Larsguy47

Hi 3DJay. I've broken up the Persepolis reliefs separately if you don't mind:

First of all, the identification doesn't need to be simply by an inscription below the image. It is clear who Darius is because he's sitting and obviously the King. Xerxes behind him as well is identified. Others are identified by their NATIONAL ATTIRE. That is, everybody had their own national attire. As you can see Darius and Xerxes are both Persian, they wear the fluted cap. The Medes had the rounded cap. Thus the captain of the Army who follows the Prime Minister/cupebearer is also a Mede. The cupbearer is identified by his holding a cuptowel, but his POSITION indicates he is second to the king. This is thus the position of the "Prime Minister", the highest administrative court position. As you can see, he is neither Persian nor Mede. Thus you have a high-raning non-Persian, non-Mede already in the administration of Darius-Xerxes!

We now compare that, though, specifically to the cupbearer of Artaxerxes who is depicted and we can see that it's the same person, or at least the same person of that nationality. Since we know from the Bible, though, that the cupbearer to Artaxerxes was Nehemiah, it explains why he is not in Persian or Mede attire and thus this particular garb must be the national garb of someone Jewish. In addition, the covered beard would indicate he was a eunuch. Eunuchs were trusted palace persons, particularly in charge of the person and food of the king. This is well known historically.

A little intrigue about the eunuchs:

THEREFORE, when you are looking further, you can identify other "Jewish eunuchs" serving under the king. Your references that all these are Nehemiah simply reflects your lack of experience with how the artwork of Persepolis was done. For instance this ill-informed assessment by you:

This attire only indicates this is a JEWISH EUNUCH, not Nehemiah. Remember, Nehemiah is identified by what he carries, the cup towel. Further, he follows behind the king. In addition, he would not have been alive likely into the reign of Artaxerxes III, so these are other people. Plus you can see there's more than one. Hello?

That's right. Now why didn't you figure out these were just Jewish eunuchs? Why are they all Nehemiah? So your argument is irrelevant.

Again, you lack knowledge about the images. Nehemiah's holding the cuptowel indicates his rank, his clothing only that he is a Jew and a eunuch. You've merely identified other Jewish eunuchs.


Stop making ill-informed presumptions. There's nothing wrong here except your not thinking past the trees to see the forrest.

BUT THANKS for these pictures. Thank-you! We're making progress here.

So let's FOCUS once more if you don't mind:


HERE IS NEHEMIAH WITH ARTAXERXES ALL BY HIMSELF: He is holding the cuptowel as you can see, that's his badge of office as the Cupbearer, equivalent to prime minister. But he is also wearing Jewish-eunuch attire, seen elsewhere as you have pointed out.



NOW COMPARE WITH THE SAME JEWISH-EUNUCH-CUPBEARER standing behind Xerxes at the time Darius was ruling. Question is was this the same Jewish-eunuch-cupbearer? If Xerxes was Artaxerxes then it would be. That's the issue here. Also notice how the faces specifically are destroyed, clearly an attempt to try to destroy the identities of these people. But why? Afraid this person with Artaxerxes might be linked with the same person following Xerxes? Thus the destruction of the faces is another red flag that that is precisely what is going on here.




LG47

Larsguy47

Irrelevant. You'd have to know what kind of staff was available. The Persian government was rich and could hire as many people as they needed. Question is whether this took place in just two short years or 28 years. The Jews with limited people built a double wall all the way around the whole city in just 16 years. The temple took 22 years to build. You're trying to tell me that Persia with all the resources available to it took a whole 28 years just smooth out a foundation? TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS? No way.

Besides in all your posting you didn't mention that there are business documents dated to the 4th year of the king!!! So Persepolis began to be built in the 4th year of the king. I'll try to find that specific reference but that's KEY here to all your details and you missed it? WHY? I'll track it down and post it later unless you find it.


But thanks for these references. I feel the more we ALL know about this then we can make an informed choice.

Please see my other post regarding your misrepresentation of my position that anybody who is a Jewish-eunuch is Nehemiah! The theme of the Persepolis reliefs are to show each individual's nationality. The Persians had fluted caps (i.e. Darius and Xerxes) and the Medes rounded ones. Nehemiah's attire was Jewish, but also that of a eunch. Others with this attire are represented at Persepolis as you have shown. Thanks!! But calling them all Nehemiah to rebut my position is nonsense. Of course these are not the same people, they are just other Jews. ?? I can't figure out why you missed that. Anyway, no biggee.

Thanks again for the photos, its fun to see what we're talking about.


LG47

Sauron

Says who?

So your attempt to use that to prove this is Nehemiah fails, since all such royal attendants follow behind the king.

Note to self: why bother. Larsguy makes this stuff up anyhow...

Larsguy47

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION:

The cupbearer of Artaxerxes is identified in the Bible as Nehemiah.

Artaxerxes shows his cupbearer with him in this bas-relief. Therefore, this is Nehemiah. Artaxerxes' cupbearer was a Jew, not a Mede or Persian.



Now, this allows us a positive I.D. that this is Nehemiah. The only question is whether or not it is the same Jewish cupbearer behind Xerxes, here? Is this also Nehemiah?



I'll let you decide.

LG47

spin

This is just plain ridiculous. Ahasuerus can't be Ahasuerus for some reason arcane to the brain of Larsguy47, just as Artaxerxes cannot be Artaxerxes. This redefinition invalidates all your contriving. Please try some more rational tack than fraud to arrive at the conclusion you want.

Cyrus Ezra 1:1-4:5
Darius 4:5
Ahasuerus 4:6 Xerxes I
Artaxerxes I 4:7
Darius II 4:24
Artaxerxes II 7:1

This is fine relative chronology. You can whinge about a few kings left out but there is nothing wrong with this order which agrees with the current understood chronology, is supported by all the Persian inscriptions as well as Herodotus.

You should take your own advice, rather than renaming those that you can't fit into your system any other way.

I don't know what you think you can prove by showing reliefs that you are not expert in. Oo, look, they look the same. They must be the same person. Can't be that the artist copied an earlier scene.

Umm, Esther 10:3?

Here you are again with this X is Y so it was Y not X who did it because I have a calculation which would put Y where X is now found though shouldn't be otherwise my calculation would be wrong.

As you see you are dealing with the trope of the good Jew in the court of the foreign king -- so one tradition copies the other.

I guess Josephus must have been a transcedentalist like you, able to see the reality behind the artifice of history.

Yeah, sure. I've got a sure fire job for you: how bout you sell refrigerators to some Eskimos in Alaska: you'd make a fortune.

Uh-huh.

History, and I mean history, not the gooey stuff you've got in your hair, is certainly not esoteric. It can be obscure or incomplete, but "esoteric" is not an appropriate adjective. We deal with evidence, not the arcane.

I don't see why you want to favor one translator's actions over others. The Hebrew has Xerxes, as does the Vulgate.

All it takes is a simple translation error, such as the translator not recognizing Ahasueris as Xerxes and assuming it must have been Artaxerxes.

When you arbitrarily change people's names to suit your whims, you get sweeping things under the carpet. You are supposed to deal with evidence, not change it to suit yourself.

You have to argue for this hypothetical revised history, not assume it.

Josephus used the Greek text as his source.


spin

3DJay

Your source guesses they are Arians. Give me a source that A, the person is Jewish. And, B, their name is Nehemiah.


Peace

Cege

What source describes Jewish eunuch attire for the Egyptian court?

3DJay

Prove it. The Persepolis foundation and walls, were made out of limestone, as were the pyramids. A modern limestone expert estimated it would take 27 years just to cut and move the stone, for Giza. That included using modern equipment, including a continuously running railroad.

Jerusalem was a city, with walls, before the Jews supposedly took it over.

Ummmm, yeah. He was crowned in 522, and building started in 518. 518 - 486 = OMG! 32 years, just like I said. What's your point?

An informed decision requires having the correct information.


Peace

Larsguy47

Hi Spin, Thanks, but the temple work was stopped during the reign of "Artaxerxes" at Ezra 4:11

Here is the entire account:

So you see. The temple work was stopped during the reign of Artaxerxes who followed "Ahasuerus"; both kings ruling between Cyrus and Darius II.

Now how long was the temple work stopped? Just 2 years. So "Ahasuerus" is Cambyses, and "Artaxerxes" before Darius is Smerdis/Bardiya, the imposter king.

After two years the work began again and was completed in the sixth year of Darius by "Artaxerxes" his son.

In verse 4 when it speaks of those opposing the work between the rule of Cyrus and Darius it included those other two kings. The work began in the time of Cyrus and was completed during the time of Darius.

But now I completely understand WHY this is not well known. It's potentially quite confusing for some people.

LG47

Larsguy47

You wish. Haven't you ever heard of the Eleusinian Mysteries?


Here's the quote from Josephus, Ant. 11.6.1:

"CONCERNING ESTHER AND MORDECAI AND HAMAN; AND HOW IN THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES THE WHOLE NATION OF THE JEWS WAS IN DANGER OF PERISHING.

1. AFTER the death of Xerxes, the kingdom came to be transferred to his son Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Artaxerxes.

Josephus did not get confused over Xerxes and Artaxerxes. One was the father and one the son. Thus the LXX version of Esther's marriage to "Artaxerxes" was the SON OF XERXES, not "Ahasuerus" as Xerxes.

MORDECAI is really MARDUKA the Babylonian name for Nehemiah. It is Nehemiah's greatness that this adapted story is about. Only in the original folkloric versions about Nehemiah he was (well, forgive me Nehemiah!) a flaming queen! When he is depicted it is in the most exaggerated terms, beyond being a woman. Just like the exaggerated gay characters we laugh at today.

Sure I was shocked when I read it, but you can see the clear connection. Le me tell you. I went to the Holocaust Museum in West Los Angeles where they have the Weisenthal library. I was looking up some things on Jewish sexuality and while there asked if there were any books on Nehemiah. The librarian assisted me and there was a translated folkloric version of Nehemiah. I didn't even know it existed. I wanted to check to see if this version had him married to Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes. Also by the way of all the books of the Bible found at Qumran not the only book missing is Esther! Anyway, as I was reading I got the shock of my life since Nehemiah was depicted as extremely effeminate and clearly in love with Artaxerxes! And it was lighthearted. So that when Nehemiah asks Artaxerxes to return home he is sitting on his lap and "batting his eyes" at the king!

Of course, this relates to Nehemiah being a "eunuch" of course, but I didn't think it would be so exaggerated. So when a sanitized version came out that simply split the character of Nehemiah into two, Esther and Mordecai, it wasn't that much of a change since he was already in a way the Artaxerxes' favorite "queen" of the court!

But you can see it's the same story (oops! Not you, I forgot, everything in your world is black and white, no fractions or decimals!, no curves!) The Nehemiah romantic fixation on Artaxerxes was transferred to Esther and the fame of Nehemiah as the powerful chief cupbearer the second position to the king, the "prime minister" was carried by "mordecai."

This sanitized version, was then incorporated with apocryphal "Esdras II, III" which leaves out the part of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes and only places him at the time of the return with Zerubbabel. Thus it became a historical substitute at one time being called "Esdras VI".

Here's the footnote regarding this book from William Whiston from the Works of Josephus:

See, a big controversy! Not just some "name" confusion. Again, as noted, Josephus places the history of Esther after the history of Ezra and Nehemiah whom he places with XERXES:

Oh, yeah, "esoteric" history is just nonexistent. You're new to a BIG MESS you know little about and presume to criticize me... that's interesting, Spin.

You know when you flush the toilet and the water sort of SPINS around, or when you pull the stopper in the bathtub and the water sort of SPINS around as it goes down the drain. Being the "esoteric" person I am, I was thinking how I could sort of put a "spin" on that to help explain your name. All I could come up with is that somehow your name SPIN, suggests that you're out of your depth here... :huh: maybe? As far as history, anyway!!! :devil1:

See ya around, pal!

LG47