The inevitable (for me) conclusion now is that: Evil-merodach was Belshazzar! Official records, however, show Nebuchadnezzar as king during his lifetime.Ĭomment: Now this is the very same situation that we have found with 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. 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. Since Daniel records that Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from men” ( 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 Nebuchadnezzar later recovered ( Dan. Lines 6 and on would then be a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior as described to Evilmerodach. 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. 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. 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. We have already read what Horn had to say about Evil-Merodach. The critics are entirely right within purely conventional terms:īut, as I have argued in a recent article, there need to be a drastic reduction of neo-Babylonian rulers:Īnd, according to which, there really was a king Belshazzar. The Book of Daniel, like other biblical books, cannot be properly explained, historically, within a seriously faulty conventional history. Horn’s last comment here, if meant to be considered within the context of the standard Neo-Babylonian history, may be rather optimistic. The solutions, however, obtained through archeological discoveries, are different than Zockler thought they would be. Today, the first four arguments no longer pose problems for the conservative Bible scholar.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |