Is the Book of Esther a Real History?
Part Three
by
Damien F. Mackey
Introduction
According to the biblical to historical scenario that I have developed for the Book of Esther:
King Ahasuerus is King Evil-Merodach; and
Haman is King Jehoiachin ‘the Captive’, a Jew;
Haman’s ten sons being the many sons of Jehoiachin; and
Hammedatha is Hammutal, the mother of Jehoiachin.
But Jehoiachin is also the “Neri” of Luke 3:27, who is, in turn, King Neriglissar of Babylon.
The Shealtiel Problem
Now, relevant to this last identification (King Jehoiachin = Neri) is the fact that, although a Shealtiel, father of Zerubabbel, is named by the Evangelists Luke and Matthew as being the son of this Neri (Luke 3:27), of this Jehoiachin (Matthew 1:12), the prophet Jeremiah, however, had foretold of this Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 22):
24 "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin … were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear--to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians.26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to." 28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? 29 O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! 30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."
Whilst this prophecy makes a lot of sense in my context, with Jehoiachin and his sons being identified by me with Haman and his ten sons - who all came to a wretched end in a very short space of time - it can appear to be contradicted by the fact that Zerubabbel son of Shealtiel continued the royal line after the return from Exile. Some get around this problem by arguing that God had rescinded the curse on King Jehoiachin because of his subsequent repentance (which does not work, of course, in my Hamanic context, where there is absolutely no repentance). Thus we read, for instance (“Messiah To Descend From Jehoiachin and Zerubabel”) (http://www.menorah.org/mfjaz11.html):
The scripture appears to pronounce a threefold "curse" upon Jehoiachin: (1) He would be childless (2) He would not prosper (3) His offspring would not prosper on the throne of David. In light of this "curse" there appears to be a great obstacle regarding the Messianic line, and especially Jehoiachin's inclusion within it. There is widespread opinion that the denunciation of Jehoiachin through God's prophet was irrevocable. This would effectively preclude him from being within the messianic lineage. Before jumping hastily to this opinion, it is well to examine some arguments against this view.
The first "curse," that Jehoiachin would remain child-less, was definitely lifted. The Tanakh makes it clear that Jehoiachin was, in fact, prolific and sired Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah, and Asir. ….
Jehoiachin was king of Judah when the children of Israel were taken captive into Babylon, and was imprisoned there. The second "curse," that Jehoiachin would be 'a man that shall not prosper in his days,' was also ameliorated by God, for we read:
And it came to pass in the ... year of captivity.... [the] king of Babylon ... did liberate Jehoiachin... from prison; And he ... set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon...
Thereby, if God could forgive Jehoiachin, to the extent of lifting the first two "curses" against him, it is plausible that the third one could be lifted as well; otherwise, Messiah could not descend from Solomon through Jehoiachin. The Yalkut explains that this problem was resolved in the following manner:
Nebuchadnezzar took [Jehoiachin] and put him in prison. ... The Jewish religious Council gathered to consider the matter for they feared that the Davidic kingdom would come to an end, of which it is written, His throne shall endure before me as long as the sun' (Psalm 89:36). What can we do in order to help that the Scriptures might be fulfilled? We will go and plead with the governess, and the governess will plead with the queen and the queen with the king. ... Rabbi Shabatai said that [Jehoiachin] did not leave prison until he repented fully and God forgave his sins and ... his wife got pregnant as it is written, 'Shealtiel his son, Asir his son.'
Shealtiel means, "I asked of God." Asir means "prisoner." Hence, the rabbis understand that Jehoiachin asked God to forgive him while in prison and that God indicated his forgiveness by giving him sons.
The returning exiles from Babylon in 539 BCE appointed Zerubabel to be their prince. They obviously did not think that the "curse" was still in effect since Zerubabel was a direct descendant of Jehoiachin. Moreover, the post-exilic prophets exalt Zerubabel, and place their hope for Israel in him. Hence, for example the prophet Zechariah exclaims:
Who are thou, O great mountain? Before Zerubabel thou shalt become a plain;
he shall bring forth the headstone of it with shoutings... .
The hands of Zerubabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it... For they shall rejoice, and see the plummet in the hand of Zerubabel... . (6)
It is fair, then, to assume that whatever the denunciation against Jehoiachin, it was pardoned by God, even as the king of Babylon pardoned Jehoiachin and released him from prison; thus the Messiah would not be prevented genealogically from being of the seed of David, Solomon and Hezekiah through Jehoiachin to whom the Messianic promises were given. Some may not be satisfied with the rationale presented in favor of the removal of the "curse" from Jehoiachin, thus permitting the Messiah to descend directly from him. This position would appear to effectively preclude Yeshua from being the Messiah. Yet, by some intermarriage within the Davidic family, Zerubabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin, through Nathan, the son of David, was Yeshua's ancestor on his mother, Miriam's side. Hence, even should Jehoiachin present a stumbling stone, still Yeshua traces his ancestry back through David on his mother's side.
[End of quote]
More preferable, in my context, according to which the prophet Jeremiah had pronounced completely aright and there had been no lifting of the curse, would be explanations that argue for Shealtiel’s not actually being a direct descendant of Jehoiachin’s. For example (Wikipedia article, “Zerubbabel” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel):
The Hebrew Bible lists Shealtiel as the second son of King Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17). The Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II exiled to Babylon Jeconiah and Jeconiah's uncle King Zedekiah the last king of Judah and killed Zedekiah there. Potentially, Shealtiel became the legal heir to the throne, if the Davidic monarchy was restored.
The Hebrew Bible has conflicting texts regarding whether Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel or of Pedaiah. Several texts (that are thought to be more-or-less contemporaneous) explicitly call "Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2,8; 5:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1,12,14). The Seder Olam Zutta also supports that position. Surprisingly, 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 makes Zerubbabel a nephew of Shealtiel: King Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel and Pedaiah, then Pedaiah is the father of Zerubbabel.
Various attempts have been made to show how both genealogies could be true. One explanation suggests Shealtiel died childless and therefore Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to a Jewish law regarding inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). If so, Zerubbabel would be the legal son of Shealtiel but the biological son of Pedaiah.
The other speculation suggests the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household" (Hebrew: בית, bet). The Hebrew term "father" (Hebrew: אב, av) can refer to a father of a household, similar to the Latin term paterfamilias. In this sense, a man who is the "father" of a household can therefore be referred to as the "father" of his own biological siblings, nephews and nieces, or anyone else who cohabitates in his "household". Zerubbabel (and possibly his father Pedaiah) could be called a "son" if they lived in Shealtiel's household.
Perhaps both speculations could be true. Zerubbabel could be the legal son of Shealtiel and therefore also a member of his household. Notably, if Shealtiel had no biological children, Zerubbabel as a legal son would have inherited Shealtiel's household and become its new "father" with authority of over the other members of the household.
[End of quote]
If King Jehoiachin, or Neri - who I say was called Neriglissar in his exile in Babylon - is to be fitted into the context of the Book of Esther, as the cut-off one Haman, then this most unworthy man could not have contributed directly to the Messianic line.
Historical Origins of Neriglissar
According to R. Albertz (“Israel in Exile. The History and Literature of the Sixth Century”, Studies in Biblical Literature, p. 62) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Xx9YzJq2B9w
“Neriglissar (Nergal-šarra-usur, “May Nergal protect the king”) … belonged to the Aramean tribe of Puqûdu (Pekod)”. That Neriglissar was apparently an Aramaean is most promising, given that this was the very blood stock from which the Israelites sprang (Deuteronomy 26:5). Hence the Puqûdu tribe, “deported” during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15535.html)
Pekod…. Aramean tribe that once inhabited the eastern bank of the Lower Tigris, and is identified with the Puqudu mentioned in Assyrian texts beginning with the time of Tiglath-Pileser III. The Pekod tribe was organized and put under the jurisdiction of the governor of Arrapha. However, the tribe participated in many revolts and was subsequently deported ….[,]
could then be the Israelites (including the Jews) in Mesopotamian captivity.
(Cf. Jeremiah 50:21 and Ezekiel 23:23).
According to the Wikipedia article, “Neriglissar” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neriglissar):“He is traditionally listed as a king of the Chaldean Dynasty, however it is not known if he was a Chaldean or native of Babylon, as he was not related by blood to Nabopolassar [father of Nebuchednezzar II] and his successors”.
Neriglissar was apparently the son of one Bel-šuma-iškun, who was, as we learn from C. O. Jonsson (A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2nd volume on chronology), an important personage of the Puqûdu tribe (http://kristenfrihet.se/kf3/review5.htm):
…. “Belšumiškun, king of Babylon”
On page 80 Furuli mentions another four “possible unknown Neo-Babylonian kings,” the last of which is Belšumiškun, the father of Neriglissar. Furuli refers to one of the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions translated by Stephen Langdon, which he quotes as saying:
“I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
The second volume of Langdon’s work on the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, however, which included the inscriptions from the reign of Neriglissar, was never published in English. The manuscript was translated into German by Rudolf Zehnphund and published under the title Die neubabylonischen Königinschriften (Leipzig 1912). The inscription that is supposed to give Belšumiškun the title “king of Babylon” is listed as “Neriglissar Nr. 1”. The original Akkadian text as transliterated by Langdon reads in Col. I, line 14 (pp. 210, 211):
“mâr I ilu bêl-šum-iškun šar bâbiliki a-na-ku”
This is verbatim translated into German as,
“der Sohn des Belšumiškun, des Königs von Babylon, bin Ich,”
A literal translation of this into English would be “the son of Belšumiškun, the king of Babylon, am I,” rather than “I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
This is probably also what was written in Langdon’s English manuscript. In W. H. Lane’s book Babylonian Problems (London, 1923), which has an introduction by Professor S. Langdon, a number of the translations of the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions is published in Appendix 2 (pp. 177-195). They are said to be taken from the work, “Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by STEPHEN LANGDON, translated by E. M. LAMOND.” The last of these royal inscriptions is “Neriglissar I” (pp. 194, 195). Line 14 of the text says (p. 194):
“the son of Belšumiškun, King of Babylon, am I.”
It is obvious that this statement may be understood in two ways. Either the phrase “King of Babylon” refers back to Belšumiškun as king or it refers to Neriglissar himself. As no contract tablets have been found that are dated to Belšumiškun as king of Babylon, the statement is most likely a reference to Neriglissar. Do we know anything about Belšumiškun, more than that he was the father of Neriglissar?
It is known that Neriglissar, before he became king, was a well-known businessman, and in several business tablets he is referred to as “Neriglissar, the son of Belšumiškin.” In none of these tablets is Belšumiškun stated to be, or to have been, king of Babylon.
It is important to notice that Neriglissar mentions his father in another building inscription, “Neriglissar Nr. 2,” not as king but as “the wise prince.” The same title is also given him on a damaged clay cylinder kept in St. Louis Library. – S. Langdon, (1912), pp. 214, 215; J. A. Brinkman, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Vol. 25 (1976), pp. 41-50.
If Belšumiškun really was, or had been, a king, why would he be degraded to the role of a prince, even by his own son?
Actually, the real position of this Belšumiškun is known. The so-called “Court List,” a prism found in the western extension of Nebuchadnezzar’s new palace, mentions eleven district officials of Babylonia. One of them is Belšumiškun, who is there described as the “prince” or governor over “Puqudu,” a district in the north-eastern part of Babylonia. The officials on the “Court List” held their positions during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. – Eckhard Unger, Babylon (1931), p. 291; D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 62, 73-75.
So why should Neriglissar in one of his royal inscriptions call his father “King of Babylon,” when he had never occupied that position, and is denied that title in all other texts that mention him? If Furuli’s quotation, as translated from German, had been correct, a possible explanation could have been that Neriglissar, who had usurped the Babylonian throne in a coup d’état, attempted to justify his course of action by claiming royal descent. In the inscription where Neriglissar seems to be calling his father “the wise prince” (“Neriglissar Nr. 2”), this title is followed by other epithets: “the hero, the perfect, mighty wall that eclipses the outlook of the country.” If this description really refers to Belšumiškun and not to Neriglissar himself (the text is somewhat ambiguous), it would reflect a tendency to glorify the descent of Neriglissar. But to state in a royal inscription that Belšumiškun had been “King of Babylon” would have been foolish, as everyone in Babylonia would know that the claim was false.
[End of quote]
In my scheme of things this Bel-šuma-iškun (if genuinely Neriglissar’s father) would have been King Josiah himself.
As we have already read, Neriglissar comes to notice in the 9th year of Nebuchednezzar II – about the same time as the captivity of King Jehoiachin with whom I am identifying Neriglissar. And despite that, as R. Sack (“Neriglissar – King of Babylon”, Alter Orient und Altes Testament,1994, p. 23) tells: “… much of our information regarding the king [Neriglissar] comes from sources well removed from the Chaldean period chronologically”,nevertheless, “what survives provides us with more information concerning the“private life” of Neriglissar than about any other king of the Chaldean“dynasty”.
Sack goes on to note (pp. 23-24) that:
Our present evidence suggests not only that [Neriglissar] 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 ….Contracts dated in the reign of his predecessor [sic], Amêl-Marduk, indicate that he was active in dealings with members of the prestigious Egibi house, especially the famous Nabû-ahhê-iddina.
Presumably this activity by the apparently very wealthy Neriglissar largely occurred during the reign of Evil-Merodach, rather than of Nebuchednezzar during whose reign his career may have been somewhat topsy turvy. R. Sack tells of both Neriglissar’s wealth and of his buying and selling during Evil-Merodach’s reign (ibid., p. 24):
One fascinating group of tablets commenting on these activities concerns the scribe … Nabû-apla-iddina, son of Balâtu, who was faced with a number of obligations that he could not satisfy. …. It is known … that his creditors, anxious to recover their loans, laid claim to the scribe’s property …. And turned to Neriglissar (who undoubtedly already possessed considerable wealth) for satisfaction. Probably coming from a prestigious banking family … he can be found buying property and loaning money in the reign of Amêl-Marduk. A number of contract tablets indicate that he purchased the house of Nabû-apla-iddina for the price of one mina of silver ….
[End of quote]
The members of the House of Egibi were filthy rich. This might explain how Haman, if he were Neriglissar, could offer such a ridiculously large bribe in silver to King Ahasuerus (Esther 3),
9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will give ten thousand talents[b] of silver to the king’s administrators for the royal treasury.
and the fact that (Esther 5:11):
Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles ...
According to theEncyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babylonia-i): “Babylonia was the richest satrapy under Achaemenian rule, paying one thousand talents (about thirty tons) of silver to the Persian kings annually, as well as five hundred boys to serve at court as eunuchs”.
It is important to note (for I shall be taking it up again later on) that Haman had weighed out the money (Esther 4:7): “… and Mordecai declareth to him all that hath met him, and the explanation of the money that Haman said to weigh to the treasuries of the king for the Jews, to destroy them”. And also that some consider that Haman was actually weighing up the Jews (http://frumheretic.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/10000-talents-of-silver.html).
Co-regency of Neriglissar with Evil-Merodach
Whilst it is perhaps not the usual view, there is evidence nonetheless to suggest an overlap of Neriglissar with Evil-Merodach. And this, in turn, ties in nicely with my view that Neriglissar (Haman) was a sub-ruler during the reign of Evil-Merodach (Ahasuerus). Sack writes on this (op. cit., pp. 25-26, I do not necessarily endorse his BC dates):
Earlier we noted that the dated contract tablets heretofore published offered no suggestion of any irregularity in Neriglissar’s accession to the throne. All the evidence pointed to mid August of 560 B.C. as the probable date of Amêl-Marduk’s death …. Furthermore, the earliest previously-published contract mentioning Neriglissar as “king of Babylon” can be dated to the twenty-third of Abu, 560 B.C., just six days after the latest document datable to Amêl-Marduk’s reign …. However, new evidence suggests that this “orderly succession” may not have taken place. In fact, thanks to the contents of BM 75489(= text no.91 --- a Sippar document published here for the first time) … we can now definitely establish the fact that texts were being dated to Neriglissar’s accession year as early as late May of 560 B.C.
[End of quote]
And, whilst any attempt to interpret Ezra 4 is beyond the scope of this article, it is perhaps interesting that Ezra 4:22 may indicate the rulership of more than one king beside the Artaxerxes, who had written: “Beware of being negligent in carrying out this matter; why should damage increase to the detriment of the kings?"
Tracking Down Evil-Merodach
I wrote in Part One, concerning the most obscure Evil-Merodach - though apparently a not insubstantial ruler - that“this poorly known king might stand in need of an alter ego”. And, according to my reconstruction, he would be none other than the‘Great King’, Ahasuerus (or Artaxerxes) of Esther 1:
1This is what happened during the time of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush: 2 At that time King Ahasuerus reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa,3 and in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present.
A writing on a vase found near the city of Susa reads, “Palace of Amil Marduk (Merodach) King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, Ruler of Babylon”.
http://howik.com/Know_How_the_Bible_Is_Different_and_Unique
According to K. Swenson, The Bible and Babylon, 560 BC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-m-swenson-phd/the-bible-and-babylon-560_b_3726998.html), this Evil-Merodach had a Median mother: “…. Amel-Marduk …. His mother was Amytis, once a princess of Media”. That would certainly qualify him for one who, like Ahasuerus, “reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa”.
Neriglissar could then be the Great King’s right hand man (satrap) in Babylon.
Now, whilst there is at least the possibility that Evil-Merodach carried Median blood - and we shall re-visit this in Part Four - I wonder if the actual queen Amytis (var. Umati),an exile and a favourite of King Nebuchednezzar II’s, might be (given the pattern of her name) the Hamutal (var. Hammutal), or Hammedatha (mother of Haman) according to this article. Thought to have been a Median princess, Amytis is associated with the legendary Hanging Gardens of Babylon - supposedly created by Nebuchednezzar to assuage her homesickness.
But precious little is actually known about this Amytis.
She could just as well, perhaps, have been a Jewish queen (or princess) in exile and suffering from homesickness. As in the case of the legendary ‘Median’Amytis, her marriage to King Nebuchednezzar II was undoubtedly a politically-motivated one, in order to unite kingdoms. For, as R. Dean has rightly noted (“God’s Sovereignty over History – Daniel 5:1”):“… typical of statesmen and politicians and monarchs throughout ancient history, they used their daughters as pawns on the stage of international politics”. http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/dbm/setup/Daniel/Dean_Daniel_L-20.htm As the wife of the Great King, she, Hamutal - formerly a wife of King Josiah of Judah - would have been too well known to readers of Megillat Esther to have required any further identification beyond (Esther 3:1):
“After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha …”.
The result of Haman’s having a mother who had subsequently become an apparently favoured queen of the Great King of the Chaldeans (if that were actually the case) must have been that the former, though a ‘Captive’, had acquired a not inconsiderable prestige in the kingdom of the Chaldeans. And, if he were also Neriglissar, then, as we learned in Part Two, “He had married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzarand, for that reason, considered himself a legitimate successor to his throne”.
Though R. Kamoo offers a somewhat more cautious view about this (Ancient and Modern Chaldean History, p. xxxvii)
“While this did not give him or any of his sons claim to the throne, royal favouritism was bestowed upon him, as evidenced by Neriglissar’s role as governor of Bit sin-magir, a former Assyrian province that was part of Nebuchadnezzar’s fortification to the north”.
According to this article, Neriglissar did not follow after Evil-Merodach, as is the usual view. Rather, Evil-Merodach (the Great King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther), early in his reign, raised up Neriglissar (Haman), or King Jehoiachin, and ultimately established him as a sub-ruler with him over the vast Medo-Persian empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment