by
Part One:
‘Xerxes’ and Sennacherib
The mighty king,
Xerxes, favoured by various commentators to represent “Ahasuerus”, the Great
King of the Book of Esther, is most likely a composite character, a mix of real
Assyrian and Medo-Persian kings. Here, for instance, we consider his likenesses
to Sennacherib.
Introduction
The name ‘Xerxes’ is thought by historians to accord extremely well
linguistically with “Ahasuerus”, the name of the Great King of the Book of
Esther.
There are several kings “Ahasuerus” in the (Catholic) Bible: in Tobit; in Esther;
in Ezra; and in Daniel.
As Cyaxares
The one in Tobit is usually considered to refer to the Cyaxares who
conquered Nineveh. See e.g. my:
But before [Tobias] died, he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which was
taken by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus; and before his death he rejoiced over
Nineveh. (Tobit 14:15)
and:
in which I discuss the name, “Ahasuerus”.
Cyaxares, again, is probably the “Ahasuerus” mentioned as the father of
Darius the Mede in Daniel 9:1: “It was the first year of the reign of
Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who
became king of the Babylonians”.
As Cyrus
The “Ahasuerus” in Esther I have identified as Darius the Mede/Cyrus:
and,
likewise, the “Ahasuerus” in Ezra:
The
names, Xerxes, Ahasuerus, Cyaxares and Cyrus are all fairly compatible.
Comparisons with Sennacherib
Emmet Sweeney
has done the work here, providing some striking parallels between the known
historical Assyrian king, Sennacherib (C8th BC), and the historically far
shakier, ‘Xerxes’. http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/58-xerxes-and-sennacherib.html
... In
Ramessides, Medes and Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying
Tiglath-Pileser III with Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with
Darius I. The striking correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated
generation for generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely
that the identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch
could potentially invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next
“pairing” – Sennacherib with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and
convincing correspondences?
A random
search of the internet produces the following for Xerxes and Sennacherib: “Like
the Persian Xerxes, he [Sennacherib] was weak and vainglorious, cowardly under
reverse, and cruel and boastful in success.” (WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html). The writer of these words did
not suspect any connection between the two kings, much less that they were the
same person. Nevertheless, the similarities between them were so compelling
that one apparently brought the other to mind.
The
writer’s instincts, I shall argue, did not betray him. The lives and careers of
Xerxes and Sennacherib were so similar that were the thesis presented in these
pages not proffered, scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels between
the two.
One of
Xerxes’ first actions as king was an invasion of Egypt, which had thrown off
the Persian yoke shortly after Darius’ defeat at the hands of the Greeks. This
reconquest of Egypt was said to have taken place in Xerxes’ second year. Similarly,
one of the first actions of Sennacherib was a campaign against Egypt and her
Palestinian and Syrian allies. This war against Egypt took place in
Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of
Judah had rebelled and sought the assistance of
the kings
of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the cavalry of the king of
Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they (actually) had come to
their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle lines were
drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.… I fought with them and
inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured
alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers of
the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton,
1950) pp. 287-8).
Hezekiah
was besieged, but not captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this campaign was
a complete victory for Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the Great King:
Hezekiah
himself, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed and
whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal
residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later,
to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of
silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone … all kinds of
valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female musicians.
In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his
(personal) messenger.
Hezekiah
would scarcely have sent this tribute to Sennacherib had his Egyptian allies
not been totally defeated, a circumstance which has made many scholars suspect
that he actually entered Egypt after his defeat of its army on the plain of
Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp. 308-9). This
supposition is supported by the fact that Sennacherib described himself as
“King of the Four Quarters,” a term which, as stated above, traditionally
implied authority over Magan and Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the western-most
“quarter” or edge of the world. It is also supported by both classical and
Hebrew tradition. Thus Herodotus spoke of Sennacherib advancing against Egypt
with a mighty army and camping at Pelusium, near the north-eastern
frontier (Herodotus, iii, 141), whilst Berossus, who wrote a history of
Chaldea, said that Sennacherib had conducted an expedition against “all Asia
and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, i,4). Jewish tradition goes
further and tells of the conquest of Egypt by the king and of his march towards
Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to stop his campaign against Hezekiah for a
short time, as he had to move hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered this
‘pearl of all countries’ he returned to Judea.” (L. Ginzberg, The Legends of
the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920) Vol. VI p. 365). Talmudic sources also relate
that after conquering Egypt, Sennacherib carried away from there the throne of
Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p. 160)
Sennacherib’s
second campaign against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions, had,
as is well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great King.
The
greatest event of Xerxes’ reign was of course his momentous defeat in Greece.
The story of his invasion is recorded in detail by the Greek authors, most
particularly by Herodotus, and it is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome the
Hellenes represented the great watershed in Achaemenid history. From that point
on the Persian Empire entered a period of prolonged decline.
Strange
then that of all the wars waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents who are said
to have come near to defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one well-known
passage Berossus tells of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the Ionians
of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913) p.
487). The Greeks, he says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand
struggle.
The most
important event of Xerxes’ latter years was without doubt his defeat of yet
another Babylonian rebellion. Although our sources are somewhat vague, it would
appear that there were in fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time of
Xerxes, the first of which occurred in his second year, and was led by Bel-shimanni,
and the second some time later led by Shamash-eriba.
How
peculiar then that Sennacherib too should face two major rebellions in Babylon,
the first of which came within three years or so of his succession, and was led
by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns, Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120).
Rebellion number two came some years later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This
second rebellion, one might guess, was one of the consequences of the Persian
defeat in Greece, and there seems little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the
Assyrian records and monuments is Shamash-eriba of the Persian.
Both
Xerxes and Sennacherib were relatively mild in their treatment of the
Babylonians after the first rebellion. However, after the second insurrection
both kings subjected the city to massive destruction. But the parallels do not
end there. Xerxes’ terrible punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the
Babylonians’ murder of his satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they
Lived and Worked (1979) p. 46).
Similarly,
Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon after the second insurrection was largely
in vengeance for the Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother
Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op
cit. pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens,
destroyed its temples, and seized the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian
Dicks, op cit). In the same way, Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples,
massacred the people, and carried off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W.
Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and Marduk were one and the same; and the name was
often written Bel-Marduk. In memory of the awful destruction wrought by
Sennacherib, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight
years that followed as “kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such
catastrophe again until the time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries later.
Xerxes’
despoliation of Babylon is generally believed to have been accompanied by his
suppression of the Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that his famous
inscription recording the outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods, in favor of
Ahura Mazda, was part of the general response to the second Babylonian
uprising:
And among
these countries (in rebellion) there was one where, previously, daevas had been
worshipped. Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed this sanctuary
of daevas and proclaimed. “Let daevas not be worshipped!” There, where
daevas had been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.
How
peculiar then that Sennacherib too should be accused of outlawing the
Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in favor of Ashur as part of his response
to a second Babylonian rebellion? “A political-theological propaganda campaign
was launched to explain to the people that what had taken place [the
destruction of Babylon and despoliation of Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord
with the wish of most of the gods. A story was written in which Marduk, because
of a transgression, was captured and brought before a tribunal. Only a part of
the commentary to this botched piece of literature is extant.” (http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html). Nevertheless, it is clear that
Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw” Marduk. Thus we find that, “Even
the great poem of the creation of the world, the Enuma elish, was altered: the
god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.” (Ibid.)
To
summarize, then, consider the following:
SENNACHERIB
|
XERXES
|
Made
war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks
shortly thereafter.
|
Made
war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks
shortly thereafter.
|
Suppressed
two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by
Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.
|
Suppressed
two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by
Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
|
The
Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely
repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s
viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.
|
The
Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely
repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
|
After
the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city
walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter
the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the
supreme deity.
|
After
the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls
and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the
Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the
supreme deity.
|
The
parallels between Xerxes and Sennacherib are thus among the closest between an
Achaemenid and a Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished. There is yet
one more striking comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison so
compelling and so identical in the details that this one alone, even without
the others, would be enough to demand an identification.
Xerxes
died after a reign of 21 years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in dramatic
circumstances, murdered in a palace conspiracy apparently involving at least
one of his sons. Popular tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes was
Artabanus, the captain of his guard, and that this man then put the blame on
Darius, eldest son of the murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that
Artaxerxes, the crown prince, pointed the finger at Darius, who was
immediately arrested and executed. (Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia
Vol. 1 (London, 1930) pp. 213-4). It is said that Artabanus then plotted to
murder Artaxerxes, but that the conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No
sooner had Artabanus been removed than Hystaspes, another elder brother of
Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion. The young king then led his forces into Bactria
and defeated the rebel in two battles. (Ibid., p. 124)
Of the
above information, one feature is most unusual: the eldest son, Darius, who was
not the crown prince, was accused of the murder by the crown prince Artaxerxes,
who then had him hunted down and killed.
The death
of Sennacherib compares very well with that of Xerxes. He too was murdered in a
palace conspiracy involving some of his sons. But as with the death of Xerxes,
there has always been much rumor and myth, though little solid fact, in
evidence. The biblical Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer, two of
Sennacherib’s sons, as the killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of
Esarhaddon, the crown prince at the time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest
brother, whom he hunted down and killed. Two other brothers are also named in
complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).
In spite
of Esarhaddon’s clear statement, there has always been much confusion about the
details — so much so that some have even implicated Esarhaddon himself in the
deed. In view of such a level of confusion, the detailed discussion of the
question by Professor Simo Parpola, in 1980, was sorely needed and long overdue.
Employing commendable reasoning, Parpola demonstrated how a little-understood
Babylonian text revealed the identity of the culprit, Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper,
Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI (Chicago, 1911) No. 1091). A sentence
of the document reads, “Thy son Arad-Ninlil is going to kill thee.” The latter
name should properly, according to Parpola, be read as Arda-Mulissi (identical
to Adrammelech of 2 Kings). Motivation for the murder, said Parpola, was not
difficult to find. After the capture and probable death at the hands of the
Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest son and heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the
“second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be the next
crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of
Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi
but becomes the favourite son of Sennacherib thanks to his mother Naqia …
Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince.” (Prof. Simo
Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique
International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk Forlag, 1980)).
We need
hardly go beyond that for a motive. It is not clear whether Arda-Mulissi
personally delivered the death blow; it seems that one of his captains was
responsible.
Of this
death then we note the same unusual feature. The king was murdered by or on the
orders of his eldest son, who was not however the crown prince. The eldest son
was then pursued and executed by a younger son, who was the crown prince. The
parallels with the death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a second
brother is named in complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In both
cases too the murder was not actually carried out by the prince but by a fellow
conspirator; in the case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard, and in
the case of Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of
Esarhaddon. And this calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the
murder of Xerxes and Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been
named as a suspect. Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on
the throne by Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1
(15th ed.) p. 598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that
Esarhaddon had a part in his father’s death.
Such
striking similarities, when placed along with the multitude of other parallels
between the two kings’ lives, leave little doubt that we are on the right
track. ....
Part Two:
‘Xerxes’ and Ahasuerus
The mighty king,
‘Xerxes’, who I consider to be a conflation of various historical kings, is
often the choice of biblical historians for “King Ahasuerus” of the Book of
Esther.
It is common to read commentators identifying the “Ahasuerus” of the Book
of Esther with Xerxes I, “the Great” (c. 486-465 BC, conventional dates).
For one, Xerxes is thought to have ruled an empire of the likes described
in the Book of Esther. Hence, translations of Esther go so far as to substitute
the name “Xerxes” for “Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1-3):
This is what happened
during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching
from India to Cush: At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the
citadel of Susa, and in the third year of his reign he
gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia
and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present.
According to what I have argued in Part
One, though, the ‘Xerxes’ of text book ‘history’ was actually a mix of
various powerful ancient kings, probably beginning with the C8th BC
neo-Assyrian potentate, Sennacherib. The comparisons between these two are
striking.
No doubt the reason that ‘Xerxes’ also so closely reflects, in various
aspects, King Ahasuerus (var. Artaxerxes) of the Book of Esther, is because ‘he’
is also a reflection of that particular king. The latter I believe to have been
Darius the Mede/Cyrus.
Some, though, think that “King Ahasuerus” might be Darius “Hystaspes”, who
is thought to have been married to one “Atossa” in which the Hebrew name of
Queen Esther, “Hadassah”, is clearly visible.
We read of this suggestion regarding Darius “Hystaspes” at, for instance, http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Book_of_Esther_A_New_Translation_1000167196/15 where we find a
conglomeration of ladies named, supposedly, “Atossa”:
…. Mr.
Tyrwhitt in his elaborate endeavor to show that Ahasuerus is Darius Hystaspis,
and Esther identical with Atossa, admits that "the name Hadassah or Atossa
is applied by certain Greek writers, not only to princesses descended from
Darius and his queen Atossa, but to persons of earlier Persian, and even of the
Assyrian annals. We have the 'Atossa, daughter of Ariaspes,' mentioned by
Hellanicus; and in the pedigree of Cappadocian kings given by Diodorus we have
an 'Atossa, wife of Pharnaces,' who appears to have been father's sister to the
great Cyrus ; also Herodotus's Atossa, daughter of Cyrus, who married Cambyses,
and devolved as part of his goods and chattels to his successor, the pretended
Smcrdis" (note p. 183). ….
Xerxes I is commonly thought to
have been the eldest son of “Atossa” and Darius “Hystaspes”. “Atossa”, we are
told, “lived to see Xerxes invade
Greece. Being a direct descendent of Cyrus the Great, Atossa
had a great authority within Achamenian royal house and court. Atossa's special
position enabled Xerxes, who was not the eldest son of Darius, to succeed his
father”.
All of this, however, needs to
be radically re-assessed.
Persian history has been - just like Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian and
Hittite history - greatly overstretched, with kings and eras duplicated/triplicated.
The text books present us with far too many Persian kings, with Egypt
experiencing a “first”, and then, suspiciously, a “second” Persian era.
The “Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther belongs, I believe, right at the
beginning of the Medo-Persian era, and not about 50 years later than that.
I have in articles such as, e.g.,
Is the Book of Esther a
Real History? Part Two
attempted to re-set the Book of Esther in some sort of realistic
biblico-historical context. The following is a sample of what I wrote there:
Who Was “King Ahasuerus”?
At the commencement of
my:
Is the Book of Esther a Real
History? Part Two
I
summed up as follows my reconstruction to that point:
So
far I have concluded, based on some compelling Jewish legends, that Haman of
the Book of Esther was actually a Jew, not an Amalekite (etc.), and that he was
in fact King Jehoiachin. And that the opinion that he was an Agagite, or an
Amalekite (Greek: Amali̱kÃti̱s)
may have arisen from Jehoiachin’s chief epithet, “Captive” (Greek:
aichmálo̱tos), of similar phonetics.
With the evil king Jehoiachin as the wicked Haman,
then the next logical step - as it had previously seemed to me - was that the
exaltation of Jehoiachin by king Evil-Merodach (usually considered to have been
the Chaldean son and successor of Nebuchednezzar II), as related in 2 Kings 25:27-28, must resonate with the exaltation of
Haman by king “Ahasuerus” (Esther 3:1). And so I had concluded that Evil-Merodach
was the long sought for king “Ahasuerus”. Hardly
a good fit.
Better to conclude that, whereas Evil-Merodach
had exalted Jehoiachin “in the year that he began to reign”,
“Ahasuerus” appears to have raised up Haman some time after his wedding, in his
7th year (cf. Esther 2:16 and 3:1).
These are two separate incidents.
Clearly, now, “Ahasuerus” was a successor of
Evil-Merodach’s.
[End of quote]
That
“Ahasuerus” (var. “Artaxerxes”) must have, in my context, followed very soon
after the death of Evil-Merodach would be a matter of biological necessity,
for, as I had gone on to note: “The
age of Haman now needs to be taken into consideration. Already about 55, as we
calculated, in the 1st year of Evil-Merodach, he was probably close
to 70 in the 12th year of Ahasuerus (the Esther drama focusses on
this king’s 12th year)”.
That Haman was not a young man is apparent
from the words of one of the Great King’s edicts (Esther 16:1), telling that
Haman “was called our father”.
