Even more to Daniel than may meet the eye
Part One:
Nehemiah and that ‘broken down wall’
by
Damien F. Mackey
Hence, in answer to my
previous question: “Could this “Artaxerxes” have actually been a king of
Babylon, but choosing Susa as, say, his (autumnal)-winter residence?”, I am
inclined to answer, Yes. And the odds must now lie heavily in favour of
Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” being Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ himself.
Nehemiah
is traditionally thought to have served under a Persian king named “Artaxerxes” – with some preferring Artaxerxes I
(d. 424 BC, conventional dating), whilst others would opt for Artaxerxes II (d.
358 BC, conventional dating).
According
to Nehemiah 1:1, the location was in Susa during this particular king’s 20th
year: “In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year,
while I was in the citadel of Susa …”.
Why, then, is the king (and his location) referred to in this king’s 32nd
year as “Babylon”?
Could this “Artaxerxes” have
actually been a king of Babylon, but choosing Susa as, say, his
(autumnal)-winter residence?
Prior
to the tumultuous time of the Maccabees in their revolt against the Macedonian
Greeks, the only recorded occasion of an enemy destroying the walls of
Jerusalem was when the Chaldeans (Babylonians) did this in the 19th
year of king Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’.
The
incident is clearly spelled out, for instance, in Jeremiah 52:12-14:
On the tenth
day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, who served the king of
Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He set fire to the Temple
of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important
building he burned down. The whole Babylonian army,
under the commander of the imperial guard, broke down all the walls around
Jerusalem.
The
era of Maccabean troubles was, for its part, of course, far too late for
Nehemiah still to have been acting in any official capacity to a king. Although
I have left open the possibility that Nehemiah himself may still have been
alive even in Maccabean times.
See
e.g. my articles:
Nehemiah bridges Persia
and Greece
Did governor Nehemiah die
the death of Razis?
And
regarding the plethora of kings “Artaxerxes”, see my cautioning series beginning
with:
Medo-Persian History
Archaeologically Light. Part One: Introductory
https://www.academia.edu/31090097/Medo-Persian_History_Archaeologically_Light._Part_One_Introductory
So,
although, conventionally speaking, Nehemiah would have lived 200-300 years
before the Maccabean era, my radical revision of neo-Assyrian/Babylonian
history:
Ashurbanipal the Great
and of
Persian history (see “Medo-Persian History” article above), would mean that
Nehemiah’s lifetime can now be massively re-set historically.
Now,
Fr. Robert North (S.J.) will immediately reflect back to the Chaldean
destruction of Jerusalem when commenting upon Nehemiah 1:1-3, which reads:
In
the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa,
Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other
men, and I questioned them about the Jewish remnant that had survived the
exile, and also about Jerusalem. They said to me, ‘Those who survived the exile
and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of
Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire’.
Fr.
North writes (The Jerome Biblical
Commentary, 1968, 24:102): “The walls of Jerusalem had been destroyed by
Nebuchednezzar 150 years earlier. Surely Nehemiah knew all about that”.
Surely,
indeed.
Then
why did Nehemiah make such a fuss (v. 4): “When I heard these things, I sat
down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of
heaven”?
This
was obviously fresh news to Nehemiah. Otherwise, it would have been like a
ridiculous situation of, say, a Frenchman in 1965 being told of Napoleon’s
defeat at Waterloo 150 years earlier, and reacting similarly to Nehemiah.
The
above scenario can only mean (I think) that Nehemiah was a young man serving a
king even as early as during the Chaldean era, and that his “Artaxerxes”, in
“Babylon”, was, not a Persian king, but a Babylonian one.
Hence,
in answer to my previous question: “Could this “Artaxerxes” have actually been
a king of Babylon, but choosing Susa as, say, his (autumnal)-winter
residence?”, I am inclined to answer, Yes.
And
the odds must now lie heavily in favour of Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes king of
Babylon” being Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ himself.
Part Two:
“Artaxerxes” as king Nebuchednezzar
“Then the king, with the queen sitting
beside him, asked me, ‘How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?’
It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time”.
Nehemiah
2:6
In Part One of this new series:
https://www.academia.edu/37223770/Governor_Nehemiahs_master_Artaxerxes_king_of_Babylon_._Part_One_Nehemiah_and_that_broken_down_wall_ a totally different-from-usual historical
scenario was proposed for Nehemiah in his partnership with king “Artaxerxes”.
Instead
of a late-ish Medo-Persian era - in which the drama has always conventionally been
set - I suggested that it had occurred instead smack bang within the Chaldean
era.
That
was the only time that made sense to me for the Jew, Nehemiah, to have wept and
fasted over news of the walls of Jerusalem having been destroyed.
The aggressor
against Jerusalem is not actually named by Nehemiah.
That
would presumably be tact (but also fear, see below: “I
was very much afraid …”) on Nehemiah’s
part when standing before so great and forbidding (not to mention, mad) a king.
Now,
it was not until about four months after Nehemiah had received the devastating
news about Jerusalem that “Artaxerxes” noticed his servant’s uncharacteristic
sadness (2:1-3):
In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when
wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not
been sad in his presence before, so the king asked me,
‘Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but
sadness of heart’.
If
this “Artaxerxes” were Nebuchednezzar himself, as I now believe he must be,
then it was a most awkward situation for Nehemiah. Had not Nebuchednezzar been
the very perpetrator of the destruction of Jerusalem – even though he was not
personally present at Jerusalem when the city was destroyed, but was
represented there (as we read previously) by Nebuzaradan?
Hence
Nehemiah confesses (v. 2): “I was very much afraid …”.
But
Nehemiah, who had been praying and fasting for months about this situation,
then felt emboldened to add (v. 3): “… but I said to the king, ‘May the king
live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my ancestors
are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?’
Notice
that Nehemiah addresses the king in the same type of language as was customarily
addressed to king Nebuchednezzar (e.g. Daniel 2:4): “O king, live forever”.
The
chronology fits well, too.
Nehemiah
learned of the destruction of Jerusalem - which had been perpetrated by the
Chaldeans in the 19th year of Nebuchednezzar - in the king’s 20th
year.
The
news had to travel all the way from Jerusalem to Susa (at that stage), some 850
miles.
A note on “the queen” of Nehemiah 2:6
With
the possibility - according to the conventional Medo-Persian setting - of
Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes” being a Medo-Persian king, then the suggestion is not
infrequently made that “the queen” said to have been seated next to the king
could be the biblical Queen Esther herself.
That
pleasant thought would now disintegrate, though, according to my new Chaldean
setting.
For the
Chaldean era would be far too early by my estimation for the drama of Queen Esther
and her king, “Ahasuerus”.
But it
may yet be possible to give a name to this “queen” of Nehemiah 2:6.
Given
my identification of Nebuchednezzar II with Ashurbanipal, refer back to Part One:
https://www.academia.edu/37223770/Governor_Nehemiahs_master_Artaxerxes_king_of_Babylon_._Part_One_Nehemiah_and_that_broken_down_wall_ then I think that we may be on the right track if identifying “the queen”
as Libbali-sharrat, Ashurbanipal’s
queen, who, as we see in the “Garden Scene” bas-relief, is indeed seated beside
the king.
The “Garden Scene” is a relief slab thought to
have fallen from the upper level of Room S in the North Palace of Ashurbanipal
at Nineveh. It was evidently the centerpiece of a larger composition, the main
theme of which was the Assyrian victory against the Elamites.6 The series is known only partially with
the help of drawings by William Boutcher.7 Arranged in three registers and covering
at least five slabs, it may have decorated a long wall of the room above Room
S.8 The subject of the centerpiece is the
king’s celebratory banquet with his consort, apparently associated with the
defeat of Elam. The exact historical instance represented and its location are
not entirely clear, but the setting is often thought to be the private gardens
of Ashurbanipal’s queen, Libbali-sharrat, primarily on the basis of the
presence of an all-female body of attendants and musicians surrounding the
royal couple ….
Part Three:
Does this mean Nehemiah is Daniel?
“[Nebuchednezzar]
advanced Daniel to a high post, gave him many generous presents, made him ruler
of the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of
Babylon”.
Daniel
2:48
I
think that the startling conclusion now has to be drawn that Nehemiah, chief
Cup-bearer to the Great King now identified as Nebuchednezzar, during the
mid-phase of that king’s reign, and apparently indispensable to the Great King
(Nehemiah 2:6): ‘How long will your journey take, and
when will you get back?’, is
the same as the wise Jewish sage and prophet, Daniel.
I have
tentatively identified Nehemiah as a priest,
as:
Ezra the Scribe
Identified as Nehemiah the Governor
and,
in the Septuagint version of Bel
and the Dragon, Daniel is called a priest, the son of Habal.
Habal is not far at all from the name of
Nehemiah’s father, Hakal-iah
(Nehemiah 1:1).
Daniel and Nehemiah are compatible chronologically (now revised), and also with
regard to high official position.
Daniel and Nehemiah, we find, customarily pray
and fast - praying every time, for instance, before confronting the Great King.
Admittedly, it is never ideal to have a
multiplicity of names for the one proposed character.
In this case: (i) Daniel, (ii) Nehemiah (= (iii) Ezra),
three names, plus the given Chaldean name, Belteshazzar
(Daniel 1:7).
But I would suggest that the name Nehemiah is a
Hebrew version of the official’s Persian name, Mehuman (var. Nehuman = Nehemiah), who seems to occupy the same
position as Nehemiah as chief wine server (Esther 1:10): “On
the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded
the seven eunuchs who served him—Nehuman …”.
This was “in the third year” of
the reign of king Ahasuerus (1:3), whom I have identified with king Cyrus.
And this accords well with
Daniel’s still receiving revelations in the 3rd year of king Cyrus
(Daniel 10:1): “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed
unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but
the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding
of the vision”.
Part Four: Did Sirach omit Daniel, Ezra
from his list of “famous men”?
“… Ecclesiasticus … ends with a
rhapsody in praise of "famous men."
This panegyric … omits the name of
Daniel. …. Sirach ignores also not only such worthies as Abel, and Melchisedec,
and Job, and Gideon, and Samson, but also Ezra … who also gave his name to one
of the books of the Canon”.
Sir
Robert Anderson
The
prophet Ezekiel challenged the proud king of Tyre with this (28:3): “Are you
wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” Daniel, as we know, not only
interpreted the king’s Dream, but was able to reveal it without the king
telling him what the Dream was (chapter 2).
It
goes without saying that I do not accept the fanciful view that Ezekiel’s
Daniel was a pagan figure, Dan’el, of Ugaritic literature:
Identity of the 'Daniel'
in Ezekiel 14 and 28
The references to Daniel in
Ezekiel occur in 14:14,20 and 28:3. The theme of Ezekiel 14 is the
inescapability of God’s judgment upon the unrighteous, including the residents
of Jerusalem. In both verses 14 and 20, the word of the LORD informs Ezekiel
that if He should find a country so sinful as to justify the extermination of
its inhabitants, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job should happen to be dwelling
there, these men would be able to save only themselves by their righteousness.
At the conclusion of the chapter, however (v.21-23), the prophet indicates that
through God’s grace, not their own merit, a remnant of Jews would be spared.
Ezekiel 28 contains a prophecy
against the king and city of Tyre. After denouncing the king for claiming to
possess godlike qualities, including great wisdom, Ezekiel rhetori-cally asks
in verse 3 “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?” (NIV,
italics added). The prophet then issues a denunciation of both the king and his
city that closes with the famous prophecy (v.18-19) that Tyre would be reduced
to ashes “and will be no more.”
The
prophet Daniel was an absolute legend amongst the Jews.
For a
massive and comprehensive list of the many NT references to Daniel, or texts in
which a NT writer probably had Daniel in mind, see pp. 3-28 of Frank W. Hardy’s
“New Testament References to Daniel”: http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/DanNT.pdf
However,
it is generally assumed that Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) failed even to mention
Daniel, but also Ezra, amongst his “famous men”. Thus Sir Robert Anderson
writes about this in “The Coming Prince”: http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/DanNT.pdf
… Ecclesiasticus
… ends with a rhapsody in praise of "famous men." This panegyric, it
is true, omits the name of Daniel. But in what connection would his name be
included? Daniel was exiled to Babylon in early youth, and never spent a single
day of his long life among his people, never was openly associated with them in
their struggles or their sorrows. The critic, moreover, fails to notice that
the Son of Sirach ignores also not only such worthies as Abel, and Melchisedec,
and Job, and Gideon, and Samson, but also Ezra, who, unlike Daniel, played a
most prominent part in the national life, and who also gave his name to one of
the books of the Canon. ….
Frank W.
Hardy, again, has advanced the unique theory that Sirach omitted Daniel because
Daniel was a dreamer, with which suggestion I have had cause to disagree in:
Daniel's 'dreaming' not a
good reason for Sirach to omit him
Now, at
the conclusion of this article I had hinted at what I have since presented in
this new series: “Clever though all this may be, I shall be looking
amongst Sirach’s ‘praises of famous men’ for a worthy alter ego for the great and famous prophet Daniel, who had
miraculously told the King’s Dream”.
And
that is what I have done in this series, identified Daniel, as Ezra, as
Nehemiah, who was certainly praised by Sirach (49:13):
Nehemiah’s memory is lasting;
he who raised our fallen walls,
set up gates and bars,
and rebuilt our buildings.
he who raised our fallen walls,
set up gates and bars,
and rebuilt our buildings.
Comments