Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians


#1

On another board a person had stated, “The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.” then stated that the link below was a weak defense of Judith in regard to Nebuchadnezzer… I will admit it is a bit weak…

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

This could help add historical support to Judith, rather than completely basing the argument for the book on “it doesn’t have to be historical” or what have you. Having looked more deeply into the topic I found that Nebuchadnezzer could be considered king of Assyrians, and of the Babylonians. Much like the Queen of England is also Queen of Ireland, even tough most of Ireland is independent. It is also important to note that Judith does not say Nebuchadnezzar was not king of Babylonians.

wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CHALDEAN.HTM

After the fall of Assyrian power in Mesopotamia, the last great group of Semitic peoples dominated the area. Suffering mightily under the Assyrians, the city of Babylon finally rose up against its hated enemy, the city of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, and burned it to the ground. The chief of the Babylonians was Nabopolassar; the Semites living in the northern part of Mesopotamia would never gain their independence again.

**Nabopolassar was succeeded by his son, Nebuchadnezzar II **(605-562 BC). Nebuchadnezzar was the equal of all the great Mesopotamian conquerors, from Sargon onwards; he not only prevented major powers such as Egypt and Syria from making inroads on his territory, he also conquered the Phoenicians and the state of Judah (586 BC), the southern Jewish kingdom that remained after the subjugation of Israel, the northern kingdom, by the Assyrians. In order to secure the territory of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar brought Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, the two kings of Judah (in succession) and held them in Babylon. In keeping with Assyrian practice, the “New Babylonians,” or Chaldeans forced a large part of the Jewish population to relocate. Numbering possibly up to 10,000, these Jewish deportees were largely upper class people and craftspeople; this deportation marks the beginning of the Exile in Jewish history.

So Judith may have considered Babylon part or no different the Assyrian empire, since Babylon was part of the Assyrian empire. And also Judith could have meant the northern kingdom of israel where assyrians, since the Assyrian empire had first defeated it and thus changed at least part of its culture.

Another thing to consider, would be the Roman empire. After the fall of the western part of it the eastern part lived on, and they called themselves Roman, and whatever they called the Roman Empire, was still the same. It was future historians that changed the naming.


#2

There is also the very real possibility that there was more than one Nebuchadnezzar…
After all, all we have is a transliteration of his name into another language, into yet another language…
This sort of thing can easily happen, especially if we consider the fact that royalty’s & military leaders’ names are ofttimes used as names for children.
Judith simply says that there was an Assyrian king named [something that we have had translated for us as] Nebuchadnezzar. It never says, “and this is the same person as the one in Babylon”.
It could also have been a title used by Middle Eastern leaders. (Like, for example, “Caesar” which started as the name of one monarch, & became another word for the king.


#3

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.