The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 34

And there is much more in the same strain that the Hebrew Oracle of Nahum concerning the fall of Nineveh gives.

But it was not simply the capture of an important city-it was the enslavement and ultimate annihilation of a whole nation. Who can imagine their despair? Less than fifty years earlier, a.s.syria had been the most powerful nation of the then known world, and the people suddenly saw themselves deprived of that proud position which they had enjoyed for so many centuries. Their national existence had, in fact, been brought to an abrupt end, but the few a.s.syrian names which appear in Babylonian contracts many years after their downfall show that theirs was a proud indomitable spirit, which could not give way to misfortune, and which probably hoped for better things and more prosperous times. Their descendants are still to be found among the Chaldean Roman Catholic Christians of the country which was the scene of their forefathers'

dominion when they ruled the land of their inheritance. Their most worthy representatives in modern times are the family of the Ra.s.sams, one of whom was for many years British Consul at Mossoul (a post which his nephew now fills), and another is the well-known veteran, Hormuzd Ra.s.sam, Layard's helper, for some time Resident at Aden, and later a prisoner with that mad ruler, King Theodore of Abyssinia. To him we owe the discovery of Aur-bani-apli's palace, the ruins of Sippara and Cuthah, and many thousand cylinders and tablets bearing upon the manners, customs, history, religion, etc., of the Babylonians and a.s.syrians, which have been used freely in the compilation of this book.

CHAPTER XI. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE LATER BABYLONIANS.

Nabopola.s.sar and the restoration of the power of Babylonia-Nebuchadnezzar-Evil-Merodach-Neriglissar and his son-Nabonidus-The Fall of Babylon-Nabonidus and Belshazzar-Cyrus and Cambyses-Darius and his successors.

How great the change which came over the Eastern world with the disappearance from the political horizon of the power of a.s.syria can hardly be estimated. In the time of Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean who had mounted the Babylonian throne, an emba.s.sy was sent to the Jewish king Hezekiah with a present and kind inquiries as to his health, apparently to see whether it was worth while making an alliance with him.

Merodach-baladan felt that he would need all the outside help that he could get against the a.s.syrians, with whom he was in constant conflict.

With the downfall of a.s.syria, however, all was changed. The Jews' whilom friend became their enemy, and, as indicated in 2 Kings xx. 17 ff., the Israelites were to lose their independence at the hands of the descendants of those who were then seeking their friends.h.i.+p.

There is hardly any doubt that the later a.s.syrian kings regarded Babylonia as an integral part of the a.s.syrian empire, and had perfect faith in the fidelity of the inhabitants. It may reasonably be doubted, however, whether the Babylonians had really forgotten the cruel treatment they had received at the hands of Sennacherib. In addition to this, there must have existed for a considerable period the feeling that they, the Babylonians, were the more ancient people of the two, and that the a.s.syrians were but a later offshoot of their own stock, owing to them all their civilization, manners, customs, laws, and literature. It will thus be seen that they were sufficiently of the same origin to be regarded as one people, and for this reason, many of the cities of Babylonia were satisfied and happy under a.s.syrian rule, which they preferred, to all appearance, to that of the Chaldeans, a nation which, though inhabiting their own borders, was in reality more alien to them than the a.s.syrians in language, manners, and customs, and whom they probably regarded as being only half civilized.

The general opinion is, that Nabu-abla-u?ur (Nabopola.s.sar), the general whom Sin-arra-ikun (Saracos), the last king of a.s.syria, sent against his enemies (who seem to have invaded Babylonia by sea at the northern end of the Persian Gulf), was a Chaldean, and this is, in fact, confirmed by the quotation in Eusebius's Armenian Chronicle (p. 44) from Polyhistor, where it is stated that after Samuges (ama-um-ukin, the brother of Aur-bani-apli), Sardanapallus (this is a mistake for Nabopollasarus), the Chaldean, reigned for twenty-one years. If this be the case, it is a matter of surprise that Sin-arra-ikun should have given into the hands of one belonging to a tribe of old hostile to a.s.syria, the command of his army at such a critical time. In any case, the result was most disastrous for a.s.syria, as the foregoing chapter has shown.

In the opinion of Friedrich Delitzsch, Nabopola.s.sar was not the general of Sin-arra-ikun, but in all probability a viceroy installed by Aur-etil-ilani-ukinni, and retained by Sin-arra-ikun, in which case it is to be supposed that he made an alliance with the Medes (as related by Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus), and cemented it by marrying his son Nebuchadrezzar to Amunhean, Amuhean, or Amytis, daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes; and according to the latter author, it was after this that he marched against Nineveh. Fried. Delitzsch may therefore be regarded as most probably right, for the king of the Medes would hardly have consented to bestow his daughter upon the son of one whom he could not otherwise have regarded as being of royal race.

Though Nabopola.s.sar had close connection with Syria, his name is not mentioned in the Bible narrative. For our information concerning him we are indebted to Josephus, who, quoting the Babylonian writer Berosus, relates what was recorded in the Babylonian chronicles of that period.

After the division of the territory of a.s.syria, of which Egypt took a part, the former allies began to quarrel among themselves, the result being that Nabopola.s.sar, wis.h.i.+ng to regain possession of Syria, which at this time acknowledged the suzerainty of Egypt, decided to attack that country. According to Berosus, he not only regarded himself as master of Coele-Syria and Phnicia, but also of Egypt. Hearing, therefore, "that the governor which he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coele-Syria and Phnicia had revolted from him, he was not able to bear it any longer, but committing certain parts of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then but young, he sent him against the rebel." This is regarded as having taken place in 605 B.C. The governor attacked by the young Nebuchadnezzar was apparently Necho, who was completely defeated at Carchemish, and expelled from Syria.

Whilst upon this expedition, Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his father at Babylon, in the twenty-first year of his reign, as Josephus, quoting Berosus, has it. This accords with the statement concerning him in the Canon of Ptolemy, and also with native Babylonian chronology, as may be seen from a tablet in the Museum of Edinburgh, of which the following is a translation-

"The 21st year of Nabopola.s.sar a profit was made.

The 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.

The 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar a profit was made.

The 3rd year the same.

The fourth year the same."

Returning to Babylon, the young prince found that his supporters there had looked after his interests, and no pretender having appeared to dispute with him the throne, he was at once acknowledged king. The death of Nabopola.s.sar and the accession of his son Nebuchadnezzar took place in the year 604 B.C.

Unfortunately, but few inscriptions of Nabopola.s.sar have been found, and of them some are duplicates, and all refer to his architectural or engineering works. The princ.i.p.al treats of his restoration of the temple e-temen-ana-kia, the shrine at e-sagila, which the Babylonians regarded as the Tower of Babel. It is written in the archaic style of writing much affected by his son Nebuchadnezzar, and has certain peculiarities of spelling. Like most of the pious architectural inscriptions of Babylonia, there is no reference to historical events, but the king speaks of Nabium-kudurra-u?ur (Nebuchadrezzar), "the eldest, firstborn, and beloved of my heart," and his younger brother, Nabu-umam-lir. Both the king and his two sons took part in the restoration of the temple, bringing with their own hands material for the work, the younger son also a.s.sisting by pulling the cord of the cart which carried it. The receptacles which they used to carry the material were made of gold and silver. Other inscriptions of this king refer to the digging out of the ca.n.a.l of the Euphrates near the city Sippara, and to Nabopola.s.sar's restoration of the temple of "the Lady of Sippar," called e-edinna, "the house (temple) of the plain," or "of Edina," _i.e._ Eden.

When Nebuchadnezzar (in Babylonian Nabu-kudurri-u?ur-he was the second of the name) came to the throne, he found himself in possession of a mighty kingdom, consolidated by his father's talent, and he could himself boast of having had a hand in its enlargement and greater security. Everything was, to all appearance, at peace, and the new king had no reason to fear either a pretender to the throne, or the advent of enemies from without.

One of his tributaries, namely, Jehoiakim, king of Judah, after paying tribute three years (604-602 B.C.), rebelled, but was again reduced to subjection (2 Kings xxiv. 1 ff.).

Later, however, uprisings of a more earnest nature came to the ears of the Babylonian king, constraining him to act. Apparently in consequence of the promises of Egypt, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, brought against himself the hostility of the king of Babylon, who sent an army to besiege Jerusalem, afterwards journeying thither himself, the result being, that the city was taken, and the Jewish king, with his court, yielded, and were carried away to Babylon (598 B.C.). The number of captives on this occasion exceeded 10,000, and the treasures of the palace and the Temple formed part of the spoils sent to Babylon. The country was not annexed, however, for Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah king of Judah instead of Jehoiachin, changing his name to Zedekiah.

Grat.i.tude to the power which had raised him, however, became weakened with years, and, encouraged by Pharaoh Hophra, he rebelled in the ninth year of his reign, the result being that Jerusalem was once more besieged. Pharaoh Hophra now marched with an army across the Egyptian border to the help of his ally, whereupon the Babylonians raised the siege of Jerusalem for a time to get rid of the invader (Jer. x.x.xvii. 5-7). According to Josephus, the Egyptians were totally defeated, and returned to their own land (Jer.

x.x.xvii. 7). The siege of Jerusalem was then resumed, and the city was taken at the end of a year and a half, notwithstanding a very courageous resistance. The date set down for this event is July 586 B.C.

Zedekiah with his army fled, but was pursued by the Chaldeans, and captured in the plains of Jericho. Nebuchadnezzar was then at Riblah, where, to all appearance, a court was held (see 2 Kings xxv. 6), and sentence p.r.o.nounced against the faithless va.s.sal, whose sons were then slain before his eyes, his sight destroyed, and he himself carried captive to Babylon. It was a barbarous sentence, and was quite in accordance with the customs of the age, just as the legal formalities were to all appearance in conformity with Babylonian tradition. The destruction of the Temple and all the princ.i.p.al houses of the city by fire, followed, this destruction being wrought by Nebu-zar-adan (Nabu-zer-iddina), the captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard, who also carried captive all who remained in the city. Only the lowest cla.s.s of the people remained to carry on the cultivation of the land. Others were sent to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, and by his orders put to death. Those of the Jews who remained, however, were not placed, as might reasonably have been expected, under a Babylonian governor, but under Gedeliah the son of Ahikam, who was made governor. His death at the hands of his own countrymen took place shortly after, thus putting an end to the last vestige of native Jewish rule in Palestine.

Next came the turn of Tyre, which the Babylonian king blockaded for no less than thirteen years (585-573 B.C.), but was apparently successful in the end, when the inhabitants acknowledged Babylonian overlords.h.i.+p. That its capture cost him great pains is testified by Ezekiel (xxix. 18), who states that, to take the city, "every head was bald, and every shoulder was peeled" in consequence of the carrying of material for the operations against the city, yet neither he nor his army reaped any material advantage from this conquest, "for the service that he had served against it." The name of a city ?uru, which is probably Tyre, occurs on a tablet dated in Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-fifth year (569 B.C.-four years after the city was taken). It refers to a transaction in which sesame is sold, an official of the city being a party to the contract. Later on, in the fortieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, a contract was entered into between Milki-idiri, governor of Kidis (Kedesh), with regard to some cattle. This doc.u.ment is dated at Tyre (?urru) on the 22nd of the month Tammuz. Not only Tyre, therefore, but the whole district, owned the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar at this time.

Just as successful were Nebuchadnezzar's operations against Egypt.

According to an Egyptian inscription, the Babylonian king attacked Egypt in the year 572 B.C., penetrating as far as Syene and the borders of Ethiopia. Hophra, who still reigned, was defeated and deposed, the general Amasis being raised to the throne in his place to rule the land as a va.s.sal of the Babylonian king. According to the only historical fragment of the reign of this king known, Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition to Egypt in his thirty-seventh year. This was to all appearance against his va.s.sal Amasis, who, like Zedekiah, had revolted against the power which had raised him to the throne. The rebellion was suppressed, but the ultimate fate of Amasis is not stated.

According to Megasthenes, who lived in the time of Seleucus Nicator, Nebuchadnezzar conquered North Africa, crossing afterwards into Spain by the Strait of Gibraltar, returning to Babylonia through Europe and Asia Minor. Such an expedition, however, it is hardly likely that he ever undertook, and the account of this exploit may therefore be relegated to the domain of the fables with which the ancient historians sometimes ornamented their work.

Concerning the relations of Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel, the wedge-inscriptions of Babylonia give no indication whatever. Four hundred and fifty or more contract-tablets dated in his reign are known, but in none of them is there any reference to Daniel, at least in a form that can be recognized. The Babylonian name given to him, Belteshazzar, is apparently an abbreviated form, which would be, in Babylonian, Bala?-su-u?ur, "Protect thou (O G.o.d), his life." If this be the explanation, a better transcription of the Hebrew form would be Beletshazzar (making the first sheva vocal and the second silent instead of the reverse). The name of the deity has, in accordance with custom, been suppressed in the Hebrew form, but it is probable that either the patron-deity of Babylon, Bel, or else the favourite deity of the Babylonians in general, Nebo, the G.o.d of learning, may have preceded the first element as the name now stands. In the inscriptions of Babylonia and a.s.syria, many examples of abbreviated names occur, on account of what we should consider their inordinate length, and to such an extent was this customary, that one element only, out of three or four, might alone be used. Thus, in the contracts of the time of Nebuchadnezzar, at least fourteen persons of the name of Bala?u, and seven of the name of Bala?-su occur, and it may be safely taken that they are all abbreviations of names similar to that bestowed upon Daniel. Apart from the question whether the Book of Daniel is to be regarded as a part of the Hagiographa or not, the fact that his descent is not given there would make it impossible to recognize him, if his name was still further abbreviated by the Babylonians, among so many bearing names possibly the same as his. Even though his book be regarded as a romance, there is always the question, whether the personages mentioned therein may not really have existed.

With regard to the other names in Daniel, it is to be noted that Shadrach and Meshach, the names given to Hananiah and Mishael, are doubtful in Babylonian, the corresponding forms not having been found. Abednego, on the other hand, the Babylonian name of Azariah, has long been recognized as being written for Abed-Nebo, "servant of Nebo," either by a scribal error, or (as seems more probable) in order to deface the name of a heathen deity. The name of Ashpenaz, the master of the eunuchs, is still more doubtful, if anything; but that of Arioch, the "king's captain," is one which has been well known for some time, being none other than the ancient name (cf. Genesis xiv.) corresponding with the Akkadian eri-Aku or eri-Eaku, "servant of the Moon-G.o.d," a rare name in later times (see pp.

222 ff.).

Naturally nothing concerning Nebuchadnezzar's dreams occurs in the inscriptions of Babylonia, though dreams which were regarded as having a signification are sometimes recorded. This being the case, it might be supposed that something upon the subject would in all probability be sooner or later found. But what we should expect to find in the extant inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar is a reference to the golden image, threescore cubits high and six cubits wide, which he is said to have set up in the plain of Dura. Had he erected such an enormous thing, even if it had been merely gilt, and not of solid gold, one would expect that he would at least have made a slight reference to it. That he may have set up images of his G.o.ds is not only possible, but probable-indeed, he must have dedicated at least a few during his long reign, but it is evident that none of them was of sufficient importance to cause him specially to refer to it in his inscriptions. It is therefore not impossible that there is some exaggeration in the dimensions of the figure referred to in Daniel.

There is also considerable uncertainty as to the position of the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. The most probable explanation is that of Prof. J. Oppert, the veteran a.s.syriologist, who found what appeared to be the base of a great statue near a mound known as Duair,(120) east of Babylon. It is not improbable, however, that "the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon," means simply an extensive open s.p.a.ce near one of the great fortifications (_duru_) of the city. That all the princ.i.p.al officials of the kingdom should be expected to come to the dedication of such an image is exceedingly probable.

[Plate XIV.]

Bas-relief supposed to depict the triple wall of Babylon, with a portion of the palace within. In the original, water flows at the base of the lowest wall. The above is the upper part of slab No. 89 in the a.s.syrian Saloon of the British Museum, and apparently ill.u.s.trates a.s.sur-bani-apli's campaign against his brother, Samas-sum-ukin (Saosduchinos), King of Babylon (cf. p. 391). (Two at least of the walls of Babylon were _much older_ than the time of Nebuchadnezzar.)

The portion of Daniel referring to Nebuchadnezzar which receives the best ill.u.s.tration from the inscriptions is that referred to after the relation of his second dream, where he is represented as walking in or upon his palace, and one may imagine that he had gone up to enjoy the view of the city, and whilst doing so, with almost justifiable pride the words, "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling-place, by the might of my power and the glory of my majesty?" escaped him. From his inscriptions (and they are fairly numerous) we learn, with regard to Babylon, that it owed most of its glories as they then existed to this, the greatest of its kings. That the king did not always distinguish between what he built and what he rebuilt-indeed, none of his predecessors seem to have done so either, a circ.u.mstance probably due to the poverty of the Akkadian and Semitic Babylonian languages in that respect-would explain the words attributed to him.

According to the great India-House inscription, which was carved by order of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopola.s.sar had built (= rebuilt) the two great walls of Babylon, called Imgur-Bel and Nemitti-Bel. He had dug the great city-moat, and raised two strong walls on its banks, similar, in all probability, to what other kings had done before him. To all appearance also he lined the banks of the Euphrates with embankments (probably the quays of which Herodotus speaks), and constructed, within the city, a road leading from Du-azaga, "the holy seat," where the oracles were declared, to Aa-ibur-sabu, Babylon's "festival-street," close to the gate of Beltis, for the yearly procession of the G.o.d Merodach.

[Plate XV.]

Bas-relief, supposed to represent the Hanging Gardens at Babylon, about 645 B.C. On the slope is a temple, a stele with the figure of a king, and an altar on the path in front. On the right pointed arches support a terrace planted with trees. Streams water the sides of the wooded hill.

British Museum, a.s.syrian Saloon, No. 92 (upper part). The above, with Plate XIV., apparently ill.u.s.trate a.s.sur-bani-apli's campaign against his brother Samas-sum-ukin (cf. page 391).

All these erections Nebuchadnezzar completed or altered and improved. He added to the defences which his father had built, and raised the level of the street Aa-ibur-sabu from the "glorious gate" to the gate of Istar. The raising of the "festival-street" necessitated the raising of the gateways through which it ran. Gates were made of cedar covered with copper, probably after the style of the great gate found by Mr. Ra.s.sam at Balawat in a.s.syria, which was adorned with bands of bronze chased with scenes of Shalmaneser II.'s warlike exploits in relief. In all probability there were but few gates in Babylon of solid metal, notwithstanding that there is no mention in Herodotus of their having been constructed merely of wood covered with ornamented strips of bronze. The thresholds of these gates were of bronze, probably similar to that of which a part was found by Mr.

Ra.s.sam at Borsippa (evidently the doorstep of one of the entrances to the temple called e-zida), and which may now be seen at the British Museum.

These and other portals at Babylon were guarded by images of bulls and serpents, also of bronze. In addition to this, Nebuchadnezzar built a wall on the east side of the city, high like a mountain, so that no enemy could approach. Access to the city was gained by gates, the doors of which were likewise of cedar ornamented with bronze. For further protection, he "caused great waters like the volume of the sea to surround the land," and to cross them was "like the crossing of the broad sea, the Salt Stream"

(the Persian Gulf). He then rebuilt the palace of his father, its walls having been undermined by the waters of the Euphrates, which ran near.

Advantage of the changes made in this building was taken to raise the gateways, which had become too low in consequence of the raising of the festival-street of Merodach. In addition to this, he built another palace, adjoining that of his father, decorating it with cedar, cypress, and other precious woods; gold, silver, and precious stones; and adorning it with sculptures and with gates overlaid with bronze. According to the India-House inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, the fabric of this building was completed in fifteen days, a fact so remarkable that it is specially mentioned by Berosus (see Josephus, _Antiquities_, x., xi. 1), whose word may be taken as proving the translation of the pa.s.sage in question.

Besides restoring the temples of the cities, or at least the princ.i.p.al ones, he restored all the chief temples of Babylonia, notably that at Sippar, the chief centre of the Sun-G.o.d wors.h.i.+p, and the great temple-tower dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa. This last, indeed, was one of the works upon which he prided himself most, as is proved by the fact that it is mentioned in all his inscriptions, including those on his bricks, along with the temple known as e-sagila (later p.r.o.nounced e-sangil), the "temple of Belus," which he calls "the tower of Babylon," the princ.i.p.al shrine of which seems to have been called "the House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth," indicating clearly the estimation in which the Babylonians held it (see p. 138). It was there that the G.o.d Merodach, the princ.i.p.al deity of the Babylonians, and the founder of the temple in question, was wors.h.i.+pped.

But one might go on for a long time describing what Nebuchadnezzar did for the city which, more than any other, he loved, and to which he brought the spoils of his many expeditions. There is no doubt that this, the last great king of Babylon, was a most successful ruler, of whom his people were proud. He was pious, and an intense lover of his country-two characteristics which endeared him, the one to the priesthood, the other to the people at large. Could we but find the real history of his reign, it would undoubtedly prove to be full of interest, and also of enormous importance, not only on account of the light that it would throw upon Jewish history during his period, but also on account of its bearing upon a most important epoch in the life of the Babylonian nation.

It is noteworthy that, in Herodotus, many of the great architectural works of his reign are attributed to Nitocris, who, he states, was the mother of Labynetus (Book I. 185-188). Now, who this Labynetus was, is clear from the statement that it was he against whom Cyrus marched-namely the Nabonidus of other Greek historians, and the Nabu-na'id of the inscriptions. Nitocris would therefore seem to have been the name of the queen of Nebuchadnezzar, and if so, it shows upon what grounds Nabonidus claimed the throne, and how Belshazzar, in the Book of Daniel, could be described as the son or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. But in this case Nitocris must have been another wife of Nebuchadnezzar, and not the Median princess whom he had married when young. If she supplanted Amytis, Nebuchadnezzar's Median wife, in the affections of her husband, it is easy to see how she could have feared a Median invasion, as indicated by Herodotus.

Nebuchadnezzar died in the year 561 B.C., leaving his crown to Awel-Maruduk, the Evil-Merodach of 2 Kings xxv. 27, and the Abilamarodachos of Josephus, who, however, also gives, in his book against Apion (i. 20), the genuine Babylonian form as transcribed by Berosus, namely, Eueilmaradouchos. Two other sons of Nebuchadnezzar are also mentioned in the contract-tablets of his reign, namely, Marduk-um-u?ur (in his fortieth year) and Marduk-nadin-a?i (forty-first year). (See pp.

434, 435.)

The subst.i.tution of the mild rule of Evil-Merodach for the vigorous government of his father must have been witnessed by the Babylonians with considerable misgiving, for in the East, especially at that period, the successful ruler was he who was the most energetic. There is every reason to believe, however, that the character of Evil-Merodach was that of a man in every way kind and considerate, as is shown by the fact, that he released Jehoiachin (whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken prisoner), spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above those of the other va.s.sal kings in Babylon. The only thing, according to Josephus, recorded about him by Berosus was, that "he governed public affairs lawlessly and extravagantly"-words which imply that he displeased the priestly cla.s.s, of which Berosus was one. His name appears in certain contracts (published by Mr. Evetts) as ruler of Babylonia for about two years, from the 26th of Elul of his accession year to the 4th day of Ab of his second year-about two years and five months in all. According to Berosus, he was slain by his sister's husband, Neriglissooros, the Nergal-ar-u?ur of the inscriptions, who then ascended the throne.

The name is the same as that given as Nergal-sharezer in Jer. x.x.xix. 3, 13, one of the princes of the Babylonians who was present at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and who at that time bore the t.i.tle of Rab-mag, which is to all appearance the Rab-mugi of the a.s.syro-Babylonian inscriptions. It is thought by many, and is not by any means improbable, that the Nergal-sharezer of the pa.s.sage referred to and the Nergal-ar-u?ur of Babylonian history are one and the same, though there is no evidence that the latter ever bore the t.i.tle of Rab-mag.