Sunday, May 26, 2019

Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar were ‘camera-shy’?




 Tower of Babel tablet: A reconstruction of the tablet, right, showing what the images would have originally looked like before they faded

 
by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
 
“… there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V …”.




 

Such is the case according to the article, "Shalmaneser V and Sargon II", at: http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel302/Shalmaneser%20V%20and%20Sargon%20II.htm
.... The revolt of Israel against Assyria during the days of King Hoshea, last king of Israel, brought on a siege by the Assyrians (1 Kings 17). The siege was led by Shalmaneser V, King of Assyria (there is no known relief depiction of Shalmaneser V). During the siege, he died. Sargon II replaced Shalmanezer V as King of Assyria, who finished the siege and sacked Samaria.
 
Whilst that may be surprising in itself, the fact is – I believe - that Shalmaneser (so-called V) was the same person as Tiglath-pileser (known as III) of whom there are plenty of depictions.
 

 
And the lack of apparent portraits of Nebuchednezzar II was part of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s reason for (rightly) seeking to find an alter ego for the Great King (though wrongly, I think, equating him with the Hittite emperor, Hattusilis). Velikovsky wrote in Ramses II and His Time, p. 184: “At Wadi Brissa in Lebanon, Nebuchadnezzar twice had his picture cut in rock; these are supposedly the only known portraits of this king”.
 

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Similar lives, burials for Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah


Image result for king ahaz


by
Damien F. Mackey


 
“Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah’s reigns are all similar”.
biblegateway

 

Thus we read at biblegateway:


Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah’s reigns are all similar.
Each begins by following God and being rewarded with a powerful reign. Then each sins and is punished with national struggles and an unusual death.
None are [sic] honored with burials among the former kings. These three men exemplify a common theme in Chronicles: you reap what you sow. When they are faithful to God, He is faithful to them. When they abandon God, He destroys them.
[End of quote]
 
Reign (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)


“Joash started off his reign in wonderful way, but in his later years when he should have grown wiser, turned away from the right path, to the great distress of his people. But the king paid dearly for his mistakes …. The masses of the people who had risked their lives for him and had loved him, turned away from him. When he fell ill, his servants joined in a conspiracy to get rid of the king who had betrayed them”.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464016/jewish/Amaziah.htm
As soon as Amaziah felt himself secure on the throne of Judea, he slew his father's assassins. However, he abided strictly by the laws of the Torah. He punished only the guilty persons and not their children. In general Amaziah took care not to break any of the traditions and laws of the Jewish faith, although he personally was not up to the religious standards of the pious kings of the House of David.
…. through his rash campaign against Israel, Amaziah lost the prestige he had gained by his victory over Edom. Moreover, he abandoned the worship of G‑d and turned to idolatry. The disaffection among the people grew, and they formed a conspiracy against the king”.

“Uzziah himself was a pious man, and he observed religiously all the laws and commandments of the Torah, under the proper guidance of the prophets who had appeared in his time, among them, Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and others. But at the height of his successful rule, he committed one unpardonable sin which cost him his name and throne.
In a moment of self-glorification and pride, Uzziah decided to imitate Jeroboam II, and to combine in his own person the supreme political and religious offices. He wanted to be High Priest as well as king. Although the idolatrous Israelites had permitted their king to act as high priest, the pious people of Judea refused to accept this violation of the Torah. Only members of the priestly family of Aaron were permitted to hold this office in the Holy Temple. Uzziah persisted in his demand, although the leading scholars and priests tried in vain to dissuade him. Finally Uzziah forced the issue. He entered the Holy Temple and, over the protest of the High Priest Azariah, started to offer incense on the golden altar. Presently the king was smitten with the most terrible of all maladies, leprosy. He had to leave Jerusalem at once and live in seclusion. Until his death, the stricken king dwelt in a house near the cemetery”.
 
Burial (Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah)
 
Joash: 2 Chron. 24:25. “And when they were departed from [Joash], (for they left him in great diseases,) his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he died: and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings”.


“[Amaziah’s] body was returned to Jerusalem and buried in the Royal cemetery”.
 
“Uzziah was not buried in the tomb of his ancestors, the kings of David's house for he was a leper. He was buried in the royal burial ground, however”.

 
King Ahaz of Judah’s burial followed the same non usual pattern:

2 Chronicles 28:27: “Ahaz rested with his ancestors and was buried in the city of Jerusalem, but he was not placed in the tombs of the kings of Israel”.

What to make of all this?
Given our need for chronological shrinkage, and, more importantly, given that Matthew has omitted Joash and Amaziah of Judah (under those specific names, at least) from his Genealogy of Jesus Christ (1:8-9):
….
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz ….


I have to wonder if any (or even all) of the somewhat similar kings, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah - and even, perhaps, Ahaz - may be duplicates.


 

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

King Nabonidus like an Assyrian monarch


Ashurbanipal 



 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

 

Nabonidus is an Assyrian king.

He adopts Assyrian titulature and boasts of having

the Assyrian kings as his "royal ancestors".

 

 



 

This is what I wrote some years ago now to Johnny Zwick, sysop of the California Institute for Ancient Studies (then www.specialtyinterests.net/), regarding my projected realignment of late Judah with neo Assyro-Babylonia:

 

My connecting of Hezekiah of Judah with Josiah went down like a lead balloon amongst the few to whom I sent it. (See Pope’s valuable effort at: http://www.domainofman.com/book/chart-37.html)

 

[Comment: I have since re-done this properly in my article:

 

'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah

 


 

So here is the next phase. I would not actually call it a bombshell.

More like a Third World War.

Nabonidus is 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.

So, basically Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal during his early reign. They share many Babylonian building works and restorations, too.

 

Now, if Nabonidus is Ashurbanipal (and I am now pretty much convinced that he must be), then Ashurbanipal of 41-43 years of reign (figures vary) can only be Nebuchednezzar II the Great of an established 43 years of reign.

Nebuchednezzar is the Babylonian face, while Ashurbanipal is the Assyrian face.

The great Nebuchednezzar has left only 4 known depictions of himself, we are told. Ridiculous! Add to this paltry number all of the depictions of Ashurbanipal.

 

The last 35 years of Nebuchednezzar are hardly known, they say. Add Ashurbanipal (whose lack also in places is supplemented in turn by Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus).

 

It is doubted whether Nebuchednezzar conquered Egypt as according to the Bible. Just add Ashurbanipal who certainly did conquer Egypt.

 

The many queries about whether an inscription belongs to Nebuchednezzar or Nabonidus now dissolves.

 

It was Nabonidus, not Nebuchednezzar, they say, who built the famous palace in Babylon.

Nabonidus's well known madness (perhaps the Teima phase) is Nebuchednezzar's madness.

Nabonidus calls Sin "the God of gods" (ilani sa ilani), the exact phrase used by Nebuchednezzar in Daniel 2:47 of Daniel's God ("the God of gods").

 

Looking for a fiery furnace? Well, Ashurbanipal has one. His brother dies in it.

“Saulmagina my rebellious brother, who made war with me, they threw into a burning fiery furnace, and destroyed his life” (Caiger, p. 176).

….

 

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Conventional fudging has Seti occupying centuries



 Egyptian Temple relief

by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
In the case of the so-called Twentieth Dynasty, Seti-nakhte, the heroic dynastic founder
who drove out the usurper, and who is Seti, rears up again in the guise of Ramses XI
at the end of that dynasty.
 
  
 
 
The characteristic feature of the early reign of Horemheb, of Seti, is restoration (and lawgiving) after a period of chaos and usurpation. Hence the institution of a new era, whm mswt (‘Repetition of Births’).
 
This connection between the Nineteenth Dynasty and, supposedly, the era the preceded it, is picked up again with Ramses XI, also (like Seti) named Menmare, with his new era of restoration, whm mswt.
Ramses XI is supposed to have reigned, like Horemheb, for 28 years.
 
Topsy-turvy Egyptian dynasties, as we noted elsewhere, with a dynasty’s beginning re-emerging at its end.
Thus, in the case of the so-called Twentieth Dynasty, Seti-nakhte, the heroic dynastic founder who drove out the usurper, and who is Seti (supporting the strong tradition of a “Sethos” as dynastic founder), rears up again in the guise of Ramses XI at the end of that dynasty. 
 
That is already a chronological stretch from c. 1320 BC (Horemheb) - 1070 BC (Ramses XI).
250 years for he who I consider to be the one pharaoh: Seti the Great.
 
And this does not yet take into account possible further extensions of Seti, via Psusennes I (=II) and on even into the 25th dynasty.
 
 
 

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Merenptah completes Seti


Reliefs of Amenhotep III found in the temple


by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
  
 
“Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions,
not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears
to have been blocked up by Seti?
 
Keith Hamilton
 
 
 
 
The somewhat poorly known pharaoh Merenptah - generally thought to have been the son and successor of Ramses II - needs, it seems, to be filled out with his supposed grandfather, Seti (the father of Ramses II), whom I have multi-identified in e.g. my series:
 
Seti I and Seti II Merenptah
 
See especially:
 
Seti I and Seti II Merenptah. Part Three: Seti I and II Merenptah and Merenptah
 
 
Merenptah’s relative obscurity (qua Merenptah) is apparent from the following quotes:
 
“Greatly overshadowed by his dominant and long-lived father, Merneptah never had a chance to become a famous pharaoh and he was almost unknown for most of his life”.
 
Note, in the next quote, the sequence: “probably”, “likely”, “presumed”, “possibly”.
 
“Merneptah was probably the fourth child of Isetnofret I, the second wife of Ramesses II, and he was married to Queen Isetnofret II, his royal wife, who was likely his full sister bearing the name of their mother. It is presumed that Merneptah was also married to Queen Takhat and one of their sons would succeed him as Seti II. They also were the parents of Prince Merenptah and possibly the usurper, Amenmesse, and Queen Twosret, wife of Seti II and later pharaoh in her own right”.
 
“He left few monuments, but in his conduct of Egypt’s defense and diplomacy he was at least the equal of his father”.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10208b.htm
“His original works are comparatively few and insignificant. His name is constantly found on the monuments of his father …”.
 
Merenptah is thought to have “decorated” (in some cases, “largely”) monuments of Seti, even though he is considered to have been separated from Seti by the almost seven decades of reign of Ramses II.
 
“The Osireion is located behind the Abydos temple and may have been intended to be a 'cenotaph' (empty tomb.) The architecture of the Osireion is particularly unusual: a rectangular 'island' surrounded by a channel of water was constructed in the middle of the hall on which large pillars were built. This design may have represented the primeval waters and mound which began all of creation. Although the structure was built by Seti I it was largely decorated by his grandson, Merenptah with scenes from 'The Book of Gates', images of the journey to the underworld, texts relating to astronomy and depictions of gods and goddesses”. 
 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keith_Hamilton4/publication/328225133_The_Osireion_A_Layman%27s_Guide/links/5bbf5cbe299bf1004c5a4617/The-Osireion-A-Laymans-Guide.pdf
“When Murray discovered and excavated the two chambers at the end of the entrance passage, she found them decorated with texts; she states,
 
“The cartouche of Merenptah appeared in every place where it could be inserted, and we therefore had to consider the possibility of its being his tomb.”24
 
It seems clear therefore, that a lot of the preliminary laying out of the texts was accomplished by Seti, and that these texts were utilised by Merenptah, who only had to sculpt the walls and replace Seti’s name with his own; though his workers appeared to have missed Seti’s name on two occasions.
 
There are indications that Ramesses II did likewise in the adjacent temple, when he completed Seti’s work; though there is no evidence that Ramesses did any work on the Osireion.
 
Merenptah’s involvement with the Osireion raises some questions, not least, how did he gain access when the brick arch appears to have been blocked up by Seti? Frankfort makes no comment on it, other than to question Strabo’s access; he states, Ingress could not be obtained by the arch at the north end of the entrance passage, because we found it still bricked up with Seti’s bricks,..”25
 
But if this logic is good for Strabo, what about Merenptah? Merenptah was Seti’s grandson and he ruled after his long lived father Ramesses II, who ruled about 66 years: Merenptah would not be so fortunate and his reign is believed to be a more modest 10 years. It would seem therefore, that Merenptah took an unusual interest in the subterranean Osireion some 66 years after Seti bricked up the arch. If Merenptah had used this entrance, might not he have used bricks with his own name on it? So how did he gain access? ….
 
“Children:  Little information about his children but it is believed that his son Seti-Merneptah became Pharaoh Seti II”.
 

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Seti Merenptah’s Stele


Merneptah Stele - Webscribe, Wikimedia Commons

by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
 
Bimson thought (at least as late as 1980) that Merenptah’s Stele had pre-dated
the fall of Samaria by about a decade, to c. 734-733 BC; it being a reference rather
to the earlier Assyrian deportations of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III.
 
 
 
 
To recall what I have written previously:
 
– According to Courville, as we have seen, the stele’s inscription pertains to the Assyrian deportation of Samaria in c. 722/721 BC.
 
– Velikovsky would later look to connect it with the deportation of the Jews to Babylon after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchednezzar II [Ramses II and His Time, pp. 189-196]. Though Bimson has estimated Velikovsky’s date for the 5th Year of Merenptah at “no earlier than 564 BC … 23 years after the fall of Jerusalem” [‘An Eighth Century Date for Merenptah’, p. 57].
 
– Bimson thought (at least as late as 1980) that Merenptah’s Stele had pre-dated the fall of Samaria by about a decade, to c. 734-733 BC; it being a reference rather to the earlier Assyrian deportations of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III. …. [Ibid. See also ‘John Bimson replies on the “Israel Stele”,’ pp. 59-61].
 
– Rohl has in turn dated the conquests described in the stele to those effected by Seti I and Ramses II, his candidate for the biblical ‘Shishak’, himself regarding the stele as being Merenptah’s merely basking in the glory of what these, his great predecessors, had achieved before him. […. A Test of Time, ch. 7, pp. 164-171].
 
[End of quote]
 
For Drs. Velikovsky, Courville and Bimson (back then), this Egyptian Stele was supposedly commemorating one or another Assyro-Babylonian triumph – a most unlikely scenario! 
 
And Rohl, for his part, though regarding the document as being a commemoration of Egyptian victories, considered these to be triumphs pre-dating pharaoh Merenptah – victories by his predecessors, Seti I and Ramses II.  
 
Only Martin Sieff, amongst the revisionists, had envisaged this as being an Egyptian victory achieved by Merenptah himself.
 
Thus I wrote:
 
– And Sieff … related Merenptah’s victory to what he called the “time of troubles in the northern kingdom of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II”.
 
Martin Sieff’s realistic version, which is the one that I basically embraced in my postgraduate university thesis (Volume One, Chapter 11, pp. 300-305):
 
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
 
 
was dependent upon the biblical chronology of Martin Anstey - and taken up by Philip Mauro - that the reign of Jeroboam II in Israel was followed by a 22-year period of interregnum.
 
Patrick Clarke
 
Rohl’s revised chronology, according to which Ramses II was the biblical pharaoh “Shishak” at the time of king Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25), has recently been picked up by Creationist, Patrick Clarke in his article, “The Stele of Merneptah—assessment of the final ‘Israel’ strophe and its implications for chronology”:
 
 It is clear that the Merneptah stele can be interpreted in line with the United and Divided Monarchy Periods of Israelite history. Furthermore, if it can be demonstrated that Merneptah’s father, Ramesses II, was in fact Shishak, many synchronisms previously held by both supporters of the CEC [conventional] and revisionists between the people of Israel and their neighbours collapse, and a whole new series of compelling synchronisms emerges. The reigns of Ramesses II and Merneptah are contemporaneous with the last few years of the United Monarchy and the first 75 years of the Divided Monarchy. A detailed analysis of the ‘Israel’ text indicates that far from being placed in the 1200s bc, Merneptah’s reign should be dated to 913–903 bc; a movement of three centuries. Consequently, Ramesses II would have reigned from 979–913 bc, in the Divided Monarchy Period. In my proposed revised chronology all the political, military, and economic factors detailed on the stele coincide with conditions in Israel. This was not the case three centuries earlier in the time of the Judges.
[End of quote]
 
Whilst Clarke is correct in rejecting the conventional location of the Merenptah Stele to the approximate period of “the Judges”, his chronological re-setting of Ramses II and Merenptah has, in my opinion, dire consequences for the best efforts of the revision as explored by the likes of Drs. Velikovsky and Courville, and modified and enhanced by astute minds of the “Glasgow School” (including Martin Sieff).
For, as Clarke goes on to write:
 
Once this historical re-alignment takes place, a number of synchronisms previously held to be true by some revisionists, albeit well-intentioned, are refuted. Some of these erroneous synchronisms are: Thutmose III/Shishak;31 Hatshepsut/Queen of Sheba;32 Amenhotep II/Zerah the Cushite; Israel’s King Ahab/Battle of Qarqar; Israel’s King Jehu/Shalmaneser III—the final two failed synchronisms in this list have serious implications for the less than reliable Assyrian chronology.33
[End of quote]
 
No thank you. I myself shall stick with the, now manifold, synchronisms - as worked out by revisionists - between Egypt’s 18th dynasty and the United to Early Divided kingdom periods, especially those iron-cast synchronisms with El Amarna.
 
Clarke’s most useful contribution is, in my opinion, his expertise in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, which he has correctly noted has not been a strong suit amongst revisionists: “Knowledge of the Egyptian language and syllabic orthography is essential when assessing any Egyptian text, otherwise mistakes are inevitable”. Thus Clarke writes with regard to the Stele: 
 
This reliance in Christian works on blind copying of old, outdated translations, which probably reflects the dearth of competent archeology and history specialists in the Christian community, is fraught with problems, as will be seen.
 
Knowledge of the Egyptian language and syllabic orthography is essential when assessing any Egyptian text, otherwise mistakes are inevitable. The majority of Egyptologists are in agreement regarding the entity ysry3l as Israel based on the syllabic orthography of the name and the context of the final poetic unit of the Merneptah stele. It is the chronological placement of Israel where scholars of the CEC and revisionist positions come into conflict.
[End of quote]
 
Clarke is particularly scathing about professor Joseph Davidovits, whom he calls “A secularist”, regarding the latter’s unorthodox translation of the Victory Stele (see Clarke’s section on p. 62: “A secularist attempt to deny Israel is even mentioned on the stele”).
 
A suggested solution
 
With my modification of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty in its relation to Seti and the awkward Third Intermediate Period in multi-part series such as:
 
Smendes and Shoshenq I
 
beginning with:
 
 
and:
 
Seti I and Seti II Merenptah
 
beginning with:
 
 
I am now inclined to accept Rohl’s and Clarke’s opinion that the Israel Stele pertains to an early Nineteenth Dynasty ruler, such as Seti – but with my twist to this, that Seti was Merenptah.
 
See especially my article on this:
 
Seti I and Seti II Merenptah. Part Three: Seti I and II Merenptah and Merenptah
 

 

Friday, May 3, 2019

Nebuchednezzar - mad, bad, then great



Image result for mad nebuchadnezzar


by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
Whilst, in conventional terms, Nebuchednezzar II did not begin to reign until c. 605 BC, about 80 years after the death of Hezekiah (c. 686 BC), according to the revision proposed [here], Nebuchednezzar’s  youth would have overlapped with the late reign of Hezekiah.
 
  
 
“Bagoas” and Esarhaddon
 
Little did I realise at the time, when invited in the Year 2000 by professor Rifaat Ebied to choose between the era of King Hezekiah and the era of King Josiah for the subject matter of a doctoral thesis (for more on this, see:
 
King Hezekiah of Judah and his amazing contemporaries
 
 
that Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s were in fact the very same era, that Hezekiah was Josiah.
My article:
 
 
 
explains the revision that I have more recently set out for the later kings of Judah.
 
But so radical a revision of Judah must needs be accompanied by, for instance, a similarly radical revision of whoever Assyro-Babylonian dynasts were contemporaneous with these kings of Judah. Amongst the articles that I have written on that score are:
 
Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty
 
 
and the more important:
 
Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans
 
 
The upshot of all this is, in the case of the Nebuchednezzar the Great, that his life now comes within close range of King Hezekiah.
Whilst, in conventional terms, Nebuchednezzar II did not begin to reign until c. 605 BC, about 80 years after the death of Hezekiah (c. 686 BC), according to the revision proposed above, Nebuchednezzar’s  youth would have overlapped with the late reign of Hezekiah.
And, if the Jewish tradition be correct, that the future Nebuchednezzar II himself had participated in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign at the time of king Hezekiah - quite a chronological impossibility in conventional terms - then Nebuchednezzar may even be the wrongly-named “Bagoas”, who was second-in-command to (Ashur-nadin-shumi =) “Holofernes” himself. See e.g. my article:
 
An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar II?
 
 
Now, if Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, was “Holofernes”, the leader of the disastrous invasion of Israel by the 185,000 Assyrians, then who was – where was? – Esarhaddon in all of this, he being the son who would most unexpectedly succeed Sennacherib? Well, if Nebuchednezzar had in fact been personally involved in this campaign, as according to Jewish tradition, then that, too, is where we must find Esarhaddon, at least if I am correct that:
 
 
"As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face". (Karen Radner)
 
 
 
In a multi-part “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” series, I have listed and described a number of Assyro-Babylonian (and even supposedly Persian) kings who have the earmarks of the biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar: dreams; illness-madness; interfering with rubrics; building Babylon; invasion of Egypt, megalomania; fiery furnace; revival and ‘conversion’: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Esarhaddon, in particular, seems to ‘scream out’ to be identified with Nebuchednezzar.
 
It was only late in this series that I realised that I even had to include the Babylonian, Nabopolassar, in the list. He is generally considered to have been the father of Nebuchednezzar. “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” features (not listed above) that I began to pick up with Nabopolassar were other common ones such as, not expecting to be named king; and an almost fanatical precision about foundation alignment.   
 
 
Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses
 
 
 
      “Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to
the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking
the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus."
 
biblehistory.net
 
 
Apart from the many “Nebuchednezzar syndrome” parallels, see Part One:
https://www.academia.edu/39005954/The_many_faces_of_Nebuchednezzar._Part_One_Bagoas_and_Esarhaddon Nabonidus, supposedly ‘centring himself upon Ashurbanipal’, has further striking likenesses to Ashurbanipal:
 
Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus
 
 
and has striking likenesses to the biblical “Nebuchednezzar”:
 
Does King Nabonidus reflect Daniel's "Nebuchednezzar"?
 
 
In an intriguing article, “The Prophet Daniel”:
we read this:
 
 Fragments of a Scroll found near the Dead Sea likely makes an amazing reference to the prophet Daniel. The fragment, found in a cave located along the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea, is known as the "Prayer of Nabonidus." The artifact, which  doesn't seem to draw much attention in Biblical archaeology circles, is actually very important. First of all it is a copy of a scroll written in the language of Babylon, Aramaic, not Hebrew as in the case of the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aramaic was the language spoken in ancient Babylon. The reason this is important is because Daniel the prophet was educated in the Aramaic language of Babylon. We found this stated in Daniel 1:4 and in Daniel 2:4.
….
Prayer of Nabonidus
 
There is also evidence that the original book of Daniel from chapters 2:4 through chapters 7:28 were also written in this ancient Aramaic language known as Chaldee (the language of Babylon), the same language used in Babylonian documents of the 7th century B.C.
This evidence comes from other Dead Sea Scroll fragments found of the book of Daniel. These fragments confirm the fact that the events spoken of in the book of Daniel were written down by Daniel in ancient Aramaic during the time of his captivity in Babylon.
Now the text of the "Prayer of Nabonidus" is an account of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, the father of the Biblical ruler Belshazzar. In his account, Nabonidus had come down with a disease while away from Babylon at his stay at the oasis city of Teman in Saudi Arabia. He prayed to his false gods and idols of silver, gold, wood, stone and clay, but to no avail. So he sought the help from a Jew who was part of the exiles taken into captivity back to Babylon. This Jew tells Nabonidus to worship and honor the Most High God instead of his foreign gods.
This Jew, referred to here, is most likely the prophet Daniel. We know from Scripture that Daniel was still alive during the reign of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Scripture also indicates that the Queen of Babylon, likely the Queen of Nabonidus, Belshazzar's mother, believed that Daniel was, in her words, "A man in the kingdom in whom dwelt the Spirit of the Holy God, . . . like the wisdom of the gods whom Nebuchadnezzar your father (grandfather) - your father the king (Nabonidus) - made him chief of the magicians. astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers." Daniel 5:11
      So Daniel was considered to be the chief man to go to under both king Nebuchadnezzar and king Nabonidus when dealing with issues concerning God.
       Now, these fragments of the scroll give evidence outside of the Bible that Nabonidus likely called upon Daniel's advise after his prayers to his false gods had failed.
 
  Below is one English translation of the scroll fragments known as the Prayer of Nabonidus 4Q242.
 
1) The words of the prayer which Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was stricken
2) with an evil disease by the decree of God in Teman. I Nabonidus was stricken with an evil disease
3) for seven years, and from that time I was driven and I prayed to the Most High
4) and, as for my sin, he forgave it. A diviner – who was a Jew of the Exiles – came to me and said:
5) ‘Recount and record these things in order to give honor and greatness to the name of the God Most High.’ And thus I wrote: I
6) was stricken with an evil disease in Teman by the decree of the Most High God, and, as for me,
7) seven years I was praying to gods of silver and gold, bronze, iron,
8) wood, stone and clay, because I thought that they were gods. ….

Cambyses too, apart from having some of the earmarks of “Nebuchednezzar syndrome”: madness; conquest of Egypt, had the alternative name of “Nebuchadnezzar”:
 
Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? Part Three: ‘Sacred disease’ (read madness) of King Cambyses
 
 
And, perhaps further strengthening the contemporaneity of Cambyses with the neo-Assyrian era, I have suggested an identification of the important official in Egypt, Udjahorresne[t], who acted as the king’s guide and mentor there, with Ushanahuru, the son (possibly Crown Prince) of the great Tirhakah of Egypt/Ethiopia:
 
Cambyses mentored in Egypt by Udjahorresne. Part One: Too many invasions of Egypt
 
 
 
Cambyses mentored in Egypt by Udjahorresne. Part Two: Meeting and identifying Udjahorresne
 
 
 



 
 
‘Artaxerxes king of Babylon’
 
 
‘But in all this time was not I at Jerusalem: for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon came I to the king, and after certain days obtained I leave of the king’.
 
Nehemiah 13:6
 
 
There are two kings “Artaxerxes” with whom Nebuchednezzar appears to have a greater, or lesser, connection.
The first is Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’, who I claim to be another of those fictitious, late production characters, a composite based upon real Mesopotamian kings – most notably Sennacherib and Nebuchednezzar.  
Emmet Sweeney had, in the 1990’s, identified Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’ with Nebuchednezzar (see E. Scott’s Hatshepsut, Queen of Sheba, pp. 170-171)
For my own articles on the subject, see e.g:
 
Artaxerxes III and Judith
 
 
and:
 
"Nebuchednezzar Syndrome": dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Two: Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses; Artaxerxes III
 
 
and:
 
Medo-Persian History Archaeologically Light. Part Three: Artaxerxes III ‘Ochus’
 
 
 
The Artaxerxes of the Book of Nehemiah is quite a different matter.
He is a real flesh and blood king, who has been badly mis-identified and mis-dated.
He is, again, Nebuchednezzar the great King of Babylon. See my multi-part series:
 
Governor Nehemiah's master "Artaxerxes king of Babylon". Part One: Nehemiah and that ‘broken down wall’
 
commencing with:
 
 
 
Finally, also to be considered for a ‘face’ of King Nebuchednezzar - given the need to fold the Middle Babylonian period with the Neo Babylonian period - is Nebuchednezzar I.
This is what I wrote on the matter in:
 
King Hezekiah of Judah and his amazing contemporaries
 
 
…..
My other move on Sennacherib at that time involved the necessary (in terms of the revision) folding of Middle Assyro-Babylonian history with Neo Assyro-Babylonian history.
Revised attempts at this so far do not seem to have been very successful.
I thought that I had found the perfect solution with my folding of the mighty Middle Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar I, conventionally dated to the C12th BC - he, I then declared to have been ‘the Babylonian face’ of Sargon II/Sennacherib.
Such an identification, which seemed to have massive support from the succession of Shutrukid-Elamite kings of the time having names virtually identical to the succession of Elamite kings at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib … had the further advantage of providing Sargon II/Sennacherib with the name, “Nebuchednezzar”, just as the Assyrian king is named in the Book of Judith (“Nebuchadnezzar”).
 
My more recent collapsing of the late neo-Assyrian era into the early neo-Babylonian era has caused me to drop the identification of Nebuchednezzar I with Sargon II/Sennacherib:
 
 
 
 
 
More appropriately, now, Nebuchednezzar I might be found to have been Nebuchednezzar II.
 
Fortunately though, with this tightened chronology, the impressive Shutrukid-Elamite parallels that I had established in my thesis might still remain viable.
 
Having rejected my former folding of Nebuchednezzar I with Sargon II/Sennacherib the question must be asked, ‘At what point does Middle fold with Neo?’
 
 
This all awaits further potential development.