Sunday, February 10, 2019

Shortening Neo-Babylon


 

by

Damien F. Mackey
 

 

This article will be an attempt to streamline the Neo-Babylonian (or Chaldean) Dynasty

according to the author’s view that its present arrangement may contain duplications.  

 

 

Reducing number of Babylonian Kings

 

 

Introduction

 

Different strokes for different folks!

Conventional archaeologists and historians can study the striking situation of Early Bronze III (EB III) Jericho, with its fallen walls as if by an earthquake, and conclude that, despite the fact that the whole scene is strongly reminiscent of the account given about the city of Jericho in the Book of Joshua, this could not be the actual biblical event. EB III, dated to c. 2200 BC, is far too early, they say, for the Conquest by the Israelites, which, by any estimate, would be about a millennium later than EB III.

They go further than this.

Because of the obvious similarities with EB III, the biblical account must have been based upon this real historical (EB III) collapse of Jericho, and so could not itself have been an actual historical event.

Revisionist historians, however, will argue that the supposedly two schemes, EB III Jericho, and the biblical account of Joshua, dovetail into one.

For more, see my article:

 

Joshua's Jericho

 

https://www.academia.edu/31535673/Joshuas_Jericho

 

A somewhat parallel set of circumstances may exist with relation to historical assessments of King Nabonidus of Babylon. For historians are coming to the conclusion that it is this king, rather than Nebuchednezzar II, who best matches the descriptions of the “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel. Amanda David Bledsoe, for instance, argues along these very lines (“The Identity of the «Mad King» of Daniel 4 in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources”: https://www.academia.edu/1479653/The_Identity_of_the_Mad_King_of_Daniel_4_in_the_Light_of_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Sources):

 

The fourth chapter of the book of Daniel recounts a story of a Babylonian king who has a frightening dream, which only a Jewish exile is able to interpret for him. In his dream, and in the subsequent narrative, he is transformed into an animal-like being who lives away from human society for a period of seven years. Ultimately both his wits and his throne are restored to him and he praises the God of the Jews. The bizarre events of this passage make it one of the most puzzling in the entire Hebrew Bible. For generations, scholars have struggled to link Daniel 4 with historical evidence from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), with whom it is explicitly associated. However, with the discovery and publication of numerous cuneiform sources from the ancient Near East, many scholars have reconsidered this passage in Daniel, looking instead to the events of the reign of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (556–539 BCE).

In this paper I show how the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition, attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals. I begin by looking at the background of Daniel 4, examining descriptions of both Nebuchadnezzar’s and Nabonidus’s reigns. Next I survey the connections between the events of Daniel 4 and other sources, including a stela discovered at Harran documenting Nabonidus’s sojourn to Teima, records documenting the lineage of the Neo-Babylonian kings, various other cuneiform inscriptions relating to the reign of Nabonidus, and descriptions of Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. In the final section of this paper, I use these sources to illustrate the Danielic editors’ purpose in incorporating the Nabonidus tradition into the narrative of Daniel 4 and possible reasons for their attribution of this material to Nebuchadnezzar.

[End of quote]

 

So, “the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition, attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals”. This is a typical sort of conclusion. As with the Jericho scenario, the biblical text gets relegated to second place with regard to its reliability. However, just as there is an alternative way of considering the Jericho situation - greatly strengthened now by studies demanding a radical revision of the archaeological and historical data - so may one likewise apply a biblically-favourable interpretation to the Nabonidus-like “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel. And especially considering that Nabonidus had, just like Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”, a son called “Belshazzar”.

Though the latter is thought never to have been a king.

Rather than having to have Daniel “reworked”, as according to Bledsoe’s estimate, I suggest a radically different approach, one that I have already broached in my:

 


 


 

My proposed solution would be that the reason why King Nabonidus comes across as being very much like Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” is because Nabonidus was the historical Nebuchednezzar II.

 

Cutting Down to Size

the Babylonian Kings

 

Conventionally, the neo-Babylonian succession is presented like this (the dates will need to be revised considerably):

 

·       Nabu-apla-usur 626 – 605 BC

·       Nabu-kudurri-usur II 605 – 562 BC

·       Amel-Marduk 562 – 560 BC

·       Neriglissar 560 – 556 BC

·       Labaši-Marduk 556 BC

·       Nabonidus 556 – 539 BC

 

And biblically-minded scholars wrack their brains to find ways to fit the Book of Daniel within this conventional structure.

But it cannot possibly be done. The succession of Babylonian kings given in Daniel is quite clear: (i) Nebuchednezzar, then (ii) Belshazzar, the last king (note) of the dynasty, immediately followed by (iii) Darius the Mede. 

Following upon my new suggestion, that Nebuchednezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur) II is to be identified with Nabonidus, then it becomes simply a matter of ‘taking up the hem’ like so:

 

·       Nabu-apla-usur

·       Labaši-Marduk

·       Nabu-kudurri-usur II = Nabonidus

·       Amel-Marduk = Neriglissar = Belshazzar

 

The dynasty now concludes with Belshazzar, who, as Neriglissar, assumes the status of king - he being preceded by Nebuchednezzar.

But even this presumed succession will need some further consideration.

 

Such is basically my proposed outline for a revised Neo-Babylonian dynasty, with details to be filled in as this series proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

The Book of Daniel is commonly charged with all sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history, as we are finding, rather than of the book itself.

 

 

 

Siegfried H. Horn has identified, in his article “New light on Nebuchadnezzar’s madness”, https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/04/new-light-on-nebuchadnezzars-madness

“six main arguments” that critics toss up as ‘evidence’ that the Book of Daniel is historically inaccurate and a late product. Thus he writes:

 

In 1870 higher criticism dominated Biblical scholarship in Germany. Most scholars believed that the book of Daniel was a product of the Maccabean period of the second century B.C. But some German scholars dissented. One of these was Otto Zockler, who in his commentary on the book of Daniel published in J. P. Lange's Bible Commentary …. capably defended the authenticity, historicity, and sixth-century origin of Daniel.

Confronting Zockler were six main arguments that critical scholars considered to be proof of a late-origin Daniel. These were as follows:

 

1. Aramaic, in which parts of the book of Daniel were written, was a late Semitic language not used in literature of the sixth century B.C.

2. Existence of three Greek words in Daniel 3 indicates that the book was written in the Hellenistic period, after Alexander the Great had brought Greek culture and language to the Oriental world.

3. Chronological contradictions between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 show that the writer of Daniel was so far removed from the historical events he described that he made mistakes.

4. Mention of Belshazzar as last king of Babylon proves that the story is legendary. All ancient sources present Nabonidus as Babylon's last king and never even mention Belshazzar.

5. Ancient historians never mention Darius the Mede as king of Babylon, as Daniel 6 does; thus the book of Daniel is not a trustworthy historical source.

6. Nebuchadnezzar's madness of seven years, recorded in Daniel 4 but in no other ancient source, is further proof of the legendary nature of the book.

 

Today, the first four arguments no longer pose problems for the conservative Bible scholar. The solutions, however, obtained through archeological discoveries, are different than Zockler thought they would be. ….

[End of quote]

 

Horn’s last comment here, if meant to be considered within the context of the standard Neo-Babylonian history, may be rather optimistic. The Book of Daniel, like other biblical books, cannot be properly explained, historically, within a seriously faulty conventional history.

 

The critics are entirely right within conventional terms: There is no last king, Belshazzar!

 

But what I shall be arguing in this present series is that the neo-Babylonian dynasty, customarily numbering six kings - as we learned in Part One (a):


The king-list needs to be radically shortened.

And, marvellously, we shall find that the last king of the dynasty was in fact a real historical Belshazzar, perfectly in accord with the Book of Daniel. 

 

Horn continues:

 

But what of the last two arguments for a late-dated Daniel? Have no discoveries been made that shed light on Darius the Mede or Nebuchadnezzar's madness?

The problem of Darius has at least a reasonable solution, which I suggested twenty-three years ago. It has satisfied some conservative scholars, though others feel the answer lies elsewhere. Reference to the September, 1959, Ministry, page 44, or The SDA Bible Commentary, volume 4, pages 814-817, will refresh your memory on the tentative explanation of who this Darius may have been.

[End of quote]

 

Whatever Horn’s proposed solution for “Darius the Mede” may be, a consideration of that subject - which I believe will find its natural explanation in my Neo-Babylonian revision - I shall leave for another time. Where I find that Horn becomes particularly interesting and relevant is in this next section of his article, which I give here in full with occasional comments:

 

The madness of Nebuchadnezzar has been a disturbing enigma, because no extra-Biblical records mention a mental derangement of the great Babylonian king. In defense of the historicity of the story, the conservative Bible student has pointed out, of course, that very little is known of any aspect of Nebuchadnezzar's life after his tenth year of reign. And, it might be added, it is not likely that many kings of any age would advertise such a humiliating disability.

 

Comment: The dearth of evidence pertaining to the life of Nebuchednezzar II must be due, partly, to failure by historians to recognise that he has a strong alter ego in (at least) Nabonidus. (See my “Nebuchednezzar” article above).

Horn continues:

 

Furthermore, lack of contemporary records does not mean some thing didn't happen. For example, we have no such records of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre a 13- year ordeal, lasting from 585 to 572 B.C.—except what Ezekiel tells us in his book (see Eze. 26:1-14; 29:17, 18). Yet five cuneiform tablets dating from 569 to 563 B.C. show that Tyre was in the hands of Nebuchadnezzar after 570 B.C. Another broken tablet with no date extant refers to food provided to "the king and his soldiers for their march against Tyre," a likely reference to the siege, during which the Babylonians sent supplies to their troops besieging the Phoenician city. 1

Another example of the lack of documentary records of Nebuchadnezzar's activities relates to a military campaign against Egypt in his later years. The prophets Jeremiah (43:10-13) and Ezekiel (29:19, 20) predicted such a campaign, but only a small fragment of a cuneiform tablet confirms that it occurred. The few broken lines of the fragment, owned by the British Museum, include information that in his "37th year [568/567 B.C.] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Bab[ylon], marched against] Egypt to deliver a battle. [Ama]sis of Egypt [called up his a]rm[y]." Amasis was defeated, despite his large force of chariots and horsemen, and help of allies. 2

Whatever the reason, the Babylonians did not leave us many records of their martial exploits and political accomplishments. Professor Eckhard Unger comments: "One of the most striking contrasts between Assyria and Babylonia is that the Assyrian monarchs brag with great glee about their military activities in their records while this was frowned upon by the Babylonians.

 

Comment: If so modest, then what about this accusation against Nabonidus:

 

He would stand up in the assembly (and) praise him[self]: “I am wise. I am knowledgeable. I have seen hid[den things]. (Although) I do not know the art of writing, I have seen se[cret things]. …”. [?]

 

The “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel was no shrinking violet either.

Horn continues:

 

This Babylonian idiosyncrasy [sic] is already observed with regard to the neo-Sumerian King Gudea of Lagash . . . who was a mighty ruler . . . but whose inscriptions speak only of his pious works and building activities.

Since other documents were not existing, this king was for a long time considered as insignificant. Exactly the same could be said of Nebuchadnezzar II, if we were not in formed by outside records, especially the Bible, about his military activities, which his own records pass over in silence. This is the reason that it is difficult to check on the biblical data about Nebuchadnezzar." 3

It should not surprise us, then, if we find no corroboration of Nebuchadnezzar's mental illness in Babylonian records. And, when we consider the humiliating nature of the affliction, the likelihood of the royal archives' preserving documentation of the event seems most unlikely. But the unlikely may have occurred! A recently published Babylonian cuneiform text seems to shatter the silence about Nebuchadnezzar's illness. The tablet is in the British Museum, No. BM 34113 (sp 213), and was published by A. K. Grayson in 1975.4 Unfortunately, it is merely a fragment, and the surviving text is not as clear as we would like it to be. But the lines that may refer to the king's illness are exciting nevertheless:

2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered

3 His life appeared of no value to [him, ......]

5 And (the) Babylon(ian) speaks bad counsel to Evil-merodach [....]

6 Then he gives an entirely different order but [. . .]

7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tier(s) - - -]

11 He does not show love to son and daughter [. . .]

12 ... family and clan do not exist [. . .]

14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]

16 He prays to the lord of lords, he raised [his hands (in supplication) (. . .)]

17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] gods [......]

18 His prayers go forth to [......]

Let's attempt to decipher the text. Brackets [ ] indicate which words or letters are broken from the original tablet and have been supplied by the translator. Words or letters in parentheses ( ) are supplied by the translator for better understanding of the English rendering. The numerals preceding the lines of text indicate which lines of the tablet are quoted. The missing lines are either too badly preserved to make sense or not understandable, and therefore make no contribution to a better understanding of the text as a whole. The end of every line is missing and the beginnings of lines 2 and 12 are broken off—though there is no doubt that the reconstruction of the beginning of line 2 is correct. Evilmerodach of line 5 was the eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar and his successor on the throne. He is mentioned in the Bible as having released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison after his accession to the throne (2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). Esagil in line 14 is the name of the principal temple complex of Babylon, in which the ziggurat, a 300-foot high temple tower, stood. The temple was dedicated to the chief god, Marduk, mentioned in line 17 of the tablet.

 

The text definitely refers to Nebuchadnezzar in lines 2 and 3, but it is not certain to whom lines 6 and on refer. Professor Grayson, editor of the tablet, suggests that "the main theme seems to be the improper behaviour of Evil-merodach, particularly with regard to Esagil, followed by a sudden and unexplained change of heart and prayers of Marduk." However, another interpretation of the poorly preserved text seems plausible, especially if read in the light of Daniel 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year period of mental derangement.

 

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 this is the very same situation that we have found with 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.

 

The inevitable (for me) conclusion now is that:

Evil-merodach (or Awel-Marduk) is Belshazzar!

 

Horn laments:

 

It is regrettable that this extremely important text has come down to us in such a fragmentary condition. But we can be grateful that at least a portion of it has been preserved, since it seems to shed light on a Biblical narrative otherwise unvindicated by extra-Biblical documentation. ....

 

Comment: However, once all of the bits and pieces have been properly assembled in a revised context, then we must assuredly end up with a far more complete picture of the reign of this mighty and imperialistic Neo-Babylonian monarch, Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’.

 

 

 

 

How the Kings Line Up

 

 

“The reigns of a number of the monarchs of the Neo-Babylonian period are copiously attested either through the Babylonian Chronicle or numerous building inscriptions. Neriglissar, Amêl-Marduk and Labaši-Marduk are clearly exceptions. To date, no chronicle detailing any military campaign Amêl-Marduk or Labaši-Marduk may have conducted has ever been published”.

 

Ronald H. Sack

 

 

Tentatively I had, in Part One (a): https://www.academia.edu/38307375/Neo-Babylonian_Dynasty_Needs_Hem_Taken_Up_._Part_One_a_Reducing_number_of_Babylonian_Kings re-cast the conventionally six Neo-Babylonian kings as a potential four.

Thus:

 

·       Nabu-apla-usur

·       Labaši-Marduk

·       Nabu-kudurri-usur II = Nabonidus

·       Amel-Marduk = Neriglissar = Belshazzar

 

(Here I had been following an older version of this series, which is here being up-dated).

But this now needs even further reduction in light of my recent inclusion of Nabu-apla-usur (i.e. Nabopolassar), thought to have been the father of Nebuchednezzar II, amongst the various alter egos of Nebuchednezzar II himself: See my series:

 

"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome": dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part One: Brief Introductory Section

 


 

"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome": dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Two: Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses; Artaxerxes III

 


 

"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome": dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Three: Esarhaddon a builder of Babylon become strangely ill

 


 

"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome" : dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Four: Archaeological precision about foundation alignment

 


 

Consequently, I would now finalise the (above reduced) neo-Babylonian list as simply consisting of two kings:

 


·       Labaši-Marduk =Amel-Marduk = Neriglissar = Belshazzar

namely:

 

o      Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ and

o      his son, Belshazzar.

 

Can this be squared with the historical records?

 

To test this, I shall be relying largely upon Ronald H. Sack’s book, Neriglissar: King of Babylon (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1994). Beginning on p. 1, section “The Cuneiform Sources”, Sack will reveal the paucity of primary evidence associated with certain of these kings:

 

 

The reigns of a number of the monarchs of the Neo-Babylonian period are copiously attested either through the Babylonian Chronicle or numerous building inscriptions. Neriglissar, Amêl-Marduk and Labaši-Marduk are clearly exceptions. To date, no chronicle detailing any military campaign Amêl-Marduk or Labaši-Marduk may have conducted has ever been published. Likewise, only a small number of economic texts datable to the reign of Labasi-Marduk may have been published and, in the case of Amêl-Marduk, the few vase fragments which do serve no useful purpose other than that of confirming that Amêl-Marduk was the son of Nebuchednezzar. Fortunately, several cylinder inscriptions and a short chronicle survive from Neriglissar’s reign. While the language of the cylinders is quite formulaic, it nevertheless details building activity in Babylon and elsewhere during the king’s reign.

[End of quote]

 

Not much to get excited about here!

 

It also needs to be noted that, although the Babylonian Chronicle records Assyro-Babylonian history going as far back as c. 750 BC (conventional dating), it was probably not written until the Achaemenid period of c. 550-400 BC (conventional dating), almost a century after the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty.

By p. 4, Sack has already turned to “The Classical Sources”, “numerous secondary sources in Greek from the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods”. The earliest of these will be Megasthenes, who does not arrive on the scene until much later than the Neo-Babylonian kings, during the reign of Seleucus I Nicator (312-280 BC, Sack’s dating).

Whilst one will encounter a fair amount of sameness amongst the Classical writers, and the Hebrew, late Roman and Medieval sources provided by Sack, they will sometimes surprise with an unexpected, interesting new detail, or by omitting a king from their list, or by recording a longer or shorter length of reign for a given ruler.

 

 

 

 

Identifying the just two relevant kings

 

 

Belshazzar …. The latter’s Babylonian name Bel-shar-usur finds its

compatible partner in Neriglissar’s Babylonian name, Nergal-shar-usur.

 

 

 

Nabopolassar (Nabu-apla-usur)

 

Previously I had left this king in his conventional place, as the father of Nebuchednezzar II. More recently, though, I have had cause to reconsider this.

 

As a result of my "Nebuchednezzar Syndrome" series - refer back to Part Two: https://www.academia.edu/38313498/Neo-Babylonian_Dynasty_Needs_Hem_Taken_Up_._Part_Two_How_the_Kings_Line_Up

I have determined that Nabopolassar was simply another alter ego for Nebuchednezzar II.

Virtually every source-list mentions Nabopolassar, and places him at the top of the list, and attributes to him a reign of 20-21 years.

What must be addressed from my revised point of view, however - according to which Nabopolassar’s son and successor was Nebuchednezzar II - is why the latter’s alter ego, Nabonidus (my view), claimed not to have expected to rule, and is recorded as having a father named, not Nabu-apla-usur, but Nabu-balatsu-iqbi.

 

Nebuchednezzar II

 

Nebuchednezzar II sits properly at least in relation and his son-successor, Awel-Marduk or Evil-Marduk.

 

Evil-Marduk

 

Then follow in the king-lists two more names:

 

Neriglissar

 

and

 


 

who are simply duplicates of Evil-Marduk, who is – as we have found – the biblical “Belshazzar”. The latter’s Babylonian name Bel-shar-usur finds its compatible partner in Neriglissar’s Babylonian name, Nergal-shar-usur.

 

Finally, we arrive at the name,

 

Nabonidus

 

which king I have identified as Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”:

 

 


 


 

My argument in this article is that the reason why King Nabonidus comes across as being very like Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” is because Nabonidus was the historical Nebuchednezzar II.

 

The biblical “Belshazzar” follows Nabonidus as the latter’ son, Belshazzar, the last of the only two Neo-Babylonian kings.



For my revision of the Judaean kings in relation to the revised neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian kings, see e.g. my article:

 

'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah

 


 

I once (prior to this revision) wrote to Johnny Zwick of CIAS www.specialtyinterests.net/

 

“My connecting of Hezekiah of Judah with Josiah went down like a lead balloon amongst the few to whom I sent it. (See Pope’s valuable effort at: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.htm)

So here is the next phase. I would not actually call it a bombshell. More like a Third World War.

Nabonidus is 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.

So, basically Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal during his early reign. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.

Now, if Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal (and I am now pretty much convinced that he must be), then Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) can only be Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign. Nebuchednezzar is the Babylonian face, while Ashurbanipal is the Assyrian face. The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! Add to this paltry number all of the depictions of Ashurbanipal.

The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. Add Ashurbanipal (whose lack also in places is supplemented in turn by Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus).

It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. Just add Ashurbanipal who 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).

….

King Manasseh of Judah must now be one of Josiah's ne'er do well sons ….

If so, he must have survived for decades.

Anyway, I'll send you an article in due time.

God bless

Damien Mackey.

 

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/Ashurbanipal long reigned.

But he was later. I'll believe Daniel 5 (Writing on the Wall).

 

So, now, boiling down the six listed neo-Babylonian kings to just the two, Nebuchednezzar II and Evil-Marduk, we find that:

 

(i)              Nebuchednezzar II = Nabopolassar = Nabonidus; and

(ii)            Evil-Marduk = Neriglissar = Labaši-Marduk = Belshazzar.

 


No comments:

Post a Comment