Larsguy47

I was talking abou the palace he started but didn't finish. That only took two years.

Nothing. This was found in the foundation of the Throne Hall. His father had already died. But his grandfather was still alive.

I'm talking about the main works. I know that Artaxerxes III built there, I'm not counting his tomb. Just the palaces, the throne hall, the treasury, the Apadama, the harem, etc. Sorry for not being more specific. Xerxes finished everything started by Darius in his 7th year meaning everything took only 5 years to build since Xerxes and Darius were co-rulers for 4 years.

SO HERE'S THE TEST: Let's see if an archaeologist can give us a reference on how long those 11 buildings would have taken Xerxes to finish based upon other buildings that were built and finished. Is this is 57-year project, or could it have been completed in just 7 or 8 years?

WOW, THANKS FOR THE PHOTOS!

Well, maybe, but doutful. The first three tombs were sculpted by the same sculptor, whereas the 4th tomb for "Xerxes" who should have been in tomb #2 instead of tomb #4 is so new the artwork is "imitated." Furthermore, no inscriptions for any of the tombs are present except for Darius. Darius' tomb is the only one specifically identified as his. Now if they waited until they died to actually have the tomb carved out of the cliff and imitated the artwork of Darius' tomb, they certainly would have followed the complete pattern and showed themselves on the face of the tomb and identified themselves. But they didn't. They were just buried in their respective tombs and that's it. They didn't bother with any engraving.



Tomb 1: Where Darius I was buried.


Tomb 2: Where ARTAXERXES was buried, next to Darius, but where XERXES should have been buried. Only since Artaxerxes was Xerxes, of course he is in the right place as the son of Darius I.


Tomb 3: Where Darius II is buried.


Tomb 4: The newer tomb where allegedly "Xerxes" is buried, an aggressive attempt to cover that Xerxes and Artaxerxes was the same king. This tomb was built so much later than the other three, that it has a different sculptor.



Oh yeah. In earlier times, but not down this far. Sure they were living past 100 or so even now, a few. But if Nehemiah was already a copyist, he would have been at least 30. To live down into the reign of Darius I would have been another 115 years. Let's see: Cyrus 9, Cambyses 8, Darius I 36, Xerxes 21, Art2 41. 145 years and counting. Regardless most consider that way too old, even for Jews and prefer to pretend that the "Nehemiah" that returns with Zerubbabel is a different Nehemiah than was the cupbearer for Artaxerxes. (yeah, right!) When the Jews had to suppress Ezra/Nehemiah and substituted with apocryphal "Esdars II, III" they clearly meant to separate Nehemiah from Artaxerxes so just wrote about his activities upon returning from Babylon. So the Jews clearly know this is the same Nehemiah as the one who was cupbearer to Artaxerxes, you need only compare the substitute history.

This proves the Jews helped to hide the identity of Xerxes to avoid a war and also because they greatly liked Xerxes/Artaxerxes who also liked them a lot, especially Nehemiah. But he had reason to because he was prophesied about in their Bible (Daniel 11:2), and about what he would do, including fighting against Greece. That's lkely why Nehemiah was so fixated on him. But as you can see from the bas-reliefs, Nehemiah was already his cupbearer even before Darius died!

You can identify Nehemiah by his special dress and his beard being covered. Nehemiah was a eunuch. Plus his position as cupbearer was the highest ranking court position, the equivalent to the Prime Minister. You can tell he is the cupbearer because he his holding his "badge of office" a cuptowel in his hand.

Now the Bible is quite clear Nehemiah was cupbearer throughout the entire reign of Artaxerxes! So it is easy to see what Nehemiah looks like because Artaxerxes greatly honored his cupbearer! Once you see what he is wearing and what a Jewish eunuch cupbearer looks like by seeing him with Xerxes, you need only re-identify him with Darius and Xerxes as the same individual!


FIRST, HERE IS NEHEMIAH BEHIND ARTAXERXES along with the same staff as before, the Mede Army Chief who carries the sword, etc.



HERE HE IS AGAIN. Note again the same captain of the army holding his sword, his badge of office. And also notice that the face of Artaxerxes has been chiseled off, likely to prevent easy identification with Xerxes!



HERE'S ONE, AGAIN, ONLY ALONE WITH ARTAXERXES. This shows just how much Artaxerxes honored and loved Nehemiah!

COMPARE those to this excellent closeup of Nehemiah, same attire, same cuptowel, same covered beard, immediately behind the SAME KING! XERXES who later adopted the name of Artaxerxes. Also notice the next staff in line is a MEDE and holding a sword. This would be the captain of the army. Thus you had the prime minister as the administrative head of government followed by the army commander. The Medes have rounded caps and the Persians had fluted caps. Thus note Nehemiah in his high-ranking position, a Jew, is depicted as neither Mede nor Persian!

Now why do you think since it is so clear who Artaxerxes' cupbearer is and we know it's Nehemiah from the Bible that archaeologists and others haven't specifically used this evidence to identify him? Reason is because it is all too clear that this same individual was already cupbearer to Xerxes and Darius! Oh, no! That's too hard to take and so now that old conspiracy stops people from seeing what Nehemiah looked like and how much he was honored.




Nehemiah's story was put into the fable of the Book of Esther. Nehemiah's Babylonian name was Marduka, and thus Mordecai who became honored by Artaxerxes (LXX has Esther married to Artaxerxes, not "Ahasuerus" which was a later revision) was the focus of this fable. But note that this honor is reflecting how Nehemiah was shown honored with Artaxerxes at Persepolis:



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 [Artaxeres, 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.



Total you're just in denial. But anyway, DON'T BELIEVE just yet. Just keep getting informed and learning about all the problems. You're doing good! And thanks for all the photos! Much appreciated.

Peace.

Peace. :wave:

Larsguy47

Sauron

Says who?

And how do you know this?


Who told you it was imitated?

Not necessarily. Copying Egyptian royal burials was a great way to have a burial tomb plundered by thieves.

So far all you've done is connect a bunch of claims like burnt-out Christmas tree lights. When do you plan to actually prove any of this?

premjan

Xerxes (Kshayarsha) and Artaxerxes (ArdhaKshatra) are actually slightly different Persian names that have ben partially conflated in the Greek.

spin

...as totally spurious.

Living in the real world.

As it is simply wrong. But obviously you haven't consulted the archives otherwise you might have tried to be a little more careful.

Please be accurate. The bible doesn't confirm "Darius the Mede", it is the only source for the personage.

Here is a text of the Cyrus Cylinder. Please show us where it talks about Gubaru. I think you'll find that yet another of your claims is without foundation.

Once you've dealt with that, you might like to explain what Gubaru has to do with Daniel's erroneous "Darius the Mede" or with anything else for that matter. And let's hope it has more to it than some of the other stuff you've tried to sell.

Herodotus is not a particularly trustworthy source for the conquest of Babylon. His Mesopotamian information is not particularly trustworthy generally.

Oh, really? Another one of those well supported conjectures.


spin

Larsguy47

I can't, I think they're in the British Museum. They the transliterations are published in here:

Sachs, A., 1955, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts from Babylonia


Quote:
But all the alternative names are known for the other two Artaxerxes: Artaxerxes II was "Mneumon," and Artaxerxes III was "Nothus." That leaves Artaxerxes I as "Xerxes."


Artaxerxes I was known as "ARTAXERXES, LONGIMANUS" called that by the Greeks because his right hand was longer than his left. Longimanus means long hand. That has nothing to do with his Persian alternative name, which he doesn't have one generally as XERXES nor as ARTAXERXES. Two different names, not a combined name like "Artaxerxes, Longimanus".

So sorry you got that mixed up. But while we're at it, of course. If Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king, one would expect, indeed, that he would be showing off his famous longer right hand, right? Well he does! Here we find Xerxes with his hand longer right hand turned sidewise behind the throne. Elsewhere in smaller depictions he is actually holding onto the throne, palm down, suggesting he's "sharing" the throne and co-ruler, of course, which he was. But his hand was apparently so famous, that in this close-up, which shows his hand in one relief from the palm side and another from the back side supports that, indeed, not only was he the same king, but his famous longer hand was getting attention and likely already famous and he's saving here for posterity in these two scenes:






THANKS, for the reference.

You misread or misunderstood. That wasn't an "alternate name" that was his Greek name that meant Longimanus, which he used with his name Artaxerxes. He is known as "Artaxerxes, Longimamus." But, yes, because of that anomally, guess who has his hand very much in display above? None other than XERXES!


This was a common revisionist practice back then when they wanted to camouflage history. For instance, in the Book of Esther, because Esdras II, III didn't cover the history of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes, they split up the character of Nehemiah into Esther and Mordecai. In the original Jewish folkloric fables of Nehemiah, he was depicted very, very, very effeminate, definitely already the "Queen of the Court" in his own way. When he asks to go to rescue his people he is depicted as sitting on the lap of the king and "batting his eyes" at the king. Nehemiah was a eunuch and it was just as funny back then as I guess now to exaggerate the feminine male. But this was sanitized in the Book of Esther by making the feminine side of Nehemiah, the one allegedly in love with Artaxerxes, said to have been quite handsome, by making him "Esther" a beautiful Jewess whom the King had high favor for. Then they used Nehemiah's Babylonian name, Marduka/Mordecai to reflect on how great Nehemiah became in the government of Artaxerxes. The original version as recorded in the LXX has Esther married to Artaxerxes, not "Ahasuerus". So we know the book of Esther is definitely not canonical or "inspired", further not being one of the only three books not cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers. Anyway, the storyline is the same. Both Nehemiah and Esther as favorites of the king and in his palace. They get bad news from home and need the kings help, but decided to give him wine to get him in a good mood first. Then they show how upset they are before the king who has pity on him/her and lets them help his/her people. In the process of this, at one point, both end up having the people take up swords to protect themselves against their enemies. With Nehemiah, it was just to protect them while working on the walls, but then that got exaggerated into an actual battle where the Jews kill off half the Persian empire in self defense.

Now, if this is too new and too far out for you, don't fret. Just keep learning more of the actual archaeological fascinations to be found at Persepolis before making up your mind!!!

Sorry, you're right. Hmmm! It was the BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE:

Here's a quick reference, but you can look up lots on the net under "Babylonian Chronicle"


Thanks for the comments. I have to research to find my other references. I do need to be more specific and accurate, I trust my memory too much.

Anyway, plesae check out Sir Isaac Newton's history where he clearly understands when Darius the Mede was born and interacted with Cyrus, etc.

Sorry.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

I'm sure Newton was trying to harmonize what was believed about Darius the Mede with the Bible. And he is certainly a good source for my intent since I just wanted to show how he was perceived historically back in Newton's time. That is, if they could figure it out back then, based upon their records, why is his identity getting so clouded now? Newton reflects the historical "presumptions" about Darius the Mede in his day and confirms he was considered a real person. That's why I quoted him. Not that he got the details about DTM necessary correct. In fact, he claims DTM ruled two years after the fall of Babylon while the Jews were still in exile and the Bible reflects it was six, etc.

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
But what sources did Newton have other than the Bible? You have not shown that he had an independent source, so he does not count as a source.

From Larsguy47:
Nonsense, you were using Newton as a source to prove that Darius the Mede existed as a historical person.

From Larsguy47:
"They" didn't. There is no indication that Newton had independent sources.

From Larsguy47:
All that shows us is that 300 years ago, the state of historical scholarship was primitive compared to today.

From Larsguy47:
No, you were using Newton to establish Darius the Mede's historical actuality.

From Larsguy47:
Whatever. Since Darius the Mede never existed, it scarcely matters.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Thanks, very much. Ezra 6:14,15 calls him "Artaxerxes" but doesn't mention any Xerxes in the Bible at all. Some have tried to insert Xerxes as "Ahasuerus" in Esther, but the LXX version of that book clearly shows her married to Artaxerxes the "son of Xerxes" and likewise, Josephus, depicts Esther with Artaxerxes following Ezra and Nehemiah whom he places with Xerxes. However, since he obviously knew Xerxes and Artaxerxes was the same king and the Book of Esther was really a fable adaptive version of Nehemiah (Nehemiah's eunuch character in love with Artaxerxes in Jewish folklore was split into the romantic and the secular where Esther is married to the king who loves him and Mordecai, Nehemiah's Babylonian name, is depicted as the "prime minister" only second to the king. Of course, you can see in the bas reliefs where he is truly second to the king holding a cuptowel, which establishes the same position of cup bearer as the highest court position equivalent to prime minister.



"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."

Based upon the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, the cupbearer to Artaxerxes was indeed Jewish, a eunuch and definitely second to the king, a positive ID! Why not official commentary on this? Esther, married to Artaxerxes is talking about Marduka/Mordecai, the greatness of Nehemiah.

But as you can see WHY they don't want to make this clear and easy identification. It's because you see Nehemiah with Xerxes and Darius. But the Jews have always known this because their Esdras II, III clearly separate Nehemiah from Artaxerxes and depict him as returning from Babylon. That Esdras clearly was meant to continue the shortened history of the apocryphal Esdras II, III was the fact that it was known as "Esdras IV" at one time.

See, the plot thikens...


Bottom line, you have every archaeological reason to identify Artaxerxes' cupbearer as Nehemiah here. But when you do, you also must presume he was with Xerxes and Darius. That causes problems with the revised history, but not with Jewish history or the Bible.

Intering, huh?

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
How about a source for this?

Or is it the same as your source for the man being expelled from the British Museum and your source that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers, neither of which you have posted despite having been asked to do so after you claimed they existed.

RED DAVE

Sven

Apparently Lars enjoys highly-paralleled trashing of his ideas.
How many threads has he going now with his ridiculous grasping at straws and twisting sources beyond any recognition? 4? 5?