spin

Uh-huh.

Look, Dave, try and convince anyone that your name change game makes any historical sense.

Well, it's certainly confused you. You now want to rewrite history. But you need to stop and go to the beginning and ask why the chr*st you want to reinvent the wheel, but square. The following fits what we already know.

• Cyrus
• Darius I
• Xerxes I
• Artaxerxes I
• Darius II
• Artaxerxes II

What you want to do is to say, let's forget what we know and invent something else which doesn't fit what we know. Let's redefine Darius as someone else. Let's decide that Ahasuerus is not Xerxes. Let's say that Artaxerxes is not Artaxerxes. Don't you understand that no-one with any knowledge in the field will ever take your lunacy seriously?

History is something that works from evidence. Evidence is data related to the period that fits with what has already been shown to function. It doesn't say let's assume the bible is correct and make history fit it. It says what do we know from the period. If I haven't made it clear that you are clueless about historical procedure, just respond with another of these butterfly logic efforts of yours.


spin

Larsguy47

Amazingly, we finally agree on something. Complex history isn't something for the simple minded, obviously.

LG47

3DJay

Arian? Delegation.



Arian?



Arian?



Attendant? Hardly the proper designation for a cup-bearer, and second only to the King.



Attendants?



Servants?



Servants?



2 attendants?



Servants?

Etc. etc.

At least show us one that calls them Jews, or Hebrews...some evidence.


Peace

spin

I appreciate your desire for agreement, but what is necessary is agreement on substance. When you present some, we then might be able to agree.


spin

Sauron

My attention is not in question.
Your claims are, however.

1. Circular reference.
2. The person in the bas-relief is not holding a cup.

Your move.

Larsguy47

You're right, they are just surmising. They don't contradict these are not specifically Jews.

But the Bible confirms this if there is a positive ID for Nehemiah with ARTAXERXES. You see him there with his cupbearer which the Bible assigns to his entire rule. His influence and promince in the Persian court spills over even into Greek historical reference.

Thus with nothing to contradict this isn't Nehemiah, the Cupbearer to Artaxerxes, then we can confirm by the nature of his attire that this must be JEWISH attire. It's not unlike the pointed cap worn by Jehu when he was before Shalmaneser III:

Jehu with similar pointed cap before Shalmaneser IIIl

In that case, this would represent the national artistic expression for the Jewish people and thus we could confirm others with the identical attire were apparently Jewish as well. So what was a presumption is not a confirmation.

LG47

Larsguy47

I don't know. Is this a trick question? This is the PERSIAN COURT (just thought I'd mention that in passing, just in case...)

LG47

Larsguy47

WOW! tHANKS 3DJay!!! Great graphics!!! Much appreciated!!!:notworthy: :notworthy:

But don't let the labeling fool you. They are called "servants" only casually but these people in the court were not simply everyday servants, they were high government officials. The holder of the cuptowel in fact to represnt the chief cupbearer comes from Assyrian artwork. I'll try to hunt a comparative bas-relief down. In art, the position and rank of the individual is demonstrated by his position in connection with the king and what he was carrying. Again, the "soldier" carrying the sword is not just a bodyguard but the military captain. The Prime Minister who served as the cupbearer, who tasted and ate everything before the king did is represented by his badge of office, the cup towel. It's easy to see why someone less informed or wanting to distract from the importance of these INDIVIDUALS might call them servants. But that's just politics.



Right. Because they are just guessing.



Yes, again, because they don't know for sure. But this is JEWISH.


Right. But remember the politics involved here! Once you specifically identify this person as the CUPBEARER and it is clear who Artaxerxes' cupbearer is, then you have a huge problem explaining the possibility of why a Jewish eunuch cupbearer, potentially the same person, was already in place during the time of Darius I!!! This is why PERSEPOLIS is avoided and remains underdeveloped for the most part. But you can draw your own conclusions yourself by the artwork itself.


Thanks again for the photos. This is NOT that difficult. You see there are different SERVANTS with different attire. That is the only issue here. Each person is identified by their national origin by their attire.

You see a person following behind Xerxes who is not a Mede or a Persian. What is he? Good question!!!

We see where others of his same dress and thus same nationality are serving elsewhere at Persepolis. This confirms the nationality of this person as being the same as some of those others.

But what country is this? Who can these people be? They are not named specifically.

That brings us to ARTAXERXES, NEHEMIAH. That's because the Bible specifically confirms who the cupbearer to Artaxerxes was. The Jewish eunuch, Nehemiah. Once we see what attire he is wearing, we know those wearing similar attire must be Jewish.

Now how come, we might ask, if it is clear who Artaxerxes is, and it is clear who his cupbearer is, and it is clear that the Bible does relate that Nehemiah was a great and prominent person in the Persian court, isn't anybody trying to properly identify him when it is so SIMPLE to do so?

Why don't anthroplogists and archaeologists otherwise probing every little shard of pottery they find trying to date things so silent about something so apparent?

Why are they calling these people "servants"? Why not "cupbearer"? I've seen "major domo."

The reason why, is because once you realize this is the CUPBEARER, then you realize this must be Nehemiah and it confirms the Bible's reference to his being the cupbearer to Artaxerxes. No problem with that. But once that is done, the likelihood and QUESTION and POSSIBILITY that this is the same person behind Darius exposes the historical revisionism from this period.

So it's a COVERUP!

Esther 10: 2 As for all his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mor´de·cai’s greatness with which the king magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Me´di·a and Persia? 3 For Mor´de·cai the Jew was second to King A·has·u·e´rus ["Artaxerxes," LXX] and was great among the Jews and approved by the multitude of his brothers, working for the good of his people and speaking peace to all their offspring.

Nehemiah's Babylonian name is believed to have been "Marduka"/Mordecai.

Jewish history records how prominent Nehemiah was and how greatly Artaxerxes honored him and how he was SECOND in the kingdom.

We see who is SECOND behind Xerxes during the reign of Darius and Xerxes, and we see him continuing in this historically prominent position in these bas-reliefs. So they confirm the history of Nehemiah.

But it is SUPPRESED, calling these people "servants" and diminishing their specific prominence or identity because of this revisionism for this period. Nehemiah's presence with Darius throws a wrench into the chronology of the Persian Period, so his identity is suppressed.

BUT YOU!!! You have discovered this yourself!! You allowed yourself to see the evidence up close and now you know what I'm talking about. The Bible only allows Darius I to rule for six years. Jewish records clearly show Nehemiah returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel but living down into the reign of Darius II. When the Persian Period was expanded, Nehemiah's history became a problem. So the Jews suppressed the story of Ezra/Nehemiah and created a substitute book "Esdras II, III" which simply leaves out the part of the history of Nehemiah's interaction in the time of Artaxerxes! You need only compare apocryphal "Esdras" with Ezra/Nehemiah to see where the changes are!!!

In the meantime, once you remove the extra years and Darius only rules for six years, PERSEPOLIS confirms that since he could barely finish his palace that he started in his 4th year, nor any of the other buildings he started. HE just has a 2-year investment here. And Nehemiah has no problem being Cupbearer at the beginning of Darius I' rule and remaining so throughout the rule of Artaxerxes, who is Xerxes but changed his name!

Nehemiah with Darius and Xerxes does not help the argument this city took 57 years to complete vs only 7 years!

That's why you can't believe the inscriptions, you have to look at the architecture! Inscriptions are easy to fabricate.

Finally, what about BEHISTUN!!! Here Darius writes on a sheer cliff in three languages what he is up to in the first two years of his reign! He is paranoid about historical revisionism!!! obviously. But then what about the rest of his alleged 36-year rule! What? Nothing else eventful happened in all that time worthy of his recording it? Two years of lots of info....then nothing!

What are we to think? Perhaps many things, but one of the more obvious is that Darius died early in his reign.

The Throne Hall foundation was clearly begun by Xerxes and Darius, but finished by Artaxerxes. That presumes even if Darius didn't start the Throne Hall until late in his reign that it was still under construction for the 21 years of Xerxes' rule, and not finished until the reign of Artaxerxes. Is that logical?

On the other hand, if per Persian custom Xerxes simply adopted a new throne name of Artaxerxes, then what the Throne Hall shows is just a name change, that building being finished within a year or so after it was begun by the surviving son, Xerxes, who is also Artaxerxes.

So in final analysis, when the Bible says that Darius only ruled for six years and his son, "Artaxerxes" finished the temple the same year he died, PERSEPOLIS reflects that reality, besides informing us how prominent Nehemiah was even during the reign of Darius.

In fact, the "folklore" in Esther about why Mordecai became so famous was because he "saved the life of the king." Darius came to the throne because an imposter king, Bardiya/Smerdis was exposed. Had Bardiya/Smerdis continued to rule he likely would have had Xerxes and his brothers killed since they were grandsons to Cyrus and legitimate heirs to the throne. So it's possible that Nehemiah came to that trusted position for being instrumental in exposing the imposter king Bardiya/Smerdis, and having proven loyal to Xerxes, who was half MEDE and thus the true focus of the kingship, became the trusted personal advisor and cupbearer to Xerxes, whom he kept throughout his entire rule and displayed prominently with him in the art of Persepolis.


FINALLY, there is ONE PICTURE MISSING from the Oriental Museum for some reason!!! It's a picture of Xerxes and Darius alone over a door jamb, but it shows that Xerxes' hand is holding onto the back of the throne, face down! This suggests he is not just the heir but also "sharing" the kingship. This begs the question as to why in the larger bas-reliefs with Xerxes and Darius that his hand is simply turned sidewise, shone from the palm and the back side of the hand in two matching bas-reliefs! Why CHANGE that symbolism to something obscure?

The theory behind that is that this is really the king who later became "Artaxerxes, LONGIMANUS" and in the larger depictions his famous longer right hand was held sidewise for a better view for posterity. The geture simply pointing at the throne means little compared to his holding onto the back of the throne. But it would have been more important to depict this famous hand in its widest surface area than to demonstrate he simply was the co-ruler. So that is one more thing to deal with when we actually get down to accepting and realizing that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king as the Bible says.

Now many will make excuses galore to ignore this, but it matters not because at this point, you have to disprove the negative, not prove the positive.

Thanks, again, for the graphics!!! You're coming right along!

LG47

spin

As Larsguy47 is going to ignore simple evidence, let me supply some more:

Darius I wrote:

I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, king of all nations, the son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid.

Xerxes I wrote:

I am Xerxes, the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing many kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of king Darius, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, of Aryan stock.

Artaxerxes I wrote:

I am Artaxerxes, the great king, the king of kings, the king of countries with all kinds of men, the king in this earth far amd wide, the son of king Xerxes, the grandson of Darius, the Achaemenid.

Xerxes I seems to think he existed as did his son Artaxerxes I, who thought his father was Xerxes. Larsguy47 knows better. Don't you, Dave?

Larsguy47

The cupbearer not only served the king his wine and drink, tasting it first, he also had to eat his food to make sure the king wasn't poisoned. So "cupbearer" was just the title relating to part of his duties. Waiters bring you food and drink and even bartenders who are "cupbearers" have their towels handy. The cuptowel is consistent with the position of cupbearer.

Besides that, again, if the second highest position after the king was the cupbearer, then the position allows us to define the "badge of office", the cuptowel, to the office of the cupbearer.

Really, its not that difficult.

Your turn to be stumped again! :wave:

LG47