Nebuchednezzar, so it seems, incarcerated his very own son

by Damien F. Mackey With the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar, we arrive at the first of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. What is a Babylonian king doing fighting against an obviously powerful Assyrian king, Ashur-resha-ishi? Two outstanding problems in particular have confronted me in the course of my complex revision and multi-identifications of the king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ (so-called II). Before recalling both of these, let me re-state who else I think King Nebuchednezzar was. Obviously he was the all-powerful king, “Nebuchednezzar” (Nebuchadnezzar), of the Book of Daniel. Or, was he? Some biblical scholars claim that King Nabonidus, rather than King Nebuchednezzar, more accurately fits the character, “Nebuchednezzar”, who is prominent in the first part of the Book of Daniel: Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” a better fit for King Nabonidus? (2) Rethinking Daniel's Nebuchadnezzar as Nabonidus? That is no problem for me, however, as I have tied up, all at once, Nebuchednezzar-as- Nabonidus-as-Daniel’s-“Nebuchednezzar”. For example: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus (3) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Conclusion 1: King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ was both the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel and was King Nabonidus. Now, with the ‘folding’ of ‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian history into ‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian history, as indicated as being most necessary by many revisionists, and as deemed a certainty by articles of mine such as: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (3) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Nebuchednezzar so-called I can be ‘folded’ into his namesake, Nebuchednezzar so-called II: The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (3) Harmonizing Nebuchednezzar I with Later Contemporaries If this identification of mine is correct, it means that one can no longer talk about a Nebuchednezzar I, or II, since a II pre-supposes a I (thus, e.g., pope Francis cannot yet be referred to as Francis I). With the so-called ‘Middle’ Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar, we arrive at the first of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. What is a Babylonian king doing fighting against an obviously powerful Assyrian king, Ashur-resha-ishi? Assyria as a nation is supposed to have been non-existent by the time of the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar. It took me some time to come to grips with this apparent anomaly. One may start to question the validity of one’s revision in the face of a conundrum such as this. My problem was not so much with having a strong and aggressive Assyria at the time of King Nebuchednezzar, for I had confidently identified Nebuchednezzar with the potent king, Esarhaddon, who had definitely ruled Assyria: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (5) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was more a case of who was this Ashur-resha-ishi with whom Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) was engaged in such dire conflict? Obviously - though it took me some time to arrive at this obvious in the context of my revision - Ashur-resha-ishi was one of the two brothers, patricides, with whom Esarhaddon was engaged in civil war. Obviously Ashur-resha-ishi was “Sharezer”: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib (5) Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from this vital correspondence, Esarhaddon marvellously fits Nebuchednezzar in, e.g., his paranoia and protracted illness, his potency, as a builder of great Babylon, and in his assault upon Egypt. Conclusion 2: King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ was Nebuchednezzar so-called I, and was also Esarhaddon, who ruled Assyria and who built Babylon. Finally, with Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus) also identified as Ashurbanipal, we arrive at the second of the “two outstanding problems” as referred to at the beginning of this article. Who is the Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylon, sometimes most troublesome for Assyria, who is prominent during a substantial phase of the reign of Ashurbanipal, and who is thought to have been the brother of Ashurbanipal? Only recently have I finally come up with a solution to this tricky matter. Shamash-shum-ukin, thought to have been the brother of Ashurbanipal, was actually his son, just as Sin-shar-ishkun, thought to have been the brother of Ashur-Etil-Ilani, was actually his son. It was the same father: Esarhaddon-Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli/Ashurbanipal/Ashur-Etil-Ilani: Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani (6) Esarhaddon, re-named Ashur-Etil-Ilani-Mukin-Apli, and then duplicated by historians as Ashur-Etil-Ilani | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and the same son: Sin-shar-ishkun/Shamash-shum-ukin: Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme (7) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Again, this was King Nebuchednezzar and his son, Amēl-Marduk/Belshazzar. Ashurbanipal fits very well as Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus in such ways as described in my articles: Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar (7) Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (7) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 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 – rings a bell? Shamash-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 II (r. 605–562 BC).[1] It seems that the succession to Nebuchadnezzar was troublesome and that the king's last years were prone to political instability.[3] 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.[4] Amēl-Marduk was chosen as heir during his father's reign[5] and is attested as crown prince in 566 BC.[6] Amel-Marduk was not Nebuchadnezzar's oldest son—another of Nebuchadnezzar's sons, Marduk-nadin-ahi, is attested in Nebuchadnezzar's third year as king (602/601 BC) as an adult in charge of his own lands.[7] Given that Amel-Marduk is attested considerably later, it is probable that Marduk-nadin-ahi was Nebuchadnezzar's eldest son and legitimate heir,[7] making the reason for the selection of Amēl-Marduk mainly since Marduk-nadin-ahi is attested as living until as late as 563 BC.[8] Additionally, evidence of altercations between Nebuchadnezzar and Amel-Marduk makes his selection as heir seem even more improbable.[5] 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:[5] 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 [. . .].[9] 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.[10] 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.[10] 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.[1] 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.[10][1] Finkel's conclusions have been accepted as convincing by other scholars,[10][1] and would also explain the previous text, perhaps relating to the same incidents.[10] 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.[11] 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.[3] 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.[1] 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.[12] [End of quote] 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. As BELSHAZZAR (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar … was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”. As AMĒL-MARDUK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amel-Marduk “Amēl-Marduk's reign abruptly ended in August 560 BC [sic] … after barely two years as king … when he was deposed and murdered by Neriglissar, his brother-in-law [who was Darius the Mede], who then claimed the throne”. As SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/ashurbanipal “… Shamash-shum-ukin committed suicide in his burning palace”. https://dbpedia.org/page/Shamash-shum-ukin “Shamash-shum-ukin died, though the exact circumstances of his death are unclear. After his defeat and death there is evidence of a large-scale damnatio memoriae campaign, with images of the king being mutilated, erasing his face”. As SIN-SHAR-ISHKUN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinsharishkun “… Sîn-šar-iškun's fate is unknown but it is assumed that he died in the defense of his capital”. https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/introducing-assyrians “… Sin-shar-ishkun, perished in the flames”.

Moses neither a holy myth nor wholly a myth

by Damien F. Mackey “There is no archeological evidence of millions of people living in the narrow strip of the Sinai Desert for 40 years”. Michael R. Burch Michael R. Burch, writing a piece on Moses for QUORA, has stuck himself out on a limb, sawing in the wrong place, with many of his uninformed statements on the topic. Or, as I once said of Fr. Axe, for similar reasons, he “can’t see the wood for the trees”. The very foundation of biblico-history/archaeology for the Old Testament era is the presence of the Middle Bronze I (MBI) nomadic people, bearing artifacts from Egypt. This people follows the same path as did the Exodus Israelites, crossing the Jordan and conquering the peoples in the region (e.g. the destruction of the Bab-edh Dhra complex), before proceeding on into the land of Canaan via Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). The destruction of Jericho, its walls collapsing, and of many other Early Bronze III (EB III) forts and settlements, is exactly what one would expect from the biblical accounts. All of this is brilliantly re-captured by Dr. John Osgood (“The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest”: https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-the-archaeology-from-exodus-to-conquest), whose maps of the MBI settlements and of the estimated Israelite places of occupation are so close to exact as to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. I take a piece here from Dr. Osgood’s brilliant article, which, however, is well worth reading in full: …. The Distribution of MB I The distribution of MB I culture (here used as a term to include all that was once referred to as MB I, namely EB IV to MB I) occupies geographically exactly the area that the ancient nation of Israel conquered, plus the area of ancient Moab, plus the area of the Sinai and the Negev consistent with wandering of the Children of Israel (see Figure 4 and compare it with Figures 5 and 6). The MB I people (including EB IV) occupied only that area mentioned above (see Prag 2) but modification must be made to the distribution characteristics as suggested by Rudolf Cohen who has shown that there was a definite geographical gap between the MB I culture in the Negev and the MB I culture in southern Judah. This is totally consistent with the biblical model of Israel’s wanderings. The Artifacts MB I culture was a pottery culture. It was also a metal–making culture, as witnessed by the copper pins, copper ingots and copper daggers that have been found. It was a culture that used mortars and pestles of one sort or another.10 It was a culture that had contact with Egypt.7 It was a culture that did build some temporary stone structures, as witnessed by the beehive shaped stone rings in the Sinai. It also appears to have been a culture that lacked icons and tomb offerings.11 All this is consistent with ancient Israel. An Invasive Culture From the moment of its discovery, the MB I people have been accepted as an invasive people. This has come under some criticism of recent years, but the largest weight of evidence holds true to the suggestion that they were an invasive people. A New People Amiram 3 emphasises both the cultural break between MB I and the previous culture, and the on going development from there until the end of Iron II at least. Again this has come under some attack in recent years, but the evidence of a new culture is strong. The above characteristics are all consistent with the biblical picture of the nation of Israel in its wanderings in the wilderness and its subsequent conquest of Palestine. …. [End of quote] It needs to be said that, whilst the conventional dates for the MBI period are c. 2000-1800 BC, too early for Moses, the Exodus, and Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan, these dates are quite artificial, having been confected from the unwieldy Sothic theory of Egyptian chronology to which the biblical scenario has been hopelessly hog-tied. I completely exposed the Sothic theory in my postgraduate university thesis (1993): Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar https://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar a much simplified version of which can be read at: https://creation.com/fall-of-the-sothic-theory-egyptian-chronology-revisited Turning now to some of the points raised by Michael R. Burch, beginning with those more of a chronological and archaeological nature, I think that what I have written so far accounts for much of it. I have added comments to some of his points: HOLY MOSES OR WHOLLY MYTH? by Michael R. Burch Moses is thought to have lived during the 14th or 13th century BCE. Some of the more popular dates include: • Rabbinical Judaism: 1391-1271 BCE • St. Jerome: Moses was born 1592 BCE and because the bible says he died at age 120, that would make his lifespan 1592-1472 BCE. • James Ussher: Moses was born 1571 BCE, making his lifespan 1571-1451 BCE. • Biblical Archaeology Review: 13th century BCE. • Modern Historians: 1550-1200 BCE. • Consensus: Moses lived sometime between 1592-1200 BCE. • The “Golden Mean”: circa 1400 BCE. Mackey’s comment: Until the later history of the Medo-Persians and Greco-Romans has been properly sorted out, these dates will be only estimations, probably well off the mark. • My personal theory: Moses died in 1492 BCE, after having seen the Promised Land of milk and honey. In 1492 AD, after Ferdinand and Isabella evicted the Jews from Spain, thanks to their money Columbus discovered a new Promised Land that would prove a safe haven to Jews and many other victims of religious persecution. It’s as good a story as any, I believe. Mackey’s comment: But see my cautionary article on Columbus: Book of Jonah elements in the story of Columbus (3) Book of Jonah elements in the story of Columbus However, most scholars believe Moses was mythical, not a real historical figure. Why? Mackey’s comment: For one, they almost universally follow a chronologically misaligned archaeological model that cannot possibly be tied to a realistic history. These same scholars probably embrace quite uncritically a Medo-Persian/Greco-Roman text book ‘history’ that, for much part, has no vitally relevant archaeology in support of it as does the MBI = Exodus Israelites scenario. …. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of any large-scale enslavement of Israelites in Egypt. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of a mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt. Mackey’s comment: I greatly beg to differ. This is a statement of ignorance from someone desperately clinging to a (biblically) minimalized limb. With Joseph and the Famine era now set firmly in the (1st) 3rd and 11th Egyptian dynasties, Joseph being the genius Imhotep: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (4) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Moses can be found, nicely symmetrically, in the 4th and 12th Egyptian dynasties. He is Weni/Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge of Egypt. ‘Who made you ruler (Vizier) and (Chief) judge over us?’ (Exodus 2:14) With the 12th dynasty dying out while Moses was exiled in Midian (Exodus 4:19), he will confront the 13th dynasty Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep so-called I, during whose reign the workers up and left Egypt, abandoning their tools. This was the Exodus. • The biblical book of Exodus quite suspiciously doesn't name the Egyptian pharaoh in question although it names lots of other kings. Also the first direct correlation between the bible and extra-biblical sources doesn't occur until much later, with the Tel Dan Stele, which has been dated to the 9th century BCE. Mackey’s comment: Egyptologists have shown this to have been standard Egyptian practice before the advent of the New Kingdom. Even when a king of Egypt is named, “Shishak” (I Kings 14:25-28), this is not likely an Egyptian but the name by which he was well-known to the Israelites (cf. I Kings 4:3). The MBI invasion and large-scale assault on EB III Canaan and EB IV Transjordan is a massive biblico-historical correlation a good half century before the Tel Dan Stele. • There is no archeological evidence of millions of people living in the narrow strip of the Sinai Desert for 40 years. • There is no archeological or textual evidence of a military takeover Canaan at the time of Moses, Joshua and Caleb. • The fabled walls of Jericho fell long before the time of Moses, Joshua and Caleb. Mackey’s comment: These points have already been answered. As to the “millions of people”, this is a ridiculously inflated translation (as “thousands”) of the tricky Hebrew word elef (אלף), a stumbling block for many. The word has various meanings and needs to be respected according to context and common sense. • The story of Moses being set afloat as a baby in a reed basket and being found and adopted by a royal family was rather obviously “borrowed” from the far more ancient myth of King Sargon the Great of Akkad. Mackey’s comment: The popular and ancient story of the baby Moses has given rise to many myths: e.g., Akkadian (Sargon); Hindu (Karna); Greek (Osiris), and so on. Sargon of Akkad, as an historical entity, is the one case here who clearly pre-dates Moses. However, the legend about him does not. The earliest copy of this Sargon story we have is from the 600s BC found in the Library of Ashurbanipal.

Shattering the Belshazzar myth

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them”.” Bryan Windle Today (4th December, 2024), at Mass, the Marist priest - a former sheep farmer who is now a shepherd of souls - asked for prayers for a deceased fellow priest, Fr. Bell, confiding to the congregation that he was known amongst his confrères as Ding Dong. I sat bolt upright because I had been preparing this present article on King Belshazzar and was hoping to hit on a title that was a little bit engaging. Maybe, this was a kind of providential prompt. Try as I may, however, I could not think of a juxtaposition of Ding Dong and Bel-shazzar that was anything other than ridiculous. Perhaps a clever reader may be able to suggest something snappy, for future reference. What the Marist priest’s Ding Dong recollection does enable me to do, at least, is to segué here into wishing readers a very happy and a blessed Christmas: Ding Dong! merrily on high In heav’n the bells are ringing Ding, dong! verily the sky Is riv’n with angel singing Gloria, Hosanna in excelsis The Belshazzar Problem This is spelled out in Bryan Windle’s (2024) article, “Belshazzar: An Archaeological Biography”, where he writes: For many years Belshazzar was unknown to history, as ancient writers like Berossus (ca. 250 BC), seem to name Nabonidus as the final king of Babylon. …. This caused some 19th-century critics to doubt the veracity of the account of Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel. For example, Cäsar von Lengerke described it as “pure fiction” and “a palpable forgery” going on to say that, “the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author, who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquainted with the history of them.” His summary was based on three factors: the last king of Babylon was not named Belshazzar, he was not a son of Nebuchadnezzar, and he was not slain on the night Babylon fell to the Persians. …. Other scholars who accepted the historicity of Daniel’s account generally assumed that Belshazzar was an alternate name for another Babylonian king: Josephus equated him with Nabonidus … while Zöckler thought he was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk). …. [End of quote] Before we consider Otto Zöckler’s view, that Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), who was the known son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, let us read what is Bryan Windle’s own proposed solution to the Belshazzar problem. He writes towards the end of his article: …. How then do we make sense of Daniel’s statement to Belshazzar that “the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty” (Dn 5:18) since Nabonidus was not a descendent of Nebuchadnezzar? Some have pointed out that in the ancient Near East, the terms father and son could be used in a broader way to mean predecessor/ successor, even when there is not direct family link. …. For example, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian king records that he received the tribute of “Jehu, son of Omri” … even though Jehu was not related to Omri and had actually destroyed the Omride line. Daniel could be using the phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” in the sense that he was Belshazzar’s predecessor. Other scholars believe Belshazzar was related to Nebuchadnezzar through his mother. According to Herodotus, Nabonidus (called Labynetus in the Greek text) … had a wife named Nitocris. …. Dougherty has presented an extensive list of plausible circumstantial evidence suggesting that Nitocris was likely the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar by an Egyptian wife (the name Nitocris is of Egyptian origin). …. If this is the case, Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter was Belshazzar’s mother and Daniel’s phrase “Nebuchadnezzar your father” was used in a familial sense. If Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, one might expect him to have been given an important role in the Babylonian courts when he came of age. Indeed, there is a Babylonian text from ca. 560 BC that names a “Belshazzar, the chief officer of the king.” …. His plausible relation to Nebuchadnezzar may also explain why Belshazzar’s ascension as co-regent in Nabonidus’ third year seems to have been readily supported by those in Babylon. …. [End of quotes] The reference to Jehu here is irrelevant, I believe, since I do not think that Jehu was the King of Israel to whom Shalmaneser of Assyria was referring in the Black Obelisk. Apart from that, Bryan Windle’s argument is quite valid at least regarding the broader use in the ancient Near East of terms such as father and son. However, I think that there is a solution far better to the Belshazzar problem than that presented here by Bryan Windle, whose effort I applaud, nonetheless, and that it pertains to the notion of Otto Zöckler, that ‘Belshazzar was Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk)’. The Biblical scenario The Chaldean to Median succession is clearly given in Daniel 5-6, and spelled out by the prophet Daniel himself. It was simply this: Nebuchednezzar followed by his son, Belshazzar, followed by Darius the Mede This sequence is, I have pointed out in other articles, such as: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu incompatible with the dupli- tripli-cated ancient king lists. For example: https://bible-history.com/old-testament/babylonian-kings List of Babylonian Kings from 625 BC to 542 BC King of Babylon Period of Reign (Approx) Nabopolassar 625-605 BC Nabu-kudurri-usur II (Nebuchadnezzar) 605-562 BC Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) 561-560 BC Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissar) 559-556 BC Labashi-Marduk 556-556 BC Nabu-naid (Nabonidus) 555-539 BC Bel-sharra-usur (Belshazzar) 552-542 BC which needs to be stripped down to this, perfectly in conformity with the Bible: Nabopolassar = Sennacherib; Nebuchednezzar = Nabonidus; Evil-merodach = (Labashi-Marduk) = Belshazzar Neriglissar = Darius the Mede Seven royal persons reduced to four. Any attempt by scholars to square off the biblical sequence with the standard list of Babylonian kings as tabled above will not work. Yet it seems that they all attempt this - Bryan Windle, for instance. And even Otto Zöckler, who took a big step closer to reality by identifying Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, will hang on to Nabonidus as an individual separate from Nebuchednezzar. Consequently, he is forced to distinguish between a King Belshazzar, who is Evil-Merodach, and the non-king (as he thought) Belshazzar, known to have been the son of Nabonidus. At least, this is the impression that I get from a quick scanning through read of his 1901 book on the subject, The book of the prophet Daniel. The Solution There is just enough archaeological evidence to verify the little known Evil-Merodach (qua Evil-Merodach) as being an historical ruler of Babylon. And it is from this genuine (in the historical sense) king, in his relationship to his father, Nebuchednezzar, that we are able to find a situation that parallels the unusual relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus. Otto Zöckler, whilst correctly identifying Belshazzar as Evil-Merodach (Awil-Marduk), but, because he had not also identified Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus, did not have in mind the latter’s son, Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach. So, what looked at first glance like a promising step in the right direction, turned out to be no solution at all to the Belshazzar problem. Paralleling Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar I wrote about this vitally important connection in my article: Not able to shake the hand of Bel (1) Nabonidus and Belshazzar: A Historical Parallel to Nebuchadnezzar There I wrote: …. In the case of … King Nabonidus, I have been able to identify … a perfectly parallel situation between Nebuchednezzar, alienated from his kingdom, with his son Evil-Merodach temporarily left in charge, and Nabonidus, away from his kingdom, with his son Belshazzar temporarily left in charge: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (6) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And we know from Baruch 1: 11, 12, that Nebuchednezzar’s son was called Belshazzar. That means that Evil-Merodach was the same person as Belshazzar. During this time of the Great King’s sickness and alienation, the Crown Prince was not authorized to take the hand of Bel at the New Year’s feast in Babylon. And we find this situation repeated again with Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, Ashurbanipal, who, for many years did not take the hand of Bel. …. And, more relevantly, I wrote in my article: Nebuchednezzar’s madness historically identified (4) Nebuchednezzar's madness historically identified | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “… 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”, but he 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 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?