by
“That very night Belshazzar, king of the
Babylonians, was slain,
and
Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”.
Wonderful parallels this revision now offers
With Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) identified as Belshazzar – and the
father, Nebuchednezzar, as Nabonidus – then we find (to be explained further below):
Amēl-Marduk governing Babylon while his father is
(away and) incapacitated, and, likewise,
Belshazzar, governing Babylon while his father is
(away and) incapacitated.
And with Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar further identified with
Shamash-shum-ukin, a supposed brother of Ashurbanipal (my
Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus), but actually his son, then the apparent
incarceration of the troublesome Amēl-Marduk by his father, Nebuchednezzar, accords
well with the incarceration of the son, Nabu-shum-ukin (= Shamash-shum-ukin)
(see below).
What’s more, Nebuchednezzar is thought to have incarcerated
Nabu-shum-ukin along with Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah.
That might go a long way towards explaining why the son of the Chaldean
king would, upon the death of his father, Nebuchednezzar, exalt Jehoiachin in
the kingdom.
They had been fellow captives.
2 Kings 25:27: “In the
thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, the king of Judah, on the
twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, Evil-merodach who had become king that
year, released Jehoiachin, the king of Judah, from prison”.
A
brick discovered at Babylon with an inscription of Amēl-Marduk. Photo: ©
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Deutsche
Orient-Gesellschaft; Foto: Robert Koldewey, 1911 (Bab Ph 2302). Used with
Permission.
King Belshazzar
Despite almost universal doubt, King Belshazzar really did exist as a
son and successor of Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.
Biblically, Belshazzar is referenced in Baruch 1:11, 12, and he was, as
well, the historically verifiable Amēl-Marduk, the biblical Evil-Merodach, who,
as we have read, set free the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin.
King Jehoiachin, too, is historically verified.
The plot thickens.
In my article:
Nebuchednezzar
incarcerated his son
(6) Nebuchednezzar incarcerated
his son
we learn that Amēl-Marduk was a troublesome son whom King Nebuchednezzar
had placed in prison along with Jehoiachin of Judah, and that Amēl-Marduk may
otherwise have been called Nabu-shum-ukin – which accords nicely with my view that the supposed brother of
Ashurbanipal (my Nebuchednezzar), Shamash-shum-ukin, was actually Ashurbanipal’s
son and successor, Sin-shar-ishkun:
Fitting
Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
(3) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so
called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme
King
Nebuchednezzar’s son, Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar (=
Sin-shar-ishkun/Shamash-shum-ukin), was able to wield significant power (though
not actual kingship) while his father was cruelly incapacitated during his
protracted illness.
He must have
over-reached himself somewhere along the line, because we learn that he was, as
Amēl-Marduk (or Nabu-shum-ukin), imprisoned for an unknown period of time.
On this
troublesome son of Nebuchednezzar, we read as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amel-Marduk
Amēl-Marduk was the successor of his father, Nebuchadnezzar
… (r. 605–562
BC). ….
It seems that the succession to Nebuchadnezzar was
troublesome and that the king's last years [sic] were prone to political
instability. …. In one of the inscriptions written very late in his reign,
after Nebuchadnezzar had already ruled for forty years, the king affirms that
he had been chosen for kingship by the gods before he had even been born.
Stressing divine legitimacy in such a fashion was usually
only done by usurpers or if there were political problems with his intended
successor. Given that Nebuchadnezzar had been king for several decades, and had
been the legitimate heir of his predecessor, the first option seems unlikely.
….
Amēl-Marduk was chosen as heir during his father's reign … and
is attested as crown prince in 566 BC. …. evidence of altercations between
Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-Marduk makes his selection as heir seem even more
improbable. …. In one text, Nebuchadnezzar and Amēl-Marduk are both
implicated in some conspiracy, with one of the two accused of bad conduct
against the temples and people: ….
Concerning
[Nebu]chadnezzar they thought [. . .] his life were not treasured [by them . .
. the people of] Babylon to Amēl-Marduk spoke, not [. . .] . . .
"concerning the treasure of [the Esagila] and
Babylon [. . ."] they mentioned the cities of the great gods [. . .] his
heart over son and daughter will not let [. . .] family and tribe are [not . .
.] in his heart. All that is full [. . .] his thoughts were not about the
well-being of [the Esagila and Babylon . . .], with attentive ears he went to
the holy gates [. . .] prayed to the Lord of lords [. . .] he cried bitterly to
Marduk, the gods [..w]ent his prayer to [. . .]. ….
The inscription contains accusations, though it is unclear
to whom they are directed, concerning the desecration of holy places and the
exploitation of the populace—failures in the two main responsibilities of the
king of Babylon. The accused is afterwards stated to have cried and prayed
to Marduk,
Babylon's national deity. ….
Another text from late in Nebuchadnezzar's reign contains a
prayer by an imprisoned son of Nebuchadnezzar named Nabu-shum-ukin (
Nabû-šum-ukīn),
who states that he was imprisoned because of a conspiracy against him.
…. According to the Leviticus
Rabbah, a 5th–7th-century AD Midrashic text,
Amel-Marduk was imprisoned by his father alongside the captured Judean king Jeconiah (also
known as Jehoiachin) because some of the Babylonian officials had proclaimed
him king while Nebuchadnezzar was away. …. The Assyriologist Irving
Finkel argued in 1999 that
Nabu-shum-ukin was the same person as Amel-Marduk, who changed his name to
"man of Marduk" once he was released as reverence towards the god to
whom he had prayed. …. Finkel's conclusions have been accepted as
convincing by other scholars … and would also explain the previous text,
perhaps relating to the same incidents.
….
The Chronicles of Jerahmeel,
a Hebrew work
on history possibly written in the 12th
century, erroneously states that Amēl-Marduk
was Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, but that his father sidelined him in favour of
his brother, 'Nebuchadnezzar the Younger' (a fictional figure not attested in
any other source), and was thus imprisoned together with Jeconiah until the
death of Nebuchadnezzar the Younger, after which Amel-Marduk was made king. ….
Considering the available evidence, it is possible that
Nebuchadnezzar saw Amēl-Marduk as an unworthy heir and sought to replace him
with another son.
Why Amēl-Marduk nevertheless became king is not clear. …. Regardless,
Amel-Marduk's administrative duties probably began before he became king,
during the last few weeks or months of his father's reign when Nebuchadnezzar
was ill and dying. …. The last known tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's
reign, from Uruk,
is dated to the same day, 7 October, as the first known tablet of Amel-Marduk,
from Sippar.
….
[End of quote]
Apparently,
also – and again, right in line with my identification of Amēl-Marduk with
Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus – Amēl-Marduk had governed the kingdom while
Nebuchednezzar was away, incapacitated.
“… officials …
bewildered by the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach
to assume responsibility for affairs of state so
long as his father was unable
to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then
be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as described to Evilmerodach”.
British Museum tablet No. BM 34113
Tradition has
King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which
time he was absent from his kingdom.
For example we
read this (somewhat inaccurate) account at:
https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king
…. Nabonidus, who is
mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.),
is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of
Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This
depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he
emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the
divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for
abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where
he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a
strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. ….
As I see it, though, King
Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”. Nabonidus was
Nebuchednezzar:
Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus
(4) Daniel’s Mad
King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
It is known that King Nabonidus’s
son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the
legitimate king, his father.
William H. Shea, for instance,
has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews
University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136):
NABONIDUS,
BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE
https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf
…. Entrusting the kingship to
Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him
king.
The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar
as the king's eldest son when the kingship was "entrusted" to him,
and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the "crown prince"
through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New
Year's festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus' absence
because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince,
who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate
substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar's
name and jointly in his name and his father's name, which fact indicates
Belshazzar's importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king.
There is no doubt
about Belshazzar's importance while he governed Babylonia during his father's
absence, but the question remains - did he govern the country as its king? So
far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either
Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. ….
Given the pre-eminence of the
name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus,
I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an
illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar.
And so I have, thanks to A. K.
Grayson.
For, as I wrote in my article:
Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded
Belshazzar
(4) Cyrus as
‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I was gratified to learn of certain documentary
evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of
King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of
Nabonidus”.
This led me to conclude - based on a strikingly
parallel situation - that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar,
was Belshazzar.
I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson
in 1975):
Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by
Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by
state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave
contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed
love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed
his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and
its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by
the king's behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for
affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties.
Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar's behavior as
described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king's courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have
been considered "bad" (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best
way out of a national crisis.
Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven from men"
(Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials
(verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son, may have served as
regent during his father's incapacity. Official records, however, show
Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard
to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst
the rule at Babylon - though not the kingship - lay in the hands of his eldest
son, Belshazzar?
King
Nebuchednezzar’s son, once imprisoned (as Amēl-Marduk/Nabu-shum-ukin),
ultimately, now as sole King, died a violent death no matter what name we give
to him.
Calculating those sixty-two years (revised)
Working
backwards from Daniel 5:30-31: “That very
night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and
Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”, we
connect Year 1 of Darius the Mede (Cyrus) to the last year of Belshazzar, say,
Year 3/4.
We then add that 4 to the 43 years of the reign of
Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (same as the 43 years of Ashurbanipal) = 47.
Since Year 4 of King Jehoiakim of Judah coincided with Year
1 of Nebuchednezzar (Jeremiah 25:1), then Year 1 of Jehoiakim would bring us to
(3+47) that nice round number of 50.
Another 12
years are needed (12 + 50) to bring us to our sought-after 62. That
would take us back 12 years into the reign of King Josiah of Judah, the father
of Jehoiakim. Subtracting 12 years from the 31 year-reign of Josiah, we arrive
at Year 19 of Josiah, one year after the discovery of the Book of the Law (cf,
2 Kings 22:1, 3, 8).
This date approximately,
and allowing for all of my mathematical uncertainties, would be when
Darius/Cyrus was born.
Now, in my
greatly streamlined, revised chronology, the life Cyrus, of whom the prophet
Isaiah wrote (44:24-28 and 45:1-13), would have overlapped with the
latter years of the long life of the prophet Isaiah.
So, instead
of Isaiah having to make long-range – over 200 years in advance – predictions
about Cyrus, he was actually writing of a much younger contemporary; perhaps he
even knew about the young lad personally from exiled Hebrews.
