Bereishit Rabba 44 Supplementary Texts Use With https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/442531?editor=1

Rambam Guide for the Perplexed Chapter 27

The general object of the Torah is twofold: the wholeness (well-being, perfection) of the soul, and the wholeness of the body.

The well-being of the soul entails the acquisition of correct views, which – according to the Rambam – is the most supreme perfection to which a person can aspire. The perfection of the soul

certainly does not include any action or good conduct, but only knowledge, which is arrived at by speculation, or established by research.

This assertion is of great importance, and we shall discuss it in future chapters.

As to the perfection of the body, this entails maintaining human society in a state of optimal functioning, without conflict and hostility. The Torah seeks to achieve this "perfection of the body" through two complementary strategies: first, the setting down of proper and correct laws for social functioning; second, educating the individual towards harmonious cooperation with his fellow man.

Soncino

4 The verse is apparently rendered as a rhetorical question: a wise man, who departeth from evil, does he fear ?

Binyan Paal bin-yan pa-al בניין פָּעַל

Binyan pa-al - בניין פָּעַל: ya-shav ישב (sat), ba-na בנה (built). Binyan pa-al is the most common. Verbs are transitive, intransitive and in the active voice.

Binyan Nifal bin-yan nif-al בניין נִפְעַל

Binyan nif-al - בניין נִפְעַל: niv-na נבנה (was built), nih-tav נכתב (was written). Verbs are always intransitive and are the passive of binyan pa-al.

Binyan Piel bin-yan pi-el בניין פִּעֵל

Binyan pi-el - בניין פִּעֵל: yi-shev יישב (settled), bik-er ביקר (visited). Verbs are transitive, intransitive and in the active voice.

Binyan Pual bin-yan pu-al בניין פֻּעַל

Binyan pu-al - בניין פֻּעַל: yoo-shav יושב (was settled), boo-kar בוקר (was visited). Verbs are in the passive voice, and do not have gerunds, imperatives, or infinitives.

Binyan Hifil bin-yan hif-il בניין הִפְעִיל

Binyan hif-il - בניין הִפְעִיל: ho-shiv הושיב (set someone down), hih-tiv הכתיב (dictated). Verbs are in the active voice, and causative counterparts of verbs in other binyanim.

Binyan Hufal bin-yan hoof-al בניין הֻפְעַל

Binyan huf-al - בניין הֻפְעַל: hoo-shav הושב (was seated), hooh-tav הוכתב (was dictated) Verbs are in the passive voice, and do not have gerunds, imperatives, or infinitives.

Binyan Hitpael bin-yan hit-pa-el בניין הִתְפַּעֵל

Binyan hit-pa-el - בניין הִתְפַּעֵל: hit-ya-shev התיישב (sat), hit-ka-tev התכתב (corresponded). Verbs are in the active voice, intransitive, and most have a reflexive sense and are reciprocal.

GENESIS 15 IN RABBINIC AND PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION Günter Stemberger In: The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series, Volume: 18. Editors: Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling. 2009 Another point in GenR 44 also deserves attention. In his Homilies on Genesis, Origen deals with the repetition of the promises in Genesis. God showed Abraham: in the first place, that he is to be the father of those who are circumcised ‘according to the flesh’ (Gal 4:29), the promise which should affect the people of circumcision is given to him at the time of his circumcision. In the second place, because he was to be the father also of those who ‘are of faith’ (cf. Gal 3:9) and who come to the inheritance through the passion of Christ, the promise which should apply to that people which is saved by the passion and resurrection of Christ is renewed at the time, no less, of the passion of Isaac (. . .). For these things which are said first and apply to the previous people, are said on earth. For thus the Scripture says: ‘And he brought him forth’—from the tent, of course,—‘and said to him: ‘Look at the stars of heaven. Can they be numbered in their multitude?’ And he adds: ‘So shall your seed be’ (15:5). But when the promise is repeated the second time, the text designates that it is said ‘from heaven’. The first promise was given from the earth, the second from heaven (. . .) [cf. 1 Cor 15:47]. This latter promise, therefore, which applies to the faithful people is ‘from heaven’, the former from the earth. (Hom.Gen. IX.1; trans. Heine 1982, 149–150)

Origen thus attributes higher value to the second promise, given from heaven at the time of the passion of Isaac, giving it special strength because of the sacrifice or passion of the son. This evidently signifies, as Origen continues, ‘that the promise remains steadfast because of the passion of Christ for the people of the Gentiles “who are of the faith of Abraham” ’ (cf. Rom 4:16; trans. Heine 1982, 150–151).

GenR 44:5 might be read in this context: [Abraham] said before the Holy One, blessed be he, Lord of the ages, you made a covenant with Noah that you would not wipe out his children. I went and acquired a treasure of religious deeds and good deeds greater than his, so the covenant made with me has set aside the covenant made with him. Now is it possible that someone else will come along and accumulate religious deeds and good deeds greater than mine and so set aside the covenant that was made with me on account of the covenant to be made with him. Said the Holy One, blessed be he, Out of Noah I did not raise up shields for the righteous, but from you I shall raise up shields for the righteous. And not only so, but when your children will fall into sin and evil deeds, I shall see a single righteous man among them who can say to the attribute of justice, Enough. Him I shall take and make into the atonement for them all. (trans. Neusner 1997, II:191–192)

It is very intriguing to read the two texts together, not as a direct response of one to the other, but as a rabbinic reaction to the Christian claim in general that their new covenant has superseded the covenant in the circumcision.

Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology^[1] is a Christian theology which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to the Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God.

Often claimed to have originated with Paul the Apostle in the New Testament, supersessionism has formed a core tenet of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches for the majority of their history. Many early Church Fathers – including Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo – were supersessionist.^[2]

Most historic Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, Methodist Churches and Reformed Churches, hold that the Old Covenant has three components: ceremonial, moral, and civil (cf. covenant theology).^[3][4] They teach that while the ceremonial and civil (judicial) laws have been fulfilled, the moral law of the Ten Commandments continues to bind Christian believers.^[3][5][4]

Rabbinic Judaism disregards supersessionism as offensive to Jewish history. However Islam teaches that it is the final and most authentic expression of Abrahamic monotheism, superseding both Judaism and Christianity. The Islamic doctrine of tahrif teaches that earlier monotheistic scriptures or their interpretations have been corrupted, while the Quran presents a pure version of their divine message.

Origen of Alexandria^[a] (c. 185 – c. 253),^[9] also known as Origen Adamantius,^[b] was an early Christian scholar,^[12] ascetic,^[13] and theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential and controversial figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism.^[13][14] He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".^[15]

3 Shem is identified with Melchizedek

4 Together with Noah

From

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/two-prostitutes-bible

Elaine Adler

The Mothers’ Motivations

The reader, however, does not know whether the mother of the live child is the first or the second woman, the complainant or the respondent. The conventional and most probable understanding of the story is that the first woman, who gave the speculative yet full account of what transpired, is the mother of the living child. Her spontaneous outburst is motivated by the “compassion for her son [that] burned within her” (v. 26). The Hebrew word translated as “compassion,” rahamim, is related to rehem, “womb,” and is especially suitable for evoking maternal pathos. The narrator assumes that strong, spontaneous emotion offers a reliable reflection of a person’s true nature.

What motivates the other woman to demand the splitting of the child even after her rival, at least verbally, surrenders him? Perhaps fierce envy prompts her to demand that her housemate’s child suffer the same tragic fate as did her own child. Because she is not his real mother, her desire for vengeance transcends her love for the child. Further, she may fear that her claim to the child will never be secure, or she may be seeking to flatter the king by affirming his judgment. By exposing the falseness of her claim, Solomon’s ruse amazes his subjects and demonstrates his God-given wisdom in executing justice.

(Ahem) Me on Is 7:14

Note on Context:

This phrase is found in the context of the Syrio-Ephramite Crisis, 734-732 BCE. Isaiah is attempting to dissuade the Judean King, Ahaz, from entering into a treaty with the Assyrians. Ahaz is facing attack from King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Remaliah who have newly allied themselves with the Northern Kingdoms of Israel and Ahaz is fearful of their combined power. Isaiah offers Ahaz a sign to prove that it is divine will that he awaits his enemies’ downfall patiently and alone. Ahaz declines the sign, but Isaiah offers it to him anyway and this sign is linked to the naming of a child. The grammar of verse 7:14 suggests that the child to be called Immanuel has already been conceived. The comfort offered by Isaiah (such as it is) lies in the notion that by the time a child, currently in utero[1] has developed moral awareness, the threat of Judah’s warring foes will have evaporated.

Significance:

The significance of the verse depends on the point from which one is looking.

For at least one early Christian community (see Matt 1:23), and many others since, the sign serves as a predictor of a child to be born of a virgin. This is a reading based on the Septugint’s translation of the Hebrew ha’alma as he parthenos and the Vulgate’s virgo – both of which may reasonably be understood to refer to a virgin. However as ‘Jewish participants in debates with Christians in the Middle Ages never tired of pointing out, the correct Hebrew term for virgo intacta is betula not ‘alma.’ (Blenkinsopp)[2] Furthermore as Ibn Ezra and Rashi noted ‘the sign’ calls for immediate verification (the mother is already pregnant and the sign must be understood to mark a point in the not-too-distant future for it to have any calming influence at all). Therefore, at least as a matter of pshat, the phrase cannot be seen as a predictor of Jesus.[3]

For Jews, the unmediated verse seems rather terrifying and, liturgically, is blatantly ignored, presumably for the very same reasons Christians have been so attracted to it. Ashkenazim begin the Haftarah for Parashat Yitro with Isaiah 6:1 (presumably in order to match the theophany of Sinai with Isaiah’s theophany) and come to an abrupt halt with verse 7:6 – just before our fateful verse. Then in a glorious act of chutzpah the baal haftorah is expected to skip to Isaiah 9:5-6 ‘a child has been born to us … who has been named Marvelous Counselor, Hero Warrior, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.’ In this neutered finale there is no mention of Immanuel, no mention of any oracle of future births[4] and certainly no mention of virgins.

For this reader the phrase is significant for its pivotal ambiguity and, counter-intuitively, its very insignificance. Here we have the first moment that the most significant Prophet in the Hebrew Bible enters the political arena, and he offers a sign of his divine gift, yet the sign is, frankly, rather pathetic and its contemporaneous impact equally so.

What exactly is the occurrence that is supposed to affect Ahaz so? Is it that a child will be born? Will grow up? How could this be intended to be persuasive? Surely a sign from God must by its very nature run contrary to nature – maybe the sun should stand still, the sea should split, the heavens should offer manna, or the like. Added to the problem of the lack of super-normality is the problem of lack of immediacy. By the time the sign is fully realized - the child develops moral perspicuity – it is no longer needed, and before this point it does not seem to function as a sign at all.

It might be thought that this ‘non-sign’ marks the transition from the super-natural signs of earlier Biblical books and the insistence on pure faith in later works, and therefore its very lack of probative weight serves it well. Certainly Jeremiah, Hosea and others offer no such hostages to fortune as a super-natural sign, insisting that their truth be accepted on faith alone. However if this simple faith is what Isaiah seeks to inculcate within Ahaz, why does the prophet spurn the King’s apparently pious demurral of a sign in 7:13? It seems that Isaiah forces a sign on Ahaz that serves only to demonstrate how signs are not to be understood as super-natural indicators of immediate Divine intervention. Most confusing.

Perhaps because of the poverty of the sign, Ahaz pays no regard to Isaiah’s urgings or his sign. He makes a pact with the Assyrians and triumphantly secures the survival of Judah, specifically by ignoring Isaiah. On the one hand then, this sign is insignificant. Isaiah is a failure. However, as Geller suggests it may well be that the very nature of the contemporary failure of Isaiah as a political force led to something truly significant. Isaiah tells Ahaz to do something, he is ignored, but yet God seems to shine on Ahaz’s stubbornness. Isaiah is surely forced to a response. He may either see himself as a charlatan or he must seek vindication in history. It may well be that the Ahaz’s rejection of Isaiah’s counsel led the prophet to seek vindication in writing his prophecies down for a time (which did indeed come) when Judah and its monarch will suffer, a future suffering that can be understood as being presaged by Isaiah. It may be that the very insignificance of Isaiah’s sign led to the preservation not only of Isaiah’s oeuvre but the creation of an entire genre – the literary prophet – a significant development indeed.

3 I.e. instead of the simple And the Lord said, which is usual, we have, The Lord (spoke) to him ; as if that were not enough, The word is added, and on top of that there is the further addition of A N D» behold. Each addition implies an additional messenger of God's word.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

cause to behold, consider, look down, regard, have respect, see

A primitive root; to scan, i.e. Look intently at; by implication, to regard with pleasure, favor or care -- (cause to) behold, consider, look (down), regard, have respect, see.

[נָבַט] verb Pi`el, Hiph`il look (Late Hebrew Pi`el id.; Arabic is well or issue forth (of water). Assyrian nabâ‰u is shine Dl^{HWB 443}; Sabean epithet נבט protector (?literally looking with consideration upon Mordt^{ZMG xxx. 1876, 37}); proper name נבטאל God has seen, i.e. considered Levy-Os^{ZMG xix. 1865, 231}); —

(149) There is a famous legend behind this stirring prayer as recorded in the thirteenth century work, Ohr Zerua, by Rabbi Yitzchak of Vienna. In the section dealing with laws of Rosh Hashana (Section 276), he writes, “I found a letter from Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn, in which he wrote that Rabbi Amnon of Mayence authored the וּנְתַנֶּה תֹּקֶף as a result of a tragic incident in his life.” This is the story as recorded in the letter:

(150) Rabbi Amnon of Mayence, a great scholar, a person of wealth, a handsome man of noble ancestry was under great pressure from the lords and Archbishop of the city to change his faith and adopt their religion. He repeatedly ignored them but on one occasion, in order to put them off, he asked for three days to consider their request. Afterwards he was heartbroken because he had given the impression that he might actually consider renouncing his belief in the One Living God. He refused food or drink; weeping bitterly over his lapse, he refused to accept the sympathy and consolation of friends and relatives.

(151) At the end of the three days he was summoned by the Archbishop, but he ignored the summons. A distinguished delegation was sent to ask him to appear at the court but he refused them. Finally, he was brought before the court by force, and the Archbishop demanded, “Why did you not come and answer me as you promised?” Rabbi Amnon answered, “As a punishment, you should have my tongue cut out, because my tougue deceived you.” Rabbi Amnon thought to sanctify God’s Name in this manner, since his tongue had uttered such a promise. The Archbishop replied, “No, I will not cut out your tongue for it spoke well, instead, I will cut off your feet for they did not bring you to me.” The tyrant ordered that his hands and feet be cut off in piecemeal fashion; asking him at each interval if he was willing to renounce his faith. He was finally released and sent home with his severed and mutilated limbs aside him in bed.

(152) The holiday of Rosh Hashana was at hand, and the Rabbi, dying from the effects of his wounds, was at his own request carried into the synagogue, bringing his severed limbs with him. When the Chazzan was about to recite the Kedushah, Rabbi Amnon asked him to stop, saying, “Pause that I may sanctify His Most Holy Name,” and he said in a loud voice: וּבְכֵן וּלְךָ תַעֲלֶה קְדֻשָּׁה, and thus may this sanctification ascend to You, inferring that with his terrible suffering, he had sanctified God’s Name. He then began reciting the וּנְתַנֶּה תֹּקֶף, and with the words אֱמֶת כִּי אַתָּה הוּא דַיָּן וּמוֹכִֽיח, true that You are Judge and Admonisher, he indicated his acceptance of God’s Divine judgment, and with the words וְתִכְתֹּב אֶת גְּזַר דִּינָם, and You recorded the decree of their judgments, he manifested his belief that his fate had been decreed on Rosh Hashana. No sooner had he finished the prayer when he expired. Three days later, he appeared to Rabbi Kolonymus ben Meshullam in a dream and taught him this prayer, asking him to introduce it to all congregations as a testimonial and as a memorial for him. This prayer has formed a portion of our Service ever since.

Golinkin

According to most Mahzorim and reference works, Unetane Tokef was written by Rabbi Amnon of Mainz in the tenth or eleventh century.(4) The source of this attribution is a story quoted by Rabbi Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (ca. 1180-1250) in his halakhic work Or Zarua who says that he copied it from a manuscript written by Rabbi Efrayim of Bonn (1132-1197). Rabbi Efrayim in turn says that the ultimate source of the story was Rabbi Kalonymos of Mainz who died for the sanctification of God’s name in 1096 or 1100; Rabbi Amnon came to him in a dream after his death, taught him the poem Unetane Tokef and ordered him to send it out to the entire Diaspora. (5) The story is a very moving, written in a beautiful Hebrew with many allusions to biblical verses. An English translation by Prof. Ivan Marcus is reproduced in Appendix A.

However, as many scholars have pointed out, the Rabbi Amnon narrative is fiction, not history, for the following reasons: (6)
1. Rabbi Amnon, who is described as “the great one of his generation and wealthy and of good lineage”, is not mentioned in any other source in all of medieval Jewish literature.
2. Amnon is not an Ashkenazic Jewish name; it is an Italian name mentioned once ca. 925 c.e. by Rabbi Shabetai Donolo. (7)
3.The name, in any case, sounds like an etiological name derived from the narrative i.e. he was called Amnon “kee heemeen b’el hai”, because he believed in the living God.
4. The introduction says that he “yassad” = founded or composed Unetane Tokef, but the end of the story says that he “amar” = said it, which seems to imply that it was an already existing poem.
5.Unetane tokef is a type of poem called a “silluk” which leads into the kedushah,(8) but the story says that Rabbi Amnon recited it as the cantor was about to recite the poem “V’hayot asher heinah” which is in the middle of the kedushah!(9)
6. Rabbi Amnon says to the cantor: “Wait a bit and I will sanctify God’s great name, and he said in a loud voice: ‘May our kedushah ascend unto You’ ”. In other words, according to the story, he said the introductory sentence to the poem as a lead-in to dying al kiddush hashem, for the sanctification of God’s name. This sentence, however, is not necessarily connected with dying for the sanctification of God’s name since it is recited at the beginning of every silluk!
7.The story concludes: “When he finished the silluk, nistalek (he died) and disappeared from the world in front of all”. This is a clever play-on-words, but does not need to be taken literally.
8.The gruesome punishment of dismemberment described did not exist in Germany at that time.
9. There was a medieval Ashkenazic rabbi who asked to think for a day about converting to Christianity; he was none other than Rabbi Kalonymos son of Meshulam who is mentioned at the end of the story. (10)

3) Unetane Tokef was Composed in the Land of Israel in the Byzantine Period

In the second volume of his magnum opus Otzar Hashirah V’hapiyyut published in 1929, Israel Davidson already realized that this poem was not written in medieval Ashkenaz. He wrote: “its simplicity of style and lucidity of expression are reminiscent of the most ancient prayers”. (11) Indeed, we now know that this is true:

1. Armand Kaminka and Eric Werner have shown that Unetane Tokef bears striking similarities to the “Hymn of Romanus upon Christ’s Reappearance”. (12) Romanus lived in the sixth or eighth century and was of Jewish extraction. Here are a few of the parallels as arranged by Werner:

Unetane Tokef Romanus
the angels shudder, fear and trembling sieze them everything trembles

you open the book of records; the books are opened,
you call to mind all things long forgotten the hidden things are made public

the angels shudder, the angels shudder, the angels are dragged before the throne
they say it is the day of judgment they cry: glory to Thee, most just judge!

the great trumpet is sounded upon the sound of the trumpet

they are not pure before thee nobody is pure before thee

as the shepherd musters his flock, so do You like a shepherd he will save
cause to pass, number every living soul

but repentance, prayer and tzedakah Therefore, penitence and prayer
avert the severe decree. will save you.

2. Menachem Zulay already pointed out to Eric Werner in the 1950s that Unetane Tokef is found in a very ancient Genizah fragment from the late eighth century, 200-300 years before Rabbi Amnon was supposed to have composed the poem! (13) In a recent article, Ya’akov Spiegel also refers to an early Genizah fragment and suggests that Unetane Tokef was written by none other than the famous poet Yannai, who lived in Eretz Yisrael in the sixth century.(14)
3. As I explained last year, Unetane Tokef contains the Greek word “kivinumeron”, like a cohort of soldiers being counted, which is taken from Mishnah Rosh Hashanah (1:2). It is possible that a medieval Ashkenazic poet used this Greek word in his poem; it is much more likely that it was used by a poet in Eretz Yisrael in the Byzantine period who understood the word in Greek.
4. Most importantly, many commentators have pointed out that the climactic sentence “but repentance, prayer and tzedakah avert the severe decree” contradicts the Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16b) which says that “Four things tear up the verdict against a person, to wit: tzedakah, shouting [=prayer], changing one’s name and changing one’s actions… and some say changing one’s place”.(15) This is because Unetane Tokef is based on the Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud, Ta’aniyot, Chapter 2, fol. 65b) and/or Bereishit Rabbah (44:13, ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 434) which were written in the Land of Israel ca. 400 c.e. The Yerushalmi says: “Three things annul the evil decree, to wit: prayer, tzedakah, and repentance”. Unetane Tokef is clearly based on the Yerushalmi and not on the Bavli and this makes perfect sense if it was written in Eretz Yisrael in the Byzantine period.

And, reading the popular semi-critical stuff you can google your way to you will find a lot of people talking about an early version of the prayer in the Cairo Genizah. But I've never been able to find the reference to the fragment. And I've never seen it.

So I dropped the wonderful head of the Genizah Research Unit, Dr Ben Outhwaite (thanks Ben) a note - and he sent me this. It's Fragment T-S H8.6 on the faded side. And there it is!

There is another fragment, but that one is paper - and harder to date. This one is from the Machzor of Yannai. And it's the Unataneh Tokef! from the Genizah! Davidson dates that collection to the 7th Century!

The earliest Unataneh Tokef!

(For those really interested - the bibliography of stuff published on this fragment is here - https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/bibliographies/genizah/search...)

Marc Saperstein, “Inscribed for Life or Death?”, Journal of Reform Judaism 28/3 (Summer 1981), pp. 18-26

Death, sickness, impoverishment, tragic as they may be, are not identical with evil… If penitence, prayer and charity cannot change the external reality, if they cannot arrest the malignant cancer, they can indeed ensure that the evil potential in that reality will not become actual and enduring, but will pass. They can enable us to transcend the evil of the decree. This, I believe, is the simple meaning of the Hebrew words. And this is a meaning which I can, in conscience, share with that eleven year old girl [whose mother died of cancer].

3 This is the source of the famous legend that Abraham was thrown into a fiery furnace. The Hebrew for Ur is iin, which also means fire, and is so translated here: I brought thee forth from the fire of the Chaldees.

Scripture and Tradition

The name Michael means "like unto God" or "Who is like unto God?"

Michael first appears in the Old Testament in the book of Joshua's account of the fall of Jericho. Though Michael is not mentioned by name in the text, it is said that Joshua "looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand." When the still unaware Joshua asks which side of the fight the Archangel is on, Michael responds, "neither...but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come" (Joshua 5:13-14)¹.

In the book of Daniel, Michael appears first to help the Archangel Gabriel defeat the Persians (10:13). In a later vision it is revealed to Daniel that "at that time [the end times] Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then..." (Ch. 12)¹. Michael thus plays an important role as the protector of Israel and later of his chosen people, the Church.

The Church Fathers also ascribe to Michael the following events: During the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt he went before them in the form of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night; the power of the great Chief Commander of God was manifest in the annihilation of the 185 thousand soldiers of the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib (4/2 Kings 19:35); also in the smiting of the impious leader Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3: 24-26); and in the protection of the Three Holy Youths: Ananias, Azarias and Misail, thrown into the fiery furnace for their refusal to worship an idol (Dan 3:22-25). Through the will of God, the Chief Commander Michael transported the Prophet Habbakuk (December 2) from Judea to Babylon, to give food to Daniel in the lions' den (Dan. 14:33-37). The Archangel Michael disputed with the devil over the body of the holy Prophet Moses (Jude 1:9).

MERODACH-BALADAN (Heb. מְרׁדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן; Akk. ^dMarduk-ap-la-iddin; "Marduk has given a son"), Babylonian king (722–710 B.C.E.). Assyrian inscriptions place the origin of Merodach-Baladan in the land of Bît-Iakin, a Chaldean kingdom near the coast of the Persian Gulf ("Sealands"). This is more probable than Merodach-Baladan's claim that he was the son and legal heir of the Babylonian king Erība-Marduk. In 731 B.C.E., Ukin-zer of Bît Amukkani, a Chaldean, wrested the kingship of Babylonia from the pro-Assyrian king Nabunadin-zer. Merodach-Baladan, who also had designs on the kingship, supported the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III, against Ukin-zer. He was thus able to strengthen his position among the Chaldean tribes, increase his influence in Babylonia, and forge an alliance with Elam, without interference from Tiglath-Pileser III or Shalmaneser V, both of whom exercised sovereignty over Babylonia (729–722 B.C.E.).

With the death of Shalmaneser V, Merodach-Baladan seized the Babylonian throne (722/721 B.C.E.). This marked the beginning of violent struggles between Merodach-Baladan and the Assyrians. By 720, Sargon II was preparing for war against Merodach-Baladan, who had the support of the Elamites. Conflicting reports have been preserved of this battle, which took place in the plain of Dêr, east of the Tigris. Merodach-Baladan ruled Babylonia until 710, when, through neglect and economic exploitation, he incurred the enmity of the native Babylonian population in the large urban centers which had been loyal to him, although he enjoyed the support of the Chaldean and Babylonian tribes which were largely concentrated in the southern part of the country.

Therefore, it is not surprising that when Sargon II waged war against Merodach-Baladan in 710, he was warmly received by the urban population. Sargon defeated Merodach-Baladan's armies and conquered his fortresses, causing Merodach-Baladan to flee south to Bît-Iakin, where he waited for an opportunity to regain the throne. Seeing in the widespread disturbances that arose after the death of Sargon (705) the opportunity to resume his rule over Babylonia, Merodach-Baladan, in 703, with the support of the Elamites and much of the Babylonian population, reestablished his rule there. He found an ally in *Hezekiah, who was at that time planning a revolt against Assyria, exploiting the latter's political goals for his own benefit. Hezekiah could help Merodach-Baladan by distracting the attention of the Assyrians to the west. This appears to be the background of the biblical narrative concerning the goodwill delegation sent by Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah of Judah in 701 B.C.E. after Sennacherib's campaign there (II Kings 20:12–19; Isa. 39:1–8; II Chron. 32:31). However, it is doubtful that political conditions in Palestine after the Assyrian campaign were favorable for Merodach-Baladan and Hezekiah to form an alliance.

In 703 B.C.E. Sennacherib conducted a campaign against Merodach-Baladan, defeating the Elamite and Babylonian armies surrounding Kish. Merodach-Baladan fled to the "Sealands," and from there continued to rule over Bît-Iakin and the southernmost part of Babylonia. After Sennacherib returned from his campaign in the west in 701, he waged war against Merodach-Baladan (700). The Chaldeans were no match for the Assyrians, and Merodach-Baladan fled further along the Persian Gulf to the region bordering on Elam, dying there in 694.

Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7–8) and from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. Though he is referred to in the Book of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian inscriptions indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris, who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.

A Kudurru of Marduk-apla-iddina II

from the ancient oriental teaching collection

Even in ancient Mesopotamia, high-ranking officials could be rewarded for their services with gifts or exemptions, about which they then received a cuneiform deed. From the middle of the second millennium to around 700 B.C. Some of these documents were also placed in temples in the form of small, relief-decorated steles. The objects, known in Babylonian as narû "stele" or kudurru "boundary stone", were intended to place the property rights of the owner under the protection of the gods and make them visible to everyone.

About 160 kudurrus are known today. The ancient oriental teaching collection of the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz houses casts of four specimens from the Near East Museum in Berlin.

The kudurru presented here from the seventh year of the reign of the Babylonian king Marduk-apla-iddina II - in the biblical tradition Merodach-baladan, 721-710 and 703 BC. BC – is a 45 cm high and 32 cm wide stele made of black stone with a rounded top. It was acquired from the art trade in 1889 and inventoried under the museum number VA 2663; its location is unknown.

The obverse shows the king, clearly identified by a two-line inscription, with a long robe, pointed headgear and staff in a so-called enfeoffment scene before Bēlu-aḫḫē-erība, the highest official ( šākin ṭēmi ) of Babylon and beneficiary of the land donations listed in the inscription. He is shown in a similar robe, but without shoes and much smaller. In the upper register, several deities are represented by their symbolic animals and attribute objects: the scribe’s stylus with the snake dragon Mušḫuššu for the scribe god Nabû, the omega-shaped ribbon that cannot be assigned to any deity with certainty, the ram’s staff with the goat fish for the god Ea and the spade with the Mušḫuššu for Marduk, the supreme god of the Babylonian pantheon.

On the left side, a snake winds towards the upper edge, which in turn is provided with a number of god symbols: in addition to a scorpion, the meaning of which is unclear, these are the sun, moon and Venus for the respective astral deities and the lamp on the stand for the Light god Nusku, the lightning bolt for the weather god Adad, the seated dog for the healing goddess Gula and the striding bird for the vizier goddess Papsukkal. The upper register of the right side of the kudurrus shows two further bases, each with a crown of horns, the typical headgear of the gods in Mesopotamia, and a base with a lion-dragon that can accompany various deities.

The lower part of the right side and the entire back is inscribed with a five-column inscription, which tells in detail how Marduk-apla-iddina was installed as king by the Babylonian city god Marduk, praises his deeds and finally reports how he conquered the lands of Babylon after the Devastation caused by enemies redistributed to their rightful owners to restore order. This is followed by the description of the lands received by Bēlu-aḫḫē-erība—a total of 2,983 seah seed fields, date palm orchards, and broken lands—and a listing of the witnesses who were present when the deed of gift was sealed, with their place and date.

The inscription ends with a lengthy curse that threatens the vengeance of the gods through serious illness and no offspring for anyone who seeks to destroy or alter the kudurru .

Belshazzar (Babylonian cuneiform: Bēl-šar-uṣur,^[1][2] meaning "Bel, protect the king";^[3] Hebrew: בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר‎ Bēlšaʾṣṣar) was the son and crown prince of Nabonidus (r. 556–539 BC), the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Through his mother he might have been a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 BC), though this is not certain and the claims to kinship with Nebuchadnezzar may have originated from royal propaganda.

Belshazzar played a pivotal role in the coup d'état that overthrew the king Labashi-Marduk (r. 556 BC) and brought Nabonidus to power in 556 BC. Since Belshazzar was the main beneficiary of the coup, through confiscating and inheriting Labashi-Marduk's estates and wealth, it is likely that he was the chief orchestrator. Through proclaiming his father as the new king, Belshazzar also made himself the first-in-line to the throne. As Nabonidus was relatively old at the time, Belshazzar could expect to become king within a few years.

Nabonidus was absent from Babylon from 553 BC to 543 or 542 BC, in self-imposed "exile" at Tayma in Arabia, for unknown reasons. For the duration of the decade-long absence of his father, Belshazzar served as regent in Babylon, a period which some historians characterize as a co-regency. Belshazzar was entrusted with many typically royal prerogatives, such as granting privileges, commanding portions of the army, and receiving offerings and oaths, though he continued to be styled as the crown prince (mār šarri, literally meaning "son of the king"), never assuming the title of king (šarru). Belshazzar also lacked many of the prerogatives of kingship, most importantly he was not allowed to preside over and officiate the Babylonian New Year's festival, which was the exclusive right of the king himself. Belshazzar's fate is not known, but is often assumed that he was killed during Cyrus the Great's Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC, presumably at the fall of the capital Babylon on 12 October 539 BC.

Belshazzar appears as a central character in the story of Belshazzar's feast in the Biblical Book of Daniel,^[4] recognized by scholars as a work of historical fiction.^[5][6][7] Daniel's Belshazzar is not malevolent (he, for instance, rewards Daniel for his interpretation of "the writing on the wall"), but in later Jewish tradition Belshazzar was presented as a tyrant who oppresses the Jewish people.^[8]

The Nabonidus Chronicle, an ancient Babylonian text which chronicles the reign of Belshazzar's father and also documents the period during which Belshazzar was regent in Babylon

1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the castle, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the stream Ulai. 3 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the stream a ram which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. 4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself. 5 And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 And he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the stream, and ran at him in the fury of his power. 7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8 And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up the appearance of four horns toward the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land. 10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. 11 Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and from him the continual burnt-offering was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12 And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt-offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it wrought, and prospered. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one who spoke: 'How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt-offering, and the transgression that causes appalment, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?' 14 And he said unto me: 'Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be victorious.' 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, who called, and said: 'Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.' 17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was terrified, and fell upon my face; but he said unto me: 'Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.' 18 Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright. 19 And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end. 20 The ram which thou sawest having the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 22 And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. 23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have completed their transgression, there shall stand up a king of fierce countenance, and understanding stratagems. 24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do; and he shall destroy them that are mighty and the people of the saints. 25 And through his cunning he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in time of security shall he destroy many; he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. 26 And the vision of the evenings and mornings which hath been told is true; but thou, shut thou up the vision; for it belongeth to many days to come.' 27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; then I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was appalled at the vision, but understood it not. {P}

Cyrus II of Persia (c. 600–530 BC; Old Persian: 𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁 Kūruš),^[a] commonly known as Cyrus the Great,^[4] was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian empire.^[5] Under his rule, the empire embraced all of the previous civilized states of the ancient Near East,^[5] expanded vastly and eventually conquered most of Western Asia and much of Central Asia. Spanning from the Mediterranean Sea and Hellespont in the west to the Indus River in the east, the empire created by Cyrus was the largest the world had yet seen.^[6] At its maximum extent under his successors, the Achaemenid Empire stretched from parts of the Balkans (Eastern Bulgaria–Paeonia and Thrace–Macedonia) and Southeast Europe proper in the west to the Indus Valley in the east.

The reign of Cyrus lasted about thirty years; his empire took root with his conquests of the Median Empire, then the Lydian Empire and eventually the Neo-Babylonian Empire. He also led an expedition into Central Asia, which resulted in major campaigns that were described as having brought "into subjection every nation without exception".^[7] Cyrus did not venture into Egypt, and was alleged to have died in battle while fighting the Massagetae, an ancient Eastern Iranian nomadic tribal confederation, along the Syr Darya in December 530 BC.^[8][b] However, Xenophon claimed that Cyrus did not die in battle and returned to the Achaemenid ceremonial capital of Persepolis again.^[9] He was succeeded by his son, Cambyses II, who managed to conquer Egypt, Nubia and Cyrenaica during his short rule.

Cyrus the Great with a Hemhem crown, from a relief in the residence of Cyrus in Pasargadae^[1]

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people--the LORD his God be with him--let him go up.'

— 2 Chronicles 36:22–23

Ezra 1:1-4 reads:

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people--his God be with him--let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.'

— Ezra 1:1–4

The Book of Ezra says that the people of Cutha, known in Hebrew as "Cuthim" and described as the "adversaries" of the returning exiles, requested to join in the construction of the Second Temple, and when rebuffed by Zerubbabel and his companions, they composed a letter of complaint to Artaxerxes of Persia:

And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic character, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue. Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort--then wrote Rehum the commander, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinites, and the Apharesattechites, the Tarpelites, the Apharesites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asenappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are in the country beyond the River:--'And now--this is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king--thy servants the men beyond the River--and now be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and are digging out the foundations. Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, impost, or toll, and so thou wilt endamage the revenue of the kings. Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and announced to the king, that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers; so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; for which cause was this city laid waste. We announce to the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, by this means thou shalt have no portion beyond the River.' Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the commander, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the River: 'Peace, and now the letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I decreed, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, impost, and toll, was paid unto them. Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me. And take heed that ye be not slack herein; why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?' Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

— Ezra 4:6–24

Rabbi Meïr Weiser advances the theory that the party of Mithredath Tabeel took advantage of the translation protocol contained in the document issued by Cyrus the Great's government. Essentially the protocol stated that each country in his kingdom was entitled to speak their unique language and pen texts to the king in their native tongue and have the presiding local officers of Artaxerxes of Persia translate the document. Weiser continues that Mithredath Tabeel presented a substantial bribe to Rehum the secretary and Shimshai the scribe to have them compose a letter containing an ambiguity that could be interpreted as saying that the post-exile temple builders have varied the kings edict by actively engaging in the construction and fortification of the walls of Jerusalem in an attempt to rebel against the foreign king's rule. The ploy of Mithredath Tabeel and company was successful in leading to a 14-year cessation of all temple building activity in Jerusalem.^{[citation needed]}

Following a second letter sent by the Persian governor asking the king for a decision, the Edict is found in the archives and the king gives his orders accordingly:

Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the archives, where the treasures were laid up, in Babylon. And there was found at Ahmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a roll, and therein was thus written: 'A record. In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be builded, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber, and let the expenses be given out of the king's house; and also let the gold and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought back unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to its place, and thou shalt put them in the house of God.' 'Now therefore, Tattenai, governor beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and your companions the Apharesachites, who are beyond the River, be ye far from thence; let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place. Moreover I make a decree concerning what ye shall do to these elders of the Jews for the building of this house of God; that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the River, expenses be given with all diligence unto these men, that they be not hindered. And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for burnt-offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests that are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail; that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let a beam be pulled out from his house, and let him be lifted up and fastened thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this; and may the God that hath caused His name to dwell there overthrow all kings and peoples, that shall put forth their hand to alter the same, to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with all diligence.'

— Ezra 6:1–12

The Assyro-British archaeologist Hormuzd Rassam discovered the Cyrus Cylinder in March 1879 during a lengthy programme of excavations in Mesopotamia carried out for the British Museum.^[15] It had been placed as a foundation deposit in the foundations of the Ésagila, the city's main temple.^[3] Rassam's expedition followed on from an earlier dig carried out in 1850 by the British archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, who excavated three mounds in the same area but found little of importance.^[16] In 1877, Layard became Britain's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Mesopotamia at the time. He helped Rassam, who had been his assistant in the 1850 dig, to obtain a firman (decree) from the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II to continue the earlier excavations. The firman was only valid for a year but a second firman, with much more liberal terms, was issued in 1878. It was granted for two years (through to 15 October 1880) with the promise of an extension to 1882 if required.^[17] The Sultan's decree authorised Rassam to "pack and dispatch to England any antiquities [he] found ... provided, however, there were no duplicates". A representative of the Sultan was instructed to be present at the dig to examine the objects as they were uncovered.^[18]

With permission secured, Rassam initiated a large-scale excavation at Babylon and other sites on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum.^[16] He undertook the excavations in four distinct phases. In between each phase, he returned to England to bring back his finds and raise more funds for further work. The Cyrus Cylinder was found on the second of his four expeditions to Mesopotamia, which began with his departure from London on 8 October 1878.

Extract from the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 15–21), giving the genealogy of Cyrus and an account of his capture of Babylon in 539 BC (E. A. Wallis Budge, 1884).

The surviving inscription on the Cyrus Cylinder consists of 45 lines of text written in Akkadian cuneiform script. The first 35 lines are on fragment "A" and the remainder are on fragment "B".^[28] A number of lines at the start and end of the text are too badly damaged for more than a few words to be legible.

The text is written in an extremely formulaic style that can be divided into six distinct parts:

• Lines 1–19: an introduction reviling Nabonidus, the previous king of Babylon, and associating Cyrus with the god Marduk;
• Lines 20–22: detailing Cyrus's royal titles and genealogy, and his peaceful entry to Babylon;
• Lines 22–34: a commendation of Cyrus's policy of restoring Babylon;
• Lines 34–35: a prayer to Marduk on behalf of Cyrus and his son Cambyses;
• Lines 36–37: a declaration that Cyrus has enabled the people to live in peace and has increased the offerings made to the gods;
• Lines 38–45: details of the building activities ordered by Cyrus in Babylon.^[29]

The beginning of the text is partly broken; the surviving content reprimands the character of the deposed Babylonian king Nabonidus. It lists his alleged crimes, charging him with the desecration of the temples of the gods and the imposition of forced labor upon the populace. According to the proclamation, as a result of these offenses, the god Marduk abandoned Babylon and sought a more righteous king. Marduk called forth Cyrus to enter Babylon and become its new ruler.^[30]

In [Nabonidus's] mind, reverential fear of Marduk, king of the gods, came to an end. He did yet more evil to his city every day; … his [people ................…], he brought ruin on them all by a yoke without relief … [Marduk] inspected and checked all the countries, seeking for the upright king of his choice. He took the hand of Cyrus, king of the city of Anshan, and called him by his name, proclaiming him aloud for the kingship over all of everything.^[30]

Midway through the text, the writer switches to a first-person narrative in the voice of Cyrus, addressing the reader directly. A list of his titles is given (in a Mesopotamian rather than Persian style): "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters [of the earth], son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anshan, the perpetual seed of kingship, whose reign Bel [Marduk] and Nebo love, and with whose kingship, to their joy, they concern themselves."^[30] He describes the pious deeds he performed after his conquest: he restored peace to Babylon and the other cities sacred to Marduk, freeing their inhabitants from their "yoke," and he "brought relief to their dilapidated housing (thus) putting an end to their (main) complaints".^[31] He repaired the ruined temples in the cities he conquered, restored their cults, and returned their sacred images as well as their former inhabitants which Nabonidus had taken to Babylon.^[31] Near the end of the inscription Cyrus highlights his restoration of Babylon's city wall, saying: "I saw within it an inscription of Ashurbanipal, a king who preceded me."^[30] The remainder is missing but presumably describes Cyrus's rededication of the gateway mentioned.^[32]

A partial transcription by F. H. Weissbach in 1911 was supplanted by a much more complete transcription after the identification of the "B" fragment;^[33] this is now available in German and in English.^[34][31][35] Several editions of the full text of the Cyrus Cylinder are available online, incorporating both "A" and "B" fragments.

A false translation of the text – affirming, among other things, the abolition of slavery and the right to self-determination, a minimum wage and asylum – has been promoted on the Internet and elsewhere.^[36] As well as making claims that are not found on the real cylinder, it refers to the Zoroastrian divinity Ahura Mazda rather than the Mesopotamian god Marduk.^[37] The false translation has been widely circulated; alluding to its claim that Cyrus supposedly has stated that "Every country shall decide for itself whether or not it wants my leadership."^[36] Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi in her acceptance speech described Cyrus as "the very emperor who proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2,500 years ago that … he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it".^[36][38][39]

https://www.iranintl.com/en/20211029093020

Iranian security officials uttered a sigh of relief probably as October 29 came to an end and the long autumn day in Dasht-I Murghab plunged into dusk quietly.

The day coincided with Cyrus the Great Day, the founder of Iran's ancient dynasty, the Achaemenids, whose empire-building in the 6th century BC was marked with respect for diversity and human rights. His empire expanded from Central Asia and the eastern wing of the Persian plateau and beyond to Mediterranean shores and North Africa.

Cyrus the Great (circa 600-530 BC) Day on October 29 this year was relatively uneventful. However, security measures were deliberately visible in Shiraz, the nearest big city to the monument that is the ancient King's tomb in Pasargadae, some 60 miles into the mainly arid plain northwest of the city. The date was chosen based on estimates that he captures Babylon on October 28 or 29 in 539 BC.

Security police were vigilant in Shiraz since Thursday, questioning anyone who looked like a tourist to make sure that they were not going to visit Pasargadae, said eyewitnesses in Shiraz.

Friday morning, security forces arrested the parents of Navid Afkari, whose unfair trial and execution in 2019 caused havoc in Iran. The elderly parents were arrested with a birthday cake with the face of Cyrus the great painted on it with icing. Reports from Iran say they were released in less than two hours, after being warned to make sure that they will not be part of any demonstration to mark the royal birthday tow weeks before the anniversary of the 2019 protests during which security forces killed hundreds of peaceful demonstrators.

The reason for tight security measures in Shiraz and the road to Pasargadae was concern on the part of the authorities that like previous years, thousands would defy security measures and show up around the ancient King's tomb. The Islamic Republic has shunned Iran's long-standing history of thousands of years of monarchy as if it did not exist as an empire that ruled over most of the known world.

Another reason was that Prince Reza Pahlavi, the heir to Iran's monarchy, sent a message to the nation to mark the day. He called on Iranians: "Remember the name and memory of Cyrus the Great in any which way you can, wherever you are. Show the world that you are a united, freedom-loving and tolerant nation. Every one of you should represent the great ancient nation of Iran. The world should not identify Iran with the ruling criminal cult that is running the Islamic Republic."

Darius the Mede is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as king of Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Great, but he is not known to history, and no additional king can be placed between the known figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus.^[1] Most scholars view him as a literary fiction, but some have tried to harmonise the Book of Daniel with history by identifying him with various known figures, notably Cyrus, Cyaxares, or Gobryas, the general who was first to enter Babylon when it fell to the Persians in 539 BCE.^[2]

Detail from the church of Lambrechtshagen, Germany, 1759: Daniel in the lions' den with Darius the Mede above.

The Hebrew form is believed to have derived from the Old Persian name of Xerxes I, Xšayāršā (< xšaya 'king' + aršan 'male' > 'king of all male; Hero among Kings'). That became Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu (𒄴𒅆𒐊𒅈𒋗, aḫ-ši-ia-ar-šu) and then Akšiwaršu (𒀝𒅆𒄿𒈠𒅈𒍪, ak-ši-i-wa6-ar-šu) and was borrowed into Hebrew as אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ‎ Ăḥašwêrôš and thence into Latin as Ahasuerus, the form traditionally used in English Bibles

Historical identification[edit]

Numerous scholars have proposed theories as to who Ahasuerus represents. Most scholars generally identify him with Xerxes I, as did 19th-century Bible commentaries.^[9] Three factors, among others, contribute to this identification:

1. It is agreed the Hebrew 'Ahasuerus' descended from the Persian names for Xerxes I.^{[citation needed]}
2. Historian Herodotus describes Xerxes I as being susceptible to women and in the habit of making extravagant offers to them, just as he did to Esther ("up to half my kingdom"). Herodotus mentions that the Persian empire stretched from India to Ethiopia and also refers to the magnificent royal palace in Shushan (Susa), corroboration of what is stated in the Book of Esther. In addition Herodotus mentions an assembly of Persian nobles called by Xerxes to advise him on the proposed war against Greece. Although Herodotus does not give the location of this assembly, the date – "after Egypt was subdued" – corresponds to Xerxes' third year when Esther records an assembly of Persian nobility at a feast. (Histories VII.8) Herodotus also mentions that following his defeat at Salamis Xerxes I became involved in harem intrigues involving his wife Amestris and his daughter-in-law, with whom he became enamoured. (Histories IX.108) Herodotus relates this occurred in the tenth month of his seventh year as king – the same time Ahasuerus was choosing beautiful women for his harem (Esther 2:16).^{[citation needed]}
3. Annals from the reign of Xerxes I mention an otherwise unattested official by the name of "Marduka", which some have proposed refers to Mordecai, as both are mentioned serving in the king's court.^{[citation needed]}

The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Midrash of Esther Rabbah, I, 3 and the Josippon identify the king as Artaxerxes I, and the historian Josephus relates that this was the name by which he was known to the Greeks.^[10] The Ethiopic text calls him Arťeksis, usually the Ethiopic equivalent of Artaxerxes.

קְתִדְרָא, קְתִדְרָה, קְתִידְ׳ f. (καθέδρα) a soft seat, chair with back. Keth. V, 5 ארבע יושבת בק׳ (not ארבעה) if the wife brought four maids, she may sit in the chair (need not do any house work). Ib. 61ᵃ. Kel. IV, 3 כמין ק׳ (Mish. ed. רָה …) in the shape of a cathedra (with a curved or hollow back). Ib. XXIV, 2 העשויה כק׳ a wagon seat formed like a cathedra. Lam. R. to I, 1 ק׳ (רבתי) בכל מקום … מציעין לו wherever one of the sons of Jerusalem came to a country place, they spread for him a cathedra to sit on it, in order to hear his wisdom. Pesik. Vayḥi, p. 7ᵇ (ref. to I Kings X, 19) כהדא ק׳ דמשה like the seat of Moses (v. Revue des Ét. Juives XXXIV, p. 99, sq.); Esth. R. to I, 2 קדירתא דדרניש (read: קתידרא); Ex. R. s. 43 ק׳ עשו לו כק׳ וכ׳ they made for him (Moses) a seat like the scholars’ cathedra in which one sits and yet seems to be standing; a. e.—Pl. קְתִדְראוֹת, קְתִדְרָיוֹת, קְתִיד׳. Y. Succ. V, beg. 55ᵃ ושבעים ק׳ וכ׳ seventy gilt chairs were there (in the synagogue of Alexandria), beset with precious stones &c.; Bab. Succ. 51ᵇ; Tosef. ib. IV, 6 שבעים ואחת ק׳. Y. Ber. VI, 10ᵈ top; a. e.

קְתִדְרִין, קְתִידְ׳

1. • m. (καθέδριον) same. Y. Yoma IV, 41ᶜ top כמלך … על ק׳ שלו like a king seated on his chair. Gen. R. s. 44 ק׳ דדין לקבל ק׳ דדין the chair of one opposite that of the other; a. e.

3 He showed him the hostility of the nations toward each other, in contrast with which the bird, symbolising Israel, was not to be divided but united ('E.J.).

4 The Sanhedrin sat in crescent-shaped rows, so that the ends could see each other (Sanh. rv, 3) ; hence that too can be symbolised in this verse.

5 Only by such a course could the bird — symbolical of Israel — be saved from being cut up and destroyed.

THE UNREVEALED TORAH

The word Torah is used in two senses: the supernal Torah, the existence of which preceded the creation of the world, and the revealed Torah. Concerning the supernal Torah the Rabbis maintained: "The Torah is hidden from the eyes of all living.... Man knows not the price thereof." "Moses received Torah"-but not all of the Torah-"at Sinai." And not all that was revealed to Moses was conveyed to Israel; the meaning of the commandments is given as an example. Together with the gratitude for the word that was disclosed, there is a yearning for the meaning yet to be disclosed "The Lord gave Israel the Torah and spoke to them face to face, and the memory of that love is more delightful to them than any other joy. They have been promised that He will return to them once more in order to reveal the secret meaning of the Torah and its concealed content. Israel implores Him to fulfill this promise. This is the meaning of the verse: Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth-for Thy love is better than wine."

Rashi Shir HaShirim 1:2, see also Tanhuma Balak 14, Numbers Rabba 20:20

Daniel 2[edit]

In chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue made of four different materials, identified as four kingdoms:

1. Head of gold. Explicitly identified as King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (v.37–38).
2. Chest and arms of silver. Identified as an "inferior" kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzar (v.39).
3. Belly and thighs of bronze. A third kingdom which shall rule over all the earth (v.39).
4. Legs of iron with feet of mingled iron and clay. Interpreted as a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, but the feet and toes partly of clay and partly of iron show it shall be a divided kingdom (v. 41).

Daniel 7[edit]

In chapter 7, Daniel has a vision of four beasts coming up out of the sea, and is told that they represent four kingdoms:

1. A beast like a lion with eagle's wings (v. 4).
2. A beast like a bear, raised up on one side, with three ribs between its teeth (v. 5).
3. A beast like a leopard with four wings of fowl and four heads (v. 6).
4. A fourth beast, with large iron teeth and ten horns (v. 7–8).

This is explained as a fourth kingdom, different from all the other kingdoms; it "will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it" (v. 23). The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom (v. 24). A further horn (the "little horn") then appears and uproots three of the previous horns: this is explained as a future king.

Daniel 8[edit]

In chapter 8 Daniel sees a ram with two horns destroyed by a he-goat with a single horn; the horn breaks and four horns appear, followed once again by the "little horn".

Schools of thought[edit]

Rashi's interpretation[edit]

Rashi, a medieval rabbi, interpreted the four kingdoms as Nebuchadnezzar ("you are the head of gold"), Belshazzar ("another kingdom lower than you"), Alexander of Macedon ("a third kingdom of copper"), and the Roman Empire ("and in the days of these kings").^[5] Rashi explains that the fifth kingdom that God will establish is the kingdom of the messiah.^[5]