King Nabonidus took a dim view of Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon

by Damien F. Mackey “With evil intentions against Babylon [Sennacherib] let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion”. King Nabonidus According to the text books, Esarhaddon, who rebuilt Babylon after his predecessor Sennacherib had utterly destroyed the city, refrained from condemning Sennacherib; whereas Nabonidus, a century later, did not hold back regarding the pivotal incident. Gordon Franz will contrast the two differing opinions in his article, “Babylon Revisited: Isaiah 21”, in which he concurs with Charles Boutflower that Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon was what the prophet Isaiah was referring to in Chapter 21: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3006-babylon-revisited-isaiah-21 …. Esarhaddon, after building a new city of Babylon eight years later, reflected on what happened during his father’s reign. He comments that the Arahtu overflowed and turned the city into ruins, and became a wasteland. Reeds and poplars grew in the abandoned city, while birds and fish lived there. The gods and goddesses of Babylon left their shrines and went up to heaven and the people fled for unknown lands (Brinkman 1983: 39). However, nowhere does he mention the devastating deeds of his father. Brinkman concludes that the purpose of this is that, “within a narrative structured around divine involvement in human affairs, the former debasement of the city and its abandonment by god and man acted as a perfect literary foil for its glorious resurrection under Esarhaddon and the restoration of its exiled deities and citizens” (1983: 42). Nabonidus, the king of Babylon from 555-539 BC [sic], reflected on Sennacherib’s deeds in these words. “[Against Akkad] he (i.e. Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” (ANET 309). In the footnote on “disturbed their foundation outline”, the meaning is “Lit.: ‘to blot out; (suhhu). This seems to have been done to make it impossible to retrace the outlines of the original foundation-walls and therefore to rebuild the sanctuary.” [End of quotes] Esarhaddon, a most wily and complex king, utterly superstitious, vindictive and paranoid, would explain the situation diplomatically, yet cunningly: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/321907#:~:text=In%20this%20prism%2C%20Sennacherib's%20son,of%20their%20gods%20and%20rituals Following a series of revolts against Assyrian rule, the city of Babylon was sacked by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 B.C. In his inscriptions, Sennacherib claims to have destroyed the city entirely, but his successors concentrated on restoring Babylon—and with it their claim to legitimate rule of Babylonia. In this prism, Sennacherib’s son and successor Esarhaddon describes his efforts to rebuild the city. He ascribes Babylon’s destruction not to his father, but rather to the anger of Babylon’s chief deity, Marduk, provoked by the Babylonian people’s neglect of their gods and rituals. At the same time, Esarhaddon’s claim to have returned deportees and looted possessions to the city is a tacit admission of Assyrian guilt. …. [End of quote] King Nabonidus, a similarly complex and intriguing monarch, who could also be quite mad: Daniel’s Mad King was Nebuchednezzar, was Nabonidus https://www.academia.edu/119035506/Daniel_s_Mad_King_was_Nebuchednezzar_was_Nabonidus is, by contrast, outright condemnatory of the “evil” criminal, Sennacherib. “… Sennacherib) had evil intentions, he thought out crimes [agai]nst the country (Babylon), [he had] no mercy for the inhabitants of the co[untry]. With evil intentions against Babylon he let its sanctuaries fall in disrepair, disturbed the(ir) foundation outlines and let the cultic rites fall into oblivion. He (even) led the princely Marduk away and brought (him) into Ashur” All together I have identified the mad king “Nebuchadnezzar” of the Book of Daniel, who was Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, as King Nabonidus as well. Owing to a significant revision of the Babylonian king-list: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (2) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Nabonidus can be shuttled back much closer in time to Esarhaddon than the approximate century gap accorded by the text books. Nabonidus, in fact, can now be identified as Esarhaddon: Nabopolassar = Sennacherib Nebuchadnezzar = Esarhaddon = Nabonidus Evil-Merodach = Belshazzar Neriglissar = Darius the Mede See, now, my article: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (2) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So it appears that the complex regal entity, Esarhaddon-Nabonidus, could be both subtle, respectful, and outright livid regarding Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon.