by
Damien F. Mackey
Historian Paul-Alain Beaulieu (The Reign of Nabonidus,
King of Babylon 556-539BC) has identified 'the idea of imperial continuity
with Assyria, centred on the figure of Ashurbanipal'
as one of 'the main characteristics of Nabonidus'
personality' (p. 2).
Introduction
Not
surprising that we are going to find many Book of Daniel-like elements in the
biography of the eccentric neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, if I am correct in
identifying him with both Nebuchednezzar II ‘the Great’ and:
“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel
The likenesses between
Nabonidus and the biblical king have amazed some biblically-minded writers who
adhere to the conventional view that Nebuchednezzar II and Nabonidus were quite
separate neo-Babylonian kings. Consider, for instance, the following extraordinary
parallels rightly discerned by John A. Tvedtnes, but without his realising that
this really is Daniel’s king (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/nebuchadnezzar-or-nabonidus-mistaken-identities-in-the-book-of-daniel?lang=eng):
Nebuchadnezzar or
Nabonidus?
Mistaken Identities in the
Book of Daniel
A classic
example of textual errors caused by “careless transcribers” or “ignorant
translators” is contained in the book of Daniel. The events chronicled in the
present-day book would have originally been recorded in Hebrew, the early
language of the Jews. However, the book of Daniel found in the Hebrew Bible is
a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, the language of the Jews after they
returned from Babylon. From Daniel 2:4 through 7:8, the text is in Aramaic. [Dan. 2:4–7:8] It is in this
middle section that we find discrepancies between the biblical text and other
ancient records. These discrepancies involve the identity of Nebuchadnezzar,
the Babylonian king who first subdued and then destroyed Jerusalem.
During
his forty-year reign, Nebuchadnezzar ruled much of the Near East and rebuilt
the great city of Babylon, replete with its hundreds of temples and its
world-renowned hanging gardens. Some thirty years before his death in 561 B.C., he subdued Jerusalem (598 B.C.),
taking its king, Jehoiakim, captive to Babylon and replacing him with
Jehoiachin. When Jehoiachin proved disloyal, he was also deposed and replaced
by his uncle, Zedekiah. When Zedekiah, too, revolted against his overlord,
Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city.
In
586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, taking
the remainder of its people—along with many others from throughout the kingdom
of Judah into captivity. (See 2 Kgs. 24–25.) One of the
early Jewish captives, Daniel, won favor with the king and became known as a
wise and trusted counselor.
Chapters
two, three, and four of Daniel purport to contain accounts about
Nebuchadnezzar. But only the first and best-known of these—the account of his
dream about the great statue destroyed by a stone cut out of a mountainside—is
actually about him. The stories in chapters three and four, as well as a
reference in chapter five, are actually about another king named Nabonidus, not
Nebuchadnezzar. [Dan. 2; Dan. 3; Dan. 4; Dan. 5]
Chapter
three recounts that the king “made an image of gold … : he set it up in the
plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.” (Dan. 3:1.) When this new
idol was set up, a decree went forth that when music sounded, people were to
prostrate themselves before the statue.
Chapter
four tells of another dream of the king, this time about a great tree that was
hewn down by order of God. [Dan. 4] Again Daniel
was called upon for an interpretation. The tree, said the prophet, represented
the sinful king, who would become mad, living for seven years “with the beasts
of the field” and eating grass “as oxen.” (Dan. 4:23–26.) This prophecy
was fulfilled when the king “was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen,
and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like
eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws.” (Dan. 4:33.) Ultimately,
the king was healed, returned to his throne, and praised God.
In
chapter five, the scene changes abruptly. Here we find that “Belshazzar the
king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the
thousand.” (Dan. 5:1.) In verse two,
he is identified as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, the king who had destroyed the
temple in Jerusalem. At the feast, a finger appears, writing an ominous message
on the plaster of the wall. Daniel, summoned to interpret the writing, informs
the assembly that the Medes and Persians will take the kingdom.
It
is this reference in chapter five that highlights the misidentification problem
in the book of Daniel. Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, not of
Nebuchadnezzar. And Belshazzar was never king [sic], but only crown prince.
….
Other
ancient records establish that Belshazzar was actually Nabonidus’ son and that
Belshazzar was never king—only crown prince. From the “Verse Account of
Nabonidus,” preserved on a clay tablet and found at Babylon, we read a
contemporary account of Nabonidus that sounds very much like the
“Nebuchadnezzar” of Daniel 3–5 [Dan. 3–5]:
“His/protective
deity became hostile to him,/and he, the former favorite of the gods/is
now/seized by misfortunes: … against the will of the gods he performed an
unholy action, … he thought out something worthless:/He had made the image of a
deity/which nobody had/ever/seen in/this/country./ He introduced it into the
temple/he placed/it/upon a pedestal; … he called it by the name of Nanna, … it
is adorned with a … of lapis/lazuli, crowned with a tiara. …” (Pritchard, p.
313.)
The
one difference between this story and the one from Daniel 3 is that the
Babylonian text says the idol was made of brick, covered with gypsum and
bitumin to make the facing brilliant, while the Daniel account says it was made
of gold. But the ninety-foot-high statue could hardly have been made of pure
gold. Continuing from the Babylonian text:
“After he had
obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built/this/abomination, a
work of unholiness—when the third year was about to begin he entrusted the
‘Camp’ to his oldest/son/, the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country
he ordered under his/command/. He let/everything/ go, entrusted the kingship to
him and, himself, he started out for a long journey, the/military/forces of
Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema /deep/in the west. … When he
arrived there, he killed in battle the prince of Tema … and he, himself, took
his residence in/Te/ma, the forces of Akkad /were also stationed/there.”
(Pritchard, p. 313.)
The
rest of the text becomes fragmentary, but we can discern that Nabonidus ordered
the slaughter of many people in the northern Arabian town of Tema and that he
enslaved large numbers of them. Column four on the tablet is in especially bad
shape, but we can discern the words “The king is mad.”
This
brings us to the account of “Nebuchadnezzar’s” madness in Daniel 4. The
Babylonian accounts do not mention that Nebuchadnezzar became mad. But it is
well known that Nabonidus did. Records kept by the Babylonian priests confirm
Nabonidus’s temporary madness in the wilderness of Tema. The records show that
Nabonidus “stayed in Tema” at least from the seventh through eleventh years of
his reign, leaving “the crown prince, the officials and the army” in Babylonia.
During this time, the New Year festival, over which only the king could
preside, was omitted.
….
The
Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran in 1948 confirm that Nabonidus, not
Nebuchadnezzar, was the mad king. A fragmentary document titled “The Prayer of
Nabonidus” tells of a king NBNY (Hebrew uses no vowels) who, while at Tema, was
diseased by the God of Israel. A Jewish adviser (no doubt Daniel) counsels him
to honor God, reminding him, “Thou has been smitten with this noisesome fever …
for seven years because thou hast been praying to
gods of silver and stone, which gods are but stock and stone, mere clay.”
(Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 3d
ed., Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1976, p. 537.)
The
fact that the gods of silver and gold were actually made of stock and stone
might indicate gold or silver plating, which could identify the brick idol of
Nabonidus with the gold idol mentioned in the book of Daniel.
….
How
could such apparent errors have crept into the sacred record? ….
[End of quote]
My answer: Conventional neo-Babylonian
history, and not the Book of Daniel, is at fault.
The great
Assyrian ruler, Ashurbanipal, who so significantly influenced king Nabonidus,
has certain features that also may remind one of Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” - so
much so, in fact, that I had initially wondered about exploring an
identification of the two.
I had then
written:
Nabonidus is somewhat like 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.
…. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.
…. Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) … Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.
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.
…. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.
…. Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) … Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.
….
The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we
are told. Ridiculous! ….
The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say.
….
It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. … Ashurbanipal … 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).
….
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 …. reigned.
But he was later. I'll believe Daniel 5 (Writing on the Wall).
It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. … Ashurbanipal … 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).
….
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 …. reigned.
But he was later. I'll believe Daniel 5 (Writing on the Wall).
Ashurbanipal also apparently had a lions’
den.
For, according to Jonathan Grey, The Forbidden Secret (p. 102):
….
The biblical book of Daniel
also records that the Hebrew
captive Daniel was tossed into a den lions. (Daniel chapter 6)
That such 'lion's [sic] den'
punishment was in keeping with the times is now proven by the discovery of that same inscription
of Ashurbanipal that we just mentioned. It continues thus:
The rest of the people who had rebelled they threw alive among bulls
and lions, as Sennacherib my grandfather used to do. Lo, again following his
footsteps, those men I threw into the midst of them.
On one occasion, as the famed excavator Marcel Dieulafoy was digging amid the ruins of
Babylon, he fell into a pit that appeared like an like an ancient well. After being rescued by his companions, he proceeded with the work
of identification. How astonished
was he to find that the pit had been used as a cage for wild animals!
And upon the curb was this inscription:
The Place of Execution, where
men who angered the king died torn by wild animals.
