Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 2

Untitled

This article fawns over Nebu-kudurri-utsur, and seems biased.

This discussion grew too long. Older material is archived here Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 1

Archiving, concluding discussion

Alright, since the discussion descended into petty insults, I've archived it. I don't think that anything is going to come of it, anyway - 172.etc does not seem to be interested in actually creating an encyclopedia article, just about arguing his nonsense at length on talk pages. Wikipedia is not a discussion board, and all discussion here should revolve around the issue of improving the article, not expounding on untenable fringe theories on the talk page. john k 15:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy with his relationship to the Jews? I remember reading in several sources that this man almost annhilated(sp?) the entire nation of the Jews with his extreme cruelty. If this is correct, there is almost no mention of the annhilation or the method by which he conquered them.

IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE A SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA YOU CAN'T SAY JERUSALEM WAS CAPTURED IN 607. 587-586 ARE THE SECULAR DATES. PTOLEMY'S CANON IS NOT THE ONLY ASTRONOMICAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS DATE. READ "THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED" 4TH ED. 607 IS A DATE FOR A RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA SUCH AS THE JEHOVA'S WITNESS "INSIGHT".

Daniel paragraph

I started inserting some fact into that Daniel paragraph, but by the time I was done the entire change had been reverted. Since there's no sense in wasting completed work, here's the text of the paragraph as I was going to save it, should it end up being of some use to someone somehow:

"Some secular and religious scholars believe that the Book of Daniel was written long after the events described, during the second century BC, and thus are skeptical of the details of Nebuchadrezzar's portrayal by Daniel. There are people who are skeptical of the book of Daniel because of the incredibly accurate prophecies that it contains. Ptolemy Philadelphus (308-246 BC) commissioned the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Septuagint (a.k.a. the LXX) from Hebrew into Greek in the 3rd century BC, and Daniel is included in the LXX. However, the Septuagint contains various books that were openly written well after it was commissioned, such as 1 Maccabees through 4 Maccabees, so Daniel's inclusion means nothing of itself."66.158.232.37 00:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the Book of Daniel, so there's no need for this level of detail. I've never heard sources outside wikipedia mention Daniel's inclusion in the Septuagint as an argument for its date being before the Maccabean period. If this is not an argument people actually make, we shouldn't talk about it anywhere, and it certainly doesn't belong in the Nebuchadrezzar article. john k 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, since that whole Septuagint thing was a non sequitur.66.158.232.37 15:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good info, but you're right that it's an unnecessary aside. -- uberpenguin 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be some disagreement on the timing of the book of Daniel, I think it is worth while to mention the information there is. The historian Josephus records, in his Antiquites of the Jews in the volume covering the time 327-337 BC, that the priests of Jerusalem showed Alexander the great the book of Daniel, in which it was written that a Greek would be destroying the Persians. Alexander did not doubt that he was the one foretold in this prophecy. This event took place about 332 BC.--PeriCH (talk) 4:07 am, Today (UTC+10)

Josephus wrote in the late 1st century CE, so it's entirely possible that the belief that the priests 'showed the book to Alexander' was actually a later tradition that had developed between the generally accepted writing of Daniel in the 2nd century BCE and the later writings of Josephus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounce

Does anyone know /exactly/ how to pronounce Nebuchadnezzar? Many people say it different ways, but what is the /correct/ way?

It depends what language. The name is originally Akkadian, so his friends would have pronounced it Nabu-kudurri-utsur. ፈቃደ 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a t in there?Tommstein 05:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think so... though actually it's a ts, not a t... a slightly different sound but there is no one letter for it in English, so we use 2 letters - like in Tsunami... ፈቃደ 14:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it written with the t, but who knows. That ts sound is like a German z (which might have some historical reason to do with the two z's in Nebuchadrezzar).Tommstein 07:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use the IPA pronunciation key please. Xlegiofalco 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nebuchadrezzar"

Nebuchadnezzar is simply an Anglicization of the Biblical Hebrew form. Nabu-kudurri-usur is the original Akkadian form. I have no idea what "Nebuchadrezzar" is supposed to be, apparently some sort of cross between the two. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nebuchadrezzar is another form of his name also found in the Bible. It is more accurate, so it is used.Tommstein 03:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(see also Talk:Babylon#Nebuchadrezzar) -- I'm afraid I dispute this. Nebuchad[nr]ezzar is an anglicization of the Hebrew, the actual Akkadian doesn't enter into it. Yes, the Hebrew variant Nebuchadnrezzar is rendered in some translations, but Nebuchadnezzar is clearly more common. This isn't about what "his mummy called him" at all: we seem to agree that a move to Nabû-kudurri-uṣur would be overkill, so the most common anglicization of the Hebrew it is, which is Nebuchadnezzar (57:31 in KJV, and 100:0 in other translations). dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably move the conversation from the Babylon Talk page to here if we're going to discuss this much more. In any case, I just posted a reply there.Tommstein 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:Hiberniantears 19:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Nebuchadrezzar --- What is this "Nebuchadrezzar" business? Nebuchadrezzar II even has "sometimes incorrectly called Nebuchadnezzar") -- that's ridiculous. It's a clear case of "use the form most current in English". According to Google, the form with -n- is more than ten times more frequently used. It is either Nebuchadnezzar, the familiar spelling in English, based on Biblical Hebrew, or the correct Akkadian transliteration, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur. I don't see where there is any room for calling the king "Nebuchadrezzar" between these two options. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Bible uses Nebuchadrezzar too. Talking about Nebuchadnezzar in an article entitled Nebuchadrezzar would just be retarded. And given that Nebuchadrezzar is closer to the man's name, the article should be named such (or, if anything, moved to Nabu-kudurri-usur, although that would probably be overkill, considering that pretty much all foreign names are referred to in the English Wikipedia under an English form). Both are used in English, but one is more correct than the other. The Bible isn't the only place where one can read about Nebuchadrezzar, in any case. This isn't the only instance of the Bible fudging people's names either. Look at the Bible calling Pharaoh Apries Hophra. Should we all just start calling him Hophra, because the Bible says so, screw all of the rest of the ancient world? Your dichotomy of having to call Nebuchadrezzar either Nebuchadnezzar or Nabu-kudurri-usur is a false one. The name Nebuchadrezzar stands on good middle ground, not quite the raw Akkadian, and not nearly as completely wrong as Nebuchadnezzar with its invented letter in there replacing a missing one.Tommstein 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I should note, I wrote this thinking it was the Nebuchadrezzar Talk page. But you get the hint.Tommstein 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

we may be splitting hairs a little bit; the article title is irrelevant, it was moved to Nebuchadrezzar, and can just as easily be moved back. It being "middle ground" is irrelevant, as long as it is not in common use. "Nabukudnusar" would be "middle ground", but it is out of the question because nobody uses it. It does seem to see some use in English, about one tenth of Nebuchadnezzar, if we're to believe google. But then point is that the name is in use in the KJV:

Nebuchadnezzar: 57 occurrences:
- 2Ki24:1 2Ki24:10 2Ki24:11 2Ki25:1 2Ki25:8 2Ki25:22 1Ch6:15 2Ch36:6 2Ch36:7 2Ch36:10 2Ch36:13 Ezr1:7 Ezr2:1 Ezr5:12 Ezr5:14 Ezr6:5 Ne7:6 Es2:6 Je27:6 Je27:8 Je27:20 Je28:3 Je28:11 Je28:14 Je29:1 Je29:3 Je34:1 Je39:5 Da1:1 Da1:18 Da2:1 Da2:28 Da2:46 Da3:1 Da3:2 Da3:3 Da3:5 Da3:7 Da3:9 Da3:13 Da3:14 Da3:16 Da3:19 Da3:24 Da3:26 Da3:28 Da4:1 Da4:4 Da4:18 Da4:28 Da4:31 Da4:33 Da4:34 Da4:37 Da5:2 Da5:11 Da5:18
Nebuchadrezzar: 31 occurrences:
- Je21:2 Je21:7 Je22:25 Je24:1 Je25:1 Je25:9 Je29:21 Je32:1 Je32:28 Je35:11 Je37:1 Je39:1 Je39:11 Je43:10 Je44:30 Je46:2 Je46:13 Je46:26 Je49:28 Je49:30 Je50:17 Je51:34 Je52:4 Je52:12 Je52:28 Je52:29 Je52:30 Ezk26:7 Ezk29:18 Ezk29:19 Ezk30:10

So, the -n- form in KJV is in Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemia, Jeremiah, Daniel while the -r- form is in Jeremiah and Ezekhiel. The Vulgate, interestingly, has -n- exclusively, Nabuchodonosor. The -r- form seems to be a variant in Hebrew (nbwkdr'zr vs. nbwkdn'zr, maybe even a scribal error, the whole difference is one little stroke). Some modern translations amend this to Nebukadnezzar throughout, take for example Je21:2:[1]. I think this shows that Nebukadnezzar is the more current variant, and should be used as article title (but I don't care enough to insist, this is simlply my detached judgement). In the article text, both variants should be given, together with Vulgate's Nabuchodonosor and LXX's Naboukhodonosor. The article certainly shouldn't claim that Nebuchandezzar is a "mistaken" spelling. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the middle ground thing because you only presented two options, Nebuchadnezzar and Nabu-kudurri-usur, the latter of which isn't exactly in common use either. Nabukudnusar would still suffer the same problem as Nebuchadnezzar. Regarding those King James Version stats, being used over 54% as often as Nebuchadnezzar doesn't exactly make Nebuchadrezzar the forgotten orphan, even within the Bible.

What you forget, though, is that the man and his name are known from outside the Bible. I'm not even sure why we keep talking about what the Bible does or doesn't do, because his name stands without the Bible. The only thing we can get from the Bible is that maybe we should refer to his name in English as Nebuchadrezzar instead of, say, Nabukudrusar. But what someone was actually called and what they're called in the Bible are completely orthogonal issues. There are tons of cuneiform tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period, and as far as I know, not a single one of them refers to him as anything that could be converted into Nebuchadnezzar. That the Bible calls him something else in some places doesn't change what his actual name is known to have been from contemporary writings in his own language (and probably even from Greek writings, although I don't remember for sure at the moment). It's the same thing with the Pharaoh I mentioned above. Should we all start calling him something else because the Bible has a different name for him than what his name is actually known to have really been? That's my point: Nebuchadrezzar's name can be completely established from contemporary cuneiform. What anyone else referred to him as in their own religious books doesn't change what the man's name actually was. In lieu of going around referring to Nabu-kudurri-usur, we should take the standard English version that is as close to his actual name as possible. Now, if the name Nebuchadrezzar didn't exist, the options would truly be either Nebuchadnezzar or Nabu-kudurri-usur, and I would probably agree with using Nebuchadnezzar. Or even if the name Nebuchadrezzar existed in the Bible, but we didn't know from external sources what his real name actually was. But neither of those is the case, we actually have a standard English version that can be established to be somewhat close, at least closer than the other standard English version.Tommstein 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to go with the form used most often in English, no matter what it is in his own language or any other language; and that is demonstrably "Nebuchadnezzar". Of course neither one matters to me a whole lot anyway. (I could be way off, but I vaguely seem to recall seeing somewhere the form with -n-, instead of -r-, incorporates some sort of "under-the-breath"-like resemblance to an insult in Hebrew, since he was particularly hated by Jews for destroying Jerusalem and leading them to the Babylonian captivity.) ፈቃደ 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Even when there are two perfectly-good accepted versions, and one is demonstrably more correct than the other? This is probably why some people criticize Wikipedia for being more concerned about being a democracy than being right.Tommstein 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not forgetting that he is known from outside the bible at all. However, that has nothing to do with "Nebuchadrezzar" at all, which is a Hebrew variant, as anglicized in English Bible translations (mind that Jerome has Nabuchodonosor, so Nebuchad[rn]ezzar is already Anglo-centric, and not generically "biblical"). If you want to argue that we should take an "outside the Bible" approach, we really have no option but the (undisputedly correct) Nabû-kudurri-uṣur. I wouldn't object to a move there, and an intro

Nabû-kudurri-uṣur II (also known as Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar)...

Compare, for example Amenophis who used to be referred to in the Greek form in English, but now the Egyptian Amenhotep has gained enough currency for us to have his article there. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda seeing what you mean. I still prefer Nebuchadrezzar, but I'm getting you. The thing is, I'm not advocating going strictly outside the Bible, as I've mentioned, because then we would have to call him Nabu-kudurri-usur (not that I would necessarily object to that either). I'm more advocating taking a 'choose a preexisting accepted English version based on knowledge of what the name actually was' path. It's not always one way or the other, it's allowable in life to combine two different sets of knowledge. But as I said, I'm seeing your point more, even if I do still prefer Nebuchadrezzar myself, as it is an accepted English version and it is also more correct. I think that an encyclopedia is a formal and academic enough of a place to go with a more-correct standard version even if it is less-used. Mainly since the difference is so minor, relatively widespread, and comes from the same book, since it occurs to me that I wouldn't advocate Nergal-shar-ezer over Neriglissar or Nabuna'id over Nabonidus, even if those forms are more correct.Tommstein 16:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but with "named after Nebuchadrezzar" you have definitely crossed a line now. Because, every single thing "named after Nebuchadrezzar" is actually called Nebuchadnezzar. Maybe this is a hint that the most commonly used form in English is, after all, by a long way, Nebuchadnezzar. Of course this is due to the Bible, but that doesn't change the fact. I think I get your point, too (that's why I'm not in an edit war with you), but in my view, we have three options:

Nebuchadnezzar, by virtue of being the most common form in English (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English))
Nabu-kudurri-usur, the hardcore academic Assyriological way. I would actually endorse this, but I am sure that if you and me agree on this, there will be no end of other people calling for a return to the biblical form.
Nabuchodonosor (as in the Catholic Encyclopedia), the actual Biblical form

Nebuchadrezzar is, you will note, not on my list. dab (ᛏ) 18:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I myself said that changing the name in that section didn't seem to fit, and was solely for uniformity reasons. Imagine what it would be like if we changed the article to Nabu-kudurri-usur. But regardless of whether the names have Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar, the section title is still referring to the man they were named after, not any specific version of his name; obviously, the people doing the namings chose the Nebuchadnezzar form of the man's name. But if the article were changed to, say, Nabu-kudurri-usur, I would imagine that the section title would also have Nabu-kudurri-usur.

Is Nabuchodonosor the actual Biblical form? That doesn't really look like Hebrew to me. Actually, the article says the Hebrew form is, uh, something that I can't seem to paste here, but which is clearly not that. The same thing has occurred to me about changing the article to Nabu-kudurri-usur: even if we decided to do so, it wouldn't last there very long. I would probably prefer Nebuchadnezzar before Nabu-kudurri-usur anyway. I know you don't like Nebuchadrezzar, but that wasn't really breaking news.Tommstein 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, no, Nabuchodonosor is the form of the Vulgate (and of LXX, modulo transliteration) -- which is why it is the lemma's title in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hell, we can leave it at Nebuchadrezzar -- I think we agree on all particulars, and it's a matter of taste anyhoo. Maybe ask for other opinions or do a straw poll. No big deal, either way. dab (ᛏ) 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal either way any more either. Suffice it to say that if the article was moved by someone to Nebuchadnezzar I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care, even if it's not my personal preference (not that no one else that watches the page would object; kind of the same reason we couldn't move it to Nabu-kudurri-usur even if we wanted to). You got me thinking about these issues more than I had previously, for which I thank you.Tommstein 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Nebuchadrezzar as a compromise between the more familiar (but inaccurate) Nebuchadnezzar, and the more accurate (but less familiar) Nabu-kudurri-usur. "Nebuchadrezzar" is a name which is found in the Bible, which is used by some modern scholars, which is a reasonably accurate phonetic facsimile of the Akkadian, and which is similar enough to the familiar "Nebuchadnezzar" as not to cause any real confusion. Note that our articles on certain Aztec emperors are at Moctezuma I and Moctezuma II, rather than the more familiar Montezuma or the more accurate Motecuhzoma. This seems an analogous case. john k 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, coincidentally, I once looked up Montezuma here for no specific reason, and encountered this that you speak of, although, not knowing squat about him, I just assumed I had misspelled it. But yes, your argument is basically mine, verbatim. I can see the other side better now, but that's still my personal story too.Tommstein 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited this page, and I'm going to create a short section for the discussion of his name. It seems a bit in depth and it may not be important enough for casual readers to have it placed in the introduction. Carl.bunderson 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Sanity

'Personally, I find syphilis to be an unlikely cause for his apparent loss of reason, particularly as the king would have most likely had his own harem to consort with. By tradition, eunuchs were entrusted to guard a harem and it is realistic to believe that personal wives and concubines reserved for a king were safely expected to be virgins upon arrival. In a controlled harem, the eunuchs were perhaps realistically the only ones capable of spreading infection through outside contact. Still, Nebuchadnezzar recovers from his said lapse of sanity, greatly ruling out the possibility of advanced symptoms of paralytic dementia characteristic of syphilis.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.76.167 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this anonymous editor. I find it highly unlikely that syphilis caused Nebuchadenezzar's insanity solely because he is said to have recoved. Considering there was no cure then, and I'm not sure there is now, I'm not sure why this opinion is even listed. Seems laughable and highly dubious and thus I'm thinking it should be deleted. Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I too, find this explanation quite implausible and at the very least overly speculative. However, it seems to me that it would be OR to reject this explanation based on our own understanding if an apparently reliable source reports it. I do doubt however if psychologists are qualified to diagnose people in the ancient world on the basis of such limited information. It would be helpful if anyone with access to the reference can provide the context in which this claim was made and if it was merely a suggestion or a firm conclusion. Lindert (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If something is implausible but appears in a source considered to be reliable, the statement should be very clearly attributed as being the opinion of that source (in the prose) rather than stated as if factual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let me see if I can make that small change w/o completely screwing up the text. Ckruschke (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Kudurri

The page seems to have lost the translation of kudurri as boundary-stone. That is what I have usually seen this translated as, as well as "heir" (as in, "Nebo, protect the heir"), which is also not in the article. Was this on purpose, or should it be reinserted?Tommstein 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

boundary-stone was replaced by CE's "landmark" which means precisely the same thing. CE is hopelessly outdated, of course, and I don't know if "crown" is still considered an option. Maybe we should leave the subtleties to the kudurru article, since we have it. dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it to the Kudurru article seems to make the most sense, since there's no reason in having whatever work is done there in two places, considering the ease of clicking on a link and reading all about the word. Maybe we could change this article to say it means something like "Nebo, protect the kudurru," while making kudurru a link to the Kudurru article.Tommstein 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

I didn't know how to put a citation in so maybe someone will want to touch that up.

Reference

I was thinking the Black Crows song, Nebakanezer, should be added to the references section. I would add it myself, but this article seems to be restricted.

Son of God

The statement "They are protected by an angel or "the Son of God" [Daniel 3:25, KJV] (interpreted to be the second member of the Godhead which is God the Son, later known as Jesus Christ)," specifically the parenthetic portion, does not belong in this article. It is theologically and exegetically biased; it might, in a qualified form, belong in an article on the book of Daniel, or on Jesus Christ. It undoubtedly goes without saying that the interpretation mentioned is a Christian one; what is not clear is that the view is by no means unanimous among Christians. One need look no further than the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a widely regarded and distinctly Christian translation. In the text in question, the RSV reads, ". . . the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." (Incidentally, "second person of the Godhead," as in the main article, is a prejudicially Christian and theologically inaccurate expression; the more accurste form is "second person of the Trinity." "Godhead" is a 1611 way of saying "God-hood"--the quality of being God.Opaanderson 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King James Version specifically says that fourth man has the form that "is like the Son of God" and not "sons of gods", therefore there is no question to whom the author means. While the RSV maybe a "widely regarded and disctinctly Christian translation (also very questionable)", nothing expresses itself better than good ole' King James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.101 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, 'the author' did not write in English (King James style or otherwise) but in Aramaic. So that's what matters. And since translators don't agree, it's presumably not clear which he meant. Which doesn't matter, as it was only King Neb's opinion of who the figure looked like anyway. The Bible doesn't say who he actually was. 109.153.195.214 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for suggesting that it is actually "King Neb's" opinion. It is more correctly the opinion attributed to Nebuchadnezzar in the story. But trying to claim that it refers to Jesus is later Christian revisionism and not something supported by the original text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Granted this thread is 7 yrs old so the subject is essentially dead, but if the text says "is like the Son of God", who is it if not Jesus? I'm obviously a Christian, but it surprises me that a contrary opinion is held that saying it is Jesus is only "Christian revisionist history". Text seems pretty clear - to me. Not arguing - just curious. Ckruschke (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

The use of "the" is an editorial decision by the translators, not an indisputable representation of "the [original] text", and it is also variously rendered in different translations as "a god", "a son of god" and "a son of the gods". It makes no sense to say it's 'like' 'the Son of God', particularly when some pre-Jesus king wouldn't know what Jesus would later 'look like'. Setting aside the obvious intent of the revisionism, it's a pointless comparison. Since the opinion in the tale is attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, it would make more sense for him to refer to a son of Marduk, possibly Nabu.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ckruschke a "son of God" in this context means a heavenly being, an angel. (Think of the "sons of God" in the story of the Flood - they were definitely not multiples Jesuses). I think Collins' many works on Daniel would have an explanation. PiCo (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are - Seow's commentary, where he points out that the Aramaic says "a son of God"; the KJV translators took this to be Jesus and turned it into "the son". They did the same with Daniel's later vision of heaven, turning "one like a son of man", meaning having the form of a human, into "the Son of Man," a divine title. PiCo (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Villification in...the Bible..."

Actually, he is referred to by Daniel as "this head of gold," and "greatest of kingdoms," in a dream of statedly Divine origin (rather than flattering him, which according to the book The God never does), and implies that, far from the villain, he was in the eyes of such Divinity the greatest of all mortal kings of human history (despite references to Alexander in nearby passages). Likewise, it is stated by Yirma'yahu (Jeremiah) that The God had given the entirety of Mesopotamian civilization (most of the known civilized world, therefore) over to the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Babylon would rule as long as he remained alive, words which, if the account to be taken as historically accurate, the Jews threatened to scourge Jeremiah for saying, before it turned out to be right. The line about villification in the Bible is therefore an extreme disreading of the text. --Chr.K. 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Egypt

Did Nebuchadrezzar attack Egypt by the sea? There was some information about this that I heared. Does anyone know something more about this?

A coin of Nebuchadnezzar ?

In the article there is a picture of a coin with the caption "A coin that might depict Nebuchadrezzar II.

To date no Babylonian coins were found, which suggests that Babylon didn't mint any coins. No such an ancient coin as depicted exists. At the best this might be a modern coin or a token, depicting someone’s imagination on how he might have looked, inscribed with Nebuchadnezzar’s name in cuneiform script. Whoever posted it or knows more about it, please correct the caption accordingly. Itzse 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted this mistake. It is in fact a very small stone relief found on an ancient statue of god Marduk in the Italian museum of Florence. Egyptzo 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and correcting it. Now is there anybody who can read for us the cuneiform script around the portrait? What does the museum say it says? Itzse 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please volunteer to check it out in the museum? Or can anyone call them and find out? Thanks. Itzse (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an onyx disc with an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar. The head is a later (Hellenistic) addition. I owe this piece of information to Dr. Sebastiano Soldi of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Florence, who told me that the disc is there. See Joachim Menant, "Un camée du musée de Florence", Revue d'archéologie, 1885, pp. 1-8, for further information. Gian Pietro Basello Gpbasello (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphenated term "onyx-stone-eye" seems to be non-standard phrasing. This awkward hyphenated form only seems to appear in mirrors of the one other Wikipedia article (Neo-Babylonian Empire) where this unusual presentation has also been used in a caption of the same image. Can someone replace with clearer syntax? The actual intended term would seem to be an onyx intaglio. In any case, the image seems to depict an illustration rather than an object made of onyx.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 is right, it is not a standard phrasing. I had a look at "Persepolis 2" by E. Schmitt (downloadable for free on the site of the Chicago Oriental Institute: http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/oip/oip69.html, see for example p. 77) and I found repeatedly the phrasing "eye stone(s) of onyx". Notwithstanding its name (which is usual in archaeological publications to indicate this typology of objects), it is a kind of bead, not an eye of some statue.Gpbasello (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The opening section says he is "not famous for...", surely this should be "famous for..."? Popher 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His names meaning

Stancer: "Name" I added that his name translates as "Oh Nabu, preserve/defend my firstborn son." rather than "preserve my border stone". I read about this in two books yet, as far as i could make it out the German wikipedia entry also agrees. Could someone verify or falsify it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.173.132 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the clay tablet

The article says, "A clay tablet in the British Museum (BM34113) describes Nebuchadnezzar's behaviour during his insanity". As it sounds extremely doubtful (to put it mildly), I would like to check whether this bit of information is correct or not. Does anybody here have any knowledge about the current tablet or the whole claim I've quoted above should be considered a bright and quite believable sample of apologetic agitation? Asharidu (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found something about it here, including a partial translation: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/04/new-light-on-nebuchadnezzars-madness

Biblical issues aside, I don't find the idea of a king losing his mind that unbelievable: I like to read about history as a hobby, and European monarchies could've doubled as an insane asylum. All that power plus inbreeding isn't good for people! Neither is arrogance. Tl;dr even if I didn't believe the rest of the Bible, old Neb losing his mind would still be completely plausible. I'm kind of surprised that there are people who take issue with that, to be honest. Royals get too big for their britches and flip out all the time. Tabbycatlove (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list called List of mentally ill monarchs, though it needs additional references. It even seems to take Suetonius at face value, though much of his work is racy gossip about sexual practices. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I recently cleaned up the intro and moved the page to Nebuchadnezzar II rather than Nebuchadrezzar. Nebuchadnezzar is obviously the common English name; I'd like to see some actual evidence that it's not if anyone wants to move it back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what is the common name used in reliable sources. In this case, I think we want to look at what Assyriologists use - particularly in general synthetic works, rather than monographs or articles, not what is the most common generally. john k (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebuchadnezzar is much better known to the English-speaking world through his appearance in the Bible than he is as a historical figure. As far as I can tell folks studying the Biblical and adapted literary Nebuchadn/rezzar tend to use the much more common Nebuchadnezzar (for example the Catholic Study Bible and this book which uses the "n" spelling in the title) As such I think we should go with the common version, rather than with what Assyriologists may use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebuchadrezzar is a term found in the Bible as well. At any rate, Neuchadn/rezzar is a figure about whom we know a lot more than simply what the Bible tells us - and furthermore, the most famous Biblical stories about him are basically entirely fictitious and come from a work written centuries after his death. What Assyriological sources use is at least as important as the Biblical term. Now, I'm not sure what Assyriologists use - certainly I'd suspect that a fair number use Nebuchadnezzar for the very reasons you outline. But I don't think it's irrelevant, and I very much don't like the idea that a real historical ruler about whom we know a great deal from the cuneiform should be treated as an adjunct to Biblical studies. Herod Antipas is known to more people as Herod the Tetrarch in the Gospel of Luke than he is by his proper name, but our article isn't called that. john k (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently this was discussed some years ago. Looks like both Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar are just anglicizations (or at least latinizations) of the Hebrew and both originate in the translations of the Bible. His real name was Nabû-kudurri-uṣur. As such if it's a debate between the two anglicizations of the Hebrew version of the name, we should go with the more common one. Google Scholar returns multiple thousands more results for Nebuchadnezzar than for Nebuchadrezzar. Not that google's the best way to measure, but it's something - if you find ant information about a preference among Assyriologists it would be relevant here. But I still maintain that for our purposes it doesn't matter how the king got a name that is the most common among English speakers, it only matters that he has one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should go with the term which is most used in reliable sources. I have no strong opinion about which name is most used in reliable sources, and I'm not specifically proposing that we move it back. The Google Scholar results suggest that it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar is more common. I do think that Nebuchadnezzar I is very problematic (and probably less common than Nebuchadrezzar I), and I have a slight preference towards keeping these two kings, who had, after all, the same name in Akkadian, at the same name. But I don't have a strong opinion on where the article should be. I do think that we ought to be clear on why articles should be at a location, and it's not merely general "common usage" but "common usage in reliable sources" which is at issue. john k (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is unassailable. To me it looks like Nebuchadnezzar is significantly more common - and no less correct - than Nebuchadrezzar by any measure (in sources on the Biblical/literary character, in sources on the historical king, and in common use, which is not insignificant here). But if you (or anyone) finds information pointing to another conclusion, then it bears discussion. On keeping consistent with the other king of the name, I would say that moving him to match this title would be best, and again, if anyone concludes otherwise it should be discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved Nebuchadrezzar I to Nebuchadnezzar I, for consistency's sake. Nebuchadnezzar IV already had the "n" spelling. Again if anyone has references suggesting that a different spelling is preferred by scholars, the matter can be discussed at that point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia--it is supposed to teach, or at least give correct[ed] information about the topics on which it holds forth. Perpetuating misconceptions just because they're "most used" or "more common" is to espouse and nurture mob ignorance. (Using search engine results for these issues is unscientific: statistically meaningless because you have no idea about either the quality or quantity of the sample from which it's pulling its results--Google neither contains nor has access to all sources.)

Nebuchadrezzar is the correct transcription of the name; Nebuchadnezzar is an old, erroneous version of the transcription. Failure to use the correct form merely means that Wikipedia is perpetuating that scribal mistake. To their credit, the editors of EB have settled on using the correct name in all places. (e.g., [1])

This continuation of using the erroneous Nebuchadnezzar in Wikipedia reeks of religious interference and censorship, and a failure of the writers and editors to take independent research and teaching seriously.--Polemyx (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. As pointed out above, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur is the correct transcription of the name, while Nebuchadnezzar is the common English name. Variant English transcriptions of Hebrew transcriptions of the Assyrian name are completely irrelevant. You may wish that the common English name were different, but that's also irrelevant. Ben (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. As pointed out above several years ago, Wikipedia articles are titled by the common name in English. Also as pointed out, Nebuchadnezzar is no more "correct" than Nebuchadnezzar - both are Anglicizations or latinizations of the Hebrew. As far as I can tell, in the literature on this king, "Nebuchadnezzar" is more common than "Nebuchadrezzar", and both are more common than his actual name. If anyone has evidence showing otherwise, please bring it up and we can discuss it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alan Gardiner used Nebuchadrezzar^[1]. Likewise, Joan Oates used it^[2]. And, as stated, all of Encyclopædia Britannica. The only person of note I've found so far [admittedly a very quick survey] using the Hebrew name in a technical (not a religious/Biblical "Archeology") frame is von Soden, and (as an extremely frustrated Hurrianist, and Indo-European denier) he has to be dealt with carefully. The situation is that the references you call common sources include a great deal of religious/B"A" texts, not scholarly, archæological texts. So the source from which you are sampling to create your "common English name" is already skewed toward supporting the Hebrew mistake because that's what the religious writers are going to use, so as not to call into question the "inviolability" or "inerrancy" of the Hebrew text. The fact is that, other than in the mistakenly transcribed Hebrew texts, there was never a single king of Babylon named "Nebuchadnezzar". No matter how many English-speaking people call him by the Hebrew mistake, that fact will never change. That you are going not with fact, but with fable, calls so many other things into question.--Polemyx (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance, I will do a quick survey in my own little library of ancient near eastern lingustics, history and archaeology texts and report back. I have no use for biblical inerrantists, but you're still being silly. Ben (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that, other than in the mistakenly transcribed Hebrew texts, there was never a single king of Babylon named "Nebuchadnezzar". There also was never a single king of Babylon named "Nebuchadrezzar", was there? Ben (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Polemyx, as I already said, both "Nebuchadnezzar" and "Nebuchadrezzar" are from the Bible. Neither are what the historical figure was called in his own language. I also highly doubt that all sources that use the form "Nebuchadnezzar" are doing so to defend the "inviolability" of the Hebrew text; that's a straw man argument. At any rate you can't dismiss the scholarly work in literary and Biblical studies. Sources using "Nebuchadnezzar" I found in a quick search include the Ronald Sack's Images of Nebuchadnezzar (Susquehanna University Press)[2]; Oxford Catholic Study Bible[3]; Matthias Henze's The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar (BRILL)[4]; Bruce Wells' article "The Cultic Versus the Forensic: Judahite and Mesopotamian Judicial Procedures in the First Millennium B.C.E." from the Journal of the American Oriental Society; and Tawny Holme's "The Fiery Furnace in the Book of Daniel and the Ancient Near East" (ibid). These sources are all from academic publications across several relevant fields. This is a case of two common names for a figure that differ from his real one, one of which appears to be significantly more common than the other.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through the ANE history/archaeology section of my library, and here's what I've found:

Nebuchadnezzar is used by these authors (or their translators):

* James B. Pritchard

* J. N. Postgate

* Marc Van de Mieroop

Nebuchadrezzar is used by these authors:

* Georges Roux

* Milton Covensky

I hope that settles things, but I could also have a look through my ANE linguistic texts as well if it would be of use. -Ben (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the ngram shows Nebuchadrezzar appearing around 1880 and remaining popular--though never quite overtaking Nebuchadnezzar--until 1910. So it looks like there is some correspondence between the r-transliteration and the rise of Assyriology in the popular press. -Ben (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gardiner, Sir Alan (1961). Egypt of the Pharaohs. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 358–62. ISBN 0-19-500267-9.
^ Oates, Joan (1986). Babylon. Thames and Hudson. pp. I: 97, 105–6, 161, 172, II: 92, 99, 109, 127–31, 133–4, 144–61, III, IV: 138. ISBN 0-500-27384-7.

Authorship Of Daniel

"...Chapter 4 is also written by Nebuchadnezzar..."

Almost certainly not. Should be edited to read "Chapter 4 is also purported to be written by Nebuchadnezzar"

PCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.145 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological evidence

"According to the Bible, he conquered Judah and Jerusalem, and sent the Jews into exile. However, there is currently no archeological evidence to confirm this."

There is no denying the exile did happen to the Jews, so what is lacking in the archeological evidence? That Nebby did it himself? The Jews didn't just get up and walk to Babylon because they felt like it. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this seems unnecessarily skeptical. Nobody doubts the Bible contains much accurate or reasonably accurate historical information. Evercat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful statements in the Bible section

There are a number of things that disturb me in Nebuchadnezzer#Portrayal in the books of Daniel and Jeremiah.

Perhaps the most serious is this passage:

A clay tablet in the British Museum (BM34113) describes Nebuchadnezzar's behavior during his insanity: "His life appeared of no value to him... then he gives an entirely different order... he does not show love to ... family and clan does not exist." There is no record of acts or decrees by the king during 582 to 575 BC.

The references are to

Kendall K. Down, Daniel: Hostage in Babylon, p.30
Gleason Archer, Vol 7 Expositor's Bible Commentary.

Are these experts of Babylonian history or are they Biblical apologists? We can cite them in the later case, but we need to make it clear where they are coming from. Since the references are not available online, it is difficult to critically evaluate them. The connection between the fragmented text of the clay tablet and the episode described in Daniel seems very tenuous. The alleged hiatus from 582 to 575 seems to contradict the fact that "Nebuchadnezzar engaged in a thirteen year siege of Tyre" during this time (585-572 BC).

I also think it is important to make clear that the scholarly consensus is that Daniel was written centuries later, not by an eye witness. (The details of why the experts think that can be left to The Book of Daniel.)

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There doesn't seem to be anything to confirm that the quote from BM34113 actually corresponds to the period alleged in 'Daniel'. The quote from the tablet suggests that Nebuchadnezzar was inconsistent and indifferent to family, but not that he was necessarily 'insane' or living in the wild, and doesn't indicate a period of time. The article could say that someone believes the tablet correlates with 'Daniel', but only if the person who claims it is a reliable source. Also per above regarding alleged period of insanity during the siege on Tyre.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken's an editor here. He's involved in an online website, here's his bio there [5]. Looking at Google Books and Scholar, it doesn't seem to me that he's an RS on this (sorry Ken). Archer has an article Gleason Archer but the cite doesn't meet our verification criteria in that there's no page number. Still, that doesn't mean it's wrong. I see that Down's book is used in other articles which worries me a bit. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a week without negative comments, I'll see about making a change. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I should note that there was a comment requesting a RS introduced on 2009-08-22. The reference to the clay tablet was inserted in July 2007 (here). The reference to the "notable absence" was even older. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce Nebuchadnezzar?

Is the "ch" pronounced as it is in cheese or as it is in school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.81.102 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sound sample on this page, it is pronounced "ch" as in school. However, this is of course an Anglicized pronunciation. In Hebrew e.g., the German "ch" (as in 'ach') is used (a sound absent from the English language). Lindert (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There also appears to be a Ts sound like in the word "Tsar" at the two z's. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names

How come the name is in Arabic but not Hebrew as well? Aramaic is obvious, but still if you have Arabic (I'm assuming he is in the Qu'ran), why not have Hebrew? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variants of the Hebrew form, as well as the Greek, are in the second paragraph. The Hebrew and Greek forms could be added to the parenthetical statement in the opening sentence, though I'm not sure whether the additional alternative Hebrew forms would be necessary there. (Your signature format, with a link to an article, doesn't conform to WP:SIGN.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Hebrew one should be put there as most people read about him in the context of the Hebrew Bible (through the Christian Bible, which is the same thing but longer) really, otherwise I don't see any reason for the Arabic name being there (as he was not Arab, despite what Saddam said =p). Just the most common Hebrew form would make the most sense (which would be this one: נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר ). Even though it is Nebuchadrezzar, most archaeologists and historians have decided that, just like the Neshites (Hittites), we should just stick with the name everyone knows. The Greek might make it a bit too long, unless others disagree.

You're the first person to actually say anything about it linking to his article, but it does help people to learn about the person I named it after. Besides, most people reach my userpage through the "Say Shalom!" which links to my talkpage (the place you usually want to get to), and the guideline says "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page", notice the or, not and, so it does conform to it as it does indeed contain the one required link. Though I guess I could put a pipe in to make it more easy to spot that bit as separate. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't Jewish or Greek either, so I don't think there's any specific problem with having the Arabic form on the grounds of ethnicity. Given the significance of the Septuagint, I think it's also reasonable to provide the Greek. Is the Akkadian form available (not sure many systems would have a suitable font)? Certainly, per WP:COMMONNAME, the article name and preferred usage in the article should remain as Nebuchadnezzar.

In regard to your signature, I was thinking more of the aspect of "In general anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either." The guideline also states that "It is better to put information on your user page rather than in your signature." Helping people to learn about the person after whom you named your account is not the purpose of a signature. The username policy states that "If your username is similar to that of another contributor or an article, you may wish to provide some form of disambiguation"; linking your signature directly to an article with the same name as your username does the exact opposite.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I didn't mean it like that, lol. I mean it doesn't make sense to just have the Arabic there without the Hebrew, lol. I think both should be there, I just didn't know why it was Aramaic and Arabic (and thought it was maybe something to do with some people thinking he was Arab). Alrighty, Greek should be put then. Akkadian was the administrative tongue, but it was still official, so it would make sense to put it as well. I'll see if I can get it. Of course, that's why I put Nebuchadnezzar in Hebrew there (the two z's btw have a Ts sound like in Tsar, because of the Tsadik - צ). =)

It is also a guideline though, and so it's not really necessary to always follow it (as it really doesn't do any harm). Besides, most people find the page well enough. If it becomes a real issue at some point though, I will change it. For now it doesn't seem like anyone is having trouble with it. Thanks though. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article to include the Hebrew and Greek, and re-worded the second paragraph accordingly. As stated before, I think the reason the Hebrew form was left out was specifically because it had already been included in the second paragraph. It may be more helpful to provide an image of the Akkadian form, as most systems won't have a suitable typeface.

The normal intuitive expectation of clicking a name in a signature is to go to that user's User page. Linking your signature to an article gives the impression that your User page redirects to an article. So, in principle it is against both the guideline and policy, but if I'm the only one who cares, I guess it doesn't matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, good. I guess so, though I did feel the inclusion at the time was a bit odd. Hmm, good point as no one uses it anymore. It would have to be a small picture of course at the right size so that it doesn't look strange in the text. It's also just my opinion, but Akkadian has a hideous looking writing system, best to make it as bearable as possible, lol.

Yeah I know, but I've not had anyone comment on it yet before now, so I didn't think anything of it (I didn't even realise it linked there until three weeks ago, lol). Ya, no offence intended, but if more people complain about it (or an admin offers a stern warning), then I think is the time to change. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Akkadian is all lines and pointy bits, and probably only a novelty for all but a small number of readers. Maybe not worth the effort.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pic of the alphabet, though it's originally from before the time of alphabets if you catch my meaning. =p It hurts my eyes to see it on tablets, but idk if others will have that reaction. Regardless, it should be there for the few that can read it, and because it's how his name would have been written in official texts. Also you're right, it doesn't even display as text on my computer. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are the little pointy things I remember. It would certainly be nicer to have it in the article for completeness (which was why I initially brought it up), but someone with knowledge of the script will need to construct a suitable image, and that won't be me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the result of using reeds as writing implements and tiny clay tablets as surfaces, oy vey. I have two possible people that could maybe do that, but I'm not 100% sure they actually know the alphabet. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the inscription method. My lackadaisicalness was intended humorously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Saddam era bricks in Nebuchadnezzar's Palace

I've looked at various sources, and there seems to be no agreement as what the insciption on the new bricks say. Some sources say every brick was some inscribed, some say every other, however the actual pictures I've found show that it's much fewer. I found a photo blog from the NY Times that shows the inscription on the new and old bricks. Is there somebody out there that can translate this? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Williams

Deleted this as it seems to be an overinterpretation, see [6] Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Reference to Hebrew Bible

The "Life" section of this page refers readers to the books "2 Kings" and "2 Chronicles" in the Ketuvim section of the Tanakh; yet the Hebrew Bible does not divide these books into two each, but instead keeps them whole, unlike the Christian "Old Testament." When Christian contexts are used, they ought to be noted as such, and when Tanakh sources are cited they should be correct.BarakZ (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that these names are used in the Tanakh, but rather the Hebrew Bible, which has no clearly defined order or naming conventions of the books, as you can see on the Wikipedia article: "The term does not comment upon the naming, numbering or ordering of books". However, the division of the books such as 1&2 Kings may be a convention used first in Christianity, but even Jewish writers sometimes use these for referencing. As far as I know, there is no standard Jewish way of citing a verse of the Tanakh apart from the Christian system. The edition of the Tanakh that I use, i.e. the Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia ([http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Hebraica-Leningradensia-according-Vocalization/dp/1565630890]), which is adapted for Jewish liturgical use, also uses chapter/verse numbering with 1&2 Kings and מלכים א,ב etc. -- Lindert (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti religious prejudice without evidence.

"This chapter was either written by Nebuchadnezzar himself in the first person, or at the least, was constructed to appear that way." A citation proving that is needed, otherwise this seems written by someone with a typical anti-religious background I've come to know well. You can't express such a strongly biased negative opinion without due evidence, so it needs a citation. 70.114.63.215 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly consensus among Assyriologists is that Nebuchadnezzar did not have anything to do with writing the Hebrew Bible. (I'm trying to square that theologically, too -- is Nebuchadnezzar supposed to have been a prophet?) The Bible may be a source that sheds some light on events in his reign, or how his reign was perceived in parts of the Ancient Near East, or how his name was grafted onto other stories and legends. But he did not compose any part of the Old Testament. The line is problematic not because of "was constructed to appear that way", but because of "was written by Nebuchadnezzar himself". Please note that the same Assyriologists who deny that Nebuchadnezzar wrote Daniel 4 (i.e. all of them) will gladly say that the Biblical account of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem is pretty much spot-on, so I wouldn't accuse them of "anti-religious prejudice". Now there may be a consensus among groups other than Assyriologists that disagrees, but I'm pretty sure that an encyclopedia should at least prioritize Assyriological scholarship in an article on an Assyriological subject. -Ben (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most scholars do not accept Nebuchadnezzar's involvement in this. The religious or secular views of these scholars is, for the purpose of Wikipedia, irrelevant. Another neutral way of putting it however, would be: "This chapter was written from the perspective of king Nebuchadnezzar." or something like that. -- Lindert (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like "This chapter was written from the perspective of king Nebuchadnezzar." Adding it now. -Ben (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated I will chime in saying, yes, that's a very good way to word it. 208.124.36.240 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willietell attempting JW apologetics (again)

I have reverted the recent edit by Willietell (talk · contribs), who falsely claimed that "some estimates have his reign beginning as early as 624 BC to 582 BC", with a dishonest reference to A. K. Grayson's work, as if Grayson supported such a date.[7] This is a lie. In fact, Willietell's source is the Jehovah's Witnesses publication Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, page 480, which inserts the additional years of their own spurious chronology into the text of Grayson's work. Insight states:

"The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100)"

The interpolation in square brackets is not supported by the actual source claimed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Under the heading Helel, there is a statement that Shahar is Hebrew for Morning Shahar. The Hebrew for morning is Boker, Shachar means Dawn, after the Pagan god of Dawn who had a twin God of Dusk. A correction is in order. Venus in Hebrew is referred to as "Ayelet hashachar" , literally "The dawn of the young doe (female deer). Perhaps this is the origin or the star reference mentioned in a previous talk. There is a Kibbutz in northern Israel of that name. Historygypsy (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of that paragraph in the article is awful. I've done what I can with it, but without access to the cited source or other sources to back up the claims about what is 'usually' thought about the subject, I have no way to improve it further. Do you have access to the cited source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Nabucco?

It would appear that this guy was Nabucco. Surely, thanks to the opera, this is far and away the most common name for him in English today and the article name should reflect this? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar is far and away the most commonly used version of the name in English. - Lindert (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also the [ngram] of the two names.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwbrum (talk • contribs)

The name of the opera Nabucco is an Italian abbreviation of Nabucodonosor, which is the Italian form of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabucco isn't English.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Nabucco is not English. Equally clearly, Nabucco is far more common in English than whatever this long name is. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. A person searching for Nabucco is almost certainly searching for the opera, which employs an abbreviated form of a foreign form of the name. A person searching for the historical figure will most likely search for Nebuchadnezzar. See also Nebuchadnezzar (disambiguation).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is searching for "Nabucco", they have simply misspelled Nabisco. Mannanan51 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Wording

The intro says "He is credited with the construction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and for the destruction of Jerusalem's temple." That's grammatically incorrect at best, offensive at worst. It sounds like he is "credited with/for the destruction of Jerusalem's temple." It should probably say something like "He is credited with the construction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and known for the destruction of Jerusalem's temple." I'll leave it to someone else to edit, as I'm not au fait with the subject.Sadiemonster (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Credited is wrong for the Hanging Gardens of Babylon - if they existed, which is questioned, they may have been the gardens built by Sennacherib. Both of these should say "described as" I think. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal in medieval Muslim sources

Much of the section Portrayal in medieval Muslim sources (including its subsections) doesn't seem to be much to do with Muslim sources at all, and much of it seems entirely unrelated to the historical Nebuchadnezzar anyway. It should probably be heavily reduced to a relevant scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Watchters'

I have removed recent edits about 'watchers'. The dream in Daniel chapter 4 is not about 'watchers', they are simply there as a narrative device about the dream's actual subject, the tree. Additionally, the attribution of Nebuchadnezzar supposedly seeing 'watchers' was written by an anonymous 2nd century BCE Jewish author and was not a claim actually made by Nebuchadnezzar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link to "Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon", The British Museum

Keith McClary (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syphilis??

Article talks about having syphilis, but in the syphilis article it says that the best hypothesis is that the disease was in the New World and not present in Europe before Columbus.Conscientia (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I was unaware that this was in that section. Let me edit to specify that it would be an example of pre-Columbian syphilis (which I guess is a theory). Ckruschke (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Assyrian?

Quick question: the opening sentence of the article describes Nebuchadnezzar as an Assyrian king, but I thought that the Assyrians and Babylonians were rivals for control over Mesopotamia? If he ruled over the Neo-Babylonian empire, wouldn't that make him a Babylonian king, and not an Assyrian one? Does the word "Assyrian" here refer to an ethnic identity instead of a national one? I'd appreciate it if someone could clear this up for me. --Dfault (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct. Someone recently changed it from Chaldean to Assyrian without any justification. I have reverted that edit now. - Lindert (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

We don't discuss here about theological orthodoxy, we discuss about objective historical facts. Therefore, it is not germane what the theological orthodoxy thinks about the authorship of the Book of Daniel, but it is germane what historians think. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? seems to me history is being revised here in favor of fiction. Explaining the accuracy of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel by saying it was written later is a lie exposed in the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls written 200 years before some say the book was written. I can think of nothing that causes more harm in this world than denying real history in favor of someones political aspirations. If the Bible says it, it is true but some say it says things it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwisehart (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!
— Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If the Bible says it, it is true"

The Bible is a wildly inaccurate historical resource, mostly written by liars and propagandists. The Book of Daniel was written in the Hellenistic period (c. 323-30 BC) and gives us a largely fictionalized depiction of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Biblical inerrancy beliefs are at best laughable, at worst a threat to reason. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time editor, you know your whole comment is an opinion - one that many could argue on the other side with equal vehemence.

So other than "all this is stupid", did you have something to add to the discussion? Ckruschke (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

We discuss another subject than theology. In mainstream history the claim "Daniel really existed and he wrote the Book of Daniel, which is historically accurate" is baloney. It isn't so in theology (wherein orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder and there is no objective way of telling who is divinely right). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls written 200 years before some say the book was written" is simply false. The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' refers to various copies of writings compiled over several hundred years, and most of that period post-dates the Maccabean period. The earliest parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls do predate the Maccabean period, but suggesting that all of them were written at the same time is a lie. Specifically, 4QDan^c from the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Daniel was written in the script of the late second century BCE (The Ancient Library of Qumram, Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University); 4QDan^e, 1QDan^b, 4QDan^a, 4QDan^d, 1QDan^a, 4QDan^b, and 6papDan have also all been palaeographically dated between the late 2nd century BCE and the first half of the 1st century CE—of course, proponents of 'biblical inerrancy' claim that it is 'inconceivable' that copies of Daniel existed a quarter of a century after it was written, and instead claim that it is 'much more reasonable' to assert that it 'must' have been written hundreds of years prior to the events it describes (and then Adventists go a step further by ignoring what it actually describes and say it instead refers to 'our day'). The gullible assertion that "If the Bible says it, it is true" is a much more harmful notion than the fairly obvious conclusion that Daniel isn't a magical book. And Daniel wasn't written in the Hellenistic period either. Additionally, detail about the book of Daniel is out of this article's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And Daniel wasn't written in the Hellenistic period either. "

Tell that to our sources on the Book of Daniel, which give the 2nd century BC as an estimate for its writing, and the Seleucid Empire as the location of the writing. Dimadick (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously was written in the 2nd century BCE, which was during the Hellenistic period. I had misread the "(c. 323-30 BC)" at the time as '323-320'. What I meant to convey is that it wasn't written that early, and my hastily written statement tacked on to the end of the paragraph was clumsy and incorrect. Sorry for any confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit war

The germane content guideline is WP:RS/AC, which the source (Collins) passes with flying colors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus claim is accurate: the views about Nebuchadnezzar of biblical inerrantists, who dissent from the general consensus, carry no weight in mainstream history, in a bona fide history department their claim would be treated with ROFLMAO or they would be booed off the stage. See WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The view that Daniel was real and wrote the Book of Daniel is fundamentalist or conservative evangelical theology, it isn't history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Gardiner, Sir Alan (1961). Egypt of the Pharaohs. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 358–62. ISBN 0-19-500267-9.

[2] Oates, Joan (1986). Babylon. Thames and Hudson. pp. I: 97, 105–6, 161, 172, II: 92, 99, 109, 127–31, 133–4, 144–61, III, IV: 138. ISBN 0-500-27384-7.

[1]

[2]