Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Regarding William H. Shea’s valiant attempts to identify Darius the Mede

by Damien F. Mackey “A prominent feature of this theory is that the author supposed that there was a separate Median kingdom between the rule of the Babylonians and the Persians. Evidence for this comes in particular from the figure of Darius the Mede who is taken as ruler over an independent Median kingdom. Since no such kingdom is known—and hence no such ruler, either—the book of Daniel is seen as lacking historicity, a product of a late and geographically-removed author”. Dr. William H. Shea Articles that include mention of Darius the Mede tend to occupy themselves with the question: Who was Darius the Mede?, rather than to offer any viable solution to the problem. And a problem it has proven to be. Steven D. Anderson, in Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (2014), will begin with an Introduction to the Problem, as follows: The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31[E] / 6:1[MT]; cf. Dan 11:1). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, mainstream scholarship affirms that there never was such a person as Darius the Mede. The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions. …. [End of quote] William H. Shea will do his best to identify the elusive Darius the Mede in his article, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian setting” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1991, Vol. 29, No. 3, 235-257). Let us find out what he had to say. In his Introduction, Dr. Shea will recall a former view of his, that Darius the Mede was Gubaru the governor of Babylonia, and professor Lester L. Grabbe’s criticism of this: As an introduction to proposing his own theory about the unhistorical Darius the Mede, Grabbe has reviewed the various identifications proposed for Darius by various conservative interpreters. In concluding his review of J. C. Whitcomb's theory that Darius the Mede was Gubaru/ Gobryas, the governor of Babylonia from the middle of the reign of Cyrus to the middle of the reign of Cambyses, Grabbe affirms there is no evidence for it. In his review of my own work on this subject, Grabbe has also concluded, "Once it is recognized that Gubaru (the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus) did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates." 2 Il-ester L. Grabbe, " Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede'," CBQ 50 (April 1988): 198-213. Next, Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman is brought into the picture, again as the target of Lester Grabbe: Grabbe has reserved the most unkind cut of all for D. J. Wiseman, the distinguished Assyriologist who published the chronicles of the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar. …. Wiseman advanced the theory that Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus. He based this conclusion on an epexegetical or explicative translation of the waw in Dan 6:28, "the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Let us stop right here. D.J. Wiseman was perfectly correct, I believe, in his proposing that Darius the Mede was Cyrus ‘the Great’. If in doubt, bring in a Wise Man (Wiseman). D.J. and his father P.J. have made an enormous contribution to biblical studies. See also my article: Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP (7) Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP D.J. Wiseman’s is the identification that I, myself, have embraced. See for example my article: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (7) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' and, again: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue But Darius the Mede/Cyrus was also the Neriglissar of the neo-Babylonian king lists: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (3) Why "Darius the Mede" is like a needle in a haystack And was, I further suspect, King Nebuchednezzar’s “chief of court officials”, Ashpenaz: Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede With the removal out of the way of the major complication of: Who was Darius the Mede? we can now try to sort out those other significant characters, Gubaru and Cambyses, the former of whom Dr. Shea had once touted as a potential Darius the Mede. …. When new primary historical sources appear, the time comes to examine old historical theories. With the publication of additional neo-Babylonian contract tablets in the Cuneiform Text series from the British Museum … that is now the case with the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. What those tablets have now demonstrated precisely is where the Babylonian coregency of Cambyses should be located. They have done this by providing tablets whose dates overlap the end of Nabonidus' reign and the beginning of Persian rule dated in terms of the coregent year of Cambyses. … There could be no more convincing demonstration that the one (partial) year of Cambyses' coregency belongs in the first year of Cyrus' rule over Babylonia as "king of lands," beginning in the spring of 538 B.C. In past studies I have equivocated on this point … but with this new evidence in hand, there can be no question about it: Cambyses ruled Babylon with Cyrus from 1/1, in the spring of 538 B.C., until sometime between IX/25 and X/ 1 of that same year. At this time the contract tablets drop Cambyses' name and transfer his title, "king of Babylon," to Cyrus. …. …. Six of these tablets carry titularies with datelines which refer to the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses which I have discussed previously in connection with the subject of Darius the Mede. The dates and titles in question read as follows: Text Date CT 55:731 Xl/-/l Cambyses (no title), Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:142 Cambyses, King of Lands, Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:149 11/7/1 Cambyses, King of Babylon, Cyrus, King [broken} CT 56:294 [brokenl Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:345 11/18/1 Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:369 [broken] Cyrus, King [broken], Cambyses, [broken] …. Based on this evidence, Dr. Shea will now be able to rule out Gubaru (Ugbaru) as having any possible claim to being Darius the Mede, as, say, a sub-king to Cyrus. The conclusion that Cambyses ruled Babylon as coregent with his father in 538 B.C. eliminates the possibility that Gubaru (Ugbaru), Cyrus' general who captured Babylon, might have served as king or quasi-king of Babylon at that time. A coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus might be acceptable, but a tri-regency involves too many rulers of Babylon to be historically reasonable. Since dates in Darius the Mede's first year are given twice in Daniel (9:1 and 11:1), Gubaru no longer is a reasonable candidate for that identification. His place in history has shrunk to the point that his identification with Darius in Daniel can no longer be sustained. …. But before we take this any further, I must ask who was Gubaru (Ugbaru), whose governorship of Babylon under Cyrus was apparently extremely short – far too short for him to qualify as a Darius the Mede? Well, I have identified this Gubaru (Ugbaru) with Ubāru, the long-time governor of Babylon under King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, in the latter’s guise as Esarhaddon. And this Ubāru I have identified, in turn, as Daniel himself: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (3) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru Dr. Shea now found himself free to embrace D.J. Wiseman’s insightful identification of Darius the Mede: …. With these points firmly established from the cuneiform evidence, we may now return to the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. Where does this new information leave us? It rules out both [sic] of the Gubarus as potential candidates for Darius the Mede. In that case we should examine another candidate who had previously been rejected for reasons which were not altogether sound. I would like to suggest that the one suggested by D. J. Wiseman—Cyrus himself—is the most appropriate identification to propose here as the correct one. …. As a matter of fact, I would like to suggest that once this proposal is appreciated in the way it should be, the data from the biblical text and ancient Near Eastern historical sources fit together in a manner that is harmonious and consonant to a major degree. The identification of Cyrus as Darius the Mede explains difficulties in the biblical text which had never been previously explained. If convergence of data is the test for a theory, the convergence present here offers strong support for this proposal, first put forward by Wiseman. …. (1) Darius the Mede has been identified with King Cyrus (D.J. Wiseman and Dr. Shea), and (2) Gubaru (Ugbaru) has been identified as Daniel, in his rôle as (long-term) governor of Babylon, Ubāru (Mackey), under Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar). Daniel 2:48-49: Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. It remains to identify (3) the sub-king to Cyrus, Cambyses. The key to this situation, I think, is that, just before the demise of King Belshazzar, he made Daniel third in the kingdom. Why third?: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (4) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? King Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach, had already exalted Jehoiachin of Judah to second (2 Kings 25:27-30). While Daniel would shortly pass from the scene, “Jehoiachin the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17) would be exalted again under King Cyrus (Ahasuerus), as “Haman … the Captive” [my favoured translation] (Esther 3:1-2): After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. Haman’s name was actually Egyptian (Amon): Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (6) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name So I am presuming that his Medo-Persian given name, which he must have had, was Cambyses – not to be confused with the mighty king Cambyses, who conquered Egypt.

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

by Damien F. Mackey “… there are no well-known visual images like statues or large-scale reliefs of [Nabopolassar] …” AI Overview This fact ought not surprise us anymore, as we have found the number of significant rulers of antiquity who have none, to little, visual representation - under a particular name - to be growing. Thus see my article: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (5) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates Based on Nabopolassar’s presumed reign of about 21 years, and the fact that he is supposed to have preceded, as father, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ himself, I had come to the fairly confident conclusion that Nabopolassar must have been king Sennacherib, the Assyrian, under a Babylonian name (as conqueror of Babylon). Sennacherib would later, of course, go on to destroy Babylon. What is well known is that Esarhaddon - usually designated as a son of Sennacherib - had succeeded Sennacherib, and had promptly rebuilt Babylon. With my new identification in mind, Nabopolassar = Sennacherib, I had reinterpreted the standard Chaldean king list, for instance as set out by Marc Van de Mieroop, in his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC., pp. 292-293 (I had taken the liberty of including Belshazzar here): Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar [II] Evil-Merodach Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus [Belshazzar] … Cyrus in accordance with the sequence of kings as given in the Book of Daniel (chapter 5). This led me to the following re-shaping of the king list: Assyrian Nabopolassar (= Sennacherib) Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar Evil-Merodach = Belshazzar Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede/Cyrus But, while I still embrace the other identifications, I would no longer accept that Nabopolassar was Sennacherib, but that Nabopolassar was Nebuchednezzar himself, whom I now realise has been triplicated in the Chaldean lists (as Nabopolassar; as Nebuchednezzar; as Nabonidus). That would now mean that Nabopolassar reigned for about twice the period typically estimated for him - just as Esarhaddon and Nabonidus (other alter egos of Nebuchednezzar) must have reigned substantially longer than is generally thought. Nabopolassar has certain traits that one can find variously in Nebuchednezzar, Esarhaddon, Nabonidus – e.g., a Nabu name; not expecting to become king; building in Babylon with careful attention to the original layout of temples; extreme piety and superstition; mention of Zarpanitu (Zarpanitum: Esarhaddon); inspecting old foundations (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus as ‘archaeologist’); carrying baskets/bricks (Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus); finding ancient royal Akkadian statue (Nabonidus). The following quotes are taken from: (5) Nabopolassar and the Antiquity of Babylon The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Israel Museum, Jerusalem JERUSALEM 2003 NABOPOLASSAR AND THE ANTIQUITY OF BABYLON PAUL-ALAIN BEAULIEU …. The new Imgur-Enlil cylinder of Nabopolassar …. Of particular interest is the fourth section, which reads as follows: …. Nabopolassar, the humble one, the submissive one, the worshipper of Nabü and Marduk, the shepherd who pleases Panunanki (i.e. Zarpanitu), the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past … the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations, the one who wields the hoe of the Igigi, the one who carries the corvée basket of the Anunnaki, the builder of Imgur-Enlil for Marduk, my lord, I, in order that no future king whosoever remove my well-chosen words, (and) in order that no words are made to supersede my speech, I swore the oath of Marduk, my lord, and of my god: "(Woe on me) if my utterances are not true, but false!" At that time I found the royal statue of one of my predecessors who had (re)built that wall and, in a secure place, in the great foundations, together with my own statue, I placed (it) for eternity. Since Nabopolassar claims, just after recording his oath, to have found the royal statue of one of his predecessors "who had (re)built that wall," the conclusion follows that he had unearthed an inscribed statue of a king of Agade, very similar to those that were still in public view during the Old Babylonian period and from which scribes of that period copied inscriptions of Sargonic rulers. Thus, without directly naming any of them, Nabopolassar connects himself with the legendary kings of Agade. My comment: The same with King Nabonidus: “[Nabonidus] saw in this sacred enclosure [Ebabbar] a statue of Sargon … half of its head was missing …. Given his reverence for the gods and his respect for kingship, he … restored the head of this statue, and put back its face”. A closer look at the fourth section of the new Imgur-Enlil cylinder reveals further elements highlighting the programmatic character of the inscription. The very activities of searching for old monumental texts, of digging the city's most ancient foundations and of restoring them are claimed by the king as components of his titulary: "the one who inspects the old foundations of Babylon, the one who discovers (inscribed) brick(s) from the past, the one who carries out the work on the original, eternal foundations." It is also very craftily devised as a mise en abyme, a miniature royal inscription within a royal inscription, complete with name of king, titulary, object of rebuilding, and laying of foundation deposit. The mise en abyme and direct quotation of foundation deposits of previous rulers occurs in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. In the present case, however, by depositing his own statue next to the statue of the Old Akkadian king whose inscription he quite literally appropriates, Nabopolassar performs nothing less than a mise en abyme of his royal persona. The new king is looking at his own ancient reflection as if in a reducing glass, digging deep into the ground to scrutinize his own distant image in the remotest foundations of his capital. …. The author has also noted in this article that: “Nabopolassar was, of his own avowal, a mär lä mammäna, literally a "son of a nobody …”. Ashurbanipal, likewise, had not expected to rule: https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/who-was-ashurbanipal Despite being one of Assyria's greatest kings, Ashurbanipal wasn't destined for the throne …. ‘At the command of the great gods, [my father] greatly preferred me over the assembly of my elder brothers’. Likewise, again, with Nabonidus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus “The origins of Nabonidus are obscure, with the scarce available details about him leaving much room for interpretation and speculation. In one of his inscriptions, Nabonidus states the following: …. ‘I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship’. Having established that Nabopolassar was likely the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, with his various significant alter egos, then one ought to be able to find many further correlations between the reign of Nabopolassar, of the composite Nebuchednezzar.

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Comparing Ashurnasirpal so called II to Chaldean Nebuchednezzar the Great

by Damien F. Mackey Dreams, visions, superstition, megalomania, cruelty, fiery furnace, messing with the rites, building of Babylon, mysterious and enduring illness, madness, conquest of Egypt - these were some of the ‘symptoms’ exhibited by the bunch of Assyro-Babylonian (Persian) ‘kings’ whom I have lumped together as being various faces of the one historical Nebuchednezzar. Names such as: Esarhaddon who, deliberately reading the specified ritual number upside down, rebuilt Babylon, who also suffered a long, dreadful and alienating illness, and who attacked Egypt. Ashurbanipal whose 43-year reign was the same length as Nebuchednezzar’s, who apparently had a burning fiery furnace, and who absolutely smashed Egypt. Nabonidus who is regarded by some biblical commentators and historians as being the true model for the ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ of the Book of Daniel. Highly pious, superstitious, suffering from madness and foreboding dreams. Cambyses who was also quite mad, and whose other name was “Nebuchednezzar”, and who, too, conquered Egypt. Now I have some new candidates for consideration, Ashurnasirpal (especially II) and Nabopolassar (yet to be integrated), neither of whom have I found easy to place in a revised context. Ashurnasirpal has been, to date, a real headache for revisionists to place in any satisfactory way. And that same statement applies even more to his supposed son, Shalmaneser III, a great king who initially ended up straddling the mid-C9th BC right where Dr. I. Velikovsky had located the El Amarna [EA] period, prompting Velikovsky to attempt identifying Shalmaneser III with the Kassite ruler of Babylonia at the time of EA, Burnaburiash II (c. 1359 – 1333 BC, conventional dates). My suggested folding of ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyria “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death”. Following on from my identification of Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I as the neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib (a connection originally suggested by Phillip Clapham): Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti-Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib I must now consider the possibility that “Ashurnasirpal”, said to have been the son-successor of a Tukulti-Ninurta (II), was the actual successor of Sennacherib, that is, Esarhaddon, who is, in turn, in my scheme of things, Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar "As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death ...”. Admittedly this is something of a long stretch in the present scheme of things. While, fittingly, the father of Tukulti-Ninurta I is said to have been a Shalmaneser – just as in my revision the father of (Sargon II =) Sennacherib was a Shalmaneser, his son is said to have been one Ashur-nadin-apli. Tukulti-Ninurta II, on the other hand, who was the father of Ashurnasirpal II, is said to have had a father named Adad-nirari (II). Tukulti-Ninurta II, though, does not even rate a mention in the index at the back of Marc Van de Mieroop’s text, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. Putting it all together, I would tentatively suggest this sequence: Shalmaneser (I, III); Tukulti-Ninurta (I, II); Ashur-nadin-apli-Ashurnasirpal (I, II) equates to, respectively: Shalmaneser (V); Sargon II-Sennacherib; Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar “In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, [Ashurnasirpal II] really was “king of the world”.” Joshua J. Mark Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Joshua J. Mark continues: Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel creature, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... [Ashurnasirpal] reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this series - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was by no means his “son”, but was his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was, in fact, very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” …. While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing, then he most certainly conquered Phoenicia, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites …. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Joshua J. Mark continues: Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he ‘possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world, the exalted shepherd, the powerful torrent that none can withstand, he who has overcome all mankind, whose hand has conquered all lands and taken all the mountain ranges” (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire”. “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayers. Faithfully look upon me and hear my supplication. Promise my forgiveness and let thy spirit be appeased. Pity! For my wretched body which is full of confusion and trouble. Pity! For my sickened heart which is full of tears and suffering. Pity! For my wretched intestines (which are full of) confusion and trouble. Pity! For my afflicted house which mourns bitterly. Pity! For my feelings which are satiated with tears and suffering. O exalted Irnini, fierce lion, let thy heart be at rest. O angry wild ox, let thy spirit be appeased. Let the favor of thine eyes be upon me. With thy bright features look faithfully upon me. Drive away the evil spells of my body (and) let me see thy bright light. How long, O my Lady, shall my adversaries be looking upon me, In lying and untruth shall they plan evil against me, Shall my pursuers and those who exult over me rage against me? How long, O my Lady, shall the crippled and weak seek me out? One has made for me long sackcloth; thus I have appeared before thee. The weak have become strong; but I am weak. I toss about like flood-water, which an evil wind makes violent. My heart is flying; it keeps fluttering like a bird of heaven. I mourn like a dove night and day. I am beaten down, and so I weep bitterly. With "Oh" and "Alas" my spirit is distressed. I - what have I done, O my god and my goddess? Like one who does not fear my god and my goddess I am treated; While sickness, headache, loss, and destruction are provided for me; So are fixed upon me terror, disdain, and fullness of wrath, Anger, choler, and indignation of gods and men. I have to expect, O my Lady, dark days, gloomy months, and years of trouble. I have to expect, O my Lady, judgment of confusion and violence. Death and trouble are bringing me to an end. Silent is my chapel; silent is my holy place; Over my house, my gate, and my fields silence is poured out. As for my god, his face is turned to the sanctuary of another. My family is scattered; my roof is broken up. (But) I have paid heed to thee, my Lady; my attention has been turned to thee. To thee have I prayed; forgive my debt. Forgive my sin, my iniquity, my shameful deeds, and my offence. Overlook my shameful deeds; accept my prayer; Loosen my fetters; secure my deliverance; Guide my steps aright; radiantly like a hero let me enter the streets with the living. ....

Monday, September 1, 2025

Wayward textbook Assyriology has Esarhaddon succeeding Esarhaddon succeeding Esarhaddon

by Damien F. Mackey Now, knowing historians, it is not surprising to find that these two different names for the one king, Esarhaddon and Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, have become a source of serious confusion and duplication. As we learn from CAH, Vol. XX, pt 1: https://www.attalus.org/armenian/kvan1.htm Esarhaddon was also given the name, Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli: Tiglath-pileser was originally Pul, his successor Shalmaneser V was Ululai, and the present writer argued many years ago that Sargon had borne the name of Yarib (Hosea v, 13), while inscriptions tell us that Esarhaddon had the further name of Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli. Before we go any further, some comments can be made about this statement. With Tiglath Pileser being the same as Shalmaneser so-called V, then we need to see a connection between those two ‘nick-names’, Pul and Ululai. “Yarib”, in Hosea 5:13, was indeed Sargon II as Sennacherib, Sîn-aḥḥē-erība. Now, knowing historians, it is not surprising to find that these two different names for the one king, Esarhaddon and Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli, have become a source of serious confusion and duplication. For the royal succession now has, in the space of just three names, two kings named Ashur-etil-ilani-: Esarhaddon - Ashur-etil-ilani-mukin-apli; Ashurbanipal; Ashur-etil-ilani. There are yet further alter egos required for Esarhaddon, with a major one being Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. In the latter, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal can be fused together as the one king. Thus: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar https://www.academia.edu/124165948/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar and: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (4) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 For further corroboration, see my articles: Ashurbanipal mirroring Esarhaddon in inscriptions, succession, maritime (4) Ashurbanipal mirroring Esarhaddon in inscriptions, succession, maritime Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (4) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani If all of this is correct, then we effectively have Esarhaddon, succeeded by Esarhaddon, succeeded by Esarhaddon.