Sixty-two years of Darius, who was Cyrus ‘the Great’

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

^“That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, 

and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”.

Daniel 5:30-31

 

Wonderful parallels this revision now offers

 

With Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) identified as Belshazzar – and the father, Nebuchednezzar, as Nabonidus – then we find (to be explained further below):

 

Amēl-Marduk governing Babylon while his father is (away and) incapacitated, and, likewise,

Belshazzar, governing Babylon while his father is (away and) incapacitated.

 

And with Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar further identified with Shamash-shum-ukin, a supposed brother of Ashurbanipal (my Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus), but actually his son, then the apparent incarceration of the troublesome Amēl-Marduk by his father, Nebuchednezzar, accords well with the incarceration of the son, Nabu-shum-ukin (= Shamash-shum-ukin) (see below).

 

What’s more, Nebuchednezzar is thought to have incarcerated Nabu-shum-ukin along with Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah.

 

That might go a long way towards explaining why the son of the Chaldean king would, upon the death of his father, Nebuchednezzar, exalt Jehoiachin in the kingdom.

They had been fellow captives.

 

2 Kings 25:27: “In the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, the king of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, Evil-merodach who had become king that year, released Jehoiachin, the king of Judah, from prison”.

 

            A brick discovered at Babylon with an inscription of Amēl-Marduk. Photo: © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft; Foto: Robert Koldewey, 1911 (Bab Ph 2302). Used with Permission.

 

King Belshazzar

 

Despite almost universal doubt, King Belshazzar really did exist as a son and successor of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.

Biblically, Belshazzar is referenced in Baruch 1:11, 12, and he was, as well, the historically verifiable Amēl-Marduk, the biblical Evil-Merodach, who, as we have read, set free the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin.

 

King Jehoiachin, too, is historically verified.

 

The plot thickens.

In my article:

 

Nebuchednezzar incarcerated his son

 

(6) Nebuchednezzar incarcerated his son

 

we learn that Amēl-Marduk was a troublesome son whom King Nebuchednezzar had placed in prison along with Jehoiachin of Judah, and that Amēl-Marduk may otherwise have been called Nabu-shum-ukin – which accords nicely  with my view that the supposed brother of Ashurbanipal (my Nebuchednezzar), Shamash-shum-ukin, was actually Ashurbanipal’s son and successor, Sin-shar-ishkun:

 

Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

(3) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar (= Sin-shar-ishkun/Shamash-shum-ukin), was able to wield significant power (though not actual kingship) while his father was cruelly incapacitated during his protracted illness.

He must have over-reached himself somewhere along the line, because we learn that he was, as Amēl-Marduk (or Nabu-shum-ukin), imprisoned for an unknown period of time.

 

On this troublesome son of Nebuchednezzar, we read as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amel-Marduk

Amēl-Marduk was the successor of his father, Nebuchadnezzar … (r. 605–562 BC). ….

It seems that the succession to Nebuchadnezzar was troublesome and that the king's last years [sic] were prone to political instability. …. In one of the inscriptions written very late in his reign, after Nebuchadnezzar had already ruled for forty years, the king affirms that he had been chosen for kingship by the gods before he had even been born.

 

Stressing divine legitimacy in such a fashion was usually only done by usurpers or if there were political problems with his intended successor. Given that Nebuchadnezzar had been king for several decades, and had been the legitimate heir of his predecessor, the first option seems unlikely.

….

 

Amēl-Marduk was chosen as heir during his father's reign … and is attested as crown prince in 566 BC. …. evidence of altercations between Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-Marduk makes his selection as heir seem even more improbable. …. In one text, Nebuchadnezzar and Amēl-Marduk are both implicated in some conspiracy, with one of the two accused of bad conduct against the temples and people: ….

 

Concerning [Nebu]chadnezzar they thought [. . .] his life were not treasured [by them . . . the people of] Babylon to Amēl-Marduk spoke, not [. . .] . . . "concerning the treasure of [the Esagila] and Babylon [. . ."] they mentioned the cities of the great gods [. . .] his heart over son and daughter will not let [. . .] family and tribe are [not . . .] in his heart. All that is full [. . .] his thoughts were not about the well-being of [the Esagila and Babylon . . .], with attentive ears he went to the holy gates [. . .] prayed to the Lord of lords [. . .] he cried bitterly to Marduk, the gods [..w]ent his prayer to [. . .]. ….

 

The inscription contains accusations, though it is unclear to whom they are directed, concerning the desecration of holy places and the exploitation of the populace—failures in the two main responsibilities of the king of Babylon. The accused is afterwards stated to have cried and prayed to Marduk, Babylon's national deity. ….

 

Another text from late in Nebuchadnezzar's reign contains a prayer by an imprisoned son of Nebuchadnezzar named Nabu-shum-ukin ( Nabû-šum-ukīn), who states that he was imprisoned because of a conspiracy against him.

 

…. According to the Leviticus Rabbah, a 5th–7th-century AD Midrashic text, Amel-Marduk was imprisoned by his father alongside the captured Judean king Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) because some of the Babylonian officials had proclaimed him king while Nebuchadnezzar was away. …. The Assyriologist Irving Finkel argued in 1999 that Nabu-shum-ukin was the same person as Amel-Marduk, who changed his name to "man of Marduk" once he was released as reverence towards the god to whom he had prayed. …. Finkel's conclusions have been accepted as convincing by other scholars … and would also explain the previous text, perhaps relating to the same incidents.

…. 

 

The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, a Hebrew work on history possibly written in the 12th century, erroneously states that Amēl-Marduk was Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, but that his father sidelined him in favour of his brother, 'Nebuchadnezzar the Younger' (a fictional figure not attested in any other source), and was thus imprisoned together with Jeconiah until the death of Nebuchadnezzar the Younger, after which Amel-Marduk was made king. ….

 

Considering the available evidence, it is possible that Nebuchadnezzar saw Amēl-Marduk as an unworthy heir and sought to replace him with another son.

 

Why Amēl-Marduk nevertheless became king is not clear. …. Regardless, Amel-Marduk's administrative duties probably began before he became king, during the last few weeks or months of his father's reign when Nebuchadnezzar was ill and dying. …. The last known tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign, from Uruk, is dated to the same day, 7 October, as the first known tablet of Amel-Marduk, from Sippar. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

Apparently, also – and again, right in line with my identification of Amēl-Marduk with Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus – Amēl-Marduk had governed the kingdom while Nebuchednezzar was away, incapacitated.

 

“… officials … bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach

to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable

to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”.

 

British Museum tablet No. BM 34113

Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom.

 

For example we read this (somewhat inaccurate) account at:

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king

…. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. …. 

 

As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar:

 

Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus

 

(4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

It is known that King Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father.

William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136):

 

NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE

 

https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf

 

…. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king.

 

The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince" through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king.

There is no doubt about Belshazzar's importance while he governed Babylonia during his father's absence, but the question remains - did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. ….

 

Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar.

 

And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson.

 

For, as I wrote in my article:

 

Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar

 

(4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”.

This led me to conclude - based on a strikingly parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar.

 

I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975): 

 

Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered "bad" (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis.

 

Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.

 

Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon - though not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?

 

King Nebuchednezzar’s son, once imprisoned (as Amēl-Marduk/Nabu-shum-ukin), ultimately, now as sole King, died a violent death no matter what name we give to him.

 

Calculating those sixty-two years (revised)

 

Working backwards from Daniel 5:30-31: “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”, we connect Year 1 of Darius the Mede (Cyrus) to the last year of Belshazzar, say, Year 3/4.

We then add that 4 to the 43 years of the reign of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (same as the 43 years of Ashurbanipal) = 47.

Since Year 4 of King Jehoiakim of Judah coincided with Year 1 of Nebuchednezzar (Jeremiah 25:1), then Year 1 of Jehoiakim would bring us to (3+47) that nice round number of 50.

Another 12 years are needed (12 + 50) to bring us to our sought-after 62. That would take us back 12 years into the reign of King Josiah of Judah, the father of Jehoiakim. Subtracting 12 years from the 31 year-reign of Josiah, we arrive at Year 19 of Josiah, one year after the discovery of the Book of the Law (cf, 2 Kings 22:1, 3, 8).

 

This date approximately, and allowing for all of my mathematical uncertainties, would be when Darius/Cyrus was born.

 

Now, in my greatly streamlined, revised chronology, the life Cyrus, of whom the prophet Isaiah wrote (44:24-28 and 45:1-13), would have overlapped with the latter years of the long life of the prophet Isaiah.

 

So, instead of Isaiah having to make long-range – over 200 years in advance – predictions about Cyrus, he was actually writing of a much younger contemporary; perhaps he even knew about the young lad personally from exiled Hebrews.

Clarifying Nergal-sharezer in Jeremiah 39:3

 

 

 

Julius A. Bewer wrote for Union Theological Seminary, NY, in 1907:

Nergalsharezer Samgar in Jer. 39:3 on JSTOR

 

 

NERGALSHAREZER SAMGAR IN JER. 39:3

 

In the inscription of Nebuchadrezzar II, published by Eckhard Unger in the Theologische Literaturzeitung 50, No. 21 (Oct. 17, 1925), we find the name of the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan who carried the Jews into captivity in 586 B.C. (Jer. 39:9, 11, 40:1; II Kings 25:8, 10ff.) = Nabuzêriddinam with his title rab nuḫtimmu, “chief baker”, corresponding to רַב־ טַבָּחִ֛ים in the Bible at the head of the list of the high-court officials (mašennum). This is in itself an item of such historical importance that it makes the inscription very valuable for the Old Testament student.

There is, however, another name mentioned in the list which not only authenticates an Old Testament name but solves an old crux interpretum in Jer 39:3. Nergalšarriuṣur, one of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim, “the great ones of the land of Akkad”, is the same as the Nergalsharezer in Jer. 39:3 who is there described as  one of the שָׂרֵי מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל, “the princes of the king of Babylon”. After his name the Hebrew text reads סַמְגַּר-נְבוּ שַׂר-סְכִים רַב-סָרִיס. The first word סַמְגַּר has hitherto been quite unknown. Giesebrecht¹ saw that it did not belong to the following name, which is to be corrected in accordance with Jer. 39:13 to נְבוּשַׁזְבָּן, but to the preceding נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר. He assumed that there was a textual corruption in סַמְגַּר and changed it to רַב-מָג, because he regarded Nergalsharezer rab mag, who follows immediately upon Nabushazban in Jer. 39:3 (as restored) and 39:13 as a parallel reading of Nergalsharezer samgar. We now know that סַמְגַּר is quite correct, it is Sinmagir, the name of the city of Akkad of which Nergalsharezer was governor, for the Nebuchadrezzar inscription has in the list of the rabûti šar mât Akkadim as the second official: Nergal-šarri-uṣur amêlu Sinmagir. סַמְגַּר is clearly the Hebrew equivalent of Sinmagir. The vowels are, of course, to be disregarded, because the later Jews did not know how to pronounce the name ….

Are Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir and Nergalsharezer rab mag the same or different persons? Since only one Nergalsharezer is mentioned in Jer. 39:13, it seems most reasonable to assume that there was originally only one in Jer. 39:3 also, i.e., Nergalsharezer of Sinmagir, who was rab mag at this time. The original reading was then נֵרְגַל שַׂרְאֶצֶר סַמְגַּר to which the parallel reading intended to attach the title רַב-מָג 

….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Esther drama is not about a final showdown between Amalek and tribe of Benjamin

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

Haman, formerly an apostate King of Judah, was not out to annihilate

the entire Jewish race. He was bent upon destroying only those

like his Yahwistic foe, Mordecai, who were working towards

the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

  

The standard view goes something like this:

 

Hundreds of years later, Saul nearly fulfills the command by killing all Amalekite men, women, and children. But he spares their king, who keeps his people barely alive by having a child. Many more generations later, one of his descendants, the villain Haman, goes on to develop a plot to kill all the Jews living in exile under a Persian ruler. The lesson, when read literally, is clear: Saul’s failure to kill every Amalekite posed an existential threat to the Jewish people.

 

We have just read that King Saul of Israel, defying the terrible herem (חֵרֶם cherem) command of the Lord to wipe out the Amalekite people lock, stock and barrel, had spared their King Agag, with the result that a descendants of his, “the villain Haman”, living in Persia at a much later time, conspires to wipe out the  entire Jewish race.

 

What seemingly makes this exciting take on the Book of Esther the more plausible is that the man who will oppose, and finally defeat, Haman and his minions, Mordecai, was actually of the same tribe as King Saul, a Benjaminite, sharing the same ancestor, Kish (Esther 2:5-7; cf. I Samuel 9:1-2):

 

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

 

And so we have the perfect cosmic scenario, today so heavily employed by the Zionists: The ancient enmity between Amalek and the tribe of Benjamin, unresolved in the day of King Saul, will now be fully resolved when the Benjaminite Jew, Mordecai, overcomes that terrible last vestige of the Amalekites, Haman.

 

Sorry to spoil a good story.

This is not entirely how it happened.

 

Turning to Jewish legends – not always reliable, but in this case crucial – Haman was actually, shock, horror, ‘a Jew, one known to Mordecai’ (Ginsburg).

 

But which contemporary Jew?

 

Esther 3:1 is the key to the whole thing, but the names need to be properly interpreted:

 

After these things did King Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

 

Vagueness concerning the true ethnicity of Haman has led to his being called variously an Agagite; an Amalekite: a Bougaean; and a Macedonian.

Macedonian is totally irrelevant, and Bougaean cannot be explained.

Boogeyman would be better because that is what Haman has become for the Jews.

 

The Jews customarily Boo Haman at the Feast of Purim.

 

Firstly, there is no such race specifically as Agag (Agagite).

And, secondly, the MT Greek word for Amalekite (Amalikitis Aμαληκίτης) appears to have been confused here with the Greek word for Captive (aichmálo̱tos αἰχμάλωτος).

 

Haman “the Captive” was not an Amalekite, or Agagite.

He was the Jewish king, “Jeconiah … the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17), the (grand-)son of Queen Hamutal (Hammutal), given in Esther 3:1 as Hammedatha.

 

This is the key to the historicity of the Book of Esther.

 

Haman, formerly an apostate King of Judah, was not out to annihilate the entire Jewish race. He was bent upon destroying only those like his Yahwistic foe, Mordecai, who were working towards the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem.