by
Damien F. Mackey
“… officials … bewildered by the king’s behavior, counseled Evilmerodach
to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable
to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach”.
British Museum tablet No. BM 34113
Tradition has King Nabonidus going through a period of sickness, or alienation, during which time he was absent from his kingdom.
For example we read this somewhat inaccurate account at:
https://www.archaeology.org/issues/458-2203/features/10334-babylon-nabonidus-last-king
…. Nabonidus, who is mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 605–562 B.C.), is described as a mad king obsessed with dreams. According to the Book of Daniel, the king leaves Babylon to live in the wilderness for seven years. This depiction overlaps somewhat with Nabonidus’ own inscriptions, in which he emphasizes that he was an especially pious man who paid heed to dreams as the divine messages of the gods. Nabonidus was also infamous in antiquity for abandoning Babylon for 10 years to live in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where he established a kind of shadow capital at the oasis of Tayma. This was a strange and unprecedented move for a Mesopotamian ruler. ….
As I see it, though, King Nabonidus was not “mistakenly identified as his predecessor Nebuchednezzar”, but he was Nebuchednezzar:
Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus
(4) Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
It is known that Nabonidus’s son, Belshazzar, looked after the affairs of state during the absence of the legitimate king, his father.
William H. Shea, for instance, has written on this unconventional situation (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1982, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135-136):
NABONIDUS, BELSHAZZAR, AND THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN UPDATE
…. Entrusting the kingship to Belshazzar, as mentioned in the Verse Account, is not the same as making him king. The Verse Account refers to Belshazzar as the king’s eldest son when the kingship was “entrusted” to him, and the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to him as the “crown prince” through the years that Nabonidus spent in Tema [Tayma]. Moreover, the New Year’s festival was not celebrated during the years of Nabonidus’ absence because the king was not in Babylon. This would suggest that the crown prince, who was caretaker of the kingship at this time, was not considered an adequate substitute for the king in those ceremonies. Oaths were taken in Belshazzar’s name and jointly in his name and his father’s name, which fact indicates Belshazzar’s importance, but this is not the equivalent of calling him king.
There is no doubt about Belshazzar’s importance while he governed Babylonia during his father’s absence, but the question remains – did he govern the country as its king? So far, we have no explicit contemporary textual evidence to indicate that either Nabonidus or the Babylonians appointed Belshazzar as king at this time. ….
Given the pre-eminence of the name Nebuchednezzar over the less familiar one of his alter ego, Nabonidus, I would be extremely pleased to find evidence in the historical records of an illness and alienation of Nebuchednezzar qua Nebuchednezzar.
And so I have, thanks to A. K. Grayson.
For, as I wrote in my recent article:
Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar
(4) Cyrus as ‘Darius the Mede’ who succeeded Belshazzar | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
I was gratified to learn of certain documentary evidence attesting to some apparent mad, or erratic, behaviour on the part of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to complement the well-attested “Madness of Nabonidus”.
This led me to conclude – based on a strikingly parallel situation – that Evil-Merodach, son and successor of Nebuchednezzar, was Belshazzar.
I reproduce that information here (with ref. to British Museum tablet No. BM 34113 (sp 213), published by A. K. Grayson in 1975):
Read lines 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and Mas referring to strange behavior by Nebuchadnezzar, which has been brought to the attention of Evilmerodach by state officials. Life had lost all value to Nebuchadnezzar, who gave contradictory orders, refused to accept the counsel of his courtiers, showed love neither to son nor daughter, neglected his family, and no longer performed his duties as head of state with regard to the Babylonian state religion and its principal temple. Line 5, then, can refer to officials who, bewildered by the king’s behavior, counseled Evilmerodach to assume responsibility for affairs of state so long as his father was unable to carry out his duties. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach. Since Nebuchadnezzar later recovered (Dan. 4:36), the counsel of the king’s courtiers to Evil-merodach may later have been considered “bad” (line 5), though at the time it seemed the best way out of a national crisis.
Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from men” (Dan. 4:33) but later reinstated as king by his officials (verse 36), Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s eldest son, may have served as regent during his father’s incapacity. Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.
Comment: Now, is this not the very same situation that we have found with regard to King Nabonidus’ acting strangely, and defying the prognosticators, whilst the rule at Babylon – though not the kingship – lay in the hands of his eldest son, Belshazzar?
See also my article:
The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified
(4) The ‘Jonah incident’ historically identified | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
Daniel returned to Jerusalem as governor Nehemiah 