Is the Book of Esther a Real History?
Part Two
by
Damien F. Mackey
{For Part One, see:http://bookofesther-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/is-book-of-esther-real-history.html}
{For Part One, see:
Introduction
So
far I have concluded, based on some compelling Jewish legends, that Haman of
the Book of Esther was actually a Jew, not an Amalekite (etc.), and that he was
in fact King Jehoiachin. And that the opinion that he was an Agagite, or an Amalekite
(Greek: Amali̱kíti̱s)
may have arisen from Jehoiachin’s chief epithet, “Captive” (Greek:
aichmálo̱tos), of similar phonetics.
With the evil king Jehoiachin as the wicked Haman,
then the next logical step seemed to be that the exaltation of Jehoiachin by
king Evil-Merodach (usually considered to have been the Chaldean son and successor
of Nebuchednezzar II), as related in 2 Kings
25:27-28, must resonate with the exaltation of Haman also by an eastern king,
in this case king “Ahasuerus” (Esther 3:1). That, in turn, would strongly
suggest that Evil-Merodach was the long sought for king “Ahasuerus”.
It could be argued that, whereas Evil-Merodach
had exalted Jehoiachin “in the year that he began to reign”,
“Ahasuerus” appears to have raised up Haman some time after his wedding, in his
7th year (cf. Esther 2:16 and 3:1). Whilst it might be argued in
light of this that “Ahasuerus” was therefore a successor of Evil-Merodach’s,
the age of Haman now needs to be taken into consideration. Already about 55, as
we calculated, in the 1st year of Evil-Merodach, and then about 66
in the latter’s 12th year (if he were the “Ahasuerus” of the Esther
drama that focusses on the king’s 12th year), then we probably need
to start adding extra 12’s to Jehoiachin’s 66 years depending on how far from
Evil-Merodach we move for any other choice for “Ahasuerus”.
On the strength of mathematics and biology
here, I would favour king Evil-Merodach as the “Ahasuerus” of the Book of
Esther. And this is, I think, quite new.
This would mean that the Bible is doing what
it so often does, telescoping
historical events. Thus the release of king Jehoiachin from prison by
Evil-Merodach in his first year of reign is to be regarded as an initial act of
kindness; whilst his elevation to prominence over the rest was a later act of
kindness, somewhat separated in time from the first. It also means that the so
poorly known Evil-Merodach - so very much in need of an alter ego - who is thought to have reigned for a mere 2-4 years,
must rather have reigned for at least 12 years. Thus it is interesting to read that
one source does attribute 12 years to him. And so we read (R.
Sack, “Neriglissar – King of Babylon”, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 1994, p. 8, my emphasis):
Like
Megasthenes’ History of India, Polyhistor’s
works have perished, but, again as with Megasthenes, portions are preserved in
Eusebius. Included in these fragments is another dynastic list, which reads as
follows:
Then
Nabupalsar [Nabopolassar], reigned 20 years; and after him Nabucodrossorus
[Nebuchednezzar], reigned 43 years … And after Nabucodrossorus, his son,
Amil-marudochus [Evil Merodach], reigned
12 years.
And
after him, Neglisarus [Neriglissar], reigned over the Chaldeans 4 years; and then
Nabodenus [Nabonidus] reigned 17 years ….
[End of quote]
There was
another preliminary matter that had to be settled, and that was the
identification of the
“Hammedatha” whose son Haman was (Esther 3:1). I, taking my lead from the New
Testament’s Matthew 1:11: “…
Josiah the father of Jeconiah [Jehoiachin]” (though the latter is usually
regarded as being the grandson of king Josiah), was able to propose for “Hammedatha” the Jewish woman, Hamutal (or Hammutal) – a very adequate name fit.
Now it will be thanks to Matthew 1
again, and also to the Genealogy of Jesus Christ as given by Luke 3:23-38, that
I expect I shall be able to advance further my identification of Haman, now as
an eastern potentate who had close ties to king Evil-Merodach. This will, in
turn, lead to a revision of the Chaldean kings subsequent to Nabopolassar and
Nebuchednezzar II, whose order and reign lengths in the dynastic lists are not
really disputed.
After them, however, I suspect that the
conventional scenario is probably bedlam.
Identifying Jehoiachin with Neriglissar
The
next useful clue for my reconstruction, comes from Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ, when
the Evangelist gives, for the father of Shealtiel, one Neri (3: 27-28):
Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri,
28 son of Melchi
Neri, seemingly corresponding to
Matthew’s Jeconiah [Jehoiachin] (Matthew 1:12):
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel
Could Neri have in fact been another
name for king Jehoiachin (with Luke’s Melchi, meaning ‘male ruler’,
corresponding to Matthew’s King Josiah 1:11: “Josiah
the father of Jeconiah”)?
My answer to this will be, Yes.
The evil king Jehoiachin, whom I have
tentatively identified in Part One as
the conspirator, Haman, of the Book of Esther (http://bookofesther-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/is-book-of-esther-real-history.html), I am now going to propose,
tentatively again, was the rather enigmatic Chaldean official, Neriglissar,
very much a contemporary of Jehoiachin's (throughout the entire reign of King
Nebuchednezzar II and beyond). And that the biblical name, Neri, was an
abbreviation of that name Neri-glissar, which is a Greek version (fitting in
with St. Luke) of the Chaldean name, Nergal-sharra-usur.
Neriglissar was active from as early as
the 9th year of Nebuchednezzar II (R. Sack, op.
cit., p. 23): "The earliest known mention of Neriglissar occurs in a
contract dated in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar ..."; this being approximately
the year after king Jeconiah was taken into captivity (2 Kings 24):
10 At that time the officers of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, 11
and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were
besieging it. 12 Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants,
his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him. In the eighth year of the reign of the
king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner.
And Neriglissar continued to be most
active right throughout the major part of the 43-year long reign of Nebuchednezzar
and beyond even that. This would mean that, if Neriglissar were the biblical
Neri (= Jehoiachin), then he must have had considerable freedom even during the
reign of this mighty Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar.
Such would be quite contrary to the
general view that Jehoiachin was treated harshly throughout this long period of
time.
Certainly his initial treatment would
have been rough, according to customary practice, to teach him a stern lesson.
We know from the prophet Ezekiel's lamentation (chapter 19) that Jehoiachin would
be caged up and carried off like an animal: “They put him in a cage with
chains, And brought him to the king of Babylon; They brought him in nets, That
his voice should no longer be heard on the mountains of Israel.” (v. 9).
In Babylon, Jehoiachin was treated as
a royal hostage. He is named Ya'u-kin in Babylonian tablets, which
speak of him and his five sons as receiving rations at the Babylonian court. As
we have already noted, he was known to the Jews as 'Jehoiachin the Captive' (Assir)
(I Chronicles 3:17). But Jehoiachin, (if) as Neriglissar, would actually (at
some stage) have married a daughter of King Nebuchednezzar's, thereby obtaining
for himself legitimacy to the Chaldean throne. (See e.g. James B. Jordan's The
Handwriting on the Wall, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 2007, Ch. 10)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=l25D1d4ub
And that Jehoiachin, even though a
captive, enjoyed a degree of freedom, at least early on, is apparent from this
statement in the Book of Baruch (1:3): “Baruch
read the book aloud to Jehoiachin ... king of Judah, and to all the people who
lived in Babylon by the Sud River. Everyone came to hear it read - nobles,
children of royal families, elders, in fact, all the people, no matter what
their status”.
Moreover, he may even have been
involved militarily for the Chaldeans in the Fall of Jerusalem (article, “Babylon's Last Kings”)
It is probable that Neriglissar was a leading prince in
the Babylonian court long before he seized the
throne. A man of that name entered Jerusalem with the armies of Nebuchadnezzar and held the post of Rab-mag with the occupying armies (Jeremiah 39:3). The meaning of Rab-mag (Akkadian rab-mugi) is uncertain but it
designates a high political office. Nergal-shar-usur was one of "the
princes of the king of Babylon" and he sat "in the middle
gate" of Jerusalem, which evidently served as the center
of government for the Babylonians before they destroyed the city.
Nergal-shar-usur as Rab-mag was a member of the delegation
assigned to release Jeremiah from prison and entrust him into the
friendly hands of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 39:11-14). He had married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and, for that reason, considered
himself a legitimate successor to his throne.
According to The Anchor Bible (as referenced by Sack, op. cit., p. 20, n. 61): “The two Nergalsharezers [mentioned here
in Jeremiah 39] are the same person. This is almost certainly the Nergal-šarri-usur
(Neriglissar) who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar’s son on the Babylonian throne in
560”.
But, according to my developing
scenario in light of the Book of Esther, the succession was not Nebuchednezzar’s son Evil-Merodach followed
by Neriglissar, but was, instead, Evil-Merodach (as “Ahasuerus”) elevating
Neriglissar (as “Haman”) to “second to the royal throne” (Esther
16:11). Neriglissar (the
Jewish king Jehoiachin, I say) was, in other words, a sub-king ruling over
Babylon in the empire of the Great King, “Ahasuerus”. Their rulership was simultaneous,
not successive. And furthermore, if Neriglissar were Haman, then he would have
predeceased Evil-Merodach (Ahasuerus”).
For a period of time, however, the two
were apparently close. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Neriglissar was
Evil-Merodach’s brother-in-law
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5921-evil-merodach): “Tiele, Cheyne, and Hommel
are of the opinion that perhaps Neriglissar, Evil-merodach's brother-in-law,
who is praised for his benevolence, was instrumental in the freeing of the
Judean king” [sic].
My view, though,
is that Neriglissar (Luke’s Neri) was
this very “Judean king” (Jehoiachin).
And this man was apparently an
inveterate conspirator and insurrectionist. For, according to A. Fitzgerald,
article “Baruch” (The Jerome Biblical
Commentary, 1968, 37:9): “At first a pensioner in the King’s [Nebuchednezzar’s]
court, [Jehoiachin] was jailed sometime after 592 [BC] (W.F. Albright, BA,5 [1948] 49-55), probably in
connection with some insurrection …”. Was there perhaps an insurrection
involved in the case of Daniel 4:33: “Nebuchadnezzar
was driven out of human society …”,
due to the king’s madness? Whatever
the case, we find king Jehoiachin once again - at least in the latter part of
Nebuchednezzar’s reign - being held as a prisoner, there awaiting his renewed
freedom at the hands of the succeeding king, Evil-Merodach (2 Kings 25:27-30):
And it came to pass in the 37th year of the captivity of
Yeho’yachin king of Judea, in the twelfth month, on the 27th day of the month
(27 Adar, today’s Hebrew date) that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year
that he began to reign, did lift the head of Yeho’yachin king of Judea out of
prison. And he spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the
kings that were with him in Babylon. And he changed his prison garments, and
[Yeho'yachin] ate bread before him [Evil-Merdoch] continually all the days of
his life. And there was a continual daily allowance given to him by the king,
all the days of his life.
Now, this "set[ting of] his
throne above the throne of the kings that were with him" by an
eastern king is what I have come to think must be reflected in this action in
the story of Esther (3:1): "After these things did king Ahasuerus
promote Haman ... and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that
were with him".
21st November
The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin
Mary
No comments:
Post a Comment