Putting into his proper place Neriglissar, King of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “Unfortunately, what one might call “primary” source material … for the political history of the reign is almost entirely lacking”. Ronald H. Sack One could be put off quite early when attempting to figure out King Neriglissar after learning just how meagre are the primary sources associated with him. Ronald Sack explains this at the beginning of his Chapter One (in Neriglissar – King of Babylon, 1994, p. 1): Before an attempt at writing the biography of Neriglissar can be made, it is essential that available source material be noted and discussed. Unfortunately, what one might call “primary” source material for the political history of the reign is almost entirely lacking. One is therefore forced to use the numerous secondary works which have survived the ages. These, as their contents show, are interesting not only in the varied amounts of information they contain, but also because of the striking similarities or differences among them. Included in this group are the writings of the classical authors, as well as material from the Middle Ages. Some of these contain items not found elsewhere; others merely repeat what earlier writers have to say. … it is worthwhile to attempt a reexamination. …. I would have to agree at least with this last suggestion of Ronald Sack’s, that “it is worthwhile to attempt a reexamination”. For Sack’s overall account does little to inspire much confidence. So a re-examination is what it will be here. Looking through the various neo-Babylonian king-lists, from cuneiform sources to the so-called Middle Ages, one finds how poorly attested, for instance, is King Labaši-Marduk, he sometimes dropping out of the lists altogether. Sack writes about the poorly attested kings: The reigns of a number of the monarchs of the Neo-Babylonian period are copiously attested either through the “Babylonian Chronicle” or numerous building inscriptions. Neriglissar, Amēl-Marduk and Labaši-Marduk are clearly exceptions. To date, no chronicle detailing any military campaign Amēl-Marduk or Labaši-Marduk may have conducted has ever been published. …. On p. 9 Sack will write, referring to the king-list of Alexander Polyhistor, whom he calls “a late source, born 105 BC”: “The list is interesting for two reasons. First Labaši-Marduk is omitted, for what reasons we do not know. Secondly, and most important, is the fact that the figures given in all cases are correct save one – the assignment of twelve years to Amēl-Marduk”. Regarding Sack’s puzzlement above that “… Labaši-Marduk is omitted, for what reasons we do not know”, I can immediately offer a reason - the reason that I usually tend to give for such situations, alter ego: in other words, Labaši-Marduk ought to be also someone else. And I have, in my neo-Babylonian revisions, told who that someone else is, namely Amēl-Marduk (var. Evil-Merodach). See for example my article: Who was Nebuchednezzar’s ‘grandson’? (3) Who was Nebuchednezzar's 'grandson' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sack continues (p. 9): “This is a common feature throughout the series of king-lists, how wildly the reign-lengths of the kings can differ from one list to the next”. Earlier he, telling of a neo-Babylonian king-list discovered at Uruk, had written (p. 3): “This list is interesting particularly because of the inaccuracy of the lengths of the reigns and the fact that no figure is given for Nebuchednezzar”. In my article above I have suggested that Nebuchednezzar’s known son, Amēl-Marduk (or Evil-Merodach) – {Sack, p. 1: “… a few vase fragments … confirming the fact that Amēl-Marduk was the son of Nebuchadnezzar”} – was also the same as Labaši-Marduk, and was Belshazzar (the latter name being omitted from virtually all of the king-lists). That identification would answer Sack’s above, “for whatever reasons we do not know”, regarding the omission of Labaši-Marduk from Polyhistor’s list. Amēl-Marduk, the son of Nebuchednezzar, was also Labaši-Marduk, was also Belshazzar. Moreover, I have further argued (logically, I believe), that Belshazzar, also a known son of Nebuchednezzar, but this time known from the Bible (Baruch 1:11, 12), was the same as the historically well-known Belshazzar (thought not to have been a king), the son of Nabonidus – Nabonidus being Nebuchednezzar. The king-lists are consistent insofar that they have Neriglissar succeed Amēl-Marduk. In biblical terms, that must lead to an identification of Neriglissar as “Darius the Mede”, who did indeed succeed King Belshazzar (Daniel 5:30). So, our attention must now turn to Neriglissar, as a potential candidate for Darius the Mede. Ronald Sack finds Neriglissar to be a little more promising from the cuneiform sources than, at least, Amēl-Marduk/ Labaši-Marduk (pp. 1-2): Fortunately, several cylinder inscriptions and a short chronicle survive from Neriglissar’s reign. While the language of the cylinders is quite formulaic, it nevertheless details building activity in Babylon and elsewhere during the king’s reign. In attending to needed repairs in Esagila and Ezida, as well as necessary work on his palaces and the walls around Babylon, he was fulfilling a traditional responsibility of Babylonian monarchs. …. The lists of Megasthenes with its funny kings’ names, also discussed by Ronald Sack, I find most interesting because it supports both the biblical data and my own revision. Sack tells of it on pp. 4-5: …. Nabuchodrosorus [Nebuchednezzar] … was succeeded by his son Evilmaruchus [Evil-Merodach], who was slain by his kinsman, Neriglisares [Neriglissar] … Labassoarascus [Labaši-Marduk] … he also has suffered death by violence … Nabannidochus [Nabonidus] king, being of no relation to the royal race. …. Let us unpack this. Nebuchednezzar was succeeded by his true son, Evil-Merodach (i.e., Belshazzar). The latter was slain by Neriglissar. Belshazzar was likewise slain (though not necessarily by Darius the Mede himself), and was succeeded by his kinsman (that is, Darius the Mede). A comparison of Jeremiah with Daniel attests that Darius was the ‘grandson’ (no doubt though marriage) of Nebuchednezzar. “Labassoarascus” [Labaši-Marduk] is just a repeat story of Evil-Merodach, slain. Nabonidus was “of no relation to the royal race”, he - claiming to be “Son of a nobody” - was, as Nebuchednezzar, a ‘son’ of Sennacherib only in the sense that Darius the Mede was a ‘grandson’ of Nebuchednezzzar, through marriage. Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon) commenced a new dynasty – the Chaldean one. In my historical reconstructions, Darius the Mede was also Cyrus, and was the “Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther. According to Jewish tradition, the wife of this Ahasuerus, Vashti, was the daughter of King Belshazzar. Darius likewise commenced a new dynasty – the Medo-Persian one. He was Chaldean presumably only though marriage, but was “by birth a Mede” (Daniel 9:1). A footnote to the The Jerusalem Bible claims of this Darius that “he is unknown to history”. Well hopefully not any more, if he was Neriglissar. How well does Neriglissar stack up with the biblical Darius the Mede? We can make a few comparisons despite the dearth of available evidences (historical and biblical) for both names. Neriglissar, “kinsman”, is related to the Neo-Babylonians by marriage only. Berossus has Neriglissar as the brother-in-law (more likely son-in-law) of Evil-Merodach (Sack, pp. 7-8). Neriglissar, like Darius, came to the throne owing to a coup d’êtat in which Darius must have been involved. Berossus tells of it (p. 6): … Evilmerodachus … governed public affairs in an illegal and improper manner [seems to fit with Daniel’s “King Belshazzar”]; and, by means of a plot laid against him by Neriglissoorus, his sister’s husband [more likely his daughter’s husband], he was slain. …. What here happened to Evil-Merodach, Berossus then repeats for Labaši-Marduk (“Laborosoarchodus”), his alter ego according to my view: “... on account of the evil practices which [Labaši-Marduk] manifested, a plot was made against him by his friends, he was tortured to death”. My revised historical sequence for the succession from Sennacherib to Neriglissar is as follows: Nabopolassar = Assyrian Sennacherib (Nabopolassar probably being his name as rule of Babylon). New dynasty Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus (no blood relation to the Assyrian kings) Belshazzar = Evil-Merodach, Amēl-Marduk and Labaši-Marduk (and biblical Belshazzar, the evil son of Nebuchadnezzar). New dynasty Darius the Mede = Neriglissar (also Cyrus and Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther) Josephus (Ant. Bk X, 11, 2) gives Neriglissar (“Eglisaros”) a reign of an incredible “forty years”, which is far longer than given to that king in any other list. Similarly, the Talmud assigns “a twenty-three year reign to Amēl-Marduk” (Sack, p. 11). More credibly, Josephus calls Neriglissar “son” of Evil-Merodach. That fits with Jeremiah’s statement (27:7) regarding “grandson” of Nebuchadnezzar (but through marriage, as I have suggested). Belshazzar, by that name, is usually missing form the king-lists. The Midrash Rabbah, though, explains why this may be. “… perhaps because of the similarity in the names Bel-sharra-uṣur and Nergal-sharra-uṣur …”. This similarity of names was in fact a reason previously preventing me from making any proper historical sense of Neriglissar, thinking that he was yet another alter ego of Belshazzar. As it turns out, he was nothing like that! The books of Baruch and Daniel give the true sequence for the Chaldeans (only two kings). Thus Sack (p. 11): “… the Book of Baruch … fails to mention Amēl-Marduk [sic], but instead declares Belshazzar to be the direct successor to Nebuchadnezzar (as does Daniel 5)”. This is because, as we have found, Amēl-Marduk was Belshazzar. Neriglissar in the Bible We more than likely meet Neriglissar about mid-way through the reign of Nebuchednezzar, at the siege of Jerusalem, as “Nergal-sharezer”, thanks to Jeremiah 39:3: “… all the officers of the king of Babylon marched in and took up their quarters at the Middle Gate: Nergal-sharezer, prince of Sin-magir, the chief officer, Nebushazban, the high official, and all the other officers of the king of Babylon”. Ronald Sack comments on this passage (p. 20): Although this passage has received much attention … and questions are still being raised as to the identification of the persons mentioned here, there seems little doubt, as Bright has already pointed out … that Nergal-sharezer is to be identified with our Nergal-šarra-usur of the cuneiform tablets. In his note 61 on the same page, Sack will explain the place name associated here with Nergal-sharezer, “Sin-magir… a district of which Nergalsharezer is known from a contemporary inscription to have been governor (read sar simmagir)”. Neriglissar in historical documents Neriglissar can be found significantly earlier than this during Nebuchednezzar’s reign, as Sack tells on p, 22: “The earliest known mention of Neriglissar occurs in a contract dated in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar …”. By biblical estimates, he (as Darius the Mede) would at that stage (Year 9) have been approximately 30 years of age (as a round figure). This leads Sack to conclude - {and perfectly in accord with Daniel 6:1, that Darius the Mede was already old when he took the throne: “Darius the Mede received the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two} - that: “Our present evidence suggests not only that he was well advanced in age when he became king, but that he was a member of a prominent family known for its business activities in northern Babylonia. He was apparently wealthy (p. 24): “… Neriglissar … undoubtedly already possessed considerable wealth …. Probably coming from a prestigious banking family … he can be found buying property and loaning money in the reign of Amēl-Marduk”. This might explain the accountant-like tendency to be found in his various biblical guises, ‘that the king may suffer no less’ being a recurring theme (e.g. Ezra 4:22; Esther; Daniel 6:3). The Greek description of a “Darius” as a “shopkeeper” (or “huckster”) might be entirely relevant here. A possible hint of the plot against King Belshazzar (as Amēl-Marduk) might be there in Sack’s account (pp. 26-27) of a seeming overlap in the reigns of Amēl-Marduk and Neriglissar, having “to my knowledge, no parallel in the Chaldean period”. … it should not really be surprising to find a Sippar document identifying Neriglissar as “king of Babylon” earlier than was formerly thought. It would be remembered that the Babylonian priest Berossus asserted in his Babyloniaca that Amēl-Marduk’s reign ended through assassination and that Neriglissar thus seized the throne through a coup d’etat …. Information contained in sources from southern Babylonia have suggested for years that Berossus was correct in asserting that Neriglissar was a usurper. He set about re-ordering the kingdom as Darius the Mede had done immediately (Daniel 6:20). Sack (p.27): “Once safely on the throne, Neriglissar appears to have 1) removed temple administrators from their positions of authority in areas where support for his rule would be minimal at best, or 2) established ties with prominent personnel in other temples”. Neriglissar is perfectly placed chronologically (revised) to have been the well-advanced in years Darius the Mede. He may indeed have come to the throne, like Darius, through a coup d’êtat. He was a high military official and wealthy banker from quite early in the reign of Nebuchednezzar, and related to the royal family through marriage.