“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:
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.
a partner to this present one, I had concluded that:
Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ was a younger contemporary of Shalmaneser; and he was
an older contemporary of Sargon II/Sennacherib.
Ramses II was also to be identified as:
Ramses III;
Psibkhenno (Šilkanni);
Shabako;
“So king of Egypt”
His famous son, Khaemwaset, was all of:
Khaemwaset, son of Ramses III;
Si’be (turtan);
Shebitku Khaemwaset;
Shabataka (Tang-i Var)
Sargon II/Sennacherib, for his part, was also Tukulti-ninurta (and, as identified elsewhere) Shamsi-Adad (not I of that name).
The reign of Ramses II was so long (66-67 years), however, that it – having spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser and the entire reign of Sargon II/ Sennacherib – still had some approximately three further decades to run after that.
Now, according to Tobit 1, whose neo-Assyrian sequence I firmly follow, Sennacherib was succeeded by Esarhaddon, he being the king whose statue appeared alongside that of Ramses II at Nahr el-Kalb. Unlike convention and Dr. Velikovsky, I had Esarhaddon as a younger contemporary of Ramses II. I explained this in the companion article:
The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon.
Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating).
Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon.
I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription.
This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. ….
[End of quote]
My Esarhaddon is also different in other ways from the conventional and Velikovskian versions of him.
For one, I do not believe that Esarhaddon was a biological son of Sennacherib, the Assyrian, but was a Chaldean, thereby commencing a new dynasty.
And, secondly, I have identified Esarhaddon as Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis in Ramses II and His Time (1978), that Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar, accords perfectly with my own reconstruction, insofar as I have Ramses II as a contemporary of Esarhaddon, my Nebuchednezzar.
Despite my manifold identifications of Ramses II (as given above), I have not followed Dr. Velikovsky, though, in his view that Ramses was the same as pharaoh Necho of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, also a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar.
In my article, “The Complete Ramses II”, I had identified Ramses II, instead, as Tirhakah of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, who is also Piankhi.
Two more mighty identifications of Ramses II to be added to the list.
Nor have I been able to accept Dr. Velikovsky’s ingenious thesis that Nebuchadnezzar was Hattusilis, the Hittite emperor, who famously made a treaty with Ramses II.
The Chaldean dynasty consisted only of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar.
The latter, who is also Amēl-Marduk, is referred to in Baruch 1:11, 12:
…and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven. The Lord will give us strength and light to our eyes; we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and under the protection of his son Belshazzar, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight.
Ramses II was thus a contemporary also of the second Chaldean king, Belshazzar, but only while Belshazzar was yet a prince.
King Belshazzar was subsequently succeeded by the Medo-Persian king (Daniel 5:31).
2 Chronicles 33:11: “Yahweh then brought down on them the generals of the king of Assyria’s army who captured Manasseh with hooks, put him in chains and took him to Babylon”.
Jehoiakim
2 Chronicles 36-5-6: “Jehoiakim … did what is displeasing to Yahweh his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him, loaded him with chains and took him to Babylon”.
These two texts, I submit, are describing the very same incident.
Note the common points: Yahweh; attack by a mighty foe; king of Judah defeated; that king loaded with chains; and taken off to Babylon.
I identified Manasseh as Jehoiakim, the murderer of the prophet Uriah (just as legend has Isaiah martyred by Manasseh).
And I identified Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.
The note in The Jerusalem Bible (33 b, 2 Chr 34) follows the conventional view that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were separate kings: “Manasseh of Judah was a vassal of Esarhaddon (680-669) and of Assurbanipal (668-633)”.
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were the same and only once captured king Manasseh of Judah.
“It came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations, that they made war with
Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah,
Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) ….
In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him”.
Many scholars believe Amraphel, the leader of the alliance that fought against Abraham, was none other than Hammurabi:
Easton’s Bible Dictionary states, “It is now found that Amraphel (or Ammirapaltu) is the Khammu-rabi whose name appears on recently-discovered monuments.”[1]
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states, “Generally identified with Hammurabi the Great of the First Dynasty of Babylon.”[2]
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, “There is no doubt that the identification of Amraphel with the Hammurabi of the Babylonian inscriptions is the best that has yet been proposed, and though there are certain difficulties therein, these may turn out to be apparent rather than real, when we know more of Babylonian history … Amraphel is mentioned first, which, if he be really the Babylonian Hammurabi, is easily comprehensible, for his renown to all appearance exceeded that of Chedorlaomer.”[3]
Easton’s Bible Dictionary describes Hammurabi [Khammu-rabi] as “The most famous king of the dynasty was Khammu-rabi, who united Babylonia under one rule, and made Babylon its capital … Khammu-rabi, whose name is also read Ammi-rapaltu or Amraphel by some scholars”[4]
Hastings’ 5 Volume Dictionary of the Bible states, “Schraeder, who suggested that the name was a corruption for Amraphi, was the first to identify this king with Khammurabi, the 6th king of the 1st dynasty of Babylon. The cuneiform inscriptions inform us that Khammurabi was king of Babylon and North Babylonia; that he rebelled against the supremacy of Elam, that he overthrew his rival Eri-aku, king of Larasa, and after conquering Sumer and Accad, was the first to make a united kingdom of Babylonia.”[5]
Nelson’s Topical Bible Index states, “identified by some as the Hammurabi of the monuments[6]
AMRAPHEL NOT HAMMURABI?
However, not all scholars link Amraphel to Hammurabi:
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia also states, “There would therefore appear to be no sound reason for maintaining that Amraphel can be identified with Hammurabi, particularly as such a procedure is unsubstantiated by Mesopotamian archeology and history. If Hammurabi were really Amraphel, it is difficult to see why he should be occupying a subordinate position to that of Chedorlaomer, unless Hammurabi happened to be a crown prince at the time. But here it has to be recognized that the Palestinian expedition itself has not been discovered to date among the recorded campaigns of Hammurabi. The identity of Amraphel king of Shinar must therefore remain uncertain for the moment.”[7]
The New Bible Dictionary states, “The equation with Hammurapi is unlikely.”[8]
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary states, “While some have tried to identify Amraphel with Hammurabi, founder of the first Babylonian dynasty, all efforts to identify him or pinpoint the location of Shinar have failed.”[9]
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary states of Amraphel, “formerly generally identified with Hammurabi the Great of the First Dynasty of Babylon (c. 1728-1689). This Amraphel-Hammurabi equation always was difficult linguistically but is now also disproved chronologically.”[10]
[End of quotes]
According to my own reconstruction of history, the famous Hammurabi was far later than the time of Abram and the four kings of Genesis 14:1, later by approximately a millennium. King Hammurabi and his contemporaries belonged most definitely, I believe, to the time of the biblical King Solomon of Israel. On this, see e.g. my articles:
Thus begins the biblical tale, in chapter 14 of Genesis, of an ancient war that pitted an alliance of four kingdoms of the East against five kings in Canaan. It is a tale that has evolved some of the most intense debate among scholars, for it connects the story of Abraham, the first Hebrew Patriarch, with a specific non-Hebrew event, and thus affords objective substantiation of the biblical record of the birth of a nation.
“….For many decades the critics of the Old Testament seemed to prevail; then, as the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scholarly and religious worlds were astounded by the discovery of Babylonian tablets naming Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal in a tale not unlike the biblical one.
“The discovery was announced in a lecture by Theophilus Pinches to the Victoria Institute, London, in 1897. Having examined several tablets belonging to the Spartoli Collection in the British Museum, he found that they describe a war of wide-ranging magnitude, in which a king of Elam, Kudur-laghamar, led an alliance of rulers that included one named Eri-aku and another named Tud-ghula – names that easily could have been transformed into Hebrew as Khedor-la’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal. Accompanying his published lecture with a painstaking transcript of the cuneiform writing and a translation thereof, Pinches could confidently claim that the biblical tale had indeed been supported by an independent Mesopotamian source.
“With justified excitement the Assyriologists of that time agreed with Pinches reading of the cuneiform names.
The tablets indeed spoke of “Kudur-Laghamar, king of the land of Elam”; all scholars agreed that it was a perfect Elamite royal name, the prefix Kudur (“Servant”) having been a component in the names of several Elamite kings, and Laghamar being the Elamite epithet-name for a certain deity. It was agreed that the second name, spelled Eri-e-a-ku in the Babylonian cuneiform script, stood for the original Sumerian ERI.AKU, meaning “Servant of the god Aku,” Aku being a variant of the name of Nannar/Sin. It is known from a number of inscriptions that Elamite rulers of Larsa bore the name “Servant of Sin,” and there was therefore little difficulty in agreeing that the biblical Eliasar, the royal city of the king Ariokh, was in fact Larsa. There was also unanimous agreement among the scholars for accepting that the Babylonian text’s Tud-ghula was the equivalent of the biblical “Tidhal, king of Go’im”; and they agreed that by Go’im the Book of Genesis referred to the “nation-hordes” whom the cuneiform tablets listed as allies of Khedorla’omer.
“Here, then, was the missing proof – not only of the veracity of the Bible and of the existence of Abraham, but also of an international event in which he had been involved! “….The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar! Because the letter was addressed to a king of Larsa, Father Scheil concluded that the three were contemporaries and thus matched three of the four biblical kings of the East – Hammurabi being none other than “Amraphael king of Shin’ar.”
“…. However, when subsequent research convinced most scholars that Hammurabi reigned much later (from 1792 to 1750 B.C., according to The Cambridge Ancient History), the synchronization seemingly achieved by Scheil fell apart, and the whole bearing of the discovered inscriptions – even those reported by Pinches – came into doubt. Ignored were the pleas of Pinches that no matter with whom the three named kings were to be identified – that even if Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal of the cuneiform texts were not contemporaries of Hammurabi – the text’s tale with its three
names was still “a remarkable historical coincidence, and deserves recognition as such.” In 1917, Alfred Jeremias (Die sogenanten Kedorlaomer-Texte) attempted to revive interest in the subject; but the scholarly community preferred to treat the Spartoli tablets with benign neglect.
“….Yet the scholarly consensus that the biblical tale and the Babylonian texts drew on a much earlier, common source impels us to revive the plea of Pinches and his central argument: How can cuneiform texts, affirming the biblical background of a major war and naming three of the biblical kings, be ignored? Should the evidence – crucial, as we shall show, to the understanding of fateful years – be discarded simply because Amraphel was not Hammurabi?
“The answer is that the Hammurabi letter found by Scheil should not have sidetracked the discovery reported by Pinches, because Scheil misread the letter. According to his rendition, Hammurabi promised a reward to Sin-Idinna, the king of Larsa, for his “heroism on the day of Khedorla’omer.” This implied that the two were allies in a war against Khedorla’omer and thus contemporaries of that king of Elam.
It was on this point that Scheil’s find was discredited, for it contradicted both the biblical assertion that the three kings were allies and known historical facts: Hammurabi treated Larsa not as an ally but as an adversary, boasting that he “overthrew Larsa in battle,” and attacked its sacred precinct “with the mighty weapon which the gods had given him.”
“A close examination of the actual text of Hammurabi’s letter reveals that in his eagerness to prove the Hammurabi-Amraphel identification, Father Scheil reversed the letter’s meaning: Hammurabi was not offering as a reward to return certain goddesses to the sacred precinct (the Emutbal) of Larsa; rather, he was demanding their return to Babylon from Larsa.
“….The incident of the abduction of the goddesses had thus occurred in earlier times; they were held captive in the Emutbal “from the days of Khedorla’omer”; and Hammurabi was now demanding their return to Babylon, from where Khedorla’omer had taken them captive. This can only mean that Khedorla’omer’s days were long before Hammurabi’s time.
“Supporting our reading of the Hammurabi letter found by Father Scheil in the Constantinople Museum is the fact that Hammurabi repeated the demand for the return of the goddesses to Babylon in yet another stiff message to Sin-Idinna, this time sending it by the hand of high military officers. This second letter is in the British Museum (No. 23,131) and its text was published by L.W. King in The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.
“….That the goddesses were to be returned from Larsa to Babylon is made clear in the letter’s further instructions.
“….It is thus clear from these letters that Hammurabi – a foe, not an ally, of Larsa – was seeking restitution for events that had happened long before his time, in the days of Kudur-Laghamar, the Elamite regent of Larsa. The texts of the Hammurabi letters thus affirm the existence of Khedorla-omer and of Elamite reign in Larsa (“Ellasar”) and thus of key elements in the biblical tale. ….
[End of quotes]
Amraphel can be Nimrod, not Hammurabi
“Thus, scholars identify Hammurabi with Amraphel, and the sages identify
Amraphel with Nimrod. This leads us to the conclusion that, based on
midrashic tradition, Amraphel, Nimrod and Hammurabi are all the same person”.
David S. Farkas
King Hammurabi of Babylon (c. 1810 – c. 1750 BC, conventional dating), whose memorable Law Code – or however historians would choose to describe the document – is thought to have influenced Mosaïc Law itself, is the sort of king for whom historians go searching in the Bible.
Thus David S. Farkas has written just such a paper:
The problem with an effort like Farkas’ is that, with King Hammurabi so seriously mis-dated, as he has been, a historian will always be looking at a biblical phase almost a millennium of centuries too early for King Hammurabi of Babylon.
I have often quoted Dr. Donovan Courville’s wonderful description of the conventional Hammurabi, as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”. See e.g. my article:
“Mention of “Jabin of Hazor” in one of the Mari letters has led even some
astute revisionists, such as Drs. Courville and Osgood, seeking more solid ground
for the Hammurabic era, to bind Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim to the era of Joshua
and his foe, Jabin of Hazor”.
While David S. Farkas may be right on track when linking Amraphel with Nimrod, his further push for a trifecta (Amraphel = Nimrod = Hammurabi) is a chronological ‘bridge too far’.
Farkas has written, adhering to the old view that biblical “Shinar” was Sumer:
AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF AMRAPHEL KING OF SHINAR,
ARIOCH KING OF ELLASAR, CHEDORLAOMER KING OF ELAM…
In Genesis we learn of a major battle that took place near the Dead Sea.
The first of the kings mentioned is Amraphel, king of Shinar. Who exactly was this king? Ever since the days of the famed Assyriologist, Eberhard Schrader (1836-1908), scholars have identified this king with none other than Hammurabi. Many points have been observed in support of this. The assonance of names, for example, is striking. According to many scholars the two names are extremely close phonetically, if not actually identical. …. The connection between the two names becomes clearer when we consider that the familiar English spellings of the names as we know them are really approximations of Ammi-rabi or Ammurapi or Hammum-rabi, some of which are close to Amraphel. Moreover, Amraphel’s kingdom, Shinar, has long been identified with the Sumerian/ Babylonian Empire where Hammurabi held sway. …. Thus, there is some degree of evidence that enables us to identify one with the other. ….
This alone, then, might appear to have resolved our question. Hammurabi is mentioned in the Bible, only he is mentioned by the name of Amraphel. Yet this answer, by itself, is unsatisfying. For we know Hammurabi to have been a famous potentate, one of the first great rulers of recorded civilization.
Amraphel, by contrast, is barely known today outside of the Bible, if at all.
It seems very unusual that the great and mighty Hammurabi should be identified
with so anonymous a figure as Amraphel.
Here is where the rabbinic sages enter the picture. According to our sages, as shown below, Amraphel is none other than the famous Nimrod. Nimrod, of course, was hardly a run-of-the-mill ruler. Genesis describes him as the first man to amass power. …. There are many extant rabbinical legends and traditions concerning Nimrod. Perhaps the most famous speaks of him having Abraham thrown into a fiery furnace in Ur Kasdim. …. Another legend holds that Nimrod came into possession of Adam’s hunting garments (which gave him control over the wild beasts) until it was forcefully wrested away from him by Esau. ….
The description of him as a “powerful” ruler, and the legends that sprang up around him, show that he was seen already in ancient times as an important figure.
These legends are critically important to our investigation. Nimrod, our sages say, is named such because he brought “rebellion” to the world against God, a play on the word mered which forms the root of the name Nimrod. ….
Nimrod is identified with Amraphel, because he told (amar) Abraham to fall ([na]fal) into the furnace, in the above-mentioned legendary incident in Ur Kasdim. …. Still another midrash holds that Nimrod is also called Amraphel because his words caused “darkness”, a notarikon-type play on the words amarah (“statement”) and afelah (“darkness”). ….
Thus, scholars identify Hammurabi with Amraphel, and the sages identify Amraphel with Nimrod. This leads us to the conclusion that, based on midrashic tradition, Amraphel, Nimrod and Hammurabi are all the same person. Indeed, the name Hammurabi might actually mean “Ham the Great”, for Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, son of Noah. Thus, Hammurabi is indeed mentioned in the Torah. The same man portrayed in the Bible as the mighty king Nimrod is known today to the world at large as the mighty king Hammurabi.
While the Midrash is not an historical source, this identification fits both the biblical narrative and what we know of the history of the ancient Near East in the relevant time frame. For in the epic Dead Sea battle described in the Bible, Amraphel is portrayed as subservient to the neighboring Elamite king, Chedorlaomer. The “five kings” of ancient Canaan rebelled against this Elamite king after twelve years of subservience, causing Chedorlaomer to take up arms to quell the rebellion. This description accords with what we know of Hammurabi’s exploits against the Elamite enemies of Babylon. ….
Yet something still nags at the reader. Why would Hammurabi, if our hypothesis is correct, be described in Genesis 10:9 as “a mighty hunter before the Lord”? This seems like a strange description for a king. Moreover, Nimrod was depicted by the sages as someone who caused the world to rebel against God. Nimrod brought “darkness” to the world. Hammurabi, on the other hand, is known to the world as a great king, as one who introduced the rule of law into an uncivilized society through his civil code.
So who was he – a despotic tyrant – or a wise leader devoted to the rule of law? Can these two diametrically opposing viewpoints be reconciled? ….
Jewish tradition holds that the ideal law is God’s law, as expressed in His Torah. Man might be obligated to establish legal codes for temporal life, codes with which man is expected to abide. But no man-made legal system could ever supplant God’s Torah as the ideal legal system. The very suggestion of it is ludicrous, in the eyes of tradition, for no mere mortal could ever match the divine wisdom contained in the Torah.
With the emergence of Hammurabi/Nimrod, though, we can imagine that men began to look at things differently. No longer was God the final arbiter on what was right or wrong. Instead, man was. The Torah had yet to be given in Nimrod’s time, but according to rabbinic tradition, the Noahide laws were already known. With the enactment and acceptance of Hammurabi’s Code, man began to emerge from his complete dependence upon God as the source of all law. Hammurabi’s Code gave mankind the gift of self-government.
Although Hammurabi pays lip service to the god of justice as the originator of the Code, and on the top of the stone stele is a carved relief of Hammurabi receiving the law from the sun god Shamash … in the preamble and epilogue he himself claims to be the wise author of the laws. …. This code taught man that God alone was no longer the source of the law. Rather, the law was to come from man, using the human faculties endowed within him. ….
[End of quote]
Far from Hammurabi having influenced Moses, the King of Babylon was heavily influenced by the culture and writings of David and Solomon (Ecclesiastes, for instance, shaping the Epilogue to the pagan Law Code).
I have previously written on this:
There are also some interesting speculations showing some parallels between the Bible and the life and laws of Hammurabi. One theme concept in both the Levitical law and the Code of Hammurabi that repeat … again and again are, namely: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise”. (Exodus 21:24-25). Although Hammurabi did not know it, the principles in his laws reflected the Biblical principle of sowing and reaping as found in Galatians 6:78 and Proverbs 22:8: “Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows”. (Galatians 6:7) ….
“He who sows wickedness reaps trouble”. (Proverbs 22:8a).
Likewise we read in the Book of Ecclesiastes of king Solomon (12:9-14):
Epilogue
Besides being wise, the Teacher [Qoheleth] also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs. …. The Teacher sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote words of truth plainly. The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd. Of anything beyond these, my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter: all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil. ….
Now Hammurabi’s Code too, just like Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, starts with a Preface (similarly the Book of Proverbs has a Prologue) and ends with an Epilogue, in which we find an echo of many of Solomon’s above sentiments, and others, beginning with Hammurabi as wise, as a teacher, and as a protecting shepherd king. Let us consider firstly Hammurabi’s Epilogue, in relation to Solomon’s (Ecclesiastes’) Epilogue above (buzz words given in italics):
HAMMURABI’S CODE OF LAWS
Translated by L. W. King
THE EPILOGUE
LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land. Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. … I am the salvation-bearing shepherd .. . .
Wisdom 1:1: “Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth …”.
Ecclesiastes 9:1: “… how the righteous and the wise … are in the hand of God”.
1 Kings 4:29: “God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding, as vast as the sand on the seashore”.
As we are going to find, Solomon was not shy about broadcasting his wisdom and the fact that he had exceeded all others in it.
For example (Ecclesiastes 1:16): “I said to myself, ‘I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has great experience of wisdom and knowledge’.”
Similarly, Knight writes of Hammurabi: “The conclusion of the inscription sounds like a hymn of high-keyed self-praise”. Indeed, that Hammurabi had no doubt in his own mind that he was the wisest of all is evident from this next statement (Epilogue): “… there is no wisdom like unto mine …”.
However, just as Solomon, in his ‘Prayer for Wisdom’ (Book of Wisdom 7:15-17), had attributed his wisdom to God:
“May God grant me to speak with judgment, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; for He is the guide even of wisdom and the corrector of the wise. For both we and our words are in His hand, as are all understanding and skill in crafts. For it is He who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists …”.
So did the by now polytheistic Hammurabi attribute his wisdom to the Babylonian gods (Epilogue):
“… with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have … subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me …”.
“I, the Teacher, when king over Israel in Jerusalem applied my mind to seek and search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven …”. Eccl. 1:12.
“I turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the sum of things, and to know that wickedness is folly and that foolishness is madness”. Eccl. 7:25.
Solomon too, like Hammurabi, exhorted other kings and officials to follow his way. Compare for instance Wisdom 6:1-9:
Listen therefore, O kings, and understand; learn, O judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear you that rule over multitudes, and boast of many nations. For your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out your works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the purpose of God, he will come upon you terribly and swiftly, because severe judgment falls on those in high places. For the lowliest may be pardoned in mercy, but the mighty will be mightily tested. For the Lord of all will not stand in awe of anyone, or show deference to greatness; because he himself made both small and great, and he takes thought for all alike. But a strict inquiry is in store for the mighty. To you then, O monarchs, my words are directed, so that you may learn wisdom and not transgress.
with these parts of Hammurabi’s Epilogue:
In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.
And, more threateningly:
If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king’s reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects.
If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny.
May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose command cannot be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand cannot control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land. May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur (the Babylonian Olympus), the Mistress, who harkens graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision (where Bel fixes destiny), turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the devastation of his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel.
And in the same fashion Hammurabi goes on and on, before similarly concluding:
May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects, and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that cannot be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith.
[End of quotes]
One finds, when building upon Dean Hickman’s marvellous foundational work in his article, “The Dating of Hammurabi” (Proceedings of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985), there arise irresistible biblico-historical correspondences.
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 