William H. Sheaa <\/b><\/p>\n
The first chapter of Daniel tells how Daniel and his three friends were exiled from Judah to Babylon. The year was 605 BC and this was the first of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s three campaigns against Judah. Hostages were taken from the upper class and nobility of Jerusalem and Daniel and his three friends found themselves among them. Upon arrival in Babylon they were enrolled in a course of training for civil servants. In order to enroll them as students, the Babylonians under whom they studied gave them all Babylonian names. While some of the names included names of Babylonian gods, we need not see a deep theological plot in this. It was merely the normal way in which Babylonians gave names and they undoubtedly did it for many captives from many different lands, not just Hebrews from Judah.<\/p>\n
At the end of their course the four Hebrews stood before the king and passed their oral examinations with flying colors. As a consequence they were given important government posts. After they passed the trial by fire described in Daniel 3 they were promoted to even more prominent positions. That being the case, and in view of the large number of tablets that have been excavated from this period in Babylon, one might expect to find a reference to these individuals, either by their Babylonian names or their Hebrew names. As it turns out, that does indeed appear to be the case.<\/p>\n
Hanunu\/Hananiah<\/b><\/p>\n
My interest in this subject was initially stimulated by a comment which I noted in a book by A.L. Oppenheim. In his work Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization<\/i>, he has a section which deals with commerce and trade. There he made the observation,<\/p>\n
It is certainly no accident that the rab tamkari<\/i>, \u201cchief trader,\u201d was a high official at the court of the Babylonian kings, an office which was held under Nebuchadnezzar II by a man called Hanunu, i.e., Hanno, a typical Phoenician name.<\/p>\n
It is clear that Hanunu was not a native Babylonian because he does not bear a Babylonian name. The verbal root hanan<\/i>, which means \u201cto be gracious,\u201d does not occur in the Babylonian language. It does occur, on the other hand, in the West Semitic languages which were spoken and written in Syro-Palestine. This included Phoenicia and the Phoenicians had a strong reputation for being good businessmen. Thus, Oppenheim\u2019s estimate that Hanunu might have been a Phoenician was a reasonable one. As I looked at that comment, however, I asked the question, \u201chow does one know that Hanunu was a Phoenician and not a Hebrew?\u201d The <\/p>\n
(article continued on page 60)<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 58<\/p>\n
When Jerusalem was captured in 597 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, he took the upper classes of society into captivity. They were transported from Jerusalem, near the Mediterranean coast, through Syria and northern Mesopotamia, to Babylon in southern Mesopotamia, a journey of some 1,000 miles. Among the captives were Daniel, Hananiah,<\/i><\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 59<\/p>\n
Mishael and Azariah, young men \u201cin whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king\u2019s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans\u201d (Dn 1:4)<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 60<\/p>\n
same verbal root was used for personal names in Hebrew as well, so he could just as well have been a Hebrew. Then it occurred to me that this name is very close to one of the personal names of Daniel\u2019s friends, Hananiah<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The only difference between the name of Hanunu and the name Hananiah, aside from the minor matter of vocalization, is the fact that one name ends with the divine name of –iah<\/i> or Yah<\/i>, the short form of the name of Yahweh (Jehovah in the KJV and ASV). But this is not an obstacle to equating these two men. In the Hebrew Bible we encounter by-forms of this name in which it was spelled both with and without the divine element. This occurs in Nehemiah 7:2, for example, where Nehemiah refers to his brother by both the short form Hanani and the long form Hananiah. (Older translations have confused the fact that only one person is referred to by incorrectly making the two names into two different persons.)<\/p>\n
A reasonable hypothesis then, is to connect the Babylonian reference to a person by that name known to have been exiled there, rather than invoking an otherwise unknown Phoenician. At the very least this reference shows that Hananiah\u2019s name was known as that of a Babylonian official at the time he was exiled there and it clearly belonged to a foreigner like Hananiah.<\/p>\n
Ardi-Nabu\/Abednego<\/b><\/p>\n
Finding one of Daniel\u2019s friends in a Babylonian text encouraged me to look further. One of the names in Daniel 1 stands out as quite prominent \u2014 Abednego. This name was given to Daniel\u2019s friend Azariah. The first part of the name is the Hebrew word for servant. Servant-type names commonly named the person or deity who was served. For example, the name Ebed-Melek in Jeremiah 38 and 39 means \u201cservant of the king.\u201d Here in Daniel 1 the name means \u201cservant of Nego.\u201d For polytheistic Babylonians any one of their god-names could have been utilized in such a name. But, as commentaries have long noted, there is no god named Nego. There is, however, a very common, important and popular god named Nebo or Nabu. The difference between the two names is one letter. It appears that one derived from the other, Nego from Nabu, simply by the accidental or intentional shift in one letter (g and b). I would suggest that Daniel did this intentionally to prevent the name of a Babylonian god being attached to one of his Yahwistic friends.<\/p>\n
A bit of translation also appears to have been employed to suit Hebrew readers. The Babylonian word for servant is Ardu<\/i> or Ardi<\/i>, whereas the Hebrew word is Abed<\/i> or Ebed<\/i>. When understood in this way, Hebrew Abed-Nego is the direct equivalent of Babylonian Ardi-Nabu, \u201cservant of Nabu.\u201d<\/p>\n
The reason why Ardi-Nabu is of interest as the original Babylonian form of Abed-Nego\u2019s name is because it shows up in the very same text as that in which the name of Hanunu the trader showed up. This long list is known as the Istanbul Prism of Nebuchadnezzar since it is located in the museum of Istanbul today. It is a list of officials whom Nebuchadnezzar <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 61<\/p>\n
installed in the course of his kingship. The list is preceded by three columns of text which praise Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s personal and national god Marduk. No date is given in the text.<\/p>\n
Ardi-Nabu shows up as the scribe or secretary of Amel-Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s son and crown prince. Amel-Marduk became king when Nebuchadnezzar died, but was assassinated after only two years in office. It is interesting to note that he is mentioned in the Bible, where his name appears as Evil-Merodach. He dealt kindly with Jehoiachin, who was in captivity in Babylon at the time:<\/p>\n
In the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; and he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. (2 Kgs 25:27\u201328)<\/i><\/p>\n
Not only was Evil-Merodach gracious to Jehoiachin in freeing him from prison, or house arrest, but he favored him above all the other captive kings. Why was Jehoiachin singled out in this way? If we look at the Istanbul Prism, we see that when Evil-Merodach was crown prince he had a secretary whose name matched that of one of Daniel\u2019s friends, Abed-Nego. It is quite possible, therefore, that Evil-Merodach had a secretary who was one of the exiled Hebrews, a friend of Daniel. If so, then Abed-Nego may have had some influence upon Evil-Merodach which resulted in his kind treatment of Jehoichin. This provides a plausible explanation for this action, which otherwise would appear quite unusual.<\/p>\n
I have not yet found a good correspondence for the Hebrew or Babylonian name of Daniel\u2019s third friend, Mishael, named Meshak by the Babylonians. There is a man in the list known as Mushallim-Marduk. He served as over-seer of the female slaves in the royal palace. One could get Meshak out of this by dropping off the last half of the first word and the first half of the last element in his name, which would leave us with Mush[allim-Mard]uk, revocalizing Mushuk to Meshak. This remains a possibility, but it is not as good a correspondence as Hanunu or Ardi-Nabu. Thus far, therefore, we can say that we have found two individuals whose names fit those of Daniel\u2019s friends well, and one who is a possibility.<\/p>\n
Belshazzar\/Belteshazzar<\/b><\/p>\n
We come now to the final question in dealing with these names. What about Daniel himself? To explore this question, we need to look for either one of his names. His Babylonian name was Belteshazzar. The very close resemblance between this name and that of the king (coregent) Belshazzar who appears in Daniel 5 is readily apparent. As can be seen from a comparison between the two, there is only one letter different, both in English and in Hebrew. That one letter is a strong t<\/i> known as a ṭeth<\/i> and represented with a dotted t<\/i> or ṭ In Hebrew this is not the same letter as the plain t<\/i> and that distinction is important. The reason is because of what it makes this sentence-name say.<\/p>\n
Belshazzar\u2019s name consisted of three elements, Bel-shar-uṣur. The final element uṣur, comes from a verb which means \u201cto guard, protect.\u201d The middle element is the noun for \u201cking,\u201d and the initial element, Bel, is the title meaning \u201clord,\u201d which refers to Marduk as the lord and great god of Babylon. Thus the whole name means \u201cmay Bel (=Marduk) protect the king.\u201d Daniel\u2019s Babylonian name of Belteshazzar should mean the same thing with whatever minor modification the ṭ in the name indicates. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar himself attested <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 62<\/p>\n
to the fact that Daniel was named after \u201chis god\u201d Marduk (Dn 4:8). But that is where the problem comes in. If this were the normal t<\/i> instead of ṭ, it could well be a feminine ending on the word for lord, which would then mean \u201c(divine) mistress.\u201d This could be a reference to any one of the chief goddesses of the Babylonian pantheon. But that is not the kind of t<\/i> that Daniel has written in his Babylonian name. It is a ṭ or ṭeth<\/i> instead of t<\/i> or taw<\/i>. The ṭeth<\/i> makes no sense at all.<\/p>\n
If we look at the similar example of the name Ardi-Nabu\/Abed-Nego, we see that the name was changed in the Biblical text by altering one letter in the name of the god. If Daniel did that for the name of one of his friends, then he could just as well have done it for his own Babylonian name. Not wishing to carry the name of Bel as a tribute and reference to Marduk, Daniel altered his name by inserting one additional letter. That additional letter made the name nonsensical, thus nullifying the polythestic thrust of the originally pagan name the Babylonians gave to him.<\/p>\n
If we reduce Daniel\u2019s name to its normal Babylonian form, we find that he carried the same name as did the last king (coregent) who ruled there. This resulted in an ironic situation in Daniel 5 when Daniel was called in to interpret the writing on the wall. One Belshazzar was face to face with another Belshazzar! It is interesting to note that in this scene, the king addressed Daniel by his Hebrew name rather than his Babylonian name. In contrast, Daniel\u2019s Babylonian name was used by a Babylonian official (2:26), Nebuchadnezzar (4:8, 9, 18, 19) and Belshazzar\u2019s queen (5:12). This may be an indication that Belshazzar did not wish to use a name identical to his own when speaking to Daniel.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew Belshazzar had come as an inspired wiseman in the service of the true God to tell the Babylonian Belshazzar that his Bel or \u201clord\u201d Mardkuk could no longer protect him. His kingdom was due to come to an end that very night, at the hands of the Medes and Persians. At that very moment, in fact, they were entering the city by way of the dry river bed, after having diverted the river.<\/p>\n
With Daniel\u2019s Babylonian name identified, we may now look for him under the more proper Babylonian form of that name, Belshazzar. In such a search we must rule out all texts which refer to Belshazzar that can be connected with the son of Nabonidus who ruled over Babylon as coregent with his father. After those texts have been set aside, there are not many to look at. The reason for this is that Belshazzar was not a common Babylonian name. Thus we stand a better chance of finding Daniel, since there were fewer individuals using that name.<\/p>\n
It so happens that there are two texts referring to a Belshazzar who does not appear to be the son of Nabonidus. One comes from the reign of Amel-Marduk who has already been mentioned above. The other comes from very early in the reign of Neriglissar, who ruled immediately after Amel-Marduk. These two texts clearly refer to the same individual, for they come from the same time and he carries the same title in both. The title is shaqu (or resh)<\/i>, which literally means <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 63<\/p>\n
Restored entrance to Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s Southern Palace at Babylon<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201chead of the king,\u201d or \u201cchief officer of the king.\u201d He was the king\u2019s chief personal official, head of all other officials of the palace. This Belshazzar appears too early and in too high a post to be Nabonidus\u2019 son. He must be another Belshazzar, quite possibly Daniel himself.<\/p>\n
It is important to note precisely when this man served in the Babylonian government. The first text dates to the second year of Amel-Marduk, or 560 BC. It is currently in the Yale Babylonian collection and was published in 1929 by R.P. Daugherty. The other text is the earliest text from the accession period of Neriglissar, hence it dates to late in that same year of 560 BC. This tablet is located in the museum of Florence, Italy, and it was published by K. Oberhuber in 1960.<\/p>\n
We have mentioned above how favorable Amel-Marduk\/Evil-Merodach was to Jehoiachin. It was also suggested that he may have favored him because of the influence of his secretary. Abed-Nego. If Amel-Marduk had one Hebrew in his official governmental service, and was favorably impressed with him, it would have been logical for him to have employed another Hebrew. It is also of interest that Belshazzar disappears immediately from the government scene when the next king came to the throne. Neriglissar was the one who was responsibile for having Amel-Marduk executed, taking the throne after the deed was done. Quite naturally he would have desired to change the cadre of officials who surrounded the previous king. That Daniel occupied a lesser position 20 years later in 539 BC is clear from Daniel 5. When Daniel was summoned to interpret the writing on the wall, Belshazzar appears not to recognize him at all (Dn 5:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
It would have been nice if these two <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 4:2 (Spring 1991) p. 64<\/p>\n
texts told us something more about Belshazzar beyond his name, title and date of activity. But even this is important information. Under Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel had the position of \u201cChief of the Magicians\u201d (Dn 4:9; 5:11). It appears that in 560 BC, two years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, in the interlude between Daniel 4 and 5, Daniel occupied the highest possible position in the king\u2019s personal service, \u201cChief Officer of the King,\u201d according to the Babylonian texts. He was then removed from office due to palace politics, until he was made \u201cThird Highest Ruler in the Kingdom\u201d after interpreting the writing on the wall (Dn 5:29). This was probably Belshazzar\u2019s last official act before Babylon was taken over by the Medes and Persians.<\/p>\n
Summary<\/b><\/p>\n
In this short survey, we have examined the records of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom for correspondence to the names of Daniel and his three friends. Three of the four are rather strong candidates for identification. Hanunu served as the royal trader in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and can be equated with Hananiah in the book of Daniel without great difficulty. The scribe or secretary to the crown prince Amel-Marduk was named Ardi-Nabu and this is the equivalent of Abed-Nego, Daniel\u2019s companion. Abed-Nego appears to have influenced his master to have taken favorable actions toward the exiled king of Judah. Another person in the service of that same Babylonian king was Belshazzar, a Belshazzar different from the Belshazzar who later ruled with his father Nabonidus. When Daniel\u2019s Babylonian name Belteshazzar is understood correctly, it is seen to correspond to Belshazzar. This official served in a time and place and opportunity agreeing with that of Daniel. Given that equation we appear to have two extra-Biblical references to the person of Daniel. Daniel\u2019s third friend, Mishael or Meshak, is not known as well as these other three, but he̒ may turn up more directly in the future as more Neo-Babylonian texts are examined.<\/p>\n
1. W.H. Shea, \u201cDarius the Mede, an Update,\u201d Andrews University Seminary Studies<\/i> 20(1982), pp. 229-47.<\/p>\n
2. See Archaeology and Biblical Research,<\/i> Autumn 1990, pp. 119-120.<\/p>\n
3. W. Andrae, Babylon, die versunkene Weltstadt und ihr Ausgraber Robert Koldewey<\/i>, Berlin, 1952, as quoted in S.H. Horn, The Spade Confirms the Book<\/i>, Washington D.C.: Review and Herald, 1957, p. 62.<\/p>\n
4. D.I. Owen, \u201cA Thirteen Month Summary Account from Ur,\u201d Alter Orient und Altes Testament<\/i> 203 (1979), p. 63.<\/p>\n
5. D.J. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon,<\/i> London: British Musuem, 1983.<\/p>\n
6. A. Parrot, Babylon and the Old Testament<\/i>, New York: Philosophical Library, 1958, p. 29.<\/p>\n
7. For a description of the location of this \u201cmuseum\u201d collection and its contents see J. Oates, Babylon<\/i>, London: Thames and Hudson, 1979, pp. 149-52.<\/p>\n
8. M. Mallowan in the Illustrated London News<\/i>, August 16, 1952.<\/p>\n
9. A. Parrot, Babylon and the Old Testament<\/i>, p. 30.<\/p>\n
References<\/b><\/p>\n
W.H. Shea, \u201cDaniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,\u201d Andrews University Seminary Studies<\/i> 20(1982), pp. 29-52.<\/p>\n
W.H. Shea, \u201cBel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar,\u201d Andrews University Seminary Studies<\/i> 26 (1988), pp. 67-81.<\/p>\n
Bible and Spade 4:3 (Summer 1991)<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
William H. Sheaa The first chapter of Daniel tells how Daniel and his three friends were exiled from Judah to Babylon. The year was 605 BC and this was the first of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s three campaigns against Judah. Hostages were taken from the upper class and nobility of Jerusalem and Daniel and his three friends found … Continue reading “DANIEL
\nAND HIS FRIENDS IN BABYLON”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}