Talk:Nabonidus

message: I accidentally sent before finishing the Summary, while removing this addition from "See also" (where it didn't belong):
Biblical Viewpoint
Belshazzar was not the son of Nabonidus. He was the son of Nebuchadnezzer - Daniel 5:2
The British Museum makes the following notes on the Cylinder of Nabonidus.
"Nabonidus came to the throne after the assassination of two of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar" This lines up with the Biblical account - Dan 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. 
The kingdom was them conquered by Darius.
The Lion's Den
Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree.
Nabonidus could have been one of these presidents or princes. 
Daniel himself is also referred to by  Nebuchadnezzar as "Belteshazzar" a slight variation of Belshazzar.
Dan 4:19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar
Aside from being in the wrong section, it does not reflect research into the oldest (pre Theodotion Greek & Dead Sea) versions of Daniel, that demonstrate that much scribal confusion of names took place by copyists and translators in the later Masoretic text.  Nabonidus (Nabu-na'id) is nowhere mentioned by name in Daniel, but somewhere along the line his person seems to have been confused or conflated with Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurri-utsur); however Nabonidus (N-B-N-'Y) and his seven year sojourn are mentioned on one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, this is not the right place for a discussion of all the various forms, in versions of Daniel, of Belshazzar's and Daniel's similar or identical names (eg, Balthasor, etc.)... -- ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't mentioned in the Bible. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: There's a lot that could be done to improve this article - there's a huge chunk in the middle about Belshazzar for some reason, and there's a distressing lack of sources being cited. I think this could benefit from a "needs cleanup" tag, or a "needs sources" tag, or both, but I'm hesitant to add either before I start looking into this a bit further (and looking more into the usual WP protocols for tagging articles). Fumoses 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup tag?

message: I have now completely re-written the page (sorry for the typo in the revision summary). I am not completely knowledgable on Nabonidus, but I thought that these were some basic assyriological essentials that should have been said (instead of the traditional stuff that was there before). I do not know much about his reign in detail (I am working on the capture of Babylon by Cyrus) or of relevant reliefs and iconography, and my bibliography is obviously incomplete too. Nonetheless, as I said, I do think that my revision is basically in line with current scholarly opinions - but feel free to add and/or edit, and please supply further bibliographical references if you have them.
Cheimoon 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page completely revised 

message: The line about so-called Orientalism seems misplaced. As the late Prof. Said basically lumped all of the study of non-Western antiquities in with some obscure imperialist project, I guess by definition the study of ancient Mesopotamia is "Orientalist." The author does not show how "Orientalism" has distorted his subject's image. If by "Orientalist," he meant "popular misconceptions based on an over-reliance on Western sources," he should simply say so, if for no other reason than for the sake of clarity. 
Evan Siegel (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but your alternative is not exactly correct; it's not just the over-reliance on specific sources (not just western; rather Greek + Biblical) which caused this, but also a certain mindset regarding the Near/Middle East, that made these sources credible (although this mindset was of course in part created by the tone of voice of these sources - but anyway). I suppose that this combination might well be called Orientalism; it's popularly known under that name in Ancient History anyway. I don't agree that it's not clear as it is, as there's a direct link to the wiki on Orientalism. But regardless of all that I'm saying now, it's still a rather complicated term, sometimes polemic and always under discussion, so if you can come up with an more directly obvious alternative that covers both this uncritical belief in Greek and Biblical literature, plus that 19th century mindset - be my guest and change it! Cheimoon (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I too think that the "orientalism" line is misplaced and unsupported. It's also rather nonsensical, since the anti-Nabondius sources are themselves "oriental" within sense in which this term is used. The statement is also not supported by any of the later content of the article or citations. It should just be removed or replaced with the statement that earlier assessments were negative. Paul B (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I have changed the relevant paragraph, removing the reference to orientalism. Better this way? I suppose 'recent decades' could be specified further, but Wikipedia is probably not the place to provide a full bibliography... (which can, by the way, also be gleaned from the references in the article) Cheimoon (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientalism? 

message: "Similarly, his mother, who lived to high age and may have been connected to the temple of the moongod Sîn in Harran, in her inscriptions does not mention her descent."
Does this mother have a name? Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother 

message: <quote>While some claim that it is obvious from his inscriptions that he became almost henotheistic,[5] others consider Nabonidus to have been a regular ruler, who properly respected the other cults in his kingdom, including the traditional construction works to their temples.[6]</quote>
This sentence contains two statements which are both sourced, but the word "while" suggests that there is a contradiction between them, and the presence of such a contradiction is not obvious and could be original research. Nabonidus could have been personally henotheistic and yet "properly respected" the other cults. He could have been officially henotheistic on state-level (Hindu-style) and yet respected them properly. If some authors say directly that he disrespected or attacked other cults, that can be attributed to them, but the claim that he was a henotheist alone does not automatically imply it and can't be used as a source for it.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OR contradiction

message: I am a chance observer (directed by a suggestion bot for editing) to this article and notice that a recent dispute over what era is in place in the text. After some comparison of past versions I see that:
a) reference is made to the ERA policy which, I see, gives primacy to the earliest established convention;
b) the convention has been changed several times patchily but not in harmony, but, editors who have introduced BCE are often ignored so causing the current mixture of usage while those who restore the BC convention are usually speedily reverted so perpetuating the current mixture;
c) the mixed system currently used is not in keeping with the policy on era.
I am harmonising the article without prejudice to other editors.--Mevagiss (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes over dates

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nabonidus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023032453/http://www.dainst.org/index_3258_en.html to http://www.dainst.org/index_3258_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find this statement in the lead a bit difficult to parse. What about, to pick an arbitrary example from thousands, Barham Salih? It seems it is either missing the qualifier "in antiquity" or is using some special sense of the term "Mesopotamian" that ought to be explained (and perhaps questioned). – Joe (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same sense that Nectanebo II was the last native ruler of ancient Egypt, Nabonidus was the last native ruler of ancient Mesopotamia. I've edited this line, is this better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Last native Mesopotamian ruler of a native Mesopotamian state"