Not able to shake the hand of Bel

But, according to my reconstructions, Nabonidus was not “the last king of Babylon”, but he was Nebuchednezzar himself, hence the Book of Daniel’s lurking “memory of the historical Nabonidus”. Beaulieu will now, again missing the point, go on to write that Nabonidus’s son Belshazzar is a reflection of the “Babylonian king Belshazzar in Daniel 5”. The truth of the matter is that this is just the one Belshazzar.

The Book of Daniel is charged with all sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history rather than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that the author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better suited to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean) empire. Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case. In very many ways, it seems, King Nabonidus reflects the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel.

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, 2018

Judean prophetic texts, especially the MT of Jeremiah, but also Habakkuk, concur that Nebuchadnezzar II functioned as an agent of Yhwh’s sovereignty in the political realm. Beyond agreement on this point, however, prophetic texts articulate distinctive perspectives about the Babylonian king. The present study discusses several paradigmatic modes by which Nebuchadnezzar projected his own image, and investigates how Judean prophetic thinkers accommodated or repudiated the idea that the great king could serve the political purposes of the God of Israel. In the case of MT Jeremiah, a paramount concern was to insulate the prophet from charges of collaboration with the Babylonians by closely associating Nebuchadnezzar with the God of Israel. In Habakkuk, we find an uncharacteristic repudiation of the principle that a foreign force could fulfill a legitimate mandate of God.

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2013

Humans generally find it easier to point out other people’s errors than to name their own. Criticizing others is an exercise in futility with this exception: it is possible to learn from the mistakes of others if we study from cause to effect and learn in our own lives the lessons taught by the errors of others, and the consequences resulting from those errors. It is with this exceptional aim in view that we shall contemplate the moral deficits of a man who lived in antiquity, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (605-562 BC). Our discussion of Nebuchadnezzar’s faults is not for the purpose of a postmortem conviction and condemnation of the irascible potentate–no matter how deserving of execration some might believe him to be. This discussion intends to accomplish three things:

2013

By using building, cylinder, and brick inscriptions, we can see Nebuchadnezzar went from being a proud and harsh king, to being more humble, caring, and a worshiper of Yav and El. This is consistent with Nebuchadnezzar's own testimony recorded in Daniel chapter 4.

“… 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”.

The Book of Daniel is charged with all sorts of historical inaccuracies, a fault more likely of the perceived history rather than of the Book of Daniel itself. Admittedly, some of the things that the author of Daniel attributes to “King Nebuchednezzar” appear to be better suited to Nabonidus, the supposed last king of the Babylonian (Chaldean) empire. Yet there might be a good reason why this is the case. In very many ways, it seems, King Nabonidus reflects the “Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel.