Nebuchadnezzar, the pagan ruler of Babylon whose forces defeated Jerusalem and destroyed the First Jewish Temple, is a figure pivotal in Jewish history and in the chronology of Biblical stories by extension. Without his defeat of Jerusalem that reportedly occurred in 586 BC (nothing in the historical record is truly certain, though there are logically possible events and even sensory evidences that specific events likely happened), the Temple would not have been destroyed, and the sequence of events leading up to the time of Jesus as presented in the Bible would differ enormously. It was the destruction of the Temple that led to the Jewish Diaspora, the scattering of the Jews around the Gentile world of the era.
Given his prominence in certain parts of the Bible, any evidence for the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (more specifically, Nebuchadnezzar II) is historical evidence that parallels or supports Biblical accounts found in the Old Testament. While the historicity of Jesus is a far more central part of the evidences for Christianity than documentation or archeological support for a king of the world before Christ, evidence of Nebuchadnezzar's presence in history, especially as related to the Jewish kingdom of the day, has major ramifications for the seeming probability of the Bible's veracity. What evidence for his existence might there be among the records and artifacts left by the Babylonians of the 6th century BC or their neighbors?
From the inscription on the Ishtar Gates to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, a set of tablets testifying to a Babylonian military victory against Judah, there is strong evidence for the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, and even for the historicity of his campaign against Jerusalem and the city's eventual defeat. The Ishtar Gates merely have writing on them that according to archeologists and historians says describes how Nebuchadnezzar built them to incite awe in other nations, which would make it seem likely that he existed as a historical figure, but the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle directly speaks of how the Babylonian ruler overcame Jehoiachin, king of Judah at the time of the 586 BC defeat according to the Bible. These alone are significant evidences.
Jesus might be the most primary figure of Biblical history, but he is far from the only Biblical figure for which there is either vast or strong evidences from documentation or archeology. Any evidence at all in favor of the historical accuracy of Biblical stories contributes to the probabilistic likelihood of Christianity being true, even when it comes to secondary or minor figures, events, and locations. Nebuchadnezzar, though, is not minor despite of course being secondary to someone like Jesus--and being yet another tyrant who would be put to death under Mosaic Law. His role in the broad Biblical path leading to the New Testament era is no small thing. Besides, every person like him whose existence in an earlier age of history is supported (but not proven, as it does not logically follow from perceptions and evidences that something like the historical life of a person is by necessity a truth) is relevant to Christianity and evaluating its evidences.
As always, however, I am in no way expressing belief in the asinine idea that sensory perceptions and historical evidences prove anything more on their own than that there are perceptions and evidences. Only reason and introspection grant absolute certainty, though the things of which one can be absolutely certain are far fewer than plenty of people think and far more than others might think. Fools tend to think that history or science or hearsay or anything else besides pure reason is at the heart of epistemology and metaphysics. There are numerous possible ways that evidences can be illusions, ranging from the unverifiability of most sensory experiences to the fact that historical documents and oral tradition all reduce down to hearsay, yet what is left is the fact that there is still support, short of logical proof, for pieces of history like the rule and military campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
No comments:
Post a Comment