Part One:
Failure by scholars to make right connections
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Clearly these events from the «reign» of Belshazzar create a historical problem since we know from the ancient Near Eastern descriptions he was never truly the king of Babylon. Additionally, five times the book of Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father (5,2.11.13.18.22). This clearly contradicts the cuneiform sources that record Nebuchadnezzar as having only one son who assumed the throne (Amel-Marduk) and state that Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar”.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe
A view such as Bledsoe’s here must also take into account the Book of Baruch, however, which, too, names Nebuchednezzar as the father of Belshazzar (1:11): “ … and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and for the life of his son Belshazzar …”.
Historians and archaeologists can be peculiar in that, when they uncover an historical scenario that perfectly mirrors a significant biblical event - like, for instance, the catastrophic fall of ancient Jericho at the end of Early Bronze III (c. 2200 BC) - they must reject it as corresponding with the biblical incident (c. C15th BC) on the grounds that the dates of the ‘two’ by no means coincide - instead of their considering the possibility that the received dating system may indeed be seriously flawed.
A case somewhat parallel to the Jericho one can be found, for instance, with King Nabonidus, who - given his uncanny likenesses to the Book of Daniel’s king “Nebuchednezzar” - is thought to have been the Chaldean king, rather than Nebuchednezzar (II) himself, upon whom the author of Daniel must have based his “Nebuchednezzar”.
In previous articles I have considered some of the significant parallels that scholars have discerned between “Nebuchednezzar” and Nabonidus - for instance, Carol A. Newsom, in my:
Does King Nabonidus Reflect Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”?
and, again, John A. Tvedtnes in my:
Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus
Now, too, Amanda Davis Bledsoe has, in her article, “The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources”, drawn further amazing parallels between Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” and Nabonidus.
It has apparently not occurred to any of these three scholars though, unfortunately, that Nabonidus might therefore be Nebuchednezzar, and that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, might therefore be Daniel’s (and Baruch’s) “Belshazzar”.
For more on what I consider to be the necessary streamlining of neo-Assyrian/neo-Babylonian history, against that of Judah and a revised Egypt, see my series:
Ashurbanipal, Manasseh, Necho I-II, Nebuchednezzar. Part Two (i): Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar
Ashurbanipal, Manasseh, Necho I-II, Nebuchednezzar. Part Three: Comparing Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar II (= Nabonidus)
No comments:
Post a Comment