Ancient Near Eastern History in Chaos

Dear 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).


So, Nabopolassar of 21 years of reign, thought to be the father of Nebuchednezzar II, becomes Nebuchednezzar I of 21 years of reign (whom I have formerly identified with Sennacherib of 21-24 years).


Nabopolassar is actually the grandfather, not father, of Nabonidus. He, not Nebuchednezzar II, is the "Nebuchednezzar" to whom Nabonidus looks back so fondly, just as Ashurbanipal did to Sennacherib.


King Manasseh of Judah must now be one of Josiah's ne'er do well sons. [I have since identified him with Jehoiakim].

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).