Gospels as direct testimonies

“Here we reach the biggest mystery of today's Christian exegesis — with the exception of Orthodox exegesis: All these discoveries testify that our faith is not in vain, that it rests upon real historic facts and should be welcomed with a relevant enthusiasm; instead, they are met with silence or worse”. Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier Whilst searching for a useful review of Claude Tresmontant’s The Hebrew Christ: Language in the Age of the Gospels (1989), I (Damien Mackey) came across the following terrific article by Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier (2013): http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/(g354)-carmignac&tresmontant.htm JEAN CARMIGNAC & CLAUDE TRESMONTANT Chapter 14 of our booklet provides an outline of the findings of two French researchers. The Association Jean Carmignac promotes their work more fully and details of it are available at the end of this article. Here, Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier, administrator of the Association, examines several reliable dating methodologies which have been used to date the Gospels. She contrasts these with the unreliable literary analysis (form criticism) which is preferred by many modern exegetes. -----0----- Let's be straightforward: I believe the Gospels to be direct testimonies that tell real and non-mythic or symbolic facts. I do not believe it by fideism — not because of my faith — but because I have rational, scientific, carefully researched reasons to do so. Indeed, we who affirm the absolute historicity of the Gospels are now only a small minority. Although this truth of the faith was strongly asserted by the Second Vatican Council and has been believed by millions of Catholics throughout the centuries of Christianity, we nowadays seem to be considered as outsiders. Let's examine here the different aspects of this situation. Should the Supernatural in the Gospels be Simply Denied? The resolution of differences regarding the dating, the origins, the authors, the nature of the Gospels lies in this interrogation: Should they be analyzed in the view of all hypotheses applied to them but one? Should they be treated like any ordinary text for which the authenticity of the facts it contains is usually admitted? Or should they, by exception, be systematically denied what is in them: the supernatural (even when all other explanations have failed)? Three Reliable Ways to Establish the Authenticity of a Document Usually, scientists studying a written document they want to date have a choice of three courses of action at their disposal. They first (A) can look for the period of time to which the paper, the parchment, the ink, the shape of the writing belong, all of which underpin the text and can be analyzed through chemistry, paleography, papyrology, etc. . . . They also can turn their inquiry towards (B) the language, the dialect, the style, the expression, i.e., philology, linguistics; and thirdly (C) they can rely on clues helping to locate the period of time when the work was written. For example, any reference to steam engines, to the way of harnessing a horse, to a well-known historic event. All these help the search. Obviously none of the three methods excludes the others. Using these three methods, scholars followed the footprints of the Gospels and collected a rich harvest of facts that confirmed their historicity. A Fourth Way; But is it Reliable? But most of the exegetes preferred a fourth way, in which a work is dated through its literary content, i.e., in more simple terms according to the subject of the story. Let's not forget this has nothing to do with the style, the vocabulary or the expression, but states that the larger the quantity of supernatural the text contains the older it is; the more philosophical and intellectual it proves to be the recent it is; and the shorter and thinner it is the more archaic it is, the accumulation of time having perhaps piled up new layers to enrich the story. The Gospels and Extra-Biblical History It is time here to give a few important details. The oldest Gospels that reached us are written in Greek, the international language during Christ's time. In the Holy Land the commonly spoken language was Aramaic and the sacred language was Hebrew — some specialists are convinced Hebrew was also spoken, while others think it was only written, but this does not matter. In any case, these languages are very similar. In A.D. 70 an event occurred that, in both human and religious terms, has been considered most loathsome by Jews ever since that time: the fall and destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem by the Romans. Most of its inhabitants were killed; the rest were deported or scattered. Had the Gospels been written in Greek, it could have been at any time. If, on the other hand, their first redaction (before being translated to Greek) had been written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic) it should date — and this is very important — from before 70, as after this date using these languages would have been useless or dangerous. If even one of the Gospels had been written before 70, the witnesses of Christ's life, miracles, death and Resurrection being still alive would guarantee the authenticity of the account. They indeed would not have let the deception go on if the facts supposed to have happened among them (Luke 1:1) had not taken place. On the other hand, if those four Gospels originated after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, all possible oversights, mistakes, forgeries (even well intended), intended additions or omissions may be considered. That is why the exegetes' discussion on both the date and the original language of the Gospels prove so contentious. On these issues depend, indirectly but certainly, the degree of trust the Gospels can be granted. Evidence Based on Archaeology and Papyrology Let's go back to the results of the archaeological or philological "excavations" and the hunt for clues that have proved so fruitful to the supporters of historicity and early dating (before or well before 70). Let's first consider (A). Which documents did survive? Some 25 years ago, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan, S.J. identified a papyrus written in Greek which was found in the cave Number 7 in Qumran, the "7Q5," as being a fragment of St. Mark's Gospel (6:52-53) and another papyrus from the same cave as being a fragment of 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1b). Nobody supporting the late dating has ever credibly questioned the fact that these caves were closed in 68 A.D., dating therefore their content from earlier than this date. Beside these manuscripts lay their container: a broken jar bearing the letters RWM which, according to the well-known Hebraist J.A. Fitzmyer, represent the City of Rome and were clumsily written by a Jew at the time. It has been observed in the other Qumran caves that a name written on a jar meant its provenance and/or to whom it belonged. St. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp who was himself a disciple of Christ's Apostles, stated in his Against Heresies (III,1,1) that St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Therefore the Dead Sea Manuscripts support tradition and early dating. The first reaction of theologians was to hide this discovery and not tell anything about it, but when, twenty years later, the German Protestant papyrologist Carsten P. Thiede brought the manuscript out and declared it to be authentic in The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, (Paternoster Press, 1992), the outcry against its authenticity was enormous. Mackey’s comment: For more, see my articles: Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament (2) Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Carsten Peter Thiede has discovered the true site of Luke’s Emmaus (2) Carsten Peter Thiede has discovered the true site of Luke's Emmaus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Professor Ceruti-Cendrier continues: Meanwhile a scientific symposium on 7Q5 took place in Eichstatt in Bavaria in 1991 and confirmed the coincidence of its text with Mark 6:52-53. Several eminent papyrologists like H. Hunger, S. Darius and Orsolina Montevecchi (Honorary President of the International Association of Papyrologists) agreed to date this papyrus in 50; twenty years, at most, after the Resurrection. However a great majority of the exegetes still disagree. Let's add that Carsten P. Thiede (RIP 2004) — an internationally known papyrologist — in Jesus according to Matthew, has since studied three small fragments coming from one codex. The fragments had been donated to Oxford's Magdalen College and display various phrases from St. Matthew's Gospel. Having analyzed them he [is] convinced that this papyrus did not appear after 70 but probably around 50. Philologists Affirm Early Dates of Origin of the Gospels Concerning the philological research (B), two specialists thoroughly analyzed the language of the Gospels: Fr. Jean Carmignac, one of the greatest experts in biblical studies in the world, and recognized as foremost in the knowledge of the Qumran Hebrew (of Jesus' times), and Claude Tresmontant lecturer for the Institut de France who taught for a long time in the Sorbonne University. Mackey’s comment: For more, see my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Professor Ceruti-Cendrier continues: Tresmontant is the author of an Old Testament Hebrew-to-Greek (Septuagint) dictionary. (The Septuagint was translated in the third — second century B.C.) They both demonstrated that the Greek language used in the Gospels (all four of them for Tresmontant, the three Synoptic ones for Carmignac who did not consider St. John's) was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. They both consider the whole of the Gospels (excluding the Preface to St. Luke's) and not just fragments introduced into a Greek text. They both provide tens (may be hundreds) of proofs. Fr. Carmignac, in La Naissance des Evangiles Synoptiques, points out Semitisms of thought, vocabulary, syntax, style, composition, transmission, translation and even multiple Semitisms. For each case, he supplies many examples. As for Tresmontant's demonstration, let's just give a few samples of it: In Luke 9:51, the Greek text reads: "He fixed his face to go to Jerusalem," which makes no sense in Greek or in English but proves to be a Hebrew expression frequently used in the Old Testament meaning "He firmly decided." Tresmontant gives many such examples and idiomatic expressions. He also points out the following passage in St. John (5:2) — St. John's text being regarded as the latest, most scholars dating it from the very end of the 1st century — "There is in Jerusalem, next to the Ewes Gate a pool called Bezatha". Why would the present tense be used if the city had not existed for a long time? And what about Matt. 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 19:41-44, etc., in which Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem? (Many "late-date" exegetes doubt that Jesus made this prediction.) How is it that the Evangelists — or at least one of the Evangelists — have not specified, if the city was already destroyed, that this so-called prophecy was in fact achieved? "A discreet and shy forger" as Tresmontant ironically puts it. Let's by the way observe J.A.T. Robinson, an Anglican exegete, who was perfectly convinced of the non-historicity of the Gospels, until he noted this complete absence of reference to the end of Jerusalem as an already accomplished historical fact. He declared therefore the impossibility of dating the Gospels later than 70. Carmignac also explains a few "nonsenses" found in the Gospels: in Mark 5:13 the reference to a herd of about two thousand pigs has been generally regarded as a mythical construction (gathering two thousand pigs being virtually impossible). But Fr. Carmignac explains that in Hebrew only consonants are written and the same word differently pronounced acquires a different meaning. The written Hebrew word for "about two thousand," if read with other vowels, means "by packs." So "The herd jumped from the cliff into the sea by packs." The Hebrew underpinning the text makes it clear and probable while proving its own presence. Fr. Carmignac gives many more such examples and even explains some of the apparent discrepancies in some Gospels compared to others. As he translated the Synoptic Gospels from Greek to Qumran Hebrew, he stated quite firmly that they had first been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then in Greek, so easily had he accomplished this translation. Many other philologists also uncovered the way the Semitic language underpins the Greek language used in the Gospels. Fr. Carmignac noted many of them in the past. Since I published my book, several people wrote to me indicating contemporary philologists who had made similar discoveries. However, I have been unable to find their writings. They have not been published in books or journals. It has been said that publishers do not even reply to these authors. They are not mentioned on television or radio programs or in the print media. It seems that few philologists have heard of them and that those who have remain silent about them. Other Indications of Sound, Early-Date Biblical Historicity Let's come to (C). Nearly every day new clues are found indicating that the Gospels were originally written close to the time of Jesus. As noted above, based largely on speculation, many exegetes continue to assert that the Gospels were written after A.D. 70 by authors who never knew Jesus, any of the Apostles or any other eyewitnesses to Jesus. However, it seems impossible that any such late-date author could write without making mistakes on the location, the animals, the plants, the sharing of powers, the various sects and other minute details by which archaeological excavation confirm that the Evangelists were stating the truth. The absence of such errors strongly indicates that the Gospels were written close to the time of Jesus. Vittorio Messori, in his books Hypotheses sur Jesus and Il a souffert sous Ponce Pilate, gives many examples confirming this matter. Here are just a few: (a) In 1968, archaeologists commissioned by the Israeli Government excavated in Giv'at ha Mitvar, north of Jerusalem, the remains of a young man, five and one-half feet tall, dating from the 1st century, who had been crucified and whose tibiae had been broken. (b) A stone found a few years ago, notifying non-Jews that they were not allowed inside the temple reserved to the Jews, is written in the same three languages as the placard hung to the cross: Hebrew, Latin and Greek. And (c) A family grave dating back to Jesus' time was uncovered in a graveyard where leading citizens were buried. It contained the remains of a certain Simon of Cyrene's parents. Could this be mere coincidence? Madame Genot-Bismuth, a non-Christian Professor of Ancient and Medieval Judaism in the Sorbonne-Nouvelle University (Paris), is positive that the person who wrote St. John's Gospel was a direct witness of his account as the details he gives fit so exactly with the results of her own archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. There are also all sorts of comforting hints. Fr. Pierre Courouble revealed that Pilate speaks Greek in St. John's Gospel (18:29 and 19:22) as a foreigner, making mistakes and Latinisms, whereas the remainder of the Gospel is grammatically perfect. Who would have remembered this long after the facts? (It is equally possible that Pilate's original sentences in bad Greek appeared as such in an original Semitic text.) On another matter, why does St. Mark tell us that Jesus, during the storm he is about to calm, was inside the stern, sleeping on the cushion" and not "at the stern" (where he would have interfered with the maneuvering of the boat)? The answer was found when the wreck of a boat of Jesus' time was discovered in the Genesareth Lake in 1986 showing on its rear deck a covered shelter in which a man could lie (Bonnet-Eymard). Gino Zaninotto, a teacher and specialist of ancient languages, provided a list of codices indicating that St. Matthew's Gospel was written eight years after the Ascension of the Lord; St. Mark's, eleven years; St. Luke's, fifteen years; and St. John's, thirty-two years after the same event. The oldest of these codices dates from the 9th century and, according to Michel van Esbroeck from Munich University, the source of this information might be still older. From where do these precious dates come? Why were they disclosed in 836 during the Synod of Jerusalem attended by the three Melchite Patriarchs from Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem? Why has this research field been so far ignored? Here we reach the biggest mystery of today's Christian exegesis — with the exception of Orthodox exegesis: All these discoveries testify that our faith is not in vain, that it rests upon real historic facts and should be welcomed with a relevant enthusiasm; instead, they are met with silence or worse. Giulio Firpo, professor at Chieti University (Italy), undertook an exceptional investigation of the Gospels of Christ's childhood. He studied hundreds of documents such as writings from Antiquity and from modern times, inscriptions, coins and various papyruses. Based on Firpo's findings, we can be quite confident that the Gospel accounts of Christ's childhood are authentic. For instance, who knows nowadays that there were numerous censuses at the end of the 1st century B.C.? But who has heard of this extraordinary scholar's book Il problema cronologico della nascita di Gesu. [The chronological problem of Jesus' birth]? Why has it not been published in English and other languages? A Catholic University Denies Scholars Access to Early-Date Evidence Fr. Carmignac left all his writings to the Institut Catholique de Paris by will, comprising sixteen boxes full of manuscripts and documents together with their inventory and classification. After his death they were brought to this university by his secretary, Mlle. Demanche. Nobody asking for it has been allowed to consult these archives and Fr. Carmignac's publisher, M. de Guibert, has not been allowed to publish his posthumous works. The successful Italian weekly magazine Il Sabato made this story public with Thiede's discoveries and the ensuing polemics. Strangely enough, it closed down a little later. The direction and philosophical orientation of the international monthly magazine Thirty Days, that was publishing the same articles, changed at the same time. Mackey’s comment: For more on this scandalous situation, see my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history

by Damien F. Mackey … it enabled me to reject the popular view that Haman was an Amalekite (Agagite), as some translations have it: “… Haman the Agagite …”. Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Preview The enthralling drama of which we read in the Book of Esther begins only a few years after the demise of the last Chaldean King of Babylon, Belshazzar, and continues through Year 12 of the reign of his successor, Darius the Mede (cf. Daniel 5:30-31). The Chaldean dynasty (of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar) has now passed, and we have entered into the first phase of the Medo-Persian kingdom, instigated by Darius the Mede. In terms of the Book of Daniel chapter 8, the Medo-Persian kingdom consisting of two kings is the two-horned ram that would later be shattered by “a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes [Alexander the Great who] came from the west …” (8:5). The mighty ram, for its part, is described as follows (8:3-4): I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. This revised scenario enables us immediately to identify the leading Great King of the Esther drama, Ahasuerus (var. Xerxes). He must be Darius the Mede. Compare Daniel 6:1-2 It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. and Esther 1:1 This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush …. At this stage we cannot say anything about the other leading characters of the drama: Queen Esther; Mordecai; Haman and his wife, Zeresh; and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Queen Vashti; except to note that Queen Esther must have been a wife of king Darius the Mede. A vital perspective from Judah Basing myself upon a Jewish tradition - and a most surprising one at that - that the arch-villain Haman of the Book of Esther was actually a Jew, known to Mordecai, I eventually determined that Haman must have been the exiled Jewish king, Jehoiachin (or Coniah), known as “the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17). This insight from Jewish legend became absolutely crucial. For one, it enabled me to identify the ancestor of Haman, “Hammedatha” (Esther 3:1), as (and this was another surprise) a woman, Hammutal (Hamutal) (cf. 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1). “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …” (Esther 3:1). And, secondly, it enabled me to reject the popular view that Haman was an Amalekite (Agagite), as some translations have it: “… Haman the Agagite …”. Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Confusion has apparently arisen due to the likeness between the Greek word for Amalekite (Ἀμᾱληκῑ́της), and the somewhat similar one for Captive (αἰχμᾰ́λωτος). Haman the Captive (Esther 3:1) was Jehoiachin the Captive (I Chronicles 3:17). King Ahasuerus – zoning in on him If Haman was the former King Jehoiachin of Judah, then biological factors would limit who King Ahasuerus could possibly have been. For, when Jehoiachin was released from prison in Exile Year 37 (2 Kings 25:27-30): In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived …, he must have been [18 (2 Kings 24:8) + 37] = (approximately) 55 years of age. And Jehoiachin would have been close to 60 when Darius the Mede took over, very close to the same age as the king himself (Daniel 5:31): “… and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. At the culmination of the Esther drama, in Year 12, King Darius/Ahasuerus would have been about 74. The Judean king, Jehoiachin, must have been a hugely charismatic figure. Promoted above the rest by King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Awel-Marduk (= Belshazzar), near the end of the Chaldean era, he would experience a similar sort of exaltation not long afterwards, during the reign of King Ahasuerus of Medo-Persia (Esther 3:1): “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal] … elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles”. First Conclusion We have now determined beyond much doubt who were Haman and his female ancestor, Hammedatha. They were, respectively, King Jehoiachin and Queen Hammutal. Biologically - and for other reasons - this makes it more than likely that the Great King, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), was Darius the Mede. There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Probing the Chaldean and Judah King Lists As I have argued previously, the over-extended king list known as Chaldean: Nabopolassar; Nebuchednezzar; Amēl-Marduk; Neriglissar; Labashi-Marduk; Nabonidus when revised, and aligned with the Book of Daniel, actually represents three dynasties. Thus: Assyrian Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Chaldean Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar; Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Darius the Mede is also King Cyrus ‘the Great’: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (3) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That means that King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther was, all at once, Neriglissar (who is the Nergal-sharezer of Jeremiah 39:3); Darius the Mede; and Cyrus. That also makes it highly likely, now, that Queen Esther was the favoured wife of Cyrus, Atossa, a name that resonates nicely with Hadassah/Esther. Who Queen Esther was not She was not, as is sometimes suggested, “the queen” mentioned in Nehemiah 2:6: “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”. This was a “king of Babylon” (13:6), the king here being Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. He and his queen belonged to an era (Chaldean) earlier than that of Queen Esther (Medo-Persian). A possible reason why “the queen” of Nehemiah 2:6 would not have been a Persian queen is given in the Matthew Henry commentary over on blueletterbible.org (a great research site!), who notes evidence from the book of Esther that it seemed to be uncommon for the queen to be in the king’s presence in a Persian court. Queen Esther is also most unlikely to have been the wife of Xerxes, Amestris. Phillip G. Kayser gives some sound reasons why this would be the case: https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/Old%20Testament/Esther/Esther%20Part%201.md “Every Xerxes advocate admits that there is one point that just doesn't seem to fit. Amestris, Xerxes wife seems to be queen longer than Scripture allows Vashti to live. Some have said that Vashti/Amestris is divorced for a while and later replaces Esther. Others have said that Esther is Amestris. But not only is Amestris a debauched, cruel and sadistic woman, she is a Persian, not a Jewess, and Amestris was around before the 7th year. I think this is a major problem for Xerxes and warrants a strike”. What makes rather tricky the identification of Medo-Persian queens is the multiplication in king lists of their king’s names, such as Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Darius. And so we find that the most compelling Esther (= Hadassah) name, Atossa (Old Persian Hutaosâ), has been connected all at once to Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Cambyses, and Darius. Who Queen Esther was With Haman now firmly fixed historically as Jehoiachin the Captive, who would have been only 18 when he went into Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 24:8-12), and about 55 when Amēl-Marduk (= Belshazzar) released him from prison (25:27-30), and close to 60 when Darius the Mede (aged 62) took over the kingdom, then, biologically, his conspiracy must have occurred during the 12-year reign of Darius the Mede (= Cyrus). This would securely establish Hadassah/Esther as the historical Atossa, said to have been “the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran”, and thought to have been the daughter (read “wife”) of King Cyrus: https://www.iranchamber.com/history/atossa/atossa.php Atossa The Celestial and Terrestrial Lady of Ancient Iran By: Shirin Bayani Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, wife of two Achamenian kings, Cambyses and Darius and mother of Xerxes is the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran. Not much is known about her life, except that she has witnessed the reign of the four first Achamenian kings and that she has played a decisive role in the long period of turbulence and significance. …. [End of quote] Since, however, there were not as many as “four first Achamenian [Achaemenid] kings”, some of these names must be duplicates, as must be the Cyrus-like Artaxerxes II (c. 445-359/8 BC, conventional dating), whose reign has been estimated (wrongly) to have occurred about 85 years after the death of Cyrus (c. 530 BC, conventional dating). Because of the chaos that historians and archaeologists have enabled to gulf Medo-Persian history, the name Atossa gets stretched about amongst various Persian names. One female of this name, Atossa, for instance, was also supposed to have been married to a Cambyses, and then, to Darius the Great: https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-the-great/4-dynastic-marriages/ Darius married three times to improve his position: 1. Atossa (Old Persian *Utautha), a daughter of Cyrus. She had already been married to her half-brother Cambyses, but the couple did not have children. …. [End of quote] Previously (2016) I wrote on these matters: Esther as Atossa Name-wise, the standout historical queen for the biblical Esther is Atossa, wife of a Persian king. The similarity between the name “Atossa” and the Hebrew name of Esther, “Hadassah”, has often been noted. However, since this Atossa is considered to have been the daughter of the relevant king Cyrus, and the wife of Darius, I have not previously felt inclined to attempt to integrate her into my historical reconstructions of the Book of Esther. That there were various queens “Atossa” in the classical sources would not concern me considering the unwarranted multiplications of kings “Artaxerxes”, and the fact that (according to my revision) king Cyrus was also called “Darius”. Anyway, some potential new light on the situation may have been shed by Richard E. Tyrwhitt in his book, Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons So Named (p. 185, IV), when he writes: To this conjecture, however, regarding the true significance of the term Daughter of Cyrus, when applied to Darius’s queen Atossa, it may be supposed to be an objection, that the surname or description is applied equally to another of his wives, Artystonè by name, whom he is said to have particularly loved and to have commemorated by a golden image. But Akhshurush [Ahasuerus], that is, Darius, had two crowned wives in succession, Vaśhti and Hadassah. That the term, “king’s daughter”, is properly applicable to a spouse is suggested in Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Psalm 45:13, at: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/45-13.htm “The king’s daughter, i.e. the spouse; so called, either because she was the daughter of one king, and the wife of another; or because the spouse or wife is sometimes called the husband’s daughter; partly because she is supposed to be younger than he; and partly because of that respect and subjection which she oweth to him, and that fatherly care and affection which he oweth to her. …”. Queen Esther (“Hadassah”) was indeed “younger than” King Ahasuerus. It was quite beyond the Greek writers, such as the so-called “Father of History”, Herodotus, to sort out the complexities of Medo-Persian history, the multiple names of its protagonists – just as it was beyond their ability properly to recall the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Syro-Palestinian histories. …. Second Conclusion Queen Esther was most likely Atossa, the famous (‘daughter’) wife of King Cyrus. Origins of Esther and Mordecai Given Mordecai’s eminence in the Medo-Persian kingdom (Esther 2:21), I had anticipated that there may have been a good chance of locating him at an earlier stage in biblical history. This led me ultimately to identify Mordecai with the wealthy and influential Joakim in Babylon, at the time of Daniel (Story of Susanna, Daniel 13:1). That meant that Joakim’s beautiful wife, Susanna, would be my standout candidate for the future Queen Esther herself, formerly the wife of Mordecai (another vital clue from Jewish legend - that Esther was the actual wife of Mordecai). For a fuller development of this new thesis, see e.g. my article Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther “ (3) Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The apparent multiplication of names for the heroine as Esther, Hadassah and Susanna, could be streamlined from three to two by recognising that, as I wrote: “Queen Esther, Ishtar-udda-sha (“Ishtar is her light”) and, thereby, Hadassah (-udda-sha), had the Hebrew name of Susanna, the husband of Joakim (= Mordecai)”. Queen Vashti Some key Jewish legends Jewish legend had enabled me to identify Haman as, most unexpectedly, a Jew known to Mordecai, as Jehoiachin the Captive, the apostate king of Judah. And this has led me further to identify the Hammedatha of Esther 3:1 as the Jewish queen, Hammutal. It also opened the door to the possibility that the combination Mordecai and his wife, Esther (according to Jewish legend), was the same as the influential and revered Jew, Joakim, and his wife, Susanna. And now we might be able to take a further ride on Jewish legend according to which Queen Vashti, the disgraced wife of King Ahasuerus, was the daughter of the ill-fated King Belshazzar: Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean (3) Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article, I wrote: Was Darius (= Cyrus = ‘Ahasuerus’) actually a ‘grandson’ (בֶּן-בְּנוֹ) of Nebuchednezzar’s? In a sense, yes, he was, if Jewish tradition is right here. For the (presumably young) wife of the 60+ year old king ‘Ahasuerus’ is alleged to have been the daughter of Belshazzar. “Vashti was born to Babylonian royalty. Her grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar, who had destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and driven the Jews into exile. Her father was Belshazzar, the last in a line of great Babylonian kings whose dramatic death is described in the Book of Daniel”. …. https://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/dt/48951881.html In (quasi-)historical terms, the suggestion has been made that Vashti may have been Queen Stateira, wife of Artaxerxes so-called II (an Ahasuerus type): Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti (5) Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Zeresh As for Haman’s wife, Zeresh, I had not been able, until now, to add to her anything more of substance (beyond what we read in the Esther drama) except that tradition has her as a daughter of Tattenai, “governor of Trans-Euphrates” (Ezra 6:13). We read about this at Chabad.org: https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/2519584/jewish/Who-Was-Zeresh.htm Who Was Zeresh? Haman's Wicked and Wise Wife By Mendy Kaminker She was a crafty woman and a classic anti-Semite. Together with her husband, Haman, she plotted to annihilate the entire Jewish nation and to hang Mordecai upon a towering gallows. Thankfully, we know how well her plans worked out in the end… Every Purim, in the Shoshanat Yaakov poem, we memorialize her wickedness by gleefully singing, “Cursed be Zeresh, wife of [Haman], who terrorized me.” Who Was Zeresh? Zeresh’s name appears twice in the Book of Esther, both times as an advisor to her husband. She is the one who suggests that Haman rid himself of Mordechai by hanging him on a gallows 50 cubits tall.1 In her second appearance, she advises him that he will never be able to vanquish Mordechai, but will instead fall ignobly.2 Combing through the classic sources, we can piece together some parts of her personality. Her father was Tattenai, “the ruler of across the river,”3 who makes an appearance in the Book of Ezra when he tries (unsuccessfully) to halt the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.4 …. This Tattenai was a genuine historical figure: https://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Tattenai.htm Recently I have peeled off these three articles on Tattenai: Tattenai and Haman paralleled (10) Tattenai and Haman paralleled | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of Ezra 6 confirmed by archaeology (10) Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai of Ezra 6 confirmed by archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai (10) Further biblical indications of Tattenai and Shethar-Bozenai | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, concerning Tattenai’s presumed daughter, Zeresh, I would now propose: Zeresh, artful wife of Haman, as the Jewish Queen Nehushta (10) Zeresh, artful wife of Haman, as the Jewish Queen Nehushta | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel (10) Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Third (tentative) Conclusion Queen Vashti may have been a Chaldean, as Jewish legend has her being the daughter of King Belshazzar, the Chaldean. Quasi-historically, she may have been Queen Stateira. Zeresh is traditionally said to have been the daughter of the Trans-Euphratean governor, Tattenai, whom I have identified (above articles) as Elnathan son of Achbor: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/elnathan/ljm10494 1. [Elnathan] Son of Achbor and father of Nehushta, Jehoiakim’s queen: he begged Jehoiakim not to burn the sacred roll (2 Kings 24:8; Jer. 26:22; Jer. 36:12,25). This makes it highly likely that Zeresh, the daughter of Tattenai, was the same woman as Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan. Now, as stated earlier: There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Thus: Further filling out Haman Apart from his alter ego guise as the former King Jehoiachin (Coniah), Haman (Aman) needs to be recognised as the former King Amon of Judah: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (6) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Amon is clearly an Egyptian name, and I believe that he was given that name by pharaoh Necho, who took him, as Jehoahaz (another alter ego), a captive into Egypt. According to 2 Kings 23:34: “But [pharaoh] took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died”. I would query that he died there. 2 Chronicles 36:4 says nothing about this: “But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz with him to Egypt”. A death in Egypt would completely destroy my linking of (Amon)/Jehoahaz with Haman. If King Jehoahaz was the same as Haman, then we appear to have a very good fit here in the fact that (2 Kings 23:31): “His [Jehoahaz’s] mother’s name was Hamutal [Hammutal]”, whilst Haman was, as we know, the “son of Hammedatha [Hammutal]”. Haman was, as has been well argued (not by me), the Mehuman (Memukan) of the Book of Esther: Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 (6) Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Mordecai, for his part, may have been the historical Marduka: https://biblereadingarcheology.com/2016/03/31/mordecai-in-ancient-records/

How the Queen Esther story locks into a biblical history

by Damien F. Mackey Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Preview The enthralling drama of which we read in the Book of Esther begins only a few years after the demise of the last Chaldean King of Babylon, Belshazzar, and continues through Year 12 of the reign of his successor, Darius the Mede (cf. Daniel 5:30-31). The Chaldean dynasty (of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar) has now passed, and we have entered into the first phase of the Medo-Persian kingdom, instigated by Darius the Mede. In terms of the Book of Daniel chapter 8, the Medo-Persian kingdom is the two-horned ram that would eventually be shattered by “a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes [Alexander the Great who] came from the west …” (8:5). The mighty ram, for its part, is described as follows (8:3-4): I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. This revised scenario enables us immediately to identify the leading Great King of the Esther drama, Ahasuerus (var. Xerxes). He must be Darius the Mede. Compare Daniel 6:1-2 It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. and Esther 1:1 This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush …. At this stage we cannot say anything about the other leading characters of the drama: Queen Esther; Mordecai; and Haman (his wife, Zeresh); and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Queen Vashti; except to note that Queen Esther must have been a wife of king Darius the Mede. A vital perspective from Judah Basing myself upon a Jewish tradition - and a most surprising one at that - that the arch-villain Haman of the Book of Esther was actually a Jew, known to Mordecai, I eventually determined that Haman must have been the exiled Jewish king, Jehoiachin (or Coniah), known as “the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17). This insight from Jewish legend became absolutely crucial. For one, it enabled me to identify the ancestor of Haman, “Hammedatha” (Esther 3:1), as (and this was another surprise) a woman, Hammutal (Hamutal) (cf. 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1). “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …” (Esther 3:1). And, secondly, it enabled me to reject the popular view that Haman was an Amalekite (Agagite), as some translations have it: “… Haman the Agagite …”. Esther 3:1 should read, instead: “… Haman the Captive”. Confusion has apparently arisen due to the likeness between the Greek word for Amalekite (Ἀμᾱληκῑ́της), and the somewhat similar one for Captive (αἰχμᾰ́λωτος). Haman the Captive (Esther 3:1) was Jehoiachin the Captive (I Chronicles 3:17). King Ahasuerus – zoning in on him If Haman was the former King Jehoiachin of Judah, then biological factors would limit who King Ahasuerus could possibly have been. For, when Jehoiachin was released from prison in Exile Year 37 (2 Kings 25:27-30): In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king’s table. Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived …, he must have been [18 (2 Kings 24:8) + 37] = (approximately) 55 years of age. And Jehoiachin would have been close to 60 when Darius the Mede took over, very close to the same age as the king himself (Daniel 5:31): “… and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. At the culmination of the Esther drama, in Year 12, Darius/King Ahasuerus would have been about 74. The Judean king, Jehoiachin, must have been a highly charismatic figure. Promoted above the rest by King Nebuchednezzar’s son, Awel-Marduk (= Belshazzar), near the end of the Chaldean era, he would experience a similar sort of exaltation not long afterwards, during the reign of King Ahasuerus of Medo-Persia (Esther 3:1): “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles”. First Conclusion We have now determined beyond much doubt who were Haman and his female ancestor, Hammedatha. They were, respectively, King Jehoiachin and Queen Hammutal. Biologically - and for other reasons - this makes it more than likely that the Great King, Ahasuerus (Xerxes), was Darius the Mede. There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Probing the Chaldean and Judah King Lists As I have argued previously, the over-extended king list known as Chaldean: Nabopolassar; Nebuchednezzar; Amēl-Marduk; Neriglissar; Labashi-Marduk; Nabonidus when revised, and aligned with the Book of Daniel, actually represents three dynasties. Thus: Assyrian Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Chaldean Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar; Medo-Persian Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Darius the Mede is also King Cyrus ‘the Great’: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (3) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu That means that King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther was, all at once, Neriglissar (who is the Nergal-sharezer of Jeremiah 39:3); Darius the Mede; and Cyrus. That also makes it highly likely, now, that Queen Esther was the favoured wife of Cyrus, Atossa, a name that resonates nicely with Hadassah/Esther. Who Queen Esther was not She was not, as is sometimes suggested, “the queen” mentioned in Nehemiah 2:6: “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”. This was a “king of Babylon” (13:6), the king here being Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. He and his queen belonged to an era (Chaldean) earlier than that of Queen Esther (Medo-Persian). A possible reason why “the queen” of Nehemiah 2:6 would not have been a Persian queen is given in the Matthew Henry commentary over on blueletterbible.org (a great research site!), who notes evidence from the book of Esther that it seemed to be uncommon for the queen to be in the king’s presence in a Persian court. Queen Esther is also most unlikely to have been the wife of Xerxes, Amestris. Phillip G. Kayser gives some sound reasons why this would be the case: https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/Old%20Testament/Esther/Esther%20Part%201.md “Every Xerxes advocate admits that there is one point that just doesn't seem to fit. Amestris, Xerxes wife seems to be queen longer than Scripture allows Vashti to live. Some have said that Vashti/Amestris is divorced for a while and later replaces Esther. Others have said that Esther is Amestris. But not only is Amestris a debauched, cruel and sadistic woman, she is a Persian, not a Jewess, and Amestris was around before the 7th year. I think this is a major problem for Xerxes and warrants a strike”. What makes rather tricky the identification of Medo-Persian queens is the multiplication in king lists of their king’s names, such as Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Darius. And so we find that the most compelling Esther (= Hadassah) name, Atossa (Old Persian Hutaosâ), has been connected all at once to Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Cambyses, and Darius. Who Queen Esther was With Haman now firmly fixed historically as Jehoiachin the Captive, who would have been only 18 when he went into Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 24:8-12), and about 55 when Amēl-Marduk (= Belshazzar) released him from prison (25:27-30), and close to 60 when Darius the Mede (aged 62) took over the kingdom, then, biologically, his conspiracy must have occurred during the 12-year reign of Darius the Mede (= Cyrus). This would securely establish Hadassah/Esther as the historical Atossa, said to have been “the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran”, and thought to have been the daughter (read “wife”) of King Cyrus: https://www.iranchamber.com/history/atossa/atossa.php Atossa The Celestial and Terrestrial Lady of Ancient Iran By: Shirin Bayani Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, wife of two Achamenian kings, Cambyses and Darius and mother of Xerxes is the most prominent lady in the history of ancient Iran. Not much is known about her life, except that she has witnessed the reign of the four first Achamenian kings and that she has played a decisive role in the long period of turbulence and significance. …. [End of quote] Since, however, there were not as many as “four first Achamenian [Achaemenid] kings”, some of these names must be duplicates, as must be the Cyrus-like Artaxerxes II (c. 445-359/8 BC, conventional dating), whose reign has been estimated (wrongly) to have occurred about 85 years after the death of Cyrus (c. 530 BC, conventional dating). Because of the chaos that historians and archaeologists have enabled to gulf Medo-Persian history, the name Atossa gets stretched about amongst various Persian names. One female of this name, Atossa, for instance, was also supposed to have been married to a Cambyses, and then, to Darius the Great: https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-the-great/4-dynastic-marriages/ Darius married three times to improve his position: 1. Atossa (Old Persian *Utautha), a daughter of Cyrus. She had already been married to her half-brother Cambyses, but the couple did not have children. …. [End of quote] Previously (2016) I wrote on these matters: Esther as Atossa Name-wise, the standout historical queen for the biblical Esther is Atossa, wife of a Persian king. The similarity between the name “Atossa” and the Hebrew name of Esther, “Hadassah”, has often been noted. However, since this Atossa is considered to have been the daughter of the relevant king Cyrus, and the wife of Darius, I have not previously felt inclined to attempt to integrate her into my historical reconstructions of the Book of Esther. That there were various queens “Atossa” in the classical sources would not concern me considering the unwarranted multiplications of kings “Artaxerxes”, and the fact that (according to my revision) king Cyrus was also called “Darius”. Anyway, some potential new light on the situation may have been shed by Richard E. Tyrwhitt in his book, Esther and Ahasuerus: An Identification of the Persons So Named (p. 185, IV), when he writes: To this conjecture, however, regarding the true significance of the term Daughter of Cyrus, when applied to Darius’s queen Atossa, it may be supposed to be an objection, that the surname or description is applied equally to another of his wives, Artystonè by name, whom he is said to have particularly loved and to have commemorated by a golden image. But Akhshurush [Ahasuerus], that is, Darius, had two crowned wives in succession, Vaśhti and Hadassah. That the term, “king’s daughter”, is properly applicable to a spouse is suggested in Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Psalm 45:13, at: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/45-13.htm “The king’s daughter, i.e. the spouse; so called, either because she was the daughter of one king, and the wife of another; or because the spouse or wife is sometimes called the husband’s daughter; partly because she is supposed to be younger than he; and partly because of that respect and subjection which she oweth to him, and that fatherly care and affection which he oweth to her. …”. Queen Esther (“Hadassah”) was indeed “younger than” King Ahasuerus. It was quite beyond the Greek writers, such as the so-called “Father of History”, Herodotus, to sort out the complexities of Medo-Persian history, the multiple names of its protagonists – just as it was beyond their ability properly to recall the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Syro-Palestinian histories. …. Second Conclusion Queen Esther was most likely Atossa, the famous (‘daughter’) wife of King Cyrus. Origins of Esther and Mordecai Given Mordecai’s eminence in the Medo-Persian kingdom (Esther 2:21), I had anticipated that there may have been a good chance of locating him at an earlier stage in biblical history. This led me ultimately to identify Mordecai with the wealthy and influential Joakim in Babylon, at the time of Daniel (Story of Susanna, Daniel 13:1). That meant that Joakim’s beautiful wife, Susanna, would be a standout candidate for the future Queen Esther herself, formerly the wife of Mordecai (another vital clue from Jewish legend - that Esther was the actual wife of Mordecai). For a fuller development of this new thesis, see e.g. my article Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther “ (3) Joakim and Susanna’s progression to become Mordecai and Esther | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The apparent multiplication of names for the heroine as Esther, Hadassah and Susanna, could be streamlined from three to two by recognising that, as I wrote: “Queen Esther, Ishtar-udda-sha (“Ishtar is her light”) and, thereby, Hadassah (-udda-sha), had the Hebrew name of Susanna, the husband of Joakim (= Mordecai)”. Queen Vashti Some key Jewish legends Jewish legend had enabled me to identify Haman as, most unexpectedly, a Jew known to Mordecai, as Jehoiachin the Captive, the apostate king of Judah. And this has led me further to identify the Hammedatha of Esther 3:1 as the Jewish queen, Hammutal. It also opened the door to the possibility that the combination Mordecai and his wife, Esther (according to Jewish legend), was the influential and revered Jew, Joakim, and his wife, Susanna. And now we might be able to take a further ride on Jewish legend according to which Queen Vashti, the disgraced wife of King Ahasuerus, was the daughter of the ill-fated King Belshazzar: Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean (3) Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus, may have been the daughter of King Belshazzar the Chaldean | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article, I wrote: Was Darius (= Cyrus = ‘Ahasuerus’) actually a ‘grandson’ (בֶּן-בְּנוֹ) of Nebuchednezzar’s? In a sense, yes, he was, if Jewish tradition is right here. For the (presumably young) wife of the 60+ year old king ‘Ahasuerus’ is alleged to have been the daughter of Belshazzar. “Vashti was born to Babylonian royalty. Her grandfather was Nebuchadnezzar, who had destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and driven the Jews into exile. Her father was Belshazzar, the last in a line of great Babylonian kings whose dramatic death is described in the Book of Daniel”. …. https://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/dt/48951881.html In (quasi-)historical terms, the suggestion has been made that Vashti may have been Queen Stateira, wife of Artaxerxes so-called II (an Ahasuerus type): Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti (5) Stateira suggested for Queen Vashti | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Zeresh As for Haman’s wife, Zeresh, I am not able to add to her anything more of substance (beyond what we read in the Esther drama) except that tradition has her as a daughter of Tattenai, “governor of Trans-Euphrates” (Ezra 6:13). We read about this at Chabad.org: https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/2519584/jewish/Who-Was-Zeresh.htm Who Was Zeresh? Haman's Wicked and Wise Wife By Mendy Kaminker She was a crafty woman and a classic anti-Semite. Together with her husband, Haman, she plotted to annihilate the entire Jewish nation and to hang Mordecai upon a towering gallows. Thankfully, we know how well her plans worked out in the end… Every Purim, in the Shoshanat Yaakov poem, we memorialize her wickedness by gleefully singing, “Cursed be Zeresh, wife of [Haman], who terrorized me.” Who Was Zeresh? Zeresh’s name appears twice in the Book of Esther, both times as an advisor to her husband. She is the one who suggests that Haman rid himself of Mordechai by hanging him on a gallows 50 cubits tall.1 In her second appearance, she advises him that he will never be able to vanquish Mordechai, but will instead fall ignobly.2 Combing through the classic sources, we can piece together some parts of her personality. Her father was Tattenai, “the ruler of across the river,”3 who makes an appearance in the Book of Ezra when he tries (unsuccessfully) to halt the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.4 …. This Tattenai was a genuine historical figure: https://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Tattenai.htm Third (tentative) Conclusion Queen Vashti may have been a Chaldean, as Jewish legend has her being the daughter of King Belshazzar, the Chaldean. Quasi-historically, she may have been Queen Stateira. Zeresh may have been the daughter of the Trans-Euphrates governor, Tattenai. As stated earlier: There is yet more to be included further on concerning the arch-villain Haman. Further filling out Haman Apart from his alter ego guise as the former King Jehoiachin (Coniah), Haman (Aman) needs to be recognised as the former King Amon of Judah: King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) (6) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Amon is clearly an Egyptian name, and I believe that he was given that name by pharaoh Necho, who took him, as Jehoahaz (another alter ego), a captive into Egypt. According to 2 Kings 23:34: “But [pharaoh] took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died”. I would query that he died there. And 2 Chronicles 36:4 says nothing about this: “But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz with him to Egypt”. A death in Egypt would destroy my linking of (Amon)/Jehoahaz with Haman. Haman was, as has been well argued, the Mehuman (Memukan) of the Book of Esther: Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 (6) Mehuman and Memukan of Esther 1 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu