Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

Image result for asurbanipal



“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”:

dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia

Part Seven:
Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“… the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605) used the term ”son of a nobody”.

Its attestation is included here because of the Assyrian background of this ruler

and his family (Jursa 2007: 127-28)”.

Mattias Karlsson

The title of this multi-part series lists several buzz-words that commonly relate to the various alter egos (as I see the situation, at least) of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. In Part Two: https://www.academia.edu/37512120/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_Two_Ashurbanipal_Nabonidus_Cambyses_Artaxerxes_III

I thought it necessary to include another common one, actually a phrase, ‘son of a nobody’, having written there:

Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”.

Later on in this series I would come to include also (apart from Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus) Esarhaddon and Nabopolassar as constituting part of the “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”. Now, Esarhaddon and Nabopolassar are lumped together by Mattias Karisson, as ‘son of a nobody’, in his article:

The Expression “Son of a Nobody” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

2016

https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions

…. Esarhaddon may be the ”son of a nobody” in question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this “son of a nobody”, which probably alludes to Esarhaddon (or at least to this king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he “[will come out and se]ize [the throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]”

….

Also the Neo-Babylonian king Nabopolassar (626-605) used the term ”son of a nobody”. Its attestation is included here because of the Assyrian background of this ruler and his family (Jursa 2007: 127-28). The text highlighted below comes from a fictive autobiography in which Nabopolassar explains his ascent to the Babylonian throne (SANER 3:C12/1:4-12). It is written on a barrel cylinder of clay and has Babylon as provenance. It is rendered below in the translation of Da Riva (2013: 62).

When I was young, although I was the son of a nobody, I constantly sought in the sanctuaries of my lords Nabû and Marduk. ….

 

Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?

If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, “Nabonidus”, then:

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003

“His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran”.

As for Ashurbanipal, generally considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon – but, according to my view, he was Esarhaddon – the reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.

First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely – {making me think that he must have been the same as the ill-fated Ashur-nadin-shumi, or Nadin}:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ashurbanipal-oldest-surviving-royal-library-world-over-30000-clay-tablets-007127

Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father, Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.

Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had stabilized his empire. ….

But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after Sin-iddina-apla.

For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line, had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon.

This Shamash-shum-ukin was therefore superior to Ashurbanipal.

However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN : A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1

Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims

Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985), pp. 60-81

Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic] who, at their father’s behest, divided his realm between them – the former becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two were, in theory, “equal brothers,” [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full control of Babylonia’s foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia’s internal affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….

 

Part Seven (ii):

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’ (Mursilis)

 

 

“Mursili … was the youngest of five sons and nobody expected him to rule,

but when his father and eldest brother died, he was the only son left to be king”.

 

 

 

Here, in Mursilis, we have yet ‘another’ prince who was not expected to rule.

That may be significant given our tentative connection – through illness, not ruling prospects – of said Mursilis with our “Nebuchednezzar Syndrome” Nabopolasar in Part Five of this series:

 

“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”: dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Five: Emperors Mursilis and Nabopolassar

 

https://www.academia.edu/39704595/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_Five_Emperors_Mursilis_and_Nabopolassar

 

We read relevantly at: https://www.tumblr.com/search/hittitology

 

… Mursili II, King of Hatti (a Bronze Age kingdom and later empire in central Turkey). ….

Mursili was a badass warrior … a writer and a historian. He was the youngest of five sons and nobody expected him to rule, but when his father and eldest brother died, he was the only son left to be king. (Two of his other brothers were already local rulers in Syria, and the last brother, Zannanza, had died in an affair which is a story in its own right.) Mursili was very young at his accession, barely an adult, and after his badass father’s rule nobody took him seriously. His allies belittled him and called him a child, and when Mursili sent out envoys to negotiate, they never sent them back.

So Mursili defeated them all.

Within ten years, he had either conquered or allied himself with all the kings of the region. He was also the first Hittite king to subjugate Arzawa, a neighbouring kingdom which Hatti had been at odds with for centuries. Despite his young age, Mursili quickly became known for his success in battle. Under his rule and that of his father, the Hittite empire reached its peak.

But Mursili’s rule wasn’t just about fighting. For twenty years he struggled with a plague that was killing masses of his people. In those days, such a plague meant that the Gods were angry against the king, and Mursili clearly took it to heart. He wrote a number of extremely emotional prayers in which he asked for forgiveness, and as time went by, argued with the Gods about the unfairness of such suffering. These prayers are some of the most beautiful examples of Hittite literature.

But as if that wasn’t enough for poor Mursili, in his tenth year as king, his wife died of a mysterious illness. He accused his stepmother of cursing her (probably the most controversial thing he did) but though he was legally and religiously allowed to have her executed, he only banished her. He also wrote about this episode in his prayers, in vivid words:

I punished her with this one thing, that I sent her down from the palace. (…) Has her life now become miserable? Because she is alive, she beholds the sun of heaven with her eyes. She eats the bread of life. My punishment is the death of my wife. Has this gotten any better? Because she killed her, throughout the days of life [my soul] goes down to the dark netherworld [on her account]. For me it has been unbearable. ….

 

A few more facts about Mursili:

  • he suffered from temporary speech loss that might’ve been caused by a stroke due to all the stress he was under
  • he was interested in history and wrote not only annals (year-by-year events) for his own rule, but also for his father’s
  • during the first years of his reign, his two surviving brothers regularly helped him out. They both died the same year as Mursili’s wife.
  • he witnessed an eclipse which can (probably) be dated to the 24th of June 1312 BC. [sic] ….

 

Illness of Emperor Hattusilis

Image result for hattusilis iii

 

“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”:

dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia

 Part Six:

Illness of Emperor Hattusilis

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

“… Hattusilis fell dangerously ill, and because of his feeble health

he was thought to be doomed”.

Dr. I. Velikovsky

 

Hattusilis (so-called III), with whom Dr. I. Velikovsky had identified King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ in Ramses II and His Time (1978), had likewise suffered a debilitating illness early in his life (career).

In his Chapter 5 “The Autobiography of Nebuchadnezzar” (Climbing the Throne), Velikovsky wrote:

 

The autobiographical record of Hattusilis was prepared to be kept in a temple of Ishtar. It is a confession and justification of his behavior in coveting the imperial crown. The autobiography … covers the period of his life from childhood to his accession to the throne of the empire.

 

When a child, Hattusilis fell dangerously ill, and because of his feeble health he was thought to be doomed. His brother dreamed a dream in which Ishtar appeared and advised his father:

 

The years which remain for Hattusil are only few. His health is poor. Give him to me: he shall be my priest, and he will return to health.

 

His father heeded the advice and gave “the small boy to the goddess in divine service.” He grew up as a priest in the temple of Ishtar.

Already the beginning of the autobiography casts light on four or five facts we know about Nebuchadnezzar. All through his life he had a feeble constitution and the appearance of a dwarf. In the talmudic tradition he is called Nebuchadnezzar the Dwarf (“nanas”). ….

 

His childhood, spent in a temple, must have been responsible for Nebuchadnezzar’s ecstatic religious character, which is clearly mirrored in his building inscriptions. All his life he called himself priest.

 

Nebuchadnezzar, the novice in the temple of Ishtar, remained her worshiper as king. When building Babylon he erected or restored and rebuilt the famous Gate of Ishtar, excavated at the site of the old Babylon. …. “I built the gate of Ishtar of blue glazed bricks.” …. He also built and repaired many temples of Ishtar and memorialized his acts for future generations in his building inscriptions. “I rebuilt … Eanna, temple of Ishtar in Erech.” …. He called himself “regardful of the sacred places of Ninib and Ishtar.” ….

 

[End of quotes]

 

Here, in this description of the emperor’s dire illness, we can discern various likenesses to the case of King Nebuchednezzar’s sickness as recounted in the Book of Daniel chapter 4: extremely poor health at an early stage; a dream interpreted; promise of return to health; divine terms to be fulfilled.

 

It is thought that the famous wife of Hattusilis, Pudukhepa, had to fill in for her husband when he was ill, for, according to the following account, Hattusilis “was frequently sick”:

https://www.judithstarkston.com/2011/05/26/a-womans-view-from-the-top-hittite-and-mycenaean-queens/

 

Puduhepa is the Hittite queen we know the most about since she corresponded with Ramesses II, the Pharoah of Egypt, and she made religious declarations, treaties, and judicial decisions which were recorded by scribes. Puduhepa was the wife of Hattusili III. Before her marriage she was a priestess, “a handmaiden of Ishtar.” She was said to be very beautiful, and Hattusili tells us he married her following a vision he had in a dream. Many years into their marriage, Hattusili wrote that the goddess Ishtar blessed them with “the love of husband and wife” (Apology of Hattusili). Hattusili was frequently sick, and he depended on his strong-willed, highly intelligent wife to help him run the vast Hittite empire (Bryce, 13).

He shows every sign of trusting her completely. We do not know if other queens, with less commanding personalities, had quite as much lee-way. Probably not, but they had great independence nonetheless.

 

Seal Impression of Queen Puduhepa

 

Hittite queens regularly shared seals with their husbands, giving them the right to “sign” official documents and independently conduct the business of the realm. Puduhepa had her own seal. In fact, the stamp seal of Queen Puduhepa can be seen today in the Corum Museum, Turkey. Much as Puduhepa stands out as a distinctive woman, however, she could not have been treated with respect by the Egyptian pharoah [sic] and exercised broad political power unless queens generally could do many of the same things she did. Her reign is a window into what a woman at the top could do in the Hittite Empire. ….

[End of quote]

 

Trevor Bryce is of the view that a sickness of Hattusilis (“he suffered from a recurrent medical condition”) may have prevented him from personally liasing with pharaoh Ramses II in Canaan (Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East. The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age

 

As a further inducement to Hattusili, and perhaps in response to misgivings which the latter had expressed, Ramesses offered to meet his royal brother part-way through his journey:  And I the Great King, the King of Egypt will go to the land of Kinahhi [i.e. Canaan, where Ramesses probably had a royal residence] in order to see the Great King, the King of the Land of Hatti, my brother, and appear before the presence of my brother, and to receive him into my land.  Preparations for the visit apparently progressed to the stage where Ramesses sent his dignitaries to meet Hattusili in the land of Upi. 32 This was the region around Damascus. It bordered on Hittite-controlled territory, but belonged at that time to Egypt. Doubtless the Egyptian reception committee had been instructed to escort Hattusili to his appointed meeting- place with Ramesses in Canaan, whence the pharaoh himself would escort him to his new capital Pi-Ramesse in the Egyptian Delta. Interestingly, it was in this context that Ramesses reminded Hattusili of the Assyrian king’s scornful dismissal of him as a mere substitute for a Great King. This gratuitously humiliating reminder seems quite out of place here.  But Ramesses may well have intended it as a further inducement for the reluctant invitee to come to Egypt. As we have noted, Hattusili was most eager for peer acceptance of his right to sit upon the throne of Hatti — and the Assyrian king had bluntly denied him that. A visit to Egypt at the pharaoh’s invitation and as his guest would provide the strongest possible foreign endorsement for the legitimacy of Hattusili’s position — effectively offsetting the snub from Assyria.  This, however, is the last we hear of the proposed visit. Almost certainly it never took place. One of Hattusili’s illnesses may have flared up again, causing him to postpone if not cancel the trip. We know that he suffered from a recurrent medical condition which caused severe foot inflammation — ‘fire of the feet’, as it is called in a prayer of his wife Puduhepa. Word of this particular indisposition had reached the pharaoh, perhaps in the context of an excuse from Hattusili for not taking up his invitation. 33 Ramesses sent him some salves or ointments to try to cure it (see Chapter 7). But apart from Hattusili’s state of health, pressing problems within his subject territories, especially in the west, may well have led him to have second thoughts about a journey to the land of the Nile. Such an excursion would almost certainly have kept him away from his own kingdom for three months or more, an absence he could ill afford, especially if he had major concerns about possible uprisings amongst his subject peoples and their neighbours. ….

 

 

 

Books on ancient Egypt hardly give Nebuchednezzar a look in

Image result for toby wilkinson egypt

  by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

“[Toby Wilkinson] devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb,

who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt

as a great imperial power”.

 Kathryn Lang

  

I am enjoying reading select bits and pieces of Toby Wilkinson’s large (nearly 650 pages) book, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. The History of a Civilisation from 3000 BC to Cleopatra (Bloomsbury, 2010) – {even though it is based on the standard conventional dates} – because it is much easier reading than its forbidding size might at first suggest.

Something like, ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’.

 

But what Kathryn Lang has written about Wilkinson’s meagre treatment of Tutankhamen, “only a few paragraphs”, is generous compared with his treatment of King Nebuchednezzar who actually conquered Egypt. As we shall see below, Wilkinson allows him only one mention.

 

Firstly, though, a review of the book by Kathryn Lang: books@dallasnews.com

 

Cambridge professor and eminent Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson, author of six earlier major works on ancient Egypt, has put four millennia of Egyptian lore into a lively, accessible one-volume history.

Beginning with the prehistoric peoples of the eastern Sahara who created Egypt’s “Stonehenge” at Nabta Playa, Wilkinson proceeds chronologically through the tumults and triumphs of the Pharaohs up to the final days of Cleopatra, the last Ptolemaic ruler, who spent her final intrigue-filled days in the decadent and cosmopolitan capital of Alexandria.

Written in informal, often colloquial language, Wilkinson’s history bristles with detail. Nearly 500 pages long, it’s a page-turner for anyone even modestly interested in his subject. For the more scholarly reader, he’s included a lengthy bibliographic essay and extensive bibliography, and at the front of the volume he’s provided a helpful nine-page timeline listing all of Egypt’s rulers through the Ptolemies.

In his introduction, Wilkinson says he’s become “increasingly uneasy” about ancient Egypt’s “darker side.” He intends this book to counterbalance the view that Egyptian rulers were benevolent despots and that life was good in the land of the Pharaohs. He shows in vivid and sometimes gruesome detail the brutality and ruthlessness of the kings, who came to see themselves not just as the gods’ representatives on Earth, but as living gods themselves.

His thesis is that the Pharaoh and the ruling class prospered on the backs of a peasant population that was illiterate, overtaxed and underpaid. The masses accepted this state of affairs because they believed their godlike kings would assure their safe passage from this brutish earthly existence into the heavenly one of the next.

At a fast clip, Wilkinson spins fascinating tales: of the first Pharaoh Narmer’s unification of Upper and Lower Egypt into a magnificent nation-state headquartered in the capital city of Memphis; of the astounding engineering feats and prodigious 20-year labors of 10,000 workers to build Khufu’s Great Pyramid of Giza; of the Middle Kingdom’s golden age of literature and the arts. He lingers on the 18th Dynasty, the “high-water mark of pharaonic civilization.” He tells of the accession through murder of the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and the rise and fall of the heretic king Akhenaten and his beauteous wife Nefertiti, who dared to banish all the gods but one, the solar god Aten.

He devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb, who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt as a great imperial power.

On through the centuries Wilkinson gallops, through bitter bloodshed and uncertain peacetimes, through ruler-sanctioned robbery of the earlier Pharaohs’ tombs, through the political fragmentation of a once-mighty empire, from the invasions of the Libyans in 1209 B.C. to the Roman conquest of 30 B.C.

Wilkinson’s is a full and rich, if hurried, march through the centuries of ancient Egypt’s glory days and ultimate domination by newer superpowers. It is also, Wilkinson warns, a cautionary tale for us as we witness the power politics of contemporary despots in the region today. ….

[End of quote]

 

The author Toby Wilkinson, I feel, really manages to bring to life various of the great pharaohs.

I am finding especially interesting his thorough treatment of the Twelfth Dynasty despot, Amenemes (Wilkinson’s “Amenemhat”) I, who is my choice for the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), oppressor of Israel when Moses was a baby. See e.g. my article:

 

Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel

https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel

And I was rather keen to read about this Amenemes I in conjunction with Wilkinson’s treatment of Teti, founder of the so-called Sixth Dynasty, since I believe Teti to be an alter ego of the Twelfth Dynasty founder.

From a comparison in Wilkinson’s book we find, common to Teti, Amenemes I (over and above likenesses to which I have referred elsewhere): newness; lowly origins; surrounded by uncertainty; reliance upon trusty “lieutenants”.

 

  • Teti

 

  1. 105

The throne passed instead to a commoner, a man called Teti, who swiftly married his predecessor’s daughter to secure his legitimacy. So began the Sixth Dynasty … in an atmosphere of uncertainty, court intrigue and barely managed crisis that was to haunt it until its very end.

With his rather tenuous claim to the kingship, Teti needed to surround himself with trusted lieutenants.

 

  • Amenemes I

 

  1. 155 Amenmehat I, founder of a new dynasty and self-proclaimed renaissance king, was actually conscious of his non-royal origins and of the lingering resentment felt towards his rule in part of Egypt.

 

  1. 161

There are strong indications that the new dynasty came to power in lawless times, by means of a coup d’état, rather than by peaceful succession ….

 

  1. 162

 

Renaissance ruler

… Amenemhat I lost no time in appointing his royal lieutenants to key posts in the administration. …. Egypt’s new master was tightening his grip on the lever of government.

 

Also on p. 161, we read this startling comment: “[Nehri] … ‘I rescued my town on the day of fighting from the sickening terror of the royal house’. There is no more chilling reference to tyrannical monarchy in all of Egyptian history”.

 

Poor old Nebuchednezzar (Wilkinson’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), though, is named only once in the entire book, on p. 442 {N. Grimal has only about 4 pages on “Nebuchedrezzar”}: “Wahibra escaped with his life and fled abroad … to the court of Babylon. The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, could scarcely believe his luck. Here was an unmissable opportunity to meddle in Egypt’s internal affairs and put a Babylonian puppet on the Throne of Horus”.

No mention whatsoever of any invasion of Egypt.

 

Were pharaoh Ramses II and Esarhaddon contemporaries?

Image result for nahr el kalb esarhaddon ramses II

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The first march of Necho-Ramses II toward the Euphrates is related on the obelisk

of Tanis and on the rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb near Beirut, written in his second year. The rock inscriptions of Ramses II are not as old as that of Essarhadon on the same rock”.

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Thus wrote Dr. Velikovsky in # 211 of his: https://www.varchive.org/ce/theses.htm

 

THESES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF ANCIENT HISTORY

 

He, retaining the potent king Esarhaddon in his conventional place following Sennacherib, but dramatically lowering the mighty Ramses II of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty by some 700 years, from his conventional date of c. 1280 BC down to the time of Nebuchednezzar (so-called II), conventionally c. 580 BC, now saw Ramses II as being “not as old as … Essarhadon”.

 

This was in stark contrast to the conventional structure of things which has Ramses II (1280) ante-dating Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC) by some 600 years:

https://www.livius.org/articles/place/lykos-nahr-al-kalb/

 

In the thirteenth century BCE, the Egyptian king Ramesses II left three reliefs on the south bank of the Nahr al-Kalb, north of Berytus, which commemorated the northern campaigns that culminated in the battle of Kadesh (1274 BCE). Several centuries later, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, having forced cities like Tyre into submission, conquered Egypt, and chose to put a memorial of his own opposite the relief of Ramesses. Ever since, armies have left inscription at the Nahr al-Kalb, a custom that was known to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (more).

[End of quote]

 

In Ramses II and his Time (1978), Velikovsky would develop his connection between pharaoh Ramses II and Nebuchednezzar by identifying the latter as the Hittite emperor, Hattsulis, who famously engaged in a treaty with Ramses II.

 

What to say about all of this?

 

I had come to reject it completely, due to Dr. Velikovsky’s archaeologically highly dubious separation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty away from the Eighteenth in order for Ramses II and his dynasty now to be equated with Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth (Saïte) Dynasty at the approximate time of Nebuchednezzar king of Babylon.

But that earlier estimation of mine must needs be amended, at least to some degree, owing to my more recent identification of Esarhaddon with Nebuchednezzar himself in articles such as:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Two: Another writer has picked up this possible connection

 

https://www.academia.edu/37525605/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Two_Another_writer_has_picked_up_this_possible_connection

and again:

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

That big turnaround on my part would now lead me to conclude that the reason for the juxtaposition of Ramses II and Esarhaddon on the same rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb was because these two mighty men were contemporaneous.

 

It would also mean that Dr. Velikovsky was right after all in synchronising Ramses II with Nebuchednezzar.

Whether or not the latter was also the emperor Hattusilis, and Ramses II was also Necho II, are other considerations.

 

It does not mean however, I still think, that the Nineteenth Dynasty can be dragged right away from the Eighteenth. The necessary crunching in time comes from dragging backwards, so to speak, Nebuchednezzar, to slot into time as Esarhaddon.

 

In Ramses II and his Time (Chapter 2 Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar in War and Peace), Velikovsky wrote (with his Nebuchednezzar as Hattusilis):

 

Treaty Between Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar

 

Two giants, Egypt under Ramses II and Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, fought nineteen years for domination over the Middle East. Judea was the victim in this deadly struggle. She was devastated by the troops first of one despot and then of the other, but the lands of the contestants were spared the horrors of the prolonged war.

To secure victory over rebellious Judea, Nebuchadnezzar finally proposed a peace treaty to the pharaoh. Historians take it for granted that during the last siege of Jerusalem a treaty was negotiated between Babylonia and Egypt.22 The pharaoh was glad to insure the integrity of his own country and sacrificed Judea, his ally.

Jerusalem suffered an eighteen months’ siege, followed by destruction. The war between Babylonia and Egypt had terminated, and Egypt did not come to the aid of the besieged. More than this, Egypt and Babylonia pledged loyalty to each other and obligated themselves to extradite political refugees.

The peace treaty is preserved in the Egyptian language, carved on the wall of the Karnak temple of Amon. A text in the Babylonian (Akkadian) language, written on clay in cuneiform and found at the beginning of this century at Boghazkoi, a village of eastern Anatolia, is a draft of the same document. The original of the treaty was written on a silver tablet not extant today. The original language of the treaty was Babylonian, and the Egyptian text is a translation, as some expressions reveal.

The treaty was signed by Usermare Setepnere, son of Menmare, grandson of Menpehtire (the royal name of Ramses II, son of Seti, grandson of Ramses I), and by Khetasar, son of Merosar, grandson of Seplel. The treaty in the Akkadian language was signed by Hattusilis, son of Mursilis, grandson of Subbiluliumas.23

The man whose name was read Khetasar in the Egyptian and Hattusilis in the Boghazkoi text must have been the king whom we know as Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar. More than fifty times in the Scriptures his name is spelled Nebuchadrezzar; more than thirty times he is called Nebuchadnezzar.24

The adversary of Ramses II is called in the treaty the king of Hatti. Hatti, as can be learned from many cuneiform texts, was a broad ethnographical or territorial designation. In a Babylonian building inscription Nebuchadnezzar wrote: “The princes of the land of Hatti beyond the Euphrates to the westward, over whom I exercised lordship.”25

The treaty has an “oath and curse” clause. Gods of many places were invoked to keep vigilance over the treaty and to punish the one who should violate it. In the list of the gods and goddesses, the goddess of Tyre is followed by the “goddess of Dan.” But in the days before the conquest of Dan by the Danites, in the time of the Judges, that place was called Laish (Judges 18:29), and it was Jeroboam who built there a temple. The name of a place called Dan in a treaty of Ramses II, presumably of the first half of the thirteenth century, sounds like an anachronism.

The purpose of the treaty was to bring about the cessation of hostilities between the two lands. It is obvious from its text that Syria and Palestine no longer belonged to the domain of Egypt.

This is in agreement with the biblical data. The major part of the treaty is given over to the problem of political refugees. The paragraphs are written in a reciprocal manner; it is apparent that it was the great king of Hatti who was interested in the provisions for extradition of the political enemies of the Chaldeans. A special paragraph in the treaty deals with Syrian (Palestinian) fugitives:

 

Now if subjects of the great chief of Kheta transgress against him … I will come after their punishment to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt … to cause that Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall be silent … and he shall turn [them] back again to the great chief of Kheta.26

[End of quotes]

 

Nabonidus repaired the head of a statue of Sargon of Akkad

Image result for nabonidus

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“[Nabonidus] saw in this sacred enclosure [Ebabbar] a statue of Sargon …

half of its head was missing …. Given his reverence for the gods and

his respect for kingship, he … restored the head of

this statue, and put back its face”.

  

According to a late chronographic document concerning Babylon emanating from either the Seleucid or Parthian age, King Nabonidus had found a damaged statue of Sargon of Akkad the head of which he had carefully restored by his artisans.

In this particular document, Sargon of Akkad is distinguished from his “son”, Naram-Sin – though I believe, and have written to the effect (e.g. article below), that Sargon and Naram-Sin were one and the same powerful king.

We read from this late document: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/cm-53-chronographic-document-concerning-nabonidus/

 

…. [3] in the month of Ululu, […] of this same year, in the Ebabbar, the temple of  Šamaš, which is in Sippar, and in which kings among his predecessors had searched in vain for ancient foundation – the ancient dwelling place […] of his kingship that would make his heart glad – he revealed to him, to his humble servant who worshiped him, who was constantly in search of his holy places, the sacred enclosure of Naram-Sin, Sargon’s son, and, in this same year, in a propitious month, on a favorable day, he laid the foundations of the Ebabbar, the temple of  Šamaš, above the sacred enclosure of Naram-Sin, Sargon’s son, without exceeding or shrinking a finger’s breadth.

He saw Naram-Sin’s inscription and, without changing its place, restored it and appended his own inscription there.

 

[4] He saw in this sacred enclosure a statue of Sargon, the father of Naram-Sin: half of its head was missing, and it had deteriorated so as to make its face hardly recognizable. Given his reverence for the gods and his respect for kingship, he summoned expert artisans, restored the head of this statue, and put back its face. He did not change its place but installed it in the Ebabbar and initiated an oblation for it. ….

[End of quote]

 

Now, King Nabonidus of Babylon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ according to my revision. And Sargon of Akkad, the ancient ‘Humpty Dumpty’, whose head the eccentric Babylonian king was, however, able to ‘put back together again’, was the biblical Nimrod himself, perhaps the world’s first dictator-emperor.

 

See e.g. my article:

 

  Nimrod a “mighty man”       

https://www.academia.edu/39638349/Nimrod_a_mighty_man_?email_work_card=view-paper

Nimrod and Nebuchednezzar, though well separated in time the one from the other, do compare well to the extent of they both being great builders of a “Babel”, of a Babylon, who regarded themselves as gods, who defied the One God, and who were punished – perhaps even while their lips were bespeaking their own praises (cf. Genesis 11:6-7; Daniel 4:31).

 

https://blowthetrumpet.com.au/bow-the-knee-or-burn-daniel-chapter-three/

 

King Nebuchadnezzar was a despot who would tolerate no rivals or equals, a man who had deified himself and demanded to be worshipped as a god.

He was a ruler who manifested the character of Nimrod himself who originally founded Babylon [sic] and Assyria and built the Tower of Babel.

Babylon in fact had its roots in Nimrod’s ancient empire. In Babylon you could have any religion you liked, and there were many religions, provided the god you worshipped was not greater than the King himself.

 

Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the pantheon of gods in Babylon. In his estimation of himself there was no other god higher than himself. Nebuchadnezzar, like many other rulers in the Bible and in history, was a major type of the Antichrist ….

[End of quote]

 

In “Nimrod a “mighty man”” I argued that, just as the biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar requires a handful of mighty kings, his alter egos, in fact, to complete the awesome potentate, so, too, does biblical Nimrod require to be united to his various ‘parts’ (‘faces’) comprising some of the most famous names from early dynastic history (Sargon, Naram-Sin, Shulgi, etc.). Thus I wrote:

 

The biblical Nimrod has, at least as it seems to me, multi historical personae, just as I have found to have been the case with the much later (Chaldean) king, Nebuchednezzar.

The historical Nebuchednezzar – as he is currently portrayed to us – needs his other ‘face’, Nabonidus of Babylon, for example, to complete him as the biblical “King Nebuchadnezzar” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”); Nabonidus being mad, superstitious, given to dreams and omens, statue-worshipping, praising the god of gods (ilani sa ilani); having a son called “Belshazzar”.

The biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar also needs Ashurbanipal to fill out in detail his 43 years of reign, to smash utterly the nation of Egypt – Ashurbanipal also having a fiery furnace in which he burned people.

But Nebuchednezzar also needs Esarhaddon (conquering Egypt again) whose mysterious and long-lasting illness is so perfectly reminiscent of that of Nebuchednezzar in the Book of Daniel; Esarhaddon especially being renowned for his having built Babylon.

Nebuchednezzar has other ‘faces’ as well, he being Nabopolassar, the careful archaeologist (like Nabonidus), fussing over the proper alignment of temples and other buildings, and as the so-called Persian king, Cambyses, also named “Nebuchednezzar”, again quite mad, and being a known conqueror of Egypt. And we need to dip into Persia again, actually the city of Susa, to find Nebuchednezzar now in the Book of Nehemiah as the “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” reigning in his 20th to 32nd years (cf. Nehemiah 2:1 and 13:6).

Extending matters yet still further, our necessary revisionist folding of ‘Neo’ Babylonia with ‘Middle Kingdom’ Babylonia has likely yielded us the powerful (so-called) Middle Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I as being another ‘face’ of the ‘Neo’ Babylonian king whom we number as Nebuchednezzar II.

 

In similar fashion, apparently, has our conventional biblico-history sliced and diced into various pieces, Nimrod the mighty hunter king.

[End of quote]