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”.
Comments