by
Damien F. Mackey
The Book of Daniel presents historians with
difficulties regarding both the Neo-Babylonian and the Medo-Persian
successions. An unknown king “Belshazzar”, given as the son (and presumably
successor) of “Nebuchednezzar”, is slain, and his kingdom then passes into the
hands of a likewise unknown monarch who is called “Darius the Mede”.
I am confident, however, that my revised history of
the Neo-Babylonian dynasty can provide ready solutions to both of these
conundrums (or, as some would prefer, conundra).
Part One: King Belshazzar
Introduction
The many ‘historical inaccuracies’ that critics
claim to find in the Book of Daniel are, as I have previously argued, not
faults of ignorance on the part of Daniel (or whichever author[s]), but the
limitations imposed upon historical knowledge by a one-dimensional conventional
history.
See e.g. my”
“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel
According to my revision here, King Nabonidus,
the penultimate king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty - who in so many ways fits
the description of the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel (as critics have
noted) - is an alter ego of the
mighty Chaldean king Nebuchednezzar II.
Already this new vision of history manages to
establish that:
- there was an historical king like Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”;
- and he, just like “Nebuchednezzar”, had a notable son named Belshazzar;
Now, given my equation, Nebuchednezzar II =
Nabonidus, I was gratified to learn of documentary evidence attesting to some
apparent mad or erratic behaviour on the part of king Nebuchednezzar II, to
complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”.
I referred to this in my:
in which I also concluded - based on a
strikingly parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of
Nebuchednezzar II, was Belshazzar. I reproduce that information here (with ref.
to British
Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975):
Read
lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar,
which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials.
Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders,
refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor
daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of
state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple.
Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king's behavior,
counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as
his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a
description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since
Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to
Evil-merodach may later have been considered "bad" (line 5), though
at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis.
Since
Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men" (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials
(verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as
regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show
Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Comment: Now
this is the very same situation that we have found with King Nabonidus’ acting
strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon - though
not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar.
The inevitable (for me)
conclusion now is that:
Evil-merodach is Belshazzar!
Again, this new vision of history manages to
establish that
- Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchednezzar II/Nabonidus, was in fact a king.
Hence, a solution to the first conundrum
referred to at the beginning of this article: An unknown king “Belshazzar”, given as the son (and
presumably successor) of “Nebuchednezzar” ….
Moreover, I am confident that this new vision of
history will enable, in Part Two, for
the true identification of that most enigmatic of biblical characters, “Darius
the Mede” – an identification already hinted at in the title of this series.
Part Two (i): Medo-Persia
The Who, When, How, and Why of “Darius the Mede” of
the Book of Daniel.
Introduction
Having now established (I think) King Nabonidus’s
son, Belshazzar, as the “King Belshazzar” of the Book of Daniel, then it ought
to become self-evident - for those who know the basic facts about the
historical Belshazzar - which Medo-Persian king succeeded him.
To put it in the words of the three young men
when confronted by an irate “Nebuchednezzar” (Daniel 3:16): ‘Your question hardly requires an answer …’.
King
Belshazzar was succeeded by King Cyrus.
|
King Cyrus of Persia also refers to Belshazzar when he conquered
Babylon in his writings:
|
|
"A coward was put in charge as the
king of this country . . . With evil intents he did away with the regular
offerings to the gods . . . and desecrated the worship of the
king of his gods, Marduk." BM90920
|
|
Cyrus's statement that Belshazzar desecrated the
worship of his god Marduk matches very closely to the story in the book of
Daniel. Although it wasn't Marduk whose handwriting appeared on the wall, but
the one true God of Israel.
|
|
According to the Bible, Belshazzar was holding a
feast at the time the city of Babylon was run over by the Medes and Persians.
|
|
|
|
The fall of Babylon as recorded by the ancient
historians Herodotus, Berosus and Xenophon verifies this:
|
|
"Cyrus then dug a trench and diverted the flow of the Euphrates
river into the new channel which led to an existing swamp. The level of the
river then dropped to such a level that it became like a stream. His army was
then able to take the city by marching through the shallow waters . . .
The Babylonians at the time were celebrating intensely at a feast to
one of their gods and they were taken totally by surprise."
|
[End of quotes]
Unfortunately, some of these semi-historical
ancient texts seem, at times, to mix up Nabonidus and Belshazzar.
The Book of Daniel identifies this same
Medo-Persian king as “Darius the Mede” (5:30-31):
… at Belshazzar’s command, Daniel was clothed in purple,
a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third
highest ruler in the kingdom.
That
very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and
Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.
Daniel 9:1 adds a little more biographical
information about this new king:
In
the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made
king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans ….
Part Two (ii):
Some Favourable Views
There are some historians who have come to the
conclusion that the “Darius the Mede” of the Book of Daniel is likely to have been
King Cyrus “the Great” himself.
D. J.
Wiseman
“Donald John Wiseman OBE FBA FSA (25 October 1918 – 2 February 2010)[1] was a biblical scholar, archaeologist and Assyriologist. He was Professor of Assyriology
at the University of London from 1961 to 1982”.
Donald was the son of P. J. Wiseman, whose
brilliant archaeologically-based insights into the structure of the Book of
Genesis (the toledôt “family
histories”) I have found most illuminating. See e.g. my P. J. Wiseman-inspired:
D. J. Wiseman advanced his “Darius the Mede” as Cyrus theory back in 1957, in his article, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel”
(see: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3205D.pdf) There he wrote:
The basis of the hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28
can be translated ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or
i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew waw construction has long been recognized in
Chronicles 5:26 (‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath–pileser
king of Assyria’) and elsewhere.
[End of quote]
We know that “Pul” was the same person as Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria.
Correct
translations of this verse, like the New King James Version, in this
case, phrase it as “the spirit of Pul
king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath–Pileser king of Assyria”.
William H.
Shea
Dr. William H. Shea, retired associate director of the Biblical Research
Institute, has written a book on this subject (Daniel), as well as his 1982 up-dated article
specifically on the identification of “Darius the Mede”:
Although Shea gives some reasons in favour of
“Darius the Mede” as Cyrus, his conclusion is ultimately that: “…this theory
makes the dated references to these two kings in Daniel appear to be quite
haphazard in arrangement, since it provides no explanation why Daniel would
refer back from the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia (10:1), to the first
year of Darius the Mede who was king over the realm of the Chaldeans (11:1)”.
George R.
Law
His published version of a 2010 dissertation, written on our very subject,
is a fully comprehensive treatment of the issues involved – a must read in
fact. And Law comes out firmly on the side of “Darius the Mede” as Cyrus. We
read this useful summary of the book at: http://www.readyscribepress.com/home_files/DariustheMede.html
Identification
of Darius the Mede
|
Identifying
Darius the Mede has been a problem because of the lack of a direct
correlation between the names in the ancient records of Babylonian kings and
the record of the Hebrew Scriptures. Certainly, the prophet Daniel knew the
Babylonian King whom he stylized as "Darius the Mede," even if modern
readers are uncertain, since this King Darius cast him into a den of lions.
In his book, Identifying Darius the Mede, George Law offers a scientific method which examines the data from the original sources concerning six potential candidates who might be identified as Darius the Mede: Astyages, Cambyses II, Cyaxeres (II), Cyrus the Great, Darius I (the Persian), and Gubaru (Gobryas). Law's scientific method disqualifies most of these potential candidates and leaves only Cyrus the Great and Gubaru for further consideration. In his extended consideration of Gubaru, a governor of Babylon, Law offers the following evidence explaining why Gubaru cannot be identified as Darius the Mede. In the original sources, there is no evidence of the following:
1) Gubaru being called
"king" in Babylon in 538-536 BC
2) Gubaru being governor of
Babylon from 538-536 BC
3) a district called "Babylon
and the Region across the River" existing in 538-536 BC
4) a new governor (administration)
being established in Babylon in 538-536 BC
5) Darius the Mede acting as a
vassal king.
On the
other hand, Law considers how the evidence concerning Cyrus the Great does fit
Daniel's description of Darius the Mede.
….
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment