by
Damien F. Mackey
The Book of Daniel is charged with all sorts of
historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history rather
than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that the
author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better suited
to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean) empire. Yet
there might be a good reason why this is the case. In very many ways, it seems, King Nabonidus reflects
the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel.
Introduction
Reading once again Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book, The Reign
of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), I noticed various
“Nebuchednezzar” characteristics in King Nabonidus.
Not least was the fact that, Nabonidus had, like
“Nebuchednezzar”, a son named “Belshazzar”.
There was also a seeming tendency on Nabonidus’s
part towards a kind of monotheism - revering Sîn, the El of
the Aramaeans - and a seeming rejection of the national god, Marduk. Coupled
with this was, not unnaturally, a discomfort with the Babylonian clergy and
wise men.
Nabonidus, like king Nebuchednezzar II, had
conquered Cilicia. We read about this at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/kue “KUE
ku’ ĭ (קְוֵ֕ה). An ancient name for E Cilicia (Rom.: Cilicia Pedias), in SE
Asia Minor. …. A document of Nebuchadnezzar II (dated between 595 and 570
b.c.), mentions the land of Hu-m-e, pronounced Khuwe or Khwe. It also occurs in
the Istanbul Stele of Nabonidus”.
One also encounters many cases of Nabonidus’s
recounting his own dreams.
I found so many similarities beginning to loom
that I eventually came to the conclusion that Nabonidus probably was king
Nebuchednezzar (or Nebuchedrezzar) II ‘the Great’ - that what we have recorded
of Nabonidus simply represents the first phase of the long reign of
Nebuchednezzar II.
This revised view will necessitate that I now
modify some of my previous articles on this era.
Admittedly, there appear to be some immediate
problems with this unexpected new scenario. For one, there is Nabonidus’s own
obvious reverence for a past king, “Nebuchednezzar”. However, my revision might
be able to account for that:
As is apparent from Beaulieu,
Nabonidus considered himself to be the successor of the great Assyrian empire –
a viewpoint that would have more clout perhaps if he had ruled closer to that
period (c. 605 BC) than Nabonidus is conventionally considered to have done (c.
556 BC).
Then there is Nabonidus’s strange
disappearance to Teima (Tayma) in Arabia for ten years. During some of this
time he was ill. It is due to this situation that scholars think that the Book
of Daniel has confused Nebuchednezzar with Nabonidus. Indeed a Dead Sea Scrolls
fragment tells of a protracted illness suffered by Nabonidus. We shall read
about this in the next section.
The Madness of Nabonidus
Nabonidus (Akkadian Nabû-nāʾid) ….
Although his background is uncertain,
his mother may have been a priestess of the moon god Sîn to whom Nabonidus was
unusually devoted. He took the throne after the assassination of the boy-king
Labashi-Marduk. It is not clear whether Nabonidus played a role in
Labashi-Marduk's death.
As king, Nabonidus was maligned by the
priests of the chief Babylonian deity Marduk. It is believed this was
caused by Nabonidus overt devotion to Sîn and his lack of attention to the
city's important New Year's festival. During several years of his kingship,
Nabonidus was absent at the Arabian oasis of Tayma. During this period his son
Belshazzar reigned in his place. The reasons for his long absence remain a
matter of controversy, with theories ranging from illness, to madness, to an
interest in religious archaeology.
….
In his own inscriptions, Nabonidus
himself makes no claim to known royal origins … although he refers to his
otherwise unknown father, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as "wise prince." His
mother was connected to the temple of the moon god Sîn in Harran, but her ancestry, too, is unknown. The fact that Nabonidus
makes repeated references to Ashurbanipal,
the last great Neo-Assyrian king, has been cited as evidence that he may have
been of Assyrian origin. However Nabonidus' Persian successor, Cyrus the Great, also referred to Ashurbanipal, so this is hardly
conclusive evidence.
In most ancient accounts, Nabonidus is
depicted as a royal anomaly. He worshiped the moon god Sîn (mythology) beyond
all the other gods, and paid special devotion to Sîn's temple in Harran, where
his mother was a priestess. After successful campaigns in Edom and Cilicia (modern Turkey) early in his reign, he
left Babylon, residing at the rich desert oasis of Tayma, (Temâ) in Arabia, returning only after
many years. In the meantime, his son Belshazzar ruled from Babylon.
Nabonidus is harshly criticized for
neglecting the Babylonian chief god, Marduk and failing to observe
the New Year festivals in Babylon. The Nabonidus Chronicle complains that for
several years: "The king did not come to Babylon for the [New Year's]
ceremonies… the image of the god Bêl (Marduk) did not go out of the Esagila
(temple) in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted."
Nabonidus' stay in Tayma
Why Nabonidus stayed in Tayma for so
long is a matter of uncertainty. He seems to have become interested in the
place during his campaign against Edom. Tayma was an important
oasis, from which lucrative Arabian trade routes could be controlled.
However, why Nabonidus stayed for so
long—about ten years, from circa 553-543—remains a mystery. One theory is that
he was not comfortable in Babylon, which was the center of Marduk worship,
where he was expected to perform public rites centering on Marduk's cult during the annual
New Year's festival. On the fifth day of the festival, the king was required to
submit himself to Marduk in the person of the high priest, who would
temporarily strip him of his crown and royal insignia, returning them only
after the king prayed for forgiveness and received a hard slap in the face from
the priest. Moreover, on the eighth day, the king had to implore all the gods
to support and honor Marduk, an act which may have been unacceptable to
Nabonidus if he was devoted to Sin as supreme. Some have suggested that Tayma was
attractive to Nabonidus as an archaeological site, where he might find sacred
inscriptions or prophecies related to his own spiritual quest.
[My comment]:
But it may also have been due to his sickness and madness.
This is where newworldencyclopedia
introduces that Dead Sea Scrolls document:
Another possibility is that the king had
become seriously ill and went to the oasis of Tayma to recover. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, a fragment known as the Prayer of Nabonidus relates
that Nabonidus suffered from an ulcer, causing him to retreat
from civilization and stay in Tayma until he was healed by a Jewish exorcist after praying to the Hebrew God:
I, Nabonidus, was afflicted with an evil
ulcer for seven years, and far from men I was driven, until I prayed to the
most high God. And an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the
children of the exile of Judah… During my stay at Tayma, I prayed to the gods of
silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood, stone and lime, because I thought and
considered them gods….
This legend may explain a confusing
issue in the Book of Daniel, in which the king in question is called Nebuchadnezzar. However, this Nebuchadnezzar's son is named
Belshazzar, which was in fact the name of Nabonidus' son, who reigned in his
stead while Nabonidus was at Tayma. It may thus be the case that the Book of
Daniel confuses Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar. However, Daniel describes its
king's disease as a type of madness, rather than an ulcer, saying: "He was
driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with
the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his
nails like the claws of a bird" (Daniel 4:33).
….
Although Nabonidus' personal preference
for Sîn is clear, scholars are divided regarding the degree of his supposed monotheism. In the Nabonidus
cylinder currently displayed at the British Museum, the king refers to the moon god as "Sîn, king
of the gods of heaven and the netherworld, without whom no city or country can
be founded." Some claim that it is obvious from his inscriptions that he
became almost henotheistic, considering Sîn
as the national god of Babylon superior even to Marduk.
Others, however, insist that Nabonidus,
while personally devoted to Sîn, respected the other cults in his kingdom,
pointing out that he supported construction works to their temples and did not
suppress their worship. …. In this theory, his negative image is due mainly to
his long absence from Babylon during his stay in Tayma, during which the important,
Marduk-centered New Year festival could not take place, a fact which deeply
offended the priests of Marduk. These priests, who were highly literate, left
records denigrating the king in a fashion similar to the priests of Jerusalem denigrating the Israelite kings who did not
properly honor Yahweh in
the Hebrew Bible.
In fact, there is no sign of the civil unrest during Nabonidus' reign, not even
during his absence, and he was able to return to his throne and assert his
authority with no apparent problem.
However, Nabonidus did remove important cultic statues and their attendants
from southern Mesopotamia and brought them to Babylon. ….
[End of quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…
within the canonical book of Daniel, Daniel 4 is widely agreed to be originally
a Nabonidus story”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol A. Newsom
has discerned some intriguing parallels between Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” and
King Nabonidus ((WHY NABONIDUS? EXCAVATING TRADITIONS FROM QUMRAN, THE HEBREW
BIBLE, AND NEO-BABYLONIAN SOURCES. Emphasis added):
One of the most fruitful places for
examining the transmission of traditions and the production of texts is surely
the literature associated with the figure of Daniel. Even before the discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars explored the differences between the versions
of Daniel found in the Masoretic Text of Daniel and the Septuagint, with its
additional narratives and poems, as well as the different version of Daniel 4–6
in the Old Greek manuscripts. The Qumran finds showed that there was an even
more extensive Danielic literature, with two compositions featuring Daniel
making historical and eschatological predictions in a court setting (4Q243–244,
4Q245), and two compositions
using language or motifs similar to
those of Daniel 2 and 7 (4Q246, 4Q552–553).1 The longstanding suspicion of
scholars that Daniel 4 was originally a narrative about Nabonidus received
additional support from the discovery of 4Q242 Prayer of Nabonidus. ….
These texts are evidence both for
the complexity of the Danielic tradition and the creativity of its authors, as
they appropriated and recycled [sic] useful elements, combining them with
usable bits and pieces from other literary and oral traditions in order to
produce new compositions. Nowhere are we better positioned to examine this
process than with the texts that were originally associated with Nabonidus, for
in addition to the Jewish narratives, we also have an extensive neo-Babylonian literature,
including both Nabonidus’ own self-presentation in his inscriptions and
literary representations of Nabonidus by his enemies. …. Although this material
has been intensively studied, recent research on the historical Nabonidus may
shed additional light on the composition and development of the Jewish
Nabonidus literature. In addition, two questions have not heretofore received
sufficient attention. First, to the extent that one can peer through the Jewish
Nabonidus texts to the early stages of their composition, what can one say
about the motivation for their composition and their possible function as
social rhetoric? Second, since important comparative material exists, is it
possible to develop a model that suggests how the authors of this literature
actually produced new stories from their source material?
The Corpus of
Jewish Nabonidus Literature
One of the initial issues to be
explored is the extent of Jewish Nabonidus literature. The Prayer of
Nabonidus is the one text explicitly identified with him. But within the canonical
book of Daniel, Daniel 4 is widely agreed to be originally a Nabonidus story.
…. To this one can add Daniel 5, since it is a story about Nabonidus’ son
Belshazzar. It has also been suggested that other compositions of the Daniel
cycle may have originated as stories about Nabonidus, notably Daniel 3. Although
the details of the narrative do not correspond to anything actually done by
either Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus, the erecting of a strange image and
requiring worship of it may well preserve a parodic echo of Nabonidus’
notorious championing of the moon god Sin. …. Indeed, two of his most
controversial actions were the installation of a new and non-traditional cult
statue of the moon god in Sin’s temple in Harran and his attempt to persuade
the priests of Marduk that the Esagil temple in Babylon actually belonged to
the moon god, because of the iconography of the lunar crescent found there. …. In
addition, Paul-Alain Beaulieu has recently argued that the motif of the fiery
furnace in Daniel 3 is actually derived from a literary topos that was part of
the Neo-Babylonian school curriculum. Together, these elements strongly suggest
that the basic structure of the narrative may go back to the sixth century. ….
The case for Daniel 2 as originally
a Nabonidus narrative is weaker but not without plausibility. Of the Neo-Babylonian kings only Nabonidus
had an interest in ominous and revelatory dreams or recorded them in his
inscriptions. …. Dreams, however, are not uncommon elements in Israelite
and early Jewish storytelling, as the notable parallel of Pharaoh’s dream in
Genesis 41 demonstrates. Still, it is not the fact of the dream but the role it
plays in the narrative of Daniel 2 that is suggestive. The narrative is dated
to “the second year” of the king’s reign, and it is thus quite likely that the
king’s distress at the ominous dream is intended to suggest anxiety as to the
security of his reign. In Daniel, of course, the dream and its interpretation
are a Hellenistic era composition [sic], since they contain references to a
sequence of kingdoms, ending with that of the Greeks (vv. 36–44). Some scholars
have suggested, however, that this particular dream or elements of it are secondary,
since its eschatological orientation contrasts quite sharply with the way in
which the narratives in Daniel 1–6 in general tend to accommodate to gentile
power by representing the kings as recognizing the power of the Judean god. …. While
any argument about an earlier version of Daniel 2 must be speculative, it is
the case that Nabonidus, a usurper who was not part of the dynastic family, was
anxious about the legitimacy of his kingship. In an inscription composed during
his first regnal year, Nabonidus himself reports an ominous dream he had concerning
the conjunction of the moon (Sin) and the great star (Marduk). A “young man” in
the dream tells him that “the conjunction does not involve evil portents.” …. Nabonidus
goes on to report that in the dream Marduk “called him by name.” The similarity
to Daniel 2, which concerns an ominous royal dream interpreted by a young man in
an agreeable fashion, is thus quite intriguing.
[End of quote]
Part Two (i):
A Superstitious and ‘Unjust King’
“Let his heart be
changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven
times pass over him. This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the
demand by the word of the Holy Ones: to the intent that the living may know
that The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He
will, and setteth up over it the basest of men”.
Daniel 4:16-17
Introduction
Young Azariah, in the heart of the Fiery
Furnace, was under no illusions about the character of “Nebuchednezzar” (v. 9):
‘Thou
hast given us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the
world’.
And this sentiment is supported also by
Daniel 4:17, according to which “Nebuchednezzar” was “the basest of men”.
King Nabonidus - the same person as this “Nebuchednezzar”,
according to Part One: https://www.academia.edu/22779651/Does_King_Nabonidus_Reflect_Daniel_s_Nebuchednezzar_
- often considered to have been an eccentric king with a penchant for
archaeology, was apparently, however, not a man of great civilisation and
culture. Unlike the towering figure of Ashurbanipal, a C7th BC king of Assyria,
who could boast of being able to read ancient scripts (even before the Flood)
and who possessed a magnificent library, Nabonidus could not read, though he
was inquisitive. So we read in Paul-Alain
Beaulieu’s book, The Reign of Nabonidus,
King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989), this later criticism of the king from
the Verse Account (p. 215):
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]. …”.
Nabonidus was, like “Nebuchednezzar”,
an excessively pious man, and highly superstitious. The
secret knowledge of which he boasted was what he had acquired through his
dreams. Another characteristic that Nabonidus shared with “Nebuchednezzar”.
Nabonidus announced (loc. cit.): “The
god Ilteri has made me see (dreams), he has made everything kno[wn to me]. I
surpass in all (kinds of) wisdom (even the series) uskar-Anum-Enlilla, which Adap[a] composed”.
[A note: Beaulieu gives in a footnote
[47.] here, “Oannes Adapa”, “Oannes” being the fish-man thought by some to have
been the prophet Jonah himself. I have tentatively identified Jonah with the
Rechabite, Jehonadab, the latter part of that name being phonetically close to
Adapa. “Prophet
Jonah and the Beginnings of a New History. Part Two: Jonah as a Rechabite” https://www.academia.edu/17379137/Prophet_Jonah_and_the_Beginnings_of_a_New_History._Part_Two_Jonah_as_a_Rechabite].
In Beaulieu’s book (pp. 151-152),
we read further of King Nabonidus:
“I did not stop going
to the diviner and the dream interpreter”.
And of King Nebuchednezzar II -
with whom I am also equating Nabonidus - the prophet Ezekiel writes similarly
of that king’s omen seeking (21:21): “The king of Babylon now stands at the
fork, uncertain whether to attack Jerusalem or Rabbah. He calls his magicians
to look for omens. They cast lots by shaking arrows from the quiver. They
inspect the livers of animal sacrifices”.
To be fair to Nabonidus, his
boastfulness, his illiteracy, and his superstitious tendencies were not
peculiar to him alone amongst the ancient kings. He could never have outdone
some of the Assyrian kings in their boasting and self-exaltation. And probably
most of them could not read. Less common though, perhaps, was his emphasis upon
his dreams – a significant factor, too, in the case of Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”.
Some Historical Uncertainty Regarding
Nebuchednezzar II, and/or Nabonidus
Now, in the course of my reading and re-reading Beaulieu’s book on King Nabonidus, I have been struck by the uncertainties
here and there with determining whether something ought to be attributed to,
now Nebuchednezzar II, now Nabonidus. The very same tendency I had encountered
in the case of, now Sargon II, now Sennacherib. My resolution of the latter
situation had been - as here with Nebuchednezzar II, Nabonidus - to propose a
merger, hence:
So the thrust of this present
article could likewise be rendered:
‘Babylonian King
Nebuchednezzar II, Otherwise Known as Nabonidus’.
Baulieu (pp. 4-5):
Berger and von Soden suggested that another literary
composition, originally called by Lambert “Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice”
(Lambert 1965), might have been a piece of propaganda commissioned by Nabonidus
himself (Berger 1974: 222 n. 51, and von Soden 1983: 63). According to Lambert,
who published the text, there are two arguments in favor of Nebuchadnezzar II:
the word nagû “region”, which occurs
in this text, is attested only in the inscriptions of that king, and a large
section of the text, which describes provisions made for the daily use of the
gods, recalls a similar passage of the Wadi Brissa inscription of Nebuchadezzar
II, with many coincidences of wording. Against Lambert’s argument one should
note that the word nagû does occur in
the inscription of Adad-Guppi [mother of Nabonidus] …. But the similarities
with the Wadi Brissa inscription remain quite conclusively in favor of Nebuchadezzar
II. …. Therefore, as arguments in favor
of Nebuchadnezzar II outweigh those in favor of other kings, it would be unwise
to use it as a source for the reign of Nabonidus.
[End of quote]
Again, the building efforts of Nabonidus in
relation to the wall Imgur-Enlil - but not those of Nebuchednezzar II - are
completely overlooked in the Verse Account and the Cyrus Cylinder. (Ibid., pp. 38-39):
… Nabonidus undertook to repair the wall (al-Rawi 1985). Interestingly
enough, according to the Verse Account and the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus also
proceeded to repair the wall Imgur-Enlil shortly after the capture of Babylon,
thus completing the fortifications of Nebuchadnezzar II:
….
[He (Cyrus) took up the earth] basket and completed the wall of Babylon
in order to execute [the original plan of] Nebuchadnezzar of his own consent.
….
I (Cyrus) sought to strengthen the work of the wall Imgur-Enlil, the
great wall of Babylon ….
Although these texts do not explicitly state that Nabonidus neglected
the fortifications of Babylon, they certainly carry this message indirectly by
stressing Cyrus’ eagerness to repair the Imgur-Enlil while ignoring Nabonidus’
own building activities here.
[End of quote]
In articles pertaining to Sargon II,
Sennacherib, I have referred to the presumption of Assyriologists in, for
instance, inserting the name “Sargon” where it did not originally appear.
Supposition is rife, too, with regard to the
following document (“one can presume that Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned” …
“Nabonidus is most likely to be identified as this ruler”). Thus Beaulieu
writes (p. 41):
…. This fragment of a clay cylinder was found during the French
excavations at Kish, in the surroundings of the Palace …. There is no
conclusive evidence that it belongs to an inscription of Nabonidus …. However,
since line 3 has lugal maḫ-ri lugal
tin. tirki, one can
presume that Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as a predecessor of the king who
commissioned the inscription. Nabonidus is most likely to be identified as this
ruler.
[End of quote]
And, on the same page, there is reference to
another “fragmentary clay cylinder”: “It can be assigned to the Neo-Babylonian
period on stylistic grounds. It is usually attributed to Nebuchadnezzar II,
though arguments in favor of Nabonidus seem more conclusive …”.
Also, regarding the restoration of the palace
near the Šamaš-gate, similar confusion (p. 100):
The inscription is usually ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar, but there is no
evidence to support this assumption. In fact, it even seems dubious that
Nebuchadnezzar ever restored this palace, since it is never mentioned in those
inscriptions of his which contain a list of all the building works he undertook
in Babylon …. Therefore there is a strong possibility that the inscription
belongs to Nabonidus, as believed by Berger (Berger 1973: 381), although he has
no conclusive evidence either.
[End of quote]
Beaulieu, when discussing “The Evidence From
Monumental Texts” (pp. 104-105), will exhibit further presumption when making
this startling comment (my emphasis):
The first part reports on the reign of four previous kings, Sennacherib,
Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, and Neriglissar: although neither Sennacherib, nor Nabopolassar, nor Nebuchadnezzar are
mentioned by name … there is no doubt from the context that they are meant.
That appears to be a very big leap in ‘faith’!
Part Two (ii):
Golden-Headed Power
In very many ways,
it seems, King Nabonidus does
reflect the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel. My explanation of this is,
however, not that the author of Daniel confused two Chaldean kings, but,
rather, that King Nabonidus was
Nebuchednezzar II (who was also Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”).
The King’s Imperial Ambitions
Our composite biblico-historical Chaldean king
was presented in Part Two (i) of
this series: https://www.academia.edu/23725556/Does_King_Nabonidus_Reflect_Daniel_s_Nebuchednezzar_Part_Two_i_A_Superstitious_and_Unjust_King_ as being a
base, unjust and highly superstitious monarch. Even the extremely courteous and
respectful prophet Daniel, who was most reluctant to reveal to “Nebuchednezzar”
the terrible meaning of his dream (Daniel 4:19):
Then Daniel (also called Belteshazzar) was greatly perplexed for
a time, and his thoughts terrified him. So the king said, “Belteshazzar, do not
let the dream or its meaning alarm you.” Belteshazzar answered, “My lord, if
only the dream applied to your enemies and its meaning to your adversaries!”,
had felt constrained, nonetheless, to deliver to
the king this reproach (v. 27): ‘Therefore,
Your Majesty, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what
is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that
then your prosperity will continue’.
Daniel’s assessment of the
king basically reflected that of Daniel’s young
compatriot, Azariah: ‘Thou hast given us into the hands of
lawless enemies, most hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in
all the world’.
I also referred to the fact that
historians can tend to conclude that King Nabonidus was an eccentric king with
a penchant for archaeology. More than likely, however, his undoubted
antiquarian interests would differ from those of the typical modern
archaeologist. The proud and superstitious king’s interest in the past may have
been due, in large part, to his regarding ancient relics as talismans of power
and having propaganda value – just as certain Nazis strove to discover the
sacred Spear of Destiny or penetrate to the roots of Aryanism.
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book,
The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon,
556-539 B.C. (1989), tells that (p. 5) “… during excavation of the
foundations of the Ebabbar [temple at Sippar], an old statue of Sargon of Akkad
is found. Nabonidus orders its restoration …”.
Now D. Petrovich has identified
Sargon of Akkad with the biblical Nimrod:
https://www.academia.edu/2184113/_2013_Identifying_Nimrod_of_Genesis_10_with_Sargon_of_Akkad_by_Exegetical_and_Archaeological_Means
and there is much of the rise and fall of biblical Babel in the saga of the
rise and fall of the proud builder-king “Nebuchednezzar”. On p. 135 Beaulieu
informs us that Nabonidus “established an oblation for it [statue of Sargon]”
in the Ebabbar, and that this was done, without doubt, “in his second year”.
And it was “in the second year of his reign” (Daniel 2:1) that “Nebuchednezzar”
dreamed of an “awesome” statue (v. 31): “Your
Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling
statue, awesome in appearance”.
The highly superstitious
king had similarly honoured Daniel after the young Jewish sage had interpreted
his first Dream for him (2:46): “Then
King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered
that an offering and incense be presented to him”.
Did the discovery of
Sargon’s statue that same year prompt the Dream of “Nebuchednezzar”? And, had
it set “Nebuchednezzar” wondering if he might be able to emulate the greatness
of the legendary Sargon of Akkad? (V. 29): “As
Your Majesty was lying there [in bed], your mind turned to things to come, and
the Revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen”. This is how
Beaulieu interprets the matter of the finding of Sargon’s statue (p. 141):
Another
interesting example of Nabonidus’ antiquarian interest is the discovery of the
statue of Sargon in Sippar. He may have intended to connect himself with this
most prestigious ruler of Mesopotamia’s past …. According to the Royal
Chronicle, Nabonidus restored the statue of Sargon because of his “reverence
for the gods and (his) respect for kingship”. This statement is crucial, as it
provides a unique piece of evidence for assessing the nature of Nabonidus’
antiquarian interest: his restoration of Sargon’s statue was motivated not
solely by religious factors, but also by a purely profane interest in the past,
particularly in this case where it concerned the first great imperial period in
Mesopotamian history. ….
P.
142: “His antiquarian and historical interest may thus be explained from a
political angle”.
[End of quotes]
Beaulieu
gets to the heart of the ambitious yearnings of King Nabonidus, I think, when
he suggests that Nabonidus “considered his own reign a resurrection of a
universal empire on the Assyrian and Akkadian model …”.
His
affinity for the Assyrians would perhaps make even more sense if Nabonidus were
the same as Nebuchednezzar II, who had come to power (c. 605 BC, conventional
dating) only about a decade after the Fall of Nineveh (c. 612 BC, conventional
dating) – whereas Nabonidus is thought to have begun to rule significantly
later, in 556 BC.
Beaulieu
writes of the king’s pro-Assyrianism (p. 143):
Nabonidus
… calls the Assyrian kings his “royal ancestors” (inscription 15), and
considers the sequence of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian states to be one
of imperial continuity (inscription 1 and stela of Adad-Guppi). When … after
his return from Teima [Arabia] … he even went one step further by assuming the titulary of the Assyrian
kings in two of his inscriptions (inscriptions 15 and 19) …. His interest in
the Sargonic [Akkadian] dynasty, which had always been remembered in literary
and historical tradition as the climax of Mesopotamian power, and which
undoubtedly inspired the late Sargonid [Neo-Assyrian] kings, can also be
explained in the light of his imperial ambitions. In short, Nabonidus
considered his own reign a resurrection of a universal empire on the Assyrian
and Akkadian model, but centred in Babylon, a project which his predecessors
never seemed to have contemplated, or at least one to which they never gave any
political expression. ….
[End of quote]
Had
not the Jewish sage, Daniel, recently revealed to the king what must have been
as music to those egotistical ears: “You
are the head of gold”. Thus Daniel informed the king (2:37-38):
‘Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has
given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the
field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over
them all. You are that head of gold’.
Hardly
surprising, then, in light of this, to find Nabonidus early in his third year
praying so ambitiously to the god Šamaš (Beaulieu, pp. 144-145):
(O
Šamaš), cause the radiance of your … royal brilliance, to march at my side for
plundering the land of my enemy. May I overwhelm the country of my foes. May I
slay my opponents. May I take booty from my adversaries. May I bring to my
country the possession of all lands. I am indeed a king provider who restores
the sacred places and completes the (rebuilding of) sanctuaries forever. At the
mention of my prestigious name, may all my adversaries be afraid and quiver,
may they bow down at my feet, may they pull my yoke for long days, may they
bring into my presence their important tribute in my city Babylon.
[End of quote]
Still
on p. 145, Beaulieu likens the ambitions of Nabonidus to those of
Nebuchednezzar II:
…
in two inscriptions written just before the most important military campaign of
his reign [to Arabia], Nabonidus made significant references to his imperial
policy. Of course, these two passages are not the only examples of their kind:
similar ones can be found in the inscriptions of Nebuchednezzar. ….
Indeed,
they can.
All,
this occurred in the early days of the ambition and power of “Nebuchednezzar”,
before his madness and temporary fall from imperial grace.
P.
144: “… Nabonidus put forward an aggressive military policy from the very
beginning, and he based his legitimacy to a large extent on the need for
Babylonia to be ruled by a man experienced in military matters, which is easily
perceived by studying inscription 1”.
And
p. 147: “… references to these same regions in inscriptions before the campaign
of the third year constitute evidence that Nabonidus had been contemplating the
consolidation of the Babylonian power in Lebanon and Transjordan and the
conquest of Arabia since his accession year”.
Yet
it is wondered why the imperialistic-minded Nabonidus appeared to have done so
little militarily in the first three years of his reign.
But
simply couple Nabonidus with Nebuchednezzar II, and then we get this (prior to
year 4):
[Obv.1] In the twenty-first year [605/604]
the king of Akkad [Nabopolassar]
stayed in his own land, Nebuchadnezzar his
eldest son, the crown-prince,
[Obv.2] mustered the Babylonian army
and took command of his troops; he marched to Karchemiš which is on the bank of
the Euphrates,
[Obv.3] and crossed the river to go
against the Egyptian army which lay in Karchemiš.
[Obv.4] They fought with each other
and the Egyptian army withdrew before him.
[Obv.5] He accomplished their defeat
and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army
[Obv.6] which had escaped from the
defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath
[Obv.7] the Babylonian troops overtook
and defeated them so that not a single man escaped to his own country.
[Obv.8] At that time Nebuchadnezzar
conquered the whole area of Hamath.
[Obv.9] For twenty-one years
Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon,
[Obv.10] when on 8 Abunote he went to
his destiny; in the month of Ululunote
Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon
[Obv.11] and on 1 Ululunote he sat on
the royal throne in Babylon.
[Obv.12] In the accession year
Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatunote
[Obv.13] marched unopposed through the
Hatti-land; in the month of Šabatu he took the heavy tribute of the
Hatti-territory to Babylon.
[Obv.14] In the month of
Nisannu{{Spring 604.__ he took the hands of Bêl and
the son of Bêl and celebrated the Akitu Festival.
[Obv.15] In the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar [604/603] in the month of Simanunote he mustered
his army
[Obv.16] and went to the Hatti-territory,
he marched about unopposed in the Hatti-territory until the month of Kislîmu.note
[Obv.17] All the kings of the
Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute.
[Obv.18] He marched to the city of
Aškelon and captured it in the month of Kislîmu.note
[Obv.19] He captured its king and
plundered it and carried off spoil from it.
[Obv.20] He turned the city into a
mound and heaps of ruins and then in the month of Šabatunote he marched back to Babylon.
[Obv.21] In the second year [603/602]
in the month of Ajarunote the
king of Akkad gathered together a powerful army and marched to the land of
Hatti.
[Obv.22] ...] he threw down,
great siege-towers he [...
[Obv.23] ...] from the month of Ajaru
until the mon[th of ...] he marched about unopposed in the land of Hatti.
[Obv.24-27] [Four lines missing]
[Rev.] [Several lines missing]
[Rev.1'] In the third year [602/601]
the king of Akkad left and
[Rev.2'] in the month of [...] on the
thirteenth day, [the king's brother] Nabû-šuma-lišir [...]
[Rev.3'] The king of Akkad mustered
his troops and marched to the Hatti-land.
[Rev.4'] and brought back much spoils
from the Hatti-land into Akkad.
….
[End of quote]
As
we read above: “Nabonidus had been contemplating the consolidation of the
Babylonian power in Lebanon and Transjordan and the conquest of Arabia since
his accession year”.
Now,
also in conformity with the testimony of the Book of Daniel, King Nabonidus is
known to have had a notable son called “Belshazzar”, famous for the ‘Writing on
the Wall’ incident (Daniel 5). A now-aged Daniel will recall to the mind of
this reckless king the almost limitless power and wealth of his father,
“Nebuchednezzar”, prior to his bout of madness (vv. 18-20):
‘Your Majesty, the Most High
God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and
splendor. Because of the high position
he gave him, all the nations and peoples of every language dreaded and feared
him. Those the king wanted to put to death, he put to death; those he wanted to
spare, he spared; those he wanted to promote, he promoted; and those he wanted
to humble, he humbled. But
when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his
royal throne and stripped of his glory’.
But
that was not the end of the story, for as we can read earlier in the Book of
Daniel, the king, now greatly humbled, would return to even greater fame and
might (4:36-37):
‘At the same time that my
sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of
my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my
throne and became even greater than before. Now
I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because
everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in
pride he is able to humble’.
Part Two (iii):
Dreams, Astrologers, a Statue, Wealth
The early career
of the Chaldean king, Nabonidus, may be replete with parallel likenesses to
that as written about the “Nebuchednezzar” in Daniel chapters 1-5.
Confounding the Astrologers
Despite his superstitious nature the
“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel - and indeed his alter egos, Nebuchednezzar II/Nabonidus - did not hesitate at times
to dictate terms to his wise men or astrologers (2:5-6):
The
king replied to the astrologers, “This is what I have firmly decided: If you do
not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into pieces
and your houses turned into piles of rubble. But
if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and
rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me.”
And so, in the Verse Account, we
read too of Nabonidus’ interference in matters ritualistic in the presence of
sycophantic officials:
Yet he continues to mix up the
rites, he confuses the hepatoscopic oracles. To the most important ritual
observances, he orders an end; as to the sacred representations in Esagila
-representations which Eamumma himself had fashioned- he looks at the
representations and utters blasphemies.
When he saw the usar-symbol of
Esagila, he makes an [insulting?] gesture. He assembled the priestly scholars,
he expounded to them as follows: 'Is not this the sign of ownership indicating
for whom the temple was built? If it belongs really to Bêl, it would have been
marked with the spade. Therefore the Moon himself has marked already his own
temple with the usar-symbol!'
And
Zeriya, the šatammu who used to crouch as his secretary in front of him, and
Rimut, the bookkeeper who used to have his court position near to him, do confirm
the royal dictum, stand by his words, they even bare their heads to pronounce
under oath: 'Now only we understand this situation, after the king has
explained about it!'
[End of quote]
Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his book,
The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon,
556-539 B.C. (1989), gives another similar instance pertaining to an
eclipse (Col. III 2), likening it also to the action of “Nebuchednezzar” in the
Book of Daniel (pp. 128-129):
The scribes brought baskets from Babylon (containing) the
tablets of the series enūma Anu Enlil
to check (it, but since) he did not hearken to (what it said), he did not
understand what it meant.
The passage is difficult, but its general implications
are clear. Whether Nabonidus had already made up his mind as to the meaning of
the eclipse and therefore refused to check the astrological series, or did
check them but disagreed with the scribes on their interpretation, it seems
that the consecration of En-nigaldi-Nanna [daughter of Nabonidus] was felt to
be uncalled for. This alleged stubbornness of the king is perhaps reflected in
the Book of Daniel, in the passage where Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus), after
having dismissed the plea of the “Chaldeans”, states that the matter is settled
for him (Daniel II, 3-5) ….
But this does not imply that Nabonidus was necessarily
wrong in his interpretation of the eclipse; on the contrary, all the evidence
suggests that he was right. However, he may have “forced” things slightly ….
[End of quote]
No wonder in
the Book of Daniel, then, we encounter an erratic king and his shifty
servants!
Yet, the
superstitious king was forever consulting his sages.
Daniel
2:2-3: “So
the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell
him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king, he
said to them, ‘I have had a dream that troubles me and I want to know what it
means’.”
Daniel
4:6-7: “So I commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be brought before me to
interpret the dream for me. When the magicians,
enchanters, astrologers and diviners came, I told them the dream, but they
could not interpret it for me”.
And
likewise his son, Belshazzar (Daniel 5:7): “… summoned the enchanters, astrologers
and diviners. Then he said to these wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this
writing and tells me what it means will be clothed in purple and have a gold
chain placed around his neck, and he will be made the third highest ruler in
the kingdom”.”
Appropriately,
we found that Nabonidus had an influential son named “Belshazzar”. Moreover,
that Belshazzar was a contemporary of a new emperor, Cyrus.
The
criticism may be raised against my view that King Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar
II ‘the Great’, that, whilst the latter is consistently given as having reigned
for 43 years, Nabonidus is said to have reigned for only 17 years. Ronald H. Sack, in Neriglissar - King of Babylon. Alter Orient und Altes. Testament (1994), actually
gives various figures for the length of the reign of Nabonidus.
P. 3. A vase fragment from Uruk gives 5 years.
Other figures given by Sack are the common 17 years, but also 18
years.
P. 17. Syncellus’s version of the Ptolemaïc Canon gives 34
years.
In other words, there is no overall consistency.
The 34 years comes much closer to what I believe to be the reality:
43 years.
Dreams, Illness, and
Restoration
King
Nabonidus was, like “Nebuchednezzar”, a king who experienced meaningful dreams.
Beaulieu (p. 108): “In the beginning of my everlasting reign they (Marduk and
Sîn) caused me to see a dream”. And, as in the Book of Daniel, “a young man”
will assist the king with his dream. (P. 112): “Then a young man appeared who
calmed the king’s troubled mind by giving him a favourable interpretation of
his vision”.
Compare
Daniel 2:16: “At this, Daniel went in to the king and asked for time, so that
he might interpret the dream for him”.
Regarding
the “young man” in the case of King Nabonidus, Beaulieu makes this comment (ibid.):
The
status of this young man is not specified, but there is a strong probability
that he was a scholar who specialized in astrological lore: his reassuring
intervention is reminiscent of the dreams reported in Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, in which two young priests successively appear
to the author of the poem to assure him that his misfortunes will end soon (see
Lambert 1960: 48-51).
[End of quote]
Nebuchednezzar,
supposedly, had also appeared in this particular dream, there doing just what the
“Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel had done, not allowing the dream to be repeated,
despite the requests of the astrologers (2:5-7). Thus Beaulieu: “Nebuchednezzar
did not answer the attendant’s request by merely letting Nabonidus repeat his
dream, but by asking him what favourable signs he had seen …”.
Nabonidus
would, like “Nebuchednezzar”, experience a terrifying dream whilst lying down.
Concerning the latter, we read (Daniel 4:4-8):
I,
Nebuchadnezzar, was at home in my palace, contented and prosperous. I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying
in bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me.
So I commanded that all the wise men of
Babylon be brought before me to interpret the dream for me. When the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and
diviners came, I told them the dream, but they could not interpret it for me.
Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the
dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of
the holy gods is in him.)
And we read in Beaulieu, citing Col. III, these words of King Nabonidus (pp. 151-152):
I l[ay do]wn [and in a] frightening night dream, with?
the order […..]. Fulfilled was the year, the appointed time arrived, of [……].
In each case, the dream has a [Divine?] decree, or “the order”, with a
firmly fixed time. Daniel 4:23-24:
“Your
Majesty saw a holy one, a messenger, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Cut
down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump, bound with iron and bronze,
in the grass of the field, while its roots remain in the ground. Let him be
drenched with the dew of heaven; let him live with the wild animals, until
seven times pass by for him.’
“This is the interpretation, Your
Majesty, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the
king …”.
The king went away, but then, after the ordeal, returned to Babylon.
Beaulieu, p. 152: “From Teima I [proceeded? to] Babylon, [my] lord[ly] city
[… …]”.
Daniel 4:36: “At the same time that my sanity was
restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom”.
And the king was afforded a great welcome, with wealth and
prosperity coming his way, for all of which he praised the deity.
Beaulieu, p. 152:
They saw and [… … … …]. They took? presents? of well-being?,
to [… … … …]. The neighboring kings came up to me and kissed my feet, while the
distant ones heard and revered his (Sîn’s) great godhead. The gods and
goddesses who had fled to remote places … surrounded me and spoke good (things)
on my behalf. And by the verdict of the diviner, my good sign was established.
In abundance, plenty, and prosperity, I led my people from remote uplands and I
took the road to my country in peace.
Similarly, Daniel 4:36-37:
My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my
throne and became even greater than before. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of
heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And
those who walk in pride he is able to humble.
May it not be going to far to suggest that these are accounts of the very
same one incident!
In support of this may be the view that the king’s Teima sojourn had also
coincided with his phase of insanity.
Beaulieu here makes another reference to the Book of Daniel (p. 153):
These ten years [in Teima] were evidently not Babylonian
years, since they were counted from Tašrītu and not from Nisanu. By using the
religious calendar of Ḫarran, Nabonidus showed his neglect of the Babylonian
New Year’s festival, one of the main charges brought against him in the Verse
Account.
Another text containing allusions to the Teima period is
the “Prayer of Nabonidus” from Qumran, which ascribes a length of seven years
to the king’s stay in Arabia (Milik 1956). Since this document comes from a
later and foreign tradition, which is otherwise known to have undergone further
distortion [sic] in the Book of Daniel, it would be unwise to credit the
chronological information it gives with any accuracy: the number seven was most
probably used in this case as a round figure, a meaning it often has in the
Bible and in the later Jewish tradition.
[End of quote]
Beaulieu tells of another case of a dream and the king’s illness,
appropriately around his third year of reign (pp. 113-114):
In another dream he beheld the goddess Gula and prayed to
her until she finally looked at him, thus indicating mercy. This visit to
Gula’s shrine suggests that Nabonidus may have suffered from health problems at
that time ….it is further borne out by a passage of the Chronicle for his third
regnal year, which seems to suggest that he suffered some ailment during his
military campaign to Lebanon …. (…. [The king became] ill but recuperated).
[End of quote]
Intriguingly, Beaulieu refers to this incident of illness in a context that
of time that involves the number “seven” (Cf. Daniel 4:23: “… until
seven times pass by for him”). P. 168: “Then Nabonidus falls ill but recovers,
and, in the month Kislīmu … after an overall stay of seven months in that
region, the army moves southwards to Amurru … and encamps against Edom in
southern Transjordan”.
Appropriately
(p. 174): “… Jewish exiles may even have figured prominently among the people
brought by Nabonidus to Arabia …”.
Another Statue
Beaulieu makes a further reference to the Book of Daniel when discussing a
relief possibly depicting King Nabonidus carved on the “Teima stone”, a stela
found on the site in 1880 (pp. 176-177):
Another feature of the stela is a relief carved on its
edge depicting in the upper register a standing bearded figure holding a long
rod and wearing a tiara. The identity of the figure is uncertain, but it has
been suggested that it represents the deified Nabonidus, who would have been
the god Ṣalm himself, since it is almost identical with the reliefs depicting
the king on inscriptions 13 and 14 …. However, if the god Ṣalm … was Nabonidus,
then the name of this deity should definitely be connected with Akkadian ṣalmu “statue”, the name under which
statues of deified rulers were worshipped in Assyria and Babylonia (Hallo 1988:
63). If this is true, it is not unlikely that Nabonidus would have been
influenced by the discovery of the statue of Sargon during the excavation of
the Ebabbar … for which he instituted divine offerings. Perhaps his desire to
link himself with great rulers of the past induced him to accept a similar form
of worship of himself in his Arabian capital. The tradition preserved in the
Book of Daniel (chapter 3) of Nebuchednezzar (i.e. Nabonidus) making a statue (ṣalmā’) and forcing his subjects to
worship it may ultimately go back to this deed of Nabonidus.
[End of quote]
I suggest that Beaulieu would not be far wrong in this last remark of his.
Abundant Wealth
The king’s illness (temporary insanity) may have been a reason for his
departure to Teima in Arabia. Whilst, according to the Book of Daniel,
“Nebuchednezzar” was “driven” out (4:32): “You will be driven
away from people …”, Nabonidus attributes his departure to Teima to the impiety
of the Babylonians, to “the people’s disregard of Sîn’s power (Col. I, 14-27)”
(Beaulieu, p. 60).
The
two may well be related.
But also, as Beaulieu discusses on pp. 180-183, for instance, wealthy
Arabia was strategically most important to those dreaming of empire.
P. 181:
Nabonidus’ conquest of Arabia does not stand out as a
particularly strange move: such projects were characteristic of the
imperialistic policy of all major empires that gained control of the
Syro-Palestinian area in the first millennium B.C. Its singularity lies rather
in its having been successful, unlike other attempts.
Logically the same motives lay behind all the attempts at
controlling northern Arabia, and Nabonidus should a priori be no exception to
the rule. All classical authors agree on the immense wealth of the region
(Briant 1982: 142-45), which was based mostly on the control of the trade
routes traversing it and linking the Syro-Palestinian area to South Arabia ….
P. 183: “The monumental inscriptions written prior to the
third year make frequent allusions to the wealth coming from the western
regions of the empire, and there is little doubt that northern Arabia was
considered a natural extension of these regions ….
[End of quotes]
No wonder, then, that Daniel could thus extol this king (2:37-38):
“Your Majesty, you are the king of kings.
The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in
your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds
in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are
that head of gold”.
(4:22): “You have become great and strong;
your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to
distant parts of the earth”.
Part Two (iv): ‘God of gods’
Though it would be
much over-stating things to claim that King Nabonidus became a monotheist,
there is a definite progression in that direction in the course of his reign.
“Monotheistic Tendency” of
Nebuchednezzar II
C. Boutflower has advanced a strong argument in
his book, In and Around the Book of
Daniel: https://archive.org/stream/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft/inaroundbookofda00boutuoft_djvu.txt for evidence
of a trend towards a Marduk (Merodach) monotheism in various inscriptions of
Nebuchednezzar II:
According, then,
to this authority, No. 15 is the latest of the
inscriptions of
Nebuchadnezzar, and the Merodach tendency
noticed by
Langdon is of necessity a monotheistic tendency, for
Merodach, who,
as we have seen, is always foremost of the gods,
appears in some
passages of this inscription to stand alone. Now
it is just in
these monotheistic passages, these " inserted prayers "
and "
changes of text," that we seem to see the work of the real
Nebuchadnezzar.
Thus, immediately after the introductory
passage, which
describes the position occupied by the king with
reference to
Merodach and Nebo, there follows a hymn to those
divinities, col.
i. 23 to ii. 39, extracted from inscriptions 19 and
14. But in the
middle of this hymn we meet with a prayer
addressed to
Merodach alone : col. i. 51 to ii. 11, and this prayer,
be it noted, is
an entirely original addition, not found in any previous
inscription.
Jastrow remarks with reference to it, "The con-
ception of
Merodach rises to a height of spiritual aspiration,
which comes to
us as a surprise in a religion that remained steeped
in polytheism,
and that was associated with practices and rites
of a much lower
order of thought." 2 This remarkable prayer
runs thus
"To
Merodach my lord I prayed,
I addressed my
supplication.
He had regard to
the utterance of my heart,
I spake unto
him:
'Everlasting
prince,
Lord of all that
is,
for the king
whom thou lovest,
whose name thou
proclaimest,
who is pleasing
to thee :
direct him
aright,
lead him in the
right path !
I am a prince
obedient unto thee,
the creature of
thy hands,
thou hast
created me,
and hast
appointed me to the lordship of multitudes of people.
According to thy
mercy, Lord, which thou bestowest upon
all of them,
cause them to
love thy exalted lordship :
cause the fear
of thy godhead to abide in my heart !
Grant what to
thee is pleasing,
for thou makest
my life’.” ….
And a similar exaltation of the god, Sîn, in the case of King Nabonidus, is a central feature of Paul-Alain Beaulieu’s book, The Reign
of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C. (1989).
Beaulieu has interpreted
Nabonidus’s exaltation of the moon god, Sîn, as “an outright usurpation of Marduk’s prerogatives”.
Sîn is the ilu/ilani
sa ilani, “the god(s) of the gods.”
Whilst I, by no means, would
presume to make the suggestion that, now Nebuchednezzar II, now Nabonidus, ever
became a pure monotheist, the religious reform implemented during this period
of Chaldean dominance is certainly most idiosyncratic and confronting.
Theological
Revisions
Yet these considerations must not lead us to treat
Nabonidus as a ruler in his dotage, devoid of vision or political skill. A
study of the documents associated with his reign suggests exactly the opposite.
The most original aspect of his reign is his attempt to introduce a religious
reform centered on the worship of Sin of Haran, thereby challenging the
superiority of Marduk, god of Babylon, whose supremacy over all other gods had
been a theological verity in Babylon at least since Nebuchadnezzar I, half a
millennium earlier. Although we do not doubt that Nabonidus knowingly launched
this religious reform, we remain in the dark about the catalyst for his own beliefs
as well as the political motivation that set him on his reforming path.
Nevertheless, a pamphlet written against Nabonidus after his downfall and
dubbed by modern scholars the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" charges
the king with worshiping an incarnation of the moon-god called Ilteri. This is
a precious piece of information, for behind the cuneiform spelling
"Ilteri" is concealed the name of the West Semitic moon-god Sachar,
worshiped in Syria, among Aramaeans who settled in Babylonia, and among the
nomadic tribes of northern Arabia. Ilteri occurs frequently in West
Semitic name formations, and there is reason to believe that Sin of Haran and
Sachar were equated well before Nabonidus. What may have bothered the priests
of Marduk in Babylon is not that their new king had gone beyond retaining his attachment
to the god of his native city, Haran, but that he was aggressively declaring
that god's superiority over Marduk.
This observation, however, should not obscure the
Mesopotamian component in Nabonidus's religion. His devotion embraced more generally the Mesopotamian
triad composed of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar, which had enjoyed widespread
popularity under the last Assyrian rulers. Nabonidus may well have espoused a
tradition, not uniformly represented in Mesopotamia, that made Shamash and
Ishtar the children of Sin. It is telling that of the building projects and the
associated commemorative inscriptions that the king sponsored, only one is
unrelated to the triad Sin-Shamash-Ishtar: restoration work on the temple of
Lugal-Marada, the patron god of Marad, a city in northern Babylonia. Whenever
Nabonidus lavished his patronage on the sanctuaries of specific deities, they
involved Sin and his consort Ningal, Shamash and his vizier Bunene, and martial
avatars of Ishtar (Ishtar of Agade, Anunitum). It is significant that the Eanna
temple of Uruk, the major sanctuary of Ishtar in Babylonia, did not benefit
from royal patronage, since Ishtar of Uruk was identified locally as the
daughter (sometimes the consort) of the sky-god Anu.
[End of quote]
Whatever be the case, one finds from
a perusal of Beaulieu’s book that King Nabonidus will address Sîn in words that the “Nebuchednezzar” of Daniel will use to address the God of Israel.
