While Tobit and Hosea name Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both of them fail to name Sargon

by Damien F. Mackey “Now the terrors of war will rise among your people. All your fortifications will fall, just as when Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel. Even mothers and children were dashed to death there”. Hosea 10:14 The prophet Hosea names two Assyrian kings, “Yareb” (5:13) and “Shalman” (10:14), whose identities Heath D. Dewrell has completely nailed, so I believe, in the Abstract to his article, “Yareb, Shalman, and the Date of the Book of Hosea” (2016): https://www.jstor.org/stable/43900899 …. This article examines two enigmatic figures mentioned in the Book of Hosea – King Yareb and Shalman. I suggest that the former is to be identified as the Assyrian king Sennacherib and the latter as Shalmaneser V. This has significant implications for the date of the core of the Book of Hoshea; it requires a date at least two decades later than the current scholarly consensus. …. For conventional minded scholars the whole thing is a bit of a puzzle. Thus F. C. Eiselen writes, in “Shalman”: https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/shalman.html A name of uncertain meaning, found only once in the Old Testament (Hosea 10:14), in connection with a place-name, equally obscure, "as Shalman destroyed Betharbel." Shalman is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the name of several Assyrian kings. If this explanation is correct, the king referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV, who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in 773-772. Others have proposed Shalmaneser V, who attacked Samaria in 725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that invaded the Negeb. The identification of BETH-ARBEL (which see) is equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in question was well known and, therefore, probably one of recent date and considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient translations offer no solution; they too seem to have been in the dark. [End of quote] Less “in the dark” may we be if we, like Heath D. Dewrell has considered necessary, re-date the core of the Book of Hosea. But we also need a revised Assyria, according to which the reign of Sennacherib, Yareb (erib), immediately follows that of Shalmaneser, with no extra Sargon in between, because Sargon II was Sennacherib: Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap (5) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This conventionally shocking conclusion is reinforced, however, by the Book of Tobit, a man who actually served the great Assyrian king, Shalmaneser - so he knew what he was writing about - whose immediate successor was Sennacherib (Tobit 1:15): “When Shalmaneser died, his son Sennacherib succeeded him as emperor”. No Sargon mentioned there either - because Sargon was Sennacherib. We also need to multi-identify Shalmaneser, for example as the highly important Tiglath-pileser so-called III. By so doing, it may facilitate our understanding of Hosea 10:14, connecting Shalman(eser) with the destruction of Beth-arbel, “a place-name, equally obscure”, “uncertain”. My tentative suggestion for the “obscure” town would be Tiglath-pileser’s taking of Abel-Beth Maacah (2 Kings 15:29), with Beth-arbel as Abel-Beth (Maacah?).

Ahikar once a mouthpiece for the Assyrian king Sennacherib

by Damien F. Mackey Whatever the exact circumstances of Ahikar’s worldly success, the young man seems to have enjoyed a rise to power quite as speedy as that later on experienced by the prophet Daniel in Babylon; the latter trusting wholeheartedly in his God, whereas Ahikar may possibly have, at first, depended upon his own powers. Ahikar’s Importance Biblical scholars could well benefit from knowing more about AHIKAR (or Ahiqar/ Akhikar), the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib, Great King of Assyria (c. 700 BC, conventional dating), and who was retained in power by Esarhaddon (Gk. Sacherdonos) (Tobit 1:22, see below). This Ahikar, it will be found, was a vitally important eye-witness to some of the most extraordinary events of Old Testament history. Ahikar was, at the very least, as we shall find: 1. a key link between the Book of Judith and those other books, Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah [KCI], that describe Sennacherib’s rise to prominence and highly successful first major invasion of Israel (historically his 3rd campaign), and then 2. Sennacherib’s second major invasion of Israel and subsequent disastrous defeat there; and he was 3. an eyewitness to neo-Assyrian events as narrated in the Book of Tobit. May I, then (based on my research into historical revision), sketch Ahikar’s astounding life by knitting together the various threads about him that one may glean from KCI, Tobit, Judith, secular history and legends. I shall be using for him the better known name of Ahikar, even though I find him named in the Book of Judith (and also in the Vulgate version of Tobit) as Achior, presumably, “son of light” (and as Achiacharus in the Septuagint). Here is Ahikar: His Israelite Beginnings Tobit tells us that this Ahikar was the son of his brother Anael (Tobit 1:21, 22, CEB): Within forty days Sennacherib was killed by two of his sons, who escaped to the mountains of Ararat. His son Esarhaddon became king in his place. He hired Ahikar, my brother Hanael’s son, to be in charge of all the financial accounts of his kingdom and all the king’s treasury records. Ahikar petitioned the king on my behalf, and I returned to Nineveh. Ahikar had been the chief officer, the keeper of the ring with the royal seal, the auditor of accounts, and the keeper of financial records under Assyria’s King Sennacherib. And Esarhaddon promoted him to be second in charge after himself. Ahikar was my nephew and one of my family. Ahikar, nephew of Tobit, was therefore the cousin of the latter’s son, Tobias, whom I have identified, in his mature age, as the holy Job. See e.g. my article: Job’s Life and Times http://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times Presumably then Ahikar had, just like Tobit and his son, Tobias, belonged to the tribe of Naphthali (cf. Tobit 1:1); though he was possibly, unlike the Tobiads, amongst the majority of his clan who had gone over to Baal worship. Ahikar may thus initially have been a scoffer (1:4) and a blasphemer. Tobit tells us about his tribe’s apostasy (1:4-5): When I was young, I lived in northern Israel. All the tribes in Israel were supposed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. It was the one city that God had chosen from among all the Israelite cities as the place where his Temple was to be built for his holy and eternal home. But my entire tribe of Naphtali rejected the city of Jerusalem and the kings descended from David. Like everyone else in this tribe, my own family used to go to the city of Dan in the mountains of northern Galilee to offer sacrifices to the gold bull-calf which King Jeroboam of Israel had set up there. This was still the unfortunate situation during the early reign of the great king Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 30: 1, 10): “And Hezekiah sent letters to all Israel and Judah … to come to Jerusalem … and keep the Passover …. So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim … but they laughed them to scorn …”. Whilst Tobit and his family, and Ahikar’s presumably also, were taken into captivity during the reign of “King Shalmaneser” [V] (Tobit 1:2), the northern kingdom of Samaria went later. Samaria, due to her apostasy, was taken captive in 722 BC (conventional dating) by Sargon II of Assyria, whom I have actually equated with Sennacherib: Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib As Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh Ahikar’s rapid rise to high office in the kingdom of Assyria may have been due in part to the prestige that his uncle had enjoyed there; because Tobit tells us that he himself was, for the duration of the reign of “Shalmaneser … the king’s purveyor”, even entrusted with large sums of money (1:14): “And I [Tobit] went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Rages a city of Media ten talents of silver”. This is apparently something like $1.2 million dollars! http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1205.htm Sennacherib’s description of his official, Bel-ibni, who he said had “grown up in my palace like a young puppy” [as quoted by G. Roux, Iraq, p. 321], may have been equally applicable to Ahikar. The highly talented Ahikar, rising quickly through the ranks, attained to Rabshakeh (Chief of the Officers). Whatever the exact circumstances of Ahikar’s worldly success, the young man seems to have enjoyed a rise to power quite as speedy as that later on experienced by the prophet Daniel in Babylon; the latter trusting wholeheartedly in his God, whereas Ahikar may possibly have, at first, depended upon his own powers. {Though Tobit put in a good word for his nephew when he recalled that “Ahikar gave alms” (14:10), that being his salvation}. A Possible Babylonian Connection It may even be that the youthful Ahikar was appointed for a time as the governor of Babylon whilst Merodach-baladan II was ruling there contemporaneously with Sennacherib at Nineveh. For indeed a governor there at the time had a name that may, as it seems to me, incorporate the name Achior. Thus I wrote in a post-graduate thesis (2007) on this period: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973 (Vol. I, p. 187): Perhaps even the name Achior – whether or not the very same person – can be found in Bel-akhi-erba (i.e. Bel-AKHI-ERba = AKHIOR), the governor of Babylon during the reign of Merodach-baladan II. A relief on the Merodach-baladan Stone depicts the latter making a grant of land to this Bel-akhi-erba, governor of Babylon. Whatever about that, according to the historical reconstruction of this post-graduate thesis, the very same Merodach-baladan, the wily survivor during the first half of Sennacherib’s reign, was the latter’s foe, Arphaxad, of the Book of Judith, defeated by Sennacherib (there called Nebuchadnezzar) - this incident occurring next, as I have argued, after Sennacherib’s successful 3rdcampaign, the one involving king Hezekiah of Judah. Thus we read in Judith 1:1, 5-6: While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes [sic] …. In the twelfth year of his reign King Nebuchadnezzar went to war against King Arphaxad in the large plain around the city of Rages. Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam. Many nations joined this Chelodite [Chaldean] alliance. Whilst “King Arioch” mentioned here will be discussed later, I have explained the use of the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ for Sennacherib in the Book of Judith in my article: Book of Judith: confusion of names (3) Book of Judith: confusion of names | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sennacherib’s Third campaign Biblically, we get our first glimpse of Ahikar in action, I believe, as the very vocal Rabshakeh of KCI, the mouthpiece of Sennacherib himself when the Assyrian army mounted its first major assault upon the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 18:13): “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them”. Now, it would make perfect sense that the king of Assyria would have chosen from amongst his elite officials, to address the Jews, one of Israelite tongue (vv. 17-18): And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field. And when they called for the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the secretary, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder. And these are the bold words that Rabshakeh had apparently been ordered to say to the Jews (vv. 19-25): And the Rabshakeh said to them, “Say to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: On what do you rest this trust of yours? Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? In whom do you now trust, that you have rebelled against me? Behold, you are trusting now in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. But if you say to me, “We trust in the Lord our God,” is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem”? Come now, make a wager with my master the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants, when you trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Moreover, is it without the Lord that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it’.” King Hezekiah’s officials, however, who did not want the people on the walls to hear these disheartening words, pleaded with Rabshakeh as follows (v. 26): “Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall’.” Could the fact that the Jewish officials knew that Sennacherib’s officer was conversant with the Aramaïc language indicate that Ahikar, of whom they must have known, was of northern – and perhaps Transjordanian (like Tobit and Tobias) – origin? Now Ahikar, who as said above is named ‘Achior’ in the Vulgate version of Tobit, I have identified as the important Achior of the Book of Judith in Volume Two of my post-graduate thesis. So it was rather intriguing to discover, in regard to the Rabshakeh’s famous speech, that B. Childs (Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis) had discerned some similarity between it and the speech of Achior in the Book of Judith. I wrote on this in my thesis (Vol. 2, p. 8): … Childs - who has subjected the Rabshakeh’s speech to a searching form-critical analysis, also identifying its true Near Eastern genre - has considered it as well in relation to an aspect of the speech of … Achior [to be identified with] this Rabshakeh in Chapter 2, e.g. pp. 46-47) to Holofernes (Judith 5:20f.). …. A legend had been born, Ahikar the Rabshakeh! The Israelite captive had proven himself to have been a most loyal servant of Sennacherib’s during the latter’s highly successful 3rd campaign, playing his assigned rôle to perfection. Sennacherib, following on from his victory over Judah, quickly turned his sights upon the troublesome Merodach-baladan. And it is at this point in history that the Book of Judith opens. After the defeat of Merodach-baladan, the aforementioned ‘young puppy’, Bel-ibni, was made sub-king of Babylon in his stead. Now, in Chapter 7 of my thesis (Volume I) I had introduced what I considered to be a necessary folding of Middle Assyro-Babylonian history, leading to my conclusion that Sennacherib was the same as Nebuchednezzar I. And that, then, had been my explanation for why the Assyrian Great King in the Book of Judith had the name, “Nebuchadnezzar”. My preference now, though, would be the explanation that I have given in my article, “Book of Judith: confusion of names”. Nebuchednezzar I, I had argued, was Sennacherib as a mighty ruler of Babylon, a scenario that also enabled me to merge Merodach-Baladan I and II additionally with Adad-apla-iddina. Now, I had believed that this restructuring may also have provided further possible ramifications for Ahikar the sage: The Vizier (Ummânu) One indication that I may be on the right track in attempting to merge the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier. I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier [the following taken from J. Brinkman’s A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. 1158-722 B.C. Roma (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968, pp. 114-115]: … during these years in Babylonia a notable literary revival took place …. It is likely that this burst of creative activity sprang from the desire to glorify fittingly the spectacular achievements of Nebuchednezzar I and to enshrine his memorable deeds in lasting words. These same deeds were also to provide inspiration for later poets who sang the glories of the era …. The scribes of Nebuchednezzar’s day, reasonably competent in both Akkadian and Sumerian…, produced works of an astonishing vigor, even though these may have lacked the polish of a more sophisticated society. The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.)…. To which Brinkman adds the footnote [n. 641]: “Note … that Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu also under Adad-apla-iddina and, therefore, his career extended over at least thirty-five years”. So perhaps we can consider that this high official was, for a time, shared by both Assyria and Babylon. Whilst I have proposed a variety of possible names for Ahikar, not all being entirely harmonious, the names Merodach-baladan and Adad-apla-iddina merge most satisfactorily; whilst Nebuchednezzar (my earlier view) can be regarded as Sennacherib’s Babylonian name. But, most stunningly of all I find, as laid out in Table I of my thesis (Vol. I, p. 180), “the names of three of [the Elamite Shutrukid] kings [of the C12th BC contemporaneous with Merodach-baldan I] are identical to those of Sargon II’s/Sennacherib’s Elamite foes, supposedly about four centuries later”. Those seeking the historical Ahikar tend to come up with one Aba-enlil-dari, this description of him taken from: http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/database/gen_html/a0000639.php: The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia. Seleucid Babylonia is, of course, much later removed in time from our sources for Ahikar. And, as famous as may have been the scribe Esagil-kini-ubba – whether or not he were also Ahikar – even better known is this Ahikar (at least by that name), a character of both legend and of (as I believe) real history. Regarding Ahikar’s tremendous popularity even down through the centuries, we read [The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 28:28]: The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered at the beginning of the 20th cent. on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the Old Testament itself. Whilst Ahikar’s wisdom and fame has spread far and wide, the orginal Ahikar, whom I am trying to uncover in this article, has been elusive for some. Thus J. Greenfield has written: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511520662&cid=CBO9780511520662A012 The figure of Ahiqar has remained a source of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. The search for the real Ahiqar, the acclaimed wise scribe who served as chief counsellor to Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, was a scholarly preoccupation for many years. He had a sort of independent existence since he was known from a series of texts – the earliest being the Aramaic text from Elephantine, followed by the book of Tobit, known from the Apocrypha, and the later Syriac, Armenian and Arabic texts of Ahiqar. An actual royal counsellor and high court official who had been removed from his position and later returned to it remains unknown. E. Reiner found the theme of the ‘disgrace and rehabilitation of a minister’ combined with that of the ‘ungrateful nephew’ in the ‘Bilingual Proverbs’, and saw this as a sort of parallel to the Ahiqar story. She also emphasized that in Mesopotamia the ummânu was not only a learned man or craftsman but was also a high official. At the time that Reiner noted the existence of this theme in Babylonian wisdom literature, Ahiqar achieved a degree of reality with the discovery in Uruk, in the excavations of winter 1959/60, of a Late Babylonian tablet (W20030,7) dated to the 147th year of the Seleucid era (= 165 BCE). This tablet contains a list of antediluvian kings and their sages (apkallû) and postdiluvian kings and their scholars (ummânu). The postdiluvian kings run from Gilgamesh to Esarhaddon. As a Ruling ‘King’ (or Governor) The Elamite Connection Chapter 1 of the Book of Tobit appears to be a general summary of Tobit’s experiences during the reigns of a succession of Assyrian kings: Shalmaneser, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. I, in my thesis and subsequent writings, may have misread some of the chronology of the life of Tobit, whose blindness, as recorded in Chapter 2, I had presumed to have occurred after the murder of Sennacherib. I now think that it occurred well before that. Ahikar will assist Tobit in his miserable state (“Ahikar gave alms”, 14:10), for two years, before his appointment as ruler of Elam. Here is Tobit’s account of it (2:10-11): For four years I could see nothing. My relatives were deeply concerned about my condition, and Ahikar supported me for two years before he went to the land of Elam. After Ahikar left, my wife Anna had to go to work, so she took up weaving, like many other women. Another thing that probably needs to be re-considered now, in light of my revised view of the chronology of Tobit, concerns the previously mentioned “King Arioch” as referred to in Judith 1:6: “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad … as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Arioch in Elam I had (rightly I think) identified in my thesis, again, as Achior (Ahikar) who went to Elam. But, due to my then mis-reading of Tobit, I had had to consider the mention of Arioch in Judith 1:6 as a post-Sennacherib gloss, added later as a geographical pointer, thinking that our hero had gone to Elam only after Sennacherib’s death. And so I wrote in my thesis (Vol. II, pp. 46-47): I disagree with Charles [The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament] that: “The name Arioch is borrowed from Gen. xiv. i, in accordance with the author’s love of archaism”. This piece of information, I am going to argue here, is actually a later gloss to the original text. And I hope to give a specific identification to this king, since, according to Leahy [‘Judith’]: “The identity of Arioch (Vg Erioch) has not been established …”. What I am going to propose is that Arioch was not actually one of those who had rallied to the cause of Arphaxad in Year 12 of Nebuchadnezzar, as a superficial reading of [Book of Judith] might suggest, but that this was a later addition to the text for the purpose of making more precise for the reader the geographical region from whence came Arphaxad’s allies, specifically the Elamite troops. In other words, this was the very same region as that which Arioch had ruled; though at a later time, as I am going to explain. For a revised re-locating of the land of Elam, see Royce (Richard) Erickson’s brilliant article (2020): A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Richard Erickson - Academia.edu Commentators express puzzlement about him. Who was this Arioch? And if he were such an unknown, then what was the value of this gloss for the early readers? Arioch was, I believe, the very Achior who figures so prominently in the story of Judith. He was also the legendary Ahikar, a most famous character as we have already read. Therefore he was entirely familiar to the Jews, who would have known that he had eventually governed the Assyrian province of Elam. Some later editor/translator presumably, apparently failing to realise that the person named in this gloss was the very same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story of [Judith], has confused matters by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: “Achior ruled the Elymeans”. From there it is an easy matter to make this comparison: “Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit]. Suffice it to say here that this ubiquitous personage, Ahikar/Achior, would have been the eyewitness extraordinaire to the detailed plans and preparations regarding the war between the Assyrians and the Chaldean coalition as described in Judith 1. As a convert to Yahwism “When Achior heard all that the God of Israel had done, he became a firm believer. He was circumcised and made a member of the Israelite community, as his descendants are to the present day”. Judith 14:10 Recalling from above The young and highly talented Ahikar, or Achior, a product of the northern Israelite tribe of Naphtali that had largely apostatised from Yahwism (but also a nephew of holy Tobit who had not followed his tribe in this regard), had risen rapidly – perhaps from being a young favourite in king Sennacherib’s palace – to the high office in Assyria of Rabshakeh. As such, Ahikar had become a key player in Sennacherib’s 3rd campaign, to the west, having been the very mouthpiece for the king of Assyria before the officials of king Hezekiah of Judah – a natural choice in that situation because of the young man’s ability to speak the Hebrew language. Now, still during the reign of Sennacherib, Ahikar (whom Tobit would later praise as an almsgiver) had assisted his uncle Tobit for two years whilst the latter was suffering from blindness, after which time Ahikar was assigned to the rulership of Elam (Elymaïs). This, I believed, has been taken up in Judith 1:6 (but presumably with the name later mis-copied) where we read of “King Arioch of Elam”. All of this led us to the following key connection between the books of Judith and Tobit: “Achior … Elymeans” [Judith]; “Ahikar (var. Achior) … Elymaïs” [Tobit] thereby anchoring the highly problematical history of the Book of Judith to the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria! And that very location for the Judith drama, historically, became the subject matter of Volume Two of my post-graduate thesis. Under the influence of uncle Tobit Undoubtedly the highly zealous and prayerful holy man, Tobit, would have – in his miserable state of blindness – utilised the two years of his nephew Ahikar’s attendance upon him to instruct the young, presumably Baal-worshipping (and whatever Assyrian gods as well), king’s official (to whatever extent he could) in the history of Israel and in pure Yahwism. Soon, Ahikar was also to be a witness to the phenomenon of Tobit’s being cured from his condition of blindness. For, apparently after Ahikar had gone to Elam, with Tobit still blind, Tobit’s son, Tobias (that is, the prophet Job) had journeyed to Ecbatana (= Bashan) and had, under the most unusual circumstances, gained himself a wife, Sarah, and some substantial wealth (Tobit 6-9). Subsequently, old Tobit was miraculously cured of his blindness (11:11-14), and afterwards he and his wife Anna held an impressive wedding feast for the young couple. It is at this point that we hear about Ahikar again, who, with his nephew, Nadin (Nadab), came along “to share in Tobit’s happiness” (11:18). Scholars have in fact commented upon the apparent dependence of the Maxims of Ahikar upon those of Tobit. J. Marshall, for instance (‘Tobit, Book of’, A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1902, pp. 789, 2): “There are many features of resemblance between Ahikar’s moral teaching to Nadan, and Tobit’s to Tobias”. (Cf. J. Miller and J. Hayes have listed “Parallels Between Esarhaddon’s Vassal Treaty and Deuteronomy”, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, pp. 395-397). The influence of Tobit and his family, and the amazing events of their lives of which Ahikar was so well aware, must have conspired to prepare the way for Ahikar’s ultimate conversion to Yahwism as Achior in the Book of Judith, upon learning of Judith’s triumph over Holofernes, and due to Achior’s own personal viewing of the decapitated head. Judith had called for Achior specifically for him to identify the head as belonging to Holofernes, whom he well knew, the heroine demanding (Judith 14:5-10): … send Achior the Ammonite to me. I want to see if he recognizes Holofernes, the man who spoke of Israel with contempt and sent Achior to us, thinking he would be killed along with the rest of us. So they called Achior from Uzziah’s house. But when he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hands of one of the men, Achior fainted and fell to the floor. When they had helped him up, Achior bowed at Judith’s feet in respect. ‘May every family in the land of Judah praise you’, he said, ‘and may every nation tremble with terror when they hear your name’. Please tell me how you managed to do this. While all the people were gathered around, Judith told him everything that she had done from the day she left the town until that moment. When she had finished her story, the people cheered so loudly that the whole town echoed with sounds of joy. When Achior heard all that the God of Israel had done, he became a firm believer. He was circumcised and made a member of the Israelite community, as his descendants are to the present day. Whoops, did Judith just call Achior an “Ammonite”? If that is what was his actual nationality, and indeed he is called that in various places in the Book of Judith as we now have it, then that would put paid to my claim that Achior was Ahikar, the nephew of Tobit, and it would also raise a nasty theological problem for the Book of Judith. I discussed this situation as follows in my thesis (Volume Two, pp. 57-58): … there now arises that problem with my actual reconstruction of Achior as an Israelite in the Assyrian army, and it is this verse: “Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to [Holofernes] …” (5:5). Achior is said in this verse to have been an ‘Ammonite’; a matter we discussed in some detail (beginning on p. 23), when considering why [the Book of Judith] was not accepted into the Hebrew canon. Whilst this does immediately loom as a major problem, there is one factor – apart from what has already been said about Achior – that makes his being an Ammonite highly unlikely, and this is that Achior will later, in [Judith] 14, be converted to Judaïsm and will be circumcised. The author of [Judith], who is an absolute stickler for the Mosaïc Law, and who writes in fact like a priest or Levite … would hardly have countenanced so flagrant a breach of the Law as having an Ammonite received by pious Jews into the assembly of faith, when this was clearly disallowed by Moses (Deuteronomy 23:3, 4). Judith herself, who would so scrupulously observe all of the religious ordinances of the Law even whilst in the camp of the Assyrians [Judith] (… 12), would hardly (if she were real) have been a party to this forbidden situation. The final word that we hear about Ahikar in some versions of the Book of Tobit is that Nadin had set a trap for his mentor, but had himself fallen into the trap and was subsequently slain (14:13). For a fuller explanation of this, see my: “Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith We have found that Ahikar was an important eye-witness to so many significant events that occurred during this most fascinating of historical eras. He, as king Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh during the Assyrian king’s 3rd campaign, knew also all about the war of Judith chapter 1, against Arphaxad (= Merodach-baladan, I believe). Assyria eventually won this hard-fought war, and then determined to vent her revenge upon the subject nations that had failed to assist her against Merodach-baladan. The war in Judith 1 is but the prelude to the main incident of the book, the second Assyrian invasion of the West. Possibly, Ahikar may also have been a privileged one present at the victorious Assyrian king’s “secret council” in which “Nebuchadnezzar” (= Sennacherib) planned his revenge on the west. “So he called unto him all his officers, and all his nobles, and communicated with them his secret counsel, and concluded the afflicting of the whole earth out of his own mouth”. [Judith 2:2; SEPT] Although, if he were then in Elam, he could have learned all about it from fellow officers. Either way, Ahikar is already the key witness for many such events recorded in the Book of Judith that could not have been known first-hand either by Judith or by her fellow Israelites, and the Jews, then living in the west. Ahikar as ‘Achior’ of Book of Judith Chapter 2 of the Book of Judith first introduces us to the historically problematical (like many characters in the book) “Holofernes”. He, who will serve as the commander-in-chief, may not have been at Sennacherib’s “secret council” because, as the story is narrated, the king calls him immediately after it (v. 4): “When the council was over, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians sent for Holofernes, general-in-chief of his armies and subordinate only to himself”. The Great King of Assyria now gives his subordinate this terrifying (from the perspective of those who will be the suffering recipients of it) commission: He said to him, ‘Thus speaks the Great King, lord of the whole world, “Go; take men of proven valour, about a hundred and twenty thousand foot soldiers and a strong company of horse with twelve thousand cavalrymen; then advance against all the western lands, since these people have disregarded my call. Bid them have earth and water ready, because in my rage I am about to march on them; the feet of my soldiers will cover the whole face of the earth, and I shall plunder it. Their wounded will fill the valleys and the torrents, and rivers, blocked with their dead, will overflow. I shall lead them captive to the ends of the earth”. Now go! Begin by conquering this whole region for me. If they surrender to you, hold them for me until the time comes to punish them. But if they resist, look on no one with clemency, hand them over to slaughter and plunder throughout the territory entrusted to you. For by my life and by the living power of my kingdom I have spoken. All this I shall do by my power. And you, neglect none of your master’s commands, act strictly according to my orders without further delay’. Typical Assyrian war-speak, but it was no mere bravado as the Assyrian Wehrmacht had the werewithal to carry out all of the Great King’s dreadful threats. And Holofernes will be, for a time, totally effective. Who was he? Who really was the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith? I, in my thesis, in which I radically revised neo-Assyrian history (Volume One, Chapter 6), even to identifying Sargon II – supposed father of Sennacherib – with Sennacherib himself (more recently in): Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib http://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib had multi-identified Holofernes from several sources. I have since changed some of this, see my “Nadin” article (above). Thus I had written a bit tortuously (Volume Two, pp. 79-80): In this verse we learn that a certain Nadab had set a trap for Ahikar, to kill him, but had fallen into that trap himself with fatal consequences. The description of this intriguing bouleversement fits exactly the story of Holofernes and Achior at Bethulia, thus I think providing a further confirmation of my reconstruction. In the legends of Ahikar, the betrayer can be called Nadan … instead of Nadab, and this is important; for commentators can presume that Ahikar’s betrayer is the same as Ahikar’s very nephew, Nadab. In [Tobit] we are told that “Ahikar and his nephew Nadab were also present …” at the celebration of the wedding of the young Tobias and Sarah in Nineveh (11:18). And, because Tobit will, three chapters later, when recalling Ahikar’s betrayal, name the betrayer, ‘Nadab’ (14:10), then it is not unreasonably assumed that Ahikar was betrayed by his very own nephew. The next part of my thesis can be amended to read as follows: Here, then, is my reconstructed version of verse 14:10, with my name substitutions added in square brackets: ‘See, my son [Tobias], what Nadab [Nadin] did to Ahikar [Achior] who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for his shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness, because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, Ahikar escaped the fatal trap [at Bethulia] that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself, and was destroyed’. This verse is quite mystifying in the context of [the Book of Tobit] alone, which had, until this, told us nothing whatsoever about any misdeed on the part of Ahikar’s nephew, but only that he, with his uncle, had been “present [at the celebration] to share Tobit’s joy” (11:18). Whilst the name Nadab itself, as the betrayer, does not appear to add any relevance to my reconstruction, the variant form of it, Nadin, surely does. Nadin can be connected with the Assyrian name, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest son of Sennacherib. The name connection can be deduced from the following passage [Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ‘Ahikar, Book of’, p. 69]. Some of the persons mentioned [in the Aramaic book of Ahikar] may even be historical. A high official named Nabu-sum-iskun is known to have served under Sennacherib. While the person of Ahikar has not been found as yet [sic], his name is Assyrian (Ahi-yaqar, “the brother is precious”). The name Nadan (better, Nadin) is a short form of some name like Adad-nadin-shum. Chronologically Ashur-nadin-shumi, ruling Babylon for six years, from the 12th to the 18th year of Sennacherib, and then mysteriously disappearing, fits perfectly for Holofernes, for it was in the Great King’s 18th year that he was said to have summoned his officials to commence the war of revenge (Judith 2:1-2, 4): In the eighteenth year, on the twenty-second day of the first month, a rumour ran through the palace that Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians was to have his revenge on all the countries, as he had threatened. Summoning his general staff and senior officers, he held a secret conference with them, and with his own lips pronounced utter destruction on the entire area. …. When the council was over, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians sent for Holofernes, general-in-chief of his armies and subordinate only to himself. …. If Nadin (my Ashur-nadin-shumi/Holofernes) were a son of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, then in what sense could he have been called a “nephew” of the Israelite Ahikar? I am not entirely sure at this stage. According to legend, Nadin was the son of Ahikar’s sister. Now, the mother of Ashur-nadin-shumi was apparently Tashmetum-Sharrat, the daughter of Merodach-baladan. Or was Nadin his “nephew” in a different sense, as being under the tutelage of Ahikar? I had followed this line in my thesis (ibid.): We also learn from the legends that Ahikar had been Nadan’s actual tutor, taking many pains with the latter’s instruction (hence having “reared him”, according to Tobit 14:10 above). It is quite possible that the wise Ahikar, whose moral maxims seem to have been lifted straight from the sayings of Tobit … – the latter being well-known to a succession of Assyrian kings (1:13-19, 21-22) – had been appointed as steward, or tutor, of Sennacherib’s son, just as the wise Senenmut had been ‘tutor’ or ‘steward’ of Egypt’s Thutmose [III], as a child, and of Hatshepsut’s daughter, Neferure. …. [See my “Solomon and Sheba”: http://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba]. In that sense, could Tobit say that Ahikar “had reared him [Nadin]”. Holofernes storms into Israel Judith 2 narrates the formidable march of Holofernes and his massive army through northern Syria, then (2:17-18): “… down into the plains of Damascus in the days of the harvest, [where] … he set all the corn on fire, and he caused all the trees and vineyards to be cut down. And the fear of them fell upon all the inhabitants of the land”. Finally, with just Samarian cities like Judith’s Bethulia (= Shechem) facing Dothan, as well as Jerusalem, left for the Assyrians to conquer, we encounter Ahikar as the Achior of the Book of Judith, subordinate to Holofernes, the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army that had cut off the water supplies of Bethulia. Here Achior is called “leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5). But this, as suggested above, cannot be correct. It must be a copyist’s mistake for Ephraïmites (northern Israelites), or perhaps Elamites (over whom Ahikar had ruled) because in 6:2 Holofernes contemptuously refers to Achior as “you hireling of Ephraïm”. It is at this crucial stage, with the Bethulians languishing from lack of water, that Ahikar makes his incredible apologia on behalf of the Israelites. This came as a total shock to all present. So insignificant were these mountain people in the eyes of Holofernes that he had even had to ask the locals who they were. Achior had volunteered the information, giving the commander a run-down of Israel’s history from Abraham, through the Exodus, to the present time. (Would an Ammonite have been likely to have known Israel’s history in detail?). Moreover he added that, whenever their God favoured this people, they always proved to be unbeatable. Tobit’s teachings were now setting in. This speech absolutely stunned the soldiery who were by now all for tearing Achior “limb from limb” (5:22). Holofernes, for his part, was absolutely furious with Achior. Having recently succeeded in conquering the entire west, he was hardly about to suffer hearing that some obscure mountain folk – “this brood of fugitives from Egypt” as he contemptuously called them in response to Achior’s speech (cf. 6:6)- might be able to offer him any meaningful resistance. Holofernes thereupon commanded his orderlies to take the insolent Achior and bind him beneath the walls of Bethulia, so that he could suffer, with the people he had just verbally defended, their inevitable fate when the city fell to the Assyrians. When the Assyrian brigade had managed to secure Achior at Bethulia, and had then retreated from the walls under sling-fire from the townsfolk, the Bethulians went out to fetch him. As I wrote in my thesis (ibid.): Aspects of the legendary story of Ahikar’s condemnation and release can perhaps be seen as distortions of the original Bethulia incident. For instance, the tale of the executioner’s sparing Ahikar’s life, and imprisoning him in a cellar under his house, after which he was eventually released, might be a distortion of [Holofernes’] deferring the execution of Achior until the defeat of the Bethulians, and having him bound below (under) the hill of Bethulia, from which he was liberated. For in [Judith] 6:13 we read: “So [Holofernes’ slaves] having taken shelter below the hill …”. Once safely inside the city of Bethulia, Achior told the citizens his story, and no doubt Judith was there to hear it. Later she would use bits and pieces of information supplied by Achior for her own confrontation with Holofernes, to deceive him. The subsequent defeat and rout of the Assyrian army of 185,000 – so enigmatically treated in Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah – is narrated in detail in the Book of Judith. It was not simply an instant blast by God – or a sudden bubonic plague – that consumed the entire Assyrian army on the spot, as some like to suggest: Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 (5) Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was rather a complete rout, set in motion by the ruse of Judith. As Isaiah had predicted, the Assyrian would fall “by the sword, not of a man” (31:8); for it was actually “by the hand of a woman” that the victory was achieved (Judith 16:7). Achior’s Conversion When Judith returned to her city after having deceived the Assyrians, her maid carrying in her bag the gory trophy of the head of Holofernes, the heroine told her fellow-citizens the whole story of what had taken place in the Assyrian camp. Judith then asked the townspeople to fetch Achior, who, upon seeing the head of the world-famous Assyrian general, defeated by this woman, fainted on the spot. Upon recovering, Achior greatly praised Judith: ‘May you be blessed in all the tents of Judah and in every nation; at the sound of your name men will be seized with dread’ (14:31). Afterwards, Achior submitted to the circumcision that he had apparently neglected as a young Naphtalian, and converted fully to Yahwism (14:8-10). Is not the story of Judith, including Holofernes and Achior, one of the most thrilling stories of the entire Old Testament era! Reality (true history) can often be more dramatic than fiction.

Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel

“With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem”. We read at: http://www.thywordistruth.com/Ezra/Ezra-Esther-Lesson-19.html …. There is a very subtle irony in the picture of Haman constantly running home to ask his wife how to solve his problem. Remember how this book started out? The king and his advisors were concerned that the Vashti incident would somehow undermine the male leadership in their society! Who do we see taking charge in this book? Esther and Zeresh – Xerxes’ wife and Haman’s wife! With Haman and his wife Zeresh, we see a parallel with King Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Like Haman, Ahab was rebuffed by Naboth and then ran home sulking to his wife – and like Jezebel, Zeresh has a simple yet evil solution to the problem. Like Haman, Ahab also seemingly had everything – and yet he wanted just one more thing to be happy. How many have run their ships aground while searching for that one more thing! The key to contentment is to give up that never ending searching for just one more thing because whatever that one thing is, there will be another “just one thing” waiting in line behind it. You will never have enough. Haggai 1:6 – “Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.” Zeresh, like Jezebel, takes the lead in pushing Haman to do his evil deed. Notice that while Zeresh is listed last in verse 10, she is listed first in verse 14. Zeresh’s advice is very bad advice – and yet Haman follows it eagerly. In a book that begin with the goal of keeping all women in their place, Haman’s downfall is caused by two women – Queen Esther and his own wife, Zeresh. Haman’s wife proposes a public humiliation for Mordecai, so Haman builds a gallows that is as tall as his own pride – 75 feet! Critics have complained that no gallows would have been this tall – about the height of a 7-story building. But it is certainly not impossible, and it is also possible that it was built on top of a hill or a building. Haman wanted everyone to see Mordecai – and he is about to get his wish! Haman’s plans are about to run headfirst into the providence of God. It is often said that Jesus can be found on every page of the Old Testament. Is that true of Esther? Notice how Chapter 5 begins – “On the third day.” Can we not think of another, infinitely greater, champion of God’s people who arose to save them from certain death on the third day? Whether the reference to the third day here as a greater significance, we don’t know, but many commentaries speculate that it does. …. Esther 6:1-3 On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king. 2 And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s chamberlains, the keepers of the door, who sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. 3 And the king said, What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this? Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him. One commentator says that Chapter 6 is “arguably the most ironically comic scene in the entire Bible” (although Chapter 7 seems funnier to me). But we should note what another commentator said: “The book of Esther may be wickedly funny at times, but it is also deadly serious.” While Haman plots Mordecai’s death on a 75 foot gallows, the king plans to honor Mordecai for his faithful service. The unsuspecting Haman enters the king’s court, thinking the king must be planning to honor him – thinking to himself, “Whom would the king delight to honor more than me?” in verse 6. “If ever there was a picture of pride going before a fall, Haman is it.” As one commentator noted, “Here the early bird is gotten by the worm!” We begin to see here the series of seeming coincidences that we discussed in the introduction as Haman’s plan spirals out of control. The king just happens to have a sleepless night (although, as we have suggested, it might have been because of Esther’s delay in answering his question). The king just happens to have the chronicles read to him, and the service of Mordecai just happens to come to his attention at the moment Haman is plotting his death. Haman just happens to show up early and be there when the king asks for an advisor, and the king just happens to ask Haman for advice without initially mentioning Mordecai by name. Those who read the book with the eye of faith cannot miss seeing God in its pages, even though he is never named. As one commentator stated, these coincidences are the author’s cipher for “divinely arranged.” We cannot fail to see the hand of divine providence in such a series of events. Asking for the chronicles to be read would be similar to asking today for the Congressional Record to be read – and each could provide a quick cure for insomnia. Another possibility is that the king may have had a nagging feeling that he had forgotten to do something important – and perhaps he was hoping these records might refresh his recollection. Perhaps Esther’s impending request had even created this nagging feeling in the king – what did she want? What had he forgotten? Perhaps it seemed to the king that by her delay she was wanting him to come up with it on his own. Had he forgotten their anniversary? It was important for a Persian king to reward those who were loyal as a way of promoting his own safety and security on the throne. Thus, the king was understandably upset to learn that Mordecai had never been honored for foiling the assassination plot against him five years earlier. Mordecai had no doubt been disappointed himself. And why did the king fail to honor Mordecai? Once again I think we see the hand of God at work. It was important for God’s plan that Mordecai be honored at the right time. Perhaps we need to look for God’s providence in our own lives when things do not operate according to our own carefully arranged time schedule. The word “honor” in verse 3 occurs throughout the text. It first appeared in 1:4 in reference to the honor of the king. In 1:20, the word was used to describe the honor that wives should give their husbands. It is the one thing that Haman craves, but so far the word has never been applied to him. Will Haman at last receive the honor he is due – or perhaps something else he is due? ….

Zeresh, artful wife of Haman, as the Jewish Queen Nehushta

by Damien F. Mackey “The Rabbis apply to Haman, who heeded his wife’s counsel, the verse (Prov. 10:1): “a dull son is his mother’s sorrow”. Because he heeded her advice, he himself was hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai”. Tamar Kadari Yesterday (3rd May, 2024), a First Friday, I purposefully searched what I considered to be relevant parts of the Bible for further identification of – information about – two officials of the Medo-Persian kingdom who had attempted to impede the work on the Second Temple in Jerusalem. These were Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of the Book of Ezra (5-6). And I came up with, for Tattenai, Elnathan son of Achbor (Jeremiah 26:22; 36:12), and, for Shethar-Bozenai, Shethar (Esther 1:14): Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai (6) Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now I, having already learned of a Jewish tradition according to which Tattenai was the father of Haman’s wife, Zeresh, was intrigued find out if Elnathan son of Achbor (my Tattenai) had a daughter of any substance, specifically relating to King Jehoiachin of Judah (my Haman). It appeared that he may have (2 Kings 24:8): “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem”. https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/2519584/jewish/Who-Was-Zeresh.htm [Zeresh’s] father was Tattenai, “the ruler of across the river,”3 who makes an appearance in the Book of Ezra when he tries (unsuccessfully) to halt the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.4 In my opinion, that makes an identification between Nehushta and Zeresh appear as being very likely. Though it comes with its difficulties. For I have already identified Haman’s female ancestor (mother? grandmother/) as Queen Hammutal (Hamutal), whose father was apparently not an Elnathan of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:31): “… Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah”. I think the real situation may be that Nehushta was the wife of Jehoiachin, and that she was, therefore, the same woman as Zeresh the wife of Haman. Jehoiachin had wives Haman, or Aman, was, as we have discovered (with assistance from Jewish legend), a former king of Judah, namely, Amon, who was, as further concluded, the exiled king Jehoiachin (Jeconiah or Coniah). Now, this king had “wives” (2 Kings 24:15): “And [Nebuchednezzar] carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon”. As Haman, he also had “ten sons” (Esther 9:10) – by one or more of his wives. The however many “wives” of the king who went into captivity with him may, or may not, have perished by the time that (about four decades later) the king of Judah had been freed from prison by the son of Nebuchednezzar (Jeremiah 52:31): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison”. A handful of years later again (in the Medo-Persian era) he re-enters the scene as the conspiratorial Haman, having then only the one wife of whom we are told, Zeresh. Emil G. Hirsch et al. tell of a tradition according to which Jehoiachin was allowed to have his wife with him in prison. The suggestion here that it was a “Queen Semiramis”, wife of Nebuchednezzar, who enabled for this to happen would be, though, an anachronism. And entirely inaccurate, too, would be Jehoiachin’s ‘repentance’ in light of his being Haman: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8560-jehoiachin JEHOIACHIN. By: Emil G. Hirsch, Bernhard Pick, Solomon Schechter, Louis Ginzberg …. Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii. 30; Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b); he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]). It was especially his firmness in fulfilling the Law that restored him to God's favor. He was kept by Nebuchadnezzar in solitary confinement, and as he was therefore separated from his wife, the Sanhedrin, which had been expelled with him to Babylon, feared that at the death of this queen the house of David would become extinct. They managed to gain the favor of Queen Semiramis, who induced Nebuchadnezzar to ameliorate the lot of the captive king by permitting his wife to share his prison. As he then manifested great self-control and obedience to the Law, God forgave him his sins (Lev. R. xix., end). Jehoiachin lived to see the death of his conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar, which brought him liberty; for within two days of his father's death Evil-merodach opened the prison in which Jehoiachin had languished for so many years. …. [End of quote] Tamar Kadari provides further midrashic insight into the situation, telling that Haman’s wife, Zeresh, was even more wicked than her husband. Included also in this colourful account is the tragic death of a daughter of the couple, which incident does not feature (at least explicitly) in the Esther narrative: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/zeresh-midrash-and-aggadah Zeresh: Midrash and Aggadah by Tamar Kadari The midrash portrays Zeresh as being even more wicked than her husband Haman (Midrash le-Esther, Ozar ha-Midrashim [ed. Eisenstein], p. 51). Wise women are celebrated in Proverbs (14:1): “The wisest of women builds her house,” while the end of this verse says of the wicked Zeresh: “but folly tears it down with its own hand” (Midrash Proverbs 14:1). The Book of Esther relates that Haman, incensed after he saw that Mordecai did not prostrate himself before him, returned home to consult with his friends and his wife Zeresh. The midrash elaborates that Haman’s friends were his wife’s lovers and that Haman also had mistresses, for all idolaters are licentious (Midrash Panim Aherim [ed. Buber], version B, chapter 5). In another midrashic account, Haman had 365 advisors, like the days of the year, but none could give him advice as good as that of his wife Zeresh. She told him: “If this man of whom you speak is of Jewish stock, you will not overcome him, but you must act wisely against him. If you were to drop him into a fiery furnace, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were already dropped down there and they were saved. If you were to throw him into a lions’ den, Daniel was already thrown into a lions’ den and he emerged unscathed. If you were to put him in prison, Joseph was already incarcerated there and he left it. If you were to send him to the wilderness, Israel already were in the wilderness, they were fruitful and multiplied, they withstood all the tests, and they were saved. If you were to blind him, Samson killed many Philistines when he was blind. But hang him on the gallows, for we have not found a single one of the Jews who was saved from hanging.” Immediately (Esth. 5:14) “the proposal pleased Haman, and he had the gallows put up” (Esth. Rabbah 9:2; Midrash Abba Gurion [ed. Buber], chapter 5). The Rabbis apply to Haman, who heeded his wife’s counsel, the verse (Prov. 10:1): “a dull son is his mother’s sorrow.” Because he heeded her advice, he himself was hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. The Rabbis ask why Haman was not successful in using his riches to save himself from the scaffold. They reply that the case of Haman teaches us that all of a wicked man’s riches will be of no avail when his downfall is at hand (Midrash Proverbs 10:1). Haman’s downfall began when Ahasuerus ordered him to parade Mordecai on horseback through the streets of the city. According to the midrash, when Haman did so, their route led through a lane that went past Haman’s house. Haman’s daughter looked down from the roof and thought that the rider on horseback was her father and that Mordecai was leading him. She took a full chamber pot and emptied it on his head. Haman looked up; his daughter saw that this was her father, and in her great amazement and distress she fell from the roof to her death. Therefore it is said (Esth. 6:12): “Haman hurried home, his head covered in mourning”—he was “in mourning” over his daughter’s death and “his head was covered” with filth (BT Megillah 16a). This midrashic account accentuates Haman’s great shame in the eyes of his household and those of the entire kingdom. The daughter’s act symbolized what would befall her father. Haman sought to maltreat Mordecai, but in the end he harmed himself. The daughter’s fall from the roof was therefore a portent of her father’s imminent ruin. Afterwards, Haman returned home to once again take counsel with Zeresh and his confidants. According to the midrash, they told him: If Mordecai is from one of the tribes of Israel, you will prevail over him, but if he is from the tribe of Judah, or of Benjamin, Ephraim or Manasseh, you will not overcome him. For it is written of Judah (Gen. 49:8): “Your hand shall be on the nape of your foes”; and it is said of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh (Ps. 80:3): “at the head of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh! Rouse Your might and come to our help!” These tribes received a special blessing that they would triumph over their enemies; Mordecai is a Benjaminite, and therefore you cannot harm him. They also told him: The people of Israel are compared to the dust and the stars. When they descend, they descend to the dust; and when they rise, they rise to the stars. So now that Mordecai is in the ascent, you will no longer be able to harm him (BT Megillah 16a). The Rabbis prescribe that on Purim everyone must say: “Cursed be Haman, cursed be his sons, cursed be Zeresh his wife,” thereby fulfilling Prov. 10:7: “But the name of the wicked rots” (Esth. Rabbah 10:9).

Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai

by Damien F. Mackey According to my revised Medo-Persian kingdom, which features only the two kings, (1) Darius the Mede/Cyrus and (2) Darius the Persian - Daniel 8:3’s “ram with two horns” - we should perhaps look for earlier mention of the officials/governors of Darius the Persian, Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai, during the reign of Cyrus, and possibly, also, even earlier still, during the long reign of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. I may have been fortunate to have found mention of both. Firstly, the easy one: Shethar-Bozenai When purposefully looking for the names of both Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai in the list of “the seven eunuchs who served” King Ahasuerus (i.e., Cyrus), in Esther 1:10, where we likely find mention, first and foremost, of Haman (as Mehuman): Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 (2) Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I – though not recognising any name that I could reasonably equate with Tattenai – did, however, come across a very Shethar-like name in “Zethar”. Esther1:10: … [the King] commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Karkas …. The list appears to be repeated in a somewhat reverse order a bit further on, in v. 14: “… and were closest to the king—Karshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memukan, the seven nobles of Persia and Media who had special access to the king and were highest in the kingdom”. Mehuman (= Haman), now given as Memukan, is listed last this time. But the jackpot was to find the exact name, “Shethar”, of Shethar-[Bozenai]! While that coincidence does not guarantee that the “Shethar” of King Cyrus (Ahasuerus) was the Shethar-Bozenai of the Book of Ezra, it is certainly a matter worthy of some further consideration. Tattenai Prior to that, but on this very same day (3rd May, 2024), I had dug more deeply in the hope of locating Tattenai. I looked for an anti-Yahwistic type in the kingdom of Judah, being most mindful of the official who had brought back from Egypt, for execution, the prophet Uriah (Urijah), who is my Isaiah: A Geography of prophet Isaiah - north and south (3) A Geography of prophet Isaiah - north and south | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I had completely forgotten the name of this particular official, but, upon checking Jeremiah, I found out who he was (26:22): “… King Jehoiakim sent men to Egypt: Elnathan son of Achbor and certain other men with him went to Egypt”. This was another unexpected surprise, because an earlier checking with Abarim for the meaning of the name “Tattenai”, and for related names, had revealed that the name means “to give”, and that, most astonishingly, the first listed related name given there was Elnathan: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Tattenai.html Related names • Via נתן (natan): Elnathan, Jonathan, Mattan, Mattanah, Mattaniah, Mattatha, Mattathias, Mattattah, Mattenai, Matthan, Matthat, Matthew, Matthias, Mattithiah, Nathan, Nathanael, Nathan-melech, Nethanel, Nethaniah, Nethinim So, the Elnathan son of Achbor, who had pursued the holy prophet Uriah into Egypt, now becomes my favoured candidate for the Tattenai of the Book of Ezra, now some several decades later, who is still found resisting the efforts of the servants of Yahweh.

Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of Ezra 6 confirmed by archaeology

“There are strong grounds for identifying Biblical Tattenai in a tablet of Darius I the Great, king of Persia …”. Lawrence Mykytiuk We read at: https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/archaeology-confirms-3-more-bible-people/ Archaeology Confirms 3 More Bible People By Lawrence Mykytiuk In the March/April 2014 issue of BAR, I wrote an article on 50 people in the Hebrew Bible whose existence has been confirmed by archaeology.a At the end of the article, in a box, I also listed seven additional people. They had not three, but only two, attributes matching the Biblical person, so their identifications were not certain but were reasonable hypotheses. Now I am pleased to report on three new people added to the 50 confirmed (of whom two have already been mentioned in BARb), and three new people added to the seven uncertain but reasonable identifications. At the end are a few interesting non-identifications. Strongly Identified The first real person to be added to the original list of 50 is the Biblical Tattenai (also translated Tatnai or Sisinnes), mentioned in Ezra 5:3, etc. He was the Persian governor of the province of Trans-Euphrates—literally, “Beyond-the-River,” which for the Persians meant their territory west of the Euphrates River. There are strong grounds for identifying Biblical Tattenai in a tablet of Darius I the Great, king of Persia, which can be dated to exactly June 5, 502 B.C.E. First, the letter on this tablet, which was recovered from Babylon, has long been accepted as authentic. Second, the setting (time and place) of the Tattenai in the tablet was in Trans-Euphrates during the reign of Darius I (r. 520–486 B.C.E.). That territory included Yehud (roughly equivalent to Judah, but under Persian rule), which matches the setting of the Tattenai in the Book of Ezra chapters 5 and 6. Ezra’s Tattenai appears in Jerusalem during the last few years before the completion of the Second Temple around 516 B.C.E. Third, only one person named Tattenai would have been the Persian governor of Trans-Euphrates between 520 and 502 B.C.E. It is extremely unlikely that two different men having exactly the same name would both be governors over Trans-Euphrates, and specifically Yehud, during this very narrow time period, so that possibility is negligible. Therefore, the identification of the Biblical Tattenai in Darius I’s letter of 502 is based on singularity: One and only one person qualifies. …. And, again, at: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no3-2017-may/archaeological-evidence-tattenai/ Another Bit of Evidence Is there archaeological evidence supporting the Bible record? In 2014 an article in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review addressed the question: “How many people in the Hebrew Bible have been confirmed archaeologically?” The answer given: “At least 50!” One man who did not make the list in that article was Tattenai. Who was he? Let us review his brief role in the Bible record. Jerusalem was once part of a vast Persian Empire. The city lay in an area that the Persians called Across-the-River, that is, to the west of the Euphrates. After conquering Babylonia, the Persians released Jewish captives and authorized them to rebuild Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:1-4) Enemies of the Jews, however, opposed the project and used it as a pretext to accuse the Jews of rebelling against Persia. (Ezra 4:4-16) During the reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.), a Persian official named Tattenai led an inquiry into the matter. The Bible calls him “the governor of the region Beyond the River.”—Ezra 5:3-7. A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 B.C.E. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”—the same Tattenai who appears in the Bible book of Ezra. What was this man’s role? In 535 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great reorganized his dominions into provinces, one of which was called Babylon and Across-the-River. The province was later split into two parts, one of which was simply called Across-the-River. It included Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Samaria, and Judah and was likely ruled from Damascus. Tattenai governed this region from about 520 to 502 B.C.E. After traveling to Jerusalem to investigate the accusation of rebellion, Tattenai reported to Darius that the Jews claimed to have received authorization from Cyrus to rebuild Jehovah’s temple. Investigations in the royal archives substantiated that claim. (Ezra 5:6, 7, 11-13; 6:1-3) So Tattenai was ordered not to interfere, and he obeyed.—Ezra 6:6, 7, 13. To be sure, “Tattenai the governor of the region Beyond the River” merits only a footnote in history. Note, though, that the Scriptures mention him and apply to him exactly the right title. That fact gives us yet another bit of evidence that archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible’s historical accuracy. On Shethar-Bozenai, we read at: https://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Tattenai.htm …. What is even more remarkable is the name of the man who accompanied Tattenai to Jerusalem, Sether-Bozana, has also been found in … records from Nippur, dating to the 38th year of Artaxerxes I (427-426 B.C.) [sic] In the Collection of the Babylonian Section, Philadelphia, Artifacts #CBS 5174+12893 Illustration Figure 13 Line 25` mentions the man, Sether-Bozana: …. Another mention of Sether-Bozana is found in the records from Nippur dating to the 41st year of King Artaxerxes I (424 B.C.) [sic], just two years before the Biblical story in Ezra during king Darius II reign [sic]. Located in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum - Part of the Nippur tablet Collection, Artifact (Ni.528) mentions Sether-Bozana (Sa-ta-bar-za-na) Figure 18 Line 26. ….

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.