Shortening Neo-Babylon
.jpg)
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):
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:
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):
https://www.academia.edu/38307375/Neo-Babylonian_Dynasty_Needs_Hem_Taken_Up_._Part_One_a_Reducing_number_of_Babylonian_Kings actually comprises various duplicate kings.
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:
(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:
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.
Comments