Part One:
Failure by scholars to make right connections
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Clearly these
events from the «reign» of Belshazzar create a historical problem since we know
from the ancient Near Eastern descriptions he was never truly the king of Babylon.
Additionally, five times the book of Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as
Belshazzar’s father (5,2.11.13.18.22). This clearly contradicts the cuneiform
sources that record Nebuchadnezzar as having only one son who assumed the
throne (Amel-Marduk) and state that Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar”.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe
A
view such as Bledsoe’s here must also take into account the Book of Baruch,
however, which, too, names Nebuchednezzar as the father of Belshazzar (1:11): “
… and
pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and for the life of his
son Belshazzar
…”.
Historians and archaeologists can
be peculiar in that, when they uncover an historical scenario that perfectly
mirrors a significant biblical event - like, for instance, the catastrophic
fall of ancient Jericho at the end of Early Bronze III (c. 2200 BC) - they must
reject it as corresponding with the biblical incident (c. C15th BC) on the
grounds that the dates of the ‘two’ by no means coincide - instead of their considering
the possibility that the received dating system may indeed be seriously flawed.
A case somewhat parallel to the
Jericho one can be found, for instance, with King Nabonidus, who - given his
uncanny likenesses to the Book of Daniel’s king “Nebuchednezzar” - is thought
to have been the Chaldean king, rather than Nebuchednezzar (II) himself, upon
whom the author of Daniel must have based his “Nebuchednezzar”.
In previous articles I have
considered some of the significant parallels that scholars have discerned
between “Nebuchednezzar” and Nabonidus - for instance, Carol A. Newsom, in my:
Does King Nabonidus Reflect Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”?
and, again, John A. Tvedtnes in
my:
Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus
Now, too, Amanda Davis Bledsoe has, in her article, “The
Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern
Sources”, drawn further amazing
parallels between Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” and Nabonidus.
It has apparently not occurred
to any of these three scholars though, unfortunately, that Nabonidus might therefore
be Nebuchednezzar, and that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, might therefore be
Daniel’s (and Baruch’s) “Belshazzar”.
For more on what I consider to
be the necessary streamlining of neo-Assyrian/neo-Babylonian history, against
that of Judah and a revised Egypt, see my series:
Ashurbanipal, Manasseh, Necho I-II, Nebuchednezzar. Part Two (i):
Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar
Ashurbanipal, Manasseh, Necho I-II,
Nebuchednezzar. Part Three: Comparing Ashurbanipal and Nebuchednezzar II (=
Nabonidus)
https://www.academia.edu/33679120/Ashurbanipal_Manasseh_Necho_I-II_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Three_Comparing_Ashurbanipal_and_Nebuchednezzar_II_Nabonidus
Part Two:
“Nebuchednezzar” and king Nabonidus entwined
“… while Nabonidus was in Teima he had a frightening dream, after which he returned to Babylon. The designation, «frightening», is a remarkable parallel between this text and Daniel 4:5”.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe
In Part One:
https://www.academia.edu/37294739/Early_parts_of_Book_of_Daniel_clearly_based_upon_Nabonidus._Part_One_Failure_by_scholars_to_make_right_connections we touched upon the perverse tendency of certain scholars, who, whilst identifying an historical-archaeological situation that very much mirrors one recorded in the Bible, do not even consider that there may be a need to reform the conventional dating (historical-archaeological), in order to bring that scenario right into line with the biblical one.
Or, perhaps the kings listed in some dynasties might have been duplicated, meaning that there is a need to truncate that particular dynasty.
The knee-jerk reaction seems almost universally to insist that the biblical story is fictitious, but is loosely based upon some real historical incident of a different time.
Again, some kings are in need of alter egos.
King Nebuchednezzar II himself, for instance, needs to be filled out with the equally long reigning Ashurbanipal, in whose records is the missing evidence for Nebuchednezzar’s destructive path through Egypt – which neither Jeremiah nor Ezekiel miss, however.
Now Amanda Davis Bledsoe whom we met in Part One, whilst noting that “… it is clear that, like Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus completed extensive building projects throughout Babylon”, thinks nevertheless that: “However, unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus was a very controversial figure. He is said to have broken from the earlier customs in every way: he disregarded his religious and festal duties; he neglected his rule in Babylon residing instead in the desert oasis of Teima …”.
Still, a Nebuchednezzar-enhanced-with-Ashurbanipal might be found to be more Nasbonidus-like. On this, I have written previously:
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.
[End of quote]
We follow Amanda Davis Bledsoe now in some of her comparisons of Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” with Nabonidus:
….
Chapters one through six of the book of Daniel have been loosely woven together by a later editor [sic], each chapter representing a complete and distinct story that can stand on its own.
Of these six chapters, the first four are attributed to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the latter two to the reign of Belshazzar. Clearly these events from the «reign» of Belshazzar create a historical problem since we know from the ancient Near Eastern descriptions he was never truly the king of Babylon. Additionally, five times the book of Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father (5,2.11.13.18.22). This clearly contradicts the cuneiform sources that record Nebuchadnezzar as having only one son who assumed the throne (Amel-Marduk) and state that Nabonidus was the father of Belshazzar.
Mackey’s comment: How about Belshazzar = Amel-Marduk?
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
These instances begin to show how the narratives concerning Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus are entwined in the biblical account. I will now examine each of the three subsections of Daniel 4: the king’s dream, his affliction, and his repentance and restoration, and look at the parallels between each of these sections and the cuneiform sources describing the reign of Nabonidus. ….
The King’s dream (Dan 4,1–15 MT/4,4–18 NRSV)
The first section begins with a narration by the king describing his dream and his reaction. He asserts that, «I saw a dream that frightened me; my fantasies in bed and the visions of my head terrified me»(Dan 4,5 NRSV). The king then summons all the wise men of Babylon to decipher the dream and tell him its meaning, but none are able except Daniel.
There are two important elements in this section of the narrative which I will examine: (1) the king’s frightful dream and (2) his seeking an interpreter, which I will examine separately.2.1.
The Frightful Dream
Nabonidus has been referred to as «the only known Babylonian dreamer».
That he had a strong preoccupation with dreams is indicated in several cuneiform documents. One such text was discovered in the royal palace at Babylon.
This inscription begins with a historical prologue briefly detailing the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings. Beginning in column V, it turns to Nabonidus’s reign and his accession to the throne. Columns VI-VII report dreams and visions Nabonidus in which Nebuchadnezzar and two Babylonian gods appear to him, showing their approval of his rule.
Another inscription, whose location and date of discovery are unknown, was recorded on a bead originally inlaid in a dagger. Here too, there is a report of a dream Nabonidus had where the god, Sîn spoke to him and requested a dagger.
The most important text for our discussion of Nabonidus’s fixation with dreams is the Harran stela.
This inscription recounts the reign of Nabonidus and his restoration of a temple. Most importantly, it records that while Nabonidus was in Teima he had a frightening dream, after which he returned to Babylon. The designation, «frightening», is a remarkable parallel between this text and Daniel 4:5. Though in this inscription Nabonidus had the dream in Teima (as opposed to Babylon) and it caused him to return to Babylon (rather than to leave), it is still clear that in each case the dream serves as the cause for the king’s movements, explicitly linking his sojourn outside of Babylon with his having a frightening dream.
Though there is no specific locale mentioned in Daniel for where the king went, only that «he was driven away from human society», we can relate this event to Nabonidus’s absence from Babylon and his residence in the small oasis city of Teima as recorded in the cuneiform inscriptions. It seems certain that the population living in the massive capitol city of Babylon would have viewed this remote desert oasis as far from «human society». As for the animalistic descriptions of the king’s affliction in Daniel 4, though there are no exact parallels in the cuneiform sources relating to Nabonidus’s reign, there are many ancient Near Eastern mythological texts which attest the tendency of the urban population to view «groups living outside of the civilized urban centers» as extremely primitive, «living like and amidst wild animals».
An ex-ample of this is seen in Tablet I of The Epic of Gilgamesh, where the character, Enkidu is transformed «from wild beast to civilized man» as a result of his sexual encounter with a prostitute.
Of additional importance is Berossus’s reflection of primordial men where, drawing on a Sumerian text, he says, «He does not know how to eat bread or to wear garments. Instead, he eats grass like the animals, and drinks water from the watering places».
These so-called «naturalistic descriptions of uncivilized peoples,» are a running motif in ancient Near Eastern mythology, found in Sumero-Akkadian spells, poems, and prayers.
In a recent article, Christopher Hays shows how these texts associate animal imagery or transformation with chains or fetters and divine judgment, thus corresponding to the king’s transformation in Daniel 4. It is also not difficult to imagine that this same imagery could have been invoked by the Babylonian population and applied to Nabonidus and his abandonment of the capitol city.
Length of Absence
Another parallel between the Danielic narrative and the cuneiform sources is the length of time given for the king’s absence. In Daniel 4, the king’s affliction lasted seven years.
Based on the cuneiform documents, we know that «Nabonidus left Babylon for Arabia from the second month of his third year and returned in the seventh month of his thirteenth year»; approximately ten years.
In the case of Daniel, it has been proposed that the number seven was used «as a round figure», a number which has tremendous significance in the biblical tradition, and this should be a close enough approximation to reflect the same tradition.
Whether seven or ten years, this is certainly a substantial amount of time for the king to be away from Babylon, something that could not have escaped notice of the cuneiform records of Nebuchadnezzar had it occurred during his reign. A further similarity between the Danielic narrative and the cuneiform sources is their employment of comparable phrases to signal the king’s exile. In Dan 4,33 it is said that «immediately the sentence was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar» and in 4,34 «when that period was over», he returned.
In column III of the Harran inscription, it is said that «fulfilled was the year, the appointed time arrived».
Both texts use the idea of a proscribed amount of time that the king was away from Babylon, serving as yet another parallel.3.3
Cause of his «madness»
The final consideration for the king’s affliction is the apparent cause of his madness. The narrative of Daniel 4 takes for granted that the source of the king’s madness is affliction by God for his excessive pride.
Dan 4,30-31 shows the king in his palace, saying «Is this not magnificent Babylon, which I have built as a royal capital by my mighty power and for my glorious majesty?» (my own emphasis). It was «while these words were still in the king’s mouth» that a voice came from heaven and the king’s sentence is carried out. An equivalent of this can be seen in the Verse Account, where Nabonidus is portrayed as exceedingly mad in his incredible prideful boasts:
He [Nabonidus] wrote upon his stel[as: «I did cause him [Cyrus] to prostrate] at my feet. I conquered his countries. I took his possessions to [my country]». He [Nabonidus] 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]…I surpass in all (kinds of) wisdom (even the series)
uskar-Anum-Enlilla, which Adap[a] composed…» (Yet) he would mix up the rites, confuse the omens… (Verse Account, Col.V, 7-14).
That Nabonidus’s actions are associated with inciting the wrath of the deity seems to especially parallel Daniel 4, where the king is judged for his lack of humility and afflicted until he will recognize the power of the Most High.4.
The King’s prayer and restoration (Dan 4,31-34 MT/4,34-37 NRSV)
In the final sequence of events of Daniel 4, the king accepts and praises the sovereignty of God and is re-established over his kingdom. There are two central motifs at play in this section: (1) the king’s prayer and repentance and (2) his restoration and celebration.4.1
Prayer and Repentance
First, we see that the prayer of the king detailed in the last few verses of Daniel 4 serves as a repentance narrative.
Some have taken the king’s «repentance» a step further, in positing his «conversion». See M. Henze, Nebuchadnezzar, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. A.M. Davis ….
…. his prior transformation and absence from Babylon, the king now proclaims his reverence to the same God who caused that affliction.
I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored the one who lives forever. For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he will with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can stay his hand or say to him, «What are you doing?» (Dan 4,34b-35NRSV).
The various cuneiform inscriptions discovered, which exhibit Nabonidus’s promotion of the moon god, Sîn, certainly could have served as a basis for this tale of repentance in Daniel 4.
It is well attested that Nabonidus was responsible for the reorganization of the Eanna temple bureaucracy in Uruk. The extent of his devotion to Sîn is especially evident in a building inscription from Ur, likely written after his return from Teima.
This inscription cites Nabonidus’s rebuilding of the ziggurat Elugalgalgasisa of the Egishnugaltemple-complex at Ur. It is in this inscription that we see Nabonidus’s strongest exaltation of Sîn, as he prays to the deity on behalf of his son, Belshazzar. He prays, «O Sîn, lord of the gods, king of the god sof heaven and the underworld, god of gods, who dwells in the great heavens…». This is certainly a reverent invocation and it has even been said that this is «probably the highest epithet ever given to a god in the Mesopotamian tradition. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment