NABONEDO (Babylonian Nabū-nā’id = “Nabū is exalted”). — The last king of Babylon, whose reign (556–539) brought to a tragic close the not yet century-old history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the millennia-long history of Semitic-Akkadian predominance in the Near East.
Cuneiform inscriptions concerning him and his reign are relatively numerous: among them, one of his foundation inscriptions and the much-disputed one dealing with his mother, priestess of the god Sin at Haran, in the temple E-hāl-hāl, which exerted such influence on his piety. The inscriptions recounting the history of his reign, however, are openly partisan, having been produced by the priests of Marduk and by Cyrus, who in 539 entered Babylon to triumphant applause. The Greek sources, moreover, are difficult to use. Serious exegetical problems must be confronted when one seeks to apply passages from the book of Daniel to N.
The figure of N. is distorted in part even by modern historians and in encyclopedias and manuals. According to them, N. was an absent-minded scientist, indifferent to the duties of the kingdom; an archaeologist, a strange ruler possessed by the fixed idea of promoting the worship of the Moon, and, for some caprice or other, absent for years from Babylon, vacationing in the oasis of Tejmā’ in Arabia. Recent studies, especially that of R. P. Dougherty, have restored a truer image of him. N. was the son of a noble prince of Babylon, Nabū-balāṭu-iqbī, probably of Aramaic descent, and of the aforementioned priestess (whose name is unknown), who likewise had Aramaic connections. From this priestess N. received a scientific and religious education superior to that of Nabuchodonosor, and inherited a profound devotion to the god Sin. In him this was joined to a lively historical sense, which was not, moreover, foreign to the other Neo-Babylonian kings. Profoundly religious in spirit, N. perceived the inferiority of the aged religion of his Empire when compared with the new religion of Yahwism and with the Iranian religion, the former monotheistic and the latter at least tending toward monotheism. He therefore matured a program of reform: namely, to restore the most ancient and original age of Mesopotamian religion, the age of Nannar, the Sumerian name for Sin. Statues, rituals, and even the temples themselves had to be reformed according to older models or plans. This explains his interest in archaeology and his esteem for dreams and visions; but he was not an antihistorical reformer, unlike Echnaton (v. IV), with whom he shared, to some extent, the same fate: namely, the hostility of a very powerful priestly party, being regarded in part as a “heretic” and a “wrongdoer,” and the cruel damnatio memoriae. His historical sense also led him to involve himself in political affairs. He understood the problem inherent in the Neo-Babylonian Empire: externally, the unstable and unbalanced tetrarchy of Media, Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, liable to collapse at any moment before the well-trained troops of the Medes; internally, the continual rivalry among the various elements of the Neo-Babylonian state: Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Babylonians, and especially the different temple clienteles. Moreover, there was a lack of the physical vigor, freshness of blood, and warlike spirit of the Medes.
It may be held that N. was born around 610. Herodotus’ report may have some basis: the Syennesis of Cilicia and N. are said to have demonstrated their political skill by arranging the compromise peace between Htumegu (Astyages) of Media and Alyattes of Lydia in 585, establishing the famous frontier on the Halys. Thus the document published would not be surprising
The account of the revolution of 556 is mutilated by the absence of three precious lines. Labdhi-Marduk, the minor son of Neriglissar, was then killed, and N. acclaimed by all. Nevertheless, N. was conscious of the usurpation, insisting that his rival had been destined for the throne “against the will of the gods” and regarding himself as the “representative” of Nabuchodonosor and Neriglissar in the Kingdom. Immediately after ascending the throne, N. undertook an expedition to the west, as far as Gaza in Palestine, establishing himself throughout the vast territory of the Empire, which had not yet been diminished. In the third year he received a vision from Sin, encouraging him to conquer Haran, then in the possession of the Medes, and to rebuild the famous temple of Sin in that city. In response to his concerns, the vision declared that three years later the King of Media would be defeated by “his little servant,” the King of Anšan. Then, following the example of Nabopalassar and Ciassare, N. formed an alliance with Cyrus, King of Persia, occupied Haran, and rebuilt the famous temple in a very short time. Cyrus, however, King of Persia, succeeded in conquering Hangmatana in 550, and Media was incorporated into his Empire in a position of favor. N. was alarmed by such an international imbalance and formed an alliance with Croesus of Lydia and with Egypt. Wishing to extend his Kingdom and establish a counterweight to Cyrus’s fierce soldiers, he set out for Arabia, where he settled in the oasis of Tejmâ', a point controlling many caravan routes, since the northern and eastern routes were blocked by Media, now hostile; he also controlled the eastern coast of the Red Sea. Some mystery remains concerning the full range of reasons for his absence, which lasted at least from the seventh to the eleventh year of his Kingdom. The situation became still more disastrous when Croesus, relying on the oracle of the Pythia at Delphi, crossed the Halys, and when, because of Cyrus’s unexpected march on Sardis, he lost both Empire and life in 546. Haran seems to have been lost earlier, since N.’s mother died in the army’s camp in N.’s ninth year.
The final hour of the Neo-Babylonian Empire had now sounded. N., no longer content for Baltassar to reign in Babylon with the bulk of the army, returned. But Cyrus succeeded in winning over the powerful governor of Gutium, Gubaru, and in preparing the conquest from within with the help of his supporters, the priests of Marduk. The Jews were also conspiring, since they too felt oppressed by N.’s religious reforms. Moreover, recalling the massacres carried out by the Medes, who had destroyed so many statues of deities, N. gathered in Babylon all the statues from the threatened provinces, providing the priests who had suffered losses with another reason for propaganda against him. The decisive war of 540–539 ended quickly: after forcing the fortifications of Opis, Cyrus took Sippar. The way to the city of Babylon was then open, and Gubaru entered it without a battle. N. fled, but was taken prisoner and, in all likelihood, executed together with his son Baltassar.
The memory of N. was systematically obscured by the victors. Yet, despite this unhappy fate, N. remained an attractive figure, and the Babylonian usurpers, upon the accession of Darius, called themselves “sons of Nabuchodonosor and N.”
BIBLI.: fundamental work: R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Balthazar, New Haven 1929. Other works: Sidn. Smith, Babylonian historical texts, London 1924; id., Cambridge ancient history, III, Cambridge 1925, pp. 318–32; id., Isaiah XL-LV, London 1944, pp. 24–48; B. Meissner, Könige Bab. u. Assyriens, Leipzig 1926, pp. 276–85; G. Ricciotti, Storia d'Israele, II, Turin 1932, pp. 12–20; B. Bonkamp, Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung, Recklinghausen 1939, pp. 525–36. On the stele of Eski-Haran: H. Pognon, Inscriptione sénitiques de la Syrie..., Paris 1907, pp. 1–14, pls. 11–13; P. Dhorme, in Rev. bibl., 17 (1908), pp. 130–35; S. Langdon, Vorderasiatische Bibliothek, IV, Berlin 1912, pp. 288–95 (cf. P. Dhorme, in Rev. d'assyriol., 11 (1914), p. 106); F. H. Weissbach, Käppä, in Pauly-Wissowa, X, cols. 2000–21; H. de Genouillac, N., in Rev. d'assyriol., 22 (1925), pp. 71–83; J. Lewy, The late assyro-babylonian cult of the moon..., in Hebrew Union College annual, 19 (1945 ed.), pp. 405–489; B. Landsberger, Die Baualstele von Eski-Harran: Halil Edhem Hatira Kitabi, Ankara 1947, pp. 115–51, pls. 1–3;
E. Dhorme, Le mère de N., in Rev. d'assyriol., 41 (1947), pp. 1–21 (Recueil E. Dhorme, Paris 1951, pp. 325–50). Pietro Nober