Bible Critics

Proving Babylon

I have been studying the book of Daniel, which begins with several chapters about King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. King Nebuchadnezzar was an evil king who ruled the entire known world at the time. He was responsible for the destruction of the first Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, as well as exiling Jews from their land for the first time since they conquered the land of Canaan in the book of Joshua. So he was a great anti semitic hero.

If you have never read the illogical claims of Bible critics, and never will, you can and should skip this. If you have, please read and I am happy to engage you in discussion.

If you only read my writing for the interesting stuff, skip to near the end for an amusing doomsday fable, starting with the words "Everyone loves a good story."

But back to the book of Daniel.

For my work on Daniel, I occasionally look up secular sources. It helps to know what other people think when I am writing about the traditional commentaries. Sometimes I can evade or explain away certain conflicts. Or dig my heels in.

Now, if you read secular academic work of any sort about the Bible or Biblical history, you will come to the following conclusion: Despite the Bible being the longest lasting historical document, or maybe because it is the longest lasting historical document, academics spend a lot their time trying to figure out why it can't possibly ever be true.

What would happen if even one tiny detail in the Bible turned out to be historically true? Maybe they'd have to consider believing in G-d or something. That would make them dumb and religious. So they cannot possibly risk belief in G-d, with arguments that boil down to "why do bad things happen" and, "you can't prove it."

So academics absolutely need to toss the entire Bible out of academia. Any accuracy in the Bible, no matter how accidental or irrelevant, is not a sophisticated thing to acknowledge. For example, "most scholars" agree, which is intended to imply that all smart people take this to be the complete and utter truth, that Nebuchadnezzar was a builder-king. Until they found some evidence that showed he was actually more of a warrior king at one point. Now "most scholars" agree that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon was both a warrior and a builder.

The biblical story is consistent with King Nebuchadnezzar being a builder. King Nebuchadnezzar himself arrogantly says, (Daniel 4:27), "Is this not the great city of Babylon, that I built, to be the seat of my kingdom, with my strength and might and for my honor and my glory?" He is immediately punished, as you will find out. But quoting a Bible verse, of course, is not sophisticated, and does not qualify as proof.

Inconveniencing sophisticated academics is the lack of a written source that explicitly says, Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean king who lived from X to X. He conquered x and y, and he built p and q. He went crazy for seven years. Then he became even better than before. It's really too bad that Babylon didn't have the printing press, so they could print useful textbooks, and instead we have to figure stuff out from archaeology. The silver lining is that gives us room to make our own interpretations, so we don't need to worry about the Bible being true.

Now I always have the same objection to archaeological theories that contradict the truth of the Bible. Someone may not believe the Book of Daniel, or in the Bible in general. But when they find archaeological evidence, they inevitably put them into a historical context based on the Bible. Why are they trusting the Bible's historical context at all?

Suppose that the Bible was not Divinely given, and Jews were making up propaganda, they could have been lying about any and all parts of it. If you don't believe in the book of Daniel, you can not reasonably turn around and try to use the information from the book of Daniel to discredit other information in the book of Daniel. At a minimum, to prove anything either way, you would need an independently sourced and verifiable proof that Nebuchadnezzar lived at a different time or that Babylon actually was conquered by Egypt during this time. A time machine would work, too.

All scholars agree that no such independent proof exists. Orthodox Jewish ones, too.

Consider that, anywhere you dig in the middle east, you'll find something interesting. People have been there a long time. (The Bible says so, but that is irrelevant to archaeologists.) Proving which interesting thing you have found, and especially placing it in historical context, is a bit more complicated.

Now you know I love telling biblical stories, so I totally understand that it is fun to place it into a story, and you can't really blame the archaeologists for trying to do that at every opportunity. But this is the furthest thing from objective truth.

Everyone loves a good story, so here's is a parable to illustrate this:

One day, the entire East Coast of the United states is hit by an asteroid/hydrogen bomb/ swallowed by the Atlantic ocean. The earth shifts unrecognizably. People still remember the scientific method, so it only takes about 3000 years to rebuild civilization, and the new civilization is even better, having figured out how to get rid of radiation, recycle plastic, cure cancer, and travel to Mars on vacation.

Imagine that 3000 years from now, a respected archaeologist named Dr. Jubel will dig up a highway in Montana. The Jubel theory will become dominant among academics, that this must be the "New York" referenced in tombstones, because New York was known for having a lot of traffic. We know this from multiple ancient writings. This road must have been built to support a lot of traffic, so this must be New York. A mayor was a bit like a low ranking noble and his name appears more frequently than the current "president" in all historical evidence, so he had more power than the president.

Professor Jubel, of course, being a sophisticated academic, does not believe the United States of lore ever existed. There is no way a country could peacefully transfer power between elected leaders for 500 years, without even the ability to travel to Mars for summer vacation.

Since the collapse of technological civilization 3,000 years ago, there have only been kings and nobles. Except for a short 500 year blip, whose veracity is heavily debated by academics, no civilization has been able to sustain democracy. Therefore, any intellectual worth their salt understands that it is more likely that democratic society never existed except for in theory. The story of the United States of America is a fairy tale, taught only to Mormon children, (Mormonism being the one of few religions to have survived) which teaches a beautiful moral lesson about the value of the individual.

Sorry about that doomsday fable. The point is, I am telling you a story and I want you to not be distracted by inconsistent elements.

The inscriptions do exist. But in all cases, the strength of the evidence is inverse to its independent verification abilities.

For example, one of the very few lasting bits of evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's existence is the Ishtar gate. From 605–562 BCE, which is approximate to the Biblical timeline.

Inscription:

Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, the pious prince appointed by the will of Marduk, the highest priestly prince, beloved of Nabu, of prudent deliberation, who has learnt to embrace wisdom, who fathomed Their (Marduk and Nabu) godly being and pays reverence to their Majesty, the untiring Governor, who always has at heart the care of the cult of Esagila and Ezida and is constantly concerned with the well being of Babylon and Borsippa, the wise, the humble, the caretaker of Esagila and Ezida, the first born son of Nabopolassar, the King of Babylon, am I.

Both gate entrances of the (city walls) Imgur-Ellil and Nemetti-Ellil following the filling of the street from Babylon had become increasingly lower. (Therefore,) I pulled down these gates and laid their foundations at the water table with asphalt and bricks and had them made of bricks with blue stone on which wonderful bulls and dragons were depicted. I covered their roofs by laying majestic cedars lengthwise over them. I fixed doors of cedar wood adorned with bronze at all the gate openings. I placed wild bulls and ferocious dragons in the gateways and thus adorned them with luxurious splendor so that Mankind might gaze on them in wonder.

I let the temple of Esiskursiskur, the highest festival house of Marduk, the lord of the gods, a place of joy and jubilation for the major and minor deities, be built firm like a mountain in the precinct of Babylon of asphalt and fired bricks.

The sum total of information you can get out of this inscription is fully consistent with the Book of Daniel.

Nebuchadnezzar existed, he was proud of his buildings, he worshiped idols, cared about his idolatrous religious beliefs, and was the son of Naboplassar. They also found two palaces. That he built.

All this is perfectly consistent with the Book of Daniel.