by
Damien F. Mackey
Historian Paul-Alain Beaulieu (The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon
556-539BC)
has identified ‘the idea of imperial continuity with Assyria, centred on the
figure of Ashurbanipal’ as one of ‘the main characteristics of Nabonidus’
personality’ (p. 2).
Introduction
Not surprising that we are going
to find many Book of Daniel-like elements in the biography of the eccentric
neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, if I am correct in identifying him with both
Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ and:
“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of
Daniel
The likenesses between Nabonidus
and the biblical king have amazed some biblically-minded writers who adhere to
the conventional view that Nebuchednezzar II and Nabonidus were quite separate
neo-Babylonian kings. Consider, for instance, the following extraordinary
parallels rightly discerned by John A. Tvedtnes, but without his realising that
this really is Daniel’s king (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/nebuchadnezzar-or-nabonidus-mistaken-identities-in-the-book-of-daniel?lang=eng):
Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus?
Mistaken Identities in the Book of Daniel
A classic
example of textual errors caused by “careless transcribers” or “ignorant
translators” is contained in the book of Daniel. The events chronicled in the
present-day book would have originally been recorded in Hebrew, the early
language of the Jews. However, the book of Daniel found in the Hebrew Bible is
a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, the language of the Jews after they
returned from Babylon. From Daniel 2:4 through 7:8, the text is in Aramaic. [Dan. 2:4–7:8] It is in this middle section
that we find discrepancies between the biblical text and other ancient records.
These discrepancies involve the identity of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king
who first subdued and then destroyed Jerusalem.
During his
forty-year reign, Nebuchadnezzar ruled much of the Near East and rebuilt the
great city of Babylon, replete with its hundreds of temples and its
world-renowned hanging gardens. Some thirty years before his death in 561 B.C.,
he subdued Jerusalem (598 B.C.), taking its king, Jehoiakim, captive to Babylon
and replacing him with Jehoiachin. When Jehoiachin proved disloyal, he was also
deposed and replaced by his uncle, Zedekiah. When Zedekiah, too, revolted
against his overlord, Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city.
In 586 B.C.,
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, taking the remainder of its people—along
with many others from throughout the kingdom of Judah into captivity. (See 2 Kgs. 24–25.) One of the early Jewish
captives, Daniel, won favor with the king and became known as a wise and
trusted counselor.
Chapters two,
three, and four of Daniel purport to contain accounts about Nebuchadnezzar. But
only the first and best-known of these—the account of his dream about the great
statue destroyed by a stone cut out of a mountainside—is actually about him.
The stories in chapters three and four, as well as a reference in chapter five,
are actually about another king named Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. [Dan. 2; Dan. 3; Dan. 4; Dan. 5]
Chapter three
recounts that the king “made an image of gold … : he set it up in the plain of
Dura, in the province of Babylon.” (Dan. 3:1.) When this new idol was set up, a
decree went forth that when music sounded, people were to prostrate themselves
before the statue.
Chapter four
tells of another dream of the king, this time about a great tree that was hewn
down by order of God. [Dan. 4] Again Daniel was called upon for an
interpretation. The tree, said the prophet, represented the sinful king, who
would become mad, living for seven years “with the beasts of the field” and
eating grass “as oxen.” (Dan. 4:23–26.) This prophecy was fulfilled
when the king “was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was
wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers,
and his nails like birds’ claws.” (Dan. 4:33.) Ultimately, the king was
healed, returned to his throne, and praised God.
In chapter
five, the scene changes abruptly. Here we find that “Belshazzar the king made a
great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.” (Dan. 5:1.) In verse two, he is identified
as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, the king who had destroyed the temple in
Jerusalem. At the feast, a finger appears, writing an ominous message on the
plaster of the wall. Daniel, summoned to interpret the writing, informs the assembly
that the Medes and Persians will take the kingdom.
It is this
reference in chapter five that highlights the misidentification problem in the
book of Daniel. Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, not of
Nebuchadnezzar. And Belshazzar was never king [sic], but only crown prince.
….
Other ancient
records establish that Belshazzar was actually Nabonidus’ son and that
Belshazzar was never king—only crown prince. From the “Verse Account of
Nabonidus,” preserved on a clay tablet and found at Babylon, we read a
contemporary account of Nabonidus that sounds very much like the
“Nebuchadnezzar” of Daniel 3–5 [Dan. 3–5]:
“His/protective
deity became hostile to him,/and he, the former favorite of the gods/is
now/seized by misfortunes: … against the will of the gods he performed an
unholy action, … he thought out something worthless:/He had made the image of a
deity/which nobody had/ever/seen in/this/country./ He introduced it into the
temple/he placed/it/upon a pedestal; … he called it by the name of Nanna, … it
is adorned with a … of lapis/lazuli, crowned with a tiara. …” (Pritchard, p.
313.)
The one
difference between this story and the one from Daniel 3 is that the Babylonian
text says the idol was made of brick, covered with gypsum and bitumin to make
the facing brilliant, while the Daniel account says it was made of gold. But
the ninety-foot-high statue could hardly have been made of pure gold.
Continuing from the Babylonian text:
“After he had
obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built/this/abomination, a
work of unholiness—when the third year was about to begin he entrusted the
‘Camp’ to his oldest/son/, the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country
he ordered under his/command/. He let/everything/ go, entrusted the kingship to
him and, himself, he started out for a long journey, the/military/forces of
Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema /deep/in the west. … When he
arrived there, he killed in battle the prince of Tema … and he, himself, took
his residence in/Te/ma, the forces of Akkad /were also stationed/there.”
(Pritchard, p. 313.)
The rest of
the text becomes fragmentary, but we can discern that Nabonidus ordered the
slaughter of many people in the northern Arabian town of Tema and that he
enslaved large numbers of them. Column four on the tablet is in especially bad
shape, but we can discern the words “The king is mad.”
This brings us
to the account of “Nebuchadnezzar’s” madness in Daniel 4. The Babylonian
accounts do not mention that Nebuchadnezzar became mad. But it is well known
that Nabonidus did. Records kept by the Babylonian priests confirm Nabonidus’s
temporary madness in the wilderness of Tema. The records show that Nabonidus “stayed
in Tema” at least from the seventh through eleventh years of his reign, leaving
“the crown prince, the officials and the army” in Babylonia. During this time,
the New Year festival, over which only the king could preside, was omitted.
….
The Dead Sea
scrolls found at Qumran in 1948 confirm that Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, was
the mad king. A fragmentary document titled “The Prayer of Nabonidus” tells of
a king NBNY (Hebrew uses no vowels) who, while at Tema, was diseased by the God
of Israel. A Jewish adviser (no doubt Daniel) counsels him to honor God,
reminding him, “Thou has been smitten with this noisesome fever … for seven
years because thou hast been praying to gods of silver and stone, which gods
are but stock and stone, mere clay.” (Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea
Scriptures, 3d ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1976, p. 537.)
The fact that
the gods of silver and gold were actually made of stock and stone might
indicate gold or silver plating, which could identify the brick idol of
Nabonidus with the gold idol mentioned in the book of Daniel.
….
How could such
apparent errors have crept into the sacred record? ….
[End of quote]
My answer: Conventional neo-Babylonian history, and not the Book of Daniel, is at
fault.
The
great Assyrian ruler, Ashurbanipal, who so significantly influenced king
Nabonidus, has certain features that also may remind one of Daniel’s
“Nebuchednezzar” – so much so, in fact, that I had initially wondered about
exploring an identification of the two.
I
had then written:
Nabonidus is somewhat like an Assyrian king. He adopts
Assyrian titulature and boasts of having the Assyrian kings as his “royal
ancestors”. There is nothing particularly strange about his supposed long stay
in Teima in Arabia. This was a typical campaign region adopted by the
neo-Assyrian kings. There is nothing particularly remarkable about his desire
to restore the Ehulhul temple of Sin in Harran. Ashurbanipal did that.
Nabonidus is said to have had two major goals, to restore
that Sin temple and to establish the empire of Babylon along the lines of the
neo-Assyrians. Once again, Ashurbanipal is particularly mentioned as being his
inspiration.
Nabonidus was not singular in not taking the hand of Bel
in Babylon for many years, due to what he calls the impiety of the Babylonians.
Ashurbanipal (and now you will notice that he keeps turning up) could not shake
the hand of Bel after his brother Shamash-shum-ukin had revolted against him,
barring Babylon, Borsippa, etc. to him. He tells us this explicitly.
Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to
become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same.
…. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations,
too.
…. Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) …
Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.
….
The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions
of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! ….
The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known,
they say. ….
It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as
according to the Bible. … Ashurbanipal … certainly did conquer Egypt.
The many queries about whether an inscription belongs to
Nebuchednezzar or Nabonidus now dissolves.
It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchednezzar, they say, who built
the famous palace in Babylon.
Nabonidus’s well known madness (perhaps the Teima phase)
is Nebuchednezzar’s madness.
Nabonidus calls Sin “the God of gods” (ilani sa ilani),
the exact phrase used by Nebuchednezzar in Daniel 2:47 of Daniel’s God (“the
God of gods”).
Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one.
His brother dies in it.
“Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me,
they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p.
176).
….
Oh, yes, and Belshazzar, they say, was Nabonidus’s son,
not Nebuchednezzar’s son. Contrary to the Bible.
And Belshazzar was not a king, they also say.
Well he wasn’t a king while Nabonidus = Nebuchednezzar ….
reigned.
But he was later. I’ll believe Daniel 5 (Writing on the
Wall).
Ashurbanipal also apparently had a lions’ den.
For, according to Jonathan Grey, The Forbidden Secret
(p. 102):
“…. The biblical book of Daniel also records that the
Hebrew captive Daniel was tossed into a den lions. (Daniel chapter 6)
That such ‘lion’s [sic] den’ punishment was in keeping
with the times is now proven by the discovery of that same inscription
of Ashurbanipal that we just mentioned. It continues thus:
The rest of the people who had rebelled they threw
alive among bulls and lions, as Sennacherib my grandfather used to do. Lo,
again following his footsteps, those men I threw into the midst of them.
On one occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy
was digging amid the ruins of Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like
an like an ancient well. After being rescued by his companions, he
proceeded with the work of identification. How astonished was he to find
that the pit had been used as a cage for wild animals! And upon the curb
was this inscription:
The Place of Execution, where men who angered the king died torn by wild
animals”.
No comments:
Post a Comment