Babylonian Texts Complicate Bible’s Image of Nebuchadnezzar
Was he both destroyer and restorer?
Still image from a 3D model of one of the cylinders found at Tell al-Uhaimir in southern Iraq, inscribed with a royal text of Nebuchadnezzar II (Iraq Museum registration IM.227410). Courtesy Ahmed Ali Jawad and Hussein Fleih Al-Ammari, “Two Inscribed Cylinders of Nebuchadnezzar II from the Ziggurat of Kish,” IRAQ (2025), CC-BY 4.0.
In biblical memory, Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562 BCE) looms large as an agent of catastrophe. He appears across multiple biblical books—2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel—as the Neo-Babylonian conqueror who destroys Jerusalem in 586 BCE and exiles Judah’s elite. Yet, newly published texts from the site of Tell al-Uhaimir (ancient Kish) south of Baghdad invite readers to consider this famous ruler from a new perspective: not as conqueror, but as restorer.
Two barrel-shaped clay cylinders were found by local residents on the surface of Tell al-Uhaimir, the site where the remains of Kish’s ziggurat still stand. The cylinders—about the size of soda cans—both contain the same 50-plus line Babylonian inscription in which Nebuchadnezzar II speaks in the first person. He presents himself as the divinely chosen king of Babylon, heir to his father Nabopolassar, and ruler who restores and maintains major temples. The texts then focus on the ziggurat of Kish, noting that earlier kings built and repaired it, but that its walls had once again fallen into disrepair. Moved by the god Zababa and goddess Ishtar, Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilds and embellishes the ziggurat, dedicating it to them. The inscriptions conclude with the king’s prayer for a long life and military victory.
FREE ebook: From Babylon to Baghdad. Ancient Iraq. Learn about Iraq and its cultural heritage. Download now.
Though found on the surface (and later registered in the Iraq Museum), the cylinders were originally buried as a specific genre of text known as the “foundation deposit.” Such deposits were deliberately placed within or underneath a building during its construction to serve as dedications. Never intended to be seen, the objects endured invisibly beneath the structure as witnesses to its creation, investing the building with intrinsic value. In this case, the foundation deposits also function as royal inscriptions, providing direct evidence of building programs, the names and titles of Neo-Babylonian kings, stratigraphic context, and religious beliefs.
Remains of the ziggurat at Tell al-Uhaimir Courtesy Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) CC BY-SA 4.0.
The fact that the inscriptions invoke Zababa and Ishtar and conclude with a petition for blessing show how, in the ancient Near East, royal building was a religious act. The cylinders recall that Nebuchadnezzar II knew of two earlier phases of construction because he physically encountered their foundation deposits. Anxiety about the current neglect of the ziggurat was a serious concern for Nebuchadnezzar II, likely because Kish was a city of deep antiquity—especially important in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic period (third millennium BCE). Restoration projects at Kish signaled devotion, continuity, and respect for tradition.
In Mesopotamian ideology, the king’s main role was to maintain cosmic order. Temples were understood as the literal houses of the gods. Their deterioration was a threat to divine favor, and thus, social stability. The Kish cylinders reflect a conception of religion that may seem foreign to modern readers. In the ancient Near East, royal devotion was not so much expressed through moral reform, personal virtue, or doctrine as it was through building.
Allowing this new archaeological evidence to complicate Nebuchadnezzar’s character invites us to move beyond the idea of history as a straightforward moral tale, toward a more nuanced understanding of how power, memory, and identity are shaped by competing narratives. The biblical authors, writing in the aftermath of exile, understandably portray Nebuchadnezzar as a destroyer because he literally did destroy their temple. Babylonian inscriptions, on the other hand, depict the same ruler as a restorer of temples—a deeply pious and reverential figure. Both accounts are true within their own contexts, and much can be learned by holding them together (rather than forcing one to cancel out the other). For one, Nebuchadnezzar can inhabit more than one moral and theological frame. Secondly, empires often understand themselves as agents of order even as they overwrite other histories. Reading the Kish cylinders alongside biblical texts thus deepens historical literacy, encouraging readers to balance sources and recognize ancient categories of meaning as they ask whose story is being told, what purposes it serves, and what it leaves out.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
“Both accounts are true within their own contexts…”
They’re both true even in the SAME context, no complication needed. One (the cylinder) is how he viewed himself; the other (the Bible) is how the Israelites viewed him. He tore down their temple, but restored his own. I don’t find that too complicated, personally.
Agreed. There isn’t any complications I see. He restores the temples of his belief system while conquering and destroying the temples of the gods he doesn’t believe in.
It’s pretty clear that the author of this piece isn’t familiar at all with what he Bible says about Nebuchadnezzar and the destruction of Jerusalem. I would say to Lauren, go back and really read the OT books of Jeremiah, Daniel, and 2 Kings chapter 24 to get an accurate perspective on what the Bible actually states. This article is unfortunately poorly researched and I’m surprised that there was no peer review of it’s contents.
Yeah that’s a clickbait of a title smh
Agreed !!
Did he not, in the Biblical account, have an extreme divine encounter that resulted in a character change? That change would account for both descriptions as true reflections of the man.
Exactly!! How is this discovery at odds with the biblical account? It seems to do nothing but correlate it further, as is always the case. Business as usual.
This isn’t complicated at all. The headline of this should be that these fines confirm the Bible’s view of him. The book of Daniel records Nebuchadnezzar as one who looked arrogantly across the city of Babylon, “As he looked out across the city, he said, ‘Look at this great city of Babylon! By my own mighty power, I have built this beautiful city as my royal residence to display my majestic splendor.’” (Daniel 4:30) Daniel’s vision of the statue calls Nebuchadnezzar “The head of gold” indicating the greatness of his earthly accomplishments. (Daniel 2:38)
He was a destroyer of Israel’s Temple, and a builder of the Temple of false gods, although that changed later in his life.
He destroyed the temple of conqueror of El? Did you know that Caleb came out of Babylon and Egypt? Have you seen Joshua hanging around?
Agree with JT, there’s no complication here…this is incredibly academically dishonest of the author. We know from Daniel that Neb was a builder–remember the statue everyone was supposed to worship? So he commissioned the rebuilding/repair of a temple that was used to worship gods he probably believed in, in a city 7 miles to the east of where his palace was–how does that complicate the Biblical accounts of him? Shame on you Lauren. Hopefully this is rewritten or taken down. It discredits this whole society/website–I’ll not be reading any more of the articles published here because of this, and let others know to take the same action.
I agree with Rob and JT
Garbage article. I’ve wondered for years whose side this magazine is really on, I’ve wanted to believe you were for truth and the accuracy of the Bible; not just for historical sake, but as an actual witness to the Gospel. This is the final straw. You are to be avoided, shunned, and disregarded by anyone seeking the truth in and of God’s word. It is not a plaything.
Donald Trump would like history to believe he was a peace maker. But we who live now see the exact opposite.
Point is…if you want the truth about someone, don’t ask the person what they think of themselves…
What a bizarre take. History os nuanced and it would be no surprise Neb had another faith, since he bounces between honoring Daniel, and his own Gods.
What exactly is your problem with this article?
Ditto
Wow… after reading this article, and the comments, I will not be subscribing …
I concur wholeheartedly. Absolute garbage of an article. Hitler and Stalin wrote some nice things about themselves too.
More than forty years have passed since I last held spade, pick and brush. The sin of the garden: a desire for acquisition of knowledge they were not able to handle.
Meir Ben Dov, Miss Marthat J. Rittenmeyer and I knew not it’s proper name, but at last, patience rewarded, surfacing through the sands of time, allowing access to incontrovertible truths: now on display, the most valuable tool of both BAR and Nebuchadnezzer II: AUTO-PEN!
I suppose the auto-pen thing refers to the idiotic talk about Biden.
If you are going to pop up with nonsense, you could at least go back to school. English 101 might be able to explain to you the difference between a contraction and a singular possessive.
Imperfect men arguing if other imperfect men wrote perfectly appears to be what we are arguing here at the end.
Of course the translation I use is perfect (because we all know languages translate perfectly into other languages) The fact every version of the bible isn’t exactly like a different version just means the translation YOU use is the wrong one.
This isn’t about Bible translations.
In what way does this complicate the biblical narrative? The Bible was written from the perspective of the Jews, the kingdom of Judah. These cylinders are from the perspective of babylonians. And each respective record speaks concerning different events; sure the same person, however just because he destroys Jerusalem it doesn’t mean the only thing is capable of doing is destroying including his on stuff.
What level of infantile reading did this author employ on reading texts. This is the same kind of person that reads the “God is dead” line by Nietzche and assume he was a celebratory atheistic nihilist; while not comprehending the consequences of the loss of the ultimate moral compass. Declaration and Lamentation, both can be true. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed and built.
Hitler had some friends that would probably have called him a restorer too.
So this is what he says of himself? Should we believe everything our president says about himself? Maybe some ego involved