What prevents Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar from being one and the same?

by Kamikyu

Or if not one and the same, Nabonidus being a son named after his progenitor? They were both named to honor Nebu, who may have been the patron god of there dynasty. I see no reason the prince-regent of both myth and history Belshazzer having served a father and son. It would explain Nebonidus' mysterious ascendance to the throne, Belshazzar's LONG term period as an advisor, and the historical entity who went into the desert for seven years.

So what stops hem from being on and the same, or at least related?

Edit: I obviously mean Nebuchadnezzar the II.

farquier

As it turns out, we have extensive Babylonian chronicles of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that clearly outline Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus as separate individuals, as well as several inscriptions produced by the kings separately. In particular, I would draw your attention to the following texts(note: the livius translations are non-scholarly and for any serious research purposes you should really consult A.K. Grayson's translations of these texts, but for basic reference purposes like this they are perfectly suitable):

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html (note: the stay in Tema has recently been illuminated by the discovery of a stele erected by Nabonidus there by the German Archaeological Institute)

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/cm/nabonidus.html

http://www.livius.org/na-nd/nabonidus/cylinder.html (note that this document in particular mentions both Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus separately)

Note also that the similarity is also more pronounced in Greek; theophoric names in Mesopotamia are very common and tend to invoke the same gods and the names in Akkadian(Nabu-Na'id and Nabû-kudurri-uṣur) are far less similar. In generally, Neo-Babylonian history is fact some of the best-documented in Mesopotamia thanks to the numerous chronicles, astronomical diaries, and other written documents.