Nabonidus’ day. It is considered almost certainly to be a copy of an earlier document. The tone of this chronicle so strongly glorifies Cyrus while presenting Nabonidus in a disparaging way that it is thought to have been the work of a Persian scribe, and, in fact, has been referred to as “Persian propaganda.” However, while such may be the case, authorities feel that the “circumstantial data” it contains is nonetheless reliable.

In spite of the brevity of the Nabonidus Chronicle—the tablet measures about five and a half inches (14 centimeters) in breadth at the widest point and about the same in length—it remains the most complete cuneiform record of the fall of Babylon available. In the third of its four columns, beginning with line 5, pertinent sections read: “[Seventeenth year:] . . . In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (sulmu) was imposed upon the city.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1955), James B. Pritchard, p. 306.

It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they have not found any other cuneiform tablets dated beyond Nabonidus’ seventeenth year. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged. Even though Nabonidus’ reign were of greater length than generally supposed, this would not change the accepted date of 539 B.C.E. as the year of Babylon’s fall, for there are other sources pointing to that year. (See CYRUS.) This factor, however, does lessen to some extent the value of the Nabonidus Chronicle.

While the year is missing, the month and day of the city’s fall, nevertheless, are on the remaining text. Using these, secular chronologers calculate the sixteenth day of Tashritu (Tishri) as falling on October 11/12, Julian calendar, and October 5/6, Gregorian calendar, in the year 539 B.C.E. Since this date is an accepted one, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is usable as a “pivotal date” in coordinating secular history with Bible history.—See CHRONOLOGY.

Interestingly, the Chronicle says concerning the night of Babylon’s fall: “The army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.” This likely means without a general conflict, and agrees with the prophecy of Jeremiah that ‘the mighty men of Babylon would cease to fight.’—Jer. 51:30.

Also of interest are the evident references to Belshazzar in the Chronicle. Although Belshazzar is not specifically named, the translation of column one, line eight, by Sidney Smith in his Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (1924), shows Nabonidus to have entrusted kingship to Belshazzar, making him coregent. In addition, there are several allusions to the ‘crown prince being in Akkad [Babylonia],’ while Nabonidus himself was at Tema (in Arabia). However, the fact that Belshazzar is not mentioned by name nor is his death referred to in the Nabonidus Chronicle in no way brings into question the accuracy of the inspired book of Daniel, where the name “Belshazzar” appears eight times and his death concludes the graphic account of Babylon’s overthrow narrated in chapter 5. Quite to the contrary, cuneiform experts admit that the Nabonidus Chronicle is extremely brief, and, in addition, as shown above, are of the opinion that it was written to defame Nabonidus, not to give a detailed history. Indeed, as R. P. Dougherty says in his work Nabonidus and Belshazzar (p. 200): “The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar.” (Italics ours.)

Although column IV of the Chronicle is badly broken, enough of it remains for scholars to ascertain that the subject was a later siege of Babylon by some usurper. The first such siege of Babylon that followed Cyrus is thought to have been the uprising of Nidintu-Bel, who claimed to be a son of Nabonidus, Nebuchadnezzar III. He was defeated in the accession year of Darius I late in 522 or early in 521 B.C.E. If this view of things is correct, the Nabonidus Chronicle covers events in the period from at least 556 to about the start of 521 B.C.E.

NABOTH

(Naʹboth) [perhaps, a sprout].

A Jezreelite vineyard owner and victim of a wicked plot by Queen Jezebel. Naboth’s vineyard in Jezreel was within sight of King Ahab’s palace. Naboth declined Ahab’s offer to buy the vineyard or to exchange it for a better vineyard somewhere else, because Jehovah had prohibited sale in perpetuity of a family inheritance. (1 Ki. 21:1-4; Lev. 25:23-28) Ahab’s wife Queen Jezebel, however, schemed to have two witnesses falsely accuse Naboth of blaspheming God and the king. Thereby Naboth and his sons were put to death (2 Ki. 9:26), enabling Ahab to take possession of the vineyard. Because of this murder, Elijah foretold that the dogs not only would eat up Jezebel but would also lick up Ahab’s blood in the same place they licked up Naboth’s blood. Their offspring would similarly be cut off. (1 Ki. 21:5-23) This divine pronouncement was carried out.—1 Ki. 22:34, 38; 2 Ki. 9:21, 24-26, 35, 36; 10:1-11.

NACON

(Naʹcon) [possibly, made ready].

According to 2 Samuel 6:6, the name of the threshing floor where Uzzah died for grabbing hold of the ark of the covenant. The parallel account at 1 Chronicles 13:9 says “Chidon,” probably indicating that one writer mentioned the name of the place, the other that of its owner, or that one name is an altered form of the other.