Naturally there is no suggestion that the Nabonidus who is given as the first witness, with the title “he who is over the city,” was the son of Nabû-balaṭ-su-iqbî, afterwards king of Babylon. The scribe of the second tablet calls him “the son of the king,” but there is no indication, from Babylonian sources, that he was one of the sons of Nebuchadnezzar. It is true that, in Daniel, Belshazzar is spoken of as if Nebuchadnezzar was his father (or, better, grandfather), but this is the first indication that the Babylonians ever thought of Nabonidus, his father, as one of the sons of the great Nebuchadnezzar. The question is, whether the scribe who made the second and more incorrect copy would have read into the doubtful characters which his original evidently contained, a statement which he must have known to be untrue, incorrect, or impossible. In view of the fact that the copy in question must have been made sufficiently near to the time of Nabonidus for the facts to be still known, a wilful error is to all appearance excluded, though, on the other hand, the incorrectness of other parts of the tablet obliges us to take the statement for what it is worth. The traces of a character after the words “son of the king” are doubtful—they look like the remains of three horizontal wedges, the two lower ones being fairly clear. As the topmost wedge is the most doubtful, it is possible that the traces which remain are really part of the sign for “city,” in which case the scribe wrote “son of the king of the city,” placing the determinative prefix for “man” before the character for “king”—a most unusual way of writing the word. It enables us to surmise, however, that the reading of his original was really ša muḫḫi âli, instead of ša êli âli (both phrases have the same meaning), that he regarded ša as a, that he thought muḫ-ḫi to be the characters for “man” and “king,” and that he read the last of the phrase, the character for “city,” correctly.
They are a couple of as interesting, but, at the same time, as unsatisfactory, tablets, as could well be imagined.
It is to be noted that the name of Nabonidus is not altogether uncommon in the inscriptions. In most cases, however, we know that it is either not the well-known king of that name, or that his identity with him is doubtful. That the person here referred to was a man of some consequence is indicated by his title, “he who is over the city,” and it often happens in that case (as here) that the name of his father and other remoter ancestor is omitted. This is sometimes the case with Neriglissar, who is very often named in the contract-tablets of Babylonia, and his name is then either given without any indication of his parentage, or else with the simple addition “son of Bêl-šum-iškun.”
Another figure which appears at this time is that same Neriglissar who was to play so important a part in the affairs of Babylonia at a later date. In the case of this prince (unlike the Nabonidus of the inscription translated above) we are not tormented by any doubts whatever. It is really and truly Neriglissar, and none other. He first appears in Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-fourth year, in the following legal document—
“100 sheep of Kili(gug?), servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, concerning which Abî-nadib, son of Ya-ḫata, said to Nergal-šarra-uṣur, son of Bêl-šum-iškun, thus—
“ ‘Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ, servant of Nergal-šarra-uṣur, brought them by my hand.’
“If Abî-nadib (and) Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ prove (this), Abî-nadib is free; if he prove it (not), Abî-nadib will give to Nergal-šarra-uṣur 100 sheep, (with) wool (?) and young (?).
“Witnesses: Ṣilli-Bêl, son of Abî-yadiša; Kabtia, son of Marduk-zēr-ibnî, descendant of the potter; [pg 439] Nabû-naṣir, son of Zillâ; and the scribe, (Nabû)-âḫê-iddina, son of Šulâ, descendant of Êgibi. Takrētain (?), month Elul, day 2nd, year 34th, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, king of Babylon.”
Neriglissar must therefore have been an extensive cattle-owner, and had many servants, some of whom at least must have been men of substance, like Abî-nadib, who engages to restore to his master the 100 sheep, if it could be proved that they had been lost by his fault. Judging from the name, Abî-nadib (= Abinadab) must have come from the west, his Biblical namesakes being Israelites. Nabû-ṣabit-qâtâ elsewhere appears as the major-domo of the crown prince (? Laborosoarchod = Labâši-Marduk) during the reign of Neriglissar, and of Belshazzar during the reign of his father Nabonidus. The reader will meet his name again in the translations which follow.
A similar transaction to the above is one in which two servants of Neriglissar were concerned, but in which the prince himself seems not to have been directly interested. It is as follows—