Neo-Babylonian records a governor of Babylon of long duration, who had continued until the early reign of Cyrus. Such, at least, is my view. Less optimistic about the possibility of finding any such sort of account of Daniel (Belteshazzar) in the historical records, however, is Robert D. Wilson (Studies in the Book of Daniel, Vol. 2) http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page9d.html Was Daniel An Historical Character? There are those who doubt the historicity of Daniel upon the grounds that his name does not appear in the records of the period of the exile. One noted critic stated the case thus: "It is natural that we should turn to the monuments and inscriptions of the Babylonian, Persian, and Median Empires to see if any message can be found of so prominent a ruler, but hitherto neither his name has been discovered, nor the faintest trace of his existence." Dr. Wilson discusses this phase of the question thoroughly, looking at the various types of inscriptions that have come to us and showing that it is most unreasonable to base an argument upon the kind of data that we have, especially upon the lack of evidence. After setting forth the case in an impartial manner and discussing pro and con every possibility, Dr. Wilson draws this conclusion: "Inasmuch, then, as these inscriptions mention no one filling any of the positions, or performing any of the functions or doing any of the deeds, which the book of Daniel ascribes to its hero Belteshazzar; how can anyone expect to find in them any mention of Daniel, in either its Hebrew or its Babylonian form? And is it fair, in view of what the monuments of all kinds make known to us, to use the fact that they do not mention Daniel at all as an argument against his existence? "What about the numerous governors, judges, generals, priests, wise men writers, sculptors, architects, and all kinds of famous men, who must have lived during that long period? Who planned and supervised the building of the magnificent canals, and walls, and palaces, and temples of Babylon? Who led the armies, and held in subjection and governed the provinces and adjudged cases in the high courts of justice, and sat in the king's council? Who were the mothers and wives and queenly daughters of the monarchs who sat upon the thrones of those mighty empires? Had the kings no friends no favorites, no adulatory poets or historians, no servile prophets, no sycophantic priests, no obsequious courtiers, who were deemed worthy to have their names inscribed upon these memorials of royal pride and victory; that we should expect to find there the name of Daniel, a Hebrew captive, a citizen of an annihilated city, a member of a despised and conquered nation, a stranger living on the bounty of the king, an alien, a slave, whose very education was the gift of his master and his elevation dependent on his grace? Let him believe who can. As for me, were the documents multiplied tenfold, I would not expect to find in them any reference to this humble subject of imperious kings." [End of quotes] Let us not give up so easily. A Possible Historical Candidate for Daniel If my recent revision of Neo-Babylonian history is correct, then this should affect somewhat - but also assist, hopefully - the search for the historical Daniel. Given my argument that some of the Neo-Babylonian kings have been duplicated, and perhaps even triplicated: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel (5) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu this article being supplemented by this other one: “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel https://www.academia.edu/35847164/_Nebuchednezzar_of_the_Book_of_Daniel then one might expect the potential 60 years of floruit for Daniel as governor of Babylon to be somewhat reducible. Whilst there may not be any known governor of Babylon from the early reign of Nebuchednezzar (qua Nebuchednezzar) until the first few years of Cyrus - as I would anticipate from the Book of Daniel that there should be - however, thanks to my new identification of Nebuchednezzar (and Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”) with (Esarhaddon and) King Nabonidus: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then such an official comes right into view. He is Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who was governor of Babylon from at least Nabonidus’s 8th year until the 3rd year of Cyrus. Thus we read in the following article (http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=15087; From the contemporary cuneiform contract tablets, we know that Terike-sarrutsu was the governor (shakin mati) of Babylonia in Year 1 Nabunaid [Nabonidus] (555/4 BC). Nabu-ahhe-bullit succeeded him as office holder by Year 8 Nabunaid (548/7 BC). This man remained in office down to Year 3 Cyrus but became a subordinate of the governor Gubaru, the appointee of Cyrus, when Babylon was captured by the army of Cyrus in 539 BC. He is not to be confused with Ugbaru. [End of quote] Rather than Daniel’s having at this stage become “a subordinate” of Gubaru’s, though, he may have departed (one way or another) from the political scene. By now Daniel would have been in his 60’s or 70’s. This is how I would tentatively reconstruct the chronology of his governorship: Daniel, as Nabu-ahhe-bullit, had been appointed governor of Babylon close to the third year of Nebuchednezzar II (= Nabonidus), who reigned for 43 years. That is a service of four decades. He continued on through the 3-4 years of Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, envisaging himself in Susa (Daniel 8:1-2): “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 …”. He was still in Babylon in the 1st year of Cyrus, but then moved to Susa, Cyrus’s capital, and served the king until his 3rd year. The Name It is thought that the Babylonian name that “Nebuchednezzar” gave to Daniel, Belteshazzar, is not actually a Bel name, as definitely is Belshazzar (Bel-sarra-usur), “Baal protect the King”. That Belteshazzar is more of a balatu (“life”) type of name. Correspondingly, we read at (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/expositors/daniel/): “Thus the name Belteshazzar seems to be connected in the writer’s mind with Bel [sic], the favourite deity of Nebuchadrezzar; but it can only mean Balatu-utsur , "his life protect," which looks like a mutilation”. That does not mean that the name given to Daniel would have lacked reference to a deity. For “Nebuchednezzar” specifically said (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.)”. From this it might be expected that Daniel was given the name of the god whose name was held likewise by the king (Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus): namely, NABU. Appropriately, in the name of the long-lived governor of Babylon, Nabu-ahhe-bullit, we have both the Nabu element and the balatu-like element in bullit. This element, bullit, at least, is an appropriate one for the first part of the name, Belte-shazzar. However, there is also the Nabu-ahhe-bullit like name, Nabu-bullitsu (e.g. in Sir W. Budge’s Babylonian Life and History, Index, p. 159), that comes yet closer to Belteshazzar, which is, after all, a foreign transliteration of an originally Babylonian name. Finally, now with my revised Neo-Babylonian history, we may have virtually a perfectly matching chronology for Daniel and his proposed alter ego, Nabu-ahhe-bullit. For my most recent identifications of the prophet Daniel as the Governor of Babylon, see my articles: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (5) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Nabu ahhe bullit, Daniel as Governor of Babylon (5) Nabu ahhe bullit, Daniel as Governor of Babylon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But let us move on to Plato. * * * * * There are various articles written according to which Plato’s views were based upon, now Babylonian, now Egyptian concepts. There is, for instance: “On the Babylonian Origin of Plato's Nuptial Number”, by George A. Barton, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 29 (1908), pp. 210-219. On p. 210, the author goes so far as to write: “The passage in which Plato introduces this mystic number is said to be the most difficult passage in his writings”. Gary Geck, however, regards the land of Egypt as the place of primary inspiration for Plato: http://brightmorningstar.blog.com/2013/08/08/platos-ideal-state-based-on-egypt/ Put yourself into Plato’s shoes in the 4th Century BCE [sic]. What was the paragon of political perfection? Egypt of course, which was ancient even to Plato. Egypt was ruled by philosopher kings of a sort. The priest-class was said to have had tremendous influence over the Pharaohs. Who was the Pharaoh, but the highest of the philosopher/priests (a god even perhaps to them). It is my belief that Plato’s ideal state was based on Egypt. Several times during the Platonic works, references to Egypt are made and all paint the ancient kingdom in the light of a wise and mature state. As he writes in the Timaeus from the Egyptian perspective, “You Hellenes are ever children”. Keep in mind that Egypt had been around for thousands when Plato was writing this. A remarkable feat for any culture. And even more remarkable was the fact that Egypt remained conservative and traditional throughout this time. Egypt was the place to go for learning and spiritual initiation. Plato must have believed that Egypt’s longevity was because of their love of wisdom (Greek: philosophos). Alexander the Great choose Egypt as the location for Alexandria for good reason. Plato was said to have visited Egypt seeking knowledge [McEvoy, James (1984). "Plato and The Wisdom of Egypt" Irish Philosophical Journal (Belfast: Dept. of Scholastic Philosophy, Queen's University of Belfast)] and then returned to Athens many years before writing the Republic. …. [End of quote] Or was the influence upon Plato and the Greeks, instead, a Persian (Magian)/Babylonian mix? http://www.gnosticmedia.com/will-durant-the-story-of-philosophy-plato/ I found an interesting article about Plato on David Livingstone’s site while reading about the roots of alchemy for something that came up in the comments section of your latest show. The part I found particularly intriguing was this tidbit: “The subject of Persian or Babylonian influences had been a contentious one in the earlier part of the twentieth century. The subject currently continues to receive attention from several leading scholars, including Walter Burkert, and M. L. West. On the whole, however, the idea has yet to penetrate into mainstream circles, because of a xenophobia which insists on the unique “genius” of the Greeks. The most detailed examination of the matter had been conducted by the greatest of the last century’s scholars, Franz Cumont. His work, Les Mages Hellenisees, or the Hellenized Magi, a compendium of ancient sources on the subject, has received little attention in the English world, due to the fact that it has not been translated. This continues to mar criticism of his theories, as most critics have not read the brunt of his work. Scholars have usually dismissed the possibility of Persian influence in Greece, because of the lack of similarity between Zoroastrian and Greek ideas. However, what these scholars have failed to see, as Cumont has pointed out, is that those Magi the Greeks came into contact with were not orthodox, but heretics. The only way to reconstruct their doctrines is by accumulating the numerous remnants of comments about them in the ancient sources. By reconstructing these pieces, we find that Magian doctrines are far removed from, or even inimical, to orthodox Zoroastrian ones. Cumont discovered that these Magi practiced a combination of harsh dualism with elements of Babylonian astrology and magic, which composed a Zoroastrian heresy known as Zurvanism. It is in this strange recomposition of ideas that we find the first elements that characterized Greek philosophy. [End of quote] ‘Plato’ was most certainly a non-historical ‘composite’, like Buddha and Mohammed were, and based on various biblical (and perhaps other) characters. but I think that ‘cosmopolitan’ also well fits ‘him’. Continuing with the last quoted article above, we find the author now arguing for “a Jewish influence”, even with reference to Daniel himself: Another component which Cumont failed to identify though, was that of Jewish influence. The Magi cult of astrology and magic emerged in Babylon in the sixth century, precisely that era during which a great and prominent part of the Jewish population was there in exile. We cannot ascertain who was responsible for the introduction of these ideas, but the Bible itself identifies Daniel with one of the “wisemen”. Whatever the case may be, these ideas do appear in a recognizable Magian form initially among the Essenes, and more particularly in Merkabah mysticism, which scholars identify as the beginnings of the Kabbalah. There is little to examine the character of Jewish literature prior to the third century BC. Before that, it is in Greece where we find the elaboration of these ideas.” “Plato the Kabbalist” http://www.thedyinggod.com/node/105 [End of quote] Let us consider some possible Danielic and other Hebrew influences upon what are now regarded as the writings of Plato. What follows will be basically in line with earlier articles of mine, such as: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (5) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Hebrew Bible as an Inspiration for Ancient Greek Philosophy (5) Hebrew Bible as an Inspiration for Ancient Greek Philosophy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Plato and Hebrew Wisdom The writings of “Plato”, whoever he may have been, were undoubtedly influenced by Hebrew wisdom. Here we consider some likenesses to the Book of Job, for instance, before passing on to the Book of Daniel. To presume to translocate so-called ‘Greek’ philosophy, to Babylonia, or to Egypt, or to Syro-Palestine, are moves that are probably not going to go down well with many. A reader immediately responded to an early effort of mine along these lines (e-mail of 25 March 2010): …. I have not had much of an introduction before to your other theses on the identities of various historical personages. I must admit to being somewhat sceptical of the Plato theory. I think you would need more than a few parallelisms to make such a case. I think the historical evidence would be in favor of the fact that Plato and Aristotle were living breathing Greeks, the latter being Alexander’s tutor in Macedonia …. In an article written at this time I had supported: (i) St. Clement of Alexandria’s view that Plato’s writings took their inspiration from the Hebrew Moses, and (ii) St. Ambrose’s belief that Plato had learned from the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt; a belief that was initially taken up by St. Augustine, who added that (iii) Greek philosophy generally derived from the Jewish Scriptures. And, though St. Augustine later retracted his acceptance of St. Ambrose’s view, realising that it was chronologically impossible for Jeremiah (c. 600 BC) to have met Plato anywhere, considering the c. 400 BC date customarily assigned to Plato, I had, on the other hand, looked to turn this around by challenging the conventional dates, and by proposing an identification of ‘Plato’ as (in part) Baruch, a Jew, the young priest-scribe contemporaneous with Jeremiah. This reconstruction - which I have not been able properly to develop - would have, if it had proved legitimate, enabled me to take the testimony of the Fathers a positive step further. From the Book of Jeremiah we learned that Jeremiah and Baruch went together to Egypt. ‘Plato’ - a ‘composite’ character, anyway, according to my estimation - may have both Daniel and Baruch likenesses. Baruch, after all, is sometimes considered to have been another great sage of antiquity, Zoroaster. Later I learned that St. Justin Martyr had, even earlier than the above-mentioned Church Fathers, espoused this view of the Greek philosophers borrowing from the biblical Hebrews. And Justin Martyr too, had, like Plato, written an Apology (Apologies), in Justin’s case also apparently (like Plato) in regard to a martyrdom. Thus we read: http://beityahuwah.blogspot.com/2005/08/plato-stole-his-ideas-from- Plato Stole his ideas from Moses: True or False …. The belief that the philosophers of Greece, including Plato and Aristotle, plagiarized certain of their teaching from Moses and the Hebrew prophets is an argument used by Christian Apologists of Gentile background who lived in the first four centuries of Christians. Three key figures who presented this thesis are Justin Martyr “The most important second¬ century apologist” {50. Grant 1973}, Titus Flavius Clemens known as Clement of Alexandria "the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher" (11, Robert 1857) and is renowned as being possibly the teacher of Origen. He was born either in Alexandria or Athens {Epiphs Haer, xxii.6}. Our final giant who supports this thesis is Eusebius of Caesarea known as the father of Church history. Each of these in their defense of the Christian faith presented some form of the thesis that the philosophers of Greece learned from the prophets of Israel. Our interest in this paper is on the arguments of the earliest of these writers, Justin Martyr. He represents the position of Christian apology in the middle of the second century, as opposed to the later Clement of Alexandria and the even later Eusebius of Caesarea. In light of the stature and the credibility of these three Church Fathers even if the idea that Plato learned from Moses seems far fetched we would do well to take a closer look at the argument and the evidence presented by such men of stature. Justin was a philosopher who came from a pagan background. He issued from Shechem in Palestine. He was a marvelous scholar in his own right well read and well qualified to make informed judgments in the arena of philosophy. Our purpose is to briefly look at the theses presented by Justin Martyr and to try to discern the plausibility of the thesis. Justin Martyr and the line Plato took from Moses. Justin Martyr was a prolific second century Apologist. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria. Well known for the local Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and a temple built by Hadrian to Zeus Hypsistos. He later passed through Stoicism and the way of Aristotle’s disciples the Peripatetics and was rejected as unqualified to study Pythagoreanism and finally he met a Platonist with whom he advanced in his studies. To him the goal of Platonism was "the vision of God". One day he met a Christian on the beach and was converted to the faith. He did not become a priest or bishop but took to teaching and defending the faith. Text He wrote many works and many more bear his name. However modern scholarship has judged that of the many works that bear his name only three are considered genuine. These are 2 Apologies and the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. They are preserved in one manuscript of the year 1364 (Cod Par, gr. 450). Language Justin wrote in Greek, and right in the middle of the period of philosophy called Middle Platonism. The book in which he outlines his thesis that Moses and the prophets were a source for the Greek Philosophers is his first Apology. It is dated to 155-157 BC and was addressed to "The Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antonius Pius Caesar Augustus, and the sons Verissimus, philosopher, philosopher, and Lucius" Grant (52, 1973). Context Grant (1973) believes the reason which triggered the Apology was the martyrdom of Polycarp in 156 AD and the injustice of it during the bishopric of Anicetus. Even as this martyrdom and its report may have spurred Justin on to write so it had been that it was on seeing the fortitude of the Christian martyrs which had disposed him favorably towards the faith (Ap 2.12.1). …. In the Apology 1 Justin gives the reason for his writing “I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused; my self being one of them" (Apology 1 chap). The Apology 1 is divided into 60 chapters. The translation we are using is that of the Ante Nicene Fathers and can be seen at www.ccel.org The topics covered are many. He starts in chapter 2 by demanding justice, he requires that before the Christians are condemned they should be given a fair trial to see if they have committed any crimes or not. They should not be condemned merely for being Christian. He covers many subjects including: the accusation Christians were Atheists, faith in God; the Kingdom of Christ; God’s service; demonic teachings; Christ's teachings and heathen analogies to it; non Christian worship; magic; exposing children, the Hebrew prophets and their prophecies about Christ, types of prophetic words from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This brings us to about chapter 38. At this point Justin begins to cover the issue of determinism and free will. He argues that although the future was prophesied it does not mean every thing is determined according to fate and man has no responsibility for he has no choice. Rather he points to Moses revealing God's choice to Adam "Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good”. (Apol 1 44) And he quotes lsaiah's appeal to Israel to wash and be clean and the consequences of doing so or not doing so. The consequences of disobedience are that the sword would devour Israel. Justin picks up on the statement regarding the sword and argues that it is not a literal sword which is referred to but “the sword of God is a fire, of which those who choose to do wickedly will become the fuel” (Apol 1 44). Justin having appealed to Moses and Isaiah as a warning to the Roman rulers now appeals to one with whom they are more familiar, Plato the philosopher, to support his case that man is free to choose good or evil. It is here that Justin makes a most interesting and intriguing statement rallying Plato to the side of Moses and Isaiah, in the eyes of the sons of the Emperor whom he calls philosophers. And so, too, Plato, when he says, “The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless” took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories. …. He appears to be making the claim that Plato who has “exerted a greater influence over human thought than any other individual with the possible exception of Aristotle” (Demos, 1927.vi} was dependent for his understanding of freewill and responsibility on Moses. The saying "the blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless (Aitia helomenou Theos d' anaios) {Joann. Mdcccxlii,224}" was taken from Moses by Plato and uttered it {eipe}". [End of quote] I shall continue with this commentary later in this article, when I come to discuss one of Plato’s famous Myths. Plato and Likely Borrowings from the Book of Job There can be a similarity in thought between Plato and the Jewish sages, but not always a similarity in tone. Compared with the intense atmosphere of the drama of the Book of Job, for instance, Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues, such as the Protagoras, brilliant as they may be, come across sometimes as a bit like a gentlemen’s discussion over a glass of port. W. Guthrie may have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction to Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin, 1968), when he wrote (p. 20): … a feature of the conversation which cannot fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and good temper. The keynote is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not always forthcoming without a struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for the signs of displeasure on the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them, is careful not to press his point, and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. …. [End of quote] Compare this gentlemanly tone with e.g. Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities [which supposed types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’ (22:5). In Plato’s dialogues, by contrast, we get pages and pages of the following sort of amicable discussion taken from the Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369): [Socrates] ‘Justice can be a characteristic of an individual or of a community, can it not?’ [Adeimantus] ‘Yes’. [Socrates] ‘And a community is larger than an individual?’ [Adeimantus] ‘It is”. [Socrates] ‘We may therefore find that the amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier to recognize. I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’. [Adeimantus] ‘That seems a good idea’, he agreed. …. Though Protagoras is a famous Sophist, whose maxim “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, and of those that are not that they are not” (Plato’s Theaetetus 152), I have often quoted in a philosophical context {– and also in}: Worshipping the Artifact (5) Worshipping the Artifact | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu this Protagoras, however, may actually be based upon - according to my new estimation of things - the elderly Eliphaz of the Book of Job. Whilst Eliphaz was by no means a Sophist along the Greek lines, he was, like Protagoras with Socrates, largely opposed to his opponent’s point of view. And so, whilst the God-fearing Eliphaz would never have uttered anything so radical or atheistic as “man is the measure of all things”, he was, however, opposed to the very Job who had, in his discussion of wisdom, spoken of God as ‘apportioning out by measure’ all the things that He had created (Job 28:12, 13, 25). Now, whilst Protagoras would be but a pale ghost of the biblical Eliphaz, some of the original (as I suspect) lustre does still manage to shine through - as with Protagoras’s claim that knowledge or wisdom was the highest thing in life (Protagoras 352C, D) (cf. Eliphaz in Job 22:1-2). And Guthrie adds that Protagoras “would repudiate as scornfully as Socrates the almost bestial type of hedonism advocated by Callicles, who says that what nature means by fair and right is for the strong man to let his desires grow as big as possible and have the means of everlastingly satisfying them” (op. cit., p. 22). Eliphaz was later re-invented (I think) as Protagoras the Sophist from Abdera, as a perfect foil to Socrates (with Job’s other friends also perhaps emerging in the Greek versions re-cast as Sophists). Protagoras stated that, somewhat like Eliphaz, he was old enough to be the father of any of them. “Indeed I am getting on in life now – so far as age goes I might be the father of any one of you …” (Protagoras 317 C). That Eliphaz was old is indicated by the fact that he was the first to address Job and that he also referred to men older than Job’s father (Job 15:10). Now, just as Fr. R. MacKenzie (S.J.) in his commentary on “Job”, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, tells of Eliphaz’s esteem for, and courtesy towards, Job (31:23): Eliphaz is presumably the oldest of the three and therefore the wisest; he is certainly the most courteous and the most eloquent. He has a genuine esteem for Job and is deeply sorry for him. He knows the advice to give him, the wisdom that lays down what he must do to receive relief from his sufferings. [End of quote], so does Guthrie, reciprocally (I suggest), say: “Protagoras – whom [Socrates] regards with genuine admiration and liking” (op. cit., p. 22). But, again, just as the righteous Job had scandalised his three friends by his levity, according to St. Thomas Aquinas (“Literal Exposition on Job”, 42:1-10), “And here one should consider that Elihu had sinned out of inexperience whereas Job had sinned out of levity, and so neither of them had sinned gravely”, so does Guthrie use this very same word, “levity”, in the context of an apparent flaw in the character of Socrates (ibid., p. 18): There is one feature of the Protagoras which cannot fail to puzzle, if not exasperate, a reader: the behaviour of Socrates. At times he treats the discussion with such levity, and at other times with such unscrupulousness, that Wilamowitz felt bound to conclude that the dialogue could only have been written in his lifetime. This, he wrote, is the human being whom Plato knew; only after he had suffered a martyr’s death did the need assert itself to idealize his character. [End of quote] Job’s tendency towards levity had apparently survived right down into the Greek era. Admittedly, the Greek version does get much nastier in the case of Thrasymachus, and even more so with Callicles in the Gorgias, but in the Republic at least it never rises to the dramatic pitch of Job’s dialogues with his three friends. Here is that least friendly of the debaters, Thrasymachus, at his nastiest (Republic, Bk. I, 341): [Socrates] Well, said I, ‘so you think I’m malicious, do you Thrasymachus?’ [Thrasymachus] ‘I certainly do’. [Socrates] ‘You think my questions were deliberately framed to distort your argument?’ [Thrasymachus] ‘I know perfectly well they were. But they won’t get you anywhere; you can’t fool me, and if you don’t you won’t be able to crush me in argument’. [Socrates] ‘My dear chap, I wouldn’t dream of trying’, I said …. Socrates and Plato are similarly (like the Sophists) watered down entities by comparison with the Middle Eastern originals. Such is how the Hebrew Scriptures end up when filtered through the Greeks, [and, in the case of Plato, perhaps through the Babylonians before the Greeks, hence a double filtering]. Even then, it is doubtful whether the finely filtered version of Plato that we now have could have been written by pagan Greeks. At least some of it seems to belong clearly to the Christian era, e.g. “The just man … will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned … and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified” (Republic, Bk. 2, 362). I submit that this statement would not likely have been written prior to the Gospels. “Plato and Porphyry each made certain statements which might have brought them both to become Christians if they had exchanged them with one another”, wrote St. Augustine (City of God, XXII, 27). What is clear is that the writings of Plato, as we now have them, had reached an impressive level of excellence and unparalleled literary sophistication. Thus we read in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan and Free Press, 1967, V. 6), article “Plato” (p. 332): Plato As a Writer Greek prose reached its highest peak in the writings of Plato. His flexibility, his rich vocabulary, his easy colloquialism, and his high rhetoric, his humor, irony, pathos, gravity, bluntness, delicacy and occasional ferocity, his mastery of metaphor, simile and myth, his swift delineation of character – his combination of these and other qualities put him beyond rivalry. … [End of quote] Much may be owed here, however, to the Hebrew books, such as Job, which appears to have exerted a heavy influence upon Greek literature. See e.g. my article: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit Plato and Images From Daniel Could the mysterious name, “Plato” - he probably being a ‘composite’ character – be actually derived from the first element (Belte-) in the prophet Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar? That may be a long shot. It is inconceivable, I would suggest - and certainly Justin Martyr seems to have been of this opinion - that it was a pagan Greek who was the first to argue strongly for the immortality of the soul, as is sometimes accredited to Plato’s Socrates. Or to have been the first one to have discovered the four cardinal virtues. As noted earlier in this article, Daniel’s given name, Belteshazzar, is of course “a foreign transliteration of an originally Babylonian name”. That Babylonian name, as I suggested there, may have been Nabu-ahhe-bullit, the name of the governor of Babylon, which Daniel was. What I intend to do primarily in this article is to take some of the most picturesque and famous images from the Book of Daniel, and see if we can find an echo of these in the life and writings of Plato. I refer to such images as King Nebuchednezzar’s Statue of Four Diverse Metals representing kingdoms (Daniel 2); King Belshazzar and the ‘Writing on the Wall’ (Daniel 5); and Daniel’s Vision of the Four Beasts (Daniel 7). Let us now try to re-locate ‘Plato’ to what may well have been his proper Near Ancient Eastern environment, as Belteshazzar, in Babylonia. Plato’s Usage of Key Images from the Book of Daniel ‘Plato’ Derived from a Babylonian Name Though ‘Plato’ is generally considered to have been the real name of the great philosopher, historian Julia Annas, who entirely accepts this, tells however of a “surprisingly substantial minor tradition” that (and this is more in accordance with our own view) “‘Plato’ was a nickname which stuck”. Thus she writes (Plato. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2003, pp. 12-13): Name or nickname? Plato’s name was probably Plato. The ‘probably’ may surprise you; how can there be any doubt? Plato’s writings have come down to us firmly under that name. But within the ancient biographical tradition there is a surprisingly substantial minor tradition according to which ‘Plato’ was a nickname which stuck, while the philosopher’s real name was Aristocles. This is credible; Plato’s paternal grandfather was called Aristocles, and it was a common practice to call the eldest son after the father’s father. We have, however, no independent evidence that Plato was the eldest son. And ‘Plato’ does not appear to be a nickname; it turns up frequently in the period. Further, the explanations we find for it as a nickname are unconvincing. Because ‘Plato’ suggests platus, ‘broad’, we find the suggestion that Plato had been a wrestler known for his broad shoulders, or a writer known for his broad range of styles! Clearly this is just guessing, and we would be wise not to conclude that Plato changed his name or had it changed by others. But then what do we make of the Aristocles stories? We don’t know, and can’t tell. And this is frustrating. A change of name is an important fact about a person, but this ‘fact’ slips through our fingers. Our ancient sources about Plato often put us into this position. There are plenty of stories in the ancient biographies of Plato, and frequently they would, if we could rely on them, give us interesting information about Plato as a person. But they nearly always dissolve at a touch. [End of quote] This is quite telling. One so often finds that the textbook historians have to conclude on a disappointing note like she does, because, owing to their pursuit of someone in the wrong era, or in the wrong country, they end up chasing ghosts through mists; exactly as this writer describes it here, “they … dissolve at a touch”. I claim instead, through a revision that corrects dates and finds the ‘other halves’ of historical people, to be rendering full-blooded characters, with substantial (auto)-biographical information; people who produce deeds and writings of zeal and passion. The name ‘Plato’ did, I suggest, come about by the philosopher’s having his name “changed by others”, as Julia Annas has said above, but which she rejects as an option. Here, I believe, is the original historical account of it: it is the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. (Daniel 1:3-7): Then the king [Nebuchednezzar] commanded his palace master Ashpenaz to bring some of the Israelites of the royal family and of the nobility, young men without physical defect and handsome, versed in every branch of wisdom, endowed with knowledge and insight, and competent to serve in the king’s palace; they were to be taught the literature and language of the Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of food and wine. They were to be educated for three years, so that at the end of that time they could be stationed in the king’s court. Among them were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah [not of the tribe of Judah as the NRSV has it but] of the sons of Judah. The palace master gave them other names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego. These were, I submit, real historical people. And I have tentatively identified Daniel as the long-serving governor of Babylon: Nabu-ahhe-bullit. Professor William Shea claims also to have identified Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, Daniel’s friends, in ‘a five sided clay prism found in Babylon and now housed in the Istanbul museum. It gives a list of men and their titles. Three men listed on the prism have pronunciations which Shea thinks are very similar to the names of Daniel’s three friends. (http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/meshach_shadrach_abed-nego.htm). This biblical era is in fact extremely well attested historically - against the constant assertions that the Bible is not historical - by the abundance of seals and inscriptions naming many of the characters who appear in the Book of Jeremiah; not least of which being a seal of ‘Baruch son of Neriah’ (cf. Jeremiah 36:11; Baruch 1:1). The name Plato may have been, I have most tentatively suggested, taken from one element in Daniel’s given name, Belteshazzar. We might expect now that there was at least a double filtering of the original Daniel, from firstly the Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaïc) recording of him through Babylon, then, secondly, from Babylon through Greece. And we could possibly add a further one, from pagan Greece to Greece of the early Christian era. So, while we could no longer expect the now highly processed and much refined Plato to be a dazzling reflection of Daniel, we might still, nonetheless, expect to find a discernible echo of this Daniel in Plato. From the above scriptural text of Daniel 1 we learn that the young Jew and his confrères were either of the royal line, or aristocratic (possibly how Plato’s other name, Aristocles, and that of his father, Ariston, arose). The young men comprised a highly educated, skilled and wise élite. And their experience would now be vastly augmented in their new culture, with a different language and mythology, in the intense atmosphere of a tyrant king’s court. {No wonder that the Republic of Plato is filled with discussions of tyranny and tyrant kings! (E.g. Book 8, § 8 and Book 9, § 9)}. Note the emphasis, too, on education, which is also a major feature of the Republic; especially in the context of the Book of Daniel, as education for effective rulership, for competency in the king’s court – i.e., the education of the philosopher statesman. It has been said that Plato may even have had kings David and Solomon in mind when writing about ‘the Philosopher King’. More chronologically proximate, though, would be this incident of the brilliant young Daniel and his friends being educated towards governorship, to which Daniel managed fully to attain. Who better than Daniel, anyway, would have qualified for Plato’s philosopher-statesman! Here is the account of his marvellous statesman-like ability in Daniel 6:3-4: 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. 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. IMAGE ONE: NEBUCHEDNEZZAR’S STATUE OF VARIOUS METALS (Daniel 2) Daniel was, like Joseph in Egypt, an interpreter of dreams (another Platonic feature). But, whereas the seemingly benign ‘Pharaoh’ had actually told Joseph of what his dreams had consisted, King “Nebuchednezzar” had demanded that his wise men both recall the Dream and then interpret it: a seemingly impossible task, and one well beyond the powers of the Chaldean sages. But Daniel was up to it (Daniel 2:31-33): ‘You were looking, O king, and lo! there was a great statue, its brilliance extraordinary; it was standing before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. …’. Such was the Dream. Daniel then interpreted it for the king as representing successive kingdoms, with Nebuchednezzar’s present Chaldean kingdom being the head of gold. Similarly Plato, but under far less dramatic circumstances once again, proposes this very same sequence of metals; but he applies them to classes of men, not kingdoms. Plato does not actually call this a Dream, but “a fairy story like those the poets tell about”. Here is how it goes (Republic, Bk. 3, 415): ‘You are, all of you in this land, brothers. But when God fashioned you, he added gold in the composition of those of you who are qualified to be Rulers (which is why their prestige is the greatest); he put silver in the Auxiliaries, and iron and bronze in the farmers and the rest. Now since you are all of the same stock, though children will commonly resemble their parents, occasionally a silver child will be born of golden parents, or a golden child of silver parents, and so on. Therefore the first and most important of God’s commandments to the Rulers is that they must exercise the function as Guardians with particular care in watching the mixture of metals in the characters of their children. If one of their own children has bronze or iron in its make-up, they must harden their hearts, and degrade it to the ranks of the industrial and agricultural class where it properly belongs: similarly, if a child of this class is born with gold or silver in its nature, they will promote it appropriately to be a Guardian or an Auxiliary. For they know that there is a prophecy that the State will be ruined when it has Guardians of silver or bronze’. [End of quote] Surely King Nebuchednezzar himself was being entirely Platonic in his command for the selection of the ‘golden boys’ of Israelite youth for education towards their holding a position in the king’s court! Similarly, too (cf. use of “promote” and “degrade” in Plato above), Nebuchednezzar “honoured those he wanted to honour, and degraded those he wanted to degrade” (Daniel 5:19). Perhaps Plato derived the classes of descending order of metal refinement from an interpretation of Nebuchednezzar’s statue that would suggest that the lower down the statue one goes, the less superior the kingdom. But what is sometimes translated as “inferior” may not necessarily be the correct interpretation, given for instance the might of the later Persian Empire. So perhaps the Dream should be interpreted as meaning, not inferior, but lower down on the statue, and thus pertaining to chronology. This would be a tactful way to explain it to King Nebuchednezzar, at least, who would assuredly not want to have heard that any subsequent kingdom might turn out to be superior to his own. But note the “prophecy” in Plato above (Nebuchednezzar’s Dream entailed a prophecy of future history) that “the State” - currently the golden head - can “be ruined” by the “silver” and “bronze” entities. Daniel, but also Plato according to his biography, had contact with a succession of powerful kings. These they tried to influence for good, with greater or lesser success. Daniel’s kings, real historical characters, belonged to the successive Chaldean, Medo-Persian empires that featured as metals in Nebuchednezzar’s statue. Plato’s kings were, typically in relation to the Greeks, situated further westwards on the Mediterranean, in Sicily. Arguments might be advanced for Plato’s kings, Dionysius I and II, and the chief minister, Dion, to represent either the Judean or the Mesopotamian rulers (Dion being an official) of Daniel’s era. Their similarity of names could perhaps suggest the Judean succession of similar names: Jehoiakim and his son, Jehoiachin, and the relative Zedekiah (= Jehozedek). But it might be rather hard to identify amongst these Chaldeans Plato’s Dion, who quite enthusiastically, apparently, embraced Plato’s blueprint for rulership, and who, according to Guthrie, “invited [Plato] to come and train Dionysus II … as a philosopher-statesman” (op. cit., p. 16). Or the Platonic succession of rulers could represent Nebuchednezzar and Belshazzar, with perhaps Darius the Mede included. For example, Dionysius I, from whom Plato “learned something of tyranny at first hand”, might well stand for Nebuchednezzar, “an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world” (Daniel 3:32). The brother-in-law, Dion, may have been a Median king, such as Darius the Mede, with whose nation the Chaldean line had intermarried. Darius, like Dion, was favourable to Daniel. Dionysius II, of whom Plato completely despaired, could then be Belshazzar of the ‘Writing on the Wall’ notoriety, whom Daniel took to task for not learning from his father’s mistakes. What’s in a Name? So far, I have historically identified Daniel in Babylon as the long-ruling governor of that city, Nabu-ahhe-bullit, with Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, having been derived, in part, from the bullit element in that name. And, taking that first element of Belteshazzar, Belte-, I have suggested that this might be from where was derived the mysterious name (likely a given name) of “Plato”. And, more significantly, I am in the process of showing that some of the key images of Plato’s dialogues are reminiscent of some of the most famous incidents in the Book of Daniel. Daniel’s given name, Belteshazzar, which is not in fact a Bel- name, appears to me to be a very poor foreign reconstruction of an original Babylonian name. IMAGE TWO: KING BELSHAZZAR AND THE WRITING ON THE WALL (Daniel 5) The Chaldean rulers of Babylon, as they are presented in the Book of Daniel, are a most interesting psychological study. The autocratic and tyrannical Nebuchednezzar eventually goes mad (4:28-33), but later returns to his senses and is said to have exalted the Most High God (vv. 34-37). His son, Belshazzar, however, is a ne’er do well from beginning to end, whom Daniel reprimands for his stubbornness and pride. Plato’s Meno It seems to me that the evil Chaldean king, Belshazzar, might find an echo in the person of Meno, in Plato’s Meno. He is not a king there, but a man of some power, nonetheless, a friend of the ruling family of Thessaly, and he has connections interestingly with the king of Persia (read Media?). Guthrie tells of Meno as follows (Introduction to Plato. Protagoras and Meno, Penguin, 1968, pp. 101-102): … The character of Meno, as a wealthy, handsome and imperious young aristocrat, visiting Athens from his native Thessaly, is well brought out in the dialogue itself. He is a friend of Aristippus, the head of the Aleuadae who were the ruling family in Thessaly, and his own family are xenoi (hereditary guest-friends) of the Persian king, a tie which must have dated from the time of Xerxes, who made use of Thessalian hospitality on his expedition against Greece. He knows the famous Sophist and rhetorician Gorgias, who had stayed at Larissa in Thessaly as well as meeting him in Athens. From Gorgias he has acquired a taste for the intellectual questions of the day, as seen through the eyes of the Sophists, whose trick question about the impossibility of knowledge comes readily to his lips. Xenophon tells of his career as one of the Greek mercenaries of Cyrus and gives him a bad character, describing him as greedy, power-loving, and incapable of understanding the meaning of friendship. This account is probably prejudiced by Xenophon’s admiration for the Greek leader Clearchus, a grim and hardly likeable character, whose rival and personal enemy Meno was. There were rumours that Meno entered into treacherous relations with the Great King [of Persia], but he appears to have been finally put to death by him after the failure of the expedition, though possibly later than his fellow-prisoners. [End of quote] ‘Bad character’, ‘greedy’, ‘power-loving’ ‘unloyal friend’, ‘connected with a Persian (Median) king’, but then ‘slain and replaced by the king of the Persians (Medes)’, all of this fits King Belshazzar and his replacement by Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31). Belshazzar’s greed and his love of power and flattery is clearly manifest in this description of his great feast, one of the most celebrated feasts in history and in the Old Testament (Daniel 5:1-4): King Belshazzar made a great festival for a thousand of his lords, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. Under the influence of the wine, Belshazzar commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father Nebuchednezzar had taken out of the Temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the Temple, the House of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. Obviously Meno could not match this sort of opulence and grandeur; but Socrates does say of him – and this is immediately before Socrates begins to write in the sand: “I see that you have a large number of retainers here” (Meno, 82). We can gain some impression of King Belshazzar’s treacherous nature from Daniel’s pointed address to him (vv. 18-23): ‘O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchednezzar kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty. And because of the greatness that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. He killed those he wanted to kill, kept alive those he wanted to keep alive, honoured those he wanted to honour, and degraded those he wanted to degrade. But when his heart was lifted up his spirit was hardened so that he acted proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was stripped from him. He was driven from human society, and his mind was made like that of an animal. His dwelling was with the wild asses, he was fed grass like an oxen, and his body was bathed with the dew of heaven, until he learned that the Most High God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals, and sets over it whomever He will. And you, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this! You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven! The vessels of his Temple have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them. 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 power is your very breath, and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honoured’. Daniel would, on this occasion, have had the full attention of the whole company since these words of his were spoken just after King Belshazzar and his court had witnessed the terrifying apparition of the ‘Writing on the Wall’ whilst in the midst of their blasphemous celebration. Here is the description of it. And does it have a resonance anywhere in Plato? (vv. 5-9): [As they were drinking the wine and praising their gods]: Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace next to the lampstand. The king was watching the hand as it wrote. Then the king’s face turned pale, and his thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners; and the king said to the wise men of Babylon, ‘Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom’. Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king the interpretation. Then King Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face turned pale, and his lords were perplexed. This fascinating life and death encounter I think may have inspired the whole drama of the (albeit pale by comparison) Meno. Instead of the miraculous ‘Writing on the Wall’ of the Chaldean king’s palace, though, we get Socrates writing in the sand. Instead of the words that name weights and measures indicating the overthrow of a great kingdom, we get a detailed lesson in geometry. Instead of the stunned and terrified Chaldean king, we get Meno, who tends to be similarly passive in the face of the Socratic lesson. Instead of the exile, Daniel, we get Meno’s slave boy seemingly providing a confirmation of the matter, under the skilful prompting of Socrates. Daniel enters the palace’s banquetting hall preceded by his reputation, though now somewhat faded from memory (as in the case of Joseph with the new Oppressor Pharaoh, Exodus 1:8). And Meno is aware of the legendary reputation of Socrates. Let us compare the two accounts, taking firstly the biblical one (vv. 10-16): The queen, when she heard the discussion of the king and his lords, came into the banquetting hall. The queen said, ‘O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face grow pale. There is a man in your kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchednezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, because an excellent spirit, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation. Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, ‘So you are Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard of you that a spirit of the gods is in you, and that enlightenment, understanding, and excellent wisdom are found in you. Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and tell me its interpretation, but they were not able to give the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you are able to read the writing and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around your neck, and rank third in the kingdom’. Now Meno, supposedly focussing on the subject of virtue, tells of what he knows of Socrates’ enigmatic reputation, and it, too, like Daniel’s, has connection with “magic” (see quote above and 4:9), and Meno himself feels numb and weak, just like Belshazzar, so lacking in virtue (or “moral goodness” as in quote below) (Meno, 80): Meno. Socrates, even before I met you they told me that in plain truth you are a perplexed man yourself and reduce others to perplexity. At this moment I feel that you are exercising magic and witchcraft upon me and positively laying me under your spell until I am just a mass of helplessness. If I may be flippant, I think that not only in outward appearance but in other respects as well you are exactly like the flat sting-ray that one meets in the sea. Whenever anyone comes into contact with it, it numbs him, and that is the sort of thing that you seem to be doing to me now. My mind and my lips are literally numb, and I have nothing to reply to you. Yet I have spoken about virtue hundreds of times, held forth often on the subject in front of large audiences, and very well too, or so I thought. Now I can’t even say what it is. In my opinion you are well advised not to leave Athens and live abroad. If you behave like this as a foreigner in another country, you would most likely be arrested as a wizard. Socrates. You’re a real rascal, Meno. On the occasion of Socrates’ writing in the sand, which I think must have originated from the ‘Writing on the Wall’ in the Book of Daniel, we have as the audience, Meno (whom I am equating with King Belshazzar), and his “large number of retainers” (Belshazzar’s large court), and the writing about to be effected due to a query from Meno. And, in a sense to interpret it, we get, not Daniel a former exiled slave, but Meno’s own slave boy, a foreigner (like Daniel) who however speaks the native language (like Daniel). The issue has become the immortality of the soul and whether it pre-exists the body, as manifest in someone’s being able to recall knowledge. Socrates will attempt to demonstrate this supposed pre-knowledge using the young slave boy – but perhaps this, too, is built upon Daniel’s God-given ability to arrive at entirely new knowledge without any human instruction (as in the case of his recalling Nebuchednezzar’s Dream). Anyway, here is the dialogue (ibid.): Meno. …. If in any way you can make clear to me that what you say is true, please do. Socrates. It isn’t an easy thing, but still I should like to do what I can since you ask me. I see you have a large number of retainers here. Call one of them, anyone you like, and I will use him to demonstrate it to you. Meno. Certainly. (To a slave-boy). Come here. Socrates. He is a Greek and speaks our language? Meno. Indeed yes – born and bred in the house. Socrates. Listen carefully then, and see whether it seems to you that he is learning from me or simply being reminded. Meno. I will. Socrates. Now boy, you know that a square is a figure like this? (Socrates begins to draw figures in the sand at his feet. He points to the square ABCD) Boy. Yes. Socrates. It has all these four sides equal? Boy. Yes. Socrates. And these lines which go though the middle of it are also equal? (The lines EF, GH). Boy. Yes. …. And so on. Such apparently is how the life and death biblical account becomes gentlemanly and tamed, and indeed trivialised, in the Greek version! Daniel is not a passive slave, like the boy, supposedly recalling pre-existent knowledge, but a Jewish wise man, a sure Oracle to kings under the inspiration of the holy Spirit of God. The ‘Writing on the Wall’ contains, like Socrates’ writing in the sand, division, and measure, but adds weighing. There is nothing Protagorean or Sophistic here. God, not man, is indeed the measure of kings and kingdoms according to the biblical account (vv. 24-28): ‘So from [God’s] presence the hand was sent and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; and Peres [the singular of Parsin], your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians’. Russian Orthodox priest Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov has likewise, in his Internet article, “The Sovereignty of God”, made a Platonic connection with this very biblical incident: http://frsergei.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/the-sovereignty-of-god …. The yearning for Goodness has been with us through the recorded history of humanity. In the words of Plato, Good, “is that which every soul pursues and for the sake of which it does all that it does …”. (Republic 505 …). Men have been striving to do what is good, and not always selfishly what is good for them. Every new philosophy tried to market itself by appealing to some universal good to be achieved. And yet the result of all our intense labors has horrified us in the twentieth century, and the twenty-first one is up to no good start. Good appears to be other than sovereign in our hearts. And if not there, can it find refuge anywhere in a godless world? Murdoch writes that “the chief enemy of excellence in morality … is personal fantasy: the tissue of self-aggrandizing and consoling wishes and dreams, which prevents one from seeing what is there outside one” …. This personal fantasy, or in patristic terms, logos fantastikon, also and perhaps most importantly, prevents one from seeing what is there inside one. And if we humble ourselves enough to see our true state, then would we not cry out with Apostle Paul: “Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24 NRSV) If Good is merely a concept, a creation of the human mind, then there can be no hope. If man is the measure of all things, then “mene, mene, tekel u-parsin” (Dan. 5:25). …. One thinks that King Belshazzar, who was apparently incapable of humbling himself to recognise his true state, as Daniel had said of him, ‘You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven!’, would have been perfectly at home therefore with man, and not God, as the measure. Hence, when he was weighed, he was found wanting. Now, could the very name Meno have arisen from the Mene, ‘God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end’? Certainly Fr. L. Hartman (C.SS.R), commenting on “Daniel” for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (26:22), connects the Mene (or half of it) to King Belshazzar (on whom I think this Meno was based): …. Daniel must first say what words were written on the wall; evidently no one else could even decipher the script. His interpretation involves a play on words that is possible only in a purely consonantal script, such as Hebrew or Aramaic. The three words that were written in the consonantal script would be mn’, tql, and prs, which could be read, as Daniel apparently first read them, menê’, teqal, and peres – i.e., as three monetary values, the mina (equivalent at different times to 50 or 60 shekels, and mentioned in Lk 19:12-25), the shekel (the basic unit of weight), and the half-mina. Daniel, however, “interpreted” the writing by reading the three words as verbs, mena’, “he counted”, teqal, “he weighed”, and peras, “he divided”, with God understood as the subject and Belshazzar and his kingdom understood as the object. Thus, God has “numbered” the days of Belshazzar’s reign. (Things that can be counted are few in number). God has “weighed” the king in the balance of justice and found him lacking in moral goodness. (The idea of the “scales” of justice, which goes back to an old Egyptian concept, is met with elsewhere in the OT: Jb 31:6; Ps 62:10; Prv 16:11, etc.). God has “divided” Belshazzar’s kingdom among the Medes and the Persians. For good measure, there is an additional pun on the last of the three words, prs, which is also read as pãras, “Persia”, “Persians”. Fr. Hartman continues speculatively, and he concludes by equating King Belshazzar to the half-mina: An older form of the conundrum may also have connected the word mãday, “Media”, “Medes”, with the root mdd, “measure”. The conundrum seems to have existed in an older form, independently of its present context. The statement that Belshazzar’s “kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians” does not fit well with the statement at the end of the story, according to which Belshazzar’s whole kingdom was handed over to the Medes, with no mention of the Persians. Ginsberg even opines that the conundrum was originally applied to the only three Babylonian kings who were known to the Jews of the Hellenistic period: the mina would stand for the great Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel for the insignificant Evil-merodach, and the half-mina for Belshazzar. According to my revision of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, Evil-merodach was Belshazzar. A Beastly Comparison IMAGE THREE: THE FOUR BEASTS – THE LION MAN (Daniel 7) The scribal Daniel tells of the Dream (his own) that he wrote down (Daniel 7:1-4): In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in bed. Then he wrote down the dream: I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea, and four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human being. …. Needless to say these “four great beasts” are up to no good. Now Plato seems to have absorbed this lion-man image and located it in his ‘imperfect societies’ (Republic, Bk. 9, 588): ‘Let us show him what his assertion really implies, by comparing the human personality to one of those composite beasts in the old myths, Chimaera and Scylla and Cerberus and all the rest’. ‘I know the stories’. ‘Imagine a very complicated, many-headed sort of beast, with heads of wild and tame animals all around it, which it can produce and change at will’. ‘Quite a feat of modelling’, he replied; ‘but fortunately it’s easier to imagine than it would be to make’. ‘Imagine next a lion, and next a man. And let the many-headed creature be by far the largest, and the lion the next largest’. ‘That’s rather easier to imagine’. …. Ezekiel, whose vision also, like Daniel’s, was preceded by a great rush of wind, or whirlwind, opens with (Ezekiel 1:5, 10): … four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. …. As for the appearance of their faces: they four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion, on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; such were their faces. …. Here is that lion-man (‘leonine’ man) combination again, plus the eagle.

Friday, September 27, 2024

Nabu-ahhe-bullit, Daniel as Governor of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego?” Daniel 1:7 William H. Shea has quite convincingly identified Daniel’s three Jewish colleagues, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, in the Babylonian records: William H. Shea’s hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (3) William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I have proposed a historical identification of important royal significance for the “chief official” (Daniel 1:7 above), who is Ashpenaz: A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu More recently, I have historically identified Daniel himself as the chronologically appropriate Governor of Babylon, Ubāru (= Gubaru, Ugbaru): Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (5) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The name Ubāru cannot, however, be identified in the Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, given to Daniel (as we read), since Ubāru is simply a descriptive name meaning “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”. Exactly what Daniel was in Babylonian Exile. So, the task still is left to us to find Daniel in the records under a Belteshazzar name. Belteshazzar is not the same name as Belshazzar It is natural for those not too familiar with Babylonian names to presume that Belteshazzar was a Bel-name, the Bel element being found in the name of the ill-fated king, Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, famous for the Writing on the Wall episode (Daniel 5). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar “Belshazzar (Babylonian cuneiform: Bēl-šar-uṣur,[1][2] meaning "Bel, protect the king";[3] Hebrew: בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר‎ Bēlšaʾṣṣar) …”. But, according to linguists, the Belteshazzar element (with components such as e.g. balatu, shar, usur) is lacking a theophoric, meaning it still needs to be attached to a god-name, such as Marduk, or Nabu. My preference would be for Nabu, since Nebuchednezzar himself had said that Daniel bore the name of his god, presumably meaning Nabu (Nebo) here, since it was the theophoric element in the king’s own name (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him)”. A potential Babylonian name for Daniel’s Belteshazzar – amongst various possibilities – would be, say, Nabû-bul-liṭ-su (Nabu-bullitsu), somewhat imperfectly transliterated as Belteshazzar. The name Nabu-bullitsu can be found listed e.g. in the Index (p. 159) of Sir W. Budge’s Babylonian Life and History. It comes close to Belteshazzar, which is, after all, a foreign transliteration of an originally Babylonian name. Whilst there may not be any known governor of Babylon from the early reign of Nebuchednezzar (qua Nebuchednezzar) until the first few years of Cyrus - as I would anticipate from the Book of Daniel that there should be - however, thanks to my identification of Nebuchednezzar (and Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”) with (Esarhaddon and) King Nabonidus: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu0 then such an official comes right into view. And he has both Nabu and bullit elements in his name. He is Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who was governor of Babylon from at least Nabonidus’s 8th year until the 3rd year of Cyrus. Thus we read in the following article: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=15087 From the contemporary cuneiform contract tablets, we know that Terike-sarrutsu was the governor (shakin mati) of Babylonia in Year 1 Nabunaid [Nabonidus] (555/4 BC). Nabu-ahhe-bullit succeeded him as office holder by Year 8 Nabunaid (548/7 BC). This man remained in office down to Year 3 Cyrus but became a subordinate of the governor Gubaru, the appointee of Cyrus, when Babylon was captured by the army of Cyrus in 539 BC. He is not to be confused with Ugbaru. [End of quote] Rather than Daniel’s having at this stage become “a subordinate” of Gubaru’s, though, who he actually was (see above), he may have departed (one way or another) from the political scene. By now Daniel would have been in his 60’s or 70’s. The conventional history has set the career of Nabu-ahhe-bullit somewhat differently. He emerges there as an official of Nebuchednezzar, and already with a son, in 595 BC: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1089&context=jats “In 595 BC Nebuchadnezzar released a royal document which condemned Baba-aha-iddina son of Nabu-ahhe-bullit, one of his top officials …”. And he was still active in the 15th year of Nabonidus (Nabu-na'id): https://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/collections/search-collection/details.php?a=1913.14.1652 “[(Document concerning) [. . .] [property] of Nabu which Sin-etir, [son] of Kina rented out 9lit., gave) to Nabu-ahhe-bullit, son of Nana-aha-iddina from the fifteenth day of the month of Addaru, fourteenth year, until the fifteenth day of the month of Nisanu, fifteenth year of Nabu-na'id, king of Babylon, for a month's rent of four shekels of silver. Sin-etir was paid the four shekels of silver, the rent of his boat, by Nabu-ahhe-bullit”. Whereas, in conventional terms, about half a century would be required to span this period from 595 BC to the 15th year of Nabonidus, c. 541 BC, in my scheme, on the other hand, with Nebuchednezzar as Nabonidus, the period is reduced to about 5 years. Finally, as we read at Encyclopaedia Iranica: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babylonia-i “Cyrus retained as governor of Babylonia a native Babylonian [sic], Nabu-ahhe-bullit, who had held the post before the Persian conquest, under Nabonidus”. This site, having failed to recognise Nabu-ahhe-bullit as Ugbaru (Ubāru), will make the earlier declaration that: “Supreme administrative power in Babylonia belonged to the Persian satrap. The first governor of the city of Babylon was Cyrus’s general, Ugbaru, who in effect held power over the whole of Mesopotamia”. This is how I would tentatively reconstruct the chronology of Daniel’s governorship: Daniel, as Nabu-ahhe-bullit, had been appointed governor of Babylon close to the third year of Nebuchednezzar (= Nabonidus), who reigned for 43 years. That is a service of almost four decades. He continued on through the 3-4 years of Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, envisaging himself in Susa (Daniel 8:1-2): “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 …”. He was still in Babylon in the 1st year of Cyrus, but then moved to Susa, Cyrus’s capital, and served the king until his 3rd year. Finally, now with my revised Neo-Babylonian history, we may have virtually a perfectly matching chronology for Daniel and his proposed alter ego, Nabu-ahhe-bullit.

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru

by Damien F. Mackey “Speculatively, we may identify Ubāru with the governor (or “commandant”) of Babylon who played an important role in the restoration of Babylon in Esarhaddon’s reign”. Amos Mikko Luukko and Greta Van Buylaere Introduction First of all I shall need to apply here, for background reference, some game-changing historical and geographical revision. If Ubāru was the biblical Daniel, then Esarhaddon, the king who appointed him as governor of Babylon, must have been the same as Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. For we read that, owing to Daniel’s miraculous interpretation of the king’s Dream (Daniel 2:48-49): … the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. Notable comparisons between Esarhaddon and Nebuchednezzar, leading me to conclude that: Esarhaddon [is] a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (DOC) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu were: Building of Babylon; terrifying Illness of long duration; campaigning into Egypt. For further important alter egos of King Nebuchednezzar, read this article. Babylon [Karduniash], I have re-identified as Carchemish. Gutium will be found to have been Kutu in the Susiana region of the country of Elam. Thanks to Royce (Richard) Erickson for this vital discovery (202o): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (3) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Daniel is the same person as governor Nehemiah, serving the King of Babylon also in Susa (cf. Nehemiah 1:1; 13:6). King Cyrus is, all at once, Darius the Mede, Neriglissar, and Ashpenaz. See e.g. my article: A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Governor Ubāru J. Brinkman refers to Ubāru as “Esarhaddon’s newly appointed governor of Babylon …”, in an article to which I do not have full access: https://www.jstor.org/stable/601858 In my revised context, this would well fit the prophet Daniel, “newly appointed” as governor of Babylon by King Nebuchednezzar. Amos Mikko Luukko and Greta Van Buylaere have written about Ubāru in their article: THE BABYLONIAN UBĀRU AND HIS SLAVE-SALE DOCUMENTS FROM NINEVEH (3) The Babylonian Ubāru and his Slave-Sale Documents from Nineveh | Greta Van Buylaere and Mikko Luukko - Academia.edu …. Ubāru Who is Ubāru, the protagonist of the three legal transactions found in Nineveh? As Ubāru is a typical Babylonian name in Assyrian sources (PNA 3/II, 1356) and the language and script of all these exceptional documents is Babylonian, there is hardly any doubt that the man was Babylonian by origin. Unfortunately, the three documents do not specify whether the slave sales took place in Nineveh or elsewhere. However, Nineveh as the find site of these documents suggests that they were probably drawn up there or at least in Assyria. Had these slave sales taken place in Babylonia, it would be much more difficult to explain the underlying Assyrian character of the documents. Speculatively, we may identify Ubāru with the governor (or “commandant”) of Babylon who played an important role in the restoration of Babylon in Esarhaddon’s reign. Even if our present knowledge is full of gaps and it is therefore uncertain whether the Ubāru of the three slave sales edited here really was the governor of Babylon, some indirect details could support such an assumption. The exceptional characteristics of these Assyrianized Babylonian documents may suggest that Ubāru was a protégé of Esarhaddon who enjoyed privileges, even if it may be worth stressing that each of the documents edited here only records the sale of a single slave (altogether two men and a woman). One may further note that the word ubāru means “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”. Especially the nuance “foreign guest” fits the context of these legal documents well because they are the documents of a Babylonian guest in Assyria. Ubāru is the Babylonian form of the name, which is distinct from the Assyrian form, Ubru, widely attested in Assyrian contexts. A claim for favouritism may be strengthened by the importance of the early dates during Esarhaddon’s reign and the peculiar way these dates were written. Indeed, in this respect, the dates of these documents are highly significant. Two of them can be dated to Esarhaddon’s early reign with certainty: K 3790 to 680-V-26 and Rm 157 to 679-VIII-6. All this would fit perfectly with what is known about the governor Ubāru, and be entirely in line with Esarhaddon’s well-known pro-Babylonian policy. Moreover, together with other textual evidence from his reign, the existence of these unusual documents may be considered further proof showing the various ways Esarhaddon initiated his proBabylonian policy already very early on in his reign. …. [End of quote] Note that Ubāru was, just like the Hebrew Daniel, a “stranger, foreign guest, resident alien, guest-friend”. Compare how Daniel was perceived in Babylon (Daniel 2:25): “Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, ‘I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means’.” Daniel 5:13: “So Daniel was brought before the king [Belshazzar], and the king said to him, ‘Are you Daniel, one of the exiles my father the king brought from Judah?’” Daniel Ubāru as Ugbaru (Gubaru) An interesting note: “… Ugbaru should really be called Ubaruš (Elamite name)”. The name Ubaruš is obviously very like to Ubāru. Gubaru was the governor, or ‘general’, officiating when King Cyrus conquered Babylon. He has also been called “Gobryas”, of whom we read in the article of that name at Encyclopaedia Iranica: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gobryas- GOBRYAS, the most widely known (Greek) form of the Old Persian name Gaub(a)ruva (q.v.). Several bearers of this name, who cannot always be kept separate from one another with complete certainty, are historical persons: …. Ug-ba-ru, governor (paḫātu) of the land of Gutium (i.e., some part of western Media and northeastern Assyria in the Zagros mountains) [sic] and a senior officer of Cyrus II the Great. As the leader of the Medo-Persian army of Cyrus, Gobryas took Babylon without battle on 12 October 539 B.C.E. (16th day of month Tašrītu), according to the Nabonidus Chronicle 3.15 (cf. Grayson, pp. 109-10). After his triumphant entrance in the city on October 29 (3rd day of month Araḫsamnu) Cyrus appointed Gobryas governor of Babylon, who himself installed the district officials in Babylon (ibid., III 20, where one reads the spelling variant Gu-ba-ru); thus this man seems to have been the first Persian ruler over Babylon. He, however, died soon afterwards on the 11th day of month Araḫsamnu (ibid., 3.22) either in the same year (i.e., 6 November 539 B.C.E.) or, according to Shea (pp. 240-43), in the following year (i.e., 27 October 538 B.C.E.). It seems quite probable that there is some connection between this person and the “Assyrian” (i.e., Babylonian) Gobryas described in great detail and in novella form (although including some more or less reliable information) by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.1-11 and passim), who calls him an old man (4.6.1) already for the time before the fall of Babylon, as well as to the so-called “Darius the Mede,” king of Babylon in the Book of Daniel 5:31, 6:1-2 etc. (cf. especially Shea). …. Note the prefect fits here (in my revised context) with Daniel: “… governor (paḫātu) of the land of Gutium” …. Daniel had served in Gutium (Susa) (Nehemiah 13:6). “… senior officer of Cyrus II the Great” …. Daniel was the favourite of Cyrus, as Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:3). “…. Cyrus appointed Gobryas governor of Babylon, who himself installed the district officials in Babylon …”. “He, however, died soon afterwards …”. …. Daniel is last mentioned in Year 3 of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1). “… Xenophon (Cyropaedia 4.6.1-11 and passim) … calls him an old man (4.6.1) already for the time before the fall of Babylon …”. Daniel had previously served during most of the very long reign (43 years) of Nebuchednezzar. He was, therefore, old, when Cyrus came to the throne.

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

by Damien F. Mackey “As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face”. Karen Radner Introduction As we proceed, we shall briefly recall the biblical “Nebuchednezzar” likenesses of three mighty kings, two of whom - Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - I have identified as alter egos of Nebuchednezzar so-called II, and one of whom, Cambyses, at least remarkably shares in these likenesses. And I can mention, in passing, Artaxerxes (so-called) III, who has been likened to Cambyses. But I now think that there is more to be said. ESARHADDON, supposed father of Ashurbanipal (= Nebuchednezzar), will be found to have suffered so profoundly from this “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” as to force me consider (see Esarhaddon section in the latter part of this article) whether Esarhaddon needs to be merged into Ashurbanipal as I have merged Esarhaddon’s father, Sennacherib, into Sargon II. Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses; Artaxerxes III Keywords: Dreams; megalomania; massive building works; fiery furnace; illness-madness; revival and ‘conversion’; vindictive Egyptian campaign. Ashurbanipal Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. I then continued: …. They [Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus] share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too. …. Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) … Nebuchednezzar … the Great of an established 43 years of reign. …. The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! …. The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. …. It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. … Ashurbanipal … certainly did conquer Egypt. …. Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it. “Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176). …. Ashurbanipal also apparently had a lions’ den. For, according to Jonathan Grey, The Forbidden Secret (p. 102): “…. The biblical book of Daniel also records that the Hebrew captive Daniel was tossed into a den lions. (Daniel chapter 6) That such ‘lion’s [sic] den’ punishment was in keeping with the times is now proven by the discovery of that same inscription of Ashurbanipal that we just mentioned. It continues thus: The rest of the people who had rebelled they threw alive among bulls and lions, as Sennacherib … used to do. Lo, again following his footsteps, those men I threw into the midst of them. On one occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy was digging amid the ruins of Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like an like an ancient well. After being rescued by his companions, he proceeded with the work of identification. How astonished was he to find that the pit had been used as a cage for wild animals! And upon the curb was this inscription: The Place of Execution, where men who angered the king died torn by wild animals”. I realise that the lions’ den episodes of the Book of Daniel pertain to the Dream-statue phase representing the Medo-Persian era. See my article: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? https://www.academia.edu/24308877/Was_Daniel_Twice_in_the_Lions_Den’ but was it not Daniel’s “King Nebuchednezzar” who had threatened to ‘tear limb from limb’ his stalling wise men (Daniel 2:5)? See my article: How did Nebuchednezzar manage to tear offenders limb from limb? https://www.academia.edu/37307963/How_did_Nebuchednezzar_manage_to_tear_offenders_limb_from_limb Was Ashurbanipal a king of dreams? He was a typical superstitious and megalomaniacal Mesopotamian king. George Godspeed writes this of Ashurbanipal’s fanatical devotion to the gods: http://history-world.org/ashurbanipal.htm It is not strange, therefore, that in his finely wrought sculptures and brilliantly written inscriptions are depicted scenes of hideous brutality. Plunder, torture, anguish, and slaughter are dwelt upon with something of delight by the king, who sees in them the vengeance of the gods upon those that have broken their faith. The very religiousness of the royal butcher makes the shadows blacker. No Assyrian king was ever more devoted to the gods and dependent upon them. And Robert Moss writes in ‘Questioning dreams in ancient Mesopotamia”: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/dreamgates/2014/07/questioning-dreams-in-ancient-mesopotamia.html#hzAzS0qrk6kGJHza.99 In Mesopotamia, as in most human cultures, dreaming was understood to be close kin to divination. The famous Assyrian dream book in the library of King Ashurbanipal — brought to Nineveh in 647 BCE [sic] from the house of an exorcist of Nippur — was filed with the omen tablets, the largest category in the royal collection. Among ordinary folk as well as in royal palaces, across most of history, dreamwork has never been separated from other ways of reading the sign language of life. …. Did he suffer an enduring illness, followed by a conversion? Well, this intriguing prayer was found in Ashurbanipal’s library: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/iraq/article/new-fragments-of-gilgames-and-other-literary-texts-from-kuyunjik/1F360E8054C85DAC9FBF8B1BD322D416/core-reader …. 9. My bed is the ground! (penitential prayer alsīka ilī) The prayer alsīka ilī is one of the few extant examples of the group of the šigû-prayers, individual laments addressed to a deity in which the penitent acknowledges his sins and asks the god for absolution. …. …. 1. Incantation šigû: I have called upon you. My god, relent! 2. Relent, my god! Accept my supplication! 3. Harken to my weary prayers! 4. Learn at once the disgrace that has befallen me! 5. Keep listening to my lament, which I have made! 6. May the night bring you the tears which I weep! 7. Since the day (you), my lord, punished me, 8. and (you), the god who created me, became furious with me, 9. (since the day) you turned my house into my prison, 10. my bed is the ground, my sleeping place is dust, 11. I am deprived of sleep, distressed by nightmares, 12. I am troubled [in my ...], confused [in my ...]. B 9. I have been enduring a punishment [that I cannot bear.] …. Was Ashurbanipal a vindictive type? According to Lori L. Rowlett (Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis, p. 112): “’Ashurbanipal’s] treatment of his enemies (internal and external) is particularly horrible and vindictive …”. Nabonidus Scholars have noticed various “Nebuchednezzar” characteristics in King Nabonidus. Not least was the fact that, Nabonidus had, like “Nebuchednezzar”, a son named “Belshazzar”. There was also a seeming tendency on Nabonidus’s part towards a kind of monotheism – revering Sîn, the El of the Aramaeans – and a seeming rejection of the national god, Marduk. Coupled with this was, not unnaturally, a discomfort with the Babylonian clergy and wise men. {This tendency to ‘mess with the sacred rites’ is a further common link amongst our name-kings of this series} Nabonidus, like king Nebuchednezzar, had conquered Cilicia. We read about this at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/kue “KUE ku’ ĭ (קְוֵ֕ה). An ancient name for E Cilicia (Rom.: Cilicia Pedias), in SE Asia Minor. …. A document of Nebuchadnezzar II (dated between 595 and 570 b.c.), mentions the land of Hu-m-e, pronounced Khuwe or Khwe. It also occurs in the Istanbul Stele of Nabonidus”. One also encounters many cases of Nabonidus’s recounting his own dreams. I found so many similarities beginning to loom that I eventually came to the conclusion that Nabonidus was king Nebuchednezzar (or Nebuchedrezzar) – that what we have recorded of king Nabonidus simply represents the first phase of the long reign of Nebuchednezzar. As is apparent from Beaulieu, Nabonidus considered himself to be the successor of the great Assyrian empire – a viewpoint that would have more clout perhaps if he had ruled closer to that period (c. 605 BC) than Nabonidus is conventionally considered to have done (c. 556 BC). Then there is Nabonidus’s strange disappearance to Teima (Tayma) in Arabia for ten years. During some of this time he was ill. It is due to this situation that scholars think that the Book of Daniel has confused Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus. Indeed a Dead Sea Scrolls fragment tells of a protracted illness suffered by Nabonidus. For more on all this, see the following article of mine, which, I think, serves adequately to cover the “Nabonidus” part of this present article: Daniel's “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (4) Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar" a better fit for King Nabonidus? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Book of Daniel is charged with all sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history rather than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that the author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better suited to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean) empire. Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case. “Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy Ones: to the intent that the living may know that The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men”. Daniel 4:16-17 The early career of the Chaldean king, Nabonidus, may be replete with parallel likenesses to that as written about the “Nebuchednezzar” in Daniel chapters 1-5. Though it would be much over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist, there is a definite progression in that direction in the course of his reign. According to Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C." (1989), p. 63: “… there is no evidence that the king [Nabonidus] tried to impost the cult of Sîn as supreme deity in his early reign”. But, as Beaulieu will interpret it (p. 62): “Upon his return from Arabia, Nabonidus imposed a major religious reform, resulting in the rejection of Marduk, the undisputed supreme god of Babylon of the past six centuries …”. Cambyses “The Chronicle of John of Nikiu who wrote of Cambyses[’] exploits after his name change to Nebuchadnezzar. He wrote of how Cambyses under his new name Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and desolated Egypt. It becomes apparent therefore that John gave credit to Cambyses for what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished”. http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/THIK59UKCUF68BLNL/evidence-indicating-egypts-40-year-desolation Previously I wrote, regarding likenesses I had perceived between Cambyses and my various alter egos for king Nebuchednezzar (including Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus): Common factors here may include ‘divine’ madness; confounding the priests by messing with the Babylonian rites; and the conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia. I was then totally unaware of this name claim about Cambyses by John of Nikiu. … my enlargement of the historical Nebuchednezzar, through alter egos, to embrace Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - and now, too, perhaps, Cambyses - provides a complete ‘profile’ of the biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak. For some time, now, I have suspected that the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Cambyses had to be the same as the mad but powerful, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar. And now I learn that the C7th AD Egyptian Coptic bishop, John of Nikiû (680-690 AD, conventional dating), had told that Cambyses was also called Nebuchednezzar. This new piece of information has emboldened me to do - what I have wanted to - and that is to say with confidence that Cambyses was Nebuchednezzar. That Nebuchednezzar also reigned in Susa is evidenced by (if I am right) my identification of him with the “king Artaxerxes” of the Book of Nehemiah, who was a “king of Babylon”. Whilst critics can argue that the “king Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel may not necessarily be a good match for the historico-biblical Nebuchednezzar, but that he seems more likely to have been based on king Nabonidus, my enlargement of the historical Nebuchednezzar, through alter egos, to embrace Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus - and now, too, Cambyses - provides a complete ‘profile’ of the biblical king that ‘covers all bases’, so to speak. “In view of all this, I have no doubt that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt”. Herodotus When subjecting neo-Babylonian history to a serious revision, I had reached the conclusion that Nebuchednezzar had needed to be folded with Nabonidus, and that Nebuchednezzar’s son-successor, Evil-Merodach, needed to be folded with Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar. That accorded perfectly with the testimony of the Book of Daniel that “Nebuchednezzar” was succeeded by his son, “Belshazzar”. Cambyses Books, articles and classics have been written about the madness of King Cambyses, he conventionally considered to have been the second (II) king of that name, a Persian (c. 529-522 BC), and the son/successor of Cyrus the Great. The tradition is thought to have begun with the C5th BC Greek historian, Herodotus, according to whom (The Histories) http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/cambyses.htm [3.29.1] When the priests led Apis in, Cambyses–for he was all but mad–drew his dagger and, meaning to stab the calf in the belly, stuck the thigh; then laughing he said to the priests: [3.29.2] “Simpletons, are these your gods, creatures of flesh and blood that can feel weapons of iron? That is a god worthy of the Egyptians. But for you, you shall suffer for making me your laughing-stock.” So saying he bade those, whose business it was, to scourge the priests well, and to kill any other Egyptian whom they found holiday-making. [3.29.3] So the Egyptian festival ended, and the priests were punished, and Apis lay in the temple and died of the wound in the thigh. When he was dead of the wound, the priests buried him without Cambyses’ knowledge. [3.30.1] But Cambyses, the Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy, because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it. [3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in which it seemed to him that a messenger came from Persia and told him that Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched heaven with his head. [3.30.3] Fearing therefore for himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king, he sent Prexaspes, the most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him. Prexaspes went up to Susa and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out hunting, others that he brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there drowned him. …. [End of quote] And: http://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodotus/herodotus-comment-on- Herodotus’ Comment on Cambyses’ Madness [3.38] In view of all this, I have no doubt that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt. [End of quote] Scholarly articles have been written in an attempt to diagnose the illness of Cambyses, sometimes referred to – as in the case of Julius Caesar’s epilepsy – as a ‘divine’ or ‘sacred’ disease. For example (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11594937): Arch Neurol. 2001 Oct; 58(10):1702-4. The sacred disease of Cambyses II. York GK1, Steinberg DA. Abstract Herodotus’ account of the mad acts of the Persian king Cambyses II contains one of the two extant pre-Hippocratic Greek references to epilepsy. This reference helps to illuminate Greek thinking about epilepsy, and disease more generally, in the time immediately preceding the publication of the Hippocratic treatise on epilepsy, On the Sacred Disease. Herodotus attributed Cambyses’ erratic behavior as ruler of Egypt to either the retribution of an aggrieved god or to the fact that he had the sacred disease. Herodotus considered the possibility that the sacred disease was a somatic illness, agreeing with later Hippocratic authors that epilepsy has a natural rather than a divine cause. …. [End of quote] The character of Cambyses as presented in various ancient traditions is thoroughly treated in Herb Storck’s excellent monograph, History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period (House of Nabu, 1989). Messing with the rites As was the case with King Nabonidus (= Nebuchednezzar), so did Cambyses apparently fail properly to observe established protocol with the Babylonian rites. Regarding the rebellious behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the rites, I wrote previously: Confounding the Astrologers Despite his superstitious nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel – and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus – did not hesitate at times to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6): The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.” And so, in the Verse Account, we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence of sycophantic officials: Yet he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila -representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned- he looks at the representations and utters blasphemies. When he saw the usar-symbol of Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars, he expounded to them as follows: ‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own temple with the usar-symbol!’ And Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him, do confirm the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we understand this situation, after the king has explained about it!’ [End of quote] Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129): The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not understand what it meant. The passage is difficult, but its general implications are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of the eclipse and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did check them but disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled for him (Daniel II, 3-5) …. But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly …. [End of quote] According to Encyclopaedia Iranica on Cambyses II: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cambyses-opers A badly damaged passage in the chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report that, in order to legitimize his appointment, Cambyses partici¬pated in the ritual prescribed for the king at the traditional New Year festival on 27 March 538 B.C., accepting the royal scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the god’s temple in Babylon (III. 24-28; Gray¬son, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim attempted a reconstruc¬tion of the damaged text (Survey of Persian Art XV, p. 3501); according to his version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary Elamite attire, fully armed. The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms, but he refused to change his clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He then received the royal scepter. In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately demon¬strated “a deep-seated religious conviction” hostile to this alien religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 557). [End of quote] King Cambyses’ wanton treatment of Egypt-Ethiopia “A Jewish document from 407 BC known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of Cambyses destroying all the temples of the Egyptian gods”. Of Nebuchednezzar’s conquest of Egypt, well-attested in the Bible, it is extremely difficult to find substantial account in the historical records. Not so with the conquest of Egypt and Ethiopia by Cambyses. Nebuchednezzar was, very early in his reign, militarily involved against Egypt – with greater or lesser success: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nebuchadnezzar.aspx Early in 605 B.C. he met Necho, the king of Egypt, in battle and defeated him at Carchemish. A few months later Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar hastened home to claim his throne. He soon returned to the west in order to secure the loyalty of Syria and Palestine and to collect tribute; among those who submitted were the rulers of Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, and Judah. Nebuchadnezzar’s Conquests In 601 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar attempted the invasion of Egypt but was repulsed with heavy losses. Judah rebelled, but Jerusalem fell in March 597 B.C., and the ruler, Jehoiakim, and his court were deported to Babylon. Eight years later another Jewish rebellion broke out; this time Jerusalem was razed and the population carried into captivity. [End of quote] This article then follows with an intriguing piece of information: “Expeditions against the Arabs in 582 B.C. and another attempt at invading Egypt in 568 B.C. receive brief mention in Nebuchadnezzar’s later records”. But sceptics say that Nebuchednezzar never actually succeeded in conquering Egypt, hence the Bible is wrong, and that it was Cambyses instead who conquered Egypt. For instance: http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/BabEgypt.html BABYLON NEVER CONQUERED EGYPT The Bible never says Nebuchadnezzar the Second (hereafter Neb-2) conquered Egypt. The idea Neb-2 conquered Egypt would never have been considered a serious historical possibility, but for 4 facts: 1. Jeremiah & Ezekiel both predicted that Neb-2 would conquer Egypt. 2. Jeremiah & Ezekiel are both considered true prophets. 3. According to Deut. 18:22, true prophets are never wrong about a prediction. 4. Jesus said (Mat 5:18) “One jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law until all be fulfilled.” b. Paul said (2Tim 3:16) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” Both of these verses are erroneously interpreted by many Christians as meaning the entire Bible contains no errors. If you disagree with the preceding statement, the rest of this essay will be irrelevant to you, because you will be judging all historical evidence by its conformity to the Bible. This makes you literally not worth talking to outside of the company of others who do the same. Such Christians to try to muddy historical evidence that contradicts the Bible. e.g. One proposed that there were two Nebuchadnezzars, the second being Cambyses: http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol24/htm/xiii.ii.htm (Actually there were two Nebs, but the first ruled Babylon c.1124-1104BC.) This essay is based on the assumption that the historical parts of the Bible should be judged for accuracy by the same rules as any other ancient historical document. …. Unlike any supposed conquest by NEB-2, the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well attested. [End of quote] Cambyses in Egypt The above article is correct at least in its final statement quoted here: “… the conquest of Egypt by CAMBYSES-2 is well attested”. The article goes on to tell of the various ancient evidences for this great conquest: EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE We possess the autobiography of the admiral of the Egyptian fleet, Wedjahor-Resne. It is written on a small statue now in the Vatican Museums in Rome. After the conquest of Egypt, Wedjahor-Resne was Cambyses’ right-hand man. “The great king of all foreign countries Cambyses came to Egypt, taking the foreigners of every foreign country with him. When he had taken possession of the entire country, they settled themselves down therein, and he was made great sovereign of Egypt and great king of all foreign countries. His Majesty appointed me his chief physician and caused me to stay with him in my quality of companion and director of the palace, and ordered me to compose his titulary, his name as king of Upper and Lower Egypt.” In an inscription on the statue of Udjadhorresnet, a Saite priest and doctor, as well as a former naval officer, we learn that Cambyses II was prepared to work with and promote native Egyptians to assist in government, and that he showed at least some respect for Egyptian religion: “I let His Majesty know the greatness of Sais, that it is the seat of Neith-the-Great, mother who bore Re and inaugurated birth when birth had not yet been…I made a petition to the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cambyses, about all the foreigners who dwelled in the temple of Neith, in order to have them expelled from it., so as to let the temple of Neith be in all its splendor, as it had been before. His Majesty commanded to expel all the foreigners who dwelled in the temple of Neith, to demolish all their houses and all their unclean things that were in the temple. When they had carried all their personal belongings outside the wall of the temple, His Majesty commanded to cleanse the temple of Neith and to return all its personnel to it…and the hour-priests of the temple. His Majesty commanded to give divine offerings to Neith-the-Great, the mother of god, and to the great gods of Sais, as it had been before. His Majesty knew the greatness of Sais, that it is a city of all the gods, who dwell there on their seats forever.” HERODOTUS Herodotus (who, to my knowledge, never mentions Nebuchadnezzar by name) describes his Hanging Gardens, but never mentions him in relation to Egypt, though Herodotus does talk about pharaohs Necho, Hophra, Ahmose, and Psamtik. [Necos, Apries, Amasis, and Psammis] and of course, Cambyses. Herodotus notes how the Persians easily entered Egypt across the desert. They were advised by the defecting mercenary general, Phanes of Halicarnassus, to employ the Bedouins as guides. However, Phanes had left his two sons in Egypt. We are told that for his treachery, as the armies of the Persians and the mercenary army of the Egyptians met, his sons were bought out in front of the Egyptian army where they could be seen by their father, and there throats were slit over a large bowl. Afterwards, Herodotus tells us that water and wine were added to the contents of the bowl and drunk by every man in the Egyptian force. “When Cambyses had entered the palace of Amasis, he gave command to take the corpse of Amasis out of his burial-place. When this had been done, he ordered [his courtiers] to scourge it and pluck out the hair and stab it, and to dishonor it in every other possible way. When they had done this too, they were wearied out, for the corpse was embalmed and held out against the violence and did not fall to pieces. Cambyses gave command to consume it with fire, a thing that was not permitted by his own religion. The Persians hold fire to be a god and to consume corpses with fire is by no means according to the Persian or Egyptian custom.” [Histories 3.16] MANETHO lists the pharaohs of the 26th dynasty, then cites the Persians as the 27th dynasty. “Cambyses reigned over his own kingdom, Persia, five years, and then over Egypt one year.” PERSIAN EVIDENCE According to king, Darius I’s BEHISTUN INSCRIPTION, Cambyses, before going to Egypt, had secretly killed his brother, Bardiya, whom Herodotus called Smerdis. The murdered prince was, however, impersonated by Gaumata the Magian, who in March 522 seized the Achaemenid throne. Cambyses, on his return from Egypt, heard of the revolt in Syria, where he died in the summer of 522, either by his own hand or as the result of an accident. (10) King Darius says: The following is what was done by me after I became king. A son of Cyrus, named Cambyses, one of our dynasty, was king here before me. That Cambyses had a brother, Smerdis by name, of the same mother and the same father as Cambyses. Afterwards, Cambyses slew this Smerdis. When Cambyses slew Smerdis, it was not known unto the people that Smerdis was slain. Thereupon Cambyses went to Egypt. When Cambyses had departed into Egypt, the people became hostile, and the lie multiplied in the land, even in Persia and Media, and in the other provinces. OTHER EVIDENCE A Jewish document from 407 BC known as ‘The Demotic Chronicle’ speaks of Cambyses destroying all the temples of the Egyptian gods. Greek geographer STRABO of Amasia visited Thebes in 24 BC and saw the ruins of several temples said (by local priests) to have been destroyed by Cambyses. [End of quote] Cambyses – in your dreams “Cambyses has a “Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven”. Our neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, was, true to form (as an alter ego for Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”), a frequent recipient of dreams and visions. For example, I wrote previously: Nabonidus was, like “Nebuchednezzar”, an excessively pious man, and highly superstitious. The secret knowledge of which he boasted was what he had acquired through his dreams. Another characteristic that Nabonidus shared with “Nebuchednezzar”. Nabonidus announced (loc. cit.): “The god Ilteri has made me see (dreams), he has made everything kno[wn to me]. I surpass in all (kinds of) wisdom (even the series) uskar-Anum-Enlilla, which Adap[a] composed”. …. [End of quote] In Beaulieu’s book … we read further of King Nabonidus: “I did not stop going to the diviner and the dream interpreter”. And of King Nebuchednezzar – with whom I am equating Nabonidus – the prophet Ezekiel writes similarly of that king’s omen seeking (21:21): “The king of Babylon now stands at the fork, uncertain whether to attack Jerusalem or Rabbah. He calls his magicians to look for omens. They cast lots by shaking arrows from the quiver. They inspect the livers of animal sacrifices”. [End of quote] Ashurbanipal, likewise - he being yet another alter ego - gave immense credence to dreams and used a dream book. Ashurbanipal was, like Nabonidus, more superstitious, if I may say it, than Nostradamus being pursued by a large black cat under a ladder - on the thirteenth. Karen Radner tells of Ashurbanipal’s reliance upon dreams, in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and scholars (p. 224): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_fs_parpola_2009.pdf In the Biblical attestations, especially in the stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Joseph in Egypt, the ḫarṭummîm … [wizards] figure prominently as experts in the interpretation of dreams, and it may be this kind of expertise which the ḫarṭibē offered to the Assyrian king; dream oracles were certainly popular with Assurbanipal who used dreams … to legitimise his actions in his royal inscriptions … and whose library contained the dream omen series Zaqīqu (also Ziqīqu). …. [End of quote] Now, what of Cambyses in this regard? Well, according to Herodotus (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/cambyses.htm) [3.30.1] But Cambyses, the Egyptians say, owing to this wrongful act immediately went mad, although even before he had not been sensible. His first evil act was to destroy his full brother Smerdis, whom he had sent away from Egypt to Persia out of jealousy, because Smerdis alone could draw the bow brought from the Ethiopian by the Fish-eaters as far as two fingerbreadths, but no other Persian could draw it. [3.30.2] Smerdis having gone to Persia, Cambyses saw in a dream a vision, in which it seemed to him that a messenger came from Persia and told him that Smerdis sitting on the royal throne touched heaven with his head. [3.30.3] Fearing therefore for himself, lest his brother might slay him and so be king, he sent Prexaspes, the most trusted of his Persians, to Persia to kill him. Prexaspes went up to Susa and killed Smerdis; some say that he took Smerdis out hunting, others that he brought him to the Red Sea (the Persian Gulf) and there drowned him. [End of quote] This is actually, as we shall now find, quite Danielic. Cambyses has a “Nebuchednezzar” like dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven. Likewise, “Nebuchednezzar” had a dream of a “tree … which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky” (Daniel 4:20). Now, given that this “tree” symbolised “Nebuchednezzar” himself, who was also according to an earlier dream a “head of gold (Daniel 2:38), then one might say that, as in the case of Cambyses dream-vision of a king whose head touched heaven, so did “Nebuchednezzar” touch the sky (heaven) with his head (of gold). Artaxerxes III Not only do scholars liken Artaxerxes (so-called) III in many ways to Cambyses (see e.g. N. Grimal in A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell), but Artaxerxes III, though “considered to be a mighty Persian king, is heavily based upon the Neo-Babylonian Great king, Nebuchednezzar”. Esarhaddon a builder of Babylon become strangely ill “At that time it had become increasingly clear that Esarhaddon's physical condition was poorly: He was constantly struck with illness, mostly of a rather severe nature. For days, he withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink and, most disturbingly, any human company …”. Karen Radner A summary so far According to the findings in this article (and other related works of mine), Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel, had, as his alter egos, Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (whose son was, like the biblical Nebuchednezzar, Belshazzar). A further alter ego of his may have been the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses. And Artaxerxes III - likely a composite character - appears to have been heavily based upon Nebuchednezzar, who bears the title “Artaxerxes” in the Book of Nehemiah. Recently I have found cause to include Esarhaddon in this “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” mix. Here are the reasons why. Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, as a builder of Babylon, who, as we are going to find, suffered a protracted, debilitating and most mysterious type of illness, looms, from such a point of view, as a perfect alter ego for Nebuchednezzar. He, a potent Mesopotamian king, was, of course, a conqueror of Egypt. Added to this, it may be that the Ahikar (var. Achior) who thrived in the court of Esarhaddon, was present, as the high official Arioch, in the court of the “Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel. See my article: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (4) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Yet there is more. Common to my “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” candidates is a tendency to contrariness, or individualism, in the face of established religious or sapiential protocol. I have already written about this as follows: Messing with the rites …. Regarding the rebellious behaviour of King Nabonidus with regard to the rites, I wrote …: Confounding the Astrologers Despite his superstitious nature the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel – and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus – did not hesitate at times to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6): The king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.” And so, in the Verse Account, we read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence of sycophantic officials: Yet he continues to mix up the rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila - representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned - he looks at the representations and utters blasphemies. When he saw the usar-symbol of Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars, he expounded to them as follows: ‘Is not this the sign of ownership indicating for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own temple with the usar-symbol!’ And Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him, do confirm the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce under oath: ‘Now only we understand this situation, after the king has explained about it!’ …. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to an eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129): The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not understand what it meant. The passage is difficult, but its general implications are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of the eclipse and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did check them but disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled for him (Daniel II, 3-5) …. But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly …. Again, in the case of Cambyses, we encounter this unconventional situation: A badly damaged passage in the chronicle of Nabonidus contains a report that, in order to legitimize his appointment, Cambyses partici¬pated in the ritual prescribed for the king at the traditional New Year festival on 27 March 538 B.C., accepting the royal scepter from the hands of Marduk in Esagila, the god’s temple in Babylon (III. 24-28; Gray¬son, p. 111). A. L. Oppenheim attempted a reconstruc¬tion of the damaged text (Survey of Persian Art XV, p. 3501); according to his version, Cambyses entered the temple in ordinary Elamite attire, fully armed. The priests persuaded him to lay down his arms, but he refused to change his clothes for those prescribed in the ritual. He then received the royal scepter. In Oppenheim’s view Cambyses thus deliberately demon¬strated “a deep-seated religious conviction” hostile to this alien religion (Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 557). Now, Esarhaddon is found to have behaved in just the same fashion as had “Nebuchednezzar”, as had Nabonidus, as had Cambyses. He, in order to justify and facilitate his re-building of the city, Babylon, “turned upside down” the decreed number of 70 years, attributing his subterfuge to the intervention of Marduk: “Seventy years as the measure of its desolation he wrote (in the Book of Fate). But the merciful [Marduk] —his anger lasted but a moment— turned (the Book of Fate) upside down and ordered its restoration in the eleventh year”. Though the reign of Esarhaddon (c. 681 - 669 BC, conventional dating), like that of Nabonidus, is thought to have been relatively short, at least by comparison with that of Nebuchednezzar, I have suggested that what we have of Nabonidus constitutes only the early reign of Nebuchednezzar. The same may apply to Esarhaddon. “… in a society that saw illness as a divine punishment, a king who was constantly confined to the sick bay could not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding”. Here, though, I - with Nebuchednezzar well in mind - want only to focus upon the illness aspect of Esarhaddon, as it has been wonderfully laid bare by Karen Radner, in “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC”. (The BC dates are her dates not mine): https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/3476/24522_10.pdf?sequence=1 Esarhaddon became king of Assyria in the year 681. Despite the fact that his father and predecessor Sennacherib (704-680) had made him crown prince two years earlier and had had the whole country take an oath on behalf of his chosen heir, this happened against all odds: Esarhaddon had not been Sennacherib's first choice and in order to have him installed as crown prince, the old king first needed to dismiss another of his sons from the office …. Mackey’s comment: Thus Esarhaddon had not expected to become king as we found to be the case with Ashurbanipal, with Nabonidus. Karen Radner continues: This son, Urdu-Mullissi by name, had been crown prince and heir apparent to the Assyrian empire for well over a dozen years when he suddenly had to resign from the prominent position; the reasons for his forced resignation are unknown, but were obviously not grave enough to have him pay with his life. Despite the fact that Urdu-Mullissi had to swear loyalty to his younger brother, he opposed his elevation to the office of crown prince, conspired against Esarhaddon and tried to cause Sennacherib to take back the appointment; the king did not comply, but the situation was clearly very precarious, and the new heir was sent into exile for his own protection. Sennacherib does not seem to have realised just how dangerous his decision to back Esarhaddon's promotion was for his own life; otherwise it is a mystery how the former crown prince Urdu-Mullissi could be allowed to stay in his father's closest proximity where, right under his nose, he plotted to become king. Sennacherib seems to have been caught completely off-guard when Urdu-Mullissi and another son of his attacked him with drawn swords in a temple of Nineveh: On the 20th day of the tenth month of 681 … Sennacherib was killed by the hands of his own sons whose deed caused a stir all over the Near East, best witnessed by the report found in the Old Testarnent …. Yet the kingship that Urdu-Mullissi craved for was not to be his. The aftermath of the murder saw fiction between him and his conspirators; his accession to the throne was delayed and ultimately never took place at all. Assyria was in chaos when Esarhaddon, leading a small army, entered the country from his western exile and marched towards the heartland of the empire. He managed to drive out the murderers of Sennacherib … and, two months after the assassination, he became king of Assyria …. These bloody events shaped the new king profoundly. It comes as no great surprise that after his accession to the throne Esarhaddon ordered all conspirators and political enemies within reach to be killed; yet he could not touch the leader of the conspiracy as Urdu-Mullissi had found asylum in Urartu …. That Assyria's northern neighbour would harbour the murderer of Sennacherib is not at all unexpected: The two countries had been in an almost constant state of war for the past two centuries. At that time, chances were that Urdu-Mullissi still might become king and in that event, the Urartian king could reasonably expect to gain substantial influence over Assyria. In the meantime, Esarhaddon made an effort to ensure that his brother would not have any powerful allies at home, should he ever try to stage a coup d'etat from his exile: Many officials throughout the country who were suspected of entertaining sympathy for the enemy fraction were replaced. To give but one example, the complete security staff at the royal palaces of Nineveh and Kabu was dismissed … it is of course understood that these men were not sent into retirement: They will have been executed. Henceforth, Esarhaddon met his environs as a rule with overwhelming distrust. Routinely, he sought to establish by means of oracular queries whether certain courtiers, officials and even members of the royal family wished him ill or actively tried to harm him …. Mackey’s comment: Hence that complete distrust of “Chaldean” sages in the Book of Daniel? Karen Radner continues: If he seems to have been wary of his male relatives, he appears to have entertained less suspicions about the women of his family. This is certainly one of reason why Esarhaddon's mother Naqi'a, his wife Ešarra-ḫammat and his eldest daughter Šerua-eṭirat were able to wield an amount of influence that has few parallels in Ancient Near Eastern history …. The power of his wife was much noticed even outside palace circles; it is quite extraordinary that her death in the year 673 is mentioned prominently in two contemporary chronicle texts". The devoted widower had a mausoleum erected and special rites for his wife's funerary care installed …. Even more remarkable, he did not get married again … Mackey’s comment: But is that statement true only under his guise of Esarhaddon? Karen Radner continues: … the vacant position of the Assyrian queen was hitherto occupied by his mother Naqi'a … who had already played an important role in Esarhaddon's appointment as crown prince and in his eventual taking of power: This is most obvious from a prophecy which records the encouraging words of Ištar of Arbela to Naqi'a during the time of Esarhaddon's exile …. That also the daughter Šerua-eṭirat occupied a prominent position at her father's court is known from some letters that speaks of her self-confidence …. Her far-reaching influence is apparent from the fact that in later years she acted as a mediator in the conflict between her brothers, the kings of Assyria and Babylon …; this is without parallel for any Near Eastern woman of that time. Esarhaddon's general distrust against his environment is also mirrored by his choice of residence. He had a palace in the city of Kalbu … adapted which his forefather Shalmaneser III (858-824) had constructed as an armoury some two centuries earlier. This building was situated far from the administrative and cultic centre of the city, on top of a seperate [sic] mound that protected it well from its surroundings. In the years between 676 and 672, Esarhaddon had the old building renovated and enhanced, turning it into a veritable stronghold: The gateways especially were turned into strongly fortified and impregnable towers that, if needed, could be used to seal off the palace against the rest of the city. The only access to the building was through a narrow entrance, leading into a long and steep hallway inside the enclosing wall which was protected by a sequence of severa1 heavy doors and which steeply ascended towards the palace. Esarhaddon had a similar palace erected in Nineveh, also far removed from the acropolis proper at Kuyunjik on the separate mound of Nebi Yunus …; however, as this is today the site of one of Mossul's most important mosques, the building is only insufficiently explored …. In the first years of his rule, Esarhaddon proved himself a successful regent who, after a chaotic start, was able to consolidate his kingship and efficiently prevented segregation and territorial losses. Treacherous vassals, who had thought Assyria weakened and had tried to benefit from this, had to come to the painful realisation that Esarhaddon fully controlled his governors and his army and was able to take revenge for treason in the same way as his predecessors had done: As a consequence, the vassal kingdoms of Sidon and of Šubria were conquered and turned into Assyrian provinces …. The completion of a peace treaty with Elam, Assyria's long-standing rival in Iran, in the year 674 must be seen as a skilful political manoeuvre, and the securing of the Eastern border provided Assyria for the first time ever with the chance to attempt and exploit the power vacuum in Egypt to its own advantages - Assyria's first invasion into Egypt, however, ended with a defeat against Taharqa the Nubian, and a hasty retreat …. At that time it had become increasingly clear that Esarhaddon's physical condition was poorly: He was constantly struck with illness, mostly of a rather severe nature. For days, he withdrew to his sleeping quarters and refused food, drink and, most disturbingly, any human company … Mackey’s comment: (Daniel 4:24-25): ‘It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, that you shall be driven from among men …’. Karen Radner continues: … the death of his beloved wife in the year 673 may well have further damaged his already fragile health. For the all powerful king of Assyria, this situation was bizarre. Esarhaddon's counsellors witnessed his deterioration first with apprehension and then with increasing objection, but were of course not in a position to actually change the state of affairs. It is a testament to Assyria's sound administrative structure that the country could take the king's continuing inability to act his part. Modern day man may well be able to muster considerable sympathy for Esarhaddon whose symptoms were indeed rather alarming: As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face. In one letter, the king's personal physician - certainly a medical professional at the very top of his league - was forced to confess his ultimate inability to help the king: ,,My lord, the king, keeps telling me: 'Why do you not identify the nature of my disease and find a cure?' As 1 told the king already in person, his symptoms cannot be classified." While Esarhaddon's experts pronounced themselves incapable of identifying the king's illness, modern day specialists have tried to use the reported symptoms in order to come up with a diagnosis in retrospect?'. However, it is not entirely clear whether the sickly Esarhaddon contracted one illness after the other or, as would seem more likely, suffered from the afflictions of a chronic disease that never left for good. Be that as it may, in a society that saw illness as a divine punishment, a king who was constantly confined to the sick bay could not expect to meet with sympathy and understanding. He could, however, reasonably presume that his subjects saw his affliction at the very least as an indication that the gods lacked goodwill towards their ruler, if not as the fruit of divine wrath, incurred by committing some heinous crime. Therefore, the king's condition needed to be hidden from the public by all means, and that this was at all feasible was very much facilitated by the ancient tradition that whoever came before the king had to be veiled and on their knee. Because of his failing health, Esarhaddon saw himself permanently in death's clutches; this alone made it necessary to provide for his succession: Who would be king after him? There were a great many possible candidates: Esarhaddon himself had fathered at least 18 children but, some of them suffered, like their father, from a frail condition and needed permanent medical attention". It would appear that sickly sons were, just like all the daughters, deemed unfit from the start: After all, only a man without fault could be king of Assyria. …. Another writer has picked up this possible connection “Both Nebuchadnezzar and Esarhaddon were repelled in their first attempt to conquer Egypt, and in the same location”. Charles Pope Charles Pope, would-be revisionist, who can propose some of the wildest biblico-historical correlations (which he manages to do frequently), such as this one regarding Abraham (2002): http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=653 …. A similar scenario played out in the early New Kingdom when three princes named Djehuty competed for dominance. The eldest Djehuty was Abraham. The younger half-brother of Abraham was also a Djehuty, but is better known to us by the Greek form of Thutmose (I). A son of Abraham’s brother Nahor became pharaoh Thutmose II. These were the three "fathers" of yet another Thutmose, Thutmose III (Isaac). Djehuty was the legal father of Thutmose III. Thutmose II was the adoptive father of Thutmose III. Thutmose I was the biological father of Thutmose III. …. can sometimes come up with a bit of a bell-ringer. For instance, I have, in various recent articles, referred to Pope’s Chart 37: “Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives”: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.html Now, in the same 2002 article in which Pope had ridiculously tried to turn the patriarch Abraham into an Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty prince, Djehuty, Pope also ‘explores the possibility’ that Esarhaddon can be Nebuchednezzar: …. I spent all day yesterday exploring the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar is one and the same as Esar-Haddon. For some time now, it has been bugging me that the Babylonian conquest of Nebuchadnezzar is described in the Biblical narrative, but the Assyrian conquest of Esarhaddon is not. When you look at each of these conquests, they appear to be identical. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Esarhaddon were repelled in their first attempt to conquer Egypt, and in the same location. In each case, they succeeded three years later in conquering Egypt when they bypassed the Delta. In each case, there was a third assault five years after the second one. This has me quite intrigued at the moment. If it turns out to be correct, then Nebuchadnezzar was the Babylonian name of Esarhaddon. It is known that Esarhaddon became king in Babylon before succeeding Sennacherib in Assyria. Esarhaddon sacked Thebes in his 9th year. Nebuchadnezzar did the same in his 18th year. I will continue to pursue this correspondence until it is conclusive either one way or the other. Although it seems to complicate matters, in reality it will probably end up simplifying things considerably. This is like playing a game of Tetris. You just keep moving blocks around until you get rid of all the dead space! ‘The Marduk Prophecy’ “The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned to celebrate his victory”. Joshua J. Mark ‘The Marduk Prophecy’, although conventionally dated to the neo-Assyrian era (c. 700 BC), is thought to pertain originally to the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian period centuries earlier. That is what we read, for instance, at: https://www.ancient.eu/article/990/the-marduk-prophecy/ by Joshua J. Mark published on 14 December 2016 The Marduk Prophecy is an Assyrian document dating to between 713-612 BCE found in a building known as The House of the Exorcist adjacent to a temple in the city of Ashur. It relates the travels of the statue of the Babylonian god Marduk from his home city to the lands of the Hittites, Assyrians, and Elamites and prophesies its return at the hands of a strong Babylonian king. The original work was almost certainly written during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BCE) as a propaganda piece. Nebuchadnezzar I defeated the Elamites and brought the statue back to Babylon, and the work was most likely commissioned to celebrate his victory. The author would have constructed the narrative to place the events in the past in order to allow for a 'prophetic vision' in which the present king would come to restore peace and order to the city by bringing home the statue of the god. This form of narrative was commonplace in the genre now known as Mesopotamian Naru Literature where historical events or individuals were treated with poetic license in order to make a point. In a work such as The Curse of Akkad, for example, the historical king Naram-Sin (2261-2224 BCE), known for his piety, is presented as impious in an effort to illustrate the proper relationship between a monarch and the gods. The point made would be that if a king as great as Naram-Sin of Akkad could fail in piety and be punished, how much more would a person of lesser stature fare. In The Marduk Prophecy, the events are placed far in the past in order for the writer to be able to 'predict' the moment when a Babylonian king would return Marduk to his rightful home. This piece, then, also deals with the responsibility a monarch has to his god. …. [End of quote] According to Takuma Sugie, this document, supposed to have been written during the reign of the Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar so-called I, who conquered Elam, was “re-interpreted” to apply prophetically to Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, who conquered Elam: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient/49/0/49_107/_pdf The Reception of the Marduk Prophecy in Seventh-Century B.C. Nineveh The Marduk Prophecy is a literary composition in the guise of prophetic speech by Marduk. It is supposed to be written to praise Nebuchadnezzar I’s triumph over Elam during his reign. However, all the three surviving exemplars of this text are from the seventh-century B.C. Assyria: two from Nineveh and another from Assur. This article discusses how the Marduk Prophecy was read and re-interpreted in Nineveh at that time. Between the Marduk Prophecy and the royal literature during the reign of Ashurbanipal, the following common themes can be recognized: (1) reconstruction of the Babylonian temples, above all Esagil; (2) conquest of Elam; and (3) fulfillment of divine prophecies. On the basis of these, the author proposes that in the seventh-century Nineveh the Marduk Prophecy was regarded as an authentic prophecy predicting the achievements of Ashurbanipal, and that this is the main reason why this text was read at his court. …. [End of quote] The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king. See e.g. my article: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (7) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment. Nebuchednezzar so-called I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashurbanipal#Nineveh.2C_Babylon_and_Ela Striking parallels with Esarhaddon “[Matthijs J. de] Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions …”. Takuma Sugie Nor is there any surprise in learning that ‘The Marduk Prophecy’ bears striking parallels with Esarhaddon’s inscriptions for the same reason (Esarhaddon is Ashurbanipal). And, according to this present series, Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal) is Nebuchednezzar. Takuma Sugie continues on, writing of the similarities that de Jong has picked up between the ‘Prophecy’ and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon: III. Were Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal Interested in the Marduk Prophecy? Recently, Matthijs J. de Jong inferred that two [sic] Assyrian great monarchs in the seventh century, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, had a particular interest in the Marduk Prophecy. …. He draws parallels between the Marduk Prophecy and the inscriptions of Esarhaddon. To take the most striking similarity, the Marduk Prophecy iii 25'-30' foretells that an ideal king “will make the great king of Dēr (šarra rabâ ša urudēr) stand up from a place not his dwelling … and bring him into Dēr and eternal Ekurdimgalkalama (ana urudēr u é-kur-UD(dimx?)-gal-kalam-ma ša dā[r]âti ušerrebšu).”14 This closely resembles a phrase recurring in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, which represents this king as the one who “brought the god Great-Anu (i.e., Ištarān) into his city Dēr and his temple Edimgalkalama and had (him) sit upon eternal dais (danum rabû ana ālišu dērki u bītišu é-dim-gal-kalam-ma ušēribuma ušēšibu parakka dārâti).”15 In addition to this, de Jong lists the motifs shared by the Marduk Prophecy and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions: (1) ascension of the Babylonian gods to heaven;16 (2) fulfillment of the days of absence;17 (3) renovation of the Esagil temple in Babylon;18 (4) Babylon’s tax exemption;19 (5) gathering of the dispersed Babylonian people;20 and so on. Furthermore, de Jong points out a community of themes shared between the Marduk Prophecy and Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions too; Ashurbanipal continued and completed his father’s [sic] project to send back Marduk’s statue and restore Esagil. Ashurbanipal also conducted several military campaigns against Elam. In the light of these parallels, de Jong supposes that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were profoundly interested in the Marduk Prophecy, and he proposes the possibility that the Marduk Prophecy was elaborated during the reign of one of these kings. …. The Siege of the City of Tyre “But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673)”. Arnold J. Tkacik Fr. Arnold J. Tkacik (OSB) has written what I would consider to be a most helpful and enlightening commentary on the extremely complex biblical Book of Ezekiel in his article, “Ezekiel”, for The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968). I refer more especially to the exegetical (or religious-spiritual) aspect of his commentary than to the historical side of it. Though, even in this latter regard - or at least as regards the chronology of the book - Fr. Tkacik has arrived at what I think are some telling conclusions. However, if this present article is correct, according to which Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ is to be enlarged and greatly filled out with the potent king, Esarhaddon, then any conventional commentary for this particular period of biblico-history must needs be somewhat one-dimensional rather than being able to present a full picture of the times. Regarding the siege of the Levantine Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel, or what Fr. Tkacik heads, THE TIDAL WAVE AGAINST TYRE (26:1-21), the author will suggest that “the method of attack” in this case is more along the lines of Esarhaddon’s modus operandi against Tyre than, as according to some, that of Alexander the Great. Thus he writes (21:60): Some authors (e.g. Holscher and Torrey) maintain that the poem describes the capture of Tyre by Alexander in 332, because it speaks of a complete destruction of the city (vv. 3-6, 14). But as Steinmann points out ... the method of attack (vv. 8-9) is not that employed by Alexander but is similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon in 673). [End of quote] The “method of attack” is described in Ezekiel 26:8-9 like this: He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. Instead of his writing “similar to that of attackers previous to Nebuchednezzar (e.g., Esarhaddon ...)”, though, Fr. Tkacik could well have written “similar to that of attackers Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon”. For, unlike Alexander, the neo-Assyrian/Babylonian besiegers failed to complete their work even after years of effort. Compare the following two items (Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar): https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/E/esarhaddon.html The capture of Tyre was also attempted, but, the city being differently situated, a siege from the land was insufficient to bring about submission, as it was impossible to cut off the commerce by sea. The siege, after several years, seems to have been lifted. Although on a great monolith Esarhaddon depicts Ba`al, the king of Tyre, kneeling before him with a ring through his lips, there is nothing in the inscriptions to bear this out. http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790 Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt. In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected. It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar. After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar. Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field). Neither account above allows for the total destruction of Tyre that Alexander the Great would later manage to achieve. Previously, I also included the mighty Ashurbanipal amongst my alter egos for Nebuchednezzar. Thus I wrote: The simple answer, I think, as to why a document written in praise of a Babylonian king was later considered to apply to an Assyrian ruler reigning about four centuries after the Babylonian king, is that Nebuchednezzar I and Ashurbanipal were one and the same king. …. The necessary ‘folding’ of conventional C12th BC Assyro-Babylonian history into the C8th-C7th’s BC serves to bring great kings into their proper alignment. Nebuchednezzar I’s conquest of Elam now sits in place, where it should, as Ashurbanipal’s famous devastation of Elam in 639 BC (conventional dating), when “the Assyrians sacked the Elamite city of Susa, and Ashurbanipal boasted that “the whole world” was his”. …. So what of Ashurbanipal and Tyre? If I am correct, then he should have experienced the same outcome there as had his alter egos, Esarhaddon, Nebuchednezzar. Well, it seems that my view is solidly supported by the following statement according to which “scholars attribute ... to Esarhaddon” what Ashurbanipal himself would claim regarding Tyre: Esarhaddon refers to an earlier period when gods, angered by insolent mortals, create a destructive flood. According to inscriptions recorded during his reign, Esarhaddon besieges Tyre, cutting off food and water. Assurbanipal's inscriptions also refer to a siege against Tyre, although scholars attribute it to Esarhaddon. And so they should if I am correct: Ashurbanipal was Esarhaddon – was Nebuchednezzar! https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/295-assurbanipal-cylinder-c/ Esarhaddon's son [sic] Aššurbanipal (r.669-631?) inherited this situation. In his third year, he tried to capture Tyre, occupied the mainland, but - like his predecessors - failed to capture the island city itself. Note the absence of tribute: it seems that a marital alliance was concluded. ... In my third campaign I marched against Ba'al, king of Tyre .... Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nebuchednezzar, tried to take Tyre but failed to take it completely even after a long siege. The king of Tyre at the time was Ba’al, or Ithobal (Ithoba’al). More recently, I have added yet another king to the list of alter egos for Esarhaddon/ Ashurbanipal/Nebuchednezzar: Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal (4) Ashur-bel-kala as Ashurbanipal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu