Evil Merodach and Daniel-Conspiracy in Babylon

In 562 B.C, Nebuchadnezzar's son, Amel-Marduk(Evil-Merodach in the Bible) ascended the Babylonian thrown. At first, the people did not want to accept him as their king, stating, "Nebuchadnezzar returned before, why wouldn't he return this time?"(This, of course, refers to the time that Nebuchadnezzar supposedly spent in the wild as an animal in punishment for his refusal of God) Amel, in response to these questions, goes into his father's tomb, removes his body, and drags it through the street for all to see, screaming, "Your King has returned! Glory before him now!" After this, the people accepted Amel. Now, this is a vile and gruesome act, hardly considered kindly on any level. How could a man capable of doing something like this turn around, almost instantly, and remove a lifetime prison sentence on the King of Jerusalem, a man his father had incarcerated YEARS before for the crimes of alliance with Egypt and rebellion against Babylon. Jehoichian was not only released, but given full royal treatment for the rest of his days in the palace in Babylon. Amel was his father's son, through and through. What possessed him to do something so out of character? Let us think on Daniel for a moment. Biblical Daniel, the portrayer of dreams. He was originally brought out of Jerusalem as a P.O.W. when Nebuchadnezzar first layed seige to the city, but through his peculiar ability to interpret dreams, he was promoted to Court staff and stood by the side of the King. At least, this is what the Bible tells us. It also tells us that Jehoichian was released at the request of Daniel. Now, biblical ideas aside, who exactly was Daniel in the scheme of things? Was he the 'power behind the throne' the entire time Nebuchadnezzar sat there? And did he again try to further his own ends during Amel's brief reign? There is also the oddity that Amel only sat the thrown for two years before he was supposedly assasinated by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar, who also only had a brief reign. Was Amel too headstrong to be molded? Was Neriglissar too much of the 'war general' to listen to Daniel's subtle suggestions? In the time that Daniel comes to be a prominent "shareholder", so to speak, in the Babylonian court, we witness the gradual but dramatic decline of once the most powerful nation in the land, to nothing but a history lesson to invading armies such as the Persians. Was Daniel purposely trying to sabatage the empire from the beginning, or was he simply as the Bible makes him out, and a prophet spreading the word of God?

Is there a source for this?

As far as a source, I guess I would have to know how you mean it. The source of the question comes from research I have been doing for a new book. The theory is entirely mine, as far as I know. But the facts of the events are logged in the Bible, as well as the journals of Nebuchadnezzar himself and a few other sources that described the chain of events. I just found it an interesting coincidence that the mighty Babylonian empire, which had existed in power for centuries, began to dramatically decline from the time Daniel arrived in the city and came to a position of power. I just wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts on the subject or if any other members could shed some more light on it.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Let us think on Daniel for a moment....... who exactly was Daniel in the scheme of things?

Was Daniel purposely trying to sabatage the empire from the beginning, or was he simply as the Bible makes him out, and a prophet spreading the word of God?

Daniel in the Hebrew means God's Judge or God is my Judge according to the Strongs Concordance, Chaldean/Hebrew Dictionary.

According to Wikipedia, they have a simliar thought as, the name means "My judge is Elohim," or "Elohim has judged."

So this is who Daniel was.

As for the Narritive offered and your thoughts, that was quite good.

In respects to the last parts of your question, Daniel was being used, much like any tool is used, to give the message God wished Nebuchadnezzar to have.

And if I am not mistaken, Daniel's only reason for attaining that position over the Astrologers, and Mystics and other Pagan Worshipping forms of Authority and Leadership, was because he answered the question no one else could. He told Nebuchadnezzar exactly what the Dreams where Nebuchadnezzar was having and explained these to him, while the Snake Oil Salepeople and others failed in this simple task. This was the why Daniel became what he had in the Court of Babylon.

Hope this is helpful.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Now, this is a vile and gruesome act, hardly considered kindly on any level.

Of course, this is a story from the hebrews, who were pretty far removed from the situation. And the hewbrews were used to doing vile and disgusting things. For example, the monotheistic preists amoung them called for a peaceable meeting with the priests of baal. Then they killed them all treacherously, knocked down the temple to baal, and pooped on it (they turned it into a public lavatory).

Rough times.

but given full royal treatment for the rest of his days in the palace in Babylon.

Would not a king be obliged to you if you released him from prison?

Was Daniel purposely trying to sabatage the empire from the beginning

Interesting, but what specifically do you suggest he got them to do that lead to their downfall?



Its also interesting that Daniel becomes part of the Kings Court, or at least has his ear, beause of Dream Interpretation. Didn't Joseph do the same thing for Pharoah?

Perhaps the conistency of this practice shows that the hebrews practiced dream interpretation as part of their culture, and their neighbhors valued this skill, as they value astrology amoung the medes, or later augury amoung the romans, etc. And that these stories don't so much represent a literal truth, but rather, that hebrews in foreign landds tended to get employed as dream interpreters.

I haven't found anything about Amil-Marduk hauling his dad's body out of the tomb to display it. And there's no mention of his being influenced by the Jews in much of any way:

en.wikipedia.org...

I do see the mention in some of the rabbinical texts (but note that they offer conflicting and contradictory information)
www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Note that there's no mention in any of his chronicles of his being ill or mentally ill or running around, thinking he was a pig. There's also no mention of someone taking over as chancellor during his illness -- which would have happened (or he would simply have met an unfortunate death and a successor appointed.) :
en.wikipedia.org...

Given his other accomplishments and his decisiveness, it's hard to see him as being manipulated by anyone.

It's been suggested that "nebuchadnezzar' is a mistranslation of Nabondius, which fits the scenario better:
en.wikipedia.org...

More details are here, particularly a section of the "Prayer of Nabondius" and mention of a "Jewish diviner": www.everything2.com...

He's also got a personality that would be more open to manipulation (like the Romanoffs and Rasputin).

If you have a university account, there's a whole boatload of articles on JSTOR.

I think that while Christians who are Biblical literalists might find it entertaining and enlightening, those who checked on what the historical record and the Babylonian texts say may find much to carp about in the theory.

(for everyone else, this page has links to the Nebuchadnezzr chronicles: www.livius.org...)

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Byrd]

Would not a king be obliged to you if you released him from prison?

Well yes, I would assume that he would. But Jehoichian was no longer a King at this point, and had not been for some time. And it was not HE that gave the treatment to Amel, it was the other way around. Jehoichian was treated as a royal ambassador and with the utmost kindness and respect for the rest of his time in Babylon. I just found it strange Amel would do this on the word of Daniel alone.

Interesting, but what specifically do you suggest he got them to do that lead to their downfall?

Still working this one out. What I'm going on so far, is Nebuchadnezzar's strong willed desire to have his dreams interpreted.(As this was the first King that Daniel came into contact with). It is odd that all the court magicians and counselors could not provide a legitimate answer to the King's dream, but then Daniel comes along and gives him exactly what he wants. Daniel is then promoted above the rest and stays on at court as an interpreter of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams. When you find a man that is willing to believe what his dreams say about the future, and who is ALSO willing to believe that one man and one man alone can interpret them for him, you can begin to see how simple it would be for Daniel to manipulate such a powerful man. These were a Pagan people who put much stock in the visions of their Gods, very open to misconception. All Daniel would have to do is say that Nebuchadnezzar's dreams told him, "you will conqueor over Egypt in the south." or, "Your people will rise against you, but by allying with so and so you will be victorious." As for the motives behind this, let us just assume for the sake of argument that Daniel BELIEVED whole-heartedly in the God of Abraham. Whether or not that God made Himself known is not important. The enemy of that God was Babylon, and the enemy of the people of God was Egypt. Who was Nebuchadnezzar constantly warring with? As for Amel, he released a man who had been held captive by Nebuchadnezzar for years on the word of Daniel. This was a victory for the Jews. Directly following this is the ascension of Neriglissar, who entered into conflict with the Medes, a nation once at peace with Babylon, as Nebuchadnezzar had married the daughter of the King of the Medes some years before. It was this new conflict that started turning the wheels that led to the dramatic decline of the Babylonian Empire. Daniel was at court for all of it. The coincidence is just too much to overlook. Here we have an empire that is vile in the eyes of Daniel's God, and he is in a position to do something about it. It all seems to follow.





[edit on 10-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Note that there's no mention in any of his chronicles of his being ill or mentally ill or running around, thinking he was a pig. There's also no mention of someone taking over as chancellor during his illness -- which would have happened (or he would simply have met an unfortunate death and a successor appointed.)

Well, you have to consider that these were VERY egotistical rulers in this time. Anything of embarrasment would not have been included in personal chronicles and achievments. Perhaps the most convincing piece of evidence, is that from 582-575 B.C., there is no record of governmental activity in Babylon. This is a HUGE span of time considering how active Nebuchadnezzar was througout his campaign. Then, there is the matter of the Greek philosopher Abydinus, who in 268 B.C, wrote that Nebuchadnezzar had been "afflicted with a madness by some God and immediately disappeard". This was only a few hundred years later. It is plausible to assume that the period of time was just left out of his personal histories to save face.

en.wikipedia.org...

Given his other accomplishments and his decisiveness, it's hard to see him as being manipulated by anyone.

Again, these were a people very open to visions and dreams. Any man that they thought could accurately interpret them would be given all they could ever want. If Daniel had gained this favor by Nebuchadnezzar, it would not have been too difficult to slyly manipulate the great ruler into making war with countries of his choice, or even exploiting minor problems into much greater ones.

It's been suggested that "nebuchadnezzar' is a mistranslation of Nabondius, which fits the scenario better

Only in the list of Kings, Nabonidus comes much later, long after Nebuchadnezzar had died. In fact, if they are supposed to be the same person, what is there to be said about Nabonidus' surrender to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C,, roughly thirty years after Nebuchadnezzar's death?

Originally posted by EdenKaia


As for the motives behind this, let us just assume for the sake of argument that Daniel BELIEVED whole-heartedly in the God of Abraham. Whether or not that God made Himself known is not important. The enemy of that God was Babylon, and the enemy of the people of God was Egypt. Who was Nebuchadnezzar constantly warring with?

It was this new conflict that started turning the wheels that led to the dramatic decline of the Babylonian Empire. Daniel was at court for all of it. The coincidence is just too much to overlook. Here we have an empire that is vile in the eyes of Daniel's God, and he is in a position to do something about it. It all seems to follow.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

Your story line is reasonable, but I assure you, Nebuchadnezzar was USED by the God of Israel. The Babylonian Capitivity, was brought on to the Southern Kingdom for waxing in their attentions to God. As noted elsewhere, by then, the Northern Kingdoms had 'vanished', but this idea that Nebuchadnezzar was a 'foe' to the God of Israel is not really accurate.

Of course, from a prespective of a secularist, it would appear as you note, and assumptions could be made quite easily, as you lay them out.

And Daniel is one of the Most Validated Prophets of the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham. The accuracy of even these End of Times events are alarming. Look back, specifically to that Dream Nebuchadnezzar had, that Daniel alone was able to decipher. Nebuchadnezzar's dream was of the Great Empires, that included his, and on through history, all denoted by the Segments of the Dream. It was a Prophetic Dream, that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, that God inspired Daniel with the knowledge of, and that God gave Daniel the explaination to, that got him his gig in the court to being with.

And I must say, you have done a good job researching. It took me longer to figure out Nabonidus's timeline.

Here is what I located in respects to this

www.livius.org...
www.livius.org...

As for this Great Fall of this empire, look at what Nabonidus was inspired to do. Begining Moon, Sun and Venus Worship, in the forms of Sin, Samas and Istar, (from where we get Easter from - Istar).

About what Byrd noted, in his ever thoughtful mind, is Daniel does infact make reference to Nebuchadnezzar, as having an affliction of Seven years, and and time spent searching his soul to realize, the God of Israel, Egypt and the Assyrians, (God's three amigos, Israel, His Inheritance, Egypt, His people and Assyria, the work of His hands).

But as Byrd notes, this is how the reference played out. If this is due to the Collabrative Nature of Daniel, since some assume it is the work of various authors, then this could account for the 'miss-speak' of the King and his Illness. The Dead Sea Scrolls do infact have a portion of the Prayer of Nabonidus that are quite similiar to the account in Daniel, but the end of this was missing.

www.livius.org...

There is alot on the page, in respects to this as well.

I will ask if you review the text in the next link. Scroll down and find Chapter 4, verses 31 to the conclusion. It's not many verses, but this may shed light on the Fall, of Babylon, and the truth behind how much of an Enemy of God Nebuchadnezzar truly was.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

In reflection on all of this, it seems the following would be accurate

Nebuchadnezzar was used to Correct Israel. (The Captivity)
Daniel was used to bring Nebuchadnezzar around. (The Dreams)
And finally acceptance of the truth ends Babylon's period of power. (As eluded to in the Verses)

Ciao

Shane

I suppose it all just comes down to whether or not you are a person of faith. For those that are, it is inarguable that both men were used by God to attain an end. I was just pushing the research a bit further to ask the question, "how far into the decline of the Babylonian Empire did Daniel see?" and "How much of it was inspired in his own mind to bring about?" Was Daniel just a tool that did as God commanded and therefore the correct change was brought about, or was Daniel in a bit deeper than that? As to Nebuchadnezzar being the enemy of God, I did not necessarily mean to imply that. What I meant, was that the city of Babylon had fallen in the eyes of God. It is my opinion that though these men were used by God to bring about His will, His will was the eventual destruction of the Empire. With Nebuchadnezzar comes the heralding of the end. He was truly the last GREAT Babylonian emperor, that is of course not counting Cyrus, as he was Persian by birth. I suppose the entire thing is summed up in two questions: How much of Daniel's actions were God's will? How much of them were his own?

If Daniel was, in fact, able to communicate with God (which I, as a christian, believe he was) and God expressed his displeasure with Babylon to Daniel. Then wouldn't it be plausible that Daniel would have done everything in his power to bring about the destruction of Babylon? Whether or not God had specifically outlined how to do so? Yes, I beieve Daniel "manipulated" Babylon into it's destruction. I believe this was fuled by his knowledge that God was displeased with Babylon and wished its destruction but, I also believe that the exact way it was done was entirely Daniel's idea. I guess no one will know for sure if Daniel really could communicate with God or if he was just a man who used a lie to bring his own will to fruition. Remember that it was Daniel's temple too that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed. And even though the Jews were not treated as slaves in Babylon they were looked down upon and were among the lowest in the social classes. Wouldn't you be angry with Babylon too?

It does follow more approprietly, as you have said. Whether or not Daniel believed he was doing God's will, the events and actions planned and executed by him were his own. I suppose it just lends to question the validity of the Bible itself. When events such as this can be pulled away and examined at close proximity, we can uncover the actions of the men behind the biblical flourish. After dissecting these stories in such a way, you can begin to wonder about the embellishment of all the tales. How did they really happen? Of course, it is all a matter of faith, but it does cast men such as Daniel in a new and different kind of light. More clever patriot than prophet, really.

Ok my take on this post is this:
Daniel was in fact a prophet. Babylon did fall as he predicted but Nebuchednezzer was in “the eyes of god” the most powerful ruler ever to exit in human history (golden head). This being established lets go back to the subject of the post: “was Daniel influential in the fall of Babylon?” my answer is “no”.

Why? Well what I think happened was (if you take the biblical narrative as truth), Nebuchednezzer had an experience with god and as its described in the whole bible politics and religion don’t mix. If the ruler REALLY wants to “serve god” his kingdom is going to suffer A LOT. I am not saying that Nebuchednezzer “went to heaven” I am saying he “met” the god of Daniel. And it was Nebuchednezzer choice to “fallow” him (if indeed he did).

Having an experience with god does not automatic make you a “fallower”. An example is that later on a “descendent” of Nebuchednezzer had the vision of the hand and the writings on the wall and did not “repent”. He honored Daniel, perhaps believed (or not) but it doesn’t say he was sorry for taking the holy things of the temple of god and using them as secular things.

Nebuchednezzer was in “the eyes of god” the most powerful ruler ever to exit in human history

so where was God when Sargon the great was on the throne 2000 years earlier
asleep
out to lunch maybe ?

I am not sure what “Sargon” you are referring to “Sargon of Akkad” or “Sargon II”. Regardless neither of the two had as big as region of influence as Nebuchadnezzar. Note I said region of influence and not territorial control. The difference is for example the NATO is occupying Afghanistan but how much influence they have there is a different thing. If you really disagree you should do some research and see how much the two kings here differ in power.

But then you can say “the Roman Empire had much more territorial claims then Nebuchadnezzar”. Again is the same thing, outside the Italian peninsula Rome had trouble calling all the shots. Again you have all right disagree.

If you really disagree you should do some research and see how much the two kings here differ in power

think again Buddy
Sargon the great (of akkad) was the most influential king in the ancient world
by compatison Nebuchadrezzar was a minor character
what you mean is that Sargon I doesnt appear in the bible
thats just because the bible is a collection of fictional stories and the people who wrote it wrote about what was influencing them. i.e. nebuchadrezzar
when Sargon the first was around the bible didn't exist and neither did the people who wrote it
lots of the s tories were around though
the flood story for instance doesnt make its first appearence in the bible starring Noah and YHWH

before that it has Ellil and Atrahasis
before that it was Enlil and Ziusudra

the bible version is a very late in the day example of ancient plaguiarism
and the rubbish written about Nebuchadrezzar has been mostly completely debunked by science
its based on real events, but in no way represents the facts truthfully



[edit on 27-8-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Marduk]

Man the point of this thread is not to debate who was more important/powerful, because the Romans “win” in the end right? So does that mean they were the most powerful?

You picked on one sentence poorly constructed and out of the sudden we are talking about a completely different subject.

I didn’t mean to say Nebuchednezzer was more powerful than Sargon. I said the bible describes (in the dream Nebuchednezzer had) Nebuchednezzer as being more “important” (whatever that means) then the kings that are going to come. You are right though compared to Sargon, Nebuchednezzer was a minor character.

Again we are not discussing the validity of the bible here. We are talking about a story from the bible (Daniel and the dream). If you look at historical accounts “Daniel” as described in the bible never existed. But the person that started the tread seems to go from the starting point that he did. And they want to talk about Daniel’s influence on the Babylonian empire.

So my take on this story (if you think the bible is all wrong then you shouldn’t be discussing this right?) is that:

“Daniel was in fact a prophet”…“Nebuchednezzer had an experience with god and as its described in the whole bible politics and religion don’t mix. If the ruler REALLY wants to “serve god” his kingdom is going to suffer A LOT.”

Again we are not discussing the validity of the bible here. We are talking about a story from the bible (Daniel and the dream). If you look at historical accounts “Daniel” as described in the bible never existed. But the person that started the tread seems to go from the starting point that he did. And they want to talk about Daniel’s influence on the Babylonian empire.

Of course we're operating off of the assumption that Daniel existed. To use your logic of "historical accounts", Jesus never existed either. The dating of the Book of Daniel is always a subject of debate, but to call into question whether or not he was real...well, you might as well just start going through the chapters one by one.

The real point is that certain things happened during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and it is fact that some of the Jews brought back from the Holy Land took up new Babylonian names and titles. Daniel is obviously the most popular of these, as the Bible has sold more copies than any other book in print.

A man who can interrpret a dream to the satisfaction of a king as powerful as Nebuchadnezzar? Such a man would worlds in the palm of his hand.

Well, I have been gone for many, many moons, but I am back and proud to say that the book this research was initially intended for has been completed. I am currently on the lookout for a new publisher. Please feel free to drop any names, those of you who have had some experience.