by
Damien F. Mackey
“In this paper, I look to the Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform sources
as evidence in confirmation that the «Mad King» of Daniel 4
is historically based on the figure of Nabonidus,
rather than the biblical Nebuchadnezzar”.
Amanda M. Davis Bledsoe
With reference to Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s conventional article (2012):
The Identity of the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources
which, without the benefit, or even apparent awareness, of any requisite revision, follows the usual track, which I believe is up a garden path.
I wrote to her as to what I consider to be the necessary correction (14th May, 2024):
Keeping it simple, the “Mad King” of Daniel 4 was so like Nabonidus because the latter WAS Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, whose son Belshazzar (Baruch 1:11, 12) was Belshazzar son of Nabonidus, was King Belshazzar of Daniel 5.
The Writing is there on the Wall.
Let us follow through a part of Amanda Davis Bledsoe’s article, with some comments added:
The fourth chapter of the book of Daniel recounts a story of a Babylonian king who has a frightening dream, which only a Jewish exile is able to interpret for him. In his dream, and in the subsequent narrative, he is transformed into an animal-like being who lives away from human society for a period of seven years. Ultimately both his wits and his throne are restored to him and he praises the God of the Jews. The bizarre events of this passage make it one of the most puzzling in the entire Hebrew Bible. For generations, scholars have struggled to link Daniel 4 with historical evidence from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), with whom it is explicitly associated.
However, with the discovery and publication of numerous cuneiform sources from the ancient Near East, many scholars have reconsidered this passage in Daniel, looking instead to the events of the reign of the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (556–539 BCE). ….
Mackey’s comment: Nothing to see here. Nabonidus was Nebuchednezzar so-called II.
In this paper I show how the editors of Daniel reworked this Nabonidus tradition [sic], attributing it to Nebuchadnezzar in order to promote their theological ideals. I begin by looking at the background of Daniel 4, examining descriptions of both Nebuchadnezzar’s and Nabonidus’s reigns. Next I survey the connections between the events of Daniel 4 and other sources, including a stela discovered at Harran documenting Nabonidus’s sojourn to Teima … records documenting the lineage of the Neo-Babylonian kings, various other cuneiform inscriptions relating to the reign of Nabonidus … and descriptions of Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5. …. In the final section of this paper, I use these sources to illustrate the Danielic editors’ purpose in incorporating the Nabonidus tradition into the narrative of Daniel 4 and possible reasons for their attribution of this material to Nebuchadnezzar. ….
Mackey’s comment: All very scholarly – but a trip right up the garden path.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
1. Context of Daniel 4
- Nebuchadnezzar
According to Mesopotamian cuneiform sources, Nebuchadnezzar II was the son of Nabopolassar (626-604 BCE), who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period.
Mackey’s comment: Actually just Nebuchednezzar, as Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same king. No Nebuchednezzar II.
Middle Babylonia folds into Neo Babylonia:
The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar
(9) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
Nabopolassar was an Assyrian, Sennacherib, not a Babylonian.
Nebuchednezzar (as Esarhaddon) was Sennacherib’s successor but not his biological son. He was a Chaldean, and it was he, not Nabopolassar, “who inaugurated the Neo-Babylonian period”.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
During Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, he twice conquered Jerusalem (597 and 586 BCE), forcing a significant portion of the population to relocate to Babylon. …. In addition to external conquest, his reign was marked by substantial building activity throughout his kingdom, as more than sixty epithets have been found detailing his restoration of temples or sanctuaries. ….
He is credited with specific restorations and building projects within the capital city, including work on Etemenanki (the ziggurat of Babylon, sometimes associated with the infamous Tower of Babel), the creation of five walls to enclose Babylon, and the construction of the royal gardens. ….
Mackey’s comment: According to Dr. Stephanie Dalley, the ‘Hanging Gardens’ were not in Babylon, but were located in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh:
Chronologically ‘Landscaping’ King Nebuchednezzar’s “Hanging Gardens”
Convention apparently headed up another (Hanging) Garden path.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
Though he is mentioned in more secondary sources (including the Hebrew Bible, Apocryphal and Rabbinic books, and the works of classical and medieval authors) than any other Neo-Babylonian king, «Nebuchadnezzar’s own contemporary cuneiform sources are largely incomplete and provide us with relatively little information about the important events of his reign». ….
Mackey’s comment: Yes, that is true in the narrow, one-dimensional context in which Amanda Davis Bledsoe operates, but the historical King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ needs to be filled out with substantial alter egos, such as Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal; Ashurnasirpal; Ashur-bel-kala; and, of course, Nabonidus.
Especially when his 43-year reign is aligned with the approximately 43-year reign of Ashurbanipal does that “relatively little information about the important events of his reign” become greatly magnified.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
Consequently, are left primarily with descriptions of the king’s deeds that likely bear no resemblance to the actual events. …. However, what the secondary sources do provide us with are a picture of a popular leader who ruled his kingdom without any significant break from tradition, maintaining his kingly and religious duties while extending the kingdom through warfare with surrounding nations. …. There is no evidence that he was ever absent from Babylon for any extended period of time, aside from that required for his numerous military conquests.
Upon his death Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by numerous short-reigning kings, including his son, Amel-Marduk (562–560 BCE) … his brother-in-law Neriglissar (probably by violent means) (560–556 BCE), and Neriglissar’s minor son, Labashi-Marduk (556 BCE). ….
Mackey’s comment: The received king-lists, and late documents, have it all wrong:
Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences
https://www.academia.edu/59734684/Chaotic_King_Lists_can_conceal_some_sure_historical_sequences
Keeping it all as simple as it really was, the “violent” death of Amēl-Marduk, son of Nebuchednezzar, was the same as the violent death of Labashi-Marduk, who was the same as King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchednezzar, who died a violent death.
Nebuchednezzar was succeeded in the Chaldean dynasty only by his son (Amēl-Marduk = Labashi-Marduk = Belshazzar), who, in turn was succeeded by Neriglissar, the aged Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two”.
Why complicate it?
- Nabonidus
Nabonidus, who was not related to the previous kings by blood or marriage … seized the throne from the weak Labashi-Marduk.
Mackey’s comment: Wrong sequence. Nebuchednezzar had died several years earlier.
It was Neriglissar, Darius the Mede, “who … seized the throne”.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
There are more cuneiform documents which detail the reign of Nabonidus than any other Neo-Babylonian king … though they must be viewed with a critical eye considering most were created as propaganda either in strong support of or against Nabonidus. From these texts it is clear that, like Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus completed extensive building projects throughout Babylon. ….
Mackey’s comment: Very true that these documents “must be viewed with a critical eye”!
King Nabonidus was the same great builder of Babylon as was Nebuchadnezzar (including Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), as was Esarhaddon.
All one and the same king.
Amanda Davis Bledsoe continues:
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; and he abandoned the capitol city to Cyrus’s approaching army. He was even said to have been so unpopular that when the Persian army invaded Babylon the city willingly opened its gates to Cyrus and fell without a battle. …. Thus, many of the ancient sources are extremely critical of Nabonidus, naming him as a betrayer of the kingship and religion of Babylon.
Mackey’s comment: The composite Nebuchednezzar was as “controversial” as it gets. It is difficult to think of a more paranoid, superstitious, idolatrous, vindictive ruler.
Prophet Jeremiah was a High Priest 