{"id":5419,"date":"2026-07-24T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/?p=5419"},"modified":"2026-07-06T07:34:35","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T07:34:35","slug":"the-captivity-of-bel-marduk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/2026\/07\/24\/the-captivity-of-bel-marduk\/","title":{"rendered":"The Captivity of Bel-Marduk"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span><\/p>\n

Ancient cultures took their idols very seriously. They believed that God literally dwelt in their idol, and so the idol was treated in every way as if it was the god itself; it was treated as a living being, provided with food, water, wine, music, clothes, jewels, beautiful women, everything a king would be given – and more.<\/p>\n

Similar to statues of deities in other cities in Mesopotamia, the Babylonians conflated this statue with their actual god, believing that Marduk himself resided in their city through the statue. As such, the statue held enormous religious significance. It was used during the Babylonian New Year\u2019s festival and the kings of Babylon incorporated it into their coronation rituals, receiving the crown \u201cfrom the hands\u201d of Marduk. (Wiki, Statue of Marduk)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In many countries, the idol was key to yearly fertility celebrations. These took many forms, but a common one involved carrying the statue of the god to his goddess\u2019 temple, or vise versa, whereupon they were presumed to do things best left to the imagination, after which the god was carried back to his own temple.<\/p>\n

In most cases, the idol spent most of the time in his holy of holies at the midst of his temple – much as a human king would be – kept from the gaze of the unworthy. But on special holy days, always accompanied by much fanfare and celebration (and drinking and debauchery, if that was your thing), the god would be taken out into the public, paraded in front of the people to bless them.<\/p>\n

Obviously the details varied between cultures, but there was still a consistent trend of this behavior in the idolatrous world; even today, you can see this done on holy days in Catholic countries, in precisely the same way; do with that what you will.<\/p>\n

One of the best documented of such festivals in the ancient world comes from Babylon, called the Akitu<\/em> – the Babylonian new year. During this festival, the king was stripped naked before the idol of Bel-marduk, slapped, and was required to make a negative confession (\u201cI did not commit blasphemy, I did not do evil, etc.\u201d).<\/p>\n

If he passed the test – and he always did, of course – then he would \u201ctake the hand of Bel,\u201d and receive his crown again from Bel\u2019s hands, thus confirming his worthiness to lead for another year. This minimized rebellions by conveying enormous legitimacy to the king, not unlike the Pope blessing a king of Europe.<\/p>\n

Celebrating this required the idol\u2019s physical presence, naturally, and so it would be suspended when, for some reason or another, the idol was absent. This caused great unrest among the people, so was avoided as far as possible.<\/p>\n

Still, sometimes idols were loaned out to other countries as an expression of deep friendship. One documented case involves Tushratta loaning Ishtar from Nineveh to Amenhotep III in Egypt.<\/p>\n

The Amarna Letters also reference the exchange between Amenhotep and the Mitanni King Tushratta of the statue of a healing goddess, Ishtar of Nineveh, late in Amenhotep\u2019s reign.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2026The likeliest explanation is that the statue was sent to Egypt \u201cto shed her blessings on the wedding of Amenhotep and Tadukhepa, as she had been sent previously for Amenhotep and Gilukhepa.\u201d Moran agrees that this explanation was more likely. Further, Moran argues that the contents of Amarna Letter EA 21 support this claim, wherein Tushratta asks the gods, including Ishtar, for their blessing of the marriage. (Wiki, Amenhotep III)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Naturally, the loan of one\u2019s god took a great deal of trust, and as such was a major diplomatic gesture; imagine what might happen if the target culture chose to keep the god at the end – without Ishtar to bless your crops and heal your sick, what would become of you?<\/p>\n

GODNAPPING<\/h3>\n

Which leads us to our main topic; when conquered, the victors would routinely loot the city, and one of the things frequently taken was the idols; not because they were rich in gold and jewels, though they were, but because their psychological value was worth more than gold.<\/p>\n

When an ancient Near Eastern city was besieged and looted the statues and cultic appurtenances of the gods were often confiscated by the conquerors. Their loss was more than a heavy blow to the defeated people:<\/strong> the statue was the god\u2019s representation on earth and watched over and protected the city so his abandonment of his city was thought to have a lasting devastating effect. From the point of view of the conqueror the statue could be used not only as a tool of intimidation but for bribery<\/strong> and a crude form of diplomacy and as propaganda for his might and glory. (Stealing the Enemy\u2019s Gods \u2026 Johnson)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Basically, the victor could ransom the god back by holding a spear to his head and saying, in effect, \u201cgive me what I want or Marduk won\u2019t live to see tomorrow.\u201d Since the idol was perceived as being literally God on earth, to permit any harm to come to him was blasphemy, hence, a powerful tool for \u201ca crude form of diplomacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Naturally, if anything were to happen to the idol, it would be a terrible omen. Because since gods are all powerful, if the god was lost it means the god chose to leave.<\/em> That, in turn, reflected poorly on the city it abandoned, and their righteousness.<\/p>\n

The loss of the idol took the blame for the usual fallout of being the loser in war – slavery, hunger, poverty, and so on. Its recovery was therefore the highest priority for those left in power, if any. Recapturing the idol would convey an enormous prestige upon any king who pulled it off.<\/p>\n

Because of the enormous significance of the statue [of Marduk], it was sometimes used as a means of psychological warfare by Babylon\u2019s enemies. Enemy powers such as the Hittites, the Assyrians and the Elamites stole the statue during sacks of the city, which caused religious and political turmoil, as Babylon\u2019s traditional rituals could then not be completed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All the foreign kings known to have stolen the statue ended up later being killed by their own family members, something the Babylonians hailed as divine punishment. Returns of the statue,<\/strong> either through the enemies giving it back or through a Babylonian king campaigning and successfully retrieving it, were occasions for great celebrations<\/strong>. (Wiki, Statue of Marduk; kudurru with the the statue of Marduk carved on it below right)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"It should be noted that in most cases the captured god was treated with the utmost respect, as an honored guest of your city. One did not needlessly tick off the gods, even of other nations. It just didn\u2019t pay.<\/p>\n

In fact, they were often pampered, in the hopes the god would actually prefer<\/em> to stay in his new home, since he was treated so well. Exceptions exist, but this was the norm. In many documented cases, the idol was eventually recovered alive and well; well, alive as a statue can be.<\/p>\n

Sometimes it was won back in war, sometimes ransomed back, and sometimes traded as part of a diplomatic settlement. Ancient chroniclers kept close tabs on the presence or absence of gods in cities – the movements of the idols around a region, even during peacetime, were often celebrated in year names \u201cthe year [the idol of] X visited the city of Y.\u201d<\/p>\n

And while this is an interesting fact in its own right, we are interested here in the captivities of one particular statue – the aforementioned Bel-marduk of Babylon. Because people will try to use these captivities to convince you our chronological scheme is wrong, and you deserve to see that they actually prove it right.<\/em><\/p>\n

THE CAPTIVITY OF MARDUK<\/h3>\n

There are five known captivities of the god Marduk; first, we\u2019ll summarize them as understood by traditional history, with their traditional dates attached:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The first captivity was when the Hittites under Mursilis I captured Babylon in ‑1595. This statue is broadly believed to have been returned 24 years later by Agum-kakrime.<\/li>\n
  2. Tikulti-ninurta I captured the statue around ‑1224, which according to Chronicle P was returned some decades later in the time of Ninurta-apal-ekur. Attentive readers will recall Chronicle P was about Tikulti-ninurta II, not I, but we will come back to this.<\/li>\n
  3. The Elamite Kutir-nahunte captured the statue of Bel-marduk and took it to Susa in ‑1155 at the end of the Kassite dynasty, then 30 years or so later Nebuchadnezzar I conquered the Elamites and recaptured it to great fanfare. <\/li>\n
  4. Finally, when Sennacherib destroyed Babylon in ‑689, the Marduk statue was removed to Assyria. It was brought back in ‑668 BC.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    That\u2019s only four, and I promised you five; that\u2019s because these are the only ones known to historians; I must add one more that no one seems to know about, even though they have the same source I have: the Bible.<\/p>\n

    \n
      \n
    1. Isaiah 46:1<\/span> Bel bows down<\/em><\/strong>, Nebo stoops; their idols are on the animals<\/strong>, and on the livestock: the things that you carried about are made a load, a burden to the weary. They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden, but themselves have gone into captivity<\/strong>.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

      Do you see the problem? Isaiah\u2019s prophetic period was roughly ‑765-705, and during that time and for four centuries prior<\/em> there was no known captivity of Bel-marduk! We will demonstrate in time that this is actually referring to one of the above captivities which has been grossly misplaced in time by historians.<\/p>\n

      Indeed, for those who take the Bible as a credible source, this alone will prove conclusively that we are correct in our placement of the Elamites, and with them, the rest of the ancient world. But we\u2019ll save that for last.<\/p>\n

      THE MARDUK PROPHECY<\/h3>\n

      The significance of the absence of Marduk from Babylon was underlined in a late work called the Marduk Prophecy. This document was almost certainly composed in the 1st<\/sup> millennium BC, although scholars argue over exactly when. In it, Marduk speaks in the first person, telling of three visits he made to other lands.<\/p>\n

      I am Marduk, the great lord, the inspector who goes back and forth on the mountains, the watchman who treads upon the lands. Which among all the lands, from sunrise to sunset, I go back and forth constantly, it is I.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      I commanded, and I went to the land of Hatti<\/strong>. I examined Hatti. The chair of my An\u016btu I set in its midst. I dwelt in its midst for 24 years. The caravans of the Babylonians I established in its midst<\/strong>. Its silver, goods, and property [in] Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon reduced. (The Marduk Prophecy, Darabi; henceforth TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      This can only refer to the captivity of Mursilis I, since it\u2019s the only documented theft of the gods of Babylon by Hittites when they caused the fall of Babylon and the end of the 1st<\/sup> Amorite dynasty and the death of king Samsu-iluna.<\/p>\n

      When Mursili (I) [rul]ed in Hattusa \u2026 Afterward he went to Babylon, and he [d]estroyed Babylon, and he struck down the [H]urrian [troops. And] the capti[ve]s of Babylon (and) its goods<\/strong> he held [in H]a[ttusa]. (Telipinu Edict, as quoted in TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      The Hittite inscriptions claimed the capture of the Babylonian gods, which would almost certainly have included the Marduk statue; as this next quote – admittedly some centuries later – specifically says:<\/p>\n

      In the past, Hatti, with the help of the Sun-goddess of Arinna, used to maul the surrounding lands like a lion. Moreover, Aleppo and Babylon which they destroyed, they took their goods – silver, gold, and gods<\/strong> – of all the lands, and they deposited it before the Sun-goddess of Arinna. (Mursili II\u2019s Prayer, TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      The second version specifically defines \u201cgoods\u201d to include idols of gods, as was standard practice at the time. It is not until the prophecy of Marduk that we have explicit evidence that Marduk was among them, however. But\u2026 how could the patron deity of Babylon not<\/em> be among them?<\/p>\n

      Marduk continues\u2026<\/p>\n

      [A king of Babylon?] arose. [\u2026 le]d (me) [\u2026 into] Babylon, which they \u2026 [\u2026] \u2026 The great procession of [Babylon] was pleasing to me. With regard to the crown of my An\u016btu and the image of workmanship [\u2026], water, winds [\u2026].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      For 3 days [\u2026]. The crown of my An\u016btu [\u2026] and the image of my workmanship [\u2026]. To myself \u2014 literally, \u201cmy body\u201d \u2014 \u2026 [\u2026]. I returned. [I said for the city of Babylon:] \u201cCarry [your tributes], O lands, to Babylon!\u201d (TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It also recalls Marduk\u2019s subsequent return after 24 years; given a separate inscription from Agum-kakrime, early Kassite king who claimed to restore the statue, almost certainly he is the one who recovered it.<\/p>\n

      I sent a message to the distant land, to the land of Haneans<\/strong>. They seized the hand (i.e., led in procession) of Marduk and Zarpanitu and I indeed returned them – Marduk and Zarpanitu, those who love my reign – to Esagila and Babylon<\/strong>. (Inscription of Agum-kagrime, TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Some scholars believe Marduk stayed there for centuries before \u201cpossibly\u201d being returned by a later king Suppiliuma; you\u2019ll find this on Wikipedia, but this is pure speculation. The only actual evidence we have of what happened to the statue comes from Agum-kakrime, who would have ruled just after the fall of Babylon.<\/p>\n

      The Marduk prophecy says it remained in Hatti for 24 years before its return, although it doesn\u2019t name the king who brought it back. Now Hana is not Hatti, but it is<\/em> roughly half-way between Hatti and Babylon.<\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

      Which makes it a very plausible place for a Kassite king to go and retrieve a statue; there is no particular reason the Hittites had to take it all the way to Hattusa, after all. Perhaps he recaptured it in war, probably he had ransomed it back; doesn\u2019t really matter to us.<\/p>\n

      Now this leads us to the next fact; we place Agum-kakrime ruling roughly 30 years after the fall of Babylon, as most historians would as well. Making him circumstantially a great candidate for the retrieval of the statue of Marduk.<\/p>\n

      What they don\u2019t do, but we do, is we also<\/em> place Nebuchadnezzar I of the 2nd<\/sup> Isin dynasty of Babylon ruling approximately 30 years after the fall of Babylon as a vassal of Agum-kakrime.<\/em> We were forced into this date by a synchronism with Tiglath-pileser I and the end of Marduk-nadin-ahhe.<\/p>\n

      So if it were<\/em> a system of the Kassites working hand-in-glove with the Babylonians, then both Agum-kakrime and Nebuchadnezzar I could legitimately claim to be the recoverers of the statue of Marduk.<\/p>\n

      So rather than a captivity in ‑1595 and ‑1155, one returned by Agum-kakrime and one by Nebuchadnezzar I, we now have a single captivity in ‑1189, which was returned by both kings at the same time.<\/em><\/p>\n

      Immediately the Marduk prophecy seems less strained. In the traditional understanding, it was composed around ‑750 about events which began in ‑1595 – 800 years earlier. In our understanding, it began with events from ‑1189, only 400 years earlier; still long, but much less<\/em> of a stretch.<\/p>\n

      NEBUCHADNEZZAR\u2019S PRAYER<\/h3>\n

      To be clear, historians believe Agum-kakrime may have recovered the Marduk statue from the Hittites, but Nebuchadnezzar I recovered the Marduk statue from the Elamites. And there was indeed a time when Marduk was taken by the Elamites\u2026<\/p>\n

      \u2026but Nebuchadnezzar I had been dead four centuries when it happened, so clearly was not involved. But what of the evidence that he was? I\u2019ll start with one of the most significant:<\/p>\n

      In Babylon dwells Nebuchadnezzar, [the king]. He rages like a lion (and) thun[ders] like the god Adad. Like a lion, he frigh[tens] his distinguished nobles. [His] supplications go to the god Marduk, lord of Babylon:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \u201cHave pity on me, one who is dejected and prost[rate]! Have pity on my land, which weeps and mourns! Have pity on my people, who wail and weep! O lord of Babylon, how long will you dwell in the land of the enemy?<\/strong> May beautiful Babylon be remembered by you! Turn your face back to Esagil (\u201cHouse Whose Top Is High\u201d), which you love!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      The lord of Babylon listened to [the supplication (s) of] Nebuchadnezzar and [his command] comes down to him from heaven: \u201c[\u2026 b]y (my own) mouth I spoke to you. [Instructions (promising)] good fortune, I have sent to you. [With] my [support] you are to attack the land of Amurru<\/strong>. [\u2026] listen to [the iss]uing of your instructions! [\u2026] take me [from E]lam <\/u>to Babylon! Let me, [\u2026 the lord of Ba]bylon, give Elam<\/u> to you! [\u2026] above and below.\u201d (https:\/\/oracc.museum.upenn.edu\/ribo\/babylon2\/Q006245<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      To historians, this refers to Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s mourning the loss of the statue to Elam, the third and final captivity in the Marduk Prophecy. And in fairness, a casual reading fits that interpretation easily.<\/p>\n

      But to us, this must refer to the first loss, that to the Hittites – since we place the Elamite loss four hundred years after Nebuchadnezzar I and in our chronology, the Hittites only recently conquered Babylon.<\/p>\n

      The question is, which interpretation does this text support?<\/p>\n

      In all fairness, Elam is mentioned. At least, it seems to be; the first \u201c[E]lam\u201d has been reconstructed (hence the brackets), meaning the tablet was damaged and wasn\u2019t clear enough to see completely.<\/p>\n

      For the second time Elam is mentioned, I don\u2019t read cuneiform and haven\u2019t seen the tablet to see how damaged it is in that area. I will say that that every historian is absolutely certain<\/em> that this is about the Elamite captivity, hence if it\u2019s at all ambiguous, they will translate it as Elam whether it\u2019s there or not.<\/p>\n

      That being said, we don\u2019t need to dismiss the second Elamite reading; just read the text yourself; Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s great problem was that Marduk was gone, his burning need was to recover Marduk and bring him back to Babylon. That\u2019s the WHOLE point of this prayer, right?<\/p>\n

      So what was Marduk\u2019s answer? \u201cI support you\u2026 go attack the land of Amurru!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

      Amurru, as you well know, refers to the lands to the west,<\/em> the exact opposite of the lands of Elam! Amurru literally means<\/em> \u201cthe west\u201d in Akkadian. There were not, and had never been, Amurru located in the Elamite territories which are to the east.<\/em><\/p>\n

      So why on earth would Marduk send him west to recover a statue that was in the east?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The entire point of the tablet was the recovery of Marduk. So why would Marduk reply \u201cSure, you can recover me from Elam, but first go attack the Amorites?\u201d That makes absolutely no sense.<\/p>\n

      But you know what was<\/em> in the Amurru territories? Hana! That was<\/em> Amorite land, slowly being replaced by Arameans, and was very likely still under the control of the Hittites since they had just sacked Aleppo 24 years earlier in ‑1189.<\/p>\n

      So as usual, this text doesn\u2019t scare us; when read without preconceptions, it clearly shows that to solve Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s grave problem – the absence of Marduk – he must first go to the Amorite territories and recover Marduk; then, and only then,<\/em> he would turn east and attack the Elamites.<\/p>\n

      The parts of the tablet above that imply otherwise are reconstructed, supplied by translators who are absolutely certain of their version of history. I\u2019m not competent to show exactly how<\/em> they erred in the translation, but the mention of Amurru is enough to convince me, and I hope you, that they have.<\/p>\n

      NEBUCHADNEZZAR\u2019S ELAMITE WAR<\/h3>\n

      It is beyond all argument that Nebuchadnezzar did wage war against the Elamites. We don\u2019t dispute this, nor its 12th<\/sup> century context; as we saw above, he did indeed attack Elam, once the statue was safely recovered from Hana with Agum-kakrime\u2019s help.<\/p>\n

      We simply contend that his opponent was not one of the Shutrukid kings, but an otherwise unknown king from the 12th<\/sup> century. The narrative we are told in Wikipedia is a montage of different sources, some of which don\u2019t mention Nebuchadnezzar, others of which don\u2019t mention Marduk, and all of which are held together very fragilely, as some historians admit\u2026<\/p>\n

      In the next few paragraphs, I am going to set forth a speculative reconstruction of the Elamite campaign (s) of Nebuchadnezzar I. It should be clear from the outset that this montage of military activities is hypothetical and that the evidence may be interpreted in other ways<\/strong>. Some other interpretations will be suggested following the integrated presentation here. (A political history of post-kassite babylonia, Brinkman)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      This is one of the definitive works on this period, by one of the most respected researchers on the subject. He proceeds to tell a story based on all of the evidence at hand – that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Elam, recovered the statue, returned home in glory, etc. – then concludes\u2026<\/p>\n

      This is my interpretation<\/strong> of the circumstances surrounding Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s Elamite campaign, and it is only fair to point out here some shortcomings of this particular reconstruction. We have already mentioned the uncertainty created by the anonymity of two of the more important sources, which mention no Babylonian king by name. \u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \u2026There is no conclusive evidence that the texts referring to an anonymous king who lived about this time or that the texts narrating the military activities of Nebuchadnezzar I should all be referred to one and the same glorious campaign<\/strong>. The reader may choose to reject the assignment of the two anonymous texts to Nebuchadnezzar and may prefer to break down Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s military accomplishments into two or three separate campaigns; the question is still open. (Ibid).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      He would certainly disagree with my intention to assign some of them to the 8th<\/sup> century, but as he said – the question is open. Even those tablets which do<\/em> mention Nebuchadnezzar sometimes only include the first half of the name, making it entirely possible they refer to another king altogether.<\/p>\n

      But surely, this hypothetical construction has enough holes in it that it cannot be used to counteract all of our many reasons to believe that the theft of Marduk by Elam happened in the 8th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n

      SHITTI-MARDUK\u2019S KUDURRU<\/h3>\n

      The most important monument that talks about the 12th<\/sup> century war is called the Shitti-marduk kudurru. This was carved to support tax exemptions for a Kassite general in Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s army who, for his brave service, was granted various boons.<\/p>\n

      But the kudurru is\u2026 problematic. For one thing, though it is frequently cited to prove the return of the statue of Marduk from Elam, neither Marduk nor any idol of any god is mentioned.<\/em> It proves only that Nebuchadnezzar was at war with Elam, which we stipulate.<\/p>\n

      Another oddity is that it mentions a lot of Kassites both as military and in civil positions of authority; according to historians, the Kassites were just overthrown 40 or so years earlier; why are they in such positions of power?<\/p>\n

      In spite of the rhetoric projecting the image of a strong, centralized kingship, Nebuchadnezzar had to share his authority with local officials, especially Kassite tribal leaders<\/strong>. Shitti\u2010Marduk, the head of the Kassite clan of Bit\u2010Karziabku, obtained the reinstatement of his district\u2019s autonomy with increased tax exemptions, and the prologue of his kudurru, while acknowledging the preeminence of Nebuchadnezzar, celebrates his own exploits in an epic style normally the prerogative of the king<\/strong>. The Hinke kudurru records a grant to the mayor of Nippur; while cursorily acknowledging Nebuchadnezzar, it portrays a Kassite official named Baba\u2010shuma\u2010iddina of the Hunna clan (Bit\u2010Hunna) as the actual granting authority.<\/u><\/strong> The same Baba\u2010shuma\u2010iddina is later attested as governor of Babylon in the Shitti\u2010Marduk kudurru. (AHOB, Beaulieu)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It should be noted that the word \u201cKassite\u201d paints with too broad a brush in this period; the Kassites were tribal in nature not unlike the twelve tribes of Israel. During this period, one of those tribes – that to which Agum-kakrime belonged – became preeminent but clearly still had to contend with challengers from other tribes.<\/p>\n

      By the time of the last generations of the Old Babylonian period [~1200] a terminological differentiation had developed between resident Kassites and peripheral groups,<\/strong> with the term Kassite applied to troops settled inside the kingdom, and the terms Samhar\u00fb and Bimat\u00fb used for (potentially) hostile outsiders. The latter terms presumably had specific geographical connotations. (The Old to Middle Babylonian Transition, van Koppen)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      We know that the 1st<\/sup> dynasty of Babylon had Kassite allies and Kassite foes; so it stands to reason that Nebuchadnezzar was vassal of one of them, probably Agum-kakrime, while destroyer of other rival Kassite groups; hence his title in this kudurru as \u201cdespoiler of Kassites,\u201d in a kudurru written by a favored Kassite general.<\/em><\/p>\n

      HUTELETUSH?<\/h3>\n

      The only thing on the kudurru that gives us pause is the alleged presence of the Elamite enemy Huteletush-inshushinak on the kudurru. This is consistent with the traditional narrative, as there was a grandson of Shutruk-nahunte by that name.<\/p>\n

      But if we look closer, it is not as reliable as it seems. First, what\u2019s actually on the tablet is debated by modern scholars, but reads something like \u201cHulteludish\u201d or \u201cHuteludish\u201d; a fair match with the Shutrukid kings, admittedly. If<\/em> that\u2019s what it says.<\/p>\n

      Why we are skeptical is that in the very first translation of this tablet, the name of the Elamite king does not appear at all.<\/em> How did it suddenly appear to future scholars decades later? That first authoritative translation says\u2026<\/p>\n

      He feared not the battle, he went down against the enemy, and among the enemies of his lord he valiantly forced a way in. By the command of Ishtar and Adad, the gods who are arbiters of battle, he turned evil against the king of Elam,<\/strong> and destruction overtook him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      And King Nebuchadnezzar triumphed, he captured the land of Elam, he plundered its possessions. When he had returned to Akkad in triumph and with joy of heart, Ritti-Marduk, the head of the House of Bit-Karziabku, whom the king, his lord, had beheld among the enemies and warriors. (Babylonian Boundary Stones in the British Museum, King)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Tablets age over time; many tablets that were still legible when first discovered in the early 1900\u2019s have now aged poorly and are much more scuffed and faded today, making modern translations based on seeing a given sign<\/em> much poorer than original translations, even as we understand the ancient languages much better.<\/p>\n

      Yet all modern translations name the king of Elam explicitly as Huteletush, a name King was unwilling to translate.<\/em> He did not even indicate an ellipsis or note damage to that part of the tablet.<\/p>\n

      I wonder how modern translators were able to see a sign that King did not? I wonder if they really did<\/em> see the sign, or were they guided by their overwhelming confidence to translate ambiguous signs into a name they expected to see?<\/p>\n

      Cuneiform reading is hard, and heavily<\/em> context dependent – and thus heavily susceptible to bias. A given sign can have a dozen different sound values. So there is considerable room for interpretation.<\/p>\n

      This means you will choose among those dozen sounds for the ones which you are expecting, which your history predicts; other interpretations, ones that might fit our view, would be summarily rejected.<\/p>\n

      As I said I\u2019m not qualified to point out the specific errors that were made in translation; I don\u2019t read cuneiform, because I have decided my life is too short to learn cuneiform (though in all honesty, even if I had several more lives to spare I don\u2019t think that\u2019s how I would choose to spend them).<\/p>\n

      What I am<\/em> qualified to do is ask why modern translators see signs that King was not confident enough to translate. I am<\/em> qualified to compare conclusions from different experts and doubt the conclusions that the consensus has drawn and placed on Wikipedia.<\/p>\n

      TWO WARS<\/h3>\n

      Having done that, I can say with confidence that there were two wars between Babylon and Elam, one involving Nebuchadnezzar I in the ‑12th<\/sup> century and the other involving Shutruk-nahunte in the ‑8th<\/sup>; they were not the same war, and every historian has tried to piece them together as if they were.<\/p>\n

      We don\u2019t know who his opponent was; once we move the timeline of Elam forward, we find that – depending on how one averages the reigns – we are in or shortly after the late Sukkulmah period; a long list of kings of whom we know nothing more than their names.<\/p>\n

      Nebuchadnezzar very likely warred with one of them, or with some otherwise unknown king after them; again, this period of Elamite history between the Sukkulmahs and the Kinuids is very sketchy.<\/p>\n

      One of these late Sukkulmah kings is named Kutir-nahunte II, the namesake of the much later Shutrikid king, which may explain some mentions of him in the context of a war with Nebuchadnezzar.<\/p>\n

      We speculate – yes, we do it too, but we are honest about it – that there was a king just after the Sukkulmahs with the name Hultelush-inshushinak, or similar. There is a gap of roughly 100 years in the Elamite king list in that period, so it\u2019s anybody\u2019s guess who was ruling then.<\/p>\n

      There are many texts applied by historians to this supposed war and recovery of Marduk; I won\u2019t go through every one of those texts for you; most do not even mention Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s name, or else don\u2019t mention Marduk\u2019s return; they are ascribed to this period based solely on the similarities to the events in the narrative historians expect.<\/p>\n

      All texts which explicitly mention a statute returning from Elam probably belong to a much later king in the 8th<\/sup> century who actually did<\/em> recover them, perhaps Nabonassar or his immediate predecessors.<\/p>\n

      To my audience educated in this field, I am aware I have not answered every objection; that would require books, not a chapter. There are many more arguments on this subject in the Mesopotamian Papers section of DisplacedDynasties.com<\/a>, where he provides many more reasons to believe that Marduk was returned from Elam in the ‑8th<\/sup> century, not the ‑12th<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

      ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY<\/h3>\n

      Back to the Marduk prophecy, after the Hittite captivity the next part of the tablet is quite broken, but clearly refers to a captivity by the Assyrians; Marduk, all-powerful, again portrays this as his own will, and to have been a blessing to the Assyrians while he was there.<\/p>\n

      [\u2026] when I tied the troops of Enlil with him, [\u2026] \u2026 I put him like wings of birds [\u2026]. I filled all the [land]s. I filled the land of Ashur with [\u2026] and blessed it<\/strong>. I granted hi[m \u2026] and destinies. [\u2026] I gave him truthful [s]cales.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      [I return]ed. I said for the city of Babylon: \u201cCarry your tributes, O lands, to Babylon! Come, O land,<\/strong> build Babylon!<\/strong>\u201d I am Marduk, the great lord, lord of destinies and decisions am I. Who travelled this path but I? I have receded from the place I went to. I myself commanded so<\/strong>. (TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Eventually he is returned to his native land of Babylon. This is generally seen as the captivity of Tikulti-ninurta mentioned in Chronicle P:<\/p>\n

      \u2026 Tukulti-Ninurta returned to Babylon and brought \u2026 near. He destroyed the wall of Babylon and put the Babylonians to the sword. He took out the property of the Esagila and Babylon amid the booty. The statue of the great lord Marduk he removed from his dwelling-place and sent him to Assyria<\/strong>. \u2026 For sixty[?]-six (until the time of Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur), B\u00eal stayed in Assyria, in the time of Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur, B\u00eal. (Chronicle P)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Clearly this describes the same events. The question is, which Tikulti-ninurta? Historians confidently say the first of that name, and date this to ‑1224; but they admit there is a problem with this idea; if the idol was kept there until the reign of Ninurta-tukulti-assur\u2026 it wouldn\u2019t have been returned when the Elamites supposedly stole it in ‑1155!<\/em><\/p>\n

      The ideology of the supremacy of Marduk is generally viewed to have been promoted by Nebuchadnezzar I and his successors. Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s second campaign into Elam and the return of the statue of Marduk that was carried off to Elam by either Shutruk-Nahhunte or his son Kutir-Nahhunte in 1155 BC is thought to be the trigger. However, there are chronological problems regarding the abduction of the statue by the Elamites, as the statue of Marduk abducted by Tukulti-Ninurta I wasn\u2019t returned yet by the Assyrians before the Elamites sacked Babylon in 1155 BC<\/u><\/strong>. (Wiki, Marduk)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      This is not a minor problem to brush away; this is a grave problem that strikes at the heart of their entire reconstruction. They don\u2019t really have a good way around this problem. Their best guess is that new idols were created as needed to fill the void:<\/p>\n

      The statue captured during the latter assault allegedly returned to Babylon during the reign of Itti\u2010Marduk\u2010balatu or Ninurta\u2010nadin\u2010shumi and cannot therefore be the same<\/strong> as the one captured by the Elamite king Kuter\u2010Nahhunte at the end of the Kassite regime. Probably new statues had been consecrated in temporary replacement of those that had been spoliated<\/strong>. (AHOB).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      There is absolutely no evidence of this except<\/em> a chronological problem they can\u2019t answer. It certainly doesn\u2019t square with the known fact that the idols of Marduk were agonized<\/em> over in their absence. Why such importance attached to their return\u2026 if it was so easy to just make a new one?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The only reason they suggest this is because the facts of history conflict with their interpretation of the ever-helpful Chronicle P. But we have already proven beyond a doubt that Chronicle P refers to Tukulti-ninurta II, and dates to events which took place in around ‑944.<\/p>\n

      Which means that this captivity of Marduk also happened then, not<\/em> in ‑1224<\/strong>. Hence, there is no difficulty in returning it 66 or so years later around ‑878, well before the Elamite invasion which we believe happened around the ‑760\u2019s or so.<\/p>\n

      ANCIENT HISTORIANS CONFIRMED<\/h3>\n

      Remember, whoever wrote this document knew his recent history. In fact, this was a priest\u2019s attempt to explain history through his understanding of theology. Which means his history was accurate!<\/strong> So if the priest had Marduk claim Assur was prosperous for those 66 years, that must have also been based on well-known historical fact.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u201cwhen I tied the troops of Enlil with him, [\u2026] \u2026 I put him like wings of birds [\u2026]. I filled all the [land]s. I filled the land of Ashur with [\u2026] and blessed it<\/strong>. I granted hi[m \u2026] and destinies. [\u2026] I gave him truthful [s]cales.\u201d (TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      The capture of Marduk by Tukulti-ninurta II must have coincided with a shocking rise in the fortunes of Assyria, to merit the Babylonian explanation that Marduk\u2019s presence was the reason. And this does indeed coincide with a period of immense prosperity in Assur – the reigns of Assurbanipal II and Shalmaneser III witnessed the greatest expansion in the history of the empire.<\/p>\n

      But it gets better! Remember the document said the idol was in Assur for 66 years? Counting from the first year of Tukulti-ninurta II, when he sacked Babylon, to the end of the reign of Shalmaneser III, a reign which ended in civil war and chaos, was exactly 66 years!<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u2026 The statue of the great lord Marduk he removed from his dwelling-place and sent him to Assyria<\/strong>. \u2026 For sixty[?]-six (until the time of Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur), B\u00eal stayed in Assyria, in the time of Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur, B\u00eal. (Chronicle P)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Historians universally say that Ninurta-tukulti-assur of Assyria (-1186-1186) is who was meant by this passage. Obviously, he lived far too early in our chronology (and as mentioned above, doesn\u2019t even fit in theirs).<\/p>\n

      But it turns out this translation is a particularly dastardly bit of deception on their part, because Chronicle P doesn\u2019t say the name of that king at all!<\/em> Shame on them.<\/p>\n

      The Tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur question arises from an account in a Babylonian chronicle of the upshot to Tukulti-Ninurta I\u2019s godnap of Marduk (Bel). This account concludes: \u2018In the time of Tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur,<\/strong> Bel went (back) to [Bab]ylon\u2019 (Chronicle P iv 12-13). No other clear reference to an Assyrian king with this name is known.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      In 1967, Brinkman noted that this Tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur is \u201cusually assumed\u201d to be identical with a later 12th<\/sup> century Assyrian king Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur,<\/strong> but considered this identification \u201cuncertain.\u201d (The Tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur Question\u2026 Jeremy Goldberg)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It took a bit of work to uncover this, since all the translations confidently place the presumed<\/em> name, even though Brinkman considered the identification \u201cuncertain.\u201d They supplied the non-existent prefix Ninurta to the name because there is no known king by the name of Tukulti-assur in history<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      It is not a common, nor as far as I can tell, even attested<\/em> practice to shorten a king\u2019s name by cutting off the first segment, which would be necessary to reconstruct the name as Ninurta-tukulti-assur; so appealing to that argument is an act of desperation.<\/p>\n

      We simply draw the obvious conclusion:<\/p>\n

      Tukulti-ninurta is yet another non-canonical Assyrian king, like Assuruballit<\/strong>; Goldberg, above, has made something of a mission to document and identify such kings, making their existence virtually certain. I refer you to his work for more.<\/p>\n

      We have identified a gap after the reign of Shalmaneser III of ten years, in a well-known time of civil war and instability. We will discuss this in a future chapter; for now, we speculate that Tukulti-assur was in power during that time, but later was not considered legitimate.<\/p>\n

      We note one final time that his reign, in our reconstruction, would have begun precisely 66 years after Tukulti captured the statue of Marduk from Babylon.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

      NAZI-MURRUTASH<\/h3>\n

      It\u2019s worth noting that, coincidentally, the first year of this king Tukulti-assur (-878) happens to be identical with the first year of Nazi-maruttash of the Kassites, and of Marduk-balassu-iqbi of Babylon.<\/p>\n

      We mention that because Nazi-maruttash appears briefly in an unknown context in Chronicle P. After discussing Adad-nirari II\u2019s loss to Kurigalzu I, and before mentioning Tukulti-ninurta II\u2019s sack of Babylon, it says only\u2026<\/p>\n

      [iii.23′] Nazi-marutta\u0161, son of …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      [iii.24′] king of Assyria in ….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      [<\/em>lacuna]<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It\u2019s impossible know what this says, but the placement is odd. Historians, who accept this was all about Kurigalzu II, have no problem since this was his successor. But for us, it\u2019s out of place in the narrative. However<\/em> we can now offer an explanation.<\/p>\n

      If we\u2019re right, Nazi-maruttash wouldn\u2019t rule for another 66 years after these events. But he would live at the conclusion of these events<\/strong>. After the story of Tukulti-ninurta\u2019s sack, death, and his sons\u2019 enthronement, it concludes\u2026<\/p>\n

      [iv.12′] For sixty[?]-six (until the time of tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur), B\u00eal stayed in Assyria, in the time of Ninurta-tukulti-A\u0161\u0161ur, B\u00eal<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      [iv.13′] went to Babylon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      __________________________________<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      [iv.14′] At the time of Enlil-nadin-\u0161umi, the king, note Kiden-Hutran, king of Elam, attacked.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Now as we have noted, in our construction 66 years from Tukulti\u2019s attack coincides with the beginning of Nazi-maruttash\u2019s reign – which also coincides with the return of the statue and the end of the Assyrian golden age.<\/p>\n

      Thus, it cannot be a coincidence that the lacuna above mentions a name who just happens to begin to reign at the end of this sequence of events; hence, we offer the following hypothetical explanation: the tablet originally read something like\u2026<\/p>\n

      Nazi-maruttash, son of Kurigalzu II, recovered the statute of Marduk from the usurper king of Assyria Tukulti-assur, which had been taken from Babylon after the reign of Kurigalzu I, when Tukulti-ninurta threw the king of Babylon in iron bands [and the story continues]\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Thus mentioning the return of the statue first, then explaining how it was lost, and then summarizing how long it was gone. This fits perfectly. It also helps to explain the otherwise immense jump in the narrative to the reign of Enlil-nadin-shumi.<\/p>\n

      To jump, as the narrative seems to, from Tukulti-ninurta II (-944-937) directly to Enlil-nadin-shumi (\u2011793-792) is almost a century and a half. Why such a gap in the narrative?<\/p>\n

      But to jump to ‑793 from Nazi-maruttash (-878-853), is only about 60 years. But that only works if, in the minds of the narrator, the loss and recovery of Marduk was a story focused on its recoverer Nazi-maruttash, who was mentioned first in the narrative.<\/em><\/p>\n

      THE ELAMITE CAPTIVITY<\/h3>\n

      So much for the first and second captivities. Marduk continues\u2026<\/p>\n

      I went to the land of Elam. All of the gods went there; I myself commanded so<\/strong>. I myself have cut the offerings of the temples. I raised \u0160akkan and Nisaba up to heaven. Siris has made the midst of the land sick: the people\u2019s corpses block the gates. Brother eats his brother<\/strong>. Friend smashes his friend with a weapon. Free citizens raise their hands against poor citizens. The scepter diminishes, lays across the land. Usurper kings reduce the land<\/strong>. Lions [\u2026] block the way. Dogs [rave] and bite people; all whom they bite die, do not live.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      I filled my days; I filled my years. To my city Babylon and to the Esagil<\/strong> I longed, to dwell there forever, for all the years. I said: \u201cCarry your tributes, O lands, to Babylon! Come, O land, build Babylon!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      This final captivity to the Elamites is described in much more gruesome detail; presumably because it was fresher in the minds of the author and his audience. The balance of the tablet is a very lengthy messianic prophecy of a future king of Babylon who would put things right.<\/p>\n

      A king of Babylon will arise<\/strong>. He will renew the wondrous temple, the Esagil<\/strong>. The divine plans of heaven and earth he will draw in the Esagil<\/strong>. He will double its height; tax exemption he will put in my city Babylon. He will lead me into my city Babylon. He will bring [me] into the eternal Esagil<\/strong>. He will renew the processional barge [Ma]umu\u0161a<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \u2026That prince will [ru]le the lands, all of them. And I, O gods, all of you, am at peace with him, so he will break down Elam<\/strong>. Its cities he will break down. He will incapacitate its fortresses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      He will raise the great king of D\u0113r from a place that is not his dwelling place. He will alienate (?) his devastation. He will \u2026 his ruined land and will lead him into D\u0113r<\/strong>, and into the eternal Ugalkalama<\/strong> temple. He will enter him. (TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      If we take this literally, then we can only read this as a lament for an ongoing Elamitic devastation.<\/em> Scholars typically take it as being written centuries after the fact, but the exhausting detail of the destruction in the first half, combined with the vaguely millennial tone of the last half, make it seem more like the book of Isaiah than anything else.<\/p>\n

      Look at the big picture of the structure; it begins with a declaration of Marduk\u2019s supremacy; then a retrospective on his past journeys with the clear intent that he is all-powerful and has always returned in the past and blessed Babylon after sufficient time has passed; this to provide hope to hopeless people.<\/p>\n

      Those first two journeys occupy a relatively small amount of the tablet, most of which is devoted to the lengthy acknowledgement of the death, destruction, and depression all around them; followed by extensive predictions of a vague savior and a time of plenty and prosperity, specifically with the ending that \u201che will<\/em> break down Elam.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Clearly, this had not yet happened, or it would not be put in the future tense. Yet according to historians, Elam had been destroyed soon after their sack of Babylon, and had experienced a three century dark age up to the writing of this document.<\/p>\n

      But clearly, they are wrong; Elam had not yet fallen.<\/em> Which means the only reasonable conclusion is that this document was written by Babylonian priests during the Elamite captivity to give the Babylonians hope for the future.<\/p>\n

      I can\u2019t conceive of any other purpose for it. The priesthood was trying to give people hope by telling them this is all part of \u201cGod\u2019s plan for us,\u201d precisely as any preacher would do today by promising the coming of a messiah.<\/p>\n

      The Babylonian messiah who would reconquer the Elamites is universally believed to be Nebuchadnezzar I; this is based on the idea that the entire prophecy is a retrospective written four hundred years after the events.<\/p>\n

      But as I said above, all the indications are that this was composed in the 1st<\/sup> millennium, and the internal evidence speaks eloquently of then-present suffering under the Elamites. The relative vagueness of the end of the prophecy also speaks to this conclusion; if the priests really wanted to credit Nebuchadnezzar I with this achievement, why not name him?<\/em><\/p>\n

      DATING THE MARDUK PROPHECY<\/h3>\n

      Historians believe the events in the Marduk prophecy took place between ‑1595 and ‑1155; simultaneously, they believe that the prophecy was composed – not edited, not copied, but composed –<\/em> much later, around ‑750, give or take a century or two depending on who you ask.<\/p>\n

      They have many reasons to believe this; for one thing, the style of language used; also because the titles which were applied to Marduk evolved over time, and these are very late titles for him, when he was already king of the pantheon and all powerful; it\u2019s unlikely those would be updated in a translation.<\/p>\n

      Also, in the lengthy section I skipped over, it describes various practices of worship being reinstated by the messiah which are only attested in a Neo-Babylonian (~600 BC) or late Assyrian (~700 BC) context.<\/p>\n

      If this was a copy, a scribe would copy the words, but he would not translate idioms, or edit the practices of worship and titles of Marduk to fit modern ears. All of this points to a late composition date.<\/p>\n

      Although all literary texts concerning Nebuchadnezzar I and his war against Elam are known from first-millennium BCE manuscripts, it has been assumed that they are in fact earlier and were written at the occasion of the mentioned victory over Elam and the return of Marduk\u2019s statue. This assumption must now be questioned. It seems reasonable to surmise that these texts date to the first millennium BCE,<\/strong> with their manuscripts or shortly before, and share a certain discourse that concerned contemporary interests. (TMP)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      That scholar goes on to list many historians who believe it was written in the mid-600\u2019s at the behest of the Assyrians themselves, citing textual evidence, pro-Assyrian concepts, the well developed belief system of Marduk and Nabu, and so on. He however justly rejects that idea, since it is clearly stated on the tablet that it is a copy of a Babylonian tablet, and he concludes cautiously\u2026<\/p>\n

      All in all, it seems to me that the Marduk Prophecy was composed in Babylon during the first centuries of the first millennium BCE<\/strong>. With greater probability is the period between the tenth and eighth centuries BCE; during the seventh century the Prophecy was already canonized and circulated in Assyria, hence it is reasonable to surmise an earlier date of composition, but it is possible to postdate it to the (early) seventh century as well. It was written out of deep, ingrained sense of Babylonian identity, during a long period of military and political weakness for Babylon, when its inhabitants coped with a situation which they apprehended as analogous to that of Nebuchadnezzar I\u2019s days<\/strong>. It is possible that the Babylonians felt that Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s plea to Marduk: \u201cHow long will you dwell in the land of the enemy? May beautiful Babylon be remembered by you!\u201d (Nebuchadnezzar and Marduk ll. 8-9), relevant for their own difficult situation. (Ibid.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It seems clear that this was written during a time of an Elamite captivity, since of the three captivities, the Elamite one is the only one not recorded as having ended;<\/strong> the only suggestion of a conclusion is in the hopeful, future, prophetic sense; it must, therefore, have been ongoing.<\/p>\n

      This scholar would probably agree if he knew of any such captivity during this time.<\/em> But to him, the last powerful Elamite was in the ‑1100\u2019s. Yet he realizes that during the 8th<\/sup> century context he suggests it probably was composed in, the inhabitants of Babylon \u201ccoped with a situation which they apprehended as analogous to that of Nebuchadnezzar I\u2019s days.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

      In other words, this was written in ‑750 but sounds much like what we believe<\/em> the Babylonians suffered through in ‑1150. And we are happy to agree with him; for we know that Shutruk-nahunte and Kutir-nahunte conquered Babylon not in ‑1155 but in ‑761-758!<\/em> Precisely when all the other evidence dates this composition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      The Babylonians were indeed coping with the devastation historians believe happened in the ‑1150\u2019s in the ‑750\u2019s because that\u2019s when all those devastating things happened to them!<\/em><\/p>\n

      Oh, but we have so much more.<\/p>\n

      THE TWO FALLS OF BABYLON<\/h3>\n

      After Chedorlaomer in the ‑1950\u2019s, in the entire course of history Elam only ever conquered Babylon one other time; well, technically twice, but as part of the same war. Which means they did not conquer Babylon in the ‑1100\u2019s and again in the ‑700\u2019s; only one of these can be true. If we can prove the one, it automatically disproves the other<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      You already know the background of the war; Shutruk-nahunte felt he deserved the Kassite throne due to his illustrious lineage and following their rejection, around ‑761 he invaded just as he had threatened.<\/p>\n

      The final years of the [Kassite] dynasty are described in a fragmentary historical\u2010literary text preserved in a later copy which records that the Elamite king Shutruk\u2010Nahhunte, now claiming the Babylonian throne because of his marriage to a daughter of Meli\u2010Shipak, raided northern Babylonia, plundered gold, silver and other goods from the cities of Dur\u2010Kurigalzu, Agade, Sippar, and Opis, and put an end to the rule of Zababa\u2010shuma\u2010iddina.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It is on this occasion that the Code of Hammu\u2010rabi, the Stele of Naram\u2010Sin and numerous kudurrus were taken to the Elamite capital Susa. Babylonian resistance continued for three years under the last king of the Kassite dynasty, Enlil\u2010nadin\u2010ahi (1157-1155). According to the same text Shutruk\u2010Nahhunte appointed as regent his son Kuter\u2010Nahhunte, who eventually captured Enlil\u2010nadin\u2010ahi and carried him off to Elam together with the statue of the god Marduk. Around 1155 Kuter\u2010Nahhunte formally succeeded his father to the Elamite throne. Thus ended the Kassite regime, which had ruled a unified Babylonia for more than three centuries. (AHOB)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      It\u2019s very important I stress that this is the only time in recorded history<\/em> the city of Babylon fell to Elam<\/strong>. Just this one pair of times, three years apart. And that\u2019s what makes what I\u2019m about to say so important.<\/p>\n

      In Isaiah 46:1-2<\/span><\/strong>, Isaiah refers to Bel and Nebo being taken captive and carried on beasts to an unstated land. The prophecy must certainly date from ‑765‑710 or so, since those were his active years of prophesying.<\/p>\n

      Thus, Bel went into captivity before that date, and probably not a century before; more likely a matter of years. The same period when the Marduk prophecy was composed showing Babylon suffering in the present tense.<\/em><\/p>\n

      I stressed that for an excellent reason. According to historians, this never happened<\/strong>. None of it. According to them, Elam did not invade Babylon, much less sack it, in the 8th<\/sup> century. But they are wrong<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      In the traditional history, during the first half of the 8th<\/sup> century Elam was still in the \u201cElamite dark ages,\u201d and the Neo-Elamites of the last half of the 8th<\/sup> century are documented helping<\/em> Babylon against the Assyrians, certainly not sacking their cities.<\/p>\n

      Because of this, centuries of Bible researchers have made excuses for Isaiah; called it metaphor, end-time prophecy, or wishful thinking. Things like this have been used to justify the critics of the Bible when they say the Bible is nonsense. That stops today<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      THE BIBLE\u2019S IGNORED EVIDENCE<\/h3>\n

      In previous chapters we have established, on strong evidence, that the Elamite Shutruk-nahunte I lived in the 8th<\/sup> century, as did his Kassite foes. But we can now prove it conclusively; because Isaiah described his invasion in detail, and somehow no Bible scholar ever heard him.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \n

      Isaiah 21:1-3<\/span><\/strong> The burden of the wilderness of the sea. As whirlwinds in the South sweep through, it comes from the wilderness, from an awesome land<\/strong>. A grievous vision is declared to me. The treacherous man deals treacherously, and the destroyer destroys. Go up, Elam; attack!<\/strong> I have stopped all of Media\u2019s sighing. Therefore my thighs are filled with anguish. Pains have taken hold on me, like the pains of a woman in labour. I am in so much pain that I can\u2019t hear. I so am dismayed that I can\u2019t see.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \"\"<\/a>This is the burden of \u201cthe wilderness of the sea.\u201d Given the Elamite context this can only refer to the Sealand of Babylon – roughly where \u201cChaldeans\u201d are circled on the map at right – which was to be invaded by \u201cwhirlwinds from the south\u2026 from the wilderness,\u201d meaning an invasion from the Elamite desert lands to the south and east.<\/p>\n

      Note the word treachery – Isaiah must have known about the events in the Berlin letter; God certainly did. And the word destroyer – consistent with the Elamite reputation for violence. Shutruk-nahunte was not kind to Babylon when he invaded.<\/p>\n

      Hence the prophet goes on to describe how terrified he was at the vision, meaning he saw lots of blood, guts, and gore, and lamented the unsuspecting nature of the target; skipping past a lot of that, he continues\u2026<\/p>\n

      \n

      Verses 6-10<\/span><\/strong> For the Lord said to me, \u201cGo, set a watchman. Let him declare what he sees.\u201d \u2026 He cried like a lion: \u201cLord, I stand continually on the watchtower in the daytime, and every night I stay at my post. Behold, here comes a troop of men, horsemen in pairs.\u201d He answered, \u201cFallen, fallen is<\/strong><\/em> Babylon; and all the engraved images of her gods are broken to the ground.<\/em><\/strong> You are my threshing, and the grain of my floor!\u201d That which I have heard from Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, I have declared to you.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      This literally says that, in the days of Isaiah – at the time of this prophecy, but still in the future – Elam would invade Babylon, which would be \u201cfallen, fallen.\u201d Remember, God does not stutter; so this means that Babylon would be conquered twice<\/strong> by Elamites<\/em> – and specifically that the images of her gods would be broken to the ground.<\/p>\n

      Some, clearly, were taken hostage as Isaiah later said, in a later prophecy referring back to these events. Which means between Isaiah 21<\/span><\/strong> and Isaiah 46<\/span><\/strong> Elam conquered Babylon twice, and stole the idols of Marduk and Bel.<\/em><\/p>\n

      As I said, historians know nothing of this captivity. To explain it away, they suggest that perhaps it was written by someone else a century later and tacked on to Isaiah\u2019s book in reference of a later captivity of Marduk by the Assyrians<\/em> in ‑689.<\/p>\n

      But this wasn\u2019t the Assyrians. This was Elamites. Historians can offer no explanation for this.<\/p>\n

      See, when you don\u2019t know the true facts of history, you have no choice but to conclude the Bible exaggerated, was talking of a far-distant future, a late edit, or was just plain nonsense. You have to make up things like that, discredit one source or another, in order to make things fit when your history is wrong<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      But not when your history is right.<\/p>\n

      Because here\u2019s the thing\u2026 this is the only time in history<\/em> that Elam conquered Babylon. Period. Not before, not after. Only this one time.<\/p>\n

      So why was Isaiah talking about events that happened in ‑1155 in the ‑700\u2019s? Obviously\u2026 he wasn\u2019t. He was talking about a fall of Babylon in the ‑700\u2019s<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      Not since the days of Chedorlaomer has there evereven been an attack<\/em> by Elam on the city of Babylon, and even then it is doubtful that the Elamites forcibly attacked Babylon based on how they considered him a legitimate king.<\/p>\n

      And not only is it the only time in history Elam ever<\/em> conquered Babylon, but it\u2019s also the only time it ever happened twice in quick succession by anyone\u2026<\/em> First by Shutruk-nahunte I in ‑761 and then again by Kutir-nahunte III in ‑758.<\/p>\n

      Precisely what Isaiah described when he said \u201cBabylon has fallen, has fallen.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Now even if you believe the Bible to be uninspired, you must explain how Isaiah would have even known about<\/em>, much less written about, an invasion of Babylon four hundred years<\/em> before his time on the far side of the known world!<\/p>\n

      Clearly, he didn\u2019t. The very fact that a Hebrew scribe knew<\/em> about the double-attack of Babylon by Elamites, regardless of whether he wrote it before or after the fact, it proves that the event happened within his lifetime<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      And that<\/em> proves that Shutruk-nahunte I, and the Kassites he conquered, were contemporary with Isaiah in the 8th<\/sup> century BC.<\/p>\n

      I feel like a mic drop is warranted.<\/p>\n

      IF YOU STILL DOUBT\u2026<\/h3>\n

      Historians are willing to invent a lot of things to explain away problems like this, so I want to get out ahead of them here. They\u2019ll say Isaiah made a prediction that didn\u2019t happen; he wouldn\u2019t be the first prophet to try and get away with that.<\/p>\n

      They\u2019ll say they know Elam wasn\u2019t able to invade Babylon during the Elamite dark age, and so Isaiah had just been helping himself to the sacrificial wine and made a bad call. But if you just think for a moment, that cannot be true in this case.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Isaiah 46:1-2<\/span><\/strong> Bel bows down, Nebo stoops; their idols are on the animals, and on the livestock: the things that you carried<\/em> about are made a load, a burden to the weary. They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden, but themselves have gone into captivity.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      This is delivered in the present tense, used to reason with an audience of idolators, in an effort to convince them that idolatry was foolish. What would be the point, if the starting premise were not a well-known fact?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      This means Isaiah knew his audience<\/em> knew this; it was an accepted fact of world history by then, being used by him to point out the foolishness of worshipping idols which cannot protect even themselves from capture, much less you.<\/p>\n

      God goes on to point out that He is the better bet for safety than an idol which men created and which cannot defend itself (<\/span>verses 3-8<\/span>)<\/span><\/strong>. Then He concludes by taking a victory lap, saying\u2026<\/p>\n

      \n

      Isaiah 46:9-11<\/span> Remember the former things of old:<\/em><\/strong> for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done<\/strong>; saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country;<\/strong> yes, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      This is nothing less than God, or at the very least Isaiah, gloating about successfully foretelling the raid on Babylonia by \u201ca ravenous bird from the east,\u201d which aptly describes Shutruk-nahunte. Saying that since his predictions have always been correct, it\u2019s foolish to worship the idols that went into captivity at God\u2019s commandment.<\/em><\/p>\n

      But this argument only works if he knew his audience knew it happened just as he said<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      Right? Right.<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Ancient cultures took their idols very seriously. They believed that God literally dwelt in their idol, and so the idol was treated in every way as if it was the god itself; it was treated as a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5439,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[23,30],"class_list":["post-5419","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-coolest","tag-history","tag-people"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5419","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5419"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5419\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5527,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5419\/revisions\/5527"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5419"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5419"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesimpleanswers.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5419"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}