Ahasuerus

Ahasuerus (Hebrew: אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, ʼAḥašvērōš, commonly Achashverosh; in the Septuagint and Koine Greek: Ασουηρος transliterated as Asouēros; in the Vulgate: Assuerus) is a name applied in the Old Testament to arguably multiple rulers and to a Babylonian official (or Median king) in the Book of Tobit.

Etymology

The original name was Old Persian Xšaya.āršan (literal:xšaya 'king' + aršan 'male' suggested meanings: 'king of all male', 'king of all men'; 'the dominant/manly king', 'King of Kings'). This then became the Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu (𒄴𒅆𒐊𒅈𒋗; aḫ-ši-ia-ar-šu), which morphed into Akšiwaršu (𒀝𒅆𒄿𒈠𒅈𒍪, ak-ši-i-wa₆-ar-šu), only to be evidently translated into Hebrew as אחשורוש ʼĂḥašəwērôš, then transliterated into Latin as Assuerus, the form thence traditionally used in English Bibles as Ahasuerus.

The Persian name was independently rendered in Ancient Greek as Ξέρξης: Xérxēs. Many newer English translations and paraphrases of the Bible have used the name Xerxes.

Biblical References

As noted by countless books over now millennia, there is much debate revolving around the identity of Ahasuerus. Therefore it is appropriate to examine each case (below) by there source book and their corresponding arguments.

In the Book of Esther

Ahasuerus is given as the name of a king, the husband of Esther, in the Book of Esther. He is said to have ruled "from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces" - that is, over the Achaemenid Empire. There is no reference to known historical events in the story; the narrative of Esther was invented to provide an aetiology for Purim, and the name Ahasuerus is usually understood to refer to a fictionalized Xerxes I, who ruled the Achaemenid Empire between 486 and 465 BCE. Persian kings did not marry outside a restricted number of Persian noble families and it is impossible that there was a Jewish queen Esther; in any case the historical Xerxes's queen was Amestris. In the Septuagint, the Book of Esther refers to this king as 'Artaxerxes' (Template:Lang-grc).

In the Book of Ezra

Ezra's rendition of events in the Book of Ezra finds the author naming Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6.

While commonly read in some bibles (e.g. KJV) as the same Ahasuerus superimposed from the Book of Esther, this interpretation becomes grossly inconsistent with modern understandings of the chronology of the kings of that time.^{[Citation Needed]}

Some argue that this individual could be either Cambyses II or False Smerdis.^{[Citation Needed]}

Others argue that this individual can only be Cambyses II. Such note that Ahasuerus appears between the very identifiable Cyrus the Great the Great and Darius the Persian. Since history only records the two kings between Cyrus and Darius I as recorded in Ezra 4:5, Cambyses II and False Smerdis Ezra's chronology necessitates^{[Citation Needed]} that the title of Ahasuerus as found in Ezra 4:6 can only be applied to Cambyses II.^{[Citation Needed]}

In the Book of Daniel

The title of "Ahasuerus" (see above) is 'named' as the father of the hotly debated Darius the Mede in Daniel 9:1.

Yet the individual's exact identity has been the biased debate by both those wishing to discreditTemplate:Sfn the historical authenticity of the Book of Daniel as much as those seeking to verify the validity of the same: This question of "Ahasuerus" being intimately intertwined with the identity of "Darius the Mede" is commonly recognised as the greatest historical hurdle left remaining about the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. Yet the problem ultimately revolves around the fact that neither "Darius" or "Belshazzar", let alone "Ahasuerus" are listed in the 'Uruk King List' and the academic world, lacking another clay tablet to clarify the subject are left embroiled in bias debate.

In the following sections we shall summarize academia's discussion of all points.

Arguments for Fictional

Those who hold Daniel 9's Darius the Mede and therefore "Ahasuerus" to be fiction reasons include:Template:Sfn

• The Greek Herodotus' story of the hostile interactions between Astyages and Cyrus results in Cyrus 'the Great' deposing the tyrant Astyages.^{[Citation Needed]}
• The cuneiform clay tablet know as the Nabonidus Chronicle seems to support a timeline more in harmony with Herodotus' rendition.
• The cuneiform clay tablet known as Uruk King List does not list Darius the Mede, son of "Ahasuerus".
• The general belief that at least parts if not the whole of the Book of Daniel is unreliable.

General skeptics will reason thus: without a direct listing in the Uruk King List and the exclusion of the credibility of the Book of Daniel, the tendency is to accept Herodotus' rendition and conclude that: Darius the Mede and perhaps our stated topic here of "Ahasuerus" in the "Book of Daniel", is fictitious. Those who Hill called "critical commentators" will generally reason that Darius the Mede is a literary piece created to suit the genre of a 'court contest' tale derived from precedent biblical texts.

Arguments for Astyages

Those who hold Daniel 9's "Ahasuerus" to be Astyages reason thus:

• The Hebrew Josephus retelling of the fall of Babylon names Astyages as the father of Darius the Mede.
• The Hebrew Josephus openly states that Darius as the now king of Media is known to the Greeks by another name
• The Greek Xenophon names Astyages as the father of Cyaxares
• The Greek Xenophon names Cyaxares as the brother of Mandane and uncle to Cyrus 'the Great'; while portraying Astyages as Cyrus' doting grandfather
• The Greek Xenophon states that Cyaxares took the throne upon the death of his father Astyages
• The Greek Xenophon in much detail examines the Medo-Persian allied defense against the Assyrian (Babylonian) invasion and appoints Cyrus 'the Great' as general over the allied forces.
• The Greek Xenophon relays how after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus offered Cyaxares a palace in Babylon which was accepted. Cyaxares then offered Cyrus his daughter's hand in marriage and the kingdom of Media as the dowry which was likewise accepted.
• The general belief that the Book of Daniel is reliable in matters of history.

If these sources are held as at least relatively credible in the major points, then the common conclusion is that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II. This position is internally consistent with Daniel's claim that Darius the Mede took the kingdom of Babylon while also seemingly interchangeably to hold that it was Cyrus, King of Persia and leader of the allied forces who took the kingdom in The Book of Daniel. These thoughts undoubtedly have lead some to conclude that "Ahasuerus" here in Daniel 9:1 is Astyages; Gill's Exposition calls the Book of Tobit to his aid on this point. Yet some commentators, building on these thoughts (as below) progress further to argue for Cyaxares I

Arguments for Cyaxares I

• Contemporaneous Hebrew usage of the word "son" can extend to "grandson"
• Linguistic usage of "Ahasuerus" (as stated above) carries connotations of Cyaxares I but not Astyages.

This simple position allows for Darius the Mede to still be Cyaxares II (as discussed above) regardless of the finer details and literary licenses, while also allowing "Ahasuerus" to be linguistically Cyaxares I. This is the summary position position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Bible Commentaries.

Arguments for Xerxes I

Not unlike the arguments for Cyaxares I, The Pulpit Commentary recognizing the linguistic connection (as discussed above) with that of Xerxes builds a case for Darius (the Persian), son of Xerxes the Great as "Ahasuerus" in the Book of Daniel.

Arguments for Darius I

Help Conservopedia by adding to this section.

Arguments for Other Characters

While debate exists for characters such as Cambyses II and the generals and or governors Gobryas, Ugbaru & Gubaru as being Darius the Mede, these positions are irrelevant to the subject of this page being: "Ahasuerus" in the "Book of Daniel". For Cambyses II's father Cyrus seemingly never donned the title of "Ahasuerus" and the the others never donned a title higher than 'General' or 'Governor'.

In the Book of Tobit (Apocrapha)

Help Conservopedia by adding to this section.