by
Damien F. Mackey
The mighty king,
Xerxes, favoured by various commentators to represent “Ahasuerus”, the Great
King of the Book of Esther, is most likely a composite character, a mix of real
Assyrian and Medo-Persian kings. Here, for instance, we consider his likenesses
to Sennacherib.
Introduction
The name ‘Xerxes’ is thought by historians to accord extremely well
linguistically with “Ahasuerus”, the name of the Great King of the Book of Esther.
There are several kings “Ahasuerus” in the (Catholic) Bible: in Tobit; in Esther;
in Ezra; and in Daniel.
As Cyaxares
The one in Tobit is usually considered to refer to the Cyaxares who
conquered Nineveh. See e.g. my:
But before [Tobias] died, he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which was
taken by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus; and before his death he rejoiced over
Nineveh. (Tobit 14:15)
and:
in which I discuss the name, “Ahasuerus”.
Cyaxares, again, is probably the “Ahasuerus” mentioned as the father of Darius
the Mede in Daniel 9:1: “It
was the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who became king of the
Babylonians”.
As Cyrus
The “Ahasuerus” in Esther I have identified as Darius the Mede/Cyrus:
and,
likewise, the “Ahasuerus” in Ezra:
The
names, Xerxes, Ahasuerus, Cyaxares and Cyrus are all fairly compatible.
Comparisons with Sennacherib
Emmet
Sweeney has done the work here, providing some striking parallels between the
known historical Assyrian king, Sennacherib (C8th BC), and the historically far
shakier, ‘Xerxes’. http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/58-xerxes-and-sennacherib.html
... In
Ramessides, Medes and Persians I outlined detailed reasons for identifying
Tiglath-Pileser III with Cyrus, Shalmaneser V with Cambyses, and Sargon II with
Darius I. The striking correspondences in the lives of all of these, repeated
generation for generation in parallel sequence, made it increasingly unlikely
that the identifications could be mistaken. Yet even one striking mismatch
could potentially invalidate the whole scheme. I then came to the next
“pairing” – Sennacherib with Xerxes. Would these two also show clear-cut and
convincing correspondences?
A random
search of the internet produces the following for Xerxes and Sennacherib: “Like
the Persian Xerxes, he [Sennacherib] was weak and vainglorious, cowardly under
reverse, and cruel and boastful in success.” (WebBible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/sennacherib.html).
The writer of these words did not suspect any connection between the two kings,
much less that they were the same person. Nevertheless, the similarities
between them were so compelling that one apparently brought the other to mind.
The
writer’s instincts, I shall argue, did not betray him. The lives and careers of
Xerxes and Sennacherib were so similar that were the thesis presented in these
pages not proffered, scholars must wonder at the astounding parallels between
the two.
One of
Xerxes’ first actions as king was an invasion of Egypt, which had thrown off
the Persian yoke shortly after Darius’ defeat at the hands of the Greeks. This
reconquest of Egypt was said to have taken place in Xerxes’ second year.
Similarly, one of the first actions of Sennacherib was a campaign against Egypt
and her Palestinian and Syrian allies. This war against Egypt took place in
Sennacherib’s third year. The Assyrian inscriptions inform us how Hezekiah of
Judah had rebelled and sought the assistance of
the kings
of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot (-corps) and the cavalry of the king of
Ethiopia (Meluhha), an army beyond counting — and they (actually) had come to
their assistance. In the plain of Eltekeh (Al-ta-qu-u), their battle lines were
drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons.… I fought with them and
inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured
alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers
of the king of Ethiopia. (J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton,
1950) pp. 287-8).
Hezekiah
was besieged, but not captured. Nevertheless, the outcome of this campaign was
a complete victory for Sennacherib. Hezekiah sent tribute to the Great King:
Hezekiah
himself, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed and
whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal
residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later,
to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of
silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone … all kinds of
valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female musicians.
In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his
(personal) messenger.
Hezekiah
would scarcely have sent this tribute to Sennacherib had his Egyptian allies
not been totally defeated, a circumstance which has made many scholars suspect
that he actually entered Egypt after his defeat of its army on the plain of
Eltekeh. (See eg. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (1923) pp. 308-9). This supposition
is supported by the fact that Sennacherib described himself as “King of the
Four Quarters,” a term which, as stated above, traditionally implied authority
over Magan and Meluhha (Egypt), regarded as the western-most “quarter” or edge
of the world. It is also supported by both classical and Hebrew tradition. Thus
Herodotus spoke of Sennacherib advancing against Egypt with a mighty army and
camping at Pelusium, near the north-eastern frontier (Herodotus, iii,
141), whilst Berossus, who wrote a history of Chaldea, said that Sennacherib
had conducted an expedition against “all Asia and Egypt.” (Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities X, i,4). Jewish tradition goes further and tells of the conquest of
Egypt by the king and of his march towards Ethiopia. “Sennacherib was forced to
stop his campaign against Hezekiah for a short time, as he had to move
hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered this ‘pearl of all countries’ he
returned to Judea.” (L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1920)
Vol. VI p. 365). Talmudic sources also relate that after conquering Egypt,
Sennacherib carried away from there the throne of Solomon. (Ibid. Vol. IV, p.
160)
Sennacherib’s
second campaign against Egypt, not recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions, had,
as is well-known, a much less favorable outcome for the Great King.
The
greatest event of Xerxes’ reign was of course his momentous defeat in Greece.
The story of his invasion is recorded in detail by the Greek authors, most
particularly by Herodotus, and it is clear that Xerxes’ failure to overcome the
Hellenes represented the great watershed in Achaemenid history. From that point
on the Persian Empire entered a period of prolonged decline.
Strange
then that of all the wars waged by Sennacherib, the only opponents who are said
to have come near to defeating him were the Ionian Greeks. In one well-known
passage Berossus tells of a fierce battle between Sennacherib and the Ionians
of Cilicia. (H. R. Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1913) p.
487). The Greeks, he says, were routed after a hard-fought hand-to-hand
struggle.
The most
important event of Xerxes’ latter years was without doubt his defeat of yet
another Babylonian rebellion. Although our sources are somewhat vague, it would
appear that there were in fact two rebellions in Babylon during the time of
Xerxes, the first of which occurred in his second year, and was led by
Bel-shimanni, and the second some time later led by Shamash-eriba.
How
peculiar then that Sennacherib too should face two major rebellions in Babylon,
the first of which came within three years or so of his succession, and was led
by Bel-ibni. (C. H. W. Johns, Ancient Babylonia (London, 1913) p. 120).
Rebellion number two came some years later and was led by Mushezib-Marduk. This
second rebellion, one might guess, was one of the consequences of the Persian
defeat in Greece, and there seems little doubt that Mushezib-Marduk of the
Assyrian records and monuments is Shamash-eriba of the Persian.
Both
Xerxes and Sennacherib were relatively mild in their treatment of the
Babylonians after the first rebellion. However, after the second insurrection
both kings subjected the city to massive destruction. But the parallels do not
end there. Xerxes’ terrible punishment of Babylon was partly in revenge for the
Babylonians’ murder of his satrap. (Brian Dicks, The Ancient Persians: How they
Lived and Worked (1979) p. 46).
Similarly,
Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon after the second insurrection was largely
in vengeance for the Babylonians’ kidnap and murder of his brother
Ashur-nadin-shum, whom he had made viceroy of the city. (C. H. W. Johns, op
cit. pp. 121-2). Xerxes tore down the walls of Babylon, massacred its citizens,
destroyed its temples, and seized the sacred golden statue of Bel. (Brian Dicks,
op cit). In the same way, Sennacherib razed the city walls and temples,
massacred the people, and carried off the sacred statue of Marduk. (C. H. W.
Johns, op cit. p. 122). Bel and Marduk were one and the same; and the name was
often written Bel-Marduk. In memory of the awful destruction wrought by
Sennacherib, the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon define the eight
years that followed as “kingless.” The city, it is held, suffered no such
catastrophe again until the time of Xerxes, supposedly two centuries later.
Xerxes’
despoliation of Babylon is generally believed to have been accompanied by his
suppression of the Babylonian gods, and it is assumed that his famous
inscription recording the outlawing of the daevas, or foreign gods, in favor of
Ahura Mazda, was part of the general response to the second Babylonian
uprising:
And among
these countries (in rebellion) there was one where, previously, daevas had been
worshipped. Afterward, through Ahura Mazda’s favor, I destroyed this sanctuary
of daevas and proclaimed. “Let daevas not be worshipped!” There, where
daevas had been worshipped before, I worshipped Ahura Mazda.
How
peculiar then that Sennacherib too should be accused of outlawing the
Babylonian gods, especially Marduk, in favor of Ashur as part of his response
to a second Babylonian rebellion? “A political-theological propaganda campaign
was launched to explain to the people that what had taken place [the
destruction of Babylon and despoliation of Bel-Marduk’s shrine] was in accord
with the wish of most of the gods. A story was written in which Marduk, because
of a transgression, was captured and brought before a tribunal. Only a part of
the commentary to this botched piece of literature is extant.” (http://www.chn-net.com/timeline/assyria_study.html).
Nevertheless, it is clear that Sennacherib tried to “depose” or even “outlaw”
Marduk. Thus we find that, “Even the great poem of the creation of the world,
the Enuma elish, was altered: the god Marduk was replaced by the god Ashur.”
(Ibid.)
To
summarize, then, consider the following:
SENNACHERIB
|
XERXES
|
Made
war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks
shortly thereafter.
|
Made
war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks
shortly thereafter.
|
Suppressed
two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by
Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.
|
Suppressed
two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by
Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
|
The
Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely
repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s
viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.
|
The
Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely
repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
|
After
the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city
walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter
the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the
supreme deity.
|
After
the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls
and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the
Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the
supreme deity.
|
The
parallels between Xerxes and Sennacherib are thus among the closest between an
Achaemenid and a Neo-Assyrian. Yet even now we are not finished. There is yet
one more striking comparison between the two monarchs, a comparison so
compelling and so identical in the details that this one alone, even without
the others, would be enough to demand an identification.
Xerxes
died after a reign of 21 years (compare with Sennacherib’s 22) in dramatic
circumstances, murdered in a palace conspiracy apparently involving at least
one of his sons. Popular tradition has it that the real murderer of Xerxes was
Artabanus, the captain of his guard, and that this man then put the blame on
Darius, eldest son of the murdered king. Whatever the truth, it is clear that
Artaxerxes, the crown prince, pointed the finger at Darius, who was
immediately arrested and executed. (Percy Sykes, A History of Ancient Persia
Vol. 1 (London, 1930) pp. 213-4). It is said that Artabanus then plotted to
murder Artaxerxes, but that the conspiracy was uncovered by Megabyzus. No
sooner had Artabanus been removed than Hystaspes, another elder brother of
Artaxerxes, rose in rebellion. The young king then led his forces into Bactria
and defeated the rebel in two battles. (Ibid., p. 124)
Of the
above information, one feature is most unusual: the eldest son, Darius, who was
not the crown prince, was accused of the murder by the crown prince Artaxerxes,
who then had him hunted down and killed.
The death
of Sennacherib compares very well with that of Xerxes. He too was murdered in a
palace conspiracy involving some of his sons. But as with the death of Xerxes,
there has always been much rumor and myth, though little solid fact, in
evidence. The biblical Book of Kings names Adrammelech and Sharezer, two of
Sennacherib’s sons, as the killers (2 Kings 19:37). An inscription of Esarhaddon,
the crown prince at the time, clearly puts the blame on his eldest brother,
whom he hunted down and killed. Two other brothers are also named in
complicity. (A. T. Olmstead, A History of Assyria (1923) p. 338).
In spite
of Esarhaddon’s clear statement, there has always been much confusion about the
details — so much so that some have even implicated Esarhaddon himself in the
deed. In view of such a level of confusion, the detailed discussion of the
question by Professor Simo Parpola, in 1980, was sorely needed and long
overdue. Employing commendable reasoning, Parpola demonstrated how a
little-understood Babylonian text revealed the identity of the culprit,
Arad-Ninlil. (R. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Vol. XI (Chicago,
1911) No. 1091). A sentence of the document reads, “Thy son Arad-Ninlil is
going to kill thee.” The latter name should properly, according to Parpola, be
read as Arda-Mulissi (identical to Adrammelech of 2 Kings). Motivation for the
murder, said Parpola, was not difficult to find. After the capture and probable
death at the hands of the Elamites of Sennacherib’s eldest son and
heir-designate, Ashur-nadin-sumi, the “second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has
every reason to expect to be the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered
from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of Sennacherib. This one
is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favourite son of Sennacherib
thanks to his mother Naqia … Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed
crown prince.” (Prof. Simo Parpola, “Death in Mesopotamia” XXVIeme Rencontre
Assyriologique International,e ed. Prof. Bendt Alster, (Akademisk Forlag,
1980)).
We need
hardly go beyond that for a motive. It is not clear whether Arda-Mulissi
personally delivered the death blow; it seems that one of his captains was
responsible.
Of this
death then we note the same unusual feature. The king was murdered by or on the
orders of his eldest son, who was not however the crown prince. The eldest son
was then pursued and executed by a younger son, who was the crown prince. The
parallels with the death of Xerxes are precise. In both cases also a second
brother is named in complicity, as well as various other conspirators. In both
cases too the murder was not actually carried out by the prince but by a fellow
conspirator; in the case of Xerxes by Artabanus, commander of the guard, and in
the case of Sennacherib by a man named Ashur-aha-iddin — a namesake of
Esarhaddon. And this calls attention to yet one more parallel. In both the murder
of Xerxes and Sennacherib, the crown prince himself has repeatedly been named
as a suspect. Thus the Encyclopedia Britannica has Artaxerxes I placed on the
throne by Xerxes’ murderer, Artabanus, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 1 (15th
ed.) p. 598) whilst Parpola refers to the common suspicion that Esarhaddon had
a part in his father’s death.
Such
striking similarities, when placed along with the multitude of other parallels
between the two kings’ lives, leave little doubt that we are on the right
track. ....
