“…enough is known of Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-three-year reign so that it is impossible to fit in such a period of insanity.” Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 178.
After his stunning confession in Daniel 3, God humbles the still-arrogant Nebuchadnezzar by driving him mad for a period of seven “times,” likely seven months. During this time Nebuchadnezzar lives like an animal, not a human.
There no record of a seven month or seven year hiatus in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar nor any indication the king was insane for any period of time. Some scholars suggest the writer of Daniel confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (556–539 B. C.) who spend about ten years outside of the city of Babylon. This period it Teima (Tyma, Tema) is sometimes described as a self-imposed exile. The Verse Account of Nabonidus (ANET 312-313) reports Nabonidus’s “protective deity became hostile to him” so he captured Tema and built a palace and temple.
The suggestion Daniel has confused his Babylonian kings may be supported by a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242). The text was published in 1956 and describes a seven year affliction and remarkable confession of faith in the God of Israel after a Jewish exorcist helps him overcome his “malignant inflammation.” Fragments 1-3 read as follows:
Words of the pr[ay]er which Nabonidus, king of [the] la[nd of Baby]lon, the [great] king, prayed [when he was afflicted] 2 by a malignant inflammation, by decree of the G[od Most Hi]gh, in Teiman. [I, Nabonidus,] was afflicted [by a malignant inflammation] 3 for seven years, and was banished far [from men, until I prayed to the God Most High] 4 and an exorcist forgave my sin. He was a Je[w] fr[om the exiles, who said to me:] 5 «Make a proclamation in writing, so that glory, exal[tation and hono]ur be given to the name of [the] G[od Most High». And I wrote as follows: «When] 6 I was afflicted by a ma[lignant] inflammation […] in Teiman, [by decree of the God Most High,] 7 [I] prayed for seven years [to all] the gods of silver and gold, [of bronze and iron,] 8 of wood, of stone and of clay, because [I thoug]ht that t[hey were] gods […] (Martı́nez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 487)
There are some scholars who attempt to fill out this story with the text of Daniel 4, such as inserting the name Daniel into fragment 4. But as John Collins points out, there are real differences between this fragmentary story and Daniel 4. The king’s name is different, his affliction is different, the name of the Jewish exile is not given, etc. He concludes “It is not, of course, historically accurate. It is a Jewish story that narrates a fictitious conversion of a Babylonian king” (Daniel, Hermenia, 218).
Conservative commentaries often observe Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is well documented until his eleventh year. That year is practically silent and details of the following years are far less detailed than his early years. Stephen Langdon published fifty-two building inscriptions from Nebuchadnezzar, but only four come from the latter half of his reign. The latter period is “remarkably poor in its number of literary productions.” Langdon also notes the lack of religious references in the later inscriptions. After 590 B.C. interests in inscriptions turn more to politics than religion. Langdon states “we have scarcely anything but palace inscriptions with little to say about the religious interests of the king.”
However, Langdon’s book, Building Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Empire was published in 1905 and until Google books, very difficult to find in a library. I originally read about Langdon in a 1994 article by Paul Ferguson (“Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the ‘Babylonian Job’” JETS 37 (1994): 321-33).
More recently, a few published fragment from Babylon describes Nebuchadnezzar as distracted, disoriented, and confused (A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, 87-89). The text ends with Nebuchadnezzar going to the “holy gate” and weeping bitterly before the gods. As exciting as this text is, it is too short and fragmented to argue that it does in fact prove Daniel 4.
Finally, the advice of Joyce Baldwin is worth noting here. It is highly unlikely that we will ever find a reference to the king’s madness in Babylonian records. This is simply not the sort of thing any king would record nor would his advisors likely bring it up after he regained his mind (Daniel, 108). Likewise Montgomery points out the royal family did not advertise their illnesses, “The alleged malady is not an impossibility” (Daniel ICC, 220-21).
I would suggest there were many stories circulating about illness or madness in the Babylonian royal family based on the fact there was madness in the royal family. These stories generated several different versions of the story, some featuring Nebuchadnezzar, some Nabonidus. There are numerous other traditions which are similar to Daniel 4 reported in Josephus and Eusebius as well as the Babylonian Ludlul Bel Nemeqi, (“I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” ANET 596-600). In this remarkable story, the narrator says:
I spent the night in my dung like an ox, and wallowed in my excrement like a sheep. My symptoms are beyond the exorcist, and my omens have confused the diviner (ANET 598).
This resonates with Daniel 4 and the Prayer of Nabonidus. Stories about striking down an arrogant Babylonian royal with some kind of illness were not uncommon (and undoubtedly popular).
But why would a Judean exile repeat this story as we have it in the book of Daniel? What is the theological motivation for portraying Nebuchadnezzar as humbled by God? Regardless of the early or later date of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar and his empire is long gone when the book reached its final form and began to circulate among post-exilic religious and academic communities. Someone living under Antiochus’s reign of terror would have found it comforting that God humbled the great king of Babylon.
If God did this to Nebuchadnezzar, how much more Antiochus, Nero, Vespasian, Domitian, Constantine, or any other world ruler who sought to destroy God’s people.
When the topic of the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar’s fit of madness came up, my first thought was very much in line with the final reason of this post. There is no way that a king of a great and powerful empire such as Babylon would ever record a period of time where he was weak. After all, if the nations that he had conquered and subjugated had found out that their new king was indisposed due to madness, would they not rebel now that the Babylonian government is missing its head? While the various advisors could have kept the government running smoothly in his absence, I can understand why this information would be kept secret.
Perhaps one of the more interesting facets of the king’s madness was that it may not have needed to happen in the first place. Daniel warns king Nebuchadnezzar that he should change his ways and “show mercy to the oppressed” (Daniel 4:27, ESVSB) rather than giving in to his own pride and greatness. But, as the story goes, Nebuchadnezzar refused to heed the counsel of Daniel, falling to madness right after he exalts himself (Daniel 4:33, ESVSB). It really goes to show God’s power, that even when the most powerful man in the known world was brought to the ground for God’s glory.
As I read Daniel four, I see a significant theological motivation in portraying Nebuchadnezzar as humbled by God. The Lords discipline is one of the many ways the Lord shows grace. Nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel four warns Nebuchadnezzar of his pride and gives insight into the wrath and grace of God. In Genesis 3-11 the reader is given a parallel from the story’s found in Genesis 3-11 and Nebuchadnezzars dream and time of craziness. “The first three stories have the same literary pattern-human sin, God’s judgment speech, a token of grace, and the execution of God’s judgment- that demonstrates persistent human sinfulness, God’s determination to judge sin, and also His continuing grace to them” (Longman, Pg.19). In Daniel four the interpretation of the dream and the response to the warning given by Daniel tells the reader the truth about our sin and its effects. Nebuchadnezzar did not care about humbling himself before the Lord at first. He doubled down on his accomplishments and remained prideful, not acknowledging the blessing of God and His power alone. This brings him madness for an undesirable amount of time. This punishment from the Lord brings him to repentance and praised the one true holy God. The significance of a gentile ruler humbling himself before the Lord was unique and spoke volumes to the world. This story of Nebuchadnezzars pride, madness and humility gives an insight into the wrath and grace of God.
The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is perhaps one of the most seemingly impossible and outright fictional sections of the Old Testament one can encounter, as there is no record of seven years of madness during his reign (Long, 37). Although, it is also true that if this event did occur, it would not be recorded in any records, as it would be highly embarrassing to the king and his legacy. Thus, a seeming impasse as to the possibility of the historicity of this event presents itself, with both conservative and liberal readers asserting their own conclusions to the text. I must admit, as someone who leans toward a later date for the book of Daniel, it is hard to assume the historicity of this event. Perhaps, as one might suggest, the motivation for this story among the later post-exilic Jewish communities is to bring them some reassurance in their personal circumstances. If the great Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar was humbled to see the God of Israel, perhaps the same could occur for Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the other oppressive rulers.
At the beginning of chapter four, it is King Nebuchadnezzar who narrates the story to the whole world (Dan 4:1). It seems nearly laughable to genuinely propose that King Nebuchadnezzar recorded this narrative, with it being preserved throughout the centuries, especially considering it was highly likely he could not read or write, similar to Belshazzar with the writing on the wall (Long, 50). Perhaps it was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s scribes who wrote this account, with Daniel preserving the text, and contributing to the later traditions surrounding this event. Or perhaps, to the dismay of some, it truthfully is a later tradition without much historical validity, being utilized by a later Second Temple author for the author’s own literary purposes. If one is to try and defend the event’s historicity, one must first evaluate the length of Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction. Nebuchadnezzar’s description of his dream includes that ‘seven times’ will pass over him before he will be relieved of his ‘heart of a beast’ (Dan 4:16). We often assume that is seven years, but it could be seven months, weeks, or days, fitting much better with the chronology of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, as the latter years of his rule include less inscriptional evidence (Long, 38). If this event occurred, it would most likely be a shorter period during the latter half of his reign, not recorded for its embarrassing contents. This could be the tradition behind the Prayer of Nabonidus, which describes similar circumstances and is written sometime around 150 BC, after the book of Daniel, regardless of an early or later date. Either way, the story of Daniel 4 is perplexing and difficult when considering its historical value. Yet, in light of its literary purpose for the Jewish audience, it provides a meaningful and inspiring story of how God can humble even the greatest of kings.
Daniel 4 illustrates an interesting narrative that is has many questionable counterparts. The reason that a Jew in exile would add this story is in whole relatively understandable. For the majority of the time in exile, Jews were witnessing Nebuchadnezzar and other members of the Babylonian government being downright sacrilegious. Justifiably, this narrative depicts the humbling of king Nebuchadnezzar in one of his most prideful moments. Nebuchadnezzar proclaims (I always read this in some kind of pretentious British accent) “is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” (4:30, ESV). The verse after this reads that before the words left his lips, God placed a judgement on Nebuchadnezzar. He was immediately driven away from men and was forced to eat grass like an ox. His hair grew “as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws” (4:33). This entire narrative is one of the hardest to comprehend stories in the Old Testament (and for good reason because it is difficult to picture God turning a man into a cow!).
Firstly, I appreciate that you mentioned the time that this book would have been published. Thinking about it from this perspective is helpful in understanding the purpose for stories like these to be shared. Daniel shared this narrative to comfort those in affliction from men who hate God. I appreciate this story as it speaks against self-reliant pride. Pride is a big issue that has plagued people from all walks of life. It is a separator of relationships and a divider of the truth. Nebuchadnezzar had to learn the hard way.
It makes perfect sense to me if Daniel did, in fact, write the complete book of Daniel towards the end of his life. While the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls may point to him confusing the king he served with his sufferings, dreams, and afflictions. I don’t think Daniel was elderly and confused the kings since Jesus thought Daniel was a prophet and the real author of the Book of Daniel. Daniel provides the expert opinion, because Jesus calls Daniel a prophet and quotes him. I don’t think God would let Daniel get disoriented and write wrongly, about the kings he served, making their fates unclear. Daniel was always said to be wise and capable of doing things that others couldn’t, even in his advanced years. He remained eager to give dreams interpretations and advice. In the word of God, it says that the one who humbles himself will be exalted, but the one who is prideful, God will put him to shame (Luke 14:11, ESV). Everything we say and do in this world should be to glorify God and to testify to the greatness of God. This was influential in the story of Daniel because we see Nebuchadnezzar conquering many nations. Longman (2020) states that,
While surveying his magnificent scene, Nebuchadnezzar said to himself, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Dan 4:30). This rhetorical question exposed the king’s immense pride. From the consequences, we can also say that this assertion of self-importance was a challenge to God’s sovereignty. He had been warned, and now God would make an example of him. (p.76)
We see in Nebuchadnezzar a most powerful king, but we should only glorify God. Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is showing that God’s power can humble the most powerful king in the world.
I found it interesting that it is possible that Daniel confused Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus when describing Nebuchadnezzar going mad for seven (plus) years. It is important to note that Babylonian records would most likely not include a king’s moment of weakness, as no one would record the weaknesses of their fierce leader. With that being said, it’s not impossible that it did happen, even though Babylonian history doesn’t record it. Similarly to Dr. Long, I would also question why Daniel would choose to include this in Daniel 4. I think that it is possible that it was to show that God was even more powerful than King Nebuchadnezzar and that he must acknowledge God (which he eventually did, even if he didn’t necessarily convert).
Interestingly, Longman (2020) notes that it is possible that God humbled Nebuchadnezzar because his pridefulness showed that he was trying to “challenge God’s sovereignty” (pg. 76). We know from throughout Scripture that God is a jealous God, desiring the glory, honor, and praise for Himself. As the common phrase goes from Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before the fall”. I guess in King Nebuchadnezzar’s case, pride goes before you become a ravenous animal, but I digress. What God did to Nebuchadnezzar leaves a clear message: even the king of the greatest and largest empire still must bow before and acknowledge the King of Kings.
Upon mentioning Nebuchadnezzar’s period of madness, and how the Babylonian Kingdom wouldn’t want to reveal that incident in their records, it made me think of how, mankind in their arrogance, never wants to reveal their flaws or sins to anyone. Human nature naturally desires to hide its weaknesses from the world. Wouldn’t we expect this from an unbeliever or a heathenistic nation, like Babylon? I know that secular archaeologists and other scholars might not agree, but it seems like common sense to me. Especially if it’s difficult to find any ancient records that record the negatives of a king’s reign. Either way, as a follower of Christ, I tend to believe that Nebuchadnezzar, in fact, did go mad because Scripture is inspired by God, and therefore God wouldn’t desire Daniel to write down false information (2 Peter 1:20-21, Jer 1:9, Jer 36:2, 2 Sam 23:2). There are many verses in Scripture that convey that God, in fact, speaks through the writers to communicate His Truth to us.
I think it’s significant that this detail about Nebuchadnezzar is in Scripture because it reveals to anyone who reads, the omnipotence of God and His sovereignty. Growing up, when I was told this story, I remember being jolted by the fact that God could turn someone into an animal; that definitely drove the fear of God in me. I realized that no one should stand arrogant before God. I think this detail in Scripture also, as P. Long mentioned, helped believers to be comforted by the fact that God could humble any King. God is ultimately sovereign, and we see that even validated later in the gospel of John when Jesus tells Pilate that his power wouldn’t be given to him unless it was approved by God (John 19:11). It also says in the beginning of Daniel that God actually gave Judah into the hand of the Babylon rulers. Signifying His power over rulers and humankind in general (Daniel 1:2).
This story is very interesting and is a unique way that God decided to punish King Nebuchadnezzar. It brought him down to a level that he never knew existed. Even if it was only 7 months instead of 7 years that is still a massive amount of time for the King of Babylon to disappear. It wasn’t like he was sick lying in bed and he was able to make decisions he was out living with the animals and acting like one. I thought another part that was very interesting about this punishment was that it was immediate. There are very few times that punishment happens that fast. Usually, when punishment like this comes it is more of a prophecy for them. It says in verse 31 that King Nebuchadnezzar was actually interrupted. “31 While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven.” Verse 31a. Then 2 verses later in verse 33 it says, “Immediately the word was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar.” Which I think is super cool and very interesting since this is something that doesn’t happen often in the Old Testament. Reading this blog there is a point that I think is the most plausible that we wouldn’t find a reference to the king’s madness in the Babylonian records. When you have a great kingdom why would you want to make your kingdom look bad for future generations by telling them that the “greatest king ever” went psycho for a while. Most of the historians of that day wanted to make their king’s reign along with their kingdom’s reign sound the best as possible. It was probably also influenced by the king because they wanted to make sure that they looked like gods. I think this story could have also been used as motivation for the Israelites and hope for them that God can humble anyone including the “great” king of Babylon.
The idea of a “Mad King” is not uncommon at all, I would say almost every monarch or dictator in history has a story or rumor of their madness and there are many recorded in the bible. But I think the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is more of a warning to the reader to not take God’s power and His gifts lightly. As a king, Nebuchadnezzar never would have endured any kind of negative feedback and that can change a man quickly. Nebuchadnezzar may have felt that he could do no wrong. And while in some cases God chose to change the minds of certain people or give them the ability to think differently for example King Solomon or King Ramses, in His infinite wisdom He saw the benefit of giving Nebuchadnezzar something humbling to remember Him by. But as Longman puts it in his book, “How to Read Daniel,” while the sickness was severe, the prescription for health was as easy as raising his eyes toward heaven.” A simple premise but one that is often missed by so many even today. I tend to be one with a large ego and oftentimes am quick to credit myself after accomplishments even within my ministry I have had to force my thinking and my language to be redirected toward God and am constantly reminded to give him the credit when I begin to feel a little too big for my britches. In the end, as stated in the blog post I think God one as during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign the writings began to lean away from religious or self-applauding texts with Daniel 4:34-35 quoting Nebuchadnezzar as saying, “for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his
kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
While your blog raises an interesting discussion about Nebuchadnezzar’s supposed madness and the potential confusion with Nabonidus, I’d like to respectfully challenge the approach you’ve taken. When discussing the Bible—especially its historical accounts—why not start from the premise that it is the inspired word of God?
This approach invites a perspective of exploration and corroboration rather than skepticism. Time and again, archaeological findings and historical studies have validated details once dismissed as fiction. For example, skeptics once doubted the existence of the Hittites and King David until discoveries proved otherwise.
It’s also worth noting that Daniel was not just a casual observer but a highly educated man, deeply immersed in Babylonian culture and governance. As a high-ranking official in the Babylonian government, it’s exceedingly unlikely that he would confuse Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus or make elementary errors in his accounts. His writings reflect not only his divine inspiration but also a clear grasp of historical and political events of his time.
Approaching the Bible as a reliable document shifts the conversation. Instead of marveling that archaeology “confirms” it, we might instead focus on how these confirmations enhance our understanding of both the Bible and history. In this case, rather than assuming error or confusion between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, we might ask how Daniel’s account complements the broader historical record.
I encourage this perspective because it aligns with the principle of giving ancient texts their due respect and exploring them on their own terms.
Saffron, thanks for your comment. “why not start from the premise that it is the inspired word of God?” I am with you there. This post argues for the historicity of Daniel 4 in the face of several common objections found in the commentaries.
Really a thought-provoking article. I wonder that if at one point Babylonian records contained relics, documents, or other artifacts that contained information about Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition of madness. It could very well be possible, however, as you stated from Joyce Baldwin’s advice, that there might have never been any recorded record as to the king’s insanity. Something interesting to think about.
When I however consider why this story is Nebuchadnezzar is in the book of Daniel, I consider two reasons. First being, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We believe as God-fearing Christians that the scriptures have been written and assembled mysteriously by both human beings and God. 2 Timothy 3:16 states so. With this in mind, we can reasonably conclude that Yahweh had put this scripture in the Bible for a reason. It is valuable to us as readers as it teaches us things about both God and how he interacts with man as well as the importance of living righteously.
I happen to surmise that as to the notion that this story was put into the book of Daniel has to do with the intentional chiastic structure of the book. Daniel chapter four and five are both connected in the chiasm and share part of the same point. The first chiasm is written in Aramaic in chapters two and seven. In chapter two Nebuchadnezzar receives a dream and Daniel interprets it. In chapter seven, Daniel has a vision of four beasts. Both are related in nature and contain similar predictions of four empires.
In chapter three, Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego are cast into a fiery furnace instead of bowing down to the statue. In chapter six, Daniel is cast into the lion’s den. Chapters four and five are the center of the chiastic structure and both contain stories on the weakness of the kings of Babylon. In chapter four, Nebuchadnezzar is sent out into the wilderness by God after making a prideful remark. In chapter five, Belshazzar has a feast and there is handwriting on the wall. God judges Belshazzar in the chapter as well.
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is one of the most interesting parts of the book of Daniel to me, mainly because there are no historical records that clearly show Nebuchadnezzar went mad. That absence really makes you stop and think. Some scholars suggest there may have been a mix-up between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, since Nabonidus was known to have been absent from Babylon for long periods of time. That explanation makes sense on a historical level, but I don’t think the lack of records automatically means the biblical account is wrong.
It’s also important to remember that kings would never openly record moments of weakness. A king admitting that he lost his sanity or lived like an animal for seven years would seriously damage his authority. If something like that were publicly known, it could easily lead to rebellion or a loss of control over the empire. No leader would willingly allow that kind of information to be written down.
I think of it in modern terms, like how Professor Long once mentioned in class that during his time, the public never really knew what the president was doing behind closed doors. Leaders control information for a reason. In the same way, if Nebuchadnezzar had been sick or mad for years, it would likely have been hidden.