Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) Against Biblical Record

Part One:

From Canaanites to Abram

by

Damien F. Mackey

　

Just how old is the site of Jericho?

Its beginnings are said to have been with the Natufian culture,

"an Epipaleolithic culture that existed from 12,500 to 9,500 BC".

Does early Jericho have any demonstrable relevance to the Genesis record?

　

　

Introduction

According to Lorenzo Nigro, in his recent important article on the Jericho site:

TELL ES-SULTAN 2015 A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine

https://www.academia.edu/25315245/TELL_ES-SULTAN_2015_A_Pilot_Project_for_Archaeology_in_Palestine

in his Table 1, Jericho’s beginnings were with a late phase of the Natufian culture, which he dates at:

"10500-8500 [BC]".

This culture is thought to have been followed immediately by Pre Pottery Neolithic - A (PPNA), which Nigro dates at:

"8500/8300–7500 [BC]".

Now, Dr. John Osgood, who has argued in his

A Better Model for the Stone Age

http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

that some of these conventional sequences may actually have been contemporaneous:

Wherever a culture is dated as Paleolithic it is generally assumed to pre-date that which is labelled Mesolithic, which is in turn assumed to pre-date that which is Neolithic, which is then usually presumed to pre-date that which is Chalcolithic. Thus the Mesolithic culture in the lowest level of Jericho would be assumed to pre-date the Chalcolithic culture of Eridu in Mesopotamia, despite the fact that the ancients regarded Eridu as the oldest city on earth.

This developmental type concept has rarely been seriously challenged. It is, however, here completely challenged.

In order to understand the significance of the biblical model in relation to the archaeological evidence of the ancient world, let us look at two phenomena as guiding principles:

The pond ripple effect, and


The mushroom effect. …. [,]

has provided this standard sequence for Palestine:

New regional models for the stone age

Palestine

The following cultures are recognised for the stone age of Palestine,

The Lower Paleolithic - Acheulean.


The Middle Paleolithic - Mousterian.


The Upper Paleolithic - Aurignacian.


The Epi Paleolithic, sometimes called Mesolithic.


Kebaran culture


Natufian culture


The Neolithic.


Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic - A (PPNA)


Neolithic (2) or Pre Pottery Neolithic - B (PPNB)


Neolithic (3) or Pottery Neolithic - A (PNA)


Neolithic (4) or Pottery Neolithic - B (PNB)


The Chacolithic.


Wadi Rabah culture


Esdraelon culture


Ghassulian culture

We can see from this that, as with Nigro’s sequences, PPNA sits closely to the Natufian culture. Dr. Osgood, however, has suggested that they may have been the same:

Neolithic.

Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic A of Palestine appears to have been very much the same as the Mesolithic Natufian culture. This is apparent at Jericho from Kenyon's excavations.

[End of quotes]

　

A Perspective on Early Jericho

I recently wrote to a colleague on my angling for a better perspective for the Flood and Jericho (here slightly modified):

….

Regarding the Alpha and Omega series (a proposed revision from Adam to Jesus Christ), I have stalled on it for some time now because of uncertainties pertaining to matters geological and stratigraphical concerning the Flood.

This is where we badly need those specialists to chime in.

Added to this, ideas have been coming so thick and fast in other areas, further down the line, that it seems that something becomes old shortly after it was new.

Creationists like Drs. John Osgood and Donovan Courville have presumed that the Genesis Flood erased everything before it.

I have baulked at this because, as far as I see it, the rivers of pre-Flood Genesis (for instance) are still discernible.　(See articles of mine such as):

The Location of Paradise (Genesis 2:10-2:14). Part One.

https://www.academia.edu/8128509/The_Location_of_Paradise_Genesis_2_10-2_14_._Part_One

Editor Moses Added Vital Geographical Clues for the Genesis Flood and Sodom

https://www.academia.edu/12639429/Editor_Moses_Added_Vital_Geographical_Clues_for_the_Genesis_Flood_and_Sodom

Tightening the Geography and Archaeology for Early Genesis

https://www.academia.edu/8608280/Tightening_the_Geography_and_Archaeology_for_Early_Genesis).

I had also believed　that we had, in the archaeology of Mesopotamia, an (i) antediluvian, (ii) Flood, and (iii) post-diluvian sequence.

　
But Anne Habermehl’s thesis　(see "Tightening the Geography" above), that biblical "Shinar" was not Sumer (southern Iraq), has really shaken up this erstwhile pleasant scenario.
　
What, then, about Jericho, the supposed oldest city in the world?

(Though the ancient Mesopotamians regarded their Eridu as that).

Surely Jericho must have straddled the Flood!　And so I thought and tentatively accepted into Alpha and Omega that　Jericho might have been the city built by pre-Flood Cain as Roy Schulz had proposed (http://www.churchofgoddiaspora.com/pre-flood_world.htm):

Cain's Famous Walled City

　

At this point Josephus' words about Cain need to be emphasized: Cain "built a city, and fortified it with walls ..." The Bible speaks of this same city: Cain "builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." (Gen. 4:17) Though in a sense this is getting ahead of the story, it is appropriate at this point to tell of the significance of the famous walled city, Enoch. In recent years, archaeologists made a startling discovery. In their excavations at the site of ancient Jericho (which is adjacent to present day Jericho in Palestine) they were amazed to uncover a big town in an early "pre-pottery Neolithic" state thousands of years -- as they measure time -- before any city of this type should have existed. This vast town existed at a time when only villages of tents or huts should have been in use -- but there it was. It was of large proportion, of great duration -- and had a huge wall around it. When the archaeological findings are correctly interpreted (see the chart on page 80 of the "Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. Ernest Wright), it is evident this city must have existed before the flood.

　

In short, when the statements of the Bible and Josephus are correlated with the findings of archaeology, there is one logical conclusion: Pre-flood Jericho was the walled city of Enoch which Cain built. Here are some details concerning this city. It occupied an area of not less than ten acres -- large dimensions for that early time, and especially since it was completely surrounded by a great wall. Many thousands of people lived in and around this heavily fortified town -- and it is these fortifications that form the most astonishing feature of this remarkable discovery. These defences are described as "astounding for any period." They consisted of a ditch, wall, and tower. The ditch or moat was some 28 feet wide and six to seven feet deep. Inside this protective ditch the wall itself was built. A remarkable structure over five feet thick and some thirteen feet high. Finally, adjoining the wall was a great circular stone tower (which is still standing to this day) reaching a height of over 26 feet. James Mellaart makes this significant observation: "the prodigious labour involved in the erection of these defences implies an ample labour force, a central authority to plan, organize and direct the work and an economical surplus to pay for it." ("Earliest Civilizations of the Near East", London, 1965, page 36.) Such was the power and authority that Cain had mustered. To recapitulate: early in his life, after having been driven out by God, Cain wandered over many areas of the world. He did not stay in any one place very long. And the children he had over the course of those many decades also were nomads who migrated and engaged in hunting and fishing. The implication in Josephus' account is that Cain did not build this famous walled city until well into his life. Some centuries elapsed before he began this project.

　

Now take careful note of the location of this city: it was in "Seth's land". That's right -- Cain had dared to come back into forbidden territory. At an earlier time God had said: "this area is for Seth and his family -- the rest of the world is for Cain and his children to wander on." But, as we well know, Cain was not noted for being willing to obey any of God's orders.

[End of quote]

I would now accept, though, that this PPN site belongs to an era much later than the time of the antediluvian Cain. {David Rohl has, for his part, proposed that Cain’s city was Eridu, named after Cain’s grandson, Irad}.

Anyway,　as I begin to get a better bead on Jericho, it seems that it is actually a post-Flood site. That its first level is Natufian, which Osgood takes to be　Canaanite. Possibly Hivite: Wikipedia: "The Hivites were one group of descendants of Canaan, son of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (esp. 10:17)".

Osgood's next level at Jericho he thinks could have been Hittite (rock-cut tombs). Wikipedia: "In Genesis 23:2, towards the end of Abraham's life, he was staying in Hebron, on lands belonging to the "children of Heth", and from them he obtained a plot of land with a cave to bury his wife Sarah. One of them (Ephron) is labeled "the Hittite", several times. This deal is mentioned three more times (with almost the same words), upon the deaths of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph".

Then we get to the Neolithic phase that Osgood has connected with　Ghassul, which is Abram’s era. See e.g. my:

Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham

https://www.academia.edu/9615175/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham

Dr. Osgood wrote:

Kebaran - Natufian.

Kebaran culture seems to have been a less vigorous culture than Natufian and may have been overwhelmed by the latter.

Neolithic.

Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic A of Palestine appears to have been very much the same as the Mesolithic Natufian culture. This is apparent at Jericho from Kenyon's excavations.

Chalcolithic

A case has already been made for the Ghassul culture to have been Amorite (see 'The Times of Abraham', this volume). Furthermore, it may well have been in Canaan during the Late Neolithic, as suggested by North (Jordan I),⁸

One thing is clear from the biblical model; all the Stone Age inhabitants of Palestine, unless they happened to be transient cultures passing through to other lands, should be grouped under the label 'Canaanite' according to the biblical tradition of Genesis 10.

A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups - the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2).

PNA appears to be from the north and may indicate a Hittite influence (Genesis 15:20 and 25:9), or the same may be speculated of Proto-Urban Jericho (equivalent to Chalcolithic - see North8) who had rock cut tombs.^17:273

It is, however, freely admitted that the last two attempted reconciliations are tenuous and speculative for the most part, but worth investigating.

PNA appears to have arrived from the north; as did Proto-Urban Jericho.

[End of quote]

So - and it needs to be noted that Dr. Osgood does not insist on his Hivite and Hittite identifications ("tenuous" and "speculative for the most part"), but only on the general era - we may perhaps have this biblico-archaeological sequence for early Jericho:

Hivites;

Hittites;

Abram.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs)

According to the Book of Genesis 23:1–20, Sarah, the wife of Abraham, "died in Kiryat-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan". Abraham the Hebrew (Avraham Ha-Ivri^[4]) was tending to business elsewhere^[5] when she died, at the age of 127 years,^[6] and he "came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her." (Genesis 23:2) After a while, he stood up and spoke to the "sons of Heth" and requested they give him a possession as a "burying place", and they offered him his "choice" of their sepulchres. And then in verse 7 he again "stood up" to speak to them. Abraham then requested that Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, give him the cave of Machpelah, in the end of his field, "for as much money as it is worth". (verse 9) After Ephron confirmed that he would give the cave, in verse 11, Abraham further requested that he give him the field for money, in verse 13. Ephron agreed and named a price.

Genesis 23:16 ¶ And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant. [17] And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure [18] Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city.

Xerxes the Uncertain

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

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:

 

“Ahasuerus” in Book of Tobit

 

https://www.academia.edu/24959960/_Ahasuerus_in_Book_of_Tobit

 

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:

 

“Ahasuerus” in Book of Tobit. Part Two: The Name “Ahasuerus”

 

https://www.academia.edu/24960471/_Ahasuerus_in_Book_of_Tobit._Part_Two_The_Name_Ahasuerus_

 

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:

 

"King Ahasuerus" of Book of Esther

 

https://www.academia.edu/24698880/_King_Ahasuerus_of_Book_of_Esther

 

and, likewise, the “Ahasuerus” in Ezra:

 

The Persian Kings in Ezra 4

 

https://www.academia.edu/24829936/The_Persian_Kings_in_Ezra_4

 

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”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atossa

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

 

https://www.academia.edu/23062155/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

 

https://www.academia.edu/23062155/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: Amali̱kíti̱s) 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 7^th 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 1^st year of Evil-Merodach, he was probably close to 70 in the 12^th year of Ahasuerus (the Esther drama focusses on this king’s 12^th 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”.